Roy Face

[Cowtipper]

Roy Face played from 1953 to 1969, appearing in 848 games and posting a record of 104-95. His ERA was 3.48, and he had 193 saves. A six time All-Star (albeit, in three seasons), he once won 18 games in a season as a reliever while losing only one. That season was 1959, and he led the league in W% that season. He also led the league in appearances twice, saves three times and games finished four times.

Face ranks 19th on the all-time list in games finished, 32nd in games and 40th in saves.

None of the ten players most similar to him are in the Hall of Fame. Those ten players are Gene Garber, Mike Marshall, Kent Tekulve, Steve Bedrosian, Tug McGraw, Stu Miller, Dave Giusti, Rick Aguilera, Mike Timlin and Clay Carroll.

According to the Baseball Reference bullpen, he was the premier closer of the 1960s and according to The Baseball Page he was the 33rd best reliever of all time.

He received votes for the Hall of Fame during every year of eligibility, getting as much as 18.9% of the support.

So, what do you think about Roy Face? Should he be in the Hall of Fame?

[jjpm74]

A very good reliever who definitely deserves to be in the conversation, as he is possibly in the top 20 for relievers, but well out of my HOF range.

Of relievers, this is pretty much my limit:

Yes:

Bruce Sutter
Dan Quisenberry
Dennis Eckersley
Goose Gossage
Hoyt Wilhelm
Mariano Rivera

Maybe:

Rollie Fingers
Lee Smith
Trevor Hoffman

[Paul Wendt]

Relief pitchers, 1960-1969

gR OnB/9 R/9 : name (number of pitcher starts)
588 11.7 3.07 : Perranoski (1)
551 11.0 3.70 : McDaniel (7)
545 11.3 3.30 : McMahon (2)
542 , 9.1 2.70 : Wilhelm (15)
524 10.7 3.55 : Face (0)
477 12.1 4.15 : Kline (42 starts in 519 pitcher games)
465 10.7 3.23 : Miller Stu (3)
445 12.7 4.16 : Baldschun (0)
444 11.9 3.53 : Abernathy (0)
. . .
214 9.62 2.75 : Hoerner (0)

Ordered by number of 1960s relief games (gR), Joe Hoerner is the next one who permitted fewer than 3 runs per 9 innings. He worked late in the decade and he ranked 51 in the whole decade by relief games.

In other words, among the top fifty by relief games, Hoyt Wilhelm alone yielded fewer than 3 runs per 9 innings. Furthermore, only Wilhelm and Dick Hall 9.57 yielded fewer than 10 men safely on base per 9 innings (hits, walks, and hit batsmen). Only Wilhelm, Perranoski, Frank Linzy 3.13, and Bob Locker 3.15 permitted fewer than 3.20 runs per 9 innings.

Wilhelm was easily the best of the pitchers who worked most of the decade mainly in relief. Elroy Face (bold) should also take a back seat to Stu Miller and Ron Perranoski (underline).

[Fuzzy Bear]

Roy Face was a good pitcher. He was not a great pitcher (although he did have some great seasons).

That's the bottom line. Face was better than some of the modern "closers" in that Face was a true "fireman". He came into the game at any time, in "win" situations, and "put out the fire". I still think that is a better way to use your best reliever, and guys who were used that way, IMO, were more valuable to their teams.

Face's stats, however, don't show him as particularly great. He was 18-1 in 1959, and that was a great season, but his career 3.48 ERA in the era he pitched isn't too special. He's at the level of Doug Jones, and I agree with the poster who ranked Face behind Stu Miller and Ron Perranoski. All these guys were good pitchers, but none of them were really what the HOF is about. Face barely qualifies for the HOF according to Bill James' Definition D, and most Definition D guys are NOT in the HOF.

[Dodgerfan1]

Cowtipper, I'm not sure why you even broached this subject. You even stated yourself, and I quote: "None of the ten players most similar to him are in the Hall of Fame."

Of course they aren't. The answer is quite clearly no. Roy Face doesn't belong anywhere near the Hall of Fame. A fine reliever in his day, but a dreadful choice for the Hall.

