Circle of Greats: 1935 Balloting

237 Replies

This post is for voting and discussion in the 43nd round of balloting for the Circle of Greats. This round adds to the ballot those players born in 1935. Rules and lists are after the jump.

The new group joins the holdovers from previous rounds to comprise the full group eligible to receive your votes this round. The new group of 1935-born players must, as always, have played at least 10 seasons in the major leagues or generated at least 20 Wins Above Replacement (“WAR”, as calculated by baseball-reference.com, and for this purpose meaning 20 total WAR for everyday players and 20 pitching WAR for pitchers).

Each submitted ballot, if it is to be counted, must include three and only three eligible players. The one player who appears on the most ballots cast in the round is inducted into the Circle of Greats. Players who fail to win induction but appear on half or more of the ballots that are cast win four added future rounds of ballot eligibility. Players who appear on 25% or more of the ballots cast, but less than 50%, earn two added future rounds of ballot eligibility. Any other player in the top 9 (including ties) in ballot appearances, or who appears on at least 10% of the ballots, wins one additional round of ballot eligibility.

All voting for this round closes at 11:00 PM EST on Thursday, January 23 while changes to previously cast ballots are allowed until 11:00 PM EST Tuesday, January 21.

If you’d like to follow the vote tally, and/or check to make sure I’ve recorded your vote correctly, you can see my ballot-counting spreadsheet for this round here: COG 1935 Round Vote Tally. I’ll be updating the spreadsheet periodically with the latest votes. Initially, there is a row in the spreadsheet for every voter who has cast a ballot in any of the past rounds, but new voters are entirely welcome — new voters will be added to the spreadsheet as their ballots are submitted. Also initially, there is a column for each of the holdover players; additional player columns from the new born-in-1935 group will be added to the spreadsheet as votes are cast for them.

Choose your three players from the lists below of eligible players. The 13 current holdovers are listed in order of the number of future rounds (including this one) through which they are assured eligibility, and alphabetically when the future eligibility number is the same. The new group of 1935 birth-year guys are listed below in order of the number of seasons each played in the majors, and alphabetically among players with the same number of seasons played.

Holdovers:
Lou Whitaker (eligibility guaranteed for 10 rounds)
John Smoltz (eligibility guaranteed for 7 rounds)
Bobby Grich (eligibility guaranteed for 3 rounds)
Edgar Martinez (eligibility guaranteed for 3 rounds)
Craig Biggio (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Harmon Killebrew (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Juan Marichal (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Willie McCovey (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Ron Santo (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Dick Allen (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Kenny Lofton (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Eddie Murray (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Ryne Sandberg (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)

Everyday Players (born in 1935, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Frank Robinson
Dick Schofield
Tony Taylor
Felipe Alou
Jose Pagan
Earl Battey
Donn Clendenon
Russ Nixon
Bobby Richardson
Don Demeter
Reno Bertoia
Gene Oliver

Pitchers (born in 1935, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Lindy McDaniel
Moe Drabowsky
Bob Gibson
Jim Perry
George Brunet
Pedro Ramos
Don Cardwell
Mudcat Grant
Joe Gibbon
Joey Jay
Bob Veale
Sandy Koufax
Larry Sherry
Al Jackson
Dave Wickersham

0 0 votes

Article Rating

237 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Mike

10 years ago

Wow, here’s a stacked ballot!

Sandy Koufax
Frank Robinson
Bob Gibson

(I would love to also be able to vote for McCovey, Marichal & Killebrew)

Dr. Remulak

10 years ago

Robinson, Koufax, Gibson.

Josh

10 years ago

Frank Robinson, Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal

Artie Z.

10 years ago

Bob Gibson
Frank Robinson
Ron Santo

Why Santo over Koufax? Koufax is the ultimate peak player – 46.6 pitching WAR (44.2 total WAR if you want to add in his “value” as a hitter) from 1961-1966. That’s over 7 WAR per year. Santo’s best 6 year period was 1963-1968: 48.4 WAR.

So long Eddie Murray – hopefully I will see you in a future (or past as we are going backwards) round!

