[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

First, Koufax rates very high in two of four categories, Black Ink and Hall of Fame monitor. And even on the two he doesn't rate so high he is way ahead of Hafey, who is just miserable in all four.

That's not the point, really. The point is the four metrics you site are unreliable. They're nice to give the reader a very rough quick check on a player's career as compared to other players. But they're hardly definitive. Two of the metric say "based on our formulas, you're not even an average Hall of Famer, Mr. Koufax". Yes, that is an accurate statement. Plus, I can blow apart each of the four metrics, quite easily. For example, the Black Ink Test measures how many times a player leads their league in one of the important categories. What a joke. So, if Cecil Cooper were a Hall of Fame-worthy player (he's borderline at best, and I don't expect he'll ever be voted in by the Veteran's Committee), the Black Ink Test would basically look at his .352 batting average in 1980 and deem it worthless for their "metric", because George Brett batted .390. And his 219 hits, too, would be worthless because Willie Wilson had 230 hits. But it doesn't take into consideration the disparity in at bats. Cooper had 622. Willie Wilson had 705 at bats, the second highest single season total in history. But Wilson's black list score still goes up, and Cooper's doesn't, even though Cooper had a much higher batting average (.352 to .328).

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Second,as you say, Koufax's peak years were SO exceptional that he deserves a little leeway;We can't say the same for Hafey.

Sure we can. In fact, I just did, in my last post. Again, I'm not going to use the career WAR, and peak WAR metrics at all. Why? How the hell do you accurately calculate it for games played 80 years ago? There's no spray charts. There's no way to calculate fielding range, etc. That Hafey, one of the better defensive left fielders of his time has negative dWAR each year during his peak, is laughable. I guess the statisticians figured his eyes were too poor to see balls hit to the outfield, completely ignoring that he was a career .317 hitter.

But anyway, in his 5 year peak, his OPS was nearly identical to that of Jimmie Foxx's. Granted, Foxx had not yet hit his prime, but for that period, Foxx was averaging .327, 31 HR and 129 RBI per 162 games.

Again, I am not making the argument that Hafey is a shoo in. If he were being considered, I am not sure he gets in. Probably not. But I don't have a problem with his being elected. I do think he was worthy of the honor.

By the way, I don't know if Koufax in his prime was the best pitcher to ever play the game. He's in my top five, though.