Jump to content

Interesting Blyleven stats


Moose Milligan

Recommended Posts

Cardboard junkie is a great blog, it deals with baseball cards. I check it out every so often.

Anyway, someone wrote in response to one of his posts. Check this out about Blyleven:

An amazing Bert Blyleven statistic that I wouldn’t wish upon any major league pitcher:

From his 1970 rookie season through 1977 I’ve accumulated his quality starts that I’ve defined as: 6innings, 2earned runs or less; 7,8,9innings, 3earned runs or less; and 9innings+ 4 earned runs or less in which he garnered a no decision or a loss only……

The totals are:

82 games

658 innings

583 hits

185 runs

160 earned runs

184 base on balls

540 strikeouts

2.19 ERA

His record: 0 wins and 53 LOSSES. I repeat 0 wins and 53 losses with a 2.19 ERA

1970 0-3 2.09 9 games

1971 0-6 1.90 9 games

1972 0-9 2.35 13 games

1973 0-8 2.55 9 games

1974 0-8 1.80 10 games

1975 0-6 2.00 10 games

1976 0-8 2.29 15 games

1977 0-5 2.45 7 games

I understand that pitchers put up great games and get snakebit on occasion, but this accounted for almost 1 of every 3 starts, 82 of 279 to be exact or 29%. Show me a Hall of Famer that had to go through this year by year. Fortunately once Blyleven ended up in Pittsburgh and later some good Minnesota teams, this trend eased to what I would consider normal levels (I had researched this in the past but don’t have the numbers on hand)

Imagine 1974, your 17-9 in 27 games, and in the other 10, all of which are essentially quality starts, you post a 1.80ERA and go 0-8. You end up 17-17. If you don’t know the facts, and your voting for the Cy Young award, and you see 17-17. Do you cast a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place vote? Probably not. This is what Blyleven faced in yesteryear, and the same writers, who I contend do not know the facts, are what Blyleven faces every year in the HOF vote.

Go ahead, plug in a different year, or harken back to Baseball-reference and neutralize the stats, do it for every one of Blyleven’s contemporaries. The numbers don’t change much, but for Bert Blyleven, they do. The example given above is my attempt to show why. Teams that didn’t score runs and booted the ball around like it was a soccer match.

http://cardjunk.blogspot.com/2007/12/jaw-dropping-blyleven-stat.html

That's pretty damn bad. Pitching to a 2.19 ERA and not even winning a game in 53 decisions must be a record. That's horrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Cardboard junkie is a great blog, it deals with baseball cards. I check it out every so often.

Anyway, someone wrote in response to one of his posts. Check this out about Blyleven:

http://cardjunk.blogspot.com/2007/12/jaw-dropping-blyleven-stat.html

That's pretty damn bad. Pitching to a 2.19 ERA and not even winning a game in 53 decisions must be a record. That's horrible.

Wow, that's pretty amazing. I always thought Blyleven was short changed be the HOF voters. If he had been pitching for good teams he easily would had been in the Hall of Fame by now....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, this blog would be really interesting if not for the sophomoric cursing he does in it. There is absolutely no reason for him to use the language he does in the blog and detracts from what could be a great page.

I'm no prude by any means, but he really ruins his own page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting find there, Moose.

My favorite Blyleven memories have to be:

1) watching him break off that hellacious curve

2) his brief "retirement" in 1980 when he wanted out of Pittsburgh

3) Clevelan making him throw 10 straight complete games in 1985 when they knew they were going to trade him

4) Hearing how he'd pick his nose before shaking hands with reporters

Great article about him here for anyone that wants to know more about Bert Be Home By Blyleven

http://www.citypages.com/databank/26/1270/article13136.asp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, this blog would be really interesting if not for the sophomoric cursing he does in it. There is absolutely no reason for him to use the language he does in the blog and detracts from what could be a great page.

I'm no prude by any means, but he really ruins his own page.

Yeah, sometimes its funny, other times it doesn't add anything to his writing.

Another good card blog is http://baseballcardblog.blogspot.com/ Doesn't have nearly the amount of bad language.

He's working on a project called The 792 which is an ultimate set of topps cards from the 1980's. Like #1 is the 1987 Roger Clemens Record Breakers card, #2 is a #2 card from another year, etc. It's a pretty cool idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's pretty damn bad. Pitching to a 2.19 ERA and not even winning a game in 53 decisions must be a record. That's horrible.

I think the way the quote is worded is misleading. All it says is that Blyleven pitched in 82 games where he pitched well (by the author's standards) but had either a loss (53 times) or a no decision (29 times). However, when you read "His record: 0 wins and 53 LOSSES. I repeat 0 wins and 53 losses with a 2.19 ERA," it gives you the impression that the guy never won a game in which he pitched a quality start. Obviously that is far from the case. Blylven won 122 games in those 8 years.

You also have to consider the era in which these games were pitched. In the AL from 1970 to 1977, the average runs per game ranged from 3.47 (in 1972) to 4.53 (in 1977). It was a lot easier to lose a low-scoring game in that era than it is today.

