Andy Pettitte: Hall of Famer, or just a good pitcher on great teams who was lucky to get great run support? If Andy retired today, I'd have to believe the BBWAA would come down decidedly in the latter camp. But another 15 win season in 2010 and some more October glory could change that.

I would have to admit that Andy is still a marginal HOF candidate, at least by the ostensible standards of recent HOF balloting. But if I had a vote, I'd have to ask myself: can I really vote to exclude a guy who has been such a large part of so much baseball history, and a crucial cog for so many world champions? And what if Pettitte tops the 250 win mark? He's a sure bet to top 240 wins and that's a formidable figure in this era. Who among the best active pitchers is a good bet to reach 240 wins? In an age where Cy Young award winners win 15 or 16 games, I'd venture that not even Sabathia and Halladay - the two most likely to hit 240 - are even-money bets.

The key to Andy's HOF chances is his reputation as a big-game pitcher, of course. But as staggering as his post-season numbers are, Pettitte critics are still loathe to acknowledge Andy's big-game bona fides. As best I can tell, they regard Pettitte as a post-season version of the regular-season Jack Morris: a guy who won a lot but only because he had great run support. This is a myth.

A closer look at Pettitte's post-season record reveals that Pettitte's excellent post-season record is more a function of his clutch pitching than his run support. It also reveals that Pettitte has been getting better in the post-season as he gets older. And if one looks at Pettitte's September record while ihs team is in contention for a playoff berth, they find a record remarkably similar to his outstanding post-season record. Let's take a closer look and see if you don't agree that Andy Pettitte should already have his ticket punched for Cooperstown.

The Post-Season

Here's the post-season record:

Allie Pierce Reynolds was the unquestioned ace of teams that won six World Series. He is not in the Hall of Fame. This has always struck me as extremely odd. Bizarre, even. If the ace starting pitcher on the team that won five consecutive World Series isn't a Hall of Famer then I'm missing something. But Superchief missed by just one vote in the December 2008 balloting by the pre-1943 Veterans Committee, garnering 8 of the 9 votes required for induction. That's good news for Reynolds, and it might be good news for Ron Guidry, too.

Yes, Reynolds played on great teams. Yes, he pitched to Yogi Berra for his entire Yankee career. Yes, the centerfielders patrolling Yankee Stadium's vast center-left expanse were Joe Dimaggio and then Mickey Mantle. But consider the following: Reynolds was 7-2 in 15 World Series appearances, nine of which were starts. His ERA was 2.79, which equates to an ERA+ of approximately 140.

The late Dale Mitchell, who played with Cleveland, once said Reynolds might not have made the Hall because he refused to promote himself. "He's not that kind of guy," Mitchell said. "But I'll tell you one thing: In Yankee Stadium in September with that fastball, there wasn't anybody ever lived who was any tougher. With those shadows, we were like ducks in a shooting gallery."

I'm kind of indifferent now about whether I make the Hall of Fame," he said. "If it happens, it happens. I'm pretty much laid back on that. They've got to have some kind of rules. I knew that was going to happen with all the relief work I did for the Yankees. That really was a career-shortener. But to me, that was important. Teamwork was more important than some kind of honor."

How many wins must a Hall of Fame pitcher have? How many innings are enough, and how many not enough?

The most frequently cited criticisms of Guidry's HOF qualifications are "not enough wins" and "he didn't do it long enough." Most agree that in Guidry's case the quality was there, it's just a matter of quantity. It's certainly true that the duration of Guidry's career, and his number of wins and innings, would place him on the low end of the HOF pitching roster, but does he really fail to meet some informal minimum for the Hall?

It seems this debate always veers to a discussion of Koufax and Dean (who had 165 and 150 wins, respectively) and a discussion of an apparent exception for great pitchers who careers were prematurely ended by injury. But there are also six 20th century starting pitchers in the Hall with fewer than 200 wins who are not named Koufax or Dean and don't qualify for the prematurely-ended-career exception, and thirteen who won fewer than 220 games. Each of these pitchers pitched in times when 4-man rotations were the rule, complete games the expectation, and 20 wins and 280 to 300 innings common for elite pitchers.

Here's the question for the BBWAA and the Veterans Committee: if the five Hall of Famers pictured above (left to right, Lefty Gomez, Hal Newhouser, Bob Lemon, Don Drysdale and Happy Jack Chesbro) are Hall worthy despite win totals ranging from 184 to 209, are 170 wins too few for the Hall if attained in the age of five-man rotations and seven-inning starts?

Let's look at some other HOF pitchers with short careers.


















A distinguished group, to be sure. Every era is represented, with pitchers who pitched primarily in each of the decades of the 20th century from the first decade through the 1970's. In every decade there has been at least one pitcher whose career length, wins and innings are notably low, and whose peak career was relatively brief. Let's sharpen the focus to the period from 1920 to 1970 and look at five pitchers: Dazzy Vance, Lefty Gomez, Hal Newhouser, Bob Lemon and Don Drysdale.

The average career win total for this group is 202. The average innings pitched is approximately 2950. The average number of starts is approx. 371. Guidry, with 170 wins, 2392 innings and 323 starts, is short in each category. Guidry's totals are actually fairly close to those of Gomez and Vance, each of whom frequently pitched in a five man rotation. Newhouser, Lemon and Drysdale each pitched almost exclusively in four-man rotations in their prime and averaged over 280 innings per year during their peak years.

Guidry, however, like all future Hall of Fame candidates, pitched exlusively in a five-man rotation, his career coinciding with an era in which the five-man rotation became the rule rather than the exception. As I've discussed in a previous post, the impact of this on the statistics of future Hall of Fame candidates will be profound. The five-man rotation reduces the average number of starts by elite pitchers by about 15%, and the 5-man rotation together with shorter starts and more prominent bullpen roles reduce wins and innings by approximately 20%. It is a simple fact that Pedro Martinez's 214 wins will be nearer the median for HOF candidates in the future, and Mike Mussina's 270 wins near the very high end.

If Guidry's totals are adjusted for the impact of the 5-man rotation (which has reduced wins, innings and starts by approximately 15% for front of the rotation pitchers), his win total is approximately 200, his innings pitched 2870 and his starts 371, each remarkably close to the average of our five Hall of Famers.*

The fact is that the very productive portion of his career was essentially as long as those of our five Hall of Famers. Our average Hall of Famer had 11 seasons in which he pitched enough innings to qualify for the ERA title, with each of Lemon and Gomez having 10 such seaons - the same number as Ron Guidry. He averaged more wins per season during such years than Drysdale and virtually the same number as Vance, despite making substantially fewer starts than either. If Guidry's wins are increased by 15% to account for the impact of the 5-man rotation, he averaged nearly as many wins per season as Bob Lemon.

These Hall of Fame pitchers won more games than Guidry not because their careers were longer, but because they either pitched primarily in a four-man rotation or in an era when starting pitchers frequently picked up a few wins a year in relief (Gomez, Newhouser and Lemon benefited from these "easy" wins). It is simply not a valid argument that Guidry did not have a long enough career or win enough games, because the length of his productive career was virtually the same as our five Hall of Famers and his win total, when adjusted for the impact of the 5-man rotation, was also virtually the same. And there are four more 20th century pitchers in the Hall - Walsh, Waddell, Chesbro and Marquard - whose careers were no longer than Guidry's and whose win totals are no more impressive when controlled for the impact of the shift from 4-man to 5-man rotations.

The Hall of Fame voters will simply have to acknowledge the impact of modern pitching practices on the career statistics of future candidates. The crop of recently retired or soon to retire pitchers who started their careers in the '80's won't force this acknowledgment because they all had extraordinarily long careers and consequently huge win totals - Maddux, Clemens, Glavine and Johnson. But there are pitchers whose candidacies are on the near horizon - Mussina, Schilling and Brown, for example - who will force HOF voters to closely examine these issues. And it is all but inevitable that in the slightly more distant future there will be pitchers who, like Guidry, win about 170 games over a productive career of ten to twelve years and yet are manifestly Hall worthy; just think of Halladay, Oswalt or Santana, if for some reason they only have three or four more productive seasons. Or think Josh Beckett if he manages to put together four or five more seasons of 15 to 20 wins and grab some more World Series glory. Just think Brandon Webb if he puts together five more top flight seasons and wins another Cy Young or two. What if, like Guidry, each of these pitchers remains one of the top pitchers in their league right up to the moment they hit the 170 or 180 win mark, and then their career ends?

I believe the Hall will soon have to acknowledge that Mussina's 270 wins are the equivalent of the win totals posted by Early Wynn and Lefty Grove. I similarly believe the Hall will have to acknowledge that Ron Guidry might have had five or six 20 win seasons but for the impact of the 5-man rotation and a strike-shortened season, and most certainly would have won approximately as many games as Gomez, Vance, Newhouser, Lemon and Drysdale.

In short, I hope the Veterans Committee recognizes a few things the BBWAA apparently failed to recognize: Ron Guidry was the best big game pitcher of his time, the best pitcher in the American League after Palmer's prime and before Clemens', and his career was as long and productive as at least ten pitchers who are in the Hall. These are all incontrovertible statements of fact, and all strongly argue for Ron Guidry's induction into the Hall of Fame.
____________________________
* I arrived at Guidry's win total by multiplying it by 1.15 and adding an additional 5.5 wins for the strike-shortened '81 season. I also multiplied Guidry's innings and starts by 1.15 although the impact of 5-man rotations and increased bullpen utilization has been to decrease each by approximately 20%. I did this both to be conservative in adjusting Guidry's stats and also because the trend toward increased bullpen utilization, though it began during Guidry's career, increased significantly after Guidry's productive career ended in 1986.

Online commenters and kibbitzers tend to disparage Catfish Hunter's HOF qualifications - only 224 wins, an elite pitcher for only a six or seven year span, rather pedestrian ERAs, and, they argue, a big winner only because he played for great teams that gave him excellent run support.

These observations from Catfish's critics may have some merit, but they don't detract from the following consideration. Catfish Hunter made 34 starts for the A's in Sept/Oct of '72, '73 and '74. Almost all of them were big starts because the A's won the AL West by narrow margins each year, clinching only in the last week of each season. His record in these 34 starts was 20-5 with a 2.38 ERA in 246 innings pitched. He was the unquestioned ace of the only non-Yankee team to win three consecutive World Series, and he went 7-1 in the six post-season series the A's played on their way to those three world championships.

The BBWAA obviously thinks that carries a lot of weight. I do, too. I should point out that the same community of online commenters who question Hunter's HOF bona fides generally seems to attach great weight to Curt Schilling's post-season record and reputation as a big game pitcher.

20-5, 2.38 ERA in 246 of the biggest innings in his career and in the history of the Oakland A's franchise. That positively shouts "Hall of Fame" to me. It's enough to put a five time 20-game winner with a Cy Young award and five world championship rings over the top and into the Hall.

"Three kinds of players dominate the Baseball Hall of Fame: batters who hit a lot, sluggers who homer a lot, pitchers who win a lot. Their glitzy stats jump out of the bios sent to electors. But there are equally deserving players who don't make the Hall: men whose numbers aren't catchy enough and whose contributions are often too subtle to be summarized. Some of them are subsequently elected by the Veterans' Committee, but that group's deliberations don't begin until 23 years after a player has retired.

"One way to try to right these wrongs is to build up support for worthy but underrated players before they get lost in the shuffle. I have in mind three current players who merit election to the Hall but possibly will not make it based on past voting patterns: Tony Perez, Ron Guidry and Ozzie Smith."

SI's Jim Kaplan was prophetic - or at least 67% prophetic. Tony Perez and Ozzie Smith have indeed been inducted into the cherished Hall. Ron Guidry, however...

I highly recommend the article. Kaplan succinctly stated the case for Perez, Guidry and Smith, and also neatly summarized the rather narrow perspective of the typical BBWAA voter. Click here to read the whole article.

There is a very telling quote in Kaplan's article from Ray Miller, the manager of the Twins at the time and former Oriole pitching coach.

"Ron definitely deserves to be in the Hall. He throws strikes and has great leverage when he comes over the top. And he's one of the best fielding pitchers I've ever seen. Sure, his fastball isn't what it used to be, but he throws two different sliders and mixes in curves and change-ups. The only problem with Guidry is that he doesn't talk up his own case."

Indeed, Guidry does not talk up his own case. It's just not Guidry's nature to tout himself. I fear the accomplishments of the Quiet Cajun have been overshadowed by the legends and myths surrounding the outsized personalities in the Bronx Zoo - Steinbrenner, Jackson and Martin. A few more trips to the SI archives might help remind the Veterans Committee of how highly Guidry was regarded in his time.

"So when you look at pitchers like [Blyleven and Morris], like a Ron Guidry, you look at a Goose Gossage, that you go out there and you face everyday, and you knew they were going to be the best."

I've posted a link to Cooperstown Chronicles at LestersLegends.com. Ryan Lester is the proprietor of LestersLegends and he offers his views of the HOF qualifications of various Hall of Famers and HOF prospects. While I don't always agree with Ryan, I find his insights interesting and illuminating. Here's his take on Ron Guidry's candidacy for the HOF:

"I would have liked to see Ron Guidry get more than the 170 victories he totaled. If he got 30 more at the same winning percentage (.651), I think he would have been a no-brainer. He had a nine-year stretch when he was one of the very best pitchers in the game. His 25-3, 1.74 ERA in 1978 is legendary. His 3-1, 1.69 ERA in World Series play shows he could elevate his game. I’m a Red Sox fan, but I appreciate how good Ron Guidry was. I think he should be a HOFer. If he’s good enough for to have his number retired by the Yankees and a spot in Monument Park, then he’s good enough for Cooperstown."

"How long does Bert Blyleven have to wait until the Hall comes knocking on his door. He has 287 wins…287 wins. He pitched 22 seasons. Do the math and you see that if he won about .5 more wins per game in his career he would have the magical 300 wins and I wouldn’t be typing this post. The fact that he pitched on some pretty bad teams should factor into the equation. I understand he never won the Cy Young awards, but neither did a lot of pitchers…including Nolan Ryan. I’m not saying he’s on the same level as Nolan, but they do have some similarities...

"...There are thirty nine pitchers in the HOF with less wins than Bert (take a look for yourself ). Now Bert is a good broadcaster for the Twins. Given his past success and his continued involvement in baseball, I believe it’s time to let him in."

"Gone are the days of 300 wins careers. With five-man rotations, you just don’t start enough games to reach the plateau. If the voters can’t look past not reaching that mark, starting pitching will got the way of the dinosaur in terms of the Hall of Fame. There has to be more to it than just numbers. If someone is a top five pitcher for a decade with a history of big games in the postseason and unmatched durability, he’s a Hall of Famer in my book."

"He was one of the best pitchers of his era, as judged by his numerous Top 10 finishes in the major pitching categories and the slew of All-Star Game appearances. Perhaps just as important was his role in forming the Players Association. Looking at his numbers though, and I’m left puzzled. I’m not exactly sure how Bunning got into Cooperstown. I suppose his overall impact on the game is enough to get him in, but he is Exhibit A why some of the other pitchers I’ve profiled deserve inclusion as well."

"Most young fans know his name for the surgery that has he made famous, but Tommy John was a heck of a pitcher too. He won 288 games (5th most among lefties) at a .555 winning percentage and a 3.34 ERA over a career that spanned 26 years. He also had a 6-3 record with a 2.65 ERA in postseason play. Tommy was a four-time All-Star and won the Hutch Award and the Lou Gehrig Memorial Award. He was in the top 10 in ERA and wins six times, Win-Loss % 10 times (led the league in ‘74), Walks/9 innings pitched 12 times, Complete Games 4 times, and Shutouts 7 times (led the league three times). He injured the ulnar collateral ligament in his pitching arm in 1974, and after a revolutionary surgical operation he was able to pitch until he was 46. For the amount of victories, the brilliant control he exhibited over his lengthy career, as well as his lasting mark on the game with the surgery he helped coin I believe Tommy John is overdue induction into baseball’s hallowed Hall."

The apparent disregard for Guidry by the sportswriters who cast the ballots for the Hall of Fame is not wholly inexplicable. There are reasons why HOF voters may have missed what seems so obvious. Some of the reasons are specific to Guidry and some are not. Let's take a look at them.

1. The impact of the 5-man rotation and the rise of the bullpens. These factors have significantly reduced innings, wins, starts, strikeouts, complete games and shutouts for pitchers. Obviously a Hall of Fame voter should allow for these factors when considering the record of any pitcher in the last 30 years. Only recently has the HOF had to consider those who pitched during and after the shift to 5-man rotations that took place in the '80's. In many ways Ron Guidry has been a test case, the Yankee's early adoption of the 5-man rotation in '76/'77 and Guidry's relatively short career combining to make him one of the first to be considered by the Hall from the era of expanded rotations and increased bullpen utilization.

The leading pitchers today generally start 32 to 34 games per year, as compared to 38 to 40 in the '70s. The last pitcher to make 38 starts in a season was knuckleballer Charlie Hough in 1987. There were 117 38-start seasons in the '70s. No pitcher has had 34 decisions in a season since Joaquin Andujar in 1984. There were 57 such seasons in the '70s. In practice the 5-man rotation has reduced starts for front-of-the-rotation pitchers by about six per season. For elite pitchers that means roughly 3 wins per season. I think the impact of this is profound. Mike Mussina will present an interesting test case in five years. If I'm not mistaken Mussina will be a marginal HOF candidate, but does anyone believe an eight-time 20 game winner wouldn't be a first-ballot HOFer? That's how many 20-win seasons Mussina might have had in a 4-man rotation (with six 18+ win seasons and two more 17 win seasons he almost certainly would have had six 20 win seasons).

Guidry had three 20 win seasons and might have had four more with the benefit of five to six additional starts each year.

In 1977 Guidry didn't join the Yankees' starting rotation until May 17th (the Yanks' 33rd game of the season), making only one spot start on April 29th. As a result he made only 25 starts, winning 15. Had Guidry been in the starting rotation the whole year he likely would have won 18 or 19 games - the equivalent of a 21 or 22 win season in a four-man rotation.

In 1979 Guidry won 17 of 30 starts. He went two weeks between starts in early May when he was moved to the bullpen and replaced an injured Goose Gossage as the Yanks' finisher, picking up an additional win to total 18 for the season (or the equivalent of approximately 21 wins in a 4-man rotation).

In 1980 Guidry won 16 of 29 starts. He went a month between starts from mid-August to mid-September after he volunteered to go to the bullpen to make room for Gaylord Perry in the Yanks' rotation. This was thorougly mystifying move by the Yanks which, like the acquisition of the aging Perry, was likely motivated in part by George Steinbrenner's rising panic as the Orioles were shaving the Yankees' division lead in August. Guidry went 1-1 in his month-long foray into the bullpen to finish with a record of 17-10. He returned to the rotation in mid-September, winning four consecutive starts to finish the season. He likely would have won 19 games but for missing approximately five starts while in the bullpen.

In 1981 labor strife wiped out one-third of the season, and Guidry won 11 of 21 starts. The Yanks' used Guidry sparingly after early September, having already been awarded a post-season spot as a result of leading the division when the strike occurred (two of Guidry's starts in September were abbreviated 2 and 3 inning tune-ups). After play resume in early August Guidry enjoyed his most dominating stretch since the great '78 season, going 6-2 with a 1.74 ERA in August and September. But for the strike Guidry would almost certainly have won 17 or more games, another season equivalent to a 20 win season in days of the 4-man rotation.

Something tells me HOF voters would find the following record considerably more impressive:

21-9
25-3
20-9
20-11
18-8
15-9
23-10
13-14
23-7

That's a conservative estimate of Guidry's projected records from '77 to '85 if he'd made 35 starts each season rather than averaging a shade less than 30 starts a year as result of a 5-man rotation, the 1981 strike and the Yankees' periodic dubious decisions to shift one of the best starting pitchers in baseball into the bullpen. The foregoing projection is based on an assumption that Guidry would have won a mere 45% and 50% of his incremental starts rather than the 57% win/start ratio he maintained between '77 and '85.

2. The strike-shortened 1981 season. Guidry's 1981 season was by any measure an outstanding season. Guidry led the league with the lowest WHIP, the highest strikeout/bb ratio, was third in strikeouts/inning, fourth in fewest hits/inning and fifth in fewest bb's/inning. He was The Sporting News' lefthanded pitcher on its All-Star team. The 11-5 record, a product of the strike and the Yanks' sensible decision to use Guidry somewhat sparingly in September, simply doesn't reflect Guidry's excellence in '81 and is likely given insufficient regard by HOF voters.

3. Possible 20-win seasons in '79 and '80 lost to bullpen detours. The Yankees decision to pitch Guidry out of the bullpen at the beginning of the '77 season is understandable - Guidry had been a relief pitcher with the Yankees' AAA affiliate in '75 and '76, his slight 5'11", 165 lb. frame considered inadequate to the rigors of starting pitching, particularly given Guidry's fastball/slider, power-pitching style. The decisions by the Yankees in '79 and '80 to shift one of the best starting pitchers in baseball to the bullpen, however, are difficult to understand. In each case Guidry volunteered to make the move, a testament to his sense of teamwork and selflessness. The decision in '79 was a stopgap measure to compensate for Gossage's loss to injury. The decision in '80 was simply bizarre. Gaylord Perry was 6-9 with Texas when the Yanks acquired him in mid-August, albeit with a creditable 3.43 ERA. The decision to make Guidry a long-reliever, however, rather than shifting Perry or the 39-year old Luis Tiant to the role, simply didn't make sense.

Back-to-back 20 win seasons in '79 and '80, coming on the heels of Guidry's magnificent 25-win season in '78, would most certainly have carried significant weight with HOF voters who couldn't muster 10% of the vote for Guidry in his nine years on the ballot. Of the 13 pitchers who've had 5 or more 20-win seasons since WW II all are in the Hall of Fame.

Jack Morris sealed his reputation as big game pitcher on October 19, 1991. He pitched a 10 inning shutout that day, winning game 7 of the World Series by a score of 1-0 to make the Minnesota Twins the champions of baseball. It is without question one of the great pitching performances in World Series history. Jack Morris was a gamer, there's no doubt about it.

Jack's Game 7 classic wasn't his only shining moment in October either. He had a 7-4 post-season record in 13 starts, with a 3.80 ERA (even more impressive, he won 7 of his first 8 decisions before a rocky post-season in '92) . As is the case with many great post-season pitchers, he was even better in the World Series, going 4-2 with a 2.96 ERA in seven starts for Detroit, Minnesota and Toronto. He was 4-0 with a 1.54 ERA in his first two World Series (in '84 and '91), before going 0-2 for the Blue Jays in the '92 WS. Guidry was better in October, but Morris was close, particularly if you give him extra-credit for his 10-inning Game 7 shutout (and I think we should).

Morris went 13-13 in 30 September starts in those four races with a 3.34 ERA. He had a particulary difficult time in games against the other contenders in those races, losing twice in the last nine games to eventual division winner Milwaukee in 1981 and losing critical September starts to Baltimore in '83 and Toronto in '87. He was stellar in '92 with Toronto, going 4-1 in 7 September starts with a 3.40 ERA. Morris made two September starts for Toronto in 1993, losing his only decision.

His record over six September pennant races with Detroit and Toronto (Minnesota waltzed to the division title in 1991) was 17-15 in 39 starts, with a 3.44 ERA in 290.2 innings. By my scorecard, Jack Morris was great in five starts in two World Series, bad in two starts in a third World Series, and thoroughly mediocre in 39 starts down the stretch in six pennant races. Based on this, I'd argue that Jack Morris's reputation as a big-game pitcher rests disproportionately on one ten inning game in October.Of course the issue of Jack Morris' big-game bona fides is critical to his Hall of Fame candidacy because his regular season credentials are generally considered short of Hall worthy. I'm agnostic on the issue of Morris' worthiness for the Hall, but I passionately believe that if Morris is now consistently polling above 40% in HOF ballots, then Ron Guidry should be inducted forthwith.

We compared Blyleven's, Morris' and Guidry's prime years in this post. Conveniently, both Morris and Guidry had a prime period of nine years, after which each experienced a precipitous decline. As demonstrated below, although each had approximately the same number of wins, Guidry had a significantly better ERA+ and a significantly greater winning percentage. Both Guidry and Morris pitched for fine teams in the late '70s and '80s, but Guidry's winning percentage over this nine year stretch was an astounding 26.5% better than the Yankees' winning percentage during the same period, while Morris outperformed his Tiger clubs by 13.9%.

To the right is Ron Guidry's record of vote support in the Hall of Fame balloting, straight from the official website of the HOF. He was dropped from the ballot in 2002 after dipping below 5% support. Take a good look, and then consider the following:

Lew Burdette received 24.1 of the vote in 1984 and topped 20% in five other years. He became a starting pitcher for the Milwaukee Braves in 1954 and over the next 8 years went 142-90 (.612 win%) with a 104 ERA+. After that he bounced around for six years and was largely a punching bag - an 81 ERA+ (meaning that after adjusting for park factors his ERA was nearly 20% higher than the league average). He had a great Series in 1957, beating the Yankees three times. The Yankees took their revenge the next year, beating Burdette twice, including in game 7. There is no rational explanation for Burdette receiving nearly three times the HOF support Guidry did.

Dave Stewart received more HOF votes than Guidry over the last two years Guidry was on the ballot (2001 and 2002). He was a 20 game winner for four straight years for the great A's teams of the late '80s/early '90s. Aside from those four years he was a .500 pitcher with a higher than average ERA, never winning more than 12 games in a season. He was a good post-season pitcher, going 10-6, but was only 2-4 in the World Series. In what universe does Dave Stewart receive as many votes for the Hall as Ron Guidry?

Mickey Lolich received 25.5% of the vote in 1988 and topped 10% seven times. He had a great World Series in '68, winning three games and beating the great Gibson in game seven. He was considered one of the best pitchers in baseball in '71 and '72 (2nd and 3rd place Cy Young finishes) but at no other time. Take away those two years and he was barely a .500 pitcher even though he pitched for a Tigers team that averaged nearly 90 wins a season during his peak from '64 to '73. During his prime from '64 to '73 he had a .578 winning percentage for a Tigers franchise that had an average winning percentage of .550 over that period, displaying an almost Blyleven-like tendency to perform to the level of his team. In a rational world Guidry would outpoll Lolich in HOF balloting by a significant multiple.

Don Newcombe received 15.3% of the HOF vote in 1980 and topped 10% three other years. He anchored the pitching staff for the Boys of Summer in Brooklyn for 5 1/2 years between 1949 and 1956 (losing 2 1/2 years to the Army), winning 112 and losing only 48 with a 3.41 ERA (119 ERA+) during that span. He then went 37-42 over the last four years of his career to finish with a 149-90 record and 3.56 ERA. Newk was a great pitcher for a great team for 5 1/2 years, but is he more deserving of induction to the Hall than Ron Guidry?

Roy Face topped 10% seven times. He was probably the premier relief pitcher in the National League for five years in the late '50s/early '60s. He went 18-1 in 1959, but was a sub-.500 pitcher other than that. The Yankees pounded the crap out of him in the 1960 World Series, his only post-season appearance. Excuse that last statement - Roy Face was a great relief pitcher. But he wasn't Ron Guidry and there is no earthly explanation for why he routinely topped 10% in the HOF vote while Guidry never did.

Wilbur Wood received 6.3% of the vote in 1987. For four years in the early '70s he was the knuckleballing Iron Horse for the White Sox, averaging 22.5 wins and over 340 innings pitched per season. His career record was 164-156 with a 113 ERA+.

I loved Sparky Lyle, and have no problem with him getting 13.1 of the vote. Same for Elston Howard - great catcher for great Yankee teams, so 20.7% of the HOF seems reasonable? But can anyone explain why Guidry would receive significantly less support than either Lyle or Howard?

Johnny Sain - 34% of the vote in 1975. 139 career wins. .545 winning percentage. 106 ERA+. Truly mystifying.

Allie "Superchief" Reynolds finished at 25% or above for eight straight years, topping out at 33.6%. In many ways his stats are similar, though not as good, as Guidry's. What explains the vast disparity in their HOF votes? No disrespect to the Superchief, because I think he deserved every HOF vote he got, maybe more. Hell, I wouldn't be offended if they inducted Reynolds, Raschi and Lopat en masse - that rotation won five straight World Series! I just can't understand how Allie could get more than a third of the vote and Guidry never even hit double digits.

Johnny Vander Meer twice finished just shy of 30%. 119-121 career record. But apparently two straight no-hitters not only trumps a decade's worth of pitching pre-eminence in the American League, but trumps it handily.

Don Larsen topped 10% three times. He was 81-91 in his career, but was a Baseball God one afternoon in October 1956.

Bobo Newsom's HOF vote history is almost identical to Guidry's - an average of about 6% per year. Newsom's big claim to fame is that he led the league in losses four times. Bobo Newsom. Just incredible...Bobo Newsom? (Seriously, click here and look at Newsom's record and consider how amazing it is that HOF voters consider him the equal of Ron Guidry)

Bucky Walters got 23.7% of the vote in 1968. He was arguably the best pitcher in baseball in 1939 and 1940, but look at the record - does he deserve triple the HOF support as Ron Guidry?

Mel Harder received 25.4% of the vote in 1964. He was a damn good pitcher for the Indians for about eight years in the 1930's, but...

Terry Moore received 11.7% of the vote in 1964. I'm a pretty big baseball fan, but who the hell was Terry Moore?