Koufax and Guidry [Archive]

lovethegame

02-07-2008, 09:08 AM

Take a look and tell me why Koufax lives on Olympus and Guidry needs a ticket to get in
Gid 170-91 era 3.29 26 shutouts
1978 was as dominating as any season anytime 25-3 1.74 with 9 shutouts
done vs a dh using AL
3 time 20 plus lifetime 3 to 1 K to BB ratio CY Young and ML Player of the year winner
Koufax 165-87 era 2.76 40 shutouts in the high mound no dh NL
Best year 25-5 1.88 11 shutouts
3 time Cy Young MVP
3 20 plus seasons
3 to 1 K to BB ratio
These two guys are pretty darn close especially when you take the DH of Guidrys era vs the lack of offense in Koufax salad days
Gid also cost himself a few wins in his prime by hitting the pen during the season when the Yankees needed it

DoubleX

02-07-2008, 10:06 AM

They pitched almost the same amount of innings, yet Koufax has a 131 ERA+ compared to 119 for Guidry. That's a sizeable gap. Guidry's '78 was definitely memorable and perhaps better than anything Koufax did, but Koufax's peak from '61-'66 is hard to match by anyone, and Guidry doesn't really come close. When you take their best 5 seasons, Koufax goes up to a whopping 168, while Guidry is at 146 (which is very good, but doesn't blow you away like Koufax). Plus, keep in mind that Koufax's peak consists of consecutive years, Guidry's are scattered more throughout his career. Furthermore, Guidry never pitched more than 273 innings in a year, while Koufax topped 300 three times, making him even more valuable at his best. Koufax also won 3 Cy Youngs and an MVP award compared to 1 Cy Young for Guidry.

But I think the thing that really separates the two is how their careers played out. Guidry hung on struggled to stay on the field during the last few years of his career, finally calling it quits at 37. Koufax walked away, due to injury, at just 30 and after one of the best seasons of all time and the best 5 or 6 year stretches of all time. I think that really captures the imagination - wondering what could have been had Koufax's arm been able to hold up. Had Koufax pitched perhaps just 15-20 years later, advances in surgery and conditioning probably would have extended his career, certainly beyond just 30. So for Koufax, it's really how dominating he was by such a young age and how good he was when he walked away at such a young age.

leecemark

02-07-2008, 10:29 AM

Brad Harris

02-07-2008, 10:40 AM

Take a look and tell me why Koufax lives on Olympus and Guidry needs a ticket to get in

Because Koufax's prime is one of the greatest peak values of any pitcher's career. So much so that the lackluster first-half of his career is carried not just to the Hall of Fame, but into the Top 20 all-time greatest pitchers. Guidry, on the other hand, didn't have nearly as a good a peak nor for nearly as long and likewise had a relatively lackluster other half to his career. Guidry, at his best, simply wasn't that rare a performance. Koufax, at his best, could be argued as the greatest pitcher ever.

Neutral W-L
161-91 Koufax
153-108 Guidry

Koufax's 161 NW were the 7th highest total during his career (1955-1966) and his NW% of .639 was easily the highest during that span among pitchers with at least 100 decisions. Guidry's 153 NW were good for 16th during his time (1975-1988), but among pitchers with at least 100 decisions, his NW% of .586 ranks a mere 17th. Guidry earned 8 fewer NW than Koufax in a career that lasted 4 years longer. The difference between a .639 team and a .586 team, I might point out, is 9 games in the standings.

ERA+
In a 12-year career, Koufax put up a 131 ERA+ in 2,324-1/3 innings. That was the 4th highest ERA+ of that time span among pitchers with 100+ decisions. Career-wise, Guidry's 119 career ERA+ in 2,392 innings (over 14 years), is only the 21st highest such mark among similar pitchers. There's really no comparison.

Even during their peak years, Guidry's 123 ERA+ (1977-1985) can't touch Koufax's. Among pitchers with 100 decisions or more during that time, Guidry's ERA+ was good enough for 10th best during the best years of his career.

