I loved Guidry and thought he was the best for a few yrs, but comparing him to Koufax???? What the ....? Koufax pitched at a stratosphere way above Guidry when they were at their best. # of Wins tells the story!
Koufax is a perfect symbol of memories and sentimental attachment to a hero than objectively looking at facts.
Recognize that Koufax wasn't voted in 15 or 20 years after he retired by some Veteran's Committee cronies. He was voted in five years after he retired in his first year of eligibility, by those who actually saw him pitch, by a count of 344 out of 396 or nearly 87%. You are simply looking at statistics, however, 52 voters weren't impressed by 6 years either, so I guess you are not alone.
Rick
Always looking for high-grade 1958-62 Bell Brand and Morrell Meat Dodger cards.
RG58 almost said it. Actually, he overstated it. Comparing Koufax to Guidry is silly. However, citing any isolated statistics to support that conclusion is also silly. The only necessary support for that conclusion comes from anybody who ever saw Koufax pitch. The man had a nearly unhittable fastball and a curve that angled like a boomerang. As a young kid, he lacked the pinpoint control that would later catapult him to greatness, but even as a wild fireballer, before his "6 year run", he tied Bob Feller's sacred record of 18 strikeouts in a game. Once he coupled his pinpoint accuracy with his awesome pitch repetoire, there was no pitcher in baseball as dominant.
And since I do love a good statistic, I think the one statistic that most illustrates a pitchers dominance over hitters is his opponents batting average. Here are the OAVs for the three pitchers we've been discussing - league leading average shown in bold:
In 1957, Jack Sanford led the league with a .221 OAV - Koufax only pitched 104 innings, apparently not enough to qualify. In 1959, 2 pitchers had an OAV of .228, 2 pitchers at .233 and Koufax and Conley at .235. In 1966, Koufax was second only to Marichal's .202.
"6 year run"? I think not. Koufax's lifetime OAV is .205. Statistics from Total Baseball, 2nd Edition.
Mark (amerbbcards)
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
if you dominate the league for at least 3-5 years at your position, you should be in the hall of fame. Koufax did it for 6!
Guidry vs Koufax total wins in their 6 best yrs-- Koufax way ahead!
In other words, win the MVP or CY Young award 3 times- you got to go into the Hall- These awards signify domination- You are the BEST! who cares about 300 wins!
Obviously 1 or 2 freak great hall of Fame seasons you don't deserve to be in the hall. (if that was the case the hall would be filled with Giambi like juicers!). But if your the best for 3-4, that defines a superstar- To say Koufax wasn't the best pitcher in the league for at least 3 years is crazy (try 6). Look at the stats. Guidry never achieved the domination status that koufax achieved. He was the best for a year or two, and just above average for the remainder of his career. That is why he is borderline for the Hall. Koufax DEFINED an era in baseball, Guidry did not.
Who cares about longevity- give me 5 great Hall of Fame SUPERSTAR caliber seasons, you should be in the Hall of Fame, no questions asked. 15 Years of above average stats does not make one a "superstar", just a "star". Every "superstar" should be in the Hall, and many above average "stars" should not.
No, actually Palmeiro and Baines have more; but they're not yet eligible. 3 other players exceeded 2700 hits and I don't think we'll ever see them in the Hall: Billy Buckner, Dave Parker and Rusty Staub.
Mark (amerbbcards)
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
One must accept the fact that Koufax will be in the HOF forever, and Guidry will always have to buy a ticket to gain admittance and wait in line to see Koufax's plaque.
Guidry was a very good pitcher. Koufax was truly great.
ERA 2.90 vs League ERA of 3.61 W/L % .661 vs Team W/L (net of this pitcher) of .507 Hits / 9I: 7.18 K / 9I: 8.10 (1375 Total) CG 68 SO 29
Contemporary of Koufax
Post-Season Appearances: 2/3 inning, 2 years before this stretch
Baseball-reference.com - Most similar by age: 26 Roger Clemens 27 Steve Carlton 28 Sandy Koufax 29 Sandy Koufax 30 Ramon Martinez 31 Bob Gibson
{Of course, the flip side of the above is that the most similar pitcher to Koufax at ages 28 and 29, pretty much the center of his greatness, is this guy.}
No, he's not as great as Koufax; hell, he's not even as good as McDowell. But if he pitched for the Dodgers, you'd all know who he was, and he might even be in the HOF.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>One must accept the fact that Koufax will be in the HOF forever, and Guidry will always have to buy a ticket to gain admittance and wait in line to see Koufax's plaque.
Guidry was a very good pitcher. Koufax was truly great. >>
How many times are you going to post this same exact comment?
IMHO, those comparisons at baseball-reference do a very good job of comparing players on the basis of their entire careers. It strips away the big market team bias and the personality bias. It also strips away the impact of one or two, or five, really good years in an otherwise less than spectacular career. I think reasonable people can disagree about whether that last effect is desirable; I know many on these boards, as well as Bill James, place tremendous weight on relatively short stretches while practically ignoring other years. Others, myself included, don't believe that any one year ought to count any more than any other year.
For the pitchers discussed in this thread, the number of HOF pitchers in that pitcher's 10 most similar:
Koufax - 1 (2 when Pedro goes in) Guidry - 2 McDowell - 0 Maloney - 0
Which adds to the evidence, I think, that Koufax and Guidry are borderline HOFers, McDowell and Maloney aren't even that. How do these guys compare to truly definitive HOFers?
Cy Young - 10 Walter Johnson - 10 Christy Mathewson - 9 (plus Maddux) Nolan Ryan - 8 (plus Clemens and Blyleven) Warren Spahn - 9 Lefty Grove - 8 (plus Maddux and Glavine) Bob Feller - 8 (plus Glavine and Morris)
Now those are HOF pitchers. And in my Quixotic struggle to get Blyleven in the HOF through the force of my will, please note:
Bert Blyleven - 8
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Although I am a partial instigator (oh - gator) on this discussion, there is no doubt that Sandy Koufax was the most unreal, badass and dominant pither in his decade. His talent level has/will be reached by only a handful of hurlers. I like Guidry, and think he is under appreciated -- see the stats posted by gmoneystyles. Guidry was a high end semi star performer. I saw both pitch. If they were on the same team - I would have Koufax #1 and Guidry #2.
Now......what does that say about Drysdale???? I would have him #3.
Proud of my 16x20 autographed and framed collection - all signed in person. Not big on modern - I'm stuck in the past!
<< <i>IMHO, those comparisons at baseball-reference do a very good job of comparing players on the basis of their entire careers. It strips away the big market team bias and the personality bias. It also strips away the impact of one or two, or five, really good years in an otherwise less than spectacular career. I think reasonable people can disagree about whether that last effect is desirable; I know many on these boards, as well as Bill James, place tremendous weight on relatively short stretches while practically ignoring other years. Others, myself included, don't believe that any one year ought to count any more than any other year.
For the pitchers discussed in this thread, the number of HOF pitchers in that pitcher's 10 most similar:
Koufax - 1 (2 when Pedro goes in) Guidry - 2 McDowell - 0 Maloney - 0
Which adds to the evidence, I think, that Koufax and Guidry are borderline HOFers, McDowell and Maloney aren't even that. How do these guys compare to truly definitive HOFers?
Cy Young - 10 Walter Johnson - 10 Christy Mathewson - 9 (plus Maddux) Nolan Ryan - 8 (plus Clemens and Blyleven) Warren Spahn - 9 Lefty Grove - 8 (plus Maddux and Glavine) Bob Feller - 8 (plus Glavine and Morris)
Now those are HOF pitchers. And in my Quixotic struggle to get Blyleven in the HOF through the force of my will, please note:
Bert Blyleven - 8 >>
Dallas: I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but to cite some ersatz mathematical statistical extrapolation of data that is, in the first place, obtuse as further evidence is hogwash. With all due respects (and I may be going for the giggle here) - are you a defense attorney?
Mark (amerbbcards)
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
<< <i>Dallas: I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but to cite some ersatz mathematical statistical extrapolation of data that is, in the first place, obtuse as further evidence is hogwash. With all due respects (and I may be going for the giggle here) - are you a defense attorney? >>
Ouch! We actuaries are quite capable of being obtuse without the help of an attorney, thank you very much.
What I'm trying to say here is that one way to determine if a pitcher is HOF material is to compare him to other pitchers in the HOF. If the most similar pitchers to that pitcher are all HOF members then I think that is a pretty good argument that that pitcher also belongs in the HOF. On the other hand, if the most similar pitchers to that pitcher are not HOFers, then that is evidence that that pitcher does not belong in the HOF. And, if you look at the entire career of Koufax, and don't simply ignore the fact that he was a poor to mediocre pitcher for half of his career, what you find is that he had a similar career to some above average, but hardly HOF-worthy, pitchers. Similar in total, that is, since no other pitcher put together the career totals of Koufax in anywhere near the same way he did.
And that seems to be the point of disagreement here - does the pattern of seasons matter. If you are putting together a team and you have to choose between two pitchers, one of whom will be poor to mediocre for six years and then be awesome for six and then be gone, while the other will be solidly above average for 12 years running, which do you choose? Your, and other's, preference is obviously pitcher #1, but why that is so is not clear to me. Why is pitcher #1 so much better than pitcher #2? Change pitcher #2 to solidly above average, occasionally great, for 20 years (Blyleven) and it is obvious to me that pitcher #2 is better. Clearly, many disagree with me but even after all their posts, I still do not understand why. Which, in the end, is the reason why I keep making these posts (and even resort to ersatz and obtuse information) - I would like to understand why.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
The best way to compare a potential HOF is to compare that player against his peers. That is, you compare Koufax, Gibson etc against the Pitchers THEY pitched against. IN this way you get a true meaning (IMO) of what a HOF is. Koufax was basically above all the rest during his career. Thus that is why he was inducted in his first year of elgibility. And for those that argued only 85% or whatever it was voted for him the reason back then was only the first 5 inductees would be unan......<sp> that has since changed. I think Seaver was the closest with 98.8% or some such amount. The older sports writers just wouldnt vote some one in on the first time. Heck Did Aaron go in at 100%?
Quick question: who was the first Mets pitcher to defeat Koufax?
And for those that argued only 85% or whatever it was voted for him
Hey W.P., I was the one that brought that up as a joke. 85% is a very healthy margin, especially on a first ballot. Us Koufax supporters can't take shots at each other.
The question was posed as to why a person would select a dominant 5-6 year pitcher over an above average 10 year pitcher. Simple. Winning a World Series is all about dominant pitching. Above average pitching may get you to the play-offs, but dominant pitching in a short series gives you a much better shot at winning the whole banana. The Dodgers' World Series wins in 1963 and 1965 were all about Koufax and Drysdale (with some help from Podres and Osteen), and the loss in 1966 wasn't due to poor Dodger pitching but dominant Baltimore pitching and a feeble Dodger hitting machine.
ATBS (All That Being Said), I always felt Guidry should have gotten more attention in the HOF balloting. However, my real surprise in this thread is that people are arguing against Koufax rather than Drysdale (was that sound I just heard a can of worms opening?)
Also, if a 6 year run is too short, is there some minimum number of years that are required to be Hall-worthy? How do you decide the minimum? Different for position players versus pitchers? The next step would be to set levels that would have to be met for each position for a player to be voted in. Then why vote? Let's just turn it into a statistical analysis.
Bottom line, HOF voting is subjective. Yes personality/likability is often taken into account, and maybe it shouldn't be. But I believe you get the best results when players are voted upon immediately after their careers end by those who witnessed their careers, rather than by trying to evaluate their statistics 20 years (or more) later.
Rick
Always looking for high-grade 1958-62 Bell Brand and Morrell Meat Dodger cards.
<< <i>...choose between two pitchers, one of whom will be poor to mediocre for six years and then be awesome for six and then be gone, while the other will be solidly above average for 12 years running, which do you choose? >>
Thanks for taking the jab good-naturedly. That's certainly how it was intended. However, your postulate is false on it's face - Koufax was anything but poor to mediocre from 1957 on - he consistently held batters to the league's lowest batting average for 10 years running. Remember that old story of Ruth striking out on 3 called fastballs from Walter Johnson, and on the 3rd strike he turns to the ump and says "I didn't see any of them either, but that last one sounded outside"? I've heard that kind of speed in relationship to only 3 pitchers: Bob Feller, Herb Score and Sandy Koufax. Relevance to this discussion - none really. Since we're discussing stats, you can build a case from numbers to assign any degree of talent to any player. The stature of greatness is much more than numbers. As they say, you had to be there. I've heard similar debates regarding Nolan Ryan's worthiness in the Hall - it just ain't all about numbers.
Mark (amerbbcards)
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
<< <i>- Koufax was anything but poor to mediocre from 1957 on - he consistently held batters to the league's lowest batting average for 10 years running >>
Well, if I am going to buy this argument, then we need to go back and revisit Sam McDowell. The reason Koufax had such a low opp. BA for the first half of his career is that you can't hit a pitch that's nowhere near the strike zone. Koufax walked folks and threw wild pitches at historic levels for the first six years of his career and then cut those rates in half for the final six. And when batters did hit it in those early years, they hit it a ton.
His record was below .500, his ERA was over 4.00 - I don't think it is really arguable that he was a below average pitcher over the first half of his career; in his worst seasons poor and in his best seasons mediocre.
And I've said it before, the only words I won't take good-naturedly are kind words about Barry Bonds, or unkind words about Bert Blyleven.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Bottom line, HOF voting is subjective. Yes personality/likability is often taken into account, and maybe it shouldn't be. But I believe you get the best results when players are voted upon immediately after their careers end by those who witnessed their careers, rather than by trying to evaluate their statistics 20 years (or more) later.
<< <i> Koufax walked folks and threw wild pitches at historic levels for the first six years of his career... >>
Again, Dallas, just not true. Koufax's average walks per nine innings from '57 thru '60 was 5.31, compared with McDowell's average of 4.69 from '64 thru '67, which includes some of his best years. Control problems? Yes. Historic levels? No. Although I would agree with you that there is an intimidation factor involved in not knowing if that pitch you can't see will wind up embedded in your batting helmet.
Mark (amerbbcards)
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Part of Koufax problem in his early years was that he pitched in the Los Angeles Coliseum with a 251 foot left field line. In 1960 on the road he had a 3.00 ERA and struck out 126 men in 105 innings. In 1961 on the road he had an ERA or 2.78. Had he pitched in Dodger Stadium in those years and not in the Coliseum his record would be far greater. His numbers are like the Coors Field effect. Koufax ERA on the road - notice there is really not a significant difference and the breakthrough in his career did not necessarily occur in 1962, except for the fact he now pitched in Dodger Stadium. 1960 3.00 1961 2.78 1962 3.53 1963 2.30 1964 2.93 1965 2.54
<< <i>Koufax's average walks per nine innings from '57 thru '60 was 5.31, compared with McDowell's average of 4.69 from '64 thru '67, which includes some of his best years. Control problems? Yes. Historic levels? No. Although I would agree with you that there is an intimidation factor involved in not knowing if that pitch you can't see will wind up embedded in your batting helmet. >>
Walking more people than McDowell is, if not historic, also nothing to sneeze at. More to the point, it explains why he gave up so many more runs than Johnny Podres, another lefty pitching on the same team in the same stadiums. I will chalk up to semantics our disagreement over whether Koufax was "mediocre" over the first six years of his career. Suffice it to say he was not as good a pitcher as Johnny Podres.
I have come to a sort of "higher level of cosciousness" regarding Koufax and the HOF (or I have just become so completely full of sh!t that I'm saturated, I leave it to you to decide). I thought more about why the "similar pitchers" to Koufax bring up a mostly B-list of very good but never great pitchers, and nobody really very similar to Koufax. I think it is because there never has been anyone like Koufax - there have been better pitchers, but none of them accomplished what they did in remotely the same fashion that Koufax did. So, when one compares Koufax to other HOF pitchers one finds little to compare.
So Koufax is in the HOF based on a standard defined by him, and him alone (and maybe Dizzy Dean). You either agree with that standard or you do not, but there is really no basis for further discussion or persuasion. If Pedro Martinez had retired after the 2002 season, he would have had a nearly identical career to Koufax and it would have been interesting to note the discussion about whether he got in the HOF and how many ballots it took. But he didn't retire so the Koufax standard remains untested by any others. Martinez, especially in the context of runs scored per team now vs. then, is now clearly the better pitcher and will easily make the HOF on standards established by others (unless Don Zimmer has enough friends who vote).
I think we agree on the following:
1. For the first half of his career, Koufax was nowhere close to HOF-worthy
2. For the second half of his career (6 seasons, 2 of those injury-shortened), Koufax varied from exceptional to awesome, mostly awesome.
3. If Koufax's first six years had been like his second six, he would be the greatest pitcher who ever lived (with the only possible exceptions pitching before 1920).
4. No other HOF pitcher has had an even remotely similar career to Koufax's (possible exception: Dizzy Dean).
Where we disagree is simply on whether point 2 is sufficient to merit induction in the HOF. I respect your belief that it is, while disagreeing with you, and will stop trying to persuade you otherwise.
Now, how about a nice game of chess?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Bringing up Pedro Martinez is interesting for the following reason: there is a strong argument that Pedro Martinez is the best pitcher ever.
Here are the relevant numbers: 5 ERA titles (and best active ERA) 5 times leading the league in fewest hits per 9 innings (and best active, 3rd best all-time) 5 times leading the league in fewest walks plus hits per 9 innings (and best active, 3rd best all-time) 5 times with the best Adjusted ERA - and the best Adjusted ERA ever, by a large margin 1 pitching Triple Crown (most wins, best ERA, most K's) 3rd best K per 9 innings ever
Adjusted ERA is not a very familiar statistic, but consider this: The top 100 all time are at 120 or higher; the top 50 all time are at 126 or higher; the top 25 all time are at 133 or higher (and there are 13 HOFers, Bruce Sutter, Pedro, Clemens, Maddux, and Randy Johnson among the top 25); and the top 10 are at 142 or higher. Lefty Grove is 2nd at 148. Pedro is 1st at 167. Unless you count Tim Keefe's 1880 season, Pedro's 2000 season was the best EVER by any pitcher for adjusted ERA, and his 1999 season was the 9th best ever (8th best of the modern ERA). Pedro has 4 seasons in the top 25 all-time. Only one other pitcher has 4, Walter Johnson. Having 2 seasons in the top 25 all-time are Maddux and Christy Mathewson.
Holy Cow!! Sam McDowell comparisons to Koufax are more far stretched than Guidry comparisions. "Sudden Sam" was a high end semi star - like Guidry.
Koufax was an animal --- unreal performer. He belongs in The Hall. Few have his skills despite his tenure. The fact that his talents are "legendary" is why he is there.
What about Drysdale?
Proud of my 16x20 autographed and framed collection - all signed in person. Not big on modern - I'm stuck in the past!
OK, I'll bite. I think he belongs in, and with room to spare.
He had one or two really great seasons, a few more excellent seasons and a bunch more very good seasons while never suffering a bad season. His W/L records suffer because he pitched for a fairly weak offensive team, and he, like Koufax, had to be great to put together a winning season. In 1964, for example, Drysdale was a great pitcher: a league second-best ERA of over a run below the league average, averaged over 8 innings per start while leading the league in starts and innings, second fewest runners allowed, and on and on. But his W/L record was an unimpressive 18-16. Drysdale is one of many pitchers whose career W/L is meaningless, he was a much better pitcher than it indicates. Add to that his more than respectable hitting and you have a very impressive career. If he had spent his career in St. Louis, which made 20-game winners out of Ernie Broglio and Ray Sadecki and almost Nelson Briles, his career W/L would have been comfortably over .600 and his status as a HOFer would never be questioned.
Intersting aside: Bill James, who ranks Drysdale #33 all time, points out that Drysdale pitched in 163 games in which the Dodgers scored two or fewer runs and, despite an ERA of 2.82 in those games, posted a record of 31-109. Ouch.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Dallas, interesting that you and I switch sides on this one. As with Koufax, my perception of Drysdale comes not from analysing his stats, but, rather, from having seen him pitch. He was much more erratic than Koufax and I always thought of him as a marginal HOFer - to me, not unlike Robin Roberts and Early Wynn. I saw Drysdale get bombed on many occasions and the memory of him walking off the field with Alston holding the ball on the mound is much more prevalent than that image of Koufax. When Don was on, he was a definite dominator, but you didn't know which Drysdale was coming to the dance from day to day. And Aaron owned him, as did many of the top hitters of the day. Be interesting to see what his opponents batting average was when the study is restricted to HOF hitters. I certainly believe he belongs, but he was no shoe-in as was "Sudden" Sandy.
Mark (amerbbcards)
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
<< <i>As with Koufax, my perception of Drysdale comes not from analysing his stats, but, rather, from having seen him pitch. He was much more erratic than Koufax and I always thought of him as a marginal HOFer - to me, not unlike Robin Roberts and Early Wynn. >>
MM, you are correct that I never saw him pitch but I did see him on the Brady Bunch!
My perspective from looking at his stats and reading what I have about him, is that he suffers from being the second-best pitcher on his team when his team was most in the limelight winning a couple of Series, and from some hard luck. He has one of the top 100 adjusted ERAs in history, a majority of which list is pre-war hurlers, but his W/L hardly reflects that. But there may be other reasons for his lackluster records.
In a perfect world, with a HOF that I, and I alone, got to vote on, I agree that Drysdale would be marginal. But, given who else is in I think he has plenty of room to spare. In the actual HOF I agree that Early Wynn is marginal, but whoa there on Robin Roberts. Roberts was way better than Wynn, and, IMO, significantly better than Drysdale, too. If you adjust for the relatively high scoring 50's and the relatively low scoring 60's, I think Roberts 1950-1955 run is almost as impressive as Koufax's 1961-1966 run. Almost. And Roberts went on to win over 100 more games after that on a Phillies team that became pitiful. Add to that that he was one of my mother's favorite pitchers and I must ask you to refrain from any further trash talk about my man Robin.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Ive always been of the opinion that Drysdale was the beneficiary of having his team located in Los Angeles/Hollywood where TV appearances kept him in front of the fans continually and elevated his status as a great pitcher.
I would think that if he had the same exact lifetime record for the Kansas City Athletics, he would have never been in the HOF.
Did anyone else see Mike Schmidt's quote that, if it were up to him, there would never be any additions to the Hall of Fame?
Did anyone else see Mike Schmidt's quote that, if it were up to him, there would never be any additions to the Hall of Fame? >>
Keith - my understanding was that that was purely from a Veteran's Committee perspective. And, for the next decade or three - I think that is a good policy.
I am actively buying MIKE SCHMIDT gem mint baseball cards. Also looking for any 19th century cabinets of Philadephia Nationals. Please PM with additional details.
Do you think that it is a good policy from the standpoint of "if they werent elected in 15 tries by the writers, why should they be in now"? Or are their other reasons.
They should have tightened it up long ago before the Mazeroski's, Schoendienst's, Doerr's, and other similar cronies were admitted.
Bill James analyzed the case of Don Drysdale and the Hall of Fame in his book the Politics of Glory. In the end his conclusion was that he should not be in the Hall of Fame.
<< <i>For you younger folks, Mr. ? is Sam McDowell of the Indians, the best pitcher in the American League for the years 1964 to 1970 (stats above are for 1965-1970). >>
Denny McLain, his 2 Cy Youngs, 1 MVP, and 1 30-win season, says "hello".
<< <i>For you younger folks, Mr. ? is Sam McDowell of the Indians, the best pitcher in the American League for the years 1964 to 1970 (stats above are for 1965-1970). >>
Denny McLain, his 2 Cy Youngs, 1 MVP, and 1 30-win season, says "hello".
Tabe >>
That's mighty neighborly of Mr. McLain, the best pitcher in the AL for the years 1968-1969.
I did not mean to imply that McDowell was the best pitcher in each and every one of the years 1964-1970, but only that, for that 7-year period in total, he was the best overall.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
ok but come on. the real issue here is Why did poor old dead yankee catcher, Thurman Munster not get in again. clearly he is deserving. He was a yankee for god's sake.
Drysdale is well deserving of his Hall of Fame status. He was definitely a dominator. He and Koufax were the best 1-2 punch in the 1960's.
Sandy and Don shall forever be Hall of Famers. Guidry and McDowell can drool at their HOF shrines.
Incidentally, it's interesting that there are 20 Koufax Basic Set collectors in the Registry, second only to Nolan Ryan (at 31) among the pitchers. Guidry has 0.
Comments
I loved Guidry and thought he was the best for a few yrs, but comparing him to Koufax???? What the ....? Koufax pitched at a stratosphere way above Guidry when they were at their best. # of Wins tells the story!
<< <i> # of Wins tells the story! >>
Really now?
So you're saying Randy Johnson wasn't arguably the most dominating pitcher in the NL last year, but only was 2 games above .500 in wins/losses?
And what about number of wins? Guidry had more in his career than Koufax.
Koufax is a perfect symbol of memories and sentimental attachment to a hero than objectively looking at facts.
doesn't Al Oliver have 3000? and he is not in.
Edited to add: Timing plays a role in who and when they get in.
Recognize that Koufax wasn't voted in 15 or 20 years after he retired by some Veteran's Committee cronies. He was voted in five years after he retired in his first year of eligibility, by those who actually saw him pitch, by a count of 344 out of 396 or nearly 87%. You are simply looking at statistics, however, 52 voters weren't impressed by 6 years either, so I guess you are not alone.
Rick
And since I do love a good statistic, I think the one statistic that most illustrates a pitchers dominance over hitters is his opponents batting average. Here are the OAVs for the three pitchers we've been discussing - league leading average shown in bold:
Guidry
1978 - .193
1979 - .236
1980 - .260
1981 - .214
1982 - .254
1983 - .244
1984 - .287
1985 - .248
McDowell
1964 - .229
1965 - .185
1966 - .188
1967 - .233
1968 - .189
1969 - .213
1970 - .213
1971 - .207
So far, a good case for McDowell as a tougher pitcher to hit than Guidry.
Koufax
1957 - .216
1958 - .220
1959 - .235
1960 - .207
1961 - .222
1962 - .197
1963 - .189
1964 - .191
1965 - .179
1966 - .205
In 1957, Jack Sanford led the league with a .221 OAV - Koufax only pitched 104 innings, apparently not enough to qualify.
In 1959, 2 pitchers had an OAV of .228, 2 pitchers at .233 and Koufax and Conley at .235.
In 1966, Koufax was second only to Marichal's .202.
"6 year run"? I think not. Koufax's lifetime OAV is .205. Statistics from Total Baseball, 2nd Edition.
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Guidry vs Koufax total wins in their 6 best yrs-- Koufax way ahead!
In other words, win the MVP or CY Young award 3 times- you got to go into the Hall- These awards signify domination- You are the BEST! who cares about 300 wins!
Obviously 1 or 2 freak great hall of Fame seasons you don't deserve to be in the hall. (if that was the case the hall would be filled with Giambi like juicers!). But if your the best for 3-4, that defines a superstar- To say Koufax wasn't the best pitcher in the league for at least 3 years is crazy (try 6). Look at the stats. Guidry never achieved the domination status that koufax achieved. He was the best for a year or two, and just above average for the remainder of his career. That is why he is borderline for the Hall. Koufax DEFINED an era in baseball, Guidry did not.
Who cares about longevity- give me 5 great Hall of Fame SUPERSTAR caliber seasons, you should be in the Hall of Fame, no questions asked. 15 Years of above average stats does not make one a "superstar", just a "star". Every "superstar" should be in the Hall, and many above average "stars" should not.
uh huh
<< <i>speaking of 3000 hits
doesn't Al Oliver have 3000? and he is not in.
Edited to add: Timing plays a role in who and when they get in. >>
Oliver only had 2,743 hits over an 18 year career, with a .303 BA.
Steve
only? ;-)
I would venture that his amount is the most by a player not yet in? (with more then the 5yr waiting period)?
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
(I know, I know. it's a special case. Just making sure no one forgot.)
Guidry was a very good pitcher. Koufax was truly great.
ERA 2.90 vs League ERA of 3.61
W/L % .661 vs Team W/L (net of this pitcher) of .507
Hits / 9I: 7.18
K / 9I: 8.10 (1375 Total)
CG 68
SO 29
Contemporary of Koufax
Post-Season Appearances: 2/3 inning, 2 years before this stretch
Baseball-reference.com - Most similar by age:
26 Roger Clemens
27 Steve Carlton
28 Sandy Koufax
29 Sandy Koufax
30 Ramon Martinez
31 Bob Gibson
{Of course, the flip side of the above is that the most similar pitcher to Koufax at ages 28 and 29, pretty much the center of his greatness, is this guy.}
No, he's not as great as Koufax; hell, he's not even as good as McDowell. But if he pitched for the Dodgers, you'd all know who he was, and he might even be in the HOF.
<< <i>One must accept the fact that Koufax will be in the HOF forever, and Guidry will always have to buy a ticket to gain admittance and wait in line to see Koufax's plaque.
Guidry was a very good pitcher. Koufax was truly great. >>
How many times are you going to post this same exact comment?
It wasn't even funny the first time.
.......but it was true.
Now please excuse me so I can pay Ron Guidry for mowing my lawn.
Compared at bottom
doubt you could afford the gator
<< <i>It was posted just once. A very similar comment was posted one time previously, so this definitely was not an exact repeat as suggested.
.......but it was true.
Now please excuse me so I can pay Ron Guidry for mowing my lawn. >>
Wow you must think you are so witty. The most ironic part of this statement? You probably are the one who makes his living mowing lawns.
For the pitchers discussed in this thread, the number of HOF pitchers in that pitcher's 10 most similar:
Koufax - 1 (2 when Pedro goes in)
Guidry - 2
McDowell - 0
Maloney - 0
Which adds to the evidence, I think, that Koufax and Guidry are borderline HOFers, McDowell and Maloney aren't even that. How do these guys compare to truly definitive HOFers?
Cy Young - 10
Walter Johnson - 10
Christy Mathewson - 9 (plus Maddux)
Nolan Ryan - 8 (plus Clemens and Blyleven)
Warren Spahn - 9
Lefty Grove - 8 (plus Maddux and Glavine)
Bob Feller - 8 (plus Glavine and Morris)
Now those are HOF pitchers. And in my Quixotic struggle to get Blyleven in the HOF through the force of my will, please note:
Bert Blyleven - 8
Now......what does that say about Drysdale???? I would have him #3.
<< <i>IMHO, those comparisons at baseball-reference do a very good job of comparing players on the basis of their entire careers. It strips away the big market team bias and the personality bias. It also strips away the impact of one or two, or five, really good years in an otherwise less than spectacular career. I think reasonable people can disagree about whether that last effect is desirable; I know many on these boards, as well as Bill James, place tremendous weight on relatively short stretches while practically ignoring other years. Others, myself included, don't believe that any one year ought to count any more than any other year.
For the pitchers discussed in this thread, the number of HOF pitchers in that pitcher's 10 most similar:
Koufax - 1 (2 when Pedro goes in)
Guidry - 2
McDowell - 0
Maloney - 0
Which adds to the evidence, I think, that Koufax and Guidry are borderline HOFers, McDowell and Maloney aren't even that. How do these guys compare to truly definitive HOFers?
Cy Young - 10
Walter Johnson - 10
Christy Mathewson - 9 (plus Maddux)
Nolan Ryan - 8 (plus Clemens and Blyleven)
Warren Spahn - 9
Lefty Grove - 8 (plus Maddux and Glavine)
Bob Feller - 8 (plus Glavine and Morris)
Now those are HOF pitchers. And in my Quixotic struggle to get Blyleven in the HOF through the force of my will, please note:
Bert Blyleven - 8 >>
Dallas: I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but to cite some ersatz mathematical statistical extrapolation of data that is, in the first place, obtuse as further evidence is hogwash. With all due respects (and I may be going for the giggle here) - are you a defense attorney?
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
<< <i>Dallas: I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but to cite some ersatz mathematical statistical extrapolation of data that is, in the first place, obtuse as further evidence is hogwash. With all due respects (and I may be going for the giggle here) - are you a defense attorney? >>
Ouch! We actuaries are quite capable of being obtuse without the help of an attorney, thank you very much.
What I'm trying to say here is that one way to determine if a pitcher is HOF material is to compare him to other pitchers in the HOF. If the most similar pitchers to that pitcher are all HOF members then I think that is a pretty good argument that that pitcher also belongs in the HOF. On the other hand, if the most similar pitchers to that pitcher are not HOFers, then that is evidence that that pitcher does not belong in the HOF. And, if you look at the entire career of Koufax, and don't simply ignore the fact that he was a poor to mediocre pitcher for half of his career, what you find is that he had a similar career to some above average, but hardly HOF-worthy, pitchers. Similar in total, that is, since no other pitcher put together the career totals of Koufax in anywhere near the same way he did.
And that seems to be the point of disagreement here - does the pattern of seasons matter. If you are putting together a team and you have to choose between two pitchers, one of whom will be poor to mediocre for six years and then be awesome for six and then be gone, while the other will be solidly above average for 12 years running, which do you choose? Your, and other's, preference is obviously pitcher #1, but why that is so is not clear to me. Why is pitcher #1 so much better than pitcher #2? Change pitcher #2 to solidly above average, occasionally great, for 20 years (Blyleven) and it is obvious to me that pitcher #2 is better. Clearly, many disagree with me but even after all their posts, I still do not understand why. Which, in the end, is the reason why I keep making these posts (and even resort to ersatz and obtuse information) - I would like to understand why.
Quick question: who was the first Mets pitcher to defeat Koufax?
Hey W.P., I was the one that brought that up as a joke. 85% is a very healthy margin, especially on a first ballot. Us Koufax supporters can't take shots at each other.
The question was posed as to why a person would select a dominant 5-6 year pitcher over an above average 10 year pitcher. Simple. Winning a World Series is all about dominant pitching. Above average pitching may get you to the play-offs, but dominant pitching in a short series gives you a much better shot at winning the whole banana. The Dodgers' World Series wins in 1963 and 1965 were all about Koufax and Drysdale (with some help from Podres and Osteen), and the loss in 1966 wasn't due to poor Dodger pitching but dominant Baltimore pitching and a feeble Dodger hitting machine.
ATBS (All That Being Said), I always felt Guidry should have gotten more attention in the HOF balloting. However, my real surprise in this thread is that people are arguing against Koufax rather than Drysdale (was that sound I just heard a can of worms opening?)
Also, if a 6 year run is too short, is there some minimum number of years that are required to be Hall-worthy? How do you decide the minimum? Different for position players versus pitchers? The next step would be to set levels that would have to be met for each position for a player to be voted in. Then why vote? Let's just turn it into a statistical analysis.
Bottom line, HOF voting is subjective. Yes personality/likability is often taken into account, and maybe it shouldn't be. But I believe you get the best results when players are voted upon immediately after their careers end by those who witnessed their careers, rather than by trying to evaluate their statistics 20 years (or more) later.
Rick
<< <i>...choose between two pitchers, one of whom will be poor to mediocre for six years and then be awesome for six and then be gone, while the other will be solidly above average for 12 years running, which do you choose? >>
Thanks for taking the jab good-naturedly. That's certainly how it was intended. However, your postulate is false on it's face - Koufax was anything but poor to mediocre from 1957 on - he consistently held batters to the league's lowest batting average for 10 years running. Remember that old story of Ruth striking out on 3 called fastballs from Walter Johnson, and on the 3rd strike he turns to the ump and says "I didn't see any of them either, but that last one sounded outside"? I've heard that kind of speed in relationship to only 3 pitchers: Bob Feller, Herb Score and Sandy Koufax. Relevance to this discussion - none really. Since we're discussing stats, you can build a case from numbers to assign any degree of talent to any player. The stature of greatness is much more than numbers. As they say, you had to be there. I've heard similar debates regarding Nolan Ryan's worthiness in the Hall - it just ain't all about numbers.
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
<< <i>- Koufax was anything but poor to mediocre from 1957 on - he consistently held batters to the league's lowest batting average for 10 years running >>
Well, if I am going to buy this argument, then we need to go back and revisit Sam McDowell. The reason Koufax had such a low opp. BA for the first half of his career is that you can't hit a pitch that's nowhere near the strike zone. Koufax walked folks and threw wild pitches at historic levels for the first six years of his career and then cut those rates in half for the final six. And when batters did hit it in those early years, they hit it a ton.
His record was below .500, his ERA was over 4.00 - I don't think it is really arguable that he was a below average pitcher over the first half of his career; in his worst seasons poor and in his best seasons mediocre.
And I've said it before, the only words I won't take good-naturedly are kind words about Barry Bonds, or unkind words about Bert Blyleven.
Very well said
<< <i> Koufax walked folks and threw wild pitches at historic levels for the first six years of his career... >>
Again, Dallas, just not true. Koufax's average walks per nine innings from '57 thru '60 was 5.31, compared with McDowell's average of 4.69 from '64 thru '67, which includes some of his best years. Control problems? Yes. Historic levels? No. Although I would agree with you that there is an intimidation factor involved in not knowing if that pitch you can't see will wind up embedded in your batting helmet.
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Koufax ERA on the road - notice there is really not a significant difference and the breakthrough in his career did not necessarily occur in 1962, except for the fact he now pitched in Dodger Stadium.
1960 3.00
1961 2.78
1962 3.53
1963 2.30
1964 2.93
1965 2.54
<< <i>Koufax's average walks per nine innings from '57 thru '60 was 5.31, compared with McDowell's average of 4.69 from '64 thru '67, which includes some of his best years. Control problems? Yes. Historic levels? No. Although I would agree with you that there is an intimidation factor involved in not knowing if that pitch you can't see will wind up embedded in your batting helmet.
Walking more people than McDowell is, if not historic, also nothing to sneeze at. More to the point, it explains why he gave up so many more runs than Johnny Podres, another lefty pitching on the same team in the same stadiums. I will chalk up to semantics our disagreement over whether Koufax was "mediocre" over the first six years of his career. Suffice it to say he was not as good a pitcher as Johnny Podres.
I have come to a sort of "higher level of cosciousness" regarding Koufax and the HOF (or I have just become so completely full of sh!t that I'm saturated, I leave it to you to decide). I thought more about why the "similar pitchers" to Koufax bring up a mostly B-list of very good but never great pitchers, and nobody really very similar to Koufax. I think it is because there never has been anyone like Koufax - there have been better pitchers, but none of them accomplished what they did in remotely the same fashion that Koufax did. So, when one compares Koufax to other HOF pitchers one finds little to compare.
So Koufax is in the HOF based on a standard defined by him, and him alone (and maybe Dizzy Dean). You either agree with that standard or you do not, but there is really no basis for further discussion or persuasion. If Pedro Martinez had retired after the 2002 season, he would have had a nearly identical career to Koufax and it would have been interesting to note the discussion about whether he got in the HOF and how many ballots it took. But he didn't retire so the Koufax standard remains untested by any others. Martinez, especially in the context of runs scored per team now vs. then, is now clearly the better pitcher and will easily make the HOF on standards established by others (unless Don Zimmer has enough friends who vote).
I think we agree on the following:
1. For the first half of his career, Koufax was nowhere close to HOF-worthy
2. For the second half of his career (6 seasons, 2 of those injury-shortened), Koufax varied from exceptional to awesome, mostly awesome.
3. If Koufax's first six years had been like his second six, he would be the greatest pitcher who ever lived (with the only possible exceptions pitching before 1920).
4. No other HOF pitcher has had an even remotely similar career to Koufax's (possible exception: Dizzy Dean).
Where we disagree is simply on whether point 2 is sufficient to merit induction in the HOF. I respect your belief that it is, while disagreeing with you, and will stop trying to persuade you otherwise.
Now, how about a nice game of chess?
So....pawn to king 4.
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Here are the relevant numbers:
5 ERA titles (and best active ERA)
5 times leading the league in fewest hits per 9 innings (and best active, 3rd best all-time)
5 times leading the league in fewest walks plus hits per 9 innings (and best active, 3rd best all-time)
5 times with the best Adjusted ERA - and the best Adjusted ERA ever, by a large margin
1 pitching Triple Crown (most wins, best ERA, most K's)
3rd best K per 9 innings ever
Adjusted ERA is not a very familiar statistic, but consider this:
The top 100 all time are at 120 or higher; the top 50 all time are at 126 or higher; the top 25 all time are at 133 or higher (and there are 13 HOFers, Bruce Sutter, Pedro, Clemens, Maddux, and Randy Johnson among the top 25); and the top 10 are at 142 or higher. Lefty Grove is 2nd at 148. Pedro is 1st at 167.
Unless you count Tim Keefe's 1880 season, Pedro's 2000 season was the best EVER by any pitcher for adjusted ERA, and his 1999 season was the 9th best ever (8th best of the modern ERA). Pedro has 4 seasons in the top 25 all-time. Only one other pitcher has 4, Walter Johnson. Having 2 seasons in the top 25 all-time are Maddux and Christy Mathewson.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
<< <i>It was posted just once. A very similar comment was posted one time previously, so this definitely was not an exact repeat as suggested.
.......but it was true.
Now please excuse me so I can pay Ron Guidry for mowing my lawn. >>
You sure you didn't steal this from Bill Maher? I think ya did.
Can't even come up with your own insults. Lame.
Koufax was an animal --- unreal performer. He belongs in The Hall. Few have his skills despite his tenure. The fact that his talents are "legendary" is why he is there.
What about Drysdale?
<< <i>What about Drysdale? >>
OK, I'll bite. I think he belongs in, and with room to spare.
He had one or two really great seasons, a few more excellent seasons and a bunch more very good seasons while never suffering a bad season. His W/L records suffer because he pitched for a fairly weak offensive team, and he, like Koufax, had to be great to put together a winning season. In 1964, for example, Drysdale was a great pitcher: a league second-best ERA of over a run below the league average, averaged over 8 innings per start while leading the league in starts and innings, second fewest runners allowed, and on and on. But his W/L record was an unimpressive 18-16. Drysdale is one of many pitchers whose career W/L is meaningless, he was a much better pitcher than it indicates. Add to that his more than respectable hitting and you have a very impressive career. If he had spent his career in St. Louis, which made 20-game winners out of Ernie Broglio and Ray Sadecki and almost Nelson Briles, his career W/L would have been comfortably over .600 and his status as a HOFer would never be questioned.
Intersting aside: Bill James, who ranks Drysdale #33 all time, points out that Drysdale pitched in 163 games in which the Dodgers scored two or fewer runs and, despite an ERA of 2.82 in those games, posted a record of 31-109. Ouch.
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
<< <i>As with Koufax, my perception of Drysdale comes not from analysing his stats, but, rather, from having seen him pitch. He was much more erratic than Koufax and I always thought of him as a marginal HOFer - to me, not unlike Robin Roberts and Early Wynn. >>
MM, you are correct that I never saw him pitch but I did see him on the Brady Bunch!
My perspective from looking at his stats and reading what I have about him, is that he suffers from being the second-best pitcher on his team when his team was most in the limelight winning a couple of Series, and from some hard luck. He has one of the top 100 adjusted ERAs in history, a majority of which list is pre-war hurlers, but his W/L hardly reflects that. But there may be other reasons for his lackluster records.
In a perfect world, with a HOF that I, and I alone, got to vote on, I agree that Drysdale would be marginal. But, given who else is in I think he has plenty of room to spare. In the actual HOF I agree that Early Wynn is marginal, but whoa there on Robin Roberts. Roberts was way better than Wynn, and, IMO, significantly better than Drysdale, too. If you adjust for the relatively high scoring 50's and the relatively low scoring 60's, I think Roberts 1950-1955 run is almost as impressive as Koufax's 1961-1966 run. Almost. And Roberts went on to win over 100 more games after that on a Phillies team that became pitiful. Add to that that he was one of my mother's favorite pitchers and I must ask you to refrain from any further trash talk about my man Robin.
I would think that if he had the same exact lifetime record for the Kansas City Athletics, he would have never been in the HOF.
Did anyone else see Mike Schmidt's quote that, if it were up to him, there would never be any additions to the Hall of Fame?
<< <i>
Did anyone else see Mike Schmidt's quote that, if it were up to him, there would never be any additions to the Hall of Fame? >>
Keith - my understanding was that that was purely from a Veteran's Committee perspective. And, for the next decade or three - I think that is a good policy.
Do you think that it is a good policy from the standpoint of "if they werent elected in 15 tries by the writers, why should they be in now"? Or are their other reasons.
They should have tightened it up long ago before the Mazeroski's, Schoendienst's, Doerr's, and other similar cronies were admitted.
<< <i>For you younger folks, Mr. ? is Sam McDowell of the Indians, the best pitcher in the American League for the years 1964 to 1970 (stats above are for 1965-1970). >>
Denny McLain, his 2 Cy Youngs, 1 MVP, and 1 30-win season, says "hello".
Tabe
<< <i>
<< <i>For you younger folks, Mr. ? is Sam McDowell of the Indians, the best pitcher in the American League for the years 1964 to 1970 (stats above are for 1965-1970). >>
Denny McLain, his 2 Cy Youngs, 1 MVP, and 1 30-win season, says "hello".
Tabe >>
That's mighty neighborly of Mr. McLain, the best pitcher in the AL for the years 1968-1969.
I did not mean to imply that McDowell was the best pitcher in each and every one of the years 1964-1970, but only that, for that 7-year period in total, he was the best overall.
but come on. the real issue here is Why did poor old dead yankee catcher, Thurman Munster not get in again. clearly he is deserving. He was a yankee for god's sake.
Sandy and Don shall forever be Hall of Famers. Guidry and McDowell can drool at their HOF shrines.
Incidentally, it's interesting that there are 20 Koufax Basic Set collectors in the Registry, second only to Nolan Ryan (at 31) among the pitchers. Guidry has 0.