What do you look at to determine who is a Hall of Fame caliber closer or not? Im just curious. I find it kind of difficult, I mean Mariano Rivera of course, but as far as others go like Lee Smith and Jeff Reardon, Im not sure.
Printable View
What do you look at to determine who is a Hall of Fame caliber closer or not? Im just curious. I find it kind of difficult, I mean Mariano Rivera of course, but as far as others go like Lee Smith and Jeff Reardon, Im not sure.
You need to have a lot of bulk and quality. Mariano Rivera is so far ahead of anybody else that he is a definite HoFer for me. Eckersley's combination of starting and relieving get him in for me. Hoyt Wilhelm, another obvious guy. Rollie Fingers and Goose Gossage much less so but combined effectiveness with innings to make them over the borderline and in.
Bruce Sutter is a mistake for me. Lee Smith and Jeff Reardon aren't close. Trevor Hoffman, I lean towards no. What separates him from Smith, Sutter, Dan Quisenberry, Roberto Hernandez, and the like? Saves, that's it, and I ignore those because it should be about quality not managerial usage.
Tom Henke? :)
haha kidding
I think that back when saves were often 2-3 innings, saves was not such a bad measure, though it should never be the only one.
Overall, though, number of innings pitched, how important those innings were, and how well they performed in those innings. Since the number of innings pitched are much less than starters, the leverage must be very high and performance much better than expected for a HoF starter.
Yes: Rivera, Hoffman, Eck, Wilhelm, Sutter, Lee Smith, Gossage, Fingers
Borderline: Wagner, Franco, Reardon, Nenn, Percival
No: The rest
none of your borderline in my opinion are even close... i would not mind if they changed teh save rule (now that its so bogus) to make it 2 runs or less. also if you have a blown save you don't get the win.
Ok here is my save rule
a.)Must pitch 1.0 Inning OR come in with 1 out and 2 runners in scoring position with the second runner being the tying or winning run
b.)2 runs or less
c.)3 innings
d.) No runs may be given up
e.)if save is blown, pitcher can not win game
While I definately think that Wilhelm is a deserved HoF selection, I don't think that you can call him a "closer" in the modern sense. "Relief ace" or something like that is a better term for the top relievers of his era. Guys like Wilhelm and Elroy Face weren't used to nail down a win like modern closers are, but rather were used anytime it was late and close and the starter was out of the game. They were as likely to be brought in with their team down by a run or two, or in a tie game, as they were to be brought in with their team up by a run or two. That's why the better relievers of the 50s and 60s often had W-L records like 12-3 or 15-4, whereas modern closers will often have records like 2-4. Modern closers will almost never be brought into a game when it isn't a save situtaion unless they haven't pitched for several days and the manager wants to give them a bit of work so they don't get rusty.
The modern closer--the guys held back to pitch in save situations--only really dates back to Bruce Sutter. The fact that Sutter's manager defined that role for him is Sutter's main claim to a place in the Hall--though if you think about it, if that decision is of such historical impact to put somebody in the Hall, logically it should be the manager (Herman Franks), since he was the one to make the move, not the pitcher involved. (Just to be perfectly clear, I am certainly NOT advocating putting Herman Franks in the Hall of Fame.)
Rollie > Everyone.
no offense, but your borderline are not even close....Smith is borderline at best....and simply bc of a numbers game.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
personally, i think the save ruling is pretty stupid....why do you have to have a whole nother pitcher just for specific situations? i would prefer the old school, 4 man rotation with long relievers available and a closer that could shut it down for 2-3 innings.....none of this holds and saves and cleaners, and set up men...and a closer that gets paid 15 mil a year to pitch 35 innings a year.
It's not the rule itself--saves (and holds) are just an attempt to measure how well a reliever has pitched. ERA isn't as useful for relievers because as a rate stat, it's naturally a lot less informative than it is for starters because of the difference in innings pitched, and wins and losses for various other reasons are even less useful for relievers. While we could use a change the rule on how saves (and holds) are awarded, the problem isn't the definations, but rather the mind-set that says that the closer is only to be used to nail down wins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
This will take a lot of courage from a manager. Not only are you going against the grain that currently exists in baseball, but you're also costing your closer the opportunity for those all-important saves and this puts you square up against him and his agent. Until concepts like leverage trickle down into mainstream thinking and until relievers are financially valued and rewarded for their true value and not just how many saves they have, this mind-set will continue to exist to, I think, the detriment of baseball.Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
Bobby Ayala and Mike Schooler are the best closers ever!!! :D
noone likes my new save rule :(
it sounds pretty complicatedQuote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet