Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60
He also received more votes for the Hall of Fame. So, he was seen as the better pitcher during his lifetime. I have always wondered about that. Was it his low World Series ERA? 3 Shutouts in 1905? More team success? Early death? I would take WaJo over Matty.
I agree with the article though. I would take Matty over Young. Longevity means something, but not that much. Matty's ERA is a half run better than Young, better than WaJo too, No Dodger fan would take Don Sutton over Sandy Koufax. Tom Glavine wasn't better than Pedro Martinez.
|
Not sure HOF voting can be used for much of a barometer, or it should be taken at least with a grain of salt. Lou Crigar received 8% of HOF voting in 1937 and Johnny Kling garnered 10% of voting in 1937, both receiving more votes on the 1937 ballot than 31 other eventual HOF members and nobody would argue that either Crigar nor Kling were better than those 31 eventual HOF members. Some of those names include Evers, Chance, Simmons, Roush, Clarke, Crawford, Baker and Gehringer.