Strat-O-Matic Baseball 365

STEVE F wrote:I'd vote for one of them. Whitaker. Maybe Munson, hard to tell what he would have done had he lived, but I'm ok with giving him a pass for that reason. The rest are all in the "Hall of very good", but not HOF. Evans and D Murphy have the numbers, until you start looking at the ballpark effects.

Agree that it has become the Hall of very good.
Or maybe the Hall of nice players that didn't gamble or do steroids.

STEVE F wrote:

Mumford wrote:Have to go with Tommy John.

Big Dodger fan here. I watched TJ a lot. I loved TJ. But at no point while watching him play did I ever think "this is a hall of fame pitcher". Let's compare that to Don Sutton, who many people have called "a good pitcher who did it on longevity". I saw Sutton as a HOF pitcher on a daily basis by 1971-72. In other words, watching both pitchers extensively at the same time period, it was clear to me that Sutton was a hall of famer, and TJ was a very good pitcher, but not a hall of famer.

Donnie Baseball - out of all those guys, that's the one guy who for a 4-5 year stretch you could say "That's a sure fire Hall of Famer" - too bad he got hurt but he was on pace to accumulate some serious numbers. If Baines is in, you could make a case for any one of those guys

If Tommy John didn't get hurt, no one would remember him. The only problem is that people think his last name is Surgery.

The facts show there was not much difference between the two, except Sutton had the arbitrary 300 wins.

TJ Sutton
Career WAR 61.5 66.7
W 288 324
L 231 256
ERA 3.34 3.26
Tommy John a record 188 no decisions.

When you start to compare the very good players there is not much difference. The HOF is watered down.

STEVE F wrote:

Mumford wrote:Have to go with Tommy John.

Big Dodger fan here. I watched TJ a lot. I loved TJ. But at no point while watching him play did I ever think "this is a hall of fame pitcher". Let's compare that to Don Sutton, who many people have called "a good pitcher who did it on longevity". I saw Sutton as a HOF pitcher on a daily basis by 1971-72. In other words, watching both pitchers extensively at the same time period, it was clear to me that Sutton was a hall of famer, and TJ was a very good pitcher, but not a hall of famer.

John had good years with the White Sox and Yankees too. but yes, let's compare.

TJ Sutton
Career WAR 61.5 66.7
W 288 324
L 231 256
PCt .555 .559
ERA 3.34 3.26

Tommy John a record 188 no decisions.


Similar Pitchers

Gaylord Perry (945.8) *
Bert Blyleven (914.5) *
Steve Carlton (888.5) *
Phil Niekro (881.0) *
Tom Seaver (866.4) *
Greg Maddux (862.7) *
Tommy John (861.6)
Warren Spahn (846.1) *
Fergie Jenkins (840.3) *
Early Wynn (818.9) *

* - Signifies Hall of Fame

https://www.baseball-reference.com/play ... do01.shtml

Not arguing with the numbers. My point was that there is sometimes a difference between the numbers and the "eye test".

STEVE F wrote:Not arguing with the numbers. My point was that there is sometimes a difference between the numbers and the "eye test".

Not arguing with the "eye test", but numbers sometimes make the difference (e.g. 300 wins). Sutton had his spectacular years, but so did Tommy John, Dale Murphy, Ron Guidry, and many others. Doc Gooden eye test in 1984-85 is HOF worthy.

Food for thought: "Ernie Harwell used to say that if there was a Mount Rushmore for baseball, it would have Babe Ruth, Jackie Robinson, Branch Rickey and Marvin Miller. In other words, if the Baseball Hall of Fame had only four people in it, Miller’s extraordinary impact on the game would make him a strong candidate for one of those spots."