BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Former Cy Young Winner LaMarr Hoyt Reportedly Dies At 66

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, December 01, 2021

Former Cy Young Winner LaMarr Hoyt Reportedly Dies At 66

On Tuesday, the baseball world received unfortunate news involving former All-Star pitcher LaMarr Hoyt. He has reportedly passed away at the age of 66.

Former White Sox executive Dan Evans announced the news on his Twitter account. His post included a heartwarming message for Hoyt.

“Saddened by the news that LaMarr Hoyt has passed away,” Evans said. “Was the best pitcher on our amazing 1983 White Sox club, the Cy Young Award winner. Always a good guy to me, enjoyed our conversations and his music! RIP, LaMarr.”

Hoyt, who won the AL Cy Young Award in 1983, finished his MLB career with a 3.99 ERA, 681 strikeouts and 98 wins.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 01, 2021 at 10:33 AM | 73 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: lamarr hoyt, obituaries

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.

1. DL from MN Posted: December 01, 2021 at 10:59 AM (#6055538)

That run from 1979 to 1984 where the writers got the AL Cy Young wrong every year

Year CYA : Actual Best Pitcher
1979 Mike Flanagan : Dennis Eckersley
1980 Steve Stone : Mike Norris
1981 Rollie Fingers : Steve McCatty
1982 Pete Vuckovich : Dave Stieb
1983 LaMarr Hoyt : Dave Stieb
1984 Willie Hernandez : Dave Stieb

2. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: December 01, 2021 at 01:12 PM (#6055575)

To say nothing of

1976 Jim Palmer : Mark Fidrych (should've been MVP, too)
1977 Sparky Lyle : Nolan Ryan
1978 Ron Guidry : Don Aase

OK, just kidding about 1978; I just wanted an excuse to type the name "Aase", which caused much merriment for my 13-year-old self.

3. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: December 01, 2021 at 01:18 PM (#6055578)

I just wanted an excuse to type the name "Aase", which caused much merriment for my 13-year-old self.

Brian Asselstine

Ernie McAnally

4. salvomania Posted: December 01, 2021 at 01:22 PM (#6055579)

Honest to god, I though LaMarr Hoyt had died years ago. My impression is that he lived hard, but I could be confusing him with another pitcher.

5. DL from MN Posted: December 01, 2021 at 01:23 PM (#6055581)

76 CYA should have been Fidrych. Palmer was the top pitcher in MMP voting in 1977 ahead of Nolan Ryan so that's arguable but definitely not Sparky Lyle. The writers needed an idiot proof season like Guidry in 1978 to get it right.

Look at the actual voting 1982-1984. Stieb finished 4th in 1982, didn't get any votes in 1983 and finished 7th in 84. Stieb finished behind Quisenberry every year from 1982-1985.

6. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: December 01, 2021 at 01:27 PM (#6055583)

I came of age as a baseball fan during that stretch of terrible AL CYA votes. I didn't really know better until 1984, when (as a 10-year-old) I received the Bill James Abstract as a gift from my parents for a road trip where I'd be sitting in the back of the car for days on end. The cover had a big baseball on the front, and my Mom remembered seeing me flipping through it at a bookstore earlier that summer.

Anyway, until then, all I knew was that if you won the most games, you must have been the best pitcher, and thus should win the CYA. But even in 1982 and 1983 - before I started reading Bill James - my 8 and 9-year old mind was able to get that Pete Vukovich and LaMarr Hoyt were not the best pitchers in the league at any point. The problem was, nobody else seemed like the "classic" best pitcher, so it was hard to argue it was somebody else at that time. Jim Palmer would have been a solid selection in 1982, as well as Stieb.

At any rate, RIP, LaMarr Hoyt - he was always able to say he was the Cy Young Award-winning ace on a team that won 99 games, while squeezing into those cool "SOX" jerseys of the time. He got 38 years out of that - not bad.

7. salvomania Posted: December 01, 2021 at 01:28 PM (#6055584)

One of the finest pitching performances I can ever recall seeing in person was a day early one season when I wandered down to the box seats behind home plate at Comiskey and watched Hoyt reel off a one-hitter vs. the Yankees. It was one of the best views I ever had at a ballpark for being able to really watch---and being able to really see---a pitcher's stuff in action.

(now I'll look for the game on bb-ref and discover that there was no such game with those details)

EDIT: Found it! May 2, 1984. (I recall it being a day game, but maybe it just started while it was light; box score indicates it was a night game).

