4. Come clean. Nothing clears the air like truth.

If you want somebody to pitch a big game, you take Sandy Koufax, Bob Gibson, Whitey Ford, Jack Morris, Jim Palmer, Mickey Lolich and Dave Stewart (just for starters)

F--- me, why not Don Larson? Does this idiot really think Dave Stewart enters into the discussion?

To think that Bonds doesn't belong into the HOF is to think he is alone doing steroids. C'mon people ! Wake up ! A great many players are taking steroids and he's still better than all of them.

Had the MLB done its job properly, the MLB would probably be - well, not free of steroids, but at least less players would be taking them. Had that happened, and had Bonds not started to take any, Bonds would still be the best hitter of his era. Not of all time, though.

Cobb was a racist bas**** who lived in a racist era that prevented black players to play baseball. That racism had a tremendous effect on Cobb stats, and on other players of his and later times.

The same for Bonds. He's a freaking drug addict whos plays in an era where many (but not the majority, I hope) players are taking drugs in order to improve their skills. This obviously has
an positive effect on his stats, as well as the stats of ALL the players of the MLB (the effect can be either positive if you take them, and negative if you don't take any).

So Bonds is just a man of his time. And he should go into the HOF The same way other men of their own times also got into the HOF.

While Mickey Lolich was one of my faves...I always remember his "big game" pitchability during the Tigers slow fade in '75 where Lolich won 2 and lost 13 (including a timely 8 game losing streak) of his last 15 starts. As the Tigers went from 9 out in July to 34 GB in Sept.

Of course...then the Mets got him.

I believe that he voted for Dave Stewart for the HOF, right along with his Steve Garvey vote - he has always been a huge fan of Stewart.

Does this idiot really think Dave Stewart enters into the discussion?

No, but Schilling should.

I really wish the present playoff format existed for longer than it has. Before, there just weren't enough games to make these "clutch" evaluations. Bob Gibson pitched how many post-season games? I'll answer my own question - 9. That's all. Just 9. Now, a pitcher on a good team will pitch more than that over a span of just 2 seasons.

One interesting aspect of the NBA is how the playoffs expose the fool's gold players. During the regular season, teams don't face each other often enough to develop detailed game plans and strategies. But they do during the playoffs. And, if something isn't working, the mutlple game format gives them enough time to make adjustments and plug their own holes or find a solution to create one in their opponents.

I suspect the same thing occurs in baseball. Watching the Red Sox and Yankees go after one another, I don't think there are any secrets left between the two teams. They both know what they have to do to beat each other. When interleague play starts, this just isn't true. The players don't have any experience playing against one another and the game plans they have drawn up must be pretty superficial, just hastily drawn scouting reports and recollections of players who switched leagues, how they got so-and-so out and that sort of thing.

Nice destruction of Lolich, there.

And Whitey Ford? He of the 10-8 WS W/L record? That's a lot of big games lost. And Bob Gibson, who couldn't even beat stinkin' Mickey Lolich in a Game 7? And Jim Palmer, who couldn't close the deal in Game 6 in '79? And Jack Morris, who lost the only two games Toronto lost in the '92 WS and took three of their four postseason losses that year?

Yup, being 3-0 with a 2.37 ERA in World Series competition doesn't qualify you for being as good as Dave Stewart, who lost two to the Reds in '90.

So Bonds is just a man of his time. And he should go into the HOF The same way other men of their own times also got into the HOF.

Well, Joe Jackson was just a man of his time too. Just doing what the other players did.

No, but Schilling should.

Same guy who lost Game 1 in '93? Naw, just kidding, he's been large for sure. Not sure 109 IP is a good sample of anything, though. I.e., it's fun to discuss, but how can you conclude anything?

Yup, being 3-0 with a 2.37 ERA in World Series competition doesn't qualify you for being as good as Dave Stewart, who lost two to the Reds in '90.

Stewart always struck me as a bigmouth jackass with an inflated opinion of himself. remember hwo he used to brag aobut how he was better than Clemens and how he was being cheated out of Cy's because he was black and Clemens was white?

And, when the Reds swept the Stewart-led A's in the 1990 series, he kept insisting they were the better team?

Yeah. Right, Dave. Keep on talking. Keep on trying to win games with your mouth. That and a token will get you a ride on the subway.

Does this idiot really think Dave Stewart enters into the discussion?

No, but Schilling should.

I guess Kevin is so used to being called an idiot, he answered for Jenkins.

Stewart always struck me as a bigmouth jackass with an inflated opinion of himself.

Which was strange, considering he got busted for public fornication with a she-male.

remember hwo he used to brag aobut how he was better than Clemens and how he was being cheated out of Cy's because he was black and Clemens was white?

I remember his racism theory, but I don't recall that it was directed at Clemens in particular.

Which was strange, considering he got busted for public fornication with a she-male.

?? Did this really happen??

If it did, RDF, Dr. M.

It was when he was with the Rangers. Check Wikipedia, it's in there.

Secondly, what is classified as public fornication with a she-male? Can you be a little more specific? Hetero fornication involves intercourse but that's not possible here.

I'm comfortable with my terminology. Just look up him up in Wiki, you'll see what I'm talking about.

Not that this has anything to do with the article...

I just did. He was getting a blowjob.

Well, there you go then. Call it what you will, it didn't take him down any pegs.

And Bob Gibson, who couldn't even beat stinkin' Mickey Lolich in a Game 7?

Yeah, Gibson sure blew it in that 7th game when, in a game tied 0-0 in the 7th inning, he yielded that misjudgeable two-out flyball to Curt Flood that scored the game's first two runs.

What a choke job. You'd think after seven consecutive complete-game wins in the World Series he'd be able to come through in the clutch against a weenie like Mickey Lolich. What the hell did Lolich ever do before that, besides throw complete-game wins in Games 2 and 5?

4. Come clean. Nothing clears the air like truth.
Perhaps MLB should set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, so we can find out what happened then move on. The current witch-hunts and gotcha games don't seem to be doing either the purists or the juicers any good.

Even the most sympathetic observers had to be shocked by Kobe Bryant's Game 7 against Phoenix (three shots, one point in the second half).
As a Suns fan, I could read stuff like this all day.
All the talk that real basketball fans knew Steve Nash wasn't the true MVP, not as long as Mamba was alive... Poof. Gone. An MVP, when the going gets tough, does not act like a petulant #####.
(Actually, my MVP vote went to LeBron, but I thought the Nash-bashing got out of hand near the season's end. Yes, I'm talking to you, Bill Simmons.)

