Let's talk about Hall of Fame candidates who have been "neglected"

[abothebear]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

If being a modern closer is so easy, why have there been only 30 of them to amass even 300 saves (and only 12 with 350)? .

Because saves are so insignificant teams didn’t strategize to amass them until recent changes in the game. Because designating one guy to amass the save stat is largely arbitrary and not done, or not consistently done, by all teams. Because there are a limited number of saves that can be gotten each season. Because closers are a dime a dozen, so a bout of bad luck or the whim of a manager can bump a closer down the line at any time for any length of time, regardless of how great the pitcher may be. Because some amassers of saves are better than closers and are moved from save-getter into the starting lineup.

[Seven]

Something I'm interested in seeing is how Voters are going to handle some of the modern starting pitchers considering the game has changed so much. I always think of a pitcher like DeGrom who unfortunately has caught a bit of the injury bug this season, but it's difficult to deny his dominance. He'll be 34 next year but one would think he still has a few more years left. I'm wondering how his Hall of Fame case will be handled.

I don't think we're going to see another 300 game winner, anytime soon. Is 250 games going to be the new 300? Scherzer has an outside shot at it, so does Greinke. Will be interesting to see.

[packs]

Originally Posted by abothebear

Because saves are so insignificant teams didn’t strategize to amass them until recent changes in the game. Because designating one guy to amass the save stat is largely arbitrary and not done, or not consistently done, by all teams. Because there are a limited number of saves that can be gotten each season. Because closers are a dime a dozen, so a bout of bad luck or the whim of a manager can bump a closer down the line at any time for any length of time, regardless of how great the pitcher may be. Because some amassers of saves are better than closers and are moved from save-getter into the starting lineup.

I'm not saying you're wrong but if closers are a dime a dozen, shouldn't the elite of the elite become HOFers? What Rivera was able to do as a closer and for so long is extremely rare. Same thing with Hoyt Wilhelm. These guys are no doubters in my mind. They were so far away from dime a dozen it wouldn't make sense not to have them in the HOF.

[abothebear]

I understand we have to deal with what is, but I have a hard time believing there aren’t a thousand great starters who would have been even better if they only prepped for and gave all effort to one inning when already staked with the lead. That is why the sentiment of Rivera being the guy if you needed one inning is nonsense to me. Let me see the hundreds of Hall of Fame starters prepare for and only be depended on for one inning and then I’ll tell you if Mariano is the guy or not. I highly doubt it would be so clear. Frank Tannana, Roy Oswalt, Chuck Finley, these and many many more really good pitchers can easily be imagined having long and successful careers as one-inning closers. They weren’t because they were too good to waste on that, especially when there was a plethora of not-as-good guys to be maximized in a short stint when only one great pitch is needed.

Keith Hernandez closes out the most games as a hitter, nobody talks about this stat when making Keith’s case. But it is essentially the same statistic as a save.

What about Lenny Harris? Should he be in for all time pinch hits? Sure, he isn’t good enough to be a starter, but look at him shine in his fraction of the game.

[packs]

Again, I think you're vastly oversimplifying what a closer does. There is a reason hardly any closers close out games for 20 years. There is nothing to doubt about Rivera. He is as good as you will ever get at the position. Roy Oswalt would not have been better than he was.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Again, I think you're vastly oversimplifying what a closer does. There is a reason hardly any closers close out games for 20 years. There is nothing to doubt about Rivera. He is as good as you will ever get at the position. Roy Oswalt would not have been better than he was.

Did you read the article I posted?

[Peter_Spaeth]

To the fan, the ninth inning seems more dramatic and important. But the reality is that the team that scores the most runs over all nine innings wins. Therefore, all runs count the same, as do all runs prevented. Therefore, a rational team should want its best pitchers throwing the most innings, not limiting them to specialized innings which is a fallacy.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The popular line about Rivera was that he made it an 8 inning game. Why wouldn't that have been equally true (if it was) had he pitched the first inning of the same games?

[packs]

The team that scores the most runs wins, but games are decided in the 9th inning. That's when you need to win the game. You can't win the game with 7 strong.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

The team that scores the most runs wins, but games are decided in the 9th inning. That's when you need to win the game. You can't win the game with 7 strong.

A run scored is a run scored. A run prevented is a run prevented. If you didn't give up the 2 in the first, you would be in a dramatically different place heading into the 9th.

[packs]

No. If you score 3 in the first and the score is 3-2 in the 9th, you don't win for scoring 3 in the first. You win when the 9th inning is over and you're still ahead.

[abothebear]

Asserting that the game is decided or won in the 9th doesn’t make it true.

[perezfan]

Then let the pinch hitters in.... Manny Mota, Smoky Burgess and Lenny Harris belong in the Hall of Fame!