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.
As someone mentioned 60 or so posts ago, comparing your guy to the worst guys in the hall whom most of us don't reckon belong anyway is a weak argument.
You're missing the point here. I've been told that Guidry's 1983 season wasn't that good, and that Stieb's was better. It's complete nonsense.
Stieb had a 3.04 ERA. That looks pretty good, right? But why did Stieb have just a 17-12 record? His run support wasn't great, but it was about league average. You know what wasn't average? Stieb's performance in the clutch. With a lead of four or more runs Stieb improved his performance by 44%! Boy, that buffed up the ol' ERA but didn't make much difference to his team. I'll tell you what made a difference to his team - Stieb's 46% DECLINE in performance in high leverage situations, and his 27% DECLINE in late and close situations. Those failures to perform when it counted most cost the Jays some games that year.
Contrast Guidry. Guidry was the opposite of Stieb, declining in performance in low leverage situations but improving by 43% in high leverage situations.
These patterns persisted over their entire careers. It's why Guidry won far more than Stieb.
Allow me to throw some Tommy analysis right back atcha.
On July 13, 1983, the Sox were 1.5 games back. Hoyt at the time was 9-9. From that point, to the rest of the season, Hoyt went 15-1, winning all but 2 of his starts, and his season ERA dropped from 4.35 to 3.66 as the Sox won their first title of any stripe in 24 years. If that's not the best pitcher in the league, I don't know what is. If Guidry did that, you would no doubt proclaim it as one of the greatest seasons ever.
Life imitates art:
Dotson was almost identical in this respect - improved by 40% in high leverage, declined 37% in low leverage. But clearly, he didn't earn his record.
And yet, you don't seem to be able to turn away.
I see. The point about dismissing Hoyt (he of the 15-1 second half record, but never mind that) and Dotson (he of the 13-2 second half record, but never mind that), and adjusting Guidry's (and only Guidry's) ERA downward by throwing out meaningless runs, was to show that Guidry was better than Steib. Got it.
What was the middle thing?
No, no, no. Only Guidry gets a favorable deeper analysis. All others only get one if it is unfavorable.
The two are rapidly converging.
Nice try, but you didn't check your game logs close enough. Hoyt's ERA over that stretch was 2.92 - good, but not 15-1 good. Hell, that 2.92 wouldn't have even won the ERA title that year (or finished 2nd). Let me ask you: if a pitcher goes 15-1 over 18 starts with a 2.92 ERA but gets 6.5 RUNS PER GAME run support, which is more responsible for that 15-1 record?
If Guidry had compiled a 2.92 ERA over August and September of '77 or '78 I would have declared it a disaster. Guidry was 10-2 with a 2.16 ERA over his last 13 starts in '77, and 12-2 with a 1.16 ERA over his last 16 starts in '78. Yeah, you read that right: 1.16 ERA over 16 starts. Am I supposed to be impressed with Hoyt's performance?
You really can't expect a Guidry fan to be impressed with a 2.92 ERA down the stretch.
1. It's not just "down the stretch" - it's almost the entire second half of the season.
2. Even accounting for run support, you wouldn't expect 15-1. Which pitchers get credit for outperforming Pythag, and which ones don't?
3. So can we consider Guidry's Septembers in 1980 (3.19) and 1985 (4.76) to be "disasters"?
If I follow the Guidry blog correctly in its description of LevERA+ and how to calculate it, Stieb had a 119 LevERA+ while Guidry had a 124.3 LevERA+. For those of you who thought Stieb's 122 to 119 edge over Guidry in ERA+ was big, I'd point out that Guidry has about a five point edge on Stieb in LevERA+.
To count every run as the same is like counting every hit the same. But we know that Tony Gwynn wasn't a better hitter than Alex Rodgriguez or Manny Ramirez; he got more hits but they were the wrong kind of hits. Similarly, when one weights the runs allowed by a pitcher depending on its impact on the game situation, it's clear that Guidry was distinctly better than Stieb.
Yes, because as you have explained to us time and again, ERA doesn't matter, it's the wins. Hoyt won 15 of 17 starts. Guidry won a mere 12 of 16.
You wouldn't be 1/10 as annoying if you were simply consistent in your arguments. ERA doesn't matter, except when it does. Wins matter a lot, except when they don't. Awards really matter, except when they hurt your case. September stats are the most important, unless the other guy was terrible in August.
