Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gooden '85 vs. Koufax '65

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

  • #16
    I was all set to vote for Koufax...then thought about it some more....voted for Doc in '85.

    Gooden did it in more of a hitters era than Sandy did. Plus, Sandy had that incredible home field advantage at Dodger Stadium with the white out hitting background; a mountain they called the pitchers mound; big foul territory; and some of best grounds crew baseball has ever known.

    Plus, Sandy was seasoned vet by this time while Doc was only just getting started.

    My vote is for Doc.

    Yankees Fan Since 1957

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by DoubleX
      Ah...Where did Bill do that? I'm curious to see his reasoning.

      I tend to think that '66 is hands down Koufax's finest year, so I can't see his '65 being the best ever by a pitcher. I'm also hesitant to put any year from that period by any pitcher (such as Gibson's '68) as the best pitching year ever.
      Bill said it in the "Official Members Opinions Discussion" thread. He didn't really give his full reasoning, he said something like "it was the greatest for all around balance" or something like that.

      Comment


      • #18
        I provided more than a few tidbits in favor of Koufax, although that's certainly not everything there was to say about him in '65. What I've noticed is an overemphasis on ERA+. It's important to note that Koufax's relatively modest ERA+ totals aren't the result of any exaggerated notions of his dominance, but rather, the fact that the ENTIRE league had a significantly lower ERA during that timeframe. I know that the obviousness of that statement should go without saying, especially when we are dealing with comparisons to league averages. But in all fairness to even the elite pitchers of the 50's/60's, how could we expect their ERA to routinely equal or surpass a figure that's 100% (ERA+ of 200) greater than the league average when it's already in the low 3's?

        A quick search reveals that a 200 ERA+ was achieved only 3 times from 1950-1968 (the last year before the mound was lowered). The short list includes Gibson in '68, Chance in '64, and Billy Pierce in '55. In fact, you'd have to go back yet another 20 years to Lefty Grove's '31 masterpiece to find the next one!. 4 times in 38 years. That's pretty astonishing given the number of individual seasons pitched during that timeframe, which easily numbers in the thousands.

        Conversely, in the 20 seasons since Gooden's tremendous campaign, a 200 ERA+ has been reached 11 times, including a run of 4 straight years from '94-'97. That's not to take anything away from those player's accomplishments, but it seems pretty clear that this lofty benchmark is being achieved with much more regularity than ever before...because the league ERAs have risen substantially. While still not an every year occurance, it has become an easier plateau to achieve. By the time 2023 rolls around (to equal the 38 year window I addressed in the last paragraph), I wonder how many more times that will have been achieved? Another dozen or so does not seem like a stretch. God forbid that a league era eventually flirts with 6.00 (Don't laugh, it's not THAT far off!). Does that mean that a 3.00 ERA should be considered as impressive an achievement as other 200+ ERA seasons? Of course not.

        Now, I'm not in a position to sway anyone's vote away from Gooden. I say that because as I look at each pitcher's respective season as a whole, I cannot say in good confidence that Doc's was better than Sandy's. I don't think anyone can convince me otherwise, especially if you take into account Koufax's tremendous post-season, and all the other nods I would give to him over Gooden, tangible or otherwise.

        However, I would be interested to see how this debate would change if each side were allowed to remove ONE statistical component from the opposition's argument.

        Example:
        As a Koufax supporter, I would claim that ERA+, (or any other stat for that matter), should never be used as the be-all-end-all piece of evidence for evaluating a pitcher's career. Therefore, I would remove ERA+ from the argument and see how Gooden fares.

        As a Gooden supporter, I might say that strikeouts are overrated, and that Koufax's lofty '65 totals are excessively publicized, or even unwarranted. I would omit that and see if Koufax's brilliance could still hold its luster.


        Anyway, that's just an example. Let's try to revisit this debate after removing each side's single strongest suit. As unintentionally bias as I may come across, I still see the overall picture favoring Sandy. I'm not saying he blows away Gooden's '85, but in my eyes it's not a photo finish either.

        That's my story and I'm sticking to it! Have a great night.

        Chris

        Southpaw Legacy


        I'm tempted to run each player's season through my humble, yet flawed evaluation formula. While geared more toward entire careers, there are enough single season components to arrive a figure for comparison's sake.
        Last edited by cjedmonton; 02-20-2006, 08:29 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Koufax gets a boost for league quality adjustments. But not enough of one to make up the ground Gooden has on quality.
          "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

          Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

          Comment


          • #20
            They are both amongst the greatest seasons ever by a pitcher but I give the slight nod to Koufax.

            Here's how they finished across various categories:
            ERA - Koufax 1st, gooden 1st
            Wins - Koufax 1st, Gooden 1st
            W/L% - Koufax 1st, Gooden 2nd
            WHIP - Koufax 1st, Gooden 2nd
            Hits/9 - Koufax 1st, Gooden 2nd
            BB/9 - Koufax 6th, Gooden 8th
            K/9 - Koufax 1st, Gooden 2nd
            IP - Koufax 1st, Gooden 1st
            K - Koufax 1st (broke record), Gooden 1st
            CG - Koufax 1st, Gooden 1st
            SO - Koufax 2nd, Gooden 2nd
            K to W - Koufax 1st, Gooden 3rd
            Adjusted ERA - Koufax 3rd, Gooden 1st

            Koufax led the league in 10 of 13 categories while Gooden led in 6 of 13.

            Plus he pitched 60 more innings. While it's true that starters on average threw more innings in the 60s than the 80s, I don't think that should be held against Koufax. He dominated over more innings than Gooden. Bert Blyleven thew for 294 innings in the AL in 1985 - almost 20 more than Dwight. The leader in 1965 in the AL threw for 291 - 45 less than Koufax. Koufax's innings pitched that year was the most since 1954 and wasn't topped until 1972. So the number of innings pitched was a reflection of his greatness that year. If he were able to save his arm from the additional 60 innings I would argue that he could have dominated even more than he did. Not to mention that his career would have lasted longer.
            Last edited by Bench 5; 02-21-2006, 11:58 AM.
            "Batting slumps? I never had one. When a guy hits .358, he doesn't have slumps."

            Rogers Hornsby, 1961

            Comment


            • #21
              You know as soon as I see someone post "for his era" when they begin a comparison of two players I know the other guy was better.
              Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by cjedmonton
                I provided more than a few tidbits in favor of Koufax, although that's certainly not everything there was to say about him in '65. What I've noticed is an overemphasis on ERA+. It's important to note that Koufax's relatively modest ERA+ totals aren't the result of any exaggerated notions of his dominance, but rather, the fact that the ENTIRE league had a significantly lower ERA during that timeframe. I know that the obviousness of that statement should go without saying, especially when we are dealing with comparisons to league averages. But in all fairness to even the elite pitchers of the 50's/60's, how could we expect their ERA to routinely equal or surpass a figure that's 100% (ERA+ of 200) greater than the league average when it's already in the low 3's?

                A quick search reveals that a 200 ERA+ was achieved only 3 times from 1950-1968 (the last year before the mound was lowered). The short list includes Gibson in '68, Chance in '64, and Billy Pierce in '55. In fact, you'd have to go back yet another 20 years to Lefty Grove's '31 masterpiece to find the next one!. 4 times in 38 years. That's pretty astonishing given the number of individual seasons pitched during that timeframe, which easily numbers in the thousands.

                Conversely, in the 20 seasons since Gooden's tremendous campaign, a 200 ERA+ has been reached 11 times, including a run of 4 straight years from '94-'97. That's not to take anything away from those player's accomplishments, but it seems pretty clear that this lofty benchmark is being achieved with much more regularity than ever before...because the league ERAs have risen substantially. While still not an every year occurance, it has become an easier plateau to achieve. By the time 2023 rolls around (to equal the 38 year window I addressed in the last paragraph), I wonder how many more times that will have been achieved? Another dozen or so does not seem like a stretch. God forbid that a league era eventually flirts with 6.00 (Don't laugh, it's not THAT far off!). Does that mean that a 3.00 ERA should be considered as impressive an achievement as other 200+ ERA seasons? Of course not.
                The only reason more superhuman ERA+ have been occuring over the past few years is because of the new ways of really protecting your pitchers. This makes them pitch less innings, and that lets them have a greater level of effectiveness. This stared right about in the mid 1990s.

