Waite Hoyt

[PumpsieGreen]

I have a burning question. Today, I went to www.baseball-reference.com. I realized that Hoyt was a hall of famer, but I never really thought of him as one. The evidence that I found was utterly shocking! Hoyt pitched on the greatest offensive collection of players ever for the prime of his career, yet ended up with a less than hall worthy win percentage. I realize that this is because he played on some lackluster teams later in his career, but his other stats don't hold up, either. Hoyt never led the league in strikeouts, and was only as high as sixth, once. He was only in the top 10 in ERA 5 times, although those finishes were impressive. Hoyt never stood out as a HOFer to me, and perhaps voters overrated his prime seasons, although he wasn't really the main factor of those Murderer's Row teams. In fact, Hoyt only led the league in any stat three total times in his career. One time was wins, obviously helped by the fact that he had Lou Gehrig and Babe Ruth at his side. The second was saves, and the third was Hits plus walks per nine. Three lead leagues in a whole career? Hoyt was a very good pitcher, but not a hall of famer, in my eyes.

Why is Waite Hoyt in the hall of fame? Do you think he should be?

Pumpsie

[julusnc]

He was a fine pitcher but he just got in under the radar.

He is not worthy but what can ya do.

Hoyt was a name asscociated with greatness and someone on the Vets Com. thought a little rubbed off on him....

Blyleven and Kaat were both much better on much much worst teams.......

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by PumpsieGreen
Why is Waite Hoyt in the hall of fame?
Hoyt was the best pitcher on the greatest team in history.

Do you think he should be?
Probably not. Too many better pitchers not in and no compelling arguments to elevate him above that group.

[Cougar]

Hoyt's very, very far from the best pitcher in the Hall, and he's definitely below the median -- almost certainly in the bottom quartile. But he's far from the worst pitcher either.

He had very little black ink, as you note, but in gray ink he is exactly at the HOF average. He was never great, but he was a very good, extremely durable pitcher for a long (21 year) career, running from 1918-1938 -- possibly the most grueling era in history to take the mound. (Except perhaps now, but then again now we have 5-man rotations and relief specialists.)

If you've got a real high standard for the Hall, maybe he doesn't belong, but as it's currently constituted, Hoyt doesn't seem terribly out of place in Cooperstown to me.

[Eddie Collins]

Someone probably decided the great Yankee team needed a pitcher in the Hall as well.

[PumpsieGreen]

While I agree that Hoyt may not be the worst pitcher in the hall, he is not as good as a number of non-elected players on the ballot, including the aforementioned Bert Blyleven and Jim Kaat, and probably Jim Morris and Doc Gooden, as well. Hoyt was the best pitcher on the best team ever, true, but it's sort of like those Big Red Machine team pitchers(besides Seaver): they didn't really affect their team's overall performance. How much worse do you think those Yankees teams would've done without Hoyt?

Pumpsie

[Cougar]

I'm going to say they would have lost at least one pennant they otherwise won.

In 1922 the Yankees only beat the Browns by one game. Hoyt went 19-12 in 265 innings. I'm willing to bet there's at least two games that season that he won that a lesser pitcher would have lost.

There were a couple other seasons where they only won by 2.5 or 3 games, but I think I've made my point.

[The Commissioner]

Originally posted by Cougar
I'm going to say they would have lost at least one pennant they otherwise won.

In 1922 the Yankees only beat the Browns by one game. Hoyt went 19-12 in 265 innings. I'm willing to bet there's at least two games that season that he won that a lesser pitcher would have lost.

There were a couple other seasons where they only won by 2.5 or 3 games, but I think I've made my point.

I'd definitely agree with Cougar's evaluation here.

There are a couple of other factors to consider:
1) His career win total of 237 is a lot,folks. Once you get up that high, there has to be some major flaw in certain aspects of your game to prevent your election. Compare his ERA vs. the league's to those players with higher win totals who are not in the Hall. Playes such as Tanana and Dennis Martinez both have higher ERAs despite lower league ERAs. If we're going to say that hitting totals were inflated during that era and that therefore certain batters were not worthy, then shouldn't an excellent pitcher be given more credit?

2) The guy was clutch. Keep in mind this was that inflated hitting era that everybody loves to mention. Despite that, while hurling for the Yankees the guy had a 1.62 World Series ERA in 77 2/3 innings pitched. You can give Ruth and Gehrig all the credit in the world that you want, but he made a huge difference in those games. Also keep in mind that for many years he held or shared a great number of WS pitching records.