Versus Their Peers
From 1977-1982, Guidry was arguably the best pitcher in the game; Steve Carlton being the only other one with a legitimate claim to that title. For the first three years of that span, Guidry was clearly the best pitcher in the game; streching his peak to 5, 6 or 7 years though and Carlton's argument is equally valid.

Sandy Koufax, on the other hand, wasn't just the best pitcher in the game for six years, but from 1961-1966 he put together what is arguably the greatest prime of any pitcher in history. Koufax's ERA+ during those six seasons was 21 points higher than the next best guy! That's dominance!

These two guys are pretty darn close especially when you take the DH of Guidrys era vs the lack of offense in Koufax salad days

No, not really. Guidry was the best pitcher in the game for 3 years. Koufax for 6. Koufax's best was considerably better relative to his peers than Guidry's. We can account for the different run scoring environment and Koufax was still head-and-shoulders above Guidry both at their best and throughout their careers.

Gid also cost himself a few wins in his prime by hitting the pen during the season when the Yankees needed it
Koufax spent 21% of his games in the pen; Guidry, less than 13%. Koufax relieved in 38 more games than Guidry did. This argument doesn't hold much water.

The bottom line is the two aren't that similar except in the sense that both were the best pitcher in baseball for several seasons at their best and both had relatively short/unproductive other halves of their careers. Koufax is in the Hall because what he did during his peak was sufficient to catapult him in there. Guidry's peak just wasn't good enough to do likewise.

KCGHOST

02-07-2008, 11:39 AM

shlevine42

02-07-2008, 02:38 PM

Koufax is just a monstrous presence in the minds of those that saw him pitch. For Guidry to even be mentioned with him is a clear sign of respect for his career. And while it has no bearing on the evaluation of their careers Koufax's performance in the 7th game on 1965 World Series is the stuff of legend.

In that game, Sandy shut out the Twins 2-0, giving up just 3 hits and striking out 10. It’s no small detail to point out that just two days earlier, he had shut out the Twins on 4 hits, again striking out 10.

While those two games are a testament to his big-game ability, I've always been awed by what he did down the stretch that year, carrying the Dodgers to the pennant:

9/25/65: Shuts out the Cards, 2-0 on five hits, fanning 12 and pulling the Dodgers within one game of the first-place Giants.

9/29/65: Just four days later, shuts out the Reds 5-0, yielding just 2 hits and fanning 13, pushing the Dodgers two games ahead of the Giants.

10/2/65: Three days later, beats the Braves 2-1 to clinch the pennant, yielding just 4 hits and fanning 13.

Three complete-game “must” wins in 8 days.

And in a mirror-image performance the following year…

9/29/66: 4-hits the Cards in a 2-1 win, striking out 13.

10/2/66: Three days later, beats the Phillies 6-3, striking out 10 and clinching the pennant.

He was awesome, and it was a privilege to see him pitch.

jalbright

02-07-2008, 02:48 PM

Koufax is 12th in Black Ink, Guidry 52nd.
Koufax is 91st in Gray Ink, Guidry 109th
Koufax is 48th in HOF standards, Guidry 78th
Koufax was a 7 time All-Star, Guidry 4
Koufax was 70th in MVP shares, Guidry 284th
Koufax was 9th in Cy Young Award Shares, Guidry 15th.
Koufax won 5 ERA titles, Guidry 2.
Koufax led in wins 3 times, Guidry 2
Koufax led in strikeouts 4 times, Guidry 0
Koufax won the pitching triple crown (ERA, wins, strikeouts) 3 times, Guidry 0

Guidry was very good. Koufax was better.

Paul Wendt

02-07-2008, 02:49 PM

These two guys are pretty darn close especially when you take the DH of Guidrys era vs the lack of offense in Koufax salad days
Others have replied in terms of ERA+ which is appropriate because ERA is one important element of the opening statement. ERA+ is ERA adjusted at the season level for environmental factor of overall run-scoring. ERA+ 131 means that an average pitcher in his conditions gave up 31% more runs than Koufax; compare 19% more runs than Guidry.

The only DH effects not covered are
1.
long-term effect as a pitcher - the possibility that from year to year Guidry and contemporaries wear out sooner than pitchers before 1972. (The more difficult job within-season, on the other hand, is handled by the comparison to an average pitcher.)
2.
effect of batting - Koufax faced some greater chance of injury (eg, hit by pitch) and he was more likely to get tired running the bases. He did reach base 15% of the time!

DoubleX

02-07-2008, 04:29 PM

--I would take Guidry's 1978 season over any Koufax season. Sandy had several seasons clearly better than any other Guidry season though. Koufax beats him on peak, prime and career. Guidry is not as far from the Hall as many would think though. He is probably better than Lefty Gomez and Herb Pennock, two Yankee lefthanders in the Hall (or Yankee righthanders Chesbro and Hoyt for that matter). You could make a reasonable arguement that Guidry is the second best pitcher in Yankee history (after Ford). I'm not sure I'd buy that argument, but it isn't unreasonable.

I'd probably take Guidry's '78 over Koufax's '66 as well, but it's very close. I think the most valuable thing a pitcher can do is rack up innings, and Koufax did pitch 45 more innings than Guidry that year, so that closes the ERA+ and WHIP gap a great deal to me. Of course, Guidry pitched with the DH and without the mound, so that puts back the gap again to some degree. But when you get to that level of dominance, statistics really just become a thing for aesthetics stake - either way, both Koufax and Guidry were amazing and going to dominate in most every game at a high level in those years - the fact that Koufax could do it for 45 more innings is big for me.

lovethegame

02-08-2008, 05:21 AM

Fuzzy Bear

02-08-2008, 07:03 AM

It's silly to assert that Guidry is in the same class as Koufax. He's not, and for all of the reasons suggested.

That Guidry wasn't as good as Koufax doesn't mean he wasn't a legit HOFer. Despite his shortened career, he was truly a great pitcher. His case for the HOF is, IMO, better than the cases for Jim Rice and Andre Dawson, and I would have put Guidry in the HOF before Sutter and Gossage.

leecemark

02-08-2008, 07:30 AM

Brooklyn

02-08-2008, 10:36 AM

the point about Gids pen outings is that he did it during his peak years to benefit the team.
Koufax did his when he was coming up and couldn't get the ball over the plate.
Gid lost starts in years he won 18 and 17 games.
2 more twenty win seasons may very well change the look at him
Koufax like Jim Brown quit on top and never looked back thus leaving the taste of brilliance in our minds

Did he do it to benefit the team, or was he injured? I'm asking, I don't know.

The reason I'm speculating some sort of injury is because all of his bullpen sessions in 1980 came consecutively. He made a start on August 18 and again on September 16, with no starts in between but 8 relief appearances in between

Anyone know why he was used in the bullpen during that time?

He only had three relief appearances in 1979, the year he won 18 games, and had a win in one of them, so it is a stretch to say he would have won 20 without the relief appearances.

It is a stretch in 1980, too. He missed about 5 starts during the peirod he was relieving, during which time he got 1 win. He had 17 total wins. So with no relief appearances, he would have had to have won 4 of his 5 starts to get to 20 wins. Possible, but you can't assume he would have had it.

You also say that Koufax had his relief appearances while coming up. Guidry had 22 of his first 24 appearances of his career in relief. He only had 21 reliefe appearances after that, 8 consecutively as mentioned above. Koufax also had 21 relief appearances during the last 7 years of his career, but you are correct that most were before he started dominating.

I just don't see this relief angle making a difference in the comparison

leecemark

02-08-2008, 10:43 AM

--In 1980 Guidry moved to the bullpen when Goose Gossage got injured. The Yankees had a surplus of SP (or thought they did anyway) and nobody else they trusted to close. Guidry volunteered to fill the gap. Probably not the best choice for him or the team, although they did end up winning the division so maybe not.

Honus Wagner Rules

02-08-2008, 11:56 AM

--Guidry made the majors very late for a pitcher of his talent, being 26 years old before he stuck in the majors. He was a very good pitcher his first year and had his historically great season in his second. If he could have just had some decent years at 23/24/25 that could have put him over the hump for the Hall of Fame. Anyone know why he didn't get a shot earlier?

I checked his minor league career. He was drafted at age 20 in 1971. Just looking at his minor league record he had a very good strikeout rates but his walk rates were completely awful. I suspect that is what kept him back.

BB rates (BB/9)
1971- 5.17
1972- 6.82
1973- 6.24
1974- 6.19
1975- 5.37
1975- 5.17 (With the Yankees, 10 G)

But then in 1976 his walk rates dropped dramatically. He must have made some adjustment that got his walk rates under control.

1976- 2.25
1977- 2.78
1978- 2.37
1979- 2.70
1980- 3.28
1981- 1.84
1982- 2.80
1983- 2.16
1984- 2.04
1985- 1.46

Here is his career (minor and major league) line.

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/G/Ron-Guidry.shtml

amothegreat

02-08-2008, 02:30 PM

Man , I can't belive there is someone out there on earth that has the same thoughts I had towards Luisiana Lightning. I grew up idolizing the great lefty. I followed his career from the early start while reading Yankee's Magazine. Yeah, without a dought the most dominating pitcher of his era. A WINNER!!! a .690 winning %. If he could had 30 more wins there would be no discussion. It's very hard to get into the HOF with less than 200.(Dizzy Dean got lucky pitching when he did, cuz 150 wins buys you a cup of coffe these days). Nice to hear someone else thinks Guidry was HOF material.

lovethegame

02-08-2008, 02:39 PM

yanks0714

02-09-2008, 08:56 AM

Neutral W-L
161-91 Koufax
153-108 Guidry

Koufax's 161 NW were the 7th highest total during his career (1955-1966) and his NW% of .639 was easily the highest during that span among pitchers with at least 100 decisions. Guidry's 153 NW were good for 16th during his time (1975-1988), but among pitchers with at least 100 decisions, his NW% of .586 ranks a mere 17th. Guidry earned 8 fewer NW than Koufax in a career that lasted 4 years longer. The difference between a .639 team and a .586 team, I might point out, is 9 games in the standings.

Can you give me some idea of this 'Neutral W-L? How is it calculated? I don't like strict W-L for pitchers but this sounds intriguing.

yanks0714

02-09-2008, 09:05 AM

Versus Their Peers
From 1977-1982, Guidry was arguably the best pitcher in the game; Steve Carlton being the only other one with a legitimate claim to that title. For the first three years of that span, Guidry was clearly the best pitcher in the game; streching his peak to 5, 6 or 7 years though and Carlton's argument is equally valid.

Sandy Koufax, on the other hand, wasn't just the best pitcher in the game for six years, but from 1961-1966 he put together what is arguably the greatest prime of any pitcher in history. Koufax's ERA+ during those six seasons was 21 points higher than the next best guy! That's dominance!

No, not really. Guidry was the best pitcher in the game for 3 years. Koufax for 6. Koufax's best was considerably better relative to his peers than Guidry's. We can account for the different run scoring environment and Koufax was still head-and-shoulders above Guidry both at their best and throughout their careers.

I'm not a big Koufax fan. The reason for it is that too many people look at his Peak alone, putting him in their Top 10 pitchers based on that alone. What about his other half career? It needs to be considered as well.
As well, Sandy Koufax had some big advantages pitching his Home games in Dodgers Stadium.
Don't get wrong, I have Sandy in my own Top 20, around the 15th spot. I just can't see him in the Top 10 though.

As for your assertion about how much better he was a t his Peak than his peers compared to Guidry. It's all the more incredible when you consider who Snady's peers actually were: Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal, Jim Maloney, a young Gaylord Perry, Whitey Ford, etc. Stiff competition and Sandy blew them away.
As you mention, Guidry really only had Steve Carlton.

jjpm74

02-09-2008, 09:13 AM

I'm not a big Koufax fan. The reason for it is that too many people look at his Peak alone, putting him in their Top 10 pitchers based on that alone. What about his other half career? It needs to be considered as well.
As well, Sandy Koufax had some big advantages pitching his Home games in Dodgers Stadium.
Don't get wrong, I have Sandy in my own Top 20, around the 15th spot. I just can't see him in the Top 10 though.

As for your assertion about how much better he was a t his Peak than his peers compared to Guidry. It's all the more incredible when you consider who Snady's peers actually were: Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal, Jim Maloney, a young Gaylord Perry, Whitey Ford, etc. Stiff competition and Sandy blew them away.
As you mention, Guidry really only had Steve Carlton.

Guidry was pitching in a pretty impressive era himself. He had many impressive peers. There was also Tom Seaver, Nolan Ryan, Phil Niekro, Fergie Jenkins, Jim Palmer, Vida Blue and Gaylord Perry in the league at the same time Guidry was there and he outshined them all in his peak. Carlton wasn't the only great pitcher in baseball in the late 70s and early 80s.

Paul Wendt

02-09-2008, 10:22 AM

> Koufax's performance in the 7th game on 1965 World Series is the stuff of legend.

In that game, Sandy shut out the Twins 2-0, giving up just 3 hits and striking out 10. It’s no small detail to point out that just two days earlier, he had shut out the Twins on 4 hits, again striking out 10.

three days earlier, two days rest

It wasn't unusual in that era.
1964 Gibson - Oct 8,12,15
1965 Koufax - Oct 7,11,14
1967 Lonborg- Oct 5,9,12
1968 Lolich -- Oct 3,7,10
There were two other seasons with high mound and tall strike zone, 1963 and 1966, two four-games Series.

Gibson, Koufax, and Lonborg completed two games; won those two and lost the other. Lonborg pitched a 1-hitter and 3-hitter but bombed game seven. Gibson won game seven merely 7-5 (7-3 thru 8 inns). Koufax pitched slightly the most impressive game seven and finished with the best Series ERA. But Lolich completed and won all three games and his game seven was exceptional (solo home run in 9th) simply not quite so good as Koufax.

Paul Wendt

02-09-2008, 10:35 AM

Luis Tiant pitched games 1-4-6 in 1975 but the dates were Oct 11-15-21 thanks to rain (3 days?). The Red Sox did win all three but Luis got some help.
Bruce Hurst pitched games 1-5-7 in 1986 but the dates were Oct 18-23-27 again thanks to rain (1 day?). In game seven he blew a 3-0 lead in the sixth.

DoubleX

02-09-2008, 10:47 AM

Guidry was pitching in a pretty impressive era himself. He had many impressive peers. There was also Tom Seaver, Nolan Ryan, Phil Niekro, Fergie Jenkins, Jim Palmer, Vida Blue and Gaylord Perry in the league at the same time Guidry was there and he outshined them all in his peak. Carlton wasn't the only great pitcher in baseball in the late 70s and early 80s.

Of the players you mentioned, only Palmer and Ryan had parts of their primes in the AL overlapping with part of Guidry's prime, and even that was short-lived as Palmer was pretty much in decline by 1980 and Ryan was back in the NL in '80. As for the others - Seaver was in the NL (and was at the end of his career when in the AL), Carlton was in the NL, Niekro was in the NL, Perry was mostly in the NL and mostly in decline, Jenkins had a little left, but was pretty much in decline, Blue wasn't the same pitcher at the end of the 70s as he was at the beginning of the decade and was in the NL by then anyway.

