bruce sutter. am i the only

by oakath on Jan 10, 2006 2:38 PM PST Comment 21 comments

one who doesn't get why he's in hof? popularized splitter. wow. what is with the lovefest for him over so many other 90 innings a year players? i'm guessing playing for cards and cubs didn't hurt. (but, doesn't help lee smith.) it's so funny how these things work. baseball media has floated his name as a possible hof'er for so long - and yet continually dimisses the other short "closers" of his era smith, reardon, goose... as not worthy.

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I agree

Goose should've gotten elected long before Sutter.

"Put a Milo on him." -Billy Beane

by kaweahkaweah on Jan 10, 2006 2:40 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

jim rice

should've been elected over both of them. and goose should've gone in before sutter, he was the most intimidating and dominating reliever of his time.

"welcome to ME, motherf*^*er!" - tim hudson

by guy incognito on Jan 10, 2006 2:58 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

None of them should have been elected

but baseball needs the publicity. The Hall's standards are usually better than this. There's a reason why it took him 13 years...

Two-thirds of the earth is covered by water, the other third is covered by Kotsay.

by carp on Jan 10, 2006 5:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Yup

Way too many guys get elected. To me, a hall of famer is somebody you'll actually want to tell your grandkids about. Try "Kid, when I was your age I actually got to see --- play and let me tell you..."

Fill in the blank with Rickey Henderson; Dennis Eckersley; Bruce Sutter. Two make sense, one doesn't.
I genuinely feel fortunate to have seen Rickey steal bases and Eck close games. Who feels that way about Sutter?

by matthias on Jan 10, 2006 7:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sutter was on the cutting edge

of the "splitter" phenomenon, but I agree that his worthiness for the HOF is borderline at best. However, I think it's criminal (ok, not criminal but a real shame) that Goose isn't in--he was THE reliever of my childhood/young adulthood. He was it. Talk about "being dominant" in your era. And Goose was "turn out the lights" dominant for long enough that he should have been, IMO, a "no brainer" selection.

by Nico on Jan 10, 2006 7:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

disagree

Sutter was dominant for both the Cubs and Cards and the first person to throw the splitter effectively (I guess Roy Face's forkball was similar in some ways but the mechanics were different). Changed the way the game is played. Goose belongs there too, though.

by vk on Jan 10, 2006 10:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

The problem isn't Sutter

It's that Sutter went in before Gossage and Gossage is the better player.

by Crosbino on Jan 11, 2006 6:07 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

so what?

he retired earlier. Sutter's rise to the hall only assures that Gossage will be in, too. I personally believe Sutter belongs: he did invent a pitch that has changed baseball significantly, and his success helped redefine the role of the closer (and it's hard to ignore the 300 saves), and, he was quite a phenomenal talent (I'm sure I remember basically giving up when he'd come in to shut down my Pirates). In my opinion, two other outstanding relievers who predate Sutter, ElRoy Face and Fred Marberry, also belong in the hall, but I'm sure George Steinbrenner will be iceskating in hell before they're named. The importance of relievers has always been downplayed because of their lite stats (particularly wins); I think it's encouraging to see them being considered.

The real shame is that Bert Blyleven didn't get the call.

by Brian in 317 on Jan 11, 2006 6:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with this

As one who watched these guys growing up, I'd say that Sutter had a bit of a mystique that undoubtedly affected the voting. Gossage was dominant but he did bounce around to a lot of teams whereas Sutter had this more compressed and elegant career for 2 of the 3 seminal Midwestern National League teams (the reds being the third) that, east Coast bias to the contrary, actually helped him as well.

But luckily Goose has a lot of momentum and should get elected sometime in the next couple of years.

The voting is ridiculous when you think about it.

Essentially many, if not most, voters basically set a quota-- maybe it's 3 or 4 or 5 players, but rarely more than 5. If you're not on that list one year, you get 25% of the vote, like Sutter did originally. But gradually you make your way on the list, and then generally never get off. And so on and so on.

I can see people changing their minds-- it's clearly happening with Blyleven-- but in most cases it is simply writers who don't want to put too many names on in any one given year.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Jan 11, 2006 9:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Blyleven's surge

is encouraging, although he is starting to run out of time. I think he has 5 years left. He needs to keep gaining 7-10%/year.

"Put a Milo on him." -Billy Beane

by kaweahkaweah on Jan 11, 2006 9:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I just wish..

There was someway to get him in the nick name HOF...Bert "Be Home" Blyleven is one of the best ever.

"You know I don't like beautiful, well put together women, give me a nice nose break or a lazy eye." Johnny Drama

by rook on Jan 11, 2006 9:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

right up there with...

and I'm dating myself here--

Jim "Silhouette in" DeShaies

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Jan 11, 2006 10:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Next year Gwynn, Ripken

and Big Mac are on the ballot. Does Big Mac get in? Up until last year, I would say yes. Obviously with the crying on the Hill, things have changed.

Two-thirds of the earth is covered by water, the other third is covered by Kotsay.

by carp on Jan 11, 2006 8:23 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

No way

I think Mac only gets in after the "non steroid" players-- Gwynn, Ripken, Rickey, Dawson and Rice-- are all in. Maybe even Barry Larkin too.

Then he may get in before Palmeiro and Sosa and before the Bonds debate takes center stage-- say 2010 or 2011.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Jan 11, 2006 9:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I tend to agree with this

I think that if you look at it from a purely judging-his-accomplishments perspective, he ought to be in on the first ballot. Even admitting the possibility that steroids may have inflated his stats, well then subtract 10% of his homers, and his numbers are still enough to get him in.

But I think the reason voters want to penalize him is because they are reluctant to give him that celebratory speech at Cooperstown. This, by the way, is clearly the most-plausible reason for keeping Pete Rose out of the Hall of Fame--who the hell wants to hear him act all triumphant and defiant right there on baseball's hallowed ground? For these controversial characters who probably haven't acted as remorseful as they should about their misdeeds, I think we need another option--a way to put them into the Hall without letting them get up at that podium to speak.

by rubin sierra on Jan 11, 2006 9:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

To a point..

I would say that was true if the HOF players got to vote. The sports writers get to do it, and it's a shame. I thought Pete Gammons article about the "club" was great last year, and if the Frank Robinson's of the world had a say in who gets in, Big Mac would be Pete Rose.

But the sportwriters have to much say, did you know that Walter Weiss got a vote? Great update from Olney on the crap that is sports writers voting..:

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=olney_buster

For those who don't have insider here is the list:

Hal Morris- 5 Votes
Ozzie Guillen (as a player)- 5 votes
Walter- 1 vote
Gregg Jeffries- 2 votes
Doug Jones- 2 votes

Sickening.

"You know I don't like beautiful, well put together women, give me a nice nose break or a lazy eye." Johnny Drama

by rook on Jan 11, 2006 9:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

hmmm...

...then what happens five years after Bonds retires?

by Brian in 317 on Jan 11, 2006 10:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He goes in first ballot

Too much performance before he bulked up. But it'll be fun stuff to witness.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Jan 11, 2006 10:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Andre Dawson and Dave Parker

are guys that could have been in the Hall, because they had that kind of dominance. However, injuries and drugs have respectively prevented that from happening.

Two-thirds of the earth is covered by water, the other third is covered by Kotsay.

by carp on Jan 11, 2006 8:26 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Bruce Sutter deserves to be in the Hall:

He was astounding as a closer and the closest thing to Rollie Fingers of his time.

Goose belongs in the hall as well.

I have vivid memories of both of these guys dominance.

The one's that shock me though are Dawson and Blyleven.

Ninety percent I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste." -Tug McGraw

by saint on Jan 11, 2006 9:31 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I still think

Pete Rose deserves to be in, 4000 hits how much better can you get, even Michael Jordan had gambling problems off the court and Pete Rose is banned for gambling on his team, everyone makes mistakes.

The tragedy of life is not that it ends so soon, but that we wait so long to begin it.-W. M. Lewis

by doublehustle22 on Jan 11, 2006 10:32 AM PST reply actions 0 recs