Koufax, Sutter, Carter and Greenberg Don't Belong

[JimAbbott]

It's laughable that these guys are in the hall.

Sutter 300 saves, gimme a break. guess it means Tom Henke goes too, he's got 314. I suppose Reardon is a shoe-in with his 367. Wetteland, Jeff Montgomery, Doug Jones, Nenn, Aguilera, Goose, Jose Mesa, R. Hernandez, Lee Smith and Percival all have more saves than Sutter so let's put em all in I suppose. What a joke and nobody even questioned Sutter's selection in the media. He flat out isn't close to being worthy, especially if the Goose is not. pitiful.

What is Gary Carter and his 324 HRs doing in the hall???? another laughable choice. If he's worthy then why is Lance Parrish not in???

Koufax? 165 wins is not hall worthy. Where's Jack Morris and his 254 wins in that case? How about the 100 or so pitchers with more wins? the 25 or more with lower ERAs? The 10 with more life Ks?

Greenberg? 331 HRs 1276 RBIs. He's another comical choice for hall. How about the 100 players with more HRs that won't go? The more than 50 guys with more RBIs and higher averages?


the writers vote for guys they like in these cases. others with much better numbers get snubbed

[-Kyle-]

You could have a good dicussion with Dodgerfan66.

[Pine Tar]

It's laughable that these guys are in the hall.

Sutter 300 saves, gimme a break. guess it means Tom Henke goes too, he's got 314. I suppose Reardon is a shoe-in with his 367. Wetteland, Jeff Montgomery, Doug Jones, Nenn, Aguilera, Goose, Jose Mesa, R. Hernandez, Lee Smith and Percival all have more saves than Sutter so let's put em all in I suppose. What a joke and nobody even questioned Sutter's selection in the media. He flat out isn't close to being worthy, especially if the Goose is not. pitiful.

What is Gary Carter and his 324 HRs doing in the hall???? another laughable choice. If he's worthy then why is Lance Parrish not in???

Koufax? 165 wins is not hall worthy. Where's Jack Morris and his 254 wins in that case? How about the 100 or so pitchers with more wins? the 25 or more with lower ERAs? The 10 with more life Ks?

Greenberg? 331 HRs 1276 RBIs. He's another comical choice for hall. How about the 100 players with more HRs that won't go? The more than 50 guys with more RBIs and higher averages?


the writers vote for guys they like in these cases. others with much better numbers get snubbed

Yeah! And while we are at it, lets get rid of Ted Williams and Jimmie Fox. I mean, Rusty Staub, Bill Buckner, Al Oliver, Vada Pinson, and Harold Baines all have more hits then they do.

[cbenson5]

Greenberg? 331 HRs 1276 RBIs. He's another comical choice for hall. How about the 100 players with more HRs that won't go? The more than 50 guys with more RBIs and higher averages?


A comical choice. A .313 batting average, .609 slugging percentage, and a .409 on base percentage. Not to mention he lost over four years to WW2.

[SABR Matt]

Carter was also one of the best fielding catchers of all time, and his offensive statistics came during a time when the game was more balanced, though he certainly wasn't an all-time great with the bat. Carter is in the HOF because few catchers had his endurance and his well-rounded skill set. Lance Parrish was also a great fielder but you won't find a soul here at Fever who believes Parrish was Carter's equal offensively or in terms of longevity.

[Brownie31]

It's laughable that these guys are in the hall.

Sutter 300 saves, gimme a break. guess it means Tom Henke goes too, he's got 314. I suppose Reardon is a shoe-in with his 367. Wetteland, Jeff Montgomery, Doug Jones, Nenn, Aguilera, Goose, Jose Mesa, R. Hernandez, Lee Smith and Percival all have more saves than Sutter so let's put em all in I suppose. What a joke and nobody even questioned Sutter's selection in the media. He flat out isn't close to being worthy, especially if the Goose is not. pitiful.

What is Gary Carter and his 324 HRs doing in the hall???? another laughable choice. If he's worthy then why is Lance Parrish not in???

Koufax? 165 wins is not hall worthy. Where's Jack Morris and his 254 wins in that case? How about the 100 or so pitchers with more wins? the 25 or more with lower ERAs? The 10 with more life Ks?

Greenberg? 331 HRs 1276 RBIs. He's another comical choice for hall. How about the 100 players with more HRs that won't go? The more than 50 guys with more RBIs and higher averages?


the writers vote for guys they like in these cases. others with much better numbers get snubbed

You are definitely right on Sutter, maybe on Carter, but you
are wrong, wrong, wrong in re Greenberg and Koufax.

In Greenberg's case, you failed to mention that he lost nearly
five full years because he served his nation in the military
during World War II. You also fail to consider his position as
a Jewish superstar during an ugly era of anti-semitism.

Koufax only won 165 games because of arm problems.
Over the five year stretch from 1962-1966 seasons,
his record was astounding.

It is my feeling that one has to look deeply into the
reason a player's stats are what they are. In the
same vein, you should study the player's biography
very closely to understand the non-baseball reasons
for the stats.

Brownie31

[JimAbbott]

OK then, if we're going to use some of the logic above for Koufax and Greenberg, then we're going to have to open the hall doors for others who had similar situations. As for Greenberg, I accept the arguments for him but we should examine others not in hall after losing years in war and who had similar #s. We also need to look at black players who played from 1947-1960 with similar #s. I suspect we will find a few guys who should be in if Greenberg is but perhaps not too too many

Koufax is another story altogether. Here we can find many pitchers with similar situation and #s to Sandy and will never get into the hall. Sandy won 20 games only 3 times. Certainly we have to put Cone, Jimmy Key, Mike Cuellar and Dave McNally in the hall. All of those guys had over 185 wins with nice winning %s and were dominant for a number of years even longer than sandy. We may even have to look at Jim Maloney who had 3 no hitters and a solid winning %.

Get the hall doors open for these guys and I'll say Koufax belongs

[JimAbbott]

Yeah! And while we are at it, lets get rid of Ted Williams and Jimmie Fox. I mean, Rusty Staub, Bill Buckner, Al Oliver, Vada Pinson, and Harold Baines all have more hits then they do.


well, williams had 521 HRs 1839 RBI 2021 BBs .344 life avg and he lost 5 seasons to wars. pretty sure he's hall worthy. Fox had 536 HRs and 500 HRs is a hall lock. I am a believer in Baines getting in though

[cbenson5]

I'm curious as to who has equal/better numbers than Greenberg and missed 4 and a half years to the war. I'm guessing everyone you can name is in the Hall. Who among the pitchers you mentioned dominated like Sandy Koufax? How did their peaks match up against that of Koufax?

[EvanAparra]

It's laughable that these guys are in the hall.

Sutter 300 saves, gimme a break. guess it means Tom Henke goes too, he's got 314. I suppose Reardon is a shoe-in with his 367. Wetteland, Jeff Montgomery, Doug Jones, Nenn, Aguilera, Goose, Jose Mesa, R. Hernandez, Lee Smith and Percival all have more saves than Sutter so let's put em all in I suppose. What a joke and nobody even questioned Sutter's selection in the media. He flat out isn't close to being worthy, especially if the Goose is not. pitiful.

What is Gary Carter and his 324 HRs doing in the hall???? another laughable choice. If he's worthy then why is Lance Parrish not in???

Koufax? 165 wins is not hall worthy. Where's Jack Morris and his 254 wins in that case? How about the 100 or so pitchers with more wins? the 25 or more with lower ERAs? The 10 with more life Ks?

Greenberg? 331 HRs 1276 RBIs. He's another comical choice for hall. How about the 100 players with more HRs that won't go? The more than 50 guys with more RBIs and higher averages?


the writers vote for guys they like in these cases. others with much better numbers get snubbed

This is one of the funniest posts ive seen in a while...

You look at one stat in a players career and decided that they are not hall-worthy because of that.

I dont know much about Sutter, but i believe Carter should be in, although hes not the type of lock as Ruth or Gehrig....

Koufax and Greenberg are definately worthy of the hall... And Koufax especially.. He was the best pitcher of his generation, not only in my eyes but in the eyes of most... And actually, hes the best pitcher ever., IMO. I mean its just plain ridiculous to say that Koufax doesnt belong in the hall, really funny actually.:laugh

[johnnypapa]

I certainly think he has a case with Koufax..... from 55 to 60 he was terrible, then a couple of decent years, 4 outstanding seasons and then the arm goes. If Koufax's 4 great seasons is HOF worthy then why not Don Mattingly's 5 great seasons before the back injury?


jp

[1905 Giants]

It's laughable that these guys are in the hall.

Sutter 300 saves, gimme a break. guess it means Tom Henke goes too, he's got 314. I suppose Reardon is a shoe-in with his 367. Wetteland, Jeff Montgomery, Doug Jones, Nenn, Aguilera, Goose, Jose Mesa, R. Hernandez, Lee Smith and Percival all have more saves than Sutter so let's put em all in I suppose. What a joke and nobody even questioned Sutter's selection in the media. He flat out isn't close to being worthy, especially if the Goose is not. pitiful.

As you may be able to tell from my picture, I'm a big Sutter fan. I used his method of throwing a splitter and like him don't have an overpowering fastball. However, the point here is that I'm going to debunk you crappy shots at him one by one.

Lee Smith:Sutter has a higher ERA+, a better won/lost percentage, better WHIP, more all-Star appearances, and better voting in Cy Young Awards

Tom Henke: Only 11 more saves in two more years, Fewer innings pitched, Fewer Games

Reardon: Lower won/lost percentage, worse ERA+, worse WHIP

Wetteland: Fewer Innings pitched, fewer games, almost as many homeruns given up, had better set up man in Rivera later.

Montgomery: Worse won/lost, More homeruns given up, worse ERA+, worse WHIP

Jones: Worse Won/Lost, worse ERA+, worse WHIP

Nenn: Better Teams, Worse WHIP

Aguilera: Worse ERA+, Worse WHIP

Goose: Worse ERA+, Worse WHIP, only 10 more saves in ten more years.

Mesa: Worse W/L%, Worse ERA+, worse WHIP

Hernandez: Worse WHIP, Fewer all-Star Appearances, Worse Cy Young standing

Percival: Worse W/L%, Fewer Innings Pitched, Worse in All-Star Standings

I submit to you that Sutter is ahead of Each of them in a significant way. Oh, and I forgot he pitched in an ERA with fewer saves overall and was a pioneer of the Splitter.

[1905 Giants]

Carter vs. Parrish:

Carter has a better OPS+, Higher Stolen Base Percentage, More Total Bases, Better Defensive stats, Grounded into fewer double plays, had more RBI, fewer strikeouts, more doubles, more triples, more runs, and more hits.

[1905 Giants]

Case for Koufax:
Excellent Won/Lost%, Excellent in MVP standings, three Cy Youngs, Excellent WHIP, 3 triple crowns, 4 TSN Pitcher of the year, MVP Award, 2 Babe Ruth Awards, 2 Major League Player of Year Awards, 2 World Series MVP awards, 40 shutouts in 12 years, four no-hitters including a perfect game.

Jack Morris in the Hall would be more of a joke than Koufax. The Hall isn't about who did the most, its about who was great, and if you don't think Koufax was a great pitcher, go play Soccer or Polo. Morris gets blown away compared to Koufax in ERA+, Won/Lost%, WHIP, All-Star Appearances, and MVP and CY Young shares.

[EvanAparra]

I certainly think he has a case with Koufax..... from 55 to 60 he was terrible, then a couple of decent years, 4 outstanding seasons and then the arm goes. If Koufax's 4 great seasons is HOF worthy then why not Don Mattingly's 5 great seasons before the back injury?


jp

Apparently, your views of terrible are different than everyone elses...from 55-60 he had one bad season, two average, and then two a little above average... And i wouldnt call 62' a decent season, with a 2.54 ERA.
And he might have had the highest peak of any pitcher in history, as its not all about longevity.

[Brownie31]

Koufax is another story altogether. Here we can find many pitchers with similar situation and #s to Sandy and will never get into the hall. Sandy won 20 games only 3 times. Certainly we have to put Cone, Jimmy Key, Mike Cuellar and Dave McNally in the hall. All of those guys had over 185 wins with nice winning %s and were dominant for a number of years even longer than sandy. We may even have to look at Jim Maloney who had 3 no hitters and a solid winning %.

