Lefty Gomez VS Dizzy Dean

[Myankee4life]

On the Top pitchers with less than 200 wins thread...I saw many of you put Dizzy Dean ahead of Lefty Gomez. Not only a couple spots ahead but 6-7 spots. I wrote this on that thread but nobody answered. So here it goes again.
------------------------------------------------------------
When Gomez was pitching the league ERA was 4.17
When Dean was pitching the league ERA was 3.94

Their best ERA+ seasons

Gomez 191,174,149,136,127,127
Dean 159,148,135,124,119,114

Gomez was better than him every single season.

Gomez pitched 9 full seasons......had 7 200+ innings pitched seasons.
Dean had 6 full seasons..........had 5 200+ innings pitched seasons.

Gomez won more games 189 AND had a better winning % at .649
Dean won 150 games and .644 %

In the World Series

Gomez 6-0 2.86 was a 5x WS champ
Dean 2-2 2.88 won 1 WS
---------------------------------------------
Gomez was also an all-star every year from 1933-1939........ He won 2 pitching triple crowns in '34 and '37. He won 2 ERA titles and had the most wins in the league twice.

Dean was an all star from 1934-1937.......won the MVP in 1934.....NO ERA titles but led the league in wins twice. To his credit he led the league in
K's 4X and shutouts 2X.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dean had more black ink than Gomez 52 to 46. But thats what you get when you are up against Lefty Grove. Gomez had more gray ink than Dean 182 to 137. Gomez also has higher HOF STANDARDS 34.0 to 33.0 and higher HOF MONITOR 127.5 to 111.5

Why is everyone putting Dean ahead of Gomez? Until convinced I think Dean is grossly overrated and Gomez underated. As a matter of fact Lefty Gomez is comparable to Lefty Grove.

Now if its something im missing here, then this thread was useless. I cant see no way of putting Dean ahead of Gomez when Gomez was in the tougher league. Even if Dean was better than Gomez.....there's no way he's 5 spots better.

[538280]

When I first saw this poll I immediately thought Dean. He has been rembered by history as better. But, then I checked the stats and realized he really wasn't as good as Gomez. Dean's main advantage, really his only advantage, was that he was more of a workhorse in his prime. Dean was always around 300 innings in his full seasons. Gomez was more like 250-270 innings.

But, Dean did get hurt and only had five full seasons. He ended up with about 600 less IP for his career. Gomez, while he did pitch less innings in his peak was much more effective with a 191 and 174 ERA+, well above Dean's bests of 159 and 148. Who's better? The pitcher who pitches 300 innings with a 150 ERA+ or the guy who goes 270 innings with a 180 ERA+? I'd go with the second guy rather quickly. Since Gomez does have more longevity I have to go with him.

The NL in the 30s was also a significantly worse league than the AL at the same time. I think the NL was improved over the horrible 1920s version but still was inferior to the AL.

Both, IMO, are marginal HOF choices though. Dean was a popular celebrity figure so I guess he does deserve it. It is the Hall of FAME. Dean did have a lot of FAME.

[Tigerfan1974]

Gomez, Hands down.
Dean gets too much remembrance because of pitching with his brother as well.
Gomez was the superior pitcher.

[leecemark]

-Basically what Chris said. If I'd voted without reading then Dean would have seemed the obvious choice. Really the evidence is almost all in Gomez favor though. I think Dizzy benefits from the same halo effect of many short career, high peak guys. He ONLY had his peak and then he was done, without lesser years to dilute his rate stats or dim his memory. Quite a few guys, including Gomez, can match or exceed his best years and went on to better careers. Those longer careers inevitably include a few bad seasons.

[Myankee4life]

So Leecemark why place Dean 5 spots ahead of Gomez on the other threadh ?

To Chris/Leecemark or any other in favor of era adjustments......If you adjust for position players....shouldn't you also adjust for pitchers. For example do the opposite of what you do to hitters. With that in mind can Lefty come out in the top 20/15/10?

[538280]

To Chris/Leecemark or any other in favor of era adjustments......If you adjust for position players....shouldn't you also adjust for pitchers. For example do the opposite of what you do to hitters. With that in mind can Lefty come out in the top 20/15/10?

I assume you mean league quality adjustments? That is what Mark and I have been pushing for.

I say no way. While the 1930s AL was the superior league in it's own time it wasn't all that strong in a historical context.

I used to not even have Gomez in my top 50. I will take a closer look at him now. He may be borderline top 50, but no way is he top 10 or even top 20. Not nearly enough longevity and his peak isn't all that much better than most guys way up there.

[leecemark]

--Pitchers are subjected to the same hit as batters in a league quality adjustment. Not sure which thread you mean, but until you matched up their numbers I did have dean ahead of Gomez. Whether you've caused me to elevate Gomez or lower Dean I'm not sure. In any case, neither is in my top 30 or perhaps 40 or even 50.

[Cowtipper]

I went with Gomez. Longevity matters, and Gomez was able to perform at a high level longer than Dean. From 1931 to 1939, nine seasons, he averaged 18 wins, 18 complete games and a 3.17 ERA each year. Dean averaged 22 wins, 23 complete games and a 3.00 ERA each year, but only from 1932 to 1937--six years.

[Herr28]

I don't know. I really like Lefty Gomez too, but what would Dean have done if he had that Yankee lineup hitting for him? You say he had fewer wins, lower win pct, went to fewer ASG, had a shorter peak and career, had a worse record for inferior teams in a fraction of the WS appearances, and all that is true. However, luckily for Lefty, he never had to suffer that career ending injury to his pitching arm after only a handful of seasons (of which Dean was one of the best in his league, if not the best, each year up to that fateful ASG). Gomez also pitched for a far better team, worlds apart in overall talent than those gritty Gas House Teams, which led to him pitching with a much greater chance of winning (leading to his more wins, better win pct, better WS record and more opportunity to appear in the WS), and also kept him from having to pitch as many innings each year. Dean, especially in 1934 but also throughout his short career, was overused by the Cardinals because they really didn't have anyone else to go to.

Paul was mentioned, and he really was only effective in that storybook '34 year, and his inability to stay injury free and keep up with Diz also led to more IP that Dean had to throw. I went through on another thread and posted all these stats about how many games Dizzy was pitching in relief as he was the ace of the Cardinals staff as well. All that overuse could lead to (and did according to Dizzy, who constantly complained of pitching too much and having a sore arm all throughout '34) poorer overall numbers. I would love it if the Cardinals would have been a much better team so Dizzy's IP would have gone from the 300s to the 250, therefore taking a lot of strain off his arm. As a matter of fact, Dizzy lowest IP total in his first years before getting hurt (1932-1936) was in that '32 campaign when he tossed an NL leading 286 at the age of 22. That is more IP than Goofy (yes, comparing Goofy to Dizzy) ever threw in any season his entire career! I am not saying Dean is worlds better than Gomez. I am not saying he is better than Lefty, just trying to defend him when I see others just casually taking a few stats and throwing Dean back down the memory hole as some kind of aberration rather than giving him any credit at all.

Here some additional stats and facts to look at:

Dean completed 67% of his GS (230 GS, 154 CG) throughout his career. He also pitched 87 games in relief with 76 being GF (credited with 30 SV to go along with his 26 SHO). He led the NL in K 4 times (striking out 190+ in his first 5 full seasons), IP 3 times, W twice, W% once, G twice, CG 4 times, SHO twice, SV one time, 1934 NL MVP, second in NL MVP voting next 2 seasons. And his peak really is only 5.5 seasons, so that's all pretty impressive for a young kid on a decent team to do all that in 5 and a half years.

Lefty completed 54% of his starts (320 GS, 173 CG) in his career. He pitched 48 games in relief, 31 GF (9 SV alongside 28 SHO). Led AL in K 3 times (only topped 190 once), IP once, W twice, W% twice, CG once, SHO 3 times, was 3rd in AL MVP voting in '34 (highest total, but much more difficult league to win MVP).

Both were great in my book. Just wanted to trow out a few words for Ol' Diz!

[willshad]

Interesting that WAR has Dean ahead, despite Gomez pitching about 550 more innings, at about the same level.

[Jackaroo Dave]

Gomez also suffered an arm injury that ended his effectiveness, which he attributed to too many innings too close together.

I don't think anyone cares much about the difference in their wins or WL%.

They are eerily similar. I read Gomez's biography by his daughter, and he seems like a more appealing character than Dean. Well, it was his daughter writing it. But anyone who could room with the Clipper and call him out for his whining and brooding--and actually be liked by him--is a very smart, kind, and brave man.

[Bothrops Atrox]

Interesting that WAR has Dean ahead, despite Gomez pitching about 550 more innings, at about the same level.

Including offense, runs saved/created above average has Dean up 266 to 144. Without offense, Dean is still up 244 to 196. Not really the "same level." Plus, the 550 innings only equals a grand whomping total of 3 WAR worth of replacement for their careers.

The replacement component is only .1 WAR per about 15-20 innings. Not as big of a deal as some think until you start comparing the guys who were allowed to go 300+ vs. the guys who aren't allowed to go past 200. That is when WAA comes in handy.

[1905 Giants]

Big Dean fan, but went with Gomez here.