Hoyt faced the minimum---the only hit was a 7th-inning Don Mattingly single, and he was promptly erased on a DP.

8. SoSH U at work Posted: December 01, 2021 at 01:32 PM (#6055587)

Honest to god, I though LaMarr Hoyt had died years ago. My impression is that he lived hard, but I could be confusing him with another pitcher.

He was arrested multiple times on drug possession charges in the 1980s, so he probably did a little hard living. You could you be confusing him with former rotation mate Eric Show or the similar mustachioed Rod Beck, both of whom suffered early drug-related demises.

9. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: December 01, 2021 at 01:44 PM (#6055590)

He started the ASG for the NL in 1985 and got the win--3IP, no earned runs

10. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: December 01, 2021 at 01:53 PM (#6055594)

In some ways it's too bad that Hoyt won that Cy Young award, because what he's remember for now is being that guy who didn't deserve his Cy Young award. Which, of course, isn't even his fault. Anyways, he was a league-average major league pitcher for >1300 innings. That's impressive in its own right. Good work LaMarr, and rest in peace.

11. .

Posted: December 01, 2021 at 01:57 PM (#6055595)

I've really never given a #### who won any of these awards. That's not why I follow sports, just like I don't follow cinema to see who wins the Oscars or the People's Choice Awards. Honestly, if you're that concerned about the writers getting the awards "wrong," you're kind of not doing this right.

Dances With Wolves won Best Picture over Goodfellas in 1990. That's way stupider than Steve Stone over Mike Norris. Neither really matters a whit to anything. The niche bores who carry on about this really aren't even ######## about baseball; they're ######## about their perception that the writers undeservingly fancy themselves the primary fount of expertise and curation. Problem with that is that the writers never fancied themselves that way. Just like the people that vote on the Oscars don't. The perception that they do is just peoples' insecurities showing.

12. .

Posted: December 01, 2021 at 02:15 PM (#6055599)

The guys on that list all played for AL league champs or division winners.(*) That's always been a major factor in all of these awards. Was then, is now. The idea that they were given the CYA because they won the most games (Fingers and Hernandez were relief pitchers and therefore obviously didn't win the most games nor obviously did Sparky Lyle, the 1977 winner) has always been a revisionist and rather ludicrous conceit.

(*) I guess technically Stone didn't, but the '80 Orioles won 100 games, so he might as well have.

13. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 01, 2021 at 02:22 PM (#6055601)

The notion that there's a "right" award winner every year is itself flawed. I mean, sure in some years there's an obvious correct pick. And there can be a lot of "wrong" picks. But in many years there's more than one acceptable answer. Just looking at that list in #1:

In 1981, Rollie Fingers had 4.2 bWAR and Steve McCatty had 4.5. fWAR was even closer. That makes Fingers a bad choice? I'd have voted for McCatty knowing what I do now, but I don't look back 40 years later, using stats that weren't available at the time (and aren't as precise as some people take them to be), and say the writers got that one wrong.

I could make a similar comment about Hoyt vs. Stieb in 1983. Stieb led the league in bWAR but Hoyt actually beat him in fWAR (not sure if he led the league or not). Both metrics are flawed, and I would have voted for Stieb, but if two different systems can give such different results even today, it seems unfair to criticize the writers for their vote back then.

14. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: December 01, 2021 at 02:31 PM (#6055605)

I welcome more sabermetrically informed award voting rather than simply counting the WINZ, SAVEZ, and RBIZ, but simultaneously lament how it seems to have devolved into simply a WAR leaderboard.

15. sunday silence (again) Posted: December 01, 2021 at 02:43 PM (#6055608)

banner week for Obits: Sondheim, Robin Leach, Chas Moose (Montgomery Cty cop who was public face of sniper attacks in 2003), Arlene Dahl, Mark Roth, Dave Draper..

16. salvomania Posted: December 01, 2021 at 02:45 PM (#6055611)

what he's remember for now is being that guy who didn't deserve his Cy Young award.

That's not how I remember him. I remember him more like a Teddy Higuera, or a Brandon Webb: a pitcher who was really good for a few seasons but whose career ended prematurely due to (ahem) "health" issues.

In 1983 Hoyt was the horse on a division winner who had a phenomenal last couple of months: 12-0 in 13 starts in August/September (7-0 in Sept.), during which he threw 100 innings (well, 99.1) and walked just 10 batters.

He was just 2-6 in 9 starts through mid-May, then went 22-4 in his remaining 27 starts. I know, "wins," but still, impressive,

Sieib was the opposite in '83, his two best best months were April and May, but he had an ERA north of 4.00 in June, July, and September.

