2008-2009 Hot Stove Thread

[PHILLYQ]

Manny in 16 years has 1667 strikeouts and has hit into 230 double plays

Rice in 16 years had 1423 strikeouts and hit into 315 double plays .

BUT remember Rice suffered his last 3 seasons with bad knees.

Those are interesting stats....so Rice hit into on average 5 more double plays per year than Manny .

You should also consider plate appearances when judging- did Rice or Manny have a large difference from each other?

[paul secor]

Personally, I didn't think that Jim Rice deserved to be in the HOF, but he's in and I tip my hat to him. I think that standards have been lowered in recent years, and that exceptions have been made in the past that shouldn't have been made.

I don't think that Phil Rizzuto should have been elected. I don't think that Pee Wee Reese should have been elected. I don't believe that Tony Perez should have been elected. I don't think that Sandy Koufax or Dizzy Dean Should have been elected - five great years don't equal a Hall of Fame career. I don't feel that Nolan Ryan should have been elected - won a lot of games because he pitched for a long time; struck out out a lot of hitters; pitched a bunch of no-hitters; but his won lost percentage is terrible. People say that he pitched for bad teams, but Steve Carlton, Ferguson Jenkins, and Walter Johnson pitched for bad teams and had appreciably higher W/L percentages. I don't think that Thurman Munson should be elected to the Hall of Fame.

I feel that membership in the Hall of Fame should be limited to great players, and that very good players should be seen as very good players but not Hall of Famers.

Those are my opinions, and I realize that's what they are. I respect all of the players who have been elected to the Hall of Fame even if I may not agree with their election.

I'm not a numbers guy (which may automatically disqualify my opinion), but some of the names you've thrown out as not deserving are a bit surprising. Koufax, Dean, Ryan? Are these even on anyone's "marginal" list? And you say on the one hand five good years shouldn't qualify a pitcher, then say Ryan's longevity shouldn't be a factor either. I dunno. ... I'm sure you have stats to back up your opinions on these guys, but I just wouldn't give any of these three a second thought.

I'm not a stats guy - some people can make statistics say anything (see Scott Boros) - but when they're there, they're there.

Sandy Koufax: 129-47 last six years. Last five years a fantastic 111-34. But 36-40 first six years. Five (maybe six years) don't make a Hall of Fame career - at least imo.

Dizzy Dean: 3 fantastic seasons - 82-32; 2 good seasons 18-15 & 20-18; injured in 1937 & was never the same pitcher. Three great seasons don't make a Hall of Fame career - again, my opinion.

Nolan Ryan: .526 career w-l percentage. Hall of Fame? Shouldn't be, imo.

But all three are in the Hall of Fame, and I recognize their accomplishments as fine achievements. That's one of the great things about baseball - everyone has their opinions and no one is always right.

[tkeith]

Remember when Rick Cerone didn't go out to the catcher's position for the national athemn the next game? Yes, he belongs.

Cerone was with Toronto when Munson died. I believe it was Jerry Narron who did that.

I'm on the fence about Munson; he falls into that Garvey category for me. But I'd have no objection if he were in.

[tkeith]

and he was the most dangerous outfielder to run on in the American League.

Balderdash! He must be confusing Rice with his teammate Evans. Or Dave Parker (oops, wrong league.) Even Reggie had a better arm, though getting to the ball was another matter.

Back atcha. Evans had an overrated arm. Very strong, but his accuracy was suspect (note the throw to 1B in game 6, 1975). I saw him do that more times than I can mention here. I like Dewey, but people who rave about his arm are looking at the numbers, not the games. Rice did *not* have a good arm, but that prompted people to run on him, and when they did, he could cut them down with accuracy. He didn't get lucky like Manny, he actually could hit a target.

[tkeith]

75 Triples is a lot , again Manny has 18 for his career .......Hustle counts !

Don't look at Rice's grounded into double numbers then.

Right-handed power-hitters tend to hit into a lot of double plays. Particularly in a park with short infield grass.

