Is Ron Guidry a HOF ?

[NOMAR22]

What do you guys think of Ron Guidry making the HOF?

1975-1988

ERA 3.29 record 170-91 wlp.651 one of the highest ever ,2,392 IN,1,778 So,
3 time 20 game winner ,had one of greatest season for a ptcher 25-3 wlp.893
So 248,9 shutouts in 1978.1978 Cy young winner could won MVP
won 164 games 1977-1985 including strike short season, lost only 67 games,winning percentage of .710 during that span ,1,483 SO,88 CG,26 SHO, Yankee pitcher.

[dgarza]

Yankee pitcher.Is this supposed to be a "credit"?

Anyway, I say he is, just barely.

[RedSoxVT92]

He was a good pitcher and very good defensivley (5 GG) But I would not consider him a HOF pitcher. But being a yankee pitcher would hurt his HOF chances because he had a very good team behind him giving him more run support. And his era was never that great after 1981 even though getting two more 20 win seasons. Also longevitey plays an issue playing in only 11 full seasons (discluding the 1981 season) Also was not a very dominant pitcher during most of the 80's. So a very good pitcher but just falling short of the hall of fame.

[NOMAR22]

He was a good pitcher and very good defensivley (5 GG) But I would not consider him a HOF pitcher. But being a yankee pitcher would hurt his HOF chances because he had a very good team behind him giving him more run support. And his era was never that great after 1981 even though getting two more 20 win seasons. Also longevitey plays an issue playing in only 11 full seasons (discluding the 1981 season) Also was not a very dominant pitcher during most of the 80's. So a very good pitcher but just falling short of the hall of fame.


Guidry became a starter at the age of 27,thats why he only had 11 full seasons.Guidry had a good team behind him but thats was the Yankees 1977-1981, the other teams were barely above .500. Ron Guidry was the best yankee pitcher from 1966-2000. No other Yankee pitcher was as good during that ERA. That counts for something.

[KCGHOST]

His career was too small for me and is bolstered by playing for good clubs (neutral wins are 17 less than actual). There are weaker pitchers in the HoF, but most of them are mistakes.

[NOMAR22]

Is this supposed to be a "credit"?

Anyway, I say he is, just barely.


I agree he barely should make it in the Veterans commitee. Ron Guidry is better than alot of HOF.

[dgarza]

I say he is, just barely, but I have no hopes of him coming close to making it.

[dgarza]

Ron Guidry was the best yankee pitcher from 1966-2000. No other Yankee pitcher was as good during that ERA. That counts for something.
Teddy Higuera was arguablly the best Brewer pitcher from 1966-2000.

[STLCards2]

I agree he barely should make it in the Veterans commitee. Ron Guidry is better than alot of HOF.

Alot? Haines. Marquard. Chesbro. Maybe Hoyt, Grimes, Pennock, Rixey or Hunter. Many would argue Willis. But "alot"? I guess it depends on your definition of alot.

There are quite a few pitchers who are more deserving (not neccesarily deserving, just more so) but not in than Guidry: Blyleven, Mullane, Gossage, Mays, John, Kaat, Pierce, Bridges, L. Smith, Leever, maybe Ferell, etc. Not to mention current pitchers who are better but will also never make it: Mussina, Brown, Schilling.

[micsmith]

I'd vote against Ron Guidry, even though that is one impressive winning percentage.

[NOMAR22]

Alot? Haines. Marquard. Chesbro. Maybe Hoyt, Grimes, Pennock, Rixey or Hunter. Many would argue Willis. But "alot"? I guess it depends on your definition of alot.

There are quite a few pitchers who are more deserving (not neccesarily deserving, just more so) but not in than Guidry: Blyleven, Mullane, Gossage, Mays, John, Kaat, Pierce, Bridges, L. Smith, Leever, maybe Ferell, etc. Not to mention current pitchers who are better but will also never make it: Mussina, Brown, Schilling.

Compare Guidry's number with Pennock

Pennock won 240-162 in 22 years,only SO 1,227, allowed 3,900 hits in 3,572 IP,only 35 sho,ERA 3.62 career,won only 20 games 2 times,had 5 losing seasons, best year was 21-9 2.83 era ,101 SO,4 sho,302 hits in 286 ip,i made my case for RON GUIDRY.

Billy Pierce had Guidry numbers but was not as good. Tommy John was not as good as Ron Guidry,T. John has better numbers because he pitched 25 years.Kaat belongs in the HOF so does Tommy john i saw both pitch.

I don't think Mussina nor K.Brown were as good as Ron Guidry in there prime. I saw Guidry pitch in his prime,he was the top 3 pitchers in the league .
Schilling is KO pitcher. But i think hes over rated.

[NOMAR22]

I'd vote against Ron Guidry, even though that is one impressive winning percentage.


Did you ever see him pitch? If not your vote should not really count.

[NOMAR22]

Teddy Higuera was arguablly the best Brewer pitcher from 1966-2000.


You are comparing apples with oranges. Teddy was not even as good as Ron Guidry(Louisiana Lighting).

[STLCards2]

Compare Guidry's number with Pennock

Pennock won 240-162 in 22 years,only SO 1,227, allowed 3,900 hits in 3,572 IP,only 35 sho,ERA 3.62 career,won only 20 games 2 times,had 5 losing seasons, best year was 21-9 2.83 era ,101 SO,4 sho,302 hits in 286 ip,i made my case for RON GUIDRY.

Billy Pierce had Guidry numbers but was not as good. Tommy John was not as good as Ron Guidry,T. John has better numbers because he pitched 25 years.Kaat belongs in the HOF so does Tommy john i saw both pitch.

I don't think Mussina nor K.Brown were as good as Ron Guidry in there prime. I saw Guidry pitch in his prime,he was the top 3 pitchers in the league .
Schilling is KO pitcher. But i think hes over rated.

First of all, I agree that Guidry is better than Pennock as I said in my first post, but neither deserve election.

If Pierce had Guidry numbers, why would you say he wasn't as good?

I am a longevity person, so I fully believe good for a very long time (John, Kaat) is more valuable than great for a couple of years, good for a few more, a few mediocre seasons, then retirement (Guidry) Again, I wouldn't put John or Kaat in Cooperstwon either. Just before Guidry.

I agree that Schilling is overrated, but Mussina, Brown, and Schilling all pitched in a tremendous offesnive era, while Guidry pitched in a pitchers era. Guidry also had the luxury of great offensive and defenive support most of the other pitchers I mentioed did not have. For the record, I wouldn't put those three guys in Cooperstown either. Just before Gyuidry.

I have always said if you take the best season of a players carer out of the mix, (eliminating outliers and skewing data) and if they are not clearly a Hall of Famer, than they are boarderine at best. If you took out '78, Guidry is nowhere close to Cooperstown.

With about 10 Negro Legue pitchers, and about 10 19th century pitchers included, I have Guidry ranked about #92 all-time. Great? Yes. HOF? No.

I would agree that Guidry is underrated by the general public, however.

[STLCards2]

Did you ever see him pitch? If not your vote should not really count.

I never saw Glen Blummer play, but I know he doesn't deserve Cooperstown.

[RuthMayBond]

Better than a few HOFers but arguably a career not as good as DuLeonard, Pierce, Bridges, Saberhagen, Trout, Stieb, Shocker, RReuschel, Tiant, JQuinn, Cone, CMays, WiCooper, TJohn, Luque, Leever, Key, HVaughn, DPhillippe, Appier, CFinley, BAdams, Rommel, BWalters, Koosman, Warneke, LJackson . . . are we getting the point?

[NOMAR22]

Better than a few HOFers but arguably a career not as good as DuLeonard, Pierce, Bridges, Saberhagen, Trout, Stieb, Shocker, RReuschel, Tiant, JQuinn, Cone, CMays, WiCooper, TJohn, Luque, Leever, Key, HVaughn, DPhillippe, Appier, CFinley, BAdams, Rommel, BWalters, Koosman, Warneke, LJackson . . . are we getting the point?

Haha! Ron Guidry was better than Pierece ,Bridges,Saberhagen,Steib,
Trout,Shocker,Rick Reuschel,JQuinn,Cone,Cmays,TJohn,
Luque,Key,Vaughn,Phillipe,Appier,CFinley,Adams,Rom mel,Bwalters,Koosman,Warneke,Ljackson.

.

[NOMAR22]

First of all, I agree that Guidry is better than Pennock as I said in my first post, but neither deserve election.

If Pierce had Guidry numbers, why would you say he wasn't as good?

I am a longevity person, so I fully believe good for a very long time (John, Kaat) is more valuable than great for a couple of years, good for a few more, a few mediocre seasons, then retirement (Guidry) Again, I wouldn't put John or Kaat in Cooperstwon either. Just before Guidry.

I agree that Schilling is overrated, but Mussina, Brown, and Schilling all pitched in a tremendous offesnive era, while Guidry pitched in a pitchers era. Guidry also had the luxury of great offensive and defenive support most of the other pitchers I mentioed did not have. For the record, I wouldn't put those three guys in Cooperstown either. Just before Gyuidry.

I have always said if you take the best season of a players carer out of the mix, (eliminating outliers and skewing data) and if they are not clearly a Hall of Famer, than they are boarderine at best. If you took out '78, Guidry is nowhere close to Cooperstown.

With about 10 Negro Legue pitchers, and about 10 19th century pitchers included, I have Guidry ranked about #92 all-time. Great? Yes. HOF? No.

I would agree that Guidry is underrated by the general public, however.

Look at Guidry 10 best years he was 163-79 .WLP.673,1,623 SO,
Pierce best 10 years was 157-112.WLP 583,1,497 SO.

Billy Pierce won 211-169.555 wlp in 18 years,Billy Pierce won 202 games in 15 full years ,average of 13 wins. Guidry won 163 in 10 full years.Average of 16.3.
Guidry did not play in a pitchers era. KB played in the era were the MLB was very diluted in talent. KB only won 20 games once.

[RuthMayBond]

Haha! Ron Guidry was better than Pierece .
Guidry-2392 IP, 174 Win Shares
Pierce-3307 IP, 248 Win Shares
whatever

[RuthMayBond]

Look at Guidry 10 best years he was 163-79 .WLP.673,1,623 SO,
Pierce best 10 years was 157-112.WLP 583,1,497 SO.

Billy Pierce won 211-169.555 wlp in 18 years,Billy Pierce won 202 games in 15 full years ,average of 13 wins. Guidry won 163 in 10 full years.Average of 16.3.
Guidry did not play in a pitchers era. KB played in the era were the MLB was very diluted in talent. KB only won 20 games once.Wow ,we're going by wins/win% (a TEAM function) and by strikeouts which have INCREASED over the years

[538280]

Look at Guidry 10 best years he was 163-79 .WLP.673,1,623 SO,
Pierce best 10 years was 157-112.WLP 583,1,497 SO.

Billy Pierce won 211-169.555 wlp in 18 years,Billy Pierce won 202 games in 15 full years ,average of 13 wins. Guidry won 163 in 10 full years.Average of 16.3.
Guidry did not play in a pitchers era. KB played in the era were the MLB was very diluted in talent. KB only won 20 games once.

Nomar22, you're just throwing numbers around devoid of any sort of context and without seeming to understand what they really mean. Guidry played in a neutral era, Pierce in a hitter's era. Their ERA+ are about the same 120 for Guidry, 119 for Pierce. But, Pierce's is actually more impressive because he pitched nearly 1000 more innings than Guidry.

Pierce's won-lost records are pretty unimpressive while Guidry's are very good, but Pierce was always put against the other team's best pitchers, and got horrible run support his whole career. He didn't play for particularly great teams. Guidry played for great teams his whole career and got awesome run support his whole career.

Ron Guidry was a good pitcher, he had one of the best years a pitcher has ever had in 1978. But, he's nowhere near the HOF. His career was way too short (I believe he has less IP than anyone in the Hall of Fame), and he was only really dominant for that one year. He is better than a few guys in the Hall like Haines and Marquard, but they were mistakes and shouldn't serve as standards for future selections.

[Mad Guru]

With a little rearranging of the order of the seasons, you can make Guidry's career look a lot like that of a lite-Sandy Koufax.

[NOMAR22]

Guidry-2392 IP, 174 Win Shares
Pierce-3307 IP, 248 Win Shares
whatever

Win Shares? is that all you got. That stat is worthless. I already gave you important stats.

[RedSoxVT92]

Win Shares? is that all you got. That stat is worthless. I already gave you important stats.

