Billy Pierce

[Cowtipper]

In an 18-year career, Billy Pierce went 211-169. A seven time All-Star, he won 15 games eight times and 20 games twice. During his time in the majors, the league had a 3.90 ERA - his was over half a point less than the league average, at 3.27.

In both 1956 and 1957, Pierce won the AL TSN Pitcher of the Year honor, winning 40 games combined. He led the league in strikeouts, H/9IP and K/9IP in 1953; K/9IP in 1954, ERA, WHIP and K to BB ratio in 1955; complete games in 1956; wins and complete games in 1957 and complete games in 1958.

A solid postseason pitcher, Pierce had a 1-1 record with a 1.89 ERA in five postseason games.

He had great grey ink, with his 187 higher than the average Hall of Famer's. He is statistically similar to two Hall of Famers, Hal Newhouser and Catfish Hunter, and he received votes fort the Hall of Fame every year from 1970 to 1974.

So...should Billy Pierce be in the Hall of Fame?

[KCGHOST]

Billy Pierce is certainly worthy of a serious discussion. Either way you decide is a close call. He is certainly better than some pitchers already enshrined, but he really isn't quite a mid-level guy either. Jim Albright did a pretty good analysis (link below) discussing Pierce's merits. The gist of it is that Pierce wasn't quite as good as Drysdale and Bunning (two selections that are viewed with some misgiving by many) and wasn't really better than Larry Jackson.

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=542251&postcount=273

[mtortolero]

Billy Pierce neutralized record looks very good: 221-149 (.597 W%).

[Bothrops Atrox]

Based on pure numbers, I would put him in, but he got a lot of help from a very good defense behind him-back in a time in which a lot more of pitching was defense-dependent then it is now. I have him pretty close to being in, anyway. Good job Cowtipper-this is a good, debateable candidate.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Pierce is a very nice guy. Trading him was one of the worst moves the Tigers ever made.

He's close, on the bubble with a lot of guys who were either elected, like Bunning or are on the fence. I'd hhave no problems with his being elected but am not upset he hasn't been, either.

[brett]

Pierce's career marks would probably have him a tad below the line. Mussina's are better in a tougher league. Pierce does have a good peak. He's got the 44th best 5 year ERA+ I think, about 140. I have 46 guys with a 5 year ERA+ of 140.

Among them, those not in-Rijo, Cone, Appier, Steib, Hippo Vaughn, Halliday, Cicotte, Mort Cooper, Smokey Joe Wood, Guidry, Schilling, Oswalt, Santan, Blylevin.

[Paul Wendt]

Pierce's career marks would probably have him a tad below the line. Mussina's are better in a tougher league. Pierce does have a good peak. He's got the 44th best 5 year ERA+ I think, about 140. I have 46 guys with a 5 year ERA+ of 140.

Among them, those not in-Rijo, Cone, Appier, Steib, Hippo Vaughn, Halliday, Cicotte, Mort Cooper, Smokey Joe Wood, Guidry, Schilling, Oswalt, Santan, Blylevin.

Halladay, Schilling, Oswalt, and Santana?
Surely also Mussina, Martinez, Clemens, Maddux, Johnson?

Here are the others on a time line.
1990s Rijo, Cone, Appier
1980s Stieb
1970s Blyleven, Guidry
1960s
1950s Pierce
1940s Cooper
1930s
1920s
1910s Vaughn, Cicotte, Wood
1900s
1890s
1880s
1870s

That isn't a uniformly random pattern.
Nor will any adjustments help much, such as for the great long-term increase in number of pitchers.
(What is the criterion? Five consecutive seasons with 1 IP per team game?)

What does this pattern mean?

add: brett, do you have a database that readily generates statistics such as 5-year ERA+ ?

[dgarza]

What does this pattern mean?

One thing is that players from the 70s-present have not been completely dealt with for the HOF, so there are players who may get in, even by the VC.

[Paul Wendt]

Jim Albright did a pretty good analysis (link below) discussing Pierce's merits. The gist of it is that Pierce wasn't quite as good as Drysdale and Bunning (two selections that are viewed with some misgiving by many) and wasn't really better than Larry Jackson.

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.p...&postcount=273

For a comparison I would look first to Bob Lemon. Setting aside those who would radically trim the size of the Hall of Fame, I suspect that many who "misgive" the induction of Bunning and Drysdale group them with other pitchers of the 1960s, meaning the big strike-zone 1963-1968. (Larry Jackson too.) Probably those conditions boosted longevity for everyone who didn't suffer serious injury. Certainly they boosted innings and thus other counting statistics at the season level.

Pierce and Lemon did not enjoy that boost. They weren't so good as Ford or so durable and longlived as Wynn.

On the other hand, if Bunning, Drysdale, and Lemon were on the outside with Pierce, we wouldn't have a lot of 1950s innings on the inside. (Ford, Wynn, Spahn, Wilhelm.)

Let me expand the generation and wonder aloud whether others were the greater players of the generation, with major leagues careers dislocated and disrupted by segregation and slow integration, the Mexican League and Chandler's harsh response, WWII and military service.

(Ford, Wynn, Spahn, Wilhelm --in the Hall and not on the agenda)
Lemon, Pierce
Kinder, Maglie, Newcombe

(Beside Lemon, Allie Reynolds and Lew Burdette garnered some real support for the Hall of Fame. But they weren't so good.)

[brett]

Halladay, Schilling, Oswalt, and Santana?
Surely also Mussina, Martinez, Clemens, Maddux, Johnson?

Here are the others on a time line.
1990s Rijo, Cone, Appier
1980s Stieb
1970s Blyleven, Guidry
1960s
1950s Pierce
1940s Cooper
1930s
1920s
1910s Vaughn, Cicotte, Wood
1900s
1890s
1880s
1870s

(What is the criterion? Five consecutive seasons with 1 IP per team game?)

What does this pattern mean?

add: brett, do you have a database that readily generates statistics such as 5-year ERA+ ?

I counted Maddux, Clemens, Johnson and Pedro as automatics, and actually Mussina did not have a 140 ERA+ over a period of 5 consecutive years.

The criterion was 200 ip per season average.

I also missed one, Harry Brecheen.

I computed them a few months ago for a draft on the fantasy forum.

Here is my complete list of 5 year ERA+ better than 140, in order.

Pedro
Maddux
Walter Johnson
M. Brown
Randy Johnson
Alexander ('18 excluded)
Mathewson
Grove
Gibson
Koufax
Kevin Brown
Newhouser
Walsh
Young
Clemens ('86-'90)
Nichols
Hubbell
Seaver
Santana
Joss
Waddell
SJ Wood
Rijo
Reulbach
Cone
Marichal
Halliday
Vance
Appier
Ford
Schilling
Gomez
Mort Cooper
Cicotte
Steib
Coveleski
Guidry
Webb
Feller
Vaughn
Clarkson
Bender
Palmer
Pierce
Brecheen
Oswalt
Blylevin

[Bothrops Atrox]

I counted Maddux, Clemens, Johnson and Pedro as automatics, and actually Mussina did not have a 140 ERA+ over a period of 5 consecutive years.

The criterion was 200 ip per season average.

I also missed one, Harry Brecheen.

I computed them a few months ago for a draft on the fantasy forum.

Here is my complete list of 5 year ERA+ better than 140, in order.

Pedro
Maddux
Walter Johnson
M. Brown
Randy Johnson
Alexander ('18 excluded)
Mathewson
Grove
Gibson
Koufax
Kevin Brown
Newhouser
Walsh
Young
Clemens ('86-'90)
Nichols
Hubbell
Seaver
Santana
Joss
Waddell
SJ Wood
Rijo
Reulbach
Cone
Marichal
Halliday
Vance
Appier
Ford
Schilling
Gomez
Mort Cooper
Cicotte
Steib
Coveleski
Guidry
Webb
Feller
Vaughn
Clarkson
Bender
Palmer
Pierce
Brecheen
Oswalt
Blylevin

What about Glavine from 1995-1999

[brett]

What about Glavine from 1995-1999

Just misses-138. To determine composite ERA+ you can't just average the ERA+ from each year weighted by innings. The ERA+ scores have to be turned back into relative ERA scores and then averaged and turned back into ERA+ scores. The average of reciprocols is not equal to the reciprocol of the averages-in case that lead to a miscalculation.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Black Ink: Pitching - 28 (55) (Average HOFer ≈ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 216 (30) (Average HOFer ≈ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 42.0 (61) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 98.0 (96) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

Pierce wouldn't be an outrageous pick. Pierce pitched in the AL during an era where there really wasn't a dominant pitcher. Whitey Ford didn't win 20 until 1961, and he only did it twice (although he did win a Cy Young Award when there was only one award handed out). Really, the dominant AL pitcher of the fifties, in terms of wins, was Bob Lemon; he was the ONLY consistent 20 game winner in the AL in the fifties.

On the other hand, why Pierce and not Tiant? Why Pierce and not Vida Blue? Why Pierce and not Ron Guidry? Why Pierce, and not Jim Kaat? Why Pierce, and not Bert Blyleven. Why Pierce, and not Tommy John? Why Pierce, and not Mike Cuellar?

Pierce's HOF monitor score of 98.6 puts him just below the midpoint of the gray area. Out of 100 guys who do what Pierce did, 49 will make the Hall, and 51 won't. There often isn't rhyme or reason as to why a guy is in the 49 and not the 51, and vice versa.

The bottom line for me on Pierce is that while he would not be the worst pitcher in the HOF, there are several candidates eligible who are so far ahead of Pierce (Blyleven, John, Kaat, Morris) that I cannot justify Pierce cutting ahead in line.

[THE OX]

IMO, Pierce was sort of at the "Warren Spahn" level as far as American Leaguers of that era is concerned.

[henrich]

captain cold nose and I agree

Black Ink: Pitching - 28 (55) (Average HOFer ≈ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 216 (30) (Average HOFer ≈ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 42.0 (61) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 98.0 (96) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

Pierce wouldn't be an outrageous pick. Pierce pitched in the AL during an era where there really wasn't a dominant pitcher. Whitey Ford didn't win 20 until 1961, and he only did it twice (although he did win a Cy Young Award when there was only one award handed out). Really, the dominant AL pitcher of the fifties, in terms of wins, was Bob Lemon; he was the ONLY consistent 20 game winner in the AL in the fifties.

On the other hand, why Pierce and not Tiant? Why Pierce and not Vida Blue? Why Pierce and not Ron Guidry? Why Pierce, and not Jim Kaat? Why Pierce, and not Bert Blyleven. Why Pierce, and not Tommy John? Why Pierce, and not Mike Cuellar?

Pierce's HOF monitor score of 98.6 puts him just below the midpoint of the gray area. Out of 100 guys who do what Pierce did, 49 will make the Hall, and 51 won't. There often isn't rhyme or reason as to why a guy is in the 49 and not the 51, and vice versa.

The bottom line for me on Pierce is that while he would not be the worst pitcher in the HOF, there are several candidates eligible who are so far ahead of Pierce (Blyleven, John, Kaat, Morris) that I cannot justify Pierce cutting ahead in line.

I have him just inside the line, but right on the line. I think all the guys above should be in. Kaat, Blyleven, John, Cuellar, Guidry. I also agree that Pierce should wait until after these guys, especially Blyleven and Kaat.