Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Koufax and Guidry

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Calif_Eagle
    replied
    Originally posted by jalbright View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • jalbright
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Calif_Eagle
    replied
    Originally posted by jalbright View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • jalbright
    replied
    Originally posted by Calif_Eagle View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Calif_Eagle
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Wendt
    replied
    Originally posted by Otis Nixon's Bodyguard View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Otis Nixon's Bodyguard
    replied
    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.
    Last edited by Otis Nixon's Bodyguard; 05-09-2008, 09:35 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ernest T Bass
    replied
    Ernest T Bass

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • J W
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Frank
    replied
    *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*
    Last edited by Frank; 02-22-2008, 06:04 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DoubleX
    replied
    Originally posted by jjpm74 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by DoubleX; 02-09-2008, 10:59 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Wendt
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Wendt
    replied
    > 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • jjpm74
    replied
    Originally posted by yanks0714 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by jjpm74; 02-09-2008, 09:17 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • yanks0714
    replied
    Originally posted by Classic View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X