Stewart always struck me as a bigmouth jackass with an inflated opinion of himself.

Which was strange, considering he got busted for public fornication with a she-male.

The coolest part of that after that, at least was while he was in the NL, his clubhouse nickname was "Oops!"

But for some reason "Dave 'Oops' Stewart" never made it onto Topps, Donruss, or Fleer. Billy "Fukcface" Ripken made it, though, probably because he's white.

I've been trying to stay out of these threads - mostly because I to a certain extent I need to pick my battles - and this kind of against the grain opinion will usually bring a lot more attention to me than I want right now. With that said - I believe Jenkins has to very fair point - to an extent. I do have the feelings (no evidence beyond his mediocre post season record) that Roger was not a big game pitcher, and performed considerably worse than one would expect. That doesn't mean I don't think he is the greatest living pitcher - it just means he has a blemish on his record that rarely gets enough attention put on it. I haven't done enough research on Roger or other pitchers in big games outside of a very superficial look. So I haven't determined if it is a large enough blemish to potentially put someone ahead of him. But some more work on the issue needs to be done, and it is on my list of things to look into.

Generally speaking when we are trying to evaluate bodies of work as long with as many factors as these players we are discussing I really think the amount of analysis that goes into these discussions should go beyond adjusted runs prevents, or RPAA, or JAWS or what have you - I think you lose a lot of granularity when you aggregate to just seasonal or even worse career totals. Then again that’s always been my position, and generally get ridiculed for it.

So there you have it - I'm not convinced Roger is the greatest living pitcher. Maybe he isn't maybe he is. Not that I think Jack Morris, or Dave Stewart is either.

LeBron James set an alarming and inexcusable trash-talking precedent during the Washington series when, after Gilbert Arenas missed the first of two crucial free throws, he walked up to Arenas and said, "You miss both of these, the game's over." This went beyond Scottie Pippen telling Karl Malone, "The Mailman don't deliver on Sundays."

The great Abdul Automobile went up to a 76er during a key foul shooting moment in game 5 of the 1981 Eastern Conference finals and gave him a big "MISS!! MISS!!". And it worked: He missed, the Sixers blew the game, and then blew the whole Series. Which is one of the many reasons why Abdul Automobile has a permanent place in the hearts of Celtics fans of a certain age.

LeBron James set an alarming and inexcusable trash-talking precedent

Is this sarcasm? Ever played any bball?

I assumed it was sarcasm, but Jenkins goes on:
"James actually put his hand on Arenas' chest, and that won't play"

I seriously don't get it. That discussion was the highlight of the playoffs so far. Is Jenkins seriously claiming it was a bad thing?

The great Abdul Automobile went up to a 76er during a key foul shooting moment in game 5 of the 1981 Eastern Conference finals and gave him a big "MISS!! MISS!!".

That's nothing. Cedric Maxwell walked up to James Worthy and grabbed his throat in a choking motion in the '84 Finals.

Bird, Maxwell, Carr and McHale could trash-talk with the best of 'em. That's a trash-talking HoF right there.

When McHale had it going, he would yell "Torture Chamber! Torture Chamber!" at the guy covering him in the post when he received the ball and would laugh at him after throwing down a soft-as-a-snowflake jump hook right in his eye.

If only MLB had a program to catch steroid users then this problem should go away.

For each pitcher mentioned in the intro, I figured a career playoff ERA+ of sorts by comparing each pitcher's playoff performance each year with the league ERA+ for that year and by weighting each year according to innings pitched in that year's playoffs (relative to the pitcher's career playoffs innings pitched). This method has its imperfections (it doesn't include the other league, which provided some of the opponents, and it doesn't account for the different level of competition during the playoffs), but it's the only one that would fit into an afternoon. The list is sorted by playoff ERA+, with the highest listed first:

Sandy Koufax
519 ERA+ in 57 playoff IP
131 ERA+ in 2324.3 regular-season IP

Whitey Ford
258 ERA+ in 146 playoff IP
132 ERA+ in 3170.3 regular-season IP

Bob Gibson
209 ERA+ in 81 playoff IP
127 ERA+ in 3884.3 regular-season IP

Mickey Lolich
198 ERA+ in 46 playoff IP
104 ERA+ in 3638.3 regular-season IP

Jim Palmer
180 ERA+ in 124.3 playoff IP
125 ERA+ in 3948 regular-season IP

Jack Morris
154 ERA+ in 92.3 playoff IP
105 ERA+ in 3824 regular-season IP

Dave Stewart
149 ERA+ in 133 playoff IP
100 ERA+ in 2627.7 regular-season IP

Roger Clemens
128 ERA+ in 196.7 playoff IP
143 ERA+ in 4704.3 regular-season IP

LeBron walked up to an opposing player between free throws, put his hand on him, and trash-talked him? That just sounds obnoxious as all hell.

I can't say that I'm proud of it, but I find it an entertaining story. I did this to someone in an intramural playoff game (sometimes I take things a bit too seriously). I forget exactly what I said (nothing too bad, something like how I'd like him to miss it or something), but it was the timing that was significant -- right as he was taking his standard third dribble. It threw him off enough that he took a 4th dribble, which I was more than happy to point out to him.

The "funny" part is that as he released the shot, he yelled "swish". He missed it about a foot to the right, didn't even touch rim or backboard.

We still lost, so it serves me right.

LeBron walked up to an opposing player between free throws, put his hand on him, and trash-talked him? That just sounds obnoxious as all hell.

I don't think it's that big a deal. The other player should have just pushed him aways and said something likeu "Get back in your box so you'll be in position to take the ball out of the net after I drain this right in your eye, punk!"

If you do stuff like that, the trash-talking will dry up pretty quick.

Yeah, Gibson sure blew it in that 7th game when, in a game tied 0-0 in the 7th inning, he yielded that misjudgeable two-out flyball to Curt Flood that scored the game's first two runs.

What a choke job. You'd think after seven consecutive complete-game wins in the World Series he'd be able to come through in the clutch against a weenie like Mickey Lolich. What the hell did Lolich ever do before that, besides throw complete-game wins in Games 2 and 5?

I believe the word for this is pwn3d.

Jenkins is a first-rate moron but the Bob Gibson people (my dad being one) have a defensible case.

If Bonds doesn't go in the HOF, there is no point in having one.

Clemens had a more than his share of absolute playoff stinkers.

