@olb31 said:
Here are a few non-HOF pitchers that did really well (some have already been mentioned above):
Mike Scott
Frank Tanana
Jamie Moyer
Billy Wagner
Jeff Reardon
Dan quisenberry
Joe Niekro
Ron Guidry
Frank Viola
Jerry Koosman
Luis tiant
Ron Darling
John Franco
Mike Cuellar
Bob Welch
Orel Hershiser
Dwight Gooden
Mike Boddicker
Bret Saberhagen
What a bizarre list! We've got starters and relievers, pitchers who really seem to have been overlooked, pitchers who were above average in a short career, pitchers who were below average who pitched forever (I loved Joe Niekro, but he was never in the "doing really well category"), and players who were below average in short careers but had really cool rookie cards.
So I spent a little time trying to figure out what the criteria were for a HoF starter these days. Just for fun I compared Guidry and Saberhagen to all the starters who have been enshrined over the past five years.
First thing we see is the vast gulf between the pitchers elected by the BBWAA and those selected by the various Committees. There are many, many players who fit between those groups, and 2/3 of the list above are among them. Not really sure what that shows.
Now, for comparison, here are the five pitchers on last year's ballot:
First question is how the heck did Lincecum get on the ballot, much less get nine votes? Second, Buehrle, Hudson, and Pettitte are all very close, even down to exact years pitched. Hudson seems slightly but distinctly the best of the three so it's surprising that he's the only one of them not returning. Peavy is at least a couple of rungs below, but still far better than the "committee HoFers". None of them are really up to the HoF standard, but all three are good enough to be in the lower middle of the pack.
Note that I left off the two biggest vote getters. I think we can all agree that Clemens and Schilling are special situation players and are (and were) evaluated by far more than what was on the field.
@redlegs said:
I always thought Luis Tiant never got his deserved credit. I thought he was better than both Jim Kaat and Tommy John. His career WAR is better than both of them.
"Better than Jim Kaat" isn't a qualifier for anything. I've said before and will say again (and again) that John belongs in the HoF ONLY as a builder for his surgery.
Tommy john did win 288 games right? Will anyone else ever win that many? He was a true superstar and pitched in a lot of big games. Plus adding in his surgery, makes him a lock HOFer in my mind.
Hard to slight a player with as many accolades as Tommy has. A very nice person also.
I don't see it. I just sorted pitching seasons during John's career by WAA. His best is 1968 which is 144th. Then 1970 is 282nd. I mean the man never had 30 RAA or 5.7 WAR. (By WAR his top season was 235th.) A pretty good pitcher who pitched forever. I'd imagine it would be pretty easy to do the "divide the career in two" thing with him, but John was never, not in any season, a superstar. John's best season would have placed him approximately between Martin Perez and Julio Urias this year. No one would consider that a superstar.
just reading this reinforces why I can't listen or talk baseball anymore and have no interest in modern players whose status is evaluated on all these new acronyms.
note daltex, not saying that my pitcher list contains any HOFers, just players who did well and are maybe overlooked by collectors/investors. but it was a good analysis.
@olb31 said:
note daltex, not saying that my pitcher list contains any HOFers, just players who did well and are maybe overlooked by collectors/investors. but it was a good analysis.
The objection I have to your list is that it's like saying Kevin Brown and Jim Lonborg did really well and might be overlooked. Brown was a superstar, only a notch over the likes of Saberhagen and Tiant. Lonborg was not notably worse than Darling but had only one All-Star season during which he incomprehensibly won the Cy Young award. It cheapens the list to have both on it.
It's like saying that the Hall of Fame is reserved for the very greatest players like Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, and Harold Baines. It doesn't elevate Baines (or Darling or Lonborg) but if we equally honor the weaker, then those who follow don't understand what greatness looks like.
This is why I so vigorously reject the argument that if we elect Jim Kaat we must also elect the superior Jamie Moyer.
@redlegs said:
I always thought Luis Tiant never got his deserved credit. I thought he was better than both Jim Kaat and Tommy John. His career WAR is better than both of them.
"Better than Jim Kaat" isn't a qualifier for anything. I've said before and will say again (and again) that John belongs in the HoF ONLY as a builder for his surgery.
Tommy john did win 288 games right? Will anyone else ever win that many? He was a true superstar and pitched in a lot of big games. Plus adding in his surgery, makes him a lock HOFer in my mind.
Hard to slight a player with as many accolades as Tommy has. A very nice person also.
I don't see it. I just sorted pitching seasons during John's career by WAA. His best is 1968 which is 144th. Then 1970 is 282nd. I mean the man never had 30 RAA or 5.7 WAR. (By WAR his top season was 235th.) A pretty good pitcher who pitched forever. I'd imagine it would be pretty easy to do the "divide the career in two" thing with him, but John was never, not in any season, a superstar. John's best season would have placed him approximately between Martin Perez and Julio Urias this year. No one would consider that a superstar.
just reading this reinforces why I can't listen or talk baseball anymore and have no interest in modern players whose status is evaluated on all these new acronyms.
Fair enough. Using traditional stats, which of John's season(s) make him look like a superstar?
@redlegs said:
I always thought Luis Tiant never got his deserved credit. I thought he was better than both Jim Kaat and Tommy John. His career WAR is better than both of them.
"Better than Jim Kaat" isn't a qualifier for anything. I've said before and will say again (and again) that John belongs in the HoF ONLY as a builder for his surgery.
Tommy john did win 288 games right? Will anyone else ever win that many? He was a true superstar and pitched in a lot of big games. Plus adding in his surgery, makes him a lock HOFer in my mind.
Hard to slight a player with as many accolades as Tommy has. A very nice person also.
I don't see it. I just sorted pitching seasons during John's career by WAA. His best is 1968 which is 144th. Then 1970 is 282nd. I mean the man never had 30 RAA or 5.7 WAR. (By WAR his top season was 235th.) A pretty good pitcher who pitched forever. I'd imagine it would be pretty easy to do the "divide the career in two" thing with him, but John was never, not in any season, a superstar. John's best season would have placed him approximately between Martin Perez and Julio Urias this year. No one would consider that a superstar.
just reading this reinforces why I can't listen or talk baseball anymore and have no interest in modern players whose status is evaluated on all these new acronyms.
Fair enough. Using traditional stats, which of John's season(s) make him look like a superstar?
For me, it's 288 wins. 26th all time and 20th in all time innings. in one word, Dependability. I coach baseball and if one my kids can pitch 5 or 6 innings every game that's huge for our pitching staff and the team. It's someone we can depend on to give us a chance to win. The kids know this and it gives them a different state of mind about that particular game.
If I start a pitcher that normally only goes an a couple of innings every time for whatever reason, it puts a strain on our bullpen and the kids have a different outlook on the game based on that pitchers past performances.
John gave his team a chance to win every time he took the mound. He could deep into the game and keep his team in it. Obviously he did a great job by winning 288 games.
Daltex if either me or you finished 26th all-time in a positive category in life, 26th best actor, 26th best chef, 26th best lawyer, 26th best Senator, that would be an heroic accomplishment. Out of the top 26 winningest pitchers only two are not in the hall, Tommy John and some guy from the the turn of the 20th century, no one had ever heard of.
@ScoobyDoo2 said:
I'm a big fan of ~ Steve Garvey, Keith Hernandez, Dale Murphy, Dave Parker....
One of these players is much better than the other three.
Hernandez 5 time AS 1 MVP
Parker 7 time AS 1 MVP
Garvey 10 time AS 1 MVP
Murphy 7 time AS 2 MVP
Going by the above I assume you think that Steve Garvey was the best of these 4. All look like exceptional players.
>
>
I looked at all 4 and would say Garvey was the worst of the (very good) group.
All Star appearances would seem to have no bearing on a comparison of the 4, or any players really.
Garvey had the lowest OPS and OPS+ and had the second lowest SLG. He didn't draw many walks either. Was a very good defensive first baseman.
Hernandez is someone I think is overrated, great fielder and singles hitter who walked a lot. One home run every 46 AB is not what I look for in a 1B.
Parker had the longest career with over 10,000 PA and had the best SLG (by a whisker over Murphy) of the four. I noticed he led the league in errors as a RF SEVEN TIMES, yet won 3 GG!?!?!?
The guy I like best here is Murphy. Second highest OPS, OPS+, OBP and SLG and by far best HR hitter in this bunch with one every 20 AB. Walked a lot more than Parker and Garvey too. Primarily a CF, so his defensive value should also be the highest. His career is shorter than Parker's and Garvey's, but more PA's than Keith's by 500.
All good/great players.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@redlegs said:
I always thought Luis Tiant never got his deserved credit. I thought he was better than both Jim Kaat and Tommy John. His career WAR is better than both of them.
"Better than Jim Kaat" isn't a qualifier for anything. I've said before and will say again (and again) that John belongs in the HoF ONLY as a builder for his surgery.
Tommy john did win 288 games right? Will anyone else ever win that many? He was a true superstar and pitched in a lot of big games. Plus adding in his surgery, makes him a lock HOFer in my mind.
Hard to slight a player with as many accolades as Tommy has. A very nice person also.
I don't see it. I just sorted pitching seasons during John's career by WAA. His best is 1968 which is 144th. Then 1970 is 282nd. I mean the man never had 30 RAA or 5.7 WAR. (By WAR his top season was 235th.) A pretty good pitcher who pitched forever. I'd imagine it would be pretty easy to do the "divide the career in two" thing with him, but John was never, not in any season, a superstar. John's best season would have placed him approximately between Martin Perez and Julio Urias this year. No one would consider that a superstar.
just reading this reinforces why I can't listen or talk baseball anymore and have no interest in modern players whose status is evaluated on all these new acronyms.
Fair enough. Using traditional stats, which of John's season(s) make him look like a superstar?
For me, it's 288 wins. 26th all time and 20th in all time innings. in one word, Dependability. I coach baseball and if one my kids can pitch 5 or 6 innings every game that's huge for our pitching staff and the team. It's someone we can depend on to give us a chance to win. The kids know this and it gives them a different state of mind about that particular game.
If I start a pitcher that normally only goes an a couple of innings every time for whatever reason, it puts a strain on our bullpen and the kids have a different outlook on the game based on that pitchers past performances.
John gave his team a chance to win every time he took the mound. He could deep into the game and keep his team in it. Obviously he did a great job by winning 288 games.
Daltex if either me or you finished 26th all-time in a positive category in life, 26th best actor, 26th best chef, 26th best lawyer, 26th best Senator, that would be an heroic accomplishment. Out of the top 26 winningest pitchers only two are not in the hall, Tommy John and some guy from the the turn of the 20th century, no one had ever heard of.
>
John is 19th in losses and 26th in wins all time, so he gave his team a BETTER chance to lose than win.
I would have given him the Cy Young Award in 1979, but that, and 1977, were his only great seasons that I can see. 1968 was good but only 25 starts and 177 innings pitched.
If you choose to look at only one statistic, you don't get enough information.
He was certainly good enough to make a major league roster for a long time!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@redlegs said:
I always thought Luis Tiant never got his deserved credit. I thought he was better than both Jim Kaat and Tommy John. His career WAR is better than both of them.
"Better than Jim Kaat" isn't a qualifier for anything. I've said before and will say again (and again) that John belongs in the HoF ONLY as a builder for his surgery.
Tommy john did win 288 games right? Will anyone else ever win that many? He was a true superstar and pitched in a lot of big games. Plus adding in his surgery, makes him a lock HOFer in my mind.
Hard to slight a player with as many accolades as Tommy has. A very nice person also.
I don't see it. I just sorted pitching seasons during John's career by WAA. His best is 1968 which is 144th. Then 1970 is 282nd. I mean the man never had 30 RAA or 5.7 WAR. (By WAR his top season was 235th.) A pretty good pitcher who pitched forever. I'd imagine it would be pretty easy to do the "divide the career in two" thing with him, but John was never, not in any season, a superstar. John's best season would have placed him approximately between Martin Perez and Julio Urias this year. No one would consider that a superstar.
just reading this reinforces why I can't listen or talk baseball anymore and have no interest in modern players whose status is evaluated on all these new acronyms.
Fair enough. Using traditional stats, which of John's season(s) make him look like a superstar?
For me, it's 288 wins. 26th all time and 20th in all time innings. in one word, Dependability. I coach baseball and if one my kids can pitch 5 or 6 innings every game that's huge for our pitching staff and the team. It's someone we can depend on to give us a chance to win. The kids know this and it gives them a different state of mind about that particular game.
If I start a pitcher that normally only goes an a couple of innings every time for whatever reason, it puts a strain on our bullpen and the kids have a different outlook on the game based on that pitchers past performances.
John gave his team a chance to win every time he took the mound. He could deep into the game and keep his team in it. Obviously he did a great job by winning 288 games.
Daltex if either me or you finished 26th all-time in a positive category in life, 26th best actor, 26th best chef, 26th best lawyer, 26th best Senator, that would be an heroic accomplishment. Out of the top 26 winningest pitchers only two are not in the hall, Tommy John and some guy from the the turn of the 20th century, no one had ever heard of.
>
John is 19th in losses and 26th in wins all time, so he gave his team a BETTER chance to lose than win.
I would have given him the Cy Young Award in 1979, but that, and 1977, were his only great seasons that I can see. 1968 was good but only 25 starts and 177 innings pitched.
If you choose to look at only one statistic, you don't get enough information.
He was certainly good enough to make a major league roster for a long time!
I read the piece on Gaylord's passing on ESPN and here's what the Texas Rangers said about him:
"The Texas Rangers, whom Perry played for twice, said in a statement Thursday that the pitcher was "a fierce competitor every time he took the ball and more often than not gave the Rangers an opportunity to win the game.""
Joe, this is what every team dreams of having, a pitcher who gives them a chance to win. As I travel baseball coach that's exactly what we want to. Gaylord won 314 and Tommy won 288. We will probably never see another pitcher win this many.
@redlegs said:
I always thought Luis Tiant never got his deserved credit. I thought he was better than both Jim Kaat and Tommy John. His career WAR is better than both of them.
"Better than Jim Kaat" isn't a qualifier for anything. I've said before and will say again (and again) that John belongs in the HoF ONLY as a builder for his surgery.
Tommy john did win 288 games right? Will anyone else ever win that many? He was a true superstar and pitched in a lot of big games. Plus adding in his surgery, makes him a lock HOFer in my mind.
Hard to slight a player with as many accolades as Tommy has. A very nice person also.
I don't see it. I just sorted pitching seasons during John's career by WAA. His best is 1968 which is 144th. Then 1970 is 282nd. I mean the man never had 30 RAA or 5.7 WAR. (By WAR his top season was 235th.) A pretty good pitcher who pitched forever. I'd imagine it would be pretty easy to do the "divide the career in two" thing with him, but John was never, not in any season, a superstar. John's best season would have placed him approximately between Martin Perez and Julio Urias this year. No one would consider that a superstar.
just reading this reinforces why I can't listen or talk baseball anymore and have no interest in modern players whose status is evaluated on all these new acronyms.
Fair enough. Using traditional stats, which of John's season(s) make him look like a superstar?
For me, it's 288 wins. 26th all time and 20th in all time innings. in one word, Dependability. I coach baseball and if one my kids can pitch 5 or 6 innings every game that's huge for our pitching staff and the team. It's someone we can depend on to give us a chance to win. The kids know this and it gives them a different state of mind about that particular game.
If I start a pitcher that normally only goes an a couple of innings every time for whatever reason, it puts a strain on our bullpen and the kids have a different outlook on the game based on that pitchers past performances.
John gave his team a chance to win every time he took the mound. He could deep into the game and keep his team in it. Obviously he did a great job by winning 288 games.
Daltex if either me or you finished 26th all-time in a positive category in life, 26th best actor, 26th best chef, 26th best lawyer, 26th best Senator, that would be an heroic accomplishment. Out of the top 26 winningest pitchers only two are not in the hall, Tommy John and some guy from the the turn of the 20th century, no one had ever heard of.
>
John is 19th in losses and 26th in wins all time, so he gave his team a BETTER chance to lose than win.
I would have given him the Cy Young Award in 1979, but that, and 1977, were his only great seasons that I can see. 1968 was good but only 25 starts and 177 innings pitched.
If you choose to look at only one statistic, you don't get enough information.
He was certainly good enough to make a major league roster for a long time!
I read the piece on Gaylord's passing on ESPN and here's what the Texas Rangers said about him:
"The Texas Rangers, whom Perry played for twice, said in a statement Thursday that the pitcher was "a fierce competitor every time he took the ball and more often than not gave the Rangers an opportunity to win the game.""
Joe, this is what every team dreams of having, a pitcher who gives them a chance to win. As I travel baseball coach that's exactly what we want to. Gaylord won 314 and Tommy won 288. We will probably never see another pitcher win this many.
A guy who "keeps you in the game" is a good pitcher, not a "superstar". You keep pushing the fact that he won a lot of games. He didn't win those games his team, with his help, won them.
What you refuse to acknowledge is the fact that he (and his team mates) lost a lot of games as well. He is in fact higher on the loss leader board than the win leader board.
He was a 13-11 pitcher who pitched for a long time. Not what I call a "superstar".
He was a solid pitcher who had 2-3 outstanding seasons and a whole bunch of average to slightly above average years and 5-7 bad ones.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@redlegs said:
I always thought Luis Tiant never got his deserved credit. I thought he was better than both Jim Kaat and Tommy John. His career WAR is better than both of them.
"Better than Jim Kaat" isn't a qualifier for anything. I've said before and will say again (and again) that John belongs in the HoF ONLY as a builder for his surgery.
Tommy john did win 288 games right? Will anyone else ever win that many? He was a true superstar and pitched in a lot of big games. Plus adding in his surgery, makes him a lock HOFer in my mind.
Hard to slight a player with as many accolades as Tommy has. A very nice person also.
I don't see it. I just sorted pitching seasons during John's career by WAA. His best is 1968 which is 144th. Then 1970 is 282nd. I mean the man never had 30 RAA or 5.7 WAR. (By WAR his top season was 235th.) A pretty good pitcher who pitched forever. I'd imagine it would be pretty easy to do the "divide the career in two" thing with him, but John was never, not in any season, a superstar. John's best season would have placed him approximately between Martin Perez and Julio Urias this year. No one would consider that a superstar.
just reading this reinforces why I can't listen or talk baseball anymore and have no interest in modern players whose status is evaluated on all these new acronyms.
Fair enough. Using traditional stats, which of John's season(s) make him look like a superstar?
For me, it's 288 wins. 26th all time and 20th in all time innings. in one word, Dependability. I coach baseball and if one my kids can pitch 5 or 6 innings every game that's huge for our pitching staff and the team. It's someone we can depend on to give us a chance to win. The kids know this and it gives them a different state of mind about that particular game.
If I start a pitcher that normally only goes an a couple of innings every time for whatever reason, it puts a strain on our bullpen and the kids have a different outlook on the game based on that pitchers past performances.
John gave his team a chance to win every time he took the mound. He could deep into the game and keep his team in it. Obviously he did a great job by winning 288 games.
Daltex if either me or you finished 26th all-time in a positive category in life, 26th best actor, 26th best chef, 26th best lawyer, 26th best Senator, that would be an heroic accomplishment. Out of the top 26 winningest pitchers only two are not in the hall, Tommy John and some guy from the the turn of the 20th century, no one had ever heard of.
Yes. Let's get out of the way that John was much better than Kaat or Moyer. All three were slightly above average pitchers who pitched forever. It's fine if you think that sort of player belongs in the Hall (cf Baines and Vizquel), but it doesn't make one a superstar. IMO his record screams number three starter.
@redlegs said:
I always thought Luis Tiant never got his deserved credit. I thought he was better than both Jim Kaat and Tommy John. His career WAR is better than both of them.
"Better than Jim Kaat" isn't a qualifier for anything. I've said before and will say again (and again) that John belongs in the HoF ONLY as a builder for his surgery.
Tommy john did win 288 games right? Will anyone else ever win that many? He was a true superstar and pitched in a lot of big games. Plus adding in his surgery, makes him a lock HOFer in my mind.
Hard to slight a player with as many accolades as Tommy has. A very nice person also.
I don't see it. I just sorted pitching seasons during John's career by WAA. His best is 1968 which is 144th. Then 1970 is 282nd. I mean the man never had 30 RAA or 5.7 WAR. (By WAR his top season was 235th.) A pretty good pitcher who pitched forever. I'd imagine it would be pretty easy to do the "divide the career in two" thing with him, but John was never, not in any season, a superstar. John's best season would have placed him approximately between Martin Perez and Julio Urias this year. No one would consider that a superstar.
just reading this reinforces why I can't listen or talk baseball anymore and have no interest in modern players whose status is evaluated on all these new acronyms.
Fair enough. Using traditional stats, which of John's season(s) make him look like a superstar?
For me, it's 288 wins. 26th all time and 20th in all time innings. in one word, Dependability. I coach baseball and if one my kids can pitch 5 or 6 innings every game that's huge for our pitching staff and the team. It's someone we can depend on to give us a chance to win. The kids know this and it gives them a different state of mind about that particular game.
If I start a pitcher that normally only goes an a couple of innings every time for whatever reason, it puts a strain on our bullpen and the kids have a different outlook on the game based on that pitchers past performances.
John gave his team a chance to win every time he took the mound. He could deep into the game and keep his team in it. Obviously he did a great job by winning 288 games.
Daltex if either me or you finished 26th all-time in a positive category in life, 26th best actor, 26th best chef, 26th best lawyer, 26th best Senator, that would be an heroic accomplishment. Out of the top 26 winningest pitchers only two are not in the hall, Tommy John and some guy from the the turn of the 20th century, no one had ever heard of.
>
John is 19th in losses and 26th in wins all time, so he gave his team a BETTER chance to lose than win.
I would have given him the Cy Young Award in 1979, but that, and 1977, were his only great seasons that I can see. 1968 was good but only 25 starts and 177 innings pitched.
If you choose to look at only one statistic, you don't get enough information.
He was certainly good enough to make a major league roster for a long time!
If you like. I think it's pretty clear that Eckersley, Guidry, and Koosman were better in 1979, and a strong case can be made for The Big Emu. No doubt about John being more deserving than Flanagan, though.
