User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.5262 seconds
59 querie(s) executed
|
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
| ||||||||
Hall of Merit — A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best Sunday, December 10, 2006Tom SeaverJohn (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy
Posted: December 10, 2006 at 10:05 PM | 109 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News: |
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsReranking First Basemen: Discussion Thread
(36 - 11:28am, Jun 05) Last: Alex02 Reranking Shortstops Ballot (12 - 10:03am, Jun 05) Last: DL from MN Reranking Shortstops: Discussion Thread (68 - 9:55am, Jun 05) Last: Alex02 2024 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (118 - 4:10pm, May 30) Last: Kiko Sakata Cal Ripken, Jr. (15 - 12:42am, May 18) Last: The Honorable Ardo New Eligibles Year by Year (996 - 12:23pm, May 12) Last: cookiedabookie Reranking Centerfielders: Results (20 - 10:31am, Apr 28) Last: cookiedabookie Reranking Center Fielders Ballot (20 - 9:30am, Apr 06) Last: DL from MN Ranking Center Fielders in the Hall of Merit - Discussion Thread (77 - 5:45pm, Apr 05) Last: Esteban Rivera Reranking Right Fielders: Results (34 - 2:55am, Mar 30) Last: bjhanke 2023 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (376 - 10:42am, Mar 07) Last: Dr. Chaleeko Reranking Right Fielders: Ballot (21 - 5:20pm, Mar 01) Last: DL from MN Ranking Right Fielders in the Hall of Merit - Discussion thread (71 - 9:47pm, Feb 28) Last: Guapo Dobie Moore (239 - 10:40am, Feb 11) Last: Mike Webber Ranking Left Fielders in the Hall of Merit - Discussion thread (96 - 12:21pm, Feb 08) Last: DL from MN Syndicate |
|||||||
|
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| | ||||||
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
As an announcer, he's a real old fogie. Nobody made any errors and mistakes in his day, which differs greatly from my own recollections. :-)
Oh yeah, greatest pitcher of his generation and probably between Grove and Clemens.
As I posit on his B-Ref page, I believe he is the greatest pitcher in National League history. Afficiandos of Mathewson and Alexander might differ, but once you adjust for era I believe Seaver's the one. At least he was until Maddux came along to muddy the waters . . . .
Seaver was certainly great, but he fell off a cliff after age 30. He was occassionally good after that, but never great.
He still had a few great seasons during that time, though not like the really great ones prior to '75. As I mentioned last week, he deserved the Cy Young in '81 over Valenzuela.
As I posit on his B-Ref page, I believe he is the greatest pitcher in National League history. Afficiandos of Mathewson and Alexander might differ, but once you adjust for era I believe Seaver's the one. At least he was until Maddux came along to muddy the waters . . . .
That's certainly arguable and I do lean in that direction, Sam.
His career shape is quite similar to Mathewson's, actually, except that Christy really did fall off a cliff after age 32.
I agree, though, that Alexander and Maddux go ahead of Seaver among NL pitchers. I'd put Seaver ahead of Spahn, Mathewson, and Gibson, though.
I forgot one other NL pitcher I'd take over Seaver, in Spahn.
If Seaver had been using a scroogie, he probably would have, too.
So, I'm not a HOM voter, but I'd like to suggest that he be elected. I'm willing to twist arms.
I'm pretty sure he will win election at some point. ;-)
Spahnie didn't have Seaver's peak and he wouldn't have pitched as many innings during Seaver's time. With that said, it's close.
This is true (that if you adjust both their IP to context, Seaver was more impressive), but due to the higher workload of the day, Spahn's career/prime length is even more impressive to me than it is on first glance. Effective careers of his length and quality simply didn't happen then.
I do agree with that and have cautioned about overrating the career IP of Seventies pitchers on numerous occasions.
Sadly (because of how I feel about Clemens), I have to concur. Around 95-96, when it looked like Clemens' might be fading, it appeared that his challenge to Seaver's stature would fall well short. But the last decade (166 wins later . . . .) has erased that brief illusion: Clemens' career has outshone and outlasted Seaver's. Which pains me no end to acknowledge.
When Seaver retired, you could make a reasonable argument for him as the finest pitcher of all time -- depending on your timeline adjustments. Now, I don't think it's a plausible argument any more. Greatest National Leaguer of all time? That's still a reasonable position.
Ah, objectively, you'd have to say Maddux. What's truly amazing about Maddux is that I believe this era is form-fitted for dominant pitchers of a certain type. The fact that it is a power hitter's, high strikeout era, makes it absolutely perfect for a Clemens/Pedro (in his prime) type guy. Those pitchers are extremly well-suited to take advantage of the free swingers who are so prevalent, and they don't get hurt as much as their contemporaries by the high offense.
But Maddux doesn't fit the profile of the pitcher who should be relatively helped by this era. Seaver would have; he'd have been better today, relative to the average pitcher, than he was in his own time. But Maddux's greatness is despite not being well-adapted to his time. At least not in obvious ways. That's quite a thing.
The case against Maddux is based on the value of his peak seasons. Since he wasn't pitching as many innings as Seaver in his best years, were they as valuable? Much as I'd like to buy that case, I think it only goes so far. I think it keeps Seaver in the discussion, but once we close the book on Maddux's career, I suspect he will have to go to # 1.
Maddux also bears the burden of having the 1994-95 strike fall right at the very peak of his career.
Tom Seaver got me to go to Yankee Stadium. And along with 50,000+ others, we all (well, by the end, anyway) rooted against the Yankees. What a day.
Still have the scorebook, my ticket stub (Section 521, Row D, Seat 9), and several articles about the game. The ticket was (get this) $9.75. August 4, 1985.
I'd take Maddux for sure, not sure about Alexander, and even though I'm a Cardinal fan, I take Seaver over Gibson. Gibson was a lot like Seaver, except that Seaver beats him in longevity; he tacks on a lot of solid extra years that Gibson didn't have. Peak and prime, they're pretty damn similar.
BTW, I checked Retrosheet. It was, indeed, Boston. On July 30th, 1985, Seaver beat Oil Can Boyd, 7-5 in 10 innings, for his 299th win. He went 9 innings, giving up four runs (3 earned). The White Sox got three in the top of the 10th to break a 4-4 tie, and held on to win.
+----+------+------+------+------+------+------+| Yr | Sea. | Gib. | Mad. | Cle. | Ale. | Mat. |
+----+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 01 | 130 | 131 | 110 | 138 | 139 | 132 |
| 02 | 119 | 123 | 110 | 121 | 133 | 105 |
| 03 | 109 | 110 | 102 | 115 | 123 | 104 |
| 04 | 101 | 101 | 102 | 114 | 119 | 102 |
| 05 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 113 | 114 | 102 |
| 06 | 93 | 97 | 100 | 111 | 108 | 94 |
| 07 | 89 | 89 | 99 | 108 | 89 | 94 |
| 08 | 88 | 86 | 94 | 108 | 88 | 90 |
| 09 | 87 | 76 | 92 | 101 | 86 | 88 |
| 10 | 86 | 74 | 74 | 98 | 76 | 80 |
| 11 | 83 | 62 | 72 | 89 | 67 | 73 |
| 12 | 77 | 53 | 71 | 87 | 63 | 52 |
| 13 | 76 | 47 | 71 | 82 | 61 | 46 |
| 14 | 63 | 45 | 69 | 77 | 60 | 27 |
| 15 | 55 | 23 | 68 | 73 | 56 | 2 |
| 16 | 49 | 11 | 68 | 70 | 44 | -2 |
| 17 | 48 | 5 | 63 | 61 | 40 | -4 |
| 18 | 47 | ---- | 63 | 57 | 25 | ---- |
| 19 | 33 | ---- | 52 | 55 | 8 | ---- |
| 20 | 2 | ---- | 16 | 50 | -2 | ---- |
