Maybe you should just stop talking

Did Jon Heyman stop with what he put on Twitter? Of course not!

"I consider impact more than stats. I like dominance over durability. I prefer players who were great at some point to the ones who were merely very good for a very long time. And I do recall it's called the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Numbers."

Oh, God. This old chestnut. So are you going to vote for Jose Canseco? Did you vote for Darryl Strawberry and Doc Gooden? Both had short bursts of excellence and certainly were very famous.

"The reason I haven't yet voted for Raines is that while he was a star in Montreal, he was merely a good player for the bulk of the rest his career, spent mainly with the White Sox and Yankees. Raines' offensive career is a little like Mattingly's in that he was exceptional for about a half-dozen years but far less than that for several more. But while Mattingly (who I didn't vote for the first seven years he was on the ballot) was greater in his great years, Raines did have many more seasons of solid performance, and I'm starting to lean in his direction."

Remember, again, that this is the same Jon Heyman who bragged about how consistent he was for continuing not to vote for Bert Blyleven. Raines' career OBP was .385 - only three points behind Tony Gwynn, who was a shoo-in because he had 3,000 hits. Also, don't compare latter-day Raines to latter-day Mattingly. After 1989 - a season in which he turned just 28 years old - Mattingly was basically league-average, aside from an Indian summer in 1993 and 1994. But he was retired by age 35. Raines put up a .306/.401/.480 line at age 33 for the '93 White Sox - a better line than anything Mattingly put up after 1987. In other words, 33-year-old Tim Raines (and, for that matter, 35-, 36-, and 37-year-old Tim Raines) was better than Don Mattingly at any age after 26. I know you just said you prefer dominance over durability... but how dominant was Mattingly, even? In 1985, when he won the MVP, he wasn't even the best player on his own team (Rickey Henderson). He had three great years, was very good for three more, and then was pretty much average until an early retirement. Fine, he had injuries. But let's not pretend he's Hall-worthy. And why did it take you seven years to vote for him anyway?

"My contention regarding Blyleven is that almost no one viewed him as a Hall of Famer during his playing career, and that is borne out by the 17 percent of the vote he received in his first year of eligibility in 1998, followed by 14 percent the next year."

Um...

Uh...

Why the FUCK does that matter? Who cares how people viewed Blyleven during his playing career? Until he clawed his way to 300 games, were people constantly talking about how Don Sutton was a Hall of Fame shoo-in? How about Goose Gossage and Bruce Sutter? People assumed Mark McGwire was a slam-dunk first-ballot guy in 1999... granted, there are some extenuating circumstances there. But still, who CARES? The whole argument for Blyleven is that he was undervalued while he was playing. Our minds are made up now because people 20 years ago might have been looking at the wrong things?

(Also, was Jack Morris looked at as a Hall of Famer during his playing career? I have my doubts about this.)

Jack Morris' first two years of eligibility: 22.2%, 19.6%. Sure, they're better than Blyleven's numbers, but they're still nowhere near Hall of Fame numbers. Clearly people did not think Jack Morris was a Hall of Famer while he was playing, by Jon Heyman's logic.

Oh, I forgot. When a stat shames Blyleven, he mentions it. And when a stat pumps up Morris, he mentions it. But aside from that, he "doesn't look only at stats."

FUCK YOU.

"I look at numbers, too, and while my numbers may be slightly more simplistic than WHIP, WAR or VORP, I think they tell a story of a pitcher who was extremely good, consistent and durable but not quite Cooperstown-worthy. Blyleven was dominant in a lot of at-bats (thus, the 3,701 strikeouts) and even a lot of games (60 shutouts). But he was never dominant for a decade, a half decade or even a full season."

I look at numbers too! By the way, you know Jon Heyman's dumb when he cites WHIP as a complex stat. WHIP = walks + hits per inning pitched. Oh no! For fuck's sake, Heyman, that's not even as complicated as ERA.

So Heyman's argument is that Blyleven was "never dominant for a decade, a half-decade or even a full season." Well, I can cite some pretty dominant full seasons, I think:

1973: 20-17, 2.52, 25 CG, 9 SHO, 158 ERA+ (led league), at age 22
1984: 19-7, 2.87, 12 CG, 4 SHO, 144 ERA+
1989: 17-5, 2.73, 8 CG, 5 SHO (led league), 140 ERA+, at age 38

Or how about this? Between 1971 and 1978 - more than a half-decade - Blyleven's ERA was above 3.00 just once (and that was 3.03). He had 38 shutouts (ten more than Morris' entire career) and led the league in K/BB twice (another extremely complicated stat).