FYI: The link to McCovey doesn’t work. Seems there is an (eligibility for two rounds) comment added in there.

Author

birtelcom

10 years ago

Reply to Artie Z.

Thanks for the catch on the McCovey link. It’s fixed now.

Mike HBC

10 years ago

Frank, Bob, and Sandy. Shame on anyone who doesn’t vote for at least two of those three.

Chris C

10 years ago

This is getting progressively more difficult.

Frank Robinson – Best player on the ballot.
Bob Gibson – Gets the nod over Koufax as best pitcher on the ballot.
Craig Biggio – Because I’m not submitting a ballot without Biggio

Apologies to Sandberg, Santo, Koufax, Edgar, and a few others. We may lose a few players this round and have many more lose a year of eligibility.

Michael Sullivan

10 years ago

this is a tough round, since there are 2 no doubters among the new crowd, and three players I think belong in the COG who are on the bubble. I put Lofton, Sandberg and Murray ahead of Biggio, Killebrew, Marichal, McCovey and Smoltz, all of whom have a safety margin in the ballot. I think every one of these guys has a borderline case, but my focus generally would be to keep people on the ballot who are more deserving than some of the holdovers if it’s feasible. Whitaker is IMO, the clearest case on the holdover list, so normally… Read more »

Author

birtelcom

10 years ago

Frank Robinson’s OPS numbers vs. pitchers on the ballot this round: .879 vs. Koufax (124 PAs) .726 vs. Gibson (98 PAs) .949 vs. Cardwell (94 PAs) 1.033 vs. McDaniel (86 PAs) 1.109 vs. Jim Perry (73 PAs) .783 vs. Marichal (68 PAs) .857 vs. Al Jackson (58 PAs) 1.232 vs. Brunet (56 PAs) .498 vs. Joe Gibbon (54 PAs) .860 vs. Veale (45 PAs) 1.061 vs. Drabowsky (33 PAs) .629 vs. Joey Jay (29 PAs) 1.910 vs. Larry Sherry and .873 vs. Mudcat Grant (26 PAs each) 1.538 vs. Wickersham (13 PAs) .571 vs. Pedro Ramos (7 PAs) Nice work,… Read more »

Abbott

10 years ago

Frank Robinson, Biggio, Grich

Dr. Doom

10 years ago

Oy. We’ve reached the difficult years. These early-1930s are going to be really tough.

Frank Robinson
Bob Gibson
Ron Santo

I feel awful that a whole bunch of guys are going to completely get destroyed. Unless there’s a real groundswell to keep the backlog aloft (which seems unnecessary, given the quality of players who will be jumping on the ballot soon), I think we’re going to lose everyone on our bubble. And you can probably kiss the 2 round guys goodbye next round, too. Robinson and Gibson deserve election pronto. It’s about to get very messy up in the COG.

Jeff Harris

10 years ago

Robinson, Bob Gibson, McCovey

Hartvig

10 years ago

Robinson, Sandberg, Santo

Gibson will have to wait a ballot or 2 before I can fit him on my ballot.

David Horwich

10 years ago

It pains me to think Koufax may not be CoG-worthy, but I’m on the fence about him. I never saw him pitch (I was born the year he retired), but he was something of a childhood hero of mine. I read a juvenile biography of him, and I identified with him to an extent – he was a lefthanded Jewish kid from New York, I was a lefthanded Jewish kid growing up in the NY area…I didn’t have quite the stuff he had, to be sure. The case for Koufax is pretty simple: what a peak! And the case against,… Read more »

10 years ago

Reply to David Horwich

Koufax is the one guy my brain refuses to be rational about. I completely understand the park and era arguments that diminish the value of his traditional stats, but damn it if I can’t help swooning every time I see those five consecutive black inked numbers under “ERA”.

