So why do people poh-poh Walsh? The White Sox' pitcher? [Archive]

Archive

10-03-2002, 05:35 PM

Posted By: jeff sDavid, You're right - he probably will be voted in, and it will probably take a few rounds of the veterans committee to make it happen. And then our children and grandchildren (if they turn out to be obsessed with baseball history and arcana such as this) will argue about him just like we argue about Ralph Kiner and--so it appears--Ed Walsh and Freddie Lindstrom and the like. It is interesting, though, to consider -- because of a variety of factors, like injuries, increased free-agency (which results in normally productive players like Mo Vaughn having off-years when they face a new crop of pitchers), and even more sophisticated scouting suggest that more and more players will be more like Belle/Kiner/Koufax and less like Schmidt/Yaz/Matty. Even with rare exceptions like Maddux and Clemens and Bonds and probably A-Rod, dominant players do not stay truly dominant for very long, which suggests to me that future HOF voters will have to compare lots of people like Belle (maybe Curt Schilling will fit into this mold, too) for what one might call the "Nellie Fox" slot in to the HOF through the veterans committee. (Something tells me one of those really long HOF-standards argument threads has begun <g>)

Archive

10-03-2002, 06:04 PM

Posted By: Scott MDon't bother with that slot for Schilling - he only gets in on days he buys an admission ticket. Please don't lump Walsh in with Freddy Lindstrom - Walsh actually belongs in the Hall. We don't need to change anything except for getting rid of the veterans committee which has long since outlived its usefulness. There are 30-40 players that belong in their team's HOF but not the Cooperstown HOF that have made it in through the back door. As for Belle - yes he has nice looking numbers for 10 years, but I don't agree that he compares to Kiner - Kiner put up his numbers in an era which wasn't overtly offensive - Belle put up his during the hr/run explosion of the 90's. Numbers don't mean the same as they once did - we'll soon be faced with some players getting to 500 HR that don't deserve induction.

Archive

10-03-2002, 06:28 PM

Posted By: CyJeff, There are so many thoughts on how a player should be picked. The problem I have with future picks is that everyone now compares marginal players to the lowest common denominator. I feel tht the electors should at least look to the middle of the pack to compare. If I were king of the Hall, I would rank the players of each position from best to worst. Of course this is a subjective choice. But I don't think it will matter much. Then take a few of the median ballplayers from that position, maybe five, and see if the perspective Hall of Famer can carry their jocks. For example, if a pitcher is being considered, don't compare him to Phil Niekro and Don Sutton who have no place in the Hall. Compare to the median pitcher. Just off the top of my head I'd say, Dizzy Dean, Whitey Ford(definitely over-rated by the way), Bob Feller, Walter Johnson (just threw him in to see if anyone is paying attention). Is this possible inductee reasonably close in ability and accomplishments to these? If he is even close, let him in. Since he is being compared to the median, a little leeway is OK. If he is not considered in the same breath, hit the road. If this was done previously, Sutton, Niekro and a few others would never had been inducted. So if I am elected to be the Hall of Fame Senator (I am still waiting to see if the courts will allow me on the ballot since I didn't announce my candidacy until the third inning of the A's/Twins game) then this will be the criterion for choosing future Hall of Famers. Cy Epilogue: Albert Bell in the Hall? Are you crazy? If Pete Rose is not in for questionable practices, Belle shouldn't be in for disruptive nature to every team he has touched. I don't care what his stats are. Here is my choice for someone who is not in the Hall but should be in . Dave "The King of Swing" Kingman. Hell, he hit 442 home runs with a .236 batting average and 15.1 at bats per home run. Plus every single at bat was pure excitement. He never got short changed on his swing. There has to be something said for "eye appeal", just like in cards. Plus I doubt if he ever hit into a double play. He probably never hit a ground ball in his life! <center><img src="http://client.visuallink.com/~cyrilp/kingmanrookie.jpg"></center>

Archive

10-03-2002, 08:26 PM

Posted By: runscottI personally like comparing potential HOF'ers to the lowest common denominator. You have to ask yourself questions like: "is he nearly as good as Phil Rizzuto?" or "Did this guy scare batters almost as much as Don Sutton or Phil Niekro?". Or my favorite: "Did he hang around a really long time and post above average stats?"

Archive

10-03-2002, 09:21 PM

Posted By: DavidPro Albert arguments: 1) Made sure the neighborhood trick or treaters ran of those exrra candy calories. 2) Performed free chiropractics on 2nd basemen 3) If you poked holes in his bat, you could play it like a flute 5) Unlike Ty Cobb, he only threw his helmet at handicapped fans who heckled him. 6) You could always trust his word. When he said he was going to beat the crap out of you, he did. 7) His over priced salary keep Peter Angelos from mispending money on other players.

Archive

10-03-2002, 09:50 PM

Posted By: B. HodesI think the statistics suggest that Belle was not just another slugger in an era of sluggers. Like Kiner he was one of the premier offensive players of his era. He led the AL in slugging twice, total bases 3 times, placed in the top 10 in MVP voting 5 times; led in RBIs three times and came in 2nd in Avg one year and third in another. (He also led the majors in salary four years) Check it out here: <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/belleal01.shtml" target=_new>http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/belleal01.shtml</a> Also, despite his obvious negatives as a role model, neighbor, and perhaps human being, I don't think Belle was regarded as a liability in the clubhouse by his teammates. The same was, as I recall, not true of Kingman. Anyway, what about Tim Raines ? He just retired is he a HOFer ?

Archive

10-03-2002, 10:36 PM

Posted By: jay behrensAs much as I love Rock adn ahve been a big fan since he was rookie, I am kind of torn, but say yes because he was one of the great baseb stealers of all time. I believe he still holds the career percentage record. The fact that he won a batting title definately helps his case. Table setters are seriously underrepresented in the HOF compared to one dimesional sluggers. Jay

Archive

10-03-2002, 10:39 PM

Posted By: BRIANNo! Belle, Kingman, Schilling. Enjoy Maddux, Bonds, Clemens, and Pedro. They are first ballot HOFers who don't come around often. Belle is the only one of the 3 with a chance, and I hope it never happens. Kingman has no chance, and yes Cy he hit into ALOT OF DB'S. Later brian

Archive

10-03-2002, 10:42 PM

Posted By: jay behrensdunno scott, I don't think players like Koufax belong anymore than players like Niekro and Sutton. % great years doesn't make a HOFer in my book. Especially when they are mediocre player until the team moves into a new stadium. If you are gonna put in the hares, you have to put in the tortises too. You don't stick around as long as those guys do because the owners want to let you pile up stats when they have rookies that they can pay less if they can pitch as well or better. Jay

Archive

10-03-2002, 11:37 PM

Posted By: PaulI hope nobody seriously doubts that Kiner deserves to be in the Hall. He led the league in home runs each of his first seven seasons. No one else has led the league in homers in seven consecutive years, and certainly not at the start of his career. His career was short, but he led the league in homers nearly every year he played. That's got to be enough to earn a place in the Hall.

Archive

10-04-2002, 05:23 AM

Posted By: CyBrian, Kingman actually didn't hit into THAT many DPs. Throughout his 16 seasons, Kingman hit into 139 DPs. Whereas Tony Gwynn, a great hitter, hit into 259 DPs. Hey, this PROVES that Kingman is better than Tony Gwynn. So if Gwynn is in, Kingman is in! How can anyone argue with Hall of Fame logic like that? Cy

Archive

10-04-2002, 05:34 AM

Posted By: jay behrensbut it is just one number, and an overglorified one at that. The HR is just about the single most boring boring event in a baseball game. Give me a triple or an inside the park HR any day of the week. Jay

Archive

10-04-2002, 06:38 AM

Posted By: John(z28jd)I really hate when guys are considered great even if the only thing they can do is hit homers.Mark McGwire is the best example of this,he was a great home run hitter,he wasnt a great player,he wasnt a great fielder,and he was very very slow and struck out way too much,and couldnt hit for average yet hes considered great because he hit alot of home runs.Go look at his season by season stats,hes had some average years and a couple horrible years. Hes no better than Kiner and shouldnt be considered as such ........It just bothers me when people say McGwire is a sure hall of famer,but someone like Palmiero or McGriff are either said to be likely or marginal.If he had a 100 less homers and even if every number was exactly the same,everyone would be saying he had a nice career but he wouldnt make the hall and it proves that homers are over-rated. 1600 strikeouts(less than every 4 at-bats)18 combined triples and stolen bases in 16 seasons and a 263 average,217 in the post season,dont make a great player.Those 4 seasons(97-00) really skew his career stats.. Im not saying hes not a hall of famer,but just trying to prove the over-rated home run theory and hes the best example.He made the all-century team dont forget and if you cant find 2 1st baseman better than him you dont know baseball(plus you have to take away the stats he got after the voting for that,because he obviously didnt have them when the voting went on)

Archive

10-04-2002, 07:22 AM

Posted By: leonin a clutch situation is still a great thing. When you are the one hitting it it is extremely exhilerating. I agree that in a 10-1 game, a solo home run in the last inning, is no big deal.....but in the bottom of the ninth in a close game there is nothing better.....I am only speaking as a player on this subject....regards all

Archive

10-04-2002, 09:59 AM

Posted By: runscottAn average player CAN have a very long career. You don't have to be HOF-caliber (even by the HOF's current standards) to make a roster. Please elaborate so I can understand why longevity makes a player HOF-caliber.

Archive

10-04-2002, 10:06 AM

Posted By: runscottI would take Palmeiro on my team over McGwire any day. McGriff has also unquestionably been of great value to most clubs he played for, but I still dislike him for stretching so many doubles into singles while watching the beauty of his own swing. I'm a pro-hustle guy. From what I remember about Kingman, he was considered to be fun in the clubhouse - really whacky prankster. Still, I put him in the same category as George Foster, just above guys like Pete Incaviglia and Steve Balboni, and way below Dale Murphy and Albert Belle...and I don't consider "likability" a qualification, though that's why Puckett made it and Belle may not.

Archive

10-04-2002, 01:18 PM

Posted By: DavidMost overrated baseball statistic: Pitchers' strikouts .... I don't care how you get the guy out, just get him out. Nolan Ryan might have ranked up there with Walter Johnson and Warren Spahn if he wasn't so worried about his strikeout totals. I'm not suggesting strikeouts are meaningless-- with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth, it's not a bad idea to put in a closer who can throw heat, and obviously strking guys out never hurth Sandy Koufax and Randy Johnson--, but many people put the stat on par with win-loss (which can also be overrated) and e.r.a. To me it's a glamour stat, closer in worth to a NBA's slam dunk ration that it is a pitcher's ERA.

Archive

10-04-2002, 01:39 PM

Posted By: jeff swho are dismissing schilling's HOF chances may be doing so too readily. Of course his current stats aren't going to get him in, but let's say he pitches till he's 40. That gives him four more years, and since he has been so strong the last two, let's say he wins 20 each of those four years, and racks up 300 Ks. That gives him 235 career W's, and 3500+ K's. Also remember that a few of his seasons with the phillies look on paper much worse than they were - in '92 he was 14-11 with a 2.35 ERA. I would think that if he performs well in this postseason, and perhaps one or two more, and gets the K's up a good bit past 3000, he's got the stats. Whether he SHOULD go in is a different and to me meaningless question--I would trim the size of the hall by half, but no one's asking me to help <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>.

Archive

10-04-2002, 04:19 PM

Posted By: jay behrensYou stick around because you have above average ability. An average player is not going to play 20 years. There are too many youngsters jsut as good or better that they can pay less. For the same reasons you may not like Niekro, sutton, et al getting in the Hall, I really dislike players like Koufax making the Hall on the basis of a very brief, supernova type career. Performing at a high level for an extended period of time is a diffucult thing to do and who the Hall should be reserved for. Personally, I think the Niekro/Suttons and Koufax/Kiners should not be in there for thee exact reasons that have been stated here, but we are stuck with Hall the way it is. The only possible hope for change is if someone starts and International Baseball Hall of Fame. Then the Linstroms, et al can be weeded out and Japanese greats like Oh and others can be added. Jay

Archive

10-04-2002, 05:31 PM

Posted By: Julie VognarEven in the Bay Area, people debate it.

Archive

10-04-2002, 08:33 PM

Posted By: runscott.

Archive

10-04-2002, 09:03 PM

Posted By: jay behrensA really good starter, with a no-hitter, that became THE dominant reliever of his day. Relievers are tough as to what criteria to use. Personally, I think Quiz and Sutter are no-brainers. They were THE relievers of the 80s. The more the young turks fade after 4 and 5 years, the better and better careers like Lee Smith adn Jeff Readon look beucase it looks like a job without longevity. Jay

Archive

10-04-2002, 10:05 PM

Posted By: Kenny ColeI find it almost impossible to believe that there can even be a debate about Koufax. Aside from the fact that he is, by all accounts, a wonderful person, great basketball player and role model for all persons of the Jewish faith due to his refusal to pitch on Yom Kippur, he was the best pitcher of the 60's, period. He was voted athlete of the 60's for good reason. He had no offense behind him during his 5 year "supernova" period, yet almost always won the 1-0 or 2-1 games, pitching against the Gibsons and Marichals. He won 3 Cy Youngs during that brief "supernova" period when they only gave out one. You ask ANY hitter during that period who the most dominant pitcher was and the answer is just about uniformly Koufax. I may not be that bright, but it seems to me that if Mays, Aaron, Robinson and every other hitter of that era who faced him say he was the best, and if every pitcher who he pitched against grudingly admits that he was the best pitcher they ever faced, he probably deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. His numbers in 5 years were better than everyone else's in 10. That doesn't even take into account the fact that he retired at 30. It isn't even a close call. Kirby Puckett played just about as long as Koufax and never dominated any category like Koufax did. Not once, not ever. By any comparison, he suffers. If we want to talk about someone who statistically doesn't deserve to be elected, especially on the first ballot, Puckett's the guy. He can't even be called a supernova, because, while he was a very good ballplayer, he never burned nearly as bright as Koufax.

Archive

10-04-2002, 10:44 PM

Posted By: ElliotI agree totally with Kenny. Any discussions about pitchers from that era revolve around who was 2nd best. The fact that Koufax was the best was/is an indisputable fact in any discussion.

Archive

10-05-2002, 03:24 AM

Posted By: John(z28jd)dont think comparing Koufax to Puckett makes much sense except for the way their career ended,because Puckett had 1 average season,and 11 all-star years....koufax was a .500 pitcher for 7 seasons,and great for 5 years,not even half his career.Koufax is closer to Ron Guidry than he is to anyone,only problem was Guidry couldnt leave on top of his game otherwise he wouldve been in the same category. I agree with Jay in saying Koufax might have been great for 5 years but overall hes overrated as far as careers go.I found it hard to believe Guidry could put up numbers like he did in new york and get little hall of fame support,when he compares so similar to Koufax,which might tell you how being as good as Koufax career-wise helps you(see: deacon phillippe,ed reulbach,joe woods,orval overall,jeff tesreau,mort cooper and about 20 others pitchers who had at least 5 years where they were considered one of if not the best but didnt pitch long enough to be considered hall of famers).Dammit,i wish i could go back in time and tell Larry Corcoran and Tommy Bond to stick around for 2 more seasons so they couldve met the 10 year minimum Theres just too many pitchers with similar careers as Koufax who are unknown to most people,for him to fall into the elite category and its a shame he lost most of his career because of an arm injury but that was a big occurance early in baseball and none of those guys are considered great. I was actually shocked when i saw his career stats year by year for the first time after i read so much when i was young,about how great he was.I really believe if he had 5 great seasons first hurt his arm,and then 7 years where he was a 500 pitcher he wouldnt be in the same category,isnt that right doc gooden? Too much short term memory among baseball people and that might cost Raines any chance he has,because he hasnt been good for awhile so everyone forgets how good he really was,when he was baseballs best leadoff man with rickey henderson Its too late im going to bed

Archive

10-05-2002, 09:05 AM

Posted By: runscottthough I never hit a ball over a fence (other than the backstop), I know the exhilarating feeling of the score being tied in the bottom of the ninth and me laying down the perfect bunt and running all the way around the bases for the winning run, drawing incredulous wild throws at every base. The other team was called "The Knoblauchs".

Archive

10-05-2002, 09:42 AM

Posted By: Kenny ColeYou are right that it doesn't make much sense to compare Koufax to Puckett. There is no comparison. Koufax was generally considered THE best pitcher of his time. Puckett was generally considered to be among the better players at his position. Puckett drove in 100 runs 3 times and came close 3 others. He scored 100 runs 3 times and came close twice. He stole 20 bases twice, hit 30 homers once, was a doubles machine, and consistently hit .300. He led the league in batting average once, in hits four times, in RBIs once, in total bases twice, and in at bats twice. He won 6 gold gloves, came in second in MVP voting once, and came in third twice. Koufax led the league in ERA 5 times, led in wins 3, led in WHIP (walks + hits/innings pitched) 4 times, led in K's 4 times, led in K's per inning 6 times, led in innings pitched twice, and led in shutouts 3 times. He won the pitching triple crown 3 times, won 3 Cy Youngs when they only gave one, and also finished third once. He won the MVP once and finished second twice. Then, of course, you have his 0.95 ERA in the post-season. The point isn't that Puckett wasn't a good ballplayer. He clearly was. But year in and year out, there was always someone else just as good or better. That's also true for all of the pitchers, like Phillippe, Reulbach, Wood, etc., you named. They were never the best in their own league, let alone the best in both leagues. There was always a Johnson, Mathewson, Alexander, Brown or Walsh who was at least arguably better. Koufax was the best pitcher in both leagues for 5, arguably 6, years. He dominated. No one wanted to face him. He made great hitters look silly. Like Mantle said when he struck out looking, "how the f*** do you hit that s**t?" The fact that Koufax walked away at the top of his game only enhances his legend. He also pitched the first game I ever saw at Dodger Stadium. He gets points for that too.

Archive

10-05-2002, 10:50 AM

Posted By: Albie O'HanianAh, I love the Hall of Fame debate. Everybody has an opinion on who or what is and should be a Hall of Famer. Now, even the selection of Sandy Koufax is being called into question. First, Koufax was helped greatly by the move to Dodger Stadium, true. However, he was hurt far more pitching in the Los Angeles Coliseum. His road numbers indicate he had already turned his career around by 1960. Second, there is no pitcher with comparable numbers to Koufax between 1963-66 or even 1962-66. Not anytime in history. When Orval Overall posted a 1.68 era in 1907 he was fourth on his own pitching staff in era. Third, if you study some of the great power pitchers of the last 30 years, (Seaver, Pedro, Clemens) their statistics through the age of 31 when Koufax retired are remarkably similar to Koufax including Koufax's alleged 5 years of mediocrity. Historically, based on a five year stretch the only pitcher that compares is Pedro Martinez. His dominance of the American League is similar to Koufax's dominance of the National League. Other pitchers might have been equally dominant (Mathewson, Young, Johnson etc.) statistically but hardly in relation to the rest of the league.

Archive

10-05-2002, 11:10 AM

Posted By: Albie O'HanianThe original reason why I went to post, before I read about Koufax. I would guess that Walsh is lacking in respect because he pitched a) in the dead ball era, b) when the league era was 2.63, c) at a time when there were many Hall of Fame pitchers d) and over 90 years ago.

Archive

10-05-2002, 11:19 AM

Posted By: Kenny ColeWalsh was evidently pretty proud of himself and there is a quote about him that I have always enjoyed. I'm not positive, but I think it is attributed to Sam Crawford. In any event, whoever it was said that Walsh was the only person he ever knew "who could strut while he was standing still." Quite a talent!!!

Archive

10-05-2002, 11:36 AM

Posted By: runscottI heard the same thing about Al Simmons.

Archive

10-05-2002, 07:20 PM

Posted By: Julie Vognarand one very sad abstract is called "On Never Having Seen Koufax Pitch"...

Archive

10-06-2002, 02:38 PM

Posted By: jay behrensKenny- I guess you have absolutely no problem in putting Dwight Gooden in the HOF then. Don't know who you've been talking to, but Gibson is still considered the greatest pitcher of the 60s. Jay

Archive

10-06-2002, 10:03 PM

Posted By: Kenny ColeJay, No, I probably wouldn't vote to put Gooden in the Hall. Then again, best as I can recall, Gooden didn't lead the league in ERA 5 times, win 3 Cy Youngs, pitch 4 no-hitters including a perfect game, win an MVP, win almost every game he pitched with a truly lousy offensive team behind him, or do any of the myriad other things that set Koufax apart from every other pitcher in the 60's, including Gibson. If he did, I guess I missed it. By the way, I agree that Gibson was great. In my book, he's the No. 2 pither of the 60's, behind Koufax and just ahead of Marichal. But he isn't No. 1. No way, no how. As far as Gooden goes, there is an argument that can be made for his induction. It's essentially the same argument that is made for Phillippe, Reulbach, Leever, or any of a handful of other early pitchers. I've seen that argument made here many times. I don't have to make it though, because I'm not supporting Gooden for the Hall. Gooden wasn't nearly as good as Koufax. If you want to take the opposing position, great. It is a position that completely lacks statistical support and, in fact, the statistical evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary. Nor can a very compelling argument be made in favor of Gooden over Koufax on the basis of non-statistical achievements. But, if you want to argue that Gooden was just as good, you are absolutely entitled to. When I was a kid, I used to argue that Manny Sanguillen was better than Bench because he had a better batting average. Its the same type of argument. Kenny Cole

Archive

10-06-2002, 10:04 PM

Posted By: ElliotJay....you've got to be kidding....what game were you watching in the '60's? Gibson, as good as he was, was not anywhere near Koufax...nobody was.

Archive

10-06-2002, 10:54 PM

Posted By: jay behrensI only saw Gibson pitch, not Koufax. Yes, Koufax was great for 5 years, but Gibson was great for pretty much his whole career. Sustained greatness is what should be the criteria for a HOFer, not dominace for 5 years or so. This would make Jim Rice a first ballot HOFer. The HOF would be very crowed if they were all elected based on the peak of thier career and not its entirety. Koufax had an incredible peak, lousy begining and no sustained greatness. You can argue his health all you want, but you look at the truly great players and they were able to avoid serious health problems or play through them. Jay

Archive

10-06-2002, 11:57 PM

Posted By: DavidNever saw Koufax pitch either. As I wasn't allowed to go to the park on Sunday and Koufax didn't pitch on Saturday, we never met up. This was further complicated by the fact that I wasn't alive when he pitched. However, as I saw Doug Jones in his prime, I feel I have not missed anything. Anyone who's changeup is his fastball is my hero.

Archive

10-07-2002, 10:35 AM

Posted By: TBobApples and oranges in comparing Puckett and Koufax. Both deserve to be in. If you want to compare Puckett to someone who doesn't belong in the Hall, compare him to Drysdale. Koufax a supernova and Kirby not? I think a lot of this has to do with the LA-Hollywood-hype machine and Kirby playing in the North Woods. Koufax and Drysdale were on network sitcoms all the time in cameo roles, Brady Bunch, Partridge Family, hell I think they were even on the Beverly Hillbillies once. Koufax burned brightly but anyone who watched the 91 World Series knows Kirb did too. He was a goodwill ambassador for baseball and a genuinely good man. Besides Koufax wasn't the all-to-end-all like some of you think. I am old enough to have watched him in his prime and I watched Gibson and Marichal too, and it was close, really close. All I know (and I am no Cardinal fan) is if I had one game to win and could pick any pitcher from any time period and any team to pitch for me, I would take Bob Gibson.