Pedro by Pedro Martinez and Michael Silverman

Photo: the hardcover, from its Goodreads page

Better-written than usual for this type of book, Pedro nonetheless continues a string of multi-millionaires complaining of lack of respect and then throwing their teammates and colleagues under the bus. Mike Napoli, for example, may wake up one morning, read a page of this, and wonder WTF?

It is well-written and it has a better narrative flow than is usual for the genre. Michael Silverman has created a structure of Pedro's voice, narrative voice (certainly not Pedro's), author voice (same) and then enmeshes direct quotes from others, like you're reading a screenplay of a documentary. It doesn't sound like it works (and, sporadically, it doesn't), but overall it does work and you read on.

You get the childhood background, but without the grittiness that you think the self-proclaimed poverty would demand. It's smoothed over when maybe it shouldn't have been, but then this isn't really a documentary, it just sounds like one. You get the beginning, with the Dodgers, then the other teams: the Expos, the Red Sox, the Mets and the Phillies. (Did you remember that Pedro's last start was in the 2009 World Series against the Yanks? I did, but it seemed surreal, then and now.) You get the typical beef about the management: the Dodgers and Sox especially.

And this is the first of two things that made me rate this a three rather than a four: it's hypocritical about two things, so glaring you wonder they weren't amended. The first: Every Sox fan knows Pedro's last game was Game 4 of the 2004 World Series. Immediately he let it be known that he wanted a 3-4 year contract, and the Sox wanted to give him the shortest one possible, a year, or two, at most. That was known before the season ended and for as long as it took for him to get a guaranteed 3-4 year deal with the Mets. And it was also known that his shoulder and arm were frayed. More time on the DL; more injuries; more babying at the end...All of this was known. And it was just as well-known that the Sox were right: Pedro had one good year left for the Mets, and then the rest of that contract he mostly spent on the DL. If the Sox had given him a 3-4 year deal, they were going to eat 2-3 years of it. They said that out loud, and they were right. If you were Sox ownership, do you make that deal? The Mets did, as they candidly said, because they had a newer ballpark and the fan base was dwindling, and they had to bring in a name.

The hypocritical part is that this book whines about a lack of respect from the Sox about all this--and then shows in following chapters that they were right! He acknowledges he lasted just one more good season (a very good 2005) and then had one injury after another. The 2009 season with Philadelphia was a half-season for him--he was 5-1 and basically started in September. The rest of the year he was the same place as the previous three--on and off (mostly on) the DL. He narrates all this without saying the Sox were right, but clearly shows in his narration that the Sox were right. He calls it a lack of respect that the Sox weren't willing to give him a long guaranteed contract and then eat 75%-80% of it. But of course that's not what businesses do. And the casual fan could see his physical regression in 2003 and 2004. It was obvious. I wouldn't have given him that contract, either. (He's made hundreds of millions from baseball and endorsements, so don't feel bad for him.)

The other blatant example of hypocrisy is how he states all book long that he was misunderstood, that he was mislabeled, that he didn't throw at batters intentionally, that he wasn't a headhunter--and then, often in the same sentence or paragraph, admits that he hit someone on purpose, and that he often told the player he would do so, and then does it. He threatened players verbally with it all the time, then hit the player--and then says he's misunderstood, that he's not a headhunter. This is so obvious in the book that you shake your head.

But, again, that's what these books do, right? They complain about money, about disrespect, about how the media screws them, all that same stuff all the time. It makes you yearn for another Ball Four, and to truly appreciate how direct and honest it was. Say what you want about Bouton, but he was well aware of how not a God he was, about how lucky he was to do what he did and to make the money he did, and he had actual thoughts to say, and didn't complain too much about management or anything else. Yes, he was traded for Dooley Womack, but he never says he shouldn't have been.

Chris Sale to Boston for Yoan Moncada, Kopech and Two Others; 2 Other Deals

Photos: The front of my Chris Sale autographed 2010 Bowman Sterling Prospect Autographs card (It's got an 8 surface because the autograph is on a thin, transparent sticker that's put on the card). The back of the card shows that Beckett graded the autograph a 10, which is perfect. So a 9 card and a 10 autograph. Not bad.

Read about the Red Sox / White Sox trade at this link if you're not inundated with it already.

