Part of

« Minor transaction roundup: Hernandez rejoins Phils | Main | Reflecting on a big year for the Phillies, Beerleaguer »

Tuesday, December 30, 2008


Less than 1%?

I doubt the odds are that good.'re saying there is a chance!!

Frankly, I'm worried that the longer the Dodgers wait, the more likely it will be that Minaya talks the Wilpons into signing Manny for a season or two. That's the last thing I want to see. I'd love for Manny to have to settle for less than $20 million, but I don't see it happening.

I'm OK with the free-agent signing period being over for the Phillies, but I would like to see them take advantage of this time and depressed free agent demand to sign some extensions. Werth to me is the number one guy to sign. The closer market seems to be less sought after than it was in the past, so an extension for Madson is less urgent. And although I would love extensions for Hamels or Howard, I just can't see the dollars thrown at them this off season to have them sign an extension.

the more i think about it the more i believe they should have just signed burrell and kept all these guys together for another three years. The only way it makes sense to break up the core group would be to replace a member with a clearly superior player, which isn't ibanez.

Say you could bring manny aboard for two seasons at twenty per - that would instantly make this team the favorite to win the pennant and be an example of a move worthy of sending pat packing.

Do you guys think players like Hamels, Howard, Werth, Vic, etc are going to go to arbitration hearings or do the phillies have a history of settling these things before it happens?

on a side note, i really enjoy J. Weitzel's writing style. keep up the good work!

On the HOF, Ricken Henderson is obviously a lock. I've always thought Jim Rice should get in. Blyleven has had a Hall of Fame career when it comes to whining about not getting into the HOF. In reality, he's a close call. At the time he was pitching, I never thought of him as one of the game's top pitchers. But looking at his numbers during the 70s, it's pretty clear that he was one of the 5 or 6 best pitchers of the decade. So I suppose I'd vote him in, even though I don't like to reward people for whining campaigns.

No love for Tim Raines here? Surprising actually.

BAP: Blyleven's biggest problem is that he played for bad teams. If he played in NY or LA, he would've been in the HOF years ago.

With regard to Jim Rice, he was spectacular for 7 seasons and a genuine offensive force, but Andre "The Hawk" Dawson was nearly as good offensively for a lot longer and, unlike Rice, was a superb fielder and base stealer. I got to go with the Hawk before I even consider Rice. And, frankly, I'd probably have to consider Dave "The Cobra" Parker before Rice, although that's a closer call.

Betcha Rice gets in this year though...the BoSox propaganda machine combined with the pity train for his final year of eligibility will easily vault him over the top.

NEPP: Raines is worthy of serious HOF consideration. One of the best ever leadoff guys. I guess I'm a bit biased towards guys who could hurt you in every way: get on base, hit for average, hit for power, steal bases and field well. Raines was short on power and a hair above average on defense.

whining campaigns? you mean like the incessant stream of angry anti-intellectual columns written supporting Jim Rice, denigrating the actual statistical record in favor of vaguely defined subjective assessments of "fear" and other such abstractions?

personally, I like a bigger Hall. Frankie Frisch and his cronies stuffed it with mediocrities from the 1920s and 1930s, so it doesn't do the fans any good to artificially lower the standards now. Henderson, Raines, Rice, Blyleven, Dawson, Trammell, could even throw the overrated Mattingly and Morris in there and I wouldn't object, as long as the more frequently overlooked but no less talented players get in too.

I'm rooting for Jim Rice to go in the hall of fame.

I am still pulling for Lowe. They have the money and he just takes Myers money after this year. I'd hate to see him go to the Mets. The odds of the Phillies making any other big moves is doubtful though.

The one thing about Ibanez is that corner outfielders might go for less, but who was a better fit than Ibanez if they were determined to move on from Burrell? Abreu isn't an option. I'll take Ibanez over Dunn. They aren't going to spend the superstar bucks on Manny. I guess Armaro picked his guy in Ibanez and went for it even if it cost them another year or more money in the long run.

"Frankie Frisch and his cronies stuffed it with mediocrities from the 1920s and 1930s, so it doesn't do the fans any good to artificially lower the standards now."

