define "Hall of Fame Reliever"

[PhillyA_man]

One thing I've noticed while perusing these forums for the past few years, is the general lack of a consensus on who qualifies as a good reliever. I had posted a bit back on people's thoughts on Lee Smith and there doesnt seem to be much acceptance. I see people upset about Bruce Sutter's induction. And I see a few upset with Fingers and Eckersley being in. And others having a hard time seeing Gossage or Quisenberry as HOFers.

So I pose the question: Is it possible for a non-starting pitcher to be Hall of Fame worthy?

Also, what's the thought on guys like Hoyt Wilhelm and Firpo Marberry?

[oscargamblesfro]

i think it's possible, as far as what makes a HOF reliever- it's impossible to tell based on the fact that the 4 guys in there, wilhelm, eckersley, fingers, and sutter are 4 very different sorts of pitchers in terms of style, career pattern/ length etc.

[Brooklyn]

One problem is that the stats don't really tell the story.

A save is one of the worst stats in baseball. A pitcher in the 70's / early 80's probably pitched more than an inning to get the save, a pitcher today rarely goes more than 1.

ERA makes little sense for relievers as the come in top clean up partial innings, and can be completely ineffective and still survive with no earned runs charged against them.

% of inherited runners scored has the opposite problem. If a pitcher comes in with the based loaded and no outs, and gets out of the inning giving up only a sacrifice fly, he pitched well, but the stat won't reflect this.

Relievers more than any other position you really have to look at the case by case situation and delve into the numbers.

Another issue I have is that until the last decade or two, relievers weren't "bread" to be relievers". All the best pitchers were starters, and pitchers that were major league caliber but not good enough to start were thrown in the bullpen. If a pitcher wasn't able to be a good enough started on his own team, I wouldn't think he'd be good enough for the Hall.

That has changed in recent years, as pitchers are closers all the way up to the majors. But since they still pitch far less innings then starters, the threshold must be much higher. If the top 5-10% of starters make the Hall, then I would think the top 1% of closers should make it. This is just a rough rule of thumb, but I just don't see them as valuable as starters - some are (i.e. Mariano), and those belong in. but those that just accumulate saves (i.e. Smith), don't.

[KCGHOST]

I have no problem with Hoyt Wilhelm being in the HoF. He gave us 2200+ very productive innings. Marberry was a good pitcher but not in the same league as Wilhelm in my opinion.

I really struggle with the idea of a pitcher going to the HoF with less than 2000 IP's. I guess with the Sutter election I am going to have to get over it. For Sutter to be in and not Gossage just boggles my mind.

[Brad Harris]

It takes more for a reliever to get into the Hall, than it does for a starter.

Wilhelm is overqualified. Goose Gossage is the best eligible reliever not in (and should have been there ahead of Sutter and/or Fingers.)

Of course relievers should be able to reach the Hall of Fame. I just think, in the balance of pitching contributions, there should be considerably fewer relievers than starters.

No problems with Rivera and Hoffman in the Hall. I think Lee Smith begin losing support as soon as Hoffman captures the saves record.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I have no problem with Hoyt Wilhelm being in the HoF. He gave us 2200+ very productive innings. Marberry was a good pitcher but not in the same league as Wilhelm in my opinion.

I really struggle with the idea of a pitcher going to the HoF with less than 2000 IP's. I guess with the Sutter election I am going to have to get over it. For Sutter to be in and not Gossage just boggles my mind.

I agree here on the issue of Sutter and Gossage. And on the idea of relievers in the HOF. In my mind, relievers, even the greatest relievers are there because they can't start. They don't have the arm strength or the command of a number of pitches, or the stamina, or they have other health issues. As great as he is, Mariano Rivera would fall on his face as a starter.

Firpo Marberry appears to be an incredibly unique player. I am positive that he was truly great, at his best, but I have no earthly idea what to make of his career. He was truly a guy who could start AND relieve.

So I'm willing to be persuaded on Firpo Marberry. At first blush, I would not induct him, but he is truly unique, and his case deserves more than the usual study and examination.

[brett]

I have a hard time with Sutter. He had 2 awesome seasons and other than that, he just did a solid job for 4-5 years-nothing special. From 78-82 he was no more valuable than a solid #2 starter. I can't rate Sutter higher than starters Ron Guidry, Bret Saberhagen, David Cone or Orel Hershizer, or Gooden or anyone else who had 2 awesome season and pitched for a decade plus, or a hitter who played solid ball and then had 2 (or more) great years like Maris, Murphy, and MANY others.

Gossage should probably be in. He was very good for a decade straight without a bad year. His '75 to '85 run is as good as ten year runs by Rivera and Hoffman and his saves are dead even for the time period.

Quiz just misses. He had a 6 year run and a great ERA+ (146) but for around 1000 innings. He probably needed one more good year. If he had been 35+ saves in '86 he would have had a good case.

Fingers was much like Sutter. He was just plain an above average pitcher playing the closer role for a long time.



Hoffman and Rivera get in. They actually come close to getting in on pure sabermetric stats alone which no other modern reliever can. Wilhelm is also a guy whe is in even based on saber stats. Other than those 3, its not a big deal for any of the other to get in-I think that relievers can be easily overvalued, but right now after reviewing their careers, I'd have to say Gossage should top the list of the rest. I would lean toward Eck next as he was arguable the MVP of baseball between '88 and '92.

[DoWnWiThTheSiCkNeSs]

someone who was dominant in their playing days

[Brian McKenna]

If closer is a legit permanent position (which it apparently is) on a ball club than why shouldn't that individual be eligible for HOF consideration.

The problem might lie in the evaluation process. Maybe the position is just too new for us to evaluate properly. What I think the injustice would be is say in fifty years if the closer is no longer a strategic position, it would just look silly to have a bunch of them in the Hall.

[UTforever22]

post season plpay should also be taken into consideration. Take, for example, Mariano Rivera, his 412 save (and likely 500 by the end of his career) are among the best ever, but what sets rivera apart is his abillty to pitch in the clutch, that it what defines a HOF reliever IMO. If a coach can look at a reliever and say that if he was in a tie game in the bottom of the ninth and the post season or a key divisional series with the bases loaded and no outs and i brought this reliever in, i would be able to head to the dugout in confidence that that reliever would get the job done.

[Rose4theHall]

Im saying relievers should be treated like DH's. You arent good enough to play a regular starting role, then you should be seen as a specialist and should be discredited from awards, the HOF etc. No one really is bred as a DH or closer, its put upon you because you lack the reasonable skill to be a starter.

[UTforever22]

Im saying relievers should be treated like DH's. You arent good enough to play a regular starting role, then you should be seen as a specialist and should be discredited from awards, the HOF etc. No one really is bred as a DH or closer, its put upon you because you lack the reasonable skill to be a starter.

i disagree, the way baseball is being played these days, closers do play a regular role and a tough one at that. Say you're a closer for a team like tthe Astros that can only be expected to score 1 or 2 runs a game. If a starter only gives up a run every nine innings, they putting up ahistoric season. On the other hand, a closer for the same team can give up a run every nine innings and not be considered historic, but only above average at most because he is blowing every 10 or saves. also, many teams are starting to breed players to be closers. (trevor hoffman, huston street among others)

[PhillyA_man]

Im saying relievers should be treated like DH's. You arent good enough to play a regular starting role, then you should be seen as a specialist and should be discredited from awards, the HOF etc. No one really is bred as a DH or closer, its put upon you because you lack the reasonable skill to be a starter.


But what is that "reasonable skill"? Durability? Can you hold it against a pitcher if he is totally unhittable (or very near to it) for only 1 or 2 innings a game, but can appear in 50 or 60 games a season? What else separates a starter from a reliever?

[Rose4theHall]

But what is that "reasonable skill"? Durability? Can you hold it against a pitcher if he is totally unhittable (or very near to it) for only 1 or 2 innings a game, but can appear in 50 or 60 games a season? What else separates a starter from a reliever?

I'd say durability plays a role, the fact that if your arm weakens and your stuff gets worse after a certain low amount of pitches it should definitely be held against the player and it should be seen as a "speciaty" player. Much like how a DH doesnt play both halves of an inning, the pitchers that cannot be effective starting games should be looked at in the same way.

[agent-g]

I agree with what bkmckenna said, the full-time closer role is still a very new position and is therefore tough to evaluate a HoF caliber career on. It has only been around for the past 10-12 seasons and there are very few pitchers that have pitched their entire careers as closers, Mariano and Hoffman of course are 2 of those few. I'd say given by the stats of the aforementioned closers, both near the tail ends of their careers, that a HoF caliber closer's stats should be around:

- 500+ saves (maybe even 550)

- around 1000 IP

- ERA of less than 3.00 (kind of the same as a starter)

- Career Save Conversion%([Saves Converted/Save Opportunities] x 100)greater than 75% (maybe 80%, this of course shows just how good of a closer they truly are)

These of course are the most obvious stats one would look at when evaluating the career of a closer. I think these stats are what the greatest weight should be placed on when evaluating the career of a closer as well.

One stat I'm not sure what to think of is Win/Loss ratio. I know many think it should not really mean much, but I would think a closer with too many wins or too many losses was not much of a closer at all, since they would need to blow a save to earn either of those stats. I think a HoF closer should, if anything, have more wins than losses, but not by such a wide margin that it would detract you from their career saves.

[mac195]

A HOF reliever...? The standard should be quite a bit higher, as far as rate stats, than for a starter. For a career reliever - 750+ appearances, mostly finishing games, ERA+ above 140, and several seasons of real lights-out dominance. So far, only Rivera and Hoffman (although Rivera doesn't have quite that many appearances yet.) Billy Wagner is a HOFer if he can manage to decline slowly.

Wilhelm is easily deserving, and Gossage would be, with different standards applied for their "fireman" roles. Fingers and Sutter are less deserving.