Nobody knew about WAR back then, and Hoyt---who led the league in WHIP and who also had an excellent season in 1982---seemed at the time like a legitimate big-time starting pitcher who was worthy of a Cy Young Award.

(I know it's a flawed stat, but Hoyt did top Stieb in fWAR in 1983, 5.4 to 5.1).

17. sunday silence (again) Posted: December 01, 2021 at 02:49 PM (#6055613)

Dances With Wolves won Best Picture over Goodfellas in 1990. That's way stupider than Steve Stone over Mike Norris.

Agreed. You can always argue that a given pitcher or movie or wotever as some aspect of it that's better than wotever you're comparing it to but I always compared it to Little Big Man. its the same ####### movie for chrissake, only worse.

Little Big Man: Chief Dan George explaining sometimes the magic works; DWW: Indians talking in subtitles.
LBM: Dustin Hoffman/Faye Dunaway DWW: Costner.

everythign is better: acting, cinematogrophy, plot...

18. .

Posted: December 01, 2021 at 02:57 PM (#6055616)

He was just 2-6 in 9 starts through mid-May, then went 22-4 in his remaining 27 starts. I know, "wins," but still, impressive,

Sieib was the opposite in '83, his two best best months were April and May, but he had an ERA north of 4.00 in June, July, and September.

As the Blue Jays blew the division lead they held as late as July 25, eventually sputtering to a fourth place finish, while the White Sox took hold of the West and ran away with it when Hoyt got red hot.

Not only was Steib not obviously the "right" Cy Young winner, he would have been obviously the wrong one.

19. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: December 01, 2021 at 02:57 PM (#6055617)

but simultaneously lament how it seems to have devolved into simply a WAR leaderboard.

AGREED. WAR is a flawed derived stat, it isn't one true valuation handed down by the gods. We see similar arguments in HOF discussions.

20. .

Posted: December 01, 2021 at 02:58 PM (#6055618)

WAR doesn't really describe anything that happened on the baseball fields for the time period it covers, other than obliquely and indirectly. And it ascribes wins to players that the teams they play for obviously didn't win.

21. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: December 01, 2021 at 03:15 PM (#6055622)

WAR is the best we've got for now. I think the thing to do is to try to improve it, so that it more accurately measures, well, wins above replacement. (Something like "how many extra games an arbitrary team would have been expected to win if the player was to be suddenly dropped into it"; change "would have been" to "would be" for fWAR.)

As for criticizing past writers: they got the wrong result, of course they can be criticized for that. But to say that they can be criticized isn't to say that they're culpable or anything like that; we can - and probably should - think that they were making a good-faith effort to arrive at the right result. But because we understand how baseball works better than they did, we can look back at their decisions and say that, although they did the best they could with what they had, they didn't do well. Sort of like we can criticize chemists who believed in the phlogistic theory of combustion for believing a false theory, even if we hold that they reasoned well from the information that they had.

22. DL from MN Posted: December 01, 2021 at 03:22 PM (#6055623)

Hoyt wasn't a terrible choice in 1983, he should at least get CYA votes.

23. Gary Truth Serum Posted: December 01, 2021 at 03:35 PM (#6055625)

banner week for Obits: Sondheim, Robin Leach,

Maybe you read a really good obit this week, but Robin Leach died in 2018.

24. Hombre Brotani

Posted: December 01, 2021 at 03:44 PM (#6055626)

banner week for Obits: Sondheim

Could've ended the sentence right there.

25. salvomania Posted: December 01, 2021 at 03:46 PM (#6055628)

That's not how I remember him. I remember him more like a Teddy Higuera, or a Brandon Webb: a pitcher who was really good for a few seasons but whose career ended prematurely due to (ahem) "health" issues.

I just now looked up the records of these guys, who were the first names that popped into my head when I though of simialr career arcs.

Hoyt: 8 years, 98-68 (didn't count 3-inning cup of coffee in '79)
Higuera: 9 years, 94-64, includes two partial seasons in which he threw a total of 66 innings)
Webb: 6 years, 87-62 (didn't include single 4-inning appearance in '09)

Man, Webb sure was good. He was 22-7 in 2008, finishing 2nd in the NL Cy Young Award, and made just that one four-inning start after that.

26. dejarouehg Posted: December 01, 2021 at 03:53 PM (#6055632)

Among all the names mentioned above between 82&85; +/-, I'd take Stieb. He was ridiculously good. I seem to recall a bunch of near no-hitters.

Sad about LaMarr.

Of course, no one mentioned on this page was as good at their craft as Sondheim. That's Walter Johnson level

27. GregD Posted: December 01, 2021 at 03:54 PM (#6055633)

What band of pitchers in history would this put them in? I’m interested by war he looks like edge of top thousand. I wouldn’t have been surprised if there were fewer pitchers than that with his career

28. .

Posted: December 01, 2021 at 03:57 PM (#6055635)

There's no proof that the writers "believed in" the theories ascribed to them and there's obviously no "theory" that would explain the AL CYA winners between 1977 and 1984. Three relievers won it during those eight years. Five starters won it. What's the "theory"?

I'm not even convinced that "we understand how baseball works better than they did." Because of cheap data and computing power, we're able to quickly come up with the data that can be used to measure a theory. Does that equate to "better understanding"? Not convinced it does. It could just be an illusion premised on easier access to data and knowingness.(*) Facts and data are not the same thing as truths. Expand the notion out and ask whether today's people understand the world better than people did pre-net. It strikes me that the easier access to data and information has led to more conspiracy theories and more misunderstandings, not fewer.

(*) Fact-based discussion of baseball is clearly far more accessible and efficient, that can't be denied. For those that want to engage in the kind of player ranking arguments that were typically done on the nation's barstools, it's clearly way easier. Beyond that, not seeing much there. Certainly the notion that those barstool arguments are the meaning of baseball "understanding" requires some degree of deeper proof and analysis.

29. sunday silence (again) Posted: December 01, 2021 at 04:04 PM (#6055638)

Maybe you read a really good obit this week, but Robin Leach died in 2018.

Ha ha. I was reading a face book article about Sondheim and that was the next story in the feed/whatever.

Stoopid facebook.

30. sunday silence (again) Posted: December 01, 2021 at 04:11 PM (#6055641)

I'm not even convinced that "we understand how baseball works better than they did."

But strategies are changing. There is increased shifting for one thing. There is also decrease bunting. there is also much more reliance on relievers. there's less reliance place on pitcher wins and RBI.

its hard to imagine any of that stuff happening without increased computing power and/or more/better data. Agreed? I mean how many game logs would you have study to come to conclusion that in most cases bunting isnt cost effective? Same with the other relievers and shifting. Arent all of these changes in strategy based on studying more data and computing more?

Im not saying your quote doesnt have merit. It truly does. FOr instance one could argue what is meant by "understanding".

But I'd like to see your response to this on the merits.

31. sunday silence (again) Posted: December 01, 2021 at 04:15 PM (#6055642)

Expand the notion out and ask whether today's people understand the world better than people did pre-net. It strikes me that the easier access to data and information has led to more conspiracy theories and more misunderstandings, not fewer.

See here's where you typically lose your audience and generate teeth gnashing. Instead of following up on your thesis with some factual or logical examples rooted in baseball you resort to entirely off the wall analogies. Like Im supposed to liken the rise of Q-anon and covid deniers having some sort of relationship to the pace of play..

I get that its convenient and provocative. But that's all it is. WHy don't you delve into the interesting premise that you've generated?

32. sunday silence (again) Posted: December 01, 2021 at 04:21 PM (#6055646)

For those that want to engage in the kind of player ranking arguments that were typically done on the nation's barstools, it's clearly way easier. Beyond that, not seeing much there.

And then by this point you've just gone full on retard. Making as stoopid an assertion as possible.

You really think that pre sabermetric discussion of RBIs, clutchiness, pitcher wins, productive outs, fielding range, JOe Morgan type analysis, are somehow as good as modern day WAR based analysis? Really? OK why not defend that notion. Explain how Jeter is better than Trammel or Jim Rice is better than Dwight Evans or Jack Morris vs Burt BLyleven.

33. BDC

Posted: December 01, 2021 at 04:25 PM (#6055648)

One factor that drove the development of sabermetrics was the suspicion that Earl Weaver was on to something that the common wisdom hadn't absorbed. "Get them big ##########s can hit the ball outta the ######' ballpark and you can't make any ####### mistakes" was maybe a gut feeling to start with, but that led to analysis and imitation. It's not like a bunch of people in their mothers' basements just came up with TTO baseball out of a pure web of numbers.

34. .

Posted: December 01, 2021 at 04:26 PM (#6055649)

But I'd like to see your response to this on the merits.

I've never understood baseball to be comprised only of player selection and strategy, and certainly not player ranking. Do the people responsible for such things know how better to pick players and strategize in-game so as to score and prevent runs more effectively? Sure, no reason to quibble with that. Can an average schmoe get on the internet and more quickly marshal data showing that Player X is better than Player Y? Ditto. But that's just a sliver of the thing called baseball.

Like Im supposed to liken the rise of Q-anon and covid deniers having some sort of relationship to what is happening in modern baseball.

Oh, they absolutely relate -- though it's more modern wokedom than Q types. But there's absolutely a relationship, no question about it.

35. .

Posted: December 01, 2021 at 04:29 PM (#6055650)

You really think that pre sabermetric discussion of RBIs, clutchiness, pitcher wins, productive outs, fielding range, JOe Morgan type analysis, are somehow as good as modern day WAR based analysis?

There's a very reasonable argument to be made that they're better. All data has done has brought the drunken barstool arguments about players and teams out in the open and mainstreamed them. But the arguments were just kind of dumb to begin with, IMO. Two jabronies on a barstool going on and on over their Miller Lites about whether Thurman Munson or Johnny Bench was better? Yawn. How is that in any serious sense "baseball"?

IMO, the game is far worse on the field now and significantly worse in culture and narrative -- and not just because it revolves so much about barstool player rankings. The latter is debatable; the former isn't. There was simply no cost in aggregate to fans by the purported stress on RBIs BITD. Zero. It was cost-free to any but the obsessed.

A lot of this stuff is just internet fake knowingness.

36. donlock Posted: December 01, 2021 at 04:30 PM (#6055651)

I’m confused. Should Steib or Sondheim have won? Who did this Leach guy pitch for? Was that the year Brando didn’t pick up his Oscar?

37. sunday silence (again) Posted: December 01, 2021 at 05:08 PM (#6055660)

IMO, the game is far worse on the field now and significantly worse in culture and narrative

The term "oafball" shall be your greatest legacy to BTF.

38. .

Posted: December 01, 2021 at 05:31 PM (#6055666)

One factor that drove the development of sabermetrics was the suspicion that Earl Weaver was on to something that the common wisdom hadn't absorbed. "Get them big ##########s can hit the ball outta the ######' ballpark and you can't make any ####### mistakes" was maybe a gut feeling to start with, but that led to analysis and imitation. It's not like a bunch of people in their mothers' basements just came up with TTO baseball out of a pure web of numbers.

I'm sure that's part of it, but that couldn't even fully gestate until artificial turf went bye-bye. A massive chunk of what we now see as GM/manager "stupidity" BITD was a direct result of trying to game out the impact of artificial turf, in much the same way that the Colorado Rockies, despite all the time and all the easy data and all the "advanced analytics," still to this day can't get the impact of altitude right.

39. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: December 01, 2021 at 07:25 PM (#6055686)

the Colorado Rockies, despite all the time and all the easy data and all the "advanced analytics," still to this day can't get the impact of altitude right.

They built their park closer to God than any other team did. What else were they supposed to do?

40. Doug Jones threw harder than me Posted: December 01, 2021 at 07:58 PM (#6055688)

Analytics figured some stuff out, that the "eye test" hadn't been able to (or more particularly, had only been able to rather slowly). It's to the basic design (as a game) of baseball's credit, that adjustments on both offense and defense have largely offset each other, such that the basic score of baseball games hasn't changed all that much, even though the components that make up that score (e.g. the percentage of outs made via strikeout) has changed dramatically. However, in the eyes of many it has greatly decreased the game's appeal as a spectator (and even as a participant) sport - witness the rise recently (in small pockets like San Francisco) of "Vintage Base Ball", an attempt to bring back the game as it was played pre-1900, where it became the dominant sport in America, not because of history or tradition or "my Dad played it with me", but simply because it was fun to watch and fun to play. Imagine!

All is not lost. One of my hopes is that players and management, as they are meeting to resolve the coming lockout, also talk about how to improve the game. It's a faint hope, but the opportunity is there. Maybe Manfred is a lost cause, but I wonder if anyone knows what Tony Clark, et. al. think about the state of the game?

41. Itchy Row Posted: December 01, 2021 at 08:22 PM (#6055696)

The Yankees traded Hoyt for Bucky Dent and the Sox traded him for Ozzie Guillen.

42. The Honorable Ardo Posted: December 01, 2021 at 08:58 PM (#6055700)

Outstanding relief pitching in bulk is Cy Young worthy. Personally, I think Fingers and Hernandez deserved their awards, Quisenberry should've won in 1983, and there's even a case for Jim Kern in 1979 (when none of the AL starter candidates really distinguished themselves - Eckersley? Koosman? John?)