| 21 | ---- | ---- | 5 | 47 | ---- | ---- |
| 22 | ---- | ---- | ---- | 38 | ---- | ---- |
| 23 | ---- | ---- | ---- | 35 | ---- | ---- |
+----+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| T. | 1544 | 1233 | 1602 | 1948 | 1497 | 1185 |
+----+------+------+------+------+------+------+
Maddux's game is strangely suited to these free swinging times too. And in a funny way, Mariano Rivera is a harder throwing version of him. Both Maddux and Rivera have fluid, easy-going motions, they both rely very heavily on the cutter to move in and out on hitters, using late movement to saw guys off and induce weak contact. Both are mercilessly efficient in the number of pitches they use to devour hitters. And both seem to be pretty nice, quiet, unassuming guys too. Anyway, in this time when everyone's looking fastball and swinging from the heels, these two succeed by a similar logic that that Clemens and Pedro: they plan to take advantage of the holes in the batting strategy of the day, meeting hitters on their own terms and letting them swing as hard as they want, knowing that hardly anyone will make good contact. I mean when a Maddux throws 90 pitchs in a CG, you can't say he's not challenging hitters or coming right after them. Two sides of the same coin, yet totally different.
It would be interesting to know how Maddux would have fared in the deadball era, whether his pitches would have been as effective against a league of highly skilled place hitters in the Tony Gwynn/Wade Boggs mold---guys who wait on the ball more and go the other way a lot. Maddux is compared a lot to Mathewson, so maybe he wouldn't have problems.
Carlton, 1447 -- 155, 120, 96, 95, 95
Grove, 1448 -- 126, 124, 124, 120, 114
Niekro, 1502 -- 118, 116, 104, 104, 103
Perry, 1505 -- 143. 115. 113. 105. 100
Spahn, 1629 -- 119, 117, 116. 112. 111
Young, 1795 -- 125, 122, 115, 115, 114
Johnson. 1930 -- 154, 144, 132, 130, 126
I almost figured out a new stat: RSD (Run Support Distribution) which looks at not only the level of run support (adjusted for park and league) a pitcher gets across a season but also how it's distributed on a game-by-game basis. A big flaw with RSI is that if Pitcher A receives 20, 0, 0, and 0 runs in offensive support in four games, and Pitcher B gets 5, 5, 5, and 5, they supposedly have the same offensive support.
My point? I did a lot of RSDing for 1960s and 1970s pitchers and one of the biggest differences in a single season's RSD was Tom Seaver's 1977 campaign. His teams almost never scored 0-2 runs for him and (from memory) they literally never scored more than 8 runs for him. League average runs per game was about 4.40 that year and in a full season's worth of start most pitchers will have a couple games more than twice league average --- especially if they're always getting some offensive support. I think it was the biggest upward swing moving from RSI to RSD that I came across. (Biggest downward swing was Jim Kaat's 1977, where the Phillies flat out never scored 3-4 runs for him in a game. Weird).
And the best NL pitcher of all-time was Jake Beckley. (I kid! I kid!)
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CIN/1981.shtml
Best Pitchers Ever (>200)
Walter Johnson 349
Cy Young 319
Pete Alexander 290
Christy Mathewson 280
Lefty Grove 278
Tom Seaver 253
Warren Spahn 252
Kid Nichols 251
Steve Carlton 242
Albert Spalding 238
Ed Walsh 220
Jim Palmer 219
Bob Feller 215
Bob Gibson 213
John Clarkson 208
Whitey Ford 206
Sandy Koufax 205
Carl Hubbell 203
3Finger Brown 202
There are no eligible pitchers with 200 points who are not in the HoF.
There are 23 pitchers at 150-199. 21 of them are in the HoF. Only Bob Caruthers and Tommy Bond are >150 and not in the HoF.
There are unfortunately 19 pitchers <150 who are in the HoF including 5 who are <100 which is the epitome of a HoF mistake with a capital MISTAKE: Hoyt, Bender, Pennock, Haines and Marquard. There are probably 200 pitchers who are just as good as these 19 (>Marquard's 57 but <150) who are not. Some of them are Walters, Blyleven, Cicotte, Stieb, Ferrell, Warneke, Shocker, Bridges, Mays, Marris, Saberhagen, Newcombe, Kaat, Guidry, Tiant, Luque, John and Pierce, and there are lots more.
But anyway, Seaver is right up there. Add Clemens and Maddux to the list, and then adjust a little bit for the different era, and Seaver probably drops to #7. If you held a gun to my head I would probably go: Johnson, Young, Clemens, Alex, Maddux, Grove, Seaver, Matty, Spahn, Nichols.
You're thinking of Ed Delahanty.
* In the sense of being at many historic events. Not in the brain power sense.
I guess a Fred Merkle joke here would be wildly inappropriate?
Seriously, my three encounters with history were Game 6 of the '86 WS, Seaver's 300th, and Game 4 of the '88 NLCS, when #### Mike Scioscia hit the two-run homer off Doc Gooden to tie the game, changing the entire course of that series and leading to Hershiser's famous relief appearance in the bottom of the 12th.
Seaver, by the way, holds the record for highest percentage of the vote for any HOFer in history (98.84%).
Certainly, Jim. He should be higher than Koufax, for example.
And, no, I didn't end up getting a date with the blonde...but you knew that, right?
Sure. From Retrosheet.
Which will likely be broken this year by Ripken.
I agree -- he's a top 10 all-timer for me. Maybe 10th, but still, in the conversation.
Hmmmmm . . . . Not so sure about that. Seaver got 425 out of 430 votes. I would not be at all surprised if there are more than five voters out there unconvinced of Ripken's merits as a first-ballot HOFer. Relatively low batting average, some late criticism of him for "hanging on" to the streak when it was argued it was actually hurting the Orioles . . . . voters can be stupider than we give them "credit" for. Ripken is a threat, no doubt, but so were Ryan and Brett in 1999, and they fell just short (98.79 and 98.19%). If Mays and Aaron didn't get over 98.84%, I'm not going to assume anyone will. We'll see about Junior.
# pitcher....... RSAA
1 Tom Seaver 404
2 Bob Gibson 350
3 Bert Blyleven 344
4 Roger Clemens 336
5 Phil Niekro 322
6 Whitey Ford 321
7 Warren Spahn 319
8 Gaylord Perry 317
Of course, your point that rounding up 5 idiots out of this bunch probably isn't tough.
I think you're way off base here. Have you ever heard of a single incident of a writer from the 50s, 60s or 70s saying anything remotely negative about Aaron or Mays? There are voters who didn't vote for Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial and Joe DiMaggio.
Whenever a serious threat for unanimous vote comes up, a couple of voters give some idiosyncratic reason for not voting. A common one used to be that they didn't want someone to get 100 percent of the vote because they didn't want the vote to be perceived as an endorsement of that player as the greatest ever.
No, I was just speculating. I would imagine if there were a handful of writers who left these two off their ballots due to race they wouldn't be too vocal about it.
I do know that there is/was a significant minority of the US population that is/was racist, and it seems unlikely that sportswriters are immune from that racism.
Wow, they really catch everything! Look what I found in the game log....
Fifth inning, one on, two outs.
Dr. Chaleeko: Schilling's great, huh?
Blonde: Yeah, Schilling's my favorite.
1-0.
Dr. Chaleeko: He's got awesome control, I mean he just pounds the zone, you know? Gives up some taters, but never with anyone on.
Blonde: What?
1-1.
Dr. Chaleeko: Taters, they call homers that, you know, uh, in the bigs. I mean big leagues.
Blonde: What do you mean?
