Jump to content

David Cone: Hall of Famer???


Warfish

Recommended Posts

OK, I asked this question in JI's Baseball Forum, and it got one reply...it was a good reply, but I was kinda hoping for more, so I'm re-asking it here:

Is david Cone a HOF'er? What do you all think? Cone was my all-time favorite baseball player, so my opinion is obviously biased.

Does Cone, with 194 wins, a Perfect Game, 5 World Series Rings and the #17 spot on the all-time K list warrant consideration?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though I never got to really see him pitch and understand him in the early early 90's, he was 1 of my favorites in the mid-late 90's with the Yankees

He definetly deserbes HOF consideration.......he'd be a lock if he had more wins...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is not a Hall Of Famer. He was a very good player. And could have been the ace of the staff for many years. But his complete body of work fall short.

I am not going to say they have to get 300 wins at this point. Few will achieve that going forward.

His lifetime ERA is about 3.5 and is only about a half a run lower than the league average during the time that he pitched. Not good enough IMO.

What really hurts him is that after his breakout 20 win season he went 10 seasons before having his 2nd and last one. That is too many years of being good and not great.

David Cone was a good pitcher. David Cone was not one of the all time greats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry. I liked him, too, but less than 200 wins equals instant DQ, in my opinion.

World Series rings are more of an indication of the team around him than his own ability. In fact, with World Series-calibre teams around him, how come he only has 194 wins?

Sorry, Coney. You're still a good guy, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It always bothered me how he just completely fell off after the 1999 season

Kevin Brown, now there's a guy who should be a HOF'er

Lower career era than Roger Clemens, pitched 2 teams to the world series, 1 of the best pitchers in MLB during his times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It always bothered me how he just completely fell off after the 1999 season

Kevin Brown, now there's a guy who should be a HOF'er

Lower career era than Roger Clemens, pitched 2 teams to the world series, 1 of the best pitchers in MLB during his times.

As much as I hate to say it Brown has a better shot then Cone does. More wins, better ERA etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I hate to say it Brown has a better shot then Cone does. More wins, better ERA etc.

Kevin Brown is and always was 1 of my favorite pitchers

After he, well ya know, did what he did last season I was mad, but not terribly ticked off, I dunno, I just wanna see him pitch well like he did in LA back in 03'

He's starting to turn the corner and is pitching well now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evem with all the rings, he doesn't get in. He was hanging on his last 3 years. No 200 wins costs him.

Doesn't change the achievement one bit, but his perfect game was under bizarre circumstances. It was an interleague game vs. the Expos, who were well into their "trade anyone who makes money" mode. It was on a Sunday at Yankee Stadium for which the Expos had to travel after a Saturday night game in another city. MLB hasn't had a split weekend series since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are few arguments on the "no side"

** Just missed playing for the 86' Mets, a kind of storied team, ala the 2004 Red Sox, 1985 Chicago Bears, ect...that would've helped.

**Mets blew it in 1988, when Cone the Mets clear ace. Had he carried that team to the title, perception may've been different.

**Cone has 5 rings, but for 3 of those seasons he was average or downright bad (2000 Yanks--I'm sure Maxman remembers).

**Moved around from contender to contender, leaving the feel he that he was merely a hired gun and won "being in the right place at the right time"....Will never be identified with 1 or 2 teams, because he bounced around too much.....J. Smoltz may be no better, but at least he's identified with just 1 team.....Even Glavine is most seen as a Atlanta player, who foolishly jumped to the Mets for extra money so he could lose a billion games as his career wore down.

**Had an extremely "gay/stunned look" on his face when he pitched the perfect game--should be penalized for that :lol:

** Also, as it has been stated, needed 200 wins--that's huge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Cone was a HOF talent. To me, that is unquestionable. He could pitch with anyone when he was healthy.

If he had 200 wins then I would say he should be in and I would not cry foul if he got in anyway. There's much worse in there already.

The thing that killed Coney are the two freak injuries. He missed '87 (I think) with a broken finger and missed a lot of time to the aneurism. Both sort of freak injuries.

He has the arm, stuff and make-up plus he was damn good in the big spot.

IMO, he's real close and would definitely be there without the freak injuries those two years, which almost unquestionably cost him that 200 plateau.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry. I liked him, too, but less than 200 wins equals instant DQ, in my opinion.

World Series rings are more of an indication of the team around him than his own ability. In fact, with World Series-calibre teams around him, how come he only has 194 wins?

Sorry, Coney. You're still a good guy, though.

Gotta agree with Bob and Max....unless your name is Koufax, under 200 wins won't cut it.

Cone was filthy when healthy though. Just a strange career win -loss wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

does anyone remember some of the mets getting in trouble with some stewardesses back in the late 80's?

i can't remember exactly what happened but i swear one of the stewardesses said that cone could blow himself - and showed her. anyone remember this?