The only year that Stieb should've clearly won was 1982.

43. asinwreck Posted: December 01, 2021 at 09:07 PM (#6055703)

It was fun to watch Hoyt pitch. His command of that sinker generated a lot of grounders, and he was good for amassing innings without giving up many walks. Being on the same staff with Jerry Koosman, he looked like the kind of iron horse who could pitch into his 40s. I don't think anyone who saw him in 1985 would guess he'd never make it to 100 wins.

44. Doug Jones threw harder than me Posted: December 01, 2021 at 09:41 PM (#6055729)

I know he had drug-related problems, but wasn't it a bad shoulder that ultimately lead to the end of his career?

45. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: December 01, 2021 at 09:46 PM (#6055731)

I wonder if anyone knows what Tony Clark, et. al. think about the state of the game?

”Pay us more. Also, no pace of play rules. But mostly pay us more.” That’s what they think.

46. Itchy Row Posted: December 01, 2021 at 09:55 PM (#6055735)

I know he had drug-related problems, but wasn't it a bad shoulder that ultimately lead to the end of his career?

He probably would have had more chances to return from his rotator cuff problems if he hadn’t been arrested for his drug problems so many times.

47. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: December 02, 2021 at 12:09 AM (#6055764)

Outstanding relief pitching in bulk is Cy Young worthy.

If they're pitching as many innings as the outstanding starters, sure. Or if they're pitching so much better as to make up for reduced innings. But basically, I'm saying that their performance and the starters' performance should be measured on the same scale. The runs count the same no matter which inning they're scored in.

48. AndrewJ Posted: December 02, 2021 at 06:54 PM (#6055957)

banner week for Obits: Sondheim

Could've ended the sentence right there.

I had the privilege of writing about Sondheim's career for many years. The only baseball-related thing I can summon up for Sondheim was that he went to Williams College, which played in the first intercollegiate baseball game in 1859 against Amherst. Amherst won, 73-32. Also: Sondheim was a college classmate of George Steinbrenner. Steinbrenner bragged to Dick Schaap, "I sang in the Williams College chorus with Steve Sondheim, and I was a better singer than him." The next time Schaap ran into Sondheim he mentioned this, and Sondheim replied, "I've never sung in a choir in my life."

49. Tom and Shivs couples counselor Posted: December 02, 2021 at 07:18 PM (#6055960)

16: No expert or historian but never read anything about Higuera or Webb having drug or alcohol issues that ended their careers. Thought both had a ton of injuries.

50. The Duke Posted: December 02, 2021 at 07:19 PM (#6055961)

Doppelgänger Lance Lynn trembles

51. Ron J Posted: December 02, 2021 at 08:32 PM (#6055972)

Hoyt also featured in one of the more important arbitration rulings. The Padres attempted to terminate his contract after his arrest. Went to arbitration and the Padres lost.

52. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: December 02, 2021 at 08:46 PM (#6055975)

On the morning of July 4th, 1983, the White Sox were in third place in the AL West, 4.5 games behind the Rangers. From that point on they went 60-26 and won their division by 20 games, an AL record since broken.

During that run, what was even more amazing was the pitching of Hoyt, Richard Dotson and Floyd Bannister. From July 4th through the end of the season, Hoyt went 15 and 2, Dotson went 14 and 2, and Bannister went 13 and 1, for a combined record of 42 and 5. There may be a better 3-man rotation W-L run than that in the history of MLB, but if there is I'd like to know what and when it was.

Oh, and BTW, during that same stretch of games, the rest of the White Sox staff posted a record of 18 and 21.

53. AndrewJ Posted: December 02, 2021 at 09:04 PM (#6055980)

54. SoSH U at work Posted: December 02, 2021 at 09:56 PM (#6055986)

I think the 83 Sox are different from the 84 Tigers and 86 Mets. The latter teams remained competitive for four years after, each winning another division title with big win seasons. The 83 Sox weren’t competitive again.

55. SoSH U at work Posted: December 02, 2021 at 09:56 PM (#6055987)

56. The Duke Posted: December 02, 2021 at 11:02 PM (#6055997)

1970 Orioles had a good big three in the second half but they don’t match up to the Sox.

57. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: December 03, 2021 at 09:12 AM (#6056010)

Bill James predicted in the 1984 Abstract that the White Sox would be the dominant AL West team for the remainder of the 1980s. The failure of the '83 White Sox, '84 Tigers and '86 Mets to repeat was very much a 1980s phenomenon.