On Bonds, my guess is he will make the HOF. Probably not in his first year. But I suspect that there will be enough writers who fall into the following camps:

1) "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"
2) it wasn't "really" against baseball rules and he was never caught, therefore he never broke any of baseball's rules
3) enough/most players were doing it that he was still "fairly" the best player
4) His post-1998/2001 numbers are inflated but after "adjusting" them for steroids, he's still clearly an HOFer
5) His post-1998/2001 numbers don't count but his pre-1998/2001 numbers were already sufficient for him to be in the HOF, though maybe not "inner circle" or "first ballot"

I also suspect that the anger (or self-righteousness of writers) over steroids will have dissipated somewhat by the time Bonds is eligible. I also don't think we're going to see a huge drop in scoring and HRs over these next few years which will add credence to his numbers (this is what Jenkins is getting at with the Pujols 70 HR "step"). If we do see a big drop, then I think his chances are substantially lower.

Note, it's just a guess (or gut feeling or my reading of the zeitgeist) and it's assuming that baseball's investigation doesn't turn up anything too damning (like Bonds has been doing roids since the early 90s) or that it does end up painting everyone in a severely negative light. Assuming it's as much of a whitewash as they can get away with, I suspect the investigation will end up having little impact one way or the other.

I think it will be McGwire who will end up paying the price of not making the HOF (unless perhaps after a mea culpa). McGwire was a one-dimensional player and is assumed to have done steroids for almost all his career. Even if a writer doesn't rule him out completely, his "adjusted" numbers will look more like Kingman or Canseco or at best McGriff and he has no defensive, baserunning, or substantial post-season value to add to that resume. He never even won an MVP and only came close once (when he should have won it). His career was quite short, especially by 1B/corner OF standards -- even if his numbers are considered legitimate, he's very close to Johnny Mize (who was a VC selection) once era is adjusted for -- virtually identical # of games played and only a 5 point difference in OPS+, 7 points of EQA and 4 WARP3. McGwire's career isn't much better than Dick Allen's (and now he has possibly an even bigger cloud over him). The writers' standards for 1B are very high and you generally have to have a long and great career (it's a position where career value seems to hold much more sway than peak value because there are lots of 1B with great peaks). Hank Greenberg looks like the only guy with this sort of career elected by the writers.

Sosa's the one I feel I have no clue on. There's nothing but circumstantial evidence. He's named in Canseco's book but only in the "c'mon, look at him, he's gotta be on roids" sense. Grace came out but he only said the same thing. To my knowledge, there's no grand jury testimony, no mistresses, no former bench players making any strong accusations against Sosa. Sosa has a long enough career (over 2200 games played), 7 of his career comps are in the HOF, he's got an MVP. But it is an odd career pattern that is perfectly timed to the "steroid era". And while Sosa added some defensive and baserunning value early in his career, it wasn't a huge amount. And he too came up short of 600 HR.

Well, Joe Jackson was just a man of his time too. Just doing what the other players did.

And we'll never know how the writers would have treated him since he was not eligible for the ballot. And of course there are many people who think he should be in the HOF anyway. Same with Rose. If eligible, Jackson also would have had similar problems to McGwire in that Jackson had a very short career (because of the ineligibility).

Bonds is closer to Rose in that both clearly have the numbers to be inner circle HOFers (Bonds much more so than Rose of course). The writers have to have sufficient reason to "overrule" those numbers. I believe that if Rose had been eligible, he'd have been elected, in part because many of the writers didn't think he gambled or didn't think guilt was "beyond a reasonable doubt" or thought that he deserved it anyway. He certainly would have come close.

Note, I don't think Rose and Bonds are particularly good comps for this -- very different careers, Rose was much more liked by the media and fans before the gambling charges, I think Rose's "I didn't do it" schtick was much more effective. But Rose is a better comp than Jackson.

Now if baseball's investigation results in Bonds receiving a lifetime ban, I don't like his chances for the HOF.

And I meant to add that there's no presumption that Rose's gambling inflated his numbers.

On the other question ...

I have no problem with considering post-season performance as part of deciding who the greatest living pitcher is. I do have a problem with Jenkins' apparent suggestion that it should be an overriding component of that decision. Deduct "points" from Clemens and Maddux for their perfectly acceptable but not dominant postseason performance and if that puts them behind Gibson or Koufax or Ford, well so be it. But don't just relegate them to lower spots without taking everything into consideration. But please let's not bring Stewart, Morris, Lolich, etc. into this ... unless you want to discuss "greatest postseason pitching 'careers'."

To seriously answer such a question, you really need to define "greatness." How do you weight peak, career, postseason, adjust for era, etc.

Or you could ask the question in a different way. I've seen at least some games of all the great pitchers since Koufax (incl. Gibson, Perry, etc. who began their careers while Koufax was still pitching). I consider Pedro to be the greatest pitcher I've ever seen. I say that meaning I've never seen a pitcher with a better mix of velocity, movement, control, repertoire, and smarts -- i.e. he's one of the best in all those categories. Clemens might be more effective (almost certainly will have more career value), Randy Johnson might be more effective, but they're nowhere near the "pitcher" that Pedro is.

I can well imagine that, for those who saw him pitch, Koufax is the greatest pitcher they've ever seen under those criteria (certainly his numbers would suggest that's likely). And because of that, I think they tend to look for ways to make him come out on top in more objective comparisons....just as I'll likely overrate Pedro (and Maddux) for the rest of my life. I'd still like to show that Maddux was a better or more valuable pitcher than Clemens in an objective sense.

Note, saying that I think postseason performance is a legitimate consideration does not mean that I think these guys choked or can't handle the pressure or I wouldn't be happy with them pitching the game my life depended on, etc. I suspect it's mostly good/bad luck, off days, etc. But those games did happen and they were very important games.

"That racism had a tremendous effect on Cobb stats, and on other players of his and later times."

This idea that there was a "tremendous effect" on pre-1947 stats is b***sh**. African-Americans were less than 10% of the population in the 1920's. There would have been fewer than one A-A starting pitcher for every team. The effect would not have been as great as you suppose.

And we'll never know how the writers would have treated him since he was not eligible for the ballot.

Jackson was indeed eligible for the ballot for a long time. He was rendered ineligible at the same time Rose was.

So we do know how the writers would have treated him. He got a total of four votes.

Jackson was permanently banned from baseball. His appeal for reinstatement was denied shortly before the first HOF election. It is my understanding that Jackson's name never appeared on the ballot. He was effectively ineligible even if writers could cast write-in votes.

Interestingly even Hal Chase got more votes in the first HOF election.

African-Americans were less than 10% of the population in the 1920's. There would have been fewer than one A-A starting pitcher for every team. The effect would not have been as great as you suppose.

