I would disagree. walter johnson cannot be ranked number 1 as he was a pre integration player. unfortunate, but he only played against white players. in addition, the dead ball era was so different from modern game that they are really not very comparable. look at johnsons stats pre 1920 and post 1920. a different pitcher and still only 31 years old. the live ball changed his efficiency big time.
it has to be Clemens
If only we knew what Satchel Paige's full stats were...he easily could be just as great if not greater. Look at what he did for the 1948 Indians even though he was well past his peak.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Well, it happened again. We have a discussion of the best lefty of all time and who gets left out? Just a Hall of Fame southpaw with plenty of rings, earned as an ace of the staff with a WS MVP, a Cy Young and a lower career ERA than any player mentioned.
I watch a lot of baseball so I’m pretty sure that if you give up fewer runs than the other team, you win.
Where’s the love for…
… The Chairman of the Board ??
PSA 4
chaz
So did Whitey or Frank Sinatra get the Chairman of the Board title first?
@olb31 said:
Carlton, Johnson, Glavine, Grove, Spahn, plank - only 300 game winners as lefties. TOmmy John is next, he will get in the HOF soon.
Tommy John absolutely belongs in the HoF. As a builder. As a pitcher not so much. He was a little above average for a very long time, but he compares well to Sam McDowell and Steve Rogers in value, or, if you prefer more modern examples, Brad Radke, David Wells, and Johnny Cueto. Not people generally considered omissions.
John only belongs inside AS A PLAYER if you think Harold Baines was a good pick (though Baines was far worse and over a shorter career.)
@chaz43 said:
The great Willie Stargell once said "trying to hit Koufax was like drinking coffee with a fork" .......are you kidding me?????
chaz
Koufax had an incredible 4 year run, and I guess if you are looking for a one game scenario, he's a great choice.
Basing your GOAT one that scenario seems foolish to me.
Who was more dominating than Koufax?? Yogi Berra once said about Koufax.... " I can understand him winning 27 games but I can't understand how he lost five? ..........
chaz
Lots of guys if the game is played somewhere besides Chavez Ravine in the early 1960s with an elevated mound and gigantic strike zone.
Or even if it is played there. What do you suppose peak Pedro could have done there?
@azvike said:
Totally agree...by almost every metric he is arguably the greatest left-hander in history...I just picked up his Topps Tiffany RC in PSA 10 and wont hesitate to buy more of them.
Johnson was a great pitcher, but anyone with a 1989 rookie is going to have a hard time getting high value because of the perception of massive overproduction that falls apart a little bit when it comes to the difficulty of getting tens. Also, not the most popular rookie in the set despite essentially having a full career at the level that Griffey could only maintain for his first half.
Grove doesn't get the recognition he deserves, pitching in the (first) live ball era. To give just one example, he has SIX season's better than Koufax's best. Really, Koufax was only special in 1963 and 1966. He was very good in 1964 and '65, but no better than, for example, Mike Caldwell was in 1978.
BTW, you can't be serious about Ford. Only his 1964 season approaches Koufax's big 4, or, in other words, Ford was never as good as Caldwell was in 1978.
@daltex said:
Grove doesn't get the recognition he deserves, pitching in the (first) live ball era. To give just one example, he has SIX season's better than Koufax's best. Really, Koufax was only special in 1963 and 1966. He was very good in 1964 and '65, but no better than, for example, Mike Caldwell was in 1978.
BTW, you can't be serious about Ford. Only his 1964 season approaches Koufax's big 4, or, in other words, Ford was never as good as Caldwell was in 1978.
I am serious about Whitey Ford. Some people can’t see the forest for the trees. That’s ok by me.
When a manager gives the pitcher the ball to start a game, the best thing a pitcher can do is give up no runs and complete the game. Nowadays, some people seem to really care about how they get those outs. I don’t. We’re not trying to predict future success, here. He’s dead. Now, there’s a lot that can be debated but there is no Hall of Fame starter post WWII with a lower career ERA. He was great from rookie year until the end, he averaged 11 complete games and 3 shutouts a year and twice lead the league in innings pitched. He was clutch in the World Series, posting a winning record matched up against every other teams ace, and won a WS MVP in the process. Hall of Fame manager Casey Stengel was fired for not starting him enough.
When did strikeouts become more important than runs?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
clemens got progressively better each round of the playoffs.
Clemens got progressively better with each round of Winstrol.
this has been discussed ad nauseam here on the boards about clemens. there is no evidence, no failed test and no admission. there is only a disgruntled former employee. you are simply parroting Lester Munson and the Espn talking heads from 15 years ago. nice try.
@daltex said:
Grove doesn't get the recognition he deserves, pitching in the (first) live ball era. To give just one example, he has SIX season's better than Koufax's best. Really, Koufax was only special in 1963 and 1966. He was very good in 1964 and '65, but no better than, for example, Mike Caldwell was in 1978.
BTW, you can't be serious about Ford. Only his 1964 season approaches Koufax's big 4, or, in other words, Ford was never as good as Caldwell was in 1978.
Ford was certainly not a dominating pitcher as far as blowing the ball past hitters, but one of the problems with simply comparing statistics (in this case anyway) is that after missing two years in the military, he was limited to making about 30 starts a year for the next 8 seasons and Stengel generally pitched him against the best pitcher on the opposing club.
