Who was more DOMINANT than Orel Hershier in 1988 from start to finish?

[JoshMN]

Originally Posted by ReggieBush22

LOL.

You're so biased.

He would win the Cy Young in most years.

23-8, 2.26 ERA, 15 CG, 8 SO, 267 IP

He led the league in all those categories sans ERA, which he missed out by just .08 (Magrane 2.18)

Plus the absolute cherry on top being his 59 IP scoreless streak.

Another way to look at it is that Hershiser had a 59 IP scoreless streak and STILL didn't lead the league in ERA or ERA+! That seems pretty hard to do unless the rest of the innings were not so dominant.

I think this thread works a lot better if we limit the conversation to 1988. You still have a pretty good argument that Hershiser was most dominant in 1988.

[johnlocke36]

Originally Posted by JoshMN

Another way to look at it is that Hershiser had a 59 IP scoreless streak and STILL didn't lead the league in ERA or ERA+! That seems pretty hard to do unless the rest of the innings were not so dominant.

I think this thread works a lot better if we limit the conversation to 1988. You still have a pretty good argument that Hershiser was most dominant in 1988.

Give me David cone

[oldgoldy97]

Do people on the West coast know if you go east you don’t drop off into nothingness?

[eye4talent]

It’s been so long since the Hershiser season, I had forgotten (or wasn’t old enough to appreciate and remember) just how amazing that 59-inning streak was.

That was how he finished the season—with the 59-inning scoreless streak. And while he led the league in CG (tied) and shutouts, he also didn’t get credit in those categories for the 10 innings of shutout ball he tossed in his last regular-season start on Sept. 28, because the game went 16 innings. So, effectively, he finished the season throwing six straight shutouts, including a 10-inning effort.

Hard to imagine too many seasons in which that streak wouldn’t win the Cy Young. (Unless he’d had an 8.00 ERA in the rest of his starts.)

And then he blew through the postseason, shutting down a 100-win Mets team and a heavily favored, 104-win A’s team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by ReggieBush22

His regular season was elite but nothing bordering on all-time stuff (18-10, 2.98 ERA, 4th in CY Young voting).

But his 2014 playoff run might very well be the GOAT run. 1st all time in IP for a postseason with 52.2. Orel had 42.2 in 1988. However, Orel didn't play a WC game or the divisional series. If you ONLY count NLCS and WS, Madison is at 36.2 while Orel is at 42.2. So at least the final 2 series, Orel carried a heavier load. Both won NLCS and WS MVPs.

That's because the '88 NLCS went the full 7 games -- the 2014 NLCS went only 5 games. Orel started 3 games and got a one-out save in game 4; Bumgarner started only 2 games.

Edit: The 88 World Series went 5 games and the 2014 World Series went 7, so I guess it's a fair comparison.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

Do people on the West coast know if you go east you don’t drop off into nothingness?

Yeah, we know the Dodgers and Giants played in NY before moving west.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by johnlocke36

Give me David cone

[johnlocke36]

As impressive as the streak was, and don’t get me wrong it was very impressive I feel that people are a little to focused on short term luck rather the pure dominance. For example compare these 2 stretches of starts:

1. 64. IP 32 hits 10 BB, 0 runs 40k
2. 72 IP 27 hits 10 BB, 4 runs 117 K

One is completely revered by all, the other is mostly ignored despite being magnitudes more impressive

[eye4talent]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

Do people on the West coast know if you go east you don’t drop off into nothingness?

Oh, the irony, in a world of East Coast bias, we west coasters are accused of ignoring the eastern region.

Resume regular programming: Yankees, Yankees, Red Sox, Yankees, Mets, Phillies, Yankees, Red Sox…Oh, aren’t the Cubs cute! … Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Yankees… Wait, what happened between 2010-2014? I don’t remember… Yankees, Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Phillies….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[BonVoyage]

Originally Posted by JoshMN

Another way to look at it is that Hershiser had a 59 IP scoreless streak and STILL didn't lead the league in ERA or ERA+! That seems pretty hard to do unless the rest of the innings were not so dominant.

