Why isn't Bert Blyleven in the baseball hall of fame?

Question

Career Statistics
Wins 287
ERA 3.31
Strikeouts 3701 (fifth all time)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_Blyleven#Career_statistics

look how upset he is over it

http://www.yikers.com/video_reporter_curses_thinking_its_not_live.html

20 game thing i agree but look at the bad teams he was on

Jim Palmer's Career Pitching Statistics
w 268
so 2212
era 2.86
http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_stats/Pitching/palmer_jim.htm

Answer 1

Blyleven had that killer curve ball throughout his career. One of the best all-time in baseball. It was so good, that even when hitters knew it was coming, they'd still swing through it.
When he came up as a 19 year old with the Twins, he also had a fastball that was 90-93 mph.
Some voters remember his later years (even though he was a 1-2 tandem with Frank Viola and the surprise '87 world champion Twins) when he lost his fastball during his second stint with the Twins and he gave up a huge number of home runs..
He only won 20 games once and he's remembered more for being a very good pitcher who put up numbers because of his longevity.
He never had a signature performance or key post season series to hang his hat on that defined him.
In addition, there were a number of games in his career where he would lose 2-1, 3-2, etc. That reinforced the belief that he was "very good, but not great".
I think that's what's kept him out so far.
I don't think he'll be out forever. I think the body of his work is more than enough to get him into the Hall. The veteran's committee will eventually vote him in.
He deserves it.

Answer 2

Good question. I have to really wonder about the expertise of the voters. Sometimes it looks like they only look at win-loss percentage and whether they liked a guy or not. Blyleven pitched for god awful teams during nearly his entire career. If you take a look at the win-loss percentages for these teams and the players supporting him, it's a wonder how he was even able to win any games. He wasn't just a pitcher with good lifetime totals, he was also a great peak pitcher. 8 times = 200+ strikeouts. Workhorse = innings pitched/complete games. ERA over what the league did superb. Ninth place all-time in the number of Shutouts with 60 (one behind Seaver/Ryan who have 61). At the age of 38, he was 17-5, 2.73 era and was the ace of the staff for the 1989 Angels team that won 91 games that year. He deserves more consideration than he's gotten and should be in the hof.

Answer 3

His stats are good enough to put him in the Hall. There are a few reasons he's not:

1) He was a bit of a jerk during his playing days and thus failed to build up a lot of goodwill among the sportswriters who vote for inductees.

2) He only played in a large market at the end of his career and thus didn't get much big media attention

3) He played for a lot of mediocre teams and thus some of his stats (wins particularly) are worse than they would have been on a better team.

4) He was never the best in the league in any statistical category, though he was usually in the top 10. In other words, he was never an elite player, but rather was a top tier for a long time. Voters tend to remember greatness, even fleeting greatness, more than consistency.

Answer 4

Blyleven replaced into not favored in his very own time, and keeps to not be. howdy, look, sportswriters are not the main important brains on the block; merely getting some to comprehend that "RBI" or "W-L checklist" at the instant are not the terrific participant metrics, and that critically greater efficient ones exist, isn't purely progression, it truly is a paradigmic shift. The Blyleven drums proceed. Berate your close by sportswriter!

Answer 5

He pitched for many medicore teams throughout his career and left very little mark in postseason play. Plus, he failed to win 300 games, a benchmark for starters to get a ticket to the Hall.

Answer 6

Simply because he was so good on mostly pathetic teams. The voters punish him because that ate at his stats and also the perception that he was a loser. If he were on a team like the Dodgers, he would've won closer to 350 and he would've been a first balloter.

Answer 7

Maybe he is not popular among baseball writers, a disease that also affects Jim Rice. Kirby Puckett played for only 12 years and got in right away, but was way popular. I think he should be in, as well as Rice and Concepcion.

Answer 8

I asked myself the same question. I have read some baseball columnist views and they don't like all of his losses, but the guy still has 287 wins (Just 13 shy from the "Hall Lock") and he has 3700+ STRIKEOUTS!!!!!!!!!! That is incredible!!!!!!!! The BBWAA needs to vote this guy in.

Answer 9

You can do Steriods? If you're bringing in the fans. But you can't doctor the ball. And that's what happend to Bery Blyleven.

Answer 10

IT TOOK HIM 23 YRS TO WIN 287 GAMES. IN THE LAST VOTE HE HAD 53%, MAYBE IN 3 TO 5 YRS HE MAY AMASS MORE VOTES.