Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Ron Guidry a HOF ?

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

  • #16
    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?
    Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
    Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by 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?
      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.

      .

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by STLCards2
        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.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by NOMAR22
          Haha! Ron Guidry was better than Pierece .
          Guidry-2392 IP, 174 Win Shares
          Pierce-3307 IP, 248 Win Shares
          whatever
          Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
          Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by NOMAR22
            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
            Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
            Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by NOMAR22
              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.

              Comment


              • #22
                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.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by RuthMayBond
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by NOMAR22
                    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.
                    go sox.

                    Pigskin-Fever

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by 538280
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by NOMAR22
                        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.

                        Yankees Fan Since 1957

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by 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.
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by yanks0714
                            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?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by NOMAR22
                              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?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by 538280
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X