Options
Goose Gossage for the HOF
bri2327
Posts: 3,178 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
I just read an article on Gossage at espn.com, and thought I would share a bit of enlightening info from it, as well as get others feelings on the subject. They made some really strong arguments for why he should be in, and with a weak crop of candidates this year maybe he will get his due.
From ESPN.COM
During his 10-year prime, he allowed fewer hits per nine innings (6.1) than Eckersley (7.5), Rollie Fingers (7.8) and even Mariano Rivera (7). Gossage's ERA in that golden era was a mere 2.03, which is better than Bruce Sutter's 2.62.
Gossage averaged 2.1 innings per relief appearance in 1978. In 2005, Rivera averaged just one inning. Only once has Rivera struck out more than 83 batters in a season. Gossage did it eight times, and fanned 100 batters six times.
Sutter and Gossage average 4.73 and 4.72 outs per save, respectively, while Eckersley averaged 3.33.
An endless series of comparisons favors Gossage over his peers, and even allows him to go chest-to-chest with the great Rivera. But what has held the Goose back, sadly, is his modest save total -- just 310, less than Eckersley (390), Trevor Hoffman (436) and Rivera (379). Goose's only crime is that he pitched in an era before closers racked up saves the way a younger Madonna used to go through boyfriends.
After reading that it stands to reason that he should be a no brainer for the hall. The guy shouldnt be punished for playing when he did, instead of today where they get saves like its nothing.......just wanna know what everyone else has to say about it....
Other guys I think should get in are Sutter, Rice, Dawson, and I am still up in the air about Blyleven....hard to ignore his near 300 wins, and over 3,700 k's....i think he was actually 3rd all time in k's when he retired. Only thing against him is lack of 20 win seasons, as well as never being the best pitcher during his playing days, but people also had that view of Palmiero never being the best at his position, and before the steroid scandal he was a virtual lock, so why not Blyleven too.
From ESPN.COM
During his 10-year prime, he allowed fewer hits per nine innings (6.1) than Eckersley (7.5), Rollie Fingers (7.8) and even Mariano Rivera (7). Gossage's ERA in that golden era was a mere 2.03, which is better than Bruce Sutter's 2.62.
Gossage averaged 2.1 innings per relief appearance in 1978. In 2005, Rivera averaged just one inning. Only once has Rivera struck out more than 83 batters in a season. Gossage did it eight times, and fanned 100 batters six times.
Sutter and Gossage average 4.73 and 4.72 outs per save, respectively, while Eckersley averaged 3.33.
An endless series of comparisons favors Gossage over his peers, and even allows him to go chest-to-chest with the great Rivera. But what has held the Goose back, sadly, is his modest save total -- just 310, less than Eckersley (390), Trevor Hoffman (436) and Rivera (379). Goose's only crime is that he pitched in an era before closers racked up saves the way a younger Madonna used to go through boyfriends.
After reading that it stands to reason that he should be a no brainer for the hall. The guy shouldnt be punished for playing when he did, instead of today where they get saves like its nothing.......just wanna know what everyone else has to say about it....
Other guys I think should get in are Sutter, Rice, Dawson, and I am still up in the air about Blyleven....hard to ignore his near 300 wins, and over 3,700 k's....i think he was actually 3rd all time in k's when he retired. Only thing against him is lack of 20 win seasons, as well as never being the best pitcher during his playing days, but people also had that view of Palmiero never being the best at his position, and before the steroid scandal he was a virtual lock, so why not Blyleven too.
"The other teams could make trouble for us if they win."
-- Yogi Berra
-- Yogi Berra
0
Comments
Blyleven, on the other hand, was the best pitcher in the league in 1973, probably in 1977, and was neck-and-neck with Stieb in 1984. Add in his amazing longevity and outstanding postseason performances and there really is no credible argument that he does not belong in the HOF. The only pitchers among his contemporaries who were better than him (Ryan, Carlton, Palmer, Perry, Niekro, Jenkins, Seaver) are already in the HOF, as are three of his contemporaries who were not as good as he was (Eckersley, Fingers, Sutton) {I'm not sure which group Hunter belongs in}. And that ratio is about the same for the HOF in general - Blyleven was a better pitcher than about a third of the pitcher's that are in the HOF.
-- Yogi Berra
His stats, except for wins, are better than Don Sutton, who benefitted from several good Dodgers teams, while Blyleven played for crummier teams overall.
HOF is a combination of quality and quantity. Alot of guys end up with great numbers simply because they played forever. Other guys who were HOF caliber talents that maybe got hurt or for whatever reason ,didn't play long enough to have the 100% HOF stats, but were dominant for their time.
Its a fine line of finding a guy who has the numbers, but was also a dominant player of his position and of his era. you can really only compare them to guys who played when they played.
the question is, what is more important to being inducted into the HOF? Longevity or dominant play?
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>A case can be made that not only was he not " not good enough " to start, but that in fact he may have been the pitcher who, more than any other, revolutionized the role of closer. >>
The two are not mutually exclusive.
<< <i>Gossage was the best at what he did >>
Possibly, but so was Gates Brown (pinch hitting) so the question isn't just "was he the best at what he did?" but also "is what he was the best at very important?". And the importance of a pitcher with an ERA over 3.00 for a career that lasted less than 2,000 innings is hardly self-evident.
Interestingly, to me anyway, is that the White Sox tried to move Gossage to the starting rotation to replace Wilbur Wood who was injured for most of the year. Wood had himself been a relief pitcher for the White Sox with "Gossage-like" numbers for several years when they moved him to the starting rotation. Wood, not a HOF candidate by any stretch of the imagination, had an ERA under 2.00 and 22 wins in his first season as a starter and won over 100 games in the next five years. Wilbur Wood was, IMO, a much better pitcher than Gossage.
When Nolan Ryan was 24, just finished his fifth season 10-14, bringing his record to 29-38. His ERA was near 4.00 at that time also.
491 of 497 voters thought he was still good enough on the first ballot.
Just saying that one season at the age of 24 shouldn't be a defining argument. JMO.
Shawn.
I don't mean to imply that that one season is definitive, but neither do I think it can be simply dismissed. Consider that the season before that Gossage - as a full-time reliever - had 26 saves and an ERA under 2.00. And that the season after his failed experiment as a starter he had 26 saves and an ERA under 2.00. There is absolutely no reason to think that Gossage would not have had 26 saves and an ERA under 2.00 as a reliever the season that he started. Yes, he was young, but he had already established himself in the league with over 150 games pitched over 4 seasons before he was tried as a starter.
Ryan, on the other hand, was still a work in progress at 24. He was shuttling back and forth between the starting rotation and the bullpen and was still walking nearly as many people as he struck out. Had Ryan been a full time reliever for the White Sox at age 24, he very definitely would not have had an ERA under 2.00. Where Gossage's best two complete seasons came at ages 23 and 25 (he was at his very peak when he spent a year as a starter), Ryan's would not come until ages 30 and 40.
Is that proof of anything? No; but it is surely evidence, and IMO persuasive evidence, that Gossage was not "good enough" to be a starter.
-- Yogi Berra
Steve with all due respect. That comment is like comparing apples and pineapples. both have apple in their name. Gossage was a relief pitcher and during his era the relief specialist was coming into its own. The era of the washed out guy being in the bullpen was basically over by then. Each team had at least a closer. The Yanks in fact had a set up guy as well in Ron Davis. A good argument can be made for him to be included into the Hall. He was one of the most dominant relief pitchers of his era. he pitched 2 innings sometime more for his saves. I personally feel that he is on the cusp and would think that Sutter has the better chance as he is credited in some circles as developing the spiltter.
Then again I do not have a vote.
Steve D
<< <i>The question though, has nothing to do with whether or not he was good enough to be starter...nothing at all......that is like asking if Albert Pujols is good enough to be a catcher....it is irrelavent. Gossage was a reliever, and maybe the single most dominant reliever ever, and certainly the most feared of his era. >>
I think an important part of my point - made quickly in my first post - has been lost. If we were discussing Rivera, or Sutter, or Quisenberry, etc. then I would agree that "not being good enough to be a starter" would be similar to discussing Pujols' abilities as a catcher. But we're not; we're discussing a pitcher who came to the majors - as you have pointed out several times - before the role of "closer" was even defined, a role which Gossage in fact played a part in defining.
Gossage was brought to the majors as a "pitcher" - not a relief pitcher, not a starting pitcher, just a pitcher. It was unusual at that time for pitchers, like Rivera, to be defined as closers before they ever played their first major league game. The White Sox tried Gossage as a starter, as they had done a few years earlier with Wilbur Wood, because they needed a starting pitcher and Gossage was the best pitcher they had who wasn't already in the rotation. And he failed.
Rollie Fingers spent his first few years in the majors as a "pitcher", both starting and relieving, with very limited success, before he was assigned permanently to the bullpen where he had a successful career as a reliever. John Hiller, who had the greatest season a relief pitcher has ever had in 1973, had started at least 3 games and as many as 12 for the previous 5 seasons. Tug McGraw was almost exclusively a starting pitcher in 1966-1967, was so godawful his career nearly ended, but found new life as a relief pitcher. Mike Marshall spent 1969 as a starter, went 3-10 with an ERA over 5.00, and was very successful as a reliever after that.
There are more, but that seems enough. It is simply a fact that many, and probably most, of the relief pitchers of that era were not hired to be relief pitchers. They were hired to pitch, failed to varying degrees as starters, and so were put in the bullpen. Gossage is one of those pitchers.
There were exceptions: Hoyt Wilhelm was a relief pitcher almost exclusively until 1959 when the Orioles needed another starter. Wilhelm stepped in and led the league in ERA. He was good enough to be a starter, but he was also 36 at the time and was soon back in the bullpen.
1. The question should be, did HE produce or prevent enough runs to separate himself from his peers, such that he should be recognized as on par with the rest of the Hall of Famers in baseball during that time period.
In actuality, this list should include hitters as well as pitchers. Hitters produce runs, pitchers prevent them.
