Does Bruce Sutter's Election Cheapen the HOF?

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Just got around to thinking that with Sutter's recently induction, this could open the floodgates for guys like Lee Smith, John Franco, Billy Wagner, Tom Henke, Troy Percival etc to eventually be inducted. Even take a guy like Roberto Hernandez. It's hard to argue he's had an inferior career to Sutter in many regards.

And what about Quisenberry, Tekulve and Hiller? Sure they may have had fewer saves, but in a statistical context, it can be argued they have on par or better aggregate numbers. To claim Sutter was better is to acknowledge saving a game is a superior baseball action to holding a game in the middle innings. I happen to think both actions are of equal importance. The omission of Quisenberry from the Hall is especially incomprehensible when comparing the two.

And finally, what about a guy like Joe Nathan? Give him 3 more trend years and we're looking at a career that is hands-down statistically superior to Sutter. How could you keep him out or does he belong as well??

[mwiggins]

Yes. He's not the worst hall of famer, but he's among the very worst.

And I love Joe Nathan, but he has a long way to go to match Sutter. But both were used so differently, and closers were used so differently back then, that's almost hard to say that Sutter played the same position as Nathan. And even statistically, Sutter had 1042 IP while Nathan is currently at 616 IP. And he's 33, so that's a huge gap to make up at roughly 70 innings a season.

And in the context of their times, Sutter was clearly more superior to the average closer than Nathan has been. Sutter finished in the top 10 in MVP voting 5 times and in the top 10 for Cy Young 5 times, and led the league in saves 5 times. Nathan has never finished in the top 10 for MVP and has only finished in the top 10 for Cy Young twice. And he's never lead the league in saves.

And Nathan doesn't deserve to be in the Hall either, and he has really no shot to pitch well enough from this point on to get over the hump. The best he could do is maybe nearly a Trevor Hoffman type career.

[brett]

Fingers cheapened it anyway, but Sutter only had 3 great years, '77, '79 and '84.

My gosh, he barely made the 10 year rule, and if his ERA+ was translated to a starting pitcher scenario it would be about 105 given about 2500 innings pitched over the period of his career.

Had he finished with less than 300 saves he's not in.

The only way to rationalize it is that he pioneered the splitter.

[mwiggins]

And yes, closers is a position too, and should be represented somewhat. But I think that doesn't mean every dominant closer should get in. If we elect only Hoffman and Rivera, that would be two from the last 10 years. That may seem like a small number, but how many second basemen will make the Hall from the last 10 years? How many third basemen? How many catchers? And Smoltz should make it too, which would count partially as a closer.

Do far 4 closers have made it from the 70's and 80's. And many want Lee Smith in. But by comparison, only 3 SS's have made it (if you count Yount as a SS), only three second basemen (if you count Carew as a second basemen), only one CF.

And if you have two closers from the last 10-15 years, how many SS's will you have? Probably just Jeter. And how many 3B - probably just A-Rod and Chipper. How many 2B - probably just Biggio and Alomar. And those are positions that play every day, not an inning every other game. So if you look at it that way, I don't see any need to go beyond Hoffman. And I wouldn't even vote for him, but he is borderline.

[mwiggins]

The only way to rationalize it is that he pioneered the splitter.

Which to me isn't that big of a deal. Should we put the creater of the fork ball and the circle change in as well?

[Fuzzy Bear]

The only way to rationalize it is that he pioneered the splitter.

Which to me isn't that big of a deal. Should we put the creater of the fork ball and the circle change in as well?

No.

The only mitigating factors in Sutter's election are (A) he was, very definitely, considered the best closer in baseball for a time, and (B) he did win a Cy Young Award, and wasn't a terrible pick in the year he won the award. These are mitigating factors, only; the case for Sutter is the case for Sparky Lyle.

It's not the end of the HOF that they picked Sutter. But when Sutter went in, it became "If Sutter, why not Gossage?" Gossage was better, but a huge gray area between Sutter and Gossage was created, opening up a whole lot of "If/then" cases that now have constituencies and (based on precedent, only) valid arguments for their cases.

If Sutter and Gossage, why not Lee Smith? Indeed, why not John Franco? Why not Jeff Reardon? The selection of both of these guys brought about "career saves" as a HOF criteria, without considering the legitimacy of "saves", in and of themselves, as a HOF credential.

It is my view that relievers are relievers because they are not good enough to start. Most relievers either (A) lack endurance, (B) lack the variety of pitches needed to be a starter, or (C) are injury-prone, and are shifted to the relief role to maintain their health. Some guys (Mariano Rivera, Rich Gossage) have done enough to overcome these realities. Some guys (Bruce Sutter, Lee Smith) have cases based on little more than their save totals at the time they retired. The problem with the routine selection of relievers based on save totals is that no one is going to take a look at future relievers (Trevor Hoffman?) and consider whether or not their save totals are, truly, an indicator of quality, and, if so, to what degree.