What is the population of the D.R. as compared to the population of the U.S.? And what percentage of the MLB population do players from the D.R. form? I don't know the exact answer to either of these questions (and I'm too lazy to look them up), but I do know that the latter is far higher than the former. And the percentage of A-A players in MLB was higher than their representation in the population as a whole through at least the late-80's. They're "overrepresented" in the NBA and the NFL. They're "underrepresented" in the NHL.

You can't just take one statistic and say the other will follow.

So this had nothing to do with collecting underpants?

Walt,

Good pair of posts, even if I'm not so sure as you are that Bonds will necessarily break the 75% barrier anytime soon. But we'll see.

But I particularly liked your take on pitchers. I've seen them all since the early 50's, and I completely agree that pure statistics aside, the two best pitchers I've ever seen have been Pedro and Koufax, in that order. That postseason 519 ERA+ of Koufax's that Sawney Snows posted obviously doesn't by itself jump him over the pack, but it does pretty much give you a good idea of why so many people who saw him at his peak remain unconvinced that Clemens (or anyone) would ever have been his equal in any sort of a showdown. It was the utter consistency of his postseason brilliance that set him apart.

But Pedro is the Michelangelo---no, make that the James Joyce of pitchers, because when he's in form 95% of the hitters can't understand what the hell's going on. But unlike with Ulysses, there ain't no Cliff Notes gonna help them.

Walt, I've read everything I can get my hands on about Jackson and the HOF (including the press releases they put out when enacting the "Rose rule")

Never found anything indicating that any special measures were taken against Jackson. What I've read indicates there was simply an unspoken understanding that Jackson wasn't eligible. Not saying you're wrong, but I'd be interested in your source.

Quoting from the HOF's old Rose and Jackson FAQ:

7. This rule should have been adopted a long time ago. It appears that this action has been taken now to penalize Pete Rose.

We are at fault here. It should have been part of the Rules for Election since the first balloting took place in 1936. We are remiss for not having taken this action years ago.

8. Shoeless Joe Jackson was never declared ineligible by the Hall of Fame.

This rule change affects Joe Jackson as well as any past or future player who has been or might be declared ineligible by Baseball.

The FAQ's no longer online but you can find it via the wayback machine.

HOF FAQ

It is my understanding that Jackson's name never appeared on the ballot. He was effectively ineligible even if writers could cast write-in votes.

It's my understanding that for a long time, the writers didn't cast anything but write-in votes. Did the first ballots really contain a list of everyone who ever played ten years in the majors?

I completely agree that pure statistics aside, the two best pitchers I've ever seen have been Pedro and Koufax, in that order.

Obviously, I never saw Koufax. Equally as obvious, Pedro would certainly be in the discussion for best pitcher I ever saw.

I consider Pedro to be the greatest pitcher I've ever seen. I say that meaning I've never seen a pitcher with a better mix of velocity, movement, control, repertoire, and smarts -- i.e. he's one of the best in all those categories.

I suppose it depends on the relative weights you give to each category and, even if you weight them equally, how you choose to compile the "total". Given five categories with rankings in each, would you favor a guy who was 1/3/7/10/20, or one who was 8/8/8/8/9?

All objective methodology aside, if someone were to ask me to name the greatest pitcher I ever saw, I would say Maddux.

So this had nothing to do with collecting underpants?

It sometimes seems that MLB is using the underpants gnomes' business model. Except whatever they decide to plug into the "????" step two phase somehow works. Badmouth the product? Profits! Make obviously false claims about profitability to get public subsidies? Profits! Ignore problems for years until someone forces a response? Profits!

What is the population of the D.R. as compared to the population of the U.S.? And what percentage of the MLB population do players from the D.R. form? I don't know the exact answer to either of these questions (and I'm too lazy to look them up), but I do know that the latter is far higher than the former. And the percentage of A-A players in MLB was higher than their representation in the population as a whole through at least the late-80's. They're "overrepresented" in the NBA and the NFL. They're "underrepresented" in the NHL.

Yep. Furthermore, until about the 1960s, baseball was just about the only team sport in which an athlete could make a good living. Blacks have been pretty successful throughout sports when they've gotten a chance to play. I don't see why baseball should be any different.

Because Clemens, of the pitchers mentioned in the intro, has pitched the most postseason innings, I was interested to find out how the other pitchers would have performed if they had pitched the same number of innings, with the remainder of the innings at the pitchers’ regular-season performance. (As in post 29, I simplified some computations, so these shouldn’t be considered to be exact numbers, but at least the relativity should be pretty fair.) Here is what resulted:

Sandy Koufax: 162 ERA+ (“actual” 519)
Bob Gibson: 150 (209)
Jim Palmer: 133 (180)
Whitey Ford: 132 (258)
Roger Clemens: 128 (128)
Dave Stewart: 123 (149)
Mickey Lolich: 119 (198)
Jack Morris: 106 (154)

Not a terribly surprising order, as Stewart, Lolich, and Morris fell below Clemens. The most significant thing, of course, is that the additional innings regressed toward the mean for each pitcher tightened the comparison up a great deal—whatever the significance of that may be.

Boring note: In the original computations, I had to handle Ford and Palmer a little differently, because of cases of undefined ERA+ for postseason years in which they surrendered zero runs. I’m pretty sure that Ford’s original postseason ERA+ is too high, perhaps significantly so. Palmer’s is probably also off, but much less so. (The method of computing the regressed ERA+ figures doesn't involve this problem.)

Sawney, is there any way to adjust those numbers to reflect the fact that these guys were all facing the best competition that the other league (or after 1968 the rest of their own league) had to offer?

I guess when you're comparing them to each other in the postseason alone it doesn't matter all that much, but such an adjustment might give us a truer sense of their talent.

And as a general point, when assessing "greatness" in a philosophical sense, I can't get around what I'd call (shorthand version) "the Ford-Spahn question."

All throughout the Stengel era, at least, the Yankee rotation was adjusted so that Eddie Lopat, and then Ford, got the maximum possible starts against the Yankees' strongest opponents, especially the Indians.

Whereas the Braves took the exact opposite tack with Spahn, and as a result when the Dodgers showed up he might as well have been spending his time playing Canasta in the clubhouse---he was nowhere to be seen on the field.

I've raised this point before, and when it's not simply ignored (understandable, since unpleasant facts aren't much fun to confront) it's excused on the grounds that "Spahn didn't make out the lineup." Which would be relevant if the point were Spahn's lack of heart (which it isn't), instead of Spahn's diminished value to his team (which it is).

