To be sure, those are impressive numbers. But I have a hard time overcoming his 789.2 career innings pitched (which, as you mentioned, is like four seasons from a starter). In contrast, the other pitchers had more than 1000 innings, and Fingers and Gossage were pushing 2000 innings. In fact, Gossage is #3 ever in relief innings; Fingers is #4; Quisenberry is #29, and Sutter is #31. Henke is well outside the top 50.

I don't think WARP3 is the be all and end all, but this bothers me also about Henke (relative to Fingers, Gossage, Sutter and Quis):

6.0 WARP3 seasons among those five:

9.9 - Gossage 1977
9.7 - Gossage 1975
9.1 - Fingers 1981
8.7 - Quisenberry 1985
8.5 - Quisenberry 1983
8.4 - Sutter 1977
8.2 - Sutter 1982
8.0 - Quisenberry 1982
7.7 - Fingers 1976
7.4 - Quisenberry 1984
7.4 - Sutter 1979
7.2 - Gossage 1978
7.0 - Quisenberry 1980
6.7 - Gossage 1982
6.6 - Fingers 1978
6.5 - Fingers 1977
6.5 - Gossage 1983
6.2 - Henke 1993
6.1 - Henke 1987
6.1 - Henke 1989
6.0 - Sutter 1980

Henke's lower totals are presumably due in sizable measure to the limited usage patterns of closers beginning in the late 1980s (for example, even in WARP3, Henke's career as a closer isn't that different from Eckersley's; of course, Eckersley had already enjoyed a whole other career as a solid and sometimes great starter by this point.) But it's not entirely about usage -- Mariano Rivera has had nine seasons better (and mostly MUCH better) than Henke's best.

Now that said, the Palmer/Gillette system is very favorable to Henke; they have him #11 all-time for relievers, with Gossage at #3, Quisenberry at #9, Fingers at #10, and Sutter at #22. (Rivera and Wilhelm at #1 and #2. On the other hand, both John Franco and Roberto Hernandez are in their top 10....). They also have Henke with just as many "pitcher wins" (21.5) as Nolan Ryan and Luis Tiant.

He's worth discussing; I'm glad you brought him up, dog.

Dog - Thanks for a great post. Nicely stated and to the point. I've modified my vote to include Henke.

With the stats from your post, more voters should be including Fingers and Sutter on their ballots.

Tommy John
Dale Murphy
Graig Nettles
Tony Perez
Kirby Puckett
Jim Rice
Ken Singleton
Lou Whitaker

I added Perez, but am not sure about Cey. He was really only the third or fourth best hitter on those great Dodger teams, which shouldn't necessarily exclude him. He was named to six all-star teams and had 9 postseason HRs, but Nettles did all of those things plus was a tremendous fielder.

I can't believe that anyone would vote for Dewey Evans and not Jim Rice here. Evans was, all my love for him aside, an accumulator and even more so than Rice a recipient of Coors East. Vote for both, vote for neither, but please don't select Evans and exclude Rice. Rice was simply better.

I need to think about Winfield a little. I absolutely loved the guy (before he went to NY, that is), but looking at him in relation to his contemporaries he just doesn't jump out for you.

Puckett - short career, but terminated through no fault of his own. High peaks, great leadership, wonderful player. Forget about all the tarnish after his retirement.

I dropped Randolph to vote for Whitaker.

Still on the Murphy and Singleton bandwagon.

Delta, here's my problem with using WARP3 to gauge relievers from different eras. As you noted, their usage has evolved, and I think it's changed more rapidly than any position in the sport. When Fingers, Gossage, Quiz and Sutter pitched, using the same pitcher to close out games and preserve victories was still a fairly novel concept.

As we know, WARP is Wins Above Replacement Player. Thing is, in their era, there were very few replacement players to compare those four pitchers to. Maybe it's because no other pitchers were as good, and there's no doubt that's a factor -- those guys were indeed damned good.

But I believe there are some other factors that make WARP-based stats problematic in this case:

1) Many managers were still content to let their tried and true starting pitchers hurl complete games, sinking or swimming with them in the process.

2) Other managers were loathe to entrust close games to the same pitcher each night.

3) When Toronto and Seattle joined the AL in '77, the detritus of the league sank to a new depth, making it easier for the best players to excel over a "replacement level player". In effect, it lowered the bar. That effect lasted until the mid-80s, and overlaps nearly all the seasons you noted in your list for Quiz, Fingers and Goose.

If I had the time, I'd try to prove my financial thesis, as well as the expansion effect. As for the rest, it would involve exhaustive interviews with players, managers and coaches of that era, and would require the world's most accurate B-S detector.

When Henke pitched, closers were more en vogue. Their usage patterns were more similar, and closers by then were simply better overall. There were more of them, making the statistical "replacement player" better as well. And by being called upon to pitch fewer innings (as you noted) it was more difficult to set oneself apart statistically from the competition. Hence the lower WARP3 numbers.

Just take a look at the yearly Top 5 in Saves and Games Finished starting in 1975. Along with Goose, Rollie (and Quiz in later years) you see the likes of Dick Drago, Lerrin Lagrow and Ed Farmer -- and rarely did those sorts make repeat appearrances in those category listings. Sure you had your John Hiller's and Dave Laroche's, but they were few and far between.

And that's what makes a WARP-based analysis of relievers from different eras, well, a little "warped".

VAL, with utmost respect, I think you are an excellent analyst, but that's absurd. I think you're focusing too much on Rice's 1975-79 heyday and not enough on his decade-long coda of mediocrity. Coincidentally, Evans became really good at around the time Rice faded.

Rice had a one point edge in career OPS+ (128 to 127) but (1) Evans had 1,511 more career PA; (2) his career OBP was 18 points higher than Rice's, and OBP is the more important component of OPS; and (3) OPS does not take into account double plays, where Rice held a 315-227 career "edge."

Defensively, there's obviously no comparison: a mediocre left fielder vs. a great right fielder. Gold gloves don't tell the whole story, but Evans held an 8-0 advantage there.

Maybe people tend to overrate players who start out really hot and to underrate late bloomers. Or maybe Rice is overrated because his period of excellence coincided with an period when the Sox were perennial contenders, whereas Evans's best years were the Ralph Houk era. I can't come up with any other explanations for the mass delusion that Rice was better than Evans.

Tudor hits the right notes. Without giving away the farm on the piece I wrote for the Maple Street Press annual, Evans was a productive offensive player for far longer than JimEd, not an accumulator. JimEd happened to have a sensationally high peak value over the years Tudor mentioned.

Dewey's defensive value is something Rice never provided, nor could he have.

When I sat down to write that article, I fully intended to make the case for Rice's induction. It was a revealing study, even if it reached what for me was a disappointing conclusion.

(yet another shameless plug for the publisher)

I don't think Rice's peak value was all that high. He posted big numbers in a tremendously advantageous hitting situation - the 1970s wasn't that far off today's numbers in terms of run scored - AL teams averaged around 4.5 runs per game from 1977-1979. He never broke a thousand OPS, nor a 160 OPS+. He was never the best player in baseball. I don't think he's any more valuable than David Ortiz is today and I don't think David Ortiz's peak is HOF worthy.

That may be, and we are in an era where we saw the guys we're voting for play, so that biases us a lot. The interesting thing is that when you see guys play, you look at them and say, "that guys a great hitter" or pitcher in the present tense. Peak value means a lot more to you in the context of your own memory.

I never looked at Dewey Evans while he was playing and thought, "that guys a potential HOFer," like I did with Rice. You could do that with Boggs, and with Fisk, and with Clemens and Pedro and Brett, and Dale Murphy, and with Bench, Rose and all those guys. Evans was sneaky good, I guess, like Blyleven and Raffy Palmeiro and Harold Baines, who someone someday is going to look back on in retrospect some day and say, "Why isn't he in the HOF?"

So I don't know, Dog, like you I have these impressions, but we do a study and find that what we thought we knew 25 years ago isn't right. I think the conclusions that I came up with in my outfielder study were that the two were actually pretty close in their rate analysis, and that Evans gained more advantage from Fenway than Rice did. So I am left with the career totals, which Evans with his 1500 extra PA's wins, but still I don't see a clear gap between them, and I fall back on my memories of the day.

I'm going to read your excellent article again, Dog, and look again at the WARP values you guys have posted and think some more, but the more I learn, the less I trust BP stats, so if my own numbers tell me one thing, my memory tells me something, and the only thing contadicting those are from a source I'm coming to respect less and less, I'm gonna stick to my guns.

Ron Cey
Dwight Evans
Tommy John
Freddy Lynn
Don Mattingly
Dale Murphy
Kirby Puckett
Tony Perez
Jim Rice
Dave Winfield

Randolph Whitaker were #11A & #11B on this ballot.

