Dave Duncan and the HOF
This blurb in the NY Times caught my eye and got me thinking about coaches and the hall of fame, and Dave Duncan and the Hall of Fame particularly. The Times compared a recent HOF inductee as a manager to TLR and Bobby Cox. Then, they raised the issue of pitching coaches.
"What will make their candidacies interesting is that each has had a large part of his success tied to a single pitching coach — Dave Duncan for La Russa and Leo Mazzone for Cox. If La Russa or Cox is eventually inducted, it will raise the question over why their coaches, or any coaches, have not been elected to the Hall of Fame.
"Mazzone’s stock in the eyes of the baseball world has fallen some since his failed stint coaching for the Orioles, but Duncan is once again being recognized as the pitching coach who can revitalize a struggling career.
"Among his many success stories are the drastic turnarounds of Dave Stewart, Bob Welch, Chris Carpenter and Darryl Kile. That has continued this season with the progress of Braden Looper and the emergence of Kyle Lohse as a quality starting pitcher.
"Before working with Duncan, Lohse had a career record of 63-74 with a 4.82 E.R.A. By reducing the number of base runners he has allowed, Lohse has lowered his E.R.A. to 3.35. His record is 12-2 entering Sunday’s scheduled start.
"There is currently no provision for a coach to be elected to the Hall, but there is a decent argument that without Duncan, La Russa would probably not be going, either."
What do you all think? Should coaches be allowed in the HOF? If so, should Duncan? Who are the pitchers he has turned around most dramatically? I can't personally think of a man who presents a better case for allowing coaches into the HOF.
0 recs |
25
comments
Comments
yeah, D. Dunc should definitely be in the Hall
I mean, the man has turned around an uncountable number of players’ careers. For example, if it were not for Duncan being able to make Kent Bottenfield an 18 game winner in 1999, a player who had never won more than 4 games and had been in the rotation for 1 year before, we would never been able to see Jimmy Ballgame in cardinal red.
Look at Carp’s career before he came to the Cardinals for god sakes. He sucked, but once he was able to work with good ol’ Dave, he became one of the best pitchers in all of baseball.
As you mentioned, LaRussa wouldn’t have been nearly as successful throughout his career if it were not for Dunc and his reclamation projects. He still would be a great manager, but maybe not HOF great.
A list of pitchers over the past few years whose careers/seasons were turned around under Duncan: Soup, Dream Weaver, Carp, Lohse, Looper, Woody WIlliams, Hermanson, Tomko, and so on. Without Duncan, the Cardinals of the 2000’s would not have found as much success as they had.
Yes, there was the whole Reyes debacle. And he has also been unsuccessful with Kip Freakin’ Wells, but every coach fails once in a while. If it were up to me, Dunc will get in the hall his first year of eligibility.
The NL Central Blog.com
by dunc4life on Jul 29, 2008 1:24 AM EDT 0 recs
how do you know for sure
if its actually the coach’s abilities. maybe they just get lucky? or they’re just good at picking out pitchers that might be able to turn things around. is that worthy of the hall? there’s no direct way to quantify a pitching coaches success, there are so many variables
Rick Ankiel could throw out Chuck Norris. Easy.
by emrfg8 on Jul 29, 2008 2:01 AM EDT 0 recs
Consistent luck over 20 years is difficult to believe
And isn’t there a pretty deep value to identifying and picking out guys who have a good chance to improve?
Just because there isn’t a direct way to place one single definitive number on something doesn’t mean that that effect isn’t there and can’t be seen. And there are all sorts of numb ers we could use to try to figure these tings out. (at the most naïve level, ERA for Duncan vs. average ERA over the years he coached)
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on
Jul 29, 2008 5:11 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Lucky?
What? I can’t believe you would call Duncan lucky, have you seen his charts? I may not always agree with DD but I am not going to insult him by calling the man lucky. He works his ass off and has obviously had a bunch of success as you don’t coach as long as he has being bad.
I don’t waste time saying the guys he helped or did not help. It’s baseball no one is a 100% successful.
by ICbirdfan on
Jul 29, 2008 5:32 PM EDT
up
0 recs
duncan can try and make his pitchers successful
but it comes down to the actual players performance. no matter how hard he works, the pitchers are the ones executing the game.
you could be a horrible pitching coach but have good pitchers, and the stats would say youre a good pitching coach even if you werent.
Rick Ankiel could throw out Chuck Norris. Easy.
by emrfg8 on
Jul 30, 2008 12:22 PM EDT
up
0 recs
but the issue is largely about finding diamonds in the rough
you can look at pitchers’ improvement under a certain coaching staff. It is impossible to truly be able to assign credit, and to do so definitively, but there is an effect, and there are ways that you could demonstrate that effect beyond just saying ‘I dunno.’
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on
Jul 30, 2008 4:01 PM EDT
up
0 recs
the luck argument
couldn’t you say the same thing about managers as you do coaches? Managers get lucky with the players they have on their rosters?
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on
Jul 29, 2008 7:09 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Er, no...
IMHO, he’s far more failures than successes. And many of his successes were short term at best.
For instance, Weaver. He was horrible in the regular season for the most part. But he did good in the playoffs. Is that a success or failure? Reyes pitched well in the playoffs, too.
And some of the pitchers called successes by the above poster were not. Hermanson? He was below average while in St. Louis. Tomko was terrible here.
The only real successes I think you can give him credit for are Woody Williams, Carpenter, and maybe Suppan. (And Carpenter is a maybe, some pitchers come back with more zip on their fastball after surgery, he was one of them)
Andy Benes had a turnaround, but it was done solely himself, by ignoring Duncan’s advice.
by DiscoJer on Jul 29, 2008 2:08 AM EDT 0 recs
Response
I think some of the aura around Duncan is overstated, but he does seem (to me at least) to have a knack for turning around the careers of at least somewhat talented but struggling pitchers.
Weaver’s been bad for several years; his ERA+ during his half season in STL was better than the other half of 2006 as well as 2007, and not much lower than his career ERA+, which is greatly aided by his 2000-2002 numbers.
Why no love for Dave Stewart? He had a few pretty bad years before coming to Oakland and finishing in the top 4 in Cy voting for 4 years in a row.
And why is Suppan just a maybe? I don’t think too many people expected him to come here and have a sub-4.00 ERA over three years with the Cards given his past numbers.
Yeah, Tomko sucked. And if I were you, I would have mentioned Kip Wells. shudder
by BTown Birds fan on
Jul 29, 2008 2:44 AM EDT
up
0 recs
suppan
Is a great example of how Dave gets too much credit.
Before STL suppan had an ERA + of 111, 103, 111, 93, 106
In STL, 103, 119, 108 while pitching with a much better defense.
How is this a success story? Its just a pitcher doing what he always did. Duncan didn’t have anything to do with it.
by DriverZn on
Jul 29, 2008 3:32 AM EDT
up
0 recs
WITH OUT A DOUBT!!!!
DD belongs in the Hall there is no arguement. He is the best pitching coach in 30 years or more.
by nybirdfan on Jul 29, 2008 7:39 AM EDT 0 recs
Team Hall of Fame
I think this is what individual team Halls of Fame are for. And I would be just fine with a Dave Duncan plaque or exhibit in the Cardinals Hall of Fame. Put George Kissel in there too as an instructor! This could almost be a separate post – besides Cardinals in the HOF – who should be in the team HOF? I know Simba would finally get his due!
Actually, I have never been to the Cardinals HOF / Museum. Do they induct players at all – and do they even call it a HOF? And if you’ve been, how was it?
"I always thought he was very handsome. I liked his eyes" - My late Grandmother referring to Rogers Hornsby
by Hoosier Cards on Jul 29, 2008 8:32 AM EDT 0 recs
No. No. No.
Then do we put in fielding coaches? What about bullpen coaches? What about bench coaches? Strength coaches – in that case, wouldn’t LaRussa’s strength and conditioning coach from the A’s merit inclusion?
Agree with Hoosier Cards – team hall of fame, at best.
sounds like the NY Times was trying to fill some inches.
I have discovered in twenty years of moving around a ball park, that the knowledge of the game is usually in inverse proportion to the price of the seats. ~Bill Veeck
by bukowski on Jul 29, 2008 8:49 AM EDT 0 recs
Willie McGee
There are so many solid players with great careers not in the hall of fame (i.e., our own Willie McGee isn’t even top on that list) that it becomes difficult for me to go along with electing pitching coaches into the hall while the Willie McGees of world are on the outside looking in. The problem with a D Duncan candidacy is the difficulty in quantifying exactly his contribution. It becomes much more subjective a deal with pitching coaches.
by jjray on Jul 29, 2008 10:44 AM EDT 0 recs
I loved Willie McGee, but your point doesn't work for me.
The HOF, IMO, deals with excellence. Willie McGee was a very good player. I think it often gets overlooked exactly how good he was. That said, I don’t know that you can clearly say he was one of the top three CF in the game over the course of his career.
I think most people acknowledge that Dave Duncan is considered one of the top three pitching coaches in the game over the course of his career.
I don’t think you are comparing apples to apples in your post.
by etp_stl on
Jul 29, 2008 11:13 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I love Willie as much as the next Cardinal fan...
but a 100 career ops+ doesnt scream HOF to me nor does it whisper it softly. Outside of ‘85 he never had a great year. To compare Mcgee to Duncan would be tough since they are apples and oranges as etp_stl elegantly states below. But I can confindently say Dunc is a top 5 pitching coach and at the very worst top 10. Willie would have a pretty tough time cracking the top 25 as a CF most likely in the 40-50’s range.
It is subjective to put in pitching coaches, as you say. Just as it is for GM, Owners, Managers, Umpires, and Commisioners all of which are in the Hall
"Baseball is like church. Many attend, but few understand." -Wes Westrum
by nomar34 on
Jul 30, 2008 9:41 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Er...
etp_stl states that above…not good with North and South.
"Baseball is like church. Many attend, but few understand." -Wes Westrum
by nomar34 on
Jul 30, 2008 9:42 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Andy Benes, Garret Stephenson, Stottlemeyer, Matty Mo..
These were all pitchers with average talent(save for Morris for a few seasons) who turned in spectacular(Bene’s last half season he was unhittable) or excellent production. Stephenson won 16 games for god’s sake.
Duncan does his best work with veteran players who are willing to adapt. Younger players who can’t/ won’t fail. Marquis, Reyes, etc..
And yeah, there have been some failures. Kip Wells for example, but he has pulled a hell of alot out of nothing too many times to not be considered a top 3 pitching coach.
by bdmcleod on Jul 29, 2008 3:21 PM EDT 0 recs
Andy Benes was a dominant pitcher in San Diego.
Andy Benes would fall into the same category as Morris. He had a few very dominant years as a starting pitcher. He was very good the first time he came to the Cardinals, as well. He credited his rejuvination at the end of his career to Darrell Kile teaching him a new pitch. I’m not criticizing your point about Duncan, but Benes doesn’t belong in the same category with Garrett Stephenson.
by etp_stl on
Jul 29, 2008 11:09 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Dunc = great pitching coach (on balance)...
... but not a HOFer. very few field managers even make it in. opening it up for coaches would just be silly.
by kindred on Jul 29, 2008 3:30 PM EDT 0 recs
agree......
dunc will go down as an all time great and his name should hopefully be mentioned when every TLR’s name is mentioned. However I find it hard to put a pitching coach in the HOF at this time…........
by ICbirdfan on
Jul 29, 2008 5:29 PM EDT
up
0 recs
he is an all time great but doesnt deserve the HOF???
That makes no sense…there are umpires, GM’s, managers, owners, commisioners why not pitching coaches or coaches in general? all owners do is shell out some money. Walter O’malley just got in recently because he wanted to make more money so he moved his team to a new coast and devistated a whole generation of fans. Dunc has had a ton of successes and some failures too but so has every other player or person in the HOF. It is about greatness and Dunc is as great as any pitching coach has been. Case closed, IMO
"Baseball is like church. Many attend, but few understand." -Wes Westrum
by nomar34 on
Jul 30, 2008 9:25 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Is it time to re-evaluate the role of coaching?
Over the last 10-20 years, coaching has become such an important part of all major sports. You could argue that all sports have become over-coached. Knowing that, does that now justify a more prominent role in sharing the accolades of team success for these coaches?
I’m not a proponent of the stranglehold that coaching and statistics have on baseball. It is one of the reasons that I am not a Tony LaRussa fan, as I think he has perpetuated this more than any other manager in baseball. I prefer to see the games decided on the field by the players. That is a pipe-dream, as the game will not return to that. Too many would see that as a regression of the sport. So, if that is the case, then don’t we have to start acknowledging the coaches that play such a major part in the outcomes of the modern games?
I personally think that Leo Mazzone had the good fortune of 3 HOF pitchers coming under his guidance at the same time. I have seen few other great pitchers develop under him. While Duncan has had his share of failures, he has had more than a comparable share of successes. I think he is fairly one-dimensional, and I don’t always agree with him. That said, his approach has seemed to work with a good number of the guys that he has coached. His effects seems to be much mroe quantifiable than the average hitting coach.
by etp_stl on Jul 29, 2008 11:24 PM EDT 0 recs
is there an adequate measurement?
i think a guy like duncan has enough of a track record that a measurement should be possible to determine if enough pitchers lowered their stats appreciably while pitching for duncan. the problem i see is who to compare him to. and without any statistics to rely on, it would be completely a judgement call. maybe the veterans committee should take it under consideration. i think there should definitely be a place in the hall for deserving coaches.
victim of the sixties
by victim of the sixties on Jul 29, 2008 11:43 PM EDT 0 recs