In a nutshell (which some are saying Sale is, especially after he ripped up some White Sox throwback uniforms last year), this is a trade for a power lefty with the best ERA in the American League over the past five years. Visit his baseball-reference.com page here.

Here's why the Sox are excited to have Sale:

--All-time: #3 in K / 9, 2nd in Ks per walk and #10 in WHIP, all awesome control and power stats.

--He's only 27.

--He's team-controlled until the end of 2019. The last 2 years are team option years, for $12.5 million and $13.5 million each year. That's really cheap considering his ability. (Consider that Pablo Sandoval got paid $17 million last year not to play at all.)

--He supplants Price as the ace and now gives Boston perhaps the best 1-2-3 punch in baseball, with Sale, Price and (2016 Cy Young Award Winner) Porcello starting the first three games of any postseason series.

--He averages over 200 innings a year and has finished 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th in Cy Young voting in the past five years. Also a 5-time All-Star, each of the past five years.

--He's led the league in complete games, Ks, and Ks per nine innings in the past few years.

--He's also led the league in hit batsmen the past few years. Why's that a good thing? Because it proves he pitches inside, and he pitches angry. (Remind you of anyone? Answer below.) That's good, because with half his starts at Fenway, and the Green Monster just 310 feet away, he has to pitch inside. He already does.

--You'd rather have a great thing, which Sale is, than 4 possibly great things. Think: Rose and Pavano for Pedro. (Another guy who pitched angry and inside, and hit a few batters. But he's in the HOF now.)

--The blue chip in the trade was Moncada, who the Sox spent $80+ million on, including a fine for signing a foreign player for so much money. Then he went 0-9 with 9 whiffs, looked terrible doing it, and seemed lost in the field. I saw him play a game in Portland last summer: he whiffed 5 out of 5 times, and looked terrible there, in Double-A. I also heard today that the Cuban League, where he (and Puig) excelled, don't test for PEDs, and that everyone comes out of there looking like King Kong. Then those guys (again, like Puig) come to the majors, and they're overmatched. He could be the next Robinson Cano ("Don'tcha know"), but I'm betting against it.

--The rotation now looks like this: Sale, Price, Porcello, Eduardo Rodriguez (who has shown flashes of excellence--and boorishness), and Drew Pomeranz, who with some rest may be the guy they hoped they were getting. (And thanks, Hayes, for reminding me of his existence this afternoon. An unforgivable mental blip.) If he falters, Clay Buchholz and / or Steven Wright will step in. Wright showed brilliance last year before he was injured (perhaps permanently) and Buchholz may be the only #5 guy in the league who has pitched a no-hitter and won 17 games, twice. Perhaps the best starting rotation in the majors, on paper. And Buchholz did well in relief last year, too.

Here's why it's a slight cause for concern:

--Sale's the guy who ripped up the very, very ugly White Sox throwback uniforms last year. Literally, he took scissors to all of the uniforms in the clubhouse, costing his team thousands and earning him a team suspension. Not to mention the ire of the organization. So he comes with ace stuff, but also a bit of an attitude. But wasn't that said about Pedro as well?

--Though he'll be just 28 in March, at the start of Spring Training, I'm a little concerned about all the innings he's pitched. He throws 95-98, for 200 innings a year the past 5-7 years. That may add up. Then again, Price has pitched more innings, and after a poor start, he finished very well. Plus, there are guys like Ryan, Clemens, Johnson, etc. who had no problem. We'll see.

--Moncada might be the real deal. Maybe not. But Kopech could also be the real deal, as he also throws 100+ MPH and has three plus pitches. Diaz, the forgotten man, also throws 100 and has a great upside. I'm not as familiar with Basabe, but it is very possible that the first 3 guys will become All-Stars, Kopech as a starter and Diaz as a closer. I'm betting they'll make it further than Moncada. And, again, I'll take a definite over four maybees, even three very high-ceiling, scary maybees.

But neither Pavano nor Rose turned out to be Pedro Martinez, right? Not even combined.

P.S.--In case you missed it, Mitch Moreland (think Napoli, but weaker on offense and Gold Glove on defense) just signed with Boston, pending a physical. This puts Hanley Ramirez at DH, and he's a good option at 1st during interleague play.

P.P.S.--And Travis Shaw and a few prospects you've never heard of are going to Milwaukee for Tyler Thornburg, a proven 8th-inning power set-up guy with closing experience. If Carson Smith is healthy, the Sox may have the best 7th, 8th and 9th guys in baseball--and a safety net if they tire of Kimbrel's act, as I already have.

Sox 4 Games Out on 6.26.16

Photo: from the great Sox/Giants game on 6.7.16. This is just after Chris Young contorted himself by somehow moving his arm out of the way, mid-slide, to avoid a tag by Brandon Belt. Ortiz was out at first, but by staying out of the double play, the tying run scored.

So it has become obvious that the Sox will not contend in the American League East without some drastic changes. Despite the awesomeness of last month, one 30-day span does not make a whole season, and the offense could not have possibly kept up that incredible pace.

In fact:

--no offense will literally score 6+ runs every game, especially when the starting pitching puts it into a deep hole right away. I think this offense could be better than it is--and not leave the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth without scoring--but it won't if it feels pressure to do too much in every at-bat. A player will hit better when there's no stress or pressure on him--but there is pressure on him if his starter has given up a few runs in the first or second inning already. That's why the Sox won so many games last month: they scored in the first inning constantly and put pressure on the other team. Now other teams are doing that to the Sox.

--and that's not the fault of the offense. Sure, this offense has had some blips, especially the White Sox / Wright game, which actually was the offense's fault, as Wright pitched 9 great innings. But that was an anomaly. (And the White Sox left the bases loaded twice without scoring while losing a later game.) Simply put, the bad starting pitching has put more pressure on the offense, which tightens the batters up and makes them worse.

--if the starting pitching improves, the offense will improve.

So how to make the starting pitching improve?

The face and stats make it clear that the answer isn't this guy:

(Photo from my own camera. Saw this on my DVRed game on NESN and I couldn't resist.)

So who is the answer?

Well, I was in Pawtucket today, to watch who may be the only answer there: Henry Owens. Sadly, he continues to do the same thing: 2-0 and 3-1 on everybody, thereby becoming predictable and giving up lots of hits and walks and throwing too many pitches, and he's out of the game before the end of the 5th. (See: Eduardo Rodriguez and Clay Buchholz.)

He's not the answer, and won't be. He's been given a few years of chances and he hasn't changed. This pains me to say, as I have an autographed and slabbed RC of his, but it is what it is. He won't be any better than he is. I hope he proves me wrong in his September call-up, but he won't. Again. This is especially bad because his performances don't even make him good trade bait. He might be enticing for someone who wants to deal a reliever, or some bench help, but you won't get starting pitching for him.

So who can bring a top-flight starter?

Well, Bogaerts, Betts or Bradley could, but no way do you trade any of these guys. They'll bring butts to the stands even if the Sox aren't making the playoffs. These guys are All-Star caliber core players for many years, as they're all young and cheap. None of them are making more than $600,000 this year. (As opposed to Sandoval, who's getting $17 million this year not to play at all.) In baseball economics, they are very cheap, and will be until 2020. So they stay. So who?

Nobody wants Rusney Castillo, of course. He hit a seeing-eye single today and made a nice running catch, his back to the plate--but he also threw to third when he had no shot at the guy, thereby allowing the batter to get to second base. That reminded me of Tom Hanks in A League of Their Own, who told a sobbing woman she can't throw to third and allow another runner (the tying run in the movie) to reach second base. If he knew that, wouldn't a star of the Cuban League, who's been playing ball all of his adult life? That's the kind of basic knowledge Jerry Remy said Castillo didn't have, and he said it last year. Castillo is a $70+ million waste of a Triple-A roster spot. That especially sucks because I have his rookie card in gem 10 condition. (Anybody want it?)

I would've said a package of Swihart (who can hit, and play left and catch decently) and Brock Holt and Rutledge may have been enough to send to the cash-strapped A's (Billy Beane loves cheap versatility) for Rich Hill, but all of those guys are injured, and nobody's desperate enough to take three guys just off the DL. (By the way, check out how well Hill is doing, and see the blog I wrote at the end of last year, saying the Sox were crazy to let him go, and for nothing!) Maybe they can get better and play really well before the Trade Deadline at the end of next month, but that's a lot to ask.

That package isn't enough for Sonny Gray, but I'm not interested in him, anyway. Though Hill is in his mid-30s, he's a resurging junkballer, and those guys can pitch into their early-40s. I think Sonny Gray is damaged goods and is looking at his best days in the rearview mirror.

It's a long shot, but I'd be willing to part with Hanley Ramirez, but he's not cheap, so the A's wouldn't want him. But how about him and all of the aforementioned guys, and a lot of money, to the Marlins for Jose Fernandez? Ramirez likes Miami, but they've probably tired of him there. Remember when the Sox traded him there for Josh Beckett and a throw-in named Mike Lowell? That trade won 2007.

Well, I hate to say it, but for a #1 or #2 starter, you're going to have to deal away Andrew Benintendi and / or Yoan Moncada. Certainly these guys--and even one of these guys--are too good to part with for the likes of Rich Hill, but they are good enough chips to get a solid #2 or even a #1 on a really bad team. I'd rather trade these maybes than the definite Yeses of Bogaerts, Betts and Bradley any day. Remember how Brian Rose and Carl Pavano were the best young starters in all of baseball, and the Sox traded them both for Pedro Martinez? Do you remember that local fans at the time were in an uproar? But how did that turn out?

Unfortunately here, it's a lot easier to trade starting pitching for starting pitching, than it is to trade an infielder and an outfielder for starting pitching, but it's still doable.  Benintendi and Moncada are thought of so highly in baseball that they could swing a #1. If the Sox are going to land one, these guys (or, hopefully, just one of these guys, and don't ask me which one) are going to have to be flipped. It's worth doing, especially for a good pitcher who's still decently young, and under some control.

If the Sox were to turn them both over for Fernandez--who the Marlins are rumored to be dealing--that would be a helluva thing. They're cash-strapped, too, and certainly a combination of Benintendi and / or Moncada, plus Hanley Ramirez, Swihart and either Holt or Rutledge would get Fernandez from Miami. Maybe throw Christian Vazquez, too, as much as I like his defense. But he's never going to hit, and I'm not as happy with his pitch-calling and strike-framing as others are.

Anyway, to get a #1 or a #2, I would try to do these.

Until then, the starters need to walk fewer, keep their pitches down, get ahead in the count and stop being so predictable. The offense needs to hit with RISP and do all those little things that haven't been done consistently since that game mentioned in the beginning of this (long) blog entry.

By the way, notice how the slide started when the Sox lost Carson Smith for the season, and Brock Holt for over 6 weeks? Brock Holt is the player the sabermetricians don't have a stat for, but he gels this offense, and does every single little thing very well. I saw him today, too. He got on base 3 times.

Time to call him up.

My 2015 Hall of Fame Ballot

I'm not eligible to vote, of course, but if I were, I would vote for:

The three first-time no-brainers:

1. Pedro Martinez (highest peak-value pitcher of my, or any, generation; best two consecutive seasons ever; unbelievable when considering that MLB was at its offensive peak his entire career; best ERA+ ever; one year he and Clemens finished 1-2 in ERA--and Clemens' ERA was about two runs per nine innings higher that year; Red Sox personnel who saw both Martinez and Clemens pitch say unanimously that Pedro was a greater, more dominant pitcher)
2. Randy Johnson (won over 300 games; #2 Ks lifetime--and famously gave John Kruk nightmares)
3. John Smoltz (though I wish he'd remained a starter; his greatness is hard to statistically prove, but I saw his whole career, and it's there nonetheless)

A few who MLB and the Commissioner have never excluded from HOF voting because they have never, ever, not once, been proven by MLB to have used performance-enhancing drugs.  And, the media is not of a higher moral caliber, AND it's the Commissioner's job to discipline or banish ballplayers (see: Pete Rose and ARod), not the HOF voters / print media.  Therefore:

4.  Roger Clemens (statistically one of the top-3 pitchers of all-time, with Walter Johnson and Cy Young; struck out 20 batters, in one game, twice--ten years apart)
5.  Barry Bonds (statistically the best ballplayer ever, if you forget Babe Ruth would've also been in the Hall as a pitcher; the only player I've ever seen consistently intentionally walked with the bases loaded; the only player to come close to walking over 150+ times a year, every year, and who actually walked over 200 times a year--and more than once.  Bonds and Clemens are amongst the few players ever to rate amongst the top-5 all-time in peak value and career value.  We have never seen any one player effect a single game as much, as frequently, as Bonds did)
6.  Craig Biggio (quietly kept from the Hall so far because of very quiet PED whispers; see above, and 3,000 hits and GGs at three different positions don't lie)
7.  Mike Piazza (mentioned in the same breath as Yogi Berra, Roy Campanella and Johnny Bench as the best offensive catcher of all-time--though I think I could steal second off him, even now.  The stats show that Piazza is the best hitting catcher of all-time; why he wasn't made a first baseman or left fielder much earlier in his career, thereby saving him from at least three career-ending concussions, is a mystery)
8.  Jeff Bagwell (with hesitation, but a .297 career average, with 449 career homers, 1500+ career RBIs, 1401 career BBs, and a career .400+ OBP and a career .500+ Slugging % all mean he had one of the all-time best slugging careers--and he was a GG first baseman, too; one of the highest career-value players of all-time)

And two who are vastly underrated, if you look at their career stats versus the average HOF starting pitcher.  In short, these two are slightly--or better than slightly--greater than the average HOF starting pitcher.  In other words, they're Hall of Famers:

9.  Curt Schilling (and not just for the bloody-sock game; one of the few pitchers to be one of the all-time best for three different teams: Phillies, Diamondbacks and Red Sox.  And he was considered borderline or slightly better than borderline great while still active.  #1 all-time, Ks per walk, amongst starters.  He won't get too many votes in RI, or from people he pissed off with his mouth, but...)
10. Mike Mussina (career stats are better than 40 of the 59 starting pitchers in the Hall.  These two are the two bulldogs of their generation--though Mussina was much quieter about it, possibly to his detriment--but are also vastly underrated considering the offensively-explosive American League East that they spent much of their careers in.  Not to mention the entire offensive juggernaut all of MLB was during their whole careers, where ballparks were like pinball machines)

A few other comments:

Trammel / Morris

Many writers have put Alan Trammel on their ballots.  This cannot, of course, be taken seriously, especially with Jack Morris still knocking on the door.  To include his name and not Morris's is a travesty, though I am not a fan of Morris as a person.  But when I think of a HOF player from the early-to-mid 80s Tigers, I think Jack Morris, not Alan Trammel.  Plus, his Game 7 shutout...Jack Morris fits definition-B of a HOFer, to a T--Amongst the greatest at his position for any 10-year stretch.  (Like Jim Rice, 1975-1986; Rice fits that to a T as well, and is not in--and should not be in--for any other reason.)  I'll put it to you like this: Who won the most games in the 1980s?  Jack Morris.  The Tigers and the Twins do not win the World Series without him.  I would've put Morris on my list, but you can only have 10, and the above 10 are more deserving.  Maybe next year.

Tim Raines

His name has also been mentioned on many ballots.  This is a surprise, yet not.  Had he not played his career alongside Rickey Henderson, he'd already be in the Hall.  Well, and if he hadn't slid across home plate and shattered the vial of crack cocaine in his back pocket.  So, if I have it right, voters would keep Bonds and Clemens out of the Hall because of their never-proven (Did they use?  Of course.  But in what court was that proven, besides the Court of Public Opinion?) use of steroids, but Raines should slide in despite his very obvious use of crack cocaine?  Wasn't crack cocaine on the list of banned substances as well?  Having said that, he's arguably a worthy HOFer.  But not this year.

Fred McGriff

Has essentially the same qualifications as I mentioned for Bagwell, but less so.  But still: 2,490 hits, with 493 HRs and 1550 RBIs, with a .284 career average, a .377 career OBP, and a .500+ Slugging %.  The line I draw here is a) Bagwell has to get in before McGriff; b) Bagwell was a GGer at 1B and McGriff wasn't; and c) Bagwell was considered borderline-to-better great while still playing, and McGriff wasn't.  He was never even considered to be great at all during his career, nor even the best on his team.  Having said that, if McGriff had gotten 10 more hits and 7 more Homers, you could say he was a .285 hitter with 500 homers and 1,500 RBIs, which would get him in, sooner or later.  I'm not keeping him out because of 10 singles and 7 homers.  But not this year.

