New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett Yeakley

Frank, I agree Koufax is rightfully in the Hall. His numbers are pretty dominating, albeit for a short time. As stated above, my problem is with Koufax is that people tend to throw his name out when speaking of the "best pitchers of all time", when nobody mentions Addie Joss or other "short timers" and when they do people bring up how short his career was. It just seems like there is a special "Sandy Koufax" clause that allows his name to be there when others aren't.
-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: ali_lapoint

i think it has a lot to do with the fact that koufax went out on top. i posted his final year numbers above. you don't see a lot of great dominating pitchers go out the way sandy did. also, you really have to look at the strike outs. he could blow anyone away. and that's not to say that a pitcher like joss or wood should be diminshed because they didn't pitch in strike out eras. lastly, i think koufax gets brought up in that discussion because a lot of people are still alive who saw him pitch. i don't think seeing addie joss pitch at his peak would have been anything like seeing koufax pitch at his.

[Archive]

Posted By: Shawn Chambers

Not to keep this thread derailed, but Koufax (I believe) definitely belongs and it's more than just the won-loss totals for his "five good years". The 3 Cy Youngs, 4 No Hitters including a perfect game, and 382 K's in a season cemented his reputation far beyond the won-loss record. I think as an overall package Smokey Joe deserves a HOF look, but I just can't compare his career to Koufax given all the things Sandy did in a short span.

Now, back on track. Pete Browning!




Shawn

[Archive]

Posted By: ali_lapoint

haven't gone through the thread post by post, but did riggs stephenson get brought up yet? also on par with short but great careers. what was the story with him? why did he play so few games?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Koufax used "performance enhancers"? This is a joke, right?

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

According to Ken Burns' Baseball, a cranky old timer said Koufax was the best pitcher he had ever seen. The guy knew a little bit and had some perspective. His name was Casey Stengel.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Dizzy Dean. Very similar story.

[Archive]

Posted By: paulstratton

Well...sort of Jeff. The shots he took enabled him to perform, without them he couldn't have pitched. Anyway, Koufax was great and deservedly in the HOF and probably had 4 of the greatest years by any pitcher. My point was not to diminish what Koufax did, but to say if Wood could have shot up with cortisone he may have been able to continue pitching long enough to get into the HOF.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Cy Young. Walter Johnson. Christy mathewson. Grover Alexander. Ed Plank. Somehow I don't think it was any harder to last back then.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Paul, cortisone can hardly be thrown into the same lot as steroids or HGH. There is a huge difference. Is Ben Gay also a PED? Cortisone does not help athletes play above their natural limitations, unlike steroids and HGH.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Cortisone is a steroid.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Other than his off the charts season, he had a 23-17 and a 15-5. His other season were pedestrian. Come on.

[Archive]

Posted By: paulstratton

So how would he have pitched with a sore arm? I'm thinking either not at all, or quite a bit less effectively. It clearly enhanced his performance since it enabled him to pitch relatively pain free.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Indeed, Koufax quit because he was sick of the effects of the cortisone injections.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett Yeakley

Peter, you gotta be joking thinking that players then lasted as long as they do today, that may be the funniest thing I've ever heard on this forum! You had arm problems then and you were done. Were there some that lasted, yes! the lucky few were able to, however many pitchers then were good for few and done. Also Peter, you're right a 2.03 career era with a .672 winning percentage is pretty friggin' pedestrian. (tbob reference)


Again, Sandy was great for a few seasons (srguably one of the best 4-year stretches ever by a pitcher).

I'm done arguing about it, as we have been down this road many times. I just don't completely understand the Sandy Koufax fascination.

-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

I think it is a combination of several things, one that those 4 years were just SO dominant (and he likely would have had a similar season in 62 had it not been cut short with a finger that split open); two the mystique from his quitting at the top of the world at age 30; and three his persona.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Cortisone is a steroid but is not a muscle-building drug unlike anabolic steroids. And does anyone really think that Sandy Koufax pitched "pain-free?"

As for Koufax's performance, his lifetime ERA was lower in comparison to the rest of the league than Christy Mathewson's was.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett Yeakley

Jeff, I agree with you that cortisone is not what made Sandy Koufax great for the years he was great. Sandy belongs in the Hall of Fame with the other great pitchers.

A guy that I have always felt doesn't get his due is Lefty Grove, the guy had an ERA a full 1.50 points below the league average during his career, finished with 300 wins and missed out on several seasons in the bigs as he was under strict contract with the Baltimore Orioles and wasn't allowed to leave, thus he started his career as a 25 year old Major League rookie. I'm sure Brad will agree with me on this one.


Edited to add: Wow, we really took this thread off on a tangent, sorry as this was an interesting thread.

[Archive]

Posted By: paulstratton

I said "relatively pain free", which is better than not at all, like Joe Wood.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Rhett, I agree with you regarding Lefty Grove. Not sure why he's not on a short list of all-time greats.

And Paul, it is well-documented that Koufax pitched through tremendous pain during the baseball season. I'm unsure where you found the basis for the assertion that he pitched "relatively pain-free." It's simply not true.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

It was lower in difference between them but not percentage wise which is the real indicator when youre dealing with different eras. Mathewson's ERA was less than 75% of the leagues average while Koufax's was over 75% and that includes Mathewson's last 2 1/2 years when he was below league average,he didnt go out on top. If he did the difference would be even greater. I always said Koufax benefits so much from going out on top,if you could switch Doc Goodens career numbers so his last season was first and his first was last he would be in the hall of fame due to the Koufax comparison,now he has no chance.

No one brings up Larry Corcoran but his 1880-84 seasons he went 170-83,pitched on 3 pennant winning teams and threw 3 no-hitters,then he blew out his arm from overwork. His numbers which are great are even skewed by the 1884 season when the White Stockings changed the rules on what consititutes a home run in their home park,the year Ned Williamson hit 27 homers and 3 of his teammates also hit over 20(something that didnt happen once in Cubs history for another 27 years). If he had those mediocre years thrown in so he reached the 10 year minimum it would be hard to keep him out of the hall but he was done after 8 years. No one calls him one of the greatest but its hard to find a much better 5 year stretch

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

John, that's a good point re percentage of league ERA.

[Archive]

Posted By: paulstratton

If the shots didn't help him, then why did he take them? They helped him pitch with less pain than he otherwise would have, hence "relatively pain free". It's a given that almost all pitchers experience some sort of discomfort during/after a game. Again, my point was not to try to discredit your guy Koufax(you wouldn't let that happen anyway), but to add to Joe Wood's(and others like him) credibility.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

Wood was amazing. No other pitcher ever came back from a debilitating injury with an incredible .366 batting average after converting to the outfield! I realize that he only played less than half a season that year, but still, that is one of the greatest cases of "turning a negative into a positive" in sports history! You have to love Howard Ellsworth Wood (and I still haven't seen him sign "Howard Ellsworth Wood" on anything !!!).

And Adam, your making the case for Rigler only serves to strengthen mine for O'Day. More power to both of us! If you're fond of Rigler, what are your thoughts on Emslie? I don't see him as a HOF contender, but apparently the old-time sportswriters thought highly of him, as well as a couple of other even more obscure umps, as is evidenced in this snippet handily yanked from the jawls of Wikipedia (1946 Hall of Fame Balloting). I suspect Rawn will be into this for his own reasons:

Roll of Honor
The Hall of Fame Committee also announced the creation of a Roll of Honor which would be displayed at the museum, featuring the names of significant non-players in four areas. The committee announced 39 initial honorees:

Managers

Bill Carrigan
Ned Hanlon
Miller Huggins
Frank Selee
John Montgomery Ward

Umpires

Tommy Connolly
Bill Dinneen
Bob Emslie
Billy Evans
John Gaffney
Tim Hurst
Bill Klem
Kick Kelly
Tom Lynch
Francis "Silk" O'Loughlin
Jack Sheridan

Executives

Ernest S. Barnard
Ed Barrow
John E. Bruce
John T. Brush
Barney Dreyfuss
Charles Ebbets
August "Garry" Herrmann
John A. Heydler
Bob Quinn
Art Soden
Nicholas Young

Sportswriters

Walter Barnes (Boston)
Harry Cross (New York)
William Hanna (New York)
Frank Hough (Philadelphia)
Sid Mercer (New York)
Tim Murnane (Boston)
Frank Richter (Philadelphia)
Si Sanborn (Chicago)
John B. Sheridan (St. Louis)
William Slocum (New York)
George Tidden (New York)
Joe Vila (New York)

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Paul, your 'logic' makes no sense. You conclude that Koufax took the cortisone shots which helped him pitch -- and therefore he pitched 'relatively pain free.' There is not a single shred of recorded evidence to support your novel theory. It's just wrong. Perhaps you should do some research before you post what you consider to be a fact. It only takes a few minutes; in fact I did it for you.

