Warren Spahn - Why No Hobby Love?

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

I'm sorry, but if these "modern" metrics of yours add up to the conclusion that Spahn wasn't a LOT better than Red Faber, Ron Guidry, or Bob Lemon, you need to go back to the drawing board. The guy won 20 games or more 13 times, he pitched 5,200 innings despite missing three prime years for military service, he completed 362 games of 665 started, won 363 of them including 63 shutouts (both records for lefties) He was an All-Star 17 times, far and away the most for pitchers. Not enough Ks for you, ERAs not low enough? Maybe he just knew how to pitch, and didn't mind letting his fielders do some work or putting some runners on base until it was time to bear down. Not to denigrate the pitchers you named or any others you might want to lump him in with, but he was head and shoulders above them because 1) he was a prodigious winner for an incredibly long time, 2) his numbers are nothing less than staggering, especially considering he was already 25 when he came up, and 3) oh, by the way, he was a terrific hitter and fielder. Spahnie just "very good?" Give me a break.

You are missing my point. I have zero intention of denigrating Spahn, who was an excellent pitcher for a very long time. I was simply expressing why he does not get a ton of hobby attention.

To paraphrase a famous advertisement, "collectors dig the flash." Being consistently good for a long time does not make a player valuable in the hobby. Collectors prefer a brief fireworks explosion than extended consistency. Think Koufax over Spahn, even though for his career, Spahn was way more valuable.

The fact he did not have a huge number of K's is not an indictment of his pitching ability. It's a recognition that K's get attention. It's one of the reasons that Bob Feller finished higher than Thorton Lee in the MVP voting in 1941, despite Lee having a much lower ERA.

You refer to my use of 'modern metrics.' Don't get caught up in the metric. I'm using it to emphasize a point. ERA+ looks at how much better a player's ERA is from the league average. It is a metric that easily translates into attention. In 2002, when Pedro Martinez has an ERA of 2.22 and the league average was above 4, people paid attention. In 1968, when the average ERA was under 3, a 2.22 ERA was nice but not attracting a ton of attention.

I did not intend to compare Spahn to Red Faber, Ron Guidry, or Bob Lemon except to highlight that he was not generally a very dominant pitcher. This remains accurate, but when you look at his career, none of those are remotely good comps. I was highlighting that his actual dominance is in fact similar to players who are lesser players.

A different Braves pitcher is probably a better comp. Tom Glavine won 300+ games, won 20 or more 5 times in an era where that was much rarer. And had an ERA+ for his career of 118, almost identical to Spahn. I don't think there is anyone out there who believes that Glavine deserves way more hobby attention.

Additionally, the hobby is heavily biased towards players who started young, since fans can project their HOF trajectory from early on and jump on. Spahn started his career late and had just 108 wins by age 30. This does not make his career win total less impressive, it arguably makes it more impressive, but it was probably not until he was 37-38 that people viewed him as a HOFer. Again, not a statement about his value as a baseball player, but a factor in the hobby.

I'm trying to emphasize two points:
1) Spahn's value in the hobby is lower than his value as a baseball player, because he was quickly excellent for a long time, but was not flashy and did not have the factors (such as starting at a young age, K'ing a lot of poeple, having unworldly seasons like Koufax etc) that get attention.

2)Spahn was an elite pitcher, but he is not in the same league as Lefty Grove, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson or Tom Seaver. He never achieved their levels of dominance