When a contender plays another contender, unlike a game against any other team, it always has a chance to make a double jump in the standings. Ford consistently gave the Yankees that double jump against the best teams in the AL. Spahn almost never did against the Braves' biggest rival.

And in assessing "greatness," even though as far as I know nobody's quantified this phenomenon, I don't see how it can be left out of the overall equation.

Andy I'm going to look into that Spahn issue. It definitly is a mark against, if it holds through. Much like Lefty Grove and Wes Ferrell as Dick Thompson has pointed out on a number of occasions.

Andy I'm going to look into that Spahn issue. It definitly is a mark against, if it holds through. Much like Lefty Grove and Wes Ferrell as Dick Thompson has pointed out on a number of occasions.
Page

That'd be most interesting, but if and when you ever show your results, I'd suggest you preface them by emphasizng the effect of this phenomenon on Spahn's value, as opposed to his "heart" or "character." It seems like an obvious distinction, but I know when I've brought this point about Spahn and the Dodgers up before it seemed as if I were trying to take Spahn's Purple Heart away from him.

While it may have indeed been a good strategic move on the part of Spahn's managers, what does it say when your manager shows so little confidence in you that he constantly avoids pitching you against your main rival? Remember, this wasn't just one manager, and it wasn't just a strategy tailored to that Ebbets Field hitters' paradise, either. It was equally practiced in County Stadium, which in the 50's was always a strong pitcher's park.

While it may have indeed been a good strategic move on the part of Spahn's managers, what does it say when your manager shows so little confidence in you that he constantly avoids pitching you against your main rival?

As I understand it, the issue was that Spahn just didn't match up favorably against the Dodgers, who for most of the 1950s had just one legitimate lefthanded threat in Duke Snider. I don't know if that mitigates the issue any, but it seems that the strategy arose from issues unrelated to the quality of the team.

As I understand it, the issue was that Spahn just didn't match up favorably against the Dodgers, who for most of the 1950s had just one legitimate lefthanded threat in Duke Snider. I don't know if that mitigates the issue any, but it seems that the strategy arose from issues unrelated to the quality of the team.

This point has been raised in Spahn's defense before, but it still begs the question of why a pitcher of Spahn's caliber couldn't have dealt with it.

And it especially doesn't make sense in a pitcher's park like County Stadium. Whitey Ford faced that same Brooklyn lineup in the World Series six times, and while he never made it out of Ebbets Field alive in two tries, he pitched very well in the four games he started against them in Yankee Stadium. The Dodgers had a great hitting team in the 50's, but much of the reason that their reputation is a bit overblown in that respect is the whole phenomenon of Ebbets Field. Once you got them in a pitchers park, they could be pitched to. But for whatever reason, Spahn didn't even try, or wasn't told to try.

Truth be told I don't think it says anything about Spahn - it's just another data point when evaluating careers.

If anyone can point me in the direction of any source material they may have or have seen I'd apreciate it. As I will do some orginal research on the topic I do want to see what others have written as well.

Quick and dirty retrosheet analysis (only have data starting in 1957):

In 1957, Spahn had 35 starts. The next 2 best teams in the league were St.L. and Brooklyn. You could expect Spahn to start 10 times against those teams. He started 4 times against the Cardinals and had 1 relief appearance. But he didn't start at all against the Dodgers and had just 1 relief appearance, facing just 2 batters. Hmm, that see,ms fishy, let's continue. I'll grade him a D for 1957.

1958: 2 best opponents were SF and Pittsburg. 10 expected starts 36 starts, 12 starts against best. That is more than expected. No problem there. A

1959: Best opponents, LA and SF. 10 expected starts. 36 starts, 9 starts. That's average. But interestingly, 6 of the 9 starts were against the Giants. But he also relieved 4 times that year and 3 of them were agaisnt the Dodgers. B

1960: 2 best Pitt. and St.L. 9 expected starts. 33 starts, 40 appearances. 14 starts and 16 appearances against top opponents. That's well above average. I have to give him a A here as well. Had only 1.1 innings pitched agains the Dodgers.

1961: Braves finished 4th so I'll include the 3 teams that finished ahead of them here- Cinn., LA and SF. 15 expected starts. 18 starts, 19 appearnaces. Another A. But only 5 of the 18 starts were against the Dodgers.

It seems to me that it wasn't so much an avoidance of strong opponents as much as avoidance of the Dodgers, whether they were good or not so good.

Hope this helps some. Again, it was quick and dirty.

Andy, yes, I would surmise it’s possible to do a reasonably accurate adjustment for the quality of postseason teams. I suppose the best way would be to use each playoff opponent’s overall batting effectiveness for the entire season, instead of any league batting statistics, as the basis for this. But that gets into complexities that go beyond what I’m able to do. I never finished my last little thing like this (trying to determine the opponent schedule strength of the 1995 Indians, 1998 Yankees, and 2001 Mariners), and that was back in January. I’m pretty much a four-times-a-year poster on here, whereas I admire you guys who have your priorities straight in life and post daily, or many times an hour.

From my previous post, it’s interesting that while most of the other pitchers seem likely to have bunched around Clemens’s playoff performance had they pitched the same number of innings, Koufax and Gibson are the clear class of the group, still nowhere near the others even when regressed. But one might argue that some of the other pitchers look great largely because they didn’t have enough innings to mess up numerous times. Of course, they did what they did; there’s no taking that away.

Good stuff kevin. I think the real avoidance of the Dodgers would have occurred while they were still in Ebbetts. Unfortunately, Retrosheet can't give that info, but I have this vague recollection of seeing it before. In any case, it seems you're right that the unusual pattern was pretty much limited to the Dodgers.

It seems to me that it wasn't so much an avoidance of strong opponents as much as avoidance of the Dodgers, whether they were good or not so good.

I should have made it clearer that I was talking only about the Brooklyn Dodgers, and in the 12 postwar years (1946-57) that Spahn was pitching and the Dodgers were in Brooklyn, here's what you have. The source is the 1962 Sporting News Dope Book, which lists all of Spahn's wins and losses up to that point, and the yearly Baseball Guides, which have the schedules broken down by home and road.