I didn't look at every year, but Ford should have won the Cy Young in both 1956 and 1958. I doubt that anyone here will really dispute that.
Another thing that doesn't show up on the stat sheet is that Whitey completely changed the way he pitched. He was a fastball curveball guy for the first part of his career and when he started losing a little off his fastball he developed into a pitcher who could come at you from several different arm angles with several different speeds.
That's what I call pitching.
Koufax on the other hand, had great stuff, finally figured it out after 7 seasons of being horrible, pitched well in 1962 and then had a great 4 year run until his arm fell of. Definitely the definition of a "thrower" and not a "pitcher".
Koufax gets WAY to much credit for his four impressive years and Ford to little for thirteen seasons with an ERA of 3.08 or less.
Then there's the ever present "If you need a guy to pitch one game" argument. Koufax SUCKED half the time, so if you get "good" Koufax, you win, but if you got "bad" Koufax, you have no chance.
Ford won 67% of his games 10 times Koufax 5.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I'm too young to have seen Whitey Ford play. Sincere objective question: for an unbiased viewer, is his case similar to Chris Osgood? By that, I mean that while he was an excellent player, possibly he looks better on paper than he would have been as a stand-alone example on other teams, because his teammates were so dominant and his overall performance benefited from that?
@miwlvrn said:
I'm too young to have seen Whitey Ford play. Sincere objective question: for an unbiased viewer, is his case similar to Chris Osgood? By that, I mean that while he was an excellent player, possibly he looks better on paper than he would have been as a stand-alone example on other teams, because his teammates were so dominant and his overall performance benefited from that?
Anything is possible. I believe that.
However, I find it hard to believe that the guy with the lowest career ERA of any HOF starter since 1944 got there by some combination of luck and being on a good team. That’s not just an insult to Ford but more of an assault on reason. Wouldn’t there have to be some bad years mixed in somehow? The man never posted an ERA above 3.24 for the 16 consecutive years in which he played. His aforementioned career 2.75 regular season ERA is a 2.74 ERA in the postseason - consistent, much? In his average season, he made 33 starts, fired 11 complete games with 3 being complete game shut outs.
Please let that sink in.
I’m pretty sure that means that every 3rd time through the rotation he throws a complete game and every 4th complete game he gives up no runs.
I can’t think of any other numbers - xFIP, ERA+, K/9, KK/BB - that will even matter a little if all of that prior sentence comes with a 2.75 ERA throughout.
Again, I know I am in the minority here and that’s ok. I don’t believe I’m changing anyones mind today. I’m not trashing anyone else’s pick, I am just advocating for one of the most underrated pitchers ever.
😉
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@miwlvrn said:
I'm too young to have seen Whitey Ford play. Sincere objective question: for an unbiased viewer, is his case similar to Chris Osgood? By that, I mean that while he was an excellent player, possibly he looks better on paper than he would have been as a stand-alone example on other teams, because his teammates were so dominant and his overall performance benefited from that?
Being on a great team helped his winning %, but we are not really stressing that. His ERA points to how good of a pitcher he was much better than wins and losses.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@azvike said:
Totally agree...by almost every metric he is arguably the greatest left-hander in history...I just picked up his Topps Tiffany RC in PSA 10 and wont hesitate to buy more of them.
Johnson was a great pitcher, but anyone with a 1989 rookie is going to have a hard time getting high value because of the perception of massive overproduction that falls apart a little bit when it comes to the difficulty of getting tens.
Unless of course it's this kind of 1989 Topps Traded rookie
You know who is probably a solid comparison that I’m guessing you did see?
Roy Halladay
He had some good strikeout years but wasn’t a great strikeout pitcher. Still, he was as dominant as it gets for a prolonged stretch by pitching smart, with location, to contact, deep into games and dialing it up to max velocity a hand full of times each start instead of every pitch and leave after 5 innings. Generating weak contact is a skill like any other; hard to learn and probably harder to teach and, clearly, some guys have it whether you think it’s somewhat innate or learned via necessity, experience, injury or a desire to excel.
For Whitey, it was all of the above.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@azvike said:
Totally agree...by almost every metric he is arguably the greatest left-hander in history...I just picked up his Topps Tiffany RC in PSA 10 and wont hesitate to buy more of them.
Johnson was a great pitcher, but anyone with a 1989 rookie is going to have a hard time getting high value because of the perception of massive overproduction that falls apart a little bit when it comes to the difficulty of getting tens.
Unless of course it's this kind of 1989 Topps Traded rookie
@daltex said:
Grove doesn't get the recognition he deserves, pitching in the (first) live ball era. To give just one example, he has SIX season's better than Koufax's best. Really, Koufax was only special in 1963 and 1966. He was very good in 1964 and '65, but no better than, for example, Mike Caldwell was in 1978.
BTW, you can't be serious about Ford. Only his 1964 season approaches Koufax's big 4, or, in other words, Ford was never as good as Caldwell was in 1978.
I didn't look at every year, but Ford should have won the Cy Young in both 1956 and 1958. I doubt that anyone here will really dispute that.