Here's an excerpt from a Time magazine article which reported his abrupt retirement: "He missed half of the 1962 and 1964 seasons, took ice-cube-and-hot-water treatments before every pitching turn last year; even with pills and injections, he suffered so badly that any fan could see the agony on his face. His pitching arm eventually grew so crooked that he had to shorten his sleeves an inch on the left side." Koufax described how he felt during his last year on the mound: "It was a year," he said, "of a few too many shots, and a few too many pills. I was walking around sick to my stomach; I was half high on the mound. Fifteen or eighteen cortisone shots made the decision for me."

Yeah, sounds like he was pitching 'relatively pain-free.' Looking forward to your next factual assertion.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenneth A. Cohen

If one is to consider cortisone a performance enhancer - then aspirine should be considered such as well. Both are taken to curb inflamation. Maybe Smokey Joe indulged.

[Archive]

Posted By: paulstratton

You keep harping on my assertion of him pitching "relatively pain free", but you ignore everything else. I've "researched" enough to know he pitched in a lot of pain, that goes without saying, but he couldn't have pitched at all(or very limited) without the shots more than likely. Maybe I was wrong to say the shots reduced the pain, as the shots actually reduce the swelling which leads to the pain.

Here's some excerpts from Glory of Their Times and quotes from Joe Wood.

"I never pitched again without a terrific amount of pain in my right shoulder. Never again."

"The zip was gone, the fastball just didn't hop anymore."

"The pain was almost unbearable. After each game I'd have to lay off for a couple of weeks before I could even lift my arm up."

"Nowadays a shot of CORTISONE would probably do the job in a flash..."

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Ok, so we've gone from "relatively pain-free" to "pitched in a lot of pain". That's good progress.

I'm not sure about Joe Wood's medical background and his ability to determine the effects of cortisone on his shoulder. I can tell you with some personal experience that cortisone shots are not necessarily a fix for any and all arm problems. It may very well be that Wood's shoulder issues required something more or different than simply cortisone. Regardless, we'll never know. Wood did a lot of good things...but simply not enough. 1-2 great pitching years...a good batting average another year...obviously not enough to get into the HOF. Unfortunately, we'll never know how great he could have been even in a 5 year period.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

One thing is for certain. In his all-too-brief spurt of brilliance, it sounds as though Wood was untouchable. Jeff, you're correct that a few non-consecutive seasons of wonder don't make for HOF candidacy, but this year marks the centennial of Wood's debut, and here we are still talking about him. He must have been something in his day.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Easily in the top 5 pitchers of all time, possibly as high as 3.

One of the great all time sports quotes was about him: "He could throw a lambchop past a wolf."

[Archive]

Posted By: paulstratton

Will I ever live down "relatively pain free" in Lichtman's courtroom? 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?

[Archive]

Posted By: Alan

I love Koufax as much as anyone, but I think he was over-rated in baseball history !!!

[Archive]

Posted By: ali_lapoint

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

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.

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: paulstratton

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!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: ali_lapoint

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?

[Archive]

Posted By: paulstratton

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: ali_lapoint

just dont understand your stance on cortisone.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Remember Dock Ellis who pitched a no hitter while tripping on LSD?

http://www.snopes.com/sports/baseball/ellis.asp

[Archive]

Posted By: paulstratton

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Donny Muth

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.

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: keyway

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

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.

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 ...

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: ali_lapoint

careful what you wish for. a really bad team would be really bad for a long time if there was little roster wiggle room.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Yeah free agency has done wonders for the Royals.

[Archive]

Posted By: ali_lapoint

it did in the 80s.