Since I am of the opinion that closers should not be HOFers under the best of circumstances, it follows that I don't believe that The Baseball Page's 33rd best should be.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

These posts are getting ridiculous. I can name 15 relievers of the top of my head who deserve induction over Face, and only a select few should be in the Hall:

Eckersley
Hoffman
Billy Wagner
Kent Tekulve
Bruce Sutter
Hoyt Wilhelm
Quisenberry
Mariano Rivera
Sparky Lyle
Mike Marshall
Fingers
Ron Perranoski
Jesse Orosco
Tug McGraw
Lee Smith
Rich Gossage

[Fuzzy Bear]

These posts are getting ridiculous. I can name 15 relievers of the top of my head who deserve induction over Face, and only a select few should be in the Hall:

Eckersley
Hoffman
Billy Wagner
Kent Tekulve
Bruce Sutter
Hoyt Wilhelm
Quisenberry
Mariano Rivera
Sparky Lyle
Mike Marshall
Fingers
Ron Perranoski
Jesse Orosco
Tug McGraw
Lee Smith
Rich Gossage

Face was more highly regarded 20 years ago then he is today. His 18-1 season in 1959 is still remarkable. That none of Face's comps are HOFers isn't unusual for a reliever; most modern relievers don't have a single HOF comp, unless it's Bruce Sutter.

I don't think it's ridiculous to talk about Face if we're going to talk about relievers being inducted into the HOF. Face was used in a different way (and, IMO, a superior way) then today's relievers. I can't emphasize that enough. Face had high peak value, but that high peak wasn't very long.

There must be a way to measure the value of using a relief pitcher as a "fireman", a guy who will go into the game at any point where the game is on the line and "put out the fire", vs. using relievers in closely defined roles (the setup man, the closer, the long reliever). I don't believe that today's specialty relievers (including many who have supporters her for their HOF bandwagons) are any better than guys like Face, whose stats take on a different form. I would argue that Face is closer to Eckersley and Firpo Marberry than Mariano Rivera is.

[Dodgerfan1]

These posts are getting ridiculous.

I heartily agree. Let's take any above average player and create a new thread asking if he belongs in the HOF. The logical answer is always NO. Why are we even bothering with these questions? And why do some people actually take them seriously? Should Roy Face be in the HOF? No. Of course not.

Should anyone who wasn't an all-time great be in the HOF? No. Of course not, but some who weren't among the greats of all-time are, indeed, in the Hall. Does that mean that so many others who weren't great should be enshrined? No, but unfortunately, that doesn't seem to matter to some.

Maybe someone should start a new thread asking if every above average player who has no business being enshrined should be in the HOF. Just to get it out of the way. How about I start?

Tommy Davis
Jack Clark
Dave Kingman
Roger Maris
Kirk Gibson

Please give me your list of others and I will be glad to add him to my list of those who should never garner HOF consideration so that others don't waste their time asking if they should.

Roy Face wasn't any better than anyone I have just named, and none of them deserve even a sniff of the HOF.

Hey, how about Dave Lopes?

[Cowtipper]

I heartily agree. Let's take any above average player and create a new thread asking if he belongs in the HOF. The logical answer is always NO. Why are we even bothering with these questions? And why do some people actually take them seriously? Should Roy Face be in the HOF? No. Of course not.

Should anyone who wasn't an all-time great be in the HOF? No. Of course not, but some who weren't among the greats of all-time are, indeed, in the Hall. Does that mean that so many others who weren't great should be enshrined? No, but unfortunately, that doesn't seem to matter to some.

Maybe someone should start a new thread asking if every above average player who has no business being enshrined should be in the HOF. Just to get it out of the way. How about I start?

Tommy Davis
Jack Clark
Dave Kingman
Roger Maris
Kirk Gibson

Please give me your list of others and I will be glad to add him to my list of those who should never garner HOF consideration so that others don't waste their time asking if they should.

Roy Face wasn't any better than anyone I have just named, and none of them deserve even a sniff of the HOF.

Hey, how about Dave Lopes?
Someone, at some point, thought he should be in the Hall of Fame - as evidenced by the fact that someone put him on their ballot for the BBFHOF.

Clearly, you are a very small-hall type of person. Because you quickly nay-sayed Charlie Bennett, where many people believe he should be in the Hall. No need to denigrate the whole pool of players just because you don't like them.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

I heartily agree. Let's take any above average player and create a new thread asking if he belongs in the HOF. The logical answer is always NO. Why are we even bothering with these questions? And why do some people actually take them seriously? Should Roy Face be in the HOF? No. Of course not.

Should anyone who wasn't an all-time great be in the HOF? No. Of course not, but some who weren't among the greats of all-time are, indeed, in the Hall. Does that mean that so many others who weren't great should be enshrined? No, but unfortunately, that doesn't seem to matter to some.

Maybe someone should start a new thread asking if every above average player who has no business being enshrined should be in the HOF. Just to get it out of the way. How about I start?

Tommy Davis
Jack Clark
Dave Kingman
Roger Maris
Kirk Gibson

Please give me your list of others and I will be glad to add him to my list of those who should never garner HOF consideration so that others don't waste their time asking if they should.

Roy Face wasn't any better than anyone I have just named, and none of them deserve even a sniff of the HOF.