[leecemark]

--There really aren't enough relievers in Cooperstown for there to be an established standard. Sutter is the worst of the lot and if everybody as good as he is makes it we'll have at least a dozen 10 years from now. That would be way too many for me. I'd only like to see REALLY dominant relievers who sustained a very high level of performance for a long time. Wilhelm, Gossage, Eckersley and Rivera are the only guys I firmly support.
--Fingers is very much a bordeline guy who the Hall would probably be better off without. At least he doesn't set a prescedent though. No relief pitchers have his type of career anymore. Sutter opens the door to alot of modern closer though and his election was not a good thing for the Hall.

[Mike90]

He barely pitched over 1000 innings and doesn't have the same dominance as Rivera. I guess he's a better pick than Fingers.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Really, I have trouble inducting any of these relievers, even the very best one, before Ron Guidry.

[Ubiquitous]

No, Frankie Frisch cheapened if not killed the HoF election.

[philipthegreat]

No, Frankie Frisch cheapened if not killed the HoF election.

I think the old timers commite pick's of the 1940's weakened the HOF.

[henrich]

I have no problem with eckersley, Fingers, Sutter, Gossage in the Hall or the future candidates, rivera, Hoffman, and Franco. I think Reardon and Lyle fall short.

As far as on the ballot currently, only Lee smith has a case, and I would vote for him too. I think the mindset of the closer is that of a superman mentality, give me your best and I'll give you mine and I'll still get you out 9 out of 10 times for the great ones. I think the aforementioned positively are those worthy. (I have no problem with Wilhelm either as he was the best in his era).

think about he lifespan of many of these relievers, the stress that is on them when the game is on the line. How many of them die young? Quisenberry, McGraw, Donnie Moore, to name a few. I think that speaks to the quality of the mindset that has to go along with the specialized position.

[SavoyBG]

And in the context of their times, Sutter was clearly more superior to the average closer than Nathan has been. Sutter finished in the top 10 in MVP voting 5 times and in the top 10 for Cy Young 5 times, and led the league in saves 5 times.


All 5 times that Sutter led in saves he also led in blown saves.

I'd say that it's a bad selection. His induction is in line with how he was thought of while he was playing, but in retrospect he just wasn't good enough for long enough.

[STLCards2]

There were plenty of horrible selections in already, so Sutter's induction did little to cheapen it. Like puking in a trash dump - doesn't change the essence of the dump too much; not that I am comparing Sutter to puke- he was a great closer and maybe a tad underrated by many here. Nor am I saying the HOF is like a trach dump - I love the place. Oh, you get my point!

[SavoyBG]

There were plenty of horrible selections in already, so Sutter's induction did little to cheapen it. Like puking in a trash dump - doesn't change the essence of the dump too much; not that I am comparing Sutter to puke- he was a great closer and maybe a tad underrated by many here. Nor am I saying the HOF is like a trach dump - I love the place. Oh, you get my point!


It could cheapen it for future elections by opening up the flood gates for several closers who may not belong in. Some of these clowns who vote could start voting for anybody with more saves than Sutter once a bunch of them become eligible.

[STLCards2]

It could cheapen it for future elections by opening up the flood gates for several closers who may not belong in. Some of these clowns who vote could start voting for anybody with more saves than Sutter once a bunch of them become eligible.

But the guys we are worried about - Hoffman, Smith, etc. have better cases, in my opionion that Sutter. I don't think those guys would cheapen the HOF at all- even if I might not want them in my personal HOF.

Now if the Percivals, Wettelends, Montgomerys. etc. start getting in, than I will share this fear - but I don't think that will happen. I don't worry about the "more saves that Sutter" thing - If saves were their major criteria, Smith would have been in long ago as he had far more saves than Fingers, etc. The BBWAA voters make mistakes byt they aren't completely void of reason all-together...most of the time.

[SavoyBG]

But the guys we are worried about - Hoffman, Smith, etc. have better cases, in my opionion that Sutter. I don't think those guys would cheapen the HOF at all- even if I might not want them in my personal HOF.

Now if the Percivals, Wettelends, Montgomerys. etc. start getting in, than I will share this fear - but I don't think that will happen. I don't worry about the "more saves that Sutter" thing - If saves were their major criteria, Smith would have been in long ago as he had far more saves than Fingers, etc. The BBWAA voters make mistakes byt they aren't completely void of reason all-together...most of the time.

They rate closers largely on how they do in real big games, which will make it tough on Hoffman, and is why Smith is not getting in so far. If Sutter had not won a world series he woiuld have never gotten in. That's how many of the voters think.

[gwynnfan]

And yes, closers is a position too, and should be represented somewhat. But I think that doesn't mean every dominant closer should get in. If we elect only Hoffman and Rivera, that would be two from the last 10 years. That may seem like a small number, but how many second basemen will make the Hall from the last 10 years? How many third basemen? How many catchers? And Smoltz should make it too, which would count partially as a closer.

Do far 4 closers have made it from the 70's and 80's. And many want Lee Smith in. But by comparison, only 3 SS's have made it (if you count Yount as a SS), only three second basemen (if you count Carew as a second basemen), only one CF.

And if you have two closers from the last 10-15 years, how many SS's will you have? Probably just Jeter. And how many 3B - probably just A-Rod and Chipper. How many 2B - probably just Biggio and Alomar. And those are positions that play every day, not an inning every other game. So if you look at it that way, I don't see any need to go beyond Hoffman. And I wouldn't even vote for him, but he is borderline.

Nice post. I do consider Yount as a SS because it is when he won his 2 MVPs. Even though the second one was not that good of a year for MVP standards. But Carew I think of as a first baseman, probably because of when I watched them. IMO, because of sabermetrics the importance of defensive and speed get put down a notch compared to power numbers. Yount's main reason for getting voted in was longevity making it to 3000 hits. How many 3 time Allstars over a 20 year period have made the Hall? Sandberg was just as good as Yount offensively and was a 10 times Allstar and had 9 Gold Gloves and it took him 3 tries to make it. Baseball needs second baseman too.

"It is my view that relievers are relievers because they are not good enough to start. Most relievers either (A) lack endurance, (B) lack the variety of pitches needed to be a starter, or (C) are injury-prone, and are shifted to the relief role to maintain their health. Some guys (Mariano Rivera, Rich Gossage) have done enough to overcome these realities."

Perfect point. You have to excel to the point that Mariano has to make it in.

Someone mentioned it helped Sutter the year he was selected. Here is a fact. Over the last 15 years only Ryne Sandberg and Gary Carter has made it in when a 1st time nominee was elected. The only year that no one made it was 96, 97 Nekro after 5 years on the ballot then 98 when Sutter made it after 13 years! The first 6 years he only got 24-33% of the vote. How much better could he become after the next 7 years? Imagine if he had 1 less save what his voting % would have been. IMO, a voter wants to vote for somebody, probably 2 or 3 and not much after that. It would have been hard to only have 1 ceremony in 3 years. Then Goosage started out at 33% and did not get over 41% for 5 years and then the next 4 he must have must have stopped walking guys and stroke out a few more.

It has to be possible to revisit the way players get elected. They have changed the rules twice in the last 8 years in regards to the Veterans Committee. Maybe some kind of rating/voting system, 1st to 10th like MVP voting verses the top players in their era by position ( 15% ). Another the same way by total strength of player regardless of position ( 35% ) and 3rd by straight up vote ( 50% ). Make a value for each category. 15 + 35 + 50= their Hall of Fame value, if its greater than X% they are elected. Rate the current voted in members first to establish a guideline for what X would equal. Reduce the number of years a player stays on the ballot by higher the voting total so they have to initially get more than 50% on each years vote to stay on the ballot. This would eliminate players being elected because there are no strong candidates on the ballot in a particular year. Also the voters would have to give detailed reasons why they made such choices to evaluate their voting standards. I would keep these reasons private to the public. Its 2:45 AM and I just thought this up so it may not be my best idea. But there are many other people out there much smarter than me who could find a reasonable more detailed solution.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Nice post. I do consider Yount as a SS because it is when he won his 2 MVPs. Even though the second one was not that good of a year for MVP standards. But Carew I think of as a first baseman, probably because of when I watched them. IMO, because of sabermetrics the importance of defensive and speed get put down a notch compared to power numbers. Yount's main reason for getting voted in was longevity making it to 3000 hits. How many 3 time Allstars over a 20 year period have made the Hall? Sandberg was just as good as Yount offensively and was a 10 times Allstar and had 9 Gold Gloves and it took him 3 tries to make it. Baseball needs second baseman too.

Yount was firmly ensconced in CF when he won his second (unexpected, but deserved) AL MVP Award in 1989. Still, Yount was a HOF SS, much as Ernie Banks was. Banks' SS peak was higher, but Yount's career back end was far more valuable.

Black Ink: Batting - 42 (33) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 148 (89) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 54.7 (50) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 242.5 (24) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

I consider Carew a second baseman for the same reason I consider Yount and Banks shortstops. Carew posted OWPs over .700 eight (8) times in his career; five (5) of them as a second baseman. Most of Carew's black ink was compiled as a second baseman; he hit the HOF median of 27 as a second baseman. There was no compelling reason for Carew to be shifted to 1B in 1976; he could still play 2B as well as he ever did (which was OK, but certainly not Gold Glove). He was moved to keep him in the lineup, and because the Twins had a better fielding replacement (Bob Randall) who was 28, and in his prime as a hitter. (Hitting standards for middle infielders were much lower in 1976 then they are now.) Carew would have made the HOF if he had stayed at 2B and ran out of gas until he had to retire in 1979-80; indeed, Carew would have made the HOF if he retired after one (1) game in 1976. His peak accomplishments were such that there would have been no precedent for keeping him out.

[mwiggins]

Nice post. I do consider Yount as a SS because it is when he won his 2 MVPs. Even though the second one was not that good of a year for MVP standards. But Carew I think of as a first baseman, probably because of when I watched them. IMO, because of sabermetrics the importance of defensive and speed get put down a notch compared to power numbers. Yount's main reason for getting voted in was longevity making it to 3000 hits. How many 3 time Allstars over a 20 year period have made the Hall? Sandberg was just as good as Yount offensively and was a 10 times Allstar and had 9 Gold Gloves and it took him 3 tries to make it. Baseball needs second baseman too.



Yount was also underrated when he played, while Sandberg was overrated. Not that it should have taken Sandberg that many times, though. In the eyes of the voters two MVP's and 3,000 hits clearly trumps one MVP and a bunch of All Star apperances and Gold Gloves.

But Yount had the better career and his peak was clearly better than Sandberg, IMO. And that's not even taking into account his injury that forced him from shortstop and robbed him of some of his power. Yount was a better offensive performer, at two prime defensive positions, over a significantly longer career. He was a very good defensive short stop and an above average CF. At his best - 1980-1983 - he could literally do it all. He was arguably the best player in baseball in 1982 & 1983. I don't know if I'd ever say Sandberg was the best player in baseball. Probably close between he and Raines in 1984.

Ryne also benefited much more from his home park than Robin did. Yount's career OPS at home is 2% better than on the road. Sandberg's is 16% better. Yount hit 124 HR's at home, 127 on the road. Sandberg hit 164 at home, 114 on the road.

[Cougar]

think about he lifespan of many of these relievers, the stress that is on them when the game is on the line. How many of them die young? Quisenberry, McGraw, Donnie Moore, to name a few. I think that speaks to the quality of the mindset that has to go along with the specialized position.

Quiz and Tug had brain cancer...I don't think there's any link between that and stress; just a sad (apparent) coincidence.

Moore...yeah, he didn't handle stress too well.

[mwiggins]

think about he lifespan of many of these relievers, the stress that is on them when the game is on the line. How many of them die young? Quisenberry, McGraw, Donnie Moore, to name a few. I think that speaks to the quality of the mindset that has to go along with the specialized position.

How is a closer pitching the 9th with the game on the line any different than a starting pitcher pitching the 9th with the game on the line? The 9th inning isn't any more important than the 1st inning.

And how many closers spend most of their time pitching with the tying run or winning run in scoring position? Many saves are just routine, where they start the 9th inning with a 2 or 3 run lead.

[brett]

Which to me isn't that big of a deal. Should we put the creater of the fork ball and the circle change in as well?

If he were on the cusp, perhaps.

[brett]

It's not the end of the HOF that they picked Sutter. But when Sutter went in, it became "If Sutter, why not Gossage?" Gossage was better, but a huge gray area between Sutter and Gossage was created, opening up a whole lot of "If/then" cases that now have constituencies and (based on precedent, only) valid arguments for their cases.


Still, I only see 3 all-star level years. The rest of his "good" years were only average for a reliever-maybe a little better because of the innings. There are probably 25+ starting pitchers who are not in the hall of fame who had 3 years at that level.

Guidry, Hershizer, Cone, Saberhagen, Gooden, Pierce, Appier, Bridges, Steib, Key, Mort Cooper, Newcomb, Dutch Leonard I, Vaughn, Wilbur Wood, Brecheen, Harder, S.J. Wood, Rijo, Luque...

[J W]

The thing that I find so funny is, I remember back before Sutter was elected, this board was some 65% in favor of him. Now that he HAS been elected, the site is down to 25%.

I wonder if the same thing is going to happen with other "borderline" candidates. I'm neutral on Sutter and I don't think his election will open the flood gates. I do hope however that his election will pave the way for one similar reliever sometime in the future - Dan Quisenberry.

As to the value of relievers... like it or not, they are part of the game and we can see what having a big-time closer can do for a team. I'll give you the NL East from this season... Wagner gets hurt, Mets fall... Brad Lidge goes 41-41, Phillies win the World Series.

