John Franco

[ElHalo]

Am I the only one who thinks he's worthy? In my mind, he's on the short list for greatest relief pitcher of all time, and yet nobody really mentions his name much as an all time great. His ERA+ is 8th all time, and he's second in saves. He was one of the best closers in the game for a very long time, at a position that normally chews up and spits out the best after two or three years. I think he's deserving. Anybody else?

[tibber]

i agree that he probably belongs, but there's a long line ahead of him at closer, and if/until some of them make it he'll have a very hard time.

how about jesse orosco?

[ElHalo]

See, I disagree. I don't think there's a long line ahead of him at closer.

I'd say that the best eligible closers not in the Hall are Bruce Sutter and Goose Gossage. And I think that Franco is better than both of them.

[tibber]

what about lee smith? or sparky lyle? or dan quisenberry?

[Roy Hobbs]

For a guy who is usually so strict on the HoF I'm a bit surprised to see you advocating a relief pitcher, ElHalo.

As with most relief pitchers, his low IP sort of bothers me. But nonetheless, he's pitched over 1,000 innings (still only about 5 seasons worth for a starter), has the 2nd highest ERA+ among active pitchers (behind Pedro), and has an excellent career ERA of 2.74.

I agree that he should pretty much be at the beginning of the line for induction as far as relief pitchers go.

But voters don't tend to like relief guys so much. But with the huge press Gagne, Rivera, Wagner, Smoltz et al. have been getting the past few years, I expect that is going to change.

[ElHalo]

I am strict on the Hall of Fame... but I also value relief pitchers very highly. I've seen far too many teams lose games because of subpar relief pitching. A lot of sabermetrics people aren't too keen on relief pitchers, and as you've said, a lot of people are down on them because their IP numbers are low.

But I'm not. I'd consider a top flight closer to be at least equally as valuable as a good number 2 pitcher. They'll be in a lot more games, and while they won't pitch as many innings, the innings they do pitch are much more important. If a starting pitcher starts to get rocked, he can get yanked from the game. If a closer starts to get rocked, you automatically lose. So it's actually, in my opinion, more important to have a lights out closer than a top flight starting pitcher.

The only pitchers to have pitched for the Yankees for the whole time Joe Torre's been manager are Mariano Rivera and Andy Pettite. And I would argue that Rivera has been so much more valuable than Pettite as to make any argument silly.

Similarly, Franco has been a lights out closer for a very long time. And I think that's worth a lot.

In my opinion, there are exactly six pitchers currently working that should go to the Hall of Fame. Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Mariano Rivera, and John Franco. In my opinion, over the course of his career, Franco's been more valuable than any other pitcher... including guys like Glavine and Mussina.

[leecemark]

---The main thing I have against Franco isn't really his fault. I just don't think modern closers are capable of having as much value as ace relievers from earlier eras - even 20 years earlier. When you are only expected to pitch one inning, which you start with the bases empty, you have a much easier job description than guys who came in frequently in the 7th or 8th with men on. Goosage, Lyle and Sutter weren't held back for save situations and weren't inserted into games merely for the purpose of getting them. Throw in the lefty specialist work Franco has done more recently and he just hasn't been asked to do as much as previous relief aces. Not his fault. He has been one of the best at what he was asked to do. I just don't value it that much.
---The great relievers of the 70s and 80s were considered more valuable when they were active as well. Lyle and Sutter each won a Cy Young Award and figured in the voting multiple times. Goose Goosage finished in the top 6 five times. Dan Quisenberry finished in the top 5 five times. Franco made the top 10 once, finishing 7th. All time save leader Lee Smith also had only one top 10 Cy Young finish. Lyle also finished 3rd and 6th in the MVP balloting. Goosage also had 2 top 10 MVP finishes, while Quisenberry had four and Sutter had FIVE.
---The older guys pitched more and tougher innings. Goosage pitched 34 less games than Franco, but almost 800 more innings (60% more) . Lyle pitched over 100 less games, but over 200 more innings. Sutter and Qusienberry each pitched almost 400 less games, but only 100 less innings.
---I took a look at Franco, Smith, Lyle, Goosage, Sutter and Qusienberry for this comparison; Franco was tied for last in Black Ink, although he was in the middle of the group in Grey Ink. He was second in ERA+, but the difference amoung the group wasn't large and he SHOULD be lower when he is only asked to do it one inning at a time. He shows up on the all time leader board because he stuck around long enough to get the 1,000 innings baseball-reference is looking for, but lots of new breed closers have spectacular ERA+. Few of them last, or have yet lasted, as long as Franco. I'll give him credit for that. I actually like him better than I did before checking this out. I still don't see him ahead of Sutter and Goosage though and I'm not looking to fill the Hall with relievers.
---On a more subjective note, when I think of dominating, scary relievers Goosage is always the first name to come to mind. Much as you prefer Randy Johnson to Greg Maddux despite Maddux numbers, I prefer Goosage over Franco regardless of numbers. In fact, Quisenberry actually led this comparison in both ERA+ and Black Ink, but he was one of the least scary relievers ever. I suspect I am underrating him, but I'm not ready to add additional relievers to my waiting list for the Hall at this point.

[ElHalo]

Eh, I don't really think you can hold it against him that he only pitches one innings a game. That's just the way pitchers are used now. I think that holding that against contemporary closers would be the same as holding it against contemporary starters that they pitch in five man rotations... I mean, I guess you could hold it against them, but why?

As far as dominating goes, you're right, Franco never seemed to have that nastiness that you look for in a closer. You think of Gossage there; I think of Mariano. You never feel sorry for batters going against Franco, the way you feel sorry for guys up against Mariano. That's probably a mark against Franco.

My big plusses on Franco are his great ERA+, and the fact that he was a top flight closer for 13 years. Closer is a position at which guys really don't tend to last that long. Quisenberry was a great closer for about 7 years, Sutter for 9, Gossage for 10 or 11.

Franco and Lee Smith are the only guys I can think of who were top flight closers for more than a dozen years. Being a top closer for 13 years is, in my mind, just as good as being a top hitter for 21 or 22 years. He gets bonus points for that.

But, as I said; I know that I'm in the minority on thinking he's a HoF'er. Just like to get other peoples opinions.