Hey, how about Dave Lopes?

How about:

Dolph Camilli
Don McMahon
Mike Marshall
Jesse Orosco
Charlie Hough
Eric Davis
Rick Aguilera
Jeff Reardon
Steve Rodgers
Cy Williams
Rusty Staub
Bill Madlock
Vince Coleman

[Dodgerfan1]

Someone, at some point, thought he should be in the Hall of Fame - as evidenced by the fact that someone put him on their ballot for the BBFHOF.

Clearly, you are a very small-hall type of person. Because you quickly nay-sayed Charlie Bennett, where many people believe he should be in the Hall. No need to denigrate the whole pool of players just because you don't like them.

I really doubt that that many believe Bennett to be worthy of the highest honor that can be bestowed upon a player - the Hall of Fame. To be mentioned in the same breath as Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, Mantle and DiMaggio. Try Charlie Bennett's name on for size next to those guys. Still think he belongs? I don't. No doubt there are some who do though, and that's fine. That's their opinion and they are entitled to it.

I'm not trying to denigrate anyone. Just trying to be realistic.

[Cowtipper]

I really doubt that that many believe Bennett to be worthy of the highest honor that can be bestowed upon a player - the Hall of Fame. To be mentioned in the same breath as Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, Mantle and DiMaggio. Try Charlie Bennett's name on for size next to those guys. Still think he belongs? I don't. No doubt there are some who do though, and that's fine. That's their opinion and they are entitled to it.

I'm not trying to denigrate anyone. Just trying to be realistic.

Ruth, Cobb, etc are "first tier" guys. They're the guys you think of when you think of "Hall of Fame". However, the Hall of Fame is not, nor should it be just, first tier guys. If it were, then the Hall of Fame would be pretty small.

[Dodgerfan1]

How about:

Dolph Camilli
Don McMahon
Mike Marshall
Jesse Orosco
Charlie Hough
Eric Davis
Rick Aguilera
Jeff Reardon
Steve Rodgers
Cy Williams
Rusty Staub
Bill Madlock
Vince Coleman

I will add these guys to my list. There isn't a one in this bunch who deserves HOF consideration, yet all were good players....

[Dodgerfan1]

Ruth, Cobb, etc are "first tier" guys. They're the guys you think of when you think of "Hall of Fame". However, the Hall of Fame is not, nor should it be just, first tier guys. If it were, then the Hall of Fame would be pretty small.

Why shouldn't it be small? How many all-time greats are there? How many do you think should be enshrined? How diluted has the HOF become because of so many players being inducted who were very good but not great, which is what the HOF was created to honor?

[bambambaseball]

Why shouldn't it be small? How many all-time greats are there? How many do you think should be enshrined? How diluted has the HOF become because of so many players being inducted who were very good but not great, which is what the HOF was created to honor?

Because a small hall would be a boring place to visit. If anything there should be more guys in the HOF then there are.

[Cowtipper]

Why shouldn't it be small? How many all-time greats are there? How many do you think should be enshrined? How diluted has the HOF become because of so many players being inducted who were very good but not great, which is what the HOF was created to honor?

I don't know about you, but visiting a literal "hall" of fame would get boring after about six minutes.

[Cowtipper]

I heartily agree. Let's take any above average player and create a new thread asking if he belongs in the HOF. The logical answer is always NO. Why are we even bothering with these questions? And why do some people actually take them seriously? Should Roy Face be in the HOF? No. Of course not.

Should anyone who wasn't an all-time great be in the HOF? No. Of course not, but some who weren't among the greats of all-time are, indeed, in the Hall. Does that mean that so many others who weren't great should be enshrined? No, but unfortunately, that doesn't seem to matter to some.

Maybe someone should start a new thread asking if every above average player who has no business being enshrined should be in the HOF. Just to get it out of the way. How about I start?

Tommy Davis
Jack Clark
Dave Kingman
Roger Maris
Kirk Gibson

Please give me your list of others and I will be glad to add him to my list of those who should never garner HOF consideration so that others don't waste their time asking if they should.

Roy Face wasn't any better than anyone I have just named, and none of them deserve even a sniff of the HOF.

Hey, how about Dave Lopes?
Because you asked so kindly...

Jack Clark:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=46022

Dave Kingman:

http://baseball-fever.com/archive/index.php/t-70307.html

Roger Maris:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=1372491
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=47708

How about:

Dolph Camilli
Don McMahon
Mike Marshall
Jesse Orosco
Charlie Hough
Eric Davis
Rick Aguilera
Jeff Reardon
Steve Rodgers
Cy Williams
Rusty Staub
Bill Madlock
Vince Coleman
You too...

Dolph Camilli:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=1223659

Mike Marshall:

http://baseball-fever.com/archive/index.php/t-72097.html

Jeff Reardon:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?referrerid=8503&t=84834
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=41321

Rusty Staub:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=65378

Bill Madlock:

http://baseball-fever.com/archive/index.php/t-55625.html
http://www.baseball-fever.com/archive/index.php/t-17168.html

And for the ones that don't have pages - you give me good ideas.

[Dodgerfan1]

Because a small hall would be a boring place to visit. If anything there should be more guys in the HOF then there are.

Then, by all means, add players who aren't all-time greats into your HOF in order to make it less boring. Personally, I find the great players interesting. It's the lesser ones I find more boring.

[bambambaseball]

I don't know about you, but visiting a literal "hall" of fame would get boring after about six minutes.
The guys you bring up are the guys I think about when I think of what a hall would be if it was bigger. Keep it up. It makes it interesting to come here. :nod:

[Dodgerfan1]

Because you asked so kindly...

Jack Clark:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=46022

Dave Kingman:

http://baseball-fever.com/archive/index.php/t-70307.html

Roger Maris:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=1372491
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=47708


You too...

Dolph Camilli:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=1223659

Mike Marshall:

http://baseball-fever.com/archive/index.php/t-72097.html

Jeff Reardon:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?referrerid=8503&t=84834
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=41321

Rusty Staub:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=65378

Bill Madlock:

http://baseball-fever.com/archive/index.php/t-55625.html
http://www.baseball-fever.com/archive/index.php/t-17168.html

And for the ones that don't have pages - you give me good ideas.

None of these guys deserve a whiff of the Hall.

[bambambaseball]

Then, by all means, add players who aren't all-time greats into your HOF in order to make it less boring. Personally, I find the great players interesting. It's the lesser ones I find more boring.

Have you been to Cooperstown? Im a lifetime member and its far from boring. :)

[Dodgerfan1]

The guys you bring up are the guys I think about when I think of what a hall would be if it was bigger. Keep it up. It makes it interesting to come here. :nod:

Perhaps baseball should also create a Hall of the Interesting. That would certainly be much bigger than the true Hall of Fame.

[Dodgerfan1]

Have you been to Cooperstown? Im a lifetime member and its far from boring. :)

There are some movies that are also interesting, yet I would never consider them among the best films ever. Big doesn't mean better. This, even I know.

[bambambaseball]

There are some movies that are also interesting, yet I would never consider them among the best films ever. Big doesn't mean better. This, even I know.

Tell that to my nephews who think Cooperstown is more fun then Disney World. :)

[Dodgerfan1]

Tell that to my nephews who think Cooperstown is more fun then Disney World. :)

Give me their email addresses. I'll be glad to impart a bit of wisdom on them.

[bambambaseball]

Give me their email addresses. I'll be glad to impart a bit of wisdom on them.

They dont like the stupid art films that high brows think is good but most people dont bother seeing. ;)

[Dodgerfan1]

They dont like the stupid art films that high brows think is good but most people dont bother seeing. ;)

Then we agree on something. This is a good thing.

[bambambaseball]

Then we agree on something. This is a good thing.

Arent you an art film fan? I thought thats what you meant by the whole good movie post.

[bambambaseball]

You like the little hall. I like the big hall. Thats okay. I get bored by the guys who are no brainers. You get bored by the other 209 guys. A hall with 40 players wouldnt be worth visiting for almost the whole world, though.

[Dodgerfan1]

Arent you an art film fan? I thought thats what you meant by the whole good movie post.

No, that's not what I meant. Never mind. Go back and read the previous posts. I was likening 'interesting' movies to your definition of a more 'interesting' Hall of Fame. Just because something is interesting doesn't mean it's the best.

I hope you get what I'm saying because this is becoming a tedious conversation, and even a bit silly. Go ahead and respond if you like, and we can make that the final entry in our discussion. You get the last word....

[bambambaseball]

No, that's not what I meant. Never mind. Go back and read the previous posts. I was likening 'interesting' movies to your definition of a more 'interesting' Hall of Fame. Just because something is interesting doesn't mean it's the best.

I hope you get what I'm saying because this is becoming a tedious conversation, and even a bit silly. Go ahead and respond if you like, and we can make that the final entry in our discussion. You get the last word....

You have to say it clearly. Sorry. English isnt my first language. Thats why I dont get into these arguments that much usually. :sorry:

[Dodgerfan1]

You have to say it clearly. Sorry. English isnt my first language. Thats why I dont get into these arguments that much usually. :sorry:

No worries, my friend. We are both baseball fans, and that's what counts! Baseball breaks the language barrier.