Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - Sutter elected to the Hall of Fame

Bruce Sutter was elected to the Hall of Fame on this year's ballot. Sutter's fame began with his superb 1977 season, and continued with another fine one in 1979 which landed him a Cy Young award.

His career in the 1980s had some moments, but he is now perhaps best remembered for his use of the split-fingered fastball. The splitter is an essential part of the repertoire of many pitchers who followed him.

Jim Rice, Goose Gossage and Andre Dawson each received more than 60% of the vote. Bert Blyleven passed the 50% mark.

Posted by Mike Green on Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 02:45 PM EST.

Sutter elected to the Hall of Fame | 42 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Jordan - Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 03:46 PM EST (#139407) #

Gossage pretty clearly deserves to be in ahead of Sutter, but I think Bruce is a legitimate HOF entrant. I do think some credit should be given to changing how the game is played, and whether or not Sutter invented the split-finger, he was the first to use it effectively in the major leagues. And his raw stats aren't exactly terrible. Goose will get in too, eventually, and down the road nobody will care what order they arrived in.

It's a real shame that Alan Trammell is gone from the ballot. I do not understand the writers' utter lack of interest in this truly great shortstop.

John Northey - Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 03:58 PM EST (#139408) #

Why would Trammell be gone? He was over 5% and hasn't been retired for 15 years (just 10).

The shifting of votes...

Sutter - 66.7% to 76.9% (up 10.2%)
Rice - 59.5% to 64.8% (up 5.3%)
Goose - 55.2% to 64.6% (up 9.4%)
Dawson - 52.3% to 61.0% (up 8.7%)
Blyleven - 40.9% to 53.3% (up 12.4%)
Smith - 38.8% to 45.0% (up 6.2%)
Morris - 33.3% to 41.2% (up 7.9%)
John - 23.8% to 29.6% (up 5.8%)
Garvey - 20.5% to 26.0% (up 4.5%)
Trammell - 16.9% to 17.7% (up 0.8%)
Parker - 12.6% to 14.4% (up 1.8%)
Mattingly - 11.4% to 12.3% (up 0.9%)
Concepcion - 10.7% to 12.5% (up 1.8%)
Murphy - 10.5% to 10.8% (up 0.3%)
McGee - 5.0% to 2.3% (down 1.7%)

Just one guy went down year over year (McGee). Biggest gainer was Blyleven, the only one in double digits outside of Sutter. I suspect only Goose has a shot next year of this group though as outfield voters will go for Gwynn over Rice & Dawson, while power hitter fans go for McGwire (Ripken is an all-around overall pick so shouldn't 'hurt' any of the others). Goose also will have one less competitor for the 'reliever vote' (figuring some voters pick no more than one of each type of player each year). Blyleven might also gain more ground with one less pitcher on the list.

Lee Smith is the one to watch next year as other relievers get close to his record (Hoffman could catch him next year with 42, Rivera is still 99 away). This could either help (brings more attention) or hurt (record not that impressive if guys 'already' are about to break it).

Btw, imo only Rice, Goose, Dawson, Blyleven will get voted in by the writers while Morris and John will eventually slip in via some form of the vet committee. Poor Trammell will be left on the outside looking in for a long time along with Sweet Lou (hopefully both go in at once someday). Lee Smith I suspect will never make it.

Ron - Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 04:05 PM EST (#139410) #

I don't know if Rice will ever get in because his relationship with the media wasn't good. And yes voters do take that into consideration and even hold grudges. Jeff Blair said he never voted for Gary Carter because he acted like a jerk towards him.

It will be interesting to see how many players get in next year. Gwynn and Ripken Jr will be locks. I would like to think McGwire is a lock too but now you never know. And of course there's are good friend Jose Canseco.

Mick Doherty - Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 04:08 PM EST (#139411) #

As for Sutter -- it's ... about ... damn ... TIME!

Tony Fernandez is on the ballot in '07, too. No offense to Tony, but if he gets more support than Trammell, it would be a HUGE joke.

I have no Win Shares or anything statistical to back that up, only years of watching both, two All-Stars for sure, one Hall of Fame talent and one Hall of Really Good.

