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

[plowjockey]

I wanted to get a feel for what was being discussed here, so I went to HOF website to get some comparison #s. The site is awsome. I must admit, when I saw the list, I was stunned at how exclusive this club is. I therefore am changing my vote on Sutter to no.

For those interested they have a page of videos to watch of about 100 players. When I saw the Walter Johnson video I got scared. He's been dead for 60 years and I haven't stepped in a batters box of any consequence for 17 years, and I still got scared.

www.baseballhalloffame.or.../index.htm

[huntsvillefan]

Roger Maris was MVP two years in a row and broke the record despite having to face the antagonism of most fans and the baseball establishment.

 

He's not in the hall, because he didn't do enough for long enough and no-one seriously argues for him. If he doesn't deserve it for that year, how on earth can you consider a guy who pitched good relief for a few years.

[splitterpfj]

There have been some terrific posts guys, thanks so much for the discussion, you've really got me wondering exactly what is a HOF reliever. When I started this thread there was no doubt in my mind that Sutter belonged, now, I really don't know.

 

Sutter came fairly close in the voting last year, and there aren't any slam dunk first-timers this year, he's got a real shot. Having read through this thread, I'm back on the fence here. Please correct me if I've forgotten someone, but I believe the only relievers in the Hall are Wilhelm, Fingers and Eckersley, who's really in his own category. Sutter was great, he ate hitters with that split-finger pitch. He was one of the few guys who really made me feel like the game was over when he came in.

 

Is that enough? How are we judging here? Is this based on Saves, on ERA, on WHIP, K's per 9, or ERA+?

 

What is a HOF reliever? If there is such a thing, it would seem to me that Sutter was one. A 12-year career is very short for a HOF player though..........did he do enough?

[pitchleague]

"What about admitting a few pinch hitters and pinch runners? "

 

How about a bench-warmer wing of the Hall of Fame?

 

"In 2003, Pete Zoccolillo sat for 13 straight games without ever appearing in a game. However, he held several modern day records with 16,255 sunflower seeds consumed, 13 buckets of bubble gum chewed, and 17 yawns in one game. 'Zocco' was hailed as the "Preperation H Player of the Week" in September."

 

The plaques, of course, would have to be chunks of rudementary carved driftwood. Or cardboard squares written on with chalk in some 4-year-old's font.

 

Oh, yeah, as for Sutter.

 

The guy changed the game with a pitch and with saves. He's in.

 

Of course, I'm still in the camp of making the immortal wing of the HOF and then a seperate little building next door for the Hall of Very, Very Good.

[brettac1]

The main reason I liked him was that he was throwing 100+ dominant bullpen innings a season. That's amazing, and also part of the reason I think Mike Marshall also deserves to at least have his name mentioned in the discussion. 106 games and 208 IP out of the bullpen? Wow.

[splitterpfj]

I'm still hoping for suggestions on how to identify the truly elite relievers. I agreed the save stat today holds very little meaning, but I wasn't sure about the guys from the 70's and 80's, so I took a look.

 

I looked at Wilhelm, Fingers, Eckersley, Sutter, Gossage, Quisenberry, Reardon, Sparky Lyle, Jim Kern, Kent Tekulve, Mike Marshall, Gene Garber and the early seasons for Lee Smith. I found that in their peak save years, they typically pitched more than 100 innings, often appeared in 70 or more games, and typically wound up with 25-35 saves. Clearly, ace relievers were not used in the closer role we now have..........until Eckersley in 1988, that seems to be where saves became far less meaningful, and closers were used strictly for the 9th inning.

 

In Sutter's Cy Young season, which was 1979, he pitched in 62 games, totalling 101 1/3 innings, and ended with 37 saves......37 saves and he won the Cy Young.

 

In Sutter's peak save year, which was 1984, he appeared in 71 games, racking up 122 2/3 innings, and ending with 45 saves. The closer role was beginning to take shape, but still, more than 1 1/2 innings per appearance.

 

In '88, Eck became a full time closer, and right out of the chute, he appeared in 60 games, but only 70 2/3 innings, and walked off with 45 saves........clearly, expectations had changed.

 

I would say, for pitchers before Eck, saves hold a lot more weight than they do for the guys from the 90's on up. Considering the increased workload, and the fact that often times the guys from the pre-Eck era inherited runners, I think a guy with 300 saves qualifies as elite for that era and belongs in the Hall of Fame. It's a lot cloudier than trying to judge a leadoff hitter, but my vote does not change, I still say yes to Sutter. John Franco and Trevor Hoffman will not move me with their save totals, they have a completely different meaning, but Bruce, with the number he had when a save actually meant his team had a realistic chance to lose, has my support.

[huntsvillefan]

I think for a reliever to get to the HOF, you have to be convinced that he acheived something that those top quality non - HOF starters (like Morris) could not have emulated or surpassed.

I just don't think there is anything about Sutter's career that suggests this.

It was short, he was average at best for a third of it and he didn't have the range of pitches or stamina to survive as a starter.

Yes he helped to develop a pitch, but that is already reflected in his numbers, the advantage it gave him that batters hadn't seen it much.

He didn't pioneer the role of closer - his manager decided to use him that way. He simply pitched when asked like any other reliever.

Someone in an earlier post mentioned Walter Johnson, it wasn't uncommon for him to pitch one day and then come out and pitch long relief the day after. Times change and pitchers have changed more than most, but when you place Sutter's body of work beside that of most of the guys in the Hall, I really don't think it stands the comparison.

[splitterpfj]

Thanks to all who participated in this thread, and the corresponding poll. As far as HOF voting goes, I think relief pitching is the most poorly defined position. What constitutes a HOF reliever?

 

You can argue Sutter's case, but I do believe the best at this position belong, the same as any other position, relievers are part of the game.

 

There certainly wasn't a consensus on Sutter, sorry Bruce, Brewerfan.net members DO NOT elect you to the Hall of Fame.

[Member]

Hey, wait a minute, I haven't said anything yet!

 

BRUCE SUTTER

12 Years, three teams (Chicago, Saint Louis, Atlanta - all in the NL).

Record:

 W-L GP GS CG SHO GF SV IP H ER HR BB SO ERA 68-71 661 0 0 0 512 300 1042.1 879 328 77 309 861 2.83 

CAREER INFO

HOF Eligibility: Currently eligible; on 2006 ballot.

All-Star Games: Six games (1977-81, 1984).

Awards: 1979 Cy Young (four times in top 5 in voting); One top 5 in MVP voting (1982), with 5 top-10 MVP finishes; Rolaids Reliever of the Year, 1979, 1981-82, 1984.

Black Ink: 15 (Times led league in various categories; average HOFer scores about 40).

Gray Ink: 30 (Times among leaders in various categories; average HOFer scores about 185).

HOFS: 17.0 under the basic HOFS method; 48.2 under the modified method; average HOFer scores 49.4.

HOFCM: 91.0 (Likely HOFer scores above 100; certain HOFer scores 130 or more).

Most Similar Pitcher: Doug Jones (934); a score of 950 or better indicates a large degree of similarity between two pitchers' career totals.

HOF in top 10 most Similar Pitchers: None. Most of his comps are current or recent star relievers; he is somewhat similar to Robb Nen (922) and Trevor Hoffman (905) among actives.

Post-season: One year, two series with the Cardinals. I'd rather want to forget the WS, but overall he had two wins in relief and three saves in six games, with a 3.00 ERA. Cards won both series (obviously).

 

And now? the Keltner List.

Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball? I was a big baseball fan back during the days he was in his prime, and I don't remember anyone saying that he was the best. People were usually arguing about Jackson, Rice, Carew, Parker; when they weren't talking about that, they were saying things about Ryan, Sutton, Guidry.

 

Was he the best player on his team? He was, quite probably, during his first five seasons with the Cubs. As he bopped around from the Cards to the Braves, he wasn't as much.

 

Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position? To say that Bruce wasn't the most dominant reliever in baseball during his career is silly. Guys like Tekulve and Quisenberry were good, and Fingers won the '81 Cy Young, but he was the most dominant, especially in the NL.

 

Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races? He was a key reason why the Cards got to the '82 Series. He never really was in a pennant race when he was with the Cubs or Braves, though the Cubs were in shouting distance of the Phils in 1978.

 

Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime? His injury in 1986 with the Braves really knocked him down from a dominant reliever to just another BP arm. After 1982, he had four seasons in six years with ERAs of 4.23 or more. He retired at age 35 ? so the answer is "no."

 

Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame? No, because his name is not Barry Lamar Bonds.

 

Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame? See above. Most of his comps are medium-level relievers, with the exception of Hoffman and Tom Henke (2nd, 927).

 

Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards? This is where things get sticky. There are currently only four "relievers" in the Hall of Fame (using the criteria of less than half of all games are starts, and less than 4.5 innings per apperance): Eckersley, Fingers, Wilhelm and (technically) Satchel Paige. Eckersley's HOFS was 34 (mostly because he was a starter for the first half of his career); Fingers is at 18.0; Wilhelm is at 30.0 (also because of the occasional starts) and Paige was elected to the HOF because of his Negro League contributions.

 

Is there any evidence to suggest that he was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics? Well, to have a 2.39 ERA in a ballpark where offensive production was increased by 10% or more ain't bad. And his specialization as a "closer", with his one pitch (the split-fingered fastball) definitely indicated that he was better than his stats. If they had figured out how to use him when he was in Chicago ? and if the Cubs had been a better team ? he could have ended up with 350-400 career saves, easily.

 

Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in? Right now, the guy who is the best pitcher that is on the 2006 ballot that isn't in is Rik Albert Blyleven. The best closer? I'd say Rich Gossage; he actually is comparable to Fingers and Wilhelm.

 

How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close? He won the CYA in 1979, though if you look close at that season, he probably shouldn't have won it. Joe Niekro for Houston and Tom Seaver for Cincinnati had better years overall than Bruce; in fact, I think Sutter wasn't even the best reliever in baseball that year. Jim Kern (remember him?) had a kick-butt season with the Rangers that was very similar to Sutter's 1979 season:

 W-L GP GS CG SHO GF SV IP H ER HR BB SO ERA Sutter 6-6 62 0 0 0 56 37 101.1 67 25 3 32 110 2.22 Kern 13-5 71 0 0 0 57 29 143.0 99 25 5 62 136 1.57 

I'm not advocating Jim Kern for the Hall of Fame, though. It's hard to argue with five top-10 finishes in the overall MVP voting; that means that the writers who watched him play every day thought he was pretty special.

 

How many All-Star type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame? He played in six All-Star games, five of them from 1977 onwards (mostly as the Cubs' token player). That's a bit below average for a Hall-of-Famer, but not bad for a pitcher.

 

If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant? Well, he wasn't the best player on the Cards during 1982 (Darrell Porter, Ozzie Smith, Keith Hernandez ? take your pick); the other years when he was the best player on the Cubs, they didn't do anything. I'd have to lean towards no.

 

What impact did he have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way? He was the prototypical closer. He was the one who introduced the split-finger fastball (as opposed to the Forkball) as an "out" pitch for pitchers. He basically changed the way managers viewed the game ? get your starter through seven or eight innings, then give it to the closer to finish it out.

 

Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider? I haven't heard anything in the dirt about him, so I'll chalk this one up as "it appears so."

 

And now, the big question:

 

Is he a likely Hall of Famer? Bruce has been on the ballot for 12 years now, since 1994. It took him five years to break 30% in the voting, and nine years to crack the 50% barrier. He has garnered a larger number of votes every year over the last seven elections. He's also reached that vaunted 2/3rds level, where it's almost an afterthought that he could be selected. Without a whole lot of quality candidates on the ballot in '06 (top four new candidates: Willie McGee, John Wetteland, Rick Aguilera and the aforementioned Doug Jones), it's possible that one of two things will happen in this year's voting: (a) One or two players who've been on the ballot for a while will get in, like Sutter; or (b) no one will get the required 75%, and the HOF weekend in August 2006 will be very, very quiet.

 

That being said, while it wouldn't surprise me if he did get elected to the HOF in 2006, I don't know if he should be there. I do think the BBWAA has given relievers a raw deal in the voting, and Sutter would open up a lot of deserving candidates (Franco, Gagne and Hoffman, among others); however, I think Gossage would be a better choice now, and Smith maybe a bit more deserving down the line.

 

I will say this: if he don't get in this year, he ain't going in.

[nBo Baseball]

I could probably go for Sutter in a light year (As stated before 2008 will give himn a good shot). He was dominate, no doubt about it. But there are other guys who should get in first, (In no particular order):

Bert Blyleven

Jim Rice

Ron Santo

Andre Dawson

Dave Parker

One thing that might hurt Mr. Sutter is that, in my opinion, Trevor Hoffman must be a first ballott Hall of Famer. Hoffman has also been more dominate that Sutter.

[danzig6767]

He wouldnt get my vote if i had one

 

Closers dont have to worry about getting fatigued or facing hitters 3-4 times in a game.They get to throw as hard as they can and can get by with only two pitches.Except for the rare elite closer like Rivera that can be dominant for a long stretch of time,i wouldnt give Hall invites to any of them.

 

To show what a joke the save stat is,about a week ago Schilling got a real classic.Enters the game winning 7-3 and two outs in the 9th,men on first and second.He gets a guy to hit a line drive that gets caught and he gets a save for 1 pitch in a game with a 4 run lead without the bases being loaded.He could have given up a 3-run jack and still got the save,how silly is that.

[splitterpfj]

Sutter is definitely within striking distance, considering this is a down year.

[splitterpfj]

Kirkjian on Sutter...

 

link