Yes. I'm not seeing the contradiction.

Based on the earlier phrasing, you seemed to be using the Cy Young voting as a support for Mussina's greatness. In the later phrasing, you then dismiss Cy Young voting as only useful in reference to what a "small, largely uninformed subset of people" think.

So, do the Cy Young votes matter, or do they not matter? Are his finished in the top 6 a good thing for Mussina and a positive when evaluating him, or should they be disregarded as the opinions of an uneducated class?

I flat disregard awards voting when I'm trying to assess a player's value (*). It gives you an idea of what the electorate thought of him, and indicates how good a player may have been, but at the end of the day if one is performing a serious analysis, one looks past awards voting and looks at the player's actual performance record.

If we're trying to answer the question of whether he _will_ be elected, instead of whether he _should_ be, then obviously awards voting is quite relevant.

(*) Just as I flat disregard wins and saves for pitchers. And postseason performance, in virtually all cases. Postseason performance can perhaps be a feather that puts the player over the top, but if he needs that feather -- if postseason performance is a significant part of his case -- he probably doesn't belong.

Ray, thanks for clarifying.

For the record, I agree with you that Mussina should go in, even though I don't like him (or, more accurately, what I know of him) at all. I suspect he will go in too, although he'll likely have to wait a while as well - due to his lack of awards, and less obvious peak when compared to his HoF contemporaries, he'll probably end up following the Don Sutton entry plan.

Just as I flat disregard wins and saves for pitchers. And postseason performance, in virtually all cases. Postseason performance can perhaps be a feather that puts the player over the top, but if he needs that feather -- if postseason performance is a significant part of his case -- he probably doesn't belong.

Which is the most absolutly bat #### crazy commonly held primer belief. I can understand not penalizing a player for not getting to play in the post season, but simply saying that the entire record mostly doesn't exhist is just nuts.

Is that belief really that common, Matt? I haven't run across it that often, but maybe I haven't been looking in the right places.

BTW, today was the first time that I've seen you on page 1 of a thread. I thought that you got alerts when threads got over 100 posts or something.

I'd count postseason stats twice sooner than I'd discount them entirely.

Which is the most absolutly bat #### crazy commonly held primer belief. I can understand not penalizing a player for not getting to play in the post season, but simply saying that the entire record mostly doesn't exhist is just nuts.

But you are penalizing a player for not getting to play in the postseason, when you reward others for postseason performance. Granted with the expanded playoffs this is less of an issue now than in past eras, but the issue still exists. And when you're directly comparing Smoltz or Schilling with pitchers of past eras, it becomes even more obscene. What, exactly, is wrong with Blyleven's postseason record? Why haven't the voters rewarded him for that, just as they'll center on postseason performance for Schilling?

The opportunity to play in the postseason isn't the same for all players, even in the current era, and when one considers that the smaller the sample, the flukier a player's postseason performance is, it becomes all the easier to just disregard it completely.

Along with the nonsense that goes with it, such as when writers ignore all evidence to declare that, say, Barry Bonds couldn't hit in the postseason, even when he had. Until all of a sudden he could. Countless players have been subjected to this nonsensical, ignorant, unfair, misinformed analysis. Bonds. Clemens. Kenny Rogers. Mussina. They all were missing that "something" that enabled them to come through in big moments in the postseason. Until all of a sudden, they did, but the idiots pushing this tripe still didn't see fit to improve upon their bankrupt methods of player analysis.

I've heard sentiments of "tie breaker" many times over the last few years. Is it 20% of the population? I have no clue, but if it was 1% it would be insane and far too common..

when one considers that the smaller the sample

B.S. You give credit for what it done, when reviewing his career. Not the meaningfulness of it's predictive nature.

The goal of every team is to win worlds series, maybe not every season but by and large. Either to win it, or to build to winning it. A game in April doesn't increase your chances of winning the WS as much as a game in mid Oct. The games that count the most need to be included in the analysis of that players performance record.

The opportunity to play in the postseason isn't the same for all players

That's too bad. But who cares? Evaluate players based on how they performed in the opportunities they had. Same as you would do for any other person.

I've heard sentiments of "tie breaker" many times over the last few years. Is it 20% of the population? I have no clue, but if it was 1% it would be insane and far too common..

I'm with Ray on this one. If you need your post-season stats to get in to the Hall of Fame, you probably don't belong.

Are there any current Hall of Famers who need their post-season stats to be in?

Are there any current Hall of Famers who need their post-season stats to be in?

Highpockets Kelly.

B.S. You give credit for what it done, when reviewing his career. Not the meaningfulness of it's predictive nature.

You didn't address my argument that it's unfair to players of past eras to include postseason performance for players of the current era. Maybe with 4 AL playoff spots available Jim Rice's teams make the playoffs a couple more times (the Red Sox finished 2nd in both 1977 and 1978, when he was in the prime of his career), and he has 4 or 5 great rounds of postseason performance and his team wins the World Series, and you guys decide to vote him in. But he never got that opportunity.

A game in April doesn't increase your chances of winning the WS as much as a game in mid Oct. The games that count the most need to be included in the analysis of that players performance record.

I do include the games that count the most. The games from April to September.

Highpockets Kelly.

Is this some sort of BBTF joke I've missed out on.

BTW, who'd he blow to get into the HoF?

Brooks Robinson? Rollie Fingers? Bruce Sutter / 1982? (arguably Smoltz would be in this category).

(arguably Smoltz would be in this category).

Smoltz would likely be in without it. Having the equivalent of an extra season of all-star caliber pitching just moves him further away from the dividing line.

You didn't address my argument that it's unfair to players of past eras to include postseason performance for players of the current era. Maybe with 4 AL playoff spots available Jim Rice's teams make the playoffs a couple more times (the Red Sox finished 2nd in both 1977 and 1978, when he was in the prime of his career), and he has 4 or 5 great rounds of postseason performance and his team wins the World Series, and you guys decide to vote him in. But he never got that opportunity.

And if Jim Rice didn't hit into as many DP's or walked a bit more you would vote him in. Instead he gets credit for what he did. You do it, you get credit. You don't do it, you don't get credit. It's a pretty simple world I live in.

I heard that Mussina tried to get on with Toronto. When Riccardi asked Gaston for his opinion, Cito replied that he would never use him and he would just rot in the bullpen.

I was working in Baltimore that summer, and it's one of the few times I've seen a city gets its ire up the way my fellow Philadelphians do. Good times. Cito sucks.

