Why is Bert Blyleven not in the hall of fame?

Question

287 wins, 3.31 career ERA, 3701 strikeouts and even a world series. He derserves it more than Bruce Sutter does. What is the case against blyleven?

Answer 1

Why Blyleven isn't already among the immortals in Cooperstown remains a bit of a mystery.
He has 287 wins, which is 25th on the all-time list. He is fifth in career strikeouts with 3,701. He is ninth in games started with 685. His 60 shutouts are also ninth all-time. The 53-year-old native of Zeist, Holland, also owns two World Series rings.

Answer 2

This is an excellent question. My only guess is that either the people who cast votes for entry into the Hall of Fame, the Baseball Writers of America has either taken a kamikazi nose dive in the IQ department or they are too young to have seen Blyleven play.

There is no legitimate argument in keeping Blyleven out of the Hall. In the past, the only argument might have been that he didn't win 300 games. The fact that he won 287 games is a testement to how great he was considering he played many years on some very mediocre teams as well as World Series contenders. Thanks to the 5-man rotation, the 300 game winner will be a thing of the past when Tom Glavine breaks it (assuming he can still do it). The man is 5th all time in strikeouts and has more complete games than Clemens, Shilling and Randy Johnson combined.

It is an injustice when guys like Blyleven, Jim Rice, Goose Gossage, Andre Dawson, Jack Morris, and Lee Smith aren't in but Bruce Sutter is in. Look, Bruce Sutter was a good pitcher, but he wasn't HOF stuff.

Answer 3

On the surface his case deserves serious merit. I don't care who you are, 287 wins is remarkable, as are 3,701 strikeouts. His 3.31 career ERA is totally respectable. He had the best curveball of his generation.

However, I think his 250 losses are hurting his HOF argument, along with the fact that in 22 seasons as a starting pitcher he won less than 16 games 14 times (almost 2/3 of his career). He won 18 or more games only twice. Toss in the fact that 4 of those seasons in which he won at least 16 games came within his first 5 years in the league and you're given the impression (right or wrong) that he was a serviceable, but hardly great, pitcher for a large majority of his career.

Of course the irony is that had he played one more season and won 13 games (putting him at 300) there would be no question, even if in that same season he lost 20!

As a quick aside, I don't believe 300 game winners will be a thing of the past as someone stated. The 5 man rotation has been in place for both Clemens and Maddux's entire careers and they will each finish with well over 300 wins - more than most of the great pitchers in the days of the 4 man rotation.

Answer 4

The reasons that I feel are keeping Blyeven out of the Hall of Fame are winning %, a lot of losses, not playing in major markets, and a misunderstood persona.
Despite winning 287 games and being on 2 World Series champions(Pittsburgh 1979 and Minnesota 1987), he had 250 losses for a .534 winning percentage. Many writers erroneously percieve winning percentage as the most important stat. In his carrer he had only 1 20-win season, had 3 years with an even record, and five years with a losing record. Too many writers hold that against him.
Except for a few years at the end of carrer with the Angels, he played in small market areas. He started in Minnesota, went to Texas, then to Pittsburgh, then to Cleveland, and back to Minnesota. It also did not help that Cleveland teams he was on from 1981-85 were really bad.
During his Pittsburgh days he feuded with Manager Chuck Tanner. Tanner, an overated manager, was very popular with the baseball media. Many of the Hall of Fame voters were media members who admired Tanner and hold a grudge against Blyleven for not liking Tanner.
Also in 1986 Blyleven gave up 50 home runs., which is still the record for most given up. Some of the voters still carry a notion that if a pitcher gives up home runs, that the pitcher is a bad pitcher. So they hold that against Blyleven also.

Answer 5

One of the great mysteries of the HOF. He never really had a dominant Cy Young season and some say that is the reason, but consistently winning 15-20 games with about a 3-3.70 E.R.A for 20 seasons definately has merit. Sandy Koufax is in and should be, but he only played 9 seasons. He doesn't have the totals Blyleven has, but was dominant throughout. There are a lot of other examples of this and maybe therin lies the reason.

Answer 6

Simply put, the baseball writers are a bunch of arrogant idiots. How did anybody NOT vote for Ripken and Gwynn? Some guys didn't. That is just stupid. Look, they say Blyleven was just good for a long time. If that is true, and it is so easy to do, then why isn't anyone else in the same category as him? The argument is bum. He deserves in.

Answer 7

he's a extraordinary guy yet i'm no longer dropping any sleep over him no longer being in. He have been given good occupation numbers because of the fact he pitched an exceptionally long term yet he in no way had a dominating season. in no way finished extra advantageous than third in cy youthful vote casting. purely one 20 win season, and he lost 17 that 300 and sixty 5 days.

Answer 8

He was never a big name pitcher, a Ryan or Seaver. Blyleven was just a guy who went out every 4th or 5th day, threw well, didn't overpower but won on smarts and pitch placement. And did it day after day and didn't self promote or cause any controversy. Bert should get a pace in the HOF.

Answer 9

He was a good potcher but not great, and many writers feel the Hall of fame is only for the "great" players. And championships have nothing to do with it, nor should they, if they did then Ted Williams and Ernie Banks wouldn't be in. Nor would one of the people above me be ripping people for not voting for championship-less Tony Gwynn.

Answer 10

He was never really that good. His stats are padded by 22 years of being in the majors.

His strikeouts are padded do to the fact he stayed in games that were long over even when he was losing big.

I really don't have a problem with him not being in the hall.
You don't get a free social security ride to the hall.