Bert Blyleven and The Hall of Fame Index

Does Bert Blyleven Belong in the Hall of Fame - Hall of Fame IndexEarlier this week former Minnesota Twin great, Bert Blyleven was rejected entrance into the Hall of Fame for the 12th time. Appearing on Mike and Mike in the morning, he was nothing short of emotional about being denied the spot. After being asked about how he was doing, Bert quickly responded:

“I feel like crap”

He went on to state that he pitched nearly 5,000 innings, 60 shutouts, and was 13th all time on the strikeout list. Critics will say that he wasn’t a “Hall of Fame type pitcher” when he played or that he was never all that dominant. But how then were his numbers so great?

Bert went on to criticize the process of which Hall of Fame members are elected, sparking many debates in sports media this week. Should voters continue to be sports writers from across the nation? Should voters consist of only former players or even Hall of Fame members themselves? Who can we most objectively tell who should be in or out of the Hall of Fame?

This got me thinking. Is there a way we can most objectively tell who should be in or out of the Hall of Fame, at least statistically?

Enter the Hall of Fame Index

The Hall of Fame Index ranks how a HOF candidate stacks up against current HOF members using statistical analysis. The goal is to objectively be able to quantify a Hall of Fame candidate’s legitimacy. By obtaining a comprehensive list of career statistics of all current hall of fame members, we can calculate which percentile a candidate falls for each statistical category.

For example: HOF Candidate Bert Blyleven ranks very high for the statistical category of K, but very poorly on H relative to other hall of fame members. If he is the best at K, he will receive a score of 100%. If he is the worst at K, he will receive a score of 0%. Each statistic in the index is a percentile rank of the candidate among current Hall of Fame members.

After running the calculations Bert finished with a 60% Hall of Fame Index meaning that among all represented statistical categories in the Hall of Fame Index, he is in the 60th percentile among current Hall of Fame members, proving that statistically he has a very strong case to be placed in the Hall.

HOF Index - Pitching

Name HOF Index W K ERA SV SHO CG H HR
Bert Blyleven 60% 67% 97% 51% 0% 88% 37% 17% 7%

There are other factors involved when determining who’s in and who’s out of the hall of fame, but statistically; it’s difficult to deny Bert Blyleven.

Other recent additions to the Hall include Rickey Henderson, who received a 60% HOF Index score, and Jim Rice, who received a 59% HOF Score.

HOF Index - Batting

Name HOF Index SB 2B 3B H HR AVG RBI
Rickey Henderson 60% 100% 81% 22% 88% 75% 22% 57%
Jim Rice 59% 20% 44% 38% 57% 83% 46% 75%

Again, this tool is limited purely to statistical analysis and does not take into factor other variables such as postseason play, accolades, off the field activities and other various accomplishments not statistically related to a candidate’s Hall of Fame legitimacy. It is simply a tool to show how they rank statistically among members of the Hall of Fame

For details on the HOF Index calculation read below:

The HOF Index is an average of percentiles weighted by importance of statistical category.

The Hall of Fame Index for Pitching is derived by this formula: W+K+ERA + ((H+HR+SHO+CG+SV)/5). Wins, strikeouts, and era are weighted highest as they are commonly the most frequent attribute related to the performance of a pitcher. The other statistics are weighted lower for a variety of reasons including the duplication of statistics and level of importance of category.

The Hall of Fame Index for Batting is derived by this formula: H + HR + AVG + RBI + ((SB+2B+3B)/3). Doubles and triples are weighted lower as they have some value duplicated by the category H, but primarily because they are generally not regarded quite as highly as the H and HR statistics. Likewise, stolen bases are weighted lower as they are not as of an important category as H, HR, AVG, or RBI’s.

These calculations result in nearly every present and future HOF member’s rank relative to every other HOF member. Essentially, if a candidate has a HOF Index of 50%, half of the current HOF is better statistically and half of the current HOF is worse statistically based on the calculation. A candidate would have a strong argument if they had over a 50% HOF Index score.

Full Hall of Fame member data shown below:

(Editor’s Note: We had some trouble importing the table from MS Word. Things started exploding and blowing up all over the place. So, to see Tyler’s detailed breakdown of every Hall of Famer according to the Hall of Fame index, download and view a PDF of the Word document right here.)

Share This Article:




  • http://gator-hall.blogspot.com thomas c

    There is an army of Bert Backers deployed across the internet armed with three and four letter statistical acronyms – RSAA, WARP, RCAP – designed to demonstrate that Blyleven would have been a consistent big winner if only he’d played for better teams and received better run support. They purport to prove that Bert would have won 313 games with better run support, or that his mediocre .537 career win percentage would have been .570, or that he’d have won 20 games in a season more than once if only he had been backed by elite teams rather than also-rans. They have an explanation for everything, a rationalization for every glaring deficiency in Bert’s Hall of Fame qualifications.

    But there’s one thing – one really big thing – that they just can’t seem to explain: why wasn’t Bert a consistent big winner when he actually played for good teams that gave him solid offensive support? Because it is a fact that Blyleven pitched for some very good teams that gave him very good support, and Bert still couldn’t put up Hall of Fame numbers.

    By my count Bert pitched eight seasons for teams that either won 90 or more games, were serious contenders for division titles, or both (’70 Twins, ’77 Rangers, ’78 – ’80 Pirates, ’87-’88 Twins, ’89 Angels). These teams won two World Series, three division titles and finished 2nd three other times. These teams had a cumulative .562 winning percentage. And Bert made 261 starts over these eight seasons and pitched more than 1800 innings. Here’s his record for these eight seasons:

    100-83, .546 win percentage, 3.55 ERA.

