Billy Pierce

[pwdennis]

Billy Pierce has been retired now for a good many years. While I'm not sure how he fared in BBWA voting, it wasn't well enough to get him to Cooperstown.

In the thread "Best player not in the HOF who doesn't belong", I selected Pierce as one of my pitchers, but in looking over his record, I find that I may be wrong - he might belong there. In a 14 year period (1948-1962) Pierce went 202-158 with 20 saves and a 3.21 ERA against leagues that went 3.91. He was consistantly better than the league ERA during this period, usually but large margins. He pitched well in his two post season opportunities (5g, 1-1, 1.89) and his comps are all pretty good pitchers:

Vida Blue (957)
Luis Tiant (922)
Hal Newhouser (920) *
Jim Perry (920)
Catfish Hunter (916) *
Milt Pappas (910)
Bob Welch (909)
Hooks Dauss (904)
Orel Hershiser (903)
Mickey Lolich (902)

only Newhouser and Hunter are HOF but Tiant should be in and you can make a pretty decent case for the rest of them

[sweaver]

I don't think Pierce is a Hall of Famer, but he was a terrific pitcher, started three All-Star games for the AL.

[VNV Nation]

Ditto.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by pwdennis
Billy Pierce has been retired now for a good many years. While I'm not sure how he fared in BBWA voting, it wasn't well enough to get him to Cooperstown.

In the thread "Best player not in the HOF who doesn't belong", I selected Pierce as one of my pitchers, but in looking over his record, I find that I may be wrong - he might belong there. In a 14 year period (1948-1962) Pierce went 202-158 with 20 saves and a 3.21 ERA against leagues that went 3.91. He was consistantly better than the league ERA during this period, usually but large margins. He pitched well in his two post season opportunities (5g, 1-1, 1.89) and his comps are all pretty good pitchers:

Vida Blue (957)
Luis Tiant (922)
Hal Newhouser (920) *
Jim Perry (920)
Catfish Hunter (916) *
Milt Pappas (910)
Bob Welch (909)
Hooks Dauss (904)
Orel Hershiser (903)
Mickey Lolich (902)

only Newhouser and Hunter are HOF but Tiant should be in and you can make a pretty decent case for the rest of them

Pierce's main credential as a HOFer, in my opinion, is that his ERA is 0.62 better than league for his career. However, that has to be balanced against the parks he played in.

Comiskey Park (where he played the bulk of his career) and Candlestick Park (where he had his last good year) were super pitcher's parks, the best of the best. Tiger Stadium, where he broke in, was much better for a lefty than a righty.

I wouldn't take Smed's crowbar to Newhouser and Hunter, and I believe Tiant is HOF-worthy, but Newhouser and Hunter (and Tiant, if he gets in) cut ahead in the line (as did Jim Bunning). How can you advocate Billy Pierce's election to the HOF when Blyleven, John, and Kaat? (Blyleven's case is the most striking because he played in better hitters parks, often for worse teams, but had an ERA 0.59 better than Pierce, in a much longer career.)
I don't think Billy Pierce is HOF quality, and I certainly don't think he should go in the HOF before John, Kaat, and Blyleven (especially Blyleven). In many ways I think Lolich and Blue are better candidates in that they had higher peaks (although my evaluation here is somewhat subjective and I am willing to be shown otherwise on these two, whose cases I am NOT advocating here).

Billy Pierce was a star, but not of the magnitude to which I would cast my vote for him (if I had one:D ) for the HOF.

[pwdennis]

You miss the point of the post - I feel that Pierce is marginal, but marginal on the correct side of the ledger. I think the omission of Blyleven is an atrocity - he is far better qualified than many current HOFers and is THE outstanding pitcher not currently in Cooperstown. Remember - I referenced my post in the thread "Best player not in the HOF who doesn't belong", and simply decided that I was wrong, that Pierce was probably marginally worthy of Cooperstown.

Pierce had 1999 Ks in his career in addition to his fine ERA differential - at the time he retired that was a lot of Ks

[LeGrandOrange]

Pierce is one of the guys I'd put in if, and ONLY if, you put the big 3, El Tiante, and Ron Guidry in first. Long queue, obviously. I personally would want Vida and Lolich in before Pierce...and the fact he's 8th in my pitcher queue really shows how much he has to do to get in as long as the current hall of fame system is retained.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by pwdennis
You miss the point of the post - I feel that Pierce is marginal, but marginal on the correct side of the ledger. I think the omission of Blyleven is an atrocity - he is far better qualified than many current HOFers and is THE outstanding pitcher not currently in Cooperstown. Remember - I referenced my post in the thread "Best player not in the HOF who doesn't belong", and simply decided that I was wrong, that Pierce was probably marginally worthy of Cooperstown.

Pierce had 1999 Ks in his career in addition to his fine ERA differential - at the time he retired that was a lot of Ks

PW, I think you were right the first time.

The list of comparable pitchers to Pierce indicate that most of the pitchers with similar careers are NOT in the HOF.

For me to put Pierce in the category of a HOF-worthy pitcher, I would need to see some evidence of dominance. Pierce only won 20 games twice, and while he pitched for a light-hitting team, he also pitched in a super pitcher's park.

Had Pierce won a Cy Young Award, or done better in MVP voting, or won 20 games 4 times (like Tiant), his case would be better.
He's in the bottom of the HOF gray area, as reflected by his HOF monitor (74.5), another indicator that most guys who do what Pierce did don't get in.

I could be persuaded on this issue because Pierce was well-regarded while active and was on the All-Star team in 7 different seasons. What made him special? What makes him stand out over Blue, Lolich, and others who did what he did and are NOT in the HOF? If I'm going to jump on the Pierce bandwagon, that's what I would need to see.

[VNV Nation]

The problem with Pierce is that there are too many pitchers just like him who aren't anywhere near HOF status.

Mindful that Bert has many characteristics of Hall of Famers, I hope he never gets in, and would be truly troubled if and when he ever does (I expect that he will, once the HOF voters are mostly guys who never saw him pitch). Among AL pitchers of the 1970s, I would comfortably put Bert about 12-15, behind many starters who won't be in the HOF.

[LeGrandOrange]

VNV Nation: Are you a member of the BBWAA? ;)

[VNV Nation]

No, u?

[pwdennis]

VNV Nation - Why would you hope that Blyleven does not get in ?? He was a great pitcher for many years, better than many already enshrined HOFers including Jim Bunning, Don Sutton, Bob Gibson and Catfish Hunter. I saw Bert many many times. He had a better curveball than Koufax (although Koufax pitched in an age where umps would call a curve as a strike, while the last half of Bert's career, umps were reluctant to give the strike call). Blyleven was durable and he pitched very well in post season play going 5-1 with an ERA below three.

I consider it an absolute outrage that Blyleven was not a first ballot HOF selectee and that as marginal a candidate as Ozzie Smith did get in on the first ballot and didn't have to wait five or six ballots to get in. Sometimes life isn't fair and the Blyleven/Smith situation proves it. (Sutton and Niekro should not have needed to wait, either)

I always hope for the BBWAA to do the right thing, even if the player involved isn't one that I particularly like. If that means someday putting jerks like Jeff Kent and Albert Joey Belle in the HOF so be it

[VNV Nation]

If you think Blyleven is better than Gibson or Ozzie Smith, I can tell we aren't going to agree on this, but since you asked...

He was a good pitcher, an innings eater. But the best pitchers in the AL in the 1970s were Palmer, Perry, Ryan, Hunter. Blyleven wasn't even on a level with the next-best guys, like Tiant, Guidry, Tommy John, Vida Blue, Wilbur Wood, Mickey Lolich, Dennis Leonard.

Blyleven's records were a lot like Nolan Ryan's: Lots of innings, lots of wins, lots of losses. Except Ryan's teams were bad, and Blyleven's teams were more or less average his entire career. And, to the extent that Ryan's teams were bad, they were awful offensively, while Blyleven's teams were above average offensively.

(Personally, I think Ryan is marginal as far as great pitchers, Hall of Famers go, but he did get over 300 wins. Sacrilege, I know, but if Ryan got stopped short of 300 I would have no problem with yanking his plaque out.)

Blyleven has a lot of characteristics of Hall of Famers, like a lot of strikeouts and a lot of innings, but his career won-lost record (.534 winning percentage) is clearly not Hall of Fame caliber. If we could determine that this was solely due to bad teams and bad offenses behind him, it would be OK, I suppose, to say he should be in the Hall of Fame.

As best as I can determine, Blyleven got good run support in his career. He had the run support to go 315-222, but instead he went 287-250. What I surmise is basically, Blyleven was very powerful in determining his team's fate, win or loss, much like Ryan, and, like Ryan, was basically a .500 pitcher. He was within 3 games of .500 with .500 teams (1972-74), he went basically .500 with good teams (1970, 1977, 1987). One exception, on the 1979 Pirates, the best-hitting team in the league, he had a good record but won only 12 of 37 starts.

Blyleven did improve in this regard late in his career, although his overall record wasn't much better than his teams', he won about as much as he should have been expected to from 1980-1992.
This isn't all that exciting, because he was still basically a .520 pitcher, although he had a couple of "big" years (19-7, 17-5).

Maybe the reason he would go 17-16 when he should have went 20-13 is because he was matched up against the top pitchers in the league all the time, and that there were an unusually high number of great pitchers in the league, but I don't see this as a terribly compelling case for a Hall of Famer. My best guess is that Bert was a guy who never should have pitched as many innings as Carlton, Ryan, Seaver, etc. He gave up a lot of home runs, and he'd get tired, and probably give up a key homer in a tight game. He probably would have been better off being born 10 years later, and going 250 innings a year in the 1980s. Again, not a compelling reason to put him in the Hall of Fame. i would suspect that Dennis Martinez, born 10 years earlier, would have the same type record as Blyleven.

As it turned out, Bert pitched a lot longer than Hunter, Tiant, Guidry, etc., which could, arguably, make him a better pitcher.
I don't see it that way, he was a great No. 3 pitcher on a good team or a solid No. 2 on average team. You win more pennants with a 20-10 pitcher for five years than a 16-15 pitcher for 10 years.
He would be, admittedly, a lot better pitcher in a table-top game or computer simulation than he was in real life.

[Golden Bear]

Returning to Pierce, I think most people are pretty much spot on that he's a near miss. I wouldn't be appalled if he got in, but there's probably a dozen starters who should probably get in first, or at least have just as good a case:

Blyleven
John
Kaat
Guidry
Morris (all still on the BBWAA ballot)
Tiant
Lolich
maybe Blue
maybe Dennis Martinez (eligible this year)
maybe Orel Hershiser (not yet eligible)
maybe Cone (not yet eligible)
maybe Gooden (not yet eligible)
maybe Allie Reynolds
maybe Bob Welch

Modern guys with high win totals impress me a little more than older guys, because of the advent of the 5-man rotation.

[Skip]

Good post (and return to subject) GB. I agree that there are numerous pitchers with more compelling HOF cases than Pierce. I am becoming more and more a Guidry fan as time goes by, too.

[KCBOOMER]

Pierce was a good pitcher but not an HoFer. At no time during his career (I was around for half of it) was he considered as one of the best pitchers in the game. All of his comps are good pitchers but the two HoFers are marginal at best.

[WiredTiger]

Pierce was a good pitcher but at no time was he a dominant HOF pitcher. You could get a lot of people in on the fact that they are better than someone already in.

Pierce, Blyleven, Guidry, Lolich don't deserve to get in. And I'd like to use Smed's crowbar to pull a couple of marginal guys out. I wonder if Jim Hunter would have been elected to the HOF? I think his nickname got him in!

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by WiredTiger


Pierce, Blyleven, Guidry, Lolich don't deserve to get in. And I'd like to use Smed's crowbar to pull a couple of marginal guys out. I wonder if Jim Hunter would have been elected to the HOF? I think his nickname got him in!

Well, you're 2 for 4, WiredTiger.

I wouldn't put Pierce and Lolich in. I would put Blyleven in, as I would Guidry. And I wouldn't take the crowbar to Catfish.

Catfish got in because he won a Cy Young Award, threw a perfect game, and had five (5) CONSECUTIVE 20-win seasons, including one where he spent a significant piece of time on the DL.

Guidry had a .651 winning pct., and was a three (3) time 20 game winner. His ERA was 0.64 better than league.

Blyleven's career ERA was 0.59 better than league, plus he had the most career wins (287) of this group.

Pierce's ERA was compiled in the most favorable pitchers park in the AL, for the most part, so his ERA being 0.62 better than league is not as an impressive accomplishment as Blyleven's and Guidry's. I would rate Pierce behind all of the guys you mentions except for Lolich. While I subjectively believe that Mickey Lolich was better than Pierce, the numbers don't back that up; not WP, not ERA vs. league.

[TimmyB]

I think you could very easily make a case for Pierce as a forgotten or underappreciated star. HOFer? Not so sure. As has been said, he's marginal... maybe even marginal on the good side... but... the Hall needs to be picky (pickier, one might even argue).

Or, to put it another way, he's not at the head of the line for deserving pitchers.

[pwdennis]

Expected won-loss record predicated upon run support is a bit of a fable. VNV Nation observed the following:

"As best as I can determine, Blyleven got good run support in his career. He had the run support to go 315-222, but instead he went 287-250. What I surmise is basically, Blyleven was very powerful in determining his team's fate, win or loss, much like Ryan, and, like Ryan, was basically a .500 pitcher."

This, of course, presupposes a pretty even distribution of run support - say 5 runs every game as opposed to 0-0-15-1-2-12-0-0-15 - a support pattern that would produce (at best) a 2-7 record. Blyleven played for a number of teams that scored in spurts.

For modern day pitchers, who don't complete most of their starts, the W-L record is often prey to a weak bullpen. Blyleven, who was a work horse, still didn't complete 50% of his starts. He lost many victories blown by his bullpens over the years. The 1979 season VNV Nation referenced was entirely the fault of the worst manager that I ever saw, Chuck Tanner. Bert averaged, only 6 ip per start that year, and complained all season about Tanner giving him the quick hook.

This actually need to be a new thread so I'll start one.