You can't change the past. But you can make sure that the same mistakes aren't made in the future.

Well, I suppose that you can't really do that either, unless you have a HoF vote, but you get the idea.

I'm with ae, I enjoy a bigger Hall -- and I'm saying that strictly as a tourist. When I took my young son to Cooperstown, we stopped at every plaque (well, every plaque whose player I knew much about) while I told him what I knew, and in the appropriate cases remembered, about the player. If the player doesn't get a plaque, he fades from memory, and IMHO, all baseball loses when that happens.

That said, I'd vote for Henderson, Raines, Blyleven, Trammell and Dawson. Based on what his contemporaries keep saying, Rice belongs in the yet-to-be-built Hall of Fear.

Clout, I wonder if the cocaine scandal of '85 costs Parker and Raines votes. Do today's younger baseball writers even know anything about the drug scandals of the '80s?

well, I don't think that makes anyone feel better except historians. people go to the Hall of Fame because they want to learn about all of baseball history, not the few decades when the Veterans' Committee went nuts and inducted half of the National League.

besides, there's more raw numbers of players now than there were before WWII. it should be self-evident that more players should be inducted now than were in the past.

Mattingly was overrated? Since when?

For a 6 year period he was one of the best players in the game...he just crapped out early due to injuries.

St.Joe: I had a close friend and co-worker, now deceased, who had a HoF vote. I would lobby him every year for players I thought were overlooked, and even convinced him to include Goose Gossage on his ballot. My friend died before Goose got elected, but I think of him every year around this time -- not just because of the Hall vote, but because after New Year's Day we routinely greeted each other not with "hi" but with the number of days until pitchers and catchers reported. So on, say, the upcoming Jan. 5, we'd pass each other in the hallway and say "40 days!"

On Junior closing down his FA buying shop. I still want the "OPEN" neon sign light turned on for a starting pitcher. I'm not too keen on the Happ/Kendrick/Park/Eaton No. 5 pitcher. Let's get Lowe and drop Moyer or Myers to the No. 5 spot.

On the HOF, I support the candidacies of Henderson, Raines, Rice, and Dawson. Screw Blyleven and McGwire (the Juicer).

ae: "there's more raw numbers of players now than there were before WWII. it should be self-evident that more players should be inducted now than were in the past."

While I don't necessarily subscribe to it, there is a strong train of thought among older observers of hte game that the multitude of teams and players dilutes the quality of the leagues and contributes heavily to hte inflation of the numbers put up by modern players.

****While I don't necessarily subscribe to it, there is a strong train of thought among older observers of hte game that the multitude of teams and players dilutes the quality of the leagues and contributes heavily to hte inflation of the numbers put up by modern players. ****

I dont buy that at all...there's a far larger pool of talent from which to draw now...especially if you look at anything before Jackie Robinson. Considering Latin America, the Carribbean and now East Asia, I would think the competition is far greater.

I tend to agree for the reasons you mention. However, there does not appear to be as large a percentage of American kids playing the game and, our best athletes appear to gravitate to other sports. This may offset the increased size of the pool.

"besides, there's more raw numbers of players now than there were before WWII. it should be self-evident that more players should be inducted now than were in the past."

I fully agree that any player who deserves to be inducted into the Hall of Fame should be there. (How's THAT for going out on a limb with a statement!)

My point is just to say that while undeserving players might have made it in the past, that shouldn't be used as an excuse to induct undeserving players today.

ae: Any columnist who gets "angry" over Hall of Fame voting seriously needs to get a life. As for "anti-intellectual" arguments which denigrate the actual stats . . . I'm not sure what you're talking about. Rice was the most dominant hitter in baseball for about 5 years, and among the best for another 5 years after that. At his best, he was certainly a better hitter than Andre Dawson and the stats bear that out.

Because he had a short peak, Rice' career numbers are not on a par with many other Hall of Famers. But where does it say that longevity trumps short-term dominance when it comes to HOF worthiness? To me, a guy who dominated his sport for 5 years is more worthy of the HOF than guys like Don Sutton or Phil Niekro, who ran up big career win totals simply by being pretty good for a very long time.