Hartvig

10 years ago

Reply to David Horwich

I started following baseball just about the time that Koufax came into national prominence. It’s pretty hard to overstate just how highly he was regarded the last few years of his career. There were very few that didn’t see him as a sure-fire Hall of Famer. He was also one of the first legends of my youth where looking at advanced statistics showed not just a different picture but one that I could also understand how it was arrived at and see how it all made sense. I’m fine with him being in the Hall of Fame. In fact I’d… Read more »

David Horwich

10 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

Hall of Fame – sure. Koufax is one of many who I consider easy Hall of Famers, but borderline CoG’ers.

Editor

Bryan O'Connor

10 years ago

Most Wins Above Average, excluding negative seasons:

Robinson 65.0
Gibson 50.0
Grich 43.6
Santo 43.3
Whitaker 42.7
Martinez 41.3
Smoltz 40.1
Lofton 39.3
McCovey 38.9
Sandberg 38.8
Biggio 36.3
Allen 35.9
Murray 34.9
Killebrew 33.0
Marichal 32.7
Koufax 32.3

I’ve been giving Smoltz credit beyond his WAA for his success in the closer role when he probably could’ve accrued more WAA as a starter. Now that Smoltz is no longer the best pitcher on the ballot, I have to decide whether he’s the second-best. Nah, I’ll go with the most overrated player in baseball history.

Robinson, Gibson, Koufax

Francisco

10 years ago

Juan Marichal, Frank Robinson, Bob Gibson

Doug

10 years ago

Robinson, Gibson, Koufax

bells

10 years ago

Let the fun begin. I’ve been looking forward to this stretch for some time. Players on ballot ranked by their cumulative rank on 3 measures: Career WAR, WAA+, and JAWS. A ranking of #1 on all 3 will lead to a cumulative ranking of 3; a ranking of #16 on all 3 will lead to a cumulative ranking of 48. Here are the rankings (ranking on each measure in parentheses)… Robinson 3 (1 1 1) Gibson 6 (2 2 2) Grich 11 (4 3 4) Santo 12 (5 4 3) Whitaker 15 (3 5 7) Martinez 21 (7 6 8)… Read more »

bells

10 years ago

Reply to bells

okay, Grich only has 3 rounds of eligibility; 2 is not ‘much closer’ I guess; I think I just assumed Grich was on for a Smoltz-like amount of rounds. Either way, vote still goes to Ron.

Richard Chester

10 years ago

Robinson, Gibson, Koufax

jajacob

10 years ago

Robinson, Gibson, Murray I was going to vote for Whitaker but decided I could afford to vote for somebody to stay on the ballot. Something I gave up doing a couple of ballots ago. Wish I could spilt my third vote between Murray and Lofton like they sometimes do in year end awards. 1.0 for Robinson .75 for Gibby I think I should duck for not giving him a whole vote. .25 for Whitaker .25 for Grich .15 for Santo .10 for Koufax .10 for Martinez .10 for Biggio .05 for Lofton .05 for Smoltz .05 for McCovey .05 for… Read more »

oneblankspace

10 years ago

Reply to jajacob

I would have to go with Ken Brett as an answer to your final question.

Voomo Zanzibar

10 years ago

Myron Walter Drabowsky, we’ll call him Mo.
Relief pitcher for the ’66 Orioles.

6.2 scoreless relief innings in Game 1?
He inherited a lead, thanks to dingers from the Robinson brothers off of Double D.

But one hit, 11k off the pine?
Not a bad way to earn a ring.

Voomo Zanzibar

10 years ago

Al Jackson.
Not one, but TWO

8-20 seasons

The first for the inaugural Metros.
And good for 3.0 WAR

Andy

10 years ago

Robinson, Gibson, Koufax

donburgh

10 years ago

The list of new pitchers says ‘born in 1936’.

Author

birtelcom

10 years ago

Reply to donburgh

Oops. Thanks. Fixed.

J.R.