[dgarza]

Still, I only see 3 all-star level years. The rest of his "good" years were only average for a reliever-maybe a little better because of the innings. One thing to consider is that it is so easy to say this today. But at the time of his retirement (1988), only 3 others had 3 equal or better years, and they are all HOFers :

Wilhem - 1962, 1967, 1968
Fingers - 1973, 1981, 1984
Gossage - 1975, 1977, 1978, 1981, 1985

In a way, it's the players from the last 20 years who have cheapened Sutter's peaks.

While I think Sutter is the least of these players, I'm not sure I would say he "cheapens" the HOF. I would not say Sutter is quite a mistake.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Yount was also underrated when he played, while Sandberg was overrated. Not that it should have taken Sandberg that many times, though. In the eyes of the voters two MVP's and 3,000 hits clearly trumps one MVP and a bunch of All Star apperances and Gold Gloves.

But Yount had the better career and his peak was clearly better than Sandberg, IMO. And that's not even taking into account his injury that forced him from shortstop and robbed him of some of his power. Yount was a better offensive performer, at two prime defensive positions, over a significantly longer career. He was a very good defensive short stop and an above average CF. At his best - 1980-1983 - he could literally do it all. He was arguably the best player in baseball in 1982 & 1983. I don't know if I'd ever say Sandberg was the best player in baseball. Probably close between he and Raines in 1984.

Ryne also benefited much more from his home park than Robin did. Yount's career OPS at home is 2% better than on the road. Sandberg's is 16% better. Yount hit 124 HR's at home, 127 on the road. Sandberg hit 164 at home, 114 on the road.

Sandberg's image and place in history was hurt by his premature retirement in 1994, and his return in 1996-97.

Sandberg grew old in 1994; his OWP was .394 for the year when he suddenly retired. His decline and retirement was the product of a messy divorce; he was suddenly old at age 34. Sandberg came back in, and while he still had power and was still decent in the field, he had lost enough of his ability to put the bat on the ball; his BA dropped seriously and he retired for good after 1997.

This truncation of his career negatively impacted Sandberg's image. The BBWAA tends to penalize guys who finish slowly, or who decline prematurely (while giving a somewhat proportional reward to late bloomers). Sandberg's sudden decline and retirement, coupled with his disappointing return, truncated his career, and blurred his image as a superstar. Even today, people don't think of Sandberg as a truly great second baseman, as they do of, say, Roberto Alomar and Craig Biggio.

[gwynnfan]

Yount was also underrated when he played, while Sandberg was overrated. Not that it should have taken Sandberg that many times, though. In the eyes of the voters two MVP's and 3,000 hits clearly trumps one MVP and a bunch of All Star apperances and Gold Gloves.

But Yount had the better career and his peak was clearly better than Sandberg, IMO. And that's not even taking into account his injury that forced him from shortstop and robbed him of some of his power. Yount was a better offensive performer, at two prime defensive positions, over a significantly longer career. He was a very good defensive short stop and an above average CF. At his best - 1980-1983 - he could literally do it all. He was arguably the best player in baseball in 1982 & 1983. I don't know if I'd ever say Sandberg was the best player in baseball. Probably close between he and Raines in 1984.

Ryne also benefited much more from his home park than Robin did. Yount's career OPS at home is 2% better than on the road. Sandberg's is 16% better. Yount hit 124 HR's at home, 127 on the road. Sandberg hit 164 at home, 114 on the road.

Fuzzy, thanks for the correction, I was thinking when he made the Allstatrs. The reason I view them in those positions is when I started to watch them as a kid. I really was not old enough to remember Carew until he moved to first.

Wigg, I was not stating Sandberg was better then Yount as much as I am agreeing with you the certain positions Cf, SS and 2nd have been much more difficult time getting voted in. Second base being slightly harder. "Baseball needs second baseman too."
The rules for the Hall is 10 years. I tend to look at a players ten prime years. Yount was 18 when he started so his first 3 lower producing seasons I don't rate against him. He played 20 seasons, so his last 4 seasons I also dont hold against him. He was an ok player those seasons but none of them rate him in the Hall. He had a wonderful career. I rate him on the 13 years in between, his prime. For 13 years he was one of the top players in baseball, so was Sandberg's middle 10 years. I am not a fan of milestones. If Yount retired after 18 seasons I would not look at his career any differently then I would view Randy Johnson's career if he goes 6W 8L to finish with 301 wins. Should Johnson's one year stats with a average to below average season effect his chance to make the Hall or not. I think people should already have their minds made up about him. If Damon or Edgar Renteria plays at their current pace until they are 40 they both will have 3000 hits and neither one is no where close to being Hall of Fame material. This is more to the point that if Sutter had 299 instead of 300 I don't think he gets in but he would have had the same career.

[henrich]

Quiz and Tug had brain cancer...I don't think there's any link between that and stress; just a sad (apparent) coincidence.

Moore...yeah, he didn't handle stress too well.


there is no way I'm winning this debate, but here goes, stress leads to many forms of death...brain cancer I know not a medically linked stat, but stress can kill in whatever form. Can I prove it-no way, but does stress age people prematurely...ever look at a picture of the president elect then when he leaves office...take a look at Lincoln in 1860 and then again in 1865. How about Clinton? even Bush. Stress has it's effect.

[Ubiquitous]

Stress has a delibating effect on human beings but Tug McGraw didn't die because he was a closer for a few years. If you have ever met Tug or listened to him, or read anything about him the phrase highly stressful life would not be connected to Tug.

[henrich]

Like I said, I won't win this debate, but I think it would be worth a study of some sort for those more gifted than I on the matter.

[Allie Fox]

Is there a SABR stat taht addresses closers?

Something that takes into account number of innings pitched, K/BB ratio, runners inherited, etc. While all that data is collected individually, perhaps there could be a formula to calculate the value of a closer especially in this day and age when guys tend to pitch a inning or less per game yet get put on a pedestal as high as . . . well as high as SOMEthing.

I saw that someone mentioned Brad Lidge this year and in looking it up I see that he only pitched 70 innings. While his ERA was good, I can't find what his Win Share total might be.

[mwiggins]

I saw that someone mentioned Brad Lidge this year and in looking it up I see that he only pitched 70 innings. While his ERA was good, I can't find what his Win Share total might be.

He had 13 win shares in 2008. 2004 has been his best WS season, with 17. He's now at 64 for his career.

[STLCards2]

Is there a SABR stat taht addresses closers?



Win Probability Added is often used to get a good feel on closers. WPA basicaly records how an idividual's performance increases or decreases the team's chance of winning. It also takes into account the "clutchness" of the situation -so Gossage coming into the 8th inning with the bases loaded and pitching the 9th will score a lot higher than Hoffman getting a save by pitching one inning with a 3 run lead. Since WPA focuses on probability of winning - the later in the game it goes, the "more important" each inning gets. This is how a good releiver can have a better WPA score than a good starter.

Note: most followers of WPA do not use it as a ranking tool - only as a "clutchiness" tool. Go to fangraphs for more info. WPA will not do a good job comparing starters to relievers or show who does or does not belong in the HOF, but I think it does do a good job of comparing relievers. Also - no WPA data exists prior to I think 1974?

[Los Bravos]

Sandberg grew old in 1994; his OWP was .394 for the year when he suddenly retired. His decline and retirement was the product of a messy divorceHe also hated playing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Himes#Sandberg_Walks_Away) for Larry Himes.

[Mongoose]

Not as much as Walter O'Malley's.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The question this thread asks is whether or not Sutter's election cheapens the HOF?

What cheapens the HOF is not Sutter's election, per se, but making it a precedent. It really does appear that Sutter's election has become a precedent for peak value relievers, and that Gossage's election is a precedent for career-value relievers. The problem is that some will view Sutter as a career-value selection, and that precedent will, IMO, become erroneously applied to where it becomes something of the rule.

Awards are Year-League-Award, Stats are Year-Value-Rank, (Pos) for All-Star indicates starter & * indicates they played.


All-Star
2002 *
2003 *
2004 *

Awards
2003-NL-CYA
2003-NL-Rolaids Relief
2003-NL-TSN Pitcher of the Year
2004-NL-Rolaids Relief

MVP (YrLg-Rk-Shr)
2002-NL-12-0.10
2003-NL-6-0.32
2004-NL-11-0.07
Car-437-0.49 shares
CYA (YrLg-Rk-Shr)
2002-NL-4-0.05
2003-NL-1-0.91
2004-NL-7-0.02
1 Cy Young
Car-48-0.98 shares
Games
2002 NL-77-8
2003 NL-77-9

Saves
2002 NL-52-2
2003 NL-55-1
2004 NL-45-3
Act-187-14
Car-187-45


Hit Batsmen
2001 NL-16-4

Games Finished
2002 NL-68-2
2003 NL-67-1
2004 NL-59-6
Act-269-21


Black Ink: Pitching - 3 (545) (Average HOFer ≈ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 11 (1391) (Average HOFer ≈ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 17.0 (385) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 46.0 (282) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

Is this mid-career pitcher building a HOF resume? It's Eric Gagne. If Gagne holds on long enough, why wouldn't he have his advocates? Consider the whole of Sutter's career, and think about it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Who's this guy?

Awards are Year-League-Award, Stats are Year-Value-Rank, (Pos) for All-Star indicates starter & * indicates they played. All-Star
1995 *
1996

Awards
1995-AL-Rolaids Relief

MVP (YrLg-Rk-Shr)
1995-AL-4-0.33
Car-557-0.33 shares
CYA (YrLg-Rk-Shr)
1995-AL-2-0.39
Car-112-0.39 shares
Bases on Balls/9IP
1993 AL-2.67-10

Games
1994 AL-51-2
1995 AL-62-6
2006 NL-79-9
Act-1022-3
Car-1022-9


Saves
1995 AL-46-1
1996 AL-39-2
1999 AL-33-5
2001 NL-42-5
2002 NL-45-4
2003 NL-24-10
2004 NL-43-5
Act-321-6
Car-321-13

Bases On Balls Allow.
Act-651-26

Hits Allowed
1993 AL-232-6

Losses
Act-109-23

Earned Runs Allow.
1993 AL-114-5

Wild Pitches
2002 NL-9-8
Act-75-11


Games Finished
1995 AL-57-1
1996 AL-60-2
1999 AL-60-5
2001 NL-59-4
2002 NL-64-6
2003 NL-47-8
2004 NL-65-2
Act-633-5
Car-633-14

Oldest Player
2007 AL-41-5

Youngest Player
1987 AL-21-2

Black Ink: Pitching - 3 (545) (Average HOFer ≈ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 26 (873) (Average HOFer ≈ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 1.0 (1899) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 113.0 (77) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

It's Jose Mesa!

Is Jose Mesa a gray-area guy (and upper-half gray area, no less) to you?

It is in the area of considering and inducting relievers that are not as good as starters that we are diluting HOF standards. Jack Morris gets no love here, but, really, is he not as good as Sutter, and even Gossage and Fingers?

[curveball]

Jose Mesa was nothing but a failed starter. He managed to save 33 games in 1993 with an era+ of 101, 24 games in 2003 with an era+ of 61, and 27 games in 2005 with an era+ of 89.

I am also in the camp that relievers are simply those that can't make it as starters. They are vastly overrated, and I would rather have the Saberhagens, Stiebs, Johns, in the HOF, than many of these relievers.

The designated hitter position doesn't get much love here, but I really don't see why relievers aren't similarly chastised.

[jalbright]

Is there a SABR stat taht addresses closers?

Something that takes into account number of innings pitched, K/BB ratio, runners inherited, etc. While all that data is collected individually, perhaps there could be a formula to calculate the value of a closer especially in this day and age when guys tend to pitch a inning or less per game yet get put on a pedestal as high as . . . well as high as SOMEthing.

I saw that someone mentioned Brad Lidge this year and in looking it up I see that he only pitched 70 innings. While his ERA was good, I can't find what his Win Share total might be.

Bill James is working on Loss Shares to go with win shares, and this would help immensely with relievers. For instance, I'm doing this from memory, but I've seen the calculation on Mariano Rivera. Rivera has less than 150 win shares, which seems like nothing--but he has something like 10 loss shares, which is darned near nothing. Even superstar players will have 1/3 as many loss shares as win shares in a career. This at least hints at why Rivera is so highly regarded. I hope we'll see a full roll-out of loss shares in 2009, but it's possible it won't happen until 2010.

[Calif_Eagle]

People here will find this laughable probably, but I am from the school that says a one inning closer doesnt belong in the HOF anymore than an ace pinch hitter does.

I'd sooner see Rusty Staub (who you can make a real case for, of course using reasons *beyond* his Mets pinch hitting career.) and Gates Brown get HOF consideration than a guy who holds a one run lead coming in fresh in the ninth inning with the bases empty night after night. I'd love to see research done as to how often teams blew these kinds of games PRIOR to the rise of the "Closer". I bet the value the closer ADDS in this type of situation is very VERY marginal.

Before the "Closer", did teams routinely blow their ninth inning slim leads? I think not, just on an intuitive basis.

In "Moneyball", Billy Bean develops a new "Closer" every year and then sells or trades his contract, then develops a another new closer, and then sells.... you get the idea.

I think its time to take another look at Lenny Harris, Dusty Rhodes, Jerry Lynch, and Smoky Burgess for the HOF... (said tongue in cheek, yes, but they may have as much merit as putting in a closer who may really save about 2 games a year over what a team that didnt use one, might have blown in the ninth inning. )

[Fuzzy Bear]

I think its time to take another look at Lenny Harris, Dusty Rhodes, Jerry Lynch, and Smoky Burgess for the HOF... (said tongue in cheek, yes, but they may have as much merit as putting in a closer who may really save about 2 games a year over what a team that didnt use one, might have blown in the ninth inning. )

I wouldn't go quite that far. A pitcher's performance constitutes the vast majority of a team's defense; very little defense (run prevention) is actually fielding. Think about how frequently during a year a full time player can take his defensive position and not have but 1-2 routine fielding chances per game. Or, possibly, have NO fielding chances the entire game. The relief pitcher is a much bigger part of the game than the pinch hitter.

On the other hand, I agree that relievers are relievers because they aren't as good as starters. I'll put it this way: If Jack Morris had been switched to relief, he'd have been the best reliever in the AL. I think there's little question about that. Would THAT have silenced the critics on Morris being not worthy of the HOF?

[Calif_Eagle]

I wouldn't go quite that far. A pitcher's performance constitutes the vast majority of a team's defense; very little defense (run prevention) is actually fielding. Think about how frequently during a year a full time player can take his defensive position and not have but 1-2 routine fielding chances per game. Or, possibly, have NO fielding chances the entire game. The relief pitcher is a much bigger part of the game than the pinch hitter.

On the other hand, I agree that relievers are relievers because they aren't as good as starters. I'll put it this way: If Jack Morris had been switched to relief, he'd have been the best reliever in the AL. I think there's little question about that. Would THAT have silenced the critics on Morris being not worthy of the HOF?

I stand by my view. I think Billy Bean proved something in the pages of "Moneyball" that I had-have long suspected. The one inning closer is a role that any *fresh* pitcher of major league quality, entering a game in the *top* of the ninth with a bases empty situation, can be expected to be pretty successful at. The marginal extra value a Sutter might bring to the role is not HOF worthy in my view. I dont have statistics to back this up, but I do feel it intuitively.

I was exaggerating by suggesting Rhodes, Lynch, etc. for the HOF. But I am a lot more impressed by the reliever who enters a game with no outs and men on base who has to end a rally, & then is (was, as this is a 1960's - 1970's view of the reliever as a "Fireman" ) expected to finish out the game, pitching 2 or 3 innings, including a battle out of a jam that the starter left for him.

The guy that should have been a career reliever, a man who spanned the Fireman and Closer eras, & could have done both VERY well is Nolan Ryan. For those who think the 1 inning closer role has a HOF value level, who better than the man who held his peak fastball speed as long as any pitcher in baseball history ever has; or probably ever will? A fresh Ryan throwing 1-2 innings of 100 plus heat to hitters that have faced a lower peak speed in their first 3 or 4 at bats in a game... if you like the 1 inning closing specialist, well... Ryan probably could have potentially had 300 saves in 300 save opportunites in a row without blowing one.

[Ubiquitous]

If Lenny Harris could pinch hit as well as Mariano Riviera can close games then Lenny Harris does deserve to be enshrined in the hall.

[Calif_Eagle]

If Lenny Harris could pinch hit as well as Mariano Riviera can close games then Lenny Harris does deserve to be enshrined in the hall. I said that re: Harris in my original post tongue in cheek... as I said right there in the post. In my last post, I said I was exaggerating about that. Just want it to be on the record that I dont really believe that there has been a pinch hitter yet (not counting DH's) that has had enough of an impact on the game to be HOF worthy.

Does the one inning type closer have more value than the 1 at bat pinch hitter? Yes. Is that value high enough for the HOF? My intuitive reply is no. Perhaps that can be disproven via sabermetrics or even standard stats. My thinking is there is a definite value in bringing in a fresh pitcher of major caliber in the 9th inning. Whats the diff between Rivera and another fresh pitcher? I dont know.

Rivera is probably much better. Is that difference great enough for a HOF spot? I dont know. Intuitively it doesnt seem like it would be. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise via sabermetrics or other stats.

[brett]

I stand by my view. I think Billy Bean proved something in the pages of "Moneyball" that I had-have long suspected. The one inning closer is a role that any *fresh* pitcher of major league quality, entering a game in the *top* of the ninth with a bases empty situation, can be expected to be pretty successful at.

Baseball prospectus shows that due to game situations such as fatigue, facing batters only once, and getting a share of partial innings an average starter moved to a closer role could expect a 25% decrease in ERA (or about a 30 point increase in ERA+) That means that a 100 ERA+ starter would be a 130 ERA+ closer.

A 180 ERA+ for a closer corresponds in skill to a 135-140 starter which is excellent.


That also assumes that the closers average about 40% as many innings as a starter.

[gman5431]

I do not support reliever only pitchers for the HOF - ever. Only Hoffman and Rivera would be close for me. Other then that, i dont support any of them. I am afraid this election will open the door for a lot of 1 inning guys who amass a lot of saves and dont belong.

G Rizzle

[KCGHOST]

Sutter was simply a mistake, and hopefully not one that voters use to measure others relievers productivity. I really dislike admitting guys who have just a 1000 IP's or so, but not we are on the hook. Rivera has been so brilliant it is hard to argue against him. After that are a bunch of guys who can just scream they were better than Sutter. Henke, Quisenberry, Franco, Smith, etc, all have claims to better careers. And there is a blizzard of active guys who can make that claim.