Just looking at pitchers who earned MVP votes, in 1956 Lary was better, and Score and Wynn were a lot better. In 1958 Duren was better and Lary was a lot better. 1964 was Ford's best year by a large margin, but Chance blows him (and everyone else) away with a season right up there with Koufax's best.
Look, Ford had a great ERA and W-L record. He was fortunate enough to have his "decline" years be in the 1960s which made his ERA look better than it is.
Let's consider the universe of pitchers who A) Pitched over 1000 innings after 1944, Made 60% of their appearances as a starter, and C) Are in the Hall of Fame. There are 31 players in this universe. In FIP, that is considering the "three true outcomes" Ford is 17th. In WHIP Ford is 21st.
I just don't understand the argument that Ford was (among the) best of all time because he was rested more than other players. I mean what possible difference did he make to the Yankees if he wasn't in the game.
There are eight LHP in this group. Ford has close value to Koufax and the truncated career of Newhouser, though Newhouser is clearly better if you add back his first six years. Koufax is likely only a HoFer if you assume he would have more years like his 1961-62 if not his 1963-66. That is the Munson argument, though what Munson accomplished before he "retired" was far more than what Koufax did.
The only LHP in this universe that Ford is clearly better than is Kaat.
Strikeouts (of course) aren't everything, but they are SOMETHING.
@daltex said:
Grove doesn't get the recognition he deserves, pitching in the (first) live ball era. To give just one example, he has SIX season's better than Koufax's best. Really, Koufax was only special in 1963 and 1966. He was very good in 1964 and '65, but no better than, for example, Mike Caldwell was in 1978.
BTW, you can't be serious about Ford. Only his 1964 season approaches Koufax's big 4, or, in other words, Ford was never as good as Caldwell was in 1978.
I didn't look at every year, but Ford should have won the Cy Young in both 1956 and 1958. I doubt that anyone here will really dispute that.
Just looking at pitchers who earned MVP votes, in 1956 Lary was better, and Score and Wynn were a lot better. In 1958 Duren was better and Lary was a lot better. 1964 was Ford's best year by a large margin, but Chance blows him (and everyone else) away with a season right up there with Koufax's best.
Look, Ford had a great ERA and W-L record. He was fortunate enough to have his "decline" years be in the 1960s which made his ERA look better than it is.
Let's consider the universe of pitchers who A) Pitched over 1000 innings after 1944, Made 60% of their appearances as a starter, and C) Are in the Hall of Fame. There are 31 players in this universe. In FIP, that is considering the "three true outcomes" Ford is 17th. In WHIP Ford is 21st.
I just don't understand the argument that Ford was (among the) best of all time because he was rested more than other players. I mean what possible difference did he make to the Yankees if he wasn't in the game.
There are eight LHP in this group. Ford has close value to Koufax and the truncated career of Newhouser, though Newhouser is clearly better if you add back his first six years. Koufax is likely only a HoFer if you assume he would have more years like his 1961-62 if not his 1963-66. That is the Munson argument, though what Munson accomplished before he "retired" was far more than what Koufax did.
The only LHP in this universe that Ford is clearly better than is Kaat.
Strikeouts (of course) aren't everything, but they are SOMETHING.
The problem with “three true outcomes” is that it is a major oversimplification of a very complex game. And it is also based on flawed logic. Following that logic has led to lesser skilled players. Instead, they’re better at exactly one thing - producing hard contact. Everyone is better at it now but the flip side is no one can hit with consistency, just a good exit velo and a loud crack. Averages are down…way down. Not to mention overall quality of play.
In the event of bases loaded and one out, a pitcher that can generate a ground ball to short for a double play is better than a pitcher who can generate a strikeout and the still have to pitch to the next batter with the bases loaded.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@daltex said:
Grove doesn't get the recognition he deserves, pitching in the (first) live ball era. To give just one example, he has SIX season's better than Koufax's best. Really, Koufax was only special in 1963 and 1966. He was very good in 1964 and '65, but no better than, for example, Mike Caldwell was in 1978.
BTW, you can't be serious about Ford. Only his 1964 season approaches Koufax's big 4, or, in other words, Ford was never as good as Caldwell was in 1978.
I didn't look at every year, but Ford should have won the Cy Young in both 1956 and 1958. I doubt that anyone here will really dispute that.
Just looking at pitchers who earned MVP votes, in 1956 Lary was better, and Score and Wynn were a lot better. In 1958 Duren was better and Lary was a lot better. 1964 was Ford's best year by a large margin, but Chance blows him (and everyone else) away with a season right up there with Koufax's best.
>
Score is the only one of these guys who was better in 1956 and he didn't receive any Cy Young votes. Ford was as good or better than Wynn who also didn't get a single vote. I am baffled by your mention of Lary, who had a much higher ERA and lower ERA+.
My point here was Ford was better than the other pitchers who were considered, Ford's ERA was a 1/2 a run lower than Newcombe's
Moving on to 1958, Ford led in ERA, ERA+, shutouts and WHIP, again pitching against the best teams and their best pitchers.
If that doesn't prove he was the best pitcher, nothing will. Not sure if you are related to Lary, but his ERA that year was nearly an entire run per game higher. Duren threw 75 innings, so he wasn't better than Ford who had a similar ERA and pitched 219 innings.
Finally, you bring up 1964 and are correct that Dean Chance was better. That's why I didn't mention it.
>
>
Look, Ford had a great ERA and W-L record. He was fortunate enough to have his "decline" years be in the 1960s which made his ERA look better than it is.
>
Your post continues to make no sense, Ford was in the top 10 in ERA during the 1960's 5 times and he only pitched full time for 6 years! His W-L record is nice, but that's more of a team number to me. I doubt I have said anything about wins and losses.
>
>
Let's consider the universe of pitchers who A) Pitched over 1000 innings after 1944, Made 60% of their appearances as a starter, and C) Are in the Hall of Fame. There are 31 players in this universe. In FIP, that is considering the "three true outcomes" Ford is 17th. In WHIP Ford is 21st.
>
>
First throw out the right handed pitchers, then take a look.
Ford, not being a strikeout pitcher is going to score lower in FIP, a MUCH less meaningful stat than ERA. WHIP is certainly not as important as ERA either.
>
>
I just don't understand the argument that Ford was (among the) best of all time because he was rested more than other players. I mean what possible difference did he make to the Yankees if he wasn't in the game.
>
That's not the point being made. Ford should have had more starts against weaker teams and worse pitchers, logically he would have had even better numbers.
>
There are eight LHP in this group. Ford has close value to Koufax and the truncated career of Newhouser, though Newhouser is clearly better if you add back his first six years. Koufax is likely only a HoFer if you assume he would have more years like his 1961-62 if not his 1963-66. That is the Munson argument, though what Munson accomplished before he "retired" was far more than what Koufax did.
>
Newhouser? He was good when he pitched during the war and a couple of years after. This actually supports my Ford argument, that you have more success against weaker opponents.
Koufax comes up again, 4 1/2 good years just isn't enough and when you add in his splits, he really shouldn't be in any realistic discussion. WAY too short of a career, and only really great in a pitchers park.
>
>
The only LHP in this universe that Ford is clearly better than is Kaat.
>
That's laughable. Being from Minnesota, I am as big a fan of Kaat as anyone, but he doesn't belong in this conversation.
>
>
Strikeouts (of course) aren't everything, but they are SOMETHING.
>
Only if you can combine them with a low ERA. Striking a lot of guys out while giving up a lot of runs isn't good. Much better to not strike many out with a lower ERA.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
this has been discussed ad nauseam here on the boards about clemens. there is no evidence, no failed test and no admission. there is only a disgruntled former employee. you are simply parroting Lester Munson and the Espn talking heads from 15 years ago. nice try.
this has been discussed ad nauseam here on the boards about clemens. there is no evidence, no failed test and no admission. there is only a disgruntled former employee. you are simply parroting Lester Munson and the Espn talking heads from 15 years ago. nice try.
Why isn’t Clemens in the HoF then?
Apparently the voters think he cheated, don't like him, or both.
There is another big difference between Clemens and Bonds. They have retested at least 3 of Bonds' samples using improved tests and they came up positive. Have not heard any of Roger's tests ever coming back positive.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
this has been discussed ad nauseam here on the boards about clemens. there is no evidence, no failed test and no admission. there is only a disgruntled former employee. you are simply parroting Lester Munson and the Espn talking heads from 15 years ago. nice try.
Why isn’t Clemens in the HoF then?
Because we was nasty and unlikeable - like Barry Bonds - and because most people believe he took some form of PEDs - like Barry Bonds.
Whether he took them or didn’t is mostly irrelevant at this point; people made up their minds on the topic and it’s hard to change a person’s mind.
Had he a more likable guy, he probably gets in. That’s a hard truth but I believe a truth. Still, intimidation was part of his persona and what made him so awesome in the first place.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
this has been discussed ad nauseam here on the boards about clemens. there is no evidence, no failed test and no admission. there is only a disgruntled former employee. you are simply parroting Lester Munson and the Espn talking heads from 15 years ago. nice try.
Why isn’t Clemens in the HoF then?
Because we was nasty and unlikeable - like Barry Bonds - and because most people believe he took some form of PEDs - like Barry Bonds.
Whether he took them or didn’t is mostly irrelevant at this point; people made up their minds on the topic and it’s hard to change a person’s mind.
Had he a more likable guy, he probably gets in. That’s a hard truth but I believe a truth. Still, intimidation was part of his persona and what made him so awesome in the first place.
Likability should not be a factor. What a flawed system that reporters and journalists can decide the fate of players based on likability.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
I though my point was obvious. Clemens is being suggested on this thread as the best pitcher of all time. It would seem to me the best pitcher of all time would be in the Hall of Fame once eligible. He aint, and that's because almost all voters believe he was on the juice. "Likability", I submit, isn't the reason because (a) Jim Rice, also from Boston and a less obvious candidate, was much more disliked during his playing days, and (b) the evidence on this thread, that some will defend Clemens till the ends of the Earth despite widespread belief to the contrary.
this has been discussed ad nauseam here on the boards about clemens. there is no evidence, no failed test and no admission. there is only a disgruntled former employee. you are simply parroting Lester Munson and the Espn talking heads from 15 years ago. nice try.
Why isn’t Clemens in the HoF then?
Because we was nasty and unlikeable - like Barry Bonds - and because most people believe he took some form of PEDs - like Barry Bonds.