[Dan Gould]

Yeah, Dewey's throw was flat-out terrible, especially when you consider how much time he had to set his feet.

Oh wait a minute.

He didn't have time to set his feet, did he? No, he made a spectacular leaping catch, turned and threw to first base in the same motion, a la Willie Mays. Because of the extraordinary catch, his throw could have been sixty feet off target and they still get the double play. The Reds runner was no more than halfway between second and first when Yaz shuffled the ball to, iirc, Doyle.

Congratulations, you've come up with another incredibly stupid claim.

[Tim McG]

The Giants were peaking when the WS started.

Then why did they lose game 1 5-0 and game 2 5-1?

But we had a dead soild defense [with infielders Matt Williams, Robby Thompson and Will Clark coupled with OF'ers Brett Butler and Kevin Mitchell] and a pitching staff that got the job done most days helped the Giants to a 90-72 season record.

You had a deep bullpen, I'll give you that. But Oakland had a good one too.

Why did the Giants lose? As was mentioned before, the Earthquake which rattled The 'Stick, chasing thousands out the doors in a panic [coupled with the deaths of hundreds of people, fires, destruction, people trapped alive in their cars on the Bay Bridge and 101 Freeway] had more than a little something to do with a loss of concentration and momentum.

How willing would you be to play baseball in the midst of unbearable tragedy in your fan's hometown? Further, some two weeks later, the WS was moved to Oakland, a home field advantage for the A's for all the games played; not one game was played in SF. Nothing like this has ever happened in the history of the WS. That would be why, Quincy.

Edited January 14, 2009 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

Personally, I didn't think that Jim Rice deserved to be in the HOF, but he's in and I tip my hat to him. I think that standards have been lowered in recent years, and that exceptions have been made in the past that shouldn't have been made.

I don't think that Phil Rizzuto should have been elected. I don't think that Pee Wee Reese should have been elected. I don't believe that Tony Perez should have been elected. I don't think that Sandy Koufax or Dizzy Dean Should have been elected - five great years don't equal a Hall of Fame career. I don't feel that Nolan Ryan should have been elected - won a lot of games because he pitched for a long time; struck out out a lot of hitters; pitched a bunch of no-hitters; but his won lost percentage is terrible. People say that he pitched for bad teams, but Steve Carlton, Ferguson Jenkins, and Walter Johnson pitched for bad teams and had appreciably higher W/L percentages. I don't think that Thurman Munson should be elected to the Hall of Fame.

I feel that membership in the Hall of Fame should be limited to great players, and that very good players should be seen as very good players but not Hall of Famers.

Those are my opinions, and I realize that's what they are. I respect all of the players who have been elected to the Hall of Fame even if I may not agree with their election.

I'm not a numbers guy (which may automatically disqualify my opinion), but some of the names you've thrown out as not deserving are a bit surprising. Koufax, Dean, Ryan? Are these even on anyone's "marginal" list? And you say on the one hand five good years shouldn't qualify a pitcher, then say Ryan's longevity shouldn't be a factor either. I dunno. ... I'm sure you have stats to back up your opinions on these guys, but I just wouldn't give any of these three a second thought.

I'm not a stats guy - some people can make statistics say anything (see Scott Boros) - but when they're there, they're there.

Sandy Koufax: 129-47 last six years. Last five years a fantastic 111-34. But 36-40 first six years. Five (maybe six years) don't make a Hall of Fame career - at least imo.

Dizzy Dean: 3 fantastic seasons - 82-32; 2 good seasons 18-15 & 20-18; injured in 1937 & was never the same pitcher. Three great seasons don't make a Hall of Fame career - again, my opinion.

Nolan Ryan: .526 career w-l percentage. Hall of Fame? Shouldn't be, imo.

But all three are in the Hall of Fame, and I recognize their accomplishments as fine achievements. That's one of the great things about baseball - everyone has their opinions and no one is always right.

I'm not a stats guy either, but Kofax was just plain dominant. I don't know if you ever watched him pitch, but he was virtually unhittable with confidence to burn. Until he injured his throwing elbow [which Tommy John surgery would have easily got him back out on he mound] he was just plain Mr. Automatic. Jim Brown had a [relatively] short playing career, too. He belongs in the NFL HOF just as Kofax does in the MLB HOF. It's the impact a player has, not years of service.

And Nolan Ryan...the all-time strike out leader? He was even more dominant than Kofax was. Who's going to catch him? You'd have to glue two good careers together by almost anyone you care to name to beat Ryan in SOs. The W-L stat you put out as your evidence only speaks volumes about the crappy ballclubs he pitched for not his impact on the game or his talent. He belongs in the HOF.

Edited January 14, 2009 by GoodSpeak

[Quincy]

Why did the Giants lose? As was mentioned before, the Earthquake which rattled The 'Stick, chasing thousands out the doors in a panic [coupled with the deaths of hundreds of people, fires, destruction, people trapped alive in their cars on the Bay Bridge and 101 Freeway] had more than a little something to do with a loss of concentration and momentum.[

How willing would you be to play baseball in the midst of unbearable tragedy in your fan's hometown? Further, some two weeks later, the WS was moved to Oakland, a home field advantage for the A's for all the games played; not one game was played in SF. Nothing like this has ever happened in the history of the WS. That would be why, Quincy.

The earthquake happened BEFORE Game 3. The A's won the first 2 games by a combined score of 10-1. Now I'll grant you that many teams have come back 0-2 in a series. But you said the Giants were peaking before the series. Yet they dropped the 1st 2 games of the series. I think it's safe to say that they were no longer peaking. And finally the last 2 games were played at Candlestick.

You have a fascinating ability to reinvent history.

[WorldB3]

Why did the Giants lose? As was mentioned before, the Earthquake which rattled The 'Stick, chasing thousands out the doors in a panic [coupled with the deaths of hundreds of people, fires, destruction, people trapped alive in their cars on the Bay Bridge and 101 Freeway] had more than a little something to do with a loss of concentration and momentum.[

How willing would you be to play baseball in the midst of unbearable tragedy in your fan's hometown? Further, some two weeks later, the WS was moved to Oakland, a home field advantage for the A's for all the games played; not one game was played in SF. Nothing like this has ever happened in the history of the WS. That would be why, Quincy.

The earthquake happened BEFORE Game 3. The A's won the first 2 games by a combined score of 10-1. Now I'll grant you that many teams have come back 0-2 in a series. But you said the Giants were peaking before the series. Yet they dropped the 1st 2 games of the series. I think it's safe to say that they were no longer peaking. And finally the last 2 games were played at Candlestick.

You have a fascinating ability to reinvent history.

Sometimes Giants fans come up with the argument that the A's threw their #1 and 2 starters twice in that series in Dave Stewart and Mike Moore but forget that Bob Welch won 17 games with a 3.00 ERA and Strom Davis won 19 (era low 4's) though he benefited by being on a great team. The Giants had Robinson, Garrelts, Reuschel and LaCoss. The starting lineups between the two were no contest as the A's were loaded 1-9 even though Will Clark and Kevin Mitchell were two of my all time favorite players.

The A's should have won 3 world series during that time, not just the one in 89. Of course now if the A's came even close to getting to the World Series I would be happy.

[Tim McG]

Why did the Giants lose? As was mentioned before, the Earthquake which rattled The 'Stick, chasing thousands out the doors in a panic [coupled with the deaths of hundreds of people, fires, destruction, people trapped alive in their cars on the Bay Bridge and 101 Freeway] had more than a little something to do with a loss of concentration and momentum.[

How willing would you be to play baseball in the midst of unbearable tragedy in your fan's hometown? Further, some two weeks later, the WS was moved to Oakland, a home field advantage for the A's for all the games played; not one game was played in SF. Nothing like this has ever happened in the history of the WS. That would be why, Quincy.

The earthquake happened BEFORE Game 3. The A's won the first 2 games by a combined score of 10-1. Now I'll grant you that many teams have come back 0-2 in a series. But you said the Giants were peaking before the series. Yet they dropped the 1st 2 games of the series. I think it's safe to say that they were no longer peaking. And finally the last 2 games were played at Candlestick.