A list of Guidry's contemporaries in the AL should probably include guys like Bert Blyleven (though he was in the NL during Guidry's best years), Jack Morris, Tommy John while in the AL, Frank Tanana, Dennis Eckersley, Dennis Martinez, Mike Flanagan, Larry Gura, and some others. You really just need to look at the AL Cy Young leaderboards in late 70s and early 80s to get an idea just how generally unimpressive the supposed best pitching in the AL was at that time. You don't really see many impressive names, and it's mostly a list of guys who were good for a few years, but not really great, and thus easier for a guy like Guidry to stand out. Here's a list of the AL Cy Young Award winners between '77 and '85 (this was pretty much Guidry's prime period and coincidentally the period between Palmer's last Cy Young and Clemens' first):

'77: Sparky Lyle
'78: Ron Guidry
'79: Mike Flanagan
'80: Steve Stone
'81: Rollie Fingers
'82: Pete Vuckovich
'83: La Marr Hoyt
'84: Willie Hernandez
'85: Bret Saberhagen

Not exactly a list of greats. The list also includes three relievers, which helps to illustrate the dearth of great starters during that time - in comparion, just one NL reliever one a Cy Young during that period (Sutter in '79).

Koufax, on the other hand, was in a league that also featured guys in their primes like Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal, Don Drysdale, and Jim Bunning. Other things like the mound height and DH and stuff aside, Koufax had more marquee names as competition at the top than Guidry did. This probably applies to the offensive side of the ball as well as Guidry wasn't pitching in a league featuring guys in their prime like Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson, Roberto Clemente, Willie McCovey, Eddie Mathews, Ernie Banks, Orlando Cepeda, Dick Allen, Billy Williams, Ron Santo, Willie Stargell, Joe Torre, Ken Boyer, and others. When Guirdy had his best years, the best hitter in the AL was on his team - Reggie Jackson. Don't get me wrong, there were some high-quality hitters in the AL during Guidry's prime, such as George Brett, Eddie Murray, Rod Carew, Robin Yount, Rickey Henderson, Carlton Fisk, Jim Rice, Dwight Evans, Fred Lynn, Ken Singleton, and guys like Wade Boggs and Cal Ripken later on, but the list as a whole really pales to what Koufax was up against, and I think is indicative of a lower talent level on the whole during Guidry's career.

I generally believe that the 60s featured a level of competition in baseball that was probably not achieved again until some point in the 90s. Several expansions, and young athletes becoming more interested in playing other sports (particularly African-American athletes, which saw their numbers in baseball decrease steadily during the 80), really diluted the quality of the game for much of Guidry's career, IMO.

Frank

02-22-2008, 05:55 PM

*Koufax last 6 seasons*{1961-1966}

W-L SO ERA CG SHo
18-13 *269 3.52 15 2
14- 7 216 *2.54 11 2
*25- 5 *306 *1.88 20 *11-mvp,cy
19- 5 223 *1.74 15 *7
*26- 8 *382 *2.04 *27 8-cy
*27- 9 *317 *1.73 *27 *5-cy

*He was one of baseballs most Domiant pitchers in this time frame*

J W

02-22-2008, 06:15 PM

I think we can put the Guidry vs. Koufax debate to rest.

But there are other, worse peak pitchers who are in the HOF. What about Dizzy Dean? He was mentioned; how does Guidry stack up to him?

Ernest T Bass

05-09-2008, 01:30 PM

Guidry was a faster runner than Koufax and any utter in the Hall of Fame. He was faster than Mickey Rivers. And none of them could tho rocks better dan me, so stick it. You haven't heard the last from Ernest T Bass.