                Before that (in the 1980s) when pitchers were still pitching quite a few innings it was just as hard to post a 200+ ERA+ as in the 1950-1968 era. In the 18 years after 1968 (1969-1986) there were only two 200+ ERA+ years, those by Ron Guidry in 1978 and Gooden in 1985. Of the top 100 ERA+ years all time, 8 were posted between 1950 and 1968, and 8 between 1969 and 1986.

                Example:
                As a Koufax supporter, I would claim that ERA+, (or any other stat for that matter), should never be used as the be-all-end-all piece of evidence for evaluating a pitcher's career. Therefore, I would remove ERA+ from the argument and see how Gooden fares.

                As a Gooden supporter, I might say that strikeouts are overrated, and that Koufax's lofty '65 totals are excessively publicized, or even unwarranted. I would omit that and see if Koufax's brilliance could still hold its luster.
                I'm not using ERA+ as everything. What about those DIPS elements I used? What about the fact Koufax's ERA just about doubled on the road? What about the defensive independant ERA?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Curiously, here is how our duo fared after running their seasons through my evaluation formula. Yes, I've said it 100 times that it's flawed. Virually every measure of "greatness" inherently is, due to the subjective nature of the term "greatness".

                  Nonetheless,

                  Gooden: 244.375
                  Koufax: 360.145

                  Where did Koufax gain his advantage? A couple of key areas:

                  Winning a Cy Young, when only one was awarded for both leagues
                  Finishing as the runner-up in the N.L. MVP race
                  Complete and utter dominance in the World Series
                  Winning at least 1/4 of his team's wins (tougher to accomplish than you might think)
                  The Perfect Game
                  Outrageous strikeout, WHIP, and BAA totals, among others
                  Pacing the National League in 9 key categories (ERA/Wins/Win%/WHIP/Strikeouts/Innings/Complete Games/Batting Average Against/K BB Ratio).


                  Now, to respond to your comments:

                  "I'm not using ERA+ as everything. What about those DIPS elements I used? What about the fact Koufax's ERA just about doubled on the road? What about the defensive independant ERA?"

                  I never said you personally were using ERA+ as everything. That was just an example of what I've observed in general when folks start talking about so and so being the best. The fact that Koufax's ERA nearly doubled on the road doesn't detract from the fact that he still went 12-5. We all know by now that Koufax's 1965 concedes ERA/ERA+ to Gooden's 1985...one of the very few areas he does concede to Doc. We all know that there is much, much more to the story than just that, though.

                  Admittedly, I don't dabble in DIPS with my evaluation formula (it would be WAY too tedious given the number of southpaws I evaluate!). However, it's a fairly comprehensive criteria set that encompasses most every important area of a pitcher's season/career without delving too deep in the world of sabermetrics.

                  Having said that, the DIPS elements you brought up were a wash in my book (2 for Gooden, 2 for Koufax). I don't consider a comparison of the marginal lead b/w categories and/or eras as a fair assessment. For example, when we're dealing with HR/9, sure, Gooden held a 1/4 home run per 9 IP advantage...20 years after Koufax. What does that really mean,anyway? That gap is so insignificant that it hardly warrants mentioning, to say nothing that the context was never addressed. On the other hand, a 2.5+ strikeout per 9 inning advantage over an entire season is substantial. Ask anyone. Those are more tangible numbers on a game to game basis than ones that require the equivalent of 4 complete games to amount to a 1 unit lead (1 home run more/less every 36 innings).

                  Either way, these numbers are meaningless without some rigorous statistical modelling, taking into account all relevant parameters (something I know I haven't conducted, and I don't get the impression you have either). For every DIPS category Gooden surpasses Koufax with, there are others that Koufax surpasses Gooden with.

                  In summary, here is what I understand from your defence of Gooden:

                  1. He accompished his amazing season at such a young age. That's great, but I consider Koufax's achievement even more remarkable given the immense pain he was enduring after each and every start. 1965 was the beginning of the end for this legend's career, yet you would never know it by looking at the finished product.

                  2. Gooden pitched in a hitter's era. If Koufax is oft-penalized for having Dodger Stadium as his home park and having pitched during the 60's, why should Gooden's inferior raw numbers (save for ERA/ERA+) be bolstered? Sounds like a double standard to me. I fully realize the importance of diserning b/w key differences within the game during different periods in history, but I wish there was a more concrete way to boil down the numbers in a relatively era-neutral manner

                  3. Gooden was equally effective at home as he was on the road. Again, a terrific conversation piece, but ultimately, isn't the goal to reach the World Series? The Mets were a very strong team that year, yet they fell short. In my opinion, Gooden should neither be praised nor penalized for having his masterpiece season in a non-playoff year on such a strong team. We're not talking about Lefty Carlton's '72 Phillies, here. It was what it was. Koufax, on the other hand, not only steamrolled the competition during the regular season (as did Doc), but he led his team into the post-season, and was absolutely instrumental in taking home the ultimate prize. That fact cannot be overstated enough. The goal is to win, and Koufax did just that...with an authority that has not been seen more than a handful of times in the Fall Classic's 100+ year history. Gooden can never claim such a performance on the biggest stage of them all.

                  In the end, we'll have to agree to disagree. However, I stand by observations and interpretations. I really appreciated reading your insightful commentary, though. I don't post nearly as often as I would like. I look forward to future discussions.

                  Best regards,
                  Chris
                  Last edited by cjedmonton; 02-21-2006, 08:13 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by cjedmonton
                    Curiously, here is how our duo fared after running their seasons through my evaluation formula. Yes, I've said it 100 times that it's flawed. Virually every measure of "greatness" inherently is, due to the subjective nature of the term "greatness".

                    Nonetheless,

                    Gooden: 244.375
                    Koufax: 360.145

                    Where did Koufax gain his advantage? A couple of key areas:

                    Winning a Cy Young, when only one was awarded for both leagues
                    Do you honestly think Gooden wouldn't have done the same?

                    Finishing as the runner-up in the N.L. MVP race
                    That's nice, but back in Koufax's day when there was only a MLB wide CYA I'd think the writers would be far more willing to give a pitcher MVP votes than they are nowadays.

                    Complete and utter dominance in the World Series
                    That's definitely a point in his favor, but it can be way overstated. Gooden never got a chance to do the same.

                    Winning at least 1/4 of his team's wins (tougher to accomplish than you might think)
                    Eras need to be taken into consideration here. IN the 60s, when pitchers pitched way more innings and had a four man rotation, it was easier to do this. As it is, Gooden won 24.48% of his team's games. Given their respective eras, that's probably more impressive than Koufax's percentage.

                    The Perfect Game
                    That's nice, but it really shouldn't have any extra impact other than the impact it already has on the pitcher's stats.

                    Outrageous strikeout, WHIP, and BAA totals, among others
                    Koufax's performance in those areas was only barely better than Gooden's relative to league.

                    Pacing the National League in 9 key categories
                    Gooden would have led in everything too if John Tudor wasn't having another season for the ages the same year. Koufax didn't have a pitcher like that to compete with.

                    Now, to respond to your comments:

                    "I'm not using ERA+ as everything. What about those DIPS elements I used? What about the fact Koufax's ERA just about doubled on the road? What about the defensive independant ERA?"

                    I never said you personally were using ERA+ as everything. That was just an example of what I've observed in general when folks start talking about so and so being the best. The fact that Koufax's ERA nearly doubled on the road doesn't detract from the fact that he still went 12-5. We all know by now that Koufax's 1965 concedes ERA/ERA+ to Gooden's 1985...one of the very few areas he does concede to Doc. We all know that there is much, much more to the story than just that, though.
                    But I think you're missing the point. Doesn't the fact Koufax's ERA on the road nearly doubled suggest he may have been tremendously helped by Dodger Stadium? It's not just ERA he did much better at home with, either.

                    Admittedly, I don't dabble in DIPS with my evaluation formula (it would be WAY too tedious given the number of southpaws I evaluate!). However, it's a fairly comprehensive criteria set that encompasses most every important area of a pitcher's season/career without delving too deep in the world of sabermetrics.
                    Does it make era adjustments, I must ask? Because if it doesn't then it is just ridiculously biased towards Koufax.

