Sutton, Ryan. 1980. Final regular season game Dodgers vs. Astros.....Sutton proves he is a "pitcher" with guts and heart. A few days later , in game 5 of the NLCS Ryan shows the entire world that he cannot, and never will be anything but a "thrower." Sutton was heroic. Ryan was an embarrassment. If I got it wrong somebody will correct me. But......I WAS THERE. I think?
But.....I think Ryan did hit a homer off Sutton in 1980. I think. If I'm wrong...... someone please let me know.
@dallasactuary said:
Nolan Ryan was the most exciting pitcher ever; there was a very good chance that you would see a no-hitter or a one-hitter, or maybe watch him strike out 16, 17, 18 batters. Or maybe even get to see him bitch-slap Robin Ventura. He is my favorite player ever, and I can't even imagine how anyone could knock him out of that spot.
Problem was, when he wasn't throwing a great game, he was throwing a poor one; the batters that didn't strike out either walked or hit a homer. Overall, he was a great pitcher, but he's a long way from the GOAT conversation. He was a contemporary of Tom Seaver for most of his career, and of the 15-20 seasons that they overlapped, my guess is that Ryan was better than Seaver fewer than 5 times. GOAT candiates from the 1970's - 1980's begin and end with Seaver; nobody else pitching in those decades was even close, not even Blyleven.
It had to happen eventually, Dallas finally made a really good baseball post.
He is correct in saying Seaver is the only GOAT candidate of his era, something which I already
pointed out in a previous post. But not only is Seaver a candidate, he is the GOAT.
Nobody who picked Walter Johnson or Mathewson or Lefty Grove has addressed the fact that
they only pitched to white people so the pool of talent sucked compared to the talent Seaver pitched to.
The only one who comes close to Seaver is Randy Johnson, I would not argue if anyone said the Big Unit
was the GOAT.
Nolan Ryan was my jam. My favorite player as well. I loved to watch him pitch.
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@dallasactuary said:
Nolan Ryan was the most exciting pitcher ever; there was a very good chance that you would see a no-hitter or a one-hitter, or maybe watch him strike out 16, 17, 18 batters. Or maybe even get to see him bitch-slap Robin Ventura. He is my favorite player ever, and I can't even imagine how anyone could knock him out of that spot.
Problem was, when he wasn't throwing a great game, he was throwing a poor one; the batters that didn't strike out either walked or hit a homer. Overall, he was a great pitcher, but he's a long way from the GOAT conversation. He was a contemporary of Tom Seaver for most of his career, and of the 15-20 seasons that they overlapped, my guess is that Ryan was better than Seaver fewer than 5 times. GOAT candiates from the 1970's - 1980's begin and end with Seaver; nobody else pitching in those decades was even close, not even Blyleven.
It had to happen eventually, Dallas finally made a really good baseball post.
He is correct in saying Seaver is the only GOAT candidate of his era, something which I already
pointed out in a previous post. But not only is Seaver a candidate, he is the GOAT.
Nobody who picked Walter Johnson or Mathewson or Lefty Grove has addressed the fact that
they only pitched to white people so the pool of talent sucked compared to the talent Seaver pitched to.
The only one who comes close to Seaver is Randy Johnson, I would not argue if anyone said the Big Unit
was the GOAT.
Whitey Ford retired with a lower career ERA than both Tom Terrific and Randy Johnson (and every other retired HOF starting pitcher). Played against all people and was utterly spectacular. Lots of postseason experience wherein he also excelled.
Underrated
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@dallasactuary said:
Nolan Ryan was the most exciting pitcher ever; there was a very good chance that you would see a no-hitter or a one-hitter, or maybe watch him strike out 16, 17, 18 batters. Or maybe even get to see him bitch-slap Robin Ventura. He is my favorite player ever, and I can't even imagine how anyone could knock him out of that spot.
Problem was, when he wasn't throwing a great game, he was throwing a poor one; the batters that didn't strike out either walked or hit a homer. Overall, he was a great pitcher, but he's a long way from the GOAT conversation. He was a contemporary of Tom Seaver for most of his career, and of the 15-20 seasons that they overlapped, my guess is that Ryan was better than Seaver fewer than 5 times. GOAT candiates from the 1970's - 1980's begin and end with Seaver; nobody else pitching in those decades was even close, not even Blyleven.
It had to happen eventually, Dallas finally made a really good baseball post.
He is correct in saying Seaver is the only GOAT candidate of his era, something which I already
pointed out in a previous post. But not only is Seaver a candidate, he is the GOAT.
Nobody who picked Walter Johnson or Mathewson or Lefty Grove has addressed the fact that
they only pitched to white people so the pool of talent sucked compared to the talent Seaver pitched to.
The only one who comes close to Seaver is Randy Johnson, I would not argue if anyone said the Big Unit
was the GOAT.
Unit was great, so was Seaver. Neither was the equal of clemens for either peak or career.
neither can match:
ERA+ 143
WAR 140
WPA 77.7
and so much black ink you could print a newspaper. led league in era 7 times, shutouts 6 times, era+ 8 times, FIP 9 times...
the list goes on and on.
his only competition in the live-ball era really is Lefty Grove, and Grove pitched in the pre-integration era.
@dallasactuary said:
Nolan Ryan was the most exciting pitcher ever; there was a very good chance that you would see a no-hitter or a one-hitter, or maybe watch him strike out 16, 17, 18 batters. Or maybe even get to see him bitch-slap Robin Ventura. He is my favorite player ever, and I can't even imagine how anyone could knock him out of that spot.
Problem was, when he wasn't throwing a great game, he was throwing a poor one; the batters that didn't strike out either walked or hit a homer. Overall, he was a great pitcher, but he's a long way from the GOAT conversation. He was a contemporary of Tom Seaver for most of his career, and of the 15-20 seasons that they overlapped, my guess is that Ryan was better than Seaver fewer than 5 times. GOAT candiates from the 1970's - 1980's begin and end with Seaver; nobody else pitching in those decades was even close, not even Blyleven.
It had to happen eventually, Dallas finally made a really good baseball post.
He is correct in saying Seaver is the only GOAT candidate of his era, something which I already
pointed out in a previous post. But not only is Seaver a candidate, he is the GOAT.
Nobody who picked Walter Johnson or Mathewson or Lefty Grove has addressed the fact that
they only pitched to white people so the pool of talent sucked compared to the talent Seaver pitched to.
The only one who comes close to Seaver is Randy Johnson, I would not argue if anyone said the Big Unit
was the GOAT.
Whitey Ford retired with a lower career ERA than both Tom Terrific and Randy Johnson (and every other retired HOF starting pitcher). Played against all people and was utterly spectacular. Lots of postseason experience wherein he also excelled.
Underrated
With Whitey Ford there may be a stigma attached. This is my theory.
When thinking of Whitey I immediately think of Mantle and all those
great winning Yankee teams. Lots of offense, lots of home runs, lots of scoring.
So maybe a lot of other people think the same way. The thought being that maybe
it was pretty easy to pitch for the Yankees in those days because they won games with their bats.
Totally unfair to Whitey Ford of course. You still have to have great pitching to win games consistently.
That's just my theory, I actually think him playing with Mantle all those years is the reason he is underrated.
Whitey Ford had an ERA of 2.75 for 3,170 innings. That's great.
Tom Seaver had an ERA of 2.60 for 3,789 innings. That's a lot better.
Seaver then hung on for five more years with an ERA of 3.86; not as impressive, but still 5% better than an average pitcher at the time. This raised his career ERA above Ford's.
Ford spent his entire career in a pitcher's park, which lowered his ERA about 20 points.
Seaver spent his career in various parks, on average slightly favoring hitters, raising his ERA about 5 points.
Ford was a great pitcher, Seaver was a GOAT quality pitcher. The gap between them is large.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Ford is certainly overlooked. He put up terrific numbers but........he also spent half his career having his starts and innings limited in an era when that just wasn't done. He threw 260 innings just twice. Seaver did it 9 times (and one more of 259-2/3). Seaver led the league in ERA more times, ERA+ more times, and K more times. And WHIP.
@Tabe said:
Ford is certainly overlooked. He put up terrific numbers but........he also spent half his career having his starts and innings limited in an era when that just wasn't done. He threw 260 innings just twice. Seaver did it 9 times (and one more of 259-2/3). Seaver led the league in ERA more times, ERA+ more times, and K more times. And WHIP.
Seaver had an incredible career.
But Clemens was better.
We are all aware that this was Casey Stengel’s doing, not Ford’s though, correct?
Take out the years where Seaver sucked and he’s clearly better.
I know how good Tom Seaver was but I also know how good Whitey Ford was and for MOST OF HIS PRIME YEARS HE WAS BEING HELD BACK FOR FOOLISH REASONS! He didn’t get unleashed until Ralph Houk replaced Casey in 1961 when Whitey Ford was 32!
Plus he lost his age 22 and 23 season when he’d already established a solid pedigree at 21.
I’d take him over Tom Seaver any day.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@Justacommeman said:
Nolan Ryan was my jam. My favorite player as well. I loved to watch him pitch.
m
I liked to watch him too. Not that I loved it. I was a young guy on a forklift back then at the railroad tracks within view of The Big A. Couldn't wait to get off work around 5 or 6 and head over to the game. Sometimes he was good. Some times so-so. Sometimes downright terrible. No consistency. None. Candidate for greatest ever? No way. But....I did want him to be. Reality is tough.
Don Sutton was a much better pitcher than Nolan Ryan.
Take out the years where Seaver sucked and he’s clearly better.
No, that's not another way of saying what I said. If I had cherry picked Seaver's top seasons I could have made the gap between him and Ford even larger. Ford retired after pitching 3,170 innings. Seaver reached a point in his career where he had pitched 3,789 innings and he could have retired. Had he done so, your argument for Ford collapses, but he didn't. Instead he pitched five more years as an above average pitcher. Your argument, should you choose to continue making it regardless of how silly it makes you look, is that Seaver's decision to pitch well for five more years converted him from a pitcher who was better than Ford to one who was worse than Ford. In other words, your argument is that pitching well is worse than not pitching at all. I can't help how ridiculous that sounds when said out loud, and I also don't know how I'm supposed to respond to it.
I also said Ford's ERA was ballpark-aided, even moreso when compared to Seaver, but that didn't fit the narrative I guess, so you ignored that part. Ford was a great pitcher, but Seaver was clearly better, even when you include the one season he sucked.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Take out the years where Seaver sucked and he’s clearly better.
No, that's not another way of saying what I said.
Sure it is - ‘hung on’ is not a phrase used to flatter. A punchy boxer hung on for a few more rounds. Randy Johnson hung around for 300 wins. Lesser performance is lesser performance.
If I had cherry picked Seaver's top seasons I could have made the gap between him and Ford even larger.
Ooooooh. That would be so so crazy! Can you make balloon animals too?
Ford retired after pitching 3,170 innings. Seaver reached a point in his career where he had pitched 3,789 innings and he could have retired.
Did you mean should have? Or was he pitching because his family was being held captive? A player starts and ends their career how and when they choose or when time or teams decide for them.
Had he done so, your argument for Ford collapses, but he didn't. Instead he pitched five more years as an above average pitcher. Your argument, should you choose to continue making it regardless of how silly it makes you look, is that Seaver's decision to pitch well for five more years converted him from a pitcher who was better than Ford to one who was worse than Ford.
**No, my argument was that Whitey Ford was worthy of being in the discussion for GOAT. For Tom Terrific, you are saying that by not counting his final FIVE ‘hang on’ years (your words) based on nothing other than a desire to produce a better ERA, that he’d have a better ERA than Ford. So the final quarter of his career which was more like final third where he was ‘above average’ do count. His ERA rose, K/9 plummeted and in general he went from ace to guy filling out rotation.