1.16, bro'. That was over 16 starts, or about the entire second half of the '78 season. That's "ONE POINT ONE SIX".
Oh, by the way, Hoyt's 2.92 covered 126.1 innings; Guidry's 1.16 covered 124.2 innings.
You do the math. I'll give you a hint though: 1.16 is a lot lower than 2.92. Now break out your abacus.
(Shuffles beads around)
Yes, Ron Guidry's 1978 is better than LaMarr Hoyt's 1983. But Guidry's '78 wasn't eligible to win the '83 Cy Young award, for some strange reason.
I honestly don't even know what we're arguing about any more.
Just learning how to read, are you? You can't show me where I said ERA "doesn't matter." I said it CAN be misleading, although it's helpful where this is a very large difference in ERAs. And while you're brushing up on your remedial reading skills, consider this: the difference between 1.16 and 2.92 is HUGE.
P.S. Have you tried the Cat In The Hat books yet? My children found them an enjoyable way to learn how to read.
FameYankees along with Mattingly, Bernie Wililams and Paul O'Neill.Did Bill Fremp get a new job? He's improved his technique considerably.
Train wrecks and car crashes have that effect on people. Thankfully, I have Tommy on ignore; it is the spectacle of people trying to "reason" with him that is mesmerizing.
As I said in another Tommy thread. It amuses me. It generates a lot of high quality snark, like this one:
That's Gold Jerry. Gold!
Tommy, what do you think of WPA?
What I fear is that there is nothing in my life (outside of family) I care as passionately and as deeply as T. in CT does about Guidry getting into the HOF. Nothing. Why debate, why try to reason, why argue?
Oh, yes and our favorite passage...
"Oh-oh!" Sally said.
"Don't you talk to that cat.
That Cat in the Hat.
He plays lots of bad tricks.
Don't you let him come near.
You know what he did
The last time he was here."
But it's incite-minded posting, with a predetermined outcome of "analysis."
No need for anyone to get too riled up.
It's a.......l o n g......t i m e between October and April, isn't it?
Has anyone actually taken both of these positions?
Who's next for inclusion / exclusion in the Bizarro World?
Bonds, Clemens, Manny, and A-Rod all out?
I don't see LevERA+ on Fangraphs.com, although I could be overlooking it somewhere.
I'd be glad to stop using ERA+ (see post #23) in favor of measurements that vary the weighting based on the leverage if I found an appropriate statistic that was widely available throughout baseball history.
Has anyone actually taken both of these positions?
I hope not, but if Tommy married Ray you never can tell what their first box of chocolates might bring us.
Who don't you have on Ignore? I half suspect you saw me agree once with kevin or Backlasher or someone and put me on Ignore.
I saw someone else mention Drysdale shouldn't be in. Drysdale is my 36th ranked pitcher. A Hall without him isn't worth visiting. Stieb ranks lower but still clearly above the line.
Guidry is near the bottom of the HoM standard. I am already convinced Guidry was better than Rollie Fingers and Bob Lemon. He's pretty close to Red Faber and Mordecai Brown. I'm also not a peak voter so I really don't care how many years it took to accumulate value, just the sum total. Guidry has a good career but falls a little short of Stieb, Saberhagen, Tiant, Cone, Reuschel, Tommy John, Appier and Gooden among modern pitchers. I do like Guidry better than Hershiser and Chuck Finley.
That should be good for another 100 posts.
TOP 10 LEADERBORD FINISHES
DAVE STIEB 38
22 TOP 5
19 TOP 3
6 TIMES A LEAGUE LEADER
-----------------------------------------------
RON GUIDRY 30
19 TOP 5
12 TOP 3
5 TIMES A LEAGUE LEADER
-----------------------------------------------
JIMMY KEY 21
6 TOP 5 FINISHES
4 TOP 3 FINISHES
2 TIMES A LEAGUE LEADER
I never put you or BL on Ignore. The site put kevin on ignore.
Your basically describing the Black Ink/Gray Ink statistics, and they don't bear out your claim that Stieb was more dominant than Guidry. Guidry has the distinct edge in Black Ink points, 29 to 17. They are essentially even in Gray Ink - 142 for Stieb and 140 for Guidry. These stats are in part a function of how many seasons a pitcher even qualified for leadership in rate stats, and Stieb had 11 seasons where he pitched enough innings to qualify; Guidry had 10.
Yes, Key was not as "dominant" as Stieb and Guidry by this measure. The guy was a winner, however, pitching well in the clutch and posting very good winning percentages relative to his teams. Stieb, by contrast, tended to underperform relative to what his ERAs would suggest, and significantly underperformed Pythagorean projections in his very best years of '82 to '85.
Key and Stieb are almost twins on career stats. Key gets the edge for having a much better winning percentage, better clutch performance and a much better postseason record.
Stieb also beats the tar out of Guidry in terms of durability. Over his first 10 years, Guidry averages 218 IP. Stieb averages 233. Guidry averages 77% of the IP leader's innings, Stieb 85%. I'm not sure how much Guidry's ERA was increased by being left in to absorb late-inning runs when he never once came close to leading the league in innings (closest was 92% of the leader in '78; Stieb was at 90% or more from '81 to '85). If you're not putting up ace pitching rate stats, you better make it up in quantity, and Guidry sure didn't do that.
Stieb led the league in rate stats only five times - once in ERA, twice in ERA+ and twice in hits/inning. Guidry led the league in rate stats TEN TIMES - twice in ERA, twice in winning percentage, twice in WHIP, once in ERA+, once in hits/inning, once in fewest bb/inning and once in SO/BB ratio.
Glavine led the league in rate stats once. Schilling led 11 times, taking far longer than Guidry to accumulate those titles. Saberhagen led in rate stats nine times. Carlton led eight times.
Guess these guys weren't aces. Perhaps you could define "ace pitching rate stats."
Did seven of those "ten"* happen in the same season?
Not only does Stieb trump Guidry in ERA+, he also throws in another 15 innings per season. A fair comparison between the two, looking at their first 10 years, requires one to give Guidry 150 innings of replacement pitching, dropping his ERA+ even further. Every extra inning from a great starter takes an inning away from a garbage reliever. Guidry could make the top 10 in IP in the league only 3 times. Great pitchers not only pitch well, but they take the ball and give the team all they've got. I'm not sure why Guidry was so babied by the Yankees and couldn't average more than a pedestrian 218 innings in his prime years.
This claim is simply absurd. Reuschel? Barely a .500 pitcher. A 114 ERA+. Never led the league in wins, ERA, winning percentage, or strikeouts. He pitched 19 seasons and garnered SEVEN Black Ink points and 111 Gray, both far less than Guidry accumulated in a much shorter career. Guidry beats him on every rate stat of significance. Reuschel had two third place Cy Young finishes 11 years apart. Guidry had six top seven finishes in nine years, including 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th place finishes.
Appier led the league in a major category in only one year, when he won the ERA and ERA+ title in the same year. He received Cy Young votes in one year. He made the all-star team once. He made six post-season starts and didn't win any. He won more than 15 games in a season ONCE. Are you serious?
Guidry beats Gooden in ERA, ERA+, winning percentage, WHIP, bb/inning, and SO/bb ratio. Gooden didn't lead the league in a single statistical category after his second year. After his first three years his ERA+ was 101 for the rest of his career. And Gooden made NINE post-season starts and didn't win ANY.
Tiant had a longer career, but Guidry beats him in EVERY rate stat. I love Luis, but get real.
You really can't be serious.
Other than that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
No. They were compiled over five different seasons. Take away '78 completely and he still led the league in rate stats as many times as Stieb and more times than Glavine.
This misconception that Guidry didn't have a single worthy year other than '78 is ridiculous. He started the year in the bullpen in his first full season because he'd never started in the minors. Notwithstanding that, he was the best pitcher in baseball over the 2nd half of the '77 season. He was the best pitcher in baseball in '78. He was the best pitcher in baseball in '79. He made four different Sporting News All-Star teams - '78, '81, '83 and '85, and he should have made it in '79, too.
Can you even spell "baseball"?
Well, if that's your attitude, then Guidry's '78 season ought to be enough, and the fact that he led the league in ERA after that season, in winning percentage, in WHIP, in complete games and in wins should all be gravy, right?
Well, now that you gave away the answer...
Well, if that's your attitude, then Guidry's '78 season ought to be enough, and the fact that he led the league in ERA after that season, in winning percentage, in WHIP, in complete games and in wins should all be gravy, right?
My attitude is that you shouldn't ignore a pitcher's first two seasons, especially when they might be the best first two seasons any pitcher has ever had. (Yes, they are almost Gooden's entire case, and no, I wouldn't put him in the Hall for that reason.)
OK, attempting to refute your stupid, stupid "point" (whatever that may be at present) is one thing, but when you challenge my ability to spell, sirrah, you write your own death warrant!
Pistols at dawn, then?
I also honestly don't think he can be reasoned with, but there's a fair amount of decent stuff in the responses to Tommy.
I'll admit, it was nice to have Rich Dotson a part of my life for a short time yesterday though.
But he did get Cy Young votes in 3 years (finished 7th, 5th and 4th), so by your definition, had good years.
Please have the decency to amend this to "American League." That's debatable at least (I suppose) but you aren't going to argue he was better than Gooden that year, right?
Better than GOODEN, in 1985?!?
Now I'm convinced: troll.
EDIT: lemon in your Coke, Jose?
They were great seasons. Guidry's first two seasons were slightly better, but he's the only other guy that can compare to Gooden's first two seasons. They won the same number of games, had virtually identical ERA+, and Guidry had the edge in winning percentage. Guidry gets the edge because of the spectacular big-game record in the post-season and the playoff game at Fenway. Guidry was 5-0 in those games over his first two seasons with an ERA around 2.20.
By the way, Gooden wasn't lucky enough to make the post-season in '84 or '85, but he was absolutely spectacular in September in those two pennant races, comparable to Guidry in '77 and '78, although the races weren't as tight.
You have it, pretty much: Guidry is better than some marginal HOFers, possibly better than the most marginal HOMers, and might have been better than non-Guidry people who won the Cy Young in a couple of years.
He is not (so far as I can tell) capable of coherent argument, on any point.
Ouch. My bad. Yes, Dwight was the best that year, and had the best season in the 20 years between Guidry and Pedro. And in September, Doc made six starts in the midst of a very tight division race. He didn't allow an earned run in the FIRST FIVE. He had a 0.34 ERA in those six starts. Absolutely amazing.
Again, you should adjust for the fact that Guidry's team was better. If you do that, they're pretty much even in W-L terms.
Just now noticed that this isn't strictly true - Gooden allowed the fewest HR/9 in the NL in 1990.
Frankly, that was a pattern in Saberhagen's career. Three of the strongest teams during Saberhagen's career were the Yankees, Blue Jays and Twins. He had an ERA of about 4.40 against those teams, with a 3.85 against the Twins and over 4.50 against the Yanks and Jays. Guidry highest ERA against any team was against the Royals - 3.85 - and he went 15-6 against the Jays!
The Blue Jays owned Saberhagen and the Brewers had a winning record against Saberhagen, too. No one had a winning record against Guidry. Not one team. Guidry didn't pad his stats against the weak teams - he just beat them. And then he beat the good teams, too. Saberhagen tended to get pounded by good teams.
Or, for that matter, Tommy John or Mike Flanagan in 1979?
(I already know why TCT would say he was better than both Niekros, JR Richard, and Jim Kern -- all of whom were at least arguably better than Guidry)
The difference was negligible. The Yanks averaged 100 wins those two years, the Met 94. The Mets were no slouches in those years. The real difference is that Guidry had to pitch against AL East power houses like Boston and Baltimore in '77 and '78, and he dominated them. Gooden didn't face quite the same level of competition in the NL East in '84 and '85.
None of your arguments are "career" arguments. Gray and black ink and Cy Young votes are all peak measures. Rate stats don't make sense without context (innings).
I agree that Gooden's value is pretty concentrated in his first 2 years but they were so far ahead of anyone else that it was pretty tremendous. He wasn't terrible after that and I am a firm believer that average pitching is worth a whole lot more than not pitching.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Innings pitched at league average runs allowed are hugely valuable. Too bad Guidry was such a wuss he could barely average 200 innings during his supposed awesome prime.
You can if they weren't in September. Or sometimes August. Occasionally July. Maybe June. But only if your team name starts with a Y.
More evidence of either virulent Guidry hatred or complete ignorance about baseball.
Both pitchers won 41 games. Gooden lost 13 games, Guidry 10. Gooden had a 176 ERA+, Guidry 170. Gooden had 11 shutouts, Guidry 14. On top of that, Guidry went 5-0 in the post-season (if you include Fenway as post-season).
Can someone please explain to me how Gooden was "so far ahead" of Guidry? Is this guy smoking something? Gooden has a sliver of an edge in ERA+ and that makes his first two seasons "far ahead" of Guidry's? Do you guys diddle yourself to that stat?
Better ERA over 50 more innings. Once again, Guidry loses both in quality and quantity.
Wrong again. Guidry pitched 37.1 innings in the post-season, with a 2.17 ERA. So Guidry pitched about the same number of innings with about the same ERA, won five more games than Gooden and had a much better winning percentage, won hugely important games in the post-season, won one of the biggest games in baseball history, won the game that turned around the '78 Series, but Gooden was "far ahead."
If you're trying to convince people you're psychotic, you're almost there.
Gooden's best 10: 154-81, 118 ERA+.
Almost exactly the same # of innings pitched. TCT even acknowledges Gooden's H.R. Clutchnstuff.
But Gooden had 672 more innings of major-league average pitching after those 10 years - 300 more than Guidry. Guidry pitched a little better, but still: 300 innings of average pitching is still extremely valuable.
So, why Guidry, and not Gooden?
Give Reuschel the Yankees offense and defense, and do the same for Guidry and the above statement would be reversed and then some. I don't expect you to believe it, but Reuschel's 1977 was as valuable as Gudry's 1978 (WAR has it 8.7 Reuschel to 8.5 Guidry). The Cubs had inept offense and historically bad defense. Pedro Martinez would have had a hard time winning 20 with that team.
Reuschel could hit and field a little, too. Always rooted for that guy.
Huh. Funny that in four post-season series, Guidry started 2 games in the 77 ALCS, and only 1 game in the other three series. It's almost as if, during the most important, crucial part of the team's season, the Yankees didn't really see him as their ace.
Rueschel's '77 season was better than Guidry's '78 Season! I've got a stat that says so!
It's a real indictment of this forum that this kind of statement can go unchallenged by the alliterate and innumerate cretins here but any suggestion that Jimmy Key was similar to Dave Stieb is greeted with ridicule. It's very telling that this kind of statement can pass virtually without comment by the statistically challenged geeks in this forum.
My bad, Misirlou. I was misled that the fact that while Guidry set the all-time record for highest winning percentage by a starting pitcher, Rick Reuschel would have been 30-0 if he'd pitched for an average team. I was deceived into believing that Guidry's 208 ERA+ was really inferior to Reuschel's 157, just because Guidry's ERA+ was the highest in the AL in 50 years and because Reuschel didn't even lead his league in ERA+ in '77. I was distracted by Guidry's ratio of shutouts to losses - three to one - and didn't give Reuschel enough credit for finishing 3rd in Cy Young voting.
Here's a stat for you, Misirlou. It's called WARP. It stands for "what a ridiculous person", and it measures the stupidity of people like you. So far, you're leading the league!
I suppose it's probably futile to talk statistics with a guy who can't even count the number of post-season series. There were two post-season series, dude. And, yeah, the Yanks didn't want to pitch Guidry. That's why they started him on two days rest in the final game of the ALCS. I'm sure they really didn't WANT to, but figured "what the hell."
Can't read. Can't add. Can't avoid making an ass himself. Hey, you win the Triple Crown!
P.S. The Triple Crown is a baseball concept, dude. It has nothing to do with Dungeons and Dragons, so you probably don't care.
Our names all start with the same letter?
Another moron. Alliteration isn't limited to names, bud. It was a reference to Mainlander's "quality and quantity" remark from his prior post. It's a reference to a rhetorical device, so I'm sure it flew right over your pointy head.
Not that it is always reliable, but Wikipedia has Triple Crown originating in 1853 with English horse racing.
Also, a horse racing concept.
edit: coke to mex
No. Just admit you lost this one.
Gooden had a 98 ERA+ in 1990, but hey, he allowed the fewest HR's per inning! And since Home Runs are the only runs that really count, Gooden's season was great! Hey, Misirlou, another season that was better than Guidry's '78 season!
If stupid were currency, you guys would be printing it.
I'd love to respond, JJ, but I have rule against engaging with anyone who's posted more than 2500 time at this forum.
Get a life, loser.
This can certainly be parsed further, and I'm not privy to the other posters' diddling techniques, but the claim might have something to do with the context of their most dominant periods.
Guidry, 1977-78 AL:
Wins: 9th, 1st
ERA: 4th, 1st
IP: xx, 7th
Win %: 4th, 1st
WHIP: 5th, 1st
Ks: 9th, 2nd
Ks/9: 3rd, 2nd
K/BB: 6th, 2nd
ERA+: 4th, 1st
In 1977, Guidry was 108 IP behind the league leader (211/319).
Gooden, 1984-85 NL:
Wins: 3rd, 1st
ERA: 2nd, 1st
IP: xx, 1st
Win %: 4th, 2nd
WHIP: 1st, 2nd
Ks: 1st, 1st
Ks/9: 1st, 2nd
K/BB: 2nd, 3rd
ERA+: 2nd, 1st
In 1984, Gooden was 43 IP behind the league leader (218/261).
Guidry's league rankings in the above categories:
1st-- 5; 2nd-- 3; 3rd-- 1; 4th-- 3; 5th-- 1; 6th or lower-- 5
Gooden's league rankings in the above categories:
1st-- 8; 2nd-- 6; 3rd-- 2; 4th--1; 5th-- 0; 6th or lower-- 1
I'm not sure I count as "another" moron; I've been sparring with you long enough to be delcared a moron several times already. Just for fun: the adjective form of the word you're using is "alliterative."
Gooden had a 98 ERA+ in 1990, but hey, he allowed the fewest HR's per inning!
If Guidry gets credit for leading the league in fewest walks per inning (which you cited in 146) in a year in which he goes 9-12, 103 ERA+, Gooden gets credit for leading the league in fewest HR/9 in a 19-7, 98 ERA+ year.
Not to speak for him, but I'm assuming by "other 3 series" he meant the 77 WS, 78 ALCS, and 78 WS, in all of which Guidry made one start each.
Of course, as with the great pennant race of 1983, Tommy is happy to include Guidry's 15-baserunner, ass-saved-by-Nettles performance in the '78 Series as one of the clutchiest clutches that has ever clutched.
So it's not context's finest day.
He pitched one game in the '77 WS because he started the last game of the ALCS on two days rest and therefore wasn't available early in the Series. He pitched brilliantly and won in the WS and would have started game 7 but there wasn't one. He wasn't available for the first two games of the '78 Series because he'd started the last game of the '78 ALCS, pitching brilliantly and clinching the Series. He wasn't available to pitch earlier in the '78 ALCS because he started and won the one-game playoff in Boston.
So he didn't pitch more often in those Series because he started the one-game Fenway playoff on short rest, started the last game of the ALCS on short rest, and pitched the last game of the '78 ALCS which made him unavailable for the first two games of the '78 Series unless he'd pitched on short rest again. And from this - all those short-rest starts and starts in the most critical games the Yankees played - this dimwit infers that the Yanks didn't want to pitch Guidry.
Unfortunately, this guy's reasoning is symptomatic of others in this forum. He takes incontrovertible evidence that contradicts his thesis and claims that it supports his thesis.
Pathetic.
He made his last two starts of the '78 regular season on short rest, then started the one-game playoff in Boston on short rest, pitched 8 innings in the ALCS clincher, and then pitched game three of the '78 Series, which brought his season innings total to 290, after he'd never pitched more than 230 innings in a season and had never even been a starting pitcher until the year before. He starts game 3 of the '78 Series with the Yanks down 2-0, doesn't have his best stuff, allows 15 baserunners, makes 134 pitches, and still surrenders only 1 run! The Yanks win, it turns around the Series and the Yanks win it all.
Yes, it was in fact one of the guttiest performances of all time. But Gonfalon Booble would have you believe that Bob Gibson stunk because when he started game 7 of the '64 World Series on two days rest he gave up 5 runs! And he gave up a HR to some bum named Mantle! Boy, that Gibson really stunk, didn't he, Booble?
I've seen a lot of pitchers like Stieb and Blyleven who crapped their knickers every time they got in a tough spot. I give a pitcher who strands about a dozen runners in a World Series game and pitches a complete game, 1-run victory a lot of credit. You guys would, too, if you could get your lips off of Kevin Appier's immortal ass.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main