Anders - Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 04:08 PM EST (#139412) #

I'm not as sure as to his candicacy myself. Keeping in mind I didnt see him pitch -

The minimum hall requirement is 10 years.
He played 12 years - and in one year he pitched 18 innings, another 45. So he pitched for 11 years, lets say.
Of those 11 years, he was poor in 3 of them, and not good after age 31. (ERA+ of less than 95)
He was legitimately fantastic/otherworldly in 3 years, and really good in another 5. So he had 8 seasons as a good major league pitcher...

In any case, he's not as good a candidate at Bert, or Goose.

Mike Green - Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 04:13 PM EST (#139413) #

I wasn't planning to deal with relievers in this year's Hall Watch series, but I do have views about Gossage and Sutter. Closers do not in my view contribute nearly as much to a team as starters. The very best, Fingers, Eckersley, Rivera do merit induction, but the second tier do not. Gossage is the toughest case because he was arguably as good as or perhaps even better than Fingers.

Sutter's case was, in my view, very weak. He had 2 great years, 1977 and 1979. During the 1980s, he was nowhere near the closer that Dan Quisenberry was. You have to give him a lot of credit for popularizing the use of the split, but Tommy John would merit immediate induction on that theory.

Thomas - Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 04:53 PM EST (#139414) #

My ballot wouldn't include Sutter and I agree that he's basically comparable to Quisenberry. They're not the same pitcher, but they're not as far removed as the voters think. Sutter wasn't the closer Gossage was, and if he was to make it to the Hall he should have followed the Goose, not precede him. He's not the worst name in the Hall, but I don't like the choice.

I'm sure many of you have similarly-minded ears, but the fact that Sutter is in while Blyleven struggles to make 50% is criminal. I'm glad to see he's gaining in the votes, but I suspect he'll stagnate next year with the new names on the ballot. Trammell is a huge oversight, but Blyleven is a crime.

Craig B - Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 04:54 PM EST (#139415) #

I have no Win Shares or anything statistical to back that up, only years of watching both, two All-Stars for sure, one Hall of Fame talent and one Hall of Really Good.

Watching? You judge how good a hitter is by watching? That's not a very good way to do it. Use the numbers, man, they're really useful.

I assume it must be only hitting you're talking about, because Alan Trammell couldn't even lift Tony Fernandez's glove, much less carry it. No question Tram was a somewhat better hitter, but as shortstops, in their prime, it's not close.

Trammell had a longer career at short, and one can legitimately prefer him on that score as well...

GrrBear - Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 04:56 PM EST (#139416) #

Who was more valuable at his peak and at his career - Bruce Sutter or Tom Henke?

Henke's five top ERA+: 232, 209, 197, 182, 182
Sutter's five top ERA+: 327, 226, 185, 149, 143

Henke's career ERA+: 156
Sutter's career ERA+: 136

Henke's career WHIP: 1.092
Sutter's career WHIP: 1.140

Henke's career SO/9: 9.81
Sutter's career SO/9: 7.43

Sutter had a higher but shorter peak, and he pitched more innings, but I'd still rather have Henke. Then again, Tom's my all-time favorite Jays pitcher, so I may be biased. :)

Mike D - Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 05:48 PM EST (#139421) #

Blyleven is a crime

I'm aware of, and sympathetic to, the argument for Blyleven as a Hall of Famer. But I can't agree with the oft-stated claim that it's a "crime" that he's had to wait to gain entry.

Charitably, Bert could (at best) slot in somewhere around the 20th percentile of Hall of Famers. Of course, I get the point that if you're better than even one Hall of Famer, you can always make the argument that "if X is in, I should definitely be in." But the fact that he was better than Don Sutton and Gaylord Perry says more about the induction of Sutton and Perry than about the "crime" of Blyleven, in my opinion.

The other thing about Bert is many have persuasively demonstrated that he's been terribly underrated because his excellent peripherals exceeded his ERA+, such that if he had better defence/run support/luck he may possibly have attained ERA and counting-stat greatness rather than "merely" being a very good pitcher for a very long time. But sometimes, them's the breaks.