Chaleeko called for balk. Runner to second.
Dr. Chaleeko: Hey, um, do you, look I think I'm.... You want a nacho?
Blonde: Huh?
1-2
Dr. Chaleeko: A nacho, do you want one?
Blonde: I've got my own, dude.
Foul ball, left side. 1-2.
Dr. Chaleeko: I've got a few hots left if you want them, I see you've finished yours already.
Blonde: Cool, thanks!
2-2.
Blonde: There's two strikes, do you think Schilling will strike him out?
Dr. Chaleeko: Totally! He's got him right where he wants him.
Blonde: He did it, nice call!
3-2.
Dr. Chaleeko: I'm sure this isn't the only guy that'll strike out tonight.
Blonde: Me neither.
Dr. Chaleeko: ----
Strike three, Chaleeko caught looking.
I was at a Phils game in 1995 where a) a player (Gregg Jeffries) hit for the cycle while b) the starting pitcher (Jeff Juden) hit a grand-slam home run. That's gotta be the only game in MLB with a GS homer by a pitcher and someone else hitting for the cycle...
Around the time of Willie's 40th birthday in 1971, SF baseball reporter Glenn Dickey wrote a scathing column about Mays' malingering and surly attitude towards much of the press (Dickey reprinted the piece in his mid-70s book THE JOCK EMPIRE), which apparently caused a lot of Bay Area attention...
This was after Mays' HOF induction, though.
I think it's a tradition. Ruth, Cobb, and Wagner weren't unanimous, and if they weren't, then who are these new guys that they should be. Maybe the BBWAA has a secret drawing; short straws take the heat for not voting the no-brainer.
Willie and The Mick were banned from holding jobs in MLB (spring training coaches, etc.) while under the employ of casinos. They were never barred from showing up on Old Timers Days or anything like that; there was never a push to take down their HOF plaques.
Grove, Young, and Alexander in the tip top tier. Alexander is almost assuredly fifth, but reasonable people can
disagree about the ranking of the top 4 (mine is given above).
Vying for top 10 honors are two other distinct groups. The Moderns (who along with Clemens form the greatest
quartet in history): RJohnson, PMartinez, and Maddux. The second group is an amalgam of pre-moderns:
Feller, Mathewson, Spahn, Seaver, and Nichols. Depending upon how you view the current era of pitching,
you'll probably interweave these two secondary groups in some manner.
According to this view, there is little doubt that Pete Alexander was the greatest National League pitcher ever.
Seaver, Maddux, Mathewson, and Spahn vie for 2nd greatest NL hurler. I'd vote for Maddux.
That's with no WWII credit for Spahn, Grove gets some credit for 1922-24 or they'd be in a dead heat. Seaver edges even a very well war credited Feller, and he passed Mathewson in 1984. I was surprised at how well he pitched from 1983-86.
Giving Seaver full credit for 1981 helps him too, I have that as his 5th best season.
I get his career DRA+ at 127 (same as his ERA+) over 4805.7 translated IP. He was a pretty good hitter for a pitcher too.
I've got him as very similar to Spahn, check out this for top 5 seasons:
Spahn 9.6, 9.3, 8.1, 7.5, 7.5
Seaver 9.5, 9.4, 8.4, 7.7, 7.1
The most memorable game I saw in person was as a youngster during a vacation trip to Chicago, Cubs vs Expos. In the second or third inning, I got Gary Carter's (among others) signature on my scoresheet, but then later in the game he bunted for a single and took second on a throwing error... then took third on a second error on the play... then came home on a third error on the same play.
Despite the fact that this happened in Wrigley Field, the entire ballpark was on their feet cheering (or maybe screaming) by the time he crossed home plate.
Sadly, that scorecard (the only one Carter signed that day, as far as I know) went missing decades ago.
Bill
The Seaver-Carlton game I saw, given that this is the Seaver thread, after all, was Opening Day 1974, a fabulous game that Mike Schmidt won with a home run off Tug McGraw. Seaver, unusually, struck out Tommy Hutton in that game. I hated Seaver warmly but he was the greatest pitcher I ever saw ...