Is this some sort of BBTF joke I've missed out on.

No. Cardboard Gods mentioned him today and I remembered that he started a Web Gem-like double play in the World Series. It may've ended that WS.

I usually don't like going into this degree of detail, because I think it's usually an excuse to selectively read the data. A variation on the "if you take out his three bad starts, he looks even BETTER" effect. Still, I think it's worthwhile to delve a little into his peak (1992-2001) and pay attention to what actually happened in the Cy Young votes.

In particular, I think it's worth noticing just how difficult it was to earn much "black ink" in terms of the award in the AL in the 90s. For this entire period he had to compete with arguably the best pitcher in baseball history (Clemens) and another all-time top 10 pitcher (Johnson). Plus, toward the end he was up against arguably the highest peak pitching seasons in history (Pedro). Of course he didn't fare as well in the award as we might otherwise expect.

1992 - Had a very legitimate case for the award. Eckersley won for reasons that didn't seem all that persuasive at the time and feel even more foolish now. Of the reasonable candidates, he probably would finish a very close second to Clemens.
1994 - He was *slightly* worse than David Cone, who won, and also was kept out of the top 3 by Johnson
1995 - He finished fifth, but very arguably should have been second. The only pitcher clearly better that year was Johnson.
1996 - He was league average but managed to win 19 games so he picked up some votes. Meh.
1997 - Finished sixth. Pettitte was clearly better, but Radke and Myers were definitely not. And the top two, of course, were Clemens and Johnson.
1998 - Didn't get a vote this year, but it was Pedro's first year in the league and the second of Clemens' absolute domination for Toronto. Which means there were only a few votes left to pass around - all of which went to Cone and Wells who had fairly similar (arguably worse except for W/L record) seasons to Mussina.
1999 - Finished second behind Pedro having one of the single greatest pitching seasons in baseball history.
2000 - Similar to 99. Pedro beat the rest of the league by 2 runs a game, but Mussina (W/L record aside) almost certainly was the second best pitcher in the AL that year.
2001 - Clemens went 20-3 and Mussina was in a pack with 5 or 6 other guys who could have won otherwise.

Since then, he had a few mediocre seasons, but managed to toss in a couple pretty good years. And him receiving a couple votes this year wasn't totally crazy. I wouldn't have put him there myself, but he's not too far away from it.

Of course we can't just award Mussina some imaginary (no Clemens/Pedro/Unit) version of the award. You have to compete against the people in your league. But it's worth remembering that his circumstances were arguably more stacked against him picking up a Cy Young during his peak than anyone else in history.

And when you're directly comparing Smoltz or Schilling with pitchers of past eras, it becomes even more obscene. What, exactly, is wrong with Blyleven's postseason record? Why haven't the voters rewarded him for that, just as they'll center on postseason performance for Schilling?

See, now you're hitting on it. There's no reason to ignore postseason performance, it's just that you should value it properly and consistenly. Because there's not that big a difference between the way Schilling, Smoltz, and Morris pitched in the postseason compared to Blyleven, and even Mussina (when you adjust for his pitching in a high offense era and mostly against the DH, a combo the other 4 avoided), except that the former three's teammates performed better than the latter two's, thus resulting in more opportunities for them to perform in the postseason. (Now Smoltz and Schilling are probably still a bit better, but not enough, in my opinion, to sway the way you'd rank them against one another and Mussina, or to put one over the HoF bar but leave Mussina out.)

It's Maddux, Clemens, Pedro, Unit, Mariano, and Glavine

spot on! However Smoltz will get in as he has that versatility thing going that the voters like, plus the 3000 K's, it all helps.
Schilling will get in as he promotes himself well; yeah, he's a blowhard but the postseason stats will be looked at along with the whole helping the sox win in 2004 thing.
Mussina will eventually get in, that .638 winning % is a great number and he's close enough to the 3000 K's and 300 wins thing for the voters to like. IMHO he'd be in on his 2nd or 3rd ballot, but with the voters, who knows.

Grade inflation is indeed everywhere. Mussina never won a Cy, meaning no one every considered him the best pitcher in his league (much less the game), and only once cracked the top 3 in the voting. There is no greatness there.

So I take it you think Marichal does not belong in the Hall, either?

the nonsense that goes with it, such as when writers ignore all evidence to declare that, say, Barry Bonds couldn't hit in the postseason, even when he had. Until all of a sudden he could. Countless players have been subjected to this nonsensical, ignorant, unfair, misinformed analysis. Bonds. Clemens. Kenny Rogers. Mussina. They all were missing that "something" that enabled them to come through in big moments in the postseason. Until all of a sudden, they did, but the idiots pushing this tripe still didn't see fit to improve upon their bankrupt methods of player analysis.

You used to constantly hear "not a big game pitcher, not a big game pitcher" about Randy Johnson, because he had a multi-year losing streak. Even leaving aside the tight duels and 8-inning performances that mostly made up Johnson's streak, I always wondered: did 1995 not happen? Did I dream it?

Then the guy goes 3-0 with a 1 ERA, picking up the third win on zero days rest, and they vote him co-MVP of the World Series.

Because there's not that big a difference between the way Schilling, Smoltz, and Morris pitched in the postseason compared to Blyleven, and even Mussina

I wouldn't say they are similar. One guy is leaps and bounds better, especially when you consider his individual game performances are better than the aggregate numbers.

Inn W-L ERA
133 10-2 2.23
207 12-12 2.65
92 6-1 3.80 -- And this guy is the guy who seems to get themost credit.
47 4-1 2.47 -- This is the guy who I think is should be getting PS credit and isnt'.
139 7-9 3.42

The problem seems to me like most things the voters aren't doing a good job of looking at the data, not that the premise of using the data is false.

You might as well cite All Star Game performances also, now that the ASG "counts."

Yea, clearly. The post season is an exhibition. Stick to politics.

Are there any current Hall of Famers who need their post-season stats to be in?

I don't know about "stats", but the post-season heroics are part of the reason Pucket is in the Hall.

Postseason stats helped Lefty Gomez. Not to mention Bill Mazeroski.

October glory helps in the voting. For many years, Pepper Martin very better than he should've in the voting. He never got in, but you'd be blind to miss a bump caused by his October performances. That's how it works - you don't see some schlub get elected because of October, but it gives a moderate boost to some. However, so few have really memorable post season glory (and some of those that do are already deserving Hall of Famers, such as Bob Gibson) that you won't find a huge list of them.