"our best athletes appear to gravitate to other sports."

Actually, I'm hard-pressed to think of a multi-sport star who didn't try to make a go of it in baseball. A baseball career lasts longer and pays better than football, and the small size of basketball rosters makes it a tougher route to riches.

Rice wasn't even the best OF on the Sox (Dwight Evans), let alone good enough to be in the HOF. Rice struck so much fear into pitcher's hearts that he once totaled a whopping 10 intentional walks in a season. If he had played anywhere but Boston or NY he wouldn't even have a shot - but the media adores him now.

BAP: The peak performance-vs.-career performance issue is why arguing about the HoF never gets old.

On Rice, if you use OPS+ (which I'm doing because it's fast and easy), he had only three exceptional (140 or above) years, '77 thru '79, at 147, 157, 154 (he also had a 141 in '83). Compare that with his near-contemporary (and HoFamer) Eddie Murray, who from '81 thru '85 posted 156, 156, 156, 156 and 149, along with a 158 in '90.

Re: the topic thread... I've said from the get-go that my bet is whatever contract Burrell signs for is an amount that most here will feel the Phillies should've matched. Definitely looking like the case now. However, it just seems to me that the Phillies/Amaro preferred Ibanez so he was going to be the guy they got. There is something to be said for that, although I do disagree with the decision.

****BAP: The peak performance-vs.-career performance issue is why arguing about the HoF never gets old.****

That's why baseball is such fun to debate.

On that subject, Curt Schilling is a least in my humble opinion. He might not have the numbers (wins wise) but his secondary numbers, peak years, and playoff reputation make it an easy call for me. That said, I think it will take a herculean effort for him to make the Hall.

If Mattingly get in... so does Kirby Puckett.

Does Mattingly have glucoma?

NEPP: I agree, Schilling would get my vote, despite his low number of career victories. His career adjusted ERA+ is 127, the same as Bob Gibson, Jim Palmer and John Smoltz (and Smoltz' ERAs were helped by his years as a reliever).

Schilling also is just a hair behind Whitey Ford (133), who has 236 career victories but nowhere near Schilling's postseason success (career 6-5 record). If Schill can somehow eke out another 20 wins over the next two years, he will vastly improve his chances, IMO. But he will always be viewed as a notch behind Maddux, Clemens, R. Johnson and Pedro, all of whom save Clemens will get in on the first ballot.

There's simply no basis for voting in Mattingly. He had four excellent years but was done by age 34, after several years in which he was good but not great. His only gaudy stat is the .307 batting average which, at the risk of bringing a couple of my least-favorite posters out of the woodwork, doesn't look all that gaudy when you look at his OBP numbers.

Alby, I don't think Pedro gets in so easy. Maddux & Randy Johnson - Yes. Clemens and Pedro - No. I think that, like in Superman, there will be a Bizarro HOF with the initial inductees being: Pete Rose, Clemens and Barry Bonds.

If Jamie Moyer keeps going, does Jamie Moyer get in?

No, Moyer is not a HoF...Hall of very good though.

And Pedro is a Slamdunk HoF.

Pedro Martinez has a 154 ERA+ for his career for godsake and he was the best pitcher on the planet for like 6-7 straight years there.

Pedro Martinez is an absolute first ballot lock.

Three Cy Youngs, 4 other top 4 finishes in Cy vote, a sparkling .684 win percentage, 5 seasons with ERA+ over 200 including 291 in 2000. He's a lock.

"Alby, I don't think Pedro gets in so easy."

I'd love to hear the case against Pedro getting in.

Just to present a quick version of the pro-Pedro position:

3 Cy Youngs in 4 years (and he finished in 2nd the other year).

Lead league in ERA+ 5 times. 2nd best career ERA+ of all time (behind Mariano Rivera). His ERA+ in 2000 (an absurd 291) was the 2nd best all-time (behind Tim Keefe in 1880). His 1999 ERA+ was the 9th best all-time.

Lead league in WHIP 6 times. 2nd best career WHIP among active pitchers (again, behind Rivera). 5th best of all time.