                    Having said that, the DIPS elements you brought up were a wash in my book (2 for Gooden, 2 for Koufax). I don't consider a comparison of the marginal lead b/w categories and/or eras as a fair assessment. For example, when we're dealing with HR/9, sure, Gooden held a 1/4 home run per 9 IP advantage...20 years after Koufax. What does that really mean,anyway? That gap is so insignificant that it hardly warrants mentioning, to say nothing that the context was never addressed. On the other hand, a 2.5+ strikeout per 9 inning advantage over an entire season is substantial. Ask anyone. Those are more tangible numbers on a game to game basis than ones that require the equivalent of 4 complete games to amount to a 1 unit lead (1 home run more/less every 36 innings).
                    The 1/4 HR/9 difference is huge really. It's a huge lead when speaking in the small scale of pitcher's HR rates. Not to mention the differences in era, since more HRs and extra base hits were hit in Gooden's era.

                    And Koufax may have "won" two of the categories, but just sqeaked by on both. Gooden beat him solidly in his two "wins".

                    Either way, these numbers are meaningless without some rigorous statistical modelling, taking into account all relevant parameters (something I know I haven't conducted, and I don't get the impression you have either). For every DIPS category Gooden surpasses Koufax with, there are others that Koufax surpasses Gooden with.
                    The "rigorous statistical modeling" has already been done for us by the folks at Baseball Prospectus, with their defensive independant ERA. Gooden comes out at 2.35, Koufax at 3.39. Not even close.

                    In summary, here is what I understand from your defence of Gooden:

                    1. He accompished his amazing season at such a young age. That's great, but I consider Koufax's achievement even more remarkable given the immense pain he was enduring after each and every start. 1965 was the beginning of the end for this legend's career, yet you would never know it by looking at the finished product.
                    I have no doubts Koufax was going through great pain. But, does that make it more amazing than a guy having one of the best seasons of all time for a pitcher at age 21, the age when most are just out of college? Not to me. Maybe you think differently, but I don't see how you can.

                    2. Gooden pitched in a hitter's era. If Koufax is oft-penalized for having Dodger Stadium as his home park and having pitched during the 60's, why should Gooden's inferior raw numbers (save for ERA/ERA+) be bolstered? Sounds like a double standard to me. I fully realize the importance of diserning b/w key differences within the game during different periods in history, but I wish there was a more concrete way to boil down the numbers in a relatively era-neutral manner
                    They should be bolstered because he performed better relative to league. Koufax played in much more favorable conditions. In order to get a better idea of how good they really were we must strip them of statistics conclusive of the environment and use ones that tell us more about their actual performance relative to others in the same conditions. The way to "boil down the numbers" is to compare them to the league average.

                    3. Gooden was equally effective at home as he was on the road. Again, a terrific conversation piece, but ultimately, isn't the goal to reach the World Series? The Mets were a very strong team that year, yet they fell short. In my opinion, Gooden should neither be praised nor penalized for having his masterpiece season in a non-playoff year on such a strong team. We're not talking about Lefty Carlton's '72 Phillies, here. It was what it was. Koufax, on the other hand, not only steamrolled the competition during the regular season (as did Doc), but he led his team into the post-season, and was absolutely instrumental in taking home the ultimate prize. That fact cannot be overstated enough. The goal is to win, and Koufax did just that...with an authority that has not been seen more than a handful of times in the Fall Classic's 100+ year history. Gooden can never claim such a performance on the biggest stage of them all.
                    The only reason Koufax made the postseason and Gooden didn't was because his team was better, and the other teams in the divsion weren't as good. The driving force behind the Dodgers winning and the Mets not wasn't because Doc just wasn't as good as Sandy. I can't believe you could really believe that.

                    Koufax does deserve some credit for his postseason performance, but as I said it can be taken way too far. It really is just one game after all, and it wasn't Gooden's chance he didn't get the same opportunity.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Don't take my lack of response as a concession to your vehement defence of Gooden. I just don't have the time or inclination to volley facts and opinions back and forth, especially when it's apparent that the validity of my remarks are promptly swept under the rug to make room for your counterpoints.

                      I've said what I had to say, and am as convinced that Sandy had a more dominant overall season than Gooden (as great as his '85 was) as you are certain that Gooden had the superior year. In the end, I can sleep well at night knowing this.


                      NOTE: Thanks for mentioning Baseball Prospectus. I hadn't visited that site in quite some time, but when I did, I found something interesting.

