A couple of days ago I advocated on Gaylord’s behalf in response to Mark Kolier’s post about the Giants all-time starting five rotation. I have always thought Gaylord’s reputation suffered—if you can even say that about a hall of famer—as much because the Giants couldn’t quite get over the hump when he was there as because of his reputation for playing fast and loose with the rules. If the Giants had won a couple of World Series title instead of finishing second with 95 or so wins, I believe Gaylord would be held in higher esteem. America loves a champion. Furthermore, it seems like a not insignificant percentage of players in all professional sports take some liberties, and drawing lines can be a little arbitrary. (Is throwing the occasional doctored ball worse than a basketball flop?) That Gaylord threw spitters isn’t something I am just learning of, but I have to admit, when the vagaries of his misdeeds are made more concrete like this, I find myself leaning some in the other direction about his spot in the pecking order. What if you discount Gaylord’s accomplishments by some smallish percentage for his misdemeanors? Does that bump him off the list in the event of a close call?
Mark’s stuff is great. Your stuff is great too. I know you read each other’s great stuff. Curious how you each factor that into the equation.
Thanks Brent, love hearing your thoughts on this. The lens of evaluation is important here. I am often looking at players as characters and their careers as a source of narrative. With this lens on, Gaylord Perry is #1.
More generally I agree he suffers from a lack of exclamation-point moments in the postseason, and the fact that he played for eight different teams helped fragment his reputation. In later years Perry would wear a custom jersey showing all of these teams and that was telling.
It may be a polarizing comparison, but I think Perry is on the same continuum as Barry Bonds. Bonds, many argue, was so talented he was pretty much going to the Hall of Fame whether he used steroids or not. Perry was a very gutsy, smart, accomplished pitcher, and if he hadn't been all of those things no amount of K-Y would have gotten him to 300 wins. And doctoring the ball as he did took enormous effort and skill.
I was also chirping in Mark's comments after he published that Giants list without Gaylord, and I hope he'll chime in here sometime as he'll bring a more analytical perspective (others are welcome to do the same!) At the end of the day Perry is such a unique Hall-of-Famer. He's a slippery character, defying easy comparison.
Great post Paul! It's been on my mind for over a week that I had Gaylord behind some of the honorable mentions which is not right since I'd rank him above Cain, Lincecum, Mad-Bum and maybe Maglie too. My bad omitting him from the honorable mention list! But I do still land on Gaylord being outside the top five. I think I also am biased a bit against Gaylord for his "Me and the Spitter" autobiography. PED guys get bounced but a guy who admitted he broke the rules for years is ok. And it's not that I feel Gaylord shouldn't be a HOFer!
I can live with that--Giants have an amazing list. Mathewson, Marichal, Hubbell, and so on. "Me and the Spitter" is such a strange cultural artifact. I've read snippets but not the whole thing yet. Coming as it did in the middle of his career it seems more like a stunt than anything else. It's been interesting reading some of the commentary around Perry's induction. It made a lot of people feel icky, but not enough to stridently argue he should be kept out. It's an interesting comp as some of the PED players move into Committee discussion.
Brilliant piece on Perry's psychological warfare. The detail about Phillips finding his own fingerprint ingrease is wild because it shows how even the enforcers became complicit in the spectacle. I remember watching pitchers in the 80s and the mind games were half the battle, kinda like how batters would work theumpire before challenging the pitcher. Perry basically turned rule-breaking into performance art and made everyone part of the show.
A couple of days ago I advocated on Gaylord’s behalf in response to Mark Kolier’s post about the Giants all-time starting five rotation. I have always thought Gaylord’s reputation suffered—if you can even say that about a hall of famer—as much because the Giants couldn’t quite get over the hump when he was there as because of his reputation for playing fast and loose with the rules. If the Giants had won a couple of World Series title instead of finishing second with 95 or so wins, I believe Gaylord would be held in higher esteem. America loves a champion. Furthermore, it seems like a not insignificant percentage of players in all professional sports take some liberties, and drawing lines can be a little arbitrary. (Is throwing the occasional doctored ball worse than a basketball flop?) That Gaylord threw spitters isn’t something I am just learning of, but I have to admit, when the vagaries of his misdeeds are made more concrete like this, I find myself leaning some in the other direction about his spot in the pecking order. What if you discount Gaylord’s accomplishments by some smallish percentage for his misdemeanors? Does that bump him off the list in the event of a close call?
Mark’s stuff is great. Your stuff is great too. I know you read each other’s great stuff. Curious how you each factor that into the equation.
Thanks Brent, love hearing your thoughts on this. The lens of evaluation is important here. I am often looking at players as characters and their careers as a source of narrative. With this lens on, Gaylord Perry is #1.
More generally I agree he suffers from a lack of exclamation-point moments in the postseason, and the fact that he played for eight different teams helped fragment his reputation. In later years Perry would wear a custom jersey showing all of these teams and that was telling.
It may be a polarizing comparison, but I think Perry is on the same continuum as Barry Bonds. Bonds, many argue, was so talented he was pretty much going to the Hall of Fame whether he used steroids or not. Perry was a very gutsy, smart, accomplished pitcher, and if he hadn't been all of those things no amount of K-Y would have gotten him to 300 wins. And doctoring the ball as he did took enormous effort and skill.
I was also chirping in Mark's comments after he published that Giants list without Gaylord, and I hope he'll chime in here sometime as he'll bring a more analytical perspective (others are welcome to do the same!) At the end of the day Perry is such a unique Hall-of-Famer. He's a slippery character, defying easy comparison.
Great post Paul! It's been on my mind for over a week that I had Gaylord behind some of the honorable mentions which is not right since I'd rank him above Cain, Lincecum, Mad-Bum and maybe Maglie too. My bad omitting him from the honorable mention list! But I do still land on Gaylord being outside the top five. I think I also am biased a bit against Gaylord for his "Me and the Spitter" autobiography. PED guys get bounced but a guy who admitted he broke the rules for years is ok. And it's not that I feel Gaylord shouldn't be a HOFer!
I can live with that--Giants have an amazing list. Mathewson, Marichal, Hubbell, and so on. "Me and the Spitter" is such a strange cultural artifact. I've read snippets but not the whole thing yet. Coming as it did in the middle of his career it seems more like a stunt than anything else. It's been interesting reading some of the commentary around Perry's induction. It made a lot of people feel icky, but not enough to stridently argue he should be kept out. It's an interesting comp as some of the PED players move into Committee discussion.
More like a slippery elm character, maybe?
I'm not sure how many people are going to see what you did there, but those who do will appreciate it!
Thanks Brent! Replied to Paul below. I feel you.
Paul, did you earn a degree in writing cliff hangers??? AAAAH!
This is just great! I can't wait for part 2!
Thanks John! What's a good cliffhanger without a teaser: In Part 2 our (anti)hero takes a polygraph test on television.
Brilliant piece on Perry's psychological warfare. The detail about Phillips finding his own fingerprint ingrease is wild because it shows how even the enforcers became complicit in the spectacle. I remember watching pitchers in the 80s and the mind games were half the battle, kinda like how batters would work theumpire before challenging the pitcher. Perry basically turned rule-breaking into performance art and made everyone part of the show.