You obviously dont know what these stats mean as shown by 538280. You need to actually look at the situations of the pitchers and not just look aimlessley at the stats.

[NOMAR22]

Nomar22, you're just throwing numbers around devoid of any sort of context and without seeming to understand what they really mean. Guidry played in a neutral era, Pierce in a hitter's era. Their ERA+ are about the same 120 for Guidry, 119 for Pierce. But, Pierce's is actually more impressive because he pitched nearly 1000 more innings than Guidry.

Pierce's won-lost records are pretty unimpressive while Guidry's are very good, but Pierce was always put against the other team's best pitchers, and got horrible run support his whole career. He didn't play for particularly great teams. Guidry played for great teams his whole career and got awesome run support his whole career.

Ron Guidry was a good pitcher, he had one of the best years a pitcher has ever had in 1978. But, he's nowhere near the HOF. His career was way too short (I believe he has less IP than anyone in the Hall of Fame), and he was only really dominant for that one year. He is better than a few guys in the Hall like Haines and Marquard, but they were mistakes and shouldn't serve as standards for future selections.

And you are telling me Billy Pierce was dominant in 1 year? NOOO! Are you saying that Ron Guidry didn't pitch against the opponents best pitcher? What are you on? I remember Ron Guidry always beating Nolan Ryan,Jack Morris,Jim Palmer, etc.

One stat ill give you Billy Pierce was 14-15 for the 1959 Chisox world series team.That wasn't a good team huh? Next you are going to tell me that Jimmy Wynn deserves more HOF support than Bernie Williams.

[yanks0714]

Look at Guidry 10 best years he was 163-79 .WLP.673,1,623 SO,
Pierce best 10 years was 157-112.WLP 583,1,497 SO.

Billy Pierce won 211-169.555 wlp in 18 years,Billy Pierce won 202 games in 15 full years ,average of 13 wins. Guidry won 163 in 10 full years.Average of 16.3.
Guidry did not play in a pitchers era. KB played in the era were the MLB was very diluted in talent. KB only won 20 games once.

As die hard Yankee fan I loved 'Gator' on the mound for the Yanks. He was nearly unbeatable that one season.

But being objective, Ron Guidry does not belong in the HOF. Billy Pierce belongs there before Gator....and it pains me to say that.

You're using team oriented stats above to support Guidry over Pierce. Team not just pitcher. I figure Ron pitched on some clearly better teams than did Pierce and that helped him win those games.
Won - Lost percentage is not the end all be all to determine the best pitchers.

[NOMAR22]

With a little rearranging of the order of the seasons, you can make Guidry's career look a lot like that of a lite-Sandy Koufax.

Give me an Example. Ron Guidry was a starter from 1977-1986 ,full seasons. Remember he became a starter at the age of 27. He was Born in 1950.

[NOMAR22]

As die hard Yankee fan I loved 'Gator' on the mound for the Yanks. He was nearly unbeatable that one season.

But being objective, Ron Guidry does not belong in the HOF. Billy Pierce belongs there before Gator....and it pains me to say that.

You're using team oriented stats above to support Guidry over Pierce. Team not just pitcher. I figure Ron pitched on some clearly better teams than did Pierce and that helped him win those games.
Won - Lost percentage is not the end all be all to determine the best pitchers.

I was not only using WINNING PERCENTAGE. Read the other stats i threw. Ron Guidry clearly out pitched Billy Pierce in every way. Using the criteria of great pitchers pitching for good team, should Whitey Ford get punished for it?

[538280]

And you are telling me Billy Pierce was dominant in 1 year? NOOO! Are you saying that Ron Guidry didn't pitch against the opponents best pitcher? What are you on? I remember Ron Guidry always beating Nolan Ryan,Jack Morris,Jim Palmer, etc.

One stat ill give you Billy Pierce was 14-15 for the 1959 Chisox world series team.That wasn't a good team huh? Next you are going to tell me that Jimmy Wynn deserves more HOF support than Bernie Williams.

Billy Pierce received horrible run support his whole career, and 1959 was no exception. His run support index that year was 79, which means his run support was 21% worse than the league average.

Pierce was a dominant pitcher in at least three years (1952, 1953, and 1955). His won-lost marks were never great but his support was awful. Look at his RSI in his five best ERA+ years:

.........ERA+......W-L......RSI
1955...200......15-10.....81
1953...148......18-12.....82
1952...142......15-12.....102
1958...136......14-15.....95
1951...133......15-14.....82

I think 1958 is the best example of how won-lost records are a bad indicator of pitching excellence. I'm not saying they should be completely ignored, but they just don't do many pitchers justice. Pierce that year had a 136 ERA+, 36% better than the league. He led the league in complete games, threw 245 innings, struck out a lot of batters, didn't walk too many, and hitters only hit a paltry .227 off him. It was a great year for him. But, his hitters just didn't do the job for him, and he ended up 14-15. Ron Guidry in 1985, when he led the league in wins, had run support 32% better (127 RSI). His ERA+ was 13 points lower than Pierce, and yet he had a winning percentage 303 points higher. Why? Not because he was the better pitcher, just because his team hit better for him.

Also, why exactly do you think Win Shares are a bad stat?

And, yes, Jimmy Wynn should be in the HOF light years before Bernie Williams is, and light years before tons of people in HOF and receive strong support for it. Really, think about it, why is Jim Rice better than Jimmy Wynn?

[NOMAR22]

Billy Pierce received horrible run support his whole career, and 1959 was no exception. His run support index that year was 79, which means his run support was 21% worse than the league average.

Pierce was a dominant pitcher in at least three years (1952, 1953, and 1955). His won-lost marks were never great but his support was awful. Look at his RSI in his five best ERA+ years:

.........ERA+......W-L......RSI
1955...200......15-10.....81
1953...148......18-12.....82
1952...142......15-12.....102
1958...136......14-15.....95
1951...133......15-14.....82

I think 1958 is the best example of how won-lost records are a bad indicator of pitching excellence. I'm not saying they should be completely ignored, but they just don't do many pitchers justice. Pierce that year had a 136 ERA+, 36% better than the league. He led the league in complete games, threw 245 innings, struck out a lot of batters, didn't walk too many, and hitters only hit a paltry .227 off him. It was a great year for him. But, his hitters just didn't do the job for him, and he ended up 14-15. Ron Guidry in 1985, when he led the league in wins, had run support 32% better (127 RSI). His ERA+ was 13 points lower than Pierce, and yet he had a winning percentage 303 points higher. Why? Not because he was the better pitcher, just because his team hit better for him.