Otis Nixon's Bodyguard

05-09-2008, 05:23 PM

Their career numbers are similar, although Sandy's are still better. However, Sandy didn't make the HOF because of his career numbers. He made the HOF on the strength of four unbelievably good seasons. The first half of his career was pretty much average, then he was one of the most dominant pitchers ever for the last four years of it. It also doesn't hurt that he retired in his prime - America has always liked the mystique associated with things cut short in their prime, or at least before they get washed up or jump the shark (see Led Zeppelin and Seinfeld). Guidry had one season comparable to Sandy's best ones, but, other than that, he was a good but not historically great pitcher. He got his numbers by being consistently above average and having one amazing season. He didn't have the prolonged spectacular prime that Koufax did. Bret Saberhagen is a much more appropriate comparison for Guidry than Sandy Koufax. Some people might think Saberhagen and Guidry belong in the HOF, and that's not necessarily unreasonable, but neither one is a slam dunk like Koufax because they didn't dominate like he did.

Paul Wendt

05-09-2008, 06:25 PM

It also doesn't hurt that he retired in his prime - America has always liked the mystique associated with things cut short in their prime, or at least before they get washed up or jump the shark (see Led Zeppelin and Seinfeld).

Jim Brown was as great a player as Koufax --greater, in that he was the best of all-time by acclamation --not greater, because "all-time" in American football was only a few decades, and only the quarterback is central like the baseball pitcher.
There isn't much romance with America. No one jumps up to defend his record.

Calif_Eagle

05-15-2008, 01:32 PM

Sandy Koufax was essentially elected to the BB HOF for 6 seasons of play, his peak value and nothing else. His 1st six seasons he compiled a WL record of 36-40 with 5 shutouts. I dont have a problem with his election, but it begs questions about the 10 year requirement & why it's even necessary. Dizzy Dean played 12 "Seasons" appearing on a token basis only in 3 of them. Addie Joss played 9 years and was in spring training for his "tenth" when he had to leave the game with the illness that would sadly kill him. If pitchers can be so dominating as to earn HOF selection on what boils down to surely less than 10 seasons of HOF caliber in the cases of Joss, Dean, & Koufax, why not hitters too? There are hitters such as AL Rosen who were "all" peak value and little to no "career value" (in the sense of career vs peak. Whereas a player like Ty Cobb would bring plenty to both indexes.) who should qualify as well. Ralph Kiner was one such hitter that DID qualify in that way.

In Pro football, Jim Brown played only 9 years, Gale Sayers played in 4 & 1/2 seasons when his game total is used. Red Grange played 9 seasons. Many Great players in that sport are in its HOF without 10 year careers. I'm sure baseball has plenty of players that a good case can at least be made for without the player having played 10 seasons

I feel that Ron Guidry wasnt up to Koufax at his peak but that his (Guidry's) overall career is HOF worthy. He certainly wouldnt be the worst pitcher ever enshrined, and that not even close. He is also surely better by far than Koufax's FIRST six seasons!

jalbright

05-15-2008, 02:59 PM

I feel that Ron Guidry wasnt up to Koufax at his peak but that his (Guidry's) overall career is HOF worthy. He certainly wouldnt be the worst pitcher ever enshrined, and that not even close. He is also surely better by far than Koufax's FIRST six seasons!

Please make the case for Guidry's worthiness rather than against the worst pitcher ever enshrined (Jesse Haines or Rube Marquard, perhaps?) or worse yet, against Koufax' first six seasons. Let's not put him in because other mistakes were made--let's only put him in if he can demonstrate his own worthiness of the honor. Personally, while I have no question he was a very good player, I don't think there's enough to merit the honor.

Calif_Eagle

05-15-2008, 04:42 PM

Please make the case for Guidry's worthiness rather than against the worst pitcher ever enshrined (Jesse Haines or Rube Marquard, perhaps?) or worse yet, against Koufax' first six seasons. Let's not put him in because other mistakes were made--let's only put him in if he can demonstrate his own worthiness of the honor. Personally, while I have no question he was a very good player, I don't think there's enough to merit the honor.

My main point was that Koufax is in for what is essentially a six season career. 8 out of Guidry's first 9 full seasons were excellent. He followed those with 3 seasons of decline that Koufax didnt experience. What if Koufax had pitched another 10 seasons & the injury had returned him to the form of the *entire first half* of his 12 season MLB career. You say dont judge him against Koufax's poor seasons. Well why not? Why only credit Koufax with his 6 years of brilliance when a full half of his career was simply mediocre; and he (Koufax) also had no decline phase at all?

