Raines, Bagwell and IRod get the call

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Topps206

The way I see it, baseball honors excellence and longevity at other positions. I see no reason why closer should be different.

At least Hoffman isn't lost in the shuffle like I feared. He is knocking on the door.

the thing is that relievers just don't provide that much value unless they are the elite of the elite (and even then a guy like Mariano Rivera, with his career, was less productive than an above avg starter with no HOF hopes like say Tim Hudson).

Closer has been a thing for a little under 50 years, and there are 5 guys in the HOF who were mainly relief pitchers. I think that's about right. Hoffman, Rivera and Wagner are all worthy guys, so if that jumps to 8.... yeah that feels right, 1 or 2 a decade give or take.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

the thing is that relievers just don't provide that much value unless they are the elite of the elite (and even then a guy like Mariano Rivera, with his career, was less productive than an above avg starter with no HOF hopes like say Tim Hudson).

Closer has been a thing for a little under 50 years, and there are 5 guys in the HOF who were mainly relief pitchers. I think that's about right. Hoffman, Rivera and Wagner are all worthy guys, so if that jumps to 8.... yeah that feels right, 1 or 2 a decade give or take.

Interesting that despite five 20-win seasons, Hunter averaged 16-12 over a 162 game season, and Hudson with one 20-win season, averaged 16-9. I don't consider Hunter to be HOF-worthy either, but their stats have some similarities. Their ERA's are 3.49 for Hudson and 3.26 for Hunter - not that much difference, and higher ERA's are more tolerated these days. Plus, many of you give players a bump for longevity (the Phil Niekro factor), so that would give Hudson an edge over Hunter.

[packs]

Hudson nearly won 100 more games than he lost too. I think the only pitchers to have a 100 win / loss differential who are not in the HOF are Mussina and Pettitte.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by packs

Hudson nearly won 100 more games than he lost too. I think the only pitchers to have a 100 win / loss differential who are not in the HOF are Mussina and Pettitte.

Ron Guidry averaged 17-9 with a 3.29 ERA and 175 K's/162 games.

But he didn't have Phil Niekro's stellar stat of longevity. Add 6 really crap years (not as crappy as his last one) to the end of his career and he makes the HOF.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Interesting that despite five 20-win seasons, Hunter averaged 16-12 over a 162 game season, and Hudson with one 20-win season, averaged 16-9. I don't consider Hunter to be HOF-worthy either, but their stats have some similarities. Their ERA's are 3.49 for Hudson and 3.26 for Hunter - not that much difference, and higher ERA's are more tolerated these days. Plus, many of you give players a bump for longevity (the Phil Niekro factor), so that would give Hudson an edge over Hunter.

Your example kinda shows why pitcher wins are a lousy gauge of production as they are so linked to the quality of a player's team. Hudson was a worse pitcher than Hunter (tho not by a lot)but because both played on good teams they gathered a lot of wins. (Though it can be said that Catfish Hunter is one of those 'on the cusp" players in the HOF)

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

Your example kinda shows why pitcher wins are a lousy gauge of production as they are so linked to the quality of a player's team. Hudson was a worse pitcher than Hunter (tho not by a lot)but because both played on good teams they gathered a lot of wins. (Though it can be said that Catfish Hunter is one of those 'on the cusp" players in the HOF)

I don't think Hudson was worse. In my opinion, there are more non-HOF-worthy pitchers in the HOF than any other position.

I love arguing about the HOF - HOF minimalists like me have the luxury of knowing that all of our players are in, whereas guys on the other end of the spectrum are disappointed. It was really rough listening to Twins and Cubs fans complain 10-15 years ago about being overlooked, as those two teams have had more not-quite-great players than any others.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I don't think Hudson was worse. In my opinion, there are more non-HOF-worthy pitchers in the HOF than any other position.

I love arguing about the HOF - HOF minimalists like me have the luxury of knowing that all of our players are in, whereas guys on the other end of the spectrum are disappointed. It was really rough listening to Twins and Cubs fans complain 10-15 years ago about being overlooked, as those two teams have had more not-quite-great players than any others.

Huddy's career was longer, but Hunter's peak was better.

[1952boyntoncollector]

John Paciorek was a career 1.000 hitter and was on pace for a 486 hit season at his current pace before he got hurt...he should be in the HOF

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...aciojo01.shtml

[EvilKing00]

I think Vlad was better (way better) than all three that got in. Not that i dont think the 3 who got in dont deserve it.

I also think bonds, clemens, joe jackson and pete rose belong in too - so maybe im crazy!