Never heard that one before. Are you suggesting this hurts or helps his chances for the Hall? :wink:

Any remember the girl who sat by the bullpen at Shea and said Cone looked at her and touched himself inappropriately? That one always cracked me up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I remember Cone, being accused of pulling a "Pee-Wee Herman' in the bullpen at Shea.

I think he was once accused of raping a woman, then went out and struck like 15 or 16 in Philly the next day--The charges were dropped soon after (this could be a variation of the stewardess story)....

It was weird, because he was a nerdy, Michael Anthony Hall lool alike from the Mid-West (Kansas?) when he came up and everyone figured he'd be the quintessential humble mid-west athlete, married with kids at 22.....He was the exact opposite, which is why he loved NYC and NYC loved him back--plus, starring for the both the Mets and Yankees was a real unique feat....for a longtime, the Mets and Yankees had almost no overlap of players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cone was not a compiler, and sadly that has become the first criteria as a consensus

I for one will never acquiesce ... I will never allow that to become my first criteria ... A CRITERIA, YES ... but I will never allow that to become my FIRST CRITERIA, in baseball, football, or any other sport

My first criteria will always be DOMINANCE ... was the player a DOMINANT PLAYER at his position in his prime ... and was his prime {or era of dominance} long enough to prove it was not a fluke

David Cone, like Don Mattingly, does meet my first criteria ... IMO he was a DOMINANT STARTING PITCHER at his peak, and his peak was plenty long enough to satisfy me that it was not a fluke

So yes, David Cone would absolutely get my vote if I had one

PS. Phil Niekro, Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton ... three recent HOF inductees ... compilers all ... and not one of the three would I ever consider starting ahead of David Cone in a Game 7 for all the marbles ... wouldn't even consider it for a nano-second ... so if there is a place for compilers like Niekro, Perry and Sutton in the baseball HOF, I make NO APOLOGIES for my endorsement of David Cone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ham...

Cone only having 2 - 20 win seasons is what hurts him most in my book. They were real far apart as well. If they were back to back wrapped around 18 win seasons I would say okay he was great for a stretch.

Just too long off a period that he was a good pitcher with great stuff.

Plus the masturbating thing in the bullpen was just wrong! :mrgreen:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ham...

Cone only having 2 - 20 win seasons is what hurts him most in my book. They were real far apart as well. If they were back to back wrapped around 18 win seasons I would say okay he was great for a stretch.

Just too long off a period that he was a good pitcher with great stuff.

Plus the masturbating thing in the bullpen was just wrong! :mrgreen:

Max, serious Question because I know you saw all four SP's in their prime as have I

Game 7 for all the marbles and you have a four man staff of Neikro, Perry, Sutton, and Cone ... all four have had four days rest ... all four in their prime ... which of the four are you handing the ball to start that Game 7?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neikro was a compiler. No doubt about it. He only won 20 games 3 times and he lost 20 once. He put together some sick years with well over 300 innings pitched. But he would never be the ideal choice for game 7. The nature of the knuckleball makes that a bad fit. In his best year (1969) he went 23-13 with 1 2.56 era (btw) Phil Neikro was already 30 years old in 1969!

Perry won 20 or more games 5 times. That is impressive. His best year was in 1972 for the Indians...1972 Indians 24 and 16 with a 1.92 ERA. The scary part is that he pitched 342.2 innings and only gave up 253 hits. That ratio is outstanding. Did this for a bad team that was 12 games under .500 while only winning 72 games.

SuttonCompiler who does not belong in the Hall. He gets in because of the 300 win things. He was a cheater and only won 20 once. Not a # 1 starter.

ConeHad some great years. And when he was on the top of his game he was a true # 1.

My Pick =1972 Gaylord Perry. The man was unstoppable that season.

Now Ham I get your point. Honestly I had to do a lot of research in order to not pick Cone. Cone gets the nod if Perry isn't on the list...he is better than Neikro and Sutton.

I still keep him out because the body of work wasn't great enough. But he may get in. In the current time the HOF is hard up for pitchers. Thank you smaller parks and steroids.

You can make the case (and you have) that if Sutton goes in for compiling then Cone should go in for being great for a short period.

If it were up to me neither of them would be in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Cone was one of the dominant pitchers of his era. That is my main critera.

The sure locks should be

1) Clemens

2) Maddux

3) Pedro

4) Randy Johnson

5) Tom Glavine

Those I think are on the borderline.

Schilling : Very good pitcher up until 2000 then took his game up another notcher 2001-2004. Now while this year won't be a dominant year, one more big year from Schilling should get him in.

Those in the class of Cone. (On the outside looking in)

1) Dave Stewart: Won 168 games. Won 20 + four straight years (1987-1990)

2) Kevin Brown: 211 wins. And 6 season with ERA's under 3.

You can also throw in a guy like John Smoltz who had distinct careers as both a starter and reliver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...