Whether he took them or didn’t is mostly irrelevant at this point; people made up their minds on the topic and it’s hard to change a person’s mind.
Had he a more likable guy, he probably gets in. That’s a hard truth but I believe a truth. Still, intimidation was part of his persona and what made him so awesome in the first place.
Likability should not be a factor. What a flawed system that reporters and journalists can decide the fate of players based on likability.
I respectfully disagree.
I can understand being bothered by reporters but expressing contempt is another level. This isn’t a surprise part of the game (or shouldn’t be) that the media covers the sport and that they ask lots of questions all over the spectrum. You can be aloof or fun or honest or terse. However, rudeness, aggression and threatening tone and body language is again a little above and beyond. To double and triple down on that behavior is not excusable nor should it be. And I remember their behavior as much as their performance.
And, it’s not like you don’t know these guys do vote on who gets in - that’s not new information. The Hall of Fame is a privilege and not a right. Both guys asked for and received lots of special treatment as is the norm for the modern athlete. Both guys acted ina fashion of total disdain for the media, essentially saying, “I’m so good that you’ll have no choice but to vote for me.” (Bonds actually said something very similar once.)
Every vote ever held is, by definition, a popularity contest and there is no automatic criteria for induction. I do believe they’ll both be in one day but I’m happy the writers stuck it to them, too.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@GreenSneakers said:
I though my point was obvious. Clemens is being suggested on this thread as the best pitcher of all time. It would seem to me the best pitcher of all time would be in the Hall of Fame once eligible. He aint, and that's because almost all voters believe he was on the juice. "Likability", I submit, isn't the reason because (a) Jim Rice, also from Boston and a less obvious candidate, was much more disliked during his playing days, and (b) the evidence on this thread, that some will defend Clemens till the ends of the Earth despite widespread belief to the contrary.
>
>
Your assumption has one fatal flaw. The Hall of Fame is NOT a shrine for the "best of the best" statistical performers.
In fact, if you take the time to look up the HOF requirements, you will see there are more regulations regarding sportsmanship than statistical achievements.
Believe it or not, voters are human, they tend to put in, and keep out players they either like or dislike.
Rice may (or may not) have been more disliked in Boston, but Clemens pi$$ed of people in a lot more places and along with the steroid accusations, are what's probably keeping him out.
Personally, I would give Roger the benefit of the doubt, but a lot of people are convinced he used steroids.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Clemens also had an affair with Mindy McCready that likely started when she was 15 and under the age of consent. Some voters with daughters may be turned off when they think of a 28 year old Clemens with their daughter as a Sophomore in High School. I do not have kids, but to me this is far worse than taking PEDs. There is a character clause to be in the Hall of Fame.
this has been discussed ad nauseam here on the boards about clemens. there is no evidence, no failed test and no admission. there is only a disgruntled former employee. you are simply parroting Lester Munson and the Espn talking heads from 15 years ago. nice try.
Why isn’t Clemens in the HoF then?
why? because of widespread false perceptions that started in the winter of 2007. take the time to actually look at the evidence (or lack thereof) against Clemens, and not rely on your recollections of what was said on ESPN and talk radio.
mitchell needed a big name for his report, he squeezed a disgruntled former employee of Clemens and the rest is history.
@PaulMaul said:
I am by no means a student of the Clemens case but this article seems to suggest there is more evidence than just McNamee’s testimony….
really nothing new in that article. Radamsky actually believes that needles stored in an old beer can for years are plausible for DNA evidence against clemens. that has been debunked.
@3stars said:
Sandy Koafax - the Mike Trout of his era.
OK, except Trout was far better for far longer and Koufax had a ton more post-season success. This is kind of like comparing Harold Baines and Albert Pujols. Completely different careers.
@gameusedhoop said:
August 19th and there are only 7 complete game shutouts that have been thrown this year throughout the entire league. Just let that soak in a little.
Yes; it is my belief that the records for single season and career Complete Games by a pitcher (regardless of shutout vs. no shutout) are indisputably the most unbreakable statistical records in all world sports. (Possibly it's not necessarily a fair concept, since there are players with the theoretical capability of breaking the CG records, but the change in the way pitchers are used in modern day makes that capability irrelevant.)
@chaz43 said:
The great Willie Stargell once said "trying to hit Koufax was like drinking coffee with a fork" .......are you kidding me?????
chaz
Koufax had an incredible 4 year run, and I guess if you are looking for a one game scenario, he's a great choice.
Basing your GOAT one that scenario seems foolish to me.
Who was more dominating than Koufax?? Yogi Berra once said about Koufax.... " I can understand him winning 27 games but I can't understand how he lost five? ..........
chaz
for the short term? pedro was. his 99-00 were probably the 2 best seasons ever for a starter.
Unit was more dominating.
Clemens top 4 seasons were more dominant than Sandys top 4. and he has a much longer career. I place clemens as my number one pitcher of all time
a big thing you need to figure in is the dodger stadium advantage. take a look at sandys splits.
Nah.
chaz
man, you are lazy. Dodger stadium made Koufax the legend he became. just check out the splits. he is a different pitcher home/away. I am not doing the work for you. Clemens had a better peak and better longevity.