Get the hall doors open for these guys and I'll say Koufax belongs

You make very solid arguments for Cone, Key, Cuellar, McNally, and
Maloney. That said, however, the fact that those five have excellent
credentials does not mean Koufax doesn't belong.

It means that the HOF voters have left out some very deserving
people. Could not one promote those who should be in without
attacking those who are?

Over at the Brooklyn Dodger forum, many have promoted
Gil Hodges for the HOF, very deservedly, IMHO. What no
one has done is tear down Lou Gehrig, Bill Terry, Hank
Greenberg or anyone else.

Brownie31

[johnnypapa]

Apparently, your views of terrible are different than everyone elses...from 55-60 he had one bad season, two average, and then two a little above average... And i wouldnt call 62' a decent season, with a 2.54 ERA.
And he might have had the highest peak of any pitcher in history, as its not all about longevity.


Ok let's say average..... although I bet the word terrible crossed Walter Alston's mind when Koufax was walking 105 batters in 158 innings :) That being said...Does Mattingly belong in the HOF?


jp

[RuthMayBond]

This is one of the funniest posts ive seen in a while...

And Koufax especially... And actually, hes the best pitcher ever., Yer pretty comical yourself

[RuthMayBond]

Lee Smith:Sutter has a higher ERA+,I'd hope so since Smith had about 25% more IP

<a better won/lost percentage>

Which means very little among relievers

<better WHIP>

in an easier era

<more all-Star appearances>

before the reliever role developed as much

<Goose: Worse ERA+, Worse WHIP>

Ya think, over 75% more IP

<only 10 more saves in ten more years.>

Which is hardly the best indicator

<and was a pioneer of the Splitter.>

He popularized it but didn't invent it

[EvanAparra]

Yer pretty comical yourself

Thats nice that you took out "IMO". Nice job making things look different then they really are... But when i say i think hes the best pitcher ever, i mean peak wise, not career wise...thats how i determine stuff like that. But again, try to not take things out of context.

[EvanAparra]

I'd hope so since Smith had about 25% more IP

<a better won/lost percentage>

Which means very little among relievers

<better WHIP>

in an easier era

<more all-Star appearances>

before the reliever role developed as much

<Goose: Worse ERA+, Worse WHIP>

Ya think, over 75% more IP

<only 10 more saves in ten more years.>

Which is hardly the best indicator

<and was a pioneer of the Splitter.>

He popularized it but didn't invent it

Whats the point of your posts? Instead of giving your opinion, youve just claimed that everyone elses are wrong.




And to the "Ok let's say average..... although I bet the word terrible crossed Walter Alston's mind when Koufax was walking 105 batters in 158 innings That being said...Does Mattingly belong in the HOF?" post, that one season you speak of is the one i said was bad. And yes, i would vote vote for mattingly to be a HOFer.

[candy curveball cummings]

It's laughable that these guys are in the hall.

Sutter 300 saves, gimme a break. guess it means Tom Henke goes too, he's got 314. I suppose Reardon is a shoe-in with his 367. Wetteland, Jeff Montgomery, Doug Jones, Nenn, Aguilera, Goose, Jose Mesa, R. Hernandez, Lee Smith and Percival all have more saves than Sutter so let's put em all in I suppose. What a joke and nobody even questioned Sutter's selection in the media. He flat out isn't close to being worthy, especially if the Goose is not. pitiful.

What is Gary Carter and his 324 HRs doing in the hall???? another laughable choice. If he's worthy then why is Lance Parrish not in???

Koufax? 165 wins is not hall worthy. Where's Jack Morris and his 254 wins in that case? How about the 100 or so pitchers with more wins? the 25 or more with lower ERAs? The 10 with more life Ks?


Greenberg? 331 HRs 1276 RBIs. He's another comical choice for hall. How about the 100 players with more HRs that won't go? The more than 50 guys with more RBIs and higher averages?


the writers vote for guys they like in these cases. others with much better numbers get snubbed


I don't mean any offense, but this is the dumbest thing I have ever read.

Let's start with Koufax. You mentioned Jack Morris. First off, if you are argument is wins, you could've done better than Morris. To name one, Bert Blyleven, to name another Tommy John.

But back to Koufax. The man won 3 triple crowns in 5 years. That's where you lead the league in ERA, Wins, and Strikeouts in case you weren't sure. Who else has done that? You seem to be a fan of cumulative statistics, and that's fine, I respect that... kind of. But Koufax set a benchmark that every pitcher is held to. Whenever a pitcher puts together 4 or 5 good years, they are inevitably compared to Koufax. Rarely doe anyone ever mention Morris, Blyleven, or John when talking about greatness. But the difference between them and Koufax was Koufax was great, those three were just very good.

Now all I'm going to say about Carter is, why mention Parrish? I thought you were making cases that better guys are out while these guys are in. Offensively, Carter is better pretty much all around.

Sutter is a guy I don't necessarily support in the hall, but he was one of the first closers and he led the league in saves 5 times. He makes a great case.

And where are these 100 players with more Home Runs than Greenberg? Are you talking guys that might pass him? Because I checked, and there are only about 80 with more home runs than Hank right now a good number of them are in the hall. Greenberg belongs for al the reasons everyone else has already stated. A truly great player shortened by his war duty.

[CTaka]

[QUOTE=JimAbbott]OK then, if we're going to use some of the logic above for Koufax and Greenberg, then we're going to have to open the hall doors for others who had similar situations. As for Greenberg, I accept the arguments for him but we should examine others not in hall after losing years in war and who had similar #s. We also need to look at black players who played from 1947-1960 with similar #s. [/QUOTE

I'm assuming that your post was meant in jest and not to be taken seriously. But on the off-chance that you were serious, please list any/all of the MLB players not in the hall who missed similar time due to military service as Hank and still finished their career with a slugging percentage over .600. Greenberg's was .605, but anyone over .600 will do. According to Baseball Prospectus, there are only 7 players with a higher slugging percentage than Greenberg - five are in the hall and the other two (Bonds and Helton) are still active. At his current pace in 2006, Helton will fall behind Hank after this season. So I'm really curious as to who these "other players" are that you mention.

[CTaka]

My bad: of the seven career slugging percentages higher than Greenberg, four are in the hall and three are active - Bonds, Helton and Pujols. Assuming Helton drops below .600 after this season, the only ones higher than Hank will be Ruth, Williams, Gehrig, Pujols, Bonds and Foxx. Not bad company to be in, particularly when you don't even believe Greenberg should be in the Hall. :confused:

[JimAbbott]

Well, if you've got Greenberg in there then absolutely and with no questions asked you must put in the following:

Dawson
Murphy
Jim Rice
Canseco
Baines
Dewey Evans
Joe Carter

I'm talking they should be shoe-ins

PS: the guy is #82 in HRs and #97 in RBIs all time! How impressive. Meanwhile Kaoufax is #172 in wins and #92 in ERA. Carter doesn't make the top 100 in HRs, RBIs or avg. The more I look at these #s the more I see that Sutter is the most worthy of the 4. If these guys are in they better build a much larger hall, cause they're gonna need it for the hundreds of equally worthy candidates that should be in if these journeymen are in. Bring on Staub, Bring on Pinson, Here comes Oliva, Matlack, Gaetti and Grote. Munson and Mattingly shoulda been in on 1st ballots. where's roger maris? Gimme Garvey, Cey, Tugster McGraw and Koosman. How bout Pedro Bourbon? Don Gullett? Gary Nolan? Vida Blue, Nellie Briles, Jim McCormick. Colavito, Dick Allen, Luis Tiant

[johnnypapa]

Alright now, JimAbbott, I'm probably one of the few that did not jump off the ledge when you said Koufax should not be in the HOF but now your losin' me having Joe (career .306 OBP) Carter on that list. :)

[JimAbbott]

Well regarding the Joe Carter thing, I was just making an if/then argument btw Greenberg and Carter. Carter 396 HR, Greenberg 331, Carter 1445 RBI Greenberg 1276

[cbenson5]

You keep ignoring that Greenberg lost 4 and a half years to the war. Take away 4 and a half years from some of these other players and then take a look at their career numbers.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It's laughable that these guys are in the hall.

I'll address the "laughability" point by point.

Sutter 300 saves, gimme a break. guess it means Tom Henke goes too, he's got 314. I suppose Reardon is a shoe-in with his 367. Wetteland, Jeff Montgomery, Doug Jones, Nenn, Aguilera, Goose, Jose Mesa, R. Hernandez, Lee Smith and Percival all have more saves than Sutter so let's put em all in I suppose. What a joke and nobody even questioned Sutter's selection in the media. He flat out isn't close to being worthy, especially if the Goose is not. pitiful.

I would not have voted for Sutter before Gossage, but it's a defensible choice. Sutter won a Cy Young Award; none of the other's you listed did. Sutter had a higher peak than any of the relievers you listed. Evaluating relievers for the HOF is more subjective than other types of players, and I tend to give relievers who starred before the 9th inning "closer" role evaluved, when a reliever functioned as a "fireman", coming into the game at any old time that was crucial. But Sutter is a defensible choice if you are going to name relievers, and he is far superior, in terms of peak value, to the other relievers you named.

What is Gary Carter and his 324 HRs doing in the hall???? another laughable choice. If he's worthy then why is Lance Parrish not in???

Firstly, 324 career HRs is excellent for a catcher, given the wear and tear of the position. Carter's career HR total, in and of itself, qualifies him for the HOF as a catcher. Secondly, Carter was somewhat better on offense than Lance Parrish (higher average, more walks) and MUCH, MUCH better on defense. (Carter was one of the greatest defensive catchers ever to play the game; there are some that rate him ahead of Bench on defense.) Thirdly, Carter was, without question, the best catcher in baseball from 1979 through 1986. That's a long period of time to be the best at a position in all of baseball. (By the way, Lance Parrish has a HOF case that deserves more consideration than it received.)

Koufax? 165 wins is not hall worthy. Where's Jack Morris and his 254 wins in that case? How about the 100 or so pitchers with more wins? the 25 or more with lower ERAs? The 10 with more life Ks?

Koufax may have had the highest peak value ever, of any LHP. Koufax was hardly done when he retired; he retired because of an arthritic condition that could have rendered him a cripple if he pitched too long. Had Koufax held on for two more seasons, he probably would have made it to 200 wins, and you wouldn't be squawking then. Koufax had the sense to retire so he could brush his teeth in his old age; he had more sense than 99 percent of the jocks that have come down the pike.

Greenberg? 331 HRs 1276 RBIs. He's another comical choice for hall. How about the 100 players with more HRs that won't go? The more than 50 guys with more RBIs and higher averages?

Hank Greenberg was drafted into the Army in 1941; he was a pre-Pearl Harbor Veteran. While serving his hitch, America entered WWII. He left baseball after 19 games in 1941 and did not return until the season was more than half over in 1945. He missed four and one half seasons from age 30-34 in service to his country.

Despite all of this, check out Greenberg's performance on the HOF monitor:

Black Ink: Batting - 46 (30) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 171 (59) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 45.5 (103) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 187.5 (44) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

Greenberg is above average FOR HALL OF FAMERS in Black Ink and Gray Ink. He's near the average on HOF standards. The HOF standards measurement has seasonal and career standards. Greenberg, had he not lost the war years to the Army, would have easily topped 50 on HOF standards. He would have easily had 500 HRs, barring an injury, and would have pushed 600. Greenberg was hardly done when he retired, but he had other career options; he was a major league general manager after his playing days were done.

That anyone would find any of these picks ridiculous is perplexing; that anyone would find Koufax and Greenberg not worthy simply defies logic and reason, and displays an inability to even begin to evaluate the entirety of ones career and place it in the context of baseball history.


the writers vote for guys they like in these cases. others with much better numbers get snubbed[/QUOTE]

[Fuzzy Bear]

Well, if you've got Greenberg in there then absolutely and with no questions asked you must put in the following:

Dawson
Murphy
Jim Rice
Canseco
Baines
Dewey Evans
Joe Carter

I'm talking they should be shoe-ins

PS: the guy is #82 in HRs and #97 in RBIs all time! How impressive. Meanwhile Kaoufax is #172 in wins and #92 in ERA. Carter doesn't make the top 100 in HRs, RBIs or avg. The more I look at these #s the more I see that Sutter is the most worthy of the 4. If these guys are in they better build a much larger hall, cause they're gonna need it for the hundreds of equally worthy candidates that should be in if these journeymen are in. Bring on Staub, Bring on Pinson, Here comes Oliva, Matlack, Gaetti and Grote. Munson and Mattingly shoulda been in on 1st ballots. where's roger maris? Gimme Garvey, Cey, Tugster McGraw and Koosman. How bout Pedro Bourbon? Don Gullett? Gary Nolan? Vida Blue, Nellie Briles, Jim McCormick. Colavito, Dick Allen, Luis Tiant

I really can't believe I'm reading this. I'm trying to be kind, but if you really believe this, you can't have ANY clue about the concept of peak vs. career value.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Well, if you've got Greenberg in there then absolutely and with no questions asked you must put in the following:

Dawson
Murphy
Jim Rice
Canseco
Baines
Dewey Evans
Joe Carter

I'm talking they should be shoe-ins

PS: the guy is #82 in HRs and #97 in RBIs all time! How impressive. Meanwhile Kaoufax is #172 in wins and #92 in ERA. Carter doesn't make the top 100 in HRs, RBIs or avg. The more I look at these #s the more I see that Sutter is the most worthy of the 4. If these guys are in they better build a much larger hall, cause they're gonna need it for the hundreds of equally worthy candidates that should be in if these journeymen are in. Bring on Staub, Bring on Pinson, Here comes Oliva, Matlack, Gaetti and Grote. Munson and Mattingly shoulda been in on 1st ballots. where's roger maris? Gimme Garvey, Cey, Tugster McGraw and Koosman. How bout Pedro Bourbon? Don Gullett? Gary Nolan? Vida Blue, Nellie Briles, Jim McCormick. Colavito, Dick Allen, Luis Tiant
I think your point isd that Greenburg is so poor that he deserves to be in after these fairly poor players. Koufax and Greenburg both belong in the HoF. I see you are new here and looking back at some of your posts yiou seem to enjoy conventional statistics (RBI/Wins) more than most. Hank had seven seasons of at least 130 games and he had MVP level season in 6 of them. That means 86% of his seasons of 130 games where MVP type seasons. Addmitedly this percentage would probably look less impresive if he had those years from age 30-34 back but his career stats would look far more impressive. Consider this, at age 29 (his last year before the war) he hit 41 HR (According to BP when adjusted for era it is an even more impressive 58). After the war ended at age 35 he topped that and hit 44 (64 when adjusted for era. It seems reasonable to expect him to have hit about 40 HR a year from ages 30-34. If he had those years back his "meager" total of 331 and he hits 40 HR a year his total becomes 551 and remember that is being conservative (BP has him hitting 59 HR a year when adjusted for era when he had at least 500 AB so then you can expect him to hit an expected 45 HR a year, very conservatively expecting inuries. BP already has him hitting 502 career HR when adjusted for era, if you add in 5 more 45 HR seasons it becomes 727 total career HR. I don`t really completely trust BP's translated stats, they have the Babe hitting over 1,000, which is what I`m using but does 727 career HR sound like HoF material to you?). His career EQA is an amazing .327 (admittedly with the 5 years added it would look less amazing but it's obviously still great. Every single one of his years except for his first two (The first he played a stunning one game and his second he had .288 over 117 games) he had an EQA of at least .300 (some of his years did suffer from small sample size because of injuries). Want more? Hank had a career OBP of over .400 and fell below .400 and fell below .400 only 3 times (his first two years and his second to last) all of those years except for one had less than 130 AB. His highest was .455. You can`t claim that these numbers are worse than Mr. Overrated, Joe Carter. These are HoF numbers without a doubt. He was not exactly very durable which COULD justify an argument against him but I don`t think that's your point and Mantle got in anyway. If Hank had those war years back maybe the argument for greatest 3rd baseman of all time would be less one-sided in the Iron Horse's favor. He was truly an all-time great if you can forget the injuries and mentally fill in the blanks for the war years like Joe DiMaggio and he is easily without doubt better than Joe Carter and a HoFer.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Hank Greenberg was drafted into the Army in 1941; he was a pre-Pearl Harbor Veteran. While serving his hitch, America entered WWII. He left baseball after 19 games in 1941 and did not return until the season was more than half over in 1945. He missed four and one half seasons from age 30-34 in service to his country.

Despite all of this, check out Greenberg's performance on the HOF monitor:

Black Ink: Batting - 46 (30) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 171 (59) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 45.5 (103) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 187.5 (44) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

Greenberg is above average FOR HALL OF FAMERS in Black Ink and Gray Ink. He's near the average on HOF standards. The HOF standards measurement has seasonal and career standards. Greenberg, had he not lost the war years to the Army, would have easily topped 50 on HOF standards. He would have easily had 500 HRs, barring an injury, and would have pushed 600. Greenberg was hardly done when he retired, but he had other career options; he was a major league general manager after his playing days were done.

That anyone would find any of these picks ridiculous is perplexing; that anyone would find Koufax and Greenberg not worthy simply defies logic and reason, and displays an inability to even begin to evaluate the entirety of ones career and place it in the context of baseball history.


the writers vote for guys they like in these cases. others with much better numbers get snubbed

I agree with your overall point but I just want to mention that you aren`t using Bill James's Ink scores/HoF Monitors the way they were originally intended for. They aren`t designed to make a point that a player shoud be in the HoF or that he is/was a great player. They were designed to calculate a player's CHANCES of making the HoF. Bill James himself has explained this on a number of occasions. They use illogical weightings based on what the voters have valued in the past, not what is most important to winning baseball games (note the complete ignorance of Win Shares for example which James would be likely to include in a measurement of how good a player is. Just wanted to note that for the future :D

[EvanAparra]

Well regarding the Joe Carter thing, I was just making an if/then argument btw Greenberg and Carter. Carter 396 HR, Greenberg 331, Carter 1445 RBI Greenberg 1276

Since you seem to really like the HR and RBI stats... how about this...

162 Game Avg - Greenberg 38 HRs - Carter 29 HRs. Greenberg 148 RBIs - Carter 109 RBIs. The only reason Carter leads these categories career wise was of course because of Greenbergs military service, but on the average Greenberg was a much better producer than Carter.

Oh yeah by the way... Carter has a career .259/.306/.464
Greenberg..............313/.412/.605

And oh yes, Greenberg won 2 MVPs, Carter had none.

[RuthMayBond]

Thats nice that you took out "IMO". Nice job making things look different then they really are... But when i say i think hes the best pitcher ever, i mean peak wise, not career wise...thats how i determine stuff like that. But again, try to not take things out of context.I kinda assumed you'd be talking about your opinion. Why don't you put things in a context?

[RuthMayBond]

Whats the point of your posts? Instead of giving your opinion, youve just claimed that everyone elses are wrong.My opinion was implied in the post, I think Lee Smith and Gossage were better than Sutter

<That being said...Does Mattingly belong in the HOF?" post, that one season you speak of is the one i said was bad. And yes, i would vote vote for mattingly to be a HOFer.>

Not sure what you're talking about, but I disagree about Mattingly, prove your case

[RuthMayBond]

How bout Nellie BrilesNow you've really lost it

<Dick Allen>

You say this like it's a bad thing

[rockin500]

how come we're giving this guy any press?

[candy curveball cummings]

PS: the guy is #82 in HRs and #97 in RBIs all time! How impressive. Meanwhile Kaoufax is #172 in wins and #92 in ERA. Carter doesn't make the top 100 in HRs, RBIs or avg.

First, we are talking about Gary Carter right? Because last I checked, he was in the top 100 in HRs. But that doesn't matter. Where does he rank among catchers? How many catchers are ahead of him in HRs? Berra, Bench, Fisk, and Piazza. The first three are in the Hall the last one will be. In fact, let's compare Johnny Bench, arguably the greatest catcher ever, to Gary Carter:

.262 324 HR 1225 RBI 2092 Hits and 1025 Runs Scored
.267 389 HR 1376 RBI 2048 Hits and 1091 Runs Scored

Yes, Bench is better. But if Bench is the greatest Catcher of all-time, and many think he is, if Carter is this close to him, what does that say? Either looking at career stats alone isn't a good thing, which is really what you seem to be doing, or that Carter isn't as bad as you think.

Second of all, Koufax. You talk about ERA, but let's look at era (as in a period of time). Ed Walsh, who is a fantastic pitcher, owns the career record for lowest ERA at about 1.82. During his career the league average for ERA was about 2.63. Walsh was an amazing 81 points lower in his ERA than the average pitcher of his era. Amazing. Koufax's ERA was 2.76. The league average during his career was 3.63. In case you were wondering, that's an 87 point difference. Walsh pitched in the deadball era, as did a lot of pitchers on that top 100 list. Their ERAs were low because position players didn't score as many runs.

[JimAbbott]

OK now some of you guys talk about this "peak point" in the careers of Greenberg and Koufax. OK, if we use this logic then let's get the hall doors open for the following guys or it's a double standard: Rice, Mattingly, Roger Maris, Jimmy Key, David Cone, Gooden, Foster, Parker, Garvey (he belongs no matter what), Guidry (just like Koufax), Denny McLain (Koufax again). You can't keep these guys out when using peak season logic.

On the great defense solid offense logic for Carter, we will need then to make Dave Concepcion and his 5 gold gloves, 9 all star selections and 2326 hits a HOFer.

and w/o question the Goose should be in the hall immediately if Sutter is in there. Him not being in is a travesty

[candy curveball cummings]

OK now some of you guys talk about this "peak point" in the careers of Greenberg and Koufax. OK, if we use this logic then let's get the hall doors open for the following guys or it's a double standard: Rice, Mattingly, Roger Maris, Jimmy Key, David Cone, Gooden, Foster, Parker, Garvey (he belongs no matter what), Guidry (just like Koufax), Denny McLain (Koufax again). You can't keep these guys out when using peak season logic.

On the great defense solid offense logic for Carter, we will need then to make Dave Concepcion and his 5 gold gloves, 9 all star selections and 2326 hits a HOFer.

and w/o question the Goose should be in the hall immediately if Sutter is in there. Him not being in is a travesty

How can you compare Concepcion to Carter exactly? Other than hits, Carter beats Concepcion in pretty much every other category, including having 223 more Home Runs, which seems to be your favorite offensive category.

[JimAbbott]

HRs are ok but Concepcion played in an era when SS's did not hit homers. I made the comparison because someone mentioned that Carter was the best at his position for 8 seasons and he was supposedly the near greatest defensive catcher in history. Carter won 3 gold gloves, Concepcion won 5. Carter was an all star 11 times, concepcion 9. Carter had a .262 life avg to concepcion's .267. As you state, concepcion had more hits. They scored about the same number of runs: 1025-993, Concepcion had more doubles: 389 to 371, triples: 48 to 31. RBIs were carter 1225 to 950 but concepcion was a #8 hitter. You got carter in the hall so you gotta put concepcion in there too in my book. It's a fair comparison, very fair

[EvanAparra]

My opinion was implied in the post, I think Lee Smith and Gossage were better than Sutter

<That being said...Does Mattingly belong in the HOF?" post, that one season you speak of is the one i said was bad. And yes, i would vote vote for mattingly to be a HOFer.>

Not sure what you're talking about, but I disagree about Mattingly, prove your case

I wasnt talking to you when i made the Mattingly comment, JA asked me if i thought Mattingly belonged and i answered yes.

As to why i think mattingly should be in...

Career .307 hitter, and averaged 20 HR and 100 RBI a season. Obviously not great, but pretty good. He also won an MVP and finished in the top 7 in voting 3 other times. Obviously, these arent great stats, but that coupled with him being the best defensive first baseman in all of baseball from 85-94, including 9 gold gloves, gives him my vote. He was also a 6 time all-star, won 3 silver sluggers, a batting tittle, and he was always one of the hardest people to strike out in all of baseball. Of course, i dont think hes a top tier HOFer, but i would put him in.

Also, i think that he and Kirby Puckett were the same type of players, both had pretty decent power, hit for good average, and played exceptional defense. When i first answered the question, i didnt look up stats, i just remembered that i though his career was similar to Pucketts, and since i think Puckett is a HOFer, i thought Mattingly should be one too.

