Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

The bullpen collectively is super-important, especially come playoff time.

Individual relievers are not super-important because they don't pitch enough.

I disagree. The best ones can have an impact in nearly half of their team's games.



Here's a pretty graph I made...does this mean Harmon Killebrew shouldn't be a Hall of Famer? He's clearly less valuable than Babe Ruth.

<iframe src="http://www.fangraphs.com/graphframe.aspx?config=0&static=0&type=graphsw&num =2&h=450&w=450&players=1011327,1006905" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" height="450" width = "450" style="border:1px solid black;"></iframe><br /><span style="font-size:9pt;">Source: <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/graphsw.aspx?players=1011327,1006905&wg=2">FanGrap hs</a> -- <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1006905&position=1B/3B">Harmon Killebrew</a>, <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1011327&position=1B/3B">Babe Ruth</a></span>

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

I wasn't making the point that Hoffman shouldn't be in just because he was a lot worse than Rivera.

I was making a "Hoffman's not in Rivera's league" point.

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

I disagree. The best ones can have an impact in nearly half of their team's games.

And they're pitching...one inning? Two at the most? And since the standard for getting a save is pretty low to begin with (getting 3 outs with a 3-run lead gets you a save), it's not always high leverage either.

And in addition to all the advantages to relieving I've already mentioned and the low IP, closers are usually asked to go through the order only once and don't suffer from the times-through-the-order penalty that starters do.

They're just not as valuable as you think they are.

[Sportsforever]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Fingers/Gossage do not belong in the same conversation as today's relievers...those guys actually came in and pitched 2-3 innings to get a save. They often were the whole bullpen. The era we see of specialists is a completely different ball game.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

And they're pitching...one inning? Two at the most? And since the standard for getting a save is pretty low to begin with (getting 3 outs with a 3-run lead gets you a save), it's not always high leverage either.

And in addition to all the advantages to relieving I've already mentioned and the low IP, closers are usually asked to go through the order only once and don't suffer from the times-through-the-order penalty that starters do.

They're just not as valuable as you think they are.

But I never said we must compare them to starters. Relief pitchers are their own thing. No need to hold them up to the same criteria that some other position is held to. But if we must, I bet closers pitch in higher aggregate leverage situations than starters do, even with an occasional gimme of a save. All world closers that teams can rely on year after year are rare and absolutely are valuable to their team.

Fingers/Gossage do not belong in the same conversation as today's relievers...those guys actually came in and pitched 2-3 innings to get a save. They often were the whole bullpen. The era we see of specialists is a completely different ball game.

Fair point, but I still would take Hoffman over either of those guys whether I wanted 3 outs or 9 outs with my season on the line.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

One last stat...

Hoffman 601/636 in saves = 94.50%

Rivera 652/698 in saves = 93.41%

Not using this to say that Hoffman is better, because I don't believe that. Just making the case that whenever either of these guys went into the game, it was game over. People aren't giving Hoffman enough credit for how dominant he was.

[dubcity]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

But I never said we must compare them to starters. Relief pitchers are their own thing. No need to hold them up to the same criteria that some other position is held to.

That's pretty much what I was getting at. If you believe relief pitchers deserve to be represented in the HoF, then it's hard to not put in one of the most dominant all-time at the closer position. This is an interesting conversation, but it's probably moot cuz Hoff is getting in eventually. 600 saves, plus he'll get votes from guys who want to completely ignore steroid era power hitters, lol.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

That's pretty much what I was getting at. If you believe relief pitchers deserve to be represented in the HoF, then it's hard to not put in one of the most dominant all-time at the closer position. This is an interesting conversation, but it's probably moot cuz Hoff is getting in eventually. 600 saves, plus he'll get votes from guys who want to completely ignore steroid era power hitters, lol.

Oh I don't think there's any question he'll get in. Really just a question of how many times it's gonna take him. After the Pandora's Box of RPs was opened, no chance they can keep him out. I mean Bruce Sutter is in; Sutter had half the saves, significantly less WAR, fewer appearances, and a shorter shelf life. Whatever edge people give him for winning a Cy Young* and going more than 1 inning is far outweighed. I mean Lee Smith got 50%.

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

But I never said we must compare them to starters. Relief pitchers are their own thing. No need to hold them up to the same criteria that some other position is held to. But if we must, I bet closers pitch in higher aggregate leverage situations than starters do, even with an occasional gimme of a save. All world closers that teams can rely on year after year are rare and absolutely are valuable to their team.

The "he's really good relative to his position" thing only goes so far. I don't think anyone cares whether some guy was the best pinch hitter ever, for example. With elite closers, you're still talking about guys who are only as valuable as #3 starters or solid position players.

You can be near the top of your position and still not be all that valuable in the scheme of things. That's where Trevor Hoffman is. If you think being dominant in a niche role is HOF worthy, fine, that's your choice. That's not a standard I want to see enforced though.

[AC]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

One last stat...

Hoffman 601/636 in saves = 94.50%

Rivera 652/698 in saves = 93.41%

Not using this to say that Hoffman is better, because I don't believe that. Just making the case that whenever either of these guys went into the game, it was game over. People aren't giving Hoffman enough credit for how dominant he was.

Saves are an arbitrary stat, though.

Hoffman WPA/Li: 17.50
Rivera WPA/Li: 34.09

This means that based on the importance of the situation, Rivera added a significantly higher chance of winning.

[55]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Griffey is as automatic as it gets and the only fresh face on the ballot that will get in this year. Hoffman won't get in on the first ballot and probably shouldn't at all, but it won't upset me if he gets in somewhere down the road.

There are plenty of guys who should get in, but the only two that I think will get in this year are Griffey and Piazza.

Until Bonds and Clemens are in the whole thing is just a joke anyway.

[redsox4evur]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Griffey is as automatic as it gets and the only fresh face on the ballot that will get in this year. Hoffman won't get in on the first ballot and probably shouldn't at all, but it won't upset me if he gets in somewhere down the road.

There are plenty of guys who should get in, but the only two that I think will get in this year are Griffey and Piazza.

Until Bonds and Clemens are in the whole thing is just a joke anyway.

Do you guys think that new voting rule will make it possible for these guys to get into the HOF or will there still be too many that say no?

[lhslancers]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Do you guys think that new voting rule will make it possible for these guys to get into the HOF or will there still be too many that say no?

I would hope so just as long as they don't drag along Sosa and McGuire.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Saves are an arbitrary stat, though.

Hoffman WPA/Li: 17.50
Rivera WPA/Li: 34.09

This means that based on the importance of the situation, Rivera added a significantly higher chance of winning.

Is WPA/Li an absolute stat, then? So there are no assumptions involved and it's fully correct unlike a save? We can throw stats at each other, but a guy doesn't need to be the best ever at his position, just among the best. It would be silly to stack every position player up against Babe Ruth (hence my Killebrew graph) just like it's silly to compare every RP to Mo. Luckily for guys like Hoffman and other great players, the Hall isn't for the GOAT only. I can respect people's opinions that RP's aren't valuable enough (code for WAR isn't above an arbitrary number), but I just disagree with that sentiment in general and I don't think it reflects the way the game's been played for about 25 years now.

[AC]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

No, there aren't assumptions made that aren't founded in sound mathematics. It's calculated off of the basis of Win Probability Added using RE24 and the calculated leverage index. Saves are arbitrarily defined and not even necessarily the most important situation in the game.