If you think their pitching was sustainable - and their big 3 were all in their 20s - that prediction was defensible. Their two best hitters in '83 were old (Fisk was 35, Luzinski was 32) but they also had Baines (24), Greg Walker (23), Scott Fletcher (23) and Ron Kittle (25). Fisk of course aged pretty well. Still, even with two (cough) HOFers, they only had one more winning season in the '80s, an 85-win season in '85.

58. Russ Posted: December 03, 2021 at 10:03 AM (#6056015)

EDIT: Found it! May 2, 1984. (I recall it being a day game, but maybe it just started while it was light; box score indicates it was a night game).

Honestly, I remember watching games really low down at Three Rivers. The lights are so focused on the field, the closer you get, it does seems like daytime down there, much more than when you're even in the second level. That may be affecting your memory a bit too.

59. Tom Nawrocki Posted: December 03, 2021 at 10:23 AM (#6056017)

Still, even with two (cough) HOFers, they only had one more winning season in the '80s, an 85-win season in '85.

They added a third Hall of Famer in Tom Seaver, who pitched pretty well for the Sox from 1984 to 1986. It didn't help.

60. Jose is an Absurd Sultan Posted: December 03, 2021 at 10:58 AM (#6056019)

If you think their pitching was sustainable - and their big 3 were all in their 20s - that prediction was defensible. Their two best hitters in '83 were old (Fisk was 35, Luzinski was 32) but they also had Baines (24), Greg Walker (23), Scott Fletcher (23) and Ron Kittle (25). Fisk of course aged pretty well. Still, even with two (cough) HOFers, they only had one more winning season in the '80s, an 85-win season in '85.

Not only the big 3 starters but Britt Burns was 24 and a good pitcher other than his W/L record in 1983. What kind of state was their minor league system in at the time? It doesn't seem like they had a lot to add to that team the next few years when some guys fell off through drugs or injuries or whatever.

61. Doug Jones threw harder than me Posted: December 03, 2021 at 11:23 AM (#6056022)

I never really noticed it before, but that as you folks point out that 1983 White Sox Team really fell off the table:

Top Batters in WAR

Carlton Fisk
Scott Fletcher (24) - 3.6, never really had another good year
Rudy Law (24) - 3.2, never really had another good year
Vance Law (26) - 2.7, never really had another good year
Greg Luzinski (32) - retired in disgust a few years later
Harold Baines (24) - just getting started
Tom Paciorek (36) - his last good year
Julio Cruz (28) - his last good year
Ron Kittle (25) - his only full year with an OPS > 100

Pitchers:
Richard Dotson (24) - basically done after 1984
Floyd Bannister (28) - hung on for a while, but only one good year after 1983
LaMarr Hoyt (28)
Salome Barajas (who?)
Britt Burns (24) - managed one more good year in 1985 and then it was over

Interestingly, Doug Jones and LaMarr Hoyt were within a couple of years of age, and died only days apart, yet their careers were diametrically opposite - Hoyt basically was done by age 30 while Jones hard barely cracked the majors by that point.

62. Jose is an Absurd Sultan Posted: December 03, 2021 at 11:51 AM (#6056024)

Salome Barajas (who?)

It's funny but I almost mentioned him as a rising star in my previous comment. I remember him being the hotshot rookie (or maybe just young player) who was blossoming as a star at the time. He was a guy that seemed to be mentioned a lot when it came to the White Sox, at least it seemed that way to 13 year old me.

63. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: December 03, 2021 at 12:05 PM (#6056027)

Bill James predicted in the 1984 Abstract that the White Sox would be the dominant AL West team for the remainder of the 1980s.

After Hoyt had continued his run by beating the Orioles in Game 1 of the ALCS, I was more than a bit (pleasantly) surprised to see the O's come back to win the next 3 games, thanks to a pitching staff that limited the Sox to a total of 1 run in 28 innings. The turning point was Mike Boddicker's shutout in Game 2, followed by a barrage against Dotson that quickly put Game 3 out of reach. That was my favorite Orioles team ever, and my only regret is that Earl wasn't in the dugout to savor it.

64. SoSH U at work Posted: December 03, 2021 at 02:16 PM (#6056038)

Doug Jones, what do you mean Scott Fletcher never had another good year? He had plenty of years as good as that one. He’s baseball’s most surprising 30 WAR player of my lifetime.

