|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Dec 9, 2008 13:00:31 GMT -5
Probably a first ballot Hall of Famer. Not the strongest pitcher, not the trickiest, but probably the smartest pitcher ever. He did it by turning his talents, which is considerable but not exceptional, into a mastery over the art of pitching by working on his art.
23 seasons, 355-227. 3.16 ERA. 18 Gold Gloves, 4 Cy Youngs. Lead the NL 4 times in ERA and 7 times in starts.
He is the smart player that not many talk about.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 9, 2008 14:20:21 GMT -5
Yeah HOF for sure. 355 wins? Unheard of these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Dec 10, 2008 10:04:13 GMT -5
"probably" a first ballot HOFer?
OK, he didn't have Cal Ripken's "baseball savior" mystique, but then again, if one of the top 5 pitchers in the last 100 years isn't a first ballot HOFer, what is? Especially given his cleancut image (never been hinted with steroids, unlike the other top pitcher of the time).
Greg Maddux is Sandy Koufax, but with a career. Context adjusted, he was as good as Koufax at his peak, but Maddux had a good career outside that peak, too.
One of my only baseball regrets is that I never got to see him pitch. I've seen a lot of great players play, but he was the one I really wanted to see. I had a chance one night when I got stuck in LaGuardia, but I thought of it too late.
However, I get tired of the "smart pitcher" crap. Yeah, he's smart, but that isn't why he was a great pitcher. He had tremendous pitching ability. In particular, the movement on his pitches was spectacular. Probably the best combination of movement and velocity you will ever get (yeah, knuckleballs move, but don't come in at 90 mph). There are guys who throw 90 and straight, and they aren't successful, regardless of how much control they have. A 90 mph fastball that moves all over is a different beast.
|
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Dec 10, 2008 12:03:23 GMT -5
I agree with P dub...
NOW...
PLEASE TAKE TONY OLIVA.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Dec 10, 2008 12:06:01 GMT -5
Santo gets in long before Oliva.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 10, 2008 14:11:01 GMT -5
Especially given his cleancut image (never been hinted with steroids, unlike the other top pitcher of the time). You mean Clemens, right? But I'm not sure I would call Clemens "the other top pitcher". That implicitly ignores Randy Johnson, the all-time career leader in strikeouts/inning. At 295, Johnson doesn't have those 300 wins yet (although it looks like he's trying to hang around to get them), but he's another sure automatic entry into the HoF. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Dec 10, 2008 17:19:26 GMT -5
JOhnson is definately a top-notch hall of famer, but he doesn't match up against in Maddux and Clemens in the most important category: preventing runs.
He probably was harmed by all his injury problems in that regard, but it doesn't change the fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Dec 10, 2008 17:42:59 GMT -5
JOhnson is definately a top-notch hall of famer, but he doesn't match up against in Maddux and Clemens in the most important category: preventing runs. He probably was harmed by all his injury problems in that regard, but it doesn't change the fact. He had horrible control problems early in his career. He was Ricky Vaughn and Nuke LaLoosh in a 6'10" package. He led the league in walks and hit batsmen several years. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 10, 2008 17:57:36 GMT -5
He led the league in walks and hit batsmen several years. One memorable year he led the league in walks, hit batsmen, and strikeouts. It was worth going to any game he pitched, just for the entertainment value. But from the mid 90s to the early 00s, he was the pitcher I would most want to have going on to the mound if I needed a great outing. Two series really come to mind: When the Diamondbacks won the WS in 2001, he won three of the four games, including both of the must-win games on back-to-back nights (obviously in relief for the seventh game). IMO he got jobbed when they awarded Schilling co-MVP with him. In 1995 he won the tiebreaker game that got the Ms into the playoffs, then he won two of the three games they needed to win the ALDS, again coming in from the bullpen to win the final deciding game. And unlike Clemens or Maddux, he didn't do this playing on big-market teams like the Red Sox, Yankees, or Braves. (Though it must be said that Maddux helped turn the Braves into a big-market team.) I'm not going to argue that he's better than those guys, but he's definitely in the same picture. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Dec 11, 2008 10:29:27 GMT -5
As I said, very good, but still a step behind Maddux and Clemens.
And I don't understand the dig against PLAYERS for being on a "big market team." It's not like playing on the Yankees or Red Sox makes a player better. And including the Braves as a "large market team" really makes the concept silly. "Market size" is supposed to be an inherent property, not one dependent on the team quality. Either Atlanta is a large market, or it is not. It doesn't depend on how good the team is.
At least that is what the implication is. Of course, Bud Selig is as confused. Recall when he claimed that a new stadium in Milwaukee would make them a "large market" team.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 11, 2008 10:35:38 GMT -5
And I don't understand the dig against PLAYERS for being on a "big market team." It's not like playing on the Yankees or Red Sox makes a player better. It makes their W-L records better. And the Braves are a large market team artificially, due to their TV presence. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Dec 11, 2008 12:23:02 GMT -5
TBS doesn't even show the Braves anymore, in fact.
I don't blame successful teams for having more revenue sources than non-successful teams. That has nothing to do with market size.
|
|