Carlos Delgado

See: Fred McGriff.  I'd take the Crime Dawg over Delgado in a pinch.

Lee Smith

Here's where a long career can vex lesser voters.  His overall career numbers have piled up, but a pile-up of Yugos doesn't mean you have a lot of value.  You just have a big pile-up.  To be blunt: I saw Lee Smith's entire career, and he wasn't great.  He wasn't lights-out, as a voter said today.  Rivera and The Eck were lights-out closers, year in and year out, and for their careers.  Trevor Hoffman, Uehara, and maybe Lee Smith had one or two or three great years (Uehara had half of a great year and turned it into a World Series ring), but that doesn't make them great.  I turned away from games (though not Sox games, as Boston hit Rivera well) when Big Mo came in.  But I never turned away when Lee Smith came in, especially when he pitched with the Sox.  I felt teams always had a decent chance against him.  A good pitcher will save the vast majority (80% to 85%) of games he pitches in, especially for just three to five batters.  And that's what Smith did.  Makes him good, maybe even very good, and maybe he had a couple of great seasons, but that's not the Hall of Fame to me.  Rivera and The Eck didn't walk too many (they're amongst the best all-time, for relievers, at Ks per walk) and they didn't give up too many hits per nine.  Lee Smith did both.  With a very high 1.25 WHIP.

Hall of Fame: Bert Blyleven

I'm glad Blyleven was elected to the HOF for many reasons, but mostly because he's the poster child for sabermetrics.  (The importance of sabermetrics will be the subject of another entry.)  His stats, superficially below the Hall's standards for so long, now show why those standards were superficial to begin with.

Were the writers put off by his 287 wins--13 wins shy of the magical 300?  Were the writers that stickly?  300 wins, or else?  Even without the knowledge of WAR and other newer sabermetric standards (some of which I am honestly ignorant of myself), these writers knew what ERA was, right?  And WHIPs?  (That's walks + hits divided by innings pitched.  Essentially this shows you the number of runners allowed on base by the pitcher per inning.  Statistically, this absolves good pitchers who work for bad defensive teams.  It also shows you the occasional pitcher who has high WHIPs but low ERAs.  How can that be?  Answer: He pitches well in the clutch, when he has to.  Think Dice-K from a few years ago.)  I don't doubt that this was actually an issue early on in the voting.  But how could it have been as the years went by?  287 wins means he probably should have had 300, so why didn't he?

Look at his stats from 1971 to 1974.  In order, his won/lost records were 16-15, 17-17, 20-17, 17-17.  His ERAs were 2.81, 2.73, 2.52 and 2.66.  Here you have the definitive "problem" of his career.  In those 4 years, he was among the league leaders in wins and ERA each year, yet, all told, he won only 4 more games than he lost.  How can a pitcher win so many games while losing so many games, and have good ERAs?  Simple: He pitched for teams who did not score for him, or did not field well for him.  This is odd, because (I'll have to research this) but the Twins at the time had Killebrew, Oliva and Carew and Olivo, didn't they?  They should've scored well, and often.  Maybe they just didn't for him, or they dropped the ball.  (sorry.)  That's odd, too, because Blyleven was a strikeout/flyball pitcher.  Hmmm...I'll have to come back to this.  The point is, though, that with a swing of 3 games a year--easily possible with his ERAs--then he's got a 19-win season and three consecutive 20-win seasons.  And 299 wins.  Pick up one more in all the years he pitched, you got your 300 wins, and your established peak value.  With those, there would not be a HOF discussion about him.  This also points out that win totals are often a lousy indicator of a pitcher's value.  With King Felix's Cy Young last year, this will be forever cemented in the minds of the voters.  He pitched for a lousy team that was one of the worst all-time scoring runs, and so he won just one more game than he lost.  But the voters, more savvy than in the past, correctly looked past that and gave him the Cy.  Imagine pitching for that team for most of your career--though not that bad a team--and you'd have a career much like Blyleven's.  Had Blyleven pitched for the A's or Yanks from 1971-1974, he would have easily won at least 22 games each year.  A quick glance at a Bill James Abstract shows that his teams were well below .500 teams in those years.  In 1973, he went 20-17 for a winning % of .541.  Not great on the surface, but spectacular when you see that his team played .488 without him.  In 1984, while with Cleveland, he went 19-7, for a .731 winning %, and the team played .412 ball without him.  That's an extreme example, of course, but it shows you what we're dealing with.  By the end of the 1986 season, he had 21.4 more wins above the rest of his team, according to James's Abstract published in 1988.  In other words, as mediocre as his .534 winning percentage is, it is far better than the combined winning % of the teams he played for.  In short, he played really well for some really bad teams.  (A quick glance at Nolan Ryan's stats shows you that, had he pitched for the Yanks for most of his career, rather than some very bad California and Texas teams, he would have won close to 400 games.)

