Rivera & Ruth!

[nevermore]

Thought it was nice coincidence, as of now Mariano Rivera has the EXACT same career ERA as Babe Ruth!

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leade ... reer.shtml

Both have a career ERA of 2.2770 putting them tied for 15th on the all-time list.

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

Bizarre coincidence no doubt.

Now, what I find interesting by looking at each player's pitching stats is that in 5 years, Ruth pitched more innings than Rivera has his entire career. And Rivera came into the league as a starter.

I know some people love the idea of closers in the Hall of Fame, but it just seems silly to me to allow someone how played a part in only 10% of his team's games to get in the HOF.

 

[nevermore]

Bizarre coincidence no doubt.

Now, what I find interesting by looking at each player's pitching stats is that in 5 years, Ruth pitched more innings than Rivera has his entire career. And Rivera came into the league as a starter.

I know some people love the idea of closers in the Hall of Fame, but it just seems silly to me to allow someone how played a part in only 10% of his team's games to get in the HOF.

Anyone who has excelled at their position should be in the hall. A closer has a defined role, to get the final outs of the game. It is unfair to discount their performance and say they aren't hall worthy just because they have fewer IP.

 

[ronfromfresno]

Bizarre coincidence no doubt.

Now, what I find interesting by looking at each player's pitching stats is that in 5 years, Ruth pitched more innings than Rivera has his entire career. And Rivera came into the league as a starter.

I know some people love the idea of closers in the Hall of Fame, but it just seems silly to me to allow someone how played a part in only 10% of his team's games to get in the HOF.

Anyone who has excelled at their position should be in the hall. A closer has a defined role, to get the final outs of the game. It is unfair to discount their performance and say they aren't hall worthy just because they have fewer IP.

I agree, a close of a game is just as important as a good quality start from a starter. There is a reason the save and hold stats are keep, in order to show how effective an individual is in those situation and determine how good they are at their position. Making the role of closer just as relevent to the game of baseball and needed in the Hall Of Fame.

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

I understand that being the "best" at your position should merit entry in the Hall of Fame, I just find it interesting that "failed starters" seem to be the best closers. Not a single team in baseball would take a great starter with potential and make them their closer, because starters are far more valuable to their team than a closer.

To me, it's like putting the best defensive replacement players in the Hall of Fame. A player can't hit well enough to be an everyday player, but when the 8th inning comes up and a team has the lead, and he'll probably not bat...let's get that glove in there.

 

[ronfromfresno]

I understand that being the "best" at your position should merit entry in the Hall of Fame, I just find it interesting that "failed starters" seem to be the best closers. Not a single team in baseball would take a great starter with potential and make them their closer, because starters are far more valuable to their team than a closer.

To me, it's like putting the best defensive replacement players in the Hall of Fame. A player can't hit well enough to be an everyday player, but when the 8th inning comes up and a team has the lead, and he'll probably not bat...let's get that glove in there.

True, but a single replacement in the field may have no bearing on the outcome of a game, all closers do. It's just how the game has evolved, a starter is now considered effective if they throw 6 good innings, not a complete game, making the role of the bullpen and the closers ever more important to a team. Mind you in order to make the Hall Of Fame a closer will need to be better at their postion than any other position player or starting pitcher in the Hall because of the limitation of one inning at the end of every other game, but no less qualified to make the Hall.

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

I understand that being the "best" at your position should merit entry in the Hall of Fame, I just find it interesting that "failed starters" seem to be the best closers. Not a single team in baseball would take a great starter with potential and make them their closer, because starters are far more valuable to their team than a closer.

To me, it's like putting the best defensive replacement players in the Hall of Fame. A player can't hit well enough to be an everyday player, but when the 8th inning comes up and a team has the lead, and he'll probably not bat...let's get that glove in there.

True, but a single replacement in the field may have no bearing on the outcome of a game, all closers do. It's just how the game has evolved, a starter is now considered effective if they throw 6 good innings, not a complete game, making the role of the bullpen and the closers ever more important to a team. Mind you in order to make the Hall Of Fame a closer will need to be better at their postion than any other position player or starting pitcher in the Hall because of the limitation of one inning at the end of every other game, but no less qualified to make the Hall.

Ok, fair enough...so what is your take on set-up guys? Clearly they have a bearing on not only the outcome, but also on the closer.

As an Angels fan, I see a consistent guy like Scot Shields routinely dominate the 8th, but there is almost always someone else coming in for the 9th (Percival then Rodriguez now Arredondo). So should a great set-up man be given the chance for the HOF?

How about a pinch-hitter? Pinch-hitters play an important role in adjusting a line-up and can have a huge effect on the game...should guys like Red Lucas or Lenny Harris be in the HOF because they are considered to be the greatest pinch-hitters of all-time?



Obviously I'm playing devil's advocate here because I think there's an easy comparison between these types of "10% percent" players. All play roles, all can greatly affect the outcome...and all of them couldn't "cut it" as a full-time player.

(On a related note, I just think we overvalue relievers in general.)

 

[nevermore]

I understand that being the "best" at your position should merit entry in the Hall of Fame, I just find it interesting that "failed starters" seem to be the best closers. Not a single team in baseball would take a great starter with potential and make them their closer, because starters are far more valuable to their team than a closer.

To me, it's like putting the best defensive replacement players in the Hall of Fame. A player can't hit well enough to be an everyday player, but when the 8th inning comes up and a team has the lead, and he'll probably not bat...let's get that glove in there.