3000+ strikeouts. (13th on the all time list)

Lead league in K/9 5 times. He was in the top 5 for his league 11 times. 3rd best all-time rate as well (behind Randy Johnson & Kerry Wood).

Right... Pedro's career ERA+ is the best in baseball history for a starter. He's also in the top 5 in career WHIP, K/9 and K/BB. He was a monster pitcher.

LF: Despite his rather low win total, Pedro's adjusted ERA+ is No. 2 all-time, behind only Mariano Rivera -- which means he's No. 1 all-time among starters. No. 2 is Lefty Grove, No. 3 is Walter Johnson, and he's several points ahead of both. Rather lofty company.

Moyer, despite his win total, has few of the other characteristics of a Hall of Famer. I have a hard time believing a guy with only 9 career shutouts over more than two decades is going to make it to Cooperstown.

Martinez had a better prime than Koufax....feel free to use statistics to try and prove me wrong BTW.

Baseball Reference's Hall of Fame monitor says Jamie Moyer is a long way from a Hall of Famer.

Clemens is the one who'll be interesting. Like Bonds, you could make the case that he had already done enough to get in before he started juicing.

He IS a lock for the Souderton HS HoF though...possibly even the Montgomery County HoF.

I think that Bonds and Clemens both easily had the numbers for the HoF before they started juicing but like Pete Rose will never make it in for other reasons.

I don't want to see Bonds or Clemens anywhere near the Hall of Fame.

Rose, on the other hand, I have no problem with his inclusion. It has nothing to do with being a Phillies fan because, frankly, I was too young when Rose was on the Phillies.

Clemens and Bonds cheated the game. Rose made personal mistakes.

I think Tim Raines should get in. He was at least 90% as good as Ricky Henderson, who is a lock.

Hall of Fame vote is always interesting. Always get a couple of blowhard writers who act sanctimoniously and treat it as if they were electing the President.

Interesting to see if Rice gets in but I wouldn't be surprised. Sentimentality in these cases usually rules the day.

CJ: Gotta disagree. Rose bet on the games. That's a whole lot different from cheating to try to do better.

Thank you, BTW, for reminding me about the HoF Monitor. Some interesting cases coming up in the years ahead -- players who have enough "points" to qualify but might be victims of changing standards. Todd Helton, for example -- plenty of credentials, but was he really one of the best 1B ever? Same with Robbie Alomar, Larry Walker, Gary Sheffield. All these players top the level at which they're supposed to be lead-pipe cinches, but I'm not sure I'd vote for any of them other than Alomar.

Early in his career there was a period where Raines was basically unstoppable on the basepaths...70+ SBs for 6 years straight and unlike Henderson, he rarely got caught stealing.

But if Moyer pitches until he's 50, that's pretty special, regardless of whether he resembles HOF material. My sense is voters might appreciate that further down the road, and win total, as shallow as it is, has been a significant factor in the past ...

Robbie Alomar was an alltime great 2B though...he hit the wall very fast when he did stop producing but he was the gold-standard of 2B. He is easily a HoF in my book.

If Jamie Moyer somehow magically pitches effectively until he is 50...and picks up another 40-50 wins in that time (10-12 per season), then YES he will likely make the HoF. The odds of that happening are pretty non-existent though.

Alby: I think the difference is clear.

What Clemens and Bonds did directly affected the outcome of games.

There is no evidence that anything Rose did affected the outcome of any game.

That's the only difference that matters to me. One is cheating. The other is breaking the rules.

NEPP wrote "Martinez had a better prime than Koufax." That's a bunch of crock. I'd only say that Pedro's 1997 and 1999 season were Kofaxesque. I see your New England bias and the Red Sox effect clouding your mind in defending this current Mets pitcher.

agreed on Pedro, the stuff he used to throw was as unhittable as i've ever seen in my lifetime. You'd think the traditionalist who hold a vote would love him for his reputation to buzz back hitters whenever he felt necessary with no remorse.

NEPP, despite my contention that Pedro is no Koufax, I have revisited the numbers and have revived my lost memories of the old Pedro, not the current hobbled Mets version, and I will concede that Pedro should be a first ballot HOF inductee. Please accept my apologizes. He is still a Met. They should deduct votes for that fact!