You willl find no such trash seasons like that on the resume of Whitey Ford, good sir. Go look and call me when you find one. And if the phone don’t ring, I’ll know it’s you.
In other words, your argument is that pitching well is worse than not pitching at all. I can't help how ridiculous that sounds when said out loud, and I also don't know how I'm supposed to respond to it.
No, I’m just asking you to count Tom Seaver’s entire career in his career ERA. Not leave out the last five seasons. As you have suggested. Now who is being ridiculous?
I also said Ford's ERA was ballpark-aided, even moreso when compared to Seaver, but that didn't fit the narrative I guess, so you ignored that part.
For a long stretch, Shea was a pitcher friendly park. Especially the further back you go before different sections of seats were added. It played closer to neutral when it closed but that was hardly the case
when Tom spent 11 of his 20 seasons in home starts there.
Ford was a great pitcher, but Seaver was clearly better, even when you include the one season he sucked.
Clearly? To who?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
I thought the absurdity of the argument you were making was self-evident and you'd see it for yourself when I spelled it out. Apparently I was mistaken. You not only didn't see it, you doubled down and put it in writing again. And you still can't see it. Lacking the ability to make it any clearer than it already is, I'll move on.
And to whom? To everyone but you, I'm pretty sure.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I like Seaver over Ford, but one thing the numbers will never show is that Stengel matched him up against the toughest pitchers for most of his career.
This hurt Fords numbers quite a bit imo. He missed a lot of starts in his prime against lower pitchers. I am going to assume if Ford had been allowed to pitch every fourth day, his numbers would be better. From 1953-60 he only had more than 30 starts once.
Clemens would certainly be most people's GOAT if not for PED rumors, and of course being prosecuted.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I remember attending the June 1974 Angels-Red Sox game in which Nolan Ryan struck out 19 and lasted 13 innings in a game that went 15. I was lucky that day in that I was able to get Yaz's autograph earlier before the game. Truly this was one of my great moments at a baseball game. Ryan was an amazing pitcher.
Interesting fact about Stengel and Ford that I simply didn't know.
Not to be any more argumentative than usual, but I would not consider the 1965 and 66 Dodger pennant winning teams to be great hitting.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@dallasactuary said:
I thought the absurdity of the argument you were making was self-evident and you'd see it for yourself when I spelled it out. Apparently I was mistaken. You not only didn't see it, you doubled down and put it in writing again. And you still can't see it. Lacking the ability to make it any clearer than it already is, I'll move on.
And to whom? To everyone but you, I'm pretty sure.
Man, that’s a lot of words to say nothing.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@coinkat said:
I remember attending the June 1974 Angels-Red Sox game in which Nolan Ryan struck out 19 and lasted 13 innings in a game that went 15. I was lucky that day in that I was able to get Yaz's autograph earlier before the game. Truly this was one of my great moments at a baseball game. Ryan was an amazing pitcher.
Interesting fact about Stengel and Ford that I simply didn't know.
Not to be any more argumentative than usual, but I would not consider the 1965 and 66 Dodger pennant winning teams to be great hitting.
Casey had logic defying rules when it came to his ace. I’m not able to recite them as fact but if I recall, Ford was skipped almost every time he was scheduled to pitch in Fenway Park.
I’ll see if I can dig out the article that delved into it as it was a good read.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
When asked if Stengel was a great manager , Yogi Berra replied; "He had some pretty good players".
Speaking of idiotic managerial decisions, Killebrew wasn't put in the senators lineup 1955-58 because they were worried his defense might lose them games. They finished last 3 of those years and next to last once. Their 3rd baseman (Eddie Yost) was slightly above average.
How much worse can you be than last?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
When asked if Stengel was a great manager , Yogi Berra replied; "He had some pretty good players".
Speaking of idiotic managerial decisions, Killebrew wasn't put in the senators lineup 1955-58 because they were worried his defense might lose them games. They finished last 3 of those years and next to last once. Their 3rd baseman (Eddie Yost) was slightly above average.
How much worse can you be than last?
Joe I never knew that about Killebrew.
It looks like it may have cost Killebrew a minimum of 100 HR and maybe 150.
He could have had a chance at 700 HR. Even if he had sat just the first year when he was 18
and started playing his second year he would have finished with many more HR and RBI.
I always liked Killebrew but that gives me a new found respect for him.
Kind of like Len Dawson in football, he didn't get to play for 4-5 years but still made the Hall of Fame.
@JoeBanzai said:
When asked if Stengel was a great manager , Yogi Berra replied; "He had some pretty good players".
Speaking of idiotic managerial decisions, Killebrew wasn't put in the senators lineup 1955-58 because they were worried his defense might lose them games. They finished last 3 of those years and next to last once. Their 3rd baseman (Eddie Yost) was slightly above average.
How much worse can you be than last?
Joe I never knew that about Killebrew.
It looks like it may have cost Killebrew a minimum of 100 HR and maybe 150.
He could have had a chance at 700 HR. Even if he had sat just the first year when he was 18
and started playing his second year he would have finished with many more HR and RBI.
I always liked Killebrew but that gives me a new found respect for him.
Kind of like Len Dawson in football, he didn't get to play for 4-5 years but still made the Hall of Fame.
I like statistics, but this is the kind of stuff that very few people know about.
Did you know Roberto Clemente was originally signed by the Dodgers around the same time as Koufax?
All three players were "Bonus rule (Bonus Babies)" players. Read up on that bit of nonsense if you care to.
I figured Killer should have had about 700 HR.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
When asked if Stengel was a great manager , Yogi Berra replied; "He had some pretty good players".
Speaking of idiotic managerial decisions, Killebrew wasn't put in the senators lineup 1955-58 because they were worried his defense might lose them games. They finished last 3 of those years and next to last once. Their 3rd baseman (Eddie Yost) was slightly above average.
How much worse can you be than last?
Joe I never knew that about Killebrew.
It looks like it may have cost Killebrew a minimum of 100 HR and maybe 150.