Also, why exactly do you think Win Shares are a bad stat?

And, yes, Jimmy Wynn should be in the HOF light years before Bernie Williams is, and light years before tons of people in HOF and receive strong support for it. Really, think about it, why is Jim Rice better than Jimmy Wynn?

It isn't Ron Guidry fault that he was a great pitcher a pitched for the best team ever. He clearly was better than Billy Pierce. You guys just brings up stats that HOF voters don't give much weight to it.

No way does Jimmy Wynn belong in the HOF. It's insanity to compare him to Jim Rice who clearly belongs in the HOF.Let me say i am a die hard Yankee fan.

Jimmy Wynn had a carrer average of just.254 never even got 2,000 hits, he walked alot but had a horrifying Average.

[Tigerfan1974]

I say he is, just barely, but I have no hopes of him coming close to making it.

I would agree with both sentiments.

[RuthMayBond]

It isn't Ron Guidry fault that he was a great pitcherwhich he may or may not have been

<a pitched for the best team ever.>

Which he definitely did NOT do

<He clearly was better than Billy Pierce.>

Which he clearly is NOT

<You guys just brings up stats that HOF voters don't give much weight to it.>

Yeah, we want to actually be FAIR :eek:

<It's insanity to compare him to Jim Rice who clearly belongs in the HOF.>

Guess it's time to stop talking with you, you have no idea how to use indexed stats and I'm not sure you want to

[dgarza]

For my money, Pierce and Guidry deserve it about equally, Pierce an unnoticeable step ahead maybe.

[dgarza]

You are comparing apples with oranges. Teddy was not even as good as Ron Guidry(Louisiana Lighting).But you are arguing that being the best pitcher on a team from 1966-2000 should count for something. And Teddy Higuera was arguablly the best Brewer pitcher from 1966-2000.

[Brad Harris]

Did you ever see him pitch? If not your vote should not really count.

This is a strong candidate for the Moronic Statement Hall of Fame!

[Captain Cold Nose]

This is a strong candidate for the Moronic Statement Hall of Fame!
Well, 1988 was oh so long ago. I'm lucky if I remember two hours ago.

[Tigerfan1974]

Well, 1988 was oh so long ago. I'm lucky if I remember two hours ago.

Try some Ginko Biloba. It is suppose to help with, um . . . what was I saying? :D

[digglahhh]

I think we found somebody else who would support Dave Mcnally.

Guidry was a tremendous pitcher for a while, but if you are going to get in with 2400 IP, you're going to need Koufax or Pedro numbers over such a low career workload.

[Captain Cold Nose]

It isn't Ron Guidry fault that he was a great pitcher a pitched for the best team ever. He clearly was better than Billy Pierce. You guys just brings up stats that HOF voters don't give much weight to it.

.
Evidently the HOF voters didn't put much weight behind the stats Guidry put up.

[RuthMayBond]

I think we found somebody else who would support Dave Mcnally.Guidry's ERA+ is higher than 106

[dgarza]

Guidry's ERA+ is higher than 106
his W/L % is higher, too
K/IP ratio is higher
probably etc as well

[538280]

It isn't Ron Guidry fault that he was a great pitcher a pitched for the best team ever. He clearly was better than Billy Pierce. You guys just brings up stats that HOF voters don't give much weight to it.

Even if HOF voters don't take into account run support pitchers received, they should. Pierce's mediocre won-lost record in entirely a function of his lack of support, while Guidry's outstanding won-lost record is entirely a function of his favorable support. Give them the same support, they're probably have about the same won-lost record. They did have about the same effectiveness while they were pitching.

But, Pierce pitched about 1000 more innings, which is a huge difference. That's what makes him better than Guidry.

No way does Jimmy Wynn belong in the HOF. It's insanity to compare him to Jim Rice who clearly belongs in the HOF.Let me say i am a die hard Yankee fan.

Jimmy Wynn had a carrer average of just.254 never even got 2,000 hits, he walked alot but had a horrifying Average.

I'll spare you all the Jimmy Wynn stuff. If you want to see what I have to say about him, check the threads "Wynn in the Hall?" or "Griffey Jr. vs. Wynn".

Also, you still haven't told me why exactly you think Win Shares are a bad stat?

[NOMAR22]

Toy cannon, win shares are meaningless. What counts is the stats, what your team did, did the player improve a team, If we are going to put somebody in the HOF based on win shares then the player must not have had good overal stats to make it.HOF voters do not take into account win shares. To me thats a worthless stat.

[NOMAR22]

But you are arguing that being the best pitcher on a team from 1966-2000 should count for something. And Teddy Higuera was arguablly the best Brewer pitcher from 1966-2000.


The Milwaukee brewers are not known as the best team in Baseball. The new York Yankees are. When you pitch for a historic franchise ,then your stats mean alot more if you pitched for a little known teams like the Brewers,
Mariners,Rockies,Astros,etc.

[RedSoxVT92]

The Milwaukee brewers are not known as the best team in Baseball. The new York Yankees are. When you pitch for a historic franchise ,then your stats mean alot more if you pitched for a little known teams like the Brewers,
Mariners,Rockies,Astros,etc.

It does not matter if you play for a more historiclly rich team. The stats are all the same. You play all the same opponets, you hit the same, and pitch the same. Saying that pitching for a cerain team increases HOF value is biased. You have to look at the player and their situation not the team they played for.

[538280]

Toy cannon, win shares are meaningless. What counts is the stats, what your team did, did the player improve a team, If we are going to put somebody in the HOF based on win shares then the player must not have had good overal stats to make it.HOF voters do not take into account win shares. To me thats a worthless stat.

