Sorta like that pro-Jim Rice/HOF dude…except with a deep hankerin’ for tailgators creole boulette po’boy.
The fact is that most HOF pitchers were truly great for a period of about ten years. Pitchers like Walter Johnson, Maddux, Spahn, Clemens and Seaver who had multiple outstanding seasons outside their peak decade are the exception, not the rule. It is clear that Ron Guidry had a peak decade that is comparable to the peak decades of many Hall of Famers - Bunning, Drysdale, Lemon, Wynn, Sutton, Gomez, Hunter, Jenkins, Ruffing and Roberts, among others. It is also clear that none of these pitchers did anything outside of their peak decade that materially added to their HOF resume.
* * * * * *
I would humbly submit that by any statistical measure Guidry’s HOF qualifications are the equal of Bunning’s, Dyrsdale’s, Lemon’s, Newhouser’s, Vance’s and Gomez’s. To the extent they won more games in their career it is because they pitched in the era of four-man rotations. I would also submit that Guidry’s HOF qualifications are the equal of Ruffing’s, Hunter’s, Sutton’s and Niekro’s. To the extent they won more games than Guidry they did so primarily because they had many more seasons where they were perhaps competent major league pitchers but not HOF quality pitchers.
There will no doubt be those who argue that many of these pitchers don’t meet their particular idea of HOFers. Hunter, Bunning and Drysdale are examples of more recent HOF inductees who are frequently characterized as marginal inductees. Vance, Newhouser, Coveleski, Pennock, Hoyt and Faber are just a few examples of other pitchers who have been deemed by many to be marginal HOFers. I think it is fair to say that Guidry’s HOF qualifications stack up pretty well against the qualifications of all the pitchers I’ve named in this paragraph. If one wants to argue nonetheless that Guidry doesn’t belong in the Hall then they are in effect arguing for a much smaller Hall of Fame and for HOF standards that are radically more restrictive than the standards that have been observed for the last 75 years.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
It is silly that guys like that are "punished for not sticking around, and going 12-12 for a bunch of years to boos W totals. Guidry was fantastic.
Guidry doesn't have the peak value to support such a short career. It's not like he was Pedro for five years, or even three. His career ERA+ is 119. He has a 3-year peak that would fit nicely into a HOF career (including one historic season), but not much outside of that. Ok, we could water down his peak a tad and get him up to a nice 5-year peak, giving him credit for the strike, but he just doesn't have enough value outside of that.
Damn, Ray, I hate it when I agree with you. I'll take solace in the implication that we disagree about Saberhagen.
The Sutton case is really interesting, too. Guidry's peak decade was plainly superior to Sutton's, and Sutton was nothing but mediocre outside his peak decade of '71 to '80. Outside his peak decade, Sutton was basically a .500 pitcher with an ERA+ UNDER 100!
If you allow Sutton in the Hall but reject Guidry than you're just honoring sustained mediocrity. If you allow Bunning and Drysdale but reject Guidry than you're just penalizing modern era pitchers for pitching in an era of five-man rotations.
Everyone here believes you wrote the post.
23 seasons, 756 starts, 5,282 innings, and, oh yeah, 324 freakin' wins. That's a lotta mediocrity there, Lou.
No, Sutton probably wouldn't be in if he hadn't won 300. But he did. With 24 to spare. Deal with it.
If you allow Bunning and Drysdale but reject Guidry than you're just penalizing modern era pitchers for pitching in an era of five-man rotations.
Drysdale was a mistake IMHO. And hasn't the whole four-man vs. five-man thing been debunked?
This sounds so familiar. Historic 1978 season bookmarked by excellent seasons in 1977 and 1979 followed by 7 years of good but not great. I feel like we just elected this guy to the Hall of Fame, maybe last year?
I must admit I'm completely mystified by the Saberhagen worship here at BBTF. The best case for Saberhagen involved focusing on just his five peak years and ignoring all the bad and injury riddled years in between. Saberhagen really has nothing outside of his five peak seasons of '85, '87, '89, '91 and '94. Here's his line for those five years:
88-34, 148 ERA+, 1127 IP
Now here's just Guidry's first five full seasons, not even his peak five:
87-33, 143 ERA+, 1067 IP
Virtually identical. Now throw in Guidry's '83 and '85 seasons, in which he won 20 games each year and had 2nd and 5th place Cy Young finishes, and it's not even close. Guidry by a mile over Saberhagen. And if you substitute '85 for '80 to take what were arguably Guidry's five best seasons, he's 92-29 with a 146 ERA+ - and we're still leaving out his '83 season when he won 21 games and finished 5th in the CY voting.
Guidry beats Saberhagen easily, any way you cut. As I said, Saberhagen's best argument involved ignoring all his truly terrible years that occurred amid his best years and focusing just on the good ones. Even then Guidry beats him.
Guidry:
Best single year: 24-7
Best 3 consecutive: 56-24
Best 10 consecutive: 146-97
Whole career: 158-108
Saberhagen:
Best single year: 21-8
Best 3 consecutive: 55-32 (Of course, you can do better with non-consecutive)
Best 10 consecutive: 133-80
Whole career: 174-111
The key thing that pushes Saberhagen ahead of Guidry is value outside of the best 10-year stretch.
Heh, wish I could take credit. Whoever did this plainly knows his way around a spreadsheet. I don't even have a spreadsheet app on my laptop.
The claim that Guidry had three good seasons and then a bunch of mediocre ones is really astounding. 22-6 is mediocre? A 2nd place CY finish? And 21-9 with a 5th place finish is mediocre? How about the strike shortened '81 season, when Guidry was the Sporting News lefthanded starter on its all-star team, and led the league in WHIP and SO/BB ratio?
If these are mediocre seasons, I'll take 'em for my team.
But that's just an accumulation of seasons where Saberhagen didn't even pitch full seasons, had very few wins, very little beneficial impact on his team, but had decent ERAs. Bill James correctly states that this is exactly what Tommy John did, and that's why John doesn't get the HOF support that Blyleven does despite having very similar stats.
I think Bill James has it right on Saberhagen - just not enough seasons where he ranked among the best in the league.
But he also had some years that were mediocre or worse. Guidry deserves credit for throwing a lot of innings 1982-1984, but looking at a 45-28 record masks the 100 ERA+. He's a Hall of Very Good pitcher, there's no shame in that. But he's not Hall of Fame.
(Although I did not know, until looking at it just now, that he won 5 Gold Gloves. How about that?)
But 10 years of going 12-12 with a 100 ERA+ is actually pretty valuable. The fact that so many pitchers can be awesome for five years but can't tack on the ten mediocre years is pretty telling.
How do you feel about Bunning? Drysdale? Lemon? Hunter? Vance? Newhouser? Gomez? Because on a purely statistical basis Guidry was as good as any of those guys. And that's before you throw in the incredible big-game record and the astounding winning percentage.
Kiko nails it. Yeah, that's Jim Rice all right. The difference, of course, is that Guidry was one of the great clutch performers of his era while Rice was a truly terrible clutch performer.
I've never really looked at the Hall of Merit selections here at BBTF. They're really bizarre. Can anyone explain why Stieb is in and Jimmy Key never even got serious consideration? If anyone can point to a dime's worth of difference between those two I'd be interested in hearing from them.
And how about all the support for Bucky Walters? The guy had three really good years and one of them was during the war years. But Bucky is knocking on the door of the HOM while Guidry never even got considered.
To you? Probably not.
Give it a shot, SoSH. Let me help you out. Same ERA+. Almost the same number of innings and strikeouts. Virtually identical WHIP. The only differences seem to be that Key had a much better W-L record and got far more Cy Young support in his career.
So tell me, SoSH, why is Stieb in the HOM while Key didn't even get a smidgen of support?
As I proved conclusively the last time you were going on about Guidry, he cost the Yankees the 1985 division title all by himself, with two terribly un-clutchy April starts.
Guidry’s best 11 (1977-87): 121 ERA+, 2304.1 IP
Sutton’s best 11 (1971-81): 121 ERA+, 2668 IP
If by "plainly superior" you mean, "about the same, except Sutton was significantly more durable" then, yes.
Do that, and report back. You might learn something!
Guidry ranks 16th in quality among pitchers with careers of roughly the same length.
Hall of Famers are ranked 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 6th and 17th (respectively Wilhelm, Joss, Koufax, Gomez, and Monte Ward).
So Guidry was slightly better (using ERA+) than one Hall of Famer but worse than 11 non Hall of Famers if we consider guys with careers of comparable length. Unless Guidry had significant off the field credentials greater than Monte Ward, he doesn't have much of an argument. Fine pitcher, but not even in the gray area for a Hall of Fame debate based on this admittedly simple analysis.
Sutton’s best 11 (1971-81): 121 ERA+, 2668 IP
Look at the peak decades. Similar ERA+, but Guidry averaged 16.9 wins per season while Sutton averaged 16.4, despite the fact that Sutton made 47 MORE STARTS. Guidry not only had by far the better winning percentage - .672 to .615 - Guidry also outperformed his team's record over that decade by 26%. Sutton only outperformed the Dodgers record by 10%. Sutton only had one finish in the top 3 in Cy Young voting during that peak, while Guidry had a first, second and third. Despite pitching in a four-man rotation and making far more starts, Sutton had ONE 20-win season. Guidry had THREE.
If you think that's similar, have another drink of the kool-aid.
Don Sutton 70.8
Don Drysdale 65.7
Jim Bunning 60.1
Dazzy Vance 56.4
Hal Newhouser 56.3
Bret Saberhagen 54.7
Dave Stieb 53.0
Jimmy Key 45.7
Ron Guidry 44.4
Lefty Gomez 43.0
Bob Lemon 42.4
Catfish Hunter 32.5
Hey, does anybody here know whether the Dodgers went to a five-man rotation in 1971?
Because Tommy doesn't.
That said, on its face, Tommy's question about Stieb vs Key is not outrageous is it?
The areas where their individual line stats vary noticeably are:
- Losses (Key with 17% fewer)
- Games Finished (irrelevant)
- Complete Games (Stieb with 3 times more)
- shutouts (Stieb with 2.3 times more)
- Saves (irrelevant)
- BB (Stieb with 54% more)
- HBP (Stieb with over three times as many)
- HR /9 (Key gave up 23% more)
- SO / BB (a factor of the BB count).
Otherwise, Key has more wins, same ERA+, 90% of Stieb's innings.
Can someone who understands WAR give me a sense of what likely accounts for the career difference of 8 WAR? I have looked at the formula, but don't have a good understanding of its nuances.
Thanks.
The 304 IP advantage for Stieb would account for most of it, I'd imagine.
Stieb was throwing 270 innings of 145 ERA+ at his peak, and did so for multiple years. Key only came close to that many innings once with 261 in 1987.
Basically, even though Stieb only has a lead of 300 innings for career, his innings were packed into a few high quality years, while Key's were spread among more years at a lower quantity per year, which is less valuable.
I count at least ten HOF pitchers who pitched between 1700 and 3500 innings and had ERA+ lower than or equal to Guidry's: Lemon, McGinnity, Chesbro, Willis, Bender, Fingers, Haines, Marquard, Eckersley and Hunter. Hunter may have pitched 3400 innings, but does that make his 104 ERA+ somehow better than Guidry's? Same for Haines - 3200 innings but a 108 ERA+. McGinnity and Chesbro may have pitched between 200 and 400 more innings than Guidry, but there ERA+ are not above 115. Lemon has the same ERA+ as Guidry and pitched only 2850 innings, which if you adjust for the different eras is about the same number of innings as Guidry (each had 10 full seasons where they pitched enough innings to qualify for league titles).
And what about Bender, Grimes, Ruffing, Wynn and Hoyt? They all had ERA+ below 112. Sure, they pitched more innings, but their ERA+ aren't even within shouting distance of Guidry's.
ERA+ is a very limited statistic, and too many people place too much significance on it. Unless, that is, you really believe that Roy Halladay is better than Sandy Koufax and Saberhagen was as good as Jim Palmer.
I don't think there's any question Guidry is better than somebody in the HOF -- perhaps even better than the worst 10% of HOFers. Of course, that's a perfectly stupid standard, but it's the one Tommy seems to be arguing.
That said, I'd love to hear Tommy's best argument against inducting Guidry. In other words, can he make an honest effort to understand the other side's points?
And yet Stieb never finished higher than 4th in the CY voting, while Key had THREE top four finishes. The reasons are pretty plain. Stiebs peak years with big innings and good ERAs were '82 to '85. But he was a terrible clutch pitcher in those years, finishing with a negative Clutch factor each year and compiling some of the worst "late and close" performances since Blyleven in the late '70s. As a consequence he significantly underperformed, compiling a winning percentage nearly 50 points lower than his Pythagorean record (Stieb was .577 over those four years, compared to a .625 Pythagorean).
Key, by contrast, was a very good clutch pitcher in his best years, and tended to outperform relative to his run support.
The disparity in clutch performance persisted over their careers. If I understand the Leverage ERA+ statistic correctly, Stieb's career LevERA+ was 119 while Key's was 123.
I understand that Stieb has his fanboys here, but anyone who wants to argue that Stieb belongs in the HOM and Key didn't even deserve a vote is manifestly insane.
Holy crap, you're considering 3500 innings as being roughly equal to 2400 innings? Seriously? That is complete nonsense. It's like saying Guidry and Chris Carpenter were similar in terms of the number of wins they had.
Actually, if you went through the trouble of checking out the HOM, you'd see that most people didn't want him in there either - his election was at least partially due to timing issues, since the HOM requires a certain number of electees a year. He got elected with one of the lowest scores, and was (in later voting) determined to be just about the worst pitcher in the HOM.
If the voting structure was even slightly different, it is very likely that Stieb would not have been selected to the HOM.
I haven't looked at either Stieb's or Key's numbers closely enough to really have an opinion here, but Dave Stieb is one of the worst pitchers in the Hall of Merit. There's no particular shame in that - somebody has to be the worst pitcher in. But at that level, it's perfectly reasonable to have a player who's slightly worse than the worst Hall-of-Meriter end up getting relatively little support. It could also come down to a simple matter of timing / quirkiness of the HoM's rules. Stieb was elected before Key was even eligible (his 1998 season was ignored in determining eligibility, I think) and he only got 27% of the vote in his election year.