You have a fascinating ability to reinvent history.

I think it is only safe to say I messed up on the actual day of the earthquake and where the last two games were played: You are right the quake happened at the start of Game 3 and [after a long delay] the final two games were held at a quake shaken 'Stick [where at anytime another temblor could hit]. You were right, I was incorrect.

Beyond that....I think you are a little too willing to discount the tragedy of the loss of life and the physical scars which shattered the SF community to its core [Marina District was almost a total loss, the Bay Bridge was closed as was the collapsed freeway which lead to the ballpark from the North and they were still digging out from the wreckage] as to how it adversely affected the Giants' play on the field. Fans surely lost relatives and friends and many of the Giants team members were living in the SF community or were a part of the SF community had to be affected by all that, Quincy.

Because a team loses a game to the A's Dave Stewart [the team ace ] and then drops a second game, in Oakland, to Mike Moore [who was no slouch] only proves the A's were fired up and at home in front of a stadium filled with cheering A's fans. That's it. Advantage A's.

Other than that there is absolutely no way you can say with any certainty that the Giants wouldn't have at least pushed the WS to Game 6 or have won the WS [which was my point earlier].

No earthquake, Giants win.

Edited January 15, 2009 by GoodSpeak

[WorldB3]

I think it is only safe to say I messed up on the actual day of the earthquake and where the last two games were played: You are right the quake happened at the start of Game 3 and [after a long delay] the final two games were held at a quake shaken 'Stick [where at anytime another temblor could hit]. You were right, I was incorrect.

Beyond that....I think you are a little too willing to discount the tragedy of the loss of life and the physical scars which shattered the SF community to its core [Marina District was almost a total loss, the Bay Bridge was closed as was the collapsed freeway which lead to the ballpark from the North and they were still digging out from the wreckage] as to how it adversely affected the Giants' play on the field. Fans surely lost relatives and freinds and many of the Giants team members were living in the SF community or were a part of the SF community had to be affected by all that, Quincy.

I lived in SF during that quake but I have to say I am pretty offended that you think it only affected people in SF, there was massive damage in Oakland and all the way down to where I grew up in Santa Cruz.

Edited January 15, 2009 by WorldB3

[paul secor]

Personally, I didn't think that Jim Rice deserved to be in the HOF, but he's in and I tip my hat to him. I think that standards have been lowered in recent years, and that exceptions have been made in the past that shouldn't have been made.

I don't think that Phil Rizzuto should have been elected. I don't think that Pee Wee Reese should have been elected. I don't believe that Tony Perez should have been elected. I don't think that Sandy Koufax or Dizzy Dean Should have been elected - five great years don't equal a Hall of Fame career. I don't feel that Nolan Ryan should have been elected - won a lot of games because he pitched for a long time; struck out out a lot of hitters; pitched a bunch of no-hitters; but his won lost percentage is terrible. People say that he pitched for bad teams, but Steve Carlton, Ferguson Jenkins, and Walter Johnson pitched for bad teams and had appreciably higher W/L percentages. I don't think that Thurman Munson should be elected to the Hall of Fame.

I feel that membership in the Hall of Fame should be limited to great players, and that very good players should be seen as very good players but not Hall of Famers.

Those are my opinions, and I realize that's what they are. I respect all of the players who have been elected to the Hall of Fame even if I may not agree with their election.

I'm not a numbers guy (which may automatically disqualify my opinion), but some of the names you've thrown out as not deserving are a bit surprising. Koufax, Dean, Ryan? Are these even on anyone's "marginal" list? And you say on the one hand five good years shouldn't qualify a pitcher, then say Ryan's longevity shouldn't be a factor either. I dunno. ... I'm sure you have stats to back up your opinions on these guys, but I just wouldn't give any of these three a second thought.

I'm not a stats guy - some people can make statistics say anything (see Scott Boros) - but when they're there, they're there.