65. BDC

Posted: December 03, 2021 at 02:23 PM (#6056039)

The Scooter! He was the incumbent shortstop when I moved to Texas in '88. Worked out to 4 WAR that year without hitting a home run, which now seems absurd, but: an A fielder, batting above league average, walking twice as much as he struck out … honestly he was better than I thought he was; scrappy middle infielders nicknamed Scooter are usually terrible and I was somewhat biased against him just because of the Rangers' radio announcers.

66. Doug Jones threw harder than me Posted: December 03, 2021 at 03:31 PM (#6056047)

Doug Jones, what do you mean Scott Fletcher never had another good year?

I was going from memory before. From one perspective, you are right, Scott Fletcher had plenty more good years, it's just that they didn't FEEL like good years, if ya know what I mean.

Actually, looking at his WAR and his production, 1983 wasn't really that good a year for Scott Fletcher, because all his value was on defense, and I don't really trust WAR very much when it says all a guy's value was on defense. Using baseball-reference numbers, he had 521 PA 1984 (versus 302 in 1983) and his oWAR is 2.0 and his defense WAR is 2.5 (whereas in 1983 it was 1.8 and 2.4), though his overall WAR went down in 1984 compared to 1983 (3.4 versus 3.6).

I don't know, his BA and OBP was better in 1984 versus 1983, and maybe he had a few more doubles, percentage-wise, in 1983 versus 1984 (but his slugging was still nothing much at .370). But really, if almost all his value was on defense, and he played a whole lot more in 1984 than 1983, and most of his offensive numbers went up a bit, how could his WAR have gone down? I cannot imagine his defense was objectively much worse in 1984?

Overall, almost all Scott Fletcher's value every year was defensive, and I just don't trust those valuations very much.

So one could say he had other good years, or one could say he never really had a good year, 1983 included.

67. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: December 03, 2021 at 04:03 PM (#6056057)

The Sox traded Fletcher after the '85 season to Texas, where as mentioned he had another few solid years. Ozzie Guillen winning the ROY in '85 surely was a big reason for that. Fletcher played more 3B than SS in '85.

But Texas traded him back to Chicago right before the '89 trade deadline, along with Wilson Alvarez and Sammy Sosa, for Harold Baines. Then the Sox had their 94-win season the following year. So the missing ingredient all along was Scott Fletcher!

68. Dennis Eclairskey, closer Posted: December 03, 2021 at 05:02 PM (#6056067)

I did not realize Scott Fletcher played until 1995. For some reason I do not recall anything after 1991. If you asked me, I’d assume he washed out as a back up in 92. Turns out he was pretty decent for the surprisingly good Brewers in 92 & the 93 Red Sox

69. Jay Z Posted: December 03, 2021 at 08:41 PM (#6056090)

But strategies are changing. There is increased shifting for one thing. There is also decrease bunting. there is also much more reliance on relievers. there's less reliance place on pitcher wins and RBI.

But who cares, the argument is. Winning baseball may be a science, but watching it is an art. Meaning the game should be entertaining. Time is a limited resource, and it can be spent doing something else, watching something else. If the resulting game is boring, the changes hurt the sport.

70. Doug Jones threw harder than me Posted: December 04, 2021 at 09:00 AM (#6056117)

71. BDC

Posted: December 04, 2021 at 11:20 AM (#6056119)

For some reason I do not recall anything after 1991

Me neither. I blame it on the frozen margaritas at Mariano's Hacienda.

72. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: December 05, 2021 at 10:18 AM (#6056248)

I am hopeful that perhaps "science", that is statistical analysis/game theory can help Baseball out of the mess that it currently finds itself. Perhaps folks with the machinery could help predict the effect of various rule changes, how they might change the optimal strategy, and the playability/watchability thereof. If the machinery existed that could do that, one could even imagine some kind of crowd-source-funded "contest" to propose and evaluate rule change packages. Maybe then Baseball wouldn't be messing around with silly things like slightly larger bases and "automatic" intentional walks.

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with spreadsheets. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Commissioner Manfred? We have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for the shift, and you curse the bullpen. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what we know -- that the shift's effect, while tragic, probably saved runs; and our existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, wins games.

You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want us on that wall -- you need us on that wall.

We use words like "exit velocity," "launch angle," "pitch framing." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that we provide and then questions the manner in which we provide it.

I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a laptop and stand the post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think you're hopeful for!

73. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: December 05, 2021 at 04:22 PM (#6056271)

Not bad, PRD, not bad.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Wednesday, December 01, 2021

Former Cy Young Winner LaMarr Hoyt Reportedly Dies At 66

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

Hot Topics