Similarly, as Fred ... Agonistes suggests in #34, you probably won't get a lot of argument that Guidry was better than Rube Marquard and Jack Chesbro and Jesse Haines and Waite Hoyt and Catfish Hunter. But you'll just get a lot of agreement that none of those guys deserve to be in the Hall of Fame either.
Arguing that your guy is better than the HOF mistakes is not a way to score points. The problem is, there are oodles and scads of guys better than Bender, Haines, and Marquard. Why Guidry and not, to throw another off the wall candidate out there, Steve Rogers? Like Guidry, he had a quality decade and not much else. In fact, they are very similar (except for wins because Rogers pitched for the Expos). From 1975-1983*, Rogers pitched 2242 innings at an ERA+ of 122. From 1977-1986, Guidry pitched 2186 at 121. Both had 1 other good (short) season outside of that decade, Rogers 135 IP 247 ERA+, Guidry 117 IP, 112 ERA+.
For their careers, Rogers 129 CG and 37 ShO, Guidry 95 and 26. Guidry struck out about 150 more, walked 200 fewer, but gave up 75 more HR. Rogers pitched 500 more innings.
So why Guidry and not Steve "0 votes in his only time on the ballot" Rogers?
*and before you get all pedantic about 9 years not being a decade, note that in those 9 years he pitched 60 more innings than Guidry did in 10, and both include the 1981 strike.
Sorry. I prefer to judge candidates by their accomplishments, not what a group of 30 sportswriters think of their accomplishments.
I don't think most of those players you mentioned belong. Chesbro, Willis, Bender, Haines, Marquard, Hunter, Grimes and Hoyt don't belong imo. Congratulations, Ron Guidry's better than a bunch of mistakes.
That doesn't explain anything. If someone had to go in, why Stieb rather than Key? Or Guidry? Or Tiant? Each of these guys were great clutch pitchers. The differences in their career statistics aren't all that much, but three guys were great clutch pitchers and one was really poor in the clutch. Tiant and Guidry each had multiple seasons in which their pennant race performances had a huge impact on the race and benefited their team. Stieb was a pennant race disaster. Key and Guidry each had great post-season numbers and fantastic World Series performances. Stieb was a post-season disaster.
I don't want to place too much emphasis on these factors, but in a situation where the career numbers are so similar the pennant race and post-season performances become very important, particularly if there is such a striking disparity in the performances.
Because Key wasn't eligible for the HoM yet.
500 more IP with a career ERA+ 3 points higher.
Career ERA+ 8 points better enough to offset Tiant's 600 IP advantage.
As for the Stieb/Tiant comparison, also, again you're getting into voting quirkiness. The year that Stieb was elected, there were 48 HOM ballots. Stieb appeared on exactly half of those ballots. For the other half, you'd have to go back and read the ballot thread or discussion thread to see where they came down on the Stieb v. Tiant question. They're very, very close and the electorate leaned toward Stieb just enough to elect him and not elect Tiant.
1) Few people place a similar absurd amount of emphasis on "clutch performance" as you do.
2) Stieb's peak was superior to each Key, Guidry and Tiant.
Why Guidry (for the Hall), rather than Steve Rogers? Or Chuck Finley (2130 IP, 123 ERA+ in his best decade)? Or Kevin Appier (1867, 131)? Or David Cone (2067, 131)? Or Orel Hersheiser (2012, 121)? Or Rick Reuschel (who has 10 years as good or better then Guidry's, but they aren't consecutive and I'm not going to calculate them)? Or Vida Blue (2123, 121)?
These are all contemporaries, or near contemporaries of Guidry who were as good or better than he was during their best decades, and best decade is all Gid has going for him. The other guys have it right: this is Jim Rice redux, and only by torturing the data (substituting clutch for fear), and relying on the dubious value of seasonal award voting, can one begin to make some sort of argument.
Steve Rogers is the poster boy for why ERA+ can be so deceptive. Rogers pitched for some bad Expos teams between '74 and '78, but Rogers wasn't much better than the Expos, compiling a .450 winning percentage. Then he pitched for some good Expos teams between '79 and '81, and the Expos gave him better than average run support, and Rogers still posted about the same winning percentage as his team and wins on average only 15 games a year (and that figure adjusts for the srike-shortened '81 season).
The reasons why Rogers could never really outperform his team, as a good pitcher should, is because he was perhaps the worst clutch pitcher of his era. Take a look at the Clutch stats at Fangraphs.com. Rogers had a negative 7.66 rating for his career. Take a look at the leverage stats at Baseball-Reference.com. Rogers pitched 18% worse in high leverage situations and pitched 8% better in low leverage situations. That's about the worst clutch performance figures you'll see.
Steve Rogers record never seemed to match his ERAs for two reasons. One reason is that he generally received poor run support. But the bigger reason is that he gave up runs when they counted most, and pitched his best when it didn't really matter. Rogers's LevERA+ was 115 for his career. You didn't want Steve Rogers in the game when the game was on the line.
There is no comparison between Ron Guidry and Steve Rogers. The Expos had about the same winning percentage between '79 and '81 as the Yankees did during Guidry's peak of '77 to '86. But Guidry had a .674 winning percentage over that time. Rogers had a .569 winning percentage, and it would have been a lot worse but for the fact that the Expos pulled out an extraordinary 13 games over those three years where Rogers left the game while behind.
That is absurd. Guidry's peak - take any period, three years, four years, five years, six years - was far better than Stieb's. The only statistic you can cite where Stieb shows well is ERA+, and it is rendered extremely misleading because of Stieb's well demonstrated inability to pitch well in the clutch.
Take his peak years, '82 to '90. Stieb posts some very good ERA+ but his records never match the ERA. And here's the proof.
Stieb had a .600 winning percentage between '82 and '90 (this period includes all of his good years). His team had a .539 winning percentage in games in which Stieb was not the pitcher of record. Stieb got 4.7 runs per game, precisely the Blue Jays average scoring rate over that 9 year period. Stieb outperformed his team's record by 11% and averaged exactly 15 wins per season.
Guidry had a .697 winning percentage between '77 and '85, his best nine year period. His team had a .552 winning percentage in games in which Guidry was not the pitcher of record, only slightly better than the Jays. Guidry also got almost precisely average Yankee run support, getting only 3% more runs than the Yankee average over those years. But Guidry outperforms his team's record by 26% and averages 17.8 wins per season.
Same teams, same run support, but Guidry wins far more games and wins a far higher percentage.
That about covers it, doesn't it? Stieb was pitching for teams as good as the Yanks. He was getting the same run support. But he couldn't match Guidry's great record. He averaged 15 wins a year. That's Blyleven territory, friend. Not a Hall of Famer. Or Hall of Meriter, for that matter.
Huh? I thought that was Saberhagen? Or was it Steib? Maybe it's anybody who is comparable to Guidry but gets no HOF support.
Utterly false premise.
Year - Rogers W% - Expos W%
1973 - .667 - .488
1974 - .405 - .491
1975 - .478 - .463
1976 - .292 - .340
1977 - .515 - .463
1978 - .565 - .469
1979 - .520 - .594
1981 - .593 - .556
1982 - .600 - .545
1982 - .704 - .531
1983 - .586 - .506
1984 - .286 - .484
He was better than his team 8 times, worse 4. He was 50 points or more better 6 times, worse 3.
Guidry's best 5 years by WAR: 28.2
Stieb's best 5 years by WAR: 33.0
Stieb made two starts against the other contender in those races and didn't win either, going a total of 8.2 innings, giving up 7 earned runs and WALKING NINE.
Can you say choke?
I thought wins was pretty much verboten as an argument anywhere near this site.
Both Bob Gibson and Lou Brock were able to gild their resumes with multiple spectacular postseason performances, in an era in which the only postseason was the World Series, so the postseason in those days had more of a chance to make a huge impact (IMO) on one's perception of a player.
I read Tommy's accounting of Guidry's stretch-run pitching history, and I thought it was pretty impressive, to the point where I'd consider it a point in his favor for consideration into the HoF.
That said, I'm not convinced that Guidry belongs, although he's certainly better than a lot of the questionable picks mentioned above.
Interestingly, the Jays also played in a third pennant race in the LATE 1980s - 1989, to be precise - where they were 2 GB through August 23rd. From there, the team went 7-0 in Stieb's final 7 starts of the year (he was 5-0) and they held off the Orioles by 2 games.
Why doesn't that one count?
Like you maybe, in the previous paragraph?
No, he's a winner because in three games against the Red Sox in Sep/Oct with a pennant on the line he pitched 24.1 innings and gave up ten hits and two runs, and pitched two 2-hit shutouts.
He's a winner because he pitched three more games like that against the other contenders in three other tight races in September and won them all, too. He was 6-0 with a 1.97 ERA in those starts altogether.
Ya think that makes him a winner? Let me see, 30 starts in September in tight pennant races and 26 wins. Stieb makes 13 starts and wins two games.
See a pattern here?
See my #56. You know, 26 wins in 30 games still beats the pants off of 7 wins in 20 games. So, what's the point of skipping Stieb's third pennant race? It just makes you look disingenuous.
Fair point. Make that three tight pennant races for Stieb, 18 starts and 5 wins.
Five wins in 18 starts? Damn, that's like winning ten games in an entire season of 36 starts. Quick, put him in the Hall of Fame!
That's a great point about the bottom-of-the-ballot Cy Young voting, where a single third-place mention makes legends.
You Gatorhaters need to get your noses out of BB-Ref and examine the contemporary opinion of the writers who actually SAW these pitchers pitch and tasted their flop sweat. Remember all those columns by Dick Young and Shirley Povich, pounding on Dave Stieb's lousy Pythagorean numbers?