I'm not trying to take anything away from Blyleven, who no doubt had poor run support throughout his career. I'm just saying that the way the author presented these stats may overstate the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the way the quote is worded is misleading. All it says is that Blyleven pitched in 82 games where he pitched well (by the author's standards) but had either a loss (53 times) or a no decision (29 times). However, when you read "His record: 0 wins and 53 LOSSES. I repeat 0 wins and 53 losses with a 2.19 ERA," it gives you the impression that the guy never won a game in which he pitched a quality start. Obviously that is far from the case. Blylven won 122 games in those 8 years.

You also have to consider the era in which these games were pitched. In the AL from 1970 to 1977, the average runs per game ranged from 3.47 (in 1972) to 4.53 (in 1977). It was a lot easier to lose a low-scoring game in that era than it is today.

I'm not trying to take anything away from Blyleven, who no doubt had poor run support throughout his career. I'm just saying that the way the author presented these stats may overstate the case.

If he had 300 wins, is he in the HOF right now?

I say he would be, without question...Hell, if he wore a Yankee uni he would be in the HOF right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

300 wins is an automatic ticket to the Hall of Fame, so yes.

Isn't 3000 strikeouts also an automatic ticket? Especially seeing as there are 8 more 300 game winners than 3000 strikeout pitchers.

Christ, the fact that he's 5th all-time in strikeouts should be enough. I really don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't 3000 strikeouts also an automatic ticket? Especially seeing as there are 8 more 300 game winners than 3000 strikeout pitchers.

Christ, the fact that he's 5th all-time in strikeouts should be enough. I really don't get it.

I guess some people think winning games is more important than racking up strikeouts. That said, of the 11 top retired strikeout leaders, Blyleven is the only one not in the HOF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess some people think winning games is more important than racking up strikeouts. That said, of the 11 top retired strikeout leaders, Blyleven is the only one not in the HOF.

So Paul Byrd had a better year then Erik Bedard because he went 15-8 instead of 13-7?

The wins argument has been shown to be a fallacy many times in the past, because of the quality of his teams and run support. Hell, that's the point of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Paul Byrd had a better year then Erik Bedard because he went 15-8 instead of 13-7?

The wins argument has been shown to be a fallacy many times in the past, because of the quality of his teams and run support. Hell, that's the point of this thread.

I fully acknowledge that wins is an imperfect stat. However, over the course of a career, in my opinion total wins is a better measure of how good a pitcher was than total strikeouts. Otherwise, Nolan Ryan would be far and away the greatest pitcher of all time. If that's what you believe, fine. I don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




  • Posts

    • "Settling" is a very good way to describe this particular move at this particular time. Nothing about it implies that 2023 is remotely a priority. It's completely and utterly lateral, and it severely limits the extent to which the rotation can be improved overall heading into 2023. I really cannot see us adding 3 SPs this offseason, so even the rather modest idea of adding two solid but unspectacular mid-rotation starters is already out the window. That's pretty wild to me. Like, I didn't think we were going to sign Verlander then trade for Burnes or anything crazy like that, but I did think signing a mid-rotation SP like Taijuan Walker, Chris Bassitt, or Noah Syndergaard and then trading for another mid-rotation SP like Pablo Lopez or Chris Flexen was pretty realistic, but unless we are going to add 3 SPs, even that modest bit of improvement to the rotation was apparently too much to ask for. I appreciate you going out on a limb to play devil's advocate for me and the rest of the "BOO, HISS" crowd. The knee-jerk "just wait and see what happens, crybaby" retort to valid complaints/concerns about this move miss the point, or at least the one I am trying to make anyway. The main issue I take with the move is that it reveals that significantly improving our biggest area of concern for next year, the starting rotation, is not a particularly high priority. Kremer and Bradish both deserve spots after their 2022 seasons but have some red flags that indicate some regression may be in store next year, and GrayRod is going to be pitching at the MLB level for the very first time so some growing pains are quite possible, if not probable. They should all still start the season in the rotation though, and almost certainly will if healthy, so that only leaves 2 spots to potentially fill with reliable, quality guys to anchor and upgrade the staff, and now one of those 2 spots is filled with a very uninspiring back of the rotation Lyles-type instead of someone who can reasonably counted on to produce at a meaningfully higher level than 2022 Lyles next year. Maybe Elias surprises me and adds 3 starters this offseason, including 2 that can actually be considered upgrades over both Lyles and our in-house options in addition to the newly-signed Gibson, and Kremer and Bradish have to compete for a single rotation spot in spring training, but that seems extremely unlikely to me.  I don't believe so, which is pretty weird. 
    • Lots of good points on why this is not a terrible move. I’d be OK if he lived up to his 3-year average.    But sadly he’s 35, and career aging trends are not on his side. He also finished the season in horrendous form - about a 10 ERA, with an OPS against over 1.000 in Sep/Oct. Hopefully they didn’t pay him much. 
    • Saw some twitter stuff about 1yr 5 million but nothing from any major outlet yet. 
    • Seriously? He’s had a 1.00 WHIP 2 straight years and 5 + WAR in each (10.5 total). I bet he’s more likely to be worth his contract more than DeGrom.
    • Has Gibson contract come out yet? Usually comes out soon after the announcement. 
    • He wants us to get a bunch of meh additions so he can be right. 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...