That was this game: July 30, 1975. Third inning. The Retrosheet account is different than what you wrote, but the Chicago Tribune story confirms a second error by Pete LaCock.
Ooh, ooh, I hope it was the Robin Ventura noogie game!
That was this game: July 30, 1975. Third inning. The Retrosheet account is different than what you wrote, but the Chicago Tribune story confirms a second error by Pete LaCock.
Memory is a tricky thing -- this play happened over 30 years ago, and I was 12 years old at the time. I am sure that the Tribune account is more accurate than my memory (however vivid my memory of it is), the difference being in our respective scoring of the play. It is clear, though that the Retrosheet version is incorrect (Carter bunted to third? Wow, he was a lot faster than I remembered!). I am not knocking Project Retrosheet. I have great respect for what they are doing, it is probably the most important baseball research project going. However, it is carried out by humans, and a very few errors are inevitable.
Combining what you said about the Tribune account with my memory, I come up with the following sequence of events:
Bases empty, Carter drags a bunt down the third base line, trying for a hit.
Third baseman Matlock fields the ball and throws to first baseman LaCock.
LaCock fails to catch the ball, allowing Carter to advance to second. (error # 1)
Nobody is covering second base! (my error # 2 -- hey, I was 12 years old at the time) Carter rounds second looking at third.
LaCock finally throws to Matlock at third, Matlock fails to catch the ball. (my error # 3, Tribune's error # 2)
While Matlock chases down the ball, Carter rounds third and heads for home.
Matlock eventually picks up the ball and throws it home, too late and off target. Carter scores.
Bill
"Carter singled to third" just means he was credited with a single on a ball he hit towards the thirdbasman, as you described. Retrosheet just seems to be missing the Lacock error -- it just has him advancing three bases on a Madlock error. He must have been credited with two bases for the Madlock throwing error and one base for the Lacock throwing error.
Ooh, ooh, I hope it was the Robin Ventura noogie game!
No, Ryan's from Toronto -- odds are it is the no-hitter that ended with Alomar flailing wildly at what appeared to be a 100 MPH fastball.
Except that game was in Arlington. I had made a note to go to that game, drove past the stadium on the way home from work as they were warming up, and completely forgot to go in. Didn't even listen to it on the radio.
I did listen to Kenny Rogers's perfect game on the radio ... till the fourth inning, when I figured Kenny could hold that lead, and turned it off and went to bed.
I was at the George Brett Pine Tar Game- but left early because our driver wanted to beat the crowd.
There's nothing quite like being at a no-hitter, I have to say.
2 out of 3 aint bad (Brosius hit a bomb foul in to the left field stands)
Was in Hoboken boozing with friends Saturday night. Decided to go to the game Sunday (I was living in Chatham, NJ at the time), I was there Tuesday night, when Wells retired the last 15(?) Royals. We also went that Saturday, which is where the boozing started.
Then as I was leaving I figured I was kind of tired, and I really shouldn't piss away any more money. So I went home and watched it on TV.
I'm still kicking myself about it.
I saw the first 4 innings of that game- was bored and changed the channel- I was aware he hadn't given up a hit yet- but it NEVER ocuured to me that at that point in his career, with eth stuff he had left- that he;d get a no-hitter.
I also saw Dwight Gooden's no hitter with the Mets on TV- only it technically wasn't a no-hitter because Ray Knight's obvious error was ruled a hit.
It was around the 5/6 inning- perfect game in progress- he was mowing down everyone- I don't think more than 1 ball was hit out of the infield. What I remember was a slow grounder (don't remmeber who was batting) to third- and the camera followed the ball- agonizingly slow- and I started talking to teh TV- "knght, come on, WTF" finally teh camera panned up as it seemed like the ball couldn't roll any slower- Knight was not only not charging the ball- he hadn't moved an inch- he was staring at the gdam ball- one slow hop, two slow hops- it finally REACHED him (he never moved- I swear)
Finally he seem to wake up- he snatched up the ball- began to throw and stopped- it was futile the batter was already at first- Knight looked bewildered- he had obviously zoned out.