Just read bill conlin's peice on Ricky - think he'll get 100%? I can't imagine anyone who thinks he doesnt deserve to go in. And just as conlin said, out of the 6 jerks who didnt vote for Nolan Ryan, there should only be 5 now. Wonder if the other 5 opened their eyes.

Pedro is no longer a Met, but I'm sure he's still acting like one.

Pedro was a Met. Thanks Bed Beard. It's like stepping in dog dirt. Pedro still has the Mets stink all over him, even though he's no longer officially a Met.

Why isn't Orlando Cepeda in the HOF? I know there is some reason--perhaps someone could refresh my memory.

lakeFred: Dykstra was a Met too(a world champ Met at that), got any beef with him?

The last I read about him, he was in court for a lawsuit, and when whoever charged him with it dropped the case, he said "they folder quicker than Mitch in World Series" Haha. classic.

"Why isn't Orlando Cepeda in the HOF? I know there is some reason--perhaps someone could refresh my memory. "

He was inducted in 1999.

CJ: The rule against gambling isn't just another rule, and I'm having a hard time believing you seriously think that it is. Without that rule you might as well toss the game in the wastebasket.

And the list of players who have used drugs that supposedly enhanced their performance did not begin with steroids users. A large number of players from the '60s onwards used greenies, including a large number of Hall of Famers. I encourage you to go back and do some research on it.

You cannot, by the way, show the slightest bit of evidence to prove your contention that any steroids user affected the outcome of any individual game.

Cepeda waited a long time for, among other reasons, a serious marijuana trafficking conviction.

Moyer's HOF credentials are unique, in that he is sort of a hybrid between the guy who gets in based on longevity (Don Sutton) & the guy who gets in based on a short peak.

If you look just at Moyer's career ERA, it really doesn't give you a fair picture because, unlike most HOF pitchers, Moyer was terrible for about the first 8 or 9 years of his career. Should he be punished for that even though he has gone on to have 5 seasons with an ERA+ exceeding 130 and 11 seasons with an ERA+ exceeding 115? Those numbers are better than HOFers Don Sutton (2 and 7) & Catfish Hunter (3 and 3), and the 5 seasons above 130 are 3 more than Phil Niekro had.

To me, none of these 4 guys are HOFers but, if you're going to induct Catfish, Niekro & Sutton, then Moyer certainly belongs in the conversation. If he could win, say, 30 more games over the next 2 years, he will have achieved a level of after-40 success that is unequaled in modern baseball times. That would probably be enough to put him in the HOF. Of course, that is a huge if, and the odds are considerably against him.

Oops! Looking at the last Macmillian Baseball Encyclopedia that was published in 1996. My bad!

Alby: Seriously? You don't believe steroids has affected the outcome of games? Let's not be naive here.

I'm not suggesting that gambling is okay. What I'm saying is that Pete Rose has paid his dues. What he did wasn't worthy of a lifetime suspension.

And I don't care how many cheaters are in the Hall of Fame now. Past mistakes shouldn't excuse future ones. Putting in Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens would be a disgrace.

He DID lie about gambling for about 20 years before finally admitting it...had he been repentant from the start, you'd have a better case.

NEPP: Again... I don't think being a liar precludes you from being in the Hall of Fame. There's lots of dumb reasons why some players aren't in the Hall... that's one of them.

Keeping Bonds, Clemens, etc. out of the Hall for steroids is not a dumb reason.

That's a completely fair opinion...I personally think his integrity issues should be considered but that's me. Personally, I think they should make him eligible and let the voters decide. Though we all know, he'd never make it in that way anyway....that he can't even be voted on is a bit ridiculous.

If we're keeping Rose out for gambling, and for being a lying jerk, why did they let Cobb in?

I'm not being biased because he's a Phillie, but if Grand Pappy pitches decently until he's 50 and gets in the 275+ win arena, he's likely an eventual Hall-of-Famer somewhere down the line.

I can't stand Pedro Martinez, but he's a lock for the Hall because he has outstanding numbers aside from total wins.

"Moyer's HOF credentials are unique, in that he is sort of a hybrid between the guy who gets in based on longevity (Don Sutton) & the guy who gets in based on a short peak."

