Why does Bert Blyleven get no respect as a great pitcher?

Austin · Jun 3, 2014

Why do so many people think Bert Blyleven is not a legitimate Hall of Famer and not one of the greatest pitchers of his era?

He retired 3rd all-time in strikeouts, and is still 5th, behind only Ryan, Johnson, Clemens and Carlton.

He also had an incredible 60 shutouts, which is 9th all-time, and only 1 behind Ryan and Seaver.

He ranks 11th all-time in WAR among pitchers, ahead of Christy Mathewson, Warren Spahn, Steve Carlton, Nolan Ryan and dozens of other great pitchers.

He won 287 games on mostly ****** teams (only 3 postseason teams), so he had seasons like 17-17 despite a 2.66 era.

Of those three playoff teams, two won World Series, and Blyleven has a 5-1 record with a 2.47 era, making him a dominating postseason pitcher.

If he had played for the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, etc. he'd be a legend with 350 wins.
but because 17 of his 20 full seasons were with garbage teams, he gets no respect.

scotty216brs · Jun 3, 2014

Because he was never a dominant pitcher. Great pitcher for a long time but not up there with the talks of the all-time greats. He never won a Cy Young, never led the league in ERA, etc...Many pitchers were much better than him during his career: Seaver, Palmer, Carlton, Perry, Ryan, Niekro, Jenkins, Guidry, Sutton, Hunter, etc.....I'd put Blyleven just outside the top 10 pitchers of his era. It literally has nothing to do with wins or what team he played for. It has to do that there were a ton of pitchers who performed better than him during his career.

308th in career ERA
136th in career WHIP
152nd in career K/9
64th in career K/BB
154th in ERA+

Great career but he does not deserve to be mentioned with any of the pitchers you listed.

Austin · Jun 3, 2014

I understand the arguments against him, but I just don't understand how a pitcher who retired 3rd all-time in strikeouts and is 9th in shutouts isn't considered dominating.

He had ten seasons with an ERA under 3.00, yet he had records like 13-16, 17-17 (twice) and 16-15 because of the crappy teams he was on.

If he was on good teams, and he had won another 3 games a year (being conservative) he would have had 350 wins along with his 3,700 Ks and he'd be considered a legend.

For instance, Catfish Hunter was 21-5 on the legendary '73 A's team, despite leading the league in homers allowed, having a 3.34 era and only 124 Ks.
But people remember his win-loss record and being part of the A's dynasty.

That same season, Blyleven had a 2.52 era and 258 Ks, both of which dwarf Hunter's stats.
Put him on the '73 A's with Hunter, and Blyleven would have won 30 games.

People take in to account won-loss record and team too much instead of how dominating the pitcher really was.

tpeichel · Jun 4, 2014

scotty216brs said:
Because he was never a dominant pitcher. Great pitcher for a long time but not up there with the talks of the all-time greats. He never won a Cy Young, never led the league in ERA, etc...Many pitchers were much better than him during his career: Seaver, Palmer, Carlton, Perry, Ryan, Niekro, Jenkins, Guidry, Sutton, Hunter, etc.....I'd put Blyleven just outside the top 10 pitchers of his era. It literally has nothing to do with wins or what team he played for. It has to do that there were a ton of pitchers who performed better than him during his career.

308th in career ERA
136th in career WHIP
152nd in career K/9
64th in career K/BB
154th in ERA+

Great career but he does not deserve to be mentioned with any of the pitchers you listed.

Blyleven is interesting. I think there is some credence to the "bad team" argument. Take a look at his 1973 season where he was 7th in Cy Young voting. He led all A.L. pitchers with a 9.9 WAR. He was 20-17 with a 2.52 ERA and 258 Ks. He led the league in ERA+ with 156 and he had 9 shutouts and 25 complete games. How is that a 7th place finish?

bmp1971 · Jun 4, 2014

He was good, not great. If you saw him pitch, you'd understand.

Austin · Jun 4, 2014

bmp1971 said:
He was good, not great. If you saw him pitch, you'd understand.

I did watch him pitch. And he's widely regarded as having one of the greatest curveballs of all time.
BleacherReport ranks him second, behind only Sandy Koufax.

You don't throw 60 shutouts, 9th most in history, by being merely good.
Or have more sub-3.00 ERA seasons than Carlton, Ryan, Palmer and most modern Hall of Fame pitchers.

I'm not saying Blyleven is as great as Koufax, Seaver, Ryan, Carlton, Mathewson, Clemens, Maddux, Feller or other top-tier legends.
I'm just saying he's vastly underrated and better than many Hall of Famers who benefited by being on better teams.

Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Why does Bert Blyleven get no respect as a great pitcher?

Austin

Well-known member

scotty216brs

Active member

Austin

Well-known member

tpeichel

Well-known member

bmp1971

Active member

Austin

Well-known member

Similar threads

Members online

Latest posts