1999 Ballot
Bert Blyleven
George Brett
Ron Cey
Dwight Evans
Rollie Fingers
Carlton Fisk
Keith Hernandez
Nolan Ryan
Reggie Smith
Robin Yount

Here's a rather exhaustive study of pitching since 1960 in more detail than my previous pitching blurb. If someone wants me to add WARP3 values or something else, I will, but there's a lot to it.

Since I come to the basic conclusion that both Ryan and Blyleven deserve inclusion under current HOF criteria, I'll ignore that gross baiting post on them you just put up, URI

My apologies in advance to the chunk of bandwidth this post takes up.


Here are a list of starting pitchers with good careers who played mainly between 1960 and the current. It is not a comprehensive list by any means, but the great ones are in here along with some not-so-greats or not-so-longs to help with perspective.

This is intended to be a discussion of CRA metrics, but before we get into that I want to discuss the problems I see with ERA+. First of all, the CRA metrics are all calculated per BF, except for the CBRA which is calculated per unit of contact (BF - BB - SO - HB), so they are generally much finer analysis. So the larger ERA+ numbers are going to seem a bit whacky compared to the finer analysis. Having said that, there seems to be a heavy ERA+ skew to the modern pitchers (1985+) than there should be. Saberhagen (ERA+ 126) was in no way, shape or form the equivalent of Tom Seaver (127) and Jim Palmer (125). Why doesn't league average normalization work?

There are a couple of reasons. First, league average normalization works for league average pitchers. Great pitchers - and no one can dispute that Pedro, Clemens and Maddux are great pitchers, transcend the game in ways that can't be measured. We can see the difference between the game in the 1960's and the 1990's in two places under the CRA statistics - DRA and CBRA. We'll discuss DRA later, but CBRA (Contact Batting Runs Allowed) are linear batting runs isolated to contact events. A glance at that column shows that when power pitchers like Pedro and Clemens yield contact, its at a much higher level than pitchers from the 1960s, by about .010 CBRA. That correction also works for Maddux, who is a low-contact pitcher in the mold of a Jim Palmer or Andy Messersmith. Secondly, it should be noted that that extra contact damage does not decrease the same pitcher's overall BRA/PRA values. This is because modern pitchers adapt to the extra strength of modern hitting by limiting contact at a higher level. So although there should probably be an era adjustment for BRA, it would be much smaller than the current ERA+ adjustment, and probably curvy instead of linear.

Lets look at what the CRA numbers tell us about the pitchers.

Batting Runs Allowed (BRA) is the weighted value of the hitting events against a pitcher, and tells us generally how well batters hit against a pitcher in terms of runs allowed. It has a generally linear relationship with the different hit rates, such as Opponent Batting Average (OBA) and of course HR/BF which isn't listed here. Here are the top guys in BRA:


BRA is all about missing bats, or nearly missing bats in the case of guys like Messersmith, Palmer, and Maddux. This is one area where a slight era adjustment is probably useful and I will work on refining that, perhaps in the order of 6 or 7%. Still, it seems fairly logical.

Residual Runs Allowed (RRA) is the total run value of the things pitchers do to hurt themselves not related to hitting, such as walks, hit batsmen, wild pitches, and balks. RRA is the great equalizer for dominators like Ryan and McDowell, of course. Here are the best RRA pitcher on the list:


In fact, every pitcher on the list had an RRA of .024 or less except for two: Ryan and McDowell, who were both at .030.

Pitching Runs Allowed (PRA) is the sum of BRA and RRA which gives the overall pitching effectiveness, although its only about 90% of actual runs allowed.


Park-adjusted PRA (PAPRA) is the park adjustment given to each pitcher. These park adjustments are going to be controversial, since they are based on away-rates. Before Lahoud jumps all over me, I want to explain why I prefer this to standard park adjustments. Looking at Messersmith vs Sutton for instance, they both pitched in Anaheim and Dodger stadia which have about the same overall park factor but they got corrected differently. This is a function of their home run rates. Messersmith gave up relatively few HRs in his career (.014 HR/PA) compared with Sutton (.022 HR/PA). This is the main difference between the +.003 adjustment for Messersmith and the +.005 adjustment for Sutton. If 90% of the difference in park factor is in HR rates, why should I penalize a low-HR rate pitcher the same as a high-HR rate pitcher? This is also why Nolan Ryan gets a fairly large +.005 adjustment, even though he played a fair chunk of his career in bigger ballparks. When you made solid contact on a Nolan Ryan fastball, it went a long way.

At any rate, I actually only adjust the BRA, and carry the RRA over to get the adjusted PAPRA numbers:



The two primary beneficiaries of park adjustment in this group were Lolich (-.004 at Tiger Stadium) and Jenkins (-.002 at Wrigley Field primarily).

Defensive Runs Allowed (DRA): Defensive runs allowed are simply the difference between PRA and actual RA allowed, and it tends to be around 10% of total runs. Defensive runs are a misnomer, of course, although ground ball pitchers tend to show higher DRA numbers than fly ball pitchers. Here are the high DRA pitchers:


I don't really know what causes DRA. Part of it is hardness of contact, part of it is defense, part of it is GO/FO ratio, part of it is luck. Nearly everyone in this group fell between -.008 and -.011, which is a very small difference at this level of pitching. Of interest, here are the small group that were below the median range:


None of these pitchers really have a lot in common from a pitching perspective, except that all but Ryan were near the bottom of the list in most statistical categories. One thing they did all have in common was gross inconsistency over the course of a season, so perhaps they were so grossly inconsistent that they allowed run clustering above normal expectations consistently over the course of their careers. So in career analysis, is DRA really just consistent inconsistency?

I do not calculate PRA using DRA mainly because I don't understand it. Low DRA is, however, the primary reason why Nolan Ryan does not fair well in the overall analysis.

Runs Allowed (RA) are, of course, the ultimate measure of a pitcher's efficiency, if over the course of their career you believe that the seasonal variations of defensive support, park factors, luck and randomness even out over time. Here is
how the compare by that metric:


This could probably use a slight era adjustment too. Perhaps Marichal and McDowell are a little too high, and perhaps Clemens is a little too low, but not by very much. I am loathe to penalize McDowell as much based on era because his
contact rate was so low. Really, his strikeout rates (along with Koufax') in the 1960's were absolutely phenomenal. If I am going to adjust them downward for contact from that era, I would also want to adjust them upwards for non-contact since the average hitter in the 1990's made more contact. Do 320 strikeouts equal 380 K's in the modern era?

I added a column on the chart for WS/IP. Had I had more energy, I would have computed WS/BF to be consistent with the rest of the graphics. The WS/IP values were taken from Cyril Morong's site, and I'm not sure what year he used, so I am
uncertain about the current players. I think a glance at that shows, however, the main problem I have with WS. I think the concept is brilliant, but the underlying assignment of WS to certain pitchers seems to be flawed. There is some apparent
linkage to ERA+, (hence the high marks for Saberhagen and low marks for Ryan), but it there appears to be something else missing. Perhaps Cyril used an older version of WS to propagate his chart, and there have been improvements in the
assignment as well, but it doesn't really seem logical in terms of this list, or in other eras.

So what about Blyleven? Does he rate HOF selection? It depends on how you rate pitching greatness, I guess. How many of these pitchers were truly great? Using ERA+, CRA stats or Win Shares, its still a fairly small number. Maybe only three, Martinez, Seaver, and Palmer. Maybe half a dozen, adding Clemens, Maddux and Marichal. Maybe only Martinez and Seaver. Blyleven is certainly comparable to Sutton, and Carlton and Jenkins in everything but win totals, but he's not far ahead of Tommy John. Does John get in if Blyleven gets in? Then how about Saberhagen and Cone, who didn't get 200 wins, but have better ERA+ and Win Share numbers than most of the HOFers? And what about Ryan? Was he really as mediocre as his 112 ERA+ and win shares would indicate? Was Blyleven better?

Sadly, the biggest factor in comparing career numbers for pitchers is longevity. Its difficult to go against something as firmly entrenched as win totals, no matter how well you can prove that guys like Andy Messersmith and Sam McDowell were
better pitchers in their day. I think by the standards we use currently, there is no logic for keeping either Blyleven or Tommy John out of the HOF based on win totals and the fact that they are in the window as far as their rate stats go. I think they might be excluded using a more advanced scoring system using season-to-season comparisons, but that doesn't really exist now, and such a system might exclude a whole lot of other guys too.

Nice post VAL...

If the world ended today, Blyleven and Ryan are in our Hall. Har har.

I'll have the results up by 4pm.

2000 ballot:
Ron Cey
Dwight Evans
Goose Gossage
Dale Murphy
Dan Quinsenberry
Tony Perez
Ken Singleton

Wow, good job in 99...6 get in.

2000 may be slightly less fruitful...

I'll make my picks later this week, need to give it more thought..I'll vote goose...but rollie needs in too.

2000 Ballot:

Ron Cey
Dwight Evans
Rich Gossage
Pedro Guerrero
Dan Quisenberry
Ken Singleton

2000 Ballot:

Tommy John
Dale Murphy
Graig Nettles
Willie Randolph
Jim Rice
Ken Singleton

2000 Ballot

Rollie Fingers
Rich Gossage
Dale Murphy
Pete Rose
Bruce Sutter

Wow, seven inductees -- the most since 1966, right?

2000 ballot
Ron Cey
Rich Gossage
Tony Perez
Pete Rose
Ken Singleton

Still thinking about Murphy, Evans, Lynn, Rice.....

Rollie Fingers
Goose Gossage
Dave Parker
Dan Quisenberry
Jim Rice
Bruce Sutter

And Dave Henderson and Tom Brunansky each get 1 vote once for 1 hit and 1 catch

I'd like people to take a closer look at Tony Perez and Ron Cey. I am sure Perez is overrated and Cey is overrated (which is why people often vote they way they do) but I still think Perez is a much better candidate.

- They had similar adjusted rate stats, except that Perez did it in 2500 more plate appearances. To make it fair, try this. If you remove the last 2500 plate appearances from Perez's career (when he was clearly still a useful, though limited player) it brings you back to 1978. So what you have to do is compare Perez through 1978 to Cey's career, and Perez is demonstrably and easily better. Then you add in another 2500 better than league average at bats on top of that.

- White it is true that Cey had much more defensive value, Perez was a third baseman during the prime of his career, so this is not as clear cut as you would think. Cey played 1200 more games at 3B than Perez, though Perez played nearly 1800 more games at 1B than Cey. I don't see how this helps Cey.

- Perez had more big years. Perez once hit .317/.401/.589 as a third baseman. He had other years better than anything Cey ever did.

Add it up, and I don't see a vote for Cey and not Perez.

Edit: Perez seems to not be on the ballot anymore, and I am not sure why. I have been voting for him, and a few other people have. Perhaps if he was on the ballot he'd have a shot?

You and I were the only two people who voted for him in 1998. He wasn't on your ballot or my ballot in 1999 (in my case, and presumably yours, due to the overwhelming number of top-tier candidates for the 1999 induction). Now that we've cleared the decks, he's back on my ballot.

2000 BALLOT
Ron Cey
Dwight Evans
Rollie Fingers
Rich Gossage
Tommy John
Graig Nettles
Tony Perez
Dan Quisenbery
Pete Rose
Bruce Sutter

* VAL convinced me that TJ belongs, and Lahoud has done the same with Perez & Cey.

* I came close to adding Jack Morris, but even after clearing 7 names off my ballot I'm out of room.

Morris was a 3-time 20-game winner who also won between 17 and 19 on five occasions. He had an identical K:BB ratio (1.78) to Tommy John, but he gave up fewer hits per 9 IP (8.40) than Tommy (9.14).

I'm curious as to what the park-adjusted numbers say about whether he was helped or hurt by Tiger Stadium during his career. I have no idea where to obtain such park factors, so if anyone wants to give it a stab I'm all eyes.

Well, Dog, here are some numbers on Morris. If you can find anything at all in them, please let me know.


Here are the season by season totals for Jack Morris during his career. If there are any patterns here, I am at a loss to find them - he was perhaps the most inconsistent long-career pitcher I have ever seen. He put together some good win seasons, some good ERA seasons, and some good PRA seasons, but there was no rhythm whatsoever to how he got there. His HR rates were extremely erratic, jumping from below .020 HR/BF to above .035 HR/BF at fairly random intervals. Sometimes he pitched better at home, the next season, he pitched better on the road. His singles and walk rates (not shown here) also seemed to fluctuate randomly +/- 20 points from season to season. Even his K-Rate was wildly inconsistent from season to season:


Apparently, he was also inconsistent within seasons as well.

In answer to your question about park factors, I listed the PPFs in the right hand column, BrownDog. Tiger stadium played as a slight hitter's park during his first five years there, then as a slight pitcher's park during the next seven seasons. Looking at his PRA/PNPRA differential, and his HR/BF and HR/BFA differential, you can see that he tended to give up more runs and HRs at home (the negative differentials) during the seasons when the park played pitcher friendly, which again defies logic.

He was a very good pitcher on some very good teams - the Trammell/Whitaker/Brookens/ Parrish/Gibson/Kemp/Lemon Tigers. He always had good offensive and defensive support. Maybe he was a lot like Hunter, pitching well enough to win, but I just can't see the evidence outside of his win totals to suggest that he is HOF material.

Living in the past, MaBrown?

Never mind...

Touchy, touchy!

I have no problem with your picks, you just had them labelled 1999....just a friendly ribbing/reminder.

Alright, I hereby retract my Hitler-esque diatribe, bsj.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Just a note on Morris ... I didn't mean to slam him or anything, and I would appreciate seeing any anecdotal accounts of him that may explain why his rate numbers were so inconsistent.

His career rates weren't all that bad, just rangy. Here are the general ranges:

Walk Rate: .069-.104 (avg: .086) mainly in the average to high-average range.

Single Rate: .131-.177 (avg: .156) .131 is very good, .177 is poor. .156 is slightly above average.

Doubles Rate: .027-.055 (avg: .035) .027 is excellent, .055 is poor. .035 is good.

Home Run Rate: .017-.037 (Avg: .024) .017 is very good, .037 is below average, .024 is slightly above average.

Here are the specific rates for what is arguably his best four year stretch:



Its crazy to analyze.

2000 ballot
Ron Cey
Dwight Evans
Goose Gossage
Fred Lynn
Graig Nettles
Tony Perez
Dan Quisenberry
Willie Randolph
Pete Rose
Ken Singleton

Morris was a decent innings-eater with a long career, but no Hall of Famer, even though he came up with one of the most famous clutch pitching performances ever in Game 7 of the 1991 Series. As noted by VAL, his career ERA+ was only 105. His best season in terms of WARP3 was just 8.3, but he also threw up 10 seasons of 5.5 or better. Blyleven, to use one contrasting example, had 5 seasons of 8.4 WARP3 or higher, including one of 12.2.

I'm home today, so I'll respond to URI:



So all pitchers, who are so specialized that that have their own set of statistics, fit into this category? In the American League they don't hit, necessitating "carrying a lessor player in order to make use of him," whether it's a DH or a pinch hitter. I guess I can buy that. All pitchers are specialists



How is it the same with Fingers? Using your criteria, the teams that used Fingers in a relief role would need to retain "a lessor player in order to make use of him." So what player is being retained to use a closer? The starter? No, teams have to have starting pitching. The middle reliever? That would be related more to the starter's inability to pitch long innings. A DH or pinch hitter? That's no different than any other pitcher. The argument doesn't hold up.



While it's true that pinch hitters and closers are specialists, they are no more equivalent than starting pitchers and pinch hitters. I've voted for many starting pitchers, and other closers besides Fingers (Sutton and Gossage spring to mind immediately.) I'm not taking the bait here. There's no valid point.



If Fingers were the only closer I supported you would have a point. But as I just pointed out, I also support Sutter and Gossage. I've also gone on record as supporting multi-role pitchers like Eckersley and Smoltz. If Quisenberry had a peak longer than six or seven years, I'd be on that bandwagon too.

How does a voter select Gossage and not Fingers? Gossage had 310 saves, a career ERA of 3.01, and an ERA+ of 126 over 22 seasons. He was top 10 in saves 11 times. Fingers has 341 saves, a career ERA of 2.90 and an ERA+ of 119 over 17 seasons. He was top 10 in saves 14 times. Gossage was awarded the Rolaids relief award in 1978. Fingers received the same award in 1978, 1980, 1981 and 1982. Fingers was also the WS MVP in 1974, and the AL MVP and Cy Young award winner in 1981.

OK, I'll bite. Because Gossage threw more innings (1809 to 1701) and, as you say, had a much better ERA+ (126 to 119). The save totals are more a function of assigned role than of skill.

The awards you cite are next to irrelevant to me, as we are trying to form independent judgments on these players, not just parrot previous judgments that may have been incorrect.

By the way, it doesn't affect my view on the relative merits of these two pitchers, but it is completely incomprehensible that Fingers won the Cy Young and MVP in 1981:

- Not that Gossage deserved either award, but he had an ERA of 0.77 and an ERA+ of 465. Fingers had an ERA of 1.04 and an ERA+ or 332.
- Fingers was probably the fourth most valuable Brewer that year, behind Cooper, Yount, and Stormin' Gorman Thomas. Dwight Evans and Rickey Henderson also had great years.

I don't think there's an enormous gap between the two, but Gossage was pretty clearly better. Taking career totals alone, he pitched more innings with a lower ERA+ and more Ks. But career totals don't really tell the story; Gossage had a more defined (and more dominant) peak. Fingers doesn't really have an answer to Gossage's 1975 and 1977 seasons -- even in Fingers's best season (1981), Gossage managed a 0.77 ERA. Gossage had a 9-year run of dominance (1977-85) that Fingers can't match. (And it would have been an 11-year run of dominance had Gossage not been converted to a mediocre starter in '76.) Unlike Fingers, Gossage also had a longer and more pronounced decline; if you lopped off Gossage's last 300 innings or so, the gap between the two would have been more evident (but even without doing that, you have a guy with a better peak AND better career numbers).

This doesn't mean that Fingers isn't a legitimate HOF candidate; after all, the gap between him and Gossage isn't all that big. (For example, the Palmer/Gillette system rates Gossage the 2nd best relief pitcher ever - behind Wilhelm- and Fingers the 9th best.) But (for now, anyway), I have mentally set the "reliever" bar somewhere between those two.

I don't really care about the rewards. The rewards tell me how they were regarded by others at the time. The purpose of this exercise is to look back and see if those perceptions were accurate. Besides, I (like most of us, I imagine) saw both of those guys through virtually their entire careers, so I don't really care what the sportswriters thought.

(Oops, I see that Tudor beat me to most of these points. Didn't mean to pile on.)

By your definition, baseball players are specialists...men are specialists...blah blah blah.

What I'm saying is that fractionalization within a catagory diminishes value. David Ortiz needs to hit like he does because he has no defensive value. Joe Nathan isn't as valuable as Johan Santana or Brad Radke (in a good year).

If Fingers posted the exact same rates as a starter, he'd be a HOF. But he didn't, so he isn't.



Fingers career value was in a role that was greatly diminished due as much to the lack of creativity of his managers as anything else. He doesn't get points for being a pretty good reliever against very good starters.

Compare Fingers to Wilhelm. He matches up terribly.



You don't see the valid point because you refuse to see it.

The point is that a guy that faced 450 hitters a year isn't nearly as valuable to a team as a guy that hits 700 times, or faces 900 hitters.

I'll say it again...a relief pitcher is a pitcher that replaces the starter. He's a pinch pitcher. The idea of the pinch pitcher is the same as a pinch hitter...they replace a player that the manager doesn't think will be effective in the game situation. There is really no equivocation between a starting pitcher and a pinch hitter.



Sutter is basically the same as Fingers with the added attraction of the splitter story.



I agree with Tudor and Delta.

Right now I'm trying to think of other relievers I would vote for seriously (Gossage and Wilhelm. Quinseberry is more of a cosmetic vote, like how someone did for Bob Buhl). You've done a terrible job of trying to convince (I can only speak for myself) anyone to vote for such guys as Fingers and Sutter (due to their low vote totals).

Start with me...make a convincing argument that Fingers is more worthy of the Hall than Blyleven. And by convincing, I mean something beyond "Fingers won a Cy!" and "Fingers was a reliever, so ignore the 3000 inning edge that Blyleven has."

This is a specious argument. In contemporary baseball, the complete game is a rarity; it's the odd game where a pitcher isn't "pinch pitched" for. The same does not hold for hitters. While the overall strategy is effectiveness in the game situtation, the relief pitcher is a far, far more common strategy. Heck, at this point, bringing in relievers is a fundamental given.

How do we compare the careers of the great starters? Walter Johnson was rarely relieved; Clemens has completed under 18% of his games started. So should we say that Clemens was far less effective in the games he pitched relative to Johnson? Nah, we'd say the game has changed. The careers of Johnson and Clemens would have been much different had they pitched in different eras.

So while relievers might not be good enough to be starters, managers whole-heartedly believe that relievers are more effective than starters in the late innings. This gives them great value, great importance. Roughly 82% of the time, a reliever has been deemed more effective than Clemens at the end of a game. Relievers are believed to give their team the best chance to win, and for the best relievers, managers act on this belief over 60 times per season.

It's not a specious argument at all. A pinch hitter is brought in to replace a hitter in order to better help win the game (according to a manager). A relief pitcher is brought in to replace a pitcher in order to better help win the game (according to a manager). Don't read more into it than that.



You judge them on what they actually did. Using era and park adjustments, you weigh Johnson's 6000 innings against Clemens' 4700.

I don't get what the bolded part brings to the discussion. Talking about the actual value in an era vs. another isn't new, and the change in the way the game is managed is less relevent than the way the guys play.



This is all true. I never said any different. My problem lays with this:
1. Relievers don't do a whole lot of work compared to starters and players. If you start enshiring relievers because of their limitations, rather than rewarding the ones who bring value in spite of them, why not really good pinch hitters, or defensive replacements?

Where is the line drawn? Fingers faced 521 hitters in what was his best non-strike season (1973). Don Mincher hit 563 times in his best season (1967) and was one of the best platoon players in MLB history. Why are relievers given credit over a platoon player? If you have Trot Nixon playing for say, 17 years and hits .290/.380/.500, does he get Hall of Fame consideration, even though he only hits 450 times a year when he's healthy? I wouldn't think so...try to convince me different though.

2. The other problem is that if you are going to reward guys that are relievers, you have to make sure you get the right ones. Is Fingers that much better than Sparky Lyle? Or Mike Marshall? Or 10 other guys that pitched around that time? He was, but those guys got no support...much less than Fingers for succeeding in the exact role that is being defended here.

I voted for Hoyt Wilhelm, and I thought hard about voting for Gossage. Quiz is a cosmetic vote. Why should I vote for someone like Fingers rather than go back and vote for Ellis Kinder or Firpo Marbury? Why is Fingers more valuable then they were?

Well ... I am still with URI in generally not voting for relievers, but I'd like to change it. In my last pitching blurb I came to the melancholic conclusion that the primary criterion for HOF starting pitchers is longevity (combined with being good enough). In this viewpoint, there can never be any possibility of any relief pitcher being elected to the HOF. Guys like Andy Messersmith, and Noodles Hahn, and Harry the Cat Brecheen sit on the outside looking in, because they didn't pitch enough innings. Those guys were WAY better pitchers than any relief pitcher who ever lived. Hell, we had a tough time selling Addie Joss and Dizzy Dean, and there were even people who voted against Koufax because his career wasn't long enough.

