Something to think about
dallasactuary
Posts: 4,338 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
In his entire career, Sandy Koufax pitched 2300 innings and had an ERA+ of 131.
In his entire career, Dave McNally pitched 2700 innings and had an ERA+ of 106.
Add them together, and you get 5000 innings and an ERA+ of 118.
OR, you could avoid the freakish genetic experiment and simply hire Bert Blyleven.
In his entire career, Bert Blyleven pitched 5000 innings and had an ERA+ of 118, exactly the same as the careers of Sandy Koufax and Dave McNally combined.
In his entire career, Dave McNally pitched 2700 innings and had an ERA+ of 106.
Add them together, and you get 5000 innings and an ERA+ of 118.
OR, you could avoid the freakish genetic experiment and simply hire Bert Blyleven.
In his entire career, Bert Blyleven pitched 5000 innings and had an ERA+ of 118, exactly the same as the careers of Sandy Koufax and Dave McNally combined.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
0
Comments
I guess I must have as well.
<< <i>Please don't take this personally, but you have WAY too much time on your hands.
I guess I must have as well.
You forget that as the official defender of Bert Blyleven, this is one of the key uses of my time. In any event, the notion that Blyleven wasn't one of the greatest pitchers of all time came up on another board and I thought this was a new way to consider the issue, and one which most people probably would never have considered. Was Blyleven a good pitcher or a great pitcher? Trick question - he was a good pitcher AND a great pitcher. If you're a GM deciding who to sign (in a hypothetical universe where each of them is available as a rookie at the same time), do you take Koufax or Blyleven? I think 99.9% of baseball fans would say Koufax without a second thought, and that's not necessarily a wrong answer. But, the team that takes Koufax will need another pitcher in short order, and unless they can replace him with a pitcher at least as good as McNally, they would probably have been better off signing Blyleven instead. It was to the HOF's shame that they didn't induct Blyleven on his first ballot, and too many people still think of him as a "compiler", and at best barely worthy of the HOF. The truth is that Blyleven was better than the great majority of pitchers in the HOF, including several who did get in on the first ballot.
Personally I would rather have a player like Blyleven over one like Koufax (or Koufax/McNally).
With regard to the premise posed by the OP, I suppose it comes down to choosing a pitcher who was far better than Blyleven for a short period of time, or a pitcher than was much better than Koufax for an extended period of time. Of course, Koufax' career ERA+ is skewed by several rather pedestrian seasons, too. But in his prime and period of dominance, if I'm starting a pitcher in a hypothetical World Series game, Koufax gets the nod, hands down.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>But in his prime and period of dominance, if I'm starting a pitcher in a hypothetical World Series game, Koufax gets the nod, hands down. >>
There's no right or wrong choice as far as that goes, but I'll note that Blyleven was 5-1 in the postseason and Koufax was 4-3, or 4-2 if we look only at his prime years. I'll also note that Blyleven pitched well in postseasons separated by 18 years, where Koufax's span is 8 years.
What is most misleading about comparing Blyleven to Koufax, or most other HOF pitchers, is that Blyleven's "peak" didn't happen in consecutive years, but was spread out over nearly 20 years. In Blyleven's best 5 seasons he had an ERA+ of 147 and a W/L% about 100 points better than his teams. That's not as great as Koufax's top 5, but it is as good as a whole lot of HOFers top 5, and unlike Koufax, Blyleven has 15 more years of quality pitching to add on top of his peak. Blyleven's and Koufax's top 10 seasons are, as I demonstrated in the OP, about the same. But then that's it for Koufax, and Blyleven still has the career of Dave McNally to contribute.
For the postseason, i'll take Koufax and his microscopic ERA and WHIP (and his two MVPs), both under 1, even with the offpeak year thrown in over Blyleven and his 2.50 ERA, as impressive as that is,.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>For the postseason, i'll take Koufax and his microscopic ERA and WHIP (and his two MVPs), both under 1, even with the offpeak year thrown in over Blyleven and his 2.50 ERA, as impressive as that is,. >>
You are addressing the Official Defender of Bert Blyleven: I am not allowed to agree with you.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Official Advocate for Ron Santo and Bert Blyleven seems to be a more compelling title than a defender... these guys really are not in need of a defense.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>dallasactuary-
Official Advocate for Ron Santo and Bert Blyleven seems to be a more compelling title than a defender... these guys really are not in need of a defense. >>
I did take on these solemn tasks before either of them was in the HOF; now that they're in, you could be right. OTOH, you should see the thread I'm in on another board where someone is actually trying to demonstrate that Jim Hunter was better than Blyleven, who was described as "mediocre" and "a compiler". These guys may no longer need defending to the people who know baseball, but among those who just think they know baseball, the ignorance still runs very deep.