[Roy Hobbs]

I definitely think we should mostly consider player's performances in the context of their own times.

Everything from batting averages, home runs, to ERAs, IP et cetra are all enormously affected by the era in question. So to hold people to standards of other eras isn't fair and isn't intuitive, either.

The Hall of Fame in my opinion should be a collection of the players that dominated the sport when they played. And when I say dominated I mean "true" dominance, not just "doing well."

To deal with the issue of relief pitchers and starting pitchers, I'd like to see the Hall induct pitchers as such. If you were a reliever, you get inducted as a reliever, not as a "pitcher."

That brings up another point, I think playing position should be listed on the plaques themselves, they aren't on a lot of them and aren't listed in a "standardized" manner, you may get mention of something like, "defensive great at SS" but in general plaques don't even mention position played.

Of course the HoF's website and other official resources of the Hall of Fame group players by position.

Anyways, there's a reason when say, we talk about Joe Torre for the Hall of Fame we talk about his stats primarily in relation to C and 3B. Because there are certain expectations (offensively) from those positions that are on a different level than say, expectations in general and specifically expectations in the outfield.

So we should consider pitchers as starters and relievers, and look at them in that context.

[Roy Hobbs]

Basically think of it like this.

A first baseman and a shortstop both bat, they swing a baseball bat at a baseball.

But we don't expect them to both do it equally. We realize that short stops tend to be faster, quicker on their feet guys. We recognize that their position requires that for them to be adequate defensively. We also recognize that in general, the larger frame/body structure, the slower. Yes, there are lots of people that are fast and big, but in general you're quicker if you're a bit smaller and have a lean frame.

So for a short stop you'd want the lean guy because it stands to reason he can field better. For 1st base, you don't need quite the degree of fielding talent, so you can put a big monster there who smashes baseballs with his overwhelming physical power.

So, they both bat, but we don't expect the same things.

Relievers and starters both pitch, but we shouldn't expect the same things because their jobs are "at first glance" the same.

[leecemark]

Roy, I think thats a valid point. I did start out my Franco post by saying (more or less) that my holding the way he is used against him was unfair. I absolutely detest the way teams use their closers, but that isn't Franco's fault . He has done the job he has been asked to do and done it well.
--At a minimum I think you have to adjust save totals to put them in context to earlier times. It has really only been about 20 years since saves went from being something a relief ace got because he was used in critical situations whenever available to something which is an end in itself. I'm watching the Mariners-Expos game as I 'm typing this. The Expos brought in Rocky Biddle a bit ago. Biddle has a 7.32 era and a .337 opponents ba. He also has picked up 11 saves in 14 chances. He didn't get those saves because he is an oustanding reliever. He picked up those saves because the Expos automatically throw him out there whenever there is a save opportunity. If someone who is a candidate for the leagues worst pitcher can be on a pace for 30 saves (actually he apparently won't get them as he came in tonight in the 6th with the Expos behind 3-0 - guess he has a new job) the stat can't mean that much. Not that Franco isn't a hell of alot better than Biddle. Biddle won his job midway thru last season and has lost it 1/3 of the way thru this one. Lots of guys who weren't especially good have had a good year or two as a closer (Bobby Thigpen!). If you succeed at the job for over a decade as Franco did that is something else entirely.
--That said, I stand by my other reasons for prefering Goosage and Sutter - and probably Quisenberry and Lyle if I had to pick - over Franco or Lee Smith.

[Cougar]

Franco is certainly a HOF caliber reliever. However, relievers are having a hard time getting into the club for a variety of reasons, some valid, some not. Because of this, Franco's probably got a pretty long wait ahead. That is, if he ever actually retires. :)

[julusnc]

There are 6 relievers that I would like to see in the Hall of Fame when all are eligible.

1.Mariano Rivera
2.Bruce Sutter
3.John Franco
4.Goose Gossage
5.Trevor Hoffman
6.Lee Smith

All of the above were or are the best of the best.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Subjectively, I rate Gossage way ahead of Franco. Rivera and Hoffman were better as well. I would consider Elroy Face and Firpo Marberry before Franco.

I tend to think Franco wasn't Hall-worthy. He's a product of the cheap saves era. On the other hand, I believe that, for a while, he was the best reliever in baseball, and he had a long career, although I think he was hanging on for the last five years. He was the best from 1986-89, IMO.

[STLCards2]

I would definately put Gossage, Rivera, and Hoffman in the HOF before Franco, but would put Franco in the same class as Lee Smith and Quisenberry, in which I wouldn't hate it or love it if they were selected. Franco is definately underrated, however!

[brett]

---All time save leader Lee Smith also had only one top 10 Cy Young finish. Lyle also finished 3rd and 6th in the MVP balloting. Goosage also had 2 top 10 MVP finishes, while Quisenberry had four and Sutter had FIVE.


Smith had 4 top 10 including 3 top 5 finishes.

[leecemark]

--My bad. That should have read 1 top 10 in the MVP voting.

[brett]

A lot of sabermetrics people aren't too keen on relief pitchers, and as you've said, a lot of people are down on them because their IP numbers are low.


It's true. It is very hard to relate a closer to a starter in terms of value.

How much is a save worth? An argument could be made that the value of a save goes up when league-wide offense goes up. I agree with this because you are more likely to get knocked out quickly by a team full of hitters.

How does one relate 1 inning saves to 2+ inning saves. I remember Gossage warming up in the 7th in close games. He was practically starter #2. He had ownership in the game.

How bad is a blown save? (Bad, but much worse if of the 1 inning variety).

How can you relate ERA's (and ERA+ by the way?). If relievers had been charged 1/2 of an earned run for allowing an inherited runner, we would have a better gauge.

Anyway, "Saber" methods don't give full time closers much value. Mine only puts 2 closers on the edge of the hall if they were to be compared on the basis of projected wins: Rivera and Hoffman who both come in at +52 as of today. I certainly don't think that Rivera JUST barely qualified as of last week, BUT if you take out his post season performances, I might say so through just 11 seasons.

BUT imagine what a closer could have done statistically in the dead ball era if he was used like closers today (get me 3 outs! (or less) without letting somebody hit a 2 run homerun off of you!).