3) Several of his numbers have been taken out of context. Yes, he only had one season leading the league in wins and one leading it in saves. Yet that one year that he led in saves he was also third in wins only one behind the leaders of Grove and Pipgras. When you add his save totals, he factored in on 31 wins for the Yankees that year.

Overall he was a huge factor in helping one of the greatest dynasties to win titles. Combine that with his individual accomplishments and he is definitely Hall worthy.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Whether Hoyt would be in the HOF if he were with a non-marquee team is open to question.

If Hoyt posted the same record with the St. Louis Browns, he well may not be in the HOF, although a case could be made under those circumstances that he was a better pitcher than racking up the same record with the Yankees.

If Hoyt won one less game in 1927 and added to his 1921 totals and one less game in 1928 and added it to his 1922 totals, he'd be a four-time 20 game winner, and without anything else changing, a lot of the discussion of his unworthiness for the Hall would cease.

Hoyt isn't someone I would advocate for if he were not in the HOF, but he's not someone whose plaque I want to rip out of Cooperstown, either.

Much of the arguments about Hoyt can apply to Herb Pennock. Both of these guys are in the HOF because they won over 200 games. Bill James once wrote an essay about how Pennock and Hoyt are in the HOF while Bob Shawkey and Urban Shocker are not. The reason, James speculates, is that Shawkey and Shocker finished just under the 200 win mark, while Hoyt and Pennock exceeded it. Shocker, especially, has a much more impressive record; his FOUR 20 win seasons came with the Browns, and his ERA vs. league is the most impressive of the four. Shocker died late into his career, in 1928, just short of 200 wins. His case is significantly better than Hoyt's and Pennock's

[National Pastime 6-4-3]

Hoyt wasn't really a Hall of Famer, but he announced for the Reds for many years, was famous for his great stories about Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig and the 1920s Yankees during rain delays. It kept his name alive, and eventually the Veteran's Committee put him in.

[STLCards2]

I have Hoyt ranked # 84 all-time and Pennock ranked #86, both relativley close, but neither good enough for my Hall of Fame (my cut-off number at this point is 74 pitchers)

[dgarza]

Waite Hoyt's grave site, Spring Grove Cemetery, Cincinnati, OH

http://www.tokyoroserecords.com/mp3s&jpgs/WaiteHoyt.MP4

[The Commissioner]

Waite Hoyt's grave site, Spring Grove Cemetery, Cincinnati, OH

http://www.tokyoroserecords.com/mp3s&jpgs/WaiteHoyt.MP4

Did you go to visit the site and film that yourself?

[dgarza]

Did you go to visit the site and film that yourself?
Yes, I did.

[The Commissioner]

Too cool. That's a nice touch leaving the baseball.

[SABR Matt]

Hoyt by PCA:
Yr Lg Off Def Pit O-M D-M P-M Wins
1927 AL -0.08 0.42 6.96 -0.9 0.6 10.5 7.30
1923 AL -0.35 0.53 6.43 -1.3 0.8 9.7 6.61
1934 NL -0.49 0.07 6.53 -1.4 0.0 10.4 6.11
1921 AL -0.30 0.15 5.91 -1.3 0.0 7.8 5.76
1928 AL 0.00 0.14 5.45 -0.7 0.0 7.2 5.59
1922 AL -0.19 0.44 4.15 -1.0 0.7 4.7 4.40
1926 AL -0.27 0.09 4.52 -1.1 0.0 6.0 4.34
1925 AL 0.44 0.14 3.08 0.3 0.0 2.7 3.66
1924 AL -0.56 0.17 3.62 -1.7 0.1 3.7 3.23
1937 NL -0.86 0.14 3.73 -2.2 0.1 4.7 3.01
1929 AL -0.11 -0.02 2.73 -0.8 -0.2 2.7 2.60
1936 NL -0.17 0.07 2.39 -0.6 0.0 3.2 2.29
1935 NL 0.06 0.16 1.93 -0.2 0.2 1.6 2.15
1919 AL -0.33 0.04 2.42 -0.9 0.0 3.4 2.13
1933 NL -0.08 0.07 1.83 -0.4 0.0 2.0 1.82
1920 AL -0.38 0.11 1.92 -1.0 0.1 2.1 1.65
1932 NL -0.61 0.18 1.58 -1.5 0.2 1.4 1.15

111 ERA+ in 3762.1 IP, which matches up well with his career .283 PCA-BA in 11248 defense independent outs. He might have a HOF case if he were a great hitter like Ferrell, a great fielder like Rogers or Maddux, or had a great peak mixed with a long unfriendly decline phase...but he had none of those things. The most he ever was...was a good solid pitcher. Hardly the kind of player that should be enshrined.