@3stars said:
Sandy Koafax - the Mike Trout of his era.
OK, except Trout was far better for far longer and Koufax had a ton more post-season success. This is kind of like comparing Harold Baines and Albert Pujols. Completely different careers.
I think the comment is to be taken in the context that Trouty and Koufax are similar because they are considered STRIKEOUT MACHINES! This is a thread about strikeout leaders, after all.
@3stars said:
Sandy Koafax - the Mike Trout of his era.
OK, except Trout was far better for far longer and Koufax had a ton more post-season success. This is kind of like comparing Harold Baines and Albert Pujols. Completely different careers.
I think the comment is to be taken in the context that Trouty and Koufax are similar because they are considered STRIKEOUT MACHINES! This is a thread about strikeout leaders, after all.
Both could have been super great without injuries, but have to settle for just great.
Comments
Clemens got progressively better with each round of Winstrol.
If only we knew what Satchel Paige's full stats were...he easily could be just as great if not greater. Look at what he did for the 1948 Indians even though he was well past his peak.
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
So did Whitey or Frank Sinatra get the Chairman of the Board title first?
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
Tommy John absolutely belongs in the HoF. As a builder. As a pitcher not so much. He was a little above average for a very long time, but he compares well to Sam McDowell and Steve Rogers in value, or, if you prefer more modern examples, Brad Radke, David Wells, and Johnny Cueto. Not people generally considered omissions.
John only belongs inside AS A PLAYER if you think Harold Baines was a good pick (though Baines was far worse and over a shorter career.)
Or even if it is played there. What do you suppose peak Pedro could have done there?
Johnson was a great pitcher, but anyone with a 1989 rookie is going to have a hard time getting high value because of the perception of massive overproduction that falls apart a little bit when it comes to the difficulty of getting tens. Also, not the most popular rookie in the set despite essentially having a full career at the level that Griffey could only maintain for his first half.
Grove doesn't get the recognition he deserves, pitching in the (first) live ball era. To give just one example, he has SIX season's better than Koufax's best. Really, Koufax was only special in 1963 and 1966. He was very good in 1964 and '65, but no better than, for example, Mike Caldwell was in 1978.
BTW, you can't be serious about Ford. Only his 1964 season approaches Koufax's big 4, or, in other words, Ford was never as good as Caldwell was in 1978.
I am serious about Whitey Ford. Some people can’t see the forest for the trees. That’s ok by me.
When a manager gives the pitcher the ball to start a game, the best thing a pitcher can do is give up no runs and complete the game. Nowadays, some people seem to really care about how they get those outs. I don’t. We’re not trying to predict future success, here. He’s dead. Now, there’s a lot that can be debated but there is no Hall of Fame starter post WWII with a lower career ERA. He was great from rookie year until the end, he averaged 11 complete games and 3 shutouts a year and twice lead the league in innings pitched. He was clutch in the World Series, posting a winning record matched up against every other teams ace, and won a WS MVP in the process. Hall of Fame manager Casey Stengel was fired for not starting him enough.
When did strikeouts become more important than runs?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
this has been discussed ad nauseam here on the boards about clemens. there is no evidence, no failed test and no admission. there is only a disgruntled former employee. you are simply parroting Lester Munson and the Espn talking heads from 15 years ago. nice try.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Ford was certainly not a dominating pitcher as far as blowing the ball past hitters, but one of the problems with simply comparing statistics (in this case anyway) is that after missing two years in the military, he was limited to making about 30 starts a year for the next 8 seasons and Stengel generally pitched him against the best pitcher on the opposing club.
I didn't look at every year, but Ford should have won the Cy Young in both 1956 and 1958. I doubt that anyone here will really dispute that.
Another thing that doesn't show up on the stat sheet is that Whitey completely changed the way he pitched. He was a fastball curveball guy for the first part of his career and when he started losing a little off his fastball he developed into a pitcher who could come at you from several different arm angles with several different speeds.
That's what I call pitching.
Koufax on the other hand, had great stuff, finally figured it out after 7 seasons of being horrible, pitched well in 1962 and then had a great 4 year run until his arm fell of. Definitely the definition of a "thrower" and not a "pitcher".
Koufax gets WAY to much credit for his four impressive years and Ford to little for thirteen seasons with an ERA of 3.08 or less.
Then there's the ever present "If you need a guy to pitch one game" argument. Koufax SUCKED half the time, so if you get "good" Koufax, you win, but if you got "bad" Koufax, you have no chance.
Ford won 67% of his games 10 times Koufax 5.
I'm too young to have seen Whitey Ford play. Sincere objective question: for an unbiased viewer, is his case similar to Chris Osgood? By that, I mean that while he was an excellent player, possibly he looks better on paper than he would have been as a stand-alone example on other teams, because his teammates were so dominant and his overall performance benefited from that?
Anything is possible. I believe that.
However, I find it hard to believe that the guy with the lowest career ERA of any HOF starter since 1944 got there by some combination of luck and being on a good team. That’s not just an insult to Ford but more of an assault on reason. Wouldn’t there have to be some bad years mixed in somehow? The man never posted an ERA above 3.24 for the 16 consecutive years in which he played. His aforementioned career 2.75 regular season ERA is a 2.74 ERA in the postseason - consistent, much? In his average season, he made 33 starts, fired 11 complete games with 3 being complete game shut outs.