I think this thread works a lot better if we limit the conversation to 1988. You still have a pretty good argument that Hershiser was most dominant in 1988.

I'm sure I'll be accused of cherry-picking, but if you exclude the 59inn streak Orel's era was 2.899 in a year when the avg era was 3.72 (so his era+ in this hypothetical would've been 128, a little above average).

Its also worth noting while his 15cg and 8sho were impressive, he tied with others for the league lead in BOTH of those. Pitchers pitched longer back then.

[JoshMN]

Originally Posted by BonVoyage

I'm sure I'll be accused of cherry-picking, but if you exclude the 59inn streak Orel's era was 2.899 in a year when the avg era was 3.72 (so his era+ in this hypothetical would've been 128, a little above average).

Its also worth noting while his 15cg and 8sho were impressive, he tied with others for the league lead in BOTH of those. Pitchers pitched longer back then.

Not saying he didn't have a good year, but his regular season ERA+ for 1988 does not even rank in the top 500 of all time. In the end, we have to stick with the facts. The scoreless inning streak is a nice story, but asking if this was the most DOMINANT season of all time is a clown question.

[88horsepower]

One of the things people may want to note about Orel's 1988 season is that he carried that team during the postseason. Without his dominance, there's no way the A's lose that series.

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by BonVoyage

I'm sure I'll be accused of cherry-picking, but if you exclude the 59inn streak Orel's era was 2.899 in a year when the avg era was 3.72 (so his era+ in this hypothetical would've been 128, a little above average).

Its also worth noting while his 15cg and 8sho were impressive, he tied with others for the league lead in BOTH of those. Pitchers pitched longer back then.

Taking away his best 59 inning streak without taking away his worst 59 inning streak isn't fair to Orel or the argument. It's like saying a supermodel isn't all that hot because if you take away her boobs she isn't all that better than average. Well, yeah.

But yes, this is someone with LA in their profile asking if Orel was the most dominant, and yeah, it's either a serious homer crisis - or we have an IT emergency and someone needs to rush to his computer to see why he can't access Google. That's ok. Orel and his run should be celebrated and remembered and cheered on, including by fans like this. It's not a bad thing, which is why I didn't bother replying until I saw this message.

for Orel though, on August 16th he got shelled by the Giants and ended up 16-7 with a 3.06 ERA. The Dodgers were up only 2.5 over the Astros.

Houston only played 2.5 games worse the rest of the season.

During that rest of the season, Orel went 7-1 with a 0.44 ERA in 82 innings. Considering how momentum works and such, it's not hard to see how a merely good Orel, let alone a bad Orel like hw was against the Giants could have turned the season entirely.

Then consider his 42.2 innings of 5 Earned runs in leading his team to victory on the biggest stage - one that, mind you, included playing the superior Mets in the NLCS where he threw 7 innings of 2 ER in game 3, came back the next day to get the last out for the save in the 12th inning of game 4, then 3 days later pitched a complete game shutout over the Mets in game 7, we have a stretch run that looks like this:

124.2 Innings 0.65 ERA Where they went from 2.5 up in the division to winning the division by 5, even though the Astros surged themselves. Finishing the year with 95 wins, and then beating a 100, and 104 win teams to win the World Series.

That's certainly at a minimum in the running for the most impactful stretch run in history.

[Chris Lyle]

Originally Posted by johnlocke36

Would you agree that we can prob easily name 30+ seasons where Orel doesn’t win the cy young. All I’m saying is if his regular season doesn’t rank In the top 30 individual seasons for modern baseball then it’s fairly absurd to even talk about it being the best of all time, even with his excellent post season factored in.

I guess I don't get what that has to do with the discussion, does it really matter that in 30 seasons in different era's of baseball he may or may not have won the cy young. We have no idea, that is my point. I'm not sure if that is a direct correlation.

For the record why does someone bringing up something as just a topic of discussion have to be absurd to you??

[fungi2510]

Originally Posted by JoshMN

On a side note, I've always wondered whether Orel has a brother named "Anel". Can anyone confirm one way or the other?

Am I just too old to find this funny anymore?

[Mj4au]

Originally Posted by rms13

I'm old enough that I clearly remember watching him in 88. He was great that season but I have trouble calling someone dominant when they had 6k/9ip. I'd refer to him as crafty like Maddux was. Most dominant I've seen in my life was definitely Pedro 1999. 23-4, 2.07 era, 13.2 k/9ip. 2-0 in post season, 17 ip, 23 k, 0 ER. Struck out 5 in 2 ip in the All Star game Larry Walker, Sosa, McGwire, Bagwell and Larkin.

Pedro was an alien. Absolutely one of the most dominant pitchers. He's one of those great players with very little "hobby" respect

[JoshMN]

Originally Posted by fungi2510

Am I just too old to find this funny anymore?

Probably, but you still seem like a "fun guy" nonetheless. I guess you are happy I didn't continue on to the sister/vaginel joke.

[JoshMN]

Originally Posted by Mj4au

Pedro was an alien. Absolutely one of the most dominant pitchers. He's one of those great players with very little "hobby" respect

Yeah- I guess I understand the youngsters not knowing about Bob Gibson or Sandy Koufax, but hard to believe anyone is making the case that Hershiser in '88 was more dominant than Pedro in '99 "from start to finish".

[Mj4au]

Originally Posted by JoshMN

Yeah- I guess I understand the youngsters not knowing about Bob Gibson or Sandy Koufax, but hard to believe anyone is making the case that Hershiser in '88 was more dominant than Pedro in '99 "from start to finish".

I'm not touching this argument...I'm on the bigger, stronger, side of today's athletes vs Gibson/Koufax (sorry, not sorry) and Pedro DOMINATED during the steroid era. Agree to disagree?

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by Mj4au

I'm not touching this argument...I'm on the bigger, stronger, side of today's athletes vs Gibson/Koufax (sorry, not sorry) and Pedro DOMINATED during the steroid era. Agree to disagree?

Dominance over your peers has nothing to do with how much bigger and stronger and better you might think todays players are.

[Mj4au]

Originally Posted by Silent George

Dominance over your peers has nothing to do with how much bigger and stronger and better you might think todays players are.

cool - good story. Sure it does pre-$...you are taking the top 1% of a crap ERA vs a 99% that would be in single A today.

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by Mj4au

cool - good story. Sure it does pre-$...you are taking the top 1% of a crap ERA vs a 99% that would be in single A today.

Dominance requires you to play your peers. It's like saying Alexander the Great wasn't one of the most dominant war leaders in history because he wasn't fighting against armies as good as they are today, and we could totally nuke his ass now.

And the phrase "pre-$" - MLB level (or the professional equivalent in the years before the major leagues) players have been paid significantly more than the average person since day 1. Baseball has never lacked top tier talent because they didn't pay enough.

Someone who writes off 99% of players in the late 60s would be single-A today, well, I'm guessing neither of the two prior paragraphs will begin to sway you, and all conversation past, present, and future, is worthless. Have a good one.

[rms13]

Originally Posted by Mj4au

I'm not touching this argument...I'm on the bigger, stronger, side of today's athletes vs Gibson/Koufax (sorry, not sorry) and Pedro DOMINATED during the steroid era. Agree to disagree?

Pedro dominated against juiced up players and Gibson dominated with the higher mound


If you want to talk era Pedro's 2000 season is the best adjusted era of all time and Gibson's 1968 is 6th

https://www.mlb.com/cut4/why-was-the...68/c-158689966

Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk

[sc29650]

Originally Posted by Mattsurewood

Bob Gibson 1968

1.12 ERA
304 IP/34 starts (8.94 IP per start)
.853 WHIP
268Ks
13 Shutouts
22-9 record
ERA+ 258
11.2 WAR


2-1 in the world series, all 3 games Complete Games...1.67 ERA, 35ks and a .815 WHIP

This. Settled

[rms13]

Originally Posted by sc29650

This. Settled

On higher mound in a season where 7 starters had era under 2.00 and batting tittle was won by guy hitting .301 and 7 teams had batting average under .230

https://www.mlb.com/cut4/why-w...nd-...68/c-158689966




Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk