Current HOF election results

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Tabe

He's the best closer not named Mariano Rivera. I don't like closers in the Hall but it's a real position (now) and Wagner was absolutely elite at it for 15 years.

Except in the playoffs, which kills him for me. 10.03 ERA in the biggest games of his career and a WHIP close to 2. He melted down in practically every playoff series he was ever in.

[tod41]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Except in the playoffs, which kills him for me. 10.03 ERA in the biggest games of his career and a WHIP close to 2. He melted down in practically every playoff series he was ever in.

He is also melted down in big regular season games as well.

[Peter_Spaeth]

10.03 postseason ERA. Yeah yeah small sample size I can hear it now.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by tod41

He is also melted down in big regular season games as well.

Career 1.70 ERA in September & October.

[G1911]

If we pick out 11.2 inning sample sizes, I can make anyone look like an all-time great or a terrible player.

A reasonable argument against Billy Wagner is that he pitched barely 900 innings.

[abothebear]

The innings pitched is a big factor against modern relievers (and likely will be for starters going forward), but even bigger than that, in my view, is that closers can easily be replaced, and often are. Would anyone argue that a team’s top two or three starters wouldn’t succeed if the only had to pitch one inning and would likely only have to use their two best pitches? So each team has at least two guys that could do the job as good or better. The only reason they aren’t is because they are too good to be a closer, and their skills are needed in a more valuable spot. I don’t know how voters vote modern closers in as best in the game when they are likely not even the best on their own team. Furthermore, in recent years, the Wins star has lost some of its shine, with voters realizing that there is only so much a pitcher can do to get a win, that how a game ends is often outside of the starter’s control. Assigning the W is affected by circumstance and does not always reflect the pitcher’s performance (good or bad). The Save stat is just as circumstantial. Blown Saves makes more sense as a stat that measures performance, but what I am getting at is if you take the S numbers away, no one would give a second look to a pitcher that averaged less than 90 innings per year, no matter how great his other stats were. End rant.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by abothebear

The innings pitched is a big factor against modern relievers (and likely will be for starters going forward), but even bigger than that, in my view, is that closers can easily be replaced, and often are. Would anyone argue that a team’s top two or three starters wouldn’t succeed if the only had to pitch one inning and would likely only have to use their two best pitches? So each team has at least two guys that could do the job as good or better. The only reason they aren’t is because they are too good to be a closer, and their skills are needed in a more valuable spot. I don’t know how voters vote modern closers in as best in the game when they are likely not even the best on their own team. Furthermore, in recent years, the Wins star has lost some of its shine, with voters realizing that there is only so much a pitcher can do to get a win, that how a game ends is often outside of the starter’s control. Assigning the W is affected by circumstance and does not always reflect the pitcher’s performance (good or bad). The Save stat is just as circumstantial. Blown Saves makes more sense as a stat that measures performance, but what I am getting at is if you take the S numbers away, no one would give a second look to a pitcher that averaged less than 90 innings per year, no matter how great his other stats were. End rant.

I certainly don't mean to disparage Wagner or upset those who believe he is HOF worthy. But I thought this "rant" was very pertinent and well stated (with regard to closers in general).

With the exception of very few, I just don't believe "closers" belong in the Hall. Perhaps because I'm getting old, it seems like an artificially created position that could be filled by a number of individuals on a given team, who are capable of pitching one good inning. And to me, the biggest annoyance in baseball is when a starter or middle reliever is still on fire, but the manager mindlessly/mechanically goes to the closer in the 9th inning, only to have him blow the game.

[cgjackson222]

Some Billy Wagner Fun Facts (from the George Will Opening Day quiz from 2022):

1) Wagner has the lowest WHIP among pitchers with at least 900 innings in the live-ball era. (0.998 — fewer base runners than innings)

2) Wagner has allowed the fewest hits per nine innings since 1900 among pitchers with at least 900 innings. (5.99)

3) Wagner has the best strikeout rate per nine innings in MLB history among pitchers with 900 or more innings. (11.92)

4) Wagner is the only pitcher of the live-ball era, with a minimum of 750 innings pitched, against whom hitters batted below .200. (.187)

[BobC]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Some Billy Wagner Fun Facts (from the George Will Opening Day quiz from 2022):

1) Wagner has the lowest WHIP among pitchers with at least 900 innings in the live-ball era. (0.998 — fewer base runners than innings)

2) Wagner has allowed the fewest hits per nine innings since 1900 among pitchers with at least 900 innings. (5.99)

3) Wagner has the best strikeout rate per nine innings in MLB history among pitchers with 900 or more innings. (11.92)

4) Wagner is the only pitcher of the live-ball era, with a minimum of 750 innings pitched, against whom hitters batted below .200. (.187)

All true, but, Wagner in his career pitched 903 innings over 853 game appearances. In other words, he barely had to pitch more than 1 inning at a time, didn't have to worry about pitch counts, getting tired, or the like. Didn't have to be concerned with batters seeing him a second, or even third time in the same game, and so on. Take any great starting pitcher in the history of baseball, and tell them they only need to pitch one inning at a time, and see how good they would be. Those are great stats, but they are also virtually meaningless in the context of comparing them to how most MLB pitchers were used, especially those back in the earlier days. Can you imagine a Bob Feller or Walter Johnson if they only were asked to face batters for one inning every time they pitched? Relief/closer stats should never be compared and brought up in regard to starting pitchers, They are two entirely different positions and situations. At least they were more so until modern baseball has starting pitchers barely going over 6 innings anymore it seems. Managers today tend to leave starters in just long enough to qualify for the win, and then seem to go to their bullpens as fast as they can in many cases. You want to talk about stats that should have an asterisk next to them, just look at all these stats you listed for Wagner. Now if you were to more accurately state his standing for these stats compared to just closers/relief pitchers, then I think you are being much more fair and accurate. And even someone like Dennis Eckersley, who was both a very successful starter and relief/closing pitcher, his stats should be split, and the starter and closer numbers presented as completely separate records/statistics for him IMO. Just another failure on the part of statisticians and other so-called baseball historians to give proper credit, and accurately account for and reflect the very different contexts that existed throughout the different eras, and over the entire history, of baseball. Instead, they seem to have developed and follow a system and metrics based more on the modern game of baseball, and how it is played, allowing an extreme and unfair bias to exist in the manner and way things are often measured and compared, all seemingly more overall tilted for and towards the modern players.

And here's another fact I don't think statisticians and historians properly account for or take into consideration either. Ever notice how teams tend to only bring in their closers if they're leading the game at the end? Starting pitchers don't know if the other team's batters are going to have a good day at the plate or not. They have to face them if they end up being hot or cold that particular day. But if a closer typically only gets brought in when his team is ahead, that tends to indicate that the opposing batters maybe weren't having such a hot day at the plate after all. Think about that, because I don't think modern statisticians ever have, or have effectively figured out how to properly measure and reflect how what looks like to me as an absolutely positive built-in bias just for closers, is accounted for when comparing them to all other pitchers.

To maybe put it into and look at it in another way or from another perspective, how do you think a team's starting ace pitcher's stats would look if they were only started against teams with losing records, over the entire season? Food for thought.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by BobC

All true, but, Wagner in his career pitched 903 innings over 853 game appearances. In other words, he barely had to pitch more than 1 inning at a time, didn't have to worry about pitch counts, getting tired, or the like. Didn't have to be concerned with batters seeing him a second, or even third time in the same game, and so on. Take any great starting pitcher in the history of baseball, and tell them they only need to pitch one inning at a time, and see how good they would be. Those are great stats, but they are also virtually meaningless in the context of comparing them to how most MLB pitchers were used, especially those back in the earlier days. Can you imagine a Bob Feller or Walter Johnson if they only were asked to face batters for one inning every time they pitched? Relief/closer stats should never be compared and brought up in regard to starting pitchers, They are two entirely different positions and situations. At least they were more so until modern baseball has starting pitchers barely going over 6 innings anymore it seems. Managers today tend to leave starters in just long enough to qualify for the win, and then seem to go to their bullpens as fast as they can in many cases. You want to talk about stats that should have an asterisk next to them, just look at all these stats you listed for Wagner. Now if you were to more accurately state his standing for these stats compared to just closers/relief pitchers, then I think you are being much more fair and accurate. And even someone like Dennis Eckersley, who was both a very successful starter and relief/closing pitcher, his stats should be split, and the starter and closer numbers presented as completely separate records/statistics for him IMO. Just another failure on the part of statisticians and other so-called baseball historians to give proper credit, and accurately account for and reflect the very different contexts that existed throughout the different eras, and over the entire history, of baseball. Instead, they seem to have developed and follow a system and metrics based more on the modern game of baseball, and how it is played, allowing an extreme and unfair bias to exist in the manner and way things are often measured and compared, all seemingly more overall tilted for and towards the modern players.

And here's another fact I don't think statisticians and historians properly account for or take into consideration either. Ever notice how teams tend to only bring in their closers if they're leading the game at the end? Starting pitchers don't know if the other team's batters are going to have a good day at the plate or not. They have to face them if they end up being hot or cold that particular day. But if a closer typically only gets brought in when his team is ahead, that tends to indicate that the opposing batters maybe weren't having such a hot day at the plate after all. Think about that, because I don't think modern statisticians ever have, or have effectively figured out how to properly measure and reflect how what looks like to me as an absolutely positive built-in bias just for closers, is accounted for when comparing them to all other pitchers.

To maybe put it into and look at it in another way or from another perspective, how do you think a team's starting ace pitcher's stats would look if they were only started against teams with losing records, over the entire season? Food for thought.

Bob,

I think Wagner is a borderline HOF member. But he is one of the best closers ever.

Please keep in mind that Net54 is not your personal blog, and as such, it would be great to keep your posts to maybe 150 words or less.

Also, the likelihood that anyone will read one of your "paragraphs" that is more than 5 sentences (let alone a dozen) is low.

So if you don't want your "thoroughness" to go to waste, you might want to make a New Years resolution to make your posts much shorter.

[tod41]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Career 1.70 ERA in September & October.

Check out what he did or didn't do in late August 2007 against the Phillies during the Mets awful collapse in 2007. The guy got the routine saves not the ones when the pressure was on. I remember him blowing a 4-0 lead against the Yankees at Shea.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by tod41

Check out what he did or didn't do in late August 2007 against the Phillies during the Mets awful collapse in 2007. The guy got the routine saves not the ones when the pressure was on. I remember him blowing a 4-0 lead against the Yankees at Shea.

So he blew ONE lead against the Yankees in May of 2006 and that means he can't get saves when the pressure is on. Never mind that his ERA against the Yankees was 0.82 outside of that one appearance. Also weird that you don't remember that he got saves in 1-run games against the Yankees the day before and after that blown one.

Yeah, he had a bad stretch at the end of August in 2007. That happens. When you cherry pick 3 or 4 games out of 850, you're going to find some bad ones. That's like saying Mariano Rivera sucked in the World Series because he blew Game 7 in 2001. Or trashing Rivera because he was horrible in 1995.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Tabe

So he blew ONE lead against the Yankees in May of 2006 and that means he can't get saves when the pressure is on. Never mind that his ERA against the Yankees was 0.82 outside of that one appearance. Also weird that you don't remember that he got saves in 1-run games against the Yankees the day before and after that blown one.

Yeah, he had a bad stretch at the end of August in 2007. That happens. When you cherry pick 3 or 4 games out of 850, you're going to find some bad ones. That's like saying Mariano Rivera sucked in the World Series because he blew Game 7 in 2001. Or trashing Rivera because he was horrible in 1995.

Well, IF we are keeping him out because of that one game, then we have to keep Andruw Jones out because of his stint with the Dodgers in 2008, where he taunted us about his abysmal stat line by walking to the plate to the song "Don't Worry, Be Happy".

Ugh.

[etsmith]

earlywynnfan, he has 3,000 hits and over 1800 runs scored. If that's not a Hall of Famer I don't know what is.

[lowpopper]

if Rolen gets in with his 2000 hits, it's time to stop paying attention

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by lowpopper

if Rolen gets in with his 2000 hits, it's time to stop paying attention

Don't forget about that stellar .281 batting average.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by lowpopper

if Rolen gets in with his 2000 hits, it's time to stop paying attention

Yeah, can't have him lowering the bar. If he gets in, before long guys with 1588 hits and zero power like Phil Rizzuto will get in. Oh wait...

[lowpopper]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Yeah, can't have him lowering the bar. If he gets in, before long guys with 1588 hits and zero power like Phil Rizzuto will get in. Oh wait...

Superior players have been denied prior to Rolen.

Rizzuto needs a damnatio memoriae from the hall, agreed

[etsmith]

I've always seen the Baseball Hall of Fame as a tiered structure, with different levels for various levels of accomplishment. If you only put the best of the best in the Hall of Fame there wouldn't be very many players at all.

[egri]

Originally Posted by etsmith

I've always seen the Baseball Hall of Fame as a tiered structure, with different levels for various levels of accomplishment. If you only put the best of the best in the Hall of Fame there wouldn't be very many players at all.

I think the voters generally get it right. There are a handful of all-time greats, a larger number of great-but-not-inner-circle players, a larger number of guys who can convincingly be argued one way or the other, and some of them are in or will get in eventually, some won't, and then there are a few head-scratchers.