The best pitchers in baseball in any given year are often the Joss/Dean/Messersmith/Fidrych/McClain/Gooden types who burn very brightly for a few years, then fade out quickly, while the Don Suttons, Early Wynns and Bert Blylevens of the universe chug along at a very good level for 15 seasons or more and find their way in on cumulative win totals.

I think the arguments for individual relivers have some merit, but by the standard criterial for pitchers, they fall way short in my view. I don't like the general criteria for pitching, though, and think that maybe only 20% of the pitchers in the HoF were truly great pitchers. Maybe a few of those great pitchers were in fact relievers, but I just can't vote for them at this point.

This is a specious argument because you're trying to fully equate pinch hitting and relieving. You know this is not the case. In general, managing is all about making the decisions that will best help the team win within the context of a game. A defensive replacement is no different than a reliever is no different than a pinch hitter is no different than a batting order is no different than a starting rotation.




And with the weight of innings pitched, Cy Young becomes the greatest pitcher ever and all pitching has been on a slow decline since the days of the 2-man rotation. Unless, of course, a guy was dominant in his fewer innings that he provides greater overall value. Does this start to sound like a measure for relievers?

But, say Clemens was Johnson's contemporary; Roger probably would have thrown 6000 innings because that was the pitcher usage pattern. And if Koufax pitched today, he'd be treated like Pedro and have a much longer career. The management of game, the set of beliefs about what will help the team win, has a direct bearing on players' performances because it creates the context for those performances.

Now, the Trot comparison is more speciousness. Trot lacks value because he has to be platooned, but does Johan Santana lack value because he has to be relieved in 90% of his starts? No, the best hitters are expected to hit well against all types of pitchers/pitching, while the best pitchers are expected to throw 7 excellent innings and then turn the game over to the bullpen.

I'm equating the roles, and I talked more about that later in my post. Basically, I want to know where the logical line is drawn between part timers (pinch hitters, relief pitchers, platoon players ect.) that are slaves to a role, and those who transcend it.



You don't get what I'm saying:

No, it doesn't sound like a measure for relievers because the baseline is much lower than for a modern starter. You would have a point if there were 7 man rotation and the modern starter pitched to 600 batters. We don't and you don't.

By the way, Johnson's combination of longevity and effectiveness would trump Cy Young, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with your Cy Young thing at all.



He wasn't and didn't. I care about what players do, not jumping in a time machine and changing history. After Clemens' arm injury in 85, he might have been done in 1910, so I refuse to play your conjecture game. Nothing is learned from it.



Or he'd be sent to the minors because of his awful control and be half the pitcher he was. Teams today don't usually have Walt's patience.



Then you adjust for that the best you can. The best way isn't "Fingers provided decent innings as a reliever, so I'll vote for him insted of a starter that was better and did it longer, simply because Fingers was a closer."



Stop it. Say it's 2003. Nixon goes up to bat 513 times. Santana faced 644 hitters in a year he relieved for a good portion. I'm guessing that you like saying specious because it's a fun word to type, but you shouldn't let that get in the way of actually reading and comprehending what I'm saying.

If you can tell me how to measure relievers against starters while being fair to both the starters and the relievers, I'm all ears. If you just want to argue about things like analogies that I'm drawing for the sake of example just because they happen to be not perfectly revelently similar and you disagree with them, then do it in a PM or something so the actual discussion can get back on track.

URI - maybe you should look up the word specious because that's exactly what your analogies are: glib and appealing on the surface, but ultimately misleading.

I think you're just a little miffed that your argument is built on a contradiction, and when it's pointed out, you argue that I can't understand your point.

You basically argue that, 1. relievers and role players are of limited value because they make limited appearances, and 2. players should be measured by their performance over the course of their appearances. Together, those open up the possibility that a player can be so effective in their limited appearances that they are as valuable as full-time players.

And, I actually don't see why relievers should be directly compared to starters. The role of reliever has evolved into a fundamental aspect of the game; it is a given for every game played that a reliever will pitch. Moreover, it is commonly the case that the best relievers will pitch in high leverage, late inning situtaions instead of the starter. Hence, the role of the reliever is solidly defined and quite regular; it is its own role. So why compare to starters? Should Fingers/Quiz/Goose have to be measured against the great starters? Or against each other since they were executing the same role, one that was designed to help their teams win games?

If you don't understand this, feel free to PM me and I'll draw you a picture.

And sinse you didn't take the time to refute anything I said rationally, and resorted to name calling rather than actually do what I did (make an argument), I'm done with you.

Work on picture drawing though. There might be someone out there impressed with it.

Gossage pitched 108 more innings. But his career was 5 years longer. That averages out to 20 innings a year, or far less than closers are generally used. This is underwhelming at best. Total innings pitched is simply an accumulation. What did he accomplish in those innings? That's the key this evaluation.

While Gossage's ERA+ is seven points higher than Fingers, it's not enough to say the Gossage was "much better." Looking at straight ERA, the difference is 11 points, with Fingers being the better pitcher. That before any artificial adjustments.



First, I disagree. The closer comes into a game with either a tie or a lead of 3 runs or less. If the closer fails, the team loses. If the closer is successful, the majority of the time another pitcher gets credit for a win, and the closer gets credit for a save. Second, that's a convenient way of dismissing a statistic that actually measures accomplishment instead of longevity. I admit is's not perfect, but it's something to take into consideration.



Forming independent judgments is laudable, but a voter should consider the entire body of work of the player in question. Dismissing awards isn't the way to do it.

If winning games and championships are the bottom line, let's look at World Series. Fingers is on the winning team for 3 of 3 WS. Gossage is on the winning team for 1 of 3. Not a perfect stat, but more relevant than total number of innings.



Isn't it convenient that you dismiss the saves category, where Fingers was 1st with 28, and Gossage was second with 20.



Now you want to compare a pitcher with a position player? How do you make that comparison?

Majordad, you and I are probably just going to end up having to agree to disagree on this, but let me try to restate my points again:

1. What you call "straight ERA" is meaningless unless you consider the context. Fingers pitched in pitchers parks his entire career, so his "straight ERA" overrated him because he operated in a run-scarce environment.

If you go only by "straight ERA", you end up with ridiculous conclusions such as that there were dozens of pitchers in the 1900s or 1910s who were better than anyone in the 1930s, or that everyone who was traded to the Astros or from the Red Sox in the 1980's suddently learned how to pitch.

2. Regarding save totals, if Fingers has been the set-up man for the early '70s A's, and Darold Knowles the closer, Knowles would have had almost as many saves. Fingers was better than Knowles, but not by that much.

3. Fingers was on three WS winning teams, but so what? Bando, Hunter, Blue, Campaneris, Rudi, Jackson, and others were also on those teams; do they also all belong in the Hall of Fame? What about Charlie Silvera? He was the third string catcher for the 1949-53 Yankees, so he beats Fingers, 5-3.

4. The win shares totals for the 1981 Brewers: Cooper 22, Thomas 20, Yount 20, Fingers 17. Others whose totals exceeded Fingers' 17: Murray 21, Evans 26, Grich 21, Harrah 18, Henderson 27, Murphy 20, Armas 18, McCatty 18 and Buddy Bell 18. Burleson, Kemp, Paciorek, and Sundberg also had 17. Other than that, Fingers was the best player in the league that year.

2000 Ballot
Ron Cey
Dwight Evans
Rich Gossage
Tommy John
Freddy Lynn
Dale Murphy
Tony Perez
Jim Rice

I'm not saying to ignore adjusted stats. However, I don't think that they should be used as a primary analysis. First we adjust for ballparks, then for eras. What's next? Weather? Strength of schedule? Is there going to be a baseball equivalent of the BCS?

You still have to play the games, and that generates wins, saves, batting average, ERA, etc. Again, consider the entire body of work.



To paraphrase URI, Fingers wasn't the set-up man and and Knowles didn't have as many saves. I care about what players do, not jumping in a time machine and changing history.



I read somewhere in this thread that it's all about winning games and championships. Being on 3 WS teams in and of itself enough for induction, but it is a part of the body of work that is relevant. If all those other guys had a body of work comparable to Fingers, they should be considered.



See 2.

After all of this analysis, I don't see much difference between Gossage and Fingers. Who has the edge? That depends on how you weight your analysis. There's no numerical limit on how many players can be inducted. I think that they should both be in. In my mind, they both make the cut, and it doesn't matter which is "better."

I extended the deadline to Wednesday night because we only have 9 votes for 2000.

Ron Cey
Dwight Evans
Rich Gossage
Fred Lynn
Dale Murphy
Tony Perez
Jim Rice
Pete Rose

2000 Ballot
Ron Cey
Dwight Evans
Rollie Fingers
Rich Gossage
Dan Quisenberry
Bruce Sutter
Kent Tekulve

2000 Ballot

R. Fingers
R. Gossage
J. Morris
D. Parker
J. Rice
P. Rose

Fingers deserves in before Goose, but not going to hold back a vote for that reason alone.

I always have been and always will be a Jack Morris fan.

EDIT- Doh...sorry...usually just take my previous year's list, delete the electees, and add my new votes...obviously forgot one!

Fisk was elected

Sorry about that....

We're back in business

2001 ballot:
Ron Cey
Dwight Evans
Dale Murphy
Tony Perez
Dan Quinsenberry
Ken Singleton
Lou Whitaker
Dave Winfield

I'm considering Tommy John, Fred Lynn, and Kirby Puckett right now...I'm aslo this close to dropping Quiz.

2001:

Ron Cey
Dwight Evans
Pedro Guerrero
Tony Perez
Kirby Puckett
Dan Quisenberry
Ken Singleton
Lou Whitaker
Dave Winfield

I think this will be my last attempt with Guerrero, and like URI, with Quiz as well.

2001 Ballot

Rollie Fingers
Tom Henke
Dale Murphy
Kirby Puckett
Pete Rose
Bruce Sutter

2001 ballot
Ron Cey
Don Mattingly
Dale Murphy
Graig Nettles
Tony Perez
Kirby Puckett
Pete Rose
Ken Singleton
Lou Whitaker
Dave Winfield

I'm reluctantly omitting Dewey in favor of Singleton; the difference is tiny but I think Singleton was slightly better, given the environment he played in. If Evans needs the vote, I'll revise my ballot.

Five-year update time.....

HALL OF FAMERS BY POSITION (through 2000)
193 players total:

P [57] : Walter Johnson, Cy Young, Christy Mathewson, Pete "Grover Cleveland" Alexander, Mordecai "Kevin" Brown, Kid Nichols, Ed Walsh, Charley (Old Hoss) Radbourn, Dazzy Vance, Lefty Grove, Eddie Plank, Joe McGinnity, Addie Joss, Rube Waddell, Carl Hubbell, Al Spalding, Dizzy Dean, Tim Keefe, Amos Rusie, John Clarkson, Stan Coveleski, Carl Mays, Lefty Gomez, Bob Feller, Hal Newhouser, Pud Galvin, Johnny Sain*, Ted Lyons, Bob Lemon, Wes Ferrell, Red Ruffing, Urban Shocker, Tommy Bridges, Warren Spahn, Satchel Paige*, Sandy Koufax, Robin Roberts, Whitey Ford, Early Wynn, Don Drysdale, Hoyt Wilhelm, Jim Bunning, Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal, Billy Pierce, Luis Tiant, Ferguson Jenkins, Jim Palmer, Gaylord Perry, Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, Phil Niekro, Catfish Hunter, Don Sutton, Bert Blyleven, Nolan Ryan, Rich Gossage

C [15]: Mickey Cochrane, Roger Bresnahan, Gabby Hartnett, Buck Ewing, Bill Dickey, Roy Campanella, Yogi Berra, Bill Freehan, Joe Torre*, Ernie Lombardi, Elston Howard, Johnny Bench, Ted Simmons, Gary Carter, Carlton Fisk

1B [15]: George Sisler, Cap Anson, Lou Gehrig, Dan Brouthers, Roger Connor, Jimmie Foxx, Bill Terry, Hank Greenberg, Frank Chance*, Johnny Mize, Orlando Cepeda, Harmon Killebrew*, Dick Allen, Willie McCovey, Keith Hernandez

2B [16]: Eddie Collins, Nap Lajoie, Rogers Hornsby, Frankie Frisch, Tony Lazzeri, Charlie Gehringer, Joe Gordon, Bobby Doerr, Bid McPhee, Jackie Robinson, Larry Doyle, Billy Herman, Nellie Fox, Joe Morgan, Rod Carew*, Bobby Grich

3B [16]: John McGraw*, Pie Traynor, Frank "Home Run" Baker, Jimmy Collins, Stan Hack, Heinie Groh, Deacon White*, Bob Elliott, Eddie Mathews, Ken Boyer, Ron Santo, Brooks Robinson, Mike Schmidt, Darrell Evans, Sal Bando, George Brett

SS [18]: Honus Wagner, George Davis, Joe Cronin, Bill Dahlen, Arky Vaughan, John (Monte) Ward*, Luke Appling, Lou Boudreau, Vern Stephens, Jack Glasscock, George Wright, Pee Wee Reese, Bobby Wallace, Ernie Banks*, Hughie Jennings, Joe Sewell*, Luis Aparicio, Robin Yount*

LF [20]: Ed Delahanty, Goose Goslin, Jesse Burkett, Al Simmons, Joe Medwick, Fred "Cap" Clarke*, Zach Wheat, Sherry Magee, Ralph Kiner, Bob Johnson, Jim O'Rourke, Ted Williams, Stan Musial*, Minnie Minoso, Billy Williams, Harry Stovey*, Frank Howard, Lou Brock, Willie Stargell, Carl Yastrzemski

CF [16]: Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Billy Hamilton, Hack Wilson, Hugh Duffy*, Earl Averill, Joe DiMaggio, Wally Berger, Larry Doby, Paul Hines, Duke Snider, Richie Ashburn, Pete Browning*, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Jimmy Wynn

RF [19]: Babe Ruth, Willie Keeler, Sam Crawford, Harry Heilmann, Michael (King) Kelly*, Paul Waner, Mel Ott, Kiki Cuyler, Elmer Flick, Enos Slaughter, Sam Thompson, Roberto Clemente, Al Kaline, Henry Aaron, Frank Robinson, Bobby Bonds, Reggie Jackson, Tony Oliva, Reggie Smith*

other [1]: Connie Mack

*Denotes significant time at other positions or non-MLB player status, which probably contributed to induction. (McGraw = mgr; Kelly = C; Duffy = LF/RF; Ward = P/2B; Chance = mgr; Sain = coach; White = C; Musial = 1B/RF/CF; Paige = Negro Leagues; Browning = LF; Banks = 1B, Sewell = 3B, Torre = 1B/3B, Killebrew = 3B, Stovey = 1B/RF, Carew = 1B, Yount = CF, R. Smith = CF)


Players in our Hall that aren't in the real Hall (41):
Bill Dahlen [SS], Stan Hack [3B], Joe Gordon [2B], Sherry Magee [LF], Carl Mays [P], Wally Berger [CF], Bob Johnson [LF], Vern Stephens [SS], Heinie Groh [3B], Johnny Sain [P], Larry Doyle [2B], Deacon White [3B], Jack Glasscock [SS], Paul Hines [CF], Wes Ferrell [P], Bob Elliott [3B], Urban Shocker [P], Tommy Bridges [P], Minnie Minoso [LF], Pete Browning [CF], Ken Boyer [3B], RON SANTO [3B], Billy Pierce [P], Dick Allen [1B], Bill Freehan [C], Harry Stovey [LF/1B], Frank Howard [LF], Joe Torre [C/1B/3B], Jimmy Wynn [CF], Elston Howard [C], Luis Tiant [P], Bobby Bonds [RF], Bobby Grich [2B], Tony Oliva [RF], Ted Simmons [C], Darrell Evans [3B], Sal Bando [3B], Reggie Smith [RF/CF], Bert Blyleven [P], Keith Hernandez [1B], Rich Gossage [P]

Eligible Players in the real Hall that aren’t in our Hall (retired by 1994) (42)
Dave Bancroft, Jake Beckley, Chief Bender, Jim Bottomley, Max Carey, Jack Chesbro, Earle Combs, Johnny Evers, Red Faber, Rick Ferrell, Rollie Fingers*, Burleigh Grimes, Chick Hafey, Jesse Haines, Harry Hooper, Waite Hoyt, Monte Irvin, Travis Jackson, George Kell, Joe Kelley, George Kelly, Chuck Klein, Freddie Lindstrom, Heinie Manush, Rabbit Maranville*, Rube Marquard, Bill Mazeroski, Tommy McCarthy, Herb Pennock*, Tony Perez*, Sam Rice, Eppa Rixey, Phil Rizzuto, Edd Roush, Ray Schalk, Red Schoendienst, Bruce Sutter*, Joe Tinker, Lloyd Waner, Mickey Welch, Vic Willis, Ross Youngs
(* = voted in by Baseball writers)



HALL OF FAMERS BY ERA (through 2000)

19th Century - 30 players
P: 8 - Young*, Nichols, Radbourn, Spalding, Keefe, Rusie, Clarkson, Galvin
C: 1 - Ewing
1B: 3 - Anson, Brouthers, Connor
2B: 1 - McPhee
3B: 2 - McGraw, D.White
SS: 5 - Davis*, Ward, Wright, Glasscock, Jennings
LF: 4 - Delahanty, Burkett, O’Rourke, Stovey
CF: 4 - Hamilton, Duffy, Hines, Browning
RF: 2 - Kelly, Thompson
[*= Young and Davis could be considered deadball era players.]

Deadball era (1901-19) - 28 players
P: 9 - Johnson, Mathewson, Alexander*, Brown, Walsh, Plank, McGinnity, Joss, Waddell
C: 1 - Breshanan
1B: 1 - Chance
2B: 3 - E.Collins, Lajoie, Doyle
3B: 3 - Baker, J.Collins, Groh
SS: 3 - Dahlen*, Wagner, Wallace
LF: 3 - Clarke, Wheat, Magee
CF: 2 - Cobb, Speaker*
RF: 3 - Keeler*, Crawford, Flick
[*=Dahlen and Keeler could be considered 19th Cent. players; Alexander and Speaker
could be considered inter-war players.]

Inter-war era (1920-43) - 46 players
P: 12 - Vance, Grove, Hubbell, Dean, Coveleski, Mays, Gomez, Lyons, Ferrell, Ruffing, Shocker, Bridges
C: 4 - Cochrane, Hartnett, Dickey, Lombardi
1B: 5 - Sisler, Gehrig, Foxx, Terry, Greenberg
2B: 6 - Hornsby, Frisch, Lazzeri, Gehringer, Gordon*, Herman
3B: 2 - Traynor, Hack
SS: 4 - Cronin, Appling, Vaughan, Sewell
LF: 4 - Goslin, Simmons, Medwick, B.Johnson
CF: 4 - Wilson, Averill, DiMaggio*, Berger
RF: 5 - Ruth, Heilmann, Ott, Waner, Cuyler
[*=Gordon and DiMaggio could be considered post-war players]

Post-war/Integration era (1944-60) - 31 players
P: 10 - Feller, Newhouser, Sain, Lemon, Spahn, Paige*, Roberts, Ford*, Wynn, Pierce
C: 2 - Campanella, Berra
1B: 1 - Mize*
2B: 3 - Doerr*, J.Robinson, N.Fox
3B: 2 - Elliott, Mathews*
SS: 4 - Boudreau, Stephens, Reese, Banks
LF: 4 - Kiner, T.Williams, Musial, Minoso
CF: 4 - Doby, Snider, Ashburn, Mantle
RF: 1 - Slaughter
[*=Mize and Doerr could be considered inter-war players.]
[*=Paige probably should be considered an inter-war player.]
[*=Ford, Mathews and Banks could be considered expansion era players.]

Expansion era (1961-72) - 33 players
P: 10 - Koufax, Drysdale, Wilhelm*, Bunning, Gibson, Marichal, Tiant*, Jenkins*, Perry*, Hunter*
C: 3 - Freehan, Torre, E.Howard
1B: 4 - Cepeda, Killebrew, Allen, McCovey
2B:
3B: 3 - Boyer*, Santo, B. Robinson
SS: 1 - Aparicio
LF: 5 - B. Williams, F.Howard, Brock, Stargell*, Yastrzemski*
CF: 2 - Mays*, Wynn
RF: 5 - Clemente, Kaline, Aaron, F. Robinson, Oliva
[*=Boyer, Wilhelm & Mays could be considered post-war players]
[*=Tiant, Jenkins, Perry, Hunter, Stagell & Yaz could be considered free-agent players]

Free agency era (1973-86) – 24 players
P: 8 - Palmer, Seaver, Carlton*, Niekro*, Sutton, Blyleven, Ryan, Gossage
C: 4 – Bench, Simmons, Carter, Fisk
1B: 1 - Hernandez
2B: 3 - Morgan, Carew, Grich
3B: 4 - Schmidt, Da.Evans, Bando*, Brett
SS: 1 - Yount
LF:
CF:
RF: 3 - Bonds*, R.Jackson, R.Smith
[*=Bonds, Morgan, Carlton, Niekro, Bando & R.Smith could be considered expansion players]

2001 ballot
Ron Cey
Don Mattingly
Dale Murphy
Tony Perez
Kirby Puckett
Pete Rose
Ken Singleton
Lou Whitaker
Dave Winfield

2000 BALLOT
Ron Cey
Dwight Evans
Tom Henke
Tommy John
Graig Nettles
Tony Perez
Kirby Puckett
Pete Rose
Ken Singleton
Dave Winfield

I just got a huge wake-up call.

Anyone who's voting for Sutter or Quisenbery (or any other relievers) should take a hard look at Tom Henke. Frankly he blows the others away.

* ERA+ Henke 156, Quz 146, Sutter 136, Gossage 126, Fingers 119

* H per 9 IP: Henke 6.92, Gossage 7.45, Sutter 7.59, Fingers 7.80, Quiz 9.18

* H + BB per 9 IP: Henke 9.83, Sutter 10.26, Fingers 10.4, Quiz 10.58, Gossage 11.09

* BB per 9 IP: Quiz 1.40, Sutter 2.67, Henke 2.91, Gossage 3.64, Fingers 2.60

* K per 9 IP: Henke 9.8, Gossage 7.47, Sutter 7.43, Fingers 6.87, Quiz 3.27

To put that last line in perspective, Henke and Sutter each had 861 K's, but Henke pitched 250 fewer innings.

Granted all of the above are unadjusted for park or era (except ERA+) but that only works in Henke's favor. He pitched in a more offense-rich environment than any of those other closers and was far more dominant at shutting them down.

I loved Quiz, and have been voting for him, but to me there's a huge edge from a pitcher who blows away batters on whiffs rather than inducing grounders with submarine sinkers. Take away the contact, and there's nothing left to chance. Henke was even better than Gossage in this regard.

While I give extra credit to Sutter & Fingers for pitching in the "1 to 3-inning stint" era of closers, there's no doubt in my mind Henke was the far better pitcher.

Of course, there's little here to sway those who view Henke's (or any closer's) IP as marginal, since they represent about 4 season's worth of work from a typical frontline starter. Henke's workload was also mminiscule compared to the likes of Wilhelm (or even Fingers or Gossage). But he was dominant for 13 straight seasons, and that should count for something.

URI - Thanks for the work in getting this thread started up again.