See copyright notice at the bottom of this page.
List of All Posters
Bruce, Lee, and the Goose
December 17, 2002 - Marc
Congratulations, leverage is certainly a valiant attempt to understand why top relief pitchers are "stars" when they're active and lousy HoF candidates when they're not. We understand leverage (ie. clutch) situations intuitively and qualitatively, but we have no system for considering them quantitatively. Until now, maybe.
But it seems that leverage does not really treat top relievers quantitatively in the way we relate to them qualitatively. Sutter, Smith and Gossage, most would agree, I think, were really better than their "comps."
BTW, it seems to me that because of the high strikeout numbers, the comps for modern closers are going to be limited to recent starters. This limits the perspective that the comps provide, unfortunately.
As to how the HoF should or might proceed to evaluate relievers, right now you've got a range from Wilhelm to Fingers. If you really check out Hoyt Wilhelm, you'll agree that nobody has pitched in relief at his level, ever, he da man. And Fingers, as has been pointed out, we hope the Hall will not fall below this level. But even so, only Bruce, Lee and the Goose, so far, seem to be competing at or near the Fingers line. Eck will also do so in ought-four.
I think the best that we can do is to make sure we know, at least, who the best HoF candidate among the relievers is, and focus attention there. If the vote is split (and I don't think anybody knows if it is, but if the vote is split) between two or three of the relievers instead of focusing in on the best one, then none will get elected.
So this year it seems to be the Goose, but next year Eck.
Bruce, Lee, and the Goose
December 20, 2002 - Marc
I've been adjusting my ratings of RPs upward for several years now...and catchers. I don't adjust anybody else. If you look at the records, shortstops do fine. Yes, there are no more Wagners but there are 25 guys who pop up to HoF candidate level by most numerical systems. If anything, it's the CFs who suffer, you just don't notice it because of the few who rate so very highly, but the mid-level guys fall off very rapidly.
But anyway, as to RPs, I don't agree that Sutter and Smith drag Gossage down. They are all dragged down by a lack of any useful standard. Wilhelm is the gold standard, the Wagner, the Ruth, but that standard is useless on mere mortals. And the Fingers line is suspect as not being high enough.
If anything, Sutter and Smith will help Gossage over the long term, as will Eck and any other really great RP that comes along just by helping to inch along toward a consensus of what the standard is. When we have ten guys at the Fingers-Sutter-Smith-Gossage level, then it will be easier to elect the best one. It will come too late, I am guessing, for the Goose to get elected by the BBWAA but will make it easier for the VC (though of course we don't know yet what the biases of the new VC will be).
I agree that Goose is the best RP on the '03 ballot, but Eck will be stronger in '04 and that will kill the Goose. If on the other hand the BBWAA does NOT elect Eck, then we've got a long long wait ahead of us.
Marc
Bruce, Lee, and the Goose
December 20, 2002 - Marc
>The point here is that there is a very good rationale for a "position >adjustment" for not only C, but also CF and 2B. That rationale is not >present for RP.
I'd suggest that what you've got is not so much a rationale as a hypothesis. I'm not going to do a respectable study, but if somebody did (tango?), here is what you might find.
Hypothesis: C and CF and 2B and RP have a difficult time having a normal-length career because of the rigors of the job. Test the hypothesis by determining whether fewer than expected (or, fewer than at other positions) last long enough for a HoF career.
Now check the evidence: Catchers--evidence confirms hypothesis. CF--evidence confirms hypothesis. 2B--evidence clearly does NOT confirm hypothesis, there are lots of deserving HoF 2Bs.
RP--evidence inconclusive. New position, not enough cases. Not proven but not disproven either. Maybe over the next 10 years there will be five better than Eck, then disproven. If none as good as Gossage or Fingers, then we're getting closer to a proof.
Copyright notice
Comments on this page were made by person(s) with the same handle, in various comments areas, following Tangotiger © material, on Baseball Primer. All content on this page remain the sole copyright of the author of those comments.
If you are the author, and you wish to have these comments removed from this site, please send me an email (tangotiger@yahoo.com), along with (1) the URL of this page, and (2) a statement that you are in fact the author of all comments on this page, and I will promptly remove them.