|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 29, 2012 1:11:02 GMT -5
We have been talking about how to handle the proven and alleged steroid users when the Hall of Fame voting comes this year, but I'm not sure that is the entire story.
There is a starting pitcher who isn't even on the ballot right now, but he pitched back in the 60's, and I believe he has been completely overlooked.
This pitcher didn't quite reach 300 wins, but he compiled a 279-217 record and a 2.95 ERA.
Can you identify this pitcher, and do you have any idea why he's not in the Hall of Fame? Would you vote for him if you could?
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 29, 2012 13:36:02 GMT -5
Good question. Baseball reference doesn't have anyone with that record. The closest guess I can muster is Jim Kaat. BR has him at 283-237. ERA at 3.45. Kaat pitched in the 50s-80s though.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 30, 2012 2:23:48 GMT -5
It was a trick question, Allen.
The "pitcher" I mentioned was the entire Dodger pitching staff (sans Sandy) in its first five years at Dodger Stadium. I did take the liberty of increasing the won-loss record by 50%.
I'm not going to go further than this on this old, beat-up topic, but I think being open-minded, regardless of the conclusion one draws, is realizing that the rest of Sandy's pitching staff teammates pitched at a Hall of Fame level at home.
Sandy himself was phenomenal at home in those five seasons, but it did give me pause when I first read about how much Dodger Stadium appeared to contribute to his success -- just as it did his fellow Dodger pitchers.
They weren't nearly as good as Sandy, of course, but even though they were a good, not great staff, they did pitch at a Hall of Fame level at Dodger Stadium.
I bring this up to see if anyone at least considers this information to be important to perspective on the situation.
My personal thought is decide what you want, but don't ignore how much Dodger Stadium helped pitchers in its first five seasons -- before they moved home plate out 10 feet toward the fences.
Dodger Stadium continues to be a pitchers' park and has been -- to various degrees -- over its 51-year-history.
Sandy Koufax was a great pitcher over those five seasons, even on the road. But it was only at home that he was super-human, and that is the way we remember him.
Before I read about how much Dodger Stadium helped him -- and particularly before I calculated that his teammates pitched at a Hall of Fame level there -- I thought Sandy was the greatest pitcher of my lifetime.
For five seasons he was about as good as anyone I've seen. But it was only at Dodger Stadium where he was the unbelievable pitcher we remember him as. On the road, Juan Marichal was pretty close to him.
Juan was great too. But not superhuman, as Sandy was at Dodger Stadium (and nowhere else).
For pure dominance, Pedro Martinez in 2000 was the best of my time. And even without Dodger Stadium, both he and Greg Maddux put up a peak that was comparable and longer than Sandy's.
Finally, nice comparison to Jim Kaat, Allen. Jim hasn't made the Hall, and perhaps never will. The closest guy I have found who is in the Hall was Robin Roberts (record-wise), but Robin's ERA was much higher than that of the Dodger staff sans Sandy.
And of course, Hall of Famer Don Drysdale was a member of that staff. Had he not pitched with Dodger Stadium as his home, it seems unlikely that Don would have made the Hall.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Dec 30, 2012 16:34:35 GMT -5
Rog, you really are something...you put together a whole pitching staff and ask why they aren't in the HOF...much BS later, you have to admit that the major positive influence of that stat was Don Drysdale..who is in the HOF...but you say he doesn't belong there because Dodger Stadium was a pitchers park....maybe it was a pitcher's park because Sandy and Don pitched there....with the same logic you can make a strong case that Tim really should never have won the Cy Young....but that is for future nerds to argue about......
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 30, 2012 17:59:27 GMT -5
[For pure dominance, Pedro Martinez in 2000 was the best of my time. And even without Dodger Stadium, both he and Greg Maddux put up a peak that was comparable and longer than Sandy's.
Allen- I might go with Ron Guidry's 1978, or Koufax's 1963. Maybe even Gibson's 1968. 1.12 with 13 shutouts is hard to beat.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 31, 2012 1:54:56 GMT -5
Rog -- For pure dominance, Pedro Martinez in 2000 was the best of my time. And even without Dodger Stadium, both he and Greg Maddux put up a peak that was comparable and longer than Sandy's. Allen- I might go with Ron Guidry's 1978, or Koufax's 1963. Maybe even Gibson's 1968. 1.12 with 13 shutouts is hard to beat. IIRC I liked Sandy's 1966 better than his 1963, although both were spectacular. For pure domination, 1965 with his career-high 382 strikeouts may have been the best. But I think the top two single pitching seasons of our lifetimes were Pedro's 2000 and Gibby's 1968. Hoot obviously had the lowest ERA of any season, but 1968 was the so-called "Year of the Pitcher," the year after which the mound was lowered and the strike zone shrunk. Bob's 1.12 ERA was phenomenal, but it came in a season with a league ERA of 2.99. Bob struck out 268, which wasn't quite a career high, and his WHIP was 0.85. 23% of the runs Bob yielded were unearned, and 9 of the 11 unearned runs came at home, where he may have benefitted from some home scoring. Pedro's 1.74 ERA in 2000 wasn't close to Bob's record, but it was more than three full runs below league average. His ERA+ was better than Bob's, as was his 0.74 WHIP. His 5.3 H/9 and 1.3 BB/9 were better than Bob, and only 2 of the 44 runs he gave up were unearned. Pedro struck out 11.8 batters per nine which was nearly four K's higher than Bob's. He also pitched in hitter-happy Fenway Park. About half of the runs Pedro yielded came on home runs, some of which might have been avoided in a more pitcher-friendly home park. A tighter league policy on steroids might also have aided Pedro. who pitched from a lower mound and to a smaller strike zone than did Gibson. The one thing Bob truly did better was to pitch nearly 90 more innings. But as we know, the game in 2000 featured closers, and 5-man rotations were used. Probably if we take Bob's total innings into consideration, his season was the better of the two. Then again, despite pitching so many fewer innings, Pedro's Wins Above Replacement of 11.4 was just higher than Bob's 11.1. For pure inning-by-inning dominance, Pedro likely was better. Aside from innings and ERA, Pedro led in almost every category. Depending on how one looks at things, he could pick either Bob's 1968 or Pedro's 2000. I think whichever way one goes with his decision, those two seasons were the best of my lifetime. Bob's 1.12 ERA was a record, as was Pedro's 0.74 WHIP. The closer I look, and the more I compare the eras, the better Pedro's season looks. But both seasons were amazing. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1420&page=1#8199#ixzz2GahQj8VW
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 31, 2012 12:33:11 GMT -5
The problem with Pedro was he didn't have alot of wins, he only had four shutouts and just seven complete games. That just doesn't spell dominance to me. He also made just 29 starts, so he really didn't even pitch a whole season. Very, very good? Yes. Dominant? Harder to say that with conviction. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Guidry. 25-3, 1.74. The Yanks went 5-2 in Guidry's seven no-decisions, meaning 30 out of the 35 times Guidry took the ball that year, the Yankees won. He had five more shutouts than Pedro, and nine more complete games. Seven more wins and half as many losses. Their ERAs were equal, and Guidry made all his starts. I also wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Gibson because his year was the so-called "year of the pitcher". He was one of the main reasons it was called that. It's kind of like dismissing Maris' 61 homers because he played on the 61 Yankees.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 31, 2012 14:13:17 GMT -5
Allen -- The problem with Pedro was he didn't have alot of wins, he only had four shutouts and just seven complete games. That just doesn't spell dominance to me. He also made just 29 starts, so he really didn't even pitch a whole season. Very, very good? Yes. Dominant? Harder to say that with conviction. Rog -- The problem with Bob was that he didn't have a lot of wins and had just 28 complete games. In 1910, in what wasn't even Walter Johnson's best season, he completed 38 of his 42 starts and finished all three of his relief appearances, recording one save. As I noted in a previous post, Allen, the game has changed. Since the peak of 97% complete games in 1895, the complete game percentage has been dropping by about 8% per decade. Allen -- I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Guidry. 