Bert Blyleven -vs- Tom Glavine

[VolsFan4Ever-11]

Originally Posted by Vercingetorix

Did you ever actually see Blyleven pitch? He was a lot like Don Sutton -- a good #3 starter who hung around forever. Glavine was one of the top 10 starters in the league every year for most of his career.

If you're going to go by the numbers -- well, their ERAs were basically the same, once you normalize for their respective league averages (career ERA+ for both of them: 118). Blyleven was 37 games over .500; Glavine was 102 games over .500. Blyleven finished 3rd in Cy Young voting twice and 4th once; Glavine won two Cy Youngs, finished second twice, and finished third twice. No idea why anybody would pick Blyleven.

If you haven't noticed this guy hates pretty much everything about the Braves! That's my only guess why.

[volger]

Originally Posted by Vercingetorix

Did you ever actually see Blyleven pitch? He was a lot like Don Sutton -- a good #3 starter who hung around forever. Glavine was one of the top 10 starters in the league every year for most of his career.

If you're going to go by the numbers -- well, their ERAs were basically the same, once you normalize for their respective league averages (career ERA+ for both of them: 118). Blyleven was 37 games over .500; Glavine was 102 games over .500. Blyleven finished 3rd in Cy Young voting twice and 4th once; Glavine won two Cy Youngs, finished second twice, and finished third twice. No idea why anybody would pick Blyleven.

Because he played for some pretty crappy teams that didn't give him the support that Glavine's teams did.

[Vercingetorix]

Originally Posted by volger

Because he played for some pretty crappy teams that didn't give him the support that Glavine's teams did.

I'm not exactly devoted to W/L records, but 100 wins over .500 is 100 wins over .500. But the clincher is the Cy Young voting. The guys who were paid to watch baseball thought Glavine was one of the best pitchers in the league over a long period of time. Blyleven's contemporary observers didn't think nearly as highly of him.

[005]

Originally Posted by Vercingetorix

Did you ever actually see Blyleven pitch? He was a lot like Don Sutton -- a good #3 starter who hung around forever. Glavine was one of the top 10 starters in the league every year for most of his career.

If you're going to go by the numbers -- well, their ERAs were basically the same, once you normalize for their respective league averages (career ERA+ for both of them: 118). Blyleven was 37 games over .500; Glavine was 102 games over .500. Blyleven finished 3rd in Cy Young voting twice and 4th once; Glavine won two Cy Youngs, finished second twice, and finished third twice. No idea why anybody would pick Blyleven.

I was just pointing out the numbers. I like Glavine way way more, and actually thought his numbers would be a lot better.

Era+ seems to be the stat that matters the most out of those regarding how the men pitched. And, as you said, that was even.

I'm too young to know enough, which is why I went to stats. The stats certainly don't say, "Glavine, hands down."

[Vercingetorix]

Originally Posted by Dbake005

I was just pointing out the numbers. I like Glavine way way more, and actually thought his numbers would be a lot better.

Era+ seems to be the stat that matters the most out of those regarding how the men pitched. And, as you said, that was even.

I'm too young to know enough, which is why I went to stats.

You could tighten down the screws on ERA+ and argue that they were basically equal pitchers and I'd have no way to refute that, objectively. You can make a case for Glavine based on Cy Young voting and being 100 games over .500. The one thing I don't think there's any case for is arguing that Blyleven was actually better.

[005]

I'm fine with that. The stats are far less lopsided than the insta-reacting of this thread was.

They seemed to be fairly similar overall, with Blyleven having better K/9 and BB/9 numbers. Got it done in different ways. Can't really go too far wrong with either of the hall of famers.

[005]

And I am all for hearing about how guys were in the past from a fan's perspective. I am a young guy, so when comparing the two, I went to stats that I value and put stock in. Both viewpoints are important. I am old enough to have seen some of the really good Glavine and none of Bert.

[trevols81]

Originally Posted by Scotty's Flat Top

Lots of pitchers pitch their ass off, I personally do not know of anyone else who has won over 200 games and saved over 150. While putting up over 3000 punch outs. Plus Smoltz career era is over a half run lower. Smoltz all day

Anytime both pitchers go into extras with no runs scored it is a classic pitching matchup, regardless of reference. I would take Smoltzy all day but Morris won the game and the Series.

He gets the edge for that game and that game alone.

Smoltz>>>>>Morris. Who was no slouch.

[trevols81]

Originally Posted by Dbake005

And I am all for hearing about how guys were in the past from a fan's perspective. I am a young guy, so when comparing the two, I went to stats that I value and put stock in. Both viewpoints are important. I am old enough to have seen some of the really good Glavine and none of Bert.

How old are you? I only ask because Glavine's best days came well before he pitched for the ****in' Mets.

[Vercingetorix]

Originally Posted by Dbake005

And I am all for hearing about how guys were in the past from a fan's perspective. I am a young guy, so when comparing the two, I went to stats that I value and put stock in. Both viewpoints are important. I am old enough to have seen some of the really good Glavine and none of Bert.

The Cy Young voting pretty much encapsulates what their reputations were: Glavine was regarded as one of the best in the league year in year out, and Blyleven was regarded as good but not great. Blyleven's reputation was certainly hurt by the kind of pitcher he was, which was the archetypal junkballer. Glavine might have worked everything off the changeup, but Blyleven was regarded as basically one step up from a knuckleballer. It's hard to get the press to take you that seriously as a pitcher when all you throw is slop. And you pitch in Cleveland.

It's not the slam dunk that people think it is, but there's no question that everybody who watched Glavine pitch thought he was better than the people who watched Blyleven pitch. I saw them both, and just to pull a number out of the air, I'd say Blyleven was 90 percent as good as Glavine was.

[005]

Originally Posted by trevols81

How old are you? I only ask because Glavine's best days came well before he pitched for the ****in' Mets.

21... and yeah, I know this.

[trevols81]

Originally Posted by Dbake005

21... and yeah, I know this.

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound condescending.

But alot of the younger fans don't even remember him pitching for the Braves. Much less the good years.

[TBrown]

Originally Posted by Dbake005

21... and yeah, I know this.

Wanna trade?

[005]

Originally Posted by TBrown

Wanna trade?

Whaddaya mean

[005]

Originally Posted by trevols81

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound condescending.

But alot of the younger fans don't even remember him pitching for the Braves. Much less the good years.

I was a big Braves fan when I was a lot younger, so I certainly remember. Not every bit of it. But I definitely wasn't thinking Mets.