would, woudl, whatever

This isn't the problemof Yaz, Williams, and Boggs so much as that of the Red Sox not having enough Lazzeri/Randolph/Maris/Reynolds level players. Or at least that is my take on the subject.

Couldn't agree more with this assertion. The Yanks have always done a good job of using their money to slather talent around the field. Strangely, one of the reasons they failed in the mid-late sixties was that they were too core-centric. Most of their winners, except for the Ruth/Gehrig team, have featured a LOT of upper-mid level talent and just one or two stars of a smuch smaller magnitude than R/G.

This is an irony of sorts when you consider how thin Joe Torre's bullpens and benches are over the last few years.

Except for the Ruth/Gehrig teams? Couldn't disagree more. Forget 1927. Take 1926. OK, so they had all the same guys as 1927 but as of 1926 who knew that they would grow up to be Murderer's Row. They won 91 games in 1926 and won by 3 games with:

Ruth, Gehrig, Lazzeri, Koenig, Dugan, Combs, Meusel; Pennock, Shocker, Hoyt, Jones and Shawkey

Then after the A's dynasty came and went (the Yanks won 88-86-94), the re-emerged in 1932 with 107 wins, pretty much a new Murderer's Row, with the emphasis on new:

Ruth, Gehrig, Lazzeri, Combs (still there), Crosetti, Sewell, Chapman, Dickey, Gomez, Ruffing, Allen, Pipgras, Pennock (still)

Compare that to 1938-1939, the only two Gehrig-DiMaggio teams:

Gehrig, DiMaggio, Lazzeri giving way to Gordon, Crosetti, Rolfe, Dickey, Hoag, Powell, Gomez, Ruffing, (some guy named) Murphy, Hadley, Pearson, Chandler (only 7-4)

I think the supporting cast for Ruth and Gehrig was better, though not by a lot.

played between the best ever Red Sox's and the best ever Yankees woudl be really really even, despite the 27-6 difference in WS titles. This isn't the problemof Yaz, Williams, and Boggs so much as that of the Red Sox not having enough Lazzeri/Randolph/Maris/Reynolds level players. Or at least that is my take on the subject.

Clemens pitches for the Red Sox.
Ruth pitches in rotation for the Red Sox and plays in the Yankee outfield.

I guess I was thinking about Koenig, Dugan, Pat Collins, and thinking they had a lot of sinkholes in lineup during the early portion of R/G. I think I'd rather have Rolfe/Sewell, Crosetti, Dickey than those three.

Dugan was approx. as good as Rolfe, IMO.

Combs and Meusel supporting Ruth are better than Myril Hoag and Jake Powell supporting DiMag in the OF.

The pitching in 1926 is deeper than in '38-'39, though '32 is about a wash.

Koenig and Crosetti are a wash--good glove, no hit. Who needed a hitter at SS on those teams?

Catcher is the only obvious advantage for the later bunch.

Dugan was approx. as good as Rolfe, IMO.

I'd take Rolfe preety easily over Dugan. Red did have the shorter career, but he actually comes close to Dugan in PA because he was so durable during the seasons he did play. Add in Rolfe's much better bat and peak and it's no contest, IMO.

Strangely enough, I think the roles are reversed today. After a team in the late 90's that had about 20 good players, this year's team has about 12, where the Red Sox have Choi and Pena on the bench and actually traded for a ho-hum name like Loretta.

The Yankees are going teh way of Real Madrid I am afraid. In order to play the for the best club in the world you need to be world class, completely forgetting that titles are won with plenty of guys who fall just short of World Class (along with a core of guys who are of course).

The pitching in 1926 is deeper than in '38-'39, though '32 is about a wash.

The pitching was great in 1927, but it was otherwise fairly average at best between 1926 and 1933. The team had big names in 1932 on the staff, but Gomez, Pipgras and Pennock all had weak years and coasted on the absurd level of run support. The 36-39,41-43 teams all had ERA+'s over 110 (and as high as 131 in 1939).

You could write a thesis on the ebbs and flows of the Yankee juggernaut between 1921 and the war. Hoag and Powell were weak with the bat, but Selkirk, Henrich and Keller could rake, but by 1939 Gehrig was done... etc etc. When were at their overall best is very hard to say.

>When were at their overall best is very hard to say.

Au contraire:

1. 1939 .702 +411 runs DiMaggio, Rolfe, Ruffing, Gordon, Dickey
2. 1927 .714 +376 Ruth, Gehrig, Lazzeri, Hoyt, Wilcy Moore
3. 1998 .704 +309 B. Williams, Jeter, O'Neill, Wells, Rivera

"Some voters like karlmagnus (BTW, I hope he is okay)"

What's wrong with Karl - did I miss something. I too hope he is well.

well, Karl typically votes on Monday morning, so he's already 4 days 'late', which is all I think any of us noticed. Hope all is well, Karl!

What's wrong with Karl - did I miss something. I too hope he is well.

I sent him a few e-mails a few days ago, but no answer from him. He usually sends me his economics column every Monday, but I didn't receive that either.

He didn't mention anything about taking a vacation and I don't think he's upset with anything we said, so that explains my post, Joe.

He also hasn't appeared on my AOL Buddy List since last week, I believe.

"Usually votes on Monday" is an understatement. He has been the first or second ballot I bet every election save 1 or 2.

"Usually votes on Monday" is an understatement. He has been the first or second ballot I bet every election save 1 or 2.

Not that long ago, I had posted one of the ballot threads. I was just about to post my ballot, when I noticed that his was already there!

That is strange. Hope he's OK and just on an unannounced vacation or something.

Has anyone used baseballprospectus' "Stuff" rating for pitchers. I was looking at it, as a peak/prime voter and foud it helped reinforce a few of my preferances (props to Lefty Gomez) but seriously downgraded others (Addie Joss). Also, it gave me a backlog boost for guys like Virgil Trucks and Lon Warneke.

The stat is described as follows in their glossary:

A rough indicator of the pitcher's overall dominance, based on normalized strikeout rates, walk rates, home run rates, runs allowed, and innings per game. "10" is league average, while "0" is roughly replacement level. The formula is as follows: Stuff = EqK9 * 6 - 1.333 * (EqERA + PERA) - 3 * EqBB9 - 5 * EqHR9 -3 * MAX{6-IP/G),0}

FYI - not including NeL pitchers, the highest scoring pitchers from the 1974 ballot are Rube Waddell (not even close) followed by a tie of Lefty Gomez and Dizzie Dean.
Food for thought

correction - Dean is second. Gomez is tied for third with Bridges

correction - Dean is second. Gomez is tied for third with Bridges and Smokey Joe Wood.

Being somewhat partial to ERA, and especially to peak ERA, you should know that it comes up with pretty damn near the same rankings as "stuff" does. And my posts don't cost you anything.

not really - the baseball prospectus stuff is free too - I just have to look at each player individually.

In my top 30 eligible pitchers list, minus the Nel'ers, the top five for career stuff scores are as such:
1) Waddell - 36
2) Dean - 32
3) Gomez - 24
4) Wood - 24
5) Bridges - 24

Career ERA+ (I prefer this greatly over dry ERA)
1) Wood - 146
2) Joss - 142
3) Waddell - 134
4) Dean - 130
5) Bridges - 126

4/5 names are the same, true. But Gomez is only just out of the top 5 in career ERA+ (125) while Joss is way down the stuff list (13).
Other examples of incongruities between ERA+ and "stuff" - Sam Leever(ERA+123, stuff - 7), Don Newcombe (114, 17). There are many more.

FYI, today I stumbled across my long-forgotten uncorrected galley proof of Pete Palmer's 1984 Hidden Game of Baseball.

When I get a chance next week, I'll post some of his 'should be' and 'shouldn't be' in Hall, which would be based on players finishing thru 1977.

Has there ever been a serious discussion about the candidacy of Lefty Gomez?

I can't find it if there was rawagman.

For me Gomez just doesn't have enough there. He has the peak of a HoMer if you don't mind a short peak. But he needs some deflation when you consider the defense he pitched in front of - his DERA is 10 points higher than his NERA, which is a definite indicator that he had good defensive support.

But a 3.88 DERA in just 2500 IP isn't really the stuff that HoMers are made of.

Curt Schilling for example, is someone that I thought would be comparable to Gomez - a few big years, but not as great. Looking at it though, he buries Gomez. Schilling at 3600 translated innings, with a 3.55 DERA.

Gomez is a lot closer to a guy like Lon Warneke, who had a 3.96 DERA in 2700 translated innings.

Hippo Vaughn is a decent comp too, 2400 tIP, 3.95 DERA.

Gomez is a little better than them, and had a higher peak, but he's not close to Koufax 3.49, 2231 tIP.

Also, Gomez couldn't hit. At all. -7 career OPS+, and pitchers hit a little better back then than they do now. He's Schilling equal there at least :-)

I think Guidry will be a better choice than Gomez. Guidry actually pitched to a net below average defense. His NERA is 3.79, DERA 3.76. He's got just as many IP as Gomez (2451.7) when you adjust for ERA, and the peak to match it.

Jimmy Key? 3.92, 2850 tIP. Not quite the peak, but more career.

Virgil Trucks? Would have won a Cy Young under current rules, 3.90 in 2750 tIP, plus another 400 at a 3.50 DERA if you give him 2 years of war credit. I'll take that over Gomez without blinking.

Dwight Gooden 4.00 DERA, but 3100 tIP.

Tommy Bridges? 3.76 DERA, 2800 tIP + some war credit for 2 years where could have kept going as a Sunday starter at about 180 tIP a year.

So Gomez' career is clearly not HoM. Does 2 Cy Young type seasons give him enough of a peak boost to jump over the hump? I don't see it.

Also, Gomez couldn't hit.
in 1933 he made a 100 dollar bet with Babe Ruth that he would have 10 hits that season. On Opening Day, he got 4 hits, telling Ruth he was almost halfway there. At the end of the year he had only 9 hits and was out 100 bucks.

Has there ever been a serious discussion about the candidacy of Lefty Gomez?

Lefty Gomez Thread

I don't see Gomez as a lot different than Koufax.