[The Commissioner]

111 ERA+ in 3762.1 IP, which matches up well with his career .283 PCA-BA in 11248 defense independent outs. He might have a HOF case if he were a great hitter like Ferrell, a great fielder like Rogers or Maddux, or had a great peak mixed with a long unfriendly decline phase...but he had none of those things. The most he ever was...was a good solid pitcher. Hardly the kind of player that should be enshrined.

But he does have something that they don't, a stellar World Series record. Clemens and Maddux have great numbers but neither is on par with Hoyt's. Keep in mind that at one point he had established something like 13 different World Series pitching records. Had he been a hitter, one could dismiss those with, "So what? He established those during the first part of the Liveball era". As a pitcher, I would say we can only count that in his favor... "He established those during the first part of the Liveball era!" His post season pitching is really what gives him H.O.F. credibility. He's sort of like the Claude Lemieux of baseball. If he ever retires, Lemieux will after a while eventually get into the Hockey Hall of Fame. People will look at his regular season numbers and be unimpressed. What will get him in, though, are his regular season numbers and his Playoff numbers taken together.

[SABR Matt]

Hoyt's post-season record came against a series of teams from the National League who made the world series on the strenght of their defense and pitching and NOT on the strength of their offense. Literally, the OPS+ of those teams, in order:

1921 NYG: 104
1922 NYG: 101
1923 NYG: 104
1926 STL: 101
1927 PIT: 101
1928 STL: 101
1931 PHA: 102

All slightly above average hitting teams with well above average defenses.

The NL in the 20s was also well weaker in terms of league quality than the AL and the representatives in the WS reflect this...a whole series of very marginal playoff teams with pretty darned marginal records.

It's important to keep in mind that those post-season pitching performances from Hoyt didn't come against the level of competition that guys like Clemens and Maddux' records.

[The Commissioner]

Hoyt's post-season record came against a series of teams from the National League who made the world series on the strenght of their defense and pitching and NOT on the strength of their offense. Literally, the OPS+ of those teams, in order:

1921 NYG: 104
1922 NYG: 101
1923 NYG: 104
1926 STL: 101
1927 PIT: 101
1928 STL: 101
1931 PHA: 102

All slightly above average hitting teams with well above average defenses.

The NL in the 20s was also well weaker in terms of league quality than the AL and the representatives in the WS reflect this...a whole series of very marginal playoff teams with pretty darned marginal records.

It's important to keep in mind that those post-season pitching performances from Hoyt didn't come against the level of competition that guys like Clemens and Maddux' records.

You're painting a false picture of Hoyt and the Yankees facing weaker teams based solely on OPS+. How can I say this is "false"? Because the superior Yankees teams lost the first two of those years to the Giants.

Let's look at those 1921 Giants for example. This is the squad that Hoyt completely obliterated and pitched 27 innings against without yielding single earned run:

Over the course of the regular season they had a team batting average of .298. In the World Series, that average dropped way down to .269. One might jump to the conclusion, that, therefore, the Yankees were much stronger than the National League competition that the Giants batters faced on a regular basis. However, let's take Hoyt's numbers out of the mix. Suddenly you have the Giants squad hitting .335 against the American League champs. A squad that Hoyt annihilated.

It also sounds good on paper to say that the Giants were a weak hitting team until you start naming their lineup. A lineup with George Kelly, Dave Bancroft, Frankie Frisch, Ross Youngs, George Burns,and Irish Meusel wasn't exactly a bunch of pushovers. If I were an opposing pitcher, I'd be a lot more intimidated by that lineup than the 1997 Marlins or 1995 White Sox that Clemens faced. If you take the anomaly/monster/super-human entity that was called "Ruth" out of the Yankees lineup and replace him with virtually anyone else in the American League, the two teams have quite similar batting numbers over the course of the season. One might even, dare I say it, label the Giants as the superior hitting squad. Ruth single-handedly skews all the stats.