First, it's hard to separate the Brown/Smoltz/Mussina/Schilling cluster; people can argue it various ways but I'm not sure the distinctions between them are very meaningful.

A lot is going to depend on how much you weigh peak vs. career. Brown and Schilling don't just have better peaks, but remarkably better peaks.

Smoltz is much closer. His best seasons aren't as good as Mussina's, but he has a sustained run of excellence. Mussina is the hardest pitching case I can imagine for the HOF. I keep switching between thinking he should be in and thinking he should be out.

I feel like there are five ways to get into the hall of fame.

1) You can have an extraordinary peak and extraordinary career value. These guys are inner-circle; they are always easy, easy selections. Greg Maddux.
2) You can have an extraordinary peak and a solid career length. Kevin Brown.
3) You can have an extraordinary career length and a solid peak. Tom Glavine.
4) You can have career length or peak so historically great that it makes up for low peak value or relatively short career relative to the average "legitimate" HOF player. Sandy Koufax. Don Sutton (borderline HOF IMO).
5) You can have a very good peak and very good career length, plus something that distinguishes you greatly from the pack. These are the most difficult cases. I think Smoltz and Mussina are both in this category.

That's the best take on the HoF I've seen in this thread. Good show, c-bird. The only qualifier I'd make is that like it or not, intangibles will sometimes play a role. I'll be somewhat surprised if Kevin Brown makes it in, and for just that reason. There are just enough writers who simply don't like him to put him below the line. That, and in his case the fact that his worst performances were in the most high profile points of his career.

But that's exactly my take on Smoltz and Mussina.

----------------------------------------

At no point has the HOF ever decided that peak value was all that counted,

Of course not. That's why Dizzy Dean never got in.

If someone is a hall of famer, it doesn't matter if they are a first ballot or a last ballot hall of famer. Some people don't vote for players their first year, believing they are not "first ballot HOFers."

I agree, and this is one of my pet peeves against this type of thinking, imagine you are a writer you have to wait out the ten years just to get the vote, then years later you retire and you get to tell your grandkids "sure I put people in the hall of fame, I voted for Sutter, Rice and Gossage among others"

"geez gramps, that must have been swell, I bet you felt a lump of pride voting for all time greats like Maddux, Pedro, Randy Johnson, Jeter, Arod, Griffey, Ripken, Boggs, Gwynn, Ozzie, Brett, Ryan, Yount, Schmidt, and all the others"

"no sonny, I never voted for those guys"

"geez gramps, you're a tool"


I just don't understand wasting the privilege for no reason.

I'll be somewhat surprised if Kevin Brown makes it in,

I'd be shocked.

Ray,

Since you advocate ignoring postseason numbers, how do you propose we ignore the ankle injury Schilling suffered - and pitched through - that basically wiped out his 2005 season?

I think it's one thing to disregard postseason numbers for position players - not that I agree with it, but it's a little more defensible. But every pitch thrown is one that brings a hurler that much closer to shoulder or TJ surgery. And if a guy like Smoltz has a seasons's worth of pitches tied up in the postseason, they damn well better count toward his HOF case or your punishing pitchers who have pitched when the stakes are highest, not making it fair for those who pitched for also-rans.

92 6-1 3.80 -- And this guy is the guy who seems to get themost credit.

Shouldn't that be 7-4?
I think he gets all the credit because of this game
which I didn't watch (I missed that whole series to be honest), but I did see this game
and was perplexed for years why writers insisted on calling him a dominant postseason pitcher...

Ray,

Since you advocate ignoring postseason numbers, how do you propose we ignore the ankle injury Schilling suffered - and pitched through - that basically wiped out his 2005 season?

Yes, I'm comfortable ignoring it, if that's your question.

I think it's one thing to disregard postseason numbers for position players - not that I agree with it, but it's a little more defensible. But every pitch thrown is one that brings a hurler that much closer to shoulder or TJ surgery. And if a guy like Smoltz has a seasons's worth of pitches tied up in the postseason, they damn well better count toward his HOF case or your punishing pitchers who have pitched when the stakes are highest, not making it fair for those who pitched for also-rans.

I don't dismiss your argument here as not serious; I think it's a legitimate point. But every era is different. Pitchers 40 years ago were routinely throwing 300+ innings. So it's kind of hard to argue that an extra 10 or 15 innings a year for Smoltz, averaged over his career, is unfair to him. That gets him up to, what, a 210 average per 170 games? Blyleven averaged 245 innings per 162; Marichal, 257.

And today's pitchers are routinely pulled at 100 or 110 pitches, whereas the other guys weren't. I don't hold that against today's pitchers (even though I think managers have completely overcompensated); it's harder to get through an inning now. But the point is that each era has its own distinctions.

I don't know about "stats", but the post-season heroics are part of the reason Pucket is in the Hall.

Postseason stats helped Lefty Gomez. Not to mention Bill Mazeroski.

Aren't those all considered really bad selections?

If those 3 are the case for post-season stats, I say PLEASE ignore post season stats.

I don't know about "stats", but the post-season heroics are part of the reason Pucket is in the Hall.

Postseason stats helped Lefty Gomez. Not to mention Bill Mazeroski

Aren't those all considered really bad selections?

If those 3 are the case for post-season stats, I say PLEASE ignore post season stats.

GGGRRR!! Two things: no, they aren't all considered really bad selections. Kirby Puckett is a perfectly defensible pick. He's maybe the worst first-ballot BBWAA pick, but that's far from being a really bad selection. He's one of the 7-10 best centerfielders in the 130+ year history of major league baseball. In particular, Puckett is a very good pick for those who prefer peak value.

Similarly, Gomez is a peak value candidate. He's in that gray area of HoFrs. Arguments can be made for him or against him. I don't consider it a "really bad selection" if a legitimate case can be made on his behalf. He's no Rube Marquard or George Kelly or Rick Ferrell or Tommy McCarthy.

Maz is the worst selection of the three. But you're badly understating the cases for that trio in your post.

Second, your post misses how this debate began. It began in response to the following question: "Are there any current Hall of Famers who need their post-season stats to be in?"

Well, of course, when the question is framed that way, obviously only gray area guys are gonig to be mentioned. Obvious immortals don't NEED it -- but you're always going to have a gray area.

If you want, some other immortals have had October help them out. They include:

Eddie Collins. Held virtually lifetime World Series record when he retired.

Bob Gibson, whom I actually mentioned in passing above.

Babe Ruth. Hit three homers in a World Series. Twice. Plus the called shot was his signature moment.

Reggie Jackson. His nickname was Mr. October.

Sandy Koufax. Had a huge Game 7 start against the Twins on just two days rest.

Whitey Ford. Won 10 World Series games.

Lou Brock. Huge postseason moments.

Brooks Robinson - check out the footage of teh 1970 World Series sometime. (Actually, if there's any definitely deserving immortal who needed to postseason to get in, it's him).

Mickey Mantle - 18 World Series homers.

Wille Mays - The Catch.

I'm sure there are others as well.

Plus there are some more gray area guys whose Octobers helped them (Dizzy Dean, Rollie Fingers).

Matt, you credited the players' team w/l records in series, not their individual W/L records. Smoltz has a 15-4 individual W/L record in the postseason.

Thanks Kyle. 12 and 12 felt wrong.

I don't see Puckett as one of the 7-10 best CFs at all.

In our Hall of Merit ranking of the CFs, we elected Dawson and didn't elect Puckett - yet (he was 9th on the 2008 ballot). Dawson finished 26th in our ranking of CFs (I didn't agree with that, had him about 18 myself).

As far as having 10 HoF pitchers from the 90s-00s, I don't see that as an issue at all.

For one, there are nearly 2x as many teams as there were from 1901-1960. There's 2.5x as many as there were from 1892-1899 and almost 4x the number of teams as in 1900.

More teams, larger pool, more Hall of Famers.

And like others said, Mussina is in the middle of that group, not at the bottom of it. He's an easy, slam dunk Hall of Famer if anything like the typical historical standard is upheld.

For me, he's most comparable to Marichal.

Aren't those all considered really bad selections?

Depends on who is doing the considering.

At no point has the HOF ever decided that peak value was all that counted,

Of course not. That's why Dizzy Dean never got in.

It think you misapprehend. He is not saying that HOF decided that peak is not important, or cannot be sufficient. He is saying that the HOF decided that peak is not the be-all and end-all, and that there are other ways to get in through cumulative career excellence, without an eye-popping peak.

Well, of course, when the question is framed that way, obviously only gray area guys are gonig to be mentioned. Obvious immortals don't NEED it -- but you're always going to have a gray area.

I don't think those three are gray area. They are they very worst defensible selections.

Actually, I'm not sure Gomez is defensible 189-102, 125 ERA+, 3 really excellent seasons spread over 7 years, but he's Jimmy Key (186-117, 122 ERA+).

Mazeroski is basically Frank White ~2000 H, 85 OPS+, excellent D.

Puckett is Cesar Cedeno. 7300 AB, 123 OPS+, 5 Gold Gloves.

Key, White and Cedeno haven't sniffed the HoF. These guys don't belong either.

I don't dismiss your argument here as not serious; I think it's a legitimate point. But every era is different. Pitchers 40 years ago were routinely throwing 300+ innings. So it's kind of hard to argue that an extra 10 or 15 innings a year for Smoltz, averaged over his career, is unfair to him. That gets him up to, what, a 210 average per 170 games? Blyleven averaged 245 innings per 162; Marichal, 257.

It's not just across eras though. If the time comes to compare the HOF cases of Roy Halliday and Josh Beckett, you could be looking at a situation where one pitcher has an extra season's worth of pitches being thrown in the most demanding conditions, and you'd be willing to totally ignore those pitches as part of his record. It seems in your attempt to be fair to those pitchers who don't pitch in the postseason, you're going to be even more unfair to those who do.

Every pitcher may have a finite number of pitches in his arm. If he's using some of them in pursuit of a World Series title, then they must be considered as part of his Cooperstown case.

Gomez benefited from great defense as well. 125 ERA+ very much overstates his actual value.

He finished 58 in our election in 2008 and was named on 5 of 50 ballots (we rank our top 15). We also have about as many elected as the real Hall of Fame. He was a pretty bad choice.

Other guys likely to draw at least some HOF consideration who will probably retire over the next 5 years, who Mussina will also have to compete with:

Abreu
Damon
Giambi
Guerrero
Ordonez
Ortiz
Pettite
Posada
Manny
Renteria
I-Rod
Rolen
Sheffield
Thome
Frank Thomas
Sosa
Delgado
Edmonds
Luis Gonzales
Griffey
Andruw Jones
Chipper Jones
Tejada

While a lot of these guys don't have a realistic shot at making it, they'll still be drawing votes. When combined with the already retired group, and the group of previously identified pitchers, there are going to be a lot of very crowded ballots, and we'll probably see some legit guys get bumped off the ballot.

I don't see this as a significant issue, at least as far as it pertains to Mussina prematurely dropping off the ballot. Barring a late career push noticeably out of line with what even stars are capable of, none of these guys are going to get more than token votes:

Abreu
Damon
Giambi
Ordonez
Ortiz
Pettite
Posada
Renteria
Delgado
Edmonds
Luis Gonzales
Andruw Jones
Tejada

Of the rest,

Guerrero
Manny
I-Rod
Sheffield
Thome
Frank Thomas
Sosa
Griffey
Chipper Jones,

Mussina will be fighting for those votes, but I don't see him as a worse candidate, to the voters, than Vladdy, Sheffield, Thome, and Sosa. I can see it taking 12-15 years if he gets in, but I just can't see any realistic scenario whereby he drops off the ballot.

I don't see this as a significant issue, at least as far as it pertains to Mussina prematurely dropping off the ballot.

That's great. I was merely pointing out that, with the sheer amount of talent retiring, we could end up with a situation where some legit Hall of Fame talent players get squeezed on the ballot. It wasn't a case of singling out Mussina.

Barring a late career push noticeably out of line with what even stars are capable of, none of these guys are going to get more than token votes:

I'll disagree on a couple.
Damon - shot at 3000 hits (2270 at age 34)
Ortiz - Boston mystique, clutch god, monster peak
Pettite - Yankee mystique, 4 rings
Posada - Yankee mystique, elite hitting catcher
Renteria - shot at 3000 hits (2070 hits at age 33)
Delgado - likely to end with between 550 and 600 HRs, clean reputation w.r.t PEDs
Andruw Jones - decade of excellence in center, including on D, and associated with the Braves run.