He could have had a chance at 700 HR. Even if he had sat just the first year when he was 18
and started playing his second year he would have finished with many more HR and RBI.
I always liked Killebrew but that gives me a new found respect for him.
Kind of like Len Dawson in football, he didn't get to play for 4-5 years but still made the Hall of Fame.
I like statistics, but this is the kind of stuff that very few people know about.
Did you know Roberto Clemente was originally signed by the Dodgers around the same time as Koufax?
All three players were "Bonus rule (Bonus Babies)" players. Read up on that bit of nonsense if you care to.
I figured Killer should have had about 700 HR.
One of my favorite what might have been stories was Larry Doby basically begging the Indians to sign some other younger kids from his former negro league games and other various exhibition gamesthat he knew to be exceptional talents. The Indians sent (racist) scouts and ultimately deemed the talent unworthy despite Doby guaranteeing that they’d tear up the majors if given the chance.
So, instead, the Giants signed Willie Mays and the Braves grabbed Hank Aaron.
Sorry for sharing that one, to the Indians fans.
Imagine?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@JoeBanzai said:
I like Seaver over Ford, but one thing the numbers will ever show is that Stengel matched him up against the toughest pitchers for most of his career.
This hurt Fords numbers quite a bit imo. He missed a lot of starts in his prime against lower pitchers. I am going to assume if Ford had been allowed to pitch every fourth day, his numbers would be better. From 1953-60 he only had more than 30 starts once.
I hate to burst another myth bubble, but no, Ford didn't miss a lot of starts against lesser pitchers. It's way too much effort to go through his entire career, but I just skimmed through the boxscores for a few of his seasons and there is absolutely no indication that he has any pattern of missing any starts, and certainly no pattern of facing good pitchers more often than bad pitchers. He very rarely faced the same pitcher more than once or twice in a single season, and those he did face more than once were a mix of good and bad pitchers.
There is a lot of truth to the myth that Ford was skipped over for starts in Fenway. He pitched in the other parks an average of 33 times and in Fenway only 19 times. This is yet another reason why his ERA is not as impressive as it looks. Ford's ERA in Fenway was 6.16; skipping starts in Fenway probably saved him about 10 points on his career ERA. In other words, the reason Ford's career ERA is lower than Seaver's is that he stunk so bad in Fenway Stengel stopped using him there.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I hate to burst another myth bubble, but no, Ford didn't miss a lot of starts against lesser pitchers. It's way too much effort to go through his entire career, but I just skimmed through the boxscores for a few of his seasons and there is absolutely no indication that he has any pattern of missing any starts, and certainly no pattern of facing good pitchers more often than bad pitchers. He very rarely faced the same pitcher more than once or twice in a single season, and those he did face more than once were a mix of good and bad pitchers.
I have read that Stengel did this in two or three books I read on Mantle, and one on Berra. I'll go with what Ford's team mates said over what the stats indicate.
Seems to me there must be a reason he made so few starts when they went with 4 man rotations.
From Wikipedia;
"Some of Ford's totals were depressed by Yankees' manager Casey Stengel, who viewed Ford as his top pitching asset and often reserved his ace left-hander for more formidable opponents such as the Cleveland Indians and Chicago White Sox. When Ralph Houk became the manager in 1961, he promised Ford that he would pitch every fourth day, regardless of the opponent; after exceeding 30 starts only once in his nine seasons under Stengel, Ford had 39 in 1961. Indeed 1961 was his first 20-win season, a career-best 25–4 record, and the Cy Young Award ensued".
Bubble remains unburst.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
I like Seaver over Ford, but one thing the numbers will ever show is that Stengel matched him up against the toughest pitchers for most of his career.
This hurt Fords numbers quite a bit imo. He missed a lot of starts in his prime against lower pitchers. I am going to assume if Ford had been allowed to pitch every fourth day, his numbers would be better. From 1953-60 he only had more than 30 starts once.
I hate to burst another myth bubble, but no, Ford didn't miss a lot of starts against lesser pitchers. It's way too much effort to go through his entire career, but I just skimmed through the boxscores for a few of his seasons and there is absolutely no indication that he has any pattern of missing any starts, and certainly no pattern of facing good pitchers more often than bad pitchers. He very rarely faced the same pitcher more than once or twice in a single season, and those he did face more than once were a mix of good and bad pitchers.
There is a lot of truth to the myth that Ford was skipped over for starts in Fenway. He pitched in the other parks an average of 33 times and in Fenway only 19 times. This is yet another reason why his ERA is not as impressive as it looks. Ford's ERA in Fenway was 6.16; skipping starts in Fenway probably saved him about 10 points on his career ERA. In other words, the reason Ford's career ERA is lower than Seaver's is that he stunk so bad in Fenway Stengel stopped using him there.
Here’s a nice article that covers a lot of what’s being discussed:
The guys argument is that Whitey Ford is overrated, @dallasactuary
While I don’t agree with all the conclusions drawn, there’s a lot of good stuff in there that’s worth looking at and is directly relevant to the discussion at hand.
This is not posted to win the argument - much of it would be QUITE the opposite - but there’s so much good information that I thought it worth posting for all to read and enjoy.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Another interesting (to me) story is one Ford told himself;
He started out like most other pitchers of his era, fastball/curveball. When he started losing his fastball he developed a few different off-speed pitches and threw them at several different speeds from up to three different arm angles.
That's pitching!
How hard is it to be good when you can hit 100 MPH?
If anything, Ford is under rated. Was he as good as Seaver?
We'll never really know, but as I said, I'll take Tom "Terrific"!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
Another interesting (to me) story is one Ford told himself;
He started out like most other pitchers of his era, fastball/curveball. When he started losing his fastball he developed a few different off-speed pitches and threw them at several different speeds from up to three different arm angles.
That's pitching!
How hard is it to be good when you can hit 100 MPH?
If anything, Ford is under rated. Was he as good as Seaver?
We'll never really know, but as I said, I'll take Tom "Terrific"!
Also noteworthy?