Please let that sink in.
I’m pretty sure that means that every 3rd time through the rotation he throws a complete game and every 4th complete game he gives up no runs.
I can’t think of any other numbers - xFIP, ERA+, K/9, KK/BB - that will even matter a little if all of that prior sentence comes with a 2.75 ERA throughout.
Again, I know I am in the minority here and that’s ok. I don’t believe I’m changing anyones mind today. I’m not trashing anyone else’s pick, I am just advocating for one of the most underrated pitchers ever.
😉
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Being on a great team helped his winning %, but we are not really stressing that. His ERA points to how good of a pitcher he was much better than wins and losses.
Unless of course it's this kind of 1989 Topps Traded rookie
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
@miwlvrn
You know who is probably a solid comparison that I’m guessing you did see?
Roy Halladay
He had some good strikeout years but wasn’t a great strikeout pitcher. Still, he was as dominant as it gets for a prolonged stretch by pitching smart, with location, to contact, deep into games and dialing it up to max velocity a hand full of times each start instead of every pitch and leave after 5 innings. Generating weak contact is a skill like any other; hard to learn and probably harder to teach and, clearly, some guys have it whether you think it’s somewhat innate or learned via necessity, experience, injury or a desire to excel.
For Whitey, it was all of the above.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Seems like fair points made on Ford.
That's why you buy the 1989 Topps Tiffany...(limited production)
Just looking at pitchers who earned MVP votes, in 1956 Lary was better, and Score and Wynn were a lot better. In 1958 Duren was better and Lary was a lot better. 1964 was Ford's best year by a large margin, but Chance blows him (and everyone else) away with a season right up there with Koufax's best.
Look, Ford had a great ERA and W-L record. He was fortunate enough to have his "decline" years be in the 1960s which made his ERA look better than it is.
Let's consider the universe of pitchers who A) Pitched over 1000 innings after 1944,
Made 60% of their appearances as a starter, and C) Are in the Hall of Fame. There are 31 players in this universe. In FIP, that is considering the "three true outcomes" Ford is 17th. In WHIP Ford is 21st.
I just don't understand the argument that Ford was (among the) best of all time because he was rested more than other players. I mean what possible difference did he make to the Yankees if he wasn't in the game.
There are eight LHP in this group. Ford has close value to Koufax and the truncated career of Newhouser, though Newhouser is clearly better if you add back his first six years. Koufax is likely only a HoFer if you assume he would have more years like his 1961-62 if not his 1963-66. That is the Munson argument, though what Munson accomplished before he "retired" was far more than what Koufax did.
The only LHP in this universe that Ford is clearly better than is Kaat.
Strikeouts (of course) aren't everything, but they are SOMETHING.
The problem with “three true outcomes” is that it is a major oversimplification of a very complex game. And it is also based on flawed logic. Following that logic has led to lesser skilled players. Instead, they’re better at exactly one thing - producing hard contact. Everyone is better at it now but the flip side is no one can hit with consistency, just a good exit velo and a loud crack. Averages are down…way down. Not to mention overall quality of play.
In the event of bases loaded and one out, a pitcher that can generate a ground ball to short for a double play is better than a pitcher who can generate a strikeout and the still have to pitch to the next batter with the bases loaded.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
>
Score is the only one of these guys who was better in 1956 and he didn't receive any Cy Young votes. Ford was as good or better than Wynn who also didn't get a single vote. I am baffled by your mention of Lary, who had a much higher ERA and lower ERA+.
My point here was Ford was better than the other pitchers who were considered, Ford's ERA was a 1/2 a run lower than Newcombe's
Moving on to 1958, Ford led in ERA, ERA+, shutouts and WHIP, again pitching against the best teams and their best pitchers.
If that doesn't prove he was the best pitcher, nothing will. Not sure if you are related to Lary, but his ERA that year was nearly an entire run per game higher. Duren threw 75 innings, so he wasn't better than Ford who had a similar ERA and pitched 219 innings.
Finally, you bring up 1964 and are correct that Dean Chance was better. That's why I didn't mention it.
>
>
>
Your post continues to make no sense, Ford was in the top 10 in ERA during the 1960's 5 times and he only pitched full time for 6 years! His W-L record is nice, but that's more of a team number to me. I doubt I have said anything about wins and losses.
>
>
>
>
First throw out the right handed pitchers, then take a look.
Ford, not being a strikeout pitcher is going to score lower in FIP, a MUCH less meaningful stat than ERA. WHIP is certainly not as important as ERA either.
>
>
>
That's not the point being made. Ford should have had more starts against weaker teams and worse pitchers, logically he would have had even better numbers.
>
>
Newhouser? He was good when he pitched during the war and a couple of years after. This actually supports my Ford argument, that you have more success against weaker opponents.
Koufax comes up again, 4 1/2 good years just isn't enough and when you add in his splits, he really shouldn't be in any realistic discussion. WAY too short of a career, and only really great in a pitchers park.
>
>
>
That's laughable. Being from Minnesota, I am as big a fan of Kaat as anyone, but he doesn't belong in this conversation.