Sandy Koufax: 129-47 last six years. Last five years a fantastic 111-34. But 36-40 first six years. Five (maybe six years) don't make a Hall of Fame career - at least imo.

Dizzy Dean: 3 fantastic seasons - 82-32; 2 good seasons 18-15 & 20-18; injured in 1937 & was never the same pitcher. Three great seasons don't make a Hall of Fame career - again, my opinion.

Nolan Ryan: .526 career w-l percentage. Hall of Fame? Shouldn't be, imo.

But all three are in the Hall of Fame, and I recognize their accomplishments as fine achievements. That's one of the great things about baseball - everyone has their opinions and no one is always right.

I'm not a stats guy either, but Kofax was just plain dominant. I don't know if you ever watched him pitch, but he was virtually unhittable with confidence to burn. Until he injured his throwing elbow [which Tommy John surgery would have easily got him back out on he mound] he was just plain Mr. Automatic. Jim Brown had a [relatively] short playing career, too. He belongs in the NFL HOF just as Kofax does in the MLB HOF. It's the impact a player has, not years of service.

And Nolan Ryan...the all-time strike out leader? He was even more dominant than Kofax was. Who's going to catch him? You'd have to glue two good careers together by almost anyone you care to name to beat Ryan in SOs. The W-L stat you put out as your evidence only speaks volumes about the crappy ballclubs he pitched for not his impact on the game or his talent. He belongs in the HOF.

Jim Brown played nine years in the NFL - a good career for a running back. Believe he led the league in rushing in eight of those nine years.

As I said about Mr. Koufax - by the way, you probably should learn to spell his name correctly if you're going to write something supporting him - five dominant years in baseball don't add up to the Hall Fame - at least imo. I guess they do in yours.

As I said about Nolan Ryan earlier - see Walter Johnson, Steve Carlton, and Ferguson Jenkins - Hall of Famers who also pitched for some bad teams.

[Indestructible!]

I lived in SF during that quake but I have to say I am pretty offended that you think it only affected people in SF, there was massive damage in Oakland and all the way down to where I grew up in Santa Cruz.

I was just going to say the same thing. True, SF was hit harder by the quake, but man, Tim... BOTH the Giants and the A's were touched by the quake, so it was an issue for both teams. It's not like the A's weren't affected at all.

And this:

No earthquake, Giants win.

This is just not a reflection of reality in any way. Like I said before... not a chance in hell.

[Quincy]

I was just going to say the same thing. True, SF was hit harder by the quake, but man, Tim... BOTH the Giants and the A's were touched by the quake, so it was an issue for both teams. It's not like the A's weren't affected at all.

Eckersley was born in Oakland as was Dave Stewart. As Stewart became famous he used that do a lot of good in the community (it's not that he didn't want to before, but he could do more once people wanted to see him.) Sports Illustrated's vault is open, and there's a quote from him in this story. "The destruction and damage here is as great as it was in San Francisco, but Oakland never gets the media attention because we're not glamorous."

In another article the amount of respect for the A's by Giant Terry Kennedy is telling:

"In the comfort of their own clubhouse after the game, the Giants seemed more impressed than depressed. "I've played in two Series in this decade, against the two best teams of the 1980s, the '84 Tigers and the '89 A's," said San Francisco catcher Terry Kennedy, who was also a member of the '84 Padres. "They're similar teams. They had the same look in their eyes. The A's were a tidal wave, and we just couldn't get out of the way.""

The same article has this exchange between Hindu & Parker before the post-Quake/rescheduled Game 3:

"The A's rushed through BP, and Dave Henderson looked ineffective. "I feel like———," he told Parker. "That's good." replied Parker. "You're supposed to feel like———at a time like this.""

I've had a lot of "what if" discussions before, such as what if Rice had been able to play in the '75 series, but this exchange is one I never thought I'd be involved in. Oakland is to the Loma Prieta earthquake what the Mississippi/Alabama gulf area is to Katrina. Both suffered damage but it's not talked about much because of a more glamorous neighbor.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Quincy

[Tim McG]

I think it is only safe to say I messed up on the actual day of the earthquake and where the last two games were played: You are right the quake happened at the start of Game 3 and [after a long delay] the final two games were held at a quake shaken 'Stick [where at anytime another temblor could hit]. You were right, I was incorrect.

Beyond that....I think you are a little too willing to discount the tragedy of the loss of life and the physical scars which shattered the SF community to its core [Marina District was almost a total loss, the Bay Bridge was closed as was the collapsed freeway which lead to the ballpark from the North and they were still digging out from the wreckage] as to how it adversely affected the Giants' play on the field. Fans surely lost relatives and freinds and many of the Giants team members were living in the SF community or were a part of the SF community had to be affected by all that, Quincy.

I lived in SF during that quake but I have to say I am pretty offended that you think it only affected people in SF, there was massive damage in Oakland and all the way down to where I grew up in Santa Cruz.

When did I state it only affected people in SF....can you show me, please?

Oakland all the way down to Santa Cruz? Uh. Come again? Buddy, you need to buy a map.

Edited January 15, 2009 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

I lived in SF during that quake but I have to say I am pretty offended that you think it only affected people in SF, there was massive damage in Oakland and all the way down to where I grew up in Santa Cruz.

I was just going to say the same thing. True, SF was hit harder by the quake, but man, Tim... BOTH the Giants and the A's were touched by the quake, so it was an issue for both teams. It's not like the A's weren't affected at all.

And this:

No earthquake, Giants win.

This is just not a reflection of reality in any way. Like I said before... not a chance in hell.

It only proves A's fans don't have a heart...but we Giants fans have known that for years

Seriously, there was damage on the Oaktown side of the Bay [the collapse of the 880] but not at all to the extent it was on the Penisula [including your Santa Cruz where there was extensive damage]...not even close.

Apparently, your "reflection of reality" is a little, shall we say, dimmer than mine.

Giants win that WS.

Edited January 15, 2009 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

Why did the Giants lose? As was mentioned before, the Earthquake which rattled The 'Stick, chasing thousands out the doors in a panic [coupled with the deaths of hundreds of people, fires, destruction, people trapped alive in their cars on the Bay Bridge and 101 Freeway] had more than a little something to do with a loss of concentration and momentum.[

How willing would you be to play baseball in the midst of unbearable tragedy in your fan's hometown? Further, some two weeks later, the WS was moved to Oakland, a home field advantage for the A's for all the games played; not one game was played in SF. Nothing like this has ever happened in the history of the WS. That would be why, Quincy.

The earthquake happened BEFORE Game 3. The A's won the first 2 games by a combined score of 10-1. Now I'll grant you that many teams have come back 0-2 in a series. But you said the Giants were peaking before the series. Yet they dropped the 1st 2 games of the series. I think it's safe to say that they were no longer peaking. And finally the last 2 games were played at Candlestick.

You have a fascinating ability to reinvent history.

Sometimes Giants fans come up with the argument that the A's threw their #1 and 2 starters twice in that series in Dave Stewart and Mike Moore but forget that Bob Welch won 17 games with a 3.00 ERA and Strom Davis won 19 (era low 4's) though he benefited by being on a great team. The Giants had Robinson, Garrelts, Reuschel and LaCoss. The starting lineups between the two were no contest as the A's were loaded 1-9 even though Will Clark and Kevin Mitchell were two of my all time favorite players.

The A's should have won 3 world series during that time, not just the one in 89. Of course now if the A's came even close to getting to the World Series I would be happy.

So!

How'd they do against the Dodgers in 1988...?

Same NL West Division...what happened to the oh-so-vaunted A's then, eh? They were just as loaded, top to bottom. Answer: They got their butts whipped. The "X" choked on a crippled Kirk Gibson and the A's went out with a wimper. Now how on Earth can you, and in hindsight, claim the A's would have beaten anybody in the 1989 WS?

If the [hated] Dodgers could beat the A's it is a no-brainer that the Giants would have won. Hands down.

Edited January 15, 2009 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

Personally, I didn't think that Jim Rice deserved to be in the HOF, but he's in and I tip my hat to him. I think that standards have been lowered in recent years, and that exceptions have been made in the past that shouldn't have been made.

I don't think that Phil Rizzuto should have been elected. I don't think that Pee Wee Reese should have been elected. I don't believe that Tony Perez should have been elected. I don't think that Sandy Koufax or Dizzy Dean Should have been elected - five great years don't equal a Hall of Fame career. I don't feel that Nolan Ryan should have been elected - won a lot of games because he pitched for a long time; struck out out a lot of hitters; pitched a bunch of no-hitters; but his won lost percentage is terrible. People say that he pitched for bad teams, but Steve Carlton, Ferguson Jenkins, and Walter Johnson pitched for bad teams and had appreciably higher W/L percentages. I don't think that Thurman Munson should be elected to the Hall of Fame.

I feel that membership in the Hall of Fame should be limited to great players, and that very good players should be seen as very good players but not Hall of Famers.

Those are my opinions, and I realize that's what they are. I respect all of the players who have been elected to the Hall of Fame even if I may not agree with their election.

I'm not a numbers guy (which may automatically disqualify my opinion), but some of the names you've thrown out as not deserving are a bit surprising. Koufax, Dean, Ryan? Are these even on anyone's "marginal" list? And you say on the one hand five good years shouldn't qualify a pitcher, then say Ryan's longevity shouldn't be a factor either. I dunno. ... I'm sure you have stats to back up your opinions on these guys, but I just wouldn't give any of these three a second thought.

I'm not a stats guy - some people can make statistics say anything (see Scott Boros) - but when they're there, they're there.

Sandy Koufax: 129-47 last six years. Last five years a fantastic 111-34. But 36-40 first six years. Five (maybe six years) don't make a Hall of Fame career - at least imo.

Dizzy Dean: 3 fantastic seasons - 82-32; 2 good seasons 18-15 & 20-18; injured in 1937 & was never the same pitcher. Three great seasons don't make a Hall of Fame career - again, my opinion.

Nolan Ryan: .526 career w-l percentage. Hall of Fame? Shouldn't be, imo.

But all three are in the Hall of Fame, and I recognize their accomplishments as fine achievements. That's one of the great things about baseball - everyone has their opinions and no one is always right.

I'm not a stats guy either, but Kofax was just plain dominant. I don't know if you ever watched him pitch, but he was virtually unhittable with confidence to burn. Until he injured his throwing elbow [which Tommy John surgery would have easily got him back out on he mound] he was just plain Mr. Automatic. Jim Brown had a [relatively] short playing career, too. He belongs in the NFL HOF just as Kofax does in the MLB HOF. It's the impact a player has, not years of service.

And Nolan Ryan...the all-time strike out leader? He was even more dominant than Kofax was. Who's going to catch him? You'd have to glue two good careers together by almost anyone you care to name to beat Ryan in SOs. The W-L stat you put out as your evidence only speaks volumes about the crappy ballclubs he pitched for not his impact on the game or his talent. He belongs in the HOF.

Jim Brown played nine years in the NFL - a good career for a running back. Believe he led the league in rushing in eight of those nine years.

As I said about Mr. Koufax - by the way, you probably should learn to spell his name correctly if you're going to write something supporting him - five dominant years in baseball don't add up to the Hall Fame - at least imo. I guess they do in yours.

As I said about Nolan Ryan earlier - see Walter Johnson, Steve Carlton, and Ferguson Jenkins - Hall of Famers who also pitched for some bad teams.

This is a spelling bee now...? And not spelling a name means I'm wrong...? Now how did that happen?

Five record setting-pace dominant years do. KoUfax belongs....and I'm a Giants fan, fer crissakes.

Nolan Ryan never pitched in a WS, played for losing teams and he still dominated the plate and still registered record numbers of strikeouts

Walter Johnson pitched in the Dark Ages of Baseball [1907-1928] absolutely no comparison.

Ferguson Jenkins pitched during the "dead ball" era of baseball.

In short, Nolan Ryan is HOF material. Make no mistake.