[baseball junkie]

Sparky lyle pitched in an entirely different era for relievers. Dan Quisenberry, for health reasons, didn't maintain his level of excellence for long enough. Dave Righetti might be the closest player of the past to mirror John Smoltz' career but because they never stuck to starting or relieving both will probably miss out at Cooperstown admission. Lee Smith piled up a lot of empty saves and is possibly the single most over-rated relief pitcher ever.

Of the 90s' closers still pitching today only Rivera, Franco and Hoffman are HOF worthy -- the rest of those chumps piling up empty saves like Rod Beck, Rob Nenn, John Wetteland, Armando Benitez, Roberto Hernandez, Duane Ward, Jose Mesa, Randy Myers, Todd Worrell, Tom Henke will never come close to being inducted.

[538280]

By almost any objective measure, I'm pretty sure Franco would be on the short list of the greatest relievers ever. I defnitely wouldn't put him ahead of Wilhelm or Rivera or Gossage, after that I don't know if there's any reliever who is certainly better. One of the best relievers of all time, and on that basis probably should be in the HOF. I suspect that as time passes, and relievers become a more permananent part of the game, we'll see them get respected much more and more go into the Hall. Unless a ton of relievers move past Franco in that time, I think he may eventually be selected.

[Redondos]

John Franco won a couple of Rolaids awards. Led the NL in saves 3 times. Never really emerged as a dominant, numero-uno closer in any era, like Bruce Sutter or Goose Gossage did. But he hung around for a long time as one of top 5 or 6 relievers in the game. Ended up racking up 424 saves. Does he belong in the HOF?

[Dalkowski110]

As one of the biggest Mets fans out there... NO! NO! NO!

Franco's personality keeps him out. Regarding team chemistry, he was comparable to Dick Allen. But unlike Allen, Franco was actually intrusive in Mets' affairs...such as playing a big role in trading Scott Kazmir, who he didn't get along with. Granted, Franco was given this right by Steve Phillips after the 2000 WS, but the guy was the penultimate clubhouse lawyer and amateur general manager. He did far more to hurt the New York Mets than to help them.

[AlecBoy006]

400 saves= HOF

[Dalkowski110]

Then there's Roger "Doc" Cramer, who had roughly 2800 hits and isn't in simply because he was an average player who just accumulated them. Or current HoF'er Herb Pennock who basically just accumulated his wins. Franco was much the same with his saves...he just accumulated them. Plus, he was Pete Rose's bag man, which already has him walking a tightrope. He doesn't go in, and ya know, of any player being lobbied to go in, I probably feel the most strongly about John Franco. DO NOT let that man in the HoF. I will always have faith in the Hall of Fame...unless they induct John Franco.

[KCGHOST]

Hey, why not. He was about as good as Bruce Sutter.

[AlecBoy006]

Trevor Hoffman better get in though. He is 18 500 saves.And 45 away from 1,000 K's. But may not be recognized due to he only pitched for mediocre teams, and only made the fall classic once, and his team got the S*** beat out them by the Yankees.

[Dalkowski110]

Well, that's not good logic. You don't just make the same mistake twice, throw Sutter in and say "what the heck, let's throw in John Franco!" Besides, I dare anyone to come forward and say that Johnny B Goode was as good a relief pitcher as Goose Gossage, currently the most deserving reliever not in the Hall. Or even Lee Smith. Heck, I'm fine with Trevor Hoffman...ABF (Anyone But Franco) in the above average reliever category (and saying Franco was above average is being rather kind...)!

"But may not be recognized due to he only pitched for mediocre teams"

And actually helped contribute to their mediocrity in some cases...

[Fuzzy Bear]

400 saves= HOF

Nonsense. Saves are cheap, cheap, cheap, and not a good way to evaluate a reliever.

No way Franco should go in before Elroy Face, Firpo Marberry, Goose Gossage, and Dan Quisenberry. I'm not saying that ANY of those guys should go, by the way. I'm only saying that Franco is behind them all.

John Hiller was a more deserving candidate for the HOF than Franco, as was Sparky Lyle. Mike Marshall was, arguably, better, at least on peak value.

[Redondos]

Then there's Roger "Doc" Cramer, who had roughly 2800 hits and isn't in simply because he was an average player who just accumulated them. Or current HoF'er Herb Pennock who basically just accumulated his wins. Franco was much the same with his saves...he just accumulated them..

Well, using the same argument, you could say that Don Sutton also "accumulated" his 324 wins, getting his 15 or 16 wins per season on a consistent basis. Sutton, of course, had only one 20 win season. He never won the Cy Young. (And having played most of his career with pennant contending Dodger teams, he doesn't have the alibi of being weighed down by mediocre support, like Fergie Jenkins and Phil Niekro.) Now, a 15 win season, in itself, is good, but not great. But some people might reason to themselves that Sutton achieved HOF greatness through an extraordinary long period of consistency as being among the best, if not THE best in any given era. If that kind of reasoning got Sutton voted into the hall, why not Franco?

Plus, he was Pete Rose's bag man, which already has him walking a tightrope. He doesn't go in, and ya know, of any player being lobbied to go in, I probably feel the most strongly about John Franco. DO NOT let that man in the HoF. I will always have faith in the Hall of Fame...unless they induct John Franco.

Ah, I've lost my faith ever since the Scooter got in. If his cronies had to get him into Cooperstown, it should have been as a broadcaster, not as a player.

[Defense Counts!]

Nonsense. Saves are cheap, cheap, cheap, and not a good way to evaluate a reliever.



I agree 100%. Saves are the most meaningless major stat in baseball. Of course, sportswriters are lazy and often will just look at a couple of numbers like saves to evaluate a reliever.

[Dalkowski110]

Lessee...Sutton was a better pitcher, for one, and for another, Sutton didn't literally contribute to the mediocrity of the ballclubs he pitched for. Franco did, and is probably worse to have in your clubhouse than Dick Allen. Did Dick Allen (or Don Sutton) suggest trading a blue chip prospect to the management and they took his word for it (like Franco did with Scott Kazmir)? No. Did Dick Allen wreck a young player's confidence and, if not for the intervention of another team, would have destroyed his career (like Franco did with Jason Isringhausen)? No. And for crying out loud, it's the Hall of Fame not the "Hall of Somewhat Above Average," which Franco was. Putting Franco in would be repeating a mistake (it would make Bruce Sutter look like a positively ingenious induction, actually, so maybe it wouldn't...), and generally mistakes are something you try and avoid, as opposed to going out of your way to make another.