By unique do you mean non-existant? He's only received cy young votes 3 times in his career and his highest finish is 4th. One all star game.

Never once in his career has he been a top ten pitcher in the game.

Moyer should be in the hall of very good next to Don Mattingly, Keith Hernandez and a bunch of other very good baseball players.

Pedro's a first ballot guy. He's the best pitcher of his era and probably the best ever. He DOMINATED the steroid era in the AL East during the Yankee world series runs.

Only guy who can compare to him is Koufax.

Best pitcher I have ever seen over the course of a single season was Pedro in '99 (lucky enough to see Pedro live 2 in Fenway that year). Everybody touts his stats from 2000 but Pedro was simply unhittable at stretches of the season. In fact, I would love to go back and look but I bet he had an absurd amount of "swing and misses" on his changeup. Probably around 45-50% which would be an astounding number.

He annihilated opposing hitters that year including making fools of some amazing hitters at the ASG in Fenway that year. Hell, if Pedro hadn't overthrown and gotten injured in the ASG, he wouldn't have a terrible game against the Marlins on July 18th (vaguely remember watching portions of this game while working at a bar in Fanieul Hall and the crowd was stunned) and some shortened outings after that.

Can you imagine a guy who threw a fastball consistently at 95+ MPH with great location all game, a changeup that is better than Hamels including more breaking action late, and threw a curveball that was still an incredibly solid pitch which Pedro could throw for strikes consistently?

Pedro had seasons with more wins but Pedro in '99 was arguably the great pitcher I have seen in my lifetime.

Phaithful wrote: "lakeFred: Dykstra was a Met too(a world champ Met at that), got any beef with him?"

Back then the rivalry between the Mets and Phillies wasn't as intense. The teams rarely were both good at the same time, so the hatred of the Mets wasn't as strong back then. We also didn't "know" of Nails' juicing habit. We loved his grit and hustle. Today his star is tarnished, lumped in with all his steroid buddies. I think his past Mets-ness is a non-issue.

Just remember, the juiced up nails was a philly and not a met.

I look forward to seeing what Ibanez will do as a Phillie but find myself more intriqued by the trades made by Jr.

The Gillick legacy was finding value on the clearance rack and having some fiscal restraint and responsibility.

Hopefully Mayberry and/or Paulino turn out to be a Werth or Dobbs that neutralize the potential downside of the cost of Ibanez and Park.

There will always be worthwhile free agents but typically you end of paying over list price for something with no return policy which is never a smart investment.

I'm not a big fan of the steroids = cheating logic, but will admit it was a problem and needed to be fixed. But for HoF purposes, I think its been made clear over the years that being a HoF'er isnt 100% dependant on what a player does on the field, but what impact he had on the game itself, which is why drug use, gambling, arrogance, and attitude will always be factored in votes to a certain extent.

I'm expecting one more move for the Phils, since the backup centerfielder is Werth, and there is no righthander on the bench who you really want to use for pinch hitting. I'd try to put together a trade of our spare parts (maybe some combination of Kendrick, Coste and Stairs, none of whom would break anyone's bank) for a righthanded 4th outfielder who can play center.

NEPP: "Martinez had a better prime than Koufax....feel free to use statistics to try and prove me wrong."

Rarely is a challenge so easy to meet:

Koufax led the league in ERA for 5 straight years during his peak. Pedro led the league 4 straight.

Koufax led the league in strikeouts 4 times during his peak. Pedro led the league 3 times.

Koufax led the league in wins 3 times during his peak. Pedro led the league once.

Koufax led the league in IP twice during his peak. Pedro led the league 0 times.

Koufax led the league in WHIP 4 times during his peak. Pedro led 6 times.

On hits per 9, Koufax led the league 5 straight years. Pedro also led 5 years, but not consecutively.

Conclusion: while both are Hall of Famers, Koufax was better during a 5-year stretch in his career than Pedro was during any 5-year stretch in his career.

ae: Frankie Frisch???? I'm sure you meant to say Ford Frick.