It humors me you say Win Shares are meaningless but that the stats do matter. What do you think Win Shares are made up of? What Win Shares are is pretty much a way of putting together a player's statistics and gauging how much value he had to his team. You don't seem to have a clue even what Win Shares are. To hopefully get a clue, read this article:

http://www.baseballgraphs.com/main/index.php/site/details/#sharecalc

[NOMAR22]

It humors me you say Win Shares are meaningless but that the stats do matter. What do you think Win Shares are made up of? What Win Shares are is pretty much a way of putting together a player's statistics and gauging how much value he had to his team. You don't seem to have a clue even what Win Shares are. To hopefully get a clue, read this article:

http://www.baseballgraphs.com/main/index.php/site/details/#sharecalc


Will shares are new stats that are worthless when a player is going to sign a big contract or is eligibly for the HOF to many people on this forum put to much into a players win share. To me it's meaningless. Lets say a player like Reggie Jackson might not have a great win share but he sure took most of his teams to the World Series and playoffs . He won 5 World series.Those teams wouldn't have won 2 World series with out him. Win Shares ha!

[NOMAR22]

Haha! WIN SHARE. bill James system is lonely. To many people base a person worth based on Win Shares, i read were most posters said that Reggie Jackson didn't not belong in the HOF. pLEAZZZE. Who is ever going to take these people serious? Most posters here would not qualify to be HOF voters,if you base most of your stats players worth on what bill james says and his win shares. HA!

[STLCards2]

I agree that some put too much emphasis on Win Shares, but to completely discount them is silly. Win Shares have their flaws, just like any stat, but there is a high correlation to high win shares and quality of ballplayer. Just like no matter how much some don't like to hear it, there is a strong correlation to number of wins for a pitcher and how good they were, even if some of those wins are team dependent. Assuming longevity across the board, mediocre pitchers just don't win 250+ games, regadless of who they play for. Great pitchers who stay healthy will always pile up wins, regadless of who they play for. Sure there is some gray area, but if a guy wins 300 games, he might not be great, but at the very least he was very good for a very long time.

ERA+ is also attacked a lot. Sure your teams defense will factor into the number, but sorry, if you pitch 4,000 innings, and your ERA+ is 120 or if you pitch 3,500 innings and your ERA+ is 125, or if you pitch 3,000 innings and your ERA+ is 130, you are a very good pitcher. Nobody's defense can skew numbers that much. Not even Jim Palmer's or Whitey Ford's.

Same with Win Shares. If a hitter gets 400 + Win Shares, no amount of flaws in the system will make that number insignificant. And no amount of flaws will make somebody with 400 win shares in 17 seasons less of a player than the guy with 290 win shares in 19 seasons. The difference is too great to be counteracted by flaws in the stat. For a pitcher 300 WS is a very good indicator of their longevity, and quality.

Just as Greg Maddux with a good defense and a 140 ERA+ is obviously better than some guy with a 115 ERA+ on a poor defense. The margin of error in ERA+ just isn't big enough to fill that gap (assuming simialar IP.)

Guidry's main problem is his low IP totals, which effects many other stats. It lowers his win total, Win Shares total, makes his ERA+ less impressive than if he pitched 4,000 innings, or even 3,000 innings. His winning % which is very impressive would not be nearly as high if he played on a different team, and all studies show the longer he played, the better chance his w% would have deteriated.

I am no sabermetric guru. I take a lot more stock in traditional stats than many around here, but I can't discount sabermetric stats either. Many of them go a long way in helping decide who really was "better" or "deserving".
The funny thing is, the one stat that hurts Guidry the most, is a very traditional stat...innings pitched.

[yanks0714]

Toy cannon, win shares are meaningless. What counts is the stats, what your team did, did the player improve a team, If we are going to put somebody in the HOF based on win shares then the player must not have had good overal stats to make it.HOF voters do not take into account win shares. To me thats a worthless stat.

To me, that means you have absolutely no understanding of Win Shares whatsoever, so you resort to criticizing them.

No, players are not elected to the HOF based on Win Shares. But the vast majority of players legitimately in the HOF were Win Shares *stars*.

Several posters here have provided you an educational opportunity to understand statistics and what they are telling you by looking inside the numbers so to speak. Instead of blowing them off without any understanding, grasp the educational opportunity given to you.

BTW, I'm a die=hard Yankee fan as well.....Ron Guidry not doesn't belong in the HOF but he wasn't as good a pitcher as Billy Pierce.

[yanks0714]

Haha! WIN SHARE. bill James system is lonely. To many people base a person worth based on Win Shares, i read were most posters said that Reggie Jackson didn't not belong in the HOF. pLEAZZZE. Who is ever going to take these people serious? Most posters here would not qualify to be HOF voters,if you base most of your stats players worth on what bill james says and his win shares. HA!

This post would be funny if it were not so sad. An opportunity to learn more, to be educated by the great and knowlegable posters on this board, is being blown off because, most likely, he doesn't want his long held beliefs challenged.

Are Win Shares the end all be all. Of course not! And nobidy on this board would say they are. But they do give us an insight into the player's performance and value.

Plus, I'm not sure there are very many people, if any, Win Shares proponents or not, that don't believe Reggie Jackson is HOF material.

[abacab]

Guidry has a HoF case, but it's not overwhelming. To compare him to pitchers currently on the BBWAA ballot: His case is probably better than Jack Morris, about as qualified as Tommy John, but waaaay behind Blyleven.

[NOMAR22]

Guidry has a HoF case, but it's not overwhelming. To compare him to pitchers currently on the BBWAA ballot: His case is probably better than Jack Morris, about as qualified as Tommy John, but waaaay behind Blyleven.


I will agree with you.

[NOMAR22]

ABACAB are you a Roberto Clemente fan?

[NOMAR22]

This post would be funny if it were not so sad. An opportunity to learn more, to be educated by the great and knowlegable posters on this board, is being blown off because, most likely, he doesn't want his long held beliefs challenged.

Are Win Shares the end all be all. Of course not! And nobidy on this board would say they are. But they do give us an insight into the player's performance and value.

Plus, I'm not sure there are very many people, if any, Win Shares proponents or not, that don't believe Reggie Jackson is HOF material.

Win share is not important to me. How many players are awarded big contracts based on win share? Only people on this board put alot importance on this worthless stat.

[STLCards2]

Win share is not important to me. How many players are awarded big contracts based on win share? Only people on this board put alot importance on this worthless stat.

People in all types of business are given contracts based on a lot of things:

if they know somebody in the company, if they are attractive, affirmative action, how charasmatic they are, previous experience, age, gender, race, body language, favors, # of college degrees, # of college credit hours, criminal record results, desperation to fill a hole in the company...

None of these things that get a person a job indicate how good they are at it. Sure, a masters is a good indication that you are somewhat qualified, but no guarantee that you will be effective. Likewise, there is a limited correlation between the size of your contract and how effective you are. If you are basing a player's effectiveness based on their salary, then Kevin Brown was the best pitcher in baseball the past 4 years.:laugh :laugh :laugh

[Captain Cold Nose]

Win share is not important to me. How many players are awarded big contracts based on win share? Only people on this board put alot importance on this worthless stat.
Only the blind bias that comes with homerism would cause somebody to seriously advocate Ron Guidry for the Hall of Fame.
Thankfully, the writers who vote have some objectivity.

[Old Mike]

Actually the perfect comparison seems to be Lefty Gomez. I am not advocating for or against either pitcher but I see no stronger case for the 1930s Yankees hurler than the 70s-80s one.

[digglahhh]

It does not matter if you play for a more historiclly rich team. The stats are all the same. You play all the same opponets, you hit the same, and pitch the same. Saying that pitching for a cerain team increases HOF value is biased. You have to look at the player and their situation not the team they played for.

Not to mention when you play for the Yankees you don't have to pitch to them!

[538280]

Will shares are new stats that are worthless when a player is going to sign a big contract or is eligibly for the HOF to many people on this forum put to much into a players win share. To me it's meaningless. Lets say a player like Reggie Jackson might not have a great win share but he sure took most of his teams to the World Series and playoffs . He won 5 World series.Those teams wouldn't have won 2 World series with out him. Win Shares ha!

Win Shares aren't meant to help a player in salary arbitration or to get a free agent contract, or not even necessarily to be used in HOF debates. They could be used for that, but they are not created for that. Their goal is to try as accurately as possible to boil a players contributions into a single number. They are not perfect, certainly, but they give a good idea of how good a player is.

If you're going to criticize Win Shares, talk about how you don't think it's legitimate to charge errors by the second basemen, third basemen and shortstops against the first baseman. Talk about how you think there's a flaw in how he divides between pitcing and fielding. Talk about how you don't like the runs created formula used in it. You have done nothing to say why you don't think Win Shares are accurate in telling how good a player is.

Reggie Jackson is my favorite player. I used to have an avatar of him before I recently switched to Jimmy Wynn. Wynn is one of my favorites, and I strongly advocate him for the HOF, but Reggie is my favorite player. His Win Shares are actually very good. They have put to rest many complaints about his low batting average and shown that he truly was a great player, one of the greatest of all time. I rank Reggie among the top 30 players of all time, and think he is underrated. Win Shares have confirmed what I believed to be true. You speak about Reggie without even checking to see that Win Shares indeed are very favorable to him. You still have shown no knowledge of the system.

[Oosches]

The Milwaukee brewers are not known as the best team in Baseball. The new York Yankees are. When you pitch for a historic franchise ,then your stats mean alot more if you pitched for a little known teams like the Brewers,
Mariners,Rockies,Astros,etc.

This will be my only post on this topic...Billy Pierce is a more deserving HOFer than Guidry. There is no sense arguing with a person who has no idea what logic, win shares, historical context, or historical relativity means. He lives in a bizarre Yankee-dominated fantasy world where reason and common sense mean nothing. Every other post could be classified as the "craziest thing I have heard today" (see quote above). Bottom line...Guidry was good and borderline great for a few seasons, but his career was too short to be an immediate HOFer...have a nice day. :clapping

[NOMAR22]

This will be my only post on this topic...Billy Pierce is a more deserving HOFer than Guidry. There is no sense arguing with a person who has no idea what logic, win shares, historical context, or historical relativity means. He lives in a bizarre Yankee-dominated fantasy world where reason and common sense mean nothing. Every other post could be classified as the "craziest thing I have heard today" (see quote above). Bottom line...Guidry was good and borderline great for a few seasons, but his career was too short to be an immediate HOFer...have a nice day. :clapping


Yankee hater! Typical Red Sox fan.

[NOMAR22]

Actually the perfect comparison seems to be Lefty Gomez. I am not advocating for or against either pitcher but I see no stronger case for the 1930s Yankees hurler than the 70s-80s one.

Yes! You are one of the few bright people on this topic.

[NOMAR22]

Win Shares aren't meant to help a player in salary arbitration or to get a free agent contract, or not even necessarily to be used in HOF debates. They could be used for that, but they are not created for that. Their goal is to try as accurately as possible to boil a players contributions into a single number. They are not perfect, certainly, but they give a good idea of how good a player is.

If you're going to criticize Win Shares, talk about how you don't think it's legitimate to charge errors by the second basemen, third basemen and shortstops against the first baseman. Talk about how you think there's a flaw in how he divides between pitcing and fielding. Talk about how you don't like the runs created formula used in it. You have done nothing to say why you don't think Win Shares are accurate in telling how good a player is.

Reggie Jackson is my favorite player. I used to have an avatar of him before I recently switched to Jimmy Wynn. Wynn is one of my favorites, and I strongly advocate him for the HOF, but Reggie is my favorite player. His Win Shares are actually very good. They have put to rest many complaints about his low batting average and shown that he truly was a great player, one of the greatest of all time. I rank Reggie among the top 30 players of all time, and think he is underrated. Win Shares have confirmed what I believed to be true. You speak about Reggie without even checking to see that Win Shares indeed are very favorable to him. You still have shown no knowledge of the system.

Most people who know about baseball do not need to see Reggie Jackson's win share to see that he was one of the all time greats. Thats why he was MR. October. Reggie Jackson's Average was great but he put his teams on his back and carried them to Division Tittles,World series tittles.

I would rank Reggie Jackson ahead of Mark Mc Gwire,Sammy Sosa,Mike Schmidt,Harmon Killebrew, Ernie Banks, Willie Mc Covey,Ken Griffey Jr, etc.

[dgarza]

Most people who know about baseball do not need to see Reggie Jackson's win share to see that he was one of the all time greats. Thats why he was MR. October. Reggie Jackson's Average was great but he put his teams on his back and carried them to Division Tittles,World series tittles.
I agree. To someone who sees Jackson's average as "great," taking a look at win shares probably will not be helpful.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Yes! You are one of the few bright people on this topic.
Agreed. How dare those of us look at these things objectively.

[RuthMayBond]

Yankee hater! Typical Red Sox fan.And this from a guy named NOMAR22 :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

[538280]

Most people who know about baseball do not need to see Reggie Jackson's win share to see that he was one of the all time greats. Thats why he was MR. October. Reggie Jackson's Average was great but he put his teams on his back and carried them to Division Tittles,World series tittles.

I would rank Reggie Jackson ahead of Mark Mc Gwire,Sammy Sosa,Mike Schmidt,Harmon Killebrew, Ernie Banks, Willie Mc Covey,Ken Griffey Jr, etc.

I'm glad you like Reggie Jackson. That seems to be a minority opinion around here.

But, you really need to learn to look at things objectively. Ron Guidry has an extremely short career, about 2300 innings. I believe that would be the third lowest IP total among any HOF starting pitcher. The only ones lower are Sandy Koufax and Dizzy Dean. So, presumably one has to be as dominant in that amount of innings as Koufax and Dean were to be a HOF level pitcher.

What I"m basically saying is that you need to have a Koufax-esque peak to be a HOFer with that low an IP total.

A pretty good way to measure dominance of the league is by using the black ink test. It gives a summary of the player's league leading performance. 'Guidry has 29 black ink, Dean has 52, and Koufax has 78. He had one great year, but overall wasn't even near the dominance of Koufax and Dean.

Another way to do this is to compare their career ERA with the league ERA. That is done with ERA+, which is simply the league ERA divided by the player ERA. Dean has a 130 ERA+, which means his ERA was 30% better than the league ERA. Koufax is at 131, Guidry is at 120.

These are NOT crazy out of the world measures that no one pays any attention to. These are regular, standard comparison measures used everyday here on BBF and by baseball fans all over. I would venture to guess they are used by at least some HOF voters.

[digglahhh]

Reggie Jackson over Schmidt?

Have fun with that one.

Hey would you like to join a $1,000 a man fantasy league with me?:D

[yanks0714]

Win share is not important to me. How many players are awarded big contracts based on win share? Only people on this board put alot importance on this worthless stat.

A flat simple question to you? Do you know what Win Shares are and how they are reached?

[NOMAR22]

A flat simple question to you? Do you know what Win Shares are and how they are reached?


Yeah i saw the article, i didn't impress me at all.

[NOMAR22]

Reggie Jackson over Schmidt?

Have fun with that one.

Hey would you like to join a $1,000 a man fantasy league with me?:D


How many league tiitles did Mike Schmidt win? Compare it to Reggie Jackson he won 6, and 5 World series tiitles. Reggie Jackson was a winner you can't really say that about Mike Schmidt only 1 world series title and that was against the KC Royals! ha!

[RuthMayBond]

How many league tiitles did Mike Schmidt win? Compare it to Reggie Jackson he won 6, and 5 World series tiitles. Reggie Jackson was a winner you can't really say that about Mike Schmidt only 1 world series title and that was against the KC Royals! ha!Now we know that individuals win all by themselves without any team :clapping :clapping

[538280]

Yeah i saw the article, i didn't impress me at all.

Why didn't it impress you? Once again, you show no understanding of Win Shares, or what they reall are. What exactly about Win Shares makes them meaningless to you? You still are yet to explain that to us.

[RedSoxVT92]

How many league tiitles did Mike Schmidt win? Compare it to Reggie Jackson he won 6, and 5 World series tiitles. Reggie Jackson was a winner you can't really say that about Mike Schmidt only 1 world series title and that was against the KC Royals! ha!

The Kansas City Royals were a power house in the 1970's and 80's. You cant say that beating the Royals were an easy to beat team just because they have stuggled in the 90's and 2000's. They had a beater record than the Phillies in 1980. Also Reggie Jackson was not the only one behind that team pushing them (although he was a big factor) A team wins not just a single person.

[dgarza]

How many league tiitles did Mike Schmidt win? Compare it to Reggie Jackson he won 6, and 5 World series tiitles. Reggie Jackson was a winner you can't really say that about Mike Schmidt only 1 world series title and that was against the KC Royals! ha!
Well, Schmidt never led his team to a 10th place finish like Reggie did.

[NOMAR22]

The Kansas City Royals were a power house in the 1970's and 80's. You cant say that beating the Royals were an easy to beat team just because they have stuggled in the 90's and 2000's. They had a beater record than the Phillies in 1980. Also Reggie Jackson was not the only one behind that team pushing them (although he was a big factor) A team wins not just a single person.


The Royals were not a power house in the 1970's ,they were better in the 1980's but i wouldn't consider them power houses. DOES MR. OCTOBER RING A BELL? Enough said.

[NOMAR22]

Why didn't it impress you? Once again, you show no understanding of Win Shares, or what they reall are. What exactly about Win Shares makes them meaningless to you? You still are yet to explain that to us.


Can you tell me how many Baseball contracts are awarded based on "Win shares"? Until "Win Shares " are the main reason a baseball player gets his pay check, is when i will give that meaningless stat a look.

[NOMAR22]

Well, Schmidt never led his team to a 10th place finish like Reggie did.


Ok, but lets be realistic. REGGIE JACKSON IS MR. OCTOBER, what is Mike Schmidt's nickname?

[dgarza]

Ok, but lets be realistic.
OK, someone make the 1st move please...

[ElHalo]

OK, someone make the 1st move please...

Honestly, somebody please say something.

[538280]

All right, I love Reggie Jackson. He's my favorite player. He's a great player. But he's not great because he's Mr. October.

Just like Win Shares aren't meaningless because they're not a main thing used in salary arbitration.

[Pine Tar]

As with about half of the threads that go on this board, there are really two issues being discussed here: the hall worthniness of Guidry and the value of win shares:rolleyes:
I don't think we will ever tire of debating the latter.

As for Guidry, I wouldn't have been upset if the hall voters had given him some more credit than they did. To do so would fly in the face of what they typically look for though. I wouldn't mind seeing him get elected in the veterans committee, but that will never happen.

As for win shares, I think that I would actually rather have all the data that make up win shares than the composite score itself. Certainly the stats that make up the number of win shares a player has will help determine his worth, but you lose so much information with any aggregate. You know the funniest thing about win shares to me is that each one is actually only 1/3 of a win. So 30 win shares is actually only 10 wins. James multiplied the number by 3 to make the differences between players larger. If that's not fuzzy math, I don't know what is.:hp

[538280]

As for win shares, I think that I would actually rather have all the data that make up win shares than the composite score itself. Certainly the stats that make up the number of win shares a player has will help determine his worth, but you lose so much information with any aggregate. You know the funniest thing about win shares to me is that each one is actually only 1/3 of a win. So 30 win shares is actually only 10 wins. James multiplied the number by 3 to make the differences between players larger. If that's not fuzzy math, I don't know what is.:hp

All right, you don't care for Win Shares because you don't really like the system, and feels it's not calculated in the best possible way. I disagree with you, but that's okay. You have a legitimate gripe. He doesn't make each win count for three WS to make the difference between players larger, he does it for another reason that I'll try to come back an tell you when I have the book in front of me.

But, you at least have a real reason, and you seem to understand what Win Shares are. This other guy doesn't have either, he's just continually saying Win Shares are meaningless, win shares are meaningless!

[The Dude]

But you are arguing that being the best pitcher on a team from 1966-2000 should count for something. And Teddy Higuera was arguablly the best Brewer pitcher from 1966-2000.


The Milwaukee brewers are not known as the best team in Baseball. The new York Yankees are. When you pitch for a historic franchise ,then your stats mean alot more if you pitched for a little known teams like the Brewers,
Mariners,Rockies,Astros,etc.

I'd just like to correct both of you. Higuera was the best Brewers pitcher from 1969/1970-2000, and I beg to differ that the Astros are a little known team after you know, appearing in the World Series. And those Mariners, having 2-3 of the top 10 players of the 90's on their team, I'm pretty sure most people know who they are.

[dgarza]

I'd just like to correct both of you. Higuera was the best Brewers pitcher from 1969/1970-2000, So are you suggesting that there was a better Brewers pitcher from 1966-1968 than what Higuera was? I'd REALLY like to know who that was...

[Captain Cold Nose]

So are you suggesting that there was a better Brewers pitcher from 1966-1968 than what Higuera was? I'd REALLY like to know who that was...
There was no Major League Brewers team in 1966-68. The franchise didn't start until 1969, in Seattle.

[dgarza]

There was no Major League Brewers team in 1966-68. The franchise didn't start until 1969, in Seattle.
Which makes the 1966-2000 statement true. There was no better Brewer pitcher in than Teddy in 1966 because there were no Brewer pitchers in 1966.
It also makes the statement true if it read "1642-2000."

[Captain Cold Nose]

Which makes the 1966-2000 statement true. There was no better Brewer pitcher in than Teddy in 1966 because there were no Brewer pitchers in 1966.
It also makes the statement true if it read "1642-2000."
So it is easier to say Teddy Higuera was the best Brewers pitcher of all time?
Has anyone surpassed him in the past 5 years?

[dgarza]

So it is easier to say Teddy Higuera was the best Brewers pitcher of all time?
Has anyone surpassed him in the past 5 years?
I was using the exact criteria NOMAR22 was using (1966-2000, not all-time), so I didn't check past 2000. I don't think there is anyone. And I was just looking at starters. Dan Plesac could be the only other pitcher (during his Brewer years) that could match Higuera.

[digglahhh]

what is Mike Schmidt's nickname?

I nominate "Mr. 1974-1987"

[Captain Cold Nose]

I nominate "Mr. 1974-1987"
How about "Mr. Can Field a Lick"?

[The Dude]

Which makes the 1966-2000 statement true. There was no better Brewer pitcher in than Teddy in 1966 because there were no Brewer pitchers in 1966.
It also makes the statement true if it read "1642-2000."

The statement from 1642-2000 is completely false because Ned Garvin would be the best brewers pitcher in 1901. Which means that Garvin was the best Brewers pitcher from 1901-1985/86, then Higuera the best Brewers pitcher from 1985/86-now, since technically Sheets hasn't passed Higuera now.

[dgarza]

The statement from 1642-2000 is completely false because Ned Garvin would be the best brewers pitcher in 1901. Which means that Garvin was the best Brewers pitcher from 1901-1985/86, then Higuera the best Brewers pitcher from 1985/86-now, since technically Sheets hasn't passed Higuera now.
This still doesn't make my statement completely false. Garvin was the best Brewer pitcher from 1642-1969. Mary Pattin "surpassed" him in 1970. During the years 1642-2000, no Brewer pitcher was better than Higuera.

[Cowtipper]

Statistical comparisons include Sandy Koufax and Lefty Gomez. He had good grey ink and Hall of Fame monitor has him as a "likely" Hall of Famer. He was in the top 10 in Cy Young Award voting six times in 14 seasons and was in the top ten in wins and strikeouts seven times (he twice led the league in wins).

I believe Guidry should get in the Hall one day.

[jalbright]

I can't go for Guidry. Even if we exclude the top seven from the 1970's and 1980's who are in the Hall (Palmer, Seaver, G. Perry, P. Niekro, Jenkins, Carlton and Ryan), he's got a lot of competition from that time, and he doesn't stack up particularly well. He's only a 4 time all star, and while he's got real plusses in being 15th in Cy Young Award shares and 52nd in Black ink, he's also 109th in Gray ink and 78th in HOF standards. Call that a mixed bag. But in win shares, he's got 174 career, 72 in his top 3 seasons, and 96 in his best five consecutive seasons. Let's compare him to the two oft-criticized choices from that era (Don Sutton and Catfish Hunter), some other candidates who have drawn serious support (Blyleven, Tiant, Stieb and Jack Morris) and some fairly similar contemporaries (Gooden, Viola, Lolich, Tanana, Messersmith and Reuschel). I limited the comparison to starters so we're talking apples to apples here:


Guidry…….. 174 72 96
Sutton……… 319 67 98
Hunter………. 206 80 117
Blyleven……. 339 75 112
Tiant……….. 256 79 108
Stieb……….. 210 74 113
Morris………. 225 60 94
Gooden…….. 187 68 95
Tanana……… 241 69 98
Viola……….. 187 69 100
Blue………… 202 77 96
Messersmith 169 75 102
Lolich………. 224 75 111
Reuschel…… 240 66 95


Sutton is quite reasonable competition at his peak, and he destroys him on the career level. Hunter beats him across the board, as do Tiant, Stieb, Lolich, and Blue. Many of the others have significant edges in the career and are darned close in peak. I just don't think Guidry had enough of a career to merit the Hall of Fame, as too many of his contemporaries did as well or better overall.