25-3, 1.74. The Yanks went 5-2 in Guidry's seven no-decisions, meaning 30 out of the 35 times Guidry took the ball that year, the Yankees won. He had five more shutouts than Pedro, and nine more complete games. Seven more wins and half as many losses. Their ERAs were equal, and Guidry made all his starts. Rog -- Guidry also had a fabulous season. His ERA was more than two runs below league average. Pedro's was more than three runs below league average, something that had never happened nor has happened since. Ron lost only three games despite receiving two or fewer runs of support four times. Pedro lost only six despite receiving two or fewer runs eight times. Ron pitched in a park where hitting was three percent below league average. Pedro pitched in a park where hitting was three percent ABOVE league average. Ron's WHIP was 0.95. Pedro's was a record 0.74. Ron gave up eight unearned runs. Pedro gave up two. In short, Pedro set three very important records (ERA below league average, ERA+, and lowest WHIP of all time), while Ron set none. Allen -- I also wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Gibson because his year was the so-called "year of the pitcher". Rog -- I don't think I dismissed him when I said "Probably if we take Bob's total innings into consideration, his season was the better of the two."? Allen -- He was one of the main reasons it was called that. It's kind of like dismissing Maris' 61 homers because he played on the 61 Yankees. Rog -- Poor analogy. Indeed Bob WAS one of the reasons 1968 was called the year of the pitcher. Still, with a league ERA below 3.00, it would have been called that with or without Bob's marvelous performance. In short, one can argue that Bob made more of a contribution because of his added innings. It would be pretty hard to argue that he was more dominant when Pedro's record WHIP was more than 0.10 lower and his K/9 was 50% higher. When Pedro went out to pitch a game in 2000, he was the best and most dominant pitcher of our lifetimes, as his record 0.74 WHIP showed. He didn't pitch nearly as many innings as Bob Gibson, so one could argue that Bob had the better overall season. Guidry was great, as were Greg Maddux and Sandy Koufax in multiple seasons, and Pedro in multiple other seasons. Check this out, Allen (and others): In seven consecutive seasons, posted ERA+'s of over 200 five timees (meaning he was at least twice as good as the average pitcher). Those five figures rank between #1 and #32 since 1900. Pedro has the best season ever, two of the top eight seasons, three of the top 16, and four of the top 24. In short, about all one can fault over Pedro's 7-year peak is that he didn't pitch as many innings as a few of his contemporaries. He pitched BETTER than anyone in our lifetimes, and likely better than anyone ever, over those seven straight years. Walter Johnson is probably the only pitcher to have a longer great peak than Pedro. And Walter is a nonpareil. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1420&page=1#8206#ixzz2GeaeSYvx
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jan 9, 2013 16:44:31 GMT -5
No HOFers. What should have been one of the greatest classes ever ruined by the steroid users. So many media guys trying to paint guys like Bonds and Clemens as victims. As if someone held them down and forced them to use. These guys chose to use. Their decision should cost them entrance to the Hall. What they did before they started using shouldn't matter. They should just dismiss these guys and not bother to clog the ballot with their names.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 9, 2013 20:32:26 GMT -5
Allen -- No HOFers. What should have been one of the greatest classes ever ruined by the steroid users. So many media guys trying to paint guys like Bonds and Clemens as victims Rog -- It became apparent a few days ago there might very well be no Hall of Famers voted in this year. The opinions on the subject are quite varied, so I'm not surprised that some would see Bonds and Clemens as victims. I personally haven't heard anyone with that opinion, but all I've really seen were those on the MLB Network on the Hall of Fame show, and I didn't even watch all of that. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1420&page=1#8283#ixzz2HX2mVnO3
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 9, 2013 20:36:22 GMT -5
Allen -- They should just dismiss these guys and not bother to clog the ballot with their names. Rog -- To me, that shows how biased you are here, Allen. As I have pointed out several times, I don't necessarily disagree with your view that Bonds and Clemens shouldn't be voted in. But to say they shouldn't be on the ballot and thus be subject to opinions different from yours seems to me to be terribly biased. You have given me an intriguing viewpoint to consider, Allen, but I think if my mind were as closed as yours on the topic, it wouldn't matter. I have been accused of not being willing to change my mind here on this board, Allen, but I often do so. On the other hand, I get the feeling that you believe your way is the only way and no other ones should even be considered. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1420&page=1#ixzz2HX3Qdpam
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jan 9, 2013 22:03:39 GMT -5
My opinion is my opinion. To me, these guys cancelled their HOF election the minute they chose to use. Others are certainly entitled to their opinion, even if it totally disagrees with mine. If you want to sacrifice the Hall's (and the game's) integrity and credibility by voting these guys in, well go ahead. I just don't see how you can take either seriously if you do though.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 13, 2013 12:55:44 GMT -5
