Greatness and Longevity

[LouGehrig]

Greatness and longevity are not correlated, although some great pitchers had long careers (see Mathewson and Johnson), as did some mediocre pitchers (Bobo Newsome, Terry Mulholland).

Sandy Koufax, in 1966, was one of the greatest, if not the greatest pitcher to ever pitch.

Dwight Gooden, in 1985, was one of the greatest, if not the greatest pitcher to ever pitch.

One can pick between the two.

Don Sutton, from 1966 to about 1982, was an outstanding pitcher whose ability didn't approach that of Koufax or Gooden.

Greatness is defined as:
"Remarkable or outstanding in magnitude, degree, or extent."

In 1965, Koufax was remarkable.
In 1985, Gooden was remarkable.
From 1966 to about 1982, Sutton was not remarkable.

The fact that Sutton had a long career is NOT REMARKABLE.

Few had the talent of Mario Lanza. The fact that he had a short career takes away nothing from his talent.

Those who saw Koufax in 1965 or 1966 saw greatness.
Those who saw Gooden in 1985 saw greatness.
Those who saw Sutton saw a fine, smart, talented pitcher.

[SABR Matt]

Greatness and longevity are not (I agree) EXCLUSIVELY correlated...

I think though that you and I part ways when you say it is not remarkable for a player to be consistantly above average for a long time.

Do you have any comprehension for how hard it is to be above average consistantly for a long time? How RARE it is for a player to last 15 or 20 years and accumulate enough value in that time to turn heads? How relatively FAR MORE FREQUENT are the bursts of greatness roughly of the same magnitude as those produced by Doc Gooden and Sandy Koufax? It is historically more common for a player to be extremely great over short periods than it is for them to be good for long timespans...and I think most organizations would rather have a player who was good for a long time over a player who was great for a brief time and nonexistant thereafter.

Greatness...the way I define it...is an amalgomation of peak dominance, longevity, and efficiency because all of those commodities are remarkable, rare, and important to the building of championship calibar teams.

[SABR Matt]

To put some rough figures on this debate...

How frequently have players stuck around for a long time and been consistently good?

Well in the history of the game there've been maybe 90 or 100 players with more than 15 big league seasons...that's a good rough indicator of how often we see long-career players.

How often do we see true greatness on the short timescale described by LG.

Think about this...in every league, in EVERY season, there are usually 5-10 players who are legitimately great, who have legitimately eye-popping great seasons that raise the "buzz"...every single years...every single league.

I would guess that there have been something like 500 or even 750 short-duration bursts of greatness in the history of the game including the bursts of greatness that occurred within longer careers.

Whether you prefer to think of it in this way is up to you...but to me..it's a lot harder to be good for a long time than it is to be legitimately awsome for a few years.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

How frequently have players stuck around for a long time and been consistently good?

Just look at the list of 3,000 hit members who compiled enough PA's to get there. That's not impressive to me. Being good is wonderful, and staying healthy is wonderful. Being truly great though, is indeed rare. I'm not talking for one or two seasons, I'm talking 6 truly great seasons with 9 average to good seasons, is far more impressive to me, than 15 good to very good seasons.

[ElHalo]

Greatness and longevity are not (I agree) EXCLUSIVELY correlated...

I think though that you and I part ways when you say it is not remarkable for a player to be consistantly above average for a long time.

Do you have any comprehension for how hard it is to be above average consistantly for a long time? How RARE it is for a player to last 15 or 20 years and accumulate enough value in that time to turn heads? How relatively FAR MORE FREQUENT are the bursts of greatness roughly of the same magnitude as those produced by Doc Gooden and Sandy Koufax?

Just because it's rarer doesn't necessarily mean it's more valuable. Compare two guys. Guy A is a 110 pitcher every year for 18 years. Guy B is a 220 pitcher for two years, and then retires.

Now, yes, it's true, that, numerically, far fewer people have Guy A's career than Guy B's career. However, Guy A is much, much more replacable than Guy B. If you don't get Guy A, you can go and get a string of five Guy C's who can spend three years as 110 pitchers and have the exact same value to your team. How do you replace Guy B? You can't get an endless string of guys who throw one one-run game and then dissappear.

Having a guy you can depend on to be above average year after year is certainly a good thing. However, you can always go out and get a bunch of guys who can be above average for a little while to replace him, and be just as well off. How are you going to get equal value for Gooden's 85 season?

[LouGehrig]

How RARE it is for a player to last 15 or 20 years and accumulate enough value in that time to turn heads? How relatively FAR MORE FREQUENT are the bursts of greatness roughly of the same magnitude as those produced by Doc Gooden and Sandy Koufax?