To further prove this point, a few quick things I learned while gleaning other people's articles and blogs:

Joe Posnanski, a sportswriter for SI, points out that Blyleven won more 1-0 games than anyone else in the last 90 years.  Why?  Because he had to.  Blyleven, I mean.  At a guess, you'd have to imagine that he also lost more close games--or gotten a no-decision--than any pitcher in the last 90 years.

He's 13th all-time amongst pitchers in WAR.  This means that if you removed him from the roster, and replaced him with an average pitcher, that pitcher wouldn't be able to win as many games for that particular team than Blyleven did.  It takes a special pitcher to win for bad teams, and essentially Blyleven was the 13th best pitcher at doing that, all-time.  As a point of reference, Steve Carlton won 27 games and a Cy Young for a last-place team one year.  Blyleven (without pitching exactly as well as Carlton, in one year or for a career) did that almost every year of his career.

The obvious stats:

His 287 wins are 27th best, all-time.

His 3,701 Ks are 5th, all-time.

His 60 shutouts are 9th, all-time.  Since 1966, only Ryan and Seaver had more.  These last two things highlight another essential aspect of a HOF career: dominance.  If you strike 'em out, and you shut 'em out, you're dominating them.  If they can't hit you at all, and they can't score off you at all, you're dominating.  He was the 5th best and the 9th best at doing that.  Ever.

His 241 complete games is 91st all-time.  Not so hot on the surface, but from 1970 to the present, that'll be in the top ten.

He's a ROY winner, a two-time World Series winner, and he threw a no-hitter.

In 1985, he went 17-16 but led the league in games started, complete games, innings pitched, shutouts and strikeouts.  Again, if you finish what you start, and pitch more than anyone else, and they can't hit you or score off you, that's dominance.  He completed 24 games that year.  No one since 2000 has finished more than 10.  In 1985, when no one but Bill James was aware of these other benchmarks we've discussed, the Cy Young voters still looked past his won/lost record and he finished 3rd in the voting.

I could go on, but we've both probably had enough.  Why am I taking this so seriously?  First, it's very clear to me, and has been for a long time, before I ever knew anything about these other sabermetric benchmarks, that if you've pitched more innings than most, and you've struck out more than most, and you've shut down opposing teams more than most, then you're better than most.  And, if you're better than most, you should be in the HOF.  I knew this 14 years ago.  This is simple logic, and you don't have to be a sabermetrician to very clearly see this.

It is frustrating when people, in baseball and in real life, have a certain bias towards what they're looking for to the exclusion of everything else.  It is true that he doesn't have 300 wins.  It is true that he won 20 games just once.  It is true that he doesn't have a very obvious showing of peak value.  It is true that his peak years, statistically, may have come early, and since they came for a bad team, the stats they created don't look great on the surface.

But I hate on-the-surface thinking.  It annoys me--and often angers me--that sometimes that's the best that most people can do.  There's a lack of long-term, big-picture thinking here, of seeing the forest through the trees.  Blyleven wasn't the beautiful woman you can easily pick out of a crowd.  He's the beautiful woman who wears baggy sweatshirts who slips through the cracks of the minds of superficial thinkers.  He's the actually-attractive woman at the end of an 80s or 90s movie who the lunkheaded guy finally sees for who she is.  He's the guy who pitched for mediocre teams in the 70s and 80s that were not in NY or CA and therefore not on television most of the time for everyone to see.

He's the person you actually have to think about to appreciate.  And it took baseball's best 14 years to be able to do it.  And without a rabid fan base of sabermetricians and internet supporters, they wouldn't have.  He's not Pedro; he might not transcend eras like Pedro did.  But I tire of the articles and blogs today that make it seem like you have to be an expert in theoretical quantum physics to understand the numbers well enough to appreciate him.  It isn't so.  You just have to think.  A little.  Why is that so hard?