[candy curveball cummings]

HRs are ok but Concepcion played in an era when SS's did not hit homers. I made the comparison because someone mentioned that Carter was the best at his position for 8 seasons and he was supposedly the near greatest defensive catcher in history. Carter won 3 gold gloves, Concepcion won 5. Carter was an all star 11 times, concepcion 9. Carter had a .262 life avg to concepcion's .267. As you state, concepcion had more hits. They scored about the same number of runs: 1025-993, Concepcion had more doubles: 389 to 371, triples: 48 to 31. RBIs were carter 1225 to 950 but concepcion was a #8 hitter. You got carter in the hall so you gotta put concepcion in there too in my book. It's a fair comparison, very fair

I don't think it's a fair comparison, to be honest. They played different positions.

Sure, Concepcion has more hits, but compare Carter's hit total to other catchers. Of the 12 other Hall of Fame catchers only 2, Fisk and Berra, have more hits, only 3 had more home runs, and only 3 had more RBI. Of the 19 Hall of Fame Short Stops, 8 of them have more hits than Concepcion, 6 have more Home Runs, and 8 had more RBI. Maybe Concepcion does deserve to be in, but compared to other shortstops, he doesn't make as good of a case as Carter does against Catchers. Also, Carter had to compete for Gold Gloves against a wildly popular Johnny Bench his entire career. Even though Carter put up better defensive numbers in several seasons than Bench, voters chose to give the award to Bench.

[JimAbbott]

OK let's switch the conversation over to Sutter and the belief that absolutely the Goose should be in if Sutter is. Here is an interesting Goose stat, in 1976 he had 15 complete games. That's not important but what is is that the Goose was a winner and had comparable numbers to Sutter and should be just as hall worthy if not more. I also think that now that Sutter is in, we will have to open hall doors for Johnny Franco, Lee Smith and of course Hoffman. We absolutely will need to induct Reardon as well who had a great career as a reliever, better than Sutter's. Sutter's induction sets a dangerous precedent for a lot of other guys like a Reardon. Sutter's induction was a massive watering down of HOF standards. Go and check his #s vs Reardon and you will find them eerily similar except that Reardon had 67 more saves. They pitched in the same era so that argument won't wash. The writers better put him in if they allow Sutter to be immortalized. What's fair is fair

[Fuzzy Bear]

OK let's switch the conversation over to Sutter and the belief that absolutely the Goose should be in if Sutter is. Here is an interesting Goose stat, in 1976 he had 15 complete games. That's not important but what is is that the Goose was a winner and had comparable numbers to Sutter and should be just as hall worthy if not more. I also think that now that Sutter is in, we will have to open hall doors for Johnny Franco, Lee Smith and of course Hoffman. We absolutely will need to induct Reardon as well who had a great career as a reliever, better than Sutter's. Sutter's induction sets a dangerous precedent for a lot of other guys like a Reardon. Sutter's induction was a massive watering down of HOF standards. Go and check his #s vs Reardon and you will find them eerily similar except that Reardon had 67 more saves. They pitched in the same era so that argument won't wash. The writers better put him in if they allow Sutter to be immortalized. What's fair is fair

Firstly, the HOF electors don't have to inducte Steve Finley to the HOF just because Harry Hooper is in, and Hooper was a mistake. We don't have to inducte Brett Butler to the HOF just because Hooper is in. The HOF is not an entitlement.

Secondly, evaluation of relievers is more subjective than any other position for the HOF. Save totals, alone, are not the evaluatory tool.

Sutter, by the way, is far from an exact contemporary of Franco, Hoffman, or even Reardon. He pitched in an era when relievers often pitched the last two innings of a game. Sutter had over 100 IP 4 times in his career, and in a shorter career than any of the other candidates you mentioned. That's a big difference.

Then, too, there's the Cy Young Award. That's a big deal. None of these other guys came close to a Cy.

[mac195]

Guidry (just like Koufax), Denny McLain (Koufax again). You can't keep these guys out when using peak season logic.

Peak does not mean best single season. Koufax's peak was 5 years - '62-'66. Guidry and McLain have nothing even remotely comparable to that.

[JimAbbott]

Guidry '77-'85 right there with Koufax. Mclain 65-69

[leecemark]

--Guidry and McLain each had one truely great season, with a few very good ones mixed in (McLain even winning a second CYA, although 1969 was hardly dominating). Koufax was great for 5 years straight. His peak was one of the top half dozen or so in baseball history. Niether McLain nor Guidry would be in the top 20 for peak.

[EvanAparra]

Guidry '77-'85 right there with Koufax. Mclain 65-69

Out of the nine season in Guidrys "peak", his ERA was higher than 2.76 times times, and equal to 2.76 once. I mention 2.76 because thats Sandy's career ERA, which includes his bad seasons at the beginning of his career.

[STLCards2]

Out of the nine season in Guidrys "peak", his ERA was higher than 2.76 times times, and equal to 2.76 once. I mention 2.76 because thats Sandy's career ERA, which includes his bad seasons at the beginning of his career.

I certainly won't argue Guidry being better than Koufax, but you aren't factoring in league adjustments at all. It was a easier to post a 2.76 ERA in the late 60's than it was in the late 70's/early 80's (not that that period was a hitters era either). Don't just look at ERA out of context. A 4.00 ERA in the 1930's or 1990's was All-Star calliber, but a 4.00 ERA in the late 60's would have led to the minors.

If put into the proper context, Guidry's numbers aren't as far as you think.

[EvanAparra]

I certainly won't argue Guidry being better than Koufax, but you aren't factoring in league adjustments at all. It was a easier to post a 2.76 ERA in the late 60's than it was in the late 70's/early 80's (not that that period was a hitters era either). Don't just look at ERA out of context. A 4.00 ERA in the 1930's or 1990's was All-Star calliber, but a 4.00 ERA in the late 60's would have led to the minors.

If put into the proper context, Guidry's numbers aren't as far as you think.

Youre right....Late 70s/Early 80s wasnt a hitters era.

I'll give it to you that maybe it was a little easier for Koufax, but i dont like doing stuff like that, changing ERAs for anything, era or ballpark adjustment. I just like to leave stats how they are.

[STLCards2]

Youre right....Late 70s/Early 80s wasnt a hitters era.

I'll give it to you that maybe it was a little easier for Koufax, but i dont like doing stuff like that, changing ERAs for anything, era or ballpark adjustment. I just like to leave stats how they are.


Well, since era context doesn't matter:

Ed Cicotte: 3223 IP 2.38 ERA

Sandy Koufax: 2324 2.76 ERA

There you have it...Cicotte was a better pitcher than Koufax. Huge IP advantge for Eddie and a ERA .4 runs lower. He must have been a lot better than Koufax. :laugh

Are you sure you don't believe in "changing ERA's or anything?"

[JimAbbott]

That's right, Eddie C blew Koufax away and not in the hall. for shame

[EvanAparra]

Well, since era context doesn't matter:

Ed Cicotte: 3223 IP 2.38 ERA

Sandy Koufax: 2324 2.76 ERA

There you have it...Cicotte was a better pitcher than Koufax. Huge IP advantge for Eddie and a ERA .4 runs lower. He must have been a lot better than Koufax. :laugh

Are you sure you don't believe in "changing ERA's or anything?"

Man, whats with people on this site putting words in other peoples mouths...this is just gettin ridiculous...

I never said that the player with the better stats what the better player, i just said i dont believe in changing stats. I like leaving stats where they are because those were the stats that were actually achieved... So there you go, before you decide to make your own interpretations of what i said..:crazy

[Edgartohof]

Can anyone name me the pitchers who have 3 tiple crowns?


They are:

Walter Johnson (1913, 1918, 1924)
Pete Alexander (1915, 1916, 1920)
And...
Sandy Koufax (1963, 1965, 1966)

What do the other two have in common with Koufax? They too are in the HOF!

How about looking at pitchers with just 2 Triple Crowns?

Including the aforementioned 3, there is also:

Christy Matthewson (1905, 1908)
Lefty Grove (1930, 1931)
Lefty Gomez (1934, 1937)
Roger Clemens (1997, 1998)


And all of these players (aside from Clemens), are in the HOF as well, and Clemens is a sure-fire 1st Ballot guy too.

[cup2006sensrule]

Well, if you've got Greenberg in there then absolutely and with no questions asked you must put in the following:

Dawson
Murphy
Jim Rice
Canseco
Baines
Dewey Evans
Joe Carter

I'm talking they should be shoe-ins

PS: the guy is #82 in HRs and #97 in RBIs all time! How impressive. Meanwhile Kaoufax is #172 in wins and #92 in ERA. Carter doesn't make the top 100 in HRs, RBIs or avg. The more I look at these #s the more I see that Sutter is the most worthy of the 4. If these guys are in they better build a much larger hall, cause they're gonna need it for the hundreds of equally worthy candidates that should be in if these journeymen are in. Bring on Staub, Bring on Pinson, Here comes Oliva, Matlack, Gaetti and Grote. Munson and Mattingly shoulda been in on 1st ballots. where's roger maris? Gimme Garvey, Cey, Tugster McGraw and Koosman. How bout Pedro Bourbon? Don Gullett? Gary Nolan? Vida Blue, Nellie Briles, Jim McCormick. Colavito, Dick Allen, Luis Tiant

Why are you so obsessed with career counting numbers at the expence of everything else? The Hall of Fame is about greatness. Greenberg and Koufax were greatness personified. Greenberg's 162 Game average is 38 hr 148 RBI 189 hits and 99 BB a .313 avg .605 slg 12 runs. He missed 4.5 seasons essentially from his prime years.

By your logic Bobby Orr doesn't belong in the Hockey Hall of Fame since he only played 9 full seasons.

The Hall of fame is about more than just the counting numbers of players. It is also about greatness. If Albert Pujos is badly injured in 2011 and only plays 10 seasons but all 10 of those seasons are MVP like seasons he will get in the Hall of Fame.

[538280]

Man, whats with people on this site putting words in other peoples mouths...this is just gettin ridiculous...

I never said that the player with the better stats what the better player, i just said i dont believe in changing stats. I like leaving stats where they are because those were the stats that were actually achieved... So there you go, before you decide to make your own interpretations of what i said..:crazy

That is just a completely wrong way of doing things. What you're basically advocating doing, and correct me if I'm wrong, is looking at the raw stats, and rather than actually comparing them to league averages you just make mental adjustments for the era that they played? Why are you going to do that when you have them actually compared?

You're saying you think it's important to realize league context, but then you don't want to actually adjust for league context. You're not making any sense. I think that the most important step when doing a statistical analysis on two players is placing the numbers in league and park context.

[EvanAparra]

That is just a completely wrong way of doing things. What you're basically advocating doing, and correct me if I'm wrong, is looking at the raw stats, and rather than actually comparing them to league averages you just make mental adjustments for the era that they played? Why are you going to do that when you have them actually compared?

You're saying you think it's important to realize league context, but then you don't want to actually adjust for league context. You're not making any sense. I think that the most important step when doing a statistical analysis on two players is placing the numbers in league and park context.

Im saying that i dont like to mess around with raw stats....Arguements can be made for eras and ballparks, as of course 20 HRs was a much bigger achievement in the 20s than it is now... But I dont remember saying that i wouldnt compare them to league averages, if i did, i take it back, as that is probably the fairest way to compare them, IMO. I dont like the actual adjustments because i dont know how they work, the math in them, ect... I also like the good ol' stats of the game, and purity of those stats...even though i know they arent perfect and are flawed.

I actually dont like park context at all. I dont know why, i just dont like the idea of it...

[538280]

Im saying that i dont like to mess around with raw stats....Arguements can be made for eras and ballparks, as of course 20 HRs was a much bigger achievement in the 20s than it is now... But I dont remember saying that i wouldnt compare them to league averages, if i did, i take it back, as that is probably the fairest way to compare them, IMO. I dont like the actual adjustments because i dont know how they work, the math in them, ect... I also like the good ol' stats of the game, and purity of those stats...even though i know they arent perfect and are flawed.

I'll tell you how the actual adjustments work. You take the player's batting average and divide it by the league average, or their OBP, or SLG, or OPS or any other rate statistic you would like. Just compare the player's numbers to the league. It's not hard and does not involve a ton of math.

I actually dont like park context at all. I dont know why, i just dont like the idea of it...

Why? A Park Factor basically shows what percentage of more runs were scored in a home park versus what would be expected to be scored, given the league averages. It just shows how many more runs were scored in a park versus the average. It's also not complicated, and it gives a good idea of value, because less runs in a park equals each run being worth more.

[EvanAparra]

I see, thanks for the explanation.

[JimAbbott]

Why are you so obsessed with career counting numbers at the expence of everything else? The Hall of Fame is about greatness. Greenberg and Koufax were greatness personified. Greenberg's 162 Game average is 38 hr 148 RBI 189 hits and 99 BB a .313 avg .605 slg 12 runs. He missed 4.5 seasons essentially from his prime years.

By your logic Bobby Orr doesn't belong in the Hockey Hall of Fame since he only played 9 full seasons.

The Hall of fame is about more than just the counting numbers of players. It is also about greatness. If Albert Pujos is badly injured in 2011 and only plays 10 seasons but all 10 of those seasons are MVP like seasons he will get in the Hall of Fame.

Koufax had 3 great seasons and that is it. If we put all players with 3 great seasons in the hall, the hall would be overloaded with dudes. We gotta put Ralph Garr in there, Guidry, Mclain, Koosman, Matlack, Coney, Gooden, Colavito, Norm Cash, Boog Powell, Jimmy Rice, Jimmy Key, Jim Abbott, Dick Allen, Willie Horton, Mattingly and too many others. Get those hall doors open wide to include all these dudes and their 3 great seasons like Koufax. What's fair is fair.

[EvanAparra]

Koufax had 3 great seasons and that is it. If we put all players with 3 great seasons in the hall, the hall would be overloaded with dudes. We gotta put Ralph Garr in there, Guidry, Mclain, Koosman, Matlack, Coney, Gooden, Colavito, Norm Cash, Boog Powell, Jimmy Rice, Jimmy Key, Jim Abbott, Dick Allen, Willie Horton, Mattingly and too many others. Get those hall doors open wide to include all these dudes and their 3 great seasons like Koufax. What's fair is fair.

Man this guy just doesnt give up does he??

3 great seasons?? What are you talking about??

62' - 2.54 ERA
63' - 1.88 ERA
64' - 1.74 ERA
65' - 2.04 ERA
66' - 1.73 ERA

How do you only get 3 great seasons out of this?


Ralph Garr.....mauahahahahahaha

[jalbright]

JimAbbott:

Your definition of great seasons seems to be different than most of the rest of us who post here. Please name a pitcher who won 3 or more Cy Young Awards who isn't or won't be in the HOF, provided they 1) don't fix games, 2) don't violate the rules on gambling, or 3) test positive for steroids. An alternative test is name the pitchers with over 3 Cy Young award shares who aren't or won't be in the HOF. The only one I can even conceive of an argument about is Glavine, and I think he'll get in too. Koufax at his best just wowed people in his own time--and a careful analysis of those years shows he was darned impressive, though probably not as awesome as his fans of the time thought, mostly because they didn't appreciate the impact of Dodger Stadium. The bottom line is, Koufax put himself in very exclusive company at his peak, and with such credentials in place, it is up to you to demonstrate he doesn't belong. I know I haven't been persuaded, and it seems the consensus is with me.

Jim Albright

[runningshoes]

I don't mean any offense, but this is the dumbest thing I have ever read.

Amen to that.

[mac195]

Koufax had 3 great seasons and that is it.
No. He had 5 great seasons, in a row, 3 of which were among the best ever.


If we put all players with 3 great seasons in the hall, the hall would be overloaded with dudes. We gotta put Ralph Garr in there...

Sandy Koufax vs. Ralph Garr... I've seen some odd player comparisons, but nothing to top that.

[SamtheBravesFan]

No. He had 5 great seasons, in a row, 3 of which were among the best ever.




Sandy Koufax vs. Ralph Garr... I've seen some odd player comparisons, but nothing to top that.

... :laugh

[Edgartohof]

Koufax had 3 great seasons and that is it. If we put all players with 3 great seasons in the hall, the hall would be overloaded with dudes. We gotta put Ralph Garr in there, Guidry, Mclain, Koosman, Matlack, Coney, Gooden, Colavito, Norm Cash, Boog Powell, Jimmy Rice, Jimmy Key, Jim Abbott, Dick Allen, Willie Horton, Mattingly and too many others. Get those hall doors open wide to include all these dudes and their 3 great seasons like Koufax. What's fair is fair.

Well first off, you have to realize that you are trying to compare hitters with a pitcher, which leads to many problems. Also, you just don't seem to pick the best choices.

1.) Ralph Garr - had 3 good seasons, one of which was a "pretty good" season - none were great though

2.) Ron Guidry - he did have a few good seasons (and one amazing one), but he only won 1 Cy Young, to Koufax's 3, and had only 2 ERA titles, to Koufax's 5, and that's it.

3.) Denny McLain - gotta love that 101 ERA+!!! Seriously now, are you thinking these things through before you post?

4.) Jerry Koosman - well, other than the fact that he never led the league in ANY category (okay, he did it ONCE in SO/9 IP), and he has no major career bench marks (other than 200 wins), he is a fine candidate...not.

5.) Jon Matlack - you didn't want to put Koufax and his 165 wins in, but you'd be willing to put in Matlack and his 125? Not to mention that he has nealy twice as many losses as Koufax!

6.) Coney who?

7.) Dwight Gooden - had 2 good seasons, and 1 all-time great season to begin his career, but that's it - he suffered through for the next 13 years, never being able to consistently show his former brilliance.

8.) Rocky Colavito - was a very good player for a good bit of time, but was never that great. His 132 OPS+ is more than acceptable, but like I said, he just was never dominant, and he didn't last real long, for not being great.

9.) .........

.....
.......
..


I could go on and on, but what's the point?

[yest]

let me get this straight Greenberg doesn't belong in the hall because he dosn't have enogh HR's and RBI's so then let's only have a hall with players who have both better HR and RBI rates
Here's your hall











after looking at all the names on the list maybe now you'll consider Greenberg
career leaders in RBI's per game (pre steroids era)
1. Sam Thompson
2. Lou Gehrig
3. Hank Greenberg

career leaders in HR% (pre steroids era)
1. Babe Ruth
2. Ralph Kiner
3. Harmmon Killebrew
4. Ted Williams
5. Dave Kingman (if only he could do somthing else striking out and flying out dosn't count )
6. Mickey Mantle
7. Jimmy Foxx
8. Mike Schmidt
9. Hank Greenberg

does any one else notice Joe Carter's name is mystirosly missing

[JimAbbott]

LOL, you know that Greenberg and Koufax almost didn't meet the 10 years needed to be eligible for the hall. It's a shame that they did. Greenberg played in 110 games total in 4 of his seasons. take those out and he only played 9 seasons and not eligible. take out koufax's lame 3 brooklyn years and he's out too. Koufax was a 20 game winner 3 times. you call that hall worthy? gimme a break

[Brad Harris]

Two Pitching Triple Crowns (W, ERA, SO)
Walter Johnson (1913, 1918, 1924)
Pete Alexander (1915, 1916, 1920)
Sandy Koufax (1963, 1965, 1966)
Christy Matthewson (1905, 1908)
Lefty Grove (1930, 1931)
Lefty Gomez (1934, 1937)
Roger Clemens (1997, 1998)

Unless I'm mistaken Hall of Famer Hal Newhouser also belongs on that list.

[JimAbbott]

There seems to be a great emphasis by some over Koufax's 3 Cy Young awards. Didn't realize how crucially important this is for induction. Due to this, we must add Bret Saberhagen to the shoe-in list as he won 2 as did Mclain

[JimAbbott]

Admit LaMarr Hoyt and Wilbur Wood as these guys led their leagues in wins twice as Koufax did

[Mike D.]

Wow...talk about looking only at career totals with no consideration for peak seasons or dominance.

If Harold Baines is a Hall of Famer and Greenberg or Carter aren't, they should close the place down.

[jalbright]

There seems to be a great emphasis by some over Koufax's 3 Cy Young awards. Didn't realize how crucially important this is for induction. Due to this, we must add Bret Saberhagen to the shoe-in list as he won 2 as did Mclain

The thing you consistently don't seem to want to acknowledge is that Koufax had a five year peak at these levels, and the Saberhagens and McClains didn't. Koufax was at the very least arguably the best pitcher in baseball 1962-1966. None of the other names you mention were as dominant for that long and thus could not make a similar argument. Koufax didn't get into the Hall on career accomplishments, he got there on his outstanding five year peak of dominance.

Jim Albright

[iPod]

Admit LaMarr Hoyt and Wilbur Wood as these guys led their leagues in wins twice as Koufax did

You have to think about what you're saying here. Are you saying LaMarr Hoyt and Wilbur Wood are as good or as valuable as Sandy Koufax? That, if you had a choice to take one of the three to anchor your team's rotation you would have to think about it? Unless that's what you're saying, which is sort of like saying the only way a pitcher can have value is to lead his league in wins, it's an irrelevant argument. The Hall of Fame is about greatness and player value, not how many arbitrary accomplishments you can list off. The longest resume is not always the best one.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Hey, I know! Let's add Rico Carty to JA's list! :D

[JimAbbott]

Bingo dude, I had almost put him on there. on there he is

[SamtheBravesFan]

Bingo dude, I had almost put him on there. on there he is

:eek: I didn't think you would! :crazy

[YankeeFan01]

Koufax belongs. Period.

[Bill Burgess]

RogersMaris,

I can't help but get the weird sensation of deja-vu when reading your words. Yes, some here are shallow, and post accordingly. But instead of exploding emotionally at them, why not relax and post in a more constructive, cordial way?

If some of our best members have left us, and I agree that they have, maybe they lacked the communication skills to hear their opinions disagreed with.

When I get squashed by young teens, I don't go crazy or nuts. I don't lose it and rant. Sure, sometimes I get agitated and pissed off. But I shouldn't.

Emotional maturity is all about adults discussing their differences, not insulting each other, or ripping Fever for allowing freedom of thought/speech. This IS a site for serious baseball members, but also for SERIOUS PEOPLE.

I think I know who you are, and you've broken my heart. And since you study people, I don't understand how you can do this rant so vociferously.

You have the potential to be so much more than this. I wish you'd post as yourself, come back to us, and help us build this site to the best of your abilities, which are considerable.

Your old, and still loyal friend,
Bill, the old guy

[RuthMayBond]

RogersMaris,

I can't help but get the weird sensation of deja-vu when reading your words. Yes, some here are shallow, and post accordingly.Gee thanks

<If some of our best members have left us, and I agree that they have, maybe they lacked the communication skills to hear their opinions disagreed with.>

That's an important lack

<I think I know who you are, and you've broken my heart. And since you study people, I don't understand how you can do this rant so vociferously.

You have the potential to be so much more than this. I wish you'd post as yourself>

He certainly DOES sound familiar

[yest]

since you only seem to like triple crown stats (and not even their rates) here are all the people who have more HRs, RBIs and a higher BA then Greenberg
1. Babe Ruth
2. Lou Gehrig
3. Ted Williams
4. Jimmie Foxx
5. Stan Musial
6. Joe DiMaggio
7. Manny Ramirez

not a bad list of players

[CTaka]

since you only seem to like triple crown stats (and not even their rates) here are all the people who have more HRs, RBIs and a higher BA then Greenberg
1. Babe Ruth
2. Lou Gehrig
3. Ted Williams
4. Jimmie Foxx
5. Stan Musial
6. Joe DiMaggio
7. Manny Ramirez

not a bad list of players

Uh-oh. This may get JA started on trying to kick Babe, Lou and Ted out of the hall next. :p

[Buzzaldrin]

Koufax didn't just have three great years, Koufax won 25+ games three times. Do you know who else has done that since the advent of the live ball era? Bob Feller, Hal Newhouser, and Lefty Grove. That's it. No one else.

And Koufax did it before his 30th birthday and then retired with arthritis while he was unquestionably the best pitcher in baseball. He retired with more strikeouts per nine innings than anyone before him in history from any era. Not a single one of the non Hall pitchers mentioned in this thread can touch him for either talent or even fame as a public persona.