Allen -- If you want to sacrifice the Hall's (and the game's) integrity and credibility by voting these guys in, well go ahead. I just don't see how you can take either seriously if you do though. Rog -- Letting these guys in doesn't really destroy the game's integrity with regard to steroids. It's already gone. Baseball knew steroids were in use, but rather than crack down, they chose to bring back fans after the strike by allowing steroids to continue to be used. To then penalize players' accomplishments by disallowing what was legal under the rules of the game would seem hypocritical. You have noticed, haven't you, that none of the records have been thrown back? Yes, I realize you would favor doing so. But since the records were set without breaking baseball rules -- even if the players knew they were doing wrong -- they are legitimate under the rules. This is in contrast, by the way, with the accomplishments of Gaylord Perry, which WEREN'T within the rules. From a logic standpoint, if you don't make a method of accomplishment illegal under the rules, you shouldn't take those accomplishments away. And if the accomplishments stand, they should be considered as usual when the Hall of Fame voting is done. In an ideal world, you and I most definitely agree. Baseball should have outlawed steroids. But since they didn't, they set off what could be considered a very unfortunate chain of events which would be hypocritical to interrupt. As I have mentioned, Allen, you think this is a black and white issue. It might have been at one time, if baseball had outlawed steroids, but at this point in history it's far from black and white. The horse, which was reputed to be of a color between black and white which might be called dusky, is out of the barn. I'm not saying you're wrong here, Allen. What I'm saying is that your scope might be a bit narrow. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1420&page=1#8298#ixzz2HsWydF1J
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jan 13, 2013 15:01:50 GMT -5
Allen -- If you want to sacrifice the Hall's (and the game's) integrity and credibility by voting these guys in, well go ahead. I just don't see how you can take either seriously if you do though. Rog -- Letting these guys in doesn't really destroy the game's integrity with regard to steroids. It's already gone. Allen- True. Baseball made a huge mistake by not nipping the steroid thing in the bud. But don't compound the error by pretending the accomplishments of these players is legitimate. I think baseball would be best served by acknowledging their mistake, and banning any known users from the HOF. Again, no one made these players use PEDs. It wasn't baseball's idea. The players made the decision to use, and they should take the punishment. You have noticed, haven't you, that none of the records have been thrown back? Yes, I realize you would favor doing so. Allen- Damn, right I do. Or at least note that the records were steroid-aided. Heck they note wind-aided times in track, and that's just a weather condition, not a physiological change in the athlete. But since the records were set without breaking baseball rules -- even if the players knew they were doing wrong -- they are legitimate under the rules. This is in contrast, by the way, with the accomplishments of Gaylord Perry, which WEREN'T within the rules. Allen- Interesting that you put the onus on Perry, but don't blame the umpires for letting him get away with throwing spitters, yet blame baseball for players using steroids. From a logic standpoint, if you don't make a method of accomplishment illegal under the rules, you shouldn't take those accomplishments away. And if the accomplishments stand, they should be considered as usual when the Hall of Fame voting is done. In an ideal world, you and I most definitely agree. Baseball should have outlawed steroids. But since they didn't, they set off what could be considered a very unfortunate chain of events which would be hypocritical to interrupt. As I have mentioned, Allen, you think this is a black and white issue. It might have been at one time, if baseball had outlawed steroids, but at this point in history it's far from black and white. The horse, which was reputed to be of a color between black and white which might be called dusky, is out of the barn. I'm not saying you're wrong here, Allen. What I'm saying is that your scope might be a bit narrow. Allen- You can sit around (as many do), wring your hands and complain that there is no easy answer, but you know there is. Even if PEDs weren't illegal under baseball's rules, they were illegal under the law. I guess baseball didn't figure they had players who were so morally bankrupt that they would use illegal drugs to enhance their performance, so they didn't put it in the rulebook. Or maybe, they figured they needed the money more than the integrity. Wouldn't be the first time. Interesting that. If a player was playing while using crack or heroin, baseball would definitely take action, or at least you'd hope they would. Why not steroids?
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 14, 2013 1:16:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jan 14, 2013 12:05:23 GMT -5
Actually, a few. They busted some guys at the gym my wife goes to for selling and using them.
|
|