Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabe
No way is Joe Nathan a HOFer. For me, to get in, a reliever needs to be dominant for a long time (bye bye, Eck). Nathan wasn't. Neither was Trevor Hoffman. I think the standard needs to be high - closers are pitching one inning at a time and they're coming in with no one on base. A 3.00 ERA for a closer is nothing. Guys should be in 1.50 - 2.50 range A LOT. That's why I think Billy Wagner is the guy among relievers right now - 15 years as a reliever, he had one ERA over 3.00 (6.18 during an injury-shortened year), with five ERAs under 2.00, finishing with a 2.31 for his career (187 ERA+). He wasn't better than Nathan - he was A LOT better than Nathan.
|
I actually take a bit of an opposite view with relievers. I think we should be rewarding the guys who are truly dominate for 4-5 years rather then the guys who are pretty good for a long career. I look at a guy like Dick Radatz in the mid 1960, Mike Marshall in the 1970’s. Guys who were working 150-20 innings of relief and just carrying teams. Radatz over a three year period won 40 games and saved another 70 while keeping an era under 2.5. Marshall pitched 179 innings one year and then followed it up with 208 the next. Predictable both guys petered out pretty quick. But their greatness is clear .