If you believe in the Payton Manning rule; championships won for quarterbacks or in the case of baseball, championship game won lose record for pitchers. Mathewson is 5-5. After going 3-0 in 1905, went 2-5 the next 3 seasons he pitched in the World Series losing the deciding game I believe twice.
Just messing with you bbo. I too love Matty. His ERA was 0.97 in World Series play and was the bad luck loser in more than one of those games. He was on the mound for "Snodgrass's Muff".
I know this only because last night I watched the 1920's of Ken Burns baseball documentary. Love watching it. Kinda makes me want to start collecting pre war.
Registered: 02/07/06
Posts: 3065
Loc: Top of the 1959 Registry
Offline
Didn't say he was the best pitcher ever. I said he was the best Giants pitcher ever. If you can find me a better one, I will stand corrected.
Huge difference in football QB and baseball pitcher. QBs control the offense, pitchers do not. QBs play every game. (Starting) pitchers every 3rd-5th game.
Oh, and it's the Tom Brady rule, not the Peyton Manning rule.
Think the 2nd best Giant pitcher would have to be Juan Marichal and he has always been completly under-rated. He just happened to run up against Koufax and Gibson during there primes.
Registered: 02/07/06
Posts: 3065
Loc: Top of the 1959 Registry
Offline
Tim Keefe was pretty good, but only played about half his career with the Giants. Carl Hubbell wasn't bad either. In the 1934 All-Star game, Hubbell set a record by striking out five future Hall of Famers in succession: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Al Simmons and Joe Cronin.
I liked Marichal until he took a bat to the head of John Roseboro. I'd have to put Hubbell ahead of Marichal. Not sure about Keefe. Marichal and he are 3/4 or 4/3.
Dont know why Hubbell escaped my mind, he did pitch during an offensive era to while Marichal threw in the 60's. I know Keefe has the statistics but he pitched in a completly differnt time. Think you could argue for Hubbell or Marichal as number 2.
Since you brought it up; there is a huge difference between quarterback and a pitcher. A pitcher controls only the defensive side of the game and therefore in most cases the opposing team can not score unless the pitcher gives up the runs. So you can say he more or less controls his own destiny. (unless you're Harvey Haddix) I agree a pitcher who takes the mound every 3-5 days can only control the games he starts but you do get an idea of whether or not he comes up big in the big game which is basically what the “Tom Brady rule” is. Unfortunately Christy Mathewson more often than not didn’t pitch well enough to win in the big game and when he did, his team won.
Do you think a pitcher has more control over a game than a quarterback?
Registered: 02/07/06
Posts: 3065
Loc: Top of the 1959 Registry
Offline
No. A QB can control both his offense and the other team's defense (keep them from scoring with conservative play, stay on the field with long, time-consuming drives, ala Brady and Schaub), and to a certain extent control his own defense by keeping them rested on the bench. A pitcher has virtually no control over his offense (in the AL) and only Don Drysdale-types and Mike Hampton-types in the NL exert any control over offense.
Still, we're talking about two very different games here. How fun would it be if baseball were a timed sport and football only gave 27 snaps to each side and the game was over? (Not as fun, IMO.)