Rob Dibble and Kevin Kennedy were having a screaming fit over Jim Rice and Steve Garvey not getting in the Hall. Kennedy was complaining about “these people complaining about Rice’s road OPS being 700” and saying there’s no doubt in his mind that they’re Hall of Famers.
They’re also saying that guys like Vin Scully should have votes, which I don’t entirely disagree with. I do disagree with the idea that the Veteran’s Committee should vote on the same candidates as the writers.
The problem I have is that, as others have pointed out here, it’s the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of Very Good, or the Hall of Good Clubhouse Guys. Kennedy and Dibble were saying that there were 10 guys on the ballot this year that deserved to be in. I don’t know how they’re making that argument.
While I definitely think Gossage deserves the nod as well, I can think of two advantages Sutter has over him:
Dominated his league at closer - 5 time save leader, plus set new single-season record for saves. Goose, much as opposing hitters feared him, led his league only three times and never held the record. Being stuck in the same league as Rollie Fingers and Dan Quisenberry didn’t help his profile.
Pretty much invented the split-finger fastball, which has since become a very popular pitch. Goose had a wicked fastball, but that’s hardly revolutionary.
Hopefully, Goose’s greatness will get recognized. But Bruce Sutter truly does deserve to be in there.
I’ll take my votes. Since Sutter was the only one elected, I’m a bit annoyed by the baseball writers. I am really looking forward to next year, to see what happens to the 'roid boy McGuire.
Jim Rice - This has become a blatant “F&CK YOU!” by the baseball writers. This guy dominated the American League for a decade. He’ll get in on the first ballot by the veteran’s committee.
**Goose Gossage ** - The greatest pure power reliever of his time.
Bruce Sutter - Deserved it. I think he invented the fork ball, no small feat.
**Bert Blyleven ** - As someone else mentioned, he’d have easily won 300+ games if he pitched for better teams. He’s high on the total strikeout list, and had one of the best curve balls I’ve ever seen. Plus, he had the best nickname from Chris Berman. Bert “be home” Blyleven.
Dave Parker - He’d be a shoe-in if he made it to 3,000 hits, and maybe it’s his own fault he didn’t (drug trials, early 80’s), but this guy was great in his prime. Could hit for average and power, above average speed, and an absolute cannon for an arm. Anyone who saw the All-Star Game in Seattle in '79, and his two outfield throws will never forget it.
Goose had the best Right Handed Slider I have ever seen, not just the Wicked Fastball. Their stat are pretty similar for their time closing and Gossage adds 8+ years as an excellent set-up guy. Goose was more generally feared and that should equal things out nicely. They both deserved to go in and to Sutter’s credit he all but said that yesterday in the MLB interview.
The Blonde Bomber I agree with you on Rice but apparently only the East Coast noticed how deadly Jim Rice was as a hitter. So he will probably never get voted in but as you said, maybe the vets will do it. (disclaimer: this is from a Yankee fan/Red Sox hater)
Hitters like Rice are scattered throughout baseball history. Good hitters, dangerous hitters, but by no means hall of famers. Hall of very gooders, perhaps.
First off, saves are a completely contrived statistic and they should not even be seriously brought up in the context of a Hall of Fame discussion. It’s a joke that a guy can come in with a three run lead in the ninth inning to face the weakest part of the lineup, give up two runs and still collect a save while the guy who was brought in with the bases loaded and no outs in the seventh inning, doesn’t let a run score then pitches a scoreless eighth gets squat.
The relevent portion of this debate is that Sutter had a career ERA+ of 136, but barely pitched 1000 innings in his career while Gossage pitched over 1800 and had a career ERA+ of 126.
To elect Sutter lowers the bar on relievers so far that not only do you now have to elect Gossage and Smith, but you also probably have to give serious consideration to guys like Quisenberry, Wetteland, Franco, Percival and Nen. It’s a complete joke to elect him.
Stop. Not only did Sutter not invent the split-finger fastball, he has never so much as claimed to invent the split-finger fastball. Fred Martin, a minor league pitching coach with the Cubs, taught him the pitch.
I know why he was more prominent. But I’m still incensed. The baseball Hall of Fame is the highest honor a individual athlete can achieve in North American sports and it’s the toughest of the Halls to get into. You’d think the gatekeepers of this institution would do a bit of research and look a bit deeper at each candidate before placing their votes, but no.
Frankly, I’d have been happier seeing no one elected this year.
You make a good point about relievers. Especially the invented and inflated stat of the save. But, since baseball invented the save, and baseball loves stats, it’s a tough thing to leave them out. There will be a day that a guy will get in who was primarily a DH his entire career. That’s just as bad to me. But where/how do you draw the lines? This is the tough part.
But you are correct about one thing. Sutter has set *some * sort of a bar. So, just like contract arbitration hearings (where .200 hitting shortstops double their salary by comparing their salaries with all other .200 hitting shortstops in the league), people will be comparing the stats of those that are in the hall vs. those that are out. And Quisenberry stacks up pretty well against Sutter. The standards will continue to drop. When does Kent Tekulve go in?
Do you think Sandy Koufax deserves to be there? The guy pitched 12 seasons, but he won only 165 games. That’s hardly overwhelming. I know he had 6 outstanding seasons, but how do you compare him to, say Cy Young, with 511 wins and 22 seasons? You can’t. So, a lot of other factors creep in. For someone like Jim Rice, it seems understood that since he didn’t speak to the press, he’s simply not going to get the number of votes from the very people he didn’t speak to. That’s BS, too. You can argue whether or not he should be in, but he shouldn’t be kept out because he didn’t give an interview.
My biggest gripe with HOF voting is this: If a guy is HOF material, he is HOF material. His stats don’t change after 12 years. WTF were they waiting for? In or out, one year vote. And if it’s pehaps personal, the Veterans Committee (or whatever) gets to vote the next year. If they don’t make it, that’s that. Also, I’d like to shoot these boobs who didn’t vote for Tom Seaver or Nolan Ryan because they don’t want anyone to go into the hall unanimously (or whatever the reason). These people are just power-tripping dickheads.
Because the membership of the BBWAA changes. Just because one group didn’t think he was good enough doesn’t mean that another group with the same baseball-analysis qualifications wouldn’t. It would be foolish to condemn a person to non-Fame just because the one year he was eligible was a crop of writers not amenable to him. It makes sense to have a span of time during which the person is consistently rejected before making his rejection permanent (until the Veteran Committee has its say, but that’s another subject entirely).
Well Gossage and Blyleven got jobbed again. Not sure how Sutter and Gaylord Perry can be HoFers and Gossage and Blyleven aren’t. That 300-win threshhold is a crock.
I’ll be the first guy to say the Save is a bogus statistic, totally invented and very situationally dependant. However, some of the people who use this argument to downgrade relievers forget that the RBI, Wins, ERA and a handful of other stats are totally situational and contrived as well. It’s just that they have been around so long that people have quit caring.
Sure a pitcher can have a manager who only uses him in the 9th inning on a team that usually ahead by 2 or more runs. It’s also true that many starters play on teams that score obscene amounts of runs or with a manager who’s quick to yank them inflating that wins stat. It’s true that many pitchers played their whole career in a good picthers park with great defenses behind them keeping that ERA minesule.
I’m not the guy who’ll be arguing for Nen, Thigpen, or Quisenberry. But, just because a great pitchers key stat is saves doesn’t make him not great.
The point is that people, especially baseball junkies, are WAY to concerned with stats. They are relevant, but they should support a players candidacy not be the whole argument. The first and foremost concern should be what impression you had watching a player and how he was compared to his peers.
Using those judgements, Goosage, Rice and Dawson are certainly worthy. Their stats bolster their posture, and the point isn’t about punching holes in that. In contrast look at Palmerio, even ignoring the steriod thing, almost no one thinks he was a dominant force. His stats pretty much put him in however, and that’s an indictment of the current attitude towards cadnidates. Impressions come first, stats second. Riviera is a HOFer based on his dominance, his numbers merely solidify it.
To me the first rule of the HOF is still when you think of the player do you think he is a HOF.
By that Definition Gossage and Rice would have got my vote.
Sandy Koufax was of course a no brainer.
Palmiero - no
Edgar Martinez - Yes
Sutton - no
After the snap judgement, I would allow overwhelming stats to convince me that someone should go in. If it wasn’t for the steroids I was resigned to the fact the Palmiero was going in and probably deserved it. Now I am happy that he probably won’t go it.
That’s why there is a semi-permanent Veterans Committee that takes a look at those guys that fall through the cracks.
Sutter seems to have made it only because there was no one better to choose from. Next year’s crop of first timers should be able to bump the marginal guys back in the pack again. Sutter wouldn’t have been elected if Ripken was eligible this year. I’m personally fine with Sutter getting in. But if he isn’t elected when his career is fresh in memories, maybe that should stand.
I don’t care if the BBWAA membership changes. Most guys that vote should be able to remember a player who’s career ended 5 years ago. Or, they should be able to sufficiently research it.
Ah, who cares. I guess if I was a player, I’d want to be considered every year until I got in, too.
oh, and jrfranchi, Koufax may be a no brainer to you, me and those that saw him play, but not if you take a step back and look objectively at his stats. His first 6 years were unimpressive. His last 6 were HOF worthy. And then, injury. He didn’t have a long career of sustained excellence. Is Dwight Gooden a no-brainer? He started out like gangbusters and then fizzled. But for a few years, he was the best in the business.
I think this is a good example of why stats alone are not enough to judge a player on. Gooden was the best, perhaps, from '85 to '88. Four great years (plus good years in '84 and '90) sure doesn’t sound like enough. Koufax’s great years were greater, and I’m sure the way he went out on top - instead of starting great and crashing and burning the way Doc did - makes some difference. Gooden was through by the time he was 25.
To some degree, and here’s a completely non-novel insight, I think sustained goodness is being overrated here. The emphasis on statistical milestones helps: a pitcher who wins 14 games a season for 15 years racks up 210 wins, but is never as dominant or helpful to his team as a player who can win 20 games a year for 10 seasons.