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

[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.