And no love for Donnie Baseball? Such a high peak (top-5 WARP3: 12.5, 11.5, 10.0, 9.4, 8.3), yet done by 34. What makes him different than Puckett? A lesser defensive player, but a higher offensive peak. Leadership qualities? Rings? Seeming like a cool guy? No glaucoma-cut-my-career-short story? Puck posted a WARP3 of 6.4 his final season, Mattingly a 4.7. But Donnie had played only 97 games in 1994, 128 in 1995; the body wa sgiving out. Puck had 124 OPS+ in 7831PA, Mattingly 127 OPS+ in 7721PA.

The chasm between a Gold Glove CF and a Gold Glove 1B is pretty big. That's why.

Mattingly isn't that far off. 2 more peak years and he's in. If Mattingly was a 3B, he'd be in.

But is the defensive difference that much greater?

Puckett rates as a 256 FRAR, Mattingly a 222 FRAR. Against the average player, though, Donnie rates much better: Puckett rates a 102 Rate2, Mattingly a 108 Rate2; Puckett at 29 FRAA, Mattingly at 119 FRAA. BP pegs the average CF at 24 runs above replacement, the average 1B at 10 runs. So while Puckett played a more valuable defensive position, at least BP ranks him as a bit above average while Mattingly is far above average for 1B.

In terms of creating runs, BP also likes Mattingly above Puckett: Donnie at 607 BRAR, Puckett at 568 BRAR. Donnie at 381 BRAA, Puckett at 336 BRAA. Which ever way you slice BP data, Mattingly comes out ahead on aggregate.

Runs Created, though, prefers Puck to Mattingly: 1241 RC to 1202 RC (110 PA advantage for Puckett); 6.34 RC/27, 6.29 RC/27.

2001

Dwight Evans -- added thanks to all the info posted previously here
Fingers
Dave Parker
Puckett
Quiz
Jim Ed Rice
Bruce Sutter
Kirk Gibson, one vote for one swing

I'm bumping this so there's at least some chance the HOF regulars can find it.

2001 Ballot

Ron Cey
Dwight Evans
Fred Lynn
Dale Murphy
Tony Perez
Jim Rice
Pete Rose
Lou Whitaker
Dave Winfield

It's hard to say. I mean, BP's defensive metrics aren't really very good, but then relying on Gold Gloves isn't the best either. It's difficult to quantify. Anybody have their Win Shares?

According to the Win Shares book:
Mattingly: 30.20 career fielding WS (233.14 hitting WS), 14099.1 innings on D, 2.06 WS/1000 innings, grade A-
Puckett: 58.41 career fielding WS (223.79 hitting WS), 14692.2 innings on D, 3.97 WS/1000 innings, grade A+

2002:
Ron Cey
Dwight Evans
Dale Murphy
Ken Singleton
Allen Trammell
Lou Whitaker
Dave Winfield

I'm surprised at two things in the last round...the amount of support Singleton is finally getting, and the fact that neither Winfield or Whitaker were elected...

Okay, I'll hop onto the Winfield bandwagon to hopefully put him over the top this time. Can someone do the same for Singleton and Whitaker?

Ron Cey
Tommy John
Dale Murphy
Graig Nettles
Jim Rice
Ken Singleton
Alan Trammell
Lou Whitaker
Dave Winfield

2002 Ballot

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

2002 Ballot

Ron Cey
Dwight Evans
Ken Singleton
Ozzie Smith
Alan Trammell
Lou Whitaker
Dave Winfield

2001 Ballot
Ron Cey
Hawk Dawson
Dwight Evans
Tom Henke
Tommy John
Dale Murphy
Graig Nettles
Pete Rose
Ken Singleton
Dave Winfield

* I wonder how many voters in this thread will remember just how great a fielder Andre Dawson was. Much like Dewey, his glove and rifle, when combined with his work at the plate, put him over the top.

And please, spare me the "he was an accumulator" nonsense or "Dawson played too long" b-s. I refuse to penalize him for his gimpy knees in the stretch run of his career. Of course he probably should have retired after the '91 or '92 season, but with other teams (Sox, Marlins) willing to fork over some rather large checks in spite of his age and health, who can blame Dawson for remaining active?

In evaluating Dawson, I flush that 119 career OPS+ right down the terlet. Eight seasons of a 124 or better, with 4 of them coming in a craptastic offensive environment (Montreal) are plenty for me.

The only conceivable knock against him is that he didn't draw enough walks. That's the single biggest disparity between him and Evans.

* Once we clear the decks on a few near-misses (Cey, Murphy, Singleton, Winfield) I'll have some room to add Trammell and Whitaker.

2002 Ballot
Ron Cey
Andre Dawson
Dwight Evans
Tommy John
Dale Murphy
Jim Rice
Ozzie Smith
Alan Trammell
Lou Whitaker
Dave Winfield

Mattingly, Lynn, and Randolph fall 11-13.

I was ready to leave Ozzie off the ballot, but I was convinced by this:
8 seasons of WARP3 8 or higher (10.7, 10.2, 9.4, 9.3, 9.0, 8.4, 8.4, 8.2) and 5 more seasons of WARP3 7-7.9 (7.7, 7.6, 7.6, 7.5, 7.1). The Wizard really learned to control the plate later in his career and stole bases at an almost 80% clip. There's a lot here to like...

edit: Went back through the Historical Abstract and James has the SS ranked: 6. Barry Larkin, 7. Ozzie Smith, 8. Joe Cronin, 9. Alan Trammell, 10. Luke Appling. Ozzie also ranks first in defensive win shares at SS (Wagner collected more total defensive win shares across multiple positions).

2002 ballot
Ron Cey
Don Mattingly
Dale Murphy
Pete Rose
Ken Singleton
Ozzie Smith
Alan Trammell
Lou Whitaker
Dave Winfield

I'm absolutely floored that Trammell isn't unanimous on this board.

2002:

Andre Dawson
Dewey Evans
Rollie Fingers
Dan Quisenberry
Jim Ed Rice
Ozzie Smith
Bruce Sutter
Alan Trammell
Sweet Lou Whitaker
Dave Winfield

My first Full (10 player) ballot, knocked Parker off the vote

2002 ballot
Ron Cey
Don Mattingly
Dale Murphy
Graig Nettles
Pete Rose
Ken Singleton
Ozzie Smith
Alan Trammell
Lou Whitaker
Dave Winfield

If just anyone can vote:

2002 Ballot

Jim Rice
Ozzie Smith
Bruce Sutter
Dave Winfield

edit to Add
Andre Dawson
Dale Murphy
Ron Cey

Can't justify anyone else.

Anyone can vote, but remember that by submitting a ballot with four names on it who would be getting in anyway (not saying this is the case here, just for instance) would do nothing for those you are voting for, but would jeopardize the chances of others from getting in, since folks need 75% of all votes cast to be elected.

So you might want to consider some of the other eligible names.

Welcome aboard, Pants. If it's justification you want, then allow me to justify.

Since you voted for Bruce Sutter, check out my pitch for Tom Henke (click here) and then tell me whether or not Mr. Sutter is worthy of induction ahead of him.

You also might want to check out Vermonter At Large's exhaustive essay on post-1960 pitchers for some justification of why Tommy John belongs.

While we're at it, VAL's assessment of hitters shows why Ken Singleton merits consideration.

I actually looked over those and wavered on Henke. Sutter was fairly borderline for me, but had just enough to push him over. Henke has an argument but I the lesser number of innings (~80% of Sutter's) and lack of contemporary recognition (2 AS, 1 Rolaid vs 6 AS, 4 Rolaids, 1 Cy Young, 3 other contending seasons for the CY and 5 top 5 MVP finishes as a pitcher). The ERA+ alone was almost enough...

While Tommy John has a surgery named after him and a bunch of wins, he also has a .550 w% and a 111ERA+. It takes alot to overcome that (such as Ryan's Ks) and I just don't see it.

Ken Singleton... I can see the argument, and again, the OPS+ alone was almost enough..... On the other hand, his lack of power from the OF, lack of contemporary awards (only 3 AS and two top 3 MVP), and lack of really strong seasons (a 1 on the James Black Ink scale for what thats worth).... Like Henke, I could conceivably change my mind but just short.

PantsB - If that's your yardstick, then consider Rollie Fingers. He pitched 659 innings more than Sutter and 911.7 more than Henke. With regard to contempory recognition, Fingers was a 7 time All Star, collected 4 Rolaids Relief Pitcher awards, and won both Cy Young and the MVP in 1981.

Ron Cey
Andre Dawson
Fred Lynn
Dale Murphy
Pete Rose
Ozzie Smith
Lou Whitaker
Dave Winfield

* BUMP *

This thread is drowning in the detritus. No offense to the mods because I know their motives were just, but I knew this would happen as soon as it was moved off the main page...