                      There is an advanced pitching statistic entitled "Stuff". To quote:
                      "Stuff is a rough indicator of the pitcher's overall dominance, based on normalized strikeout rates, walk rates, home run rates, runs allowed, and innings per game. "10" is league average, while "0" is roughly replacement level".

                      Here are the scores:

                      Gooden: 41
                      Koufax: 45

                      A huge lead? No, but it's good enough for nearly 10% in favor of Koufax. Just an observation from a source I normally wouldn't have turned to for support, being a "simpler, the better" kinda guy.
                      Last edited by cjedmonton; 02-23-2006, 08:16 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Koufax. Simply cause he helped the Dodgers win it all that year.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          And in regards to Koufax's '66 vs. '65 season. It appears the main reason his ERA was better in 1966, despite less dominance, was the fact that in 1966 he allowed a .147 BA and .417 OPS against with RISP; compared to .195 BA and .566 OPS against. His BABIP was MUCH better in 1966 (.186 vs. .264), so his better performance in 1966 with RISP could be partially better luck.

                          His HR/9 was also better in 1966, .53 vs. .69, which would have somewhat offset the higher whip and less K's.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by 538280
                            ERA+ isn't everything, I know. Let's look at some DIPS elements.

                            Gooden, 1985
                            HR/9-0.43
                            XB/9-3.48
                            K/9-8.72
                            BB/9-2.24

                            Koufax, 1965
                            HR/9-0.69
                            XB/9-4.91
                            K/9-11.38
                            BB/9-1.90

                            Even with no adjustment for era, Gooden is significantly better in HR/9 and XB/9. Koufax is slightly better in K/9 and BB/9. Overall Gooden probably wins this comparsion, EVEN WITH NO ERA ADJUSTMENT.
                            I largely agree with your post, and do agree with your conclusion that Gooden's '85 was better, but I don't agree that Koufax was only "slightly better" in K/9. A nearly 2.5 K/9 difference is huge. It's the difference between an average K/9 (6.0) and an elite one (8.5).

                            When you combine that with Koufax's lower walk rate, you have a massive difference in K/BB ratio: 6 versus 3.9.

                            3.9 is great, 6.0 is pretty absurd.

                            But anyway, that's before era effects, so it's really a minor point, since Gooden had the better DIPS ERA.
                            "In the end it all comes down to talent. You can talk all you want about intangibles, I just don't know what that means. Talent makes winners, not intangibles. Can nice guys win? Sure, nice guys can win - if they're nice guys with a lot of talent. Nice guys with a little talent finish fourth and nice guys with no talent finish last." --Sandy Koufax

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by 538280
                              ERA+ isn't everything, I know. Let's look at some DIPS elements.

                              Gooden, 1985
                              HR/9-0.43
                              XB/9-3.48
                              K/9-8.72
                              BB/9-2.24

                              Koufax, 1965
                              HR/9-0.69
                              XB/9-4.91
                              K/9-11.38
                              BB/9-1.90
                              You forgot:
                              Hits/9 innings
                              SO/9 innings
                              BB/9 innings
                              Whip
                              Adj. Whip

                              All these things go to make a bigger, more revealing

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                He included strikeouts per nine and walks per nine.

                                Hits per nine and WHIP aren't "DIPS elements," since DIPS (defense independant pitching stats) doesn't believe most pitchers have a large effect on controlling batting average on balls in play (BABIP). The extreme form of DIPS claims pitchers really only have control over walks, strikeouts and homers and the fate of balls put in play is mostly up to the fielders and fortune.

                                Of course, examinations of DIPS theory has determined that pitchers with extreme movement can exhibit better control over BABIP. Both Gooden and, of course, Koufax had great movement in their curveballs...so it would be interesting to see if they had control over their BABIP (compared to, say, teammates who had the same home park and defense) from year to year. If so, hits and WHIP would be more telling.
                                "In the end it all comes down to talent. You can talk all you want about intangibles, I just don't know what that means. Talent makes winners, not intangibles. Can nice guys win? Sure, nice guys can win - if they're nice guys with a lot of talent. Nice guys with a little talent finish fourth and nice guys with no talent finish last." --Sandy Koufax

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X