Whitey Ford cheated his a$s off from about 1963 onward...😳
...yup.
“Baseball cheating” - think aging pitcher Eddie Harris in Major League type stuff - which is something he admitted to but I don’t think was caught doing.
I like talking baseball more than winning arguments, apparently.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Speaking of idiotic managerial decisions, Killebrew wasn't put in the senators lineup 1955-58 because they were worried his defense might lose them games. They finished last 3 of those years and next to last once. Their 3rd baseman (Eddie Yost) was slightly above average.
How much worse can you be than last?
Hitting .200 or .222 or .194 while slugging under .400 MIGHT have had something to do with it.
Here's an interesting article on just how good Koufax was in his prime. He was said to have a curveball that would drop 10-12 inches on you. He was a late bloomer, but once he bloomed, he was phenomenal.
@JoeBanzai said:
I have read that Stengel did this in two or three books I read on Mantle, and one on Berra. I'll go with what Ford's team mates said over what the stats indicate.
Seems to me there must be a reason he made so few starts when they went with 4 man rotations.
From Wikipedia;
"Some of Ford's totals were depressed by Yankees' manager Casey Stengel, who viewed Ford as his top pitching asset and often reserved his ace left-hander for more formidable opponents such as the Cleveland Indians and Chicago White Sox. When Ralph Houk became the manager in 1961, he promised Ford that he would pitch every fourth day, regardless of the opponent; after exceeding 30 starts only once in his nine seasons under Stengel, Ford had 39 in 1961. Indeed 1961 was his first 20-win season, a career-best 25–4 record, and the Cy Young Award ensued".
Bubble remains unburst.
I guess the bubble does remain unburst since you've completely changed the claim and I spent a lot of time addressing the claim that you've now abandoned. Now, the claim is that Stengel manipulated the rotation to get Ford in against better TEAMS, and we all agree that no such thing happened to get Ford in against better PITCHERS, the claim you made initially. I am hesitant to spend much time looking into this one since I fully expect the claim to change again if this myth gets busted, but let's take a quick look.
For the years 1953-1960, the Yankees had a 5-man rotation; Houk essentially kept the 5-man rotation but pitched Ford generally every 4th game. In those years Ford started 258 games, or 20.9% of the Yankees games. They played each of the other 7 teams 176 times, so Ford would be expected to face each team 37 times.
Here are the other teams, ranked best to worst over that 8-year period and the differential between Ford's actual and expected starts:
That's a mixed bag of evidence, but none of it is very strong. Yes, he faced Chicago, the best team, 1 or 2 extra times per year and the A's, the worst team, one less time than expected per season. But in between? He faced both the second best and second worst teams a little bit more than expected, and he balanced that by facing the teams in the middle less than expected. I look at this and see nothing but random noise in between Chicago and the A's, so the myth of Stengel and Ford comes down to a total of 10 or so games over a period of 8 years moving from a bad team to a good team. That's not entirely meaningless, but it's awfully close.
Now, if the claim is that Stengel should have pitched Ford more often - gotten him more innings - then that may (or may not) be true. But the claim that Stengel's manipulation of the rotation hurt Ford's ERA is a myth that has been busted. The missed starts in Fenway alone mean that his ERA was helped by whatever minimal manipulation may have been occurring. and presumably, pitching with less rest would have hurt his ERA not helped it.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Ok, I was wrong about the exact manner of how he was held back, the POINT is he wasn't given the opportunity to pitch as many innings that most front line pitchers.
He could have done better he could have done worse, but he wasn't given the opportunity.
Speaking of idiotic managerial decisions, Killebrew wasn't put in the senators lineup 1955-58 because they were worried his defense might lose them games. They finished last 3 of those years and next to last once. Their 3rd baseman (Eddie Yost) was slightly above average.
How much worse can you be than last?
Hitting .200 or .222 or .194 while slugging under .400 MIGHT have had something to do with it.
He wasn't much worse than the guy they had at 3rd. He did pretty well when they played him full time!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Speaking of idiotic managerial decisions, Killebrew wasn't put in the senators lineup 1955-58 because they were worried his defense might lose them games. They finished last 3 of those years and next to last once. Their 3rd baseman (Eddie Yost) was slightly above average.
How much worse can you be than last?
Hitting .200 or .222 or .194 while slugging under .400 MIGHT have had something to do with it.
He wasn't much worse than the guy they had at 3rd. He did pretty well when they played him full time!
True. Eddie Yost wasn't exactly tearing it up. But when they did Harmon a chance to play full-time - in September 1956 - he hit .246 with no power. He also got a 10-game stretch in June 1955 where he started every game and did nothing. Fact of the matter is that he simply wasn't ready yet. No shame in that.
Speaking of idiotic managerial decisions, Killebrew wasn't put in the senators lineup 1955-58 because they were worried his defense might lose them games. They finished last 3 of those years and next to last once. Their 3rd baseman (Eddie Yost) was slightly above average.
How much worse can you be than last?
Hitting .200 or .222 or .194 while slugging under .400 MIGHT have had something to do with it.
He wasn't much worse than the guy they had at 3rd. He did pretty well when they played him full time!
True. Eddie Yost wasn't exactly tearing it up. But when they did Harmon a chance to play full-time - in September 1956 - he hit .246 with no power. He also got a 10-game stretch in June 1955 where he started every game and did nothing. Fact of the matter is that he simply wasn't ready yet. No shame in that.
You're right he wasn't ready.
Bucky Harris didn't like him and wouldn't play him.
They should have played him right from the start, He was on the team in June of 1954 and needed to learn. He got 3 complete games (at the end of August!) in the entire year. He actually played 2nd base in 1954 and the regular second baseman had an OPS of .552.
They sure weren't going to challenge Cleveland or New York that year. I'm not saying make him an every day player, but get him on the field.
A whole 10 game stretch in 1955? Thirteen games in two years.
In fact Griffith demanded that Manager Lavagetto play Killebrew every day in 1959, saying he might lose a few with the glove, but win some with the bat. Result was leading the league in HR, tied with Colovito with 42, no other AL hitter had more than33!