1946 0-2 in Boston, 0-1 in Brooklyn (0-3 out of 8-5)
1947 2-0 in Boston, 1-1 in Brooklyn (3-1 out of 21-10)
1948 2-1 in Boston, 2-1 in Brooklyn (4-2 out of 15-12)
1949 1-2 in Boston, 0-2 in Brooklyn (1-4 out of 20-10)
1950 3-0 in Boston, 0-4 in Brooklyn (3-4 out of 18-13)
1951 2-0 in Boston, 0-2 in Brooklyn (2-2 out of 20-12)
1952 0-4 in Boston, 0-1 in Brooklyn (0-5 out of 14-19)
1953 0-2 in Milwaukee, 0-0 in Brooklyn (0-2 out of 23-7)
1954 0-0 in Milwaukee, 0-0 in Brooklyn (0-0 out of 21-12)
1955 0-0 in Milwaukee, 0-0 in Brooklyn (0-0 out of 7-14)
1956 0-1 in Milwaukee, 0-0 in Brooklyn (0-1 out of 20-10)
(Braves lost pennant on last day of the season)
1957 0-0 in Milwaukee, 0-0 in Brooklyn (0-0 out of 21-11)

12 year totals: 13-24 overall: 10-9 in Boston, 0-3 in Milwaukee, 3-12 in Brooklyn. No starts in Brooklyn for the last 5 years, and only 3 starts against them in their first 5 years in Milwaukee.

After 1957 the Dodgers became a much weaker hitting team, but still:

1958 1-0 in Milwaukee, 0-1 in L.A. (1-1 out of 21-10)
1959 0-4 in Milwaukee, 0-1 in L.A. (0-5 out of 21-10)
(Braves lost to L.A. in playoff; Spahn blew a save in game 2)
1960 0-0 in Milwaukee, 0-0 in L.A. (0-0 out of 21-10)

After that, at age 40, he finally began facing the Dodgers in a more or less normal pattern.

During those years in Brooklyn, the Dodgers were nearly always the Braves' strongest opponent, with four near-equal exceptions, here listed (no home-road breakdown):

1946 1-0 vs Cardinals out of 8-5 (Cards beat Brooklyn in playoff)
1950 1-2 vs Phillies out of 21-17 (Phils beat Brooklyn on last day)
1951 1-6 vs Giants out of 22-14 (Giants beat Brooklyn in playoff)
1954 3-3 vs Giants out of 21-12 (Giants and Brooklyn were 1-2)

It should be pointed out that these are W-L records only, and don't account for high-run wins or low-run losses, or for no-decisions. But in an era of far more complete games than today, this doesn't distort the overall picture all that much.

You can interpret those numbers however you wish, but I don't think it's possible to avoid concluding that Spahn's value to his team against its biggest rival was considerably less than one would expect from a pitcher with his overall record.

While it looks Andy beat me to some of this, since I did the digging I figure I might as well post it.

From 46-57
At Home Spahn made 204 starts
On the Road he made 200 starts

Starts versus each team (& team overall W% during that period)
BRO: 41 (.607)
CHN: 45 (.426)
CIN: 62 (.467)
NY1: 69 (.525)
PHI: 49 (.498)
PIT: 58 (.395)
SLN: 79! (.533)

Now here is Spahn's team's win's and loses (home/road) versus each team:
BRO: 11-12/4-14
CHN: 17-7 /13/8
CIN: 21-7/27-7
NY1: 20-14/18-16
PHI: 17-9/14-9
PIT: 19-9/16-14
SLN: 24-16/24-15

As you can see the Braves were OWNED by The Dodgers (15-26), and more so when in Ebbets (4-14) with Spahn on the mound.

It's not surprising that the Dodgers were the toughest team in these years as they played .607 ball for the period, but the Braves were the second best team in the sample - .548. You can't help but think if Spahn was able to pitch better in games versus the Dodgers the Braves would have certainly have closed the gap. Would that have been enough to result in more pennants? I don't know I would need to do a more granular look - which I plan to do, but won't be doing it tonight.

Didn't Ford basically never pitch in Fenway Park?

That has to take away some of his overall value. The Sox were basically not contenders when Ford was a Yankee but his ERA was probably helped by avoiding the Sox.

Didn't Ford basically never pitch in Fenway Park?

That has to take away some of his overall value. The Sox were basically not contenders when Ford was a Yankee but his ERA was probably helped by avoiding the Sox.

Perhaps, but it didn't seem to hurt his team when he did pitch against them, since his lifetime W-L record vs. the Sox was 24 and 12.

And though it seems he did avoid Fenway for the most part, this isn't much of a comparison to Spahn at all, since whereas the Dodgers were the Braves' perennial rivals, the Yankees' chief competitors were for the most part the Indians and the White Sox through the 50's, and the Orioles, the Tigers, and the White Sox after that. Ford didn't duck them at all---to the contrary, he was 30-14 vs Cleveland, 39-21 against Chicago, 21-13 against Detroit (a team which always played well against the Yanks during those years), and 30-17 against the O's.

OTOH, for every year of Ford's career except 1950 and 1955, the Red Sox were out of the race well before Labor Day. Ford retired early in the 1967 season, so I wouldn't really count that. It's as if Spahn had been held out against the Phillies, a team whose success in Spahn's career roughly paralleled that of the Red Sox during Ford's.

It's not surprising that the Dodgers were the toughest team in these years as they played .607 ball for the period, but the Braves were the second best team in the sample - .548.

One thing you can see, though, is that Spahn was not being coddled by being matched up with lesser teams and being allowed to avoid tough teams. According to your data, it's just the Dodgers that he didn't face much. His top two opponents (by GS) were the two teams with the best records in that period other than the Dodgers; his bottom opponent (by GS) other than the Dodgers was the team with the second worst record in that period.

You can't help but think if Spahn was able to pitch better in games versus the Dodgers the Braves would have certainly have closed the gap. Would that have been enough to result in more pennants? I don't know I would need to do a more granular look - which I plan to do, but won't be doing it tonight.

1) Addressing the first issue, which is Spahn avoiding the Dodgers: Let's be clear about what we're talking about. He made 404 starts (again, I'm using your data) in that time period. Divided by 7 opponents, we're talking about 57 starts, on average, per opponent. He made 41 versus the Dodgers, which means you're talking about a "shortfall" of just 16 starts OVER TWELVE SEASONS. A little over a start per season. So that's not a significant factor, particularly when he had an "excess" of 22 starts against the second best team.

2) Addressing the issue of how he did against the Dodgers: If the Braves had been as successful against them as they were against the second best team, the Cardinals, when he started, they'd have gone 25-16 against the Braves in those 41 games.

From 15-26 to 25-16 is a big improvement, but it's only ten fewer wins for the Dodgers (*) -- again, OVER TWELVE SEASONS.

