THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Of course by 1990 (at least several years into most of the previous generations “big 9") very few if any looked like HOFers.  Clemens looked good for it, but Maddux was just another good, but not great pitcher and Glavine looked as likely for a career as a #4 starter as a HOFer.  Schilling was still a part-time reliever, and Brown looked nothing like he did from 1996-2000.  Johnson was walking zillions of batters per year and didn’t look like a complete pitcher at all.  And Moose and Pedro hadn’t even started yet.

So Tom is right - it is too early to call it.

Rewinding 20 years as you are doing it means we are looking at the next generation of pitchers (born 1982-1991).  That would mean Felix and his buddies.  That’s way too early.

The comparison point is rewinding 10 years to 2000.

Quite the disparity between the top four pitchers of the ‘90’s and the top four of the ‘00’s, eh?

Well, it’s better than the top 4 born 1952-1961, where it’s Dave Stieb or Orel Hershiser or Dennis Martinez.  Maybe Frank Tanana, or if you want to go there, Dennick Eckersley.

But that’s pretty much it.  Basically, a bunch of David Cones and Andy Pettittes.

If you go to 1942-1951, you get legends: Seaver, Ryan, Carlton, Blyleven, Fergie, Sutton, Palmer.

Basically, we go through phases of the DNA gods.

is it phases of DNA gods, or a product of other factors in the game - ballparks, expansion - that affect the relative performances of the game’s best?

#5:  I suspect one possibility is demographic.  U.S. athletes born 1952-1961 (my age group) were starting to head into a number of different sports instead of favoring baseball, while the big influx of Hispanic came later (after Fernandomania) and the Asian influx pretty much hadn’t started yet (until Nomomania).  So the original pool was shrinking and the new pools hadn’t been fully tapped yet.

I understand any list cannot be perfect, but is there any reason why Eric included Lincecum, while he ignored Wainwright, Verlander, and F-Hernandez? If you think latters are to be lncluded in future list not the current list, then what makes Lincecum different? Considering age and games played, I think Lincecum should be excluded, too if he wants any consistency.

kam: if you see the comments in Eric’s article, a not-insignificant number of comments relates to issues that would completely disasppear if the focus was on birth year.

This applies not only in these kinds of lists, but also to HOF.  Rather than doing “wait X years”, I prefer, “starting at age Y”.  Kirby Puckett started his career way after Rickey/Raines, but he was considered for HOF way before them.  In effect, his peer group he was being matchedup against when it came time for selection was the wrong one.

I’d make it “Age 45”, and if that means we can have an active HOF like Nolan Ryan, sobeit.  Worked fine for Gordie Howe, Guy Lafleur and Mario Lemieux.