2024 Baseball Hall of Fame Tracker

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

So your argument for Wagner to go into the HOF is that Hoffman sucked in 1998?

If it were up to me relievers wouldn't be allowed in the HOF, if they are such great pitchers why do they spend so much time on the bench?

Maybe Smoky Burgess should also go in due to his .288 career average as a pinch hitter?

This reflects my feelings exactly. I almost mentioned letting Pinch Hitters in, but refrained. Not a fan of "closers" getting into the Hall unless they were spectacular like Mariano or Gossage. I view it as a contrived/made-up position.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by perezfan

This reflects my feelings exactly. I almost mentioned letting Pinch Hitters in, but refrained. Not a fan of "closers" getting into the Hall unless they were spectacular like Mariano or Gossage. I view it as a contrived/made-up position.

My big issue is almost every, if not every, closer is a failed starter. What's more valuable a guy who can throw 6 -9 quality innings or a guy who can do it for 1- 2. A closer is worthless unless you are handing him leads.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

My big issue is almost every, if not every, closer is a failed starter. What's more valuable a guy who can throw 6 -9 quality innings or a guy who can do it for 1- 2. A close is worthless unless you are handing him leads.

Suppose a guy as effective as Rivera, but he was only brought in in the 6th or 7th inning and never closed. There is no way in hell he would make the Hall as a set up man even though his contribution would have been equal.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Suppose a guy as effective as Rivera, but he was only brought in in the 6th or 7th inning and never closed. There is no way in hell he would make the Hall as a set up man even though his contribution would have been equal.

I agree, and that helps my point.

I will mention that a guy I think is at least interesting as a discussion for the hall is Dan Quisenberry, and contrary to my point above, even including the minors, he only started one game in his career (though it's interesting to note that one game was a complete game!) so there is the occasional guy who is slated to be a reliever from day one and that's likely more common now than it was back then. Quis was a special case because every pitching coach in history hated his delivery.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I agree, and that helps my point.

I will mention that a guy I think is at least interesting as a discussion for the hall is Dan Quisenberry, and contrary to my point above, even including the minors, he only started one game in his career (though it's interesting to note that one game was a complete game!) so there is the occasional guy who is slated to be a reliever from day one and that's likely more common now than it was back then. Quis was a special case because every pitching coach in history hated his delivery.

He's still a failed starter because if anyone thought he was good enough to start, they would have tried him there first.

[BioCRN]

Gossage came off a stellar season in the pen to put in a season as a starter that would be chalked up as forgettable at best. That season put him back in the pen.

Over his 11 season peak, that 1 season starting he put up a 3.94 ERA and 1.36 WHIP. The other 10 relief seasons were all great.

This is also an era where a "closer" being asked to work 1.something innings rather than just 1 inning or rarely 1.1 or more IP.

The entire role of a "closer" wildly changed from it's emergence in the late 70s, to the early/mid 80s, to what we've been doing with the role the past 40-ish years.

Though it's relatively new, we've been doing it long enough that career longevity is a thing. The pickings of those who got a full career out of it and doing with consistent greatness is still thin over this past 40 years. We've had lots of greats, and very few greats with an entire career to show for it.

[doug.goodman]

I wouldn't put Mariano in either.

His team played 1,450 plus innings each year, he played 67 1/2.

If he was so good why did he play so little?

He seldom entered a game where his team had less than a 90% chance of winning. What other player is ever in a situation that he always has a 90% chance of success?

https://retrosheet.org/Research/Smit...fTheCloser.pdf


The only thing I'll give him credit for is having a beautiful autograph in an era of scribbles.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

I wouldn't put Mariano in either.

His team played 1,450 plus innings each year, he played 67 1/2.

If he was so good why did he play so little?

He seldom entered a game where his team had less than a 90% chance of winning. What other player is ever in a situation that he always has a 90% chance of success?

https://retrosheet.org/Research/Smit...fTheCloser.pdf


The only thing I'll give him credit for is having a beautiful autograph in an era of scribbles.

To his credit, his WHIP was outstanding.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

https://retrosheet.org/Research/Smit...fTheCloser.pdf

Interesting research, thanks for posting. I wish they'd allow starters to pitch longer, and even allow middle relievers to go all the way. I feel like the fewer the relievers, the better. Those multi-pitcher no-hitters always seem unsatisfying to me compared with a complete game no-hitter.

I think MLB's move to have relievers face at least 3 batters (or close out an inning) was a small step in the right direction.

That being said, it is a difficult subject to research, because teams went from not using closers to using them so quickly, so there wasn't a huge window of time to compare teams that used closers with those that didn't. The figure 12 in the research shows that relievers have had a lower ERA than starters since 1954 with the exception of two years. I'd like to see the same graph with WHIP to account for starters getting earned runs after they have left the game. Probably wouldn't make a big difference though.

Here is an article about how the save statistic is making baseball worse (and how Goose Gossage's expletive-laced rants on the subject have a point).
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...lief-pitchers/

And another article by Nate Silver contrasting pitchers who have been both starters and relievers in their career, and how to bring balance back to bullpens:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...lan-to-fix-it/

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

He's still a failed starter because if anyone thought he was good enough to start, they would have tried him there first.

I can't call someone who was never given a chance a failure.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I agree, and that helps my point.

I will mention that a guy I think is at least interesting as a discussion for the hall is Dan Quisenberry, and contrary to my point above, even including the minors, he only started one game in his career (though it's interesting to note that one game was a complete game!) so there is the occasional guy who is slated to be a reliever from day one and that's likely more common now than it was back then. Quis was a special case because every pitching coach in history hated his delivery.

As you can probably tell by my avatar I would not be averse to Quis being elected.

His peak was short but it sure was spectacular. If Bruce Sutter is in, why not Quis? (I know two wrongs don't make a right, but I'm biased so I don't really care in this case...) I'm a numbers guy, not typically disposed to HOF arguments that rest on intangibles, but he was an amazing guy as well as an amazing pitcher.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I agree, and that helps my point.

I will mention that a guy I think is at least interesting as a discussion for the hall is Dan Quisenberry, and contrary to my point above, even including the minors, he only started one game in his career (though it's interesting to note that one game was a complete game!) so there is the occasional guy who is slated to be a reliever from day one and that's likely more common now than it was back then. Quis was a special case because every pitching coach in history hated his delivery.

Isn't this Hoyt Wilhelm? Wilhelm is one of the most underrated players in the HOF. He did save 228 games, but he pitched in over 1,000 games and clearly wasn't only in the game to notch the 9th.

He's also a challenge to this failed starter hypothesis. The one season they took the leash off Wilhelm led the league in ERA as a starter.

[butchie_t]

Helton is gonna make it. And that makes me happy!

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by packs

Isn't this Hoyt Wilhelm? Wilhelm is one of the most underrated players in the HOF. He did save 228 games, but he pitched in over 1,000 games and clearly wasn't only in the game to notch the 9th.

He's also a challenge to this failed starter hypothesis. The one season they took the leash off Wilhelm led the league in ERA as a starter.

oddly he WAS a failed starter in the minors, likely the typical issues of mastering the knuckler. Then prejudices against his age and his favorite pitch made teams reluctant to start him despite his success as an MLB starter.

People also forget that Gossage was an All-Star his one season as a starter, he had a fantastic first half and then fell off. He needed to learn to pace himself a little better. So, failure with an asterisk

[Chuck9788]

So who (besides Beltre) is going to get the call tomorrow?