With respect to the other guys, while they won't make it in, they'll all draw at least some votes, which means less to go around for the other guys. When combined with the older players still on the ballot, the list of 10 likely HoF pitchers coming on to the ballot, and the preference of the BBWAA to not elect more than 3 guys at a time in their first go around (Carlton Fisk wasn't a first ballot guy? Seriously?), there's going to be a lot of guys splitting a limited number of votes, especially since most BBWAA guys also don't like to use up all 10 slots.

It's not just across eras though. If the time comes to compare the HOF cases of Roy Halliday and Josh Beckett, you could be looking at a situation where one pitcher has an extra season's worth of pitches being thrown in the most demanding conditions, and you'd be willing to totally ignore those pitches as part of his record. It seems in your attempt to be fair to those pitchers who don't pitch in the postseason, you're going to be even more unfair to those who do.

An extra season's worth of pitches would be the extreme case; that's basically Smoltz (207 postseason innings) at one end, and Halladay (0) at the other -- but it's not, really, because Halladay's career is only half over. Halladay is likely to close that gap over the next several seasons, and if he doesn't pitch much longer he's not going to be a viable HOF candidate anyway.

I still don't see why a pitcher who needs the postseason to make his HOF case is really a very good candidate in the first place.

An extra season's worth of pitches would be the extreme case; that's basically Smoltz (207 postseason innings) at one end, and Halladay (0) at the other -- but it's not, really, because Halladay's career is only half over. Halladay is likely to close that gap over the next several seasons, and if he doesn't pitch much longer he's not going to be a viable HOF candidate anyway.

You are much more optimistic about the Jays than I am.

An extra season's worth of pitches would be the extreme case; that's basically Smoltz (207 postseason innings) at one end, and Halladay (0) at the other -- but it's not, really, because Halladay's career is only half over. Halladay is likely to close that gap over the next several seasons, and if he doesn't pitch much longer he's not going to be a viable HOF candidate anyway.

Halladay doesn't start making up that gap until the Jays start making the playoffs.

I still don't see why a pitcher who needs the postseason to make his HOF case is really a very good candidate in the first place.

It's not about what he needs. It's about the postseason being part of his record, in the same way his third season, his seventh season and his last season is. In some cases, it may be no part. In some cases a small part. For a guy like Smoltz, it's a substantial part.

Willfully ignoring any part of a player's record when considering his HOF case is, to me, silly. Particularly in the case of a pitcher, where those extra pitches can affect how many regular season pitches he's able to throw in the future.

The only qualifier I'd make is that like it or not, intangibles will sometimes play a role. I'll be somewhat surprised if Kevin Brown makes it in, and for just that reason. There are just enough writers who simply don't like him to put him below the line. That, and in his case the fact that his worst performances were in the most high profile points of his career.

No question. My personal HOF has Kevin Brown in, Smoltz by a nose, and Mussina dancing on the line. I expect what will happen is that Smoltz will glide in, Mussina will get in after a few years, and Brown will receive a shamefully low number of votes.

As for Marichal, I think it's a very poor comparison. There were five pitchers inducted in the 1980s:

Player      From  To  Inducted  W   L   WL%   ERA    G   GS  CG SHO  SV   IP     H   ER   HR  BB   SO  ERA+

B Gibson*   1959-1975   1981   251 174  .591  2.91  528 482 255  56   6 3884.3 3279 1258 257 1336 3117  127
J Marichal* 1960-1975   1983   243 142  .631  2.89  471 457 244  52   2 3507.3 3153 1126 320  709 2303  123
D Drysdale* 1956-1969   1984   209 166  .557  2.95  518 465 167  49   6 3432.0 3084 1124 280  855 2486  121
H Wilhelm*  1952-1972   1985   143 122  .540  2.52 1070  52  20   5 227 2254.3 1757  632 150  778 1610  146
C Hunter*   1965-1979   1987   224 166  .574  3.26  500 476 181  42   1 3449.3 2958 1248 374  954 2012  104

The only pitcher who I'd call better is Gibson. Wilhelm is a reliever, so it's really 4 HOF pitchers we're talking about.

Marichal is the 2nd best pitcher inducted in the 80s, marginally better than Drysdale and much better than Hunter. Mussina isn't in the same class as that.

How is that not gray area? You're putting them exactly at the borderline of "defensible", which is where the gray area lives!

What I meant was, I think they're clearly out, but you can make an argument that's not laughable.

I don't see Puckett as one of the 7-10 best CFs at all.

In our Hall of Merit ranking of the CFs, we elected Dawson and didn't elect Puckett - yet (he was 9th on the 2008 ballot). Dawson finished 26th in our ranking of CFs (I didn't agree with that, had him about 18 myself).

I'm thinking of my Bill James New Historical Abstract. He's ranked 8th; 7th among those eligble for Cooperstown (Griffey is #7 on the list). I can see putting some others ahead of him (Billy Hamilton is #9 because of James's timeline adjustment, but eyeballing the list, Puckett really doesn't seem all that out of place. Wally Berger's 13th.

Few thoughts on the difference - I did qualify myself by saying in the history of MLB. Didn't the HoM put Earl Averill in? If so, that's because of PCL credit. Wasn't Lip Pike a CF? That's pre-MLB play putting him over the hump. Plus Negro Leaguers. Then there's the thorny issue of how you divide up playing time among outfielders - Dawson played more games in right, while Puckett appeared in CF in over 90% of his games.

At no point has the HOF ever decided that peak value was all that counted,

Of course not. That's why Dizzy Dean never got in.

It think you misapprehend. He is not saying that HOF decided that peak is not important, or cannot be sufficient. He is saying that the HOF decided that peak is not the be-all and end-all, and that there are other ways to get in through cumulative career excellence, without an eye-popping peak.

If that's what he meant, I stand corrected, and of course in that case the point he was making is clearly true.

I'll disagree on a couple.
Damon - shot at 3000 hits (2270 at age 34)
Ortiz - Boston mystique, clutch god, monster peak
Pettite - Yankee mystique, 4 rings
Posada - Yankee mystique, elite hitting catcher
Renteria - shot at 3000 hits (2070 hits at age 33)
Delgado - likely to end with between 550 and 600 HRs, clean reputation w.r.t PEDs
Andruw Jones - decade of excellence in center, including on D, and associated with the Braves run.

Sorry, Ryan--I misunderstood you on Mussina here.

This is fun. Let's see:

Damon - 730 more hits from age 35 on for a guy who can no longer (or should) play much in CF, and barely hits well enough at his best now (never mind in three or four years) to hold down a corner OF spot? I just don't see it.
Ortiz - Five terrific years, yes, but all of 4631 career ABs? 1329 hits? Dick Allen had an OPS+ of 156 (v. 138 for Ortiz) and couldn't get a whiff -- it's going to take at least five more very strong years and a WHOLE lot of contagious Beantown love to carry Big Papi through the pearly gates.
Pettite - 215 wins and a 117 ERA+? If we're debating Moose, what chance does Andy Oops! PEDs! have?
Posada - "an elite hitting catcher", to be sure. For about 4 of 14 years. He'll need 6 more full seasons of average hitting to end up with Gary Carter's stats, but without Carter's rep on defense.
Edgar Rent - Nothing special as a hitter and with only 2 GGs, even in the unlikely event he gets to 3000 hits, he's exactly the kind of guy who won't make it.
Carlos Delgado - This year's resurgence took him from longshot to odds on. If I were betting on one player from this bunch to get the call, it'd have to be CD.
Andruw Jones - It was a great decade, but he's not the CF version of Koufax. Only 1716 hits and he's already toast. Ate his way out of the Hall. He could get glaucoma tomorrow and wouldn't get 5% in 2014. It's not going to happen.

Actually, I'm not sure Gomez is defensible 189-102, 125 ERA+, 3 really excellent seasons spread over 7 years, but he's Jimmy Key (186-117, 122 ERA+).

Gomez was consistently leveraged quite a bit by Joe McCarthy against the best availalbe opposing teams. He was the best leveraged pitcher in all baseball in 1932 (actually, that scores as the second best leveraged season of the entire decade by anyone with 20 or more starts in a season). He's one of the 20 best leveraged starting pitchers of all-time with at least 150 starts in his career. Among Hall of Famers, only Mordecai Brown and Carl Hubbell were better.

Comparing him to Key's career numbers misses the mark as well because, as noted in my previous comment, Gomez is a peak candidate. And in Gomez's peak, he was one of the best pitchers in baseball.

From 1931-7, he threw 1737.7 innings, fifth most of anyone in baseball. He led the league in innings in 1934, was second in 1937. Twice he led the league in ERA & came in first two more times in WHIP. Just benefitting from that defense you say? Well, three times he led the league in strikeouts, and he came in third another trio of times. He had the best K:W ratio twice and was routinely among league leaders.

From 1931-7, only Dizzy Dean struck out more batters - and that was only 6 more. Aside from Dean, the only person with over 1000 IP and a better K rate in that stretch was Johnny ALlen, who barely beat Gomez (5.65 to 5.61) while throwing 700 fewer innings (at 1031.3, he just makes the cutoff).

The only guys clearly better than him were Lefty Grove, Carl Hubbell. Wes Ferrell would be except he was reversed leveraged in Boston, spending all his time piling up cheap starts againt the league's bottom feeders. Dizzy Dean is about even. Dean didn't have as good a defense, but Dean wasn't leveraged at all.

As for Dimino's coment on Key vs. Gomez - that Gomez benefitted from tremendous defenses - well, so did Key. Toronto could FIELD in the 1980s for a stretch. Gomez was leveraged against the best avialable teams all the time; Key threw in a set rotation. Advantage, Key.

There's a rason why Gomez piles up 46 in the black ink and Key has 15.

The All-Star Game, while a meaningless exhibition, was taken very seriously when it began in the 1930s. Gomez was well respected enough to be asked to start 5 of the first 6 contest (including the first one).

I wouldn't personally vote for Gomez, but he ain't Jimmy Key.

The idea that the post season shouldn't count is absurd on every level.

If Don Sutton was a hitter, who would he be?

The idea that the post season shouldn't count is absurd on every level.

I agree. And it's almost as if there's some sort of "Soak The Rich" mentality behind this weird line of argument. Lots of Class Warfare going on there, as if pitchers like John Smoltz were "born on third base and thought they'd hit a triple." (/whimsical snark)

Sorry, Ryan--I misunderstood you on Mussina here.

Hey, no problem. I probably could have been clearer on my intent.

This is fun. Let's see:

Damon - 730 more hits from age 35 on for a guy who can no longer (or should) play much in CF, and barely hits well enough at his best now (never mind in three or four years) to hold down a corner OF spot? I just don't see it.
Ortiz - Five terrific years, yes, but all of 4631 career ABs? 1329 hits? Dick Allen had an OPS+ of 156 (v. 138 for Ortiz) and couldn't get a whiff -- it's going to take at least five more very strong years and a WHOLE lot of contagious Beantown love to carry Big Papi through the pearly gates.
Pettite - 215 wins and a 117 ERA+? If we're debating Moose, what chance does Andy Oops! PEDs! have?
Posada - "an elite hitting catcher", to be sure. For about 4 of 14 years. He'll need 6 more full seasons of average hitting to end up with Gary Carter's stats, but without Carter's rep on defense.
Edgar Rent - Nothing special as a hitter and with only 2 GGs, even in the unlikely event he gets to 3000 hits, he's exactly the kind of guy who won't make it.
Carlos Delgado - This year's resurgence took him from longshot to odds on. If I were betting on one player from this bunch to get the call, it'd have to be CD.
Andruw Jones - It was a great decade, but he's not the CF version of Koufax. Only 1716 hits and he's already toast. Ate his way out of the Hall. He could get glaucoma tomorrow and wouldn't get 5% in 2014. It's not going to happen.

It is fun. Also, the key with all of the above isn't that they're necessarily going to make the hall, but that they're all players who are going to draw HoF votes, even if they don't make it, and a lot of them will hang around and clutter up the ballot. If I were to pick any of these guys to actually make the hall, I'd agree with you on Carlos, and probably add Damon or Edgar, as I figure one of them gets to 3000 and I can't see the BBWAA not eventually letting a 3000 hit guy into the hall, no matter how crappy the overall rate stats. Who knows as to a bunch of the others - if Ortiz has a slow decline and a couple more rings, if Pettite pitches another couple years and continues to take remarkably little flak for his PED "admission", if Posada finishes strong on his current contract, or if Andruw finds where he lost his bat speed and learns how not to eat a cheeseburger.... All big ifs, but stranger things have happened.

If Don Sutton was a hitter, who would he be?

Sutton was a hitter; just ask Steve Garvey.

If that's what he meant, I stand corrected, and of course in that case the point he was making is clearly true.

It's not only what I meant, but what I said.

Ortiz - Five terrific years, yes, but all of 4631 career ABs? 1329 hits? Dick Allen had an OPS+ of 156 (v. 138 for Ortiz) and couldn't get a whiff -- it's going to take at least five more very strong years and a WHOLE lot of contagious Beantown love to carry Big Papi through the pearly gates.

While I agree that Ortiz isn't really close to the HOF -- he's a poster boy for the five year rule; no matter how much people gush over him, once they step back and look at his stats, nobody will vote for him -- saying, "Allen was better and couldn't get in" isn't an argument. Allen was better than a lot of people who nonetheless got in. Allen didn't get in because he was (perceived as) a horse's ass, not because his performance didn't make him worthy. If Allen had Ortiz's reputation, he'd have been inducted a long time ago.

Damon - 730 more hits from age 35 on for a guy who can no longer (or should) play much in CF, and barely hits well enough at his best now (never mind in three or four years) to hold down a corner OF spot? I just don't see it.

Despite being terrible, he still managed 144 hits in 2007. And he had a nice resurgence this year - producing roughly the same (offensive) year he did when he was "good" in his 20s. I'm not saying it's a sure thing, but I would probably put money on him sticking around long enough to make 3000. At his current pace of 150 or so a year it would only take him five years. If he slows down some more, he could still easily stick around as a fourth outfielder until 42 and make it.

And before we write him off, remember that he was godawful at 27 and pretty miserable at 29, and still came back. In fact, over his whole career he really only has two kinds of seasons: ones where he hits basically league average and is terrible and ones where he hits 30 points better than league average and is pretty good. If he turns into a guy only capable of the former, sure he'll fade quickly. But if he can knock off one or two more of the latter, he's got a ticket to the HOF. Which is pretty sad actually because...really, Johnny Damon??

But if he can knock off one or two more of the latter, he's got a ticket to the HOF. Which is pretty sad actually because...really, Johnny Damon??

I'm going to disagree here. Yes, 3,000 hits has historically meant a ticket to Cooperstown. But with the exception of Brock, who obviously had another reason for induction, all of the players who reached that plateau were worthy of enshrinement. Moreover, unless Palmeiro gets inducted, which I doubt, I don't see why any writers will feel required to put Damon in simply because he gets to 3,000.

While it's not as clearcut as Kingman's no-chance even if he reached 500 HRs, I don't think reaching that milestone would convert Damon into a HOFer. Hell, I'm worried Biggio may still wind up on the outside looking in.

Posada - "an elite hitting catcher", to be sure. For about 4 of 14 years. He'll need 6 more full seasons of average hitting to end up with Gary Carter's stats, but without Carter's rep on defense.

I think you're selling Posada short. He is an elite hitting catcher. His problem is that his career started too late: he didn't get regular playing time until he was 26, and didn't start full time until he was 28. It took the Yankees years to stop fooling around with Girardi; Posada was ready at least by 1997, and, yet, it wasn't until 2000 that Girardi was finally out of the picture.

That said, Posada still has a shot if he plays well for a little while longer. I don't think he needs six more years at all.

I'm going to disagree here. Yes, 3,000 hits has historically meant a ticket to Cooperstown. But with the exception of Brock, who obviously had another reason for induction, all of the players who reached that plateau were worthy of enshrinement. Moreover, unless Palmeiro gets inducted, which I doubt, I don't see why any writers will feel required to put Damon in simply because he gets to 3,000.

Oh, there will be several such writers, to be sure. Logic is in short supply in that population.

While I'm at it, I might as well also state that I don't look at "milestones" when deciding if I think a player should be a Hall of Famer.

While I'm at it, I might as well also state that I don't look at "milestones" when deciding if I think a player should be a Hall of Famer.

That's fine, as long as you look at milestones when considering who will be a Hall of Famer.

Oh, there will be several such writers, to be sure. Logic is in short supply in that population.

Well, there has to be 3/4 of them who think that. I don't think that would happen with a guy like Damon, who doesn't have any other obvious HOF numbers (unlike Brock).

Second, I don't know that I've seen too many writers say 3,000 hits or 500 home runs is a reason they would automatically give a guy a HOF vote. In many cases, it's just presumed that other writers feel that way (much the way it was overwhelmingly presumed here that the writers would vote Howard the 2008 MVP). It's an expectation of how others will vote, not necessarily a reflection of how they will vote.

Finally, the current batch of writers are electing too few players to the HOF. I see it more likely that a deserving 3,000-hit club member, such as Biggio, will be kept out than an undeserving member will be invited in.

I'm going to disagree here. Yes, 3,000 hits has historically meant a ticket to Cooperstown. But with the exception of Brock, who obviously had another reason for induction, all of the players who reached that plateau were worthy of enshrinement. Moreover, unless Palmeiro gets inducted, which I doubt, I don't see why any writers will feel required to put Damon in simply because he gets to 3,000.

Yes, but this misses something much bigger: he's not getting 3000 hits. The reason all 3000 hit players have gotten in, Mr. Haircut excepted, is because people like Damon don't get 3000 hits. A player like that just has to fall off a cliff once, and he no longer has a starting job. First person I thought of -- and turns out he's on Damon's age similarity chart -- is Tim Raines.

much the way it was overwhelmingly presumed here that the writers would vote Howard the 2008 MVP

You say that as if Howard didn't come close. But he finished second, to head a long list of snafu selections. The voting pool was as brain dead as ever.

Tim Raines never fell off a cliff. He didn't even really decline that much. He just stopped playing full seasons. Maybe I'm mis-remembering but I'm pretty sure this is because he started to get hurt a lot, not because he was bad. And he was a bit fragile even before then.

Damon, in contrast, has topped 140 games every year since he was a rookie.

Also, Raines was a LOT better than Damon during his peak. So I'm not sure the analogy holds well there, either.

I still think Damon does make 3000. He'll be pretty bad at 40, but will still be able to hit .280, give or take. But if he doesn't make it, I think it'll be because of injuries not because of getting benched.

I still think Damon does make 3000. He'll be pretty bad at 40, but will still be able to hit .280, give or take. But if he doesn't make it, I think it'll be because of injuries not because of getting benched.

Is this the same Johnny Damon who was facing a career crisis as recently as last year, when he was moved off of centerfield and wasn't hitting either? In 2008 Damon came up with a season that was basically on par with post-decline Bobby Abreu; had Damon turned in another 2007 offensively, he wouldn't have seen the month of August as a starter.

Yes, but this misses something much bigger: he's not getting 3000 hits. The reason all 3000 hit players have gotten in, Mr. Haircut excepted, is because people like Damon don't get 3000 hits. A player like that just has to fall off a cliff once, and he no longer has a starting job. First person I thought of -- and turns out he's on Damon's age similarity chart -- is Tim Raines.

Well, it missed it because I wasn't addressing it. I too doubt Damon will get to 3,000 hits. But my point is that regardless of whether he does, it won't get him enshrined in Cooperstown because he doesn't deserve it. Just like Dial's collusion-free Kingman hitting 500 HRs wouldn't have gotten him in.

You say that as if Howard didn't come close. But he finished second, to head a long list of snafu selections. The voting pool was as brain dead as ever.

No, I say that because the majority of posters here said the BBWAA would choose Howard over Pujols. That assumption was wrong, and it wasn't particularly close (yes, it was too close). Just as the assumption that Damon would get enshrined just because he gets 3,000 hits is wrong. It's based on what we think others will do (an assumption sometimes shared by people who have a vote).

Just as the assumption that Damon would get enshrined just because he gets 3,000 hits is wrong. It's based on what we think others will do (an assumption sometimes shared by people who have a vote).

I don't say Damon would get _enshrined_ if he were to get to 3,000. I say several idiots would vote for him.

I don't say Damon would get _enshrined_ if he were to get to 3,000. I say several idiots would vote for him.

I said Damon would get enshrined if he were to get to 3000. Apparently, I have a lower opinion of the writers than you.

The idea that the post season shouldn't count is absurd on every level.

I don't think the question is whether or not it should or shouldn't count - the question is how much weight do you give it, especially prior to the free agent era when players had very little say in where they played.

-- MWE

> Posada - "an elite hitting catcher", to be sure. For about 4 of 14 years. He'll need 6 more full seasons of average hitting to end up
> with Gary Carter's stats, but without Carter's rep on defense.

Posada's the best guy on that list. You shouldn't need to be Gary Carter to get in as a catcher - Gary Carter's the 4th best catcher ever (Gibson, Bench, Berra, CARTER). Posada has to get in line behind Piazza and Ivan Rodriguez but he's clearly next in line.

Postseason should count for something. How much it should count is a topic the Hall of Merit has wildly divergent opinions on. There is much sabermetric research to be done in this respect. I personally would credit the player for a longer season than his peers and add in the extra wins above replacement accordingly. Of course then what is postseason replacement level....

I'm also open to a WPA approach where you measure the number of postseason wins added. I am not in favor of this for regular season comparisons but if you're treating the postseason as a "bonus" then the WPA approach makes some sense. You're never going to get more than a few wins added for any player. What is keeping me from using this for comparisons is the lack of a comprehensive postseason WPA database like what is available for WARP.

While I'm at it, I might as well also state that I don't look at "milestones" when deciding if I think a player should be a Hall of Famer.

I've mentioned milestones a few times, but I hope I'm not giving the impression that they factor heavily into my decision as to whether a player is a HOFer.

The main benefit of milestones for me is not having a blind spot for career value players. If a player is reasonably close to 3000 hits or 500 HR or 300 wins or 3000 K or 4000 IP, it's a strong indicator of ability to perform very well in a fairly long career or to perform adequately over an exceptionally long career. 295 wins is indistinguishable from 300 wins IMO.

I think there's room in my personal HOF for a guy who is just around average pitching but pitches for 35 seasons. Sure, he's an accumulator, but a 35 year career is pretty exceptional in itself.

As for the postseason, there are very few players that I would put in the HOF that wouldn't have made it without the postseason. It's the icing, not the cake. You know, it's not even the icing, but the lettering on top of the icing.

You know, it's not even the icing, but the lettering on top of the icing.

I love that analogy.

If Don Sutton was a hitter, who would he be?

Brock I guess
maybe Biggio
maybe Rose...


Damon's a 104 OPS+ hitter-
hitters between 95 and 115, 2250+ hits:
Cnt Player OPS+ H
+----+-----------------+----+----+----+----+-----+----+
1 Charlie Grimm 95 2299
2 Jimmie Dykes 96 2256
3 Gary Gaetti 97 2280
4 B.J. Surhoff 98 2326
5 Bill Buckner 99 2715
6 Lloyd Waner 99 2459
7 Willie McGee 100 2254
8 Tony Fernandez 101 2276
9 Johnny Damon 104 2270
10 Steve Finley 104 2548
11 Brooks Robinson 104 2848
12 Garret Anderson 105 2368
13 Stuffy McInnis 105 2405
14 Willie Davis 106 2561
15 Kenny Lofton 107 2428
16 Pie Traynor 107 2416
17 Max Carey 107 2665
18 Buddy Bell 109 2514
19 Lou Brock 109 3023
20 Ivan Rodriguez 110 2605
21 Brett Butler 110 2375
22 Alan Trammell 110 2365
23 Vada Pinson 110 2757
24 Craig Biggio 111 3060
25 Julio Franco 111 2586
26 Richie Ashburn 111 2574
27 Frankie Frisch 111 2880
28 Cal Ripken 112 3184
29 Luke Appling 112 2749
30 Billy Herman 112 2345
31 Sam Rice 112 2987
32 Ryne Sandberg 114 2386
33 Joe Judge 114 2352
34 Harry Hooper 114 2466
35 Robin Yount 115 3142

All the 3000+ guys were better hitters than Damon (both peak and career), all except Brock had more defensive value too.
Of the guys who got close (2700+), all but Buckner were much better players than Damon. Buckner was greatly overrated when he played and received far more PT than he merited- his last couple hundred hits or so he was sub-replacement level.
Brooks was comparable as an offensive player, had a huge defensive edge on Damon, and was an 85 OPS+ hitter his last 500 hits or so- I doubt that Damon will be allowed to accumulate 500 hits while OPSing 85 or so.

Can Damon do it? Not likely- but not impossible, if he can continue to hit 100-110 he'll get PT, he's got a better shot that Garrett Anderson- he's younger, he's ahead of Anderson's pace, and Anderson has been under 100 3 of the last 4 years... History says neither is likely- hitters of their caliber simply don't make it. If both men get close they will both be likely FAR worse than Biggio was when he got close.

Dave Winfield = Don Sutton