Mike Green's Evaluating Closers - Part 2 examines four Hall of Fame pitchers known at least primarily for their relieving. Of the four, who least deserves the HOF plaque?
| Dennis Eckersley |  3 (2.27%) |
| Rollie Fingers | 20 (15.15%) |
| Bruce Sutter | 51 (38.64%) |
| Hoyt Wilhelm | 20 (15.15%) |
| Shut up. They all deserve it! | 38 (28.79%) |
To me Sutter has no place in the HOF. Among the closers of his era he was low in IP and low in career length, compared to those after him he is low in years and low in saves. Unless you think he created the split finger pitch (he didn't) or the 'modern role of closer' I just don't see how he gets in.
Sutter - 1042 IP, 136 ERA+, 661 games, 300 saves, 12 seasons
Doug Jones - 1128 IP, 130 ERA+, 846 games, 303 saves, 16 seasons
If you are that close to Doug Jones then you have no place in the HOF.
As an FYI - the guys who voters put below Sutter...
Goose - 1809 IP, 126 ERA+, 1002 games, 310 saves, 22 seasons
Lee Smith - 1289 IP, 132 ERA+, 1022 games, 478 saves, 18 seasons
Either of them would've been a far better choice.
Suter is not even particularly close to HOF IMO. 1042 IP is such a low number that you have to be incredibly dominant (I mean Eric Gagne 2003 type of dominant) in order to make it. It's 3 years worth of innings for Walter Johnson, 3 and a half for Tom Seaver and four for Oral Hershiser. In comparison Gooden was pretty dominant from 1984 until about 1990 a span of about 1500 IP. Johan Santana is at 1089.7 IP. Is he a HOFer yet? How about Roy Oswalt. And the argument that closing is different is correct only in the sense that it is easier to be dominant as a closer. You don't need endurence, you don't need to pace yourself, and you don't need a number of good pitches. Maybe the worst HOF elect in my memory but the worst of it is I fear now an endless stream of good closers.
Very few people have suggested that Dave Stieb belongs in the Hall of Fame. I think that he is perhaps 3 seasons of average pitching short. But, Stieb was a much more valuable pitcher than Sutter, in my view.
What are the arguments that Sutter was more valuable?
I've heard this argument before, but I don't really think it holds water. My understanding (based mostly on what I've read from Steve Treder at BTF and The hardball times) is that when the Hall of Fame opened, Fame had a different meaning, and really did mean Hall of the Best or something similar.
If "fame" was supposed to be important, why would baseball not allow fans to vote, as they do for the All-Star game? Or to take another example, consider Luis Tiant and Bruce Sutter. Tiant was better, and if the vote was held widely enough, probably more popular and famous. The writers have a pretty narrow view of fame.
Heck, if you are going for fame then put Dwight Gooden and Fernando Valenzuela in. They were far more famous than any other pitchers were in the 80's. Take Don Sutton out, along with a few others who most didn't notice during their careers unless they played for a team you followed closely. Hideo Nomo should be looking at a plaque as well, as should Mark 'The Bird' Fidrych.
The HOF was put in place to provide a way to put fame onto people who deserved it, not to provide a place to honour those already famous. Most will fit both categories (Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Cal Rikpen Jr., etc.) but there are many like Arky Vaughn who are forgotten by fans and need something to bring them fame well after they have gone.
So by the Hall's own criteria, I see nothing about "fame" as it is currently defined. I still think it's a bit silly to worry about. If the writers want to vote in some strange ones once in a while, that's up to them.
Certainly the present closers should be in the Hall. Its tough for a relief pitcher to get in, in the first place. The reason I put Eckersley as the least deserving was that unlike guys like Gossage or Lee Smith, Eckersley first found his role late on a very good offensive team. The "A's" were the dominant dynastic team of that period. The rest of the western AL teams were weak. Also he began relieving exactly when steroids first came into baseball on a team that was littered by juicers.
The "A's" of that time were also managed by Tony La Russa who changed pitchers faster than a fashion model changed clothes. Simply put. Again sourcing out the history of steroids he played on the same team that Canseco and McGwire played on. One common thread about the spread of steroids in baseball is that many of the users were from teams managed by Tony LaRussa. McGwire played for LaRussa in both Oakland and in St. Louis. Hmmm. The plot thickens to a milky white cream.
Look at the numbers. When Eckersley left Chicago this was a pitcher on the way out. The curve was more of a laser, and his fastball couldn't kill a canary. Then he went to, what is on paper, simply the most powerful offensive team ever constructed (or injected). Out of all the relievers of his time period Eckersley did have more chances per season in the weak AL West division which was the weakest division in baseball at that time. He also thrived on a team which history has proven to have most of the HOF quality players which have been tainted by steriods.
Eck would also come in with only one or two outs left in the ninth. I mean when I saw Eck in Chicago, he was at the end of his pitching career. He hung curves and threw a fast ball clocked by a sundial. When he got to Oakland, it was either the bull pen or the golf course. Then yes a total coincidence... A MIracle!
Compare that with Smith, and Gossage. If Lee Smith was at the "A's" and Eckersley remained with the Cubs we'd be sitting here discussing why Smith was the least deserving. If in one of those rare occassions the Cubbies did have the lead into the ninth Smith would be overpowering. It was a lock. Playing for the Cubs hurt Smith despite playing on other teams later and he didn't flourish in any chance in the post season.
Gossage was scary. Very, very scary. When he came into the game toddlers cried. Horrified parents sent kids to bed and sagely advised teens not to do this at home. Gossage played on a decent team but remember that team was in a tough division with the Orioles, Tigers, Red Sox, et al. He simply did not get the same chances over the life time of his closing career and came up against more great hitters in the regular season. When he did so he had to face formidable lineups in almost every meaningful game. If you look at his record compared with the rest of the Hall of Famers, why on earth isn't he in the HOF.
Rollie Fingers played on a very good offensive team(s) through the height of his relieving career. Sutter on the other hand played on only one good teams to let him see enough chances for a good save percentage. He made the most of his trip to the WS. And the name. That's what does it. To get into the HOF have a name the press likes.
An interesting point, that everyone on the A's of the late 80's who had a surge has to be put in doubt due to the fact steroids were there and had a big time pusher/success story (at the time) in Canseco.
Guys who jumped in performance were...
Dave Stewart - through '86 had a 3.96 ERA, 97 ERA+ then won 20 for 4 straight years with ERA+ of 113/117/111/145
Eck - through '86 had a 110 ERA+ 3.67 ERA, 2.96 ERA 136 ERA+ from age 32 on.
Hrm. Not seeing much else really. And while both stand out, are they really that big a shock? Stewart was league average then climbed up a bit but not by an amazing amount. Eck was a far better starter than I remembered and in his 3 years prior to Oakland had ERA+'s of 111/130/89. Perhaps his last year in Chicago was just something under the old 'you cant predict pitchers' axiom.
I just don't see a big 'all of Oakland was on steroids' smoking gun here. McGwire & Canseco had the look, some others had late peaks but nothing that looks like the tail end of Barry Bonds career.