As far as the two leagues go, even with Ruth, the A.L. clubbed a grand total of 17 more homeruns than the National League that year and had a .003 higher batting average. Ruth manages to skew the entire A.L. up an extra point in batting average all by himself. Not to mention , that if you take his round trippers out of the equation, I'm not so sure that the league still looks all that superior in the hitting department?

Hoyt did all his post season damage against two semi-dynasties (the Giants and Cardinals of the 1920s) and the great '27 Pirates team. I'd hardly say that these were weak teams.

[dgarza]

Too cool. That's a nice touch leaving the baseball.The balls were there when I got there, so I did not leave them. Someone else did that. I left them as they were.

[The Commissioner]

The balls were there when I got there, so I did not leave them. Someone else did that. I left them as they were.

In a way, that's even cooler. It's nice to know that you're not the only one paying homage to the man by honoring his grave site with a visit.

[SABR Matt]

You're painting a false picture of Hoyt and the Yankees facing weaker teams based solely on OPS+. How can I say this is "false"? Because the superior Yankees teams lost the first two of those years to the Giants.

Let's look at those 1921 Giants for example. This is the squad that Hoyt completely obliterated and pitched 27 innings against without yielding single earned run:

Over the course of the regular season they had a team batting average of .298. In the World Series, that average dropped way down to .269. One might jump to the conclusion, that, therefore, the Yankees were much stronger than the National League competition that the Giants batters faced on a regular basis. However, let's take Hoyt's numbers out of the mix. Suddenly you have the Giants squad hitting .335 against the American League champs. A squad that Hoyt annihilated.

It also sounds good on paper to say that the Giants were a weak hitting team until you start naming their lineup. A lineup with George Kelly, Dave Bancroft, Frankie Frisch, Ross Youngs, George Burns,and Irish Meusel wasn't exactly a bunch of pushovers. If I were an opposing pitcher, I'd be a lot more intimidated by that lineup than the 1997 Marlins or 1995 White Sox that Clemens faced. If you take the anomaly/monster/super-human entity that was called "Ruth" out of the Yankees lineup and replace him with virtually anyone else in the American League, the two teams have quite similar batting numbers over the course of the season. One might even, dare I say it, label the Giants as the superior hitting squad. Ruth single-handedly skews all the stats.

As far as the two leagues go, even with Ruth, the A.L. clubbed a grand total of 17 more homeruns than the National League that year and had a .003 higher batting average. Ruth manages to skew the entire A.L. up an extra point in batting average all by himself. Not to mention , that if you take his round trippers out of the equation, I'm not so sure that the league still looks all that superior in the hitting department?

Hoyt did all his post season damage against two semi-dynasties (the Giants and Cardinals of the 1920s) and the great '27 Pirates team. I'd hardly say that these were weak teams.

The totals don't lie, Commish...these Giants teams didn't beat the Yankees primarily by clubbing the snot out of the baseball...the '21 line-up was basically 7 solid above average bats and one hole (plus the pitchers of course)...a good solid line-up but we're not talking about a juggernaut line-up...and those world series games went:

3-0 Yanks
3-0 Yanks
13-5 Giants, but 8 of those runs came in one horrible 8th inning melt-down primarily sparked by two of the Yankees' scrub pitchers
4-2 Giants
3-1 Yanks
8-5 Giants (they seemed to have their way with Shawkey)
2-1 Giants
1-0 Giants and the run was unearned

0, 0, 13*, 4, 1, 8, 2, 1...that's not a team winning games by outslugging the slugging Yankees.

You need to look at how these teams got the wins they did...the Giants were a defensively gifted squad...Kelly, Frisch and Bancroft comprised one of the best defensive infields in the game at that time.

That said, it's fair to say OPS+ misses some value since they were also an aggressive club on the bases and their OPS+ doesn't suggest they should have been scoring 840 runs...so they were perhaps more of an offensive club in '21 than I'm giving their credit for. But their high BA and even higher net OPS probably owes more to the hitter's haven they called home.

In '22 the same story applies...on the surface the offense looks impressive but adjust out the huge advantage their park gave them and they're an average (but well balanced) offense that manufactured runs on the basepaths.

They won that world series 3-2, 3-3 (T), 3-0, 4-3, and 5-3. That's a defensively gifted team beating an offensively gifted team. That's not a team that should scare Hoyt.

[SavoyBG]

111 ERA+ in 3762.1 IP, which matches up well with his career .283 PCA-BA in 11248 defense independent outs. He might have a HOF case if he were a great hitter like Ferrell, a great fielder like Rogers or Maddux, or had a great peak mixed with a long unfriendly decline phase...but he had none of those things. The most he ever was...was a good solid pitcher. Hardly the kind of player that should be enshrined.


