The whole Spahn vs. the Dodgers thing was a complete misreading of history. Yes, Spahn didn't face the Dogers much. But NO LEFTIES FACED THE DODGERS MUCH. We only have one year of full retrosheet info, but in 1957 the Dodgers had 4948 at bats against righthanders pitchers, but only 294 (!!!) against lefties. That's 94% for those of you scoring at home. The fact is that faced with the prospect of sending a left-hander into face Campy, Hodges, Reese, Furillo, Gilliam all sensible managers chose a right-handed pitcher. To come to the conclusion that Spahn's stats should somehow be "discounted" because he rarely faced the Dogers would be to argue that guy like Bob Buhl, Lew Burdette and Gene Conley were considered better pitchers.

This does, however, suggest that guys like Hodges, Campy, Furillo and Reese have not been given their fair share of laurels (yes, I know that's unlikely) since they very rarely enjoyed the same platoon advantage as nearly everyone else in the league. Duke Snider, conversely, almost never had to face a lefty. The writers that remembered this waited over ten years before putting Duke into the Hall. Coincidence?

I just posted this in the previous thread:

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 against them, for whatever reason. Odd, to say the least.

Anthony,

We all know that the Dodgers seldom faced lefthanders, but in the entire span of Spahn's career (1947-63), he was the only HOF lefthander active in the National League. Is Spahn to be held to the same standards as Curt Simmons or Johnny Antonelli? Isn't one distinctive mark of HOF pitchers supposed to be that they are clearly better than pitchers like that?

Whitey Ford wasn't held back against the Dodgers, and in fact he pitched very effectively against them in the four games he faced them in Yankee Stadium. Allowing for the Ebbets Field factor, why didn't Spahn pitch against them in County Stadium? That was a pitcher's park supreme.

And then there's the matter of that screwball, which Spahn started throwing in 1955, as Neyer and James have noted, and which I mentioned above. Lucky for Pee Wee and Jackie that they never had to face it, because it usually drives righthanded batters nuts---or so we're told.

Andy:

Warren Spahn did NOT cost the Milwaukee Braves anything other then his paycheck.

The problem with the Braves during the 50's?

See Haney, Fred.

Warren Spahn was part of the SOLUTION. Not part of the problem. Good golly Miss Molly.......

I've splintered the discussion and for that I am sorry.

Harvey - It's not my or Andy's contention that Spahn was a problem, however, to get a true understanding of Spahn's and everyone else's place in history it is important to have a full understanding of the pitcher's record. This is a part of the record - a blemish. Enough of a blemish to make Spahn a HOF'er? Of course not - but it is something. Other parts of his record like his performance down the stretch in 56 is a clear plus, that isn't seen when examining his career at the "macro level".