HOF vote in

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Bruce Sutter is the only player to make it this year. Goosage should have gone in before him, but he belongs none the less. A few others ahould have gone in too, Rice, Blyleven and Dawson. The writers that voted for any of the players with 5 or fewer votes should have their voting priveledges yanked. Players like Gaetti, Wettland, Hal Morris, etc have no business getting a single vote.

Next year will be an interesting vote with Ripken and the first of prominent steroid users, McGwire, being eligible. It will be interesting to what sort of support, or lack there of that Big Mac will get. I'd use the term alledged for Mac, but he was caught performance enhancing drugs.

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: t206King

yeah, i was suprised, some pre-war players havent been really thought of. with Big Mac, he shouldnt go in my books. all he had was HRs. was playing of and on with injuries etc etc. with the steroids, yes he shouldnt be in, but at the time they werent banned. so theres an argument there. i can see alot of problems in the media etc etc with that topic. i hope hes not NOT in!!!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Will White: 229 wins, 166 losses, 2.28 ERA
Bruce Sutter: 68 wins, 71 losses, 2.83 ERA
Tommy Bond: 234 wins, 163 losses, 2.31 ERA

All three were tremendous finishers, but two were also starters.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I saw Sutter pitch and he certainly was a fine pitcher and a fierce competitor, but one would think there are far more worthy candidates who haven't made it. I'm still waiting for Ross Barnes- I think I'll pull up a comfortable chair because it might be a long wait.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Given the current format of the VC, I wouldn't count on any 19c player getting into the Hall any time soon.

Comparing Sutter to a couple of starters is rather silly since Sutter never started a game in his career.

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

I was never big on relievers making the hall of fame so im glad they didnt make this the "year of the reliever" like theyve been building it up.Guys like Rice,Dawson and Blyleven in my book are in a different class than any reliever,especially one that pitched just 1,042 career innings like Sutter.

If you put those innings in perspective,Dwight Gooden had about 150 more innings by age 23 than Sutter career,a career record of 81-35 and had led 2 teams to the playoffs vs 1 for Sutter,both had 1 cy young award,Gooden was a rookie of the year......after that point he was still 113-77 career,yet no one thinks of him as a hall of famer,at least from what ive heard.Is Sutter really that much better because he stretched those innings out over 12 years?

I always believe most deserving players should go in first and i cant see putting in any relievers till all the other players are in first.Now that they are putting in specialty guys it should be interesting to see what happens when Lenny Harris retires since he has 212 career pinch hits already,62 more than 2nd place....now thats specialty dominance!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jimi

....who the idiot was that gave a vote to Walt Weiss. Really? Walt Weiss? Uh..... um...... errr.......uh......?????

Jimi

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

At least he won a ROY. All the others that got 5 or fewer votes never won ROY, MVP or Cy. As I mentioned before, writers voting for players like that need to banned.

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

I guess that I am interpreting Sutter's career incorrectly. But my current thinking is that his stats:

68 wins, 71 losses, 300 saves

means that eventhough he lost more games than he won, 300 times he did not blow the lead he was given.

WOW

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

I dont see how you could say John Wetteland doesnt deserve a single vote when in the same paragraph you say Sutter deserves to be enshrined.Their career numbers are as follows(both played 12 seasons)

Wetteland 48-45 2.93 330 saves in 612 games
Sutter 68-71 2.83 300 saves in 661 games

If you put their ERA into historical perspective,Sutter was 1.02 better than league average while Wetteland was 1.40 better.Wetteland was also on 4 playoff teams,had a slightly better WHIP rating(walks+hits per inning pitched).Wetteland had a much better K/IP rate and had eight 30 save seasons to 4 for Sutter.Sutter might have 5 save titles but 3 of them came for teams with losing records so are they really better than being a closer for 4 playoff teams which couldve easily been 5 since Wetteland was the closer for the 1994 Expos team that was in 1st when the strike was called?

So are you sure these guys are both really that different that one deserves to be elected and the other deserves 0 votes?

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg

You hit it on the head when you said Gossage should be there ahead of Sutter. I've got to believe that anyone who watched the two of them pitch in their prime would pick Gossage ahead of Sutter as the closer on their team, or as the guy they want on the mound to close out the ninth inning of a post season game. I'm sure the Hall of Fame and the merchants of Cooperstown are breathing a sigh of relief right now, as there was a very real chance that there would be no living member to induct this summer.
The vote on Negro Leaguers next month should be interesting, as there are many worthy candidates. I'm amazed that Biz Mackey and Minnie Minoso aren't in yet.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

I don't see him going in before others out there. I guess that makes Mariano Rivera a first-ballot lock?

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

I admit my Red Sox bias, but to me it seems ridiculous that Jim Rice, a dominant everyday player for a 6-7-8 year period and with outstanding career numbers as well (check out his HOF Monitor on baseball-reference.com), is not in the Hall of Fame while a relief pitcher like Bruce Sutter who lost more games than he won is. Not like he is exactly the all-time save king either -- 19th I believe it is. I would have voted Dawson in over Sutter as well.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

Sutter is in cuz he revolutionized the game with the split fingered fastball.


I too would have preferred Rice and Blyleven over Sutter, but the fact remains that split fingered fastball did add to the game.




Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I thought Sutter was a weak choice to begin with. But when I saw the comparison to John Wetteland, that really brought it home. I've never heard anyone even hint that Wetteland should be in the Hall of Fame. He made it onto less than 1% of the ballots. And I bet less than 10% of current baseball fans have even heard of him. But his stats are almost identical to Sutter's. Yeah, he didn't "invent" the split finger fastball. But Sutter's in the Hall as a player, not an innovator like Candy Cummings.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

--

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

--

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

He only threw the split finger fastball,he didnt invent the pitch.

The other thing i heard from a couple people is it was too bad Albert Belle(the player,not the persona) didnt play longer otherwise he wouldve put up hall of fame numbers but in a 10 season stretch he put up 1,200 RBI's while batting just under .300

Bruce Sutter had 8 seasons where he was better than average.So how does he make it,unless you dont use the same argument for him?

When Sutter was playing i considered him about equal to Dan Quisenberry and they were very similar,Sutter won 4 rolaids relief awards,Quiz won 5 playing in basically the same time frame,just opposite leagues.

When Quiz was up for voting he got 18 votes in 1996 and was dropped from the ballot? Heres a fun fact about Quisenberry,if you go to baseball-reference and view the top 10 most similar players all-time to him youll see at #5 and #6,John Wetteland and Bruce Sutter...isnt that odd?

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhys

If you want to throw someone in who was a reliever and revolutionized the way the game was played, then your first vote SHOULD be Fred Marberry, not Bruce Sutter. And if you are going to put Sutter in for advancing the Split Fingered Fastball, then you need to put in George Blaeholder for inventing the most dominant pitch in modern baseball, the Slider.

Rhys

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

162 game average: 30 HR, 113 RBI,, .298 BA. 8 (that's double Mickey Mantle) 100 plus RBI seasons. 11 seasons 20+ HR, 7 All Star selections, one MVP. I think that qualifies as more than "good." Not to diminish Dawson, as I said I would have voted for him too, as the better all around player.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob Fouch

I agreed wholeheartedly on Dawson, though I'm a Cubs fan so probably biased. The guy was a stud. And if it weren't for all the punishment his gimpy knees took on the artificial turf in Montreal, his numbers would be even better. I know, I know, there are lots of "if onlys" with lots of different players, but I wonder sometimes how many great players either had their careers ended or at least shortened because of turf.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

Just to clear it up,i wasnt condoning Wetteland making the hall of fame or being close but i dont think Sutter shouldve been 400 votes better than him when its obvious comparing them,especially the 5 times closing for a 1st place team for Wetteland compared to once for Sutter in the same time frame,theyre not as far off as you would imagine.The better numbers for Wetteland vs other relievers from his own era also help out the comparison so its not total apples and oranges

Wetteland averaged just over 1.2 outs per appearance,Sutter averaged just over 1.5 so youre talking about just under 1 extra out recorded per outing....is that really a huge difference where you cant compare them?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

I know this will be a stupid comment and obviously has no bearing on a player's HOF credentials but can you think of a less interesting HOFer than Sutter?

First, he is a relief pitcher, probobly one of the least interesting positions on the team. No glory in that (unless you are Dennis Eckersley.)

Second, he didn't play for any great teams.

Third, his stats are very unimpressive due to the change in the role as a closer as mentioned above. I think he and Bill Mazeroski would have to duke it out as to which HOFer looks the least impressive by reading their stats.

Finally, he really didn't stand out as a person (like Rollie Fingers.)

So I guess I say congrats to Bruce Sutter but won't be stopping to take a look at his plaque next time I am in Cooperstown.

[Archive]

Posted By: Genaro

Other than Rice, the only retired players with at least 382 homers and a career average of .298 are Hank Aaron, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Stan Musial, Mel Ott, Babe Ruth, and Ted Williams. Of the 17 players (who've been on the ballot) boasting at least 350 homers and a .290 average, all are in Cooperstown -- except for Rice and Dick Allen. He is the only player in major league history with three consecutive seasons of 35 homers and 200 hits. In the 12 seasons spanning 1975-86, Rice led the American League in games, at-bats, runs, hits, homers, RBIs, slugging, total bases, extra-base hits, multihit games, and outfield assists. Pretty good, folks.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

Rhys

Good points. I do not have a vote though, not that it would have mattered in this election anyway. The voters had no choice but to select who was on the ballot.


Not saying i agreed with the reason (even though I do) I was just simply stating why I thought he was elected.



Steve


My opinion on Rice is that he is being seen in the same light as guys like Colavito, May, Cash, guys with the 350-399 Homers They are all on the cusp.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

I will agree that Dawson was a better overall player than Rice, but Rice was a far more dominant hitter than Dawson. You can't just look at career totals. For over a decade Rice was the most dominant and feared hitter in the American League. I'm not sure that Dawson was ever the most feared hitter in either league. To quote a recent ESPN.com article:

"For a period of 12 years -- 1975-86 -- Rice led all American League players in 12 different offensive categories, including home runs (350), RBI (1,276), total bases (3,670), slugging percentage (.520), runs (1,098) and hits (2,145).

In that span, his typical season looked something like this: 29 homers, 106 RBI, 91 runs scored and an average above .300.

But what really elevates the case for Rice is context. He led every player in his league in virtually every significant offensive category for a dozen years.

Among all major leaguers, only nine players have compiled as high a career batting average (.298) and as many homers. They are: Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Mel Ott, Hank Aaron, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays and Stan Musial."

All this being said, if I had a vote, I would vote for Rice AND Dawson!

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

I think there already is a disproportinate amount of players from PRE WAR that are already in the HOF. Instead of campaigning to get more pre war guys in, there should be a focus on not letting anymore in as there are plenty from that era already. No need to add more that don't merit it.

Remember fellas, just because one becomes familiar with a name from back then because one collects cards from that era, that doesn't mean those guys should be HOFers. However, if there is legitimate unbias and OBJECTIVE reasoson for inclusion, based on valid measurement tool, then that is a different story.

Even though Sutter is a very big question mark, and Gossage and BLYLEVEN are certainly much more deserving from Sutter's own era, I don't mind getting more guys in from that era, as that was simply the most competitive era in the history of the game, and the absolutely TOUGHEST era to dominate your peers.

I never ran the proper percentages on proportion of Hall of Famers from each era, compared to that of the important factors of the era, but my estimate is that the pre war would have a very high percentage already. I could be wrong as I haven't officially checked, but knowing that the pre war guys are all artificially high on the stats lists, I'm pretty positive the HOFers are artifically high as well.

P.S. RP or SP is the same thing, a pitcher. A pitchers job is to prevent runs, which leads to wins. There are ways of measuring the proper value of each...more on that another day.

[Archive]

Posted By: William Heitman

Who should be in baseball's Hall of Fame? I spent two wonderful days with Joe Sewell, the hardest man to strike out in the history of baseball, and, a man who received votes in just 6 out of 22 years on the ballot(1 vote 5 times, 3 votes once) and then 23 votes in his 24th year(Joe said that Ty Cobb lobbied for him that year, 1960) and who then got in via the Vets in 1977. He is not unique when it comes to many who are in the Hall of Fame. And a waiver for Tommy Lasorda? Because he had heart problems? If you can find some scientific measure of who should be in the Hall of Fame then you should be the only HOFer. Closers are the beneficiaries of one of the most ridulous statistical measures in baseball--the Save. Ever since I first started paying attention, I learned that the pitcher had, on any given day, the vast advantage the first time through the opposing team's line-up. Well-closers (a term that is hardly deserved) never do anything close to going through that line-up even once. Sutter invented the split finger? Isn't the split finger just another name for Elroy Face's fork ball? McGwire was just about home runs? Well, major league baseball put him on the all-20th century team. You have a problem with his use of an over the counter dietary supplement that he openly used?
Do you have a problem with the insulin Ron Santo used? Voters vote for who they want to. When given a chance. Should Pete Rose be banned from the Hall as a player when his transgressions were as a manager? He's all about home runs? Isn't the game today just all about home runs and strike outs? Babe Ruth was not only known as his day's home run king, he was known as its strike out king, yet he never struck out 100 times in any season. That almost qualifies him as a contact hitter today. Yes, and we're coming up on the year of Ripken. I would think that his streak shouldn't even be considered, but it is. Why--because the "record" he broke was Lou Gehrig's. Do you think it would have been as significant if that "record" had been Everett Scott's? (And, by the way, Everett Scott received more votes on the ballot than many, many who have since gone into the Hall of Fame) How about the case of Leo Durocher? Roy Campanella said that everyone on the VC thought the Lip belonged in the Hall of Fame, but would never vote for him while he was still alive. Personal agenda is what the VC looked for. What all of a sudden made Travis Jackson a Hall of Famer? Ted Williams openly lobbied for Bobby Doerr, his teammate and friend, despite the lack of support by the writers. And this just goes on and on. Andre Dawson will be made to wait as further punishment for his crimes. Jim Rice will pay for his lack of cooperation. And Ty Cobb will sit high above and laugh at it all. Babe will toast it all as he downs a few more hot dogs with yet another quart of beer. And Willie, Mickey and the Duke will still be a pretty good song just as Tinker to Evers to Chance was a passable poem.

[Archive]

Posted By: DJ

I had a feeling this thread would exist here and I kind of expected the comments above. I was kind of rooting for only Bruce Sutter to be inducted as I have a tough time calling the likes of Andre Dawson and/or Jim Rice (and I'm a lifetime Red Sox fan) a Hall Of Famer. IMO.

Very good players that I saw play, but don't think they are Hall worthy. That doesn't mean that everyone in the Hall is worthy, but you can't exactly call Tommy McCarthy's great, great grandson to tell him that he was no longer a member of the Hall.

Did you see that Pete Rose got ten write in votes?

The truth of the matter is that in some regards, the voters are a joke and certainly players should simply be disallowed from being on the ballot. Seriously, Hal Morris got five votes? Rick Aguilera got three votes? These voters should have their voting privelages removed as they refuse to take the process seriously.

"Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Christy Mathewson, Mickey Mantle, Joe DiMaggio, Doug Jones, Walter Johnson, Willie McCovey." Which doesn't belong?

DJ

[Archive]

Posted By: BigHurleyHick

"You have a problem with his use of an over the counter dietary supplement that he openly used?"

I have to agree with you on this one. The substance was legal at the time and not banned in baseball, and had it not been for Mac bringing it into the spot light it may not have become banned in the US.
Players today have lots of legal supplements available to them that just 20 years ago weren't around. Creatine is probably the biggest one, and it's not banned by MLB. If you recall there was this little incident involving Todd Helton and creatine http://www.showmenews.com/2005/Mar/20050322Spor008.asp
I recall many baseball players claimed to use the stuff a couple of years ago.
Greenies of course have been in the game for a long time, but in the late 90's Ephedra products such as Xenadrine were hot products that many ball players took including David Wells who claims his heart got out of whack from taking them, and of course Orioles' pitcher Steve Bechler's death was linked to it. Ephedra products are now banned in the US.
One thing I always thought was interesting to note is that legality of steroids wouldn't really matter, and it should have been up to MLB to ban them for one simple reason. In the off season a player can head down to Mexico or some of the other southern countries and train in the with the aide of steroids without violating any laws.
Of course with the strength of the Player's Union such bans are hard to get in place and then regulated as witnessed in recent years. It's just unfortunate that players such as Ken Caminiti decided to use them and did so with little guidance and research leaving his natural testosterone production in ruins.

[Archive]

Posted By: t206King

Hardest man to strike out was Willie Keeler, a wopping 36 strikeouts in his entire career!!! lolSewell was close with 114 or soemthign like that. but keeler i would say was the best for contact

[Archive]

Posted By: William Heitman

Wee Willie would get the nod if only records had been kept for the about 15 years the record book didn't record a hitter's strike outs.

[Archive]

Posted By: William Heitman

The record books show Sewell at 114, but he could document that they were in error. It was 113. Joe was also the guy who replaced Ray Chapman after his beaning.

[Archive]

Posted By: Genaro

Orlando Cepeda and Tony Perez are in the Hall once a player is elected his measure changes the standard to which a player is rated for hall status in my humble opinion. Look at Rices number in his short career to Tony and Orlando its not even close Rice was a contact hitter who hit for power and contact. Dawson is also a HOF I also think the player should be measured in the era he played in. Dead ball era stats and live ball era dont compair I think you take the best in each era for being best period. Who knows if Babe Ruth would have hit for the same stats against Koufax and Gibson. Would Ted Williams hit 400 today with all the specialized pitchers whos to say but makes for great conversation. The Truth is grade the guy under the stats of his era and that makes or breaks him.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

There are VERY few players who received 60% of the vote and did not make it into the Hall eventually, usually very quickly. So I would say that Rice, Dawson, and Gossage stand an excellent chance. If not next year (when voters will be distracted by Gwynn, McGwire, and Ripken), then the following year, when the best new candidate is Tim Raines.

[Archive]

Posted By: Art M.

Bruce Sutter FAILED to get enough votes for the Hall of Fame on the PREVIOUS TWELVE BALLOTS (YEARS)! And now today he is a Hall of Famer?????
Give me a break.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

If it was up to me, I would vote Bill Dahlen and Gil Hodges
into the HOF. Check-out their stats and then explain to me
why they aren't HOFers, while some who are not as qualified
are in the HOF ?

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Bruce who... Yes, he was pretty good, but was he great?

He spent 4 out of 12 years with an ERA over 4.00

He spent 3 out of 12 years with an ERA under 2.50

Good but not great... but then theres Tinkers, Evers, Scooter and a bunch of others in there that are questionable.

Would it matter if nobody got elected in a year (or two)? What's next? Tito Fuentes? He did happen to bat over .300 for a year, does that qualify (yes, I'm being facetious).

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

Picking HOFers is clearly tricky business. All the Bill Jameses in the world can't measure a player's effectiveness only with stats. Still, the Hall of Fame is filled with players, who under no possible logical argument, were better than would-be HOFers like Bert Blyleven (compare him to Don Drysdale), Ron Santo (see Fred Lindstrom), Andre Dawson (see Ross Youngs), Lee Smith and Goose Gossage (see Hoyt Wilhelm and Bruce Sutter), Jim Kaat (see Rube Marquard) or Alan Trammel (see Dave Bancroft). Hell, was George "Highpockets" Kelly any better than Steve Garvey, Don Mattingly or Will Clark, all of whom played the same position and put up better stats in eras not as favorable to hitters.

The reality is that the Hall of Fame has been watered down by personal friendships since at least about 1945, when a flurry of old timers went in. It could be possibly be argued there is a place in the Hall for guys like Jimmy Collins and Tommy McCarthy, but how can the Hall explain all the ex-teammates of Frankie Frisch that made it in while he was presiding over the Veteran's Committee? (Bancroft, Youngs, Lindstrom, Kelly, Leo Durocher, Jesse Haines, Jim Bottomley, etc.) It seems to me that the bar has already been set lower than many baseball fans would like, so why not accelerate the enshrinement of players as good as Frisch's cronies? Why not require the voters to elect a couple guys at the least every year? What harm would there be in seeing the well-deserved plaques of Blyleven, Santo and Dawson hanging in the Hall?

By the way, why is Minnie Minoso not in the Hall? The Chicago White Sox should take advantage of their recent success and publicity to shine a spotlight on Minnie's unquestionably impeccable five tool credentials (look up his stats and check out his age when he was finally "allowed" to play in the majors). As far as I'm concerned, the Hall is a lesser place without Minnie ...

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian H

No one has mentioned it but I was actually most surprised that Will Clark did so poorly he gets tossed from the ballot (Lou Whitaker suffered the same fate a few years ago). I'm not certain he is a Hall of Famer but I think he belongs in the conversation as much as many of these guys....

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

Sutter and Gossage dominated at what they did when they did it. Wetteland didnt, he was one a few good closers in his era. Dont get me wrong I like John I played on the same summer league team with him for 5 years in the 80's, and in Japan in 1985 as well. I have followed his career from day one, he is not a HOFer. Rice was the best at one time, but not long enough. Dawson is close. Will the Thrills career was all downhill, his stats and power went down just about every year. I live in Bay Area and followed Clark..... he is not a HOFer. McGwire HR % is near the top, and the 70 doesnt hurt. You still have to hit the ball.... drugs like steroids (1990's-2000), coke (1900 era), greenies (1960's-70's), dont replace bat speed and hand eye. last time I looked there were no obvious bodybuilders in MLB. As far as a HOFer, I always think of how much a player dominated at what they did when they did it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Frank, I probably misinterpreted your last post -

I believe that steroids can help with bat speed. Hand-eye coordination is different, that is just something people are blessed with. I would have to believe though that strength will increase bat speed. It's really odd to imagine that the split second required it takes to mash a ball can be enhanced by something, but steroids would be that something.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Caminiti was a body builder of sorts... I wouldn't say the league is full of them though. Sorry to drag the post in this direction... now back to the main topic... HOF voting...

If you base HOF entry on stats what about a player that won the HR title in 6 of 7 years?

[Archive]

Posted By: BigHurleyHick

"If you base HOF entry on stats what about a player that won the HR title in 6 of 7 years? "

Sure why not Sandy only had 6 years as a dominant pitcher.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

Frank,no one said Wetteland should be a hall of famer,he was just a random guy picked who compares well to Sutter,to prove Sutter is a bad choice in my opinion.Dominate or not,they basically had the same career value and id give the edge to Wetteland.In fact the only reason Wetteland even entered to conversation is because Jay said Sutter deserved election and Wetteland didnt deserve 1 vote.

In his prime Sutter mightve been more dominate(tho youre talking about a short prime) id take Wetteland's career anyday because he was a closer on 5 first place teams.

I couldve picked Tom Henke and compared them just the same,except Henke had a much better WHIP rating,a lower ERA(a much bigger difference between league average) closed for 4 playoff teams and a World Series champ,had a higher K/IP rate than both of them and had 311 saves in 642 games,yet he got 6 hall of fame votes in his only year eligible.Where Wetteland and Sutter's careers(if i had a choice to live it out sans injuries) is a close call for Wetteland,I'd choose Henke over either any day.

Basically no one voting this year looked at career stats,length of career or length of dominance,or compared him to others in his era and how they fared.The voters got led like lambs into voting for Bruce Sutter because it was a fashionable thing to do and as everyones been saying since last year,this is "the year of the closer!"

I have nothing against Bruce Sutter the pitcher,i liked him growing up,but theres minimum 50 guys id put in ahead of him,and some of those guys i wouldnt put in to begin with.

Just so theres no more confusion after i cleared up the Wetteland/HOF thing again(hopefully) this isnt a vote for Tom Henke, just because i said hes better career-wise, because i wouldnt put him in either

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Until Tony Oliva is elected, the HOF voting is a joke.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jimi

If you think baseball has it's issues with players getting elected, then check out football's standard:

"A 39-member panel will vote on the finalists. A candidate must get 80 percent of the vote to be elected with a minimum of three and a maximum of six getting in. If fewer than three get 80 percent, the candidate with the next highest percentage will be elected."

Wow, so that means if you have no stars on the list one year, it won't matter because at least 3 will get in even if they don't meet the 80% needed. Or.....if 7 get at least 80% of the votes, too bad for the 7th guy because he can't get in due to the stupid rule of 6 being the max. Not that I think 6 deserve to get in one, but this is all hypothetical. Crazy!


Jimi

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

You can't compare Wettland to Sutter on numbers alone. They played into totally different eras, as far as relievers are concerned. When Sutter was around, the only poeple getting 30 save in a season were him, Quiz and Goosage because starting pitchers were still finishing their games. In Wettland's era, 30 saves in a season doesn't even get you noticed. It's expected and if you don't come up with 30 plus saves, you job is on the line.

I never understood how Sutter got all this support and Qiz didn't. They are essentially the same pitcher, playing at the same time. I saw both of the pitch and given the choice, I'd rather have Quiz on the mound than Sutter, and Goosage before either of them.

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: Shannon

The hall has been and always will be a joke since it started. Who didnt vote for Cobb and Ruth in the first election. Enough said that speaks volumes in my mind. And whos the moron that voted for Walt Weiss, what a joke. Though it probably will never happen they need to change how players get into the hall. Its suppose to be for the best of the best. There are way to many marginal players who are already in.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

Does being a closer for 5 1st place teams get you noticed? or having better ERA vs lg average than Sutter? What about the much higher K/IP? Heres the most misleading thing everyone brings up,is how much more work the older relievers did,specifically Sutter

Sutter got 1.5 outs per appearance
Wetteland got 1.2 per

Is that really a huge difference? Obviously not because that equals just under 1 out extra per game,and 1 out is the smallest measure of innings pitched.

I can compare them on numbers because i took the time to look at their stats like WHIP rating and ERA compared to league and then figuring out the difference between their exact peers.I can also see Sutter wasnt anything special for the last 1/3rd of a short career(from 83-88 he had one real good year and 4 sub-average) while Wetteland was consistantly good and retired at 33 when he still couldve played 5 years if he wanted to.Sutter was done when he retired. And finally,and for the 3rd time in this thread, i compared them ONLY because you said Wetteland deserved 0 votes and 400 for Sutter was okay.

Also a poll on yahoo sports right now has 70% of the voters saying Goosage was a better choice than Sutter,but in the previous poll Gossage lost out to Rice by a wide margain.So what does that say for the voters? They mislead themselves,and remembered the good Sutter and probably couldnt tell you much else about him except what was on that cheat sheet they had.Its obviously been done before though because somehow Sutter won the Cy Young closing for a 5th place team,when Kent Tekulve put up similar numbers for the eventual World Champs.Im guessing its because Joe Neikro lost votes to his teammate JR Richards,and his brother who he led the league in wins with at 21? I dont get it