Do you EVER consider post season stats towards a player's HOF candidacy? Or are you of the modern stats guys theory that it was just a coincidence that he happened to be great in those 83.2 innings?

You can't do much better than Hoyt did in the world series. The other poster was a little off, he actually had a 1.83 ERA in 83.2 WS innings. W-L record was just 6-4 in 11 starts thanks to 11 unearned runs allowed. He pretty much singlehandedly kepot the Yankees in the 1921 WS, allowing no earned runs with 2 unearned runs in 27 innings against McGraw's Men that year.

[SABR Matt]

I consider post-season appearances with the same weight I consider every other inning pitched. A game of baseball is just a game of baseball.

And I also think it's very important to recognize what the context is with any statistic...Hoyt's 1.83 ERA in the post-season is certainly a nice stretch of innings, but Jeff Weaver dominated the Tigers in 2006...does that mean Jeff Weaver is clutch? Yankees fans would argue that he was ANTI-clutch given how badly he handled NYC. Yes...I do think 82 innings is a small sample...too small to draw significant conclusions. Post-season performance should be counted within the regular season tallies and will be added to the regular season analysis on my next pass at PCA...but that's all it is to me...a game between two good teams (luckily my methods account for strength of schedule).

[SavoyBG]

I consider post-season appearances with the same weight I consider every other inning pitched. A game of baseball is just a game of baseball.

Not exactly.

Have you ever been involved in any way (player, coach, manager, umpire) in a post season or tounament or any other kind of "big" game?

Anyone who has will tell you that those games are not just like any other "game of baseball."

Not only the pressure involved and not only the magnitude of the games, but I'm sure you realize that teams play those games differently. They don't "rest" players, they don't bring lesser pitchers into the game, they don't take a look at a new player, etc....every team plays their optimum lineup and only uses their best pitchers in the series, barring starnge circumstances, like blowouts, or long extra inning games etc...

If you don't think that emotions can affect players (and managers and umpires), you probably never watched Ankiel pitch near the end. You probably never watched Mackey Sasser try to throw the ball back to the pitcher near the end.

Sometimes players choke. It happens. Sometimes certain players can step it up a notch in big games. It happens.

90% of this game is half mental.

[SABR Matt]

I believe emotions can affect the players, but rarely do to a statistically significant magnitude at the big league level. If you are a choker, you don't make it to the big leagues because you won't handle the pressure well at lower levels...pressure on you to perform to get your chance. There are high profile examples of players suddenly losing their ability (Ankiel is a good one, Knoblauch is another) and beocming emotional basket cases. But for 99.9+% of the guys who play this game in the big leagues, the emotions them all nearly evenly.

Incidentally, Waite Hoyt's post-season success does not hold up well under statistical scrutiny. Not only are the teams he faced not particularly dynamic offensively, but when you break down his post-season line, it's not all that much more impressive than his regular season line from the standpoint of a defense independent context. His K/BB improved, he was pitching a little bit better, but it looks to me like the unearned runs he gave up would make up some of the difference between his ERA in those particular seasons and his ERA in the post-season. His RA in regular season games in his 7 post-season appearances: 4.05. His RA in the post-season: 3.01. The change in K/BB pretty much completely explains the difference in RA. He pitched a bit better in the post-season...but we're not talking about the kind of change that should get more weight than the bulk of his regular season career.

[SavoyBG]

I consider post-season appearances with the same weight I consider every other inning pitched. A game of baseball is just a game of baseball.


So you are saying that when a team's closer comes out with a one run lead in the 9th inning of game 7 of the world series, that inning he is trying to pitch is of no more importance than an inning he may pitch with a 7-0 lead in a game in July when his manager is just using him for an inning because he hasn't pitched in 6 days?

Let me ask you. Do you weigh any of a closer's innings as being more significant than the innings of a mop up guy in the bullpen? And if you do think that a closer's innings could be more significant at times, why wouldn't some full games be more significant than some other full games?

Forget about the actual PCA system. Just in your own mind, do you give someone like Schilling or Beckett any extra credit for being great in the post season? If Schilling is a borderline hall of famer does his post season record influence whether or not you would vote for him?

[SABR Matt]

In small ways, yes, the post-season performances do matter to me. But Waite Hoyt is not a small ways off from the HOF...he's a long ways off.