Only Babe Ruth, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, and Mel Ott had more career homers than Greenberg when he retired. They each had over 9,000 plate appearances. Greenberg barely topped six. Greenberg is the only man ever to have 100 RBI by the all-star break, and that was NOT during the season he drove in 183- one less than the AL record. In yet ANOTHER season, he hit 58 homers, the second highest total ever and two less than the record at the time. It' still controversial as to whether or not he got any decent pitches to hit the last few weeks of the season (1938) because a great many people did not want a Jew to break Ruth's record (heck, 23 years later a lot of Yankee fans didn't even want Maris to break the record). Whatever the case, he endured massive racism throughout his career, all the while serving as an ambassador for Jews in sports. When he became the regular first baseman for the Tigers in 1934, the team had not finished higher than fourth- from then until he left for the war they won three pennants and never finished worse than eight games above .500. They dropped below .500 instantly. He came back in mid 1945 and won the pennant for the Tigers with a Grand Slam in the ninth inning of the final game of the season.

Comparing Joe Carter to this man is an insult on so many levels.

[Buzzaldrin]

sorry to double post, I meant to write- "had not finished higher than fourth in ten years"

[JimAbbott]

Joe Carter had 90 RBI at the all star break once. He also clocked Home Run to win a world series. How man times did Greenberg do this? Greenberg was a jew, so what? He wasn't like they were barred from playing the game plus he had all of the media singing his praises so that was an advantage. 331 HRs, my how impressive. 165 wins for Koufax is equally impressive. I actually have no problem with both of these guys being in the hall so long as you start putting others in with similar numbers. I say put Jim Abbott himself in. I mean the guy had 88 wins and pitched a no hitter with one hand tied behind his back

[JimAbbott]

When we start putting in guys with partial careers like these 2 then we must consider others with such careers as well. As it stands a guy like Ralph Garr, 1550 hits, .306 avg, 3 200 hit seasons, is not even considered. This is a double standard in favor of these media glamor boys who get slam dunk elections because the voters are biased toward them for reasons other than numbers.

[Brownie31]

Joe Carter had 90 RBI at the all star break once. He also clocked Home Run to win a world series. How man times did Greenberg do this? Greenberg was a jew, so what? He wasn't like they were barred from playing the game plus he had all of the media singing his praises so that was an advantage. 331 HRs, my how impressive. 165 wins for Koufax is equally impressive. I actually have no problem with both of these guys being in the hall so long as you start putting others in with similar numbers. I say put Jim Abbott himself in. I mean the guy had 88 wins and pitched a no hitter with one hand tied behind his back

Then why not just have a thread promoting the ones you
support instead of trying to tear down those who are
already. This is being done over in the Brooklyn Dodgers
forum for Gil Hodges.

"Greenberg was a jew, so what?" you say. This is so what:
Hank Greenberg was a Jew at a time of heavy anti-semitism.
Especially in Detroit where Father Coughlin and Henry Ford,
both anti-semites, had great influence.

Jim Abbott may well deserve to be in the HOF, his courage
is inspiring, but don't try to put him there by trying to
belittle other inspirational players.

Brownie31

[Edgartohof]

When we start putting in guys with partial careers like these 2 then we must consider others with such careers as well. As it stands a guy like Ralph Garr, 1550 hits, .306 avg, 3 200 hit seasons, is not even considered. This is a double standard in favor of these media glamor boys who get slam dunk elections because the voters are biased toward them for reasons other than numbers.

The difference here is the fact that Koufax and Greenberg were GREAT, while Garr and the like were only good to pretty good.

Do you understand the concept of peak seasons?

[JimAbbott]

I will absoltely stand by my statement that Denny Mclain should be in the hall if Koufax is. If Mclain was adored by the media in similar fashion, then he's have been a shoe-in. Denny won 20 games as many times as Koufax (3) and won a whopping 31 games in '68. Did the great Koufax do that? Nooooo

[RuthMayBond]

Joe Carter had 90 RBI at the all star break once.You'll have to substantiate this one

<I say put Jim Abbott himself in. I mean the guy had 88 wins and pitched a no hitter with one hand tied behind his back>

Impressive, but not a HOF career

[Buzzaldrin]

Joe Carter- career OPS+ 104. Woo hoo. Career OPS .771, league OPS during same period- .749. This is a power hitter we're talking about? You gotta be kidding.

331 homers for Greenberg- VERY impressive- in just 5,193 at bats. If he hit 65 more in the next 3,230 times at bat (say 10 a year for six years) he would have the same totals as Joe Carter.

As to your wins malarkey (good word), are you saying that more career wins equals better player, no matter the circumstances or career length? Does this mean that Don Sutton was better than Bob Feller or Bob Gibson? Or Carl Hubbell or Three Finger Brown? Or Dazzy Vance and Rube Waddell? Or Ed Walsh and Addie Joss?

Actually, here's a question off the subject a bit, can anyone come up with power hitters with a career OPS+ WORSE than Joe Carter's? Tony Armas is pretty much all I can come up with. Rob Deer even tops him.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I have to wonder, Jim, how much you have studied the history of this sport, something a great many of the people who are posting contrary to you have done. Without trying to sound insulting, it doesn't appear you've done much more than just look at the back of baseball cards to draw your conclusions on these players. (Yes, I've done that again.)
Without actual backing beyond the superficial numbers without a shred of context, you're not going to convince a single person here your opinions have the slightest bit of validity.

[grey eagle]

I will absoltely stand by my statement that Denny Mclain should be in the hall if Koufax is. If Mclain was adored by the media in similar fashion, then he's have been a shoe-in. Denny won 20 games as many times as Koufax (3) and won a whopping 31 games in '68. Did the great Koufax do that? Nooooo
Will you please stop wasting our time with your simplistic reasoning? You and DodgerFan66 are the dynamic duo of cherry-picking one stat and making bogus comparisons. Guess what - Greg Maddux has won 20 games fewer times than either McLain or Koufax. Jim Palmer won 20 games 8 times. No one puts Palmer over Maddux. So please, try using some comparisons that sound at least halfway convincing.

[hubkittel]

Will you please stop wasting our time with your simplistic reasoning?

i'm not sure i have anything better to do with my time. :D but with the understanding that JA will never convince us of his point and it doesn't look like we've done a good job of getting him to see the light, i'd just say this: if you're not going to adjust for context then all the greatest pitchers of all time played in the 19th century and baseball has gone downhill from there in terms of quality of play. just take a look at this list (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/W_season.shtml).

for the love of god, guy hecker won 52 games in 1884 and had a four year peak of 26, 52, 30, and 26 wins. charlie buffington won 48 in 1884 (good year for pitching i guess) with five seasons of at least 28 wins. silver king (a personal favorite) had a four year peak starting in 1887 of 32, 45, 34, and 30 wins. that's four straight seasons of more than 30 wins! take that mr. mcclain! jim mcormick played ten seasons with win totals of 20 (w/ 40 losses! and it's not even the record-48 L by john coleman in 1883; you have to be really good to lose 48 games in the big leagues. ;) ), 45, 26, 36, 28, 40, 21, 31. that, for the mathamatically challenged, is 265 wins in ten years. and we're wasting our time talking about koufax. he was a chump compared to the immortal jim mccormick.

what do all these men have in comman (besides the fact that they pitched in a glorified minor league, made huge number of starts per season, didn't have to worry about the home run, and racked up their win totals against inferior competition)? none of them are in the hall of fame. and none of them deserve to be in the hall of fame. although you have to think that if frank frisch had been a little older and played with or against these guys or if bob broeg had seen them play in his youth than all of them would now have a plaque in cooperstown. :laugh

i would really like to see JA and dodgerfan take a look at these numbers and tell me why these guys are not in the HoF.

[dgarza]

Actually, here's a question off the subject a bit, can anyone come up with power hitters with a career OPS+ WORSE than Joe Carter's? Tony Armas is pretty much all I can come up with. Rob Deer even tops him.
Wow, I'm looking at Tony Armas's 1983. He was 2nd in the AL with HRs (36), 107 RBIs, but 85 OPS+. Has anyboy hit 30+ HRs and had an OPS+ of 85 or lower? Even Cory Snyder couldn't do that.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Wow, I'm looking at Tony Armas's 1983. He was 2nd in the AL with HRs (36), 107 RBIs, but 85 OPS+. Has anyboy hit 30+ HRs and had an OPS+ of 85 or lower? Even Cory Snyder couldn't do that.


If Jeff Francoeur hits 6 more homers this season, he'll do it. His regular OPS is atrocious (.736).

[grey eagle]

If Jeff Francoeur hits 6 more homers this season, he'll do it. His regular OPS is atrocious (.736).
Francoeur, thru 138 games, has 17 walks and a sizzling .291 OBP.:eek: Even Dave Kingman had a career .302 OBP.

[flash143817]

All I can think reading this thread is that dodgerfan66 got a new handle...


Of course that wouldn't fit with Koufax though...


He's obviously doing it just to troll everybody. I'm all for baseball discussion and disagreement (since I tend to disagree with general consensus more than most) but there is no way this guy can be serious with this stuff. He is just doing it to get everyone's attention and it's ludicrous.

[Buzzaldrin]

[QUOTE=hubkittel

for the love of god, guy hecker won 52 games in 1884 and had a four year peak of 26, 52, 30, and 26 wins. .[/QUOTE]

..and don't forget, he's also the only pitcher to win a batting title. Two years after winning the pitching triple crown. Hey, thanks for bringing up Silver King- another one of my favorites, and oft forgotten.

Thinking about 30+homers and low OPS+. Just started digging. Steve Balboni had 24 with 81. Snyder had those 33 with 88, as dgarza pointed out. Gary Carter once managed an 83 OPS+ with 20 homers, Bret Boone did an 87 with 20, but I can't find anyone who can touch Armas at all.

I did discover that Alfredo Griffin managed to play over 500 PA one season with an OPS+ of 44.

[jalbright]

He's obviously doing it just to troll everybody. I'm all for baseball discussion and disagreement (since I tend to disagree with general consensus more than most) but there is no way this guy can be serious with this stuff. He is just doing it to get everyone's attention and it's ludicrous.

That's certainly a plausible explanation. The other is that his evaluative process is truly as shallow as his posts indicate. I see more reason to take him at face value than to ascribe lesser motives to him, though. Needless to say, that's hardly praise.

Jim Albright

[JimAbbott]

Nope guys not trolling and I know that it will be difficult to get anyone to back me up on these choices but I stand by them. In order of most to least worthy of my list: Greenberg, Koufax, Carter, Sutter. I notice that there is not much defense of Sutter going in so I assume most agree he is unworthy. As for Koufax, I say it takes more than 3 great seasons and 2 decent ones to get in. A great Hall worthy baseball career is more than 5 years

[yankillaz]

I'm not going to say anything...but THIS...

1. If Sutter is in...then Gossage and Smith will eventually make it.

2. If Carter is in, then why isn't Simmons and Freehan too??? BTW, Parrish was as good as Carter in peak, so i think JA has a point.

3. Nobody, except for Pedro has had a peak like Koufax's. But JA got me thinking. Are there other pitchers that due to injuries or bad luck couldn't finish a stellar career? Some names came to mind, of players not in the Hall but that fit the mold:


Denny Mclain (Good peak)
Ron Guidry (Began late, ended soon)
Sal Maglie
Dave Stieb (Underrated)


4. Hank Greenberg not Deserving??? Good Grief!!!

[RuthMayBond]

3. Nobody, except for Pedro has had a peak like Koufax's. Walter, Grove?

<But JA got me thinking. Are there other pitchers that due to injuries or bad luck couldn't finish a stellar career?>

Joe Wood, Jim Devlin, Harry Brecheen, Spud Chandler, Noodles Hahn, Nig Cuppy, Jack PFiester, Tommy Bridges ...

[yankillaz]

RMB, still ya don't get me. Let's see what I call peak:

1. Pedro Martinez. From 1997 to 2003 (7 Seasons, 6 Full Seasons), Pedro managed to compile 4 seasons in which his ERA+ was over 200: 1997 (221), 1999 (245), 2000 (285) and 2003 (212). That's 4 in 6 seasons (67%). That's peak.

2. Koufax had abnormal seasons, but his park didn't helped him. So his peak isn't all that REAL. never had a 200+ ERA+ season.

3. Grove had only one season, 1931 (219).

4. Walter Johnson didn't have a peak...HE WAS ALWAYS PEAKED.

So there you have it.

[JimAbbott]

Looks like Mel Stottlemyre has to go in along side Koufax as he equalled his wins and 20 win seasons. Mel also had a 2.97 life ERA. Certainly Bob Welch with 211 wins and a 27 win season (matching Koufax's high) is just as worthy but snubbed.

[grey eagle]

RMB, still ya don't get me. Let's see what I call peak:

1. Pedro Martinez. From 1997 to 2003 (7 Seasons, 6 Full Seasons), Pedro managed to compile 4 seasons in which his ERA+ was over 200: 1997 (221), 1999 (245), 2000 (285) and 2003 (212). That's 4 in 6 seasons (67%). That's peak.

2. Koufax had abnormal seasons, but his park didn't helped him. So his peak isn't all that REAL. never had a 200+ ERA+ season.

3. Grove had only one season, 1931 (219).

4. Walter Johnson didn't have a peak...HE WAS ALWAYS PEAKED.

So there you have it.
You still have to look beyond just ERA+ for peak value. Pedro's IP are a lot lower than Koufax and lower than Grove's. Koufax ate up a ton of innings, and Grove was also pitching 35-40% more innings than Pedro at his peak.

[Buzzaldrin]

There are two ways as a player to get into the Hall (other than as a pioneer like, say, Cummings). Be very good for a long period of time (Don Sutton, Early Wynn) or be amazingly good for a shorter period (Chuck Klein, Amos Rusie).

Koufax's five best years came in a row (the five straight ERA titles). This is not counting the fact that he won 18 games and led the league in K's in 61- we won't count that as one of his good years even though I guarantee it would be counted for a great one for a Stieb, Stotttlemyre, or Welch. He not only won FIVE STRAIGHT ERA titles, an MVP award, and three Cy Youngs (when there was still only one award for both leagues), he had three 300 k seasons, which no one had done before in the 20th century. he threw 31 shutouts in four seasons, 89 complete games of which four were no-hitters (which had never been done before)- one of them a perfect game, only the second NL perfecto of the 20th century, he also finished second in the MVP award two other times although in 1966 he actually had more first place votes than Clemente. This was the most dangerous and most feared arm of his generation, certainly since Feller.

Bob Welch? Come on. Guidry is, by a stretch, conceivable for the Hall, but none of these other guys is even close. They didn't DOMINATE. Koufax did. Pure and simple. He set records that had never been done before and had been thought of as virtually impossible. Can't really say that about Dave Stieb.

[Fuzzy Bear]

:D There are two ways as a player to get into the Hall (other than as a pioneer like, say, Cummings). Be very good for a long period of time (Don Sutton, Early Wynn) or be amazingly good for a shorter period (Chuck Klein, Amos Rusie).

Koufax's five best years came in a row (the five straight ERA titles). This is not counting the fact that he won 18 games and led the league in K's in 61- we won't count that as one of his good years even though I guarantee it would be counted for a great one for a Stieb, Stotttlemyre, or Welch. He not only won FIVE STRAIGHT ERA titles, an MVP award, and three Cy Youngs (when there was still only one award for both leagues), he had three 300 k seasons, which no one had done before in the 20th century. he threw 31 shutouts in four seasons, 89 complete games of which four were no-hitters (which had never been done before)- one of them a perfect game, only the second NL perfecto of the 20th century, he also finished second in the MVP award two other times although in 1966 he actually had more first place votes than Clemente. This was the most dangerous and most feared arm of his generation, certainly since Feller.

Bob Welch? Come on. Guidry is, by a stretch, conceivable for the Hall, but none of these other guys is even close. They didn't DOMINATE. Koufax did. Pure and simple. He set records that had never been done before and had been thought of as virtually impossible. Can't really say that about Dave Stieb.

Amen and Hallelujah on your case for Koufax. If Koufax wasn't an all-time great, than who was?

Bob Welch WILL go into the Hall of Fame. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, for both his solo career, and his years with Fleetwood Mac (pre-Stevie Nicks). :clapping :D :eek: :confused: :radio :D

[grey eagle]

Looks like Mel Stottlemyre has to go in along side Koufax as he equalled his wins and 20 win seasons. Mel also had a 2.97 life ERA. Certainly Bob Welch with 211 wins and a 27 win season (matching Koufax's high) is just as worthy but snubbed.
You see, that's precisely the kind of faulty reasoning that's made you the target of much criticism. You're taking one stat (wins) and drawing inane parallels without putting things in context.

[Buzzaldrin]

:D

Amen and Hallelujah on your case for Koufax. If Koufax wasn't an all-time great, than who was?

Bob Welch WILL go into the Hall of Fame. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, for both his solo career, and his years with Fleetwood Mac (pre-Stevie Nicks). :clapping :D :eek: :confused: :radio :D

Did you ever have any of his solo albums? My big sister had the one with "Ebony Eyes" on it- was that called Three Hearts (I think it was). Amazing to have a top ten single and then win 27 games ten years later. :laugh Koufax didn't do that. ;)

[Fuzzy Bear]

Did you ever have any of his solo albums? My big sister had the one with "Ebony Eyes" on it- was that called Three Hearts (I think it was). Amazing to have a top ten single and then win 27 games ten years later. :laugh Koufax didn't do that. ;)

I thought he stunk as a solo artist, but I have the "Mystery to Me" Fleetwood Mac album. Something I got from the bargain basement bin at TSS in the 1970s and played once. Welch, I believe, was the lead singer on that album.

[jalbright]

Guys,

I still listen to classic rock and all, but this is a baseball forum, not one dealing with music or classic rock artists. If we go any further down this path, I'm apt to delete all the recent posts which talk only about such nonbaseball topics.

Jim Albright

[leecemark]

--Lighten up Jim. Adding a little levity to this bad joke of a thread isn't such a bad thing.

[JimAbbott]

Here's a comparison for Sutter, Rick Aguilera with 318 saves and 86 wins. Pretty decent totals. Do we get a plaque ready for him?

[JimAbbott]

I was checking the age comparison stuff for Sutter on baseball reference and I noticed who he was most similar to at his peak age of 25. When I saw this, I understood why this man is a hall of famer. The most similar player was none other than the great Tom Niedenfuer, the guy who served up the infamous homer to Ozzie Smith batting left handed in the 85 LCS

[JimAbbott]

Not trying to beat a dead horse here but absolutely and without any doubt or question in my mind, Jeff Reardon had a better career than Sutter and should be inducted if Sutter is the standard

Reardon, 73-77 367 saves 3.16 era
Sutter, 68-71 300 saves 2.83

come on and give Reardon a break

[jalbright]

I won't contest that Sutter is a very borderline selection, and certainly shouldn't have preceded Gossage. However, Sutter does have some real positives: 6 time all-star (and he performed well in those games), a Cy Young award, 4 time NL Rolaids Relief Award winner, and 37th in all-time Cy Young Award shares. Only the last involves a stat which takes much to comprehend. If you think he shouldn't be in, fine. But comparing his overall career to Niedenfeur is ridiculous.

Jim Albright

[JimAbbott]

Yes and Sutter did lead the league in saves 5 out of 6 years from '79-'84. I am in total agreement that the Goose should be in most especially now that Sutter is. The Goose was a dominant force coming in out of the pen. That Goose had a lot of wins to go with his saves, 124 wins and 310 saves and a 3.01 ERA 1500 Ks. He also had 8 post season saves and 2 wins and only a single loss

[RuthMayBond]

Not trying to beat a dead horse here but absolutely and without any doubt or question in my mind, Jeff Reardon had a better career than Sutter and should be inducted if Sutter is the standard

Reardon, 3.16 era
Sutter, 2.83 eraObviously ;)

[EvanAparra]

Yes and Sutter did lead the league in saves 5 out of 6 years from '79-'84. I am in total agreement that the Goose should be in most especially now that Sutter is. The Goose was a dominant force coming in out of the pen. That Goose had a lot of wins to go with his saves, 124 wins and 310 saves and a 3.01 ERA 1500 Ks. He also had 8 post season saves and 2 wins and only a single loss

Why must you continue to compare stats of those in the hall and say "Well if hes in, this other guy should be in"

There are such things as different eras. Just in case you didnt know anything about that.

And please stop with your one-stat evaluations, they mean pretty much nothing.

I hope you are trolling and you dont really believe this, but probably not. :(

[bob kurtz]

All the players objected to, clearly belong in the Hall, as well as many who have been over looked. In my opinion the most over looked player of all is one-handed pitcher Jim Abbott.

In 2005, his first year of eligibility, Jim received only 13 votes for the Hall (26 needed to remain on the ballot) and can not be considered again 2020 when the veterans committee can take it up. What an oversight, what a shame!!!

Jim played 3 years (85-89) for Michigan leading them to two Big Ten championships. In 1987 he became the first baseball player to win the James E. Sullivan Award as the top amateur athlete in the United States

Jim pitched for the U.S. in Pan Am games winning a silver medal, and pitched the final game for the U.S. in the 1988 Summer Olympics winning a gold medal. He was voted the Big Ten male athlete of the year in 1988 and received the Jessie Owens Award.

In 1989 Jim jumped directly to the majors and had a 12-12 record with a 3.92 E.R.A. at the age of 21 and was 5th in rookie of the year voting.

In 1991 Jim was 18-12 with a 2.89 E.R.A. and was third in the Cy Young voting. In 1992 he had a 2.77 E.R.A. for a weak California Angels team and received the Tony Conigliaro Award.

On Sept. 4, 1993 he pitched a no-hitter for the Yankees against the Indians.

After struggling in the previous years, and retiring for a year, Jim came back in 1998 with the White Sox and won all five of his starts.

Jim did all this with one hand, and never a complaint. No other handicapped person has ever done anything close to this. I can't even think of another handicapped player, being in the majors more than one season.

The Baseball Hall of Fame must look at the total baseball career and all factors involved. Clearly they didn't in Jim's case.

The Jim Abbott story is the reason we must have the DH and he absolutely must be in the Baseball Hall of Fame, he could not be more deserving!!!:gt

[candy curveball cummings]

All the players objected to, clearly belong in the Hall, as well as many who have been over looked. In my opinion the most over looked player of all is one-handed pitcher Jim Abbott.

In 2005, his first year of eligibility, Jim received only 13 votes for the Hall (26 needed to remain on the ballot) and can not be considered again 2020 when the veterans committee can take it up. What an oversight, what a shame!!!

Jim played 3 years (85-89) for Michigan leading them to two Big Ten championships. In 1987 he became the first baseball player to win the James E. Sullivan Award as the top amateur athlete in the United States

Jim pitched for the U.S. in Pan Am games winning a silver medal, and pitched the final game for the U.S. in the 1988 Summer Olympics winning a gold medal. He was voted the Big Ten male athlete of the year in 1988 and received the Jessie Owens Award.

In 1989 Jim jumped directly to the majors and had a 12-12 record with a 3.92 E.R.A. at the age of 21 and was 5th in rookie of the year voting.

In 1991 Jim was 18-12 with a 2.89 E.R.A. and was third in the Cy Young voting. In 1992 he had a 2.77 E.R.A. for a weak California Angels team and received the Tony Conigliaro Award.

On Sept. 4, 1993 he pitched a no-hitter for the Yankees against the Indians.

After struggling in the previous years, and retiring for a year, Jim came back in 1998 with the White Sox and won all five of his starts.

Jim did all this with one hand, and never a complaint. No other handicapped person has ever done anything close to this. I can't even think of another handicapped player, being in the majors more than one season.

The Baseball Hall of Fame must look at the total baseball career and all factors involved. Clearly they didn't in Jim's case.

The Jim Abbott story is the reason we must have the DH and he absolutely must be in the Baseball Hall of Fame, he could not be more deserving!!!:gt

He may deserve to be in the Hall, but not as a player. His accomplishment was amazing, but I just don't think he was a good enough pitcher to be in as a player. However, because of his accomplishment, maybe he gets in anyway.

[Windy City Fan]

A few flaws in your reasoning, JA.

First, you're locking on to one stat to make these comparisons, instead of looking at the entire picture, and often you're using a poor stat as well.

Wins isn't really the best way to measure a pitcher. Last year Clemens led the NL in ERA, but only had 13 wins. Two years ago, Randy Johnson finished second in the NL in ERA, IP, and K, along with winning the WHIP title. But he was only 2 games above .500 (16-14). In both cases, due to poor support from their respective teams, Clemens and Johnson's win totals were not reflective of their talent and effectiveness.

Of course, the same works in reverse. Bob Welch won 27 games in 1990, and had a solid ERA of 2.95. But don't you think the fact that his run support was 123% of the league average might have helped him pile up wins that year? The very next year (1991), Bill Gullickson won 20 games with a 3.90 ERA! Only 6% better than the average pitcher in the league. However, his run support was 124% better than the league. So who really earned those wins, Gullickson or the Tigers lineup?

RBI's are another stat highly dependent on team context. It's a big help if you have Alex Rodriguez (.381 OBP) and Derek Jeter (.419 OBP) batting ahead of you like Giambi does (106 RBI). Please tell me that you don't think Jason Giambi is the 7th best hitter in the AL this year (he ranks 7th in RBI's).

Secondly, you fail to look at era even when you do use rate stats. You may have noticed that players who played in the 1920's and 30's racked up amazing offensive statistics. Conversely, very few pitchers really excelled during this time. Or at least so it would appear at first glance. However, when you start to look at the game, you realize that conditions were weighted towards batters. It's not that pitchers in the 1930's sucked, and the hitters were gods on earth (which would be quite a coincidence for two such extreme outliers to become the norm at once). It was conditions. Just look at today, juiced balls, small parks, tiny strike zones, body armor for batters, and voila, we have a homerun fest (not to mention juiced players in many cases). Are pitchers today unable to keep the ball in the park because they were not as good as pitchers ten or fifteen years ago? No, they simply pitch in an enviroment that is very conducive to the long ball. That's why most of us use relative rate stats, which compare things like SLG, OBP, ERA, ect to the league average fo the time. The truly talented players will outperform the league, regardless of conditions.

Lastly, you seem to completely ignore peak in favor of longevity. Harold Baines may have impressive counting stats, but please point out one season that equals Greenberg at his best. Baines has two seasons with an OPS+ (OBP and SLG compared to the league average) above 140. Greenberg had 8 consecutive seasons above 150 and ten total for his career. Greenberg hit his 331 HR in 6096 plate apperances. Baines hit his 384 HR in 11092 PA, nearly double Greenberg's totals. Baines has led his league in a major statistic once (SLG in 1984). Greenberg on the other hand has a SLG title, an OPS title, a runs scored title, 2 total bases titles, 2 doubles titles, 4 HR titles (with two more second place finishes), and 4 RBI titles. Greenberg has a commanding lead in both black ink (league leaderships) and grey ink (times appearing in the top ten for the league), even though Baines had many more years to rack up such titles and accolades.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why must you continue to compare stats of those in the hall and say "Well if hes in, this other guy should be in"

There are such things as different eras. Just in case you didnt know anything about that.

And please stop with your one-stat evaluations, they mean pretty much nothing.

I hope you are trolling and you dont really believe this, but probably not. :(

He's right about Gossage. I don't want to open the door for a slew of relievers, but Gossage belongs, if any reliever belongs. Gossage, IMO, is better than any reliever inducted to date, save for Hoyt Wilhelm.

I don't believe in the lowest common denominator arguement, the "Joe Doofus is in the HOF and he wasn't as good as Charlie Nutcake, so why isn't Charlie Nutcake in the HOF?" That's how the HOF gets dumbed down.

On the other hand, if you have a player outside the HOF who can point to several players substandard to him that are in the HOF, that is different. If a player can make the case that virtually every player comparable to him has gone into the HOF, that's even better; that's the highest common denominator argument, the one I use for Blyleven, John, and Kaat.

[JimAbbott]

Wow Bob Kurtz, tremendous post and I really appreciate and agree with it 100%. I was hugely disappoined that Abbott did not get the minimum number of votes to carryover to the next year's vote. I sincerely hope that he will be enshrined after 2020. Thanks for sticking up for Jim; now there's an underrated person and player. I remember going to a game at hitter friendly Fenway Park vs the powerful Bosox during Abbott's 1st season (1989). He pitched a few scoreless innings before the Bosox loaded the bases with 2 outs. The mighty (at the time) Mike Greenwell stepped up to the plate and struck out swinging mightily. Abbott went on to toss a shutout in this game. It was a joy to watch as was his classic no hitter vs a powerful Cleveland club in the heat of the '93 pennant race. Yes and who can forget the '98 comeback from single A blowouts to the big Chisox club in Sept. His 1st (I think) comeback game was vs the Yankee soon-to-be-world champs machine. Jim went on to win that game and his next 4 starts, going 5-0. Watching Jim Abbott pitch was a joy.

[JimAbbott]

OK OK guys, I will throw in the towel on Greenberg for his awesome power numbers and loss of time for military service. However, I stand by my belief that the others do not belong, most especially Sutter followed by Carter. Does nobody remember how long it took Carter to his that 300th HR? That was a joke; He was pitiful

[EvanAparra]

OK OK guys, I will throw in the towel on Greenberg for his awesome power numbers and loss of time for military service. However, I stand by my belief that the others do not belong, most especially Sutter followed by Carter. Does nobody remember how long it took Carter to his that 300th HR? That was a joke; He was pitiful


Considering you dont have to hit 300 HRs to be considered, who cares?

[The Kid]

If there's one underated player who should be in the hall, it's Tony Configliaro

[leecemark]

--I assume you mean Conigliaro. Tony C got off to a great start and was on a Hall of Famer pace before his beaning in his 4th season. He ended up only having 6 seasons where he made any kind of contribution though and none of them were historically great.

[JimAbbott]

Yeah, tough break for Tony C. Who can ever forget that Sports Illustrated cover of his black eye

[Windy City Fan]

Sutter: Saves is a VERY poor method of evalutating closers. The usage pattern of relievers has changed dramatically over the years. Hoyt Wilhelm is generally recognized to be the greatest reliever ever, but he only has 227 saves.

Your comparison of Reardon and Sutter is especially poor. In Sutter's day (and at the start of Reardon's career too), relief aces were called firemen and used to put out "fires" in a game. The pitcher gets into a tough spot in the 7th? Call in Sutter. And usually Sutter would be expected to close out the game from there. Sutter topped 100 innings from the pen 5 times in his career. He also hit 90+ once, and 80+ 4 more times. Reardon hit 100 IP twice, but only once as a "fireman". Despite playing 4 more years, Reardon only has 90 more IP. Meaning Sutter was ridden a lot harder due to the prevelent usage patterns of his day. By 1990, firemen were no longer in use. The term now was closer, and their useage was dictated by the defination of the statistic, the save. Now relief aces are saved strictly for the 9th inning and inserted in any "save situation". Meaning Reardon was able to pile up 131 saves from 1990 on, the era of the "cheap" save.

Most if not all of Sutter's saves came when the game was truly on the line. He often came in the middle of an inning with runners on and had to pitch his way out of the jam. Reardon had to do this at the start of his career, but by the end he was racking up cheap saves to go with the tough ones.

We can also look at their relative stats. Reardon's ERA+ is a fine 121. However, Sutter's is a much more impressive 136. Sutter also has better career marks for WHIP, Hit/9, K/9, and K/BB. I don't have the relative version of those stats, but I'm confident Sutter would come out ahead there as well.

Lastly, their reputation is something to look at, especially for a closer. Bruce Sutter was one of the most feared closers in baseball. If he came into a game against the team you were rooting for, you got nervous. You held your breath and crossed your fingers. You knew Sutter was there to slam the door shut on any comeback hopes and you knew he excelled at slamming doors. Reardon, while effective, never had the same rep. You knew you were facing the other team's closer, but you might mumble to the TV, "Come on guys, we can get this guy." Sutter ranks up there with Gossage, Eckersley, and Rivera as one of the most dreaded closers in baseball history.

Carter: First off, I'll challenge you to name ten better eligible catchers for the HOF. If you can't, then Carter's case looks pretty strong. (Usually, if you're considered among the top ten at your position, you're a lock for the hall. Unless your name is Ron Santo)

Secondly, again you're fixating on one stat to the exclusion of the big picture. First off, Carter was a catcher. Catchers are not expected to produce huge offensive numbers for reasons that should be obvious. I'll list them anyway, just in case you need a refresher. Cathing a grinding position that wears down a player much quicker than any other position. It's also a defensive position, where teams are more than willing to sacrifice a little offense to get a solid defender. Johnny Bench "only" hit 389 HR. Bera hit 358. Fisk hit 376. Gary Carter's 324 HR don't look so bad in that light. In addition to impressive slugging (for a catcher), Carter was an excellent defender in his day, and had a long career.

[RuthMayBond]

By 1990, firemen were no longer in use. The term now was closer, and their useage was dictated by the defination of the statistic, the save. Now relief aces are saved strictly for the 9th inning and inserted in any "save situation". Meaning Reardon was able to pile up 131 saves from 1990 on, the era of the "cheap" save.I was wondering when that started. I was thinking it started more like in 1994 or '93 (coincidentally when HR totals and ERA jumped)

[Windy City Fan]

It definately started before the HR explosion of the 90's, but I don't know if you can pin down an exact date. I picked 1990 because it was when Reardon's own IP totals dropped (from routinely around 70 IP or more to 50), and it was also the year Bobby Thigpen set the all-time single season record (77 appearances, 88 IP). I've heard Tony LaRussa "credited" with this change when he made Eck his closer in the late 80's. The game seemed to be trending that way for a while though. In Sutter and Gossage's heyday, a top notch closer got 100 IP or close to it. Through out the second half of the 80's most top guns were logging around 80 IP or more. Today 70 to 80 IP is still obtainable for either the best relievers around or ones that overused, but most closers log around 50 to 60 IP.

[RuthMayBond]

It definately started before the HR explosion of the 90's, but I don't know if you can pin down an exact date. I picked 1990 because it was when Reardon's own IP totals dropped (from routinely around 70 IP or more to 50),So you're picking it based on ONE guy? (who kinda stunk the year before)

<and it was also the year Bobby Thigpen set the all-time single season record (77 appearances, 88 IP).>

But Thigpen threw 89 IP that year. not 50

[J W]

Sutter topped 100 innings from the pen 5 times in his career. He also hit 90+ once, and 80+ 4 more times. Reardon hit 100 IP twice, but only once as a "fireman". Despite playing 4 more years, Reardon only has 90 more IP. Meaning Sutter was ridden a lot harder due to the prevelent usage patterns of his day.

To paraphrase statistically:

- Sutter averaged 1.58 IP and 6.43 BF (batters faced) per GP.
- Reardon averaged 1.29 IP and 5.36 BF per GP.

Reardon broke 100 IP twice in his career, both in his first 4 seasons ('79-82). He would have been considered a "fireman" then... though actually he didn't start closing until 1982... beforehand he was middle relief. In 1983 he pitched 90+ innings.

The next four years ('84-'87) saw Reardon, as closer, pitch between 80 and 90 innings. As the modern age of closers began, he never broke 75 IP again.

So, it's fair to say Reardon is a tweener--like Lee Smith--a "fireman" to start his career, and a "closer" to end it.

[Windy City Fan]

So you're picking it based on ONE guy? (who kinda stunk the year before)

<and it was also the year Bobby Thigpen set the all-time single season record (77 appearances, 88 IP).>

But Thigpen threw 89 IP that year. not 50
:eek:

Thigpen was pretty much a one inning per game pitcher, 77 appearances, 88 IP. Eck too. As I said, LaRussa is often credited with this innovation, so you could say 1988 was the year it began. Or you could point to the first 50 save season (1990). I don't know if there is one exact year where "firemen" went out of style and "closers" became the rage, but by 1990 I'd say the transition was complete.

[Ubiquitous]

Take a look at the years before 1990 and 1990. Before 1990 a lot of pitchers who got saves finished a relatively low number of their overall games. Meaning that some of these guys would come in during the 7th or the 8th and somebody would get used for the last out. Then in 1990 practically everybody who got saves was being used to finish games at their games finished rated was in the high 90's. You saw some pitchers in 1989 doing that as well but not like 1990 nor did you see the save totals high. Some guys would pitch the 9th regardless of whether or not his team was winning whereas in 1990 they would only get brought in if they had a lead. 1990 is as good a year as any to label as the beginning of the closer.