>
>
>
Only if you can combine them with a low ERA. Striking a lot of guys out while giving up a lot of runs isn't good. Much better to not strike many out with a lower ERA.
Why isn’t Clemens in the HoF then?
Apparently the voters think he cheated, don't like him, or both.
There is another big difference between Clemens and Bonds. They have retested at least 3 of Bonds' samples using improved tests and they came up positive. Have not heard any of Roger's tests ever coming back positive.
Because we was nasty and unlikeable - like Barry Bonds - and because most people believe he took some form of PEDs - like Barry Bonds.
Whether he took them or didn’t is mostly irrelevant at this point; people made up their minds on the topic and it’s hard to change a person’s mind.
Had he a more likable guy, he probably gets in. That’s a hard truth but I believe a truth. Still, intimidation was part of his persona and what made him so awesome in the first place.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Likability should not be a factor. What a flawed system that reporters and journalists can decide the fate of players based on likability.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
I though my point was obvious. Clemens is being suggested on this thread as the best pitcher of all time. It would seem to me the best pitcher of all time would be in the Hall of Fame once eligible. He aint, and that's because almost all voters believe he was on the juice. "Likability", I submit, isn't the reason because (a) Jim Rice, also from Boston and a less obvious candidate, was much more disliked during his playing days, and (b) the evidence on this thread, that some will defend Clemens till the ends of the Earth despite widespread belief to the contrary.
I respectfully disagree.
I can understand being bothered by reporters but expressing contempt is another level. This isn’t a surprise part of the game (or shouldn’t be) that the media covers the sport and that they ask lots of questions all over the spectrum. You can be aloof or fun or honest or terse. However, rudeness, aggression and threatening tone and body language is again a little above and beyond. To double and triple down on that behavior is not excusable nor should it be. And I remember their behavior as much as their performance.
And, it’s not like you don’t know these guys do vote on who gets in - that’s not new information. The Hall of Fame is a privilege and not a right. Both guys asked for and received lots of special treatment as is the norm for the modern athlete. Both guys acted ina fashion of total disdain for the media, essentially saying, “I’m so good that you’ll have no choice but to vote for me.” (Bonds actually said something very similar once.)
Every vote ever held is, by definition, a popularity contest and there is no automatic criteria for induction. I do believe they’ll both be in one day but I’m happy the writers stuck it to them, too.
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 am by no means a student of the Clemens case but this article seems to suggest there is more evidence than just McNamee’s testimony….
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christianred/2020/12/03/former-feds-say-barry-bonds-and-roger-clemens-steroid-evidence-indisputable/?sh=b90eb877baa2
>
>
Your assumption has one fatal flaw. The Hall of Fame is NOT a shrine for the "best of the best" statistical performers.
In fact, if you take the time to look up the HOF requirements, you will see there are more regulations regarding sportsmanship than statistical achievements.
Believe it or not, voters are human, they tend to put in, and keep out players they either like or dislike.
Rice may (or may not) have been more disliked in Boston, but Clemens pi$$ed of people in a lot more places and along with the steroid accusations, are what's probably keeping him out.
Personally, I would give Roger the benefit of the doubt, but a lot of people are convinced he used steroids.
Clemens also had an affair with Mindy McCready that likely started when she was 15 and under the age of consent. Some voters with daughters may be turned off when they think of a 28 year old Clemens with their daughter as a Sophomore in High School. I do not have kids, but to me this is far worse than taking PEDs. There is a character clause to be in the Hall of Fame.
https://www.pitcherlist.com/bbwaa-is-erasing-mindy-mccready
August 19th and there are only 7 complete game shutouts that have been thrown this year throughout the entire league. Just let that soak in a little.
Sandy Koafax - the Mike Trout of his era.
its hard to expect sportswriters to know anything about what it takes to be an athlete. might as well let my wife vote. she's heard of babe ruth.
why? because of widespread false perceptions that started in the winter of 2007. take the time to actually look at the evidence (or lack thereof) against Clemens, and not rely on your recollections of what was said on ESPN and talk radio.
mitchell needed a big name for his report, he squeezed a disgruntled former employee of Clemens and the rest is history.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
really nothing new in that article. Radamsky actually believes that needles stored in an old beer can for years are plausible for DNA evidence against clemens. that has been debunked.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
OK, except Trout was far better for far longer and Koufax had a ton more post-season success. This is kind of like comparing Harold Baines and Albert Pujols. Completely different careers.
Yes; it is my belief that the records for single season and career Complete Games by a pitcher (regardless of shutout vs. no shutout) are indisputably the most unbreakable statistical records in all world sports. (Possibly it's not necessarily a fair concept, since there are players with the theoretical capability of breaking the CG records, but the change in the way pitchers are used in modern day makes that capability irrelevant.)
nah....
chaz
I think the comment is to be taken in the context that Trouty and Koufax are similar because they are considered STRIKEOUT MACHINES! This is a thread about strikeout leaders, after all.
Complete games. Robin Roberts threw 38 straight complete games. (including one for 15 innings). In the mid-fifties. Will not see that for a while.
Roberts was incredible. Add Spahn and Marichal to that fine list of horses. 16 innings!!!
Both could have been super great without injuries, but have to settle for just great.
Winstrol tastes good like a squirt, squirt! steroid should!
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars