Home› Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

Any one ever watch Prime 9 on MLB?

arexarex Posts: 999 ✭
in Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum
I love the series and am watching it on DVR right now. This episode is Top 9 Left Handed Pitchers of all-time.
This is one of the few I have ever argued with as they have Sandy Koufax at #8 and at #7 is Tom Glavine. Glavine was great, no doubt, but better than Sandy?
I dont think so.
So far its:
9-Eddie Plank
8-Sandy Koufax
7-Tom Glavine
6-Whitey Ford

Comments

  • arexarex Posts: 999 ✭
    5-Steve Carlton
    4-Carl Hubbel
    3-Warren Sphan
    2-Randy Johnson
    1-Lefty Grove
  • RookieWaxRookieWax Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭
    Glavine did it for a much longer period. I don't understand how Koufax even got into the HOF with only 165 career wins. Clearly, longevity has been a necessity for every HOF pitcher that got in but him. If Koufax is in, why aren't other pitchers who were dominant before injury shortened their career getting in? J.R. Richard is one who comes to mind.
  • arexarex Posts: 999 ✭


    << <i>Glavine did it for a much longer period. I don't understand how Koufax even got into the HOF with only 165 career wins. Clearly, longevity has been a necessity for every HOF pitcher that got in but him. If Koufax is in, why aren't other pitchers who were dominant before injury shortened their career getting in? J.R. Richard is one who comes to mind. >>


    Koufax pitched 12 seasons and put together such a run of dominance that is hard to fathom.
    How you think he doesnt deserve to be in the HOF is beyond me.
  • RookieWaxRookieWax Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭
    Of course I think he was great enough to be a Hall of Fame caliber pitcher, my point was all about him being an exception to the HOF standard of having to pitch long enough to reach closer to the 300 win total.
  • CrazyMind2017CrazyMind2017 Posts: 1,205 ✭
    The shows are put together well, but they don't give credit where it's deserved unless they have color footage of it. For example, their "20 Greatest Games of the Last 50 Years" series only had three games from before 1980 and none before 1975. The greatest game of the chosen era was omitted completely, which took place on October 16, 1962.

    Big thumbs down to whoever makes up the lists.

    Thumbs up for whoever puts the footage together and turns it into a good TV program.

    Despite the quality of the programs, I find them very frustrating to watch, because hardly anything that happened before 1970 and absolutely nothing that happened before 1950 is ever shown or discussed. Babe Ruth might as well not have existed.
  • mlbfan2mlbfan2 Posts: 3,115 ✭✭✭


    << <i>The greatest game of the chosen era was omitted completely, which took place on October 16, 1962.

    Big thumbs down to whoever makes up the lists.
    >>



    The list was voted on by fans, and that game was one of the choices.
  • CrazyMind2017CrazyMind2017 Posts: 1,205 ✭


    << <i>The list was voted on by fans >>



    Well that explains everything!
  • dennis07dennis07 Posts: 1,842 ✭✭✭
    >"The shows are put together well, but they don't give credit where it's deserved unless they have color footage of it. For example, their "20 Greatest Games of the Last 50 Years" series only had three games from before 1980 and none before 1975. The greatest game of the chosen era was omitted completely, which took place on October 16, 1962.

    Big thumbs down to whoever makes up the lists.

    Thumbs up for whoever puts the footage together and turns it into a good TV program.

    Despite the quality of the programs, I find them very frustrating to watch, because hardly anything that happened before 1970 and absolutely nothing that happened before 1950 is ever shown or discussed. Babe Ruth might as well not have existed. <"



    I know what you mean. I'd love to have lists for the early players included. By they do state at some point they only considered players from
    XXXX year to date because detailed video clips were not available for early dates. And of course they always says something like "this list is intended to start arguments not end them" and " that's our prime 9, what's yours."
    Collecting 1970 Topps baseball
  • MorgothMorgoth Posts: 3,950 ✭✭✭
    I like Spahn the best but you can't really argue the top three, maybe just the order.
    Currently completing the following registry sets: Cardinal HOF's, 1961 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1972 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1980 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, Bill Mazeroski Master & Basic Sets, Roberto Clemente Master & Basic Sets, Willie Stargell Master & Basic Sets and Terry Bradshaw Basic Set
  • ajwajw Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭
    Sandy Koufax was:
    (a) great, and
    (b) greatly helped by pitching in an extremely low-offense era, and
    (c) greatly helped by pitching in an extremely low-offense ballpark, and
    (d) still great, but not quite as great as some people think.
  • macboubemacboube Posts: 336 ✭✭
    From 1961 thru his early retirement in after '66, Sandy was without a doubt, the most dominant pitcher in baseball in a long, long, time. And if you don't think he pitched against some of the most dominant hitters of all-time, you need to go back to baseball school and take a course called The Great NL Hitter's of the Sixties 101. Chavez Ravine may be somewhat of a pitcher's park, but aside from '62, the Bums had some of the weakest hitting lineups of all-time in '63, '64, '65, and '66. No run support whatsoever. Also, talk about pitching in pain. OMG - you have no idea what he went thru those last few seasons. Misery.

    For the Stat Geeks:

    W L PCT ERA GS CG K's
    1962 LAD NL 14 7 .667 2.54 28 11 216
    1963 LAD NL 25 5 .833 1.88 40 20 306
    1964 LAD NL 19 5 .792 1.74 29 15 223
    1965 LAD NL 26 8 .765 2.04 43 27 382
    1966 LAD NL 27 9 .750 1.73 41 27 317

    Putting Koufax 8th on their list is an embarrassment to MLB and I have lost a lot of respect for their Network.
  • mlbfan2mlbfan2 Posts: 3,115 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Sandy Koufax was:
    (b) greatly helped by pitching in an extremely low-offense era, and
    >>



    1898 to 1920 was an extreme low-offense era. 1955 to 1966 was pretty close to average.
    See here. link

  • greencrowgreencrow Posts: 867
    The Prime 9 show of best rookie season of all time, left out Mark McGwire.
  • twileytwiley Posts: 1,923 ✭
    I've watched the show now and then. Very interesting.
  • scmavlscmavl Posts: 1,409 ✭✭✭
    I think Koufax being in the HOF is the best argument for putting Smoky Joe Wood in the Hall as well. How many players have won 34 games in a season (lost 5, 1.91 ERA), gotten hurt, and come back as a position player and hit .366 one season?

    Lifetime ERA is 2.03 (5th lowest ever) with 7 full seasons pitching. After his injury, his batting average was around .300 (5 more seasons).
    2.5 is pretty much my speed.
  • CrazyMind2017CrazyMind2017 Posts: 1,205 ✭


    << <i>I think Koufax being in the HOF is the best argument for putting Smoky Joe Wood in the Hall as well. How many players have won 34 games in a season (lost 5, 1.91 ERA), gotten hurt, and come back as a position player and hit .366 one season?

    Lifetime ERA is 2.03 (5th lowest ever) with 7 full seasons pitching. After his injury, his batting average was around .300 (5 more seasons). >>



    I would agree, except that the .366 average came in a season with fewer than 200 AB. Otherwise, he was merely a productive hitter, nothing special or HOF worthy. And while his pitching was absolutely dominant for two straight years, those were the only two years he pitched over 200 innings, in an era where the best pitchers routinely pitched 300+ year after year.

    Although I think players who are dominant as both hitters and pitchers are only a half step removed from being equivalent to dominant two-sport athletes, Wood is not HOF material. Ruth was so dominant that it's the best argument for saying he was better than Jordan, but as good as Wood was for a short time, he doesn't belong in Cooperstown for it.
Sign In or Register to comment.