10 years ago

Frank Robinson, Bobby Grich, Sandy Koufax

Nick Pain

10 years ago

Frank Robinson, Bob Gibson, Lou Whitaker

mosc

10 years ago

*sigh*, looks like I’ll be voting for Koufax till the cows come home. Circle of accumulators be damned. When you were at your best, you were not as good as Koufax. I vote for the exceptional, in all areas. Exceptional longevity, exceptional total value, and especially exceptional peak. Koufax, Robinson, Gibson I’d also raise questions on how park factors deal with the exceptional. I raised this with walker as well, we over-simplify the part effects but just looking at total run production in those stadiums vs other stadiums for given teams. Some pitchers are helped by large foul areas, others… Read more »

Author

birtelcom

10 years ago

Reply to mosc

Let’s look at some home/away splits for ERAs of pitchers over their age 27-30 seasons (Koufax’s great years): Pedro: Home 2.30, Away 1.86 Maddux: Home 2.18, Away 2.05 Marichal: Home 2.37, Away 2.35 Ford: Home 2.64, Away 2.37 Koufax Home 1.31, Away 2.44 Drysdale Home 2.22, Away 3.29 Ron Perranoski, who was also pitching for the Dodgers in the 1963-1966 period, had a 2.09 home ERA and a 2.84 away ERA over that period. Excluding the Dodgers, the normal difference between home and away ERAs in the NL in the 1963-1966 period was about 0.25. It’s hard for me to… Read more »

Paul E

10 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

BTC #38:
I believe it was Peter Palmer and John Thorn that concluded that Larry Jackson had a better year than Koufax in one of Sandy’s ridiculous years from age 27-30. Maybe they weren’t too impressed with Dodger Stadium, either?

Voomo Zanzibar

10 years ago

Reply to Paul E

Career WAR, including offense:

Larry Jackson
52.1

Sanford Koufax
49.0

no statistician but

10 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

Is anyone going to remember this information when the 1928 ballot comes up? Or will Ford be dissed as usual for being a product of Yankee Stadium, I wonder. The fact is, that except for his poor showing in Fenway, Ford’s lifetime home record is just about the same as his road record.

You can look it up, as his manager used to say.

Michael Sullivan

10 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

as usual? Who disses Ford for being a product of Yankee Stadium? His win% and wins are a product of the great teams he was usually on, and his WAR level is borderline. i’ve never heard anyone diss him very hard, he seems to be a perfectly good choice for the hall. I’ve sometimes brought him up as an example of a clear to the BBWAA HOF player who is no better than some pitchers that have been decisively snubbed by the voters, but that’s not about him being undeserving, it’s about others being just as even more so. I… Read more »

no statistician but

10 years ago

Reply to Michael Sullivan

Michael S: The implication gets raised. Old Yankee Stadium was purportedly 1) a pitcher’s park; 2) especially for lefties. At the moment I can’t cite any specific statements that, oh, yeah, but he was a lefty pitching in the stadium, but I’ve read them, just as I’ve read that Koufax only looked so good because of the mile high pitcher’s mound at Dodger Stadium. If so, by the way, it’s strange that his W-L record was fairly consistent, home and away, and his ERA on the road, while higher, would have ranked third in the league in 1963, fourth in… Read more »

mosc

10 years ago

Reply to Michael Sullivan

I think the mojo term you are looking for is called “post season play”

Ford gets my vote

no statistician but

10 years ago

Reply to Michael Sullivan

mosc: Paradoxically, the players I had in mind were a mixed bag post season: Carew, Perry, Palmer, Ryan, Fisk, Blyleven, Molitor, Trammell, Raines, Walker, Mussina. I don’t claim Ford and Koufax were better than any (well, most) of these, but they were as good in their own ways. And as for my comment on the COG voting, I forgot that you vote for three, so I might list them as a second or third choice after all, if I partook. One last general comment in the form of a question: Why were the supposed pitching advantages of Yankee and Dodger… Read more »

Author

birtelcom

10 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

Over the period 1950-1967 (the period of Whitey Ford’s career) pitchers on average had ERAs 0.35 lower at home than on the road. Whitey’s ERA over his career was 0.36 lower at home than on the road — a perfectly normal home field advantage, neither high nor low. BTW, that league average home/road ERA difference is pretty much stable across much of modern baseball history. If you do that split for the entire period 1916 through 2013 it is a .40 home field advantage, and if you run it for just 2000 through 2013 it is 0.36. (It does jump… Read more »