On the other hand there's Jack Morris. He never had an ERA under 3.00. Not ONCE. This great pitcher, who Jon Heyman is implicitly defining as dominant, not once had an entire season where he shut opponents down to the tune of under three earned runs per nine. His best ERA+, to take yearly context out of it, was 133. Blyleven had nine sub-3.00 ERA years and six years better than 133 ERA+.

So WHAT MAKES MORRIS DOMINANT? Because you SAY he was? That's not good enough, Jon. You can talk all you want about people trying to reconstruct Blyleven's career from a stat sheet... but I trust that stat sheet more than I trust your memory.

Look at Blyleven's 1973 season. The guy is 22 years old. His ERA is 2.52, second to Cy Young winner Jim Palmer's 2.40 but ahead of Palmer by two points in ERA+, 158 to 156. (Also, Palmer's team won 97 games; Blyleven's 81.) Blyleven finishes first in shutouts, second in WHIP, first in K/BB, second in BB/9, third in K/9, second in total Ks, fourth in innings, third in complete games, and - hilariously given what Heyman tried to hang him with last time - fourth in fewest HR/9. He also finishes top ten in starts, H/9, and wins, with 20. Oh, and losses, with 17. Because the 1973 Minnesota Twins did not score for him. He got 4.18 runs of support. Jim Palmer got half a run more per game.

I mean... that's a pretty dominant season. Sure, 20-17 doesn't jump out at you, but Nolan Ryan went 21-16 that year. Does Jack Morris have even one season that compares to just that one year of Blyleven's?

Answer: no, he doesn't. For starters, Morris never finished in the top four in ERA, let alone second. He certainly never led the league in ERA+; only four times was he even top ten and only once top five. (Blyleven: 12 top tens, 7 top fives.) He had two top fives in WHIP; never finished above fourth. He did lead the league in shutouts once, in 1986. So let's compare Blyleven's 1973 to Morris' 1986:

Blyleven 1973: 20-17 (4.18 RS), 2.52, 158 ERA+, 1.117 WHIP, 258 K, 25 CG, 9 SHO, 325 IP
Morris 1986: 21-8 (5.46 RS), 3.27, 127 ERA+, 1.165 WHIP, 223 K, 15 CG, 6 SHO, 267 IP

So, aside from the losses... where is Morris winning here? (Note: he started five fewer games and had twice as many no-decision starts as '73 Bert.) He has a slight edge in K/9, I guess. Blyleven trashes him in ERA/ERA+ despite throwing 58 additional innings, and Morris only won one more game in spite of his sizable edge in run support.

I mean, here's how snakebit Blyleven was when it came to that. In 1976 his ERA was 2.87; ERA+ of 125, not among his very best years but better than all but three of Morris'. And what was his record? 13-16! Because his shitty teams - he was traded midseason - averaged, get this, 2.66 runs of support for him. 2.66! Morris' lowest full season RS number was 3.54, close to a full run higher, and that was only once, for the 103-loss '89 Tigers, the only bad team he really played on. And he went 6-14. Aside from that year, his lowest full season RS was 4.17, more than 1.5 runs above what Blyleven got in 1976.

In other words... WINS ARE SITUATIONAL. And if you throw out wins... Blyleven looks pretty dominant for a while there! Whereas Morris never does.

"Only four times in 22 seasons did he receive Cy Young votes (he was third twice, fourth and seventh once), only twice did he make the All-Star team and only twice did he win more than 17 games. I tend not to vote for players who I see as great compilers rather than great players, which is why I don't see Lee Smith or Baines as Hall of Famers, either. Baines and Blyleven compiled similarly in some key areas, with Blyleven finishing with four percent short of 300 victories at 287, and Baines four percent short of 3,000 hits with 2,866. And actually, a case could be made that Baines had more greatness, as he made six All-Star teams, three times the number of Blyleven."

Ugh. Who cares about this shit? Number of All-Star teams made does not equal greatness. Blyleven didn't make a lot of All-Star teams because he was toiling away on lousy teams and didn't have the star power of someone like a Nolan Ryan, even though aside from a ding on the strikeouts there's a large chunk of their careers that compares pretty favorably. And Baines is a bad comparison if you look at more than one stat. Only once was he even top ten in OBP; he was only top ten in batting average three times and never top five; he led in slugging one year but never again was even top ten. Blyleven's three league-leading shutout years and his one ERA+ year alone are more impressive than that.

Also, way to imply that you still believe that 300 wins and 3,000 hits are absolute sacrosanct numbers - make it and you're in, fall slightly short and fuck you. Because that's how we judge greatness: arbitrary round cutoffs.

"Some will say that Blyleven's career was equal to Hall of Famer Don Sutton's but I say it is just short of Sutton's. They both had big totals in other categories but Sutton wound up with 37 more victories, going over the magic 300 mark by 24."

"I say it is just short of Sutton's! Because of one number."

Blyleven career ERA+: 118
Sutton career ERA+: 108

Blyleven 162-game average record: 14-12
Sutton 162-game average record: 14-11

To be fair, Sutton's two or three best years top any of Blyleven's. But he was a real feast or famine guy. He had below-average ERA+ in 1978 and 1979, then suddenly ripped off a 160 in 1980, with a sub-1.00 WHIP. In 1970 he was pretty awful but managed to win 15 games for a second-place Dodger team; two years later his ERA was two full runs lower. I mean, what the fuck? Blyleven had longer strings of very good years than Sutton, who could never seem to put together more than three. There's also this, since Heyman talks about Blyleven being a compiler and implies that Sutton's 324 wins made him a better pitcher:

Wins after age 40
Blyleven: 8
Sutton: 44

So in other words, if Bert Blyleven and Don Sutton both drop dead on their 40th birthdays, Blyleven has 279 wins and Sutton has 280. The ERA+ difference would still be around what it is now. Does this change your answer? They're nearly the same pitcher at this point, except that most of Blyleven's non-win-total numbers are better. I mean, good for Sutton that he managed to be above-average in ERA+ as a 41-year-old, the year he got his 300th win. But let's not pretend he wasn't a compiler. And in 71 more starts, he still had two fewer shutouts for his career than Blyleven.

"Many stat people suggest wins are not important in evaluating careers. But until wins don't decide who's in the playoffs and who's out, who makes the World Series and who doesn't, I will continue to view them as important. A pitcher's goal for each game is to win the game, not to strikeout the most batters. And until that changes, I will count wins and losses. I also believe the truly great pitchers pitched to the scoreboard with the real goal in mind."

Oh, no.

Wins are a TEAM accomplishment, Jon! If a pitcher throws a one-hitter, but that one hit is a solo home run and his team gets shut out, is he a piece of shit because he didn't win the game? No! He's probably a great pitcher on a terrible team! And who was even talking about strikeouts? If you want to throw those out, can we drag Nolan Ryan into this? His winning percentage was even lower than Blyleven's (and so was his ERA+). And talk about compiling... dude won his 300th game at age 43! Throw that asshole out of the Hall of Fame!

Oh, wait. You'd never advocate for that, because Nolan Ryan won 300 games. Even though his 162-game average was a 14-13 record (Blyleven: 14-12).

Also, as I already said, Joe Sheehan disproved the pitching to the score bullshit. Just because you believe it doesn't make it true, you idiot. And really, let's say it is true - it still just verifies the idea that Jack Morris' teams scored a lot more runs than Bert Blyleven's teams. And the one year that Jack Morris was on a really shitty team that never scored runs for him, he went 6-14. Because he couldn't "pitch to the score," because that's a fucking myth. If it was true, surely 34-year-old Tigers ace Jack Morris could have pitched to the score by becoming dominant like 1972 Steve Carlton. Oh wait! He didn't! His ERA was 4.86 and he only won six games! Because pitching to the score is a fucking MYTH.

"Some will say Blyleven was handicapped by playing for a string of horrific teams. But his many teams combined for a record of slightly over .500. For the most part, they were mediocre. While his career mark of 287-250 is clearly better than his teams' overall record, it isn't that much better."

Covered this last time. It was about as much better as Morris' was over his teams' win percentage. Seriously, do you even look at this shit?

Again, I know it seems like I'm picking on Morris. But the whole point is that Heyman is sure Morris belongs in, and equally sure that Blyleven belongs out. And yet his reasons are AWFUL.

"Clearly, I don't grade on stats alone, but it is interesting to note that while Blyleven never led the league in wins or ERA he did lead the league in losses, earned runs allowed and home runs allowed. (He did lead once in strikeouts.)"

And this again. Jack Morris: never led the league in ERA. Also led in losses and ER allowed. Gave up more homers per 162 games than Blyleven over their careers. You are a fucking moron who knows nothing about anything.

Why is Jon Heyman allowed to write about baseball when he is willfully ignorant?