OK. YOU name pitchers with the ability of Koufax in 1965-66 and Gooden in 1985 (I do NOT mean a great year. I mean DOMINATING talent, such as Pedro for a while and Johnson for a while), and I'll name top pitchers who lasted a long time (such as Jenkins, Perry, Wynn, Ford, etc.).

[RuthMayBond]

Just because it's rarer doesn't necessarily mean it's more valuable. Compare two guys. Guy A is a 110 pitcher every year for 18 years. Guy B is a 220 pitcher for two years, and then retires.

Now, yes, it's true, that, numerically, far fewer people have Guy A's career than Guy B's career.

Wrong (see below)

How do you replace Guy B? You can't get an endless string of guys who throw one one-run game and then dissappear.[/QUOTE]You can't get Guy B because that career doesn't exist (and you just said far FEWER have A then B so wouldn't A be HARDER to replace?)

[LouGehrig]

Think about this...in every league, in EVERY season, there are usually 5-10 players who are legitimately great, who have legitimately eye-popping great seasons that raise the "buzz"...every single years...every single league.

I am NOT referring to short bursts of greatness. I am talking about incredible talent.

Randy Jones had a great year---for Randy Jones.
Ron Bryant had a great year---for Ron Bryant.

In contrast, Mark Fidrych had a great year---which was his career. We will never know how good (or not good) he would have been (Hello, Brien Taylor).

All players have a "best" season. Whitey Ford's best season was produced by a number of factors. He was no better or worse in 1961 than he was in 1963 or 1956, yet the variables involved produced different results. Ford had no more talent in 1956 than he did in 1961 or 1963.

He may have become wiser and more crafty, but his physical ability and the "stuff" on his pitches (forget Elston Howard's belt buckle) was about the same.

David Wells' is the same pitcher every season. He has had a couple of great seasons.

Merely (and this is not used in a pejorative sense) lasting a long time means that one is great at lasting a long time. Terry Mullholland is an excellent example of a decent pitcher who survives.

Tom Glavine is a good example. He is similar to Sutton in that he is a fine, solid pitcher. His talent doesn't approach that of Koufax or Gooden.

[LouGehrig]

Just look at the list of 3,000 hit members who compiled enough PA's to get there. That's not impressive to me. Being good is wonderful, and staying healthy is wonderful. Being truly great though, is indeed rare. I'm not talking for one or two seasons, I'm talking 6 truly great seasons with 9 average to good seasons, is far more impressive to me, than 15 good to very good seasons.

For me too.

[jalbright]

I am NOT referring to short bursts of greatness. I am talking about incredible talent.

Randy Jones had a great year---for Randy Jones.
Ron Bryant had a great year---for Ron Bryant.

In contrast, Mark Fidrych had a great year---which was his career. We will never know how good (or not good) he would have been (Hello, Brien Taylor).

All players have a "best" season. Whitey Ford's best season was produced by a number of factors. He was no better or worse in 1961 than he was in 1963 or 1956, yet the variables involved produced different results. Ford had no more talent in 1956 than he did in 1961 or 1963.

He may have become wiser and more crafty, but his physical ability and the "stuff" on his pitches (forget Elston Howard's belt buckle) was about the same.

David Wells' is the same pitcher every season. He has had a couple of great seasons.

Merely (and this is not used in a pejorative sense) lasting a long time means that one is great at lasting a long time. Terry Mullholland is an excellent example of a decent pitcher who survives.

Tom Glavine is a good example. He is similar to Sutton in that he is a fine, solid pitcher. His talent doesn't approach that of Koufax or Gooden.

But which player would you rather have all of his career--Gooden or Glavine? Part of greatness to my mind is the ability to replicate the performance. I realize pitchers are less able to replicate performance because so many have arm trouble. That's why we tend to evaluate them more on peak performance. Exactly how much value we give to consistent all-star type performance over even more eye-popping displays over a shorter period is subjective--but you can't totally ignore long term consistently high level play. Terry Mulholland wasn't consistently at such a high level and doesn't belong. Whether or not Tommy John was at such a level is open to debate--but Sutton was at that level for a phenomenal period. He deserves to be recognized for that, especially since that consistent high level of play resulted in a significant number of real wins for his teams.

Jim Albright

[Pghfan987]

Just because it's rarer doesn't necessarily mean it's more valuable. Compare two guys. Guy A is a 110 pitcher every year for 18 years. Guy B is a 220 pitcher for two years, and then retires.

