Why is Bruce Sutter in the Hall but other relievers don't get support?

orioles93

I would like someone to explain to me how in the world Bruce Sutter got in the Hall of Fame. Looking at his basic stats, he had a nice career. 6 time All Star, 1 Cy Young, led the league in saves 5 times, career ERA under 3. But he only had 8 good seasons and only played 11 full seasons overall.



How come Sutter was able to get in but guys like Lee Smith, John Franco, Billy Wagner, Francisco Rodriguez, etc. don't seem to have any support? I would say all 5 of those guys I listed were better than Sutter. Especially when looking at numbers of quality seasons, Franco had 16-17 good years, Smith around 14, K Rod 12, Wagner had 14, all compared to Sutter's 8.



Mariano and Hoffman seem to be the only slam dunk relievers. I feel relief pitchers should get more support for the hall. It is one of the hardest jobs in baseball and one of the most important parts of a team to have season long success.

craig44

Closers, in the grand scheme of things, are kind of a recent phenomenon. Only since the 1970's. And more recently was the advent of the one inning specialist. So I think there isn't as much historical precident to induct these guys and maybe voters are not quite sure on what the prerequisite stats are for a hof closer.

orioles93

Originally posted by: craig44

Closers, in the grand scheme of things, are kind of a recent phenomenon. Only since the 1970's. And more recently was the advent of the one inning specialist. So I think there isn't as much historical precident to induct these guys and maybe voters are not quite sure on what the prerequisite stats are for a hof closer.

Maybe there shouldn't be prerequisite stats per say. I think part of what makes a hall of famer is if they were dominant for a short period or solid for a long period of time with small periods of dominance, regardless of the stats. Take Franco and Smith for example, they were both very good for a very long time at what they did. I would much rather have that than Sutter being good for only 8 seasons.



I also dont get the excuse of closers being new. 1970 was 46 years ago. I wouldn't consider them new at this point. We have had over 40 years of closers to go off of, and only 6 have reached 400 saves. So couldn't one say 400 or 500 saves could be a prerequisite stat for the hall?

mb2005

maybe voters are not quite sure on what the prerequisite stats are for a hof closer.



They will know the high bar once Mariano Rivera is eligible....the low bar is a lot tougher....

dallasactuary

Bruce Sutter making the HOF was a mistake of epic proportions. Using his joke of induction to justify putting more closers in the HOF would just turn that joke into a tragedy. Rivera will make the HOF on his own merits; he doesn't need to point to Sutter. Other than Rivera, there aren't any other closers who deserve to be in who aren't already in.

garnettstyle

Lee Smith has a good chance of getting in.

craig44

Dallas, something we agree on!! I think Sutter was a mistake and overall the position is highly overrated. There are a fair number of failed starters who catch on as closers. Quality starters are much more valuable than quality closers.

dallasactuary

Originally posted by: craig44
Dallas, something we agree on!! I think Sutter was a mistake and overall the position is highly overrated. There are a fair number of failed starters who catch on as closers. Quality starters are much more valuable than quality closers.

Amen! Great outfielders play center field, great pitchers start. Center fielders make many more plays than the other outfielders, and starters pitch many more innings than relievers. Everyone wants to win, so teams put their best players in a position to contribute more often than their other players.

I don't know why the Yankees used Rivera as a closer; presumably they had a reason. Other than Rivera, the only other relievers that deserved to be in the HOF were Wilhelm, who led the league in ERA the one season he was used as a starter, and Eckersley, who was a successful starter for years before becoming more famous in the bullpen.

craig44

Could it be that Rivera only had one plus pitch? If that is accurate, after one trip through the order he would be much less effective.

dallasactuary

Originally posted by: craig44
Could it be that Rivera only had one plus pitch? If that is accurate, after one trip through the order he would be much less effective.

That's probably it, or at least a part of it. Which would just add to the evidence that relief pitchers are relief pitchers because they lack the skills to be starters. I think Rivera stands so far above every other relief pitcher in history that even if it was conceded that he wasn't as great as a HOF starting pitcher he'd still have a solid case by virtue of being the greatest ever at what he did (similar to Mazeroski).

larryallen73

The beard!

gregmo32

I also think that in addition to the stats cited by others, Sutter is credited with being the early pioneer of the split fingered fastball that became all the rage.

Tabe

Originally posted by: dallasactuary
Bruce Sutter making the HOF was a mistake of epic proportions. Using his joke of induction to justify putting more closers in the HOF would just turn that joke into a tragedy. Rivera will make the HOF on his own merits; he doesn't need to point to Sutter. Other than Rivera, there aren't any other closers who deserve to be in who aren't already in.

I would agree with this. Sutter doesn't belong in. Guys like Franco who pitched 50 innings a year don't belong. Guys with an ERA over 3.00, like Lee Smith, don't belong. And so on. If you're going to play in 5% of your teams innings, you'd better ultra-dominant in that 5% to be a HOFer. So far, that fits only Mariano.

Where I would disagree with Dallas is on Dennis Eckersley. He doesn't belong in the HOF. He had a 6-year run as a good reliever. That's it. And a barely above .500 (149-130) record with a 3.71 ERA as a starter doesn't help his case. When people picture Eckersley, they think of the unhittable 1990 version but the reality is he had far more years like 1993 (4.16) ERA as both a starter and reliever.

dallasactuary

Originally posted by: TabeWhere I would disagree with Dallas is on Dennis Eckersley. He doesn't belong in the HOF. He had a 6-year run as a good reliever. That's it. And a barely above .500 (149-130) record with a 3.71 ERA as a starter doesn't help his case. When people picture Eckersley, they think of the unhittable 1990 version but the reality is he had far more years like 1993 (4.16) ERA as both a starter and reliever.

I think he's a bottom tier HOFer for sure, but it doesn't bother me that he's in nearly as much as Sutter or Gossage. Part of it is that he had his best years as a starter on Boston. For the same reasons that Jim Rice wasn't nearly as good as people think he was, Eckersley (like Tiant) was much better. As a starter for 2,500 innings, Eck had an ERA 11% better than average (adjusted for ballpark); he was a better starter than Tommy John or Jack Morris, and somehow those two get mentioned as HOFers. But in addition to being a good starter, Eck also has the great run as a reliever, including the 1990 season that was possibly the greatest ever.

All told, Eckersley allowed about 200 runs fewer than an average pitcher in his career (Rivera 330, Wilhelm 300, Gossage 150, Sutter 120); that's not greatest pitcher ever territory, but it is comparable to a lot of lower-tier HOFers like Bunning and Sutton. If I were drawing the line HOFers have to clear to get in Eckersley would barely clear it, but I certainly understand that others draw it higher.

keets

Sutter is in after eight years for the same reason the Kansas Comet is in the NFL HOF after only seven years.

dallasactuary

Originally posted by: keets
Sutter is in after eight years for the same reason the Kansas Comet is in the NFL HOF after only seven years.

I know that I'm overly sensitive to these things, but this post was physically painful to read. How about a trigger warning before something like this gets posted?