    The simple fact is that Bert averaged 12.5 wins per season while pitching for these teams, and had a lower winning percentage – .546 – than the .562 winning percentage posted by these teams.

    But Bert’s battalions tell us we should ignore what actually happened when Bert pitched for good teams and instead believe what they tell us Bert would have done if those mediocre Twins and Indians teams had been powerhouses.

    Why couldn’t Bert do what Jim Kaat did in ’74 and ’75, when he put together back-to-back 20 win seasons for a White Sox team that was sub-.500 over these two seasons and gave him less than average run support? Why couldn’t Bert do what Tommy John did from ’77 to ’80 when John averaged 20 wins per year for good teams? Granted, John’s Dodger and Yankee teams had a .594 winning percentage compared to the .561 compiled by the good teams Bert pitched for in the eight seasons we’ve examined, but does that explain the difference between John’s 20 wins per season and Bert’s 12.5 wins, or John’s .696 winning percentage during this period and Bert’s .546?

    This is the crux of the matter. Bert couldn’t establish himself as a consistent winner even when pitching for good teams. True, had had very good ERA’s for many mediocre teams, but compiled won-loss records that were too often no better than mediocre pitchers who received even less run support than Bert did. And when Bert pitched for good teams, he continued to compile mediocre won-loss records. This is the problem for Bert’s army of backers and their arsenal of esoteric statistics. They can’t explain why Bert didn’t win consistently for good teams. They can’t explain how Bert could receive better run support than Twin pitchers like Joe Decker and Jim Hughes and Dick Woodson and compile records no better than these mediocre pitchers.

    Here’s the task for the Bert Backers. Explain how this putative Hall of Fame pitcher could receive an average of 4.39 runs/game from these good teams, whose overall scoring average was 4.34 runs/game over these eight seasons, and yet have a lower winning percentage than his teams? The average pitcher on these teams received slightly less run support than Bert and yet had a higher winning percentage – was the average pitcher on these Pirate, Twin and Angel teams a Hall of Famer?

  • C.

    @thomas c,

    Burt pitched over 200 complete games for better or worse. His ERA, wins, and strikeouts are comparable to Randy Johnson one of the 3 greatest lefties ever and he has basically better stats than at least a couple other HoF pitchers depending on how you see it. (not saying he is better than the Unit by any means)

    You seem to be really anti burt and that scares me cuz he is really a nice person and a good voice for the Twins and he deserves to be there for his spectacular curve and what it did to a lot of people that faced it.

    A 2.87 ERA with 19 wins in Cleveland with 12 complete games and 4 shutouts at age 33. That was a good season.

    But any pitcher who can pitch 22 seasons and have 2 WS rings while also compiling a season of 20-17 with a 2.52 ERA and count em 25 complete games and 9 shutouts along with 258 SO and only 16 HR given deserves the Hall.

    Let’s see you do it, buddy.

  • C.

    @thomas c,

    Player GS ERA ERA+ CG ShO Ks WHIP

    Ryan 773 3.19 111 222 61 5714 1.247

    Seaver 647 2.86 127 231 61 3640 1.121

    Carlton 709 3.22 115 254 55 4136 1.247

    Blyleven 685 3.31 118 242 60 3701 1.198

    Nuff said

  • C.

    Not quite enough because this article puts everything you say to shame. Legions of his fans or people that actually respect the game and see a truly unique pitcher getting overlooked criminally is many cases.

    http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/bayarea/2009/04/05/The_case_of_Bert_Blyleven_for_the_Hall_of_Fame

  • Ron Howe

    THE SOLUTION TO THE BERT BLYLEVEN-COOPERSTOWN
    STATEMATE IS ACTUALLY QUITE SIMPLE:

    Either Mr. Blyleven is, at long last, rightfully inducted into
    baseball's Hall of Fame… or, to level the playing field, the
    plaques of several others with less-impressive career statistics
    should be removed from Cooperstown.

    Since the latter will obviously not be acceptable, those who are
    entitled to vote this honor should, in all fairness, carefully
    compare the records this man compiled during a career spanning two
    decades with those pitchers already inducted. It is a gross
    injustice to continue to deny this extraordinary athlete his due.

    Unfortunately, the distinction and the integrity of the esteemed
    Hall of Fame is diminished by the omission of Mr. Blyleven.

    –Ron Howe
    Erskine, Minnesota

  • Mark

    Are you guys joking? Bert's first year on the ballot he barely got 16% vote, this speaks volumes. Lets look at the 1979 Pirates, a world series team. Bert still got 20 no decisions on a world series winning team. Bert had a lot of good stuff, he just had too many bad days. His relatively low ERA is misleading if anything. It is really no better than many mediocre pitchers in this era. Bert was just a compiler who happens to be the greatest compiler in baseball history. Not a hall of famer.

  • Dean

    Blyleven should not have made the Hall of Fame. Very good pitcher. May be a nice guy, when he isn't caught dropping F-bomb tirades. Bottom line is that the people that saw him play all those years gave the guy 17%, 14% votes and so on. Over the years his politicing and whining and people playing with his stats, some how boosted him. Truth is, that if the steroid era wasn't shutting out players right now Blyleven would not be in. The steroid users be damned and they never need to get in. But if people were using their votes for McGuire, Palmeiro, etc. Blyleven would have never gotten 75%.
    He had a couple of very good seasons. That does not make a great career. 13 wins and 11 losses ave is not great.
    Baseball, until the last couple of years seemed to understand what Hall of Fame meant, more than the NFL that seems to think they need to put in 6 – 7 people a year.