Steve Carlton, 4th in strikeouts, would be the only legit comparison....but a very distant second, third or fourth to Ryan.

Edited January 15, 2009 by GoodSpeak

[Quincy]

Nolan Ryan never pitched in a WS,

1969 Mets ring a bell? He got save for them.

Ferguson Jenkins pitched during the "dead ball" era of baseball.

I've never heard the 1960s & '70s called "dead ball" before.

[Dan Gould]

Tim, you need to stop, man.

Ferguson Jenkins was a "dead ball era" pitcher?

And where did you say that the rest of the area wasn't effected by the Quake? How about here:

Why did the Giants lose? As was mentioned before, the Earthquake which rattled The 'Stick, chasing thousands out the doors in a panic [coupled with the deaths of hundreds of people, fires, destruction, people trapped alive in their cars on the Bay Bridge and 101 Freeway] had more than a little something to do with a loss of concentration and momentum.

How willing would you be to play baseball in the midst of unbearable tragedy in your fan's hometown?

Obviously the A's were "willing to play baseball in the midst of unbearable tragedy in your fan's hometown".

And your assertion that the Giants would have inevitably won - what a crock of shit. They were down 2-0. Right there the history of the World Series favors the team with the lead. And because the Dodgers came through in '88, that means the Giants would win in '89???

God your astoundingly dense.

[Dan Gould]

Looks like the Sox are close to locking up Youk for four years/40 million plus an option year. Gotta like that. He's 30 now, so keeping him under club control through age 35 is great. Or at least its much better than letting him go to arbitration, then have another monster year. If he has another great year and is a free agent after that, he'd be one of the best hitters on the market and only 31. Ten million a year to lock him up is pretty good, imo. Maybe he's declining when he's 35, maybe not - but he'll be a Red Sox for the best years of his career.

[Tim McG]

Tim, you need to stop, man.

Ferguson Jenkins was a "dead ball era" pitcher?

And where did you say that the rest of the area wasn't effected by the Quake? How about here:

Why did the Giants lose? As was mentioned before, the Earthquake which rattled The 'Stick, chasing thousands out the doors in a panic [coupled with the deaths of hundreds of people, fires, destruction, people trapped alive in their cars on the Bay Bridge and 101 Freeway] had more than a little something to do with a loss of concentration and momentum.

How willing would you be to play baseball in the midst of unbearable tragedy in your fan's hometown?

Obviously the A's were "willing to play baseball in the midst of unbearable tragedy in your fan's hometown".

And your assertion that the Giants would have inevitably won - what a crock of shit. They were down 2-0. Right there the history of the World Series favors the team with the lead. And because the Dodgers came through in '88, that means the Giants would win in '89???

God your astoundingly dense.

Right.

Call me when the BoSox have to cancel a WS game because of a catastrophe in Boston, affecting thousands of their fans...then you can talk.

The A's were willing to pay inspite of death and tragedy? Is that what I said?

Cut and paste a pretend issue. How typical of you, Dan.

Where didn't I say...really? That is the sword you choose to fall on...the places I didn't mention? Really? And you call me dense...?

Wow.

I see you are just as myopic as always....I apologize for thinking there was more credibility than that in you. My Bad.

I think, at some point, you might want to actually pull your head out of your ass and take a look at reality. The ridiculous accusations and erroneous platitudes you love to hang your hat on have become that proverbial Albatross, which forever hangs around your neck, have become glaringly obvious, Dan.

Seriously...maybe it's time to quit behaving like a jackass and try to be a little more, oh....human?

Edited January 16, 2009 by GoodSpeak

[Chalupa]

Dodgers cut Andruw Jones (AKA "WORST FA SIGNING EVER").....

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3836749

[Dan Gould]

Really Timmy? Wow. Just ... Wow.

The earthquake effected the entire area. No one disputes this. But apparently it only effected the fans and players of one team, not the other.

And I'm still waiting to hear about your claim that Ferguson Jenkins pitched in the Deadball Era.

Edited January 16, 2009 by Dan Gould