Michael Sullivan

10 years ago

Reply to mosc

So are you really saying that Koufax in 62-66 was not just *comparable* to Pedro in 1997-2000, but a lot better?

mosc

10 years ago

Reply to Michael Sullivan

Very similar. Pedro kept it going for 7 years though really and Koufax didn’t so I don’t think they’re equals. Pedro had a hitter’s park adjustment in his WAR which I don’t particularly like. The more you strike guys out, the less park factor matters. WAR works for Pedro and against Koufax. Pedro’s peak was nearly twice as wide as Koufax’s so I don’t think Koufax was better than Pedro career wise. I think at their absolute peak, they were just about equal and I don’t think anybody else reached that level for more than a year or two. Wood… Read more »

10 years ago

Frank Robinson, Sandy Koufax, Bob Gibson

oneblankspace

10 years ago

Bob Gibson is currently in second place to Frank Robinson. I think F-Rob should get in (F-Rob?), but I would rather see Gibby in first, so I am strategically withholding that vote.

CBiggio
BGibson
EMurray to keep him on the ballot

oneblankspace

10 years ago

Reply to oneblankspace

Biggio is close to using up a year of eligibility. Gibby looks a lock for returning.

Changing a strategic vote:

CBiggio
BGibson
DSchofield, Sr. (Jayson Werth’s grandfather)

It may not work, but it’s werth a try to get Biggio into the top 9+.

donburgh

10 years ago

Reply to oneblankspace

Elder Schofield is not Dick Sr. His full name is John Richard Schofield. His son is Richard Craig Schofield.

David Horwich

10 years ago

Murray, Sandberg, Robinson. The voting structure has served pretty well so far, but I think it’s going to be straining at the seams the next few rounds. Players such as Marichal and Santo don’t have a lot of eligibility to use up only because they haven’t had time to build up those extra rounds. E.g if Marichal and Smoltz were to exchange birth years, I think Marichal would have 7 rounds of eligiblity in his pocket, while Smoltz would have just 2. Or switch Santo for Whitaker, and so on. I think the holdover list could use some pruning –… Read more »

Hub Kid

10 years ago

Reply to David Horwich

Great point about switching players from earlier rounds with later rounds – the character of the ballot seems to have changed quite a bit. I don’t know if a Larry Walker or Alan Trammell could get in if he were on the ballot now, although I am glad that Trammell, at least, got in. As I said in my response to the 1936 results, the COG voting has been good at being more selective than the HOF. On the other hand it has not been very good at recognizing players overlooked by the HOF, which is something of a given.… Read more »

Author

birtelcom

10 years ago

Reply to David Horwich

You make fair points, David, but it’s also true that if the group really values a player very highly, it is not that difficult to build up an eligibility backlog quickly. Gaylord built up five rounds of guaranteed eligibility very quickly because a lot of voters found him to be a very credible induction candidate, round after round. If a player is not standing out enough to get even a quarter of the voters to consistently name him as one of their three choices, can he really complain when he drops off the ballot when the going gets tough? Plus… Read more »

David Horwich

10 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

True, there are redemption rounds, but we may end up with a backlog not unlike the current HoF ballot if too many good candidates get knocked off the ballot in the next few rounds. We shall see….

Michael Sullivan

10 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

My main concern would be that some of the later rounds as we get into players who’s prime was in the deadball or 19th century eras, we won’t have as many players that I would consider legit COG candidates. If a lot of people fall off the ballot before then because of the powerhouse eras we’re headed into now and then near the turn of the century, there may not be enough redemption rounds to bring them all back. I could see us ending up voting in some older guys who have fame, but really don’t stand up to some… Read more »

Author

birtelcom

10 years ago

Reply to Michael Sullivan

To the extent that it looks like the talent is thinning such that we are getting toward a point at which a significant number of voters would likely prefer to vote for guys no longer on the ballot as opposed to the top guys on the ballot, I fully intend to accelerate the redemption process, either by holding redemption rounds more frequently or expanding the number of players who can be redeemed back onto the ballot as the result of any particular redemption round, or both.

Dr. Doom

10 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

Birtelcom, one if the best things about the COG as opposed to the HOF is that you’re more interested in product than process. You don’t care about slavish adherence to the rules if it’s producing bad results. And that’s why the COG is better than the Hall of Fame. It’s funny; we’re at the point now where I care more about THREE pretend Halls of Fame than I do about the break one (Hall of Merit, Hall of Stats, Circle of Greats).

Author

birtelcom

10 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

Yes, DD, if unbending rules means irrational results, then the rules need to be adjusted. That being said, though, no competitive process is any fun if the rules of it seem overly arbitrary — consistency is an important value, too. The goal is to build a system with enough flexibility that it can accommodate needed variance while also giving people enough certainty and predictability that the process seems fair. Redemption rounds are useful that way, because all they do is give guys a route back on to the ballot, and it’s a route they have to earn with real support… Read more »

David Horwich

10 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

birtelcom @ 92 –

Sounds very reasonable!

bstar

10 years ago

Reply to Michael Sullivan

Excellent comment, Michael. You’ve encapsulated why strategic voting for holdovers is so important.

Hub Kid

10 years ago

Reply to Michael Sullivan

After the top 100 are elected to the COG, and the careers of the birth year cohorts are getting weaker, I hope that will be an opportunity for some of the under-rated non-HOFers.

Maybe even a few of that top 100-120 that we are struggling to elect (or retain) will still be on the ballot, although a combination of Redemption Rounds and hanging-on to the ballot looks more likely. I look forward to a Redemption Round candidate winning, although not any time in these extremely good years for baseball talent that we are going through now.

Mike HBC

10 years ago

Reply to David Horwich

Says the holdover list could use some pruning.

Votes for two of the four bubble players, who might charitably be considered the ninth- and tenth-best players on the ballot.

David Horwich

10 years ago

Reply to Mike HBC

Sure, I voted for the two players on the bubble I think deserve to stay on the ballot. I did say “not too much” pruning, after all.

Nadig

10 years ago

Robinson, Gibson, Lofton.

Paul E

10 years ago

Allen
McCovey
Sandberg

Probably the end for the “eligibility guaranteed for this round only” guys.

--bill

10 years ago

Gibson, Robinson, Koufax

latefortheparty

10 years ago

I knew Gibson and Koufax were coming but Robinson snuck up on me.

Frank Robinson
Bob Gibson
Bobby Grich

Voomo Zanzibar

10 years ago

Jim Abbott recoded two hits as a batter.
I would like to see a video of that.

Here’s a photo of the effort:

Mike HBC

10 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

And THAT is why I vote for him in every Redemption Round (and why I voted for him in 1967 when he was initially on the ballot). The grit, the work ethic, the determination, the refusal to bow to a disability, the inspiration provided… all the WAR in the world can’t stack up to that.

Brent

10 years ago

Frank Robinson, Gibson and Lofton (who I consider the best and, maybe more importantly, most unique of the at risk players)

Andy

10 years ago

Frank Robinson, Bob Gibson, Sandy Koufax

jeff hill

10 years ago

Frank Robinson, Bob Gibson, Kenny Lofton

I was waiting for this round to point this out: I’ll take Pedro over anyone’s peak including Koufax’s 5 year run simply because of what he pitched against(roided up players in hitters parks), where at(home park) and the era(which clearly and undeniably favored Koufax in every way). Koufax was average at best for HALF of his career.

Voomo Zanzibar

10 years ago

Reply to jeff hill

When we’ve been at this for two years do we vote on 1970 and deal with Thome and Edmonds…… so that we can eventually get to Pedro ’71?

Author

birtelcom

10 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

Pedro would become eligible about two years from now. If we successfully complete the weekly voting process, and there is still interest, I’d hope we would re-convene the Circle voting every year, so as the BBWAA adds inductees we would also add inductees, while also bringing the latest group of 44-year-olds on to the ballot-eligible list. So Pedro would probably be in the first such group — if we really get that far.

