Goose Gossage Newest Member of Hall of Fame

I agree that the opinion of other players carries a tremendous amount of weight. I've referenced that before in regards to candidates. I think the opinion of an opponent, a teammate, an opposing manager, etc. carries more weight than the beat writer for the Palookaville Gazette or the Online Auction editor of Baseball Card Weekly. :BangHead:

 

Tom, We agree here.

 

Really? You thought that about Lee Smith? He never once gave me that impression during his career. Sutter did. Gossage did (for a few years on the Yankees in the late 70's). The Quiz did. Jeff Reardon did for a few years. Never Lee Smith, though. He was a saves compiler and nothing else.

 

Actually, I trust the opinion of other baseball players much, much less than outside observers. 1) Ball players out of respect and not wanting to hurt feelings will oftentimes say, yes, that guy deserves to be in. 2) Ball players will often trump up the careers of their teammates because of their love of the good ole days - ala Johnny Bench politicking for Davey...and Tony.

No, ball players are among the least reliable sources when it comes to determining Hall status.

 

OK, I was exaggerating on Reardon. They were both saves compilers.

 

I think the "saves compiler" argument is an overuse of a term. Part of this would be determined by how the pitchers were used by the managers, here. Some are reluctant to use their 'closer' unless the game is at least tied or there is a lead for their team. Others almost refuse to use them for more than one innning or two, at most, if the game goes into extra innings. I think ERA and ERA differential and WHIP are more relevant than saves, personally, given that 'saves' is a somewhat ubiquitous concept, at best.

As to who may have been the most intimidating, or at least "looked" or appeared the most imposing, there is little question that Rich Gossage and Lee Smith were at or near the top of the list. There is little question that Sparky Lyle, Dan Quisenberry and rail-thin Kent Tekulve with his "aviator sunglasses" did not appear anywhere as imposing as the aforementioned two.

But check the overall stats: Not much difference, in any of them. And regardless whether one stayed slightly "back on his heels" in fear of a '"wayward" 95 MPH fast ball' that headed for the chin, in the case of Rich Gossage or Lee Smith, and waved weakly at a breaking "Strike Three"; or could dig in "like the Maginot Line" against Bruce Sutter, Kent Tekulve, Sparky Lyle, or Dan Quisenberry and hit a relatively hard three hop ground ball to the second baseman or shortsop; the last sound the would-be hitter usually heard from the from the Umpire was "Yer out!"

Case closed on yet another batter!

Notetworthy, to me, is the total number of games collectively "lost" by all these pitchers below (851 'losses' out of 11,391 games pitched in, ain't bad in baseball). No 10 starters would achieve this ratio, IMO.

Here are a few stats for some retired relievers I mentioned above, alphabetically, with John Franco and Jeff Reardon tossed in, since the names have been mentioned a time or two: (Rich Gossage and Bruce Sutter are already in the HOF.)

Franco: 21 yr.; 1119 G; 1245 IP; 87 L; 424 sv; 2.89 ERA; 1.07 *lgERA Dif.; 137 *ERA+; 1.333 WHIP

Gossage: 22 yr.; 1002 G; 1809 IP; 107 L; 310 sv; 3.01 ERA; .77 *lgERA Dif.; 126 *ERA+; 1.232 WHIP

Lyle: 16 yr.; 899 G; 1390 IP; 76 L; 238 sv; 2.88 ERA; .79 *lgERA Dif.; 127 *ERA+; 1.275 WHIP

Quisenberry: 12 yr.; 674 G; 1043 IP; 46 L; 244 sv; 2.76 ERA; 1.27 *lgERA Dif.; 146 *ERA+; 1.175 WHIP

Reardon: 16 yr.; 880 G; 1132 IP; 77 L; 367 sv; 3.16 ERA; .67 *lgERA Dif.; 121 *ERA+; 1.199 WHIP

Smith: 18 yr.; 1022 G; 1289 IP; 92 L; 478 sv; 3.03 ERA; .94 *lgERA Dif.; 131 *ERA+; 1.256 WHIP

Sutter: 12 yr,; 661 G; 1043 IP; 71 L; 300 sv; 2.83 ERA; 1.02 *lgERA Dif.; 136 *ERA+; 1.140 WHIP

Tekulve: 16 yr.; 1050 G; 1436 IP; 90 L; 184 sv; 2.85 ERA; .91 *lgERA Dif.; 132 *ERA+; 1.250 WHIP

Two very good relievers the HOF ain't never gonna' happen for, IMO, are Jesse Orosco, and Tug McGraw: (Orosco hurt his chances badly, IMO, by hanging around five years too long, w/ one good year of the five, hence lowering his erstwhile gaudy stats considerably.) Here's their stats:

Orosco: 24 yr.; 1252 G; 1295 IP; 80 L; 144 sv; 3.16 ERA; .80 *lgERA Dif.: 125 *ERA+; 1.263 WHIP

McGraw: 19 yr.; 824 G; 1514 IP; 92 L; 180 sv; 3.14 ERA; .51 *lgERA Dif.; 116 *ERA+; 1.254 WHIP

And two currently playing HOF 'locks', IMO, Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera:

Hoffman: 15 yr.; 882 G; 942 IP; 60 L; 524 sv; 2.73 ERA; 1.29 *lgERA Dif.; 147 *ERA+; 1.049 WHIP

Rivera: 13 yr.; 787 G; 953 IP; 44 L; 443 sv; 2.35 ERA; 2.21 *lgERA Dif.; 194 *ERA+; 1.046 WHIP

Just for some comparison(s).

My opinion of the ones who definitely 'belong' are underlined, in the above, and the leaders in each category are in 'Black bold' above; :thumbs:

Second place is 'bolded Blue'. :thumbsup:

(This holds for both current and former players. Although: Granted, a couple of stats do not 'translate' well, directly.)

The worst for each stat is bolded in 'Rust'.

I put the names of three (thru today) "short" careers in Green.
I did not list current players for the HOF.

My overall point is that none of this is as "cut and dried" as some would have it, and is highly subjective, at best. And I suggest one can make a case both for and against all the above.

One sad final note: Dan Quisenberry died in 1998 at the young age of 45 from brain cancer.

I apologize for the long statistical post, and do not plan to post again in this thread. Thanks for your indulgence.

Ed

 

I think Hoffman and Rivera will make it for sure.

 

Ed, no apologies are necessary. Very good analysis. Because of what I call the "Paris Hilton" effect, Hoffman is probably a HOF lock in the eyes of some. He has the gaudy number. But beyond that, he and Quiz are pretty level.

True. Though in all our minds, we have some who believe are stone cold locks that others would not.

Well, the fact that he compiled the saves makes him such. You want to see a reliever who you can touch up, not a guy who's going to slam the door. Maybe Smith didn't slam it as hard as Sutter (Definitely) or Quiz, but he got the job done.

I was referring in general, but I do get where you're coming from. There is a fraternity-effect. However, are you going to tell me that the assistant beat writer for the Palookaville Press knows more about who is feared on the basepaths than an opposing P or C? Whose arm is more feared from RF? I'm not saying sportswriters cannot make an informed opinion. I'm not saying all players put thought into their opinions of other players. But I am sayiing that a great player's estimation of another should carry something to it. Who knows more about the current mortgage industry? The mortgage underwriters/analysts, or the Business section editor of the local paper? To discount the former and to herald the latter on spec is just one of the things that irks me about popular culture.

I've never heard players trumpet players much for the HOF. That's for the voters to decide, they will politely say. But when you have some actively campaigning, then there must be something there. Maybe it's team bias. Or maybe it's an appreciation of something that some refuse to see. An opinion is just an opinion, but some opinions are more informed than others. But as I said, I don't think you're completely off your rocker here.

 

I hadn't checked your post, Tom, to know what you meant by that, and now that I do, I realize that I completely misunderstood what you meant. Thanks for the explanation. No issues. :wavey:

 

I've heard, and read, Joe Morgan do this quite a bit for his Big Red Machine teammates, such as Davey.

 

(I've heard Joe say things, but never saw them in print from him, unless my memory is just failing me.)

Well, Joe Morgan loves the sound of his own voice. While occasionally insightful, he is sometimes quite aloof and always self-promoting. I wouldn't be surprised to hear him trumpet Caesar Geronimo or Dan Driessen if it meant Morgan got airtime....

I can hear Morgan claiming Geronimo should be in because so few native Americans should be in :laugh: (He's from the Dominican Republic, for those who don't know). Or that Driessen should be in as an Italian American (he's black).

Speaking of Geronimo, he came over with Davey in the trade that helped finish building the BRM.

Okay, my A.D.D. is over

 

I disagree with you here. Writers have been know to not vote for a player for MVP or the HOF because they didn't care for him. In Boston is was known that many of the writer wouldn't vote for Williams at times, even when he went into the HOF one or two Boston writers were saying they didn't vote for him and there are other players who the writers didn't care for and that was back in the 40's, 50's and 60's. If you read are listen to the writers of today they are worst, the player by some either can't do any wrong or can't do anything good. There are very few objective writers or radio talk jocks, most are pushing their self as being so far ahead of everyone else.

 

Well, I'm not saying the writers are all squeaky-clean when it comes to voting, either. But not all of them completely biased. We all come to this with certain biases - players, fans and media folk.

 

How can you claim Lee Smith should be in and then disparage Hoffman for that "gaudy number" of saves? Hoffman's stats are way better than Smith's (relative ERA and WHIP). Hoffman also gets bonus points for doing it for one team and not being shipped all over the league like Smith was (that says something about one's value, doesn't it?)

And how can you compare Hoffman with Quisenberry when Hoffman has performed at such a high level for more than twice the length than Quisenberry? Quisenberry's career was too short to be considered a Hall of Famer, IMO. Because relief pitchers contribute so little in the amount of innings pitched, they can't rely on a few great seasons to get in - they need to buttress their value with at least some longevity.

Merely getting "the job done" is not a compelling argument for Hall status. I think Smith is close to Hall status but not quite there. I guess I have a higher standard for relievers, since they contribute little compared to a quality starter, for instance. People make fun of DH's for being one dimensional. Well, I think the same can apply to relief pitchers.

 

You'll find them in Joe's ESPN chats. The answers are dissected and made fun of on that website I told you about a few months ago. It's the one I can't link to because there are a fair number of cuss words on it. These are comments from Joe's chat on August 29th.

That's just one example of Joe promoting Davey for the HOF, and there's an allusion by KT that those promotions happen quite a bit from Joe.

 

I'll give Andy T. credit where credit is due. His mis-statements got me to change my mind about posting again in this thread.

"I believe yer' oughter' do some more practicin' on yer' cipherin', boy!" as 'Uncle Jed' might have said to Jethro on The Beverly Hillbillies.

There is no way that 15 years is more than twice as long as 12 years; nor 882 games over that 15 year span equals more than twice as long as 674 games over a 12 year span, in anybody's book. Not to mention, Dan Quisenberry pitched 100 more innings in 3 fewer years and 200+ fewer games than has Trevor Hoffman. Your math simply doesn't add up, here.

Here are the stats I previously quoted:

Quisenberry: 12 yr.; 674 G; 1043 IP; 46 L; 244 sv; 2.76 ERA; 1.27 *lgERA Dif.; 146 *ERA+; 1.175 WHIP
Hoffman: 15 yr.; 882 G; 942 IP; 60 L; 524 sv; 2.73 ERA; 1.29 *lgERA Dif.; 147 *ERA+; 1.049 WHIP

Sutter : 12 yr.; 661 G; 1043 IP; 71 L; 300 sv; 2.83 ERA; 1.02 *lgERA Dif.; 136 *ERA+; 1.140 WHIP

(The stats of Bruce Sutter are here included both for comparison and for the comments you made below.)

The only 'stat' that is ridiculously above any other, is the number of saves credited Hoffman, here; the only stat that is ridiculously below any other is the total innings pitched compared to the number of games pitched. Hoffman has averaged a whopping 1.07 innings per outing, compared to 1.55 for Quisenberry and 1.57 for Sutter.

Granted, it is difficult to do, but Trevor Hoffman has actually been able to make Bruce Sutter and Dan Quisenberry look like Christy Mathewson and Walter Johnson, and actually make Rich Gossage (at 1.80 innings per outing) look like "Iron-Man" McGinnity, by comparison.

See the above comparisons of Bruce Sutter and Dan Quisenberry. If Dan Quisenberry's career was not worthy to be considered a Hall-of-Famer, then neither was that of Bruce Sutter. Period!

And Dan Quisenberry actually gets a very miniscule nod on overall stats vs. Bruce Sutter. (They pitched the exact same number of innings over 12 years in the majors, even- that is how close they are in stats.)

A 're-inventing' and modifying of the old ElRoy Face "forkball" into the "Split-finger" fastball, does not a HOFer, as in Bruce Sutter, make!

Nor does the 're-invention' and reappearance of the Ewell (The Whip) Blackwell 'submarine' pitch merit HOF status, as in that of Kent Tekulve and Dan Quisenberry, either.

But the overall numbers of Bruce Sutter, Dan Quisenberry, Kent Tekulve, and a couple more, given their roles and excellence in those roles DO merit the HOF.

Sutter is there, as he rightfully should be. Quisenberry and Tekulve among those I mentioned above deserve it just as much! And barring a complete disintegration of his skills, and still hanging around for another decade to destroy all his credibility, so will Hoffman.

Ed

 

Wow, Ed - sorry about that. I hadn't checked Quis's stats (was going off memory and forgot about your previous post). I forgot that he pitched so much. His career was more impressive than I thought. FWIW, I think Hoffman is a marginal candidate at this point (although he still may have a few years left). Yes, he's been a good saves compiler, but not as dominate as M. Rivera, who I would put in for sure. Therefore, since Hoffman is marginal, I see Quis as marginal, and Tekulve below marginal (since his stats aren't quite on par as either of them).

 

I've never really argued for Smith being in. I've never really said he shouldn't be, either. I'm totally neutral. And how was I disparaging Hoffman's huge save number? Where did I do that?

I wouldn't quibble with Hoffman having better head-to-head numbers. I've never done the "man vs. era" comparison because I just see Smith as being, well, you'd call him marginal. Smith is in a class that I believe wouldn't kill the HOF but he's not exactly begging for inclusion, either.

I never said it was. I just said he was in a group that made me think that the game was pretty much done. He was a door-slammer. Not to the extent Sutter was - nowhere near it. But still a door-slammer. But I never said that was a plank to get him in the HOF. Stop spending so much time ordering your 2008 Tigers' WS tickets and actually read the posts, buddy :smilewinkgrin:

Speaking of the Tigers and relievers, how about Doug Jones? If he were more consistent, he could be as dominant as anyone in the game. I'd take him, since the Reds lost that great closer Eddie Guardado :tonofbricks: I still think Krivksky may have a legit beef about his medical records prior to the trade, but I digress......

Agreed, pretty much.

I agree that DHs are unfairly sullied. I disagree that they are apples and apples, relative to RPs. When an RP closer comes into the game, the game is on the line. The DH doesn't affect the outcome of the game by definition and presence as much as the closer. The closer either saves or blows the save. That's a game decider. Does that put them into HOF status by default? Of course not. But it means there's another factor to consider when discussing the merits of a closer, especially HOF merits.

I'll have to check that site again (if nothing else, for laughs). Joe promoting Davey is likely hurting Davey's candidacy if Joe is up to some of his logical riffing

Like it or not, I think Hoffman is in just because of the saves. As far as his dominance compared to Rivera, I wonder how "dominant" Rivera would be conisdered if he racked up the same stats with Detroit, Cincinnati, or, well, any team not named the Yankees. If Rivera is in, Hoffman should probably go as well (I don't have a problem with either). I agree that Quis and Smith are on the fence, and think Tekulve is not HOF matl. FWIW, of course

 

I thought you conceded earlier that Smith should be in. I also saw you refer to saves as "gaudy", which sounded disparaging to me.

You mean, Todd Jones. My lands, the guy is an adventure. He blew some massive leads in '07. Overall, I would give him a B-. He does not have dominating stuff, but he has good control. If his control is off, he is like a BP pitcher.

I think we tend to overrrate the 9th inning. What about the setup guy who comes in the 7th inning and puts out a rally? He gets no glory, no wonderful stat (the "hold" stat is not that sexy). Many times the closer gets a save under a less stressful situation than the setup guy had to deal with. Or what about the 3rd inning when the starter buckles down to keep the game close?

I agree that Hoffman will make it, and I won't have a problem with it, esp. if he pitches another quality year or so. I like the fact that he has stayed with one team. For me, that aspect gives him bonus points over a guy who jumps around a lot.

I see your point about Rivera being on the Yankees, but unfortunately, we don't have a comparable player to him that has played in a smaller market. Rivera has been dominant in the regular season and postseason. He gets in easily, and I would vote for him.