"The Lloyd Waners and Freddie Lindstroms of the world don't enter into this equation."

I agree Mike, I said throw out the 60 mistakes and use that as your minimum standard. There are 220 or so Hall of Famers right now. Many more than half are not mistakes.

The argument, it seems, is that those who turn in blank ballots are voting poorly, not that there's something inherently wrong with turning in a blank ballot. There were those who deserved to be elected this year (although Sutter was not one of them), and so a blank ballot is a mistake, just like voting for Steve Garvey is a mistake. But it is not a different kind of mistake, it just means that the voter didn't weigh the candidate's credentials properly.

What is a reliever except for a failed starter?

What is a second baseman except for a failed shortstop?

OK, not exactly the same, but just because a reliever would be more valuable as a starter who did the same thing doesn't mean that he's not valuable or that any successful starter would be better as a reliever than him. Some of the best relievers are guys who are dominant early in their appearances but become less effective as they go on. There are many, many relievers like this, and if you replaced them on your team with 5th starters you'd do a lot worse.

Are closers overrated? Absolutely, but they're still valuable.

How is it legitimate to take a small Hall stance when there is no such thing as a small Hall? Such an animal does not exist. Why should the modern player be subject to tougher inclusion standards? The whole Small HallTM thing is ridiculous.

So current writers are forced to vote a certain way just because previous writers and veterans committees did?

Trammell? Make a case that he is more deserving than Dawson. ...no MVPs...

The MVP travesties of 1987 have cast a long shadow.

How is it legitimate to take a small Hall stance when there is no such thing as a small Hall? Such an animal does not exist. Why should the modern player be subject to tougher inclusion standards?

It's legitimate to say, as one voter contributing to the overall voting pool, that the standard should be to the "more exclusive" side of the historical pattern, just as other voters cast ballots for Hall Frigging Morris. You want to revoke someone's ballot, let's start with the five morons who did that.

Who wouldn't vote for Ripken?

Someone who thinks he hurt his team with his self-aggrandizing, play-every-day-even-though-I'd-play-better-with-a-day-off, attitude?

Someone who is casting a protest vote because of Pete Rose, or Alan Trammell?

Using MVP winners to help determine HOF credentials is just letting someone else (MVP voters) vote for you. Did he ever DESERVE to win the MVP is the more important question.

Blyleven might be better than a lot of HOFers, but he's certainly not inner circle; a small-Hall voter might be taking a legitimate stand for exclusivity by saying no to him.

Another case of where I wish we could see the ballots. I'd love to know if the guy that hands in a blank ballot this year voted for Fingers, Sutton, Perry, etc.

I.E, I want to know if he's legitimately a "Small-Hall" guy or if he just has a particular problem with this year's ballot.

Who wouldn't vote for Ripken?

I wouldn't, but that's just out of blind bias.

That's an apt way to put it.

Ripken was not all that popular among the community of sportswriters while he was active, especially before The Streak became his story. And there will be a handful who, knowing that he's going to get in anyway, will leave him off their ballot for that reason. It doesn't take that many votes like that (10-15) to make up 2% of the electorate, which would knock him below Seaver. And with the writers being able to hide behind anonymity, I fully expect that to happen.

Yes, I think the ballots should be published.

-- MWE

Joe...thanks for the link...I have to admit to being mainly an NL fan during Trammells era...did not see much of Trammell and he never really had the flash to get a lot of media attention. I just look at his career numbers and do not see much there...he probably gets hurt a lot because he had to compete with Ripken...take Ripken out of the AL and maybe Trammell has a half dozen more allstar appearances and he gets more recognition.

I think Trammel might have a pretty good case, but Whitaker has a slightly better one.

You know who has a better case than either of them? Bobby Grich.

"If you can't find one player to vote for, your ballot should be revoked.

You're certainly not lacking in pretentiousness."

Not lacking at all. I'm very pretentious about it. The "Small HallTM" thing reeks of pretentiousness.

I think it's pretentious to say that modern players should be held to a higher standard than those already in the Hall of Fame. Sure there are mistakes, the friends of Frankie Frisch, the Tommy McCarthy's, I'm not saying put everyone over that level in. But at least 70% of the people in there are legit. To move the standards now, after 70 years, is not defensible.

The ex-Cub thing could go for quite a while:

2007 - Santo
2008 - Dawson
2009 - Smith
2010 - McGriff
2011 - ???
2012 - Raffy(retires after 2005)
2013 - Sosa(retires after 2006. Could swap with Raffy)
2014 - Maddux(retires after 2007)

No way Maddux doesn't get in on the first ballot. Raffy and Sosa I could see slipping a year because of the steroid issue, but Maddux gets in easily on the first ballot in 2013 if he retires after 2007.

So current writers are forced to vote a certain way just because previous writers and veterans committees did?

Yes, just as current players are evaluated based upon the baselines established by the players before them.

Some of the best relievers are guys who are dominant early in their appearances but become less effective as they go on. There are many, many relievers like this, and if you replaced them on your team with 5th starters you'd do a lot worse.

Are closers overrated? Absolutely, but they're still valuable.

Sure, but Hall-of-Fame valuable?

Remember, we're not comparing Bruce Sutter to bad or even average starters - we're comparing him to Hall-of-Fame-caliber starters, judging whether or not he belongs with them.

I think Blyleven's case is borderline, but it's light-years better than any pure reliever's.

While I'm not crazy about Sutter's induction, I can't get very upset about it, for 3 reasons:

1) I want to see the HoF honor players, and by their standards, more recent eras are underrepresented. Better that a not-quite-deserving candidate get in than no one does.

2) Getting Sutter out of the way makes it more likely that Gossage (who truly deserves it) will be elected.

3) I don't really think that Sutter's election will be used as a basis to elect other undeserving candidates, primarily because there just aren't borderline reliever candidates out there. Here's the upcoming possibiles:

John Franco - Won't come close. Even Mets fans don't think he's worthy.
Mariano Rivera - Was going in anyway.
Trevor Hoffman - A definite maybe.
John Smoltz - Not really comparable, he's in the Dennis Eckersley Department.
Billy Wagner - I really don't see him coming close, unless he gets a lot of attention with the Mets. He has a lot of saves at this point, but that doesn't seem to mean much (see Lee Smith).

So, leaving Smoltz out of it, when you look at the 90s-00s era, there are at most 2 relief pitchers getting into the Hall. Even if Hoffman did make it with a boost from Sutter as a comparable, I don't see how you could see that as excessive.

I hear this guy won't vote for Ripken

The MVP travesties of 1987 have cast a long shadow.

As have the AL Cy Young decisions of '82 and '83.

Who wouldn't vote for Ripken?

Kevin Costner?

Yes, just as current players are evaluated based upon the baselines established by the players before them.

I'm sorry, but that's the most ludicrous comparison I've ever seen.

Maybe Gwynn will break Seaver's record.

"What is a reliever except for a failed starter?"

A reliever has been more than a failed starter at least on some occasions since about 1924 or so, when Firpo Marberry was used by the Senators as a relief ace/spot starter to help them win a World Series.

Once reliever started getting paid more than utility infielders and recognized as 'first team' players (around the 1960s for most teams, though the occasional Joe Page or Jim Konstanty did very well in MVP years early), they ceased to be just failed starters. Like Larry said, 2B are almost always 'failed shortstops'. But they are also more than that. Same for relievers.

Billy Wagner is better than Hoffman. And I like Hoffman.

Plus I'm bullish on his performance with the Mets. I say he makes it. Consider this: in 9 full seasons -- excluding his cup of coffee and the injury year -- he's never had an ERA above 2.85 or an ERA+ below 140. He's never struck out few than 10 per 9 innings. He throws more 100+ MPH pitches than the rest of MLB combined. He's the best left-handed reliever in MLB history, and no one else is particularly close.

1) I want to see the HoF honor players, and by their standards, more recent eras are underrepresented. Better that a not-quite-deserving candidate get in than no one does.

More recent eras are underrepresented because the Veterans' Committee (which apparently has much lower standards than the BBWAA does) hasn't gotten a crack at them yet.

And asking all voters to be "Big Hall" guys seems a bit much. There are over 500 voters, each of which has their own criteria for the Hall. Some guys will submit blank ballots, some will vote for guys like Ozzie Guillen and Walt Weiss. In general, these sorts of discrepancies come out in the wash, which is why there's more than one voter.

If you try to make them comply with some sort of unwritten "de facto" standard, what's the point of having a vote at all? Just let everyone in who has a certain black ink score.

</i>Sutter made the split-finger popular, but he isn't the one that 'patented' it, is he? My dad said someone else was throwing it first.<i>

Many, many, many people threw it before Sutter. it was called a "forkball"- there were variations on it- some of which were the same as Sutter's. Sutter got terrific movement on it- and it wasn't a popular pitch at the time he came up-

so he said he invented it- some writers actually had tehnerve to say no you didn't- Sutter just kept saying that yes he did- later Sutter admitted that there was a pitch before him caleld a "forkball" but his pitch was "different". I remember a Baseball digest Article (probably a reprint of a newspaper article- no internet back then- Baseball Digest was how you saw what other city's columnists were writing) where he "explained" at length- without saying anything (kind of like my posts)- that his pitch was new and different. Not being a fan of his (can you tell?) my thought was what a ########.

Sadly, writers not only stopped questioning his claims of originality somewhere along the line- but they began to repeat Sutter's false claims.

Not asking them to be big Hall that would be just as bad. Just asking them to be Hall-Hall. Just uphold the standards that have been established over the last 70 years, sans the obvious mistakes, most of which were elected in the mid-40s and early 70s.

John Franco - Won't come close. Even Mets fans don't think he's worthy.

I thoroughly agree with your assessment, but just wanted to note this in passing -- am I the only person who thinks of Franco as a Red? Looking it up, he only pitched 42.4% of his career innings for Cincinaati, but it were those innings that made him a star, so I always associate him with that team.

No way Maddux doesn't get in on the first ballot. Raffy and Sosa I could see slipping a year because of the steroid issue, but Maddux gets in easily on the first ballot in 2013 if he retires after 2007.

Of course. My math was incorrect, not my assessment of Maddux chances of a first ballot election

But at least 70% of the people in there are legit.

There are people in the voting community who think differently, and they aren't necessarily "wrong" just because they have a different view of the HOF than you or I do. The idea is to let the voting community, as a collective body, impose an appropriate standard rather than imposing a pre-determined standard on the collective body. As Bill James once pointed out, it's awfully hard to define a set of standards that wouldn't have to be sunstantially changed every time the conditions under which the game is played changed, and the HOF has to a large extent avoided that pitfall.

-- MWE

U.S. Patent law does not allow one to get patents on types of baseball pitches by the way.

You can't patent something that is performed by the human body. But if you made a machine that could throw split-finger fastballs, then you've got yourself a patent!

If you ever look at the players voted in by the BBWAA, and ignore the veteran's committee decisions, you'll find that almost all deserve induction - there are few really bad selections, although Sutter is close to being as bad as they have ever done IMO. Almost every truly bad selection was put there by the Veteran's committee.

Just asking them to be Hall-Hall. Just uphold the standards that have been established over the last 70 years, sans the obvious mistakes, most of which were elected in the mid-40s and early 70s.

I submit that the voters think they are upholding those standards.

You might disagree, but again, that's why there's a vote.

If we could all agree on what the standards were, we could dismantle the whole process and just crunch the damn numbers every year.

I may have missed it, but has anyone on this thread put forward a reasonable explanation for voting for Sutter and not Gossage? How about an unreasonable explanation? Best I can figure it out, there are a lot of Cub fans among the voters (or Yankee haters). I'm sincerely open to suggestions.

I'm sorry, but that's the most ludicrous comparison I've ever seen.

Well good for you. Now, how about you back up your argument and quit being a prick.

I don't think Sutter is bad choice. He got credit for contributing the game, beyond what his player contribution was. That is reasonable, and historicly justified.

I wouldn't have voted for him, but the only I would have voted for was Trammel.

I'm not saying just use numbers Jerry. Where did I ever say that?

Tony Perez? That's a BBWAA selection (and an awful one). How is Will Clark not a better player than him.

Ralph Kiner? How is Albert Belle not his equal?

Ferguson Jenkins? How is Blyleven not his equal?

Ozzie Smith? How is Trammell not his equal? Offense counts just as much as defense - a run scored is as good as a run saved.

Rollie Fingers? How is Gossage not better?

Don't need to just crunch numbers, I'm just saying look at the other guys that have been voted in, and make that your standard.

Many, many, many people threw it before Sutter

The movie Pastime shows a fictional pitcher named Roy Dean Bream throwing it in 1957. He called it the "Bream Dream."

Admittedly the movie was made in 1991 ...

Wow. Just took a look at Sutter's and Gossage's numbers. How can you possibly vote Sutter in and not Gossage? Richard pitched twice as long with similar rate stats. Just incomprehensible.

It doesn't take that many votes like that (10-15) to make up 2% of the electorate, which would knock him below Seaver. And with the writers being able to hide behind anonymity, I fully expect that to happen.

It wouldn't take that many. Seaver was named on 425 of 430 ballots (98.84%). I doubt anyone's going to break that record, not Ripken or Gwynn. Not even Jeter.

Just uphold the standards that have been established over the last 70 years, sans the obvious mistakes,

You can make that argument, Joe, and I might agree with it. But I don't think it's so self-evidently right. First of all, I think you can make a case that none of this year's eligibles DID meet the established standard, sans "obvious mistakes," since they might have a very different view than you of the "obvious mistakes." Second, as a matter of principle, the voting standards have not always been the same. They have evolved, and changed, as your formulation suggests, over the last 70 years. You seem to want to freeze them now, and permit no more evolution as the writers change and take different views of the game.

And can someone give some background on Gossage's '76?

may have missed it, but has anyone on this thread put forward a reasonable explanation for voting for Sutter and not Gossage?

Just being a run of the mill great relief pitcher isn't enough. You need extra credit from something else. Eck, the starter, Hoyt the 1,000 year career, Sutter the Splitter... am I missing anyone?

The argument, it seems, is that those who turn in blank ballots are voting poorly, not that there's something inherently wrong with turning in a blank ballot. There were those who deserved to be elected this year (although Sutter was not one of them), and so a blank ballot is a mistake, just like voting for Steve Garvey is a mistake. But it is not a different kind of mistake, it just means that the voter didn't weigh the candidate's credentials properly.

Ok, I'll try to clarify my argument. I believe history has proven that there has never been a HOF ballot without HOF caliber players on it. Even in the past when no one has gotten elected in a certain year, players on that ballot have been elected in subsequent years. Therefore, my conclusion is that people that intentionally hand in a blank ballot are doing so for the wrong reasons. Those reasons may be a lack of understanding of statistics, an inflated sense of ego (can't let anyone in on the first ballot), or a incorrect concept of what the HOF looks like.

Whatever their reason, my view is that a voter that hands in a blank ballot has not done their job. And if you don't do your job, you shouldn't hand in a ballot at all. I understand the arguments made in favor, that if a voter doesn't feel that anyone deserves induction, then they should hand in a blank ballot. I'm just not really moved by that argument, because history has proven it wrong.

Thanks for the discussion gentlemen. I've got to go get on a plane.

so he said he invented it- some writers actually had tehnerve to say no you didn't- Sutter just kept saying that yes he did-

I would very much like to see some backup on this. As I recall it, Sutter always gave credit for inventing the pitch to Mike Roarke, a minor league pitching coach.

One other thing: Sutter signed a massive contract with the Braves after the 1984 season, and was only able to pitch one season for them before a shoulder problem sidelined him for almost two years. Many people assumed his career was over, particularly since he had made so much money, but he battled back to return as the Braves' closer in 1988 -- for half a season before Bell's palsy definitively ended his career.

So there's a little bit of the Puckett effect there, which made people feel sorry for him, combined with the courage he showed in fighting back from the shoulder injury.

I have to remind myself sometimes that people who lived through someone's career are going to have an entirely different perspective on a player than some of the kids here who know them only as a career stat line.

Now, how about you back up your argument and quit being a prick.

I like this better than "Baseball for the thinking fan" as the site's slogan.

Post 140:

Gossage manager, Paul Richards, decided he was more valuable as a starter than a reliever.

Obviously, the experiment didn't last. Nor did the manager.

Putting Hoffman ahead of Wagner was just my off-the-cuff analysis. It seems to me that for HoF relievers, reputation seems to matter more than statistics, and my impression was that Hoffman has more notoriety than Wagner.

I'll say this: I know there was somewhat of a bidding war, but this off-season didn't give me the impression of "the best left-handed reliever in MLB history" being on the open market.

Tony Perez? That's a BBWAA selection (and an awful one). How is Will Clark not a better player than him.

Ralph Kiner? How is Albert Belle not his equal?

Ferguson Jenkins? How is Blyleven not his equal?

Ozzie Smith? How is Trammell not his equal? Offense counts just as much as defense - a run scored is as good as a run saved.

Rollie Fingers? How is Gossage not better?

These are all your opinions. I might agree or disagree, but ultimately, I don't know how to say this loudly enough - there are no objective standards for the Hall of Fame.. What might seem obvious to you might not be for another. Again, this is why there is a vote.

I'm just saying look at the other guys that have been voted in, and make that your standard.

Two thoughts -

(1) There might well be reasons why voters would vote for one player and not another who might, on the surface, be the equal or better of another. A voter might believe that one candidate has intangible assets ("leadership", "clutch") that another lacks.

(2) It could well be that a certain voter agrees that certain selections in the past have been mistakes, and is determined not to make similar mistakes. Why should someone with a current ballot be bound by what some long-dead sportswriter from the 40s thought?

Joe - your comparing people to players who IMHO are the lowest rung of potential Hall of Famers. Your baseline player must be higher, otherwise you end up with the mistakes being worse than Tony Perez (say Tino) and then you baseline becomes Tino... ect...

Just being a run of the mill great relief pitcher isn't enough. You need extra credit from something else. Eck, the starter, Hoyt the 1,000 year career, Sutter the Splitter... am I missing anyone?

Gossage the stash?

Gosssage the stare?

Gossage the gophers to Brett?

(last one doesn't work)

To move the standards now, after 70 years, is not defensible.

Just saying that over and over doesn't make it true. Every voter is voting for their mental image of a "hall of famer", just as they have for 70 years. I can't blame guys for not being impressed by this year's ballot.

Just being a run of the mill great relief pitcher isn't enough. You need extra credit from something else. Eck, the starter, Hoyt the 1,000 year career, Sutter the Splitter... am I missing anyone?

Rollie, the handlebars.

I think Blyleven's case is borderline, but it's light-years better than any pure reliever's.

Perhaps Rivera, but in general, yes, that's right.

#125:

Bruce Sutter : Forkball :: Vanilla Ice : Queen's "Under Pressure"?

He's comparing them to the lowest rung of players elected by the BBWAA.

The issue of evolving standards that Sam raised is a good point. I think so far the writers, in the case of post-Wilhelm relief pitchers, have shown that they demand a Cy Young Award plus 300 saves.

The line is going to keep moving, obviously. Until today it was an MVP Award plus 340 saves ...

Bruce Sutter : Forkball :: Vanilla Ice : Queen's "Under Pressure"?

Sutter: Roy Face :: Al Gore :internet

Comparing Goose, who's out, to Fingers and Sutter, who are in--
pitcher ........IP ERA lgERA
B Sutter.. 1042 2.83 '3.85
R Fingers. 1709 2.90 '3.47
avg of 2.. 1375 2.87 '3.61

G Gossage 1809 3.01 '3.78

lgERA is league avg ERA, adjusted for park effects, from bb-ref. Goose has same quality, 31% more career. I think he'll be in soon.

I may have missed it, but has anyone on this thread put forward a reasonable explanation for voting for Sutter and not Gossage?

I don't know that it's reasonable, but I think I know the main reason why people voted for Sutter and not Gossage:

Sutter, at the time that he played, was perceived to be responsible for a change in the way that the game was played, which in turn led to the emergence of the modern-day closer. Gossage was used more like Rollie Fingers, and earlier relief aces, and thus was perceived to be more like the last of the old breed rather than the first of a new breed.

It's debatable how much credit (if any) Sutter deserves, especially given that an avowed reason for the change was that Sutter wasn't sufficiently durable to be used in the Fingers/Gossage mold. But that's going to happen whenever a player stands at the forefront of a change in the conditions under which the game is played; he's going to get a lot of credit for it. And perception of value plays a huge role in determining whether or not a player gets over the hump.

-- MWE

Bruce Sutter : Forkball :: Vanilla Ice : Queen's "Under Pressure"?

Sutter: Roy Face :: Al Gore :internet

Bruce Sutter : Forkball :: Vanilla Ice : Queen's "Under Pressure"?

Sutter: Roy Face :: Al Gore :internet

He's comparing them to the lowest rung of players elected by the BBWAA.

While true, it doesn't change my point. The BBWAA does make CLEAR mistakes. See Perez, Tony.

Many, many, many people threw it before Sutter. it was called a "forkball"

The splitter and forkball aren't the same pitch. The fingers are spread wider for a forkball; it's slower and has a bit of a 'hump' to it.

That said, people did throw the splitter before Sutter. Fred Martin, the guy who taught it to Sutter, threw it as early as the '40s.

There might well be reasons why voters would vote for one player and not another who might, on the surface, be the equal or better of another. A voter might believe that one candidate has intangible assets ("leadership", "clutch") that another lacks.

HOF voters are supposed to consider "the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played". Any one of those beyond the first one could be the distinguishing factor between players with apparently similar records. The main reason why more voters aren't voting for Blyleven, IMO, has to do with the weight given to the last three factors (alone or in combination).

-- MWE

I look forward to Roger Craig's induction.

I look forward to Roger Craig's induction.

Maury Wills should be a shoo in. He changed the game a lot more than Sutter did.

The main reason that Blyleven isn't in was that there was no sizzle to go with the steak - no impressive win loss records, no cy youngs, no memorable world series games, no particularly memorable seasons, virtually no 20 win seasons, no 300 strikeouts, no years leading the league in important categories, no outrageous behavior, no memorable quotes, etc. Lots of substance, little flash.

I don't think comparing a 2nd baseman to a reliever is a very fair comparison -- especially since you don't carry 5 shortstops on your team. Every pitcher starts his career as a starter -- when they fail at the job they become relief pitchers. Obviously, then, relievers are less important than starters. What I can't get over is the difference in innings pitched. Blyleven threw almost 5 times as many innings as Sutter -- how can he not be almost five times more valuable? Do they vote defensive replacements in the HOF? How about pinch-hitters (which is the comparable to the closer)? The best baseball players are those that help your team win the most. How can anyone say that Bruce Sutter helped his team win more games than Blyleven or Gossage?

I also don't get the inconsistency of the voters. If you vote for Sutter then why wouldn't you vote for Albert Belle? Their careers are similar (short peak with injuries that led to low counting stats) with the notable exception that Belle's peak was longer and better.

"Because it's ridiculous to think that no one on ANY ballot deserves to be elected when you look at the actual population of the Hall of Fame, not some mythical "Small Hall Utopia" of in Never, Never Land. If you can't find one player to vote for, your ballot should be revoked."

but the "actual population" of HOF is based on the consensus through the years of many different individuals' personal, mythical HOFs. some only vote for Babe Ruth and some vote for Walt Weiss, and it all comes out as it has. if the people who only vote for Babe Ruth now have to vote for Alan Trammell, not only do you get Trammell but a lot more freddie lindstroms and even worse. the whole standard shifts downwards. it is where it is because of the mix. it doesn't work perfectly, at all, but that's how it works.

"If you try to make them comply with some sort of unwritten "de facto" standard, what's the point of having a vote at all? Just let everyone in who has a certain black ink score."

exactly.

It may be, Mike, but I see a lot more of "Never finished higher than 3rd in Cy Young voting", and "Only made 2 All-Star Teams" than complaints about him as a teammate (at least from sportswriters, so Harvey doesn't need to fire off the litany again.) Now, it could be that they don't feel re-hashing unpleasant incidents has a place in Hall of Fame columns, but they also may not be that important factors to the voters.

I will say that it seems unusual to me that a guy with a bad clubhouse rep would hang around as long as Blyleven did, or go on to a broadcasting career. My impression of guys with that label is that they're gone as soon as their play slips a bit, and they never look back.

The main reason that Blyleven isn't in was that there was no sizzle to go with the steak

That's what I meant by listing "contributions to the teams" as a factor in his case; his playing record, while substantive, didn't really appear to help his teams all that much, at least in the minds of those who voted on awards.

no outrageous behavior

This is dead wrong, as we've discussed before: Blyleven walked out on the Pirates in 1980, because Chuck Tanner wasn't letting him go deep into games. This ties to the "sportsmanship" and "character" aspects of the HOF criteria, as well as the "contributions to the team" aspect - adding fuel to the idea that Blyleven put his own interests ahead of his team's.

-- MWE

And with flashy candidates on the ballot for the next few years, Blyleven will likely never get closer than this year. At least he got over 50%, and we can take some solace in the fact that he'll be elected in twenty years by a SABR-aware Veterans' Committee (which hopefully will be such, given the progress we've been making); I just hope he's still alive when it happens.

At least Rice will probably never get in. I don't think Sutter or Gossage should be in, but if Sutter is, Gossage has to be. But, with the aforementioned upcoming flashy ballots, Gossage now probably has no chance, either. So, as usual, the HOF winds up with the wrong players in it. Why do we care who is in the HOF?

Is it me, or are guys who are great right out of the box, like Will Clark, who was arguably the best player in the NL from 1987-91, and then 'fade' to just being very good tend to do much worse than guys that peak later. Is that because people forget how great they were and remember the time where they were just very good?

Disagree completely. The lesson of Sandberg vs. Kent is that it's better to be great early & then very good for a decade or so than to be very good for a decade or so and then great late. If Kent gets in, it's because he lasted for so long after his late-blooming MVP.

I think Will Clark's problem is that it's mighty difficult to get in with less than 2000 games played. Maybe if you had some tragic personal illness (see Puckett, Kirby) that prevented you from playing more you could get in, but if you just peter out, that'll kill. For a shorter career you need something extra - Puckett's (now long gone) fan-friendly reputation plus his eye problems. Or maybe a peak where a player was seen as the best dang player in baseball (Clark never won the MVP, and that hurts). Something like that. Clark just misses the extra bit with all his second place MVP finishes, and doesn't have anything extra.

What hurts him wasn't his early start, but his surprising lack of hang-around time.

Bruce Sutter : Forkball :: Vanilla Ice : Queen's "Under Pressure"?

Bruce Sutter : Forkball :: Diddy : The Remix

Well good for you. Now, how about you back up your argument and quit being a prick.

What needs to be backed up? Here is the exchange:

Me: So current writers are forced to vote a certain way just because previous writers and veterans committees did?

You: Yes, just as current players are evaluated based upon the baselines established by the players before them.

Voting is by definition subjective, so forcing other voters to be subjected to the same subjective constraints is ridiculous.

Eck, the starter, Hoyt the 1,000 year career, Sutter the Splitter... am I missing anyone?

Fingers - the moustache.

The splitter and forkball aren't the same pitch. The fingers are spread wider for a forkball; it's slower and has a bit of a 'hump' to it.

There were a couple versions of the pitch- they varied depending on how wide the fingers were spread- where the seams were, how deep back into the hand- etc.

What Sutter had going for him were two things- 1 His pitch was effective- I have never seen anyone since who could consistently make a pitch literally roll off an imaginary table the way he could. 2. The forkball had fallen out of favor- there are fads in pitching- there were no prominent forkballers active when Sutter came along.

As I recall it, Sutter always gave credit for inventing the pitch to Mike Roarke, a minor league pitching coach.

I recall (and I'm not saying my memory is better than yours) Sutter giving credit to his pitching coach for helping him perfect the pitch Sutter had invented.

I also recall that towards the end of his career the public perception of Sutter did rise dramatically for a season or two and he was regarded as dominant- then he got hurt and fell off a cliff. I think since many fans/writer's ;ast perception of Sutter as a player was that he was dominant that it carried over...

This is dead wrong, as we've discussed before: Blyleven walked out on the Pirates in 1980, because Chuck Tanner wasn't letting him go deep into games. This ties to the "sportsmanship" and "character" aspects of the HOF criteria, as well as the "contributions to the team" aspect - adding fuel to the idea that Blyleven put his own interests ahead of his team's.

Mike,

you might be right about his bad behavior, but I don't agree at all that its a reason keeping him out. I bet if you asked all 500 or so sportswriters to name any examples of bad behavior on Blyleven's part, most would be unable to do it. The 1980 example is not widely remembered, IMO. I bet most sportwriters are unaware he even played for Pittsburgh in 1980.

The thing with Clark is, he didn't peter out. He was still quite productive when he retired, and ever really had a period of his career when he wasn't. He just had nagging injuries that kept him to 120-135 games a season.

This is dead wrong, as we've discussed before: Blyleven walked out on the Pirates in 1980, because Chuck Tanner wasn't letting him go deep into games. This ties to the "sportsmanship" and "character" aspects of the HOF criteria, as well as the "contributions to the team" aspect - adding fuel to the idea that Blyleven put his own interests ahead of his team's.

You might be right about the facts, but I think you're dead wrong about this being a factor keeping him out of the HOF. I bet if you polled voters, most would probably be unaware that he even played for Pittsburgh in 1980, much less know about any particular incidents. I don't recall any sportwriters saying they aren't going to vote for him out of character. Its statistics (misinterpreted), not character that's keeping him out.

So, will Sutter's plaque have a beard?

And with flashy candidates on the ballot for the next few years, Blyleven will likely never get closer than this year.

Flashy candidates? In 2007, OK. But from 2008-10 there's only one obvious choice (Rickey). McGwire will likely hang around, and hurt the other sluggers because they're more directly comparable. The best SP to come on the ballot in the next four years is Saberhagen. Blyleven's established himself as the top vote getting SP and there's nothing that will change that.

A few years ago I was chief pessimist of BB's HoF chances at the Neyer Board, because players stopped working their way up the ballot after Billy Williams.

Now we've seen several players go from unde-50% to over. Gary Carter, Bruce Sutter. I reckon either Rice or Gossage will get in over the next few years.

Blyleven has the added bonus of having a constiutency beat the drums for him every year (the elect Blyleven mailing campaign, Rich Lederer's articles, other similar efforts). When enough voters start putting him on, it really starts hitting the mainstream.

My guess is that he'll go down next year - everyone should, but that Blyleven will go down less than others. And then he'll rise up the following year. For him, the keep ballots will be the weak newcomer years from 2008-10 (especially '08 & '10). 2010 should be his thirteenth year on the ballot. If he's around/over 65% by then (and he could be), I'd like his odds to sneak in, depending on how strong the '11 & '12 ballots end up.

His pitch was effective

September 14th, 1982: the eighth-inning, bases-loaded double-play ball to Mike Schmidt. I am still removing bits of that stake from my heart ...

If every player of a who has accomplished B is in the Hall, and B is a real standard of achievement (and not some stpid "club"), I don't think it's rational to start trying to raise Hall standards above that standard level of achievement. Where the line should be drawn is debateable to some extent, but not always. A voter cannot reasonably choose to vote on the basis that only players who get 3500 hits and 500 home runs can be Hall of Famers; that ship has sailed.

I think Blyleven's case is borderline, but it's light-years better than any pure reliever's.

Perhaps Rivera, but in general, yes, that's right.

No, it isn't. I've said it before: the HOF is not, nor should it be, a glorified MVP vote. Just because a starter is more valuable than a reliever does not mean that all good starters are inherently better (and more HOF-worthy) than all good relievers. (Granted, I've never been able to convince Steve on this point, but hope springs eternal!) IMO, Goose Gossage is far more HOF-worthy than Jim Bunning. So is Trevor Hoffman, so is Rivera, and so probably will Wagner end up. Bunning just wasn't that good -- he didn't have the quality of performance that makes some HOF-worthy.

Now, if you mean the point to be quite specific to Bert Blyleven's candidacy, rather than about starters in general (like, for instance, Bunning), then I'd have to think about it. My knee-jerk reaction says I'd view Blyleven, Gossage, and Hoffman about equally, but that's very tentative.

So, will Sutter's plaque have a beard?

Bigger question: is Sutter's the first gay plaque in the HOF?

I don't know that it's reasonable, but I think I know the main reason why people voted for Sutter and not Gossage:

Sutter, at the time that he played, was perceived to be responsible for a change in the way that the game was played, which in turn led to the emergence of the modern-day closer. Gossage was used more like Rollie Fingers, and earlier relief aces, and thus was perceived to be more like the last of the old breed rather than the first of a new breed.

It's debatable how much credit (if any) Sutter deserves, especially given that an avowed reason for the change was that Sutter wasn't sufficiently durable to be used in the Fingers/Gossage mold. But that's going to happen whenever a player stands at the forefront of a change in the conditions under which the game is played; he's going to get a lot of credit for it. And perception of value plays a huge role in determining whether or not a player gets over the hump.

I disagree with this. The notion that Sutter is a historical marker in the development of the modern closer is probably lost on 95 percent of all fans, and probably 80 percent of HOF voters.

I don't believe Sutter gets any extra credit for this that Gossage doesn't. Their career paths are vaguely similar; in the mid-1970s, both were used as 120+ inning guys, with Gossage pitching even more than that. Sometime around 1980, that changed and their workloads were reduced.

It's a similar thing with Eck. There are probably more people familiar with the impact of Eck on closer usage but still, the main reason Eck is in the HOF is the fact that he was considered THE BUTT-KICKING SHUTDOWN CLOSER of his time, and so was Sutter.

I will probably be chided for not voting for Bert Blyleven, but he was one of many excellent pitchers who played in his era. I even
saw him get his first Major League victory vs. the Yankees at the tender age of nineteen, but I couldn't vote for him without
voting for Tommy John or Jim Kaat who I didn't vote for either. I may think differently next year, but as a good friend of mine once
said, "Why? Is he going to have a better year next season?" However, the deed has been done and I cannot change it, so as
they said in Brooklyn many years ago - WAIT TILL NEXT YEAR."

This was written by Bob Rosen of Elias. Its what's keeping Blyleven out - the thought that he wasn't any better than Tommy John and Jim Kaat. And its why I don't think he'll make it in the future either.

I hope I'm wrong.

It's a similar thing with Eck. There are probably more people familiar with the impact of Eck on closer usage but still, the main reason Eck is in the HOF is the fact that he was considered THE BUTT-KICKING SHUTDOWN CLOSER of his time, and so was Sutter.

Wasn't Goose thought of as the THE BUTT-KICKING SHUTDOWN CLOSER of the AL? I don't recall Sutter being thought of as clearly superior to Goose when both were active. It wasn't like Eck in the late 80's when he was clearly the best in the game.

Post 174:

I will respond to DizzyPaco in a moment but for the reading impaired on this site the following disclaimer:

I AM NOT OPPOSED TO BERT'S ELECTION TO THE HALL OF FAME. I DO NOT "HATE" BERT BLYLEVEN. BERT BLYLEVEN HAS A LEGITIMATE CASE FOR THE HALL OF FAME.

Now that I have that out of the way....

Dizzy:

It is you who are dead wrong. I have the misfortune of being old and as such actually have peers who are Hall of Fame voters.

Bert's team "issues" from his tenure with Twins (round 1), Pirates, AND Cleveland are all part of the mix. I understand that many here do not think character or related items matter with respect to a player's value. But other folks disagree. And many of them have a vote.

Bert wasn't a BAD guy per se. But until he got all folksy with the 80's Twins he was cranky. And teammates, managers, and writers noticed.

It is not the SOLE reason he keeps falling short. But it doesn't help......

It strikes me that a lot of speculation is being done about how voters come to a conclusion on who to vote for with very little in the way of evidence to support any of our ideas. For all I know, most of the voters do detailed multiple regressions for all candidates. Or maybe they all just vote for who they like or their vague memories of watching the guy play.

IOW, at the border between lowest tier HOFer and highest tier wannabe, is there any reason to expect accuracy or consensus? Some will get in, some won't and it isn't likely to be all that clear why.

Harvey,

Please point out one example of a sportswriter using character to justify not putting Bert Blyleven into the hall of fame. I have never heard it even mentioned.

The problem isn't that Blyleven is remembered as being cranky. Its that he isn't remembered at all.

I have the misfortune of being old and as such actually have peers who are Hall of Fame voters.

Harvey, you're a damnsight better than any HOF voter.

I have a general benchmark for HOF worthyness that I use. It's not scientific, but it lets me get a sort of objective starting point.

What I do is I look for a player with at least 8 HOF caliber years, by which I mean at least 7 WARP3.

I also look for at least two superstar type years, with around 10+ WARP3.

This is adjusted for era of course, so a guy like Rice doesn't get screwed by this metric. It also goes season by season to keep people from padding their stats by hanging on. It also rewards true dominance, even if it's for a short period of time.

In my experience, this sets the bar just high enough, and keeps out marginal type players pretty well.

Now Belle isn't a HOFer by this standard, albeit, he perhaps deserves a sort of Kirby Puckett/Sandy Koufax type exemption(freak career ending injury.)

He only has 6 HOF type years, but all six are superstar years by this metric.

Rice also falls short, with only 7 HOF type years('77-79, '82-'84, and '86), and only one of them meets the superstar year standard('78).

So the problem Rice has isn't just longevity, it's that he wasn't even dominant enough when he was dominant, at least not for the HOF standard I care about.

To compare to some other interesting guys:

Will Clark: 6 HOF/3 superstar years.

John Olerud: 9 HOF/2 superstar years.

Don Mattingly: 7 HOF/3 superstar years.

Keith Hernandez: 8 HOF/3 superstar years.

Rafael Palmeiro: 10 HOF/3 superstar years.

Gil Hodges: 6 HOF/1 superstar year(s).

---Just for kicks---

Nomar Garciaparra: 6 HOF/2 superstar years. (Closer than you might think!)

Roger Clemens: 16 HOF/8 superstar years. (Not that it matters for Clemens, but I don't know how well this works for pitchers.)

Pedro Martinez: 8 HOF/3 superstar years. (2005 puts him over the top, which I think is a mistake, and perhaps an indication that this standard is too strict on pitchers. Maybe 6 HOF years or something. I don't know.)



Not that I'm arguing that this sort of system is the end all and be all of anything, but for me at least, it gives me a nice little way of checking how these guys really stand up. Rice falls just short for me, and I wouldn't vote for him. Belle, if I'm giving a freak injury exemption, might qualify though.

It strikes me that a lot of speculation is being done about how voters come to a conclusion on who to vote for with very little in the way of evidence to support any of our ideas. For all I know, most of the voters do detailed multiple regressions for all candidates. Or maybe they all just vote for who they like or their vague memories of watching the guy play.

Bunyon,

I agree with you to a point. Much of it is just speculation. However, many sportwriters don't just send in their ballots - they write entire columns about the issue, in which they actually say why they did or did not vote for a particular player.

Now I certainly haven't read every column on the issue, although I have read a bunch. If someone really wanted to, they could collect every column they could and tally the reasons why a particular player was or was not selected.

However, the bunch that I have read all pretty much gave the same reasons, such as about Blyleven. I'm open to people pointing out writers who blasted Blyleven's character, and used it as a reason for not voting form him.

2. The forkball had fallen out of favor- there are fads in pitching- there were no prominent forkballers active when Sutter came along.

I guess Dale Murray isn't considered prominent. But didn't Fingers throw a forkball too?

Well, I feel a little better. I was thinking for some reason that a whole, huge procession of great (and perceived great) players had been retiring every year in the aughts, but that's not really the case; they all seem to have retired in '02 and '03.

Another thing that hurts Clark is the expectations that were put on him in the late '80s. I think there's a perception that he didn't fulfill his potenetial, as ludicrous as that notion is. It's largely brought about by the fact that his "batting average" fell below .300 several times in the mid-90s. If he'd had maybe 10-20 more singles, distributed properly, he'd be 50% more likely to be elected, just another reason why the process is so ridiculous.

Pedro Martinez: ... 3 superstar years.

Talk about damning with faint praise.

Harvey, I wasn't trying to imply that you were opposed to Blyleven's induction (although, to be honest, I really thought you were). I was just trying to make it clear that I was aware of what Blyleven's character issues were, so you didn't feel it was necessary to lay them out again. I apologize for taking your name in vain. :)

On Sutter, I just want to state this for the record. I think the perception of Sutter's role in the evolution of the closer was not that he was too fragile, but that he was such a dominating pitcher that managers had to alter their strategies in order to get the maximum effectiveness out of him. In other words, he was so good he forced the game to adapt to him. I'm NOT saying that justifies his induction, I just wanted to explain the argument.

But didn't Fingers throw a forkball too?

I find out that yes, he did. But that it wasn't until after Sutter hit the scene.

Pedro Martinez: ... 3 superstar years.

Talk about damning with faint praise.

Eh? I don't quite get it. Are you saying only 3 superstar years is faint praise?

if i go down the elevator right now, i might run into a beautiful woman with whom i will fall deeply in love and live with for the next 70 years and have a child who will bring about world peace. but i'm still at work, so instead i will never meet her. just another reason why life is so ridiculous.

How is it legitimate to take a small Hall stance when there is no such thing as a small Hall?

In a democracy, all opinions are equally legitimate (that's not saying that they are equally valid).

Sutter: Roy Face :: Al Gore :internet

Bruce Sutter claimed to have taken the initiative in inventing Roy Face?!?!