I think it's hard to call any of John's seasons "great" like Mike Caldwell's 1978, let alone Rick Reuschel's 1977 or Steve Carlton's 1972. Add 1969 and 1970 and you have five good seasons, but, as I say, nothing any better than Martin Perez was this year.
So a pitcher who in five years of twenty-six was good enough to fill out the bottom of an all-star roster isn't even really a star, much less a superstar.
If you'll excuse an actual positive contribution to this thread:
Is better than half the starters in the HoF. Being junk wax there are over 250 of these in 10 despite the black borders. Still, surprising that these trade between $15 and $40. No significant push to get him in. Instead we talk about Allie Reynolds, Billy Pierce, Luis Tiant, Tommy John, and, help us, Jim Kaat.
Not as good as Kershaw, Verlander, or Scherzer, but not significantly worse. (Not sure who is fifth best of the era, but probably Sabathia, Hamels, or Felix Hernandez.) Well into post-junk era by now, so only 28 (as I type) 10s. They trade infrequently, but $1000 is a good ballpark figure. Plus you have the various varieties. Anyway, no serious HoF buzz despite again being better than half of the HoFers.
Daltex, good points on Brown and Greinke. Greinke could hit well for a pitcher. Maybe not as good as Mike Hampton but close. Not having an automatic out in the lineup was a luxury for any NL Managers that had a starting pitcher who could also hit.
I really hate the fact that most of the mid to late 80's stuff just gets lumped into junk wax. Was it all about over printing or did the PED scandals also hurt that time frame?
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Good hits on Brown and Greinke. I think we can add Adam wainwright to that too. I Look at Adam as a similar pitcher to Moyer or John. Pitched well for a long period of time. Wainwright and Miguel will be have the two oldest rookie cards for the 2023 players. And I think Adam is considered to be more than a "third" pitcher on the cardinals for many years.
@olb31 said:
Good hits on Brown and Greinke. I think we can add Adam wainwright to that too. I Look at Adam as a similar pitcher to Moyer or John. Pitched well for a long period of time. Wainwright and Miguel will be have the two oldest rookie cards for the 2023 players. And I think Adam is considered to be more than a "third" pitcher on the cardinals for many years.
There are seven starting pitchers on the ballot this year. I intentionally omitted Clemens and Schilling. The two holdovers are clearly superior to Wainwright. Here is a comparison of Wainwright to the newcomers:
He's better than all of them, and it isn't close. He's better than John, and much better than Moyer. He had four very good years sandwiched around his Tommy John year. But none was great, and he was a very ordinary pitcher the rest of his career.
So, IMO a candidate for the Hall of Very Good, but just short of that level. Far more than a third starter.
@Cakes said:
Daltex, good points on Brown and Greinke. Greinke could hit well for a pitcher. Maybe not as good as Mike Hampton but close. Not having an automatic out in the lineup was a luxury for any NL Managers that had a starting pitcher who could also hit.
I really hate the fact that most of the mid to late 80's stuff just gets lumped into junk wax. Was it all about over printing or did the PED scandals also hurt that time frame?
It was all about overprinting. Cocaine was a bigger deal than PEDs. I mean just look a the submission numbers. I mean there have been over 7200 1989 Donruss Curt Schillings submitted, and he's not even a HoFer. Well over 40,000 Griffeys from the same set. 2400 1987 Topps Nolan Ryan. I can go on, but I think you get the idea.
Yes we definitely have to take supply into consideration when trying to find the "most underrated/undervalued" players. Jaime moyer has only Tiffany and Fleer glossy as the "shortprints". Curt Schilling, same problem. That's why his 1990 Tiffany's are probably better.
@olb31 said:
Yes we definitely have to take supply into consideration when trying to find the "most underrated/undervalued" players. Jaime moyer has only Tiffany and Fleer glossy as the "shortprints". Curt Schilling, same problem. That's why his 1990 Tiffany's are probably better.
Now look at the 90’s inserts and parallels from (not rookies but still) some (many) are single digit 10’s for superstars / I think those end up like the base card 50’s 60’s 70’s for all of us that grew up then…don’t know if folks are paying attention but raw cards in good shape really have their floor values going up on the 90’s inserts and parallels lately
Comments
What a bizarre list! We've got starters and relievers, pitchers who really seem to have been overlooked, pitchers who were above average in a short career, pitchers who were below average who pitched forever (I loved Joe Niekro, but he was never in the "doing really well category"), and players who were below average in short careers but had really cool rookie cards.
