Hall of Fame Trial.............Bruce Sutter

[splitterpfj]

Do you think Bruce Sutter should be elected to the Hall of Fame?

 

Sutter is the first in a series, I plan to roll these out about once a week, going through the top players on the writers' ballot, then those in the hands of the Veterans Committee. Feel free to compare Bruce to other players, etc, but don't argue for another player's election in this thread.........they'll all have their day. Thanks.

 

Career stats..........12 seasons, 300 saves, 861 K's, 2.83 ERA, 1 Cy Young, 4 Rolaids Relief Awards, 5 times led league in saves, 6 All-Star selections, and (as if we could forget) one World Series win.

 

Please share your thoughts, feel free to hit the polls forum and place your vote.

 

My vote is yes.

[brettac1]

I tend to say yes, as well. But I think if he gets elected that the Hall will then start throwing less-deserving players like Lee Smith in, who were basically compilers. Sutter threw over 100 innings out of the bullpen 5 times, and the highest ERA he posted in those seasons was 2.90, and he went as low as 1.34 and 1.54. He was a relief ace, and I think he belongs in - he may not have had the longevity, though.

[HighLifeandPeanuts]

Quote:

---

"I slit the sheet, the sheet I slit, and on the slitted sheet I sit." -Navin R Johnson

---

 

I've never been relaxed enough around anyone to be able to say

that. You give me confidence in myself. I know we've only known

each other four weeks and three days, but to me it seems like

nine weeks and five days. The first day seemed like a week and

the second day seemed like five days and the third day seemed

like a week again and the fourth day seemed like eight days and

the fifth day you went to see your mother and that seemed just

like a day and then you came back and later on the sixth day, in

then evening, when we saw each other, that started seeming like

two days, so in the evening it seemed like two days spilling over

into the next day and that started seeming like four days, so at

the end of the sixth day on into the seventh day, it seemed like

a total of five days. And the sixth day seemed like a week and a

half. I have it written down, but I can show it to you tomorrow

if you want to see it. Anyway, I've decided that tomorrow, when

the time is right, I'm going to ask you to marry me, if that's

o.k. with you. Just don't say anything. You've made me very

happy.

 

 

 

oh, and this Bruce Sutter gentleman seems like a nice enough fellow, I say let him in.

[rluzinski]

Dr. Michael Hfuhruhurr...Steve Martin in.... Man with 2 Brains?

 

When he used to make good movies http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/frown.gif

[splitterpfj]

At the risk of having the Sutter thread become the Martin thread...........HighLife, that was outstanding, please tell me you looked that up. If you have that memorized, we may need to send help. Luzinski, you're on the right track, but it's from "The Jerk."

[joepepsi]

Bill James argues voters consider how or if a player changed the game when looking at his HOF credentials. Sutter was the first to have great success with a split finger fastball. I suppose you can argue it's nothing more than a variation on the old forkball. But given no one throws a "forkball" anymore, but many throw "splitter", then I think Sutter deserves consideration for this change at least.

 

Also, he pioneered the modern day closer role as a key ingredient to a championship caliber team.

 

He may owe a lot to Roger Craig for the split, and Herzog for the closer role, but he was up to the challenge, and was an awfully good pitcher for many years.

 

I don't think his election opens up doors to mediocrity anymore than Rollie Fingers' has. It would help Gossage's chances though.

[HighLifeandPeanuts]

I looked it up, but knew exactly where I was supposed to look. That is one of the finest passages in any movie EVER. You telling me a girl would melt (or at least laugh) if you said that to her.

 

but yes, anyways, Bruce Sutter should be inducted soon, my guess is 2008 when Tim Raines and David Justice will be the only notable players to become eligible.

[brettac1]

As long as Santo goes in, I'm cool.

[BrewCrewForever]

I think Sutter should be in, he was along the lines of Fingers as a releif ace who was very dominating. Another closer who I think should go in is Goose Gossage.

[jschris]

Next year will likely be a "correction" year to get the guys in who more or less deserve the nod but are passed over due to good first year eligibles. I think Sutter deserves to be in there, as does Gossage. However, I don't think both will get in at the same time. Voters might have a hard time voting for both of them, which could sadly end up meaning neither gets in.

 

I agree that Lee Smith was a compilier at the beginning of the cheap save age.

[splitterpfj]

This thread has been pro-Sutter, but the ongoing poll shows three yes votes and two no votes. Obviously Sutter was a split decision for the baseball writers......."No" guys.........why not? Let's hear from you too.

[Bucky Rules]

Sutter should be in. Fingers deserved to make it. Gossage probably deserves to be in -- it was game over when he came in for a few years in there (although effective longevity might've been a problem with him - I'm not sure). And Lee Smith should definitely NOT be in. He had some good years and lasted a long time, but he was not in these guys' class.

[plowjockey]

Sutter, yes. Gossage, yes. Dominant players that changed the game as it's played today. Starting pitchers no longer consider complete games as a viable stat. Heck, it's an invisble stat now, because Sutter and Gossage changed they way managers approach their strategy. Now we have "quality start", "hold", "closer" and "save". Words that were not even part of the baseball vocabulary before these 2 came along(although Hoyt Wilhelm was considered a good "relief pitcher" just before Sutter's and Gossage's time, he wasn't considered a dominant player or a "closer").

 

Because you are such a big fan, Brettac1, it would be nice to see Santo get in. But many just can't see him in the same building as Mays, Mantle, Aaron, Clemente, Spahn, Koufax, Gibson, Musial, F.Robinson, et al. He just doesn't stack up with the dominant players of his age. It appears that he just played in the wrong era, where there were so many extraordinary players all playing at the same time. The "second tier" of superstars at that time are Mathews, Berra, Snyder, Ford, Drysdale, McCovey, Cepeda and Marichal. All of them, dominant players from teams that played in or won the World Series. One could argue that Santo was only the 2nd 3rd or 4th best player (Banks, Williams and later, Jenkins) on a team that never even won a pennant, he was never an MVP, and (please correct me if I am wrong), he never led his league in avg., rbi, homers or steals. He doesn't posess one of the magic numbers like 500 hrs, or 3,000 hits. If Ted Simmons' career #'s as a catcher, or Dick Allen's # as a 1b, can't even get them a sniff at the Hall, then Santo's comparable 3b career #'s have to lose steam when presented as an argument. Heck Bert Blyleven's #s as a pitcher are better than most current HOF pitchers, and he's not in yet. Was Santo a very, very good player? You bet. Dominant player? Nope, unfortunately not in his era. I know there are guys who did not have a truly dominant career like Red Shoendienst, Bill Mazeroski and Ralph Kiner in the HOF, but for every one of those, there are 20 truly dominant names listed with whom you wouldn't dare put Santo's name in the same sentence. Maybe the veterans committee will get him in based on his career stats(Simmons and Allen too), the writers seem to have turned their attention elsewhere.

[splitterpfj]

Guys, hold the Santo debate..........please. He's definitely on the list, he'll get his own thread, in fact, if he's on your minds, he can be next...........this one's for Sutter.

[joepepsi]

Quote:

---

Mays, Mantle, Aaron, Clemente, Spahn, Koufax, Gibson, Musial, F.Robinson,

---

 

If those guys were the standard for HOF entry, they could put the whole shrine in a double wide at a rest stop off exit 87 in the Dells. There would only be about 25 HOF'ers. The "standard" is really much lower.

 

Sutter, Santo, Gossage, Blyleven. None would be an embarrassment to the HOF.

[huntsvillefan]

OK I'll play - No

 

He had a 12 year career and his numbers in hislast 2/3 years were pretty mediocre. Besides which, if you aren't good enough to start, you probably aren't good enough for the HOF.

Guys like Beane (and Maddux) have shown that you can manufacture closers out of smoke and mirrors. Sutter came out and threw a couple of innings, he didn't need a good range of pitches or much of a game plan.

We argue about guys like Jack Morris not deserving to be there. There's a better than average chance that Jack Morris could have done what Sutter did. There is zero chance that Sutter could have done what Morris did.

Most guys who pitch relief or close are failed starters (Smoltz excepted), to put them in the HOF ahead of guys who started over a long career seems strange. What about admitting a few pinch hitters and pinch runners?

[rwa12]

agree that Sutter will be admitted along with probably gossage in an off year...these guys make the relievers of today look like a bunch of little girly men

[splitterpfj]

Excellent post Huntsville, I hadn't thought of it in those terms........the Morris comparison was compelling for me.

[pogokat]

I'll add another aspect to No:

 

Collecting saves as a stat is sort of ridiculous...after all, a save can be rewarded for pitching just 1/3rd of an inning...who is to say that the last inning or part of it..is anymore important that the 3rd or seventh??

 

It is my belief that the best relief pitcher should be used in the most trying situations, such as when the team is only ahead by one run...or the game is tyed...however, rewarding a guy with HOF status just becuase he could "save" a 3 run lead for one inning seems a little nutty

 

Sutter, Gossage, Hoffman, Smoltz, Eckersly..these guys were the best relievers on their teams (when they were relievers) and that should be conisdered..but Lee Smith? or Jose Mesa? How about Todd Worrell??? Saves do not make a hall of famer..and really i think they are a rather pointless stat

 

who is a better pitcher, Jose Mesa or Tom Gordon???

 

Should "saves" be the only indicator of a relievers success??? I think not...

[joepepsi]

Great post huntsville. I agree with you for the most part. I feel there is a place for relief pitchers in the HOF, but it should be for an outstanding reason, not just longevitiy or certain numbers.

 

I didn't realize Sutter's career was so short. He had 4 incredible seasons, a handful where he was very good, and 4 where he stunk or was injured.

 

When I look at that, it's not very impressive......

[splitterpfj]

Good point pogokat, but Sutter's career was mostly before saves became what they are today. A save in 1980 was entirely different from a save today, often times those closers were brought in when the SP got into a jam. I don't think the save totals for guys like Fingers, Sutter and Gossage should be compared to guys like Smith, Hoffman and Reardon.

 

I think 300 saves from '76-'85 is a lot more impressive than 400 saves from '96-'05.

[pogokat]

i agree with you..and i think sutter is a HOF'er...i just don't like saves...and think the fact that he pitched well in real stress situations should have a lot more importance than his "saves"

[gregmag]

Why is it so obvious that Bruce Sutter is a better HoF candidate than Lee Smith? I agree that saves, as a stat, are misleading and overrated, so let's look at other info. Sutter had a career ERA+ of 136; Smith was 132. (I know that relievers' ERA+ can by deceiving, but I think it's a fair place to begin comparisons AMONG RELIEVERS). Smith lasted longer, pitching 247 more innings, and had a much better strikeout rate and K/BB ratio. Sutter gave up fewer hits per inning. I'd rate them as very close on objective performance criteria; I'd probably give Smith the edge, based on longevity as an excellent pitcher.

 

Both Sutter and Smith, by the way, outpace their contemporaries mentioned so far in this thread. Fingers had a career ERA+ of 117; Gossage was at 126. If you want a better HoF candidate than Sutter, look no farther than Dan Quisenberry: he pitched almost exactly the same number of innings as Sutter, with an ERA+ of 146. He didn't strike anybody out and gave up more hits than Bruce, but he made up for those deficits by walking about half as many hitters as Sutter did.

 

Hoyt Wilhelm, BTW, also put up a 146 ERA+ -- and pitched over twice as many innings as Sutter. That's a good HoF case. Beyond that, it gets dicey. I don't care about closers' Cy Youngs, because I think that begs the same question we're asking to begin with: how good does a guy have to be over 80-100 innings to be considered more valuable than a guy who isn't quite as good over 250? The relief ace was an innovation of the 1970s, and we've been overvaluing the role ever since then. The comparison somebody made to pinch-hitters was a little unfair, but only a little. Relief aces simply pitch too few innings to deserve inclusion among the elite unless they do an extraordinary job for a long time.

 

Wilhelm did that. Mariano Rivera (ERA+ of 190 over ten years) is making a hell of a case so far. Eckersley (ERA+ of 116 in mixed duty) is the weird case, of course, but I'm okay with him. I wouldn't have voted for Fingers. I don't think Sutter or Quis was good enough for long enough. I don't think Smith was quite good enough. I don't think Gossage is close.

 

Baseball people's ways of assessing relief pitchers are just too damned mystical. There's too much talk about dominance and innovation, and too little talk about performance criteria that we can agree on in principle and then use as grounds for argument. Bill James tried to do that in his New Historical Abstract, and it really took some of the wind out of relief aces for me.

 

Greg.

[greeg35]

Quote:

---

Baseball people's ways of assessing relief pitchers are just too damned mystical.

---

 

It's all about the beard. Or the hair.

[gbpacker40]

Im with the no votes. Im not one for relief pitchers to be elected into the HOF. Like someone else said, they are failed starters. Closers are way over-valued IMO.