Sox 2011--Yo, Adrian!!!

Photo: Me, in front of the Green Monster, during Picnic in the Park a couple of years ago.

Well, so here it is.  Gonzalez is a Gold Glove at first, who transplants Youkilis, who was Gold Glove at first, and moves him to third, where he may actually be a little better.  So both corner positions are Gold Glovers, which you had last year before the injuries.  Under the plan beforehand, Martinez would've been your catcher/1B, and, though a good hitter, he is defensively challenged at both positions.  Youk and Gonzalez are clearly better at 1B defensively, and are both clearly better at the plate.  So Martinez is out of the picture at first.  Now, do you pay him 4 years for $50 million to be your full-time catcher and occasional DH?  In other words, do you pay him $12.5 million for the next four years to just catch for you, knowing that you'll have to give him about 30-35 games off, minimum, per year to save the wear and tear so he can be an effective hitter?  With his questionable defense and play calling, knowing he won't be at first or DH?  No way!  If you could put him at first on his days off from catching, maybe, but even that's a stretch.  I'd want to keep him, but not for that money.  And you clearly have to get Gonzalez if he's available, because he's a better hitter and defender than Martinez.  So, once you have all this figured out, Martinez is gone.  Fine.  A shame, and you get nothing now for Justin Masterson--who I was never a fan of anyway--but that's okay with me, too.

The biggest shame out of all this is that you lose Adrian Beltre and Casey Kelly, the latter of which I think can be a future ace of a staff.  But as Brian Rose and Carl Pavano (remember those guys?  the twin sure-things who both fizzled?  Pavano's still pitching, but he clearly stuck it to the Yanks) taught you, one definite is better than one maybe, so getting Gonzalez again is a no-brainer.  The other two prospects in the deal are also potential very good players, but that's why you draft such guys--to help your team on the field (Youk; Pedroia; Papelbon) or to help you in trades (Kelly and the other two).  Remember that Pavano and Rose got you Pedro Martinez.  That worked out pretty well, right?  And if Gonzalez can be 30/100 in San Diego, in a terrible hitters park, he can be 35/120, minimum, in Fenway, and the American League in general.

So then there's Adrian Beltre, who clearly has a perfect swing--down to one knee--at Fenway, and is a Gold Glove at 3rd base, too.  And a 35/120 guy himself.  (Youk is another 120 RBI guy, with fewer home runs.)  But where do you put him?  You have to keep Youk, who's a Fenway Favorite ("YOOOOOOOKKKK") like Ortiz, Pedroia and Papelbon are.  But he had nowhere to play now in the infield, and I'm a little worried at how he only has had monster years during contract years, and his 49 homeruns one year was due to a word that we will not mention here.  That's worrisome, though in his defense I think he enjoyed Fenway and would've put up great numbers and played great defense there every year.  I will miss him, and I think Kelly (whose autograph I have somewhere) and the other two prospects will turn out to be great players, but that's the business side of the game, which is just as important as the balls and strikes.

In short, you now have great hitters and Gold Gloves at every position in the infield (except at short, but Scutaro is unspectacularly solid), and you have Gold Gloves in the outfield with Cameron (when healthy) and Gold Glove caliber with Ellsbury (when healthy) and Drew makes it all look so easy when he glides after a ball, when he feels like it, and when he graces us with his outfield presence.  I wouldn't mind seeing Ellsbury back in center, and then a platoon in right and left between Drew and Cameron, and take your pick between the guys who did a good job subbing last year.  None of those guys, including Drew and Cameron are full-time players anymore--and excluding Ellsbury--so I wouldn't mind seeing Carl Crawford out there (the Nationals overpaid sickeningly for Werth).  BUT, you have to replenish your relief corps first, and if you do that and then don't have enough money left to sign Crawford, I am totally okay with that.  They fielded practically a minor league team last year in the outfield for most of the year, and were still second in the majors in offense, so they don't need another outfielder.  Get Beckett and Lackey back on track, and get a solid middle reliever or two, and if that's all you do, you're still going deep in the playoffs next season.