1988, the Blue Jays finished 2 games out. Steib went 5-1 in September, finishing the year with 3 straight shutouts. So it's more like 12 wins in 26 games.
By my count, that makes 25 September starts in pennant races and only 7 wins for Stieb. And that makes three starts against the other contender and no wins.
This is making Blyleven look good.
Stieb went 11-10 in 1981 for a Jays team that went 26-59 when he didn't get a decision. I'm not sure how you define good years, but that one works for me.
They were 8.5 back with 10 to play. Stieb won only ONE of seven starts and posted a 5.56 ERA in the weeks leading up to his shutouts. The Jays could have gotten into the race but Stieb killed them. The Jays were 8.5 back with 13 to go when Stieb pitched his first precious shutout. They were all but eliminated when he pitched his second, behind 6.5 with 7 to go. They were long since eliminated when he pitched his last shutout.
Let's see, one win in seven starts with a 5.56 ERA when the Jays were still actually in it, but three straight shutouts when the Jays magic number for elimination was under 5.
Funny, that doesn't say clutch to me. It says that Stieb stunk until the Jays situation was hopeless, then he turned into Tom Seaver when it no longer mattered!
I saw '88 earlier and didn't consider a real pennant race because the Jays had no shot and made up a bunch of games after they were already eliminated. But I'm glad you brought it up because it demonstrates how Stieb couldn't deliver until the pressure was off and the Jays' situation was hopeless.
The last four starts, he went 7 innings on three occasions and gave up 1, 2, and 2 earned runs (and a fourth start where he was terrible), getting no decisions in all cases, with two of the games being lost by the bullpen. The team record in those four starts was 2-2.
I'm not sure how Stieb can be faulted for those bullpen performances, but I'm sure you'll find a way.
Good point. And Bucky Brandon was 7-7 for the '72 Phils team that won only 59 games but nobody ever remembers that, preferring to give silly Steve Carlton all the glory!
But that was Stieb for you. 11-10 with a crappy team, 14-13 for a great one.
All of Guidry's clutch wins were 1-0 complete games, because the Yankees had no pen or offense during his peak/career.
And still missed his 5-1 Sep 1988.
Sep 18. Steib leaves the game after 7 up 2-1. Pen gives up a run in the 8th, Jays score in the 9th to win.
Sep 28. He gives up 2 ER through 7, but errors lead to 2 other runs, and the pen gives up 3 in the 7th and 8th. Jays lose 7-6.
Oct 3. he gives up 2 runs through 7, but pen gives up one in the 9th and the offense scores only 2.
Those may not be clutch performances, but they are hardly evidence of choking. His ERA in his last 4 starts was 2.91. He may not have gotten the "win" in any of his 4 starts, but the team got 2, and he pitched well enough that the Jays should have gone 3-1. Dave Steib did not cost the Jays the division, and Steib would have had to go 4-0 with an ERA of below 2 in those last 4 starts in order for them to muster a tie.
You really are too much. In the Mattingly vs Brett thread, you specifically dismissed Brett's outstanding July and August, and his otherworldly last week when he singlehandedly kept the Royals in the race, and focused only on his poor first three weeks in September. Now, in this thread, where supposedly only September results matter (note your dismissal of Steib's Aug 1989 starts), you dismiss his Sep and bring up his August.
What's it gonna be boy? Yes, or no?
edit: He won 2 of 7. He also pitched 5 innings of 1 run relief after Jimmy Key gave up 4 runs in the first 3 innings. And the Jays were 5-3 in those 8 games. Did the guy have to go 7-1 in order for you to acknowledge his three shutouts?
Really, you blame the bullpen for that Oct. 3 loss? That's funny, because when I'm watching my team and we've a lead in the late innings of a big game, and then the starting pitcher loads the basis with nobody out, and then the relief pitcher comes in and gets a flyball and double play to get out of the inning, but the flyball scores the run to tie the game, I'm definitely blaming the pitcher who loaded the bases.
Are you serious? Do you really blame Henke for getting out of a bases loaded jam with no out but giving up a run on a Sac Fly? Don't you think Stieb's loading the bases had anything to do with it?
Your Stieb fanboy worship is showing, friend.
Seriously?
Are you trying to change Tommy's "mind", or are you trying to keep other people (god alone knows who) from being influenced by his "arguments"?
Really, you might as well be having a conversation with RossCW.
Hmmm -- CW, CT . . .
Cutting to the bottom line:
Guidry ain't in the Hall and ain't ever going in, and that is the right call.
Same for Mattingly.
I watched them both play, and thought at the time that they were giving some of the best performances I would ever see. And I was right. They just didn't do it long enough.
The Jays were 8.5 back with 13 to go when Stieb pitched his first precious shutout. They were all but eliminated when he pitched his second, behind 6.5 with 7 to go. They were long since eliminated when he pitched his last shutout.
...
I saw '88 earlier and didn't consider a real pennant race because the Jays had no shot and made up a bunch of games after they were already eliminated.
That is a clear-eyed assessment of the Jays' mathematical situation in 1988. Does it mean you've concluded that Ron Guidry's very good pitching down the stretch of the Yankees' similarly nonexistent 1983 "pennant race" should therefore be subtracted from his 26-of-30 ledger of legend? (That's a rhetorical question only.)
I'm bizarrely impressed by your chutzpah... pal.
No you ijit. He's blaming the bullpen for allowing the winning run in the 9th.
The next batter grounds to short but the shortstop boots it. Stieb glares at the shortstop, walks off the mound shakes his head, glares back at the shortstop. Stieb looks pissed.
Stieb proceeds to walk the next batter, too, to load the bases. He's still fuming over that SS error. The manager pulls Stieb. The bullpen proceeds to blow the game. Jays lose. Yankees win. Guidry beats Stieb.
Now, if I'm a Jays fan I'm really pissed at Stieb. I'm not happy with the SS, but I'm really pissed at Stieb. Physical errors are going to happen, but walking the leadoff guy in the 7th with a three run lead is stupid. And then losing your cool and walking a man to load the bases after throwing a tantrum over an error is unforgivable.
I was at Yankee Stadium for that game. I remember thinking as Stieb was imploding "man, this guy is a loser."
7-7 in an almost-full season is not the same as 11-10 in less than 75% of a season. Despite that, I'm comfortable saying that Bucky Brandon had a good record in 1972. What Steve Carlton has to do with whether Dave Stieb had a good 1981 is beyond me.
Actually I'm blaming the offense that scored two runs. I'm quite certain if Cito Gaston was told prior to the game he was going to get 2 runs in 7+ IP he would have been quite confident. To blame Stieb for losing that game is silliness.
Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it fatally flawed.
If one starts with a question such as "Of those pitchers comparable to Guidry in career length and quality, are half or more in the Hall of Fame?" then the data provided in post #23 does a decent initial shot at giving us the answer. I've read two legitimate criticisms of the data I presented. One is that it looks at career quality without considering peak quality. However, considering that you are measuring peak by 10 consecutive seasons and that includes nearly Guidry's whole career, you're basically considering his whole career too. Second, you object to ERA+ even when used to measure quality over an entire career not just a season. I of course used it because it is readily available at baseball-reference.com. I don't know of a readily-available better rate stat and if we look at a better measurement like WAR, that's not going to make Guidry look any better because it brings back into the debate the number of innings he pitched, which you are trying to exclude.
If one starts with an answer such as "Guidry belongs in the Hall of Fame" then it leads to various distortions including:
- Wins are a valuable measure of pitcher achievements over a 10-year peak but not over a career.
- If Guidry's 10-year peak is comparable to 10-year peaks by Hall of Fame pitchers with much longer careers, then Guidry's Hall of Fame candidacy is comparable to those pitchers' candidacies.
- We should give Guidry credit for pitching more innings per season if we compare him to guys who pitched in 4-man rotations instead of considering the actual number of innings Guidry pitched.
- Sometimes ERA+ is a valuable measurement and sometimes it isn't.
- You overweight clutch performance despite little evidence that pitchers can pitch to the score.
- You give weight to sportswriters' opinions when they are casting Cy Young votes but not when they are casting Hall of Fame votes.
I didn't subtract Stieb's performance. I made it a point to include those games he pitched in Aug/Sep while the Jays were still in it but lagging because of Stieb's terrible performance. It seemed unfair of you to give credit for Stieb's shutouts but not count Stieb's seven game swoon that all but eliminated the Jays.
Would you subtract Guidry's start against the Orioles on Sept. 9 1983? The Yanks were only four back of the O's with 23 games to go when Guidry beat the O's with a complete game win.
Are you serious? You seem to be referring to the game on September 12, 1985 in the Bronx. The "next batter" Stieb walked WAS RICKEY ####### HENDERSON!!! In case you are unaware Henderson is 2nd in the history of Major League Baseball in drawing walks!!!! The guy he walked to lead off the inning was Willie Randolph who was 7th in the AL in walks that year. It is not like he was walking Jeff Francoeur and Robinson Cano here. It is possible, just mildly possible, that the batters in question had a little something to do with the walks being issued and not just Stieb melting down.
What were you thinking when Guidry spotted his division rivals to a 3-0 lead in a mid-September game?
Regardless of Stieb's merit, etc., the anecdote (complete with mind reading and childish insults) does little to further your cause, sir.
It wasn't a 7 game swoon you moron. One of those games which you hold against him was when he came in in the 4th with his team down 4-0, and gave them a fighting chance to come back by pitching 5 innings of relief and allowing only 1 run. That's a clutch performance in anybody's book. In 3 other games of the "swoon", the Jays won while he got a ND. True, he didn't pitch particularly well, but the fact is the team was 5-3 during his last 8 appearances prior to him giving up 1 run in his last 4 starts. 5-3 is not a swoon by any stretch. In fact, it's a 101 win pace over a full season. Blaming a guy for costing the team the pennant by a poor stretch of pitching when the team in fact won 62% of their games is beyond silly. Here's the cold hard facts. Starting from the first game of the "swoon", a Aug 6 loss, the Jays were 8-3 in Steib's starts.
Once again, the Jays didn't lag because of Steib's terrible performance. They went 9-2 in his Aug/Sep starts.
Let me give you an example. Guidry goes 21-9 in 1983 with a 113 ERA+. Lamarr Hoyt goes 24-10 with a 3.66 ERA and wins the Cy Young. Dotson and Morris also finish ahead of Guidry in the Cy Young voting, with ERAs slightly better than Guidry's. Dotson goes 22-7 with a 3.22 ERA. It's a good ERA, but not good enough to explain a 22-7 record. The White Sox gave Dotson 6 runs/game that year in run support.
Guidry was the best starting pitcher in the AL that year, and it wasn't even really close. Six times that year Guidry took a huge lead into the late innings, ahead by more than 5 runs on five occasions and by four on another. He gave up 14 late inning runs in those games, but the other team never even got within three runs. He gave up six runs in one game after taking an 11-0 lead into the late innings. All 14 of these runs were completely meaningless. These games were over, and the runs Guidry allowed never allowed the other team to even get close. He completed five of the games and went 7.2 in the other.
Take away those 14 earned runs and it means Guidry had a 2.91 ERA that year when it mattered. That would have given him the Cy Young award, vaulting him ahead of Hoyt, Dotson and Morris. Guidry didn't have any business even being in those games in the late innings, but Billy Martin was managing and he had a complete game fetish. Guidry had a great year, but the toll on his arm ruined him for the next year.
All you alleged stat freaks look at Guidry's ERA that year and declare it a mediocre/slightly good season. It was a GREAT season. Look at the game logs. That 3.42 ERA was very misleading.
I assume you did a similar analysis for Hoyt, Dotson, and Morris, yes?
Didn't think so.
Got it.
Historically, Cy Young voters are preoccupied with "wins," and "clutch performance," which... oh, never mind.
EDIT: it goes something like this:
96. Tommy in CT Posted: March 17, 2010 at 04:42 PM (#3481070)
[ Ignored Comment ]
The lost 7 of his 12 starts in July, August and September, right up until the time the Jays were effectively out of it and Stieb finally showed up. The Jays bailed Stieb out of a lot of games in Aug/Sep, but when a starting pitcher makes six straight starts, wins only one and puts up a 6.21 ERA over that stretch, that's a swoon.
No wonder you guys have such loose standards for the Hall of Merit. You think that's a good stretch for Stieby!
Yes, let's look at the game logs.
#84: Would you subtract Guidry's start against the Orioles on Sept. 9 1983? The Yanks were only four back of the O's with 23 games to go when Guidry beat the O's with a complete game win.
Actually, the Yankees were 5 games out on September 9th -- Guidry's win brought New York to within 4. They would never get an inch closer. The Yankees were swept by Baltimore in a doubleheader the next day to make it 6 games out with 21 to play. They lost to Mike Flanagan the day after that, and it would take them until October to claw their way back up to that 6-game deficit.
After beating the Orioles on September 9th, Guidry's remaining four starts were pitched with New York 7 games back with 18 to play, 8.5 back with 14 to play, 9.5 out with 10 to play, and 8 out with 5 to play. Only the first of those situations could be considered almost relevant to a pennant race. Guidry lost.
A Ron Guidry win moved the Yankees one game up in the AL East standings and closer to the Baltimore Orioles just twice during the last two months of 1983: August 8th, and September 9th. (When it mattered, that is; Guidry's final two wins also did the trick, but after the 1983 Yankees' vaporous chance was gone.) Each of his three Aug/Sept losses moved the Yankees 1 game down in the standings.
You want the September 9th win, fine, keep it. The rest is mathematical window dressing for the cherrypicked case you're straining to make.
So, you would have us dismiss Dotson, who was getting 6 runs of support per game but didn't need them all, because he didn't throw as much BP late in games?
Seems odd. . .
Wait, now we're counting July? Remind me again which parts of which seasons count for which players.
The overall point of this tangent is to point out that somehow the Yankees being 7.5 games out on Sep 24 1983 counts as a tight pennant race (and thus Guidry's Sep stats count toward clutch), but the Jays being 6.5 out on Sep 24 1988 doesn't count as a tight pennant race, and thus Steib's excellent Sep doesn't count towards clutch.
I'm not even a voter and these seem like fightin' words to me.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main