What if Koufax pitched 10 more seasons, the injury was debilitating, and he kept on anyway, a lifetime as a cripple be damned, "I want to be in the Show as long as someone will hire me!!" ? A finish like or even worse than Steve Carlton's... even if it was only 5 more seasons, would Sandy still be a HOF-er?

He gets HOF credit for 6 seasons & no debit at all for 6 mediocre seasons, and no debit at all for skipping his decline phase. It doesnt seem to me any other players get that consideration in MLB. Bring up Dave Orr or Bill Joyce or Bill Lange or Bob Carruthers and you hear, they didnt play long enough. But Addie Joss, Dizzy Dean and Sandy Koufax are all in the HOF as pitchers with careers that are essentially all less than 10 full "real" (appearing in 1 game is not a "season" in my book) seasons and all built on peak value rather than career value.

Guidry had a 9 year run as a Yankee starter with 8 very fine seasons in that run. Was an All-Star 4 times. Won a Cy Young Award. Was in the voting 5 other times. Won 5 Gold Glove awards for his fielding. 2 of his BB reference comparables are Sandy Koufax and Lefty Gomez. His WL record in that 9 year stretch was 154-67. How is that not a HOF-er?

I have no problem with Sandy Koufax (or Dizzy Dean or Addie Joss) being in the HOF, But once you allow one short career player in, (in defiance of the spirit if not the letter of the 10 year rule.) you have opened that door for others to receive the same consideration.

As for Jesse Haines and Rube Marquard, well... I might not have chosen them for the HOF, and I didnt base my case for Guidry on them; or with them even in mind. But they are in there and like it or not they create sort of a basement floor, like Harry Hooper and Lloyd Waner and other hitters / position players do also. (We wont even bring Morgan Bulkeley up.) I feel that any player that posts a better career than some of the other players who are already enshrined has every right to feel: "If them, why not me too?" Why CANT we have some sort of review process and remove some of the plaques? That, to me anyway; is no more disrespectful to anyone or their memory than having thread after thread & post after post that calls Haines & Marquard (for example) "mistakes". Do a search and see how often either man's name is mentioned here WITHOUT the word "mistake" somewhere nearby in the text. How does THAT honor anyone?

jalbright

05-15-2008, 05:13 PM

Calif_Eagle

05-15-2008, 05:39 PM

As much as I wish we could undo the mistakes of the past, I'm afraid removing people from the Hall would do incalculable damage to the institution itself (starting with how the honorees perceive the honor: if it can be taken away, how much of an honor is it, anyway? Remember that many players aren't perceptive historians of the game). It's a shame it is that way, but I don't think there's a better overall solution from the Hall's perspective, and they're the ones who would have to OK any such step.

I know the Hall will never take such a step. It seems to me the honor might actually be stronger for those that remain after a purge. (And.*IF* you believe "there is no such thing as bad publicity", well... everyone will sure be talking about the HOF for awhile after a move like that!! lol ;) ) I think the whole selection process needs to be revamped. Especially the mechanisms for Veterans and figures from the distant past (thinking here of the recent O'Malley and Dreyfuss selections. Where's the basement floor ever going to be for owners and executives now? :( )

I just wonder though... what if Haines and Marquard were alive today... doing card shows, appearances at parks, PR, etc. The usual kind of things... and having to hear everywhere they went, from fans, historians, SABRmetricians, whoever... that they are mistakes... in on a pass because they had a pal on the veterans committee or because they were in a chapter of a smash hit book about the early days of baseball, not on pure merit alone. How honored would they feel? I wouldnt want my own plaque (hypothetically, IF I had one, of course) to be there if thats how others felt about the whole thing. Kind of how Ernie Lombardi felt about the HOF when he never made it in, within his lifetime.