Bill James is coming out shortly with his Bill James Gold Mine 2010. He has a chapter in the book entitled "Comparing Starting Pitchers Across History." The chapter has been pre-released online and you can read it here.

In this chapter, Bill returns to one of his favorite subjects: Hall of Fame standards for starting pitchers. He's noted many times in the past that Hall of Fame voting in recent years appears to reflect a movement away from traditional HOF standards for starting pitchers toward an emphasis on longer careers and the accumulation of huge career statistics (high career win totals, strikeouts, etc.). If it were up to today's HOF voters would pitchers like Drysdale, Lemon, Newhouser, Bunning, Hunter, Gomez and Dean be in the Hall of Fame? It's not at all clear.

Bill introduces a system based on something called "Season Scores"* that awards points to a pitcher for ranking among the top starting pitchers in the league and awards bonus points for a particularly dominant season: for ranking as the top pitcher in the league, leading the league in Season Score by 50 points or more, and compiling a historically high Season Score. A pitcher can accumulate a maximum of 9 bonus points, three for each of the three achievements listed in the preceding sentence. Bill identified twelve seasons since 1930 in which a pitcher earned the maximum 9 bonus points. Oddly, this hasn't been achieved since Doc Gooden's 1985 season; not Pedro, not Randy, not Roger, not Greg. Here are the twelve seasons:

Grove, '30 and '31
Hubbell, '33
Dean, '34
Roberts, '52
Koufax, '63, '65, '66
McLain, '68
Carlton, '72
Guidry, '78
Gooden, '85

The method for calculating Seasons Scores and then cumulating to arrive at a career HOF-worthy point total is rather prosaic and so I won't go into the precise method here. It is notable less for sophisticated statistical analysis than for the high correlation between top Season Scores and the balloting that awards Cy Young's and HOF inductions. It is, in other awards, an insight into the approach the baseball writers have used, wittingly or unwittingly, in evaluating pitchers for the Hall and for Cy Young Awards. Bill found that his system very accurately predicts which pitchers make the Hall, at least among pitchers who retired prior to 1990; after that the system breaks down, in the sense that various pitchers who've accumulated enough career HOF-worthy point totals to have traditionally qualified for induction have failed to even merit serious consideration among HOF voters. Dwight Gooden and David Cone are two such examples.

Bill identifies only two pitchers who retired prior to 1990, accumulated career HOF-worthy point totals well in excess of the traditional requirement, and yet have failed to make the Hall. Bill calls these two the "true outliers" in the analysis. They are Bert Blyleven (of course) and Ron Guidry. As Bill puts it:

"Blyleven and Guidry are so far above the Hall of Fame line that one would think that their Hall of Fame selection would not be an issue. Blyleven, of course, has become a popular candidate. Guidry has not."

Bill's system for comparing starting pitchers across history has led to a re-evaluation by Bill of Guidry's HOF qualifications, although it's important to note that Bill doesn't claim that his system is the "right" system or is preferable to the judgments of the HOF balloters. Accordingly, he doesn't really take a position on whether Blyleven or Guidry belong in the Hall, in his own estimation, but merely concludes that they belong in the Hall if the standard is the one historically used by HOF voters.

Bill returns to his "Guidry and Gomez" comparison that he's made before, most notably in his Historical Baseball Abstract. But whereas Bill formerly believed that Gomez was a marginal HOF inductee, and Guidry a shade behind Gomez in his qualifications, he now believes that both are clear HOFers and that Guidry is actually more deserving.

"In the past, I have analyzed this comparison in this way:

1) Gomez was fortunate to make the Hall of Fame, being very marginally qualified,

2) Guidry was similar but a little bit behind Gomez, thus not in a range where his Hall of Fame selection was likely,

3) Gomez had three outstanding seasons; Guidry only one, 1978, and

4) Gomez made the Hall of Fame, in part, based on his post-career reputation as an entertainer and ambassador for the game.

But the implications of this new method are totally incompatible with that analysis. As this method sees it, putting Gomez in the Hall of Fame was not a reach. Gomez is well qualified based on the number of high-quality seasons that he produced. And Guidry, rather than ranking behind Gomez, in fact ranks far ahead of him."

Bill then examines his rankings of Guidry among the league's best pitchers in various seasons and observes that "Guidry [had] four seasons among the league's four best pitchers, and he was competing in a 14-team league. Gomez had four such seasons, competing in an eight-team league."

Bill sums it up this way:

"By Guidry's era, career win totals had come to dominate the Hall of Fame discussion. Perhaps this is right; perhaps it is wrong. I am not suggesting that my new method here should substitute for all other judgments about Hall of Fame selections, not at all. There are many other ways to look at the issue. Perhaps those other ways are better.

But while those other pitchers have 100+ wins more than Guidry, Guidry's winning percentage was far better than Carlton's, or Sutton's, or Niekro's, or Kaat's, or Tommy John's, or Ryan's, or Blyleven's or Gaylord Perry's; it was even far better than Tom Seaver's. Guidry was further over .500 - wins minus losses - than most of those pitchers.

Steve Carlton's ERA was 41 points better than the league norm for this career. Don Sutton's ERA was 45 points better-than-league, Tommy John's was 42 points better, Blyleven's 50 points better. Jim Kaat was 15 points better than league. Ron Guidry's ERA was 76 points better than the league average.

I am merely pointing this out: in general, through baseball history, pitchers who have this many seasons as one of the best pitchers in their league have been almost automatic Hall of Fame selections. Historically, the Hall of Fame has made room for all pitchers with 250+ wins, but also for pitchers who were more dominant in shorter careers."

Well put, Bill. Your analysis is already driving some of the stat geeks crazy, but your point is nonetheless valid. Ron Guidry does indeed belong in the Hall of Fame. Even forgetting many of the aspects of Guidry's career I've discussed in this blog, Ron still qualifies for the Hall based on the standards employed by the HOF in the first 60 years of HOF balloting. Throw in the fact that he was the best big-game pitcher of his generation and it's a no-brainer.

I know Bill will insist he wasn't campaigning for Ron's induction, but I'm inviting him into the "Put Gator In The Hall" club anyway.