(*) You don't doublecount, because the issue isn't whether Spahn/Braves would be better if Spahn won _more_ games -- duh -- but whether Spahn/Braves would be better if he had distributed them differently. So the Braves don't gain wins; the Dodgers do, OTOH, lose them at the expense of one of the Braves' other opponents.

3) But wait: as we established in step 1, Spahn also underfaced the Dodgers. So let's give Spahn those extra 16 outings, too. So Spahn/Braves go 35-22 instead of 15-26. That's a huge swing: 24 extra net wins. But again, over 12 seasons. We're talking about 2 extra per season.


4) How about looking at individual seasons?

Year Difference between Dodgers/Braves
1946 Dodgers didn't win.
1947 Braves finish 8 back (and in third place).
1948 Braves win
1949 Braves finish 22 back
1950 Dodgers didn't win.
1951 Dodgers didn't win.
1952 Braves finish 32 back
1953 Braves finish 13 back
1954 Dodgers didn't win.
1955 Braves finish 13.5 back
1956 Braves finish 1 back
1957 Braves win

In other words, 1956 is the only year in the timespan you're discussing where you can make a reasonable case that Spahn's usage pattern vs. the Dodgers would have mattered. That seems to me a pretty weak reed upon which to hang an argument about his value not being reflected by his general numbers.

(And again, let me reiterate that if you increase his starts against the Dodgers, you have to decrease his starts against another team, such as the Cardinals.)

In other words, 1956 is the only year in the timespan you're discussing where you can make a reasonable case that Spahn's usage pattern vs. the Dodgers would have mattered. That seems to me a pretty weak reed upon which to hang an argument about his value not being reflected by his general numbers.

1. David, by your standards, you should add 1959 to 1956. Which means that in the only two years that the Braves were actually involved in tight pennant races, where head-to-head matches with the Braves' leading opponent were crucial, Spahn's performance (1959, 0-5) and non-performance (1956, 0-1) against the Dodgers (who edged them out in a playoff and by one game, respectively) obviously cost the Braves the pennant.

2. And you seem to want to just brush under the rug the fact that the Dodgers were by far the Braves strongest opponent, and to take Spahn's record against the Dodgers for an entire nine year stretch (1952-60), which was beyond dreadful (1-14 over nine seasons) and minimize them by averaging them into the rest of career.

(And again, let me reiterate that if you increase his starts against the Dodgers, you have to decrease his starts against another team, such as the Cardinals.)

3. From 1950 to 1962 the Cardinals were a minor factor in exactly one pennant race. They finished between 8 and 30½ games behind every year. OTOH, the Dodgers were a major factor in eight pennant races---either pennant winners or still alive on the last day of the season. You had to beat the Dodgers to succeed in the National League. In the context of a pennant race, it was literally twice as important to beat the Dodgers as it was to beat any other team.

4. Of course, by what seems to be the implication of your yearly list (which cleverly notes "Dodgers didn't win" even in years when they lost by a game, or in a playoff), Spahn would have been even more valuable if the Braves had never competed for a pennant.

Better just to blame it on Spahn's managers and drop the case, David, because there is no way to avoid the implications of Spahn's record against the Dodgers.

Andy, this is Kevinesqe. You said:

I should have made it clearer that I was talking only about the Brooklyn Dodgers, and in the 12 postwar years (1946-57) that Spahn was pitching and the Dodgers were in Brooklyn,

So, based on your explicit representation that you were "talking only about... 1946-1957", I looked at... 1946-1957. So you act like I've omitted something by not focusing on a year that you didn't include, accuse me of "brushing under the rug" a nine year stretch which is different than the twelve year stretch you previously cited, and claim I've "minmized" something because I used exactly the data you cited, and tell me I had "better drop the case."

And to top off your bait-and-switches where you (a) claim I "should add 1959," and (b) cite your "1952-60," you then pluck yet another arbitrary timeframe of "1950 to 1962" to discuss the Cardinals.

4. Of course, by what seems to be the implication of your yearly list (which cleverly notes "Dodgers didn't win" even in years when they lost by a game, or in a playoff), Spahn would have been even more valuable if the Braves had never competed for a pennant.

Your argument, as I understand it, is that although Spahn's overall numbers are great, Spahn isn't as good as his overall numbers imply, because he didn't perform that much or that well against the Dodgers. That if he had the same numbers, but distributed them "better," -- that is, faced the Dodgers more and performed better -- that he would have helped the team more because the Braves could have caught the Dodgers.

Thus, I "cleverly note" that the Dodgers didn't win in years where they didn't win because your argument is irrelevant in those years. Catching the Dodgers is irrelevant if some other team is the team you're trying to catch.

What "seems to be the implication of my yearly list" is certainly not what you claim, which doesn't make any sense at all. My "yearly list" implies that if you're evaluating a player by his impact on the pennant race, then you need to look at how the pennant race turned out. Who the &^%^&*&) cares who his team's strongest opponent in aggregate over a dozen year time period was? You don't win aggregate 12-year pennants. You win individual pennants. So you need to look at individual pennant races.

If the Braves lost by a small amount to a team that Spahn did unusually badly against (or avoided), then that's a valid point in favor of your argument. If the Braves lost by a small amount to some other team, then it isn't. If the Braves lost by a large amount, then it isn't. There's no reason to look at Spahn's breakdown against the Dodgers if the Braves lost to the Giants. The Dodgers lost in a playoff? So what? They lost. If Spahn had done better against them, maybe they lose without the playoff -- which has nothing to do with whether the Braves would have won.

I'm still digging through some things - but from 54-57 when Spahn never pitched in Ebbets it wasn't all that uncommon for other top lefties to be skipped as well.

Harvey Haddix, made only 1 start in Ebbets in that period.
Curt Simmons, made only 1 start in Ebbets in that period.
Joe Nuxhall, made only 2 starts in Ebbets in that period.
Johnny Antonelli, made 5 starts in Ebbets in that period (none in 55).

Those were the only 5 lefties in the league during that period who consitantly was making starts.

This doesn't mean that Spahn beinh skipped didn't hurt his club, it did but it seemed like standard practice at the time.

Andy I'm going to look into that Spahn issue. It definitly is a mark against, if it holds through. Much like Lefty Grove and Wes Ferrell as Dick Thompson has pointed out on a number of occasions.

It might be interesting to go back and dig up some old Hall of Merit threads in which we were debating Wes Ferrell and a poster named "jonesy" was promoting Dick Thomspon's debating points.

I like judging pitchers on RA+ and IP, with occasional adjustments. The conclusion I came to regarding Ferrell: the whole issue of the quality of his opponents had a minisule effect on his equivalent record - in the years when it might have mattered, the size of the effect was in tenths of wins. It seems unlikely that it amounted to as much as 2 wins over his career. Certainly, it was small compared to Ferrell's hitting, which, when compared to typical pitchers, amounted to something in the 8-12 wins range.

Some other observations:

Comparing Ferrell to Grove was always a red herring. The issue of what teams Grove faced has very little to do with evaluating Ferrell. Yes, you can find some years in which Ferrell was about as good as Grove, not that those were necessarily Grove's best years. Ferrell's case is as a high-peak, medium-short-career candidate, and it's a legitimate case. Grove, of course, has everything - peak and career both. A few games here or there in evaluating him would make little difference to us.

We elected Ferrell anyway, although it took a while. He's firmly on the Hall of Merit / not Hall of Fame list. Since we haven't elected Dizzy Dean, I guess we're making the statement that Ferrell is the peak-value (or prime value) candidate that Dean is alleged to be.

As for Spahn: we take candidates in their turn. When he was eligible, he wasn't sharing the ballot with Grove or Seaver or Clemens. The only question we had to answer was "is he the best currently available candidate" and that was very, very easy to answer. Shaving a few wins here or there because of teams faced would have made no difference in our voting.

David,

I plead mea culpa for shifting the time spans somewhat in the course of my posts, and I shouldn't have ragged on you somewhat sarcastically for not reading my mind and anticipating this.

But it doesn't affect the argument in any substantive way. Anyone can see Spahn's record against the Dodgers. It's right there in virtual black and white. It was passable for the first few years, and absolutely dreadful (1 and 14) from the season he was 31 through the season he was 39.

During this prime of his career, when he won 177 games against the other 7 teams and one (1) game against the Dodgers, the Braves were fighting the Dodgers for the pennant wire-to-wire in two of those years (1956 and 1959). Spahn was 0 and 1 against them in 1956 and 0 and 5 against them in 1959.

The Braves also finished second to the Dodgers in 1953 and 1955. Spahn was 0 and 2 vs. them in 1953 and made no starts against them in 1955.

They also finished second in 1960, this time to the Pirates. Spahn was 1 and 5 against the Pirates that year.

And in fact, since you seem to think that the Dodgers were the only first place team that he underperformed against, after 1947 and until 1963---that's sixteen years---Spahn never once had a winning record against a pennant winning team.

As I said before, better to just blame in on his managers. Spahn was one of the all-time greats in spite of this sorry aspect of his career, but what is the point of ignoring it? The ostrich is not the best role model for confronting unpleasant facts, but it seems to be what you're trying to emulate.

And Kevin has absolutely nothing to do with this. But you know that---I think.

I'm still digging through some things - but from 54-57 when Spahn never pitched in Ebbets it wasn't all that uncommon for other top lefties to be skipped as well.

But of course in that span, Spahn also only made one start against the Dodgers in Milwaukee. He lost it, too, and the Braves lost the pennant that year (1956) by one game---to the Dodgers.

While that is no doubt true, he was also fantastic down the stretch.

MHS (and everyone else),

Spahn is a top tier HOF pitcher.

Spahn helped the Braves immensely. I have never denied that.

But Spahn's almost total inability to beat the Braves' chief rival simply can't be brushed aside. That inability cost the Braves two pennants, regardless of how good he may have been against the other teams (which wasn't always the case, either---see my note in #69 about his record against every pennant winning team after 1948 and before 1963).

Why is this so hard to admit?

It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

And BTW, according to the Neyer / James Guide to Pitchers, beginning in 1955, Spahn added a rather effective screwball to his pitch repertory. Righthanded batters generally have lots of problems with screwballs thrown by lefthanders. I distinctly recall much mention of this screwball during the 57 and 58 World Series, so it isn't just something that I (or Neyer and James) pulled out of my hat.

Why wouldn't this screwball be effective against a team like the Dodgers, which were packed with righthanded hitters?

But it wasn't. Or more precisely, somebody was afraid to let him try it agains them, for whatever reason. Odd, to say the least.

Andy - It's not hard to admit at all, nor have I. However, when determining Spahn place in history it's important to have the full picture. His performance, and his lack of starts versus the chief rival are one piece of the Spahn's legacy - a forgotten part. That's what I'm trying to do here is to get a better understanding of Spahn's legacy outside of the "macro level" view that so many "analysts" on these types of websites obsess with.

So when evaluating Spahn's impact on the 56 pennant race in particular it is important to note that:
1) Spahn was not starting versus the Dodgers - instead Bob Buhl (who had a tremendous record versus the Dodgers in 56), Lew Budrette, Gene Conley, and Ray Crone were getting those starts.
2) It was common for top left handed starters to be skipped versus the dodgers. The other top left-handed starters of the time, pitched far less often versus the Dodgers than one would expect if used in normal turn. For the one year we have accurate splits (57) the Dodgers had less than 300 AB's versus left-handed pitching.
3) Spahn was fantastic down the stretch in 56 almost single handedly keeping the Braves above water.

While I have no problem with saying that Spahn's ability to perform regularly and effectively versus the Dodgers is a blemish on his record, when determining how big a blemish it is important to look at everything that is related. I'm still not confident that I can determine the size of the blemish without more digging.

No problem with any of that, MHS. And as long as all the facts are out there and not just brushed under the rug, people can make what they want of them.

My overall sense is that it's a medium sized blemish, especially given that it wasn't just an Ebbets Field phenomenon, and also because Spahn did have a very effective screwball from 1955 on, which makes me wonder what the point of acquiring such a pitch would be, if not to use it against a team full of right-handed hitters.

But it's of course not a "big" blemish, given all of the other factors which go into evaluating a career.

And that 1956 stretch was indeed impressive, aside from the Brooklyn factor. I remember vividly Spahn's last start of the season, a Saturday night 2-1 extra inning loss in St. Louis which knocked the Braves out of first place, and even though I was pulling for the Dodgers I hated to see such a great pitching performance (something like a 3- or 4-hitter, IIRC) go to waste.

You know, the more I think about it, in fact, the more I do blame his managers. There is no real reason why, with his screwball, and with the dimensions of County Stadium, Spahn couldn't have been effective against the Dodgers there, at least from 1955 on. I hate to say it, but I think there were certain psychological blocks going on here, on the part of his managers at least. Whatever it was, it sure didn't help the Braves that their best pitcher almost never pitched against their biggest rival.