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
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
a is jsut making it so that those guys that come in with the bases loaded and 1 out do not get the save
b. is just changing the rule for 3 to 2 runs
c. is unchanged
d.and e. are added and are a part of each other. it really could be d only because tehy wouyld have to give up a run to blow it so its really a-d
:D
I'd love to see what separates Hoffman, Sutter, and Smith from Wagner, Franco, Reardon, Nenn and Percival from "the rest."Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I can't get much clearer than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
obviously they we're "clutch" pitchers, when the chips where down they could will batters to get outs instead of hits seesh hgm:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
"I'd love to see what separates Hoffman, Sutter, and Smith from Wagner; Franco, Reardon, Nenn and Percival from "the rest.""Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I think it was a punctuation error you made (which I fixed above)
Were you intending to say:
What separates Hoffman/Sutter/Smith from Wagner?
What separates Franco/Reardon/Nenn/Percival from "the rest"?
The way you put it it looked like you were comparing 3 things at once.
I am comparing three things at once.
What separates Hoffman/Sutter/Smith from Wagner/Franco/Reardon/Nenn/Percival from the rest?
It's a simpler way of saying "What separates the first three from the second group and what separates the second group from the rest?"
http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...=troy+percival
http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...arch=tom+henke
http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...earch=robb+nen
What makes Percival and Nen borderline, but Tom Henke a "no?"
It should be:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
What separates Hoffman/Sutter/Smith from Wagner/Franco/Reardon/Nenn/Percival and Wagner/Franco/Reardon/Percival from the rest?
or
What separates Hoffman/Sutter/Smith from Wagner/Franco/Reardon/Nenn/Percival and the rest?
Also, ANSWER MY IMS
It doesn't matter. There's multiple ways to say it. Way to avoid intellectually responding though by being a weird grammar Nazi.
Henke owns compared to Sutter. Rivera and Gossage are the pinacle and Henke is right under them both.
I know, i was joking about tom....he had a few good seasons though....just a big fan of my cuz :)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
honestly though, i would take henke over nen and percival personally.
Henke is definitely one of the first inductees into the Baseball Glasses Hall of Fame :p
http://www.nerdbaseball.com/wp-conte...henke-tom2.jpg
This guy gets in too:
http://assets.sbnation.com/imported_...le-posters.jpg
MG...how does nen and perc count as boardeline but henke is the rest?
it was one of the questions HGM was asking
HoustonGM, how can you not say Lee Smith is Hall of Fame worthy? He's an American tradition, like fathers chasing kids around with power tools.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Smith is famous for having a full career that is based on one stat....saves...and although he has longevity...he became famous because he got saves....one inning saves....he didn't really do anything else...and although he was a good pitcher, he wasn't exactly an elite pitcher throughout his life...he was just consistenly good.
but if Hoffman is a hall of famer, then Smith certainly is as well...
hell if you look at it....henke had a better career than smith....shorter, but numbers wise he was better.
getting in the hall of fame as a closer seems a little watered down...which is why i am happy smith isn't looking like he will get in....because if you allow him in...then you have a long string of other closers that you will have a hard time justifying they shouldn't be allowed in.
Lee Smith was closing full time at the age of 24....and did so for a solid 20 years...if he gets in just because he consistenly got saves...then who is to save players like Fuentes, or Papelbon etc shouldn't get in one day?
just because you get 400 saves, you're a hall of famer?
It need to be the elite of the elite closers only...Mariano, Eck, Maybe Hoffman....
500 saves min maybe...or something to the effect of a totally dominant pitcher who was a closer for his career....
just because you were awesome for a few years and racked up 350 saves does not make you hall of famer.
now were you elite for the decade in which you played? who was better than you during your peak years? what did you create while you were in the majors? were you so dominant that your team would have been poor without you? things like that....being a journey man reliever who got saves because his manager used him in those situations does not make you a hall of famer...it just means you did a good job when asked to.
Mariano is a hall of famer....he would have been great as a starter probably as well...but he made a huge difference in Yankee history for a very long time, WS, and was a legitimate fear (still is) during the last decade and a half....he is differen than Henke, Perc, Nen etc.
those guys were good, but that would be like letting in any jack ass with 300 homers and a 260 lifetime average.
Well, you can avoid the second part simply by not designating one of your relievers as the "closer", the Anoited One, the only guy in the bullpen who can pitch with the game on the line. The first one's tougher, IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
Career WAR numbers:
Rivera: 46.8
Gossage: 40.0
Wilhelm: 41.3
Eckersley: 58.7
Fingers: 24.4
Smith: 30.3
Hoffman: 29.0
Sutter: 25.0
Nen: 17.0
Percival: 18.3
Henke: 23.1
well WAR doesn't say it all....but it's a great indicator of a player's true value....
if we rank each of them.
1. Eckersley
2. Mariano
3. Willhelm
4. Gossage
5. Smith
6. Hoffman
7. Sutter
8. Fingers
9. Henke
10. Perc
11. Nen
and eck gets that because he was a starter and obviously has more chances to improve that.
i would say a 35-40 WAR for a closer could be good enough.
Have you seen their PEACE (Projected Empirical Atrophied Cylindrical Ease) numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
You're not funny. Shut up if you have nothing intelligent to add to the conversation.
:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
;) :p