Phils likely will make a deal for a right-handed bat or take a 1-year flyer on a reserve OF somebody but I doubt it is somebody that will generate any kind of buzz.

I would still be stunned if the Phils don't move Stairs via for "TBD" of "future considerations" at some point. Beyond that, this roster is almost 100% set good or bad.

"You don't believe steroids has affected the outcome of games? Let's not be naive here."

Read what I wrote again, CJ. I said you couldn't prove it. What I believe is beside the point, unless you're going to let me point out once again that betting on baseball games involves the integrity of entire games, not merely individual players -- and that trying to make yourself better doesn't affect integrity nearly as much as throwing games does.

As I noted before, amphetamines were used by Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, you name the star of the '60s, they used them. Do they help? No way of knowing.

Just like steroids. Do they help? We have no way of knowing. And, unlike greenies, they were not outlawed at the time most of these guys were using.

There was no team more juiced than the '93 Phillies. Does your scornful attitude extend to that team, too?

@alby -- wanted to make a correction regarding Whitey Ford's postseason record. He had a little more success than you mentioned. And his peripherals suggest he pitched fairly well. He just had to face some HOFer and all stars along the way.

Ford was 10-8 with 2.71 ERA in 22 starts in World Series play. 1.14WHIP 94K 34BB. Losses were against the likes of Warren Spahn (2x, plus 1 no decision loss), Sal Maglie, Billy O'Dell, Koufax (2x). I think your confusion comes from this: The Yankees won 6 World Series and lost 5 while Ford was a member of the team. 11 postseasons if you are counting.

The Schill in comparison has been outstanding in just 5 post seasons. His 19 appearances get close to Ford's because of the wild card etc. Some can argue that is a greater mark of success (look at Hamels this year as an example).

Schill's post season starts: 13
Schill's record: 11-2
Total Appearances: 19
Team record: (14-5)
ERA: 2.23
WHIP: 0.97
K-BB: 120-25
Rings: 2

Stunning stats and in the aggreagte would give me a nod towards Schilling.

But given that Ford's Yankees never had to play Wild Card or LCS we don't know if Ford's numbers would be better or worse.

Clout: This paragraph from Wikipedia sums up Frisch's involvement in HoF standard-lowering pretty well:

A number of years after Frisch left the playing field as a manager, he became a member of the Hall of Fame's Committee on Baseball Veterans, which is responsible for electing players to the Hall of Fame who may have been overlooked initial balloting by the Baseball Writers; he later became chairman of this powerful committee. In the years just prior to his death, a number of Frisch's Giants and Cardinals teammates were elected to the Hall; some notable writers, chiefly among them Bill James, have criticized these selections - including Jesse Haines, Dave Bancroft, Chick Hafey, Rube Marquard, Ross Youngs and George Kelly - which include some of the most widely questioned honorees in the Hall's history. Critics have complained that many of these selectees had accomplishments which were less outstanding than those of other players who were bypassed, and were only selected because of Frisch's influence.

Mike: Thanks for the correction on Whitey. I was indeed looking at the wrong column at Baseball Reference.

I was trying to make the point that Ford was considered a great post-season pitcher, which is why he's in the Hall despite "only" 236 career wins, and that Schilling's numbers match up well. It could be argued, of course, that early playoff rounds are against lesser teams than one would face in the WS, and that Schilling's dominance therefore came at the expense of some lesser teams.

Koufax vs. Pedro

Both had incredible 6 year streaks (you have it at 5 years for some reason)

But here goes:

Koufax's final 6 seasons were his streak from Age 25 to Age 30 (1961 - 1966)

ERA+ and WHIP for those seasons:

Age 25 1961 - 123 & 1.205
Age 26 1962 - 141 & 1.036
Age 27 1963 - 159 & 0.875
Age 28 1964 - 187 & 0.928
Age 29 1965 - 160 & 0.855
Age 30 1966 - 190 & 0.985

Pedro's peak years were from Age 25 to Age 31 (7 seasons if you count his injury filled 01 campaign where when he was healthy he still dominated the opposition.

Age 25 1997 - 219 & 0.932
Age 26 1998 - 163 & 1.091
Age 27 1999 - 243 & 0.923
Age 28 2000 - 291 & 0.737
Age 29 2001 - 189 & 0.934
Age 30 2002 - 202 & 0.923
Age 31 2003 - 210 & 1.039

Pedro had by far the better ERA+ from his comparable Age 25 - 30 seasons. The WHIP numbers are pretty similar but Koufax can't come close to matching Pedro's 2000 season and his ridiculous 0.737 WHIP. Considering he did it in the peak of the steroid era in a hitters park compared to a pure pitcher's era in a pitchers park, I have to give the edge to Pedro. I'll give you that Koufax had great ERAs in his career but look at his ERA in his peak years compared to that of the league ERA and then do the same for Pedro...its not even close. Pedro in his peak was absolutely amazing, especially when you look at his era.

How's this for a video game-esque stat from Pedro: 2000 season: 217 IP, 32 BB (1.33 BB/9) That's unhittable.

Almost as impressive is Koufax: 306 IP, 58 BB in his Age 27 season. (1.71 BB/9)

NEPP: I agree that Pedro was amazing. I also agree that his ERA+ was better. But that is not what you said. You said, "Martinez had a better prime than Koufax."

So, let me repeat:
Koufax led the league in ERA for 5 straight years during his peak. Pedro led the league 4 straight.

Koufax led the league in strikeouts 4 times during his peak. Pedro led the league 3 times.

Koufax led the league in wins 3 times during his peak. Pedro led the league once.

Koufax led the league in IP twice during his peak. Pedro led the league 0 times.

Koufax led the league in WHIP 4 times during his peak. Pedro led 6 times.

On hits per 9, Koufax led the league 5 straight years. Pedro also led 5 years, but not consecutively.

In other words, Koufax was better in more categories in his 5 year peak than Pedro was in any 5 year period.

LOL...that's some selective picking of the stats're not comparing them to each other but to their respective leagues...if you look at how much better Pedro was compared to the league average and do the same with Koufax you see Pedro is by far the superior pitcher. If I had to pick one pitcher to pitch Game 7 I would take Pedro in his 2000 season.

Both were ridiculously good one of a kind pitchers that you see once a generation though...

NEPP: My favorite stat to compare them on is HBP. Martinez is at 137 and counting for his career. Koufax -- a guy who had control problems his first several years -- hit 18 batters in a 12-year career. In other words, one was a headhunter, and one wasn't. If Martinez had played in the 60s he wouldn't have lasted three years before someone would have put him out of the game for good. I'm still hoping he plays long enough to get the beaning he deserves.

Koufax also pitched 311 innings or more three of his last four seasons.

One more point: It's a lot easier to post plus-200 ERA+s in a league with a 5.00 ERA than a league with a 3.20 ERA.

Um...Bob Gibson played in the 60's and he owned the inside of the plate too. The difference between the 60's and late 90's is one of body armor and a hitters philosophy based on crowding the plate. Guys in the 60's didn't sit on the plate like every batter today does...they'd be dead if they did.

You can and have made the case that Pedro is better, but "by far the superior pitcher"? I'll give you a break and assume that's frustration speaking.

Some cherry-picked stats that say otherwise: In 17 seasons he has a total of 46 complete games. He has topped 200 innings only 7 times.

I meant in comparison to their respective eras because of the ERA differences...not in comparison to each other...both are around equal with Pedro maybe getting an edge for longevity...though with modern medicine Koufax probably would have been able to say raise his arm on non game days and play past age 30.

Koufax was amazing when you consider he basically crippled himself by continuing to pitch through major shoulder injuries.

If I'm building a team...can I just have both as 1A and 1B?

Since you bring up Gibson (career HBP: 102), I'll note that his incredible 1.12 ERA in '68 was good for "only" a 258 ERA+, because the league ERA was 2.90. It's a lot harder to reach high ERA+ figures when the league ERA is that low.

kind of crazy to argue over Koufax and Pedro, in my opinion. they were both the most dominant players of their era, they're both first-ballot HoFers to me.

Good point on Gibson...

Its fun to discuss HoF players...especially considering Amaro is basically done making move till Spring.

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories


Rotoworld News

Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel