Why is Dizzy Dean in the HOF?

[NOMAR22]

Why is Dizzy Dean in the HOF? He only pitched 6 full years, and only won 150 games.He had a 2.66 era when he won 30 games, thats not impressive.Career SO of only 1,163.

[Oosches]

[QUOTE=NOMAR22]He had a 2.66 era when he won 30 games, thats not impressive.QUOTE]

Do you know what the League ERA was in 1934 ?

1. Look it up.
2. Think really really hard before you respond.
3. Then comment (in 2 complete sentences or more) why a 2.66 ERA is "not impressive".

:crazy

[leecemark]

--Hey, it was only 2nd best in the league. What kind of slacker is that? To be fair Dean's peak is generally overrated though. There were alot of guys who had better and longer ones (Grove and Hubbell were both better in the same years Dizzy was flying high). Dean looks better because he ONLY has his peak and disappeared before having a chance to hurt his rate stats.
--He is more famous than many better pitchers simply because he was so colorfull and got the opportunity to build his legend asa popular announcer when he packed it in. It is the Hall of FAME though and few, if any, pitchers were more famous than Dean. He deserves his plaque.

[ElHalo]

As Mark said, it is the Hall of Fame.

[538280]

Yup, Dean doesn't belong in by almost any statistical analysis, and he is a horribly overrated player (he'd probably have trouble making my top 80 or 90 pitchers), but it is the Hall of FAME. Dean was one of the most famous baseball players the game has ever seen. He was the kind of guy who was known to almost every American, regardless of whether or not they care about baseball. He deserves his plaque, though on pure value he doesn't cut it.

[Imapotato]

Same reason Curt Schilling and Ortiz will be in

Sometimes it's other then stats that push someone in

[RuthMayBond]

As Mark said, it is the Hall of Fame.Fernando Valenzuela was more famous than other Hall of Famers, should he be in instead?

[dgarza]

He had a 2.66 era when he won 30 games, thats not impressive.
I guess the thinking is that "anyone" can win 30 games when you have an ERA of 2.66.

Win 30 games with an ERA of 6.73 and then I'll be impressed!

[RuthMayBond]

Win 30 games with an ERA of 6.73 and then I'll be impressed!Only with your run support :laugh

[Joltin' Joe]

There is no way he should be in the HOF. His swan song in 1934 isn't really that impressive either. An ERA+ of 159 is hardly what I would call total domination.

[Naliamegod]

Same reason Curt Schilling and Ortiz will be in


I doubt Schilling and Ortiz are comparable in the "fame" department

[NOMAR22]

I guess the thinking is that "anyone" can win 30 games when you have an ERA of 2.66.

Win 30 games with an ERA of 6.73 and then I'll be impressed!


If Dizzy Dean had a ERA of 1.50 with his 30 wins then i would be very impressed.

In my opinion Ron Guidry's 1978 season was more impressive 25-3 record 1.74 ERA,9 SHO,248 Strikeouts,his 18 strike outs in a game was a lefty handed American league record,.893 WLP.

[NOMAR22]

[QUOTE=NOMAR22]He had a 2.66 era when he won 30 games, thats not impressive.QUOTE]

Do you know what the League ERA was in 1934 ?

1. Look it up.
2. Think really really hard before you respond.
3. Then comment (in 2 complete sentences or more) why a 2.66 ERA is "not impressive".

:crazy

Im will never be impressed. He never faced the best "Negro" players or Dark Latinos of that ERA.

[Joltin' Joe]

If Dizzy Dean had a ERA of 1.50 with his 30 wins then i would be very impressed.

In my opinion Ron Guidry's 1978 season was more impressive 25-3 record 1.74 ERA,9 SHO,248 Strikeouts,his 18 strike outs in a game was a lefty handed American league record,.893 WLP.

Yeah I totally agree on Guidry. His ERA+ was 208. Blows away Dizzy's 1934.

[leecemark]

--Guidry's 1978 season was better than alot (most probably) of Hall of Famers best seasons. I agree Dizzy's 1934 wasn't as good or even close to it, but that is no slight on Dean. Guidry's performance that year is on the short list of best seasons ever. Unfortunately, much like Doc Gooden's 1985 (also a contender), Guidry never came close to repeating that level of success.
--Potato, Schilling may get a fame based boost into the Hall of Fame. Ortiz is highly unlikely to get more than one year on the ballot though.

[ElHalo]

Fernando Valenzuela was more famous than other Hall of Famers, should he be in instead?

If you're comparing Fernando Valenzuela's level of fame with Dizzy Dean's, you've got to read up on Dizzy Dean. Yes, Fernando was huge 25 years ago... but little old ladies in Alaska in the Depression knew who Dean was, even if they had not the slightest idea how the game of baseball was played. It's entirely possible that Dizzy Dean is the single most famous pitcher in the history of baseball. Whether you want him in as a player or just as a "contributor," he's got to be in the Hall.

[WJackman]

If you do any research from the 1930s, and by that I mean go back and read the daily newspapers or The Sporting News, you would find that ERA was never used as a measurement of pitching. The starting pitcher's jobs were:

1. Complete the game.
2. Give up less runs to the opposing team than his own team scored.

The greatest pitchers of the day, guys like Grove, Ferrell, Hubbell and Dean, usually worked regularly on three days rest and sometimes on two. Additionally they worked in relief.

When Pedro Martinez was with Boston he worked on four days rest regularly and often of five days rest. He pitched six or seven innings and his job was not to give up runs.

The role of the starting pitcher has changed dramatically over the years. The pitchers of todays generation are not better than the pitchers of the 30s. They are just used in a different manner.

Saying that Greg Maddux and Pedro Martinez were better pitchers than Dean and Ferrell based on ERA+ is a revisionist statement made by someone who had little true historical understanding of the game.

Let Maddux and Martinez start 75 games over two seasons, complete 60 of them, pitch 80% of them on 3 days rest and 20% on two days rest, and additonally relieve 8-10 times a season and two things would happen.

1. Their ERA+ in their best seasons would be about 150 (and everyone would still rave about how great they were).

2. Their arms would have fallen off by the time they were 30 (just like Dean and Ferrell).

[WJackman]

AND, I might add, Dizzy Dean, like Bob Feller a generation later, was in the front ranks of major leaguers willing to play against Negro League teams. Dean was very vocal in his praise of their play and that was much appreciated.

[leecemark]

--A generation later? Both broke in in the 1930s. Feller might seem like he was of a later generation, but that just because he pitched a very long time and Dean a very short one.

[yanks0714]

If Dizzy Dean had a ERA of 1.50 with his 30 wins then i would be very impressed.

In my opinion Ron Guidry's 1978 season was more impressive 25-3 record 1.74 ERA,9 SHO,248 Strikeouts,his 18 strike outs in a game was a lefty handed American league record,.893 WLP.

Didn't you see the post where someone told you that Dizzy's ERA was second best in the league? It was 1934 in a hitter's era.

Yeah, Gator had a great season. So, explain to me what your point was? Are you saying we should put players in the HOF for 1 great season? Yeah, I know Gator had more than one great season so don't bother topoint it out.

So far none of your posts have impressed me. We have so many knowlegeable posters on BBF that I learn from every day....and then I read yours and get a good laugh.

[yanks0714]

[QUOTE=Oosches]

Im will never be impressed. He never faced the best "Negro" players or Dark Latinos of that ERA.

Dizzy Dean played barnstorming tours against NeL players frequently. He was very impressed and not shy at all about extolling their abilities.

Of course, with your comment we should ignore all players' accomplishments prior to 1947.

[Imapotato]

[QUOTE=NOMAR22]

Dizzy Dean played barnstorming tours against NeL players frequently. He was very impressed and not shy at all about extolling their abilities.

