Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

David Cone

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I wrote that close to seven years ago. In the interim, my thinking has evolved in that direction as well.

    Coney is pretty close to the front of the queue, and quite distinctly over the HOF line IMO, although if someone said he was in the outer edge of the gray area on the good side, it wouldn't really trigger me.

    He's not dissimilar to Stieb and Sabes, but (off memory) with more volume.
    Last edited by Cougar; 09-14-2021, 04:18 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      How would everyone rank Tiant, Cone, Saberhagen, Stieb, and reuschel?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by DaKid12 View Post
        How would everyone rank Tiant, Cone, Saberhagen, Stieb, and reuschel?
        All over my line. Stieb is "safest", then Tiant, Coney, and Sabes. Reuschel would be closest to "out".
        Last edited by pedrosrotatorcuff; 09-14-2021, 06:37 PM.
        They don’t think it be like it is, but it do.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by pedrosrotatorcuff View Post

          All over my line. Stieb is "safest", then Tiant, Coney, and Sabes. Reuschel would be closest to "out".
          I got

          1. Tiant - safely in
          2. Cone - first pitcher out
          3. stieb - out
          4. saberhagen - out
          5. reuschel - out

          Then also have brown, Santana, John, and Kaat in. Don’t think there are too many pitchers on the outside who have been wronged. The only I think is a huge miss is Tiant. I’m starting to open up more to cone, but still think he’s short.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by DaKid12 View Post

            I got

            1. Tiant - safely in
            2. Cone - first pitcher out
            3. stieb - out
            4. saberhagen - out
            5. reuschel - out

            Then also have brown, Santana, John, and Kaat in. Don’t think there are too many pitchers on the outside who have been wronged. The only I think is a huge miss is Tiant. I’m starting to open up more to cone, but still think he’s short.
            Cone has 5 WS rings (was a big factor in 4), the 19K game, the perfect game, plus a Cy Young, and would have won another in 1988, if he'd been put in the rotation sooner. He has a better case than Tiant, in my opinion.


            "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Mongoose View Post

              Cone has 5 WS rings (was a big factor in 4), the 19K game, the perfect game, plus a Cy Young, and would have won another in 1988, if he'd been put in the rotation sooner. He has a better case than Tiant, in my opinion.
              Nah - Hershisher had that 59 innings streak record in 1988. No one else was winning the award that year

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Mongoose View Post

                Cone has 5 WS rings (was a big factor in 4), the 19K game, the perfect game, plus a Cy Young, and would have won another in 1988, if he'd been put in the rotation sooner. He has a better case than Tiant, in my opinion.
                Tiant and Cone both suffer when being compared to their contemporaries. Tiant's time had a ton of pitchers who pitched at a similar level as he did, but pitched many more innings. This makes him seem sort of third or fourth level, especially considering how many pitchers from that era are already enshrined. Cone also gets the same treatment when compared to not only the Clemenses, Madduxes, Johnsons etc, but also the Mussinas, Glavines, Smoltses etc of his era.

                Both guys are even inferior to a couple of their contemporaries who are currently left out, as Cone is clearly behind Brown and Schilling, and Tiant is behind John and Kaat. How many pitchers from an era is enough?
                Last edited by willshad; 09-17-2021, 10:58 AM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by redban View Post

                  Nah - Hershisher had that 59 innings streak record in 1988. No one else was winning the award that year
                  If Cone gets six more starts, and goes 23-3 or 22-4, he would probably have won it. Streak nonwithstanding, Cone had a better ERA than Hersheiser. With the extra innings, he would have led the league in strikeouts, and possibly won a Triple Crown.

                  Originally posted by willshad View Post

                  Tiant and Cone both suffer when being compared to their contemporaries. Tiant's time had a ton of pitchers who pitched at a similar level as he did, but pitched many more innings. This makes him seem sort of third or fourth level, especially considering how many pitchers from that era are already enshrined. Cone also gets the same treatment when compared to not only the Clemenses, Madduxes, Johnsons etc, but also the Mussinas, Glavines, Smoltses etc of his era.

                  Both guys are even inferior to a couple of their contemporaries who are currently left out, as Cone is clearly behind Brown and Schilling, and Tiant is behind John and Kaat. How many pitchers from an era is enough?
                  Cone doesn't suffer compared to anyone, besides a small handful who put up cartoon numbers (Martinez, Maddux, Johnson), and a couple with ~300 wins. Brown had a PED cloud hanging over him, has zero hardware, not a good post-season performer. Sportswriters put the political anathema on Schilling.

                  His career is comparable to Smoltz, except for the stint as a reliever.


                  "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by willshad View Post
                    How many pitchers from an era is enough?
                    No matter how many times you write some version of this, it is not a compelling argument.

                    Originally posted by Mongoose View Post
                    Brown had a PED cloud hanging over him, has zero hardware, not a good post-season performer.
                    All true but it still seems to elude many here.




                    3 6 10 21 29 31 35 41 42 44 47

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by DaKid12 View Post
                      How would everyone rank Tiant, Cone, Saberhagen, Stieb, and reuschel?
                      All of them are in my HOF.

                      PARCS-D has them:

                      1. Cone
                      2. Saberhagen
                      3. Steib
                      4. Tiant
                      5. Reuschel

                      But all are really close and between 115-123 PARCS-D

                      1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

                      1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

                      1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


                      The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
                      The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Mongoose View Post

                        If Cone gets six more starts, and goes 23-3 or 22-4, he would probably have won it. Streak nonwithstanding, Cone had a better ERA than Hersheiser. With the extra innings, he would have led the league in strikeouts, and possibly won a Triple Crown.



                        Cone doesn't suffer compared to anyone, besides a small handful who put up cartoon numbers (Martinez, Maddux, Johnson), and a couple with ~300 wins. Brown had a PED cloud hanging over him, has zero hardware, not a good post-season performer. Sportswriters put the political anathema on Schilling.

                        His career is comparable to Smoltz, except for the stint as a reliever.
                        Well yeah, if we take out five seasons from any pitcher's prime he is going to seem a lot worse. Even missing an entire season to injury and those aforementioned seasons as a closer, Smoltz managed to pitch about 600 more innings than Cone. For guys near the borderline, this is huge.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I have often thought about "what if we remove a player's best season". That, I think, would yield some interesting results by tossing "fluke" seasons so the lesser candidates who are only in the gray area on the strength of one really great season simply fall out of the discussion. That said, tossing players' best five years would eliminate half the people already in the Hall of Fame and effectively destroy any gray area whatsoever.
                          "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
                          "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
                          "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
                          "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by willshad View Post

                            Well yeah, if we take out five seasons from any pitcher's prime he is going to seem a lot worse. Even missing an entire season to injury and those aforementioned seasons as a closer, Smoltz managed to pitch about 600 more innings than Cone. For guys near the borderline, this is huge.
                            5 rings, a perfect game, and a 19K (NL record at the time) game are also huge.

                            And Cone wasn't a bystander on those winners. In watching the late 80s Mets and 90s Yankees, you realized whoever the nominal ace was, when they got to the post-season, Cone was really the main guy. And he delivered. That elevates him above every other name he's been grouped in with.

                            Schilling is the only other pitcher mentioned with a comparable big game track record, and he's a Hall of Famer by merit.


                            "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Mongoose View Post

                              5 rings, a perfect game, and a 19K (NL record at the time) game are also huge.

                              And Cone wasn't a bystander on those winners. In watching the late 80s Mets and 90s Yankees, you realized whoever the nominal ace was, when they got to the post-season, Cone was really the main guy. And he delivered. That elevates him above every other name he's been grouped in with.

                              Schilling is the only other pitcher mentioned with a comparable big game track record, and he's a Hall of Famer by merit.
                              Cone had the reputation, but his post season stats don't really back that up. He had a 3.80 ERA in about 111 post season innings total, not much better than noted choke artist Kevin Brown at 4.19. By comparison Schilling had a 2.23 ERA in about 130 IP. That said, I don't think Cone is miles from the HOF (I have a small hall). He probably lost two more 20 win seasons due to the strike with may have put him over the line. I just feel that his induction would open the door for many other similar borderline type of guys.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Talent-wise, I think Cone was better than Mussina. If I had to choose one over the other in their primes, I would take Cone. One difference is that Mussina was able to stay healthy (pitches 700 more innings), which allowed Mussina to accumulate a bigger WAR total. But Cone’s top 4 or 5 seasons were superior to Mussina’s top 4 or 5 seasons. Had Cone consistently pitched 200 innings per year, he would breezed in.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X