Baseball HOF: Who makes it in addition to Ripken and Gwynn?

[Smasher_Sloan]

" he was the undisputed ace of the 70s Dodgers"


Not even close. There were two seasons in the '70s ('73 and '76) where he was the Dodgers' best starting pitcher.

The other years, he was behind:

70 -- Claude Osteen
71 -- Al Downing
72 -- Osteen
74 -- Andy Messersmith
75 -- Messersmith, Burt Hooton
77 -- Tommy John
78 -- Hooton, John, Doug Rau
79 -- Rick Sutcliffe

Smasher, I always enjoy your posts immensely, but you're being a little bit dishonest in the lack of full Sutton disclosure here.

Your win total numbers are right, but let's delve a little deeper. I think we'll see that Sutton wasn't exactly getting beaten in the win column by Secretariat-like margins.

1970 -- Osteen 16 wins, Sutton 15 wins
1971 -- Downing 20 wins, Sutton 17 wins and a better ERA
1972 -- Osteen 20 wins, Sutton 19 wins and a 2.08 ERA, more than a half-point better than Osteen
1974 -- Messersmith 20 wins, Sutton 19 wins
1975 -- Messersmith 18 wins, Hooton 18 wins, Sutton 16 wins
1977 -- Tommy John 20 wins, Rick Rhoden 16 wins, Sutton 14 wins, but second in ERA
1978 -- Hooton 19, John 17, Rau 15, Sutton 15.
1979 -- Sutcliffe 17, Sutton 12-15.

The only year in there were Sutton was not effective was '79, when the Dodgers sucked in general (and Sutton would go 13-5, 2.20 ERA in his last year with L.A. in '80). Sutton had more staying power than any pitcher on that list except Osteen (at the end of his line) and John (who pitched at a just barely over mediocre level for eons).

I'm not saying he's Cy freaking Young, but Sutton's career is trashed way too much. I think his me-me dickhead reputation is the root cause of a lot of it.

His win total speaks for itself. I would never argue that he wasn't a very good pitcher. The rap against him as a HOF candidate was that he rarely was the best pitcher on his own team. For the 10-year period cited, there was almost always someone more impressive on the Dodgers staff.

 

[zeke12]

<i>"one can make a fairly strong case that Blyleven got hosed out of more than one CYA by voters who went largely by win total."</i>

You think? Or do you think the lack of votes was based on the fact that his rep was as a pitcher who could always find a way to lose a game in the late innings? You know one of the ways he did that? By chasing strikeouts instead of just trying to get batters out.

He didn't last long in Pittsburgh because he clashed with Chuck Tanner, which is almost impossible. Tanner would yank Blyleven from games before he could **** it up in the late innings. Instead of seeing the logic of turning things over to a pretty strong bullpen, Blyleven moped and at one point jumped the club because he wasn't being allowed to attain his personal goals.

You mean like in 1977, when he went 14-12 -- with otherwise dominant numbers -- but lost the Cy Young to...

Sparky Lyle.

Or in 1974, when he had the following season stats: 2.66 ERA, 281 IP, 249 K's and 17 wins, and did not receive a single vote for the award?

You're telling me he was overlooked to that extent because he clashed with a manager in Pittsburgh?

Interesting...

Come with better than that, or don't come at all.

 

[Smasher_Sloan]

Yes, absolutely, his standing in the 1974 Cy Young voting was affected by a clash he would have with a manager two teams later n 1980.

Go back and try reading it again.

 

[Rosie]

casty --

Time for my yearly plea to induct Bert Blyleven.

In the interest of brevity, I will plagiarize the simple case made by Rich Lederer at baseballanalysts.com:

Since 1900, Bert Blyleven ranks 5th in career strikeouts, 8th in shutouts, and 17th in wins.

That's it. He should be in.

I second his plagiarism. Please.

Pretty please.

Vote Bert into the Hall.

:'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

 

[zeke12]

Yes, absolutely, his standing in the 1974 Cy Young voting was affected by a clash he would have with a manager two teams later n 1980.

Go back and try reading it again.

I think you just proved my point for me.

Perhaps the writers never liked him because they never liked him. I honestly don't know. But they were screwing him over long before he had any troubles in Pittsburgh.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

Casty, we don't always agree on this, but I think you nailed it. Gwynn, Ripken & Goose.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

To both Guy and Casty: Those are the three cinches. I admit Rice is borderline, but he was awesomely dominant for 4-6 seasons, and dropped off the table in the late '80s only because he was too stubborn to get glasses.
Blyleven and Morris were top starters of their era. That they weren't as top as say, Clemens doesn't alter that fact, but I also concede their detractors have a case at least as good as their advocates.