MLB's winningest pitcher not in Cooperstown falls short in final try
bman90278
Posts: 3,453 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
I'm a lifelong Dodgers fan and grew up watching Tommy John pitch and I followed most of his career. Yesterday he fell very short of making the HOF in his final year. Right now he's has the most wins not in the Hall, but I think he got the wins because he played 26 years. Yes he had some great years and 288 wins, but most of the time I felt he was an above average to a good/effective pitcher when you look at his individual years. I think sometimes the writers vote in players because of their higher career totals which are boosted higher because the player played so many years.
For once I think the writers have voted the right way. At least Tommy John won't remain the pitcher with the most wins not in the HOF as that will end up being "The Rocket".
Brian
For once I think the writers have voted the right way. At least Tommy John won't remain the pitcher with the most wins not in the HOF as that will end up being "The Rocket".
Brian
0
Comments
belongs to a guy by the name of Bobby Mathews who won 297 games during his career.
Steve
"Actually John is not the winningest pitcher not in the hall of fame, that distinction
belongs to a guy by the name of Bobby Mathews who won 297 games during his career."
Since Mathews did all his hurling pre 1900, and to be really technically correct, he got 106 wins in the AA, which is generally NOT considered a part of MLB, it is Greg Maddux, Roger Clemens and others, as well, with more.
Probably the inference was of HOF eligible guys, who pitched entirely after 1901, or in only MLB, as the original post stated, then Tommy John is proper.
I have copied the last 2 paragraphs.
Eventually, the American Association was recognized as a full-fledged Major League and all of its players' statistics and career highlights are counted accordingly in the annals of Major League history.
And rightfully so, for the aptly named American Association -- which brought the game to the masses, let kids in free, served beer and played games on Sundays -- was a big reason baseball would later join motherhood and apple pie as staples of Americana.
So I will have to disagree with you this time Jaxx.
Steve
No mention was made to era. Or 1901 for that matter.
If not then Glavine, Maddux Randy Johnson all have more wins then John.
Steve
Brian
<< <i>As a Dodger fan in the 70's loved the guy... but he just played a long time and played on some very good teams. Not too unlike Don Sutton who did make the HOF but was boderline. It's the right thing for John to not be there. Garvey is another story though. >>
I don't know. Steve Garvey was my favorite growing up and he was one of the best during his era at 1B. That being said, I think he was slightly less than a borderline HOF player even though he had these awards and stats during his career. Maybe he should have played a couple more years. I don't want to take time to do it, but maybe someone will do some stats of Tony Perez versus Steve Garvey.
10 time all star
1974-ML-AS MVP
1974-NL-MVP
1978-ML-AS MVP
1978-NLCS MVP
1981-ML-Roberto Clemente Award
1984-ML-Lou Gehrig Memorial Award
1984-NLCS MVP
4 Time gold glove winner
Some of his highlights
Batting Average
1974 NL-.312-7
1975 NL-.319-6
1976 NL-.317-6
1978 NL-.316-2
1979 NL-.315-4
1980 NL-.304-7
Games
1975 NL-160-6
1976 NL-162-2
1977 NL-162-1
1978 NL-162-1
1979 NL-162-3
1980 NL-163-1
1981 NL-110-1
1982 NL-162-1
1984 NL-161-2
1985 NL-162-1
Car-2332-90
Hits
1974 NL-200-3
1975 NL-210-2
1976 NL-200-3
1977 NL-192-5
1978 NL-202-1
1979 NL-204-4
1980 NL-200-1
1981 NL-122-6
1984 NL-175-7
1985 NL-184-6
Car-2599-74
Doubles
1974 NL-32-9
1975 NL-38-5
1976 NL-37-3
1978 NL-36-6
1981 NL-23-7
1982 NL-35-5
1985 NL-34-5
Car-440-99
Total Bases
1974 NL-301-4
1975 NL-314-2
1976 NL-284-4
1977 NL-322-4
1978 NL-319-3
1979 NL-322-4
1980 NL-307-2
1981 NL-177-7
1985 NL-281-7
Car-3941-83
Sac. Flies
1974 NL-8-7
1976 NL-9-3
1978 NL-8-9
1982 NL-9-6
1984 NL-10-1
1985 NL-6-10
Car-90-53
You may be correct, however I am using the following, from an offical MLB affiliate, Imagine Sports;
"The first challenger to the title of the National League as sole major league was the American Association in 1882. Although American Association rosters during the years of its existence (1882-91) included many outstanding 19th Century players, the standard of the league was somewhat inferior to the National League.
.........
The Players League collapsed after a single season and the weakened American Association followed suit one year later. The eight-team National League added the four strongest American Association franchises and from 1892 until the appearance of the American League, was the sole major league."
It is probably not 100% absolutely certain, if Bobby Mathews stats from the old AA would be considered "Major league",
but I'll stand corrected, and give the nod to your expertise and sources over mine, if the offical MLB site does state so.
I also found this tidbit online:
As part of Major League Baseball's centennial of professional baseball celebration in 1969, a special commission (Special Records Committee) was formed to, among other things, determine which former leagues would be officially called "major leagues." The list was published that year in the first MacMillan Baseball Encyclopedia, whose influence was immense. Not everyone agrees with their determinations, including us.
The official list includes:
* 1876-present: National League of Professional Baseball Clubs (NL)
* 1882-1891: American Association (AA)
* 1884: Union Association (UA)
* 1890: Players League (PL)
* 1901-present: American League (AL)
* 1914-1915: Federal League (FL)
Baseball reference.com includes stats from all the so called bonafide Major leagues.
Steve
they would be Hall of Famers. IMO because of the expansion in baseball over the years the level of play was raised
and so what they did was not so unique anymore. Back in the 20's thru 60's if 3 guys retired every 5 years with mega stats
that was a lot. Today 10 guys retire every 5 years with similar stats, thus 2700 hits is no longer that great of an achievement
(in the voters eyes at least)
Same thing with some Pitchers, guys like Red Faber are in because at the time they did not have 10 guys doing the same thing.
Again just my opinion.
Steve
1. Babe Ruth - 108.9
2. Willie Mays - 95.9
3. Nap Lajoie - 95.5
4. Ty Cobb - 92.0
5. Barry Bonds - 89.4
6. Hank Aaron - 89.1
7. Tris Speaker - 88.2
8. Ted Williams - 83.0
9. Rogers Hornsby - 82.7
10. Honus Wagner - 81.8
11. Mike Schmidt - 79.6
12. Mickey Mantle - 77.4
13. Rickey Henderson - 77.0
14. Eddie Collins - 73.3
15. Stan Musial - 71.5
16. Lou Gehrig - 68.9
17. Frank Robinson - 67.6
18. Mel Ott - 61.4
19. Jimmie Foxx - 55.9
20. Joe Morgan - 54.8
I think, to a large degree, the fact that Ruth and Mays are ranked #1 and #2 places some credibility on the TPR rating system. With that in mind, I bring this up because I find it amazing that Steve Garvey's TPR is NEGATIVE FOUR POINT NINE! All, I can say is wow.
/s/ JackWESQ
<< <i>I think it is very likely that Steve Garvey get in the HOF at some point via Veterans committee, same with Mattingly and a lot of others; if not in their last year of eligibility. >>
I hope to see that day, but I have always felt Garvey came a little short on the HOF. That being said, he was respected by his peers and that's who will vote on him one day.
<< <i>OF COURSE, no one statistic can define a player's greatness. That said, in Total Baseball, the Official Encyclopedia of Major League Baseball they have this stat called Total Player Rating. I don't know how it is figured, but below are the top 20 players and their scores (through the 2000 season)
1. Babe Ruth - 108.9
2. Willie Mays - 95.9
3. Nap Lajoie - 95.5
4. Ty Cobb - 92.0
5. Barry Bonds - 89.4
6. Hank Aaron - 89.1
7. Tris Speaker - 88.2
8. Ted Williams - 83.0
9. Rogers Hornsby - 82.7
10. Honus Wagner - 81.8
11. Mike Schmidt - 79.6
12. Mickey Mantle - 77.4
13. Rickey Henderson - 77.0
14. Eddie Collins - 73.3
15. Stan Musial - 71.5
16. Lou Gehrig - 68.9
17. Frank Robinson - 67.6
18. Mel Ott - 61.4
19. Jimmie Foxx - 55.9
20. Joe Morgan - 54.8
I think, to a large degree, the fact that Ruth and Mays are ranked #1 and #2 places some credibility on the TPR rating system. With that in mind, I bring this up because I find it amazing that Steve Garvey's TPR is NEGATIVE FOUR POINT NINE! All, I can say is wow.
/s/ JackWESQ >>
The TPR is absolute crap. ANY system is going to have Ruth and Mays, etc. at the top and I guess TPR gets some credit for not knocking the true greats off their list, but when your system puts Lajoie ahead of Cobb and Williams, and you know anything at all about baseball, you admit your system sucks, throw it out, and try again.
Where TPR falls apart is in its fielding stats, and no player benefits more from bad fielding analysis than Nap Lajoie. Mickey Mantle falling out of the top 10 was another excellent clue that something was really wrong, but they ignore that one, too. Another clue was Hornsby passing Wagner, and so on and so on. Any baseball fan with a little knowledge and a little common sense could make a better list than TPR.
Steve
<< <i> but when your system puts Lajoie ahead of Cobb and Williams, you admit your system sucks, throw it out, and try again.
. >>
Absitively, posilutely !