[SavoyBG]

In small ways, yes, the post-season performances do matter to me. But Waite Hoyt is not a small ways off from the HOF...he's a long ways off.

I agree he's not a hall of famer, but I can't agree that "a baseball game is a baseball game."

Sure, fans and reporters and broadcasters severely overdo this stuff about "clutch" players and all that, but the so called "big" games are BIG.

You can't tell me that a game at the end of the 1947 regular season when Washington is trying out some rookie pitcher and Ted Williams gets three extra base hits off him is the same as the final game of the 1948 season between the Indians and the Red Sox.

I'm not saying that you should weigh that game more in your system. I'm saying that when voting for hall of famers that their numbers in "big" games means something. If you MUST reduce everything to a number perhaps you could incorporate some sort of post season bonus syatem into your hall of fame marker points, maybe a range from -10 to +10 based on their post season numbers. If you are going to consider things like great PCL seasons why not great world series numbers?

[SABR Matt]

I never disagreed with that. When I say "a game is a game" I don't mean I think it's unimportant to examine the context...I mean it matters a lot less (the post-season stuff) than some people seem to think it does...the only way you can defend Jack Morris or Waite Hoyt for the HOF is if you value his post-season performances as much as you value the entire rest of his career combined...there's just no good case to be made that Morris is a HOFer otherwise. Things like that annoy me.

[Los Bravos]

I believe emotions can affect the players, but rarely do to a statistically significant magnitude at the big league level. If you are a choker, you don't make it to the big leagues because you won't handle the pressure well at lower levels...Calvin Schiraldi says :waving

[SABR Matt]

Calvin Shiraldi pitched very well in the first round of the 1986 playoffs...his manager was a complete retard and left him in the game way too long in game 6 of the WS...but if his performance overall in the 86 series was weak, it's probably because he just wasn't a very good pitcher. Outside of the 1986 regular season, Shiraldi was a complete bum...both before '86 and after.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Too cool. That's a nice touch leaving the baseball.

I wonder how common that is. Eddie Plank's grave in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania always has a couple of baseballs around it.

Hoyt's manager, Miller Huggins is also buried at Spring Grove, one of the largest cemeteries in the country and a veritable who's who of Cincy notables.

Is Hoyt's post-season performance the biggest reason he's in? If he were just decent on top of his overall career, would he have been voted in? Did his long-tenured broadcasting career have anything to do with it, too?

[dgarza]

I wonder how common that is. Eddie Plank's grave in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania always has a couple of baseballs around it.
I imagine it's fairly common.


Hoyt's manager, Miller Huggins is also buried at Spring Grove, one of the largest cemeteries in the country and a veritable who's who of Cincy notables.
if anyone missed it, I also have a video link on the Miller Huggins thread.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I imagine it's fairly common.


if anyone missed it, I also have a video link on the Miller Huggins thread.

Unfortunately, I'm not able to access the video. Not compatable with what I have. I plan on visiting Spring Grove myself, in the next few weeks.

[dgarza]

Unfortunately, I'm not able to access the video. Not compatable with what I have. I plan on visiting Spring Grove myself, in the next few weeks.I probably should have YouTube-ed them. Maybe I'll go back and do that as well.

[Los Bravos]

Calvin Shiraldi pitched very well in the first round of the 1986 playoffs...his manager was a complete retard and left him in the game way too long in game 6 of the WS...but if his performance overall in the 86 series was weak, it's probably because he just wasn't a very good pitcher. Outside of the 1986 regular season, Shiraldi was a complete bum...both before '86 and after.All too true. I can literally remember where I was when I heard on the radio that the Sox and Cubs had pulled that trade. It was that mind boggling to me.

[SABR Matt]

I always find it interesting to research bit players who rose to visibility in crucial moments to see how that moment fits into the transience of their careers.

When I watch classic ballgames, I like to go look up the guys I know little about and see how they fit into the tapestry of baseball history.

[Los Bravos]

The most interesting thing about Schiraldi and that season, at least in hindsight, is that he was with the Mets before being traded for Bob Ojeda, who played a pretty key role in that season for New York.

I've always been surprised that more Red Sox fans didn't accuse Schiraldi of being a double agent/plant :think:

[Zoso]

Because it's the Hall of Fame, not Hall of Really Awesome Players.

Who cares about the Hall? Once they let the juicers in and Frank Thomas gets denied first ballot, they can close it down.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Because it's the Hall of Fame, not Hall of Really Awesome Players.

Who cares about the Hall? Once they let the juicers in and Frank Thomas gets denied first ballot, they can close it down.

Have you seen the amount of threads in this forum? Who cares indeed?

Is there any realistic reason you think the above will happen? They haven't let juicers in by a longshot and there's zero reason to even think thomas won't get in first ballot.

[dgarza]

They haven't let juicers in by a longshot and there's zero reason to even think thomas won't get in first ballot.
Unless he's just big 1950s Pittsburgh fan.

[The Commissioner]

The other poster was a little off, he actually had a 1.83 ERA in 83.2 WS innings.

Sorry to be pedantic here, but I stated, "...while hurling for the Yankees the guy had a 1.62 World Series ERA in 77 2/3 innings pitched." Overall, you are correct, though. He did have a 1.83 ERA in 83.2 IP. The other six innings came as member of the A's.

[The Commissioner]

Is Hoyt's post-season performance the biggest reason he's in? If he were just decent on top of his overall career, would he have been voted in? Did his long-tenured broadcasting career have anything to do with it, too?

I'm sure that, unfortunately, that did play a role.

[The Commissioner]

The totals don't lie, Commish...these Giants teams didn't beat the Yankees primarily by clubbing the snot out of the baseball...the '21 line-up was basically 7 solid above average bats and one hole (plus the pitchers of course)...a good solid line-up but we're not talking about a juggernaut line-up...and those world series games went:

3-0 Yanks
3-0 Yanks
13-5 Giants, but 8 of those runs came in one horrible 8th inning melt-down primarily sparked by two of the Yankees' scrub pitchers
4-2 Giants
3-1 Yanks
8-5 Giants (they seemed to have their way with Shawkey)
2-1 Giants
1-0 Giants and the run was unearned

0, 0, 13*, 4, 1, 8, 2, 1...that's not a team winning games by outslugging the slugging Yankees.

You need to look at how these teams got the wins they did...the Giants were a defensively gifted squad...Kelly, Frisch and Bancroft comprised one of the best defensive infields in the game at that time.

That said, it's fair to say OPS+ misses some value since they were also an aggressive club on the bases and their OPS+ doesn't suggest they should have been scoring 840 runs...so they were perhaps more of an offensive club in '21 than I'm giving their credit for. But their high BA and even higher net OPS probably owes more to the hitter's haven they called home.

In '22 the same story applies...on the surface the offense looks impressive but adjust out the huge advantage their park gave them and they're an average (but well balanced) offense that manufactured runs on the basepaths.

They won that world series 3-2, 3-3 (T), 3-0, 4-3, and 5-3. That's a defensively gifted team beating an offensively gifted team. That's not a team that should scare Hoyt.

The problem is that you are counting how bad Hoyt made the Giants look as part of your evidence that they were a poor hitting ballclub. That's sort of double jeopardy. If you take Hoyt's three complete games out of the equation, the Giants averaged almost 5 1/2 runs per each of their other outings. Even looking at those five games in a more conservative light, their median run total was 4.

You are correct in pointing out how defensively gifted the Giants were, but you are definitely also giving short shrift to their offensive prowess.

First of all, you can't be suggesting that the Giants had the advantage of a "hitter's haven" that the Yankees didn't?

Secondly, I believe you may be letting your impressions of the overall careers of some of those players taint the view of how strong they were that year. In '21 the Giants had 5 players score 90+ runs, 3 with 100+ RBI, 2 players with slugging averages of .515+, 4 full-time players who batted .300+ (one more who batted .299 and two part-timers who were .320+) the leading home run hitter in the league, as well as the leaders in walks and stolen bases. One again, if you remove the freak that was Ruth from the equation, I don't see the Giants as being any less of a potent offensive force than the overwhelming majority of clubs either National or American League. Yes, one could argue that the Indians or Tigers were better run producers, but I'm not trying to prove that the Giants were the strongest hitting ballclub on the planet. I'm simply attempting to show that Hoyt didn't exactly have the smooth sailing by setting his mark against an inferior lineup as has been implied. The Giants were a gifted all-around team.

[dgarza]

Unfortunately, I'm not able to access the video. Not compatable with what I have. I plan on visiting Spring Grove myself, in the next few weeks.

Try this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdoAIe2_0-U

[Captain Cold Nose]

Try this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdoAIe2_0-U

That did work, thanks. Awesome video.