Artie Z.

10 years ago

Reply to jeff hill

I think people forget how ridiculous (in a good way) Pedro’s career was … perhaps it’s just my age though (Koufax was done a decade before I was born and was just … legendary) or a changing of how players are covered in the media. Or something else. Whether it’s raw numbers or more advanced stuff: From 1997-2003 his raw ERA was 2.20 – that’s lower than Mariano’s career ERA, and Pedro threw a few more innings in that span. He went 219-100 for a .687 winning percentage. He struck out 3154 batters in 2827.1 innings. That’s a higher rate… Read more »

jeff hill

10 years ago

Reply to Artie Z.

I did this for my pleasure: Pedro(7 yrs, 96-02) vs. Koufax(5 yrs, 62-66) in prime years 1408 inn vs 1377 1009 hits vs 959 315 BB vs 316 1761 K’s vs 1444 K’s 11.25 K/9 vs 9.44 K/9 2.01 BB/9 vs 2.07 BB/9 6.44 H/9 vs 6.26 H/9 8.17 Avg WAR per yr vs 8.18 57.2 WAR vs 40.9 WAR 2.44 era vs 2.16 era 0.94 WHIP vs 0.925 WHIP These last three really hit hard… 216 ERA+ vs 167.6 ERA+ 5.19 RA9avg vs 3.8 RA9avg 101.3 park factor vs 92.3 park factor You be the judge, I’ll take Pedro… Read more »

David Horwich

10 years ago

Reply to jeff hill

I’d take Pedro, too, but to give Koufax his due – the Dodgers did win 3 pennants and 2 WS during his peak, and Koufax pitched quite well in the WS. I was just looking at the 1965 Series – Koufax pitched consecutive shutouts on 2 days rest in games 5 and 7. Game 5 was an utterly dominant performance: 4 hits (all singles), 1 walk, 10 Ks; no Twin reached 2nd base until the 9th inning, when the Dodgers already had a big lead. Game 7 was almost identical, 3 hits, 3 walks, 10 Ks – a game score… Read more »

Voomo Zanzibar

10 years ago

Reply to David Horwich

Ridiculous postseason performances by Koufax. Comparing apples and grapes with the 3 pennants, though. The Dodgers didnt have to peel through two layers of playoffs to get to the World Series… with a Yankees juggernaut in the way. _________ The first two years of Pedro’s 7 year peak (as detailed above) he was in French Canada. His first year in Boston, they made the playoffs, and he won Game 1. The only game they won. _________ 2nd year, they made the playoffs. He left Game One after 4 scoreless. (?) Down 2-0 in Game 3, he gave up 2 in… Read more »

David Horwich

10 years ago

Reply to David Horwich

VZ @ 79 –

To be sure, getting to the WS in the pre-divisional era was easier than it is these days. I wasn’t really comparing the respective “postseason” performances of Martinez and Koufax, just noting some of Koufax’s accomplishments.

Chris C

10 years ago

Reply to David Horwich

To Voomo #79: You looked at Pedro’s 1999 playoff appearances EXTREMELY improperly.

Game 1: Yes, he left with an injury after 4 shutout innings. Looked like he might be done for the series (at least).

Game 3: Was pitched by his brother, Ramon

Game 4: As the Sox couldn’t get anyone out and were tailing 8-6 in the 3rd inning, Pedro miraculously started warming up, silenced the crowd, then pitched 6 no-hit innings to save the season. One of the greatest pitching performances in playoff history.

Lawrence Azrin

10 years ago

Reply to jeff hill

@62/Jeff hill, You need to give credit to Koufax’s higher IP seasonal totals, when you compare their rate stats. Koufax averaged about 277 IP/year compared to about 207 IP/year for Martinez, over the years you mentioned. In his best three years, Koufax averaged almost almost a hundred more 100 IP a year than Martinez did in his three highest IP years. I think most reasonable people would expect Martinez’ rate stats to go down at least a little if he pitched 300+ innings in a year. And this is coming from one of Pedro’s biggest fans, who thinks that for… Read more »

Jeff Hill

10 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

I agree that Koufax had tremendous IP years BUT many of the other aces in his era did as well. Even if(and it’s a big if)Pedro was starting more games and continued his greatness I doubt a single manager would’ve allowed any pitcher to reach 300 innings in the late 90’s early 00’s.