Looks like he was REALLY ready by then!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Comments
Sutton, Ryan. 1980. Final regular season game Dodgers vs. Astros.....Sutton proves he is a "pitcher" with guts and heart. A few days later , in game 5 of the NLCS Ryan shows the entire world that he cannot, and never will be anything but a "thrower." Sutton was heroic. Ryan was an embarrassment. If I got it wrong somebody will correct me. But......I WAS THERE. I think?
But.....I think Ryan did hit a homer off Sutton in 1980. I think. If I'm wrong...... someone please let me know.
It had to happen eventually, Dallas finally made a really good baseball post.
He is correct in saying Seaver is the only GOAT candidate of his era, something which I already
pointed out in a previous post. But not only is Seaver a candidate, he is the GOAT.
Nobody who picked Walter Johnson or Mathewson or Lefty Grove has addressed the fact that
they only pitched to white people so the pool of talent sucked compared to the talent Seaver pitched to.
The only one who comes close to Seaver is Randy Johnson, I would not argue if anyone said the Big Unit
was the GOAT.
Nolan Ryan was my jam. My favorite player as well. I loved to watch him pitch.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
gotta hand it to him. jim abbott was pretty impressive all things considered.
Whitey Ford retired with a lower career ERA than both Tom Terrific and Randy Johnson (and every other retired HOF starting pitcher). Played against all people and was utterly spectacular. Lots of postseason experience wherein he also excelled.
Underrated
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Unit was great, so was Seaver. Neither was the equal of clemens for either peak or career.
neither can match:
ERA+ 143
WAR 140
WPA 77.7
and so much black ink you could print a newspaper. led league in era 7 times, shutouts 6 times, era+ 8 times, FIP 9 times...
the list goes on and on.
his only competition in the live-ball era really is Lefty Grove, and Grove pitched in the pre-integration era.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
With Whitey Ford there may be a stigma attached. This is my theory.
When thinking of Whitey I immediately think of Mantle and all those
great winning Yankee teams. Lots of offense, lots of home runs, lots of scoring.
So maybe a lot of other people think the same way. The thought being that maybe
it was pretty easy to pitch for the Yankees in those days because they won games with their bats.
Totally unfair to Whitey Ford of course. You still have to have great pitching to win games consistently.
That's just my theory, I actually think him playing with Mantle all those years is the reason he is underrated.
Whitey Ford had an ERA of 2.75 for 3,170 innings. That's great.
Tom Seaver had an ERA of 2.60 for 3,789 innings. That's a lot better.
Seaver then hung on for five more years with an ERA of 3.86; not as impressive, but still 5% better than an average pitcher at the time. This raised his career ERA above Ford's.
Ford spent his entire career in a pitcher's park, which lowered his ERA about 20 points.
Seaver spent his career in various parks, on average slightly favoring hitters, raising his ERA about 5 points.
Ford was a great pitcher, Seaver was a GOAT quality pitcher. The gap between them is large.
Ford is certainly overlooked. He put up terrific numbers but........he also spent half his career having his starts and innings limited in an era when that just wasn't done. He threw 260 innings just twice. Seaver did it 9 times (and one more of 259-2/3). Seaver led the league in ERA more times, ERA+ more times, and K more times. And WHIP.
Seaver had an incredible career.
But Clemens was better.
We are all aware that this was Casey Stengel’s doing, not Ford’s though, correct?
@dallasactuary
Here’s another way to say what you said:
Take out the years where Seaver sucked and he’s clearly better.
I know how good Tom Seaver was but I also know how good Whitey Ford was and for MOST OF HIS PRIME YEARS HE WAS BEING HELD BACK FOR FOOLISH REASONS! He didn’t get unleashed until Ralph Houk replaced Casey in 1961 when Whitey Ford was 32!
Plus he lost his age 22 and 23 season when he’d already established a solid pedigree at 21.
I’d take him over Tom Seaver any day.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I liked to watch him too. Not that I loved it. I was a young guy on a forklift back then at the railroad tracks within view of The Big A. Couldn't wait to get off work around 5 or 6 and head over to the game. Sometimes he was good. Some times so-so. Sometimes downright terrible. No consistency. None. Candidate for greatest ever? No way. But....I did want him to be. Reality is tough.
Don Sutton was a much better pitcher than Nolan Ryan.
By the way.......STEVE CARLTON anyone??
Pitching duels? It IS a thing. Sometimes he won, sometimes he lost. Usually he won. Pitching duels. Whoa!!!!
The why is irrelevant though it speaks volumes about Casey's faith in his durability. Fact is, he pitched 50+ innings less than his contemporaries.
No, that's not another way of saying what I said. If I had cherry picked Seaver's top seasons I could have made the gap between him and Ford even larger. Ford retired after pitching 3,170 innings. Seaver reached a point in his career where he had pitched 3,789 innings and he could have retired. Had he done so, your argument for Ford collapses, but he didn't. Instead he pitched five more years as an above average pitcher. Your argument, should you choose to continue making it regardless of how silly it makes you look, is that Seaver's decision to pitch well for five more years converted him from a pitcher who was better than Ford to one who was worse than Ford. In other words, your argument is that pitching well is worse than not pitching at all. I can't help how ridiculous that sounds when said out loud, and I also don't know how I'm supposed to respond to it.
I also said Ford's ERA was ballpark-aided, even moreso when compared to Seaver, but that didn't fit the narrative I guess, so you ignored that part. Ford was a great pitcher, but Seaver was clearly better, even when you include the one season he sucked.
Carlton is up there, no question about it.
Sure it is - ‘hung on’ is not a phrase used to flatter. A punchy boxer hung on for a few more rounds. Randy Johnson hung around for 300 wins. Lesser performance is lesser performance.
If I had cherry picked Seaver's top seasons I could have made the gap between him and Ford even larger.
Ooooooh. That would be so so crazy! Can you make balloon animals too?
