Grumpy Vogey

[klaiggeb]

In a recent article, Kuiper was saying that a "grumpy Vogey" was okay with him.

Most of you aren't likely to remember Jack Sanford, a very good pitcher in the late 50's and mid 60's, but he was THE Vogey prototype.

For those of you who aren't familiar with Jack's career, He was the Rookie of the Year in 1957, and though he only won a total of 137 games, for those of us who got to watch him, he was one HECK of a competitor; a grumpy guy, just like Vogey

Some high marks in Jack's career.

1962 24-7
1963 42 games started
In the 1962 World Series, though he was 1-2, he poste a 1.37 ERA, losing, I believe, that final game to Ralph Terry in which Matty Alou and Mays were in scoring position when McCovey hit that Rocket that Richardson speared.

What I remember about Jack was that the day before he pitched, and certainly ON the day he pitched, NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, Alvin Dark included, dared to even get near him.

Sound like Vogey?

Should. As I said; he was the Vogey prototype.

boly

[rxmeister]

I actually didn't want Vogey back, but as an extra starter and coming out of the bullpen he could be quite effective. I like the rotation more than most, but even I have to admit that they have just one starter who's going to get you deep into the game. Matt Cain could make it two, but I think they'll be careful with him, especially early.

[sfgdood]

I only know Sanford from tales of yore from older relatives...and from the Terry Cashman song "Talkin Baseball, Giants by the bay."

"Cepeda and Stretch were back to back
Rookies but I'll tell ya, Jack
Sanford led the way in '62"

[klaiggeb]

I never heard that song, Randy.

Thanks for sharing it!

And it IS correct.

Jack won, I believe, 19 straight games between 1962 and 1963... though I'm not sure of the dates.

boly

[Rog]

Career-wise, the second best starter the 1962 Giants had was Billy Pierce, who served as the fifth starter that season and pitched two games in the World Series, going 1-1 with a 2.40 ERA. Billy was near the end of his career, but back in 1955 with the White Sox, led the American League with a 1.97 ERA. That's getting into elite company.

He also led the AL with 20 wins in 1957 and wound up his career going 211-169 with 221 wins and 169 losses. Billy wasn't quite Hall of Fame material, but I'm surprised he never received more than 1.9% of the votes.

Billy was chosen for seven All-Star games and was likely the best pitcher in the AL from 1955 through 1957. In 1955 he won the AL pitching title with that outstanding 1.97 ERA, and in both 1956 and 1957 he was chosen The Sporting News' AL Pitcher of the Year.

It appears to me that Billy was the best pitcher in the American League over the period of 1951 through 1958. That 1.9% of the vote means he was truly underrated.

Maybe Don can tell us why Jim Bunning, with a 224-184 record and the same 3.27 ERA as Pierce became a Hall of Famerr, while Pierce never achieved even 2% of the vote.

The Bleacher Report ran a 2009 article in which it picked Billy as the 5th-best eligible pitcher not in the Hall of Fame. Their top pick, Bert Blyleven, has since been inducted.

That leaves Luis Tiant as the top pitcher on the list. Tiant went 3.30 with a 229-172 record. His best Hall of Fame percentage was 30.9% in his first year of eligibility.

Tiants' 114 ERA+ was exceeded by Pierce's 119. Bunning, who did make the Hall, posted a 115 ERA+.

I didn't realize it until I did this research, but one could make an argument that Billy Pierce is the most underrated pitcher in baseball history. I knew he was underrated, but not by how much.

I'm interested to hear Don's and Boly's opinions here. Anyone else too, but both Don and Boly would have seen Pierce pitch on TV at least.

Here is something about Pierce I didn't remember. With the Giants in 1962, he finished 3rd in the Cy Young voting, behind only Don Drysdale and Sanford -- and ahead of Juan Marichal.

Here were Pierce's ERA's from 1951 though 1958: 3.03, 2.57, 2.72, 3.48, 1.97, 3.32, 3.26 and 2.68. Can Don or Boly think of any other pitcher who was that good over those eight seasons? He threw over 1900 innings during them, so it's not as if he wasn't durable. From 1953 through 1957, he finished in the top in the MVP voting. In three of those seasons, he was 11th or better.

Why does Billy Pierce not get more respect? It appears he is as good or better than some of the pitchers already in the Hall -- and yet he couldn't muster even 2% of the vote in any year in which he was eligible for the Hall of Fame voting?

Pierce may have been more underrated than Matt Cain!

[Rog]

Jack won 16 in a row and 18 of his last 19 decisions in 1962. He went from 6-6 to 24-7. He won five in a row from the end of 1962 and the beginning of 1963, which gave him 21 wins in 22 decisions over the two years.

[klaiggeb]

Thanks, Rog. I knew 19 was cclose, but wrong, but I just couldn't remember.

16.

Still one heck of a lot!

boly

[klaiggeb]

I remember looking up Pierce's numbers a while back and was STUNNED to see just how good he really was!

From what I've been able to read, he threw really hard when he first came up.

With the Giants, he wasn't a hard thrower, but in that FSY of 1962, he almost never lost at Candlestick.


As to Bunning, he was very intimidating with that 3/4, side arm motion, and that perfect game in 1964 didn't hurt his HOF chances.

Pierce; very under rated, as you said.

boly