Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Ron Guidry a HOF ?

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by 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.
    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/i...ils/#sharecalc

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by 538280
      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/i...ils/#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!

      Comment


      • #48
        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!

        Comment


        • #49
          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.
          1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

          1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

          1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


          The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
          The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by 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.
            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.

            Yankees Fan Since 1957

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by 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!
              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.

              Yankees Fan Since 1957

              Comment


              • #52
                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.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by 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.

                  I will agree with you.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    ABACAB are you a Roberto Clemente fan?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by yanks0714
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by NOMAR22
                        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.
                        1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

                        1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

                        1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


                        The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
                        The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by NOMAR22
                          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.
                          Dave Bill Tom George Mark Bob Ernie Soupy Dick Alex Sparky
                          Joe Gary MCA Emanuel Sonny Dave Earl Stan
                          Jonathan Neil Roger Anthony Ray Thomas Art Don
                          Gates Philip John Warrior Rik Casey Tony Horace
                          Robin Bill Ernie JEDI

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by RedSoxVT92
                              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!
                              THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

                              In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by NOMAR22
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X