Of course, with your comment we should ignore all players' accomplishments prior to 1947.


I just cannot believe some people's hypocrisy that all whites before 1947 were not as good as they were, yet all blacks before 1947 are top 10 players.

There is much more to the equation then pure athleticism. Baseball takes certain skill and that is not tied down to ones pigment or are we going to say Asians are much better at baseball from a hereditary standpoint because of Korea and Japans showing in the WBC?

[leecemark]

--Who is saying all the Negro Leaguers were top 10 players? Lots of members have the opinion that the #1 guy from that pool ought to be top 10, but nobody I can think of has more than 1 guy from that pool in their top 10 - or more than 3 in their top 25.

[WJackman]

--A generation later? Both broke in in the 1930s. Feller might seem like he was of a later generation, but that just because he pitched a very long time and Dean a very short one.


My point was that, and I may be wrong on my dates, was that Feller's barnstorming against black teams came after the 1946 season, about ten years after Dean's work versus black teams. 10 years in sufficient for a "baseball" generation.

[Appling]

Why is Dizzy Dean in the HOF? He only pitched 6 full years, and only won 150 games.He had a 2.66 era when he won 30 games, thats not impressive.Career SO of only 1,163.
Thirty wins in 1934 -- and leading the "Gashouse Gang" to a World Championship.

[csh19792001]

Why is Dizzy Dean in the HOF? He only pitched 6 full years, and only won 150 games.He had a 2.66 era when he won 30 games, thats not impressive.Career SO of only 1,163.

It is the Hall of Fame, but that doesn't mean fame is one of the key criteria. Look it up. It's supposed to be for the greatest to ever play, and Dezn isn't one of them.

In this case, he gets the nod courtesy of the Hall of Hype. Lousy selection.

[LouGehrig]

I guess the thinking is that "anyone" can win 30 games when you have an ERA of 2.66.

Win 30 games with an ERA of 6.73 and then I'll be impressed!

Wait a while. When they juice up the ball even more, decrease the strike zone even more, and lower the mound another five inches, teams will average 7 runs a game. You'll have your 20 game winners with 7.00 ERAs.

No one, except a vulture relief pitcher, will ever win 30 games because starters will not get the chance to START 30 games, much less WIN 30 games.

[RuthMayBond]

It's entirely possible that Dizzy Dean is the single most famous pitcher in the history of baseball.I was kinda thinking that guy that they named that award after.

[Rennie Stennett]

On summer nights, before TV, you could pick up Dizzy Dean calling a game on the radio all over the heartland. What a treat. "He slud into home !"

Dizzy had the English teachers in a Tizzy, because of his down home style, but the kids loved him.

You keep learnin' 'em baseball Dizzy and we'll keep teaching them english.

D is for Dean,
the grammatical Diz,
When they asked, who's the tops ?
Said correctly, I is.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I was kinda thinking that guy that they named that award after.
The guy who has his memorial at the town swimming pool?

[RuthMayBond]

The guy who has his memorial at the town swimming pool?Possibly. But Dizzy might not have deserved even one of that guy's awards :eek:

[Captain Cold Nose]

Possibly. But Dizzy might not have deserved even one of that guy's awards :eek:
You really ought to take the trip down I-77 to Newcomerstown to see it. Pretty neat memorial.
None at all? Who do you have as more deserving in the year he won 30, taking in the factors he was the best pitcher on the championship team and had the all the press? The voters have shown deep statistical evidence is not the only thing they look at.

[RuthMayBond]

You really ought to take the trip down I-77 to Newcomerstown to see it. Pretty neat memorial.
None at all? Who do you have as more deserving in the year he won 30, taking in the factors he was the best pitcher on the championship team and had the all the press?I actually think he probably deserved the MVP but Hubbell was a slightly better pitcher

<The voters have shown deep statistical evidence is not the only thing they look at.>

The voters have also shown they're morons sometimes :D

[ElHalo]

I was kinda thinking that guy that they named that award after.

He has an award named after him, and he's the all time leader in wins. You think many fans known ANYTHING else about Cy Young? And you think they'd know that second part if it wasn't for the first part? Dizzy Dean, completely apart from his playing career, basically evented television baseball broadcasting.

[iPod]

Didn't you see the post where someone told you that Dizzy's ERA was second best in the league? It was 1934 in a hitter's era.

Yeah, Gator had a great season. So, explain to me what your point was? Are you saying we should put players in the HOF for 1 great season? Yeah, I know Gator had more than one great season so don't bother topoint it out.

So far none of your posts have impressed me. We have so many knowlegeable posters on BBF that I learn from every day....and then I read yours and get a good laugh.

That's basically the reason Dizzy Dean is in.

[Appling]

He has an award named after him, and he's the all time leader in wins. You think many fans known ANYTHING else about Cy Young? And you think they'd know that second part if it wasn't for the first part?
I agree totally! Before the CYA was created (1956?) I would say that Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson were much better known "all-time great pitchers". And they were both voted to the HOF ahead of Cy Young.

In fact, I would say Lefty Grove, Carl Hubbell, Grover Alexander -- and DIZZY DEAN -- were better known than Cy Young prior to 1956. The award named in his honor is what made "Cy Young" a household word -- NOT HIS 511 CAREER WINS.

[Rennie Stennett]

If Dean didn't hurt his arm, by pitching on a broken toe, how would he have done in a nomal career ?

From 1932 to 1936, Dean won (120) games, with (123) complete games and (19) shutouts. He pitched (1530) innings (300 per year) in that five year span, with (29) saves.

In 1938, Dean won (7) of (8) decisions with the pennant winning Cubbies.

I didn't realize that Dizzy was a pretty good hitter. Research shows that during the years mentioned above, he had (130) hits and (69) RBI's.

[Old Mike]

I agree totally! Before the CYA was created (1956?) I would say that Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson were much better known "all-time great pitchers". And they were both voted to the HOF ahead of Cy Young.

In fact, I would say Lefty Grove, Carl Hubbell, Grover Alexander -- and DIZZY DEAN -- were better known than Cy Young prior to 1956. The award named in his honor is what made "Cy Young" a household word -- NOT HIS 511 CAREER WINS.


I disagree. Johnson, Alexander and Matty became more famous over the past 20-30 years due to multiple biographies and retroactive credit/opinion but if one spends time reading the baseball literature of the 20s and 30s, one would see that Cy Young was held in rather high esteem.

I think it a matter to time elapsing. The arguments used to be who was better, Wagner or Cobb. Then it became Cobb or Ruth. Then it was Ruth versus Williams. Now it is Williams versus Bonds.

Who the heck, other than Bill, keeps the flame burning for Cobb? :)

Who the heck keeps the flame burning for Young? No one.

[Appling]

Johnson, Alexander and Matty became more famous over the past 20-30 years due to multiple biographies and retroactive credit/opinion but if one spends time reading the baseball literature of the 20s and 30s, one would see that Cy Young was held in rather high esteem.

Who the heck keeps the flame burning for Young? No one.

From what I recall in the ten years after WWII (1946-1955) there was much more awareness of and admiration for Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson than there was for Cy Young.

Perhaps this is because Young's career totals were so far ahead of everyone else those numbers were given little attention at that time. All I knew then was that Cy Young pitched and won a lot of games in both leagues.

By now, the keepers of the flame for Cy Young are all long dead.

[538280]

I think it a matter to time elapsing. The arguments used to be who was better, Wagner or Cobb. Then it became Cobb or Ruth. Then it was Ruth versus Williams. Now it is Williams versus Bonds.

Who the heck, other than Bill, keeps the flame burning for Cobb? :)

Who the heck keeps the flame burning for Young? No one.

This is not true at all. You might want to check out the history forum more. By most fans (at least on BBF), Ruth and Cobb are still far and away considered the two greatest players ever.

