@NGS428 said:
The Griffey card has a pop of 118, so quite low for his rookie year. The 1989 Topps Traded Tiffany has a pop of 337, which sells for about $2.6k.
Granted they did print 2x as many of the Fleer glossy (30k vs 15k).
The Bowman Tiffany Griffey Jr PSA 10 has a pop of 156 but sells for least 2.5X the Fleer Glossy. I always thought they should be closer in value. Is the Bowman Tiffany set print run of 6000 the sole reason for the difference? Like someone mentioned, a lot of the Griffey's were horrible out of the Fleer sets. The PSA Gem Rate for the Bowman Tiffany is 9.4%, Topps Traded Tiffany 15.1%,, and Fleer Glossy 6.8%. In order for the Fleer Glossy pop to be equal to Bowman Tiffany, at least 559 more Glossy Griffeys would need to be submitted at the current Gem Rate.
Could you say that the Fleer Glossy is undervalued?
I think Griffey is just overpriced in general. But going by populations. The Glossy is a tough issue.
I would guess that total production is the answer for the price difference. Some on the board don't think scarcity of an issue makes much difference, but in this case it's probably the only reason.
@JoeBanzai said:
Good story.
I have read books on Mantle and Berra, so I knew most of that.
I didn't realize (or had forgotten) Ford had so many injuries.
He doctored balls at times, it didn't always help him.
He's not a top 5 all time left hander, but I'll still rank him in the top 10 and closer to #5 than #10.
Saying [cheating] didn't always help [Ford] presupposes you'd know how well he would have done without cheating. Also it requires you to believe a confessed cheater tells you exactly when he cheated.
Regardless, by WAA and WAR he's about 20th. Now I'll say up front that these numbers aren't determinative, but if you want "one size fits all" numbers then they work better than anything else. Some of the guys ahead of Ford have just no chance to make the Hall. On the WAA list, Ford is behind Buehrle, Sale, Santana and Hamels. On the WAR list, Wells, Koosman Tanana, Hamels, Finley, and Buehrle.
I just can't see Ford as great. Sorry.
I am wary of the "one size fits all" numbers. I think WAR hurts Ford because of a short career and less innings pitched? WAA is a new one on me.
Ford cheated, but when you throw a scuffed ball it doesn't always do what you want it to do, hench the example in the story where someone (Howard?) crushes a 400 foot HR of a doctored ball. If you want to drop him because he was an admitted cheater, I can accept that. I just can't say how much it helped him. On the other hand, I'm going to give him (an unknowable amount) credit for early in his career, missing 2 seasons serving in the military and Stengle not giving him innings he could have pitched.
All that aside, Ford did have a shorter career and benefited from playing for a lot of great teams and he cheated, so I can see how you can drop him out of the top 10. He did miss 2 seasons due to military duty, probably before he became a cheater.
I looked at every guy you mentioned. I focused on seasons with approximately 150 innings pitched and/or 700 batters faced and above.
Santana and Sale were the top two as far as ERA+, but neither pitched over 2025 total innings, so I eliminated them.
Interesting to me; when Johan pitched "full" seasons, his ERA+ was 130 or above every time!
Let's get rid of Tanana right off the bat. He had 5 good years with an ERA+ above 120 (only one of those above 136) and 14 years where his ERA+ was under 111. NINE of those seasons were below 100. You can't really say he was anywhere near a HOF pitcher. I suppose he could go in the Harold Baines wing.
Finley had 4 good/great years and 9 with an ERA+ of 118 or below.
Wells, similarly had 4 "good" years and 9 at or below 118.
Koosman was a little surprising to me, he had 6 good/great years but 8 at 108 or below.
Hamels comes in at 123 ERA+ wise and he's pretty comparable to Ford. Whitey had 8 seasons above 120 ERA+ and 4 below, Cole had 8 above and 3 below.
Whitey's top three seasons were significantly better than Cole's as were his bottom three, being better than Hamels'. Ford pitched nearly 500 more innings in his career.
The only guy I can rate at or above Ford is Hamels, and that's if I "punish" Whitey for being a cheater.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
It's interesting to me that @JoeBanzai says that WAR hurts Ford because of his short career based on innings pitched, but then dismisses several pitchers, who again no one makes an argument for the HoF, with higher WAR than Ford because their careers were too short.
Whitey Ford won 236 games in his career with a winning percentage of .690. Yes…he played on very good teams which helped his winning percentage…but his career ERA was 2.75! He didn’t allow many runs too…
I looked at every guy mentioned and Santana and Sale pitched WAY less innings than everyone else.
Ford had 12 seasons with over 190 innings pitched, more than Hamels about the same as Wells, Koosman and Finley and a lot less than Tanana.
There's NO WAY Tanana was a better pitcher than Ford, so whatever stat that makes it look that way, must have to do with longevity. He had 19 "full" seasons, about half he was a below average pitcher.
It's a fact that Ford lost 2 seasons and quite. few innings in the prime of his career, so we have a pretty strong case that his numbers would benefit under more normal circumstances.
When you look at numbers that show a guy like Tanana being better than a clearly superior player like Ford, you need to stop using those numbers.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
WAR does give a lot of credit for hanging around as a place filler in the rotation. While that may have merit in certain contexts, in a HOF discussion I think it's more appropriate to look at WAA (better than average). It's still just one stat, but I think it's a much better stat in a HOF context, and Ford does beat Tanana.
That said, had Whitey Ford pitched for the Senators, and finished his career with a record of 180-170 or so and an ERA just north of 3.00, I don't think he'd be thought of as a top 10 pitcher. He'd have been just as good, but pitching for the Yankees makes him look a whole lot better. You can blame Stengel for limiting his innings, but put Ford on any team but Casey's and he wins a whole lot fewer games. All in all, I think playing for the Yankees was a big plus for Ford's reputation and all-time ranking for the vast majority of fans.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary said:
WAR does give a lot of credit for hanging around as a place filler in the rotation. While that may have merit in certain contexts, in a HOF discussion I think it's more appropriate to look at WAA (better than average). It's still just one stat, but I think it's a much better stat in a HOF context, and Ford does beat Tanana.
That said, had Whitey Ford pitched for the Senators, and finished his career with a record of 180-170 or so and an ERA just north of 3.00, I don't think he'd be thought of as a top 10 pitcher. He'd have been just as good, but pitching for the Yankees makes him look a whole lot better. You can blame Stengel for limiting his innings, but put Ford on any team but Casey's and he wins a whole lot fewer games. All in all, I think playing for the Yankees was a big plus for Ford's reputation and all-time ranking for the vast majority of fans.
What your saying makes sense, but Ford didn't pitch for a bad team. I don't know if his ERA would have been higher had he pitched for the Senators, but his winning percentage would have been worse. I didn't look at that though.
Secondly, while pitching for his actual team, a new manager came in and Ford did very well, it seems safe to assume just about any other manager would have pitched him more than Stengle during his prime and of course the two years missed in the military should have been good years, but we'll never know.
The cheating is bothersome, but I am going to guess most pitchers messed around with a spitball too.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Whitey is in by association, because he's a Yankee, and friend of the Mick.
Since I knocked Ford down a peg earlier I feel compelled to weigh in here. Yes, the .690 winning percentage for which he is most famous is way overblown and the CYA he won in 1961 when his record was 25-4 should have gone to Bunning or Spahn, and so on through the sorts of things that happen to players on great teams. But Ford was a great pitcher, whether he had a .690 on the Yankees or a .520 on the Senators. Ford deserves to be in the HOF, it's only when he is gets rated near the very top of it that I have a problem.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I looked at every guy mentioned and Santana and Sale pitched WAY less innings than everyone else.
Ford had 12 seasons with over 190 innings pitched, more than Hamels about the same as Wells, Koosman and Finley and a lot less than Tanana.
There's NO WAY Tanana was a better pitcher than Ford, so whatever stat that makes it look that way, must have to do with longevity. He had 19 "full" seasons, about half he was a below average pitcher.
It's a fact that Ford lost 2 seasons and quite. few innings in the prime of his career, so we have a pretty strong case that his numbers would benefit under more normal circumstances.
When you look at numbers that show a guy like Tanana being better than a clearly superior player like Ford, you need to stop using those numbers.
What I find interesting is that on the one hand Ford had a long career and on the other he had a short career.
It is not at all a fact that Ford lost two seasons in the prime of his career. There is no reason to believe that a 22, 23 year old pitcher who had pitched 112 (admittedly very good) innings in the major leagues would have been solid. And only Dwight Gooden had prime years that young.
But the fact is that each of Tanana's 1975 through 1977 seasons was better than any Ford ever pitched, and 1977 was a lot better. So the argument isn't that Tanana's eight years of more or less league average performance at 200 innings per year in the Tigers' rotation makes him comparable to Ford, but his superior peak performance.
Then proceeds to use only ERA+ to determine a pitchers value.
You're funny.
I also used innings pitched and ERA in case you missed it. Also factored in WHIP.
What I ignored was wins and losses, Cy Young awards and championships.
I do find ERA+ to be more helpful than ERA by itself so I don't have to check and see the league average for that year.
Maybe you could try to add something constructive to the discussion rather than to criticize other posters.
Ha! Your precious ERA+ stat is not cumulative, so if Whitey pitched more or less under whoever manager, it wouldn't matter.
Whitey is in by association, because he's a Yankee, and friend of the Mick.
Schilling, Brown, Cone. Saberhagan, Stein, just to name a few 80s 90s pitchers with similar or better WAR and ERA+. Should all those guys be in?
Sorry if you felt criticized. It's your methodology and determinations being criticized.
Lighten up. It's really not that serious.
You don't seem to have a basic understanding of player evaluation, you just like to stir the pot.
The guys you mentioned were great pitchers. Schilling should certainly be in. I'm not going to bother looking to see how the others compare.
Offhand, Saberhagen seems to have been great one year and lousy the next, Brown always seemed to have the best "stuff" and Cone amd Steib had a few great years too.
The discussion was left handers though.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Whitey is in by association, because he's a Yankee, and friend of the Mick.
Since I knocked Ford down a peg earlier I feel compelled to weigh in here. Yes, the .690 winning percentage for which he is most famous is way overblown and the CYA he won in 1961 when his record was 25-4 should have gone to Bunning or Spahn, and so on through the sorts of things that happen to players on great teams. But Ford was a great pitcher, whether he had a .690 on the Yankees or a .520 on the Senators. Ford deserves to be in the HOF, it's only when he is gets rated near the very top of it that I have a problem.
How about 1958? He didn't even get any votes. It looks like it was because he pitched less innings than the other guys. He made his 30 starts and pitched 200 innings. I would say he deserved it that year.
I am also not ranking him that high if you bring in right handed pitchers.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I looked at every guy mentioned and Santana and Sale pitched WAY less innings than everyone else.
Ford had 12 seasons with over 190 innings pitched, more than Hamels about the same as Wells, Koosman and Finley and a lot less than Tanana.
There's NO WAY Tanana was a better pitcher than Ford, so whatever stat that makes it look that way, must have to do with longevity. He had 19 "full" seasons, about half he was a below average pitcher.
It's a fact that Ford lost 2 seasons and quite. few innings in the prime of his career, so we have a pretty strong case that his numbers would benefit under more normal circumstances.
When you look at numbers that show a guy like Tanana being better than a clearly superior player like Ford, you need to stop using those numbers.
What I find interesting is that on the one hand Ford had a long career and on the other he had a short career.
It is not at all a fact that Ford lost two seasons in the prime of his career. There is no reason to believe that a 22, 23 year old pitcher who had pitched 112 (admittedly very good) innings in the major leagues would have been solid. And only Dwight Gooden had prime years that young.
Huh? Yes, he missed 2 seasons when he was young and strong, since he pitched brilliantly as a rookie, took two years off and came back and immediately pitched at a very high level, I think that shows those two years hurt him. What we'll never know, is how much.
>
But the fact is that each of Tanana's 1975 through 1977 seasons was better than any Ford ever pitched, and 1977 was a lot better. So the argument isn't that Tanana's eight years of more or less league average performance at 200 innings per year in the Tigers' rotation makes him comparable to Ford, but his superior peak performance.
>
Ford's 1956, 1958 and 1964 were ALL better individual seasons than Tanana's beautiful 3 year run. Frank also had about 14 average to sub par years you are ignoring.
Ford had one year with an ERA+ below 115, and was still a little above average in his worst year at 105.
Frank had 15 years below 115 and 9 where he was below 100.
Tanana should have won the Cy Young in 1977, and maybe even 1976, when he was better than Palmer but not as good as Fidrych.
Once Frank lost his fastball, he became a solid #2-3 pitcher for a lot of years. He had 2 good years after 1977, in Texas in 1983 & 1984.
When Ford lost his fastball, he was still a great pitcher, using different speeds and arm angles to keep the batter off balance. He actually struck out more guys per 9 innings after losing his fastball!
Ford never had a bad year. He gave up about half as many home runs per 9 innings as Tanana did and less hits per 9, as well.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Look at the pot calling the kettle black. LOL
You're funny.
@JoeBanzai said:
You don't seem to have a basic understanding of player evaluation
Well, I DO know a player's worth is not just one cherry picked stat like ERA+.
I take everything into consideration, including the intangibles not found on a stat line.
Ford was robbed of the CYA in 1958. Mostly a different topic, but they started giving the CYA in 1956 and it wasn't until 1964 that they gave it to the pitcher I think deserved it. So yeah, for Ford I guess it was a wash; he got a CYA he didn't deserve, but that made up for the one he deserved but didn't get.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Actually.....the discussion is "1989 Fleer Glossy...PSA 10's" - This is the topic of the thread.
First of all, I'm calm. I was never not calm.
Second, I know that is the topic. That is MY quote there. LOL
Third, if you look back, you'll see I was on topic and it was, ahem, 'another poster' that did the highjacking.
And lastly, NEVER, EVER TELL ME TO CALM DOWN!!
(jk. You guys are just too serious. Lighten up and have some fun. You're grown men collecting baseball cards.)
I looked at every guy mentioned and Santana and Sale pitched WAY less innings than everyone else.
Ford had 12 seasons with over 190 innings pitched, more than Hamels about the same as Wells, Koosman and Finley and a lot less than Tanana.
There's NO WAY Tanana was a better pitcher than Ford, so whatever stat that makes it look that way, must have to do with longevity. He had 19 "full" seasons, about half he was a below average pitcher.
It's a fact that Ford lost 2 seasons and quite. few innings in the prime of his career, so we have a pretty strong case that his numbers would benefit under more normal circumstances.
When you look at numbers that show a guy like Tanana being better than a clearly superior player like Ford, you need to stop using those numbers.
What I find interesting is that on the one hand Ford had a long career and on the other he had a short career.
It is not at all a fact that Ford lost two seasons in the prime of his career. There is no reason to believe that a 22, 23 year old pitcher who had pitched 112 (admittedly very good) innings in the major leagues would have been solid. And only Dwight Gooden had prime years that young.
Huh? Yes, he missed 2 seasons when he was young and strong, since he pitched brilliantly as a rookie, took two years off and came back and immediately pitched at a very high level, I think that shows those two years hurt him. What we'll never know, is how much.
>
But the fact is that each of Tanana's 1975 through 1977 seasons was better than any Ford ever pitched, and 1977 was a lot better. So the argument isn't that Tanana's eight years of more or less league average performance at 200 innings per year in the Tigers' rotation makes him comparable to Ford, but his superior peak performance.
>
Ford's 1956, 1958 and 1964 were ALL better individual seasons than Tanana's beautiful 3 year run. Frank also had about 14 average to sub par years you are ignoring.
Ford had one year with an ERA+ below 115, and was still a little above average in his worst year at 105.
Frank had 15 years below 115 and 9 where he was below 100.
Tanana should have won the Cy Young in 1977, and maybe even 1976, when he was better than Palmer but not as good as Fidrych.
Once Frank lost his fastball, he became a solid #2-3 pitcher for a lot of years. He had 2 good years after 1977, in Texas in 1983 & 1984.
When Ford lost his fastball, he was still a great pitcher, using different speeds and arm angles to keep the batter off balance. He actually struck out more guys per 9 innings after losing his fastball!
Ford never had a bad year. He gave up about half as many home runs per 9 innings as Tanana did and less hits per 9, as well.
Well, if you're going to claim Ford's 1958 was better than Tanana's 1977 https://stathead.com/tiny/J4Squ then we really have nothing further to discuss. But there is far more to pitching than ERA+.
And when Ford lost his fastball, according to Ford, he resorted to cheating to keep the batter off balance.
And the Cy Young votes in 1958 were terrible. Yes, Ford was better than Turley, Spahn, Burdette, and Friend. Absolutely no argument there. But Frank Lary, Sam Jones, and Robin Roberts were far better, And spare a thought for Dick Hyde who prefigured a modern closer with a 219 ERA+, 53 games and 103 innings. 10-3 with 19 saves and 44 games finished. This is impressive enough, but now consider that he did it for a last place Senators team that won only 61 games.
And I'm not ignoring Tanana's average years. In fact I said above that the argument for Tanana doesn't lie in his eight years as a league average pitcher for the Tigers, though there is a lot of value in that and every team would want a guy like that. The argument is at his peak he was better.
Now I'm not for a moment saying that we need to go by WAR and acclaim Tanana a superior player. I'm only saying that there is an argument to be made and that it's closer than you think.
I looked at every guy mentioned and Santana and Sale pitched WAY less innings than everyone else.
Ford had 12 seasons with over 190 innings pitched, more than Hamels about the same as Wells, Koosman and Finley and a lot less than Tanana.
There's NO WAY Tanana was a better pitcher than Ford, so whatever stat that makes it look that way, must have to do with longevity. He had 19 "full" seasons, about half he was a below average pitcher.
It's a fact that Ford lost 2 seasons and quite. few innings in the prime of his career, so we have a pretty strong case that his numbers would benefit under more normal circumstances.
When you look at numbers that show a guy like Tanana being better than a clearly superior player like Ford, you need to stop using those numbers.
What I find interesting is that on the one hand Ford had a long career and on the other he had a short career.
It is not at all a fact that Ford lost two seasons in the prime of his career. There is no reason to believe that a 22, 23 year old pitcher who had pitched 112 (admittedly very good) innings in the major leagues would have been solid. And only Dwight Gooden had prime years that young.
Huh? Yes, he missed 2 seasons when he was young and strong, since he pitched brilliantly as a rookie, took two years off and came back and immediately pitched at a very high level, I think that shows those two years hurt him. What we'll never know, is how much.
>
But the fact is that each of Tanana's 1975 through 1977 seasons was better than any Ford ever pitched, and 1977 was a lot better. So the argument isn't that Tanana's eight years of more or less league average performance at 200 innings per year in the Tigers' rotation makes him comparable to Ford, but his superior peak performance.
>
Ford's 1956, 1958 and 1964 were ALL better individual seasons than Tanana's beautiful 3 year run. Frank also had about 14 average to sub par years you are ignoring.
Ford had one year with an ERA+ below 115, and was still a little above average in his worst year at 105.
Frank had 15 years below 115 and 9 where he was below 100.
Tanana should have won the Cy Young in 1977, and maybe even 1976, when he was better than Palmer but not as good as Fidrych.
Once Frank lost his fastball, he became a solid #2-3 pitcher for a lot of years. He had 2 good years after 1977, in Texas in 1983 & 1984.
When Ford lost his fastball, he was still a great pitcher, using different speeds and arm angles to keep the batter off balance. He actually struck out more guys per 9 innings after losing his fastball!
Ford never had a bad year. He gave up about half as many home runs per 9 innings as Tanana did and less hits per 9, as well.
Well, if you're going to claim Ford's 1958 was better than Tanana's 1977 https://stathead.com/tiny/J4Squ then we really have nothing further to discuss. But there is far more to pitching than ERA+.
>
As I said before I don't just use ERA+ in my evaluation. ERA+ is a good stat if you don't want to spend the time looking up the other pitchers ERA's. I also look at innings pitched, WHIP, HR given up, complete games and shutouts.
>
And when Ford lost his fastball, according to Ford, he resorted to cheating to keep the batter off balance.
That's not even close to being accurate. Ford is well known for changing speeds and arm angles in order to remain a great pitcher. While it's true he threw doctored balls, that's not why he was still good.
When Tanana lost his fastball, he became a slightly below average pitcher with the exception of 1984.
>
And the Cy Young votes in 1958 were terrible. Yes, Ford was better than Turley, Spahn, Burdette, and Friend. Absolutely no argument there. But Frank Lary, Sam Jones, and Robin Roberts were far better, And spare a thought for Dick Hyde who prefigured a modern closer with a 219 ERA+, 53 games and 103 innings. 10-3 with 19 saves and 44 games finished. This is impressive enough, but now consider that he did it for a last place Senators team that won only 61 games.
>
How were Larry, Jones and Roberts better? I get so tired of posters making claims that one guy (here 3 guys) is better, then I look it up and it's completely wrong. Ford had an ERA of almost a FULL RUN PER GAME less than Jones and Lary. Why you brought up Roberts baffles me.
Ford also "wins" over Jones (the best of your three) in WHIP, shutouts, complete games, HR given up, Ford walked fewer and struck out more.
In pitching 40 more innings Lary gave up 35 more earned runs. No, he wasn't better than Ford. How you can say he was "far better" make no sense whatsoever.
Now your bringing in relievers? That doesn't help your case! Sparky Lyle was clearly better than Tanana in 1977.
>
And I'm not ignoring Tanana's average years. In fact I said above that the argument for Tanana doesn't lie in his eight years as a league average pitcher for the Tigers, though there is a lot of value in that and every team would want a guy like that. The argument is at his peak he was better.
Tanana had 11 years as a "below average" pitcher, just because he made the team and pitched a lot of below average innings doesn't help his case.
>
Now I'm not for a moment saying that we need to go by WAR and acclaim Tanana a superior player. I'm only saying that there is an argument to be made and that it's closer than you think.
>
WAR simply does not work here, at all.
Let's look at WAR for pitchers; Tanana had 3 seasons in the top 10, Ford had 8.
My "favorite" number ERA+; Ford had 10 seasons in the top 10, Frank had 4.
It actually gets worse for Frank when switching to "regular" ERA, Ford had 11 seasons in the top 10, Frank had only 3!
Finally (and I hope enough) Ford was in the top 10 in WHIP 8 times and Tanana only 4.
Tanana's longevity is great, really similar to Harold Baines', only Frank had a nice three year run before he lost his fastball.
Ford never had a bad year. He was average (actually slightly better than average) in 1965, his worst season, with an ERA (not ERA+) of 3.24, Tanana had 16 seasons with a higher ERA.
You seem to value innings pitched a lot (I'm guessing here, as you haven't explained what you think makes some pitchers better), because that's the only number I see here that helps your argument(s).
You might want to consider that a pitcher who gives up less runs, hits and walks fewer batters doesn't have to pitch as many innings.
Sorry olb31, this will be my final post on your thread.
Thanks for starting it, I now have a 1989 Fleer Glossy Ken Griffey Jr card that has a chance at a 10!!!! 😁
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I have to admit I'm not seeing the case for Sam Jones or Robin Roberts at all. I mean not at all, and to call either of them "far better" then Ford has me scratching my head. Frank Lary was better than Jones or Roberts, but I'm not seeing anything that tells me he was better than Ford, let alone far better. Ford, Lary, and Billy Pierce, in that order, appear to me to be the best three pitchers in 1958, but I could be convinced to substitute someone else for Pierce (maybe Jones, but not Roberts).
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
regular topps 1989 = infinite
1989 topps tiffany = 15,000
The Bowman Tiffany Griffey Jr PSA 10 has a pop of 156 but sells for least 2.5X the Fleer Glossy. I always thought they should be closer in value. Is the Bowman Tiffany set print run of 6000 the sole reason for the difference? Like someone mentioned, a lot of the Griffey's were horrible out of the Fleer sets. The PSA Gem Rate for the Bowman Tiffany is 9.4%, Topps Traded Tiffany 15.1%,, and Fleer Glossy 6.8%. In order for the Fleer Glossy pop to be equal to Bowman Tiffany, at least 559 more Glossy Griffeys would need to be submitted at the current Gem Rate.
Could you say that the Fleer Glossy is undervalued?
I think Griffey is just overpriced in general. But going by populations. The Glossy is a tough issue.
I would guess that total production is the answer for the price difference. Some on the board don't think scarcity of an issue makes much difference, but in this case it's probably the only reason.
I am wary of the "one size fits all" numbers. I think WAR hurts Ford because of a short career and less innings pitched? WAA is a new one on me.
Ford cheated, but when you throw a scuffed ball it doesn't always do what you want it to do, hench the example in the story where someone (Howard?) crushes a 400 foot HR of a doctored ball. If you want to drop him because he was an admitted cheater, I can accept that. I just can't say how much it helped him. On the other hand, I'm going to give him (an unknowable amount) credit for early in his career, missing 2 seasons serving in the military and Stengle not giving him innings he could have pitched.
All that aside, Ford did have a shorter career and benefited from playing for a lot of great teams and he cheated, so I can see how you can drop him out of the top 10. He did miss 2 seasons due to military duty, probably before he became a cheater.
I looked at every guy you mentioned. I focused on seasons with approximately 150 innings pitched and/or 700 batters faced and above.
Santana and Sale were the top two as far as ERA+, but neither pitched over 2025 total innings, so I eliminated them.
Interesting to me; when Johan pitched "full" seasons, his ERA+ was 130 or above every time!
Let's get rid of Tanana right off the bat. He had 5 good years with an ERA+ above 120 (only one of those above 136) and 14 years where his ERA+ was under 111. NINE of those seasons were below 100. You can't really say he was anywhere near a HOF pitcher. I suppose he could go in the Harold Baines wing.
Finley had 4 good/great years and 9 with an ERA+ of 118 or below.
Wells, similarly had 4 "good" years and 9 at or below 118.
Koosman was a little surprising to me, he had 6 good/great years but 8 at 108 or below.
Hamels comes in at 123 ERA+ wise and he's pretty comparable to Ford. Whitey had 8 seasons above 120 ERA+ and 4 below, Cole had 8 above and 3 below.
Whitey's top three seasons were significantly better than Cole's as were his bottom three, being better than Hamels'. Ford pitched nearly 500 more innings in his career.
The only guy I can rate at or above Ford is Hamels, and that's if I "punish" Whitey for being a cheater.
It's interesting to me that @JoeBanzai says that WAR hurts Ford because of his short career based on innings pitched, but then dismisses several pitchers, who again no one makes an argument for the HoF, with higher WAR than Ford because their careers were too short.
Whitey Ford won 236 games in his career with a winning percentage of .690. Yes…he played on very good teams which helped his winning percentage…but his career ERA was 2.75! He didn’t allow many runs too…
What's so interesting about it?
I looked at every guy mentioned and Santana and Sale pitched WAY less innings than everyone else.
Ford had 12 seasons with over 190 innings pitched, more than Hamels about the same as Wells, Koosman and Finley and a lot less than Tanana.
There's NO WAY Tanana was a better pitcher than Ford, so whatever stat that makes it look that way, must have to do with longevity. He had 19 "full" seasons, about half he was a below average pitcher.
It's a fact that Ford lost 2 seasons and quite. few innings in the prime of his career, so we have a pretty strong case that his numbers would benefit under more normal circumstances.
When you look at numbers that show a guy like Tanana being better than a clearly superior player like Ford, you need to stop using those numbers.
WAR does give a lot of credit for hanging around as a place filler in the rotation. While that may have merit in certain contexts, in a HOF discussion I think it's more appropriate to look at WAA (better than average). It's still just one stat, but I think it's a much better stat in a HOF context, and Ford does beat Tanana.
That said, had Whitey Ford pitched for the Senators, and finished his career with a record of 180-170 or so and an ERA just north of 3.00, I don't think he'd be thought of as a top 10 pitcher. He'd have been just as good, but pitching for the Yankees makes him look a whole lot better. You can blame Stengel for limiting his innings, but put Ford on any team but Casey's and he wins a whole lot fewer games. All in all, I think playing for the Yankees was a big plus for Ford's reputation and all-time ranking for the vast majority of fans.
Then proceeds to use only ERA+ to determine a pitchers value.
You're funny.
I also used innings pitched and ERA in case you missed it. Also factored in WHIP.
What I ignored was wins and losses, Cy Young awards and championships.
I do find ERA+ to be more helpful than ERA by itself so I don't have to check and see the league average for that year.
Maybe you could try to add something constructive to the discussion rather than to criticize other posters.
What your saying makes sense, but Ford didn't pitch for a bad team. I don't know if his ERA would have been higher had he pitched for the Senators, but his winning percentage would have been worse. I didn't look at that though.
Secondly, while pitching for his actual team, a new manager came in and Ford did very well, it seems safe to assume just about any other manager would have pitched him more than Stengle during his prime and of course the two years missed in the military should have been good years, but we'll never know.
The cheating is bothersome, but I am going to guess most pitchers messed around with a spitball too.
Ha! Your precious ERA+ stat is not cumulative, so if Whitey pitched more or less under whoever manager, it wouldn't matter.
Whitey is in by association, because he's a Yankee, and friend of the Mick.
Schilling, Brown, Cone. Saberhagan, Stein, just to name a few 80s 90s pitchers with similar or better WAR and ERA+. Should all those guys be in?
Sorry if you felt criticized. It's your methodology and determinations being criticized.
Lighten up. It's really not that serious.
Since I knocked Ford down a peg earlier I feel compelled to weigh in here. Yes, the .690 winning percentage for which he is most famous is way overblown and the CYA he won in 1961 when his record was 25-4 should have gone to Bunning or Spahn, and so on through the sorts of things that happen to players on great teams. But Ford was a great pitcher, whether he had a .690 on the Yankees or a .520 on the Senators. Ford deserves to be in the HOF, it's only when he is gets rated near the very top of it that I have a problem.
What I find interesting is that on the one hand Ford had a long career and on the other he had a short career.
It is not at all a fact that Ford lost two seasons in the prime of his career. There is no reason to believe that a 22, 23 year old pitcher who had pitched 112 (admittedly very good) innings in the major leagues would have been solid. And only Dwight Gooden had prime years that young.
But the fact is that each of Tanana's 1975 through 1977 seasons was better than any Ford ever pitched, and 1977 was a lot better. So the argument isn't that Tanana's eight years of more or less league average performance at 200 innings per year in the Tigers' rotation makes him comparable to Ford, but his superior peak performance.
You don't seem to have a basic understanding of player evaluation, you just like to stir the pot.
The guys you mentioned were great pitchers. Schilling should certainly be in. I'm not going to bother looking to see how the others compare.
Offhand, Saberhagen seems to have been great one year and lousy the next, Brown always seemed to have the best "stuff" and Cone amd Steib had a few great years too.
The discussion was left handers though.
How about 1958? He didn't even get any votes. It looks like it was because he pitched less innings than the other guys. He made his 30 starts and pitched 200 innings. I would say he deserved it that year.
I am also not ranking him that high if you bring in right handed pitchers.
Huh? Yes, he missed 2 seasons when he was young and strong, since he pitched brilliantly as a rookie, took two years off and came back and immediately pitched at a very high level, I think that shows those two years hurt him. What we'll never know, is how much.
>
>
Ford's 1956, 1958 and 1964 were ALL better individual seasons than Tanana's beautiful 3 year run. Frank also had about 14 average to sub par years you are ignoring.
Ford had one year with an ERA+ below 115, and was still a little above average in his worst year at 105.
Frank had 15 years below 115 and 9 where he was below 100.
Tanana should have won the Cy Young in 1977, and maybe even 1976, when he was better than Palmer but not as good as Fidrych.
Once Frank lost his fastball, he became a solid #2-3 pitcher for a lot of years. He had 2 good years after 1977, in Texas in 1983 & 1984.
When Ford lost his fastball, he was still a great pitcher, using different speeds and arm angles to keep the batter off balance. He actually struck out more guys per 9 innings after losing his fastball!
Ford never had a bad year. He gave up about half as many home runs per 9 innings as Tanana did and less hits per 9, as well.
Not sure why the Fleer glossy thread is now a word battle about Whitey Ford and Frank Tanana. Has nothing to do with the thread.
Whitey A+++ pitcher, Frank a really good pitcher. Don't think there are really any comparisons.
Actually.....the discussion is "1989 Fleer Glossy...PSA 10's"
Look at the pot calling the kettle black. LOL
You're funny.
Well, I DO know a player's worth is not just one cherry picked stat like ERA+.
I take everything into consideration, including the intangibles not found on a stat line.
Ron, Joe calm down.
Actually.....the discussion is "1989 Fleer Glossy...PSA 10's" - This is the topic of the thread.
Yes, you are correct. Good thread has gotten off track.
Ford was robbed of the CYA in 1958. Mostly a different topic, but they started giving the CYA in 1956 and it wasn't until 1964 that they gave it to the pitcher I think deserved it. So yeah, for Ford I guess it was a wash; he got a CYA he didn't deserve, but that made up for the one he deserved but didn't get.
First of all, I'm calm. I was never not calm.
Second, I know that is the topic. That is MY quote there. LOL
Third, if you look back, you'll see I was on topic and it was, ahem, 'another poster' that did the highjacking.
And lastly, NEVER, EVER TELL ME TO CALM DOWN!!
(jk. You guys are just too serious. Lighten up and have some fun. You're grown men collecting baseball cards.)
Well, if you're going to claim Ford's 1958 was better than Tanana's 1977 https://stathead.com/tiny/J4Squ then we really have nothing further to discuss. But there is far more to pitching than ERA+.
And when Ford lost his fastball, according to Ford, he resorted to cheating to keep the batter off balance.
And the Cy Young votes in 1958 were terrible. Yes, Ford was better than Turley, Spahn, Burdette, and Friend. Absolutely no argument there. But Frank Lary, Sam Jones, and Robin Roberts were far better, And spare a thought for Dick Hyde who prefigured a modern closer with a 219 ERA+, 53 games and 103 innings. 10-3 with 19 saves and 44 games finished. This is impressive enough, but now consider that he did it for a last place Senators team that won only 61 games.
And I'm not ignoring Tanana's average years. In fact I said above that the argument for Tanana doesn't lie in his eight years as a league average pitcher for the Tigers, though there is a lot of value in that and every team would want a guy like that. The argument is at his peak he was better.
Now I'm not for a moment saying that we need to go by WAR and acclaim Tanana a superior player. I'm only saying that there is an argument to be made and that it's closer than you think.
The OP has scolded us for hijacking the thread, but I'll reply one more time.
>
As I said before I don't just use ERA+ in my evaluation. ERA+ is a good stat if you don't want to spend the time looking up the other pitchers ERA's. I also look at innings pitched, WHIP, HR given up, complete games and shutouts.
>
That's not even close to being accurate. Ford is well known for changing speeds and arm angles in order to remain a great pitcher. While it's true he threw doctored balls, that's not why he was still good.
When Tanana lost his fastball, he became a slightly below average pitcher with the exception of 1984.
>
>
How were Larry, Jones and Roberts better? I get so tired of posters making claims that one guy (here 3 guys) is better, then I look it up and it's completely wrong. Ford had an ERA of almost a FULL RUN PER GAME less than Jones and Lary. Why you brought up Roberts baffles me.
Ford also "wins" over Jones (the best of your three) in WHIP, shutouts, complete games, HR given up, Ford walked fewer and struck out more.
In pitching 40 more innings Lary gave up 35 more earned runs. No, he wasn't better than Ford. How you can say he was "far better" make no sense whatsoever.
Now your bringing in relievers? That doesn't help your case! Sparky Lyle was clearly better than Tanana in 1977.
>
Tanana had 11 years as a "below average" pitcher, just because he made the team and pitched a lot of below average innings doesn't help his case.
>
>
WAR simply does not work here, at all.
Let's look at WAR for pitchers; Tanana had 3 seasons in the top 10, Ford had 8.
My "favorite" number ERA+; Ford had 10 seasons in the top 10, Frank had 4.
It actually gets worse for Frank when switching to "regular" ERA, Ford had 11 seasons in the top 10, Frank had only 3!
Finally (and I hope enough) Ford was in the top 10 in WHIP 8 times and Tanana only 4.
Tanana's longevity is great, really similar to Harold Baines', only Frank had a nice three year run before he lost his fastball.
Ford never had a bad year. He was average (actually slightly better than average) in 1965, his worst season, with an ERA (not ERA+) of 3.24, Tanana had 16 seasons with a higher ERA.
You seem to value innings pitched a lot (I'm guessing here, as you haven't explained what you think makes some pitchers better), because that's the only number I see here that helps your argument(s).
You might want to consider that a pitcher who gives up less runs, hits and walks fewer batters doesn't have to pitch as many innings.
Sorry olb31, this will be my final post on your thread.
Thanks for starting it, I now have a 1989 Fleer Glossy Ken Griffey Jr card that has a chance at a 10!!!! 😁
I have to admit I'm not seeing the case for Sam Jones or Robin Roberts at all. I mean not at all, and to call either of them "far better" then Ford has me scratching my head. Frank Lary was better than Jones or Roberts, but I'm not seeing anything that tells me he was better than Ford, let alone far better. Ford, Lary, and Billy Pierce, in that order, appear to me to be the best three pitchers in 1958, but I could be convinced to substitute someone else for Pierce (maybe Jones, but not Roberts).
Some forums ban people for off-topic "thread-crap"
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)