[KCGHOST]

Well, that's not good logic. You don't just make the same mistake twice, throw Sutter in and say "what the heck, let's throw in John Franco!"


I guess you missed the "Thumbs Down" on my post.

[EvanAparra]

Lee Smith - 1289.3 IP, 132 ERA+
Bruce Sutter - 1042.3, 136 ERA+
John Franco - 1245.7, 137 ERA+

That being said, I wouldnt put any of these guys in.

[Brooklyn]

[QUOTE=Redondos]Well, using the same argument, you could say that Don Sutton also "accumulated" his 324 wins, getting his 15 or 16 wins per season on a consistent basis. Sutton, of course, had only one 20 win season. He never won the Cy Young. (And having played most of his career with pennant contending Dodger teams, he doesn't have the alibi of being weighed down by mediocre support, like Fergie Jenkins and Phil Niekro.) Now, a 15 win season, in itself, is good, but not great. But some people might reason to themselves that Sutton achieved HOF greatness through an extraordinary long period of consistency as being among the best, if not THE best in any given era. If that kind of reasoning got Sutton voted into the hall, why not Franco?
QUOTE]

I agree whole heartedly - Sutton shouldn't be in either.

[Dalkowski110]

"I guess you missed the 'Thumbs Down' on my post."

Yep, I did. Sorry. :o

I'm not sure if Sutton shouldn't be in, but he's certainly the least impressive pitcher who won 300 games. I rate Pennock and Radbourn ahead of him.

[DoubleX]

In the short history of top-flight closers, I think Franco has to be one of the most overrated (at a position that is already generally overrated). With the exception of his first 6 years, he was barely even a one-inning pitcher. Yeah, he stuck around for a long time, but that's not so difficult when you're only pitching 55 innings a year. Not once in his last 15 years did he pitch more tha 67 innings, and only three times more than 55 innings. There has to be some standard of durability - is it so hard to ask for a supposed top flight closer to be counted on for 75-85 innings regularly (let alone just once in 15 years)? Pitching more than 55 innings just three times in a 15 year period does not scream out Hall of Fame to me in the least.

If Franco had worked like he did his first 6 years, I'd see a case, but as it stands, he stands a good number back in the line of relief pitchers getting into the Hall.

[Colorado Express]

I voted yes today, but tomorrow I may retract that.

[AlecBoy006]

Most pointless stat? Well then, how do you explain Fingers going in even though his record was 114-118?

[AstrosFan]

Fingers was a terrible choice for the Hall. There is no reason he should be in there. His IP are very good for a reliever, but if you're an ace stopper, you'd better have an ERA+ better than 119.

He had the freak year in 1981 - 78 IP, 332 ERA+, and another terrific year in 1973 - 126 2/3 IP, 185 ERA+, but the rest of his years are nothing special for a reliever. He was a good pitcher. But definitely not Hall of Fame material.

[Redondos]

Lessee...Sutton was a better pitcher, for one, and for another, Sutton didn't literally contribute to the mediocrity of the ballclubs he pitched for. Franco did, and is probably worse to have in your clubhouse than Dick Allen. Did Dick Allen (or Don Sutton) suggest trading a blue chip prospect to the management and they took his word for it (like Franco did with Scott Kazmir)? No. Did Dick Allen wreck a young player's confidence and, if not for the intervention of another team, would have destroyed his career (like Franco did with Jason Isringhausen)? No. And for crying out loud, it's the Hall of Fame not the "Hall of Somewhat Above Average," which Franco was. Putting Franco in would be repeating a mistake (it would make Bruce Sutter look like a positively ingenious induction, actually, so maybe it wouldn't...), and generally mistakes are something you try and avoid, as opposed to going out of your way to make another.

AFAIAC, all that is largely irrelevant in deciding whether or not Franco is worthy for the hall.

But FYI, Sutton wasn't exactly Mr. Congeniality in the Dodger clubhouse. He had a very serious clash with Steve Garvey, of all people. An angry exchange of words led to a physical confrontation in the Shea Stadium locker room. Although the fisticuff was brief, the tensions lingered for a long time, dividing the team.

Despite this, Sutton's lifetime numbers spoke louder, and still got him into the hall. And whether or not Franco eventually gets in, I think he will likewise be judged on his merits.

[Dalkowski110]

Hitting a guy and holding a grudge is NOT EVEN CLOSE to playing the role of amateur general manager. Playing the number one role in trading Scott Kazmir is something no borderline/subpar HoF'er has ever done. And what if he turns into something great? Or Jason Isringhausen? How about him? Franco's "pitching advice" to Izzy was so terrible it came this close to derailing his career. The guy is overrated, and just above average, too.

[538280]

It's interesting that Franco won the Lou Gehrig award if he really is such a bad clubhouse guy. Anyone know the story on that?

And how on earth is Roy Face a better candidate than Franco? Face has only got 29 ERA+ points to make up. I agree that the modern usage of relievers has resulted in an inflating of ERA+, and I think often Mariano Rivera is somewhat overrated because of that. But, this is not Gossage versus Rivera here where there's a huge IP differential, and the fireman guy had a really long career. Face didn't even last that long and his IP total is just about the same as Franco's. Franco also in his early years with the Reds was not really used the modern way, he pitched 80+ innings every year, and was very effective.

[Dalkowski110]

"It's interesting that Franco won the Lou Gehrig award if he really is such a bad clubhouse guy. Anyone know the story on that?"

The Mets management loved him. It was just the rest of the team he caused problems for (except maybe Al Leiter). He gave out unnecessary pitching "tips" throughout his tenure with the Mets, which Isringhausen attempted to follow, nearly wrecking his career. Kazmir politely said no, they were different kinds of pitchers. And that's how he wound up getting dealt. Steve Phillips/Jim Duquette granted the 2000 WS Mets certain powers that were never awarded the 1986 team, which Phillips believed should have been given some kind of power to help out in the formation of the ballclub. He thought John Franco and Al Leiter to be the most "qualified" ballplayers, regarding general managerial skills. In my mind, Mets fans tend to give Leiter a raw deal because of his association with this whole, disastrous thing. But Leiter was nowhere near as active in his "team improvement suggestions" as Franco was (he collaborated with Franco to have Bobby Valentine fired, which was probably a good thing). Franco can be seen as almost directly responsible for the dealing of Kazmir, the insistence on getting "proven" arms versus young arms, and a general contempt for rookies as the years went on. As an unofficial pitching coach under Phillips/Duquette, he also almost certainly threw off the mechanics of Mets prospect Jeremy Griffiths, vastly reducing Griffiths' value. It took Omar Minaya's hiring to finally get Franco out of his "advisory" position, and the club's young pitching began improving immediately. I can only cringe at what would happen if you let this guy anywhere near Mike Pelfrey or Phil Humber.

[VIBaseball]

With the exception of his first 6 years, he was barely even a one-inning pitcher.

With the exception of 1996 and 2006, the sainted Rivera has only been a shade above one inning per appearance for most of his career. We'll leave out his rookie year, when he started 10 games.

There has to be some standard of durability - is it so hard to ask for a supposed top flight closer to be counted on for 75-85 innings regularly?

Hardly a crushing workload either -- Trevor Hoffman hasn't even made it to 75 IP since 1997! I think the "closer mentality" of pitching only the 9th has taken permanent root since La Russa planted it with Eckersley.

I think it's total appearances, especially back to back, that grind a pitcher down these days. Nobody rides a reliever till his arm falls off in terms of total IP and appearances, like what happened to shorten the careers of Dick Radatz and Mike Marshall.

But to keep on the topic of Franco: he put so many runners on (career WHIP 1.33) and ran so many deep counts with his nibbling. He was extremely hard on the nerves as a closer.

[538280]

"It's interesting that Franco won the Lou Gehrig award if he really is such a bad clubhouse guy. Anyone know the story on that?"

The Mets management loved him. It was just the rest of the team he caused problems for (except maybe Al Leiter). He gave out unnecessary pitching "tips" throughout his tenure with the Mets, which Isringhausen attempted to follow, nearly wrecking his career. Kazmir politely said no, they were different kinds of pitchers. And that's how he wound up getting dealt. Steve Phillips/Jim Duquette granted the 2000 WS Mets certain powers that were never awarded the 1986 team, which Phillips believed should have been given some kind of power to help out in the formation of the ballclub. He thought John Franco and Al Leiter to be the most "qualified" ballplayers, regarding general managerial skills. In my mind, Mets fans tend to give Leiter a raw deal because of his association with this whole, disastrous thing. But Leiter was nowhere near as active in his "team improvement suggestions" as Franco was (he collaborated with Franco to have Bobby Valentine fired, which was probably a good thing). Franco can be seen as almost directly responsible for the dealing of Kazmir, the insistence on getting "proven" arms versus young arms, and a general contempt for rookies as the years went on. As an unofficial pitching coach under Phillips/Duquette, he also almost certainly threw off the mechanics of Mets prospect Jeremy Griffiths, vastly reducing Griffiths' value. It took Omar Minaya's hiring to finally get Franco out of his "advisory" position, and the club's young pitching began improving immediately. I can only cringe at what would happen if you let this guy anywhere near Mike Pelfrey or Phil Humber.

Okay, I will take your word for it. I obviously was not as close to the Mets as you were, and I probably only got what the Mets let out to the media and said about Franco, and I do remember him winning the Lou Gehrig Award.

I can see this having some effect, but really, this has no bearing on how Franco was for the majority of his career, and his prime which is what really matters for his HOF worthiness. I certainly note this as being somewhat important, but I can't see it leaving out Franco, who I see as one of the top 5 relievers of all time.

If I were to rate the top five relievers, I see three guys (Wilhelm, Gossage, and Rivera) being pretty far ahead of everyone else. After that I could see a lot of people for 4th all time, and Franco is one with a pretty strong case IMO.

[Dalkowski110]

How so? Did you watch the guy nightly? I did. Franco was just about the most nail-biting closer the Mets had. For all the saves he had, he blew too many due to wildness (he was nibbling the corners, but it became an old act...the league figured him out). We were celebrating when we got ARMANDO BENITEZ, praying that he would take over Franco's role! Oddly, though, the only hitter he ever seemed to just own was Barry Bonds. Every time Bonds came into a game, when both Benitez and Franco were on the roster, Benitez would get yanked so Franco could get Bonds out. He couldn't hit Franco's screwball. Reminded me of Babe Ruth vs. Hub Pruett at the time. I later read an interview with Barry Bonds before he became Barroids Bonds. When asked about the toughest pitcher he faced, he said with no hesitation "John Franco...he just owns me" or something to that effect.

Ya know, the first ten years of his career weren't too bad at all. But the next ten were so awful they practically negated any value his first ten may have had.

[538280]

I don't remember that much of Franco when he was the Mets real closer. I was certainly aware of him but I didn't know much about him (his last real closer year, 1998, I was only 6 after all).

Even if he was nail biting and tough to watch, it really is the results he delivers which matter. Looking at his numbers it is hard to say that his results were really bad. I understand that there are important things which can be taken from watching a player, but Franco appears to be VERY good statistically, even with the Mets. And with the Reds you can't argue at all.

Interesting info on him owning Bonds too. I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the info.

[Dalkowski110]

Franco blew out his arm in 1993. That's when he develops his screwball and that's when the walks go up. The 1984-1993 Franco was truly a very good pitcher. The 1994-2005 Franco was very poor. He was clubhouse cancer after, too. I don't care if he won a Lou Gehrig Award...so did Pete Rose. Speaking of which, I also find it interesting about him being nearly banned from baseball in 1989 along with Pete Rose. Franco was Rose's bag man. He handled his gambling money, but was given immunity if he testified against Rose. Not too surprisingly, he's been dogged by allegations of mafia connections throughout his career. That's not gonna help him. He was giving out tickets and even season passes to known mob bosses, too, and that's not just an allegation, he admitted to that. You really gonna admit a guy who has suspected mafia connections? And who wrecks his team? And who is a clubhouse cancer?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Franco's biggest claim to the HOF is that he was probably the best reliever in the NL for a few years while with Cincy. His case is really indistinguishable from Jeff Reardon, Lee Smith, and some others. He accumulated saves. How one feels about that depends on how cheap one feels saves are accumulated these days.

[Cowtipper]

Franco was one of the best closers of his day. I believe he should get in -- after Lee Smith of course.

[Paul Wendt]

A relief pitcher made a bad trade.
Are there any Sheasters who blame management?

[RubeBaker]

I think the fact that Goose got in this year is going to open up a lot of doors for closers, but I just don't think Franco is a vaible candidate at this point. I think with Mo, and Hoff, and Lee Smith not yet in, he's got a long way to go.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I fail to see how anyone can argue for Franco as long as Blyleven is outside the HOF.

The argument that Sutton "accumulated" wins is, well, silly. I'll put it this way: Sutton could have had John Franco's career, but Franco couldn't have had Don Sutton's career. Sutton could have relieved, but Franco couldn't have started and won 300 games.

My belief that relievers are, essentially, guys who aren't up to starting, is what keeps me from accepting relief pitching as equal to starting pitching, and which keeps me from being thrilled each time a reliever makes the HOF. People complain about "watering down the HOF", but we've put in at least three relievers this decade (Eck, Sutter, Gossage). Sutter's selection is indefensible, even if you base it on peak value. Eck and Goose have their cases, but they're in and Blyleven is not??? No, that's not right.

[Rotoprofessor]

Having the opportunity to see him pitch on many, many occassions, I have to say that there is no way he is a Hall of Fame pitcher. Whenever he came into a game, I was always thinking, "How is he going to make it interesting tonight?". He was not a dominant closer, instead always seeming to pitch himself into and then out of trouble before nailing down the save. If I'm going to put a closer into the HOF, he needs to be a dominant pitcher. Franco was clearly not that, so there's no way he should get in, in my opinion.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Having the opportunity to see him pitch on many, many occassions, I have to say that there is no way he is a Hall of Fame pitcher. Whenever he came into a game, I was always thinking, "How is he going to make it interesting tonight?". He was not a dominant closer, instead always seeming to pitch himself into and then out of trouble before nailing down the save. If I'm going to put a closer into the HOF, he needs to be a dominant pitcher. Franco was clearly not that, so there's no way he should get in, in my opinion.

If a guy consistently GETS the save, and doesn't blow it, I won't hold "saving ugly" against him (unless he's allowing earned runs, etc.). If he's blowing saves, that's different.

[Shade]

Here's one purely subjective way to look at. I was a casual baseball fan (actually just Braves fan) from the late seventies into the early eighties. I got back into the game when the Braves started getting good again, so 1991. Again, just a casual fan. It wasn't until about three years ago that I started researching baseball's history and became a fan of the game as a whole. At that point, I came across John Franco's name on a list of 'most saves'. Prior to that, I never even heard of the guy.

I say that to say this: If John Franco, to a casual fan, played his career completely under the radar, why would he even be considered for a Hall of Fame?

[Melottfan]

I never believed that a reliever should be in the HOF. It cheapens what the Hall stands for. Sorry John.

[Dalkowski110]

"A relief pitcher made a bad trade.
Are there any Sheasters who blame management?"

Duquette and Phillips deserve far more blame for the trading of Kazmir, but Franco and Leiter twisting pitching coach Rick Peterson's words of "he's not ready yet and I need to work on his mechanics" into "he'll never be ready and his mechanics stink" on advising the trade hardly leaves them blameless.

[Brooklyn]

Sutton could have relieved, but Franco couldn't have started and won 300 games.

My belief that relievers are, essentially, guys who aren't up to starting, is what keeps me from accepting relief pitching as equal to starting pitching, and which keeps me from being thrilled each time a reliever makes the HOF.

I couldn't agree more. Guys have historically been put in the bullpen becuase they weren't good enough to start. Teams wanted their best pitchers to get the most innings, and found specialized rolls for pitchers that weren't as good. While some excelled in those rolls, I'm not as impressed as I am with starters.

This of course is changing. Examples like Papelbon and Chamberlain show that teams are putting their better pitchers right into the bullpen. If this continues to happen, I will need to rethink my premise that relievers are only relievers because they weren't good enough to start. but the guys eligible for the Hall today all fit that criteria.

I'm not saying no reliever should get in. The ones that rise to the top should still get in, but it should be very selective. I don't want the Hall littered with guys like John Franco and Lee Smith. Neither were as good as dozens of starters outside the Hall.

[Brad Harris]

Frankly, I don't see the gap between Smith and Franco. (My preference would be to elect neither of them.)

[Cowtipper]

These two can be combined:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=17758&highlight=John

[538280]

I stand by what I said in the past on this thread, Franco is one of the best relievers of all time and as that he should be a HOFer. He has better credentials IMO than two of the relievers already in the HOF in Fingers and Sutter. Sutter was better at his best but Franco did it for a lot longer. Fingers was used in what was probably a more valuable pattern than Franco but didn't do it as well or for as long. Franco is probably a little better than Lee Smith as well. I'd put him in the HOF.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I stand by what I said in the past on this thread, Franco is one of the best relievers of all time and as that he should be a HOFer. He has better credentials IMO than two of the relievers already in the HOF in Fingers and Sutter. Sutter was better at his best but Franco did it for a lot longer. Fingers was used in what was probably a more valuable pattern than Franco but didn't do it as well or for as long. Franco is probably a little better than Lee Smith as well. I'd put him in the HOF.

All this is true, and Franco was, for a time with Cincy, the best reliever in baseball. As I'm not happy with Fingers and Sutter in the HOF, I can't really say that I'm a Franco enthusiast. I'm still at the point where as long as Blyleven, John, and Kaat are outside the HOF, I'm not willing to consider Franco.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

I stand by what I said in the past on this thread, Franco is one of the best relievers of all time and as that he should be a HOFer. He has better credentials IMO than two of the relievers already in the HOF in Fingers and Sutter. Sutter was better at his best but Franco did it for a lot longer. Fingers was used in what was probably a more valuable pattern than Franco but didn't do it as well or for as long. Franco is probably a little better than Lee Smith as well. I'd put him in the HOF.

I can't quite go for John Franco. My personal HOF standards for relievers are 15 years with an ERA 1.5 R < League average with close to 90% save percentage. By my count, Franco has 13 years with 1.5 R better than LA. And at least 3 of those years he accomplished the aforementioned, he pitched less than 50 games. If I were to accept less than 15 years of great ERA, then the pitcher should be a workhorse. Franco was never the workhorse type of pitcher. He only pitched 60+ games seven times his whole career, while Rivera for example pitched 60+ games 11 times (soon to be 12 times barring injury) & Hoffman did it 11 times. Franco just doesnt quite measure up IMO.

Now is Franco more deserving of the HOF than Sutter? Of course he is. Sutter's induction will for generations leave quite a few relievers asking why they arn't in the HOF and he is. John Franco is a perfect example.

[dgarza]

Franco was never the workhorse type of pitcher. He only pitched 60+ games seven times his whole career, while Rivera for example pitched 60+ games 11 times (soon to be 12 times barring injury) & Hoffman did it 11 times. Franco just doesnt quite measure up IMO.
That's mostly a matter of timing (and teaming).

Franco began his career in 1984 and his prime was before Rivera began his career.

While the number of teams has grown, let's still look at the number of instances of 60+ game seasons by decade:

1960-1969 : 113
1970-1979 : 171 (up 51% from the 60s)
1980-1989 : 286 (up 67% from the 70s)
1990-1999 : 521 (up 82% from the 80s)
2000-2009 : 825+ (up 58% from the 90s, up 188% from the 80s)

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

That's mostly a matter of timing (and teaming).

Franco began his career in 1984 and his prime was before Rivera began his career.

While the number of teams has grown, let's still look at the number of instances of 60+ game seasons by decade:

1960-1969 : 113
1970-1979 : 171 (up 51% from the 60s)
1980-1989 : 286 (up 67% from the 70s)
1990-1999 : 521 (up 82% from the 80s)
2000-2009 : 825+ (up 58% from the 90s, up 188% from the 80s)

That's true, but i guarantee that as the # of games has increased, the # of IP has correspondingly gone down. So, under this pretense, did Franco pitch more innings per appearance than the firemen of today? Outside of his first three seasons - 2 1/3 of which he was not a closer, thus pitched more innings than a closer - Franco pitched just over 1 inning per appearance.

So, as the # of 60+ games has increased, Franco was still largely not pitching more innings than the firemen of today.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

1 last point: While I bare no distinction if relievers record 'tough' saves rather than 'easy' ones, I still want to see dominance out of a reliever in his overall numbers. Vis a vis other relievers like Rivera and Hoffman, or other top guys like Wagner, Franco wasn't that dominant. His career WHIP is high at 1.333! compared to 1.015 for Rivera and 1.045 for Hoffman. Franco also gave up only 79 less hits than innings pitched, so obviously he was pretty hittable (H/9IP: Franco 8.4; Rivera 7.0; Hoffman 6.9; Wagner 6.1)

At the end of the day, while Franco did a good job finishing games off, he wasn't the dominant kind of guy I would tend to elect for the HOF; he was just too hittable and surrendered plenty of base runners. If I were inclined to dig deeper, which I'm not, I would bet a lot of money the amount of inherited runners scored would be higher than some of the elite guys as well.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

In the short history of top-flight closers, I think Franco has to be one of the most overrated (at a position that is already generally overrated). With the exception of his first 6 years, he was barely even a one-inning pitcher. Yeah, he stuck around for a long time, but that's not so difficult when you're only pitching 55 innings a year. Not once in his last 15 years did he pitch more tha 67 innings, and only three times more than 55 innings. There has to be some standard of durability - is it so hard to ask for a supposed top flight closer to be counted on for 75-85 innings regularly (let alone just once in 15 years)? Pitching more than 55 innings just three times in a 15 year period does not scream out Hall of Fame to me in the least.

If Franco had worked like he did his first 6 years, I'd see a case, but as it stands, he stands a good number back in the line of relief pitchers getting into the Hall.

Thats pretty much how I feel about it as well.

[dgarza]

So, as the # of 60+ games has increased, Franco was still largely not pitching more innings than the firemen of today.In his prime, Franco was throwing 2+ innings a game more often than Rivera.

Franco from 1987-1991 : 60 of 305 games were 2+ innings = 19.7%
Franco from 1987-1999 : 86 of 683 games were 2+ innings = 12.6%

Rivera from 1997-2009 : 46 of 822 games were 2+ innings = 5.6%

Now I'm not saying Franco was the better closer (not by a long shot), but he was called on to throw longer more much more often than the best closer ever (Rivera). Please give Franco credit for that.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

In his prime, Franco was throwing 2+ innings a game more often than Rivera.

Franco from 1987-1991 : 60 of 305 games were 2+ innings = 19.7%
Franco from 1987-1999 : 86 of 683 games were 2+ innings = 12.6%

Rivera from 1997-2009 : 46 of 822 games were 2+ innings = 5.6%

Now I'm not saying Franco was the better closer (not by a long shot), but he was called on to throw longer more much more often than the best closer ever (Rivera). Please give Franco credit for that.

Well, if that true then correspondingly he had many sub 1 inning appearances, which would be a net negative obviously. He gets deserved credit for that and negative credit for the other. Nice reseach BTW.

[Windy City Fan]

Franco was pretty hittable, but it seems most of those hits were singles. Franco's SLG allowed is a mere .343. His career HR/9 is 0.6. Franco gave up a fair number of walks and was hittable, but he was good at preventing solid contact (as evidenced by strong HR/9 and the low SLG allowed) and was a good strikeout pitcher (career K/9 of 7.0). Two of the three DIPS components he was very good at. It explains why he was able to be so effective despite a rather pedestrian WHIP.

As for Inherited Runner's Scored, Franco has a career 32% scored. Rivera, the gold standard for modern closers and who hasn't gone through a decline phase yet, is at 29%.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

As for Inherited Runner's Scored, Franco has a career 32% scored. Rivera, the gold standard for modern closers and who hasn't gone through a decline phase yet, is at 29%.

Whats Hoffman's career IRS and where did you find those totals? Thanks

[Windy City Fan]

Hoffman is at 21%, which is the best I've seen for any closer.

Finding it is easy on baseball-ref. Just click on More Stats, which next to the red box that says Pitching Stats, and it gives all kinds of cool tidbits.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Hoffman is at 21%, which is the best I've seen for any closer.

Finding it is easy on baseball-ref. Just click on More Stats, which next to the red box that says Pitching Stats, and it gives all kinds of cool tidbits.

Thanks, that is good to know!

Im taking a look at other top relievers in terms of inherited runners scored, and it does appear Franco 32% mostly lags behind other top closers. This is right in line with what one would expect with a relatively high H/9 ratio.

IS%
Lee Smith: 28%
Billy Wagner: 28%
Tom Henke: 31%
Jeff Reardon: 30%
Troy Percival: 26%
Rollie Fingers: 29%
Kent Tekulve: 28%
Sparky Lyle: 34%
Bruce Sutter: 31%
John Hiller: 32%
Dave Righetti: 28%

Note: Wagner, Henke & Percival pitched significantly less innings than Franco.

Incidently, Hoyt Wilhelm had a career IS% of 34% and Quisenberry 38%, so Franco's number isn't out of line with some top guys - even within range of HOF guys like Wilhelm & Sutter. Quisenberry's number throws cold water on his case.

ADDENDUM: It's worth noting too that Franco's career save percentage in just 81%. This low number seals shut his HOF case for me.

[dgarza]

Well, if that true then correspondingly he had many sub 1 inning appearances, which would be a net negative obviously.
Franco from 1987-1991 : 18 of 305 games were < 2/3 innings = 5.9%
Franco from 1987-1999 : 48 of 683 games were < 2/3 innings = 7.0%

Rivera from 1997-2009 : 30 of 822 games were < 2/3 innings = 3.6%

[538280]

Quisenberry 38%, so Franco's number isn't out of line with some top guys - even within range of HOF guys like Wilhelm & Sutter. Quisenberry's number throws cold water on his case.

That is great information, and I never really figured to look for it on BBRef either. Thanks WCF! I rememmber arguing about Quisenberry in the past and saying that his low strikeout rate probably made it hard for him to strand runners and I guess the data does bear that out.

ADDENDUM: It's worth noting too that Franco's career save percentage in just 81%. This low number seals shut his HOF case for me.

I'd like to see what league average save percentages for Franco's prime seasons were first. Franco wasn't quite as much a one inning closer for his career as guys like Rivera and Hoffman, so I think compared to those guys save percentage might not be entirely fair to him. Plus he has a very long career, longer than most of the other great relievers. I still think Franco's runs allowed numbers are very impressive against other relievers in history.

[dgarza]

I'd like to see what league average save percentages for Franco's prime seasons were first. Franco wasn't quite as much a one inning closer for his career as guys like Rivera and Hoffman, so I think compared to those guys save percentage might not be entirely fair to him. Plus he has a very long career, longer than most of the other great relievers. I still think Franco's runs allowed numbers are very impressive against other relievers in history.
1985-1989 - Save % of the Top 10 Total Save Leaders
1. Dave Smith - 136/162 = 84.0%
2. Tom Henke - 119/144 = 82.6%
3. John Franco - 144/175 = 82.3%
4. Steve Bedrosian - 120/151 = 79.5%
5. Jay Howell - 110/139 = 79.1%
6. Todd Worrell - 126/160 = 78.8%
7. Lee Smith - 154/196 = 78.6%
8. Roger McDowell - 103/131 = 78.6%
9. Jeff Reardon - 180/231 = 77.9%
10. Dave Righetti - 156/207 = 75.4%

1990-1994 - Save % of the Top 10 Total Save Leaders
John Franco - 118/144 = 81.9%
Franco was not in the Top 10 Total Save Leaders during this period (he was 12th), so I will not compare his % to those who were.

1995-1999 - Save % of the Top 10 Total Save Leaders
1. Trevor Hoffman - 203/228 = 89.0%
2. Randy Myers - 142/162 = 87.7%
3. John Wetteland - 190/218 = 87.2%
4. Jose Mesa - 135/155 = 87.1%
5. Troy Percival - 139/163 = 85.3%
6. Robb Nen - 170/204 = 83.3%
7. John Franco - 150/181 = 82.9%
8. Rod Beck - 166/203 = 81.8%
9. Jeff Shaw - 131/161 = 81.4%
10. Roberto Hernandez - 170/209 = 81.3%
Mariano Rivera was not in the Top 10 Total Save Leaders during this period, but his % was 129/151 = 85.4%.

2000-2004 - Save % of the Top 10 Total Save Leaders
1. Eric Gagne - 152/158 = 96.2%
2. John Smoltz - 154/168 = 91.7%
3. Trevor Hoffman - 165/182 = 90.7%
4. Mariano Rivera - 207/233 = 88.8%
5. Armando Benitez - 185/209 = 88.5%
6. Keith Foulke - 162/185 = 87.6%
7. Troy Percival - 177/203 = 87.2%
8. Jose Mesa - 155/179 = 86.6%
9. Billy Wagner - 145/169 = 85.9%
10.Jason Isringhause - 168/199 = 84.4%

2005-2009 - Save % of the Top 10 Total Save Leaders
1. Mariano Rivera - 182/195 = 93.3%
2. Joe Nathan - 186/206 = 90.3%
3. Trevor Hoffman - 187/208 = 89.9%
4. Francisco Rodriguez - 220/247 = 89.1%
5. Jonathan Papelbon - 142/160 = 88.8%
6. Bobby Jenks - 143/163 = 87.7%
7. Brad Lidge - 157/183 = 85.8%
8. Jose Valverde - 142/166 = 85.5%
9. Brian Fuentes - 146/171 = 85.4%
10. Francisco Cordero - 162/195 = 83.1%

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Franco from 1987-1991 : 18 of 305 games were < 2/3 innings = 5.9%
Franco from 1987-1999 : 48 of 683 games were < 2/3 innings = 7.0%

Rivera from 1997-2009 : 30 of 822 games were < 2/3 innings = 3.6%

Well, there it is. Franco rightly gets credit for the 2 inning saves he registered very early in his career and gets demerit points for a higher percentage of sub 1 inning saves, at least compared to the gold standard. All told, he was basically a 1-inning pitcher statistically speaking.

Therefore I would expect that 81% Save Percentage will hang like an albatross around his neck with the voters.