I believe, at Bill's last count, something like 40 people from this site have called Cobb the greatest player ever, out of about 150 who have acknowledged who their greatest ever is. 90 or so like Ruth, and the other 20 are spread out between Wagner, Mays, Charleston, Bonds, and Williams.

And where's Mays in your little generational debate? And do you really think the consensus was ever that Williams was better than Ruth?

[StanTheMan]

Until someone shows me numbers that state Ted Williams was a good enough PITCHER to be one of the best in his league, win WS Games, dominate HOF pitchers like Walter Johnson (Ruth won several games in a season against him)....... then Williams will not be in the class of Babe Ruth.

Seriously folks. 714 HR's (when the second best career number was what, in the 200's??) AND a very, very good pitcher?

That's all I need.

I don't even need the clutch hitting, RBI's, slugging, runs scored, etc.

[125osprey]

Ever since I was a kid I included Dizzy Dean on my personal list of all-time greats. I really didn't think about it. It was a given fact that Dizzy Dean deserved inclusion on my shortlist. The guy was famous. They made a movie about him, for crying out loud. His 1934 season was remarkable, no doubt about it. However, my opinion has changed. I think, looking at the stats and at the length of his career, that he is overrated and shouldn't have been elected to the Hall as a player. Now, if you take his career in broadcasting into consideration with his career as a player then you might have a case for inclusion.

[Imapotato]

I agree totally! Before the CYA was created (1956?) I would say that Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson were much better known "all-time great pitchers". And they were both voted to the HOF ahead of Cy Young.

In fact, I would say Lefty Grove, Carl Hubbell, Grover Alexander -- and DIZZY DEAN -- were better known than Cy Young prior to 1956. The award named in his honor is what made "Cy Young" a household word -- NOT HIS 511 CAREER WINS.


They were only voted in 1st because Cy Young had most of his career in the 19th century, a reason Cap Anson wasn't elected 1st as well

Despite Mathewson and the Big Train, there was Cy Young...then everyone else

[Imapotato]

Who the heck keeps the flame burning for Young? No one.


Me...I say he was the #1 greatest P that ever was...and most here have him 6th or 7th

A travesty to the man who could pitch and pitch and pitch

and his wins as a % of team wins....that was VITAL in his era, and no one comes close to Cy Young

[wamby]

[QUOTE=yanks0714]


I just cannot believe some people's hypocrisy that all whites before 1947 were not as good as they were, yet all blacks before 1947 are top 10 players.

There is much more to the equation then pure athleticism. Baseball takes certain skill and that is not tied down to ones pigment or are we going to say Asians are much better at baseball from a hereditary standpoint because of Korea and Japans showing in the WBC?

It seems like the Negro Leagues were loaded with potential Hall of Famers and the Major Leagues before 1947 played at a Junior College level. It seems odd to me that the country's most popular sport was played by such lousy athletes.

[leecemark]

--Wamby, I don't believe your comment represents the view of ANY BBF poster. Most believe that their was a small group of hall of fame talents and a somewhat larger group of MLB level talent banished to the Negro Leagues . Not having all these fine players competing in the majors takes a little luster off MLB numbers from this period, but the majors was a higher level of competition than the Negro Leagues. Few, if any, would argue otherwise.
--Potato, Cy Young was ranked 4th (behind Johnson, Clemens and Grove) in our best pitchers poll. So most rank him higher than the 6th or 7th you suppose.

[125osprey]

Although he isn't in my personal Hall of Fame, there is no denying that the guy was famous. Have you seen his biopic? I saw it years ago on TVO.

on "The Pride of St. Louis" (1952) starring Dan Dailey:

"Dizzy Dean Makes Great - What Else?", 22 January 1999
Author: Michael Coy (michael.coy@virgin.net) from London, England


The life story of Jerome Herman "Dizzy" Dean is the subject matter of this amiable baseball movie. The opening caption tells us that we are going to meet "one of the most colourful characters of our time", and certainly Dean, ace pitcher for the St. Louis Cardinals, is quite an entertainer.