Basehit, said one of the announcers- bullshit I yelled at the TV- the official scorer said hit- and that was it- only hit in the game- none of the Met announcers said a word, none said, gee maybe if Knight had charged the ball- gee maybe if Knight had WALKED forward to meet the ball half way-
I read Newday the next day- nothing, just that Gooden had a great game and that the only hit was an infield single- no one questioned Knight. It was bizarre, really bizarre, was I seeing things? Remembering things wrong? Years later I was at a party in Law School, talking baseball- Gooden came up- I mentioned Gooden's one hitter years earlier- and before I mentioned Knight- someone else butted in- "Can't believ they didn't give Knight an error"- then someone else- "he just stood there staring at the GDamn ball".
I wasn't crazy afterall- but why did the announcers and sportwriters deliberately ignore Knight's role in costing Gooden a no-hitter?
Because the mid 80s mediots loved Knight theysaw him as a ballplayer's ballplayer, that's why. If HoJo had played that day and failed to make that play (this was 85 or 86)- they would have crucified him and driven him out of town.
It was September, 1984, against the Cubs. HoJo wasn't on the team.
I can't tell if you are serious about some sort of "media plot." I will assume you are not serious.
I'm giving my mental impressions and memory
Apparently this game show up in other blogs too- but others' memories differ from mine
- some insist Kinight bobbled the ball (he didn't)
- some insist his throw was late (he never threw)
My memory told me the game was in 1985 or 86- but the record sez it was late 1984- his rookie season- so you are all right HoJo couldn't have played that game.
With respect to this type of play never being called an error- I've never seen quite this play at the MLB level period- you have to watch it to understand- Knight simply froze (to use one of David Cone's saying for doing something mindlessly boneheaded- he vaporlocked)
Moreland was not a fast runner- it was an easy play- he did not have to charge the ball, grab it one handed and make an off balance throw- he could easily have come forward 4 or 5 steps- gloved the ball, set and throw. At best Knight misjudged how hard the ball was hit- thought it would reached him a lot more quickly than it did- but still...
Also some blogs report that Maury Allen was the official scorer- he was questioned about the play- by John McEnroe (when Allen was supposed to interview McEnroe)- allegedly Allen admitted that Knight should have made the play easily- BUT since he didn't actually make an "error"- drop, bobble or throw the ball away- it couldn't be an "error". [Which if true- it's certainly believable that scorers score games that way- it shows the uselessness of errors as defensive stats).
Not a "plot" per se- but I'm sure you've noticed the tendency of newspaper writers to omit mention of egreious umpiring calls in the next days' papers? {Whereas they are more than willing to jump all over refs in Basketball and football..) Unless a blown umping call leads to mayhem and ejections (or involves a home run- or a game 7 deciding game)- there's usually nothing. Nwspaper columnists are starting to mention umpiring more now- but in the 80s? Except for the Pine Tar Game and the Royals/Cards World Series- nothing
this would also effect the offensive stats to lesser degree (due to being spread around) because the player who got a hit on this should have got a reached base on error
That's because as a member of the media, you're in on it, Howie. Nice use of quotes to divert us from the truth.
Also, as a media conspirator, I'm pretty sure you know someone who was on the grassy knoll in Dallas.
It's time you acquired a noble profession, like Daryn, andrew siegel, Jeff M, and I have. Oh wait, we're lawyers. Never mind.
Rule 10.13
It was a bit more than "slow handling" - more like complete failure to handle.
A fair point, although it bears against Seaver in favor of Alexander.
Maddux did lead the league in innings five years running, with second in 1990 and 1996 as bookends. Baseball-reference says that he won both the Cy Young Award and TSN Pitcher of the Year fouryears running, which must be some kind of mistake.
I am shocked to see that he led the league in starts so recently as 2005. (So I haven't been paying attention, I admit it.) I wonder whether people will someday call 2003-2006-? "hanging on".
--
When the Red Sox acquired Seaver in 1986, I anticipated that he would beat the Mets in the World Series. I called it!
If Schiraldi and Seaver are available, Schiraldi gets the call, . . .
but after Seaver's win in Game Four, it might not go back to NewYork
I hope this puts your mind at ease...
AP
Gooden, in pitching his second shutout, did not allow a hit until Keith Moreland beat out an infield single to lead off the fifth inning. Moreland hit a slow bouncer down the line to third baseman Ray Knight, who fielded the ball cleanly but didn't make a throw.
NY TIMES (Murray Chass)
The hit came at the start of the fifth inning when Moreland sent a 1-2 curveball slowly toward third. ''I was playing back and off the line,'' Ray Knight, the third baseman, explained. ''Nobody had been pulling Doc, and Moreland goes the other way and he doesn't run well. I came in at such a sharp angle, I had to catch the ball and throw it all at once. But I never got the ball out of my hand. My momentum was carrying me toward their dugout and there was no way I could throw the ball. I didn't even realize that was their first hit. I was concentrating so hard.''
There was no momentum, he wasn't moving, he didn't come in- maybe one step at the end.
There are a lot of places on the 'net where people can just tell stories for entertainment value, and that's fine. But this site tends to be more literal, as you can now see.
The only thing I do recall briefly wondering was whether the old "the first hit should be clean" effect might come into play, but it was so clear to me that this was a prototypical "H" that even that wasn't going to swing it Doc's way. It was exactly the kind of defense we think of as the kind we expect a GOOD defensive player to make; indeed, the kind that almost defines the plays that are NOT errors, but which separate out the bad from the good defensive players even though they don't show up in traditional defensive stats. The fact that we now have stats that show who is, and who isn't, making those plays is one reason why defensive analysis is light years better than it was in 1984.
because you should believe me in all things....
ok my serious response?
I couldn't care less whether you feel that telling stories for the sake of entertainment value should be banned from this site or not.
I freely admitted that I dind't remember the exact date, hitter etc. What I absolutely remember was Knight freezing, staring at the ball, waking up at the last minute, start to get into throwing position, pulling his hand out of his glove and stopping- with a look of confusion on his face as he looked towards first. I don't believe Knight was lying, he remembers attempting to make the play- as he should have tried to make it- as maybe he was making it in his mind when he froze- the look of confusion I clearly remember on his face could be his confusion at wondering how on earth Moreland had reached first already.
How's that for an entertaining story?
Is this serious? In those years he had an ERA+ of 107 with an average IP/season of 216.5. He made 138 starts in those four seasons. If he hadn't been a candidate for best pitcher ever*, you'd be calling that great production. Hanging on, indeed.
* He isn't, but in that discussion, he comes up.
What's funny is a few years ago someone called Suppan a poor man's Greg Maddux*- Suppan's peak looks eerily like Maddux's "hanging on" period.
* Before Suppan, Dave Mlicki had that title
He gets the 86 Series MVP award (drove in 5 runs, not great, but he banged a crucial game 7 HR, and they had to give it to somebody), but really he was in a position to be a Merkle-type goat (or at least on par with little Giambi and Tejeda and Lonnie Smith) for a baserunning laziness play.
We all have seen the famous game 6-ending Buckner error, where Knight scores the winning run. If you ever get to see a camera shot that shows Knight from the beginning, he was clearly JOGGING to third on the slow roller, and only picked up steam when Billy missed it. What if Buckner had tipped the ball a little, Knight had tried to score, and was tossed out at home? There was no reason not to be running full steam on that play. Sloppy and lazy, but he was a hero instead of a villain.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main