Note that the top 5 for each greatly exceeds their career totals. Outside of their peaks, neither one was good at all.
But, and I can't stress this strongly enough, Pascual was not just better than Hunter, he was a LOT better than Hunter. Put Hunter on the Senators/Rangers throughout his career and he would get mentioned on this forum as often as Bill Hands (peak RAA 47, career 103).
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
The first Cuban born MLB player to win 20 games was Dolf Luque- he was 27-8 in 1923 while pitching for the Reds- His career totals- W-194 L-179 with an ERA 3.24. The only reason i know this is because I have his 1933 Goudey Card which was towards the end of his career that finished with the Giants.
Back to my Camilo Pascual analysis... So this is what I have done: I am not counting Pascual's 1954-1958 seasons- which is no different than what those who choose to overlook and not consider the 5 Koufax years from 1956-60 whereby Koufax posted a 36-40 record. Pascual posted a miserable record of 28-66 between 1954 and 1958. His career totals were w-174- L-170 with an ERA of 3.63- If one overlooks 1954-1958, the career totals for Pascual significantly change- W- 146 L-104 and I am not going to recalculate his ERA- I will save that for Dallasactually and in doing so that will greatly increase the probability that it will be done correctly.
So the suggestion that Pascual had a shot at the HOF if he had been in Brooklyn's starting rotation from 1954-1958 is not as farfetched as those here would like to believe. But one thing is certain. Pascual will never get the benefit of this analysis. He will never be in the HOF unless one takes a deeper dive into the type of pitcher he was- There is no dispute that he had one of the finest curve balls in MLB history. There are minimal if any style points for how certain players either changed or influenced MLB. Numbers seem to dictate outcomes more often than not as to who is in or out- And those numbers need to be a snapshot of the entire career even if parts of it are less than stellar.
Koufax is a legend and always will be. But there is a difference between one who is elevated to and achieves legendary status and what is represented in a full and complete body of work in a career. A legend must be viewed through the lens of their entire career. And one can not have a double standard. The Pascual example really illustrates why Koufax- even though Koufax is a legend (and rightly so)- is simply not the best pitcher in the history of the Dodger Organization.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Excerpt from a 10/7/23 Alden Gonzalez ESPN.com article: "The outing increased Kershaw's postseason ERA from 4.22 to 4.49 in 194⅓ innings. It's two runs higher than his sterling regular-season ERA of 2.48 and stands as the highest among the 31 pitchers throughout major league history with more than 100 innings in the playoffs." If Kershaw is in fact the best Dodgers pitcher ever, then Dodgers pitchers throughout their history clearly can't perform when their season is on the line. Pretty sad for him and for Dodgers fans given his skill and ability when the pressure isn't on.
As sterling as Kershaw has been in the regular season throughout his career, his lack of postseason performance has to figure into his ranking.
postseason innings are worth more than regular season ones. it is just a matter of how much. Clayton has a BIG sample size of postseason innings. In fact, after his next start he could be 4th all time. enough by far so that we know what he is in the postseason. worst ERA amongst starters.
I would say that at best he is way to inconsistent to ever trust in the playoffs. He did pitch well in the 2020 postseason. keep in mind though, that it was only a 60 game regular season, so Kershaw was more rested than at any other postseason of his career.
how much does being such a terrible/inconsistent starter during the most important time of the season affect Kershaws all time rank? I am not sure, but it does affect it negatively.
Comments
Runs saved compared to an average pitcher:
Best season: Pascual 51, Hunter 43
2nd best: Pascual 34, Hunter 33
3rd best : Pascual 31, Hunter 23
4th best: Pascual 29, Hunter 20
5th best: Pascual 27, Hunter 2
Career: Pascual 110, Hunter 35
Note that the top 5 for each greatly exceeds their career totals. Outside of their peaks, neither one was good at all.
But, and I can't stress this strongly enough, Pascual was not just better than Hunter, he was a LOT better than Hunter. Put Hunter on the Senators/Rangers throughout his career and he would get mentioned on this forum as often as Bill Hands (peak RAA 47, career 103).
The first Cuban born MLB player to win 20 games was Dolf Luque- he was 27-8 in 1923 while pitching for the Reds- His career totals- W-194 L-179 with an ERA 3.24. The only reason i know this is because I have his 1933 Goudey Card which was towards the end of his career that finished with the Giants.
Back to my Camilo Pascual analysis... So this is what I have done: I am not counting Pascual's 1954-1958 seasons- which is no different than what those who choose to overlook and not consider the 5 Koufax years from 1956-60 whereby Koufax posted a 36-40 record. Pascual posted a miserable record of 28-66 between 1954 and 1958. His career totals were w-174- L-170 with an ERA of 3.63- If one overlooks 1954-1958, the career totals for Pascual significantly change- W- 146 L-104 and I am not going to recalculate his ERA- I will save that for Dallasactually and in doing so that will greatly increase the probability that it will be done correctly.
So the suggestion that Pascual had a shot at the HOF if he had been in Brooklyn's starting rotation from 1954-1958 is not as farfetched as those here would like to believe. But one thing is certain. Pascual will never get the benefit of this analysis. He will never be in the HOF unless one takes a deeper dive into the type of pitcher he was- There is no dispute that he had one of the finest curve balls in MLB history. There are minimal if any style points for how certain players either changed or influenced MLB. Numbers seem to dictate outcomes more often than not as to who is in or out- And those numbers need to be a snapshot of the entire career even if parts of it are less than stellar.
Koufax is a legend and always will be. But there is a difference between one who is elevated to and achieves legendary status and what is represented in a full and complete body of work in a career. A legend must be viewed through the lens of their entire career. And one can not have a double standard. The Pascual example really illustrates why Koufax- even though Koufax is a legend (and rightly so)- is simply not the best pitcher in the history of the Dodger Organization.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
From 1959-1968 Pascual was 142-97 with a 3.14 ERA.
Excerpt from a 10/7/23 Alden Gonzalez ESPN.com article: "The outing increased Kershaw's postseason ERA from 4.22 to 4.49 in 194⅓ innings. It's two runs higher than his sterling regular-season ERA of 2.48 and stands as the highest among the 31 pitchers throughout major league history with more than 100 innings in the playoffs." If Kershaw is in fact the best Dodgers pitcher ever, then Dodgers pitchers throughout their history clearly can't perform when their season is on the line. Pretty sad for him and for Dodgers fans given his skill and ability when the pressure isn't on.
As sterling as Kershaw has been in the regular season throughout his career, his lack of postseason performance has to figure into his ranking.
postseason innings are worth more than regular season ones. it is just a matter of how much. Clayton has a BIG sample size of postseason innings. In fact, after his next start he could be 4th all time. enough by far so that we know what he is in the postseason. worst ERA amongst starters.
I would say that at best he is way to inconsistent to ever trust in the playoffs. He did pitch well in the 2020 postseason. keep in mind though, that it was only a 60 game regular season, so Kershaw was more rested than at any other postseason of his career.
how much does being such a terrible/inconsistent starter during the most important time of the season affect Kershaws all time rank? I am not sure, but it does affect it negatively.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.