Dan Dailey barnstorms it as the droll hayseed with bags of charm and a disarming grin. We follow him along the usual star trajectory as Dean is discovered in an Arkansas hick game, then rises inexorably through the Texas League and into the big time, winning the World Series with the Cardinals and smashing all pitching records on the way. A sports injury leads to decline, and the downward slide begins, but Dizzy is irrepressible. He overcomes life's disappointments and learns how to make his zany charm work for him in a new career.

"You're a child, Diz - a sweet, kind, generous child," says his wife Patricia, played admirably by Joanne Dru. His boyish enthusiasm captures the hearts of the Cardinals fans, who are just as likely to see Dizzy ushering them to their stand seats or working in the ticket booth as winding up his arm on the mound. He even sings with the jazz combo during the interval. However, this very childlike quality is Dean's fatal flaw - he is impulsive and undisciplined, and when his career starts to slide he lacks the maturity to deal with the diasppointment.

From the Cardinals he plummets in quick succession to the Chicago Cubs and then back into the Texas League. He takes to drinking and gambling, and neglects his adoring wife. The fight in the poker den is his lowest point. Getting knocked to the floor is the visual representation of his moral fall.

Baseball is his life, and baseball comes to his rescue. A characteristic act of kindness brings him into contact with Johnny Kendall (Richard Hylton), a rich young entrepreneur who happens to be a baseball nut and Dean's biggest fan. Kendall sees that Dean's intimate knowledge of the game and his quirky, homespun talking style will make him a natural as a radio commentator. The hunch is borne out triumphantly. The baseball-listening public loves him. Dailey is great, pouring out the malapropisms thick and fast ('confidential' for 'confident, 'respectable' for 'respective'). Pat has left her husband and made a new life for herself, but when she hears that familiar rustic drawl over the radio, she falls back in love with him.

To call "The Pride Of St Louis" a 'baseball movie' is something of a misnomer, because the film isn't really about baseball as such and doesn't attempt to get to grips with the sport. Repetitive shots of Dean's deliveries, filmed monotonously from behind the plate, form the standard fare. Wrigley Field is a mere back projection, and even the World Series is rapidly glossed over.

The film's focus is Dizzy, and Dan Dailey delivers him.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045049/#commentIMDB

[wamby]

There is no way he should be in the HOF. His swan song in 1934 isn't really that impressive either. An ERA+ of 159 is hardly what I would call total domination.

The fact that he and Paul jumped the team in the middle of the season wasn't that impressive either.

[Fuzzy Bear]

For those of you that think Dizzy Dean wasn't a great player:

Black Ink: Pitching - 52 (23) (Average HOFer ~ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 137 (116) (Average HOFer ~ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 33.0 (112) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 111.5 (75) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

The black ink total reflects DOMINANCE. Dizzy Dean was the DOMINANT pitcher in the NL from 1933-36. Period.

Let's put this all in perspective. Dizzy Dean has 52 Black Ink points. Carl Hubbell has 51, in a longer career. Hubbell was Dean's competition for the greatest pitcher during the years Dean was at his peak, and he was a great, great pitcher and an inner-circle HOFer all the way. He had a greater career than Dean, and it's somewhat subjective, but Dean's edging Hubbell in Black Ink is evidence to me that Dean was a more dominant pitcher, by a smidgen, than The Meal Ticket during 1933-36.

OK, let's say that I'm wrong; that Hubbell was slightly greater than Dean during those years. That may well be true. Given Dean's Black Ink totals, however, two questions are begged:


Just how far behind Hubbell could Dean POSSIBLY have been, and . . .

Just how far behind a great pitcher such as Hubbell do you have to be before you are considered "not great"?


A lot of the complaints about Dean represent people trying to have it both ways. There are complaints about pitchers who "just hung around" without doing anything great, but Dean put up the kind of peak years that stamp ANY pitcher a GREAT pitcher. They're the kind of four years that, in and of themselves, present the kind of qualifications that render a pitcher worthy of the HOF.

Dizzy Dean missed the decline phase of his career, but for four season, he was amongst the greatest of the great; arguably, the best pitcher in the NL, possibly in all of baseball during those years. That's why he's in the HOF. There are a number of guys that had credentials married to fame that are not in the HOF. Lefty O'Doul, Babe Herman, Gil Hodges, Roger Maris, Curt Flood, Fernando Valenzuela, and others that are NOT in the HOF, even though they are in the HOF gray area. (Well, maybe not Flood.) Dizzy Dean isn't one of those guys. He's there on peak value. And I'll tell you this: If Dean HADN'T pitched through a broken toe and hurt his arm as he did, it may have been called the Dizzy Dean Award.

[Melottfan]

Hey guys, thirty wins does not a Hall of Famer make. If he had a few more
30+ win seasons like Christy Mathewson had perhaps. I can think a few more pitchers with better stats than Dean that should be in the Hall than Ol' Diz.

[flash143817]

Being a peak guy supporter, I'm not gonna say his HOF selection was horrible. He has a career ERA+ of 130 which ranks 32nd all time! And that's including a few relievers and 19th century guys.

In fact, the only guys with a better ERA+ than him that aren't in the HOF are either active, relievers, or two special cases (Joe Wood - arm injury after amazing start to career, Spud Chandler - short career and pitched during war years).

If you remove relievers, active guys, and 19th century guys from the list, Dean ranks 18th all time in ERA+. That is a pretty strict HOF in which the 18th best pitcher isn't good enough.

[brett]

--Hey, it was only 2nd best in the league. What kind of slacker is that? To be fair Dean's peak is generally overrated though. There were alot of guys who had better and longer ones (Grove and Hubbell were both better in the same years Dizzy was flying high).

The adjusted ERA for Hubbell during the LIVE BALL ERA, was only 3.82. In other words, given his ballparks effect, he was playing in the dead ball era in over half of his games.

[bluezebra]

One of the reasons Dean was elected to the Hall after a short career was that it was due to his being injured in the 1937 All-Star Game.

From The Baseball-Almanac: "However, the biggest story was an innocuous-looking play resulting in an infield out that ended the bottom of the third inning. It was a spectacular play that stole the show and it marked the beginning of the end of Dizzy Dean's spectacular career. Dean had become, with the retirement of Babe Ruth, baseball's most magnetic performer and its new biggest drawing card. With two out, Earl Averill cracked a low line drive that hit Dean directly on the foot. Averill was thrown out and Dean headed for the clubhouse, his three-inning stint over. In the clubhouse, it was discovered that Dean's toe was broken. Although it was considered a minor injury, Dean and the Cardinals management decided he would return to the mound before the toe was healed. The injury affected his delivery, eventually injured his arm and ended his glory days at the tender age of twenty-six."

Diz was traded to the Cubs, and had a 7-1 record in 1938, helping Chicago to a pennant. While a broadcaster for the St. Louis Browns, Dean would complain about the poor pitching of the team, "If Ol' Diz was in there...". Some writers called him on this, and in 1947 Diz pitched four SHUTOUT INNINGS against the White Sox, after being away from the mound since 1941, when he appeared in only one game.

Bob

[64Cards]

Why the lack of love from some for Diz? I can understand the rational of some, that players who lack career longevity and don't end up posting big career numbers are unworthy of the HOF honor, although I personally disagree. But to question Diz's ability during his rather brief career, well for 6 seasons, really 5-1/2, he won 133 games, 1 MVP, finished 2 in the MVP twice. If their had been a Cy Young award, he would have won in 34 & 35 and would have been the WS MVP in 34, if their had been such an award. Diz or Hubbell was the top pitcher in the NL during this period. Unfortunately, the arm injury he suffered shot his career down, pitchers back then rarely came back from serious arm problems.

Bob Broeg, the late HOF sportswriter in STL, compared Dean with Gibson [and BB saw both pitch many times] in pitching style and the way they intimidated hitters by pitching tight. I heard Leo Durocher many years ago on Tom Snyder's tv show [remember him?] talking about Dean. Leo mentioned that everyone had this image of jocular, funloving Diz from his years of doing MLB on tv, but Leo said that Dean was the meanest, nastiest pitcher he ever saw in his long career.

[ElHalo]

Hey guys, thirty wins does not a Hall of Famer make. If he had a few more
30+ win seasons like Christy Mathewson had perhaps. I can think a few more pitchers with better stats than Dean that should be in the Hall than Ol' Diz.

Right, but it's not the Hall of Stats, it's the Hall of Fame. And you can make a pretty convincing argument that Dizzy Dean is the most famous pitcher of all time.

[538280]

It is the Hall of Fame, and based on that I tentatively support Dean. But, he had an extremely short career and his peak seasons, while good, are not truly amazing, none of them would rank among the all time greatest pitching seasons. I would rate Dwight Gooden over Dean, and a good case could be made that if Dean is in, Gooden should be as well. Dean would be more famous than Gooden, but Gooden had VERY considerable fame of his own. He was, from what I've read, the #1 story in baseball in 1985, and was considered a true superstar.

[64Cards]

It is the Hall of Fame, and based on that I tentatively support Dean. But, he had an extremely short career and his peak seasons, while good, are not truly amazing, none of them would rank among the all time greatest pitching seasons. I would rate Dwight Gooden over Dean, and a good case could be made that if Dean is in, Gooden should be as well. Dean would be more famous than Gooden, but Gooden had VERY considerable fame of his own. He was, from what I've read, the #1 story in baseball in 1985, and was considered a true superstar.
Granted, Doc had a hell of a year in 85, but while Dizzy prematurely ended a brilliant, yes BRILLIANT, pitching career, because of his insistence on pitching with an injured toe, that altered his pitching motion and hurt his arm, Doc ended his because of white line fever. Big difference. And I'd put Dizzy's 34 season up with just about anyone's best. What a workhorse!

[brett]

It is the Hall of Fame, and based on that I tentatively support Dean. But, he had an extremely short career and his peak seasons, while good, are not truly amazing, none of them would rank among the all time greatest pitching seasons. I would rate Dwight Gooden over Dean, and a good case could be made that if Dean is in, Gooden should be as well. Dean would be more famous than Gooden, but Gooden had VERY considerable fame of his own. He was, from what I've read, the #1 story in baseball in 1985, and was considered a true superstar.

He was runner up CY in his rookie year of '84, and beaten by Sutcliff based on his 16-1 record in the national league after he was traded. He was the top starting pitcher in baseball for the YEAR.

He was CY, and several publications player of the year in '85. He lost the MVP for the right reason-few runs league wide-but still probably should have won. After a 6-3 start, he ran off a 14 game winning streak and was 18-1 to finish the year for a Mets team that won 98, with 8 shutouts and a 1.53 ERA-still the lowest since the reduction of the mound.

In '86 he was the ace of the World Champions and finished 7th in a CY race that he could easily have won if it had not been a let-down from '85

In '87 he was favored to win the CY with a few starts to go. I think he was 15-4 but lost his last 3 decisions. 5 guys got first place votes including #1 a closer, #2 A guy with a 3.68 ERA and 18 wins, #3 a guy at 13-9 and #4 a guy at 16-16. People really could not figure out who to vote for that year.

He also finished 4th in 1990.

AND he finished 5 or more games above .500 in each of his first 8:

17-9
24-4
17-6
15-7
18-9
9-4
19-7
13-7

That's 81 games over .500 in his first 8 years only. (Better than several HOFers)

That's a 132-53 record for 8 years (71.4%)