Ron Guidry vs. Sandy Koufax

[RickD]

Player 1: 170 Wins, 91 Losses, .651 W-L %, 14 seasons, 3.29 ERA, 1778 SO

Player 2: 165 Wins, 87 Losses, .655 W-L %, 12 seasons, 2.76 ERA, 2396 SO

OK Guidry is player 1 and Koufax player 2. Why is player 2 in the HOF and not player 1?

Both won Cy Young Awards, Both were on WS championship teams.

If I had my druthers, I would take Guidry on my roster due to the longer career.

[BobH]

I'll try to take on the devil's advocate here, Rick. There are a couple of things I should point out. If you look at the strikeout totals there's a pretty good clue there. In 2 less seasons of a short career Koufax had over 600 more Ks. That points to how dominant Sandy was. Couple that with Sandy's 4-0 shutout of Guidry with 4 no-hitters...one a perfect game....to Ron's none. I think a .60 difference in ERA tells more than meets the eye, too. Ron's 3.29 is certainly very good for a life-time, but Sandy's 2.76 was superb.

Lastly, I've never been one of those SABRmetric guys, but I know that Bill James does a thing where they measure a player's 'peak' years. At any rate, the result was that he rated Koufax the most dominant pitcher post 1950. I've seen both pitchers pitch in their best years and there's little doubt in my mind that Sandy was by far the more dominant of the two and I think that dominance is what got him elected to the Hall so quickly. I think, in time, Ron may have a shot at it.

I would be more than happy to take Koufax if you want Guidry on your team, because he would've been my first pick anyway...-BH

[LetsPlay2]

A big stat that I look at when comparing players, especially when they are from different eras, is ERA+. It measures their performance, but also compares it to other players during the same period so you can see where they stood among their peers.

Koufax career ERA+ 131
Guidry career ERA+ 119

Both were above average (>100 ERA+), but Koufax's dominance shows up in some of the stats like WHIP, SO/9, H/9, BB/99, SO/BB.... in all of which he had the better numbers.

As for their service time, Guidry did have two more seasons under his belt.... but really only pitched 70 more innings then Sandy.

With the baseline where it is right now for the HOF, I think Guidry does deserve strong consideration.... but that doesn't mean he's level with Sandy Koufax.

[WilsonC]

While I think Koufax' career numbers rate ahead of Guidry's, they're actually a lot more similar on the career level than a lot of people realize. Koufax has slight edges across the board, but not enough to put him in a different "class" of pitcher.

The difference is in peak-level dominance. Guidry had one season where he was absolutely dominant in 1978, about a half dozen more where he was one of the better pitchers in the league, and filled out his career with mainly above average seasons.

Koufax, on the other hand, had a four year stretch where his average season was similar to Guidry's 1978, a couple more years as a very good pitcher, with his first six years hovering right around average. Where Guidry was a very good pitcher with a fantastic career year (much like Greinke in 2009), Koufax had an established four year peak that few have even come close to.

It really comes down to philosophy as to how much of a gap there is between them. If you tend to focus more on career totals rather than peak dominance, there's not a big gap between them, but I'm also not sure either belongs if you ascribe to that approach. If you put a premium on peak-level dominance, however, Koufax is in much more rare company. He had a four year stretch where he was probably the best pitcher in the world, and arguably one of the five to ten most dominant pitchers ever. I don't think Koufax gets in if he puts up the same career numbers but without the historic peak.

[RickD]

I like the parts where you say Guidry is pretty good!

[Mex86]

Why is player 2 in the HOF and not player 1?.

Why indeed? On the surface, those stats of yours appear mighty close. Now let's talk about the stats you chose NOT to list. Such as...

137 complete games for Player 2, as compared to 95 for Player 1. 40 shutouts for Player 2, 26 for Player 1. 3 Cy Young Awards (in that four-year dominant stretch) for Player 2, 1 for Player 1. 3 seasons of 25 wins OR MORE for Player 2; 1 season (25 wins) for Player 1. 3 years of 300-plus strikeouts for Player 2; 0 for Player 1. World Series career ERA of 0.95 for Player 2; 1.69 for Player 1. 4 no-hitters for Player 2; 0 for Player 1.

If I had my druthers, I would take Guidry on my roster due to the longer career.

That's your only reason? Because Guidry played 2 more seasons, and didn't have to retire prematurely at age 32 (?) because of an arm injury? Seriously - this irrationality of yours is getting out of hand.

[WilsonC]

Take a took at these two lines:

Player 1:
24-7, 1.85 ERA, 298 IP, 22 CG, 8 SHO, 307 K, 4.74 K/BB, 172 ERA+, 9.4 WAR

Player 2:
19-7, 2.67 ERA, 235 IP, 11 CG, 5 SHO, 198 K, 2.75 K/BB, 145 ERA+, 5.6 WAR

That's the average season of each player's best 4 year stretch. Player 2 (Guidry) was excellent - he won a Cy Young, and deservedly so, and his average peak-level season is about the level where players have a good chance of winning Cy Young awards. A player with that kind of peak who has a relatively long career (3500 IP or so) has an excellent chance at the Hall of Fame.

Player 1 was Koufax, obviously. As good as Guidry's peak was, a pitcher with Koufax's peak performance would win the Cy Young unanimously if the two were pitted against one another. Guidry's typical prime season wouldn't be out of place among Hall of Fame pitchers, but Koufax's four year stretch was dominance on a historic level. Outside of some inner-circle greats, very few pitchers have matched Koufax's sustained performance at his peak.

And that's really what their cases come down to. Their career numbers, both on the milestone level and on the WAR level, are on the light side for both pitchers' cases are built on dominance, rather than longevity. Koufax is in because the core element of his case - his dominance - was historically great. Guidry does have a case for the Hall, but is clearly behind Koufax in just about every measure of pure dominance.

[Old Sweater]

IMO, Koufax was the most dominant pitcher I have aver seen or followed and I guess I share that opinion with many of the BBWAA voters.

If both were to play currently with PED testing for both, Guidry might have the edge since Koufax was taking some sort of horse(or not tested for humans) medicine(thank goodness) to prolong his short career.

[Mudge]

Guidry was a good pitcher. Koufax was a gooder pitcher.

I'd take Pedro Martinez (1997-2003) over either one.

[klwalk]

Not having access to the stats, I'm curious how Gibson would stack up against Koufax for their prime years. I grew up in Indiana in the 60's so I didn't see much of Koufax but I saw Gibson destroy the Cubs many times.