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

[Peter_Spaeth]

If a golfer misses a birdie putt on 1, and then misses a birdie putt on 18 that would have tied him for the lead, both shots are of equal consequence, although of course to the observer the miss on 18 might seem more critical.

[packs]

I don't think things are as philosophical as that. Sports are practical. Best score wins. Your score is not recorded until the game is complete. The game cannot be completed until it's finished.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't think things are as philosophical as that. Sports are practical. Best score wins. Your score is not recorded until the game is complete. The game cannot be completed until it's finished.

To me you are offering truisms but not reasoned logical analysis which to me dictates that all scores count the same and are therefore equally important.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Why isn't an eighth inning hold as valuable as a ninth inning save? Do holders now deserve a place in the Hall?

[packs]

Guess it depends how you view Wilhelm. He has over 200 saves but finished 650 out of 1,070 games. Also started just over 50 but a lot of innings in between.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Suppose there was a pitcher who almost exclusively pitched the 8th and sometimes the 7th inning, and did so for a career, amassing 600+ "holds" which is to the best of my knowledge an official stat. Hall worthy, and if not why not?

[G1911]

If the other team scores 2 runs and I score 3 in the first, my team wins.

If the other team scores 2 runs and I score 3 in the second, my team wins.

If the other team scores 2 runs and I score 3 in the third, my team wins.

If the other team scores 2 runs and I score 3 in the fourth, my team wins.

If the other team scores 2 runs and I score 3 in the fifth, my team wins.

If the other team scores 2 runs and I score 3 in the sixth, my team wins.

If the other team scores 2 runs and I score 3 in the seventh, my team wins.

If the other team scores 2 runs and I score 3 in the eighth, my team wins.

If the other team scores 2 runs and I score 3 in the ninth, my team wins.


It does not matter which inning I score, they are equal in determining the outcome. Obviously a game ends at some point but my 9th inning run scoring is no more or less important than my first inning run scoring in the math; it's more dramatic in the 9th for emotional tension and excitement.

[abothebear]

I think the key here is that the final out is recorded the same way all outs are recorded. There isn’t a special way to finish a game, no finishing move. The drama may increase but the mechanism is the same, and in that way the 9th inning is no different than any other. It demands no more or less than any of the other innings. Some pitchers and hitters may be influenced (or not) by heightened drama. But the degree of that influence is largely small-sample-size narrative driven. And I don’t believe influence in the positive direction is a rarity among the sport’s elites (and by elite here I mean most players that reach the majors). For Rivera in particular, since he keeps being brought up, but also for the other top closers, consistency and longevity of excellence for what they do is to be admired, of course. It is what they do that is the issue. Pitching one inning with the lead, most of the time with the bases empty, under conditions where you are more free to throw your hardest, and generally only have to have two pitches working for you, is not that special. If you are a major league caliber pitcher, that description describes the 2nd easiest job you can have (the lefty or righty specialist being the easiest, you only have to have one great pitch that only needs to work against one particular handed-ness). Am I mad the Rivera is in? Not at Rivera (just as I’m not mad at Baines, god for him). You might say I’m mad at the idea, especially the way his first ballot election revealed how taken in the voters are by the save and by the Yankees hot air. But generally I view the hall as something that is very unscientific with the veneer of being scientific. And since it is a vote, rationality about the collective results is further compromised. Yet, naming something is a powerful thing. Once that name is bestowed, as convoluted and compromised as it may be, reality is made new. Rivera is a hall of famer whether I would have voted for him or not (I would not have), whether I agree with the results or not. What that also means is that his election doesn’t mean a hill of beans toward other relievers elections. Likewise, one cheaters election does not mean all others should get in. Consistency only matters in computations. A voter may wish to be consistent, but insisting that the voting body act consistently is not Something what can be expected from a voting body.

Now, what say we get back to considering the case of Johnny Grubb. I vote yes for him.