Here are the leveraged innings results for Gossage, Smith and Sutter:


Pitcher LI Equiv. IP
Gossage 1.53 2768
Smith 1.79 2308
Sutter 1.92 2000

Now how much do we subtract from ERA+ (of your preferred stat) given the much shorter stints relievers put up vis-a-vis starters?

1) every closer has at some point in his career been a starter

We've covered this before but this proves nuttin'. Most ML players are failed SS or catchers. So what? If there's a role and they fill it, that's the deal.

Don't you mean SSs or CFers? At any rate, there's a far greater difference between a guy who gets moved from SS to LF, and a guy who gets moved from the starting rotation and thereafter only pitches 70-80 innings a year.

To answer number 201, we subtract nothing for that. That's the trade-off, fewer innings, better rate.

You can reduce the LI for 'chaining' meaning the closer isn't replaced by the replacement player, he's replaced by the setup man, who is replaced by the #2 setup man, who is replaced by a long reliever who is replaced by another long reliever who is replaced by the replacement pitcher.

In the eyes of many, Rich Gossage will look better if they write off his 1976 season as a starter.
(Only) For those who put great weight on career ERA+ [few?] and think of Gossage simply as a relief pitcher [many?], that ERA+ 126 looks bad.
Measured by innings, 1976 is one-eighth of his career; yielding runs at 110% of league-average rate. His lifetime record in relief is about 1550 innings @ 135 (that includes rounding down and up as a guestimate for 1972-74 starts).

Of course, those who prefer to line up single season ERA+ in decreasing order are all voting for Gossage now.
For those who aren't familiar with the device,
461 243 212 195 180 178 173 171 155 . . . 124

bold marks the three seasons at 133-141 innings, 1975-78.
That 124 isn't quite next in line by ERA+. It is the other one of his ten successive (and ten best) seasons in relief, 1975-1985.

Perhaps "Welcome to the Baseball Hall of Merit" can be edited to include a few links directly, such as the Plaque Room and the 2008 Election Results? I am thinking of new people who visit during the course of the year, supposing that some do arrive via the HOM home page.

That's a good idea, Paul. I'll put that on my to-do list.

Further, if they would elect Murphy,
our John Murphy wouldn't have to read annually about his peak, collapse, goody two-shoes, and so on.

I can take it like a man, Paul. ;-)

Raines,
Blyleven,
Tramell.
McGwire

Yes, with doubts,
Dawson.

Raines,
Blyleven,
Tramell.
McGwire

Yes, with doubts,
Dawson.

Is that your prelim or your actual ballot, rfloh?

1) every closer has at some point in his career been a starter

We've covered this before but this proves nuttin'. Most ML players are failed SS or catchers. So what? If there's a role and they fill it, that's the deal.

And I guess you still haven't got it:

Moving from SS to catcher to another position means you are still a full-time player contributing to team in a major way.

Moving from starting pitcher to back-up pitcher means that you become a part-time player who contributes very little in terms of quantity. Quality it obviously higher because you throw about 1/7 as many pitches per appearance and you never face a batter more than once.

If a shortstop were to move from a regular to a utility infielder then you could compare that change to moving from starting pitcher to back-up pitcher.

A Hall without any pitchers (or only the top 0.3%) would be pretty unrepresentative of major league baseball history and pretty boring in my opinion.

Maybe kwarren wants to remind readers that he is talking about current closers with much of his rhetoric - and not Fingers of Gossage or other predecessors?

120 to 140 IP of kick-ass pitching is a lot different than 70 to 80 such innings.

Blyleven
Raines
Concepcion

are the only deserving !!!!!!!!

120 to 140 IP of kick-ass pitching is a lot different than 70 to 80 such innings.

Gossage did that three times. He only had one other relief season of more than 100 IP. His career looks like three kickass seasons (surrounding one season of below average work as a starter), plus a whole bunch of Mike Timlin-like ones. That doesn't scream HOFer to me.

Hypothesis: Goose Gossage = Mike Timlin

"Kick ass years"

Goose

1975 211 ERA+ in 141.2 IP
1977 246 in 133
1978 181 in 134.1

Timlin--no years of 150 in 100 IP

"Mike Timlin years," meaning his best years--either 150 ERA+ or 100 IP

Timlin

1991 133 in 108.1
1995 220 in 42
1998 157 in 79.1

Gossage--6 years in the general vicinity though most of them are quite a bit better, and this is after peeling off Goose's best 3 years.

1979 156 in 58.1
1980 173 in 99 better than Timlin's 1991 or 1998
1981 464 in 46.2 compare to Timlin's 1995
1982 179 in 93 gosh 7 IP short of the magic number
1983 172 in 87.1 better than Timlin's 1991 or 1998
1985 194 in 79 better than Timlin's 1991 or 1998

So, yeah, take Mike Timlin's 2 best years. Goose had 1 year (1979) about as good as Timlin's top 3 years, and 8 years that were better than any of them, depending on how you view Timlin's 220.

And now, the real actual typical "Mike Timlin years"

1996 137 in 56.2
1997 142 in 72.2
1999 132 in 63
2000 116 in 64.2
2001 104 in 72.2
2002 132 in 96.2


Gossage

1984 123 in 102.1 a Timlin year plus 30-40 innings
1987 127 in 52 a Timlin year
1989 121 in 58 a Timlin year
1991 113 in 40.1 ok, a few innings short of a Timlin year
1992 132 in 38
1994 117 in 47.1

Okay, so if I eliminate Goose' best 9 years, yeah, his career starts to look a little bit like Mike Timlin's.

It also helps your argument when you eliminate Timlin's 202 in 2004 from consideration.

I specifically acknowledged the three monster 130-inning years, which is something Timlin never came close to. Beyond that, his career kind of resembles the rest of Timlin's, at least to me.

#202 - I'm not sure that this is entirely true. The neccesity to adjust for relievers pitching at improved effectiveness depends on the usage. I'm fairly confident that it is required whenever calculating value over replacement - (which is the most common and useful calculation).

Also, most uses of chaining don't perform the adjustment by changing the LI but the baseline for comparison to that of a "replacement level closer" - then moving said closer into the set-up slot and so on.

To be clear, I wasn't remotely suggesting Gossage = Timlin, as your hypothesis claimed. I said Gossage had three monster years + a career like Timlin's.

Put those three monster seasons (plus the one ineffective starting season aside, which bolsters his IP at the expense of his ERA+) and you have:

Timlin - 1155 innings. Gossage 1146.


So I took each pitchers top IP year and his corresponding ERA+.

In those 16 seasons (I eliminated Gossage's smallest two IP seasons, which by the time Timlin is done, might not be necessary), you have:

Timlin had eight seasons better than Goose, Goose had eight seasons better than Timlin.

Goose had three seasons where he had a big advantage (including his two 90-inning seasons, a 72-inning season. His biggest edge was in his abbreviated 46.7 inning season when he had a ridiculous 461 ERA+.)

Timlin had five seasons of big advantages, most notably his 80-inning season that you excluded from your original analysis. He also had an enormous advantage in a 42-inning season, though again, that's muted considerably by the small number of IP.

Looking at the numbers side by side (without the four aforementioned seasons), and I feel like my original statement is correct. Goose does look a lot like Timlin plus his three tremendous seasons of 130-plus innings. Maybe that looks like a HOFer to you. It doesn't to me.

Can't edit, but that graph regarding Goose's big advantages should have said five seasons, not three.

Crap. More edits. It's actually 17 seasons (so I excluded Gossage's bottom season). I called one season a tie, though Timlin threw nine more innings with an ERA+ of 131 to Goose's 127.

Guys, if you posted a ballot here but not on the Ballot Thread, it wont be counted. No ifs, ands or buts.

Timlin had eight seasons better than Goose, Goose had eight seasons better than Timlin.

How do you figure? Goose 9 years > 150 ERA+, Timlin 3.

Guys, if you are relying on innings pitched (IP) and adjusted ERA (ERA+), and you writing down the annual numbers for both (perhaps in some clevely declining order) --
--you may as well write them down inside a spreadsheet program and calculate aggregate ERA+ along with aggregate IP

How do you figure? Goose 9 years > 150 ERA+, Timlin 3.

Sunny, was my point really that confusing? I said Goose had three seasons unlike anything Timlin did. Not counting those three monster 130-inning seasons (or the 200-plus innings as an ineffective starter), the rest of his career looks like the seasons Mike Timlin has put up. Similar innings, Goose with a few more plus 150 seasons, Timlin with a few more plus 130 seasons.

Now, if I were actually comparing Mike Timlin's career to Goose's, excluding those three seasons would be foolish. But I wasn't, and I thought it was pretty obvious. I said "His career looks like three kickass seasons (surrounding one season of below average work as a starter), plus a whole bunch of Mike Timlin-like ones."

And I only brought it because Howie's post and others seem to suggest these 130-inning seasons were the norm for Goose. They weren't. They represented three years of his career. Now to you and others, those three years of outstanding pitching at 130-innings or more, plus his success as a reliever with a usage pattern and results not unlike Mike Timlin's, may make him a HOFer in your book. They don't to me.

Guys, if you are relying on innings pitched (IP) and adjusted ERA (ERA+), and you writing down the annual numbers for both (perhaps in some clevely declining order) --
--you may as well write them down inside a spreadsheet program and calculate aggregate ERA+ along with aggregate IP

A conclusion I myself arrived at WAY too late. :=)

I conclude from this discussion that Mike Timlin's accomplishments are underappreciated. He's just three lights-out, top-10 seasons by a relief pitcher ever away from being a worthy candidate for the Hall of Merit.

"And I only brought it because Howie's post and others seem to suggest these 130-inning seasons were the norm for Goose. They weren't."

Well, that's not what I was suggesting.

Bless you, Chris Cobb.

After Rich Gossage's first five seasons, concluding with a great one in relief and a mediocre one starting, the great season (1975) stands out for the tiny number of HR and huge number of IBB.

HR -- 3 in 141 innings, otherwise 31 in ~450 innings
IBB -- 15 in 141 innings, otherwise 15 in ~450

That 1975 HR rate is down by a factor of 3 and the IBB rate is up by a factor of 3 (and more than double his career IBB rate).

Soshially, yes, I don't get it. What you seem to be saying is Goose's string of 150-170 ERA+ seasons (after you set aside his big 3 kick as years) are not distinguishable from Timlin's string of 130-150 years. I don't think they are. I don't think it's just those 3 years that are different, it's the rest, too.

I was bored, so I went ahead and did the math for y'all:

If you exclude 1975-78 - Goose's 3 best seasons as a reliever plus his one season as a starter - he appeared in 774 games (8 starts), 1,176.1 innings, 964 K, an ERA of 3.24, ERA+ of 117, with a record of 85-62, 230 saves.

Mike Timlin, for his career, has appeared in 1,011 games (9 more than Gossage in his career), 1,155 innings, 840 K, an ERA of 3.55, ERA+ of 128, with a record of 71-69, 140 saves.

If you toss out Goose's first 3 seasons, too, then his career from 1979 - 1994 looks like the following:

679 games (0 starts), 957-1/3 innings, 810 K, 2.86 ERA, 135 ERA+, with a record of 74-51, 227 saves.