Bump.

Since this thread got bumped, I figured I'd mention that I'm working toward finishing my long-promised, never-delivered study on closers and the Hall of Fame. For a taste of what it will contain, check out this thread on the main board, where xjack and I go toe-to-toe over Goose Gossage.

So I have some time opening up in the next few weeks, and I figured, it's time to finish up this bitch.

I'll extend the 2002 ballot (see first post) through Sunday, December 3rd at 9pm (EST).

You don't need to vote again. N00bs are welcome.

Great to see this thread back.

I read this entire thread last weekend. Its my favorite thread ever, having lived through two immense SoSH comas. Let's get 'er done.

Wow. It's back!

Now I have to remember things like why I was so convinced that Cey is a hall-of-famer, just as Lahoud has to remember things like why Trammell isn't.

Welcome back, everyone.

Wow. I feel like Rip Van Winkle waking up from a deep sleep. And yes, my beard is longer and greyer than the last time I posted in this thread.

Wow, this is tremendous. Thanks for administering this thing mouth-to-mouth, URI.

I saw it on the MLB forum front page and remembered how you and I talked about it at the Bash, dog...

Mouth to mouth...ass to mouth...it's all the same, really

Ass, mouth, whatever. I'm very glad to see this thread back. Let's bring it home.

I'll add (actually rehash but forgive me, it's been a while) one point. I don't think there's any justification for voting for Sutter and not Quisenberry. Quis had a 146 ERA+ in 1043.4 IP, and Sutter had a 136 ERA+ in 1041.3 IP. Gossage had a better career than either. The real Hall dropped the ball big time on this.

EDIT: Not that it's likely to be of huge general interest, but here are the links to Thread I and Thread II. Thread III lasted only about a month or six weeks (July-August last year) and was lost in an Invision crash.

2002

Ron Cey
Fred Lynn
Dale Murphy
Pete Rose
Ozzie Smith
Alan Trammell
Lou Whitaker
Dave Winfield

I don't have much time to go through all the candidates.

So... for now, I'll hand in a ballot with just one name - Jim Rice.

I know there are more hall-worthy names, but I trust they'll get enough votes to stay on for the next round of voting, just wanted to make sure my man didn't get overlooked.

There is no better use of a first post than this thread. Well done.

I won't even give you crap for your obviously emotional inclusion of Fred Lynn.

Here's the problem with this approach. It dilutes the other ballots. Induction is not based on "enough votes". Players need to be named on 75% of ballots to gain induction. When voters don't take the time to research the candidates properly (which is the main reason the four HOF threads have been well over 120 pages total), it cheapens the process.

No offense, but those are the facts.

(And for the record, I'm not just saying this because of my article in last year's MSP SoSH annual that debunked Rice's candidacy.)

I'm really glad to see this thread back, and would love to have more participants. But those looking to use a "quick post" approach aren't going to help. A lot of us have taken our selections seriously.

Here are my final four words for anyone else planning on jumping into the pool: PLEASE READ THE THREAD

I also have a problem with this. You're basically casting a vote against everyone except Rice, because you don't have the time to vote thoughtfully.

URI, please ignore this ballot unless it is amended.

Well, I definitely appreciate that. But I was really surprised to see how little support Lynn has gotten, especially considering you guys have voted in Reggie Smith, Puckett and Jimmy Wynn. I think Lynn is right up there with any of those guys - he's got career numbers that stack up with all but the inner-circle CFs, and had a peak with two legit MVP-level seasons.

My guess is he's losing points because of: his durability and because he played in a big hitter's park, which makes sense but: Kirby had a short career, Reggie wasn't exactly the picture of health; and both Reggie (Fenway) and Kirby (Metrodome) also played substantial parts of their careers in big hitter's parks.

Obviously by my exclusion of Evans and Rice, I also think Lynn was the best of the Red Sox '70s outfield, which I think would've been the consensus at the time as well.

I agree with mabrowndog and Tudor. I'd love to see some new participants, but I'd prefer that it be only from from those who think this HOF thread is actually worth their time. (i.e., don't just vote against everyone on the ballot because you didn't have time to evaluate the candidates).

I didn't include Rice4HOF's vote because he basically admitted he didn't take it seriously enough.

2003 is up...my opinion, there are 2 surefire HOF'ers in there, and a perfect opportunity to rehash all the relief pitching arguments from yore.

Also, getting toward the end for Ken Singleton and Rollie Fingers.