Noteworthy, absolutely…but he did it with a raised mound in the single greatest pitchers era since the dead ball era in a pitchers dream park. Pedro, just the opposite.

oneblankspace

10 years ago

Reply to Artie Z.

On the starters don’t get as many innings idea…

The 2013 Houston Astros had no qualifiers for the ERA title (162 IP). Among non-qualifiers, their best ERA was turned in by Jake Elmore. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/e/elmorja01.shtml

It certainly didn’t help matters that the Astros only averaged 8.89 IP per game.

Author

birtelcom

10 years ago

Reply to oneblankspace

The 2013 Astros were the 9th team since 1901 to produce no pitcher that pitched at least 1 IP per team game (the standard for ERA title qualification). The 2012 Rockies were the 8th such team. The only such team prior to 1995 was the 1957 Kansas City Athletics.

Phil

10 years ago

Robinson, Koufax, Gibson. Not to be a Luddite, but this is one time where I don’t even want to look at WAR.

10 years ago

Frank Robinson, Bob Gibson, and probably for the last time for a while, Lou Whitaker.

T-Bone

10 years ago

Sandberg
Santo
Koufax

RonG

10 years ago

Gibson, Koufax, Marichal

aweb

10 years ago

Robinson, Gibson, Grich

JasonZ

10 years ago

Sandy’s game 7 performance…

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HeKbktNm0Mk

JasonZ

10 years ago

… Bob Gibson’s record performance in 1968…

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gR7mFvbd1XM

JasonZ

10 years ago

…and finally, the clinching game of the 1969 World Series.

In the interest of equal time see an aged Frank Robinson.

Don’t miss World Series Report before the game.

It is hosted by Jim Simpson and features Mickey Mantle and Sandy Koufax.

Included among the priceless comments is Mantle calling Swoboda’s catch the best he has ever seen.

Mantle also reveals, tongue in cheek, that he never believed in astrology, but is starting to now.

JasonZ

10 years ago

Forgot the link.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WbCWUehZKVU

Dr. Doom

10 years ago

The link to this post and the wrapup from last round seem to have disappeared from the front page. Can anyone fix this? Andy? birtelcom?

Author

birtelcom

10 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Still on my front page. There’s John’s “pop quiz”, then the two COG posts.

Dr. Doom

10 years ago

Reply to birtelcom

It’s back now. I even tried refreshing a couple times before posting that comment, because I didn’t want to be wrong about it. But it was definitely gone (for me, at least) and it’s definitely back now.

Steve

10 years ago

One of the easier rounds – Frank Robinson, Bob Gibson, Sandy Koufax

Gary Bateman

10 years ago

Robinson, Gibson, Marichal

koma

10 years ago

Lou Whitaker, Craig Biggio, Harmon Killebrew (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)

bells

10 years ago

Reply to koma

Can I ask you, why the vote for Whitaker? Don’t get me wrong, whatever voting method you use is totally legitimate and I’m not going to challenge you on that, it’s cool with me if you just like him, or if you think he’s the best on the ballot, anything. I’m just curious, because I only have two modes in voting here – ‘voting for the best’ and ‘voting strategically’, and Whitaker doesn’t fit in either right now for me (although he is certainly near the top of the ‘best’). He’s not going to win any rounds until we get… Read more »

Michael Sullivan

10 years ago

Reply to bells

In fact, I’d say, given the voting so far, a vote for Whitaker is basically a wasted vote, since almost everyone who supports him for the COG has made the same calculation you and I did — he’ll survive till he has a shot to win without any help now, and he has zero chance to win this ballot with 3 popular choices among the newcomers (2 of them slam dunks). Which means he’s very unlikely to get 10% or be in the top 9.