New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>paulstratton</b><p>Will I ever live down "relatively pain free" in Lichtman's courtroom?<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> How about...the cortisone allowed him to pitch in LESS pain than he otherwise would have been able to had he not gotten shot up prior to his starts?

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>Alan</b><p>I love Koufax as much as anyone, but I think he was over-rated in baseball history !!!<br /><br />

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>ali_lapoint</b><p>maybe i and others who support wood and mathewson and johnson as being the best pitchers of all time differ on what "the best pitcher of all time" means. does the statement mean dominance? if so, what kind of dominance? mathewson and johnson, great as they were, dominated in a very different way than koufax did. they were contact pitchers. even in his best years strike out wise mathewson couldn't average a strike out per inning against professionals of an arguably lower caliber than they had become by the 1960s. it was a different time, no doubt, which means a different kind of game and dominance. when you look at koufax's numbers and the way in which he dominated the game during his career i don't think its too hard to see that he completely destroyed the league. and not only the national league, but the best teams from the american league in the world series when he pitched. the guy struck out and blew away everybody. and to me that is dominance in every facet of the word and in essence is why you can't not say that koufax was one of , if not the, most dominating pitcher in baseball history. from strike outs to ERA to wins and everything in between.

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Paul, never! Seriously, I would say that the cortisone and other treatments allowed him to pitch in excrutiating pain; without the shots and pills, etc. he would not have been able to move his arm at all. <br /><br />I think what makes Koufax so special to me is how he performed despite huge physical limitations. Despite pitching in tremendous pain he managed during his last two years to start 41 games each year, complete 27 of them each year and average about 330 innings each of these years. He also struck out over 1 guy per inning in his entire career and over his last two years his WHIP was .855 and .985. What is most amazing to me, however, was his performance in the 1965 World Series when he won 3 games, the last two of them complete game shutouts -- and his game 7 shutout was in Minnesota on 2 days rest! That is total domination at the highest level.<br /><br />

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>paulstratton</b><p>Read all about it...Lichtman wilts under the pressure and offers a concession!! So we've gone from thinking "performance enhancers" were a joke to at least admitting he couldn't have pitched at all without the shots, now that's progress!<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Cortisone is not a performance "enhancer" at all; there's a reason why it is treated differently than anabolic steroids and HGH by Major League Baseball.

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>ali_lapoint</b><p>it is absolutely ridiculous to call it a "performance enhancer". it doesn't make you pitch better and has no effect on your level of talent. a mediocre pitcher is not going to get a shot of cortisone and turn into sandy koufax. if anything it is a "performance enabler". the whole discussion is utterly ridiculous in the first place. what about tetnus shots? are they performance enhancers too? or the TB vaccine?

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>paulstratton</b><p>I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I'm done discussing Koufax, who I said before is deservedly in the HOF and had probably the greatest 4 season run in modern history.

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>ali_lapoint</b><p>just dont understand your stance on cortisone.

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Jeff- Koufax was actually 2-1 in the 1965 World Series, but why quibble. I saw him pitch, even in person once at Shea Stadium, and he was as unhittable as anyone I have ever seen. He did pitch with incredible pain and he is one of the very worthiest HOFers. He is an icon and a cult figure in baseball, and it's sad that he had to quit at 30.

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Remember Dock Ellis who pitched a no hitter while tripping on LSD?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.snopes.com/sports/baseball/ellis.asp" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.snopes.com/sports/baseball/ellis.asp</a>

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>paulstratton</b><p>I agree it is not on the same level as HGH or anabolic steroids, it still "enhanced" and/or "enabled" his ability to pitch. I actually have more respect for him for doing it, not less as it may seem. Modern players just take too much garbage for what they do to stay in the game, or stay at their best performance level.

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Doc Ellis pitching a no-hitter on acid is still one of those feats that I am not sure ever happened, even if he says it's true.

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>Donny Muth</b><p>Hmmm... It seems like the deal I made several weeks ago for a Mickey Vernon auto may pan out to be a better deal than I had originally planned. Vernon was my father's favorite player so I get his cards when I can anyways, but if by some chance he does get into the HOF then that will just give me another reason to collect his cards. <br /><br />In all honesty though, I agree with what one poster said that the HOF should probably be weeding out marginally deserving players. Maybe while they're at it they can also go ahead and decide to prevent any and all steroid users from getting to the HOF. I'd rather see most any average player (including those on the list at the top of this thread) in the Hall rather than even one player who's broken records or boosted his career by being jacked up on 'roids.<br /><br /><br /><br />

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>keyway</b><p>Miller!!!. Why would anyone think that he should be in the HOF? What did he actually do to be there? He scrwed up the game of baseball by giving it to the greed players who now could care less about the game and only think of how they can line their pockets. The HELL with Miller, he's a BUM.

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>Chris Counts</b><p>Marvin Miller helped baseball players win the right to play where they want to play, which in my estimation, is a very American ideal. Can you imagine if a doctor, a taxi driver or a carpenter was required to work for one employer his entire life? What if a waitress or a policeman or a cook wanted to move to another state and was told they couldn't, that they had to live in one state as long as they worked? And that they had essentially no bargaining rights? Yes, I believe there are greedy players out there ... just like there are greedy owners. But that is capitalism, which for all its pitfalls, is an economic system most Americans generally support. <br /><br />As for Miller being worthy of induction into the Hall of Fame, I believe Bowie Kuhn was voted in as a slap against Miller. There is no way his impact on the game was more important than Miller's. Miller ran circles around him, and that's one reason why free agency now exists ...

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>As un-American as it was, there is something to be said for the days when there was a great deal of continuity in the roster from year to year instead of the rent-a-team we have now. E.g., I think you can count on one hand the number of Red Sox who were on the 2004 W.S. winners.

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>ali_lapoint</b><p>careful what you wish for. a really bad team would be really bad for a long time if there was little roster wiggle room.

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Yeah free agency has done wonders for the Royals. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>ali_lapoint</b><p>it did in the 80s.

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Actually, I think most of those guys like Brett came up through their farm system, although I could be wrong.

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>ali_lapoint</b><p>you could be right. but its not free agency that made the royals bad. it was the lack of money put into the team.

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>Kevin Cummings</b><p>Jodi:<br /><br />I happen to like Joe Wood as well, but he wasn't the first pitcher to resurrect a career by moving to the outfield. Elmer Smith was Joe Wood 20 years earlier. <br /><br />Kevin<br /><br /><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/smithel01.shtml" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/smithel01.shtml</a>

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>Misunderestimated (Brian H)</b><p>Deacon White and Bill Dahlen both belong. Both demonstrated sustained excellence and were also among the very best players in the game for some of their respective careers. Players like Joe Wood were among the very best for a short time but did not demonstrate sustained excellence. Wood's greatness was ended by injury -- he made a valiant comeback as a good but never excellent outfielder. <br /><br />White is an especially egregious omission from the Hall. He was a great pioneer and a great player -- either one of which should have justified his induction many years ago. <br /><br />His brother Will was also a tremendous player. Will was a pitcher who had a fairly short career (really only 7 seasons) and really dominated for a little while putting up great numbers like only a 1/2 man rotation 19th century ace could. To me he belongs in the same group as other great forgotten 19th century Pitchers who all have the same sort of (strong) case for induction such as Mike McCormick, Tommy Bond and Larry Corcoran and my personal favorite Bobby Caruthers.

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>Jodi Birkholm</b><p>Kevin,<br /><br />You learn something new every day. I certainly was aware of "the first" Elmer Smith, but not of the similarities shared with Wood. Thanks for the enlightenment! Interesting facts like these are always appreciated. As a treat, here is a rare example of Elmer's signature:<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1219814606.JPG"><br /><br />Brian,<br /><br />Thanks to you for agreeing with me on Will White. Nobody ever seems to even listen when I plead his case. As for Deacon, I like his numbers and his pioneering role in the game, but never will think of him as a HOF contender. Glad I still have one of the 3-5 known Deacon autographs just in case (and wish like heck I hadn't sold my other one)! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> <br /><br />

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>Misunderestimated (Brian H)</b><p>Jodi, and anyone else who wants to know more about why Deacon White belongs in the Hall of Fame, I urge you to check out the posting from the "Hall of Merit" project a the baseballthinkfactory.org. If you peruse these links you will find too much information (primarily Sabremetric in nature) about White's value/merit in the larger context of when he played. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/catchers/" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/catchers/</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/1898_ballot_discussion" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/1898_ballot_discussion</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/ranking_hall_of_merit_players_not_in_the_hall_of_f ame_group_3/" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/ranking_hall_of_merit_players_not_in_the_hall_of_f ame_group_3/</a><br /><br />Chief Executive Summary (in other words even shorter):<br /><br />In (too) brief -- based mostly on my recollections from about 5 yrs ago:<br />White was clearly the best Catcher before Buck Ewing and then became a top tier 3rd baseman. His on the field excellence actually preceded the advent of the National League and the National Association. In fact, excluding the National Association and everything before, White was basically a 3B. Even in this capacity (and Catching is and was a far more valuable field position) White <u>still</u> warrants HOF induction. Like other 19th century position players his career numbers suffer because of the few games played. In White's case his best seasons were in the 1870s when they played the fewest games. Go to White's page on baseball-reference.com and press the link "neutralize" above his hitting stats and then think about his career numbers given that he played the most dangerous position of all during some of his best years and that the protective equipment was non-existent. There were no "tools of ignorance" -- just ignorance. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/whitede01.shtml" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/whitede01.shtml</a><br /><br />

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>Misunderestimated (Brian H)</b><p>I don't think they exactly resurrected their careers (no injuries I am aware of) but Cy Seymour and George Van Haltren also started out as Pitchers and then moved to the outfield before Wood got to the majors.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/seymocy01.shtml" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/seymocy01.shtml</a><br /><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/v/vanhage01.shtml" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseball-reference.com/v/vanhage01.shtml</a><br /><br />Neither of them were close to Wood as a Pitcher (not many ever were) but both of them became great outfielders (ie. they could really hit). Van Haltren is a strong Hall of Fame candidate and Seymour was one of the best players in baseball for a short time.<br /><br />In terms of Pitching, Babe Ruth is closest to Wood. He didn't resurrect his career -- he voluntarily went from being one of the game's best Pitchers to its best outfielder/hitter (Ever).

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>81 HR, 1118 RBI, 2394 Hits, .277. Not exactly overwhelming are they.

New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article
 

Posted By: <b>Jodi Birkholm</b><p>Let's not use Babe Ruth in our collective pondering. Comparing the Babe to a borderline HOF candidate who has been overlooked for over 70 years is akin to extolling the virtues of a Deusenberg against those of an Edsel. The Edsel was a mighty fine car, ahead of its time, but only a select few will ever realize and appreciate that. Most folks would tell you that the Edsel may have had power and performance, but it wasn't streamlined like the rest of the cars of its era. It had a clumsy, less graceful appearance when placed alongside its beautiful peers. It's taken some classic car enthusiasts half a century to realize how special the Edsel really was, but most of the world can't see the car's underlying beauty. Ergo, certain 19th century players are not in the Hall. Most of them will never be enshrined. Unless there is a huge campaign such as what provoked the recent Negro Leaguer love fest, we'll be lucky to see even one of them inducted. <br /><br />