For simplicity, just look at pitchers. It makes absolutley no difference if he is a SP or RP, as both of their jobs is to prevent runs. The more runs you prevent, the more games your team wins. WIns and Saves are a by-product of how many runs a pitcher prevents. Many of times those by products are strongly influenced by other factors, such as defense, run support, ease of save opportunity, and plain luck/chance...factors that do nothing to determine how good the player actually was. If you narrow it down to true measurements, then you can get a better idea of the value of the pitcher.
The best pitcher in that era was Tom Seaver. Tom Seaver, over his career, prevented 414 runs over what a LEAGUE AVERAGE pitcher would have done in his stead. This is not park adjusted, and this is based purely on ERA, IP, and LEAGUE ERA. It does not dig deeper into the hits/walks per inning ratios, or the k/bb ratios. It can be done, but it won't really change the rankings much.
Runs Saved above the average player in his stead. RP in CAPS.
Seaver 414
Blyleven 337
Palmer 316
Perry 309
Niekro 300
Carlton 278
Jenkins 255
Ryan 227
ECKERSLEY 205
John 183
Tiant 178
GOSSAGE 155
Sutton 153
TEKULVE 149
QUISENBERY 148
LEE SMITH 137
Kaat 121
SUTTER 118
FINGERS 107
Hunter 50
1) Bad longevity hurts! Carlton lost a lot of runs based on his last few years. Good longevity helps. Basically any years above avg rasie the number. An exact average year doesn't move the number at all. If you are interested in Prime Years only, then just do this exercise for their best ten year stretch to check prime dominance.
2) This assessment compares the pitchers ERA to the League Average ERA and with the addition of innings it gives the number. The number represents how many runs the pitcher saved above what the league average pitcher would have done in his stead. One problem, it assumes that a pitchers ERA while starting, will remain the same if they only had to pitch a couple of innings. This is false. It is harder to keep your ERA lower when you have to pitch 8 innings a game instead of 1. For example...
From 1973 to 1981 ALL the Starting Pitchers in MLB had an ERA that was 25 points HIGHER than the ALL the Relief pitchers in that same time span!! That is amazing considering that the worst pitchers on the team reside in the bullpen. It is supremely obvious, unless one of the children join the conversation, that baseball teams tend to put the best pitchers in the rotation, and save the lesser ones for the bullpen, especially in that era! SO what do those numbers above mean then???
Well, if all the best pitchers got the chance to pitch only two innings a game, instead of one, then they would see a decrease in their ERA! If all the RP's had to pitch 8 innings a game instead of two, then they would see an INCREASE in their ERA. How do I know this, well if the worse pitchers on the teams have a cumulative ERA that is better than the best pitchers it is obvious? Does this mean that absolutely everyone would follow that guideline? 95% would, and there would be a few exceptions as usual. Dallas broght up Gossage's one year as a starter, and that is an example of what these numbers mean, his ERA rose much more when asked to pitch more per game!
NOW WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR HOF?? Based on the list above, the numbers of runs saved above the average pitcher for the closers on that list is inflated about 8 to 14 PERCENT, becaue it is easier to have a lower ERA based on small innings of work.
Now, even if you discount that it is easier to pitch out of the pen, you see on the list eight of the top nine are in the HOF, Blyeven is out.
Gossage was worth about 138 runs less than the average SHOULD BE Hall of Famers from that era. Sutton is iffy, and Catfish Hunter has no business being in the Hall of Fame. There are other PITCHERS more deserving than Gossage for Hall enshrinment! I looked at guys off the top of my head, so I may have missed a couple.
Remember, it is the position of pitcher, otherwise we can devise the BEST left handed specialist and put him into the Hall of Fame as well, as he is the best at his job too!
Now, just looking are releivers, you see that Gossage was right above the other relievers, but Gossage had a lengthy career, and if you want to look at dominance, than Quisenberry was nearly as equal as Gossage in about half the amount of seasons!!
Remember, this number inflated the RP's value due to the fact that it is far tougher to maintain a low ERA when asked to pitch 7+ innings a game. Taking that into account, a guy lik Sutton passes all those relievers in value. Though the fact that RP pitch more HIGHER LEVERAGE innings, balances that a bit, but not all the way, and that is debatable. This also isn't park adjust, so Sutton takes a hit again, and others gain and lose a bit, but not much.
Finally, based on a true objective, though quickie method, Blyleven has the biggest gripe of being blackballed, Gossage isn't in line in Hall of Fame value of pitchers from that era, Quis may actually have a bigger gripe than Goose. Fingers doesn't belong, Catfish must have blew somebody to get it, and Tiant was pretty dominant himself.
Steve
welcome back skip
<< <i> It was unusual at that time for pitchers, like Rivera, to be defined as closers before they ever played their first major league game. The White Sox tried Gossage as a starter, as they had done a few years earlier with Wilbur Wood, because they needed a starting pitcher and Gossage was the best pitcher they had who wasn't already in the rotation. And he failed.
>>
dallas, let me just jump in and point out that Mariano Rivera was brought up as a starter. Yes he most certainly was.....
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
I want to clarify some wording in my post. I said "over what a player would do in his stead." Some people may think that is far fetched the way it sounds, as if I am the amazing Kreskin.
It is better understood when worded, "runs saved over what the league average pitcher is doing for a league neutral team."
More on RP, and the save. Think about the value of a SP vs. a RP. We know it is harder to maintain the ERA over 7 innings per game, as opposed to one or two. The value that most jump on for RP is that they pitch in higher leverage innings so to speak, innings where the game is always close. First, that isn't always true.
Many saves are cheap and are nothing special at all. One inning of work with a three run lead is hardly a save, just check teams records when up by three in the ninth, it is like 99% they will win. A two run lead and one inning pitched is nothing either. You can pitch one inning with an ERA of 9.00 and still get credit for the almighty save. A league average RP will save 95+% of those situations. That leaves the true save of one inning, one run lead. Obviously more than one inning and a one run lead is even more impressive. Three innings of saving a one run lead is VERY impressive. See if you can tell where I am going now with this....??
IF a three inning save of a one run lead is impressive, then what is a NINE inning save with a one run lead!!!! If Tom Seaver pitches nine innings in a two to one win, think about it, he gets credit for a WIN, and should for a HOLD, and for a SAVE all rolled up into one!! So starting pitchers pitch in a lot of high leverage innings as well. Bottom line, if Gossage really was really in the class of the true HOF pitchers of his era, then he should have NINE INNING SAVES TOO! Regardless of what we think if a guy could do that role, or a SP could do the role of a RP, the value of what they accomplished is impossible to argue against. A guy who pitches limited innings isn't going to have the same value. The chart above is a great idea of where to ascertain that value.
For fun, I checked Tom Seaver's 1971 season, a year with a lot of CG. He had 20 wins, about 20 holds, and 18 saves. Isn't it obvious to see that is more valuable than 35 saves, many of which any RP could have gotten?
NOTE: Obviously Seaver didn't get credit for those saves, but he pitched the ninth inning in a save criteria and finished it off, just like a RP would do, except he also got them into the save opportunty, far more valuable than just closing it out.
Again, it bears repeating, just because a RP is a specialized version of the PITCHER, and he is the best specializer, it doesn't mean he should be in the HOF. If that is the criteria, then the next specialist is the LH set up man, and then the best of that should get consideration just as much too, and so forth. YOU HAVE TO MEASURE THE PLAYERS VALUE OVER WHAT A LEAGUE AVERAGE, OR REPLACEMENT PLAYER IS WOULD BE DOING FOR A LEAGUE NEUTRAL TEAM! Hoyt Wilhelm IS a Relief Pitcher that did have value to equate to a Hall of Fame career.
NOTE AGAIN: It is painful for me to use Wins and Saves as measurement examples, as those are very dependant on things that are out of the pitchers control. It makes no sense to judge how good a pitcher is, using criteria he has no control over. The proper judgement is to narrow it down to the pitcher. The chart above basically tells the story. A more finite examination of those pitchers will only change a spot or two on the rankings.
Another thing...Rollie Fingers got voted into the Hall with a Cy Young and MVP on his resume, as that is a big catalyst for his induction. Some fans may agree with that premise, "yeah Rollie won a Cy and MVP and Goose never did, that is the difference." First, Rollie didn't WIN the Cy Young and MVP he was AWARDED those awards based on the OPINIONS of the writers, many of which also vote for the Hall. As history shows, we know how inconsistent, and ill informed, many of those opinions have been.
Please do not interpret these writings as saying a closer is worthless, he isn't. The very best ones have plenty of value! Hardly any create enough to value to equal the value the hitters and pitchers to merit Hall consideration. Some are on the cusp no doubt, ala Goose etc...
-- Yogi Berra
Without looking at all the modern closers, I suppose Hoffman is next at 116. So you can see that Rivera will probably be in the next group of pitchers following the big four pitchers of the era.
This is a case of a RP making the hall on MERIT, not bias or unfound value. It seems people are misinterpreting what I wrote. Those pitchers have contributed a certain amount towards wins, and people assign to much value to the closer by what I see. His value is what it is. Gooses' wasn't enough, Wilhelm's and RIvera's was.
Steve
<< <i>Softparade....thank you for pointing that out....I was hoping someone would.....so I guess by certain peoples definition Mariano was a bum who couldnt make it as a starter either, so thats why they stuck him in the pen. >>
I don't know about the "bum" part. What I do know is that Rivera came up in 1995 and had 10 starts with wildly varying results. It was not until the epic playoff series with Seattle that the Yankees ALMOST realized what they had with Rivera out of the pen. I say ALMOST because Buck Showalter did not see it even in game 5 at the Kingdome when Mo was MOWING the M's down. As a matter of fact, we should all know that Mo did not become a "closer" until 1997 after John Wetteland left.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>Softparade, not sure that the statement shows anything, but using the formula for those Runs Saved Above Average, Rivera is already up to 204. Though that is about ten percent inflated due to his era. Nonetheless, he will join Hoy Wilhelm (290) in the Hall of Fame someday. Though like I say, his value isn't as high as Pedro, Unit, Maddux, Clemens. But he will be Hall worthy, and will have merited it.
Without looking at all the modern closers, I suppose Hoffman is next at 116. So you can see that Rivera will probably be in the next group of pitchers following the big four pitchers of the era.
This is a case of a RP making the hall on MERIT, not bias or unfound value. It seems people are misinterpreting what I wrote. Those pitchers have contributed a certain amount towards wins, and people assign to much value to the closer by what I see. His value is what it is. Gooses' wasn't enough, Wilhelm's and RIvera's was. >>
-- Yogi Berra
Like I said about Gossages' value in his era, yes he pitched an average of 1.54 innings per relief appearance, but many other pitchers had a lot more value than Goosage. While Gossage was getting a three inning save, guys were getting NINE INNING saves!
Rivera was FAAAAR better at preventing runs than Gossage, when the context is looked at. He averaged 1.22 innings per appearance, while the best starters were getting '7 2/3' inning 'saves'. He has already surpassed the amount of runs than that of Gossage, and he isn't done yet. Rivera is better.
Again, he is a pitcher. If electing specialty pitchers is your preferece, then don't forget to include the set up man, and the LH set up man. There is a best of the bunch among those guys too. Regardless of the ROLE, their value is determined by what was shown.
Besides, Quisenberry was right there in his prime, and probably a notch higher. Gossage only gets him on longevity, and barely, and there are a few more right there too. He isn't the runaway dominator as is being presented, even among RP, let alone the many starters who were better than him.
CLemens, Maddux, Unit, and Pedro are ahead of RIvera AND WILL REMAIN ahead of him. There are a couple of more guys ahead of him, but he still has the chance to pass them. If Rivera had below avg seasons for the next five years, then he would be a bubble guy too. I don't think that will happen though.
Nobody is saying Gossage stinks, but he (plus about three others right with him) are below at least 12 other pitchers from the 70's. That isn't looking at any 80's contemporaries either. That is quite an accomplishment, but does that jive with a typical Hall of Famer?? Not really.
If you based Goose's candidacy on the election of Fingers, or Hunter, then Goose has a huge GRIPE. What that says to me though is that those two guys don't belong in the Hall ESPECIALLY HUNTER! The Hall can be viewed in different ways, but the value laid out is pretty solid. If you want the 14th best pitcher from the 70's in, then hey that is your preference. If one wants to change him from the 14th to the 5th best, well that isn't possible(not saying you said that though).
<< <i>CLemens, Maddux, Unit, and Pedro are ahead of RIvera AND WILL REMAIN ahead of him. There are a couple of more guys ahead of him, but he still has the chance to pass them. If Rivera had below avg seasons for the next five years, then he would be a bubble guy too. I don't think that will happen though. >>
If Mariano Rivera is still the Yankees closer four or five years from know I will be PLEASANTLY suprised. Imagine that, a closer who STAYS a closer for 15 or more years in a row.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
consider:
5 20 or more win seasons (all in a row)
perfect game
5 WS rings (not all with the yanks)
8 time allstar
575 winning pct
completed at least 35% of his starts
if you take his 10 prime years he averages 18 and 12
and he did it all w/o playing 25 years so no longevity benifit/detriment depending on the argument.
Sportsmanship
etc etc etc
IMO
He would have had at least 5 more average (for him) years had they not blown out his arm (completed 30 games in 1975)
Steve
edit to add: he could hit too.
Catfish logged the innings, but most of those innings were at the rate of an average pitcher, so his teams didn't really benefit a whole lot by extending him if he was giving innings with a run rate that of an average pitcher. If he was logging innings and givng up runs at a far fewer rate like the true HOFers of his era, than sure.
Catfish had three HOF caliber seasons, SEVEN seasons where he was BELOW AVERAGE, and FOUR where he was a tick above aveage.
The wins are exactly what got him voted in, and the WS titles too. He should be sending thank you notes to all of his teammates...thanks Reggie! It was they who made him look better than he actually was.
Wins...= run support, good defense, good relievers, good luck, and talent. The pitcher is only in control of one of those five factors, so it makes no sense at all to define a pitcher by that stat. In 1970 he had 18 wins with a BELOW AVERAGE ERA, and Nine complete games. That tells immediately of the beneficiary of factors beyond his ability, something that shows how good his TEAM was, not him, or of just getting lucky by being in the right rotation spot. With the environment of a typical pitcher, Catfish has a W% just a tick above .500.
Ironically, given this topic, he also benefitted by having two of the best relievers in the league behind him in Fingers and Gossage. Two near Hall of fame caliber pitchers, two pitchers that were actually better than him! So that helped in the wins department too.
Luis Tiant was a better pitcher...a career 3.30 ERA compared to a Leageu Avg of 3.70, AND with half his innings in the WORST pitchers park in the league, AND while pitching to age 41. He jsut didn't have the same luck as Hunter, thus he was viewed differently.
That is the beauty about in depth baseball research, these things are brought to light much more. Hunter is soo far down compared to the other Hall of Famers from his era, that he may be one of the biggest head scratchers of all time when it is looked at objectively.
Injured! Yes, but his last 600 innings were at a below average rate, so he wasn't exactly on the climb to getting better. He had a good four year peak, but the surrounding years were on the whole, below average.
I was waiting for someone to remark about the 'blowing'... I had thought that had gotten lost in the shuffle LOL.
Anyway, good night fellas. If the discussion is still alive tomorrow, maybe time for more fun.
BEFORE I hit the pillow, good discussion on the topic, no name calling etc...that's when its fun. Disagreements yes, but that is part of the fun. Terribly busy on my end, so my posts are gonna be few and far between. Good night for real fellas.
Players are unfairly punished for playing on average or poor teams and unfairly rewarded for playing on good teams, especially if their teams win the World Series. I followed Blyleven's career from start to finish and the fact that he is not in the HOF is mind boggling. He IS kind of a dink, my bet is he rubbed the voters the wrong way.
Skinpinch, I usually hate your total dedication to statistics, but this time they agree with my opinion on several pitchers, especially Tiant, that don't get the credit they deserve. I will say that Ron Lucianno was very impressed with "Catfish" though, calling him one of the best pitchers he ever saw.
Mentioning that Gossage was a failure as a starter makes no sense to me. I don't know if Goose belongs in the Hall, but he was a very dominating pitcher for a period. He was a player that you remembered when you saw him pitch.
My last thought is you just can't compare the "old school" thinking regarding pitching with how things are done now. The closer position is so specialized now, managers don't even consider putting them in until the 9th inning or at the earliest with two out in the 8th. Starters used to not only take pride in pitching a complete game, owners used to use it as a big time negotiating point if a starting pitcher didn't complete most of his games.
Just my two cents.
JoeBanzai
As skinpinch has written, in quite a few words, Catfish Hunter was really not a great pitcher and of the pitchers in his era he was not close to the best. Based on these observations, clearly he does not belong in the Hall. If the argument was who is better Hunter or Tiant or Blyleven than it could be argued he is third best.
However, to people that vote for the players in the Hall, Hunter is an easy selection:
consider as winpitcher pointed out:
5 20 or more win seasons (all in a row)
perfect game
5 WS rings (not all with the yanks)
8 time allstar
575 winning pct
completed at least 35% of his starts
But the ultimate factor in Hunters Hall of Fame favour is a 9-6 post-season record and 5-3 with a save in the World Series. With Oakland he was 7-2 in the postseason and 4-0 in the World Series. Right or wrong, Hunter has done things that impress the Hall of Fame voters. They remembered Hunter as a big game pitcher, who was great to the media, and had some big seasons.
In answer to the original question about Rich Gossage. Gossage has historically had around 40% of the vote until last year when he jumped to 55%. Based on past history the two most likely players to get in the Hall this year are Sutter and Rice. Gossage might eventually get there but he will follow Sutter.
Edited to correct my stupidity - Thanks Steve.
the 10 and 2 is the record for the series his teams won or lost
he was 5 and 3 in WS play
Steve
edited to add: I madre that same mistake when i first looked at that too.
as usual, excellent posts; I always learn something when you take the time to dig into a subject.
On your list of runs saved, if I am understanding your method correctly, I think your results are park-adjusted since the league average figure on baseball-reference is a park-adjusted figure.
I'm sure I'm missing some others, too, but I also found Dave Stieb (244), Ron Guidry (171), Steve Rogers (158) and Rick Reuschel (189).
For the Gossage fans, what I'm really worked up about is Blyleven and I'm taking it out on Gossage because he seems to be the next in what will likely become a very large group of pitchers to beat Blyleven into the HOF. I admit that not all relief pitchers are as bad as I have been making them out to be - but I will not admit that any of them - ever - have been as good as Blyleven.
-- Yogi Berra
<< <i>But the ultimate factor in Hunters Hall of Fame favour is a 9-6 post-season record and 5-3 with a save in the World Series. With Oakland he was 7-2 in the postseason and 4-0 in the World Series. Right or wrong, Hunter has done things that impress the Hall of Fame voters. They remembered Hunter as a big game pitcher, who was great to the media, and had some big seasons. >>
Yes, that is why he is in, but that is the kind of criteria that gets these inaccuracies, and what we are trying to rectify. Regardless of how somebody like Lucciano 'feels' about him, the fact is, he was giving up runs at nearly the rate of an AVERAGE pitcher(pitching in his environment), and that is without going through the bad old man years. His home 'pitcher' parks helped him a bit, career 2.70 ERA at home and 3.92 on the road. The home splits are typically better for most, but not to that degree. Writers don't realize a lot of these things, BUT THEY SHOULD. Lucciano must have seen a lot of the home games.
A good research undertaking puts the players value into a more proper light, and weeds out the stuff that clouds judgement. Geez, if Lucciano feels that way about Hunter, what in the world should his view be of Seaver and Co.?? There isn't even a remote comparison between them, it just boggles my mind.
JoeBanzi, I agree that Goose is a guy to be remembered, and was a show stopper! Since it is the Hall of FAME, then that criteria could be used to help his case. It gets messy using criteria like that, but it would be hard to argue against Goose fitting that bill. I was a little more interested in his actual run value to a team. Even using my chart above, he is right on the cusp of joing that HOF group, and is past a couple who are in already. If I am undervaluing the closer a bit, then he may be in based on my own list.
I will be really upset if more than one closer from this modern era gets in and Goose doesn't. I get the feeling most feel this way too, and thus the sentiment for Gossage. But if Goose is to be put into that light, we have to campaign for guys like Quisenberry! At least Goose gets support. Nobody recognizes Quisenberry at all, and he was right there.
Dallas, you are right, the league average ERA on baseball reference already is park adjusted, so those figures I posted ARE park adjusted already. I had written they weren't. SO that is the reason for the lower ranking of Sutton on that list.
EDITED TO ADD: I do know that Carmen Ronzonni was a fan of both Catfish Hunter and Luis Tiant!
When you think of Goose Gossage you remember the "big, scary" closer with a fastball and thick mustache. Mention him to anyone who knows anything about baseball and they will likely know who you are talking about. Catfish Hunter? He's remember not for being a totally dominant pitcher, but he was a winner on a winning team and people remember the name Catfish, especially when they watched him perform on the biggest stage multiple times. Sounds stupid, but you gotta think name recognition and "perceived" dominance play more of a part in the voting than actual hardcore numbers.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but the vote is a human vote. Tiant and Blyleven were very good pitchers, maybe even great pitchers. But I would venture to guess that fewer of the average baseball fan would know who they are or how good they were if you mentioned their names. Like Skin said, its called the Hall of FAME, and more than just the stats, its about how much FAME you gained while you played...
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
"~Yes, that is why he is in, but that is the kind of criteria that gets these inaccuracies, and what we are trying to rectify. Regardless of how somebody like Lucciano 'feels' about him, the fact is, he was giving up runs at nearly the rate of an AVERAGE pitcher(pitching in his environment), and that is without going through the bad old man years. His home 'pitcher' parks helped him a bit, career 2.70 ERA at home and 3.92 on the road. The home splits are typically better for most, but not to that degree. Writers don't realize a lot of these things, BUT THEY SHOULD."`
For the past 25 years Bill James and others have significantly changed how fans, writers, sportscasters and players analyze the game of baseball. The writers have changed certain ways they select players but in the end they are still persuaded by wins and big seasons when it comes to starting pitchers.
I like what Bill James wrote, "Rating pitchers is a 40-way balancing act. A good ERA for one pitcher must be balanced against a better won-lost record for another..... But when you have many pitchers who have about the same records, who comes out on top depends to a large extent on which features you decide to put the weight on."
Personally, I like the game score method for rating starters and viewing statistics based on starters records when receiving 0-2, 3-5, and 6 or greater run support. I do, however, realize there are other methods people use and I can appreciate their efforts and viewpoint.
Some fan's criteria is as simple as, "It is game seven of the World Series, who do you want starting Catfish Hunter or Bert Blyleven?
<< <i>Some fan's criteria is as simple as, "It is game seven of the World Series, who do you want starting Catfish Hunter or Bert Blyleven? >>
Based on how each did in postseason play, the answer should clearly be Blyleven. But in every postseason game Catfish Hunter started, except in 1976 which ended in humiliation at the hands of the Reds, Reggie Jackson was in the outfield and Hunter's team always won. Hunter essentially occupies Jackson's second spot in the HOF.
If Jackson gets two spots in the HOF, I'd nominate Gene Tenace or Roy White to fill in over Hunter; both of them were much better, compared to their average counterpart, than was Hunter.
actually he had 3 'old man type years' at the end due to his arm being overused in 75
The fact that he played right out of high school and therefore learned his pro craft in the big leagues must be taken into consideration. Consider he was 18 or 19 years old and in the big leagues. The youngest in the league for a while I imagine.
he played on some awful teams in KC and was an intregal part of that A's dynasty (as much as Reggie was) Reggie has even stated as such.
in 1975 Billy Martin blew the guys arm out, he was never the same after that year. And yes he was 29 or 30 at the prime pitcheing age. In 76 he pitched on guts alone .The 3 years that followed were mediocre with some flashes of brilliance here and there.
to use a stat such as Runs allowed versus the league average does not really tell the whole story. here is a lil known tidbit 1x he gave up more hits then innings pitched and that was his last year. 1x!
JMO
Steve
edited to add if it is game 7 of the WS I want Hunter. (over Blyleven) But i would take Palmer over both of them.
I'm simply measruring what he actually did. His peak ended the year after you are referring to. Did his 25 CG season cause him to go downhill ?? I don't know. But the following year, he pitched 318 innings and had one of his BEST seasons! Then threw 298 the next year with an avg ERA.
So, lets ignore the very young years, and the tired arm years??
His H/BB per IP is pretty good, but don't forget that his homepark influenced that, much like it influenced the pitchers of the league when they pitched in those parks as well. A road ERA of 3.92 is very poor for that era(though that counts the whole career).
But lets not even look at the park, just the raw numbers of what he did in his prime. Lets see his best AL ONLY rankings in the key categories....
IP...................1,2,4,5,10
BB+H per IP....1,1,2,3,6,7
ERA.................1,2,3
Is that Koufaxian? It is not, but it is excellent. Had he been fresh for a few more years, I agree that he may have added a few more years onto those rankings.
BUT....he had an advantage over his league mates by pitching in a nice pitcher park(I believe the absolute best pitchers park). The benefit of pitching in the big parks is that it saved him from allowing more home runs, among other things. Career number....
HOME
IP.................. 1,871
HR ALLOWED....175
HR/IP.............1 every 10.6 IP
WHIP............1.05.....walks+H/IP
ROAD
IP...................1,578
HR ALLOWED...199
HR/IP..............1 every 7.9 IP
WHIP..............1.22
Now his home/road ERA from 1971-1975, his peak.....
'71....2.92/2.99
'72....1.66/2.58
'73....2.52/4.37
'74....1.91/3.12
'75....3.09/3.49 with NY
These numbers aren't flukes, as Oakland was a great pitchers park. Check out the whole A's staff home/road splits those years....
'71....3.16/2.94
'72....2.33/2.86
'73....2.60/4.00
'74....2.72/3.19
'75....2.57/4.01 with Ny(pitchers park)
Then to get a park factor, EVERY pitcher in the league is measured in both the home/road experiences vs. Oakland. That is the data where ERA+ comes from. There are some flaws to park factors, though I believe none apply in this case, as the flaws are usually case specific.
His best rankings in ERA+
....3rd ,4th, and 5th.
His WHIP ratio and IP rankings see a slightly similar fall, though I'm not computing that right now.
BOTTOM LINE.......HERE IS HIS BEST RANKINGS AS A PITCHER!!
When adding IP, and including his park factor, here is his best rankings as a pitcher in his career,
1972, 2nd best in AL behind Perry........Carlton in the NL was better.
1974, 1st best in AL, TIED with Perry.....Niekro in the NL was better.
1975, 2nd best in AL, behind Palmer.....Messersmith, and Randy Jones were better in NL
SO, his best rankings in MLB as a pitcher were 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. That is excellent. So counting PEAK YEARS only, I would say he ranks well with some of the Hall of Famers, and Winpitcher has some grounds with his point. His peak was very short, and we are ignoring a lot of his years, but my "blowing statement" was harsh. I can see where his peak years caused excitment from Lucciano.
To be more certain, I would have to see the best yearly rankings of his HOF peers of that time before I say he officially hangs with some of them in their prime. The difference will be though that those HOFers had a much longer prime, and not as many mediocore or bad years. If Winpitcher is correct that overuse caused him to lose some prime years, then his dominance could have been longer too.
Did he actually do enough to MERIT election?? Well, not quite, when compared to his HOF peers. Would a few more prime years been enough to merit election with merit?? Possibly. This brings the longevity/dominance argument back into the HOF vogue of course.
Steve, I will say you altered my initial quickie assessment. Plus, being immitated by Carmen Ronzonni must carry some weight too!
Skip that was one of my contentions since last night. please re read my post. I said:
He would have had at least 5 more average (for him) years had they not blown out his arm (completed 30 games in 1975)
As for aqltering what you said, I did not alter anything you said.
I simply was around when he was one of the best pitchesr in baseball. albiet a finesse pitcher. And saw what he did.
Is he the greatest pitcher ever? never said he was. was he among the best in baseball during his time? Yes he was the ace of at least 7 staffs.
Steve
I remember the cat too, and the things you mentioned had merit, and I wanted to delve a little deeper into his overall dominance in his prime to see where he actually sat.
As for the Hall, it always comes back to peak or sustained greatness.
Of course, I wanted to avoid WINS and LOSSES at all costs in the peak measurement, as we know the pitfalls of that. That is probably what lead to the harsh assessment towards the Cat....getting voted in because of wins and WS titles. But his peak merits recognition as Winpitcher pointed out. In his peak, he was on par with some of the HOFers from that time period, no doubt. Then the issue of WHAT IF, brings a little more to the table as well.
Basically, my last post was a tip of the hat to you for bringing a couple of good points.
The one thing that bothers me most is that nobody is saying anything about the Carmen Ronzonni references I made!
steve
oh ok Skip I understand now what you meant about the altering thingy.
What bothers me alot in regards to pitchers is that he was not a power pitcher and guys like that get lil recognition in general.
Steve
Carmen Ronzonni gives us one of these classic lines/scenes that combines our loves, and this one we also act out too, and I don't think a message board conveys it well, but I'm sure most on this board have seen the movie anyway...
Bad News Bears II Breaking Training. What is funny is when Carmen Ronzonni shows off how good he is by doing immitations of Catfish Hunter's and Luis Tiant's wind up/deliveries, and then the way he says their name after completing the windup, like he was as stud.
To the team Carmen asks rhetorically-
"Catfish Hunter??" -Carmen does the immitation and then proclaims..."CATIFSH HUNTER!!!" Then he does another,
"Luis Tiant???" - does the immitation and then proclaims..."LUIS TIANT!!"
He was so full of it, because he couldn't pitch and was all talk, funny stuff!
-- Yogi Berra