True, but a single replacement in the field may have no bearing on the outcome of a game, all closers do. It's just how the game has evolved, a starter is now considered effective if they throw 6 good innings, not a complete game, making the role of the bullpen and the closers ever more important to a team. Mind you in order to make the Hall Of Fame a closer will need to be better at their postion than any other position player or starting pitcher in the Hall because of the limitation of one inning at the end of every other game, but no less qualified to make the Hall.

Ok, fair enough...so what is your take on set-up guys? Clearly they have a bearing on not only the outcome, but also on the closer.

As an Angels fan, I see a consistent guy like Scot Shields routinely dominate the 8th, but there is almost always someone else coming in for the 9th (Percival then Rodriguez now Arredondo). So should a great set-up man be given the chance for the HOF?

How about a pinch-hitter? Pinch-hitters play an important role in adjusting a line-up and can have a huge effect on the game...should guys like Red Lucas or Lenny Harris be in the HOF because they are considered to be the greatest pinch-hitters of all-time?



Obviously I'm playing devil's advocate here because I think there's an easy comparison between these types of "10% percent" players. All play roles, all can greatly affect the outcome...and all of them couldn't "cut it" as a full-time player.

(On a related note, I just think we overvalue relievers in general.)

Relievers are full-time players, they play in over 60-70 games per season. It is not fair to compare relievers to pinch hitters and second-string guys based on playing time. A reliever coming in for 3 outs is more like the the DH coming in for just 3-4 AB per game. They are not substitutes, but are specialists for those particular roles and situations.

 

[ronfromfresno]

Ok, fair enough...so what is your take on set-up guys? Clearly they have a bearing on not only the outcome, but also on the closer.

As an Angels fan, I see a consistent guy like Scot Shields routinely dominate the 8th, but there is almost always someone else coming in for the 9th (Percival then Rodriguez now Arredondo). So should a great set-up man be given the chance for the HOF?

How about a pinch-hitter? Pinch-hitters play an important role in adjusting a line-up and can have a huge effect on the game...should guys like Red Lucas or Lenny Harris be in the HOF because they are considered to be the greatest pinch-hitters of all-time?



Obviously I'm playing devil's advocate here because I think there's an easy comparison between these types of "10% percent" players. All play roles, all can greatly affect the outcome...and all of them couldn't "cut it" as a full-time player.

(On a related note, I just think we overvalue relievers in general.)

In the case of a set-up man, if the stats can show that they were a dominate player in that sole role, for a long, long period of time, maybe better than anyone else for that same long time period, then I would say they deserve consideration. Of course over that time period they most likely would be moved to a closer role and excell there.

As for a pinch-hitter, I would love to see Lenny Harris in the Hall, but he wouldn't be the only pinch hitter every time one was needed and while valuable to a team, his value would be much less than a closer. Making a comparrison to other pinch hitters of his era tough to detemine other than batting average, if he hit well enough in that role he would gain a starting role and be considered there, making a pinch hitter simply a substitute and not a specific "position" on a team.

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

Relievers are full-time players, they play in over 60-70 games per season. It is not fair to compare relievers to pinch hitters and second-string guys based on playing time. A reliever coming in for 3 outs is more like the the DH coming in for just 3-4 AB per game. They are not substitutes, but are specialists for those particular roles and situations.

Is the above a vote for "Yes, set-up men should be considered for the Hall of Fame" and "No, pinch-hitters should not"?

If so, that means a guy like Lenny Harris who had 810 games where he served as a pinch-hitter is "part-time", yet a reliever who makes "60-70" appearances a season makes him a "full-time player."

Again...just playing devil's advocate, but the better the case made for closers, makes the same case for set-up men, which in turn makes the case easier for pinch-hitters and defense replacements.

 

[UMich92]

Interesting train of thought. I would say that if a closer is a 10% player, then a pinch-hitter is a 2-3% player and a defensive sub is a 1-2% player.

Let's assume that a team always has 9 defensive innings in a game. Then there are 1,458 innings in the year. A top line starter throwing 220 innings accounts for 15% of the total innings for that team and a closer throwing 70+ innings (most of Rivera's years fall between 70 and 80) accounts for about 5% of the innings.

Now let's assume that a team's top 5 batters always get 5 AB's and the bottom 4 always get 4 AB's. That means the team gets 6,642 AB's in a year and a hitter getting 600 AB's accounts for 9% of all the AB's.

Based on percent involvement, one could argue that a top starting pitcher has more individual impact than a hitter. Obviously, this discounts the fact a team is a group of hitters while there is only 1 pitcher on the mound at any time.

Alex

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

How about DHs?

Interesting train of thought. I would say that if a closer is a 10% player, then a pinch-hitter is a 2-3% player and a defensive sub is a 1-2% player.

Let's assume that a team always has 9 defensive innings in a game. Then there are 1,458 innings in the year. A top line starter throwing 220 innings accounts for 15% of the total innings for that team and a closer throwing 70+ innings (most of Rivera's years fall between 70 and 80) accounts for about 5% of the innings.

Now let's assume that a team's top 5 batters always get 5 AB's and the bottom 4 always get 4 AB's. That means the team gets 6,642 AB's in a year and a hitter getting 600 AB's accounts for 9% of all the AB's.

Based on percent involvement, one could argue that a top starting pitcher has more individual impact than a hