HOF Future Eligibles

[Fred]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Trevor Hoffman? Oh please no. And if Jorge Posada gets more than 5% of the vote Ted Simmons should go apeshit on the BBWAA.

Tom C

Ok, what's wrong with Hoffman? 600 saves, a sub 3 ERA, more than a K an inning. The guy was not only a great closer with one of the highest save conversion percentages, he is an also an incredible humble role model. No, he shouldn't get in because he's a great role model but I tell you what, he's cut from the same type of cloth as Jeter, Mariano, Tony Gwynn and a few other incredible team players. He dominated at his position. Yeah, I'll give Mariano an edge on being the better closer but Trevor was no slouch as a closer.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Fred

Ok, what's wrong with Hoffman? 600 saves, a sub 3 ERA, more than a K an inning. The guy was not only a great closer with one of the highest save conversion percentages, he is an also an incredible humble role model. No, he shouldn't get in because he's a great role model but I tell you what, he's cut from the same type of cloth as Jeter, Mariano, Tony Gwynn and a few other incredible team players. He dominated at his position. Yeah, I'll give Mariano an edge on being the better closer but Trevor was no slouch as a closer.

He's a closer. Which means he wasn't good enough to be a starter. Someone who played a total of less than 1100 innings in the major leagues does not deserve to be in the Hall. Saying he might be the second best relief pitcher of all time carries about as much weight with me as someone who was the second best pinch hitter of all time.

Tom C

[LincolnVT]

Hoping for 2016!

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

He's a closer. Which means he wasn't good enough to be a starter.

Tom C

That's not at all what being a closer means. Personally, I would be all for Lee Smith and Hoffman is a no brainer.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

That's not at all what being a closer means. Personally, I would be all for Lee Smith and Hoffman is a no brainer.

Of course that is what it means. Hoffman began his professional career as a closer in the minors because his pitch repertoire was not good enough to be a starter. There was a REALLY good reason why Hoffman was an 11th round draft choice. Admittedly he was great at what he was asked to do. But going max effort for 15-20 pitches at a time does not make someone a Hall Of Famer.

Tom C

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Of course that is what it means. Hoffman began his professional career as a closer in the minors because his pitch repertoire was not good enough to be a starter. There was a REALLY good reason why Hoffman was an 11th round draft choice. Admittedly he was great at what he was asked to do. But going max effort for 15-20 pitches at a time does not make someone a Hall Of Famer.

Tom C

In order to keep the tone civil, I will say your arguments make no sense and your statements reflect no understanding of baseball in the post-1970s era.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

In order to keep the tone civil, I will say your arguments make no sense and your statements reflect no understanding of baseball in the post-1970s era.

I would say that my statements reflect an opinion shared by the new generation of number crunchers who understand that the position of a "closer" is nothing but a statistic generated position on a baseball team. Just because major league managers are dumb enough to manage to a stat does not make the position of "closer" any more important. The best arm in the bullpen needs to be used in the most high leverage situation. But there is no statistic for that so we can't have that. So we just keep it simple for everyone involved and save the best arm in the pen for the last inning. Even if the game ends up not getting that far because some lesser pitcher blew it before that point.

A save is a stat that is managed to. The only one in baseball really, although occasionally a manager will manage to the win stat too.

Good relief pitchers are like good pinch hitters. Use them in key situations. They can generally be found on the scrap Heep, and ones that are good for a long time are not easy to find. But that does not make them Hall Of Fame worthy.

If you do not think very good relievers and closers can be found from the leftovers of other teams, ask Neal Huntington the current GM of the Pirates. His closers the past six or seven years have been a failed minor league starter, another team's seventh inning guy, and a player who spent the majority of the year prior to coming to the Pirates in the minors.

I would therefore submit that my thoughts on the subject are more in line with current baseball theory than is the idea that Trevor Hoffman is is any way shape or form a Hall Of Famer.

Tom C

[Exhibitman]

On the juicers, it seems to me that the game has to decide whether integrity plays a role in the HOF. Bonds and Clemens were likely HOFers without the steroids but we will never know that in the end because they cheated, as have A-Roid and Palmiero and several others, which we know for a fact. I don't care if they can jack a ball into the upper deck or throw 100 mph. If I ever have a grandson and if I ever get to take him to Cooperstown I'd really prefer not to have to explain how the PED jocks are role models. I'd rather show him the stats these guys have and explain that they cheated and because of that they have never been given the honor of election to the hall. And yes, I do realize that there are some pretty shitty people in the HOF--racists, drunks, and jerks--but their presence is not a reason to add some more bad apples to the barrel. That said, if there is nothing in the Mitchell Report on a guy and nothing else showing he used I don't see how you can justify keeping him out on the basis of PED use.

[HRBAKER]

I fail to see the reason to be sympathetic to someone's plight for the HOF when they chose to cheat for the money, the fame, the records, the contracts. Being snubbed by the voters is part of paying the piper to me. It is no less of a HOF to me without these guys in it and that goes for Mr. Rose as well.

[conor912]

IMO there's no way career closers should get in and not career DH's. I am from Boston where David Ortiz is a God, regardless of steroid speculation. There is no arguing that he was one of the most clutch, most feared hitters in the game for the better part of a decade, yet when he becomes eligible you're going to hear cries from every corner of the baseball world that he doesn't deserve it because he never played in the field. As for Hoffman and the other closers, electing a guy who threw 40 pitches/week for his entire career is a joke.

[HRBAKER]

The stats although certainly there seem to be of limited importance to a number of writers who question their legitimacy.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by conor912

IMO there's no way career closers should get in and not career DH's. I am from Boston where David Ortiz is a God, regardless of steroid speculation. There is no arguing that he was one of the most clutch, most feared hitters in the game for the better part of a decade, yet when he becomes eligible you're going to hear cries from every corner of the baseball world that he doesn't deserve it because he never played in the field. As for Hoffman and the other closers, electing a guy who threw 40 pitches/week for his entire career is a joke.

Ortiz without steroids is a borderline case. When you look at advanced metrics, he is behind other 1b like Keith Hernsndez, Will Clark, Fred McGriff and Norm Cash. He does have a good OPS and post season success. War of 47.7 is not good. He may have had a chance to eventually get in if clean.

The problem is that he failed a drug test early in his Red Sox career. That taints everything he did in Boston. He sure wasn't very good in Minnesota. Piazza and Bagwell are struggling to get in with much stronger resumes and weaker connections to steroids. I don't see any way Ortiz even gets 40% of the vote, let alone 75.

[Robextend]

I'm really torn when it comes to closer's. Can they be considered failed starters...maybe, but they are an accepted part of the game these days and there probably should be a place for them in the HOF. With that said, I would think you need to be a completely dominant one to get in, and I am not sure there are any in that I would consider dominant.

Even Eckersley, who is regarded as a top closer of all-time...take a look at his 11 year stretch as closer as far as ERA:

1987 - 3.03
1988 - 2.35
1989 - 1.56
1990 - 0.61
1991 - 2.96
1992 - 1.91
1993 - 4.16
1994 - 4.26
1995 - 4.83
1996 - 3.30
1997 - 3.91

His dominance fizzled after 5 years or so...his starting numbers were good, but certainly not HOF worthy as maybe a Smoltz would be considered.

So why is Eckersley in the HOF?

[refz]

The championships will probably or eventually land Posada in the hall.

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by refz

The championships will probably or eventually land Posada in the hall.

4 champions did not do anything for Bernie Williams, who was twice the hitter Posada was.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by Robextend

4 champions did not do anything for Bernie Williams, who was twice the hitter Posada was.

Exactly. The cronyism of the old veterans committee is thankfully a thing of the past. Posada the player is the one going up for consideration, not the 1998 Yankees as a team. No way is he a HOFer.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by dgo71

Exactly. The cronyism of the old veterans committee is thankfully a thing of the past. Posada the player is the one going up for consideration, not the 1998 Yankees as a team. No way is he a HOFer.

Bernie is a victim of playing a position which usually has the greatest hitters, while Posada played a position whose ranks are thin in Cooperstown. Piazza and Ivan are HOFers and Ted Simmons should go in before Posada is considered, and should have gone in before Ray Schalk or Rick Ferrell.

[JollyElm]

Debating the relevance of closers (regardless of which side of the fence your opinion lies on) is quite similar to the lingering debates regarding the election of place kickers to the NFL Hall of Fame in Canton.

With kickers, they spend almost the entire game on the bench and come in when needed. If they make game winning kicks (Vinatieri), they are celebrated. If they go wide right (Norwood), their name is forever attached to a single moment of failure.

Closers are an integral part of the game. Ask any Mets fan when was the last time they had anyone…ANYONE…who could seal a victory for us and they will laugh at you. A team absolutely needs that guy. But when you're talking about baseball overall, it seems closers are very much denigrated for the small amount of time they are actually in the game. As others have said, gone are the days of the Gossage, Smith, Sutter 'long saves.' Now it seems the most time a closer is in the game is a single inning. It's ridiculous how that aspect of the game has changed so much and it (along with other things people have said in this thread) will always work against them being enshrined.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Robextend

I'm really torn when it comes to closer's. Can they be considered failed starters...maybe, but they are an accepted part of the game these days and there probably should be a place for them in the HOF. With that said, I would think you need to be a completely dominant one to get in, and I am not sure there are any in that I would consider dominant.

Even Eckersley, who is regarded as a top closer of all-time...take a look at his 11 year stretch as closer as far as ERA:

1987 - 3.03
1988 - 2.35
1989 - 1.56
1990 - 0.61
1991 - 2.96
1992 - 1.91
1993 - 4.16
1994 - 4.26
1995 - 4.83
1996 - 3.30
1997 - 3.91

His dominance fizzled after 5 years or so...his starting numbers were good, but certainly not HOF worthy as maybe a Smoltz would be considered.

So why is Eckersley in the HOF?

I've been asking that for awhile now. I didn't think he belonged when he got elected.

[Greg Sonk]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

He's a closer. Which means he wasn't good enough to be a starter. Someone who played a total of less than 1100 innings in the major leagues does not deserve to be in the Hall. Saying he might be the second best relief pitcher of all time carries about as much weight with me as someone who was the second best pinch hitter of all time.

Tom C

Obviously I agree with you wholeheartedly, but please don't even dignify "closer" as a position. He pitches. Relief pitchers are inherently less valuable than equivalent starters because they don't throw as many innings. There's no argument to be made to the contrary.

We have all this evidence that points to the relative value of relievers to starters and we still see media members saying Hoffman had excellent longevity while simultaneously questioning Pedro's. Can't account for willful ignorance.

[btcarfagno]

Actually I made a mistake. I forgot Hoffman started as an infielder in the minors, so his draft spot was due to his bat being terrible. That said, however, they did not try to make him a starter. He was a reliever because of his limited amount of major league pitches.

Tom C