Ultimately, this is jut a semantic argument - you say "great", I say " very good" - but I'm curious: if Hunter was "great" in 1972, then what was Gaylord Perry in the same year? Because I don't see how the same word could possibly be used to describe those two seasons.
Yes, both were great. Certainly it's possible for more than one pitcher to be great in the same season.
Ultimately, this is jut a semantic argument - you say "great", I say " very good" - but I'm curious: if Hunter was "great" in 1972, then what was Gaylord Perry in the same year? Because I don't see how the same word could possibly be used to describe those two seasons.
Yes, both were great. Certainly it's possible for more than one pitcher to be great in the same season.
Perry was definitely great in 1972 though.
Sure. But Carlton, Perry, Sutton, probably Gibson, maybe Palmer were better in 1972 than Hunter. How low can you be on this type of list and still be "great"?
Sure. But Carlton, Perry, Sutton, probably Gibson, maybe Palmer were better in 1972 than Hunter. How low can you be on this type of list and still be "great"?
>
Interesting (to me anyway) that 1972 was the lowest ERA's of Carlton's, Perry's, Palmer's, Sutton's and Hunter's careers.
Every guy you mentioned is in the HOF. Hunter might be the "worst" of this bunch. Similar to Sutton and Perry with a MUCH shorter career.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Yes, both were great. Certainly it's possible for more than one pitcher to be great in the same season.
Perry was definitely great in 1972 though.
As I said, it's just semantics so nobody can be right or wrong. But using the same word to describe Perry or Carlton and Hunter just strikes me as misleading. There was an enormous difference in quality between Perry/Carlton and Hunter, and we have no shortage of words to describe that enormous difference; why avoid using them?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@fiveniner said:
He hall of fame is missing 3 players who should have been voted in the writers association years ago.
Lolich, Munson,Freehan.
Listing near contemporaries, I don't see a ton of difference in any of (Steve) Rogers, McDowell, Blue, Lolich, Matlack, Maloney, and Stottlemyre. I could add Koosman and Wood, but I think they were distinctly, if not significantly, better and my point is adequately made.
Munson and Freehan, and yes, Gene Tenace are very similar to Posey, IMO, in the not quite good enough for not quite long enough group. They would likely have been in already if they weren't contemporaries of Bench and Fisk, and to a lesser degree Carter (less overlap). Simmons overcame this comparison and I suspect the others will eventually as well. I think all four are borderline and should all be in or all be out, and I'm fine either way.
@Tabe said:
I'm a big Tigers fan and even I don't think Lolich belongs. I honestly don't think he's even close.
I certainly won't argue with you on that one, but it did strike me in almost Twilight Zone level bewilderment when people supported Jack Morris for the HOF and not Lolich. They were essentially the same pitcher, except that Lolich was better in the World Series.
I would like to see Freehan get in. I think catchers are undervalued generally, and catchers who are great behind the plate are undervalued even more. I'd have voted for Freehan for MVP in 1968, and I think if he'd won that (he came in second to McLain) he'd already be in.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
Yes, both were great. Certainly it's possible for more than one pitcher to be great in the same season.
Perry was definitely great in 1972 though.
ABSOLUTELY!
Sure. But Carlton, Perry, Sutton, probably Gibson, maybe Palmer were better in 1972 than Hunter. How low can you be on this type of list and still be "great"?
>
Interesting (to me anyway) that 1972 was the lowest ERA's of Carlton's, Perry's, Palmer's, Sutton's and Hunter's careers.
Every guy you mentioned is in the HOF. Hunter might be the "worst" of this bunch. Similar to Sutton and Perry with a MUCH shorter career.
As I said, it's just semantics so nobody can be right or wrong. But using the same word to describe Perry or Carlton and Hunter just strikes me as misleading. There was an enormous difference in quality between Perry/Carlton and Hunter, and we have no shortage of words to describe that enormous difference; why avoid using them?
wasnt 72 carltons big year?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
It was a pretty great year for me too
Just about everyone's big year.
He hall of fame is missing 3 players who should have been voted in the writers association years ago.
Lolich, Munson,Freehan.
Listing near contemporaries, I don't see a ton of difference in any of (Steve) Rogers, McDowell, Blue, Lolich, Matlack, Maloney, and Stottlemyre. I could add Koosman and Wood, but I think they were distinctly, if not significantly, better and my point is adequately made.
Munson and Freehan, and yes, Gene Tenace are very similar to Posey, IMO, in the not quite good enough for not quite long enough group. They would likely have been in already if they weren't contemporaries of Bench and Fisk, and to a lesser degree Carter (less overlap). Simmons overcame this comparison and I suspect the others will eventually as well. I think all four are borderline and should all be in or all be out, and I'm fine either way.
I'm a big Tigers fan and even I don't think Lolich belongs. I honestly don't think he's even close.
Now Bill Freehan on the other hand...
I certainly won't argue with you on that one, but it did strike me in almost Twilight Zone level bewilderment when people supported Jack Morris for the HOF and not Lolich. They were essentially the same pitcher, except that Lolich was better in the World Series.
I would like to see Freehan get in. I think catchers are undervalued generally, and catchers who are great behind the plate are undervalued even more. I'd have voted for Freehan for MVP in 1968, and I think if he'd won that (he came in second to McLain) he'd already be in.