Now, yes, it's true, that, numerically, far fewer people have Guy A's career than Guy B's career. However, Guy A is much, much more replacable than Guy B. If you don't get Guy A, you can go and get a string of five Guy C's who can spend three years as 110 pitchers and have the exact same value to your team. How do you replace Guy B? You can't get an endless string of guys who throw one one-run game and then dissappear.

Having a guy you can depend on to be above average year after year is certainly a good thing. However, you can always go out and get a bunch of guys who can be above average for a little while to replace him, and be just as well off. How are you going to get equal value for Gooden's 85 season?

Oh man, I hate to say it, but I agree with the Yankee guy for the second time this week. Koufax's GREATNESS gave the Dodgers two World Series rings and 3 pennants in four years. Sure, they had Drydale, too. But without Koufax, that team would not have made the playoffs.

You just can't say the same for a lot of the other "great" pitchers whos best attribute is longevity. The ultimate goal of the team is to win the big one. I am sure that Dodgers fans would prefer the flash of greatness and 3 WS rings (if you include the one earlier in Koufax's career) than Koufax pitching for 15 very good years with no ring.

A Koufax gives you a ring. A Sutton gives you a long stat sheet.

Mark

[LouGehrig]

But which player would you rather have all of his career--Gooden or Glavine? Part of greatness to my mind is the ability to replicate the performance. I realize pitchers are less able to replicate performance because so many have arm trouble. That's why we tend to evaluate them more on peak performance. Exactly how much value we give to consistent all-star type performance over even more eye-popping displays over a shorter period is subjective--but you can't totally ignore long term consistently high level play. Terry Mulholland wasn't consistently at such a high level and doesn't belong. Whether or not Tommy John was at such a level is open to debate--but Sutton was at that level for a phenomenal period. He deserves to be recognized for that, especially since that consistent high level of play resulted in a significant number of real wins for his teams.

Jim Albright

I agree with you and am not discussing under what conditions whom I would rather have. My premise is that Koufax and Gooden were greater pitchers than almost any others, even though it was for a brief period.

[SABR Matt]

When I talk about bursts of greatness...I'm not talking about relative greatness compared to the rest of a player's career...I'm talking about GREATNESS...I'm talking about 54 HRs from Pujols greatness...I'm talking about Curt Schilling winning 20+ games and dominating the league for three years greatness. I'm talking about Hal Newhouser being worth more than the three pitchers below him COMBINED in one of his greatest seasons greatness. I'm talking about Alan Trammell finding a huge offensive burst in the middle of his career greatness...

The kind of burst you saw from Sandy Koufax is heralded as something truly unique, but there are many MANY examples of similar explosions of performance of short periods of time (note...not all of the cases I listed above are comparable to Koufax...so don't spend the next 20 minutes freaking out and telling me that I shouldn't compare Trammel to Koufax...because I'm not...I'm just defining terms for you).

Hell King Felix Hernandez has ALREADY had a short burst of greatness...it might be the start of a great career, but every year there are 4 or 5 new young future hall of famers (of which probably 1 or 2 actually make the HOF)....who produce an explosive year or three (Zito, Barry)...it happens all of the time...right in front of your danged eyes...it's not so ludicrously rare that it should be given extra weight.

[leecemark]

--I think Sutton's career would meet the "remarkable in extent" part of the definition of greatness. Being amoung the best pitchers in the league for 20 years is a rarer achievement than being the best for a year or three. Koufax's run of domination was long enough that I would agree he was "greater" than Sutton. The same is not true of Gooden.
--Somebody like Terry Mulholland is not comparable to Sutton. Don Sutton was the number 1 or 2 guy in the rotation of contending teams most of his career. Mullholland was never that in any season. It is commendable that he has had the determination and adaptablilty to keep finding a job for himself in the majors, but most of those jobs have been back of the bullpen/spot starter for teams that were desparate for a guy with experience and/or who throws with his left hand (in the latter half of his career at least). Mr Mullholland was been in the league for 19 years and is well short of half way to 300 wins (124). If he somehow hangs around for 19 more he will still probably be less than half way there.
--Nobody wins 300 games or gets 3,000 hits without being good for a very long time and they had to be very good/great for a good chunk of that time. Its not like they were just slightly above average and yet managed to be in the lineup or rotation for two decades.

[DoubleX]

Why is Sutton being singled out here? I really don't think his career and longevity was any more remarkable than Early Wynn, Tommy John, and Jim Kaat, and was less remarkable than Nolan Ryan, Steve Carlton, Gaylord Perry, Phil Niekro and Bert Blyleven. Sutton was an above average pitcher who hung on for a while and had some great team support for several years. He only had about two, maybe three year stretch that approached anything that could be called a semblance of greatness or dominance.