If the fill-in-the-blank game is "It just wouldn't be a Baseball Hall of Fame without ____," I couldn't honestly scribble Bert's name. He's an order of magnitude below, say, Maddux, who in turn is an order of magnitude below, say, Clemens.

And yes, if Bruce Sutter is a Hall of Famer, then Bert Blyleven should definitely be there, and be there sooner. But I think we should be a bit more reluctant to overstate the case for Bert.

Magpie - Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 06:22 PM EST (#139425) #

Hmmm. A tale of two pitchers. The first guy is Bruce Sutter, Hall of Famer. The second man is not a Hall of Famer, for reasons that must be glaringly obvious to everyone who looks at these numbers.

W   L   G  GS CG SHO  GF  SV   IP    H   R    ER HR  BB   SO HBP WP  BFP IBB BK  ERA *lgERA 
68 71  661   0  0  0  512 300 1042.1 879 370 328 77 309  861  13 37 4251  83   8 2.83 3.85
41 42  642   0  0  0  548 311  789.2 607 252 234 64 255  861   9 30 3194  29   3 2.67 4.16

Well, maybe it's not glaringly obvious. Got to love the identical career total for strikeouts, though. Perhaps the post-season explains things.

 G GS ERA   W-L SV CG SHO   IP   H ER BB  SO
 6  0 3.00  2-0  3  0   0  12.0  6  4  3   7
15  0 1.83  2-0  5  0   0  19.7 10  4  9  15

Maybe not. Grumble.

Well, if he's not a Hall of Famer, could they at least hoist his #50 to the fifth deck at the Rogers Centre?

Hartley - Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 06:39 PM EST (#139428) #

There is a website called www.bertbelongs.com

It measures his career against 9 Hall of Fame pitchers.

I think Blyleven should be in; he has 2 World Series rings and has pitched a no-hitter.
There are very few numbers in his career that stand out.

Magpie - Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 06:49 PM EST (#139431) #

There are very few numbers in his career that stand out.

Well, the 3700 strikeouts and 287 wins stick out a little. You would think! :-)

HollywoodHartman - Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 06:58 PM EST (#139433) #

Mags,

Its Henke... Right?

I just got into baseball in '03 so I don't know much outside of stats for most HOF hopefuls, but it seems Blyleven has the stats to go in and thensome...

Mike D - Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 07:03 PM EST (#139435) #

Bert may well belong, and I appreciate the efforts of bertbelongs.com...

...but it's not exactly apples to apples to compare straight-up career numbers of Blyleven with pitchers who thrived in a vastly more hitter-friendly era. With no adjustment for era whatsoever, Blyleven comes pretty close --- but still can't surpass -- Greg Maddux.

Nick - Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 07:48 PM EST (#139437) #

I felt so terrible when Tony F. made that error for Cleveland in 1997 and was made into a goat. When he came back to Toronto and had the best 2 seasons of his career with the bat at the ages of 36 and 37, it ranks as the most surprising comeback that I've seen as a baseball fan, much less a Jays fan. Tony went 11 seasons in between .300 seasons! If someone had told me the day after the 1997 World Series ended that Tony Fernandez would be an All Star in 1999 representing the Toronto Blue Jays, I would have had that person committed to a mental institution. One of my favorite Jays.

Magpie - Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 08:18 PM EST (#139439) #

Yes, HH, it was the Terminator. Sutter is a pitcher of enormous historical significance - he and his managers changed the way the game is... managed, actually - but better than Goose Gossage?

The HoF's weird bias against 1980s players has been discussed before. Does anyone else think it's becoming a wee bit difficult for a starting pitcher to make the Hall without 300 wins? Despite the fact that the four man rotation has gone the way of the dodo, which costs a modern starter 75 career starts if he pitches for 15 years. You'd think voters would actually be more impressed by John's and Blyleven's and Morris' raw win totals. Clearly, they aren't.

Ah, what can you do? Let's all go admire Waite Hoyt's plaque, and stop off and check in on Jesse Haines while we're at it... in the Hall of Fame for Famous and Pretty Good.

Thomas - Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 08:25 PM EST (#139440) #

Mike, in my mind Bert is the best baseball player not in the Hall of Fame, who has played in the since 1950. I want to say the best player currently not in the HoF, but my knowledge of pre-WWI baseball history (and somewhat up to WWII) isn't of a sufficient stature to allow me to make that claim.

But, I think that distinction does allow me to call the non-election of Bert a "crime", particularly in that this year could have been his best chance for election in the near future. Ripken and Gwynn and maybe McGwire are going in next year and Rickey is behind them. Add in the fact that Gossage and Rice will be in soon enough and, despite reaching 50% I'm sceptical Blyleven will overcome the Kaat-John comparisons. The fact that barely half of voters recognized his credentials on a year with no outstanding candidate is something that the BBWAA should be ashamed about.

Again, this point is debatable, but in my mind you could remove the worst 50 candidates from the Hall. The Ross Youngs, Tony Perezes, Bruce Sutters, Freddie Lindstroms and Lloyd Waners. If you took a look at the remaining 170-odd names in the HoF and Blyleven would not be out of place in that smaller hall. He may be one of the "worse" players in that scenario, but he wouldn't be out of place the way that the aforementioned guys are. That's a somewhat subjective statement, but I don't think it's unreasonable.

Whether or not "crime" is an overstatement regardless of your conception of what the true size of the Hall should be (unless you are an extreme elitist in your selections), I think Blyleven deserves to be in the HoF.

Mike D - Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 08:50 PM EST (#139442) #

Thomas, you're being a bit harsh on Ross Youngs. Youngs was an amazing and wildly entertaining player -- far better, relative to his peers and era, than Blyleven -- who got crippled with a kidney disorder in his late 20s and was dead by 30.

A career OBP of .399 and a league-leading 28 outfield assists in 1922 -- I'll give you the others on your list, but not Youngs. He wasn't quite analogous to the "great peak, tragic injury" path of Koufax, but you get the idea.

Curtis Dixon - Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 09:15 PM EST (#139443) #

I was discussing this one with my dad today, and he said "well he did fall short of 300 wins..". If you want to argue that, overall, he just wasn't good enough, that's fine. But basing your evaluation solely on the Magic 300 irks me to no end. Not that anyone here would do that. Counting stats, blah.

I certainly wish the Hall was a more exclusive club. It's not as bad as some other sports, but there are an awful lot of guys in there who just don't seem to fit. If they were to do it all over again, I'd be in favour of only the "inner circle" players being true HoF members, with a larger number of really good-to-great ones being honoured in a seperate section or way.

Mike D - Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 09:18 PM EST (#139444) #

I think Jim Rice was better than Bert Blyleven, though you may disagree.

I'll put it this way: Bruce Sutter is the 103rd player to get elected the "conventional" way, which is by baseball writers during their initial eligibility period. If you were to rank the 104 players (103 + Bert), Blyleven would be somewhere in the 90-95 range. So yes, he's an omission, but the glaringness of his omission shouldn't be exaggerated. He's a workhorse, a strikeout artist, and among the good-to-very-good pitchers in his league for a really long time.

I just think it's not a stain on the Hall of Fame that he's not there yet. Someday, he very likely will be.

Hartley - Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 09:35 PM EST (#139445) #

A little known fact about Bruce Sutter's career
He only pitched on teams with a .500 or better record 4 times in his 12 year career.
1 in Chicago
3 in St Louis

Mike Green - Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 09:41 PM EST (#139446) #

Blyleven, on the other hand, is slated for the Hall Watch gaze later this week. I won't give away too much when I say his closest comparables are Fergie Jenkins and Gaylord Perry.

I wouldn't describe it as a crime that Blyleven isn't in, but it is a mistake. As for Jim Rice, he wouldn't even be close for me. His OPS+ of 128 is a little lower than the average borderline centerfielder (such as Reggie Smith). He wasn't as valuable as Smith defensively and his OPS+ overstates his offensive value because he hit into so many double plays (over 30 for 3 straight years). To boot, Rice's career was not particularly long. For me, Rice is the inverse of Tommy John. Impressive looking athlete and hit the ball very hard often, and was a terrific player from 77-79 (as was Dave Parker). However, over the long haul, he just wasn't that valuable.

It's mostly a case of selective memory, I think. We remember Jim Rice or Andre Dawson or Dave Parker when they were great and when they were impressive athletes, and not when they grounded into 35 double plays in a season or ballooned in weight.

I get no joy from this. I was a Sox fan in 1975 when Lynn and Rice burst on the scene. I was an Expos fan, of course, when Dawson came up, and I thought the world of Parker from 1977-79. I liked all of these outfielders more than Blyleven or John, but the fact is that these pitchers did more to help their teams win.

Magpie - Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 10:07 PM EST (#139448) #

There are some parallels between Rice and Albert Belle - mainly that they were probably the most frightening hitters in the AL at their peak, but neither stayed around long enough to pile up the counting stats.

There are doubtless some other things they have in common...

Mike D - Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 10:10 PM EST (#139449) #

His OPS+ of 128 is a little lower than the average borderline centerfielder (such as Reggie Smith).

And Blyleven's ERA+ of 118 is a little lower than the average borderline hard-luck ace with a nasty breaking pitch (such as Dave Stieb).

Man, Reggie Smith is underrated. He posted some fine numbers.

Mike Green - Tuesday, January 10 2006 @ 10:39 PM EST (#139451) #

The difference between Blyleven and Stieb is career length. Blyleven threw over 50% more innings than Stieb. Throwing more than 4500 innings in a career post 1920 is exceptionally unusual. The only players who have done that who are not in the Hall of Fame are Kaat (who barely squeaks in over 4500), John and Blyleven. My Blyleven piece will run tomorrow.

Ryan C - Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 12:11 AM EST (#139455) #

Y'know with the talk of how certain players in the Hall dont really necessarily deserve to be there (admittedly worse in other sports than baseball) I wonder how interesting it would be to have a reverse vote every year. Each year the writers (or baseball historians, or whatever group you want to get to do it) cast ballots with the nominees being every player who is already in the Hall. If any player gets more than 75% he is removed from the Hall. Yeah, probably never work but interesting to think about.

Anders - Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 03:03 AM EST (#139461) #

There is a fantastic articla by Tom "I was a Jay" Verducci, with apt comparisons to Henke and Quiz.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/tom_verducci/01/10/sutter.gossage/index.html

Leigh - Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 10:29 AM EST (#139466) #

I think Jim Rice was better than Bert Blyleven, though you may disagree.

You're just trying to smoke me out.

Here are some facts from an article at The Baseball Analysts:

- Since 1900, Blyleven ranks 5th in career strikeouts, 8th in shutouts, and 17th in wins.

- In the history of Major League Baseball, only one pitcher has more wins, strikeouts and shutouts than Blyleven (Nolan Ryan).

Hall of Famers whose careers overlapped Blyleven's
Pitcher           ERA+
B. Gibson         127
J. Palmer         125
J. Marichal       122
B. Blyleven       118
F. Jenkins        115
J. Bunning        114
C. Hunter         104

Here is something that Joe Sheehan said the other day: "Blyleven isn�t even a borderline case, but rather, an above-average Hall of Famer who is underrated due to criminally bad run support during his best seasons... Blyleven isn�t qualified for the Hall; he�s overqualified, and with six years of eligibility left, I�m optimistic that the voices of reason will eventually carry the day."

I'm not prepared to make an argument about Rice, because I have not done the research. But if Rice truly deserves to be 'on the bubble', then he is nowhere near Blyleven.

Mike D - Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 11:01 AM EST (#139468) #

Leigh, I'll reply in the brand spankin' new Bert Blyleven thread.

John Northey - Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 05:03 PM EST (#139497) #

Sutter is one of those choices which will look very poor years from now.

Closers who can easily be argued to be better who will not be in the HOF (most likely) plus Sutter.

Who         ERA+ Saves IP  Lead League In Saves   Top 10 in Saves
Sutter      136   300 1042       5 times             8 times
Quiz        146   244 1043       5 times             6 times
Tom Henke   156   311  790       1 time              9 times
Wagner      180   284  630       0 times             6 times
D Jones     130   303 1128       0 times             8 times
Montgomery  134   304  869       1 time              8 times
Rob Nen     138   314  715       1 time              7 times
Percival    150   324  612       0 times             9 times
R Hernandez 136   324  961       0 times             8 times
Wetteland   148   330  765       1 time              9 times
John Franco 137   424 1246       3 times             12 times

So, 10 guys who have performed as good or better than Sutter in many respects. Yet I bet none make the HOF, with most off after just one ballot.

A lot of weight has been put on being the split finger king. Shame Tommy John hasn't gotten as much weight put on his being the first to have his arm repaired as it has had more influence on pitching imo and he wouldn't be lapped by so many non-HOF'ers so obviously so quickly.

Btw, doesn't John Franco look like a lock when compared to Sutter? He will probably be out after one ballot, but it is interesting.

John Northey - Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 05:06 PM EST (#139498) #

Btw, for HOF relievers I see Mariano Rivera & Goose getting in, maybe Lee Smith, and Trevor Hoffman if he can hold the save record for long (assuming he will pass Smith in the next year or two).

I'm betting 500 saves will be the mark of what is needed to make the HOF in the future for a closer.

Mick Doherty - Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 05:17 PM EST (#139502) #

What Sutter has that nobody on that list does: He was FIRST. Seriously, he was really the first one-inning closer, changing the way the game was managed. He wasn't strictly one-inning his whole career, but neither was Gossage, and Goose even took a run as a failed starting pitcher.

Sutter changed the way the game was played -- or more accurately, his managers did, and he was so good at it that it made the career of John Franco et al really possible in the first place.

Thomas - Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 05:52 PM EST (#139507) #

Mike, I knew Youngs was good and was dead at 30. I didn't know he was wildy entertaining and I didn't know he was as good as he was compared to his peers (after taking a quick look at his stats). Whether or not a HoF-track career interrupted by death makes one a Hall of Famer is a seperate question where opinions differ.

I'll concede that if Youngs is a legitimate HoFer in your eyes, I can't really argue the point in the same way I can argue Lloyd Waner isn't a HoF-calibre outfielder based on his stats.

AWeb - Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 06:45 PM EST (#139516) #

Baseball writers basically have no idea how best to evaluate the careers of relievers. Of those in, Wilhelm was great, for a very long time, and was very unique (ERA title as a reliever, then a starter, 21 years career starting at age 29, knuckleball, among other things). I don't think anyone would argue with his induction. I certainly wouldn't.

Rollie Fingers pitched a lot of innings for a long time, and had a famous moustache. He was similar (but not nearly as good) to Wilhelm in that he pitched a lot of innings of very good relief. Otherwise, just looking quickly at this numbers, I can't see the HoF backing for any reason other than he was one of the first in his role, and was well known, especially after he won the MVP (?!?) and Cy Young in 1981.

Eckersley, as I recall, was given credit by a lot of voters for being a starter first. Would he have made it on the relieving alone (800 IPs or so)? He was great for short time (1988-92), and passable for a long time after. Noted for famous post-season homeruns as well. Like Fingers, he won the MVP and Cy Young. Hard to say really, but I don't think it would've been as quick, if at all.

Sutter is definitely the first of his kind into the hall. If he sets the standard for future inductions, there should be many more in (see John Northey's list above). I don't think he should be held to a lower standard just because he was first to close the way he did.

I would compare Sutter to someone like Roger Maris. He was great, briefly. But few would argue Maris over, say, Eddie Murray. It's not a perfect analogy, but that's how I see taking Sutter and not Lee Smith. Smith had a slightly lower peak, but was very good for a very long time. If Saves, the stat, had much weight with HoF voters, one would think Smith would've gotten a lot more support.

It appears to me that voters are voting for the most memorable relievers (which is why Gossage will likely make it too). They don't trust the Save. In the NL, 14 people have lead the league in the last 13 years (tie in 2004), 12 in the AL (with two ties, Rivera leading 3 times). It just seems so fluky, year-to-year, that's it's hard (in the mental hurdle to overcome sense) to give credit for long-term performances.

Glevin - Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 06:55 PM EST (#139517) #

"He was FIRST. Seriously, he was really the first one-inning closer, changing the way the game was managed."

So, put his Jim Marshall, his manager into the HOF then. Do you really think that Sutter was in charge of making that decision? Should Charlie O'Brien go into the HOF for helping pioneer the new catcher mask? Hideo Nomo for being the first big Japanese pitcher? The HOF is about merit, and Sutter is not deserving based on his numbers and is in the bottom 5-10% of players in there.

John Northey - Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 01:06 PM EST (#139560) #

Hmm... Sutter as the first one-inning closer. Seems like a bit of a stretch to put him in based on that. What I've mainly heard is the split-finger as the reason (which, imo, means Tommy John better get in soon too for being the first to have his arm operated on).

The one-inning reliever... lets take a look at the first year Sutter led in saves (1979) and see how the other leaders did for IP/G

NL       	Sv	G	 IP	IP/G
Sutter  	37	62	101.3	1.6
Tekulve 	31	94	134.3	1.4
Garber  	25	68	106.0	1.6
Sambito  	22	63	 91.3	1.4
Lavelle 	20	70	 96.7	1.4

AL       	Sv	G	 IP	IP/G
Marshall	32	90	142.7	1.6
Kern    	29	71	143.0	2.0
Lopez   	21	61	127.0	2.1
Stanhouse	21	52	 72.7	1.4
Monge   	19	76	131.0	1.7

Interesting. By the time Sutter first led the league in saves (his 3rd year as a closer, 4th in the majors) it seems the NL was well on its way to the one inning closer while the AL was still fighting it. If you go to another decimal Sutter actually had the highest IP/G of any of the top 5 NL closers.

To me, Sutter got in via two things.

Rep for being the 'first' to use the split finger effectively
Leading the NL in saves for 5 years (3 of those ML leader, 2 by 1 over Dan Quisenberry).

Does that make him a HOFer? To me, no. To the voters, yes.

Btw, if you take the years leading in saves as a key then Quisenberry should be a lock with his 5 times leading the league as well, at the same time as Sutter. Just a shame the KC manager in '86 decided Quis wasn't a closer anymore despite a 154 ERA+, followed by a 166 ERA+ the next year, then a 113 in 88 before being released (!). He sucked in StL for the rest of the year, then had a 138 ERA+ and was released again (!) and only had 6 2/3 IP for the Giants then was out of baseball. Couldn't understand at the time and still don't.

Willy - Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 07:38 PM EST (#139573) #

Goose wasn't too happy himself about this development, as TSN reports below:

http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/news_story.asp?id=150316

AWeb - Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 08:59 PM EST (#139576) #

I'd be pissed if I was Gossage too (he's clearly better than Sutter, and wants to be acknowledged), but from the linked article above, where Gossage seems to be pining for the good old days (comparing Aaron to Bonds):

"The first thing Hank Aaron had to worry about is: Am I going to survive this at-bat because I'm black."

Ah, back when men were men and blacks had to be afraid someone might try to kill them with a baseball because of their race. Those were the days. I know almost nothing about Gossage, so I can only hope this quote is just an unfortunate turn of phrase on his part. Or just taken out of context.

Ryan C - Friday, January 13 2006 @ 01:24 AM EST (#139590) #

I dont really read any racial overtones into it. He's just saying that he thinks Aaron was better than Bonds because Aaron played in a more difficult hitters era. Getting thrown at because of the colour of his skin is just one example of what made it more difficult and is something that Bonds doesnt have to really worry about.

AWeb - Friday, January 13 2006 @ 02:20 AM EST (#139595) #

I guess it just bothers me because he seems to be saying things were better then, not just harder. And racially motivated beanballs don't seem like a thing to reflect on in a positive light. Ah, it's probably just me reading it in the wrong mood (ie grouchy).

Mike Green - Monday, April 03 2006 @ 04:39 PM EDT (#144106) #

I ran across this gem of an article from Tango about Sutter, Gossage and Lee Smith. If I'm understanding the Book correctly, it's easier to do what the short-stint relievers have done than what the "comparable" starters have done because performances generally improve in the short-stint context. Sutter's best comp might be Andy Messersmith, and if Messersmith eventually gets in, it will be for his labour relations importance.

Sutter elected to the Hall of Fame | 42 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.