Ford retired after pitching 3,170 innings. Seaver reached a point in his career where he had pitched 3,789 innings and he could have retired.
Did you mean should have? Or was he pitching because his family was being held captive? A player starts and ends their career how and when they choose or when time or teams decide for them.
Had he done so, your argument for Ford collapses, but he didn't. Instead he pitched five more years as an above average pitcher. Your argument, should you choose to continue making it regardless of how silly it makes you look, is that Seaver's decision to pitch well for five more years converted him from a pitcher who was better than Ford to one who was worse than Ford.
**No, my argument was that Whitey Ford was worthy of being in the discussion for GOAT. For Tom Terrific, you are saying that by not counting his final FIVE ‘hang on’ years (your words) based on nothing other than a desire to produce a better ERA, that he’d have a better ERA than Ford. So the final quarter of his career which was more like final third where he was ‘above average’ do count. His ERA rose, K/9 plummeted and in general he went from ace to guy filling out rotation.
You willl find no such trash seasons like that on the resume of Whitey Ford, good sir. Go look and call me when you find one. And if the phone don’t ring, I’ll know it’s you.
In other words, your argument is that pitching well is worse than not pitching at all. I can't help how ridiculous that sounds when said out loud, and I also don't know how I'm supposed to respond to it.
No, I’m just asking you to count Tom Seaver’s entire career in his career ERA. Not leave out the last five seasons. As you have suggested. Now who is being ridiculous?
For a long stretch, Shea was a pitcher friendly park. Especially the further back you go before different sections of seats were added. It played closer to neutral when it closed but that was hardly the case
when Tom spent 11 of his 20 seasons in home starts there.
Ford was a great pitcher, but Seaver was clearly better, even when you include the one season he sucked.
Clearly? To who?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I thought the absurdity of the argument you were making was self-evident and you'd see it for yourself when I spelled it out. Apparently I was mistaken. You not only didn't see it, you doubled down and put it in writing again. And you still can't see it. Lacking the ability to make it any clearer than it already is, I'll move on.
And to whom? To everyone but you, I'm pretty sure.
I like Seaver over Ford, but one thing the numbers will never show is that Stengel matched him up against the toughest pitchers for most of his career.
This hurt Fords numbers quite a bit imo. He missed a lot of starts in his prime against lower pitchers. I am going to assume if Ford had been allowed to pitch every fourth day, his numbers would be better. From 1953-60 he only had more than 30 starts once.
Clemens would certainly be most people's GOAT if not for PED rumors, and of course being prosecuted.
I remember attending the June 1974 Angels-Red Sox game in which Nolan Ryan struck out 19 and lasted 13 innings in a game that went 15. I was lucky that day in that I was able to get Yaz's autograph earlier before the game. Truly this was one of my great moments at a baseball game. Ryan was an amazing pitcher.
Interesting fact about Stengel and Ford that I simply didn't know.
Not to be any more argumentative than usual, but I would not consider the 1965 and 66 Dodger pennant winning teams to be great hitting.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Man, that’s a lot of words to say nothing.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Tom Seaver was basically Sandy Koufax in reverse.
Seaver came out of the gates spectacular and finished above average. Sandy started above average and finished spectacularly.
Whitey Ford was great every year. There’s no bad season. And rather than be average, he chose to retire.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Casey had logic defying rules when it came to his ace. I’m not able to recite them as fact but if I recall, Ford was skipped almost every time he was scheduled to pitch in Fenway Park.
I’ll see if I can dig out the article that delved into it as it was a good read.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
When asked if Stengel was a great manager , Yogi Berra replied; "He had some pretty good players".
Speaking of idiotic managerial decisions, Killebrew wasn't put in the senators lineup 1955-58 because they were worried his defense might lose them games. They finished last 3 of those years and next to last once. Their 3rd baseman (Eddie Yost) was slightly above average.
How much worse can you be than last?
Joe I never knew that about Killebrew.
It looks like it may have cost Killebrew a minimum of 100 HR and maybe 150.
He could have had a chance at 700 HR. Even if he had sat just the first year when he was 18
and started playing his second year he would have finished with many more HR and RBI.
I always liked Killebrew but that gives me a new found respect for him.
Kind of like Len Dawson in football, he didn't get to play for 4-5 years but still made the Hall of Fame.
I like statistics, but this is the kind of stuff that very few people know about.
Did you know Roberto Clemente was originally signed by the Dodgers around the same time as Koufax?
All three players were "Bonus rule (Bonus Babies)" players. Read up on that bit of nonsense if you care to.
I figured Killer should have had about 700 HR.
I also didnt know that about Killer. He may have been the first to top Ruth. that is fascinating.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
One of my favorite what might have been stories was Larry Doby basically begging the Indians to sign some other younger kids from his former negro league games and other various exhibition gamesthat he knew to be exceptional talents. The Indians sent (racist) scouts and ultimately deemed the talent unworthy despite Doby guaranteeing that they’d tear up the majors if given the chance.
So, instead, the Giants signed Willie Mays and the Braves grabbed Hank Aaron.
Sorry for sharing that one, to the Indians fans.
Imagine?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I hate to burst another myth bubble, but no, Ford didn't miss a lot of starts against lesser pitchers. It's way too much effort to go through his entire career, but I just skimmed through the boxscores for a few of his seasons and there is absolutely no indication that he has any pattern of missing any starts, and certainly no pattern of facing good pitchers more often than bad pitchers. He very rarely faced the same pitcher more than once or twice in a single season, and those he did face more than once were a mix of good and bad pitchers.
There is a lot of truth to the myth that Ford was skipped over for starts in Fenway. He pitched in the other parks an average of 33 times and in Fenway only 19 times. This is yet another reason why his ERA is not as impressive as it looks. Ford's ERA in Fenway was 6.16; skipping starts in Fenway probably saved him about 10 points on his career ERA. In other words, the reason Ford's career ERA is lower than Seaver's is that he stunk so bad in Fenway Stengel stopped using him there.
I have read that Stengel did this in two or three books I read on Mantle, and one on Berra. I'll go with what Ford's team mates said over what the stats indicate.
Seems to me there must be a reason he made so few starts when they went with 4 man rotations.
From Wikipedia;
"Some of Ford's totals were depressed by Yankees' manager Casey Stengel, who viewed Ford as his top pitching asset and often reserved his ace left-hander for more formidable opponents such as the Cleveland Indians and Chicago White Sox. When Ralph Houk became the manager in 1961, he promised Ford that he would pitch every fourth day, regardless of the opponent; after exceeding 30 starts only once in his nine seasons under Stengel, Ford had 39 in 1961. Indeed 1961 was his first 20-win season, a career-best 25–4 record, and the Cy Young Award ensued".
Bubble remains unburst.
Here’s a nice article that covers a lot of what’s being discussed:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/homemlb.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/who-is-right-about-whitey-ford/amp/
The guys argument is that Whitey Ford is overrated, @dallasactuary
While I don’t agree with all the conclusions drawn, there’s a lot of good stuff in there that’s worth looking at and is directly relevant to the discussion at hand.
This is not posted to win the argument - much of it would be QUITE the opposite - but there’s so much good information that I thought it worth posting for all to read and enjoy.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Another interesting (to me) story is one Ford told himself;
He started out like most other pitchers of his era, fastball/curveball. When he started losing his fastball he developed a few different off-speed pitches and threw them at several different speeds from up to three different arm angles.
That's pitching!
How hard is it to be good when you can hit 100 MPH?
If anything, Ford is under rated. Was he as good as Seaver?
We'll never really know, but as I said, I'll take Tom "Terrific"!
Also noteworthy?
Whitey Ford cheated his a$s off from about 1963 onward...😳
...yup.
“Baseball cheating” - think aging pitcher Eddie Harris in Major League type stuff - which is something he admitted to but I don’t think was caught doing.
I like talking baseball more than winning arguments, apparently.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
>
Both can be fun, except no one ever "wins" these arguments!
Fair point. 😂
Still, when discussing a topic with someone who loves to express derision it’s not always wise to disclose this type of information.
But hey, that’s me...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Hitting .200 or .222 or .194 while slugging under .400 MIGHT have had something to do with it.
Yes. And everybody and anybody who ever saw him pitch knows it. That's just the way it is. I can't help it.
Question; Is there anyone here on the forum who actually IN PERSON saw Koufax pitch?.......I didn't think so.....
I think there’s a few, actually. Not many, but a few.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Here's an interesting article on just how good Koufax was in his prime. He was said to have a curveball that would drop 10-12 inches on you. He was a late bloomer, but once he bloomed, he was phenomenal.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/richkarlgaard/2020/08/04/sandy-koufax---greatest-pitcher-ever---and-a-late-bloomer/amp/
I guess the bubble does remain unburst since you've completely changed the claim and I spent a lot of time addressing the claim that you've now abandoned. Now, the claim is that Stengel manipulated the rotation to get Ford in against better TEAMS, and we all agree that no such thing happened to get Ford in against better PITCHERS, the claim you made initially. I am hesitant to spend much time looking into this one since I fully expect the claim to change again if this myth gets busted, but let's take a quick look.
For the years 1953-1960, the Yankees had a 5-man rotation; Houk essentially kept the 5-man rotation but pitched Ford generally every 4th game. In those years Ford started 258 games, or 20.9% of the Yankees games. They played each of the other 7 teams 176 times, so Ford would be expected to face each team 37 times.
Here are the other teams, ranked best to worst over that 8-year period and the differential between Ford's actual and expected starts:
Chicago: +13
Cleveland: +4
Boston: -7
Detroit: -9
Baltimore: +5
Washington: +3
Philly/KC: -10
That's a mixed bag of evidence, but none of it is very strong. Yes, he faced Chicago, the best team, 1 or 2 extra times per year and the A's, the worst team, one less time than expected per season. But in between? He faced both the second best and second worst teams a little bit more than expected, and he balanced that by facing the teams in the middle less than expected. I look at this and see nothing but random noise in between Chicago and the A's, so the myth of Stengel and Ford comes down to a total of 10 or so games over a period of 8 years moving from a bad team to a good team. That's not entirely meaningless, but it's awfully close.
Now, if the claim is that Stengel should have pitched Ford more often - gotten him more innings - then that may (or may not) be true. But the claim that Stengel's manipulation of the rotation hurt Ford's ERA is a myth that has been busted. The missed starts in Fenway alone mean that his ERA was helped by whatever minimal manipulation may have been occurring. and presumably, pitching with less rest would have hurt his ERA not helped it.
A nice post.
Gone...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Ok, I was wrong about the exact manner of how he was held back, the POINT is he wasn't given the opportunity to pitch as many innings that most front line pitchers.
He could have done better he could have done worse, but he wasn't given the opportunity.
He wasn't much worse than the guy they had at 3rd. He did pretty well when they played him full time!
Seaver and Ford were both great.
Thank you for making this point. I agree.
True. Eddie Yost wasn't exactly tearing it up. But when they did Harmon a chance to play full-time - in September 1956 - he hit .246 with no power. He also got a 10-game stretch in June 1955 where he started every game and did nothing. Fact of the matter is that he simply wasn't ready yet. No shame in that.
You're right he wasn't ready.
Bucky Harris didn't like him and wouldn't play him.
They should have played him right from the start, He was on the team in June of 1954 and needed to learn. He got 3 complete games (at the end of August!) in the entire year. He actually played 2nd base in 1954 and the regular second baseman had an OPS of .552.
They sure weren't going to challenge Cleveland or New York that year. I'm not saying make him an every day player, but get him on the field.
A whole 10 game stretch in 1955? Thirteen games in two years.
In fact Griffith demanded that Manager Lavagetto play Killebrew every day in 1959, saying he might lose a few with the glove, but win some with the bat. Result was leading the league in HR, tied with Colovito with 42, no other AL hitter had more than33!
Looks like he was REALLY ready by then!