So I spent a little time trying to figure out what the criteria were for a HoF starter these days. Just for fun I compared Guidry and Saberhagen to all the starters who have been enshrined over the past five years.
https://stathead.com/tiny/4Zc6S
First thing we see is the vast gulf between the pitchers elected by the BBWAA and those selected by the various Committees. There are many, many players who fit between those groups, and 2/3 of the list above are among them. Not really sure what that shows.
Now, for comparison, here are the five pitchers on last year's ballot:
https://stathead.com/tiny/3cITC
First question is how the heck did Lincecum get on the ballot, much less get nine votes? Second, Buehrle, Hudson, and Pettitte are all very close, even down to exact years pitched. Hudson seems slightly but distinctly the best of the three so it's surprising that he's the only one of them not returning. Peavy is at least a couple of rungs below, but still far better than the "committee HoFers". None of them are really up to the HoF standard, but all three are good enough to be in the lower middle of the pack.
Note that I left off the two biggest vote getters. I think we can all agree that Clemens and Schilling are special situation players and are (and were) evaluated by far more than what was on the field.
just reading this reinforces why I can't listen or talk baseball anymore and have no interest in modern players whose status is evaluated on all these new acronyms.
note daltex, not saying that my pitcher list contains any HOFers, just players who did well and are maybe overlooked by collectors/investors. but it was a good analysis.
The objection I have to your list is that it's like saying Kevin Brown and Jim Lonborg did really well and might be overlooked. Brown was a superstar, only a notch over the likes of Saberhagen and Tiant. Lonborg was not notably worse than Darling but had only one All-Star season during which he incomprehensibly won the Cy Young award. It cheapens the list to have both on it.
It's like saying that the Hall of Fame is reserved for the very greatest players like Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, and Harold Baines. It doesn't elevate Baines (or Darling or Lonborg) but if we equally honor the weaker, then those who follow don't understand what greatness looks like.
This is why I so vigorously reject the argument that if we elect Jim Kaat we must also elect the superior Jamie Moyer.
Fair enough. Using traditional stats, which of John's season(s) make him look like a superstar?
For me, it's 288 wins. 26th all time and 20th in all time innings. in one word, Dependability. I coach baseball and if one my kids can pitch 5 or 6 innings every game that's huge for our pitching staff and the team. It's someone we can depend on to give us a chance to win. The kids know this and it gives them a different state of mind about that particular game.
If I start a pitcher that normally only goes an a couple of innings every time for whatever reason, it puts a strain on our bullpen and the kids have a different outlook on the game based on that pitchers past performances.
John gave his team a chance to win every time he took the mound. He could deep into the game and keep his team in it. Obviously he did a great job by winning 288 games.
Daltex if either me or you finished 26th all-time in a positive category in life, 26th best actor, 26th best chef, 26th best lawyer, 26th best Senator, that would be an heroic accomplishment. Out of the top 26 winningest pitchers only two are not in the hall, Tommy John and some guy from the the turn of the 20th century, no one had ever heard of.
>
>
I looked at all 4 and would say Garvey was the worst of the (very good) group.
All Star appearances would seem to have no bearing on a comparison of the 4, or any players really.
Garvey had the lowest OPS and OPS+ and had the second lowest SLG. He didn't draw many walks either. Was a very good defensive first baseman.
Hernandez is someone I think is overrated, great fielder and singles hitter who walked a lot. One home run every 46 AB is not what I look for in a 1B.
Parker had the longest career with over 10,000 PA and had the best SLG (by a whisker over Murphy) of the four. I noticed he led the league in errors as a RF SEVEN TIMES, yet won 3 GG!?!?!?
The guy I like best here is Murphy. Second highest OPS, OPS+, OBP and SLG and by far best HR hitter in this bunch with one every 20 AB. Walked a lot more than Parker and Garvey too. Primarily a CF, so his defensive value should also be the highest. His career is shorter than Parker's and Garvey's, but more PA's than Keith's by 500.
All good/great players.
>
John is 19th in losses and 26th in wins all time, so he gave his team a BETTER chance to lose than win.
I would have given him the Cy Young Award in 1979, but that, and 1977, were his only great seasons that I can see. 1968 was good but only 25 starts and 177 innings pitched.
If you choose to look at only one statistic, you don't get enough information.
He was certainly good enough to make a major league roster for a long time!
I read the piece on Gaylord's passing on ESPN and here's what the Texas Rangers said about him:
"The Texas Rangers, whom Perry played for twice, said in a statement Thursday that the pitcher was "a fierce competitor every time he took the ball and more often than not gave the Rangers an opportunity to win the game.""
Joe, this is what every team dreams of having, a pitcher who gives them a chance to win. As I travel baseball coach that's exactly what we want to. Gaylord won 314 and Tommy won 288. We will probably never see another pitcher win this many.
Another post brought up Rick Resuchel (sp) another very good pitcher.
A guy who "keeps you in the game" is a good pitcher, not a "superstar". You keep pushing the fact that he won a lot of games. He didn't win those games his team, with his help, won them.
What you refuse to acknowledge is the fact that he (and his team mates) lost a lot of games as well. He is in fact higher on the loss leader board than the win leader board.
He was a 13-11 pitcher who pitched for a long time. Not what I call a "superstar".
He was a solid pitcher who had 2-3 outstanding seasons and a whole bunch of average to slightly above average years and 5-7 bad ones.
Yes. Let's get out of the way that John was much better than Kaat or Moyer. All three were slightly above average pitchers who pitched forever. It's fine if you think that sort of player belongs in the Hall (cf Baines and Vizquel), but it doesn't make one a superstar. IMO his record screams number three starter.
If you like. I think it's pretty clear that Eckersley, Guidry, and Koosman were better in 1979, and a strong case can be made for The Big Emu. No doubt about John being more deserving than Flanagan, though.
I think it's hard to call any of John's seasons "great" like Mike Caldwell's 1978, let alone Rick Reuschel's 1977 or Steve Carlton's 1972. Add 1969 and 1970 and you have five good seasons, but, as I say, nothing any better than Martin Perez was this year.
So a pitcher who in five years of twenty-six was good enough to fill out the bottom of an all-star roster isn't even really a star, much less a superstar.
If you'll excuse an actual positive contribution to this thread:
Is better than half the starters in the HoF. Being junk wax there are over 250 of these in 10 despite the black borders. Still, surprising that these trade between $15 and $40. No significant push to get him in. Instead we talk about Allie Reynolds, Billy Pierce, Luis Tiant, Tommy John, and, help us, Jim Kaat.
Not as good as Kershaw, Verlander, or Scherzer, but not significantly worse. (Not sure who is fifth best of the era, but probably Sabathia, Hamels, or Felix Hernandez.) Well into post-junk era by now, so only 28 (as I type) 10s. They trade infrequently, but $1000 is a good ballpark figure. Plus you have the various varieties. Anyway, no serious HoF buzz despite again being better than half of the HoFers.
Kevin was absolutely robbed in 1996!
Daltex, good points on Brown and Greinke. Greinke could hit well for a pitcher. Maybe not as good as Mike Hampton but close. Not having an automatic out in the lineup was a luxury for any NL Managers that had a starting pitcher who could also hit.
I really hate the fact that most of the mid to late 80's stuff just gets lumped into junk wax. Was it all about over printing or did the PED scandals also hurt that time frame?
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Good hits on Brown and Greinke. I think we can add Adam wainwright to that too. I Look at Adam as a similar pitcher to Moyer or John. Pitched well for a long period of time. Wainwright and Miguel will be have the two oldest rookie cards for the 2023 players. And I think Adam is considered to be more than a "third" pitcher on the cardinals for many years.
There are seven starting pitchers on the ballot this year. I intentionally omitted Clemens and Schilling. The two holdovers are clearly superior to Wainwright. Here is a comparison of Wainwright to the newcomers:
https://stathead.com/tiny/NOZFV
He's better than all of them, and it isn't close. He's better than John, and much better than Moyer. He had four very good years sandwiched around his Tommy John year. But none was great, and he was a very ordinary pitcher the rest of his career.
So, IMO a candidate for the Hall of Very Good, but just short of that level. Far more than a third starter.
It was all about overprinting. Cocaine was a bigger deal than PEDs. I mean just look a the submission numbers. I mean there have been over 7200 1989 Donruss Curt Schillings submitted, and he's not even a HoFer. Well over 40,000 Griffeys from the same set. 2400 1987 Topps Nolan Ryan. I can go on, but I think you get the idea.
Yes we definitely have to take supply into consideration when trying to find the "most underrated/undervalued" players. Jaime moyer has only Tiffany and Fleer glossy as the "shortprints". Curt Schilling, same problem. That's why his 1990 Tiffany's are probably better.
Now look at the 90’s inserts and parallels from (not rookies but still) some (many) are single digit 10’s for superstars / I think those end up like the base card 50’s 60’s 70’s for all of us that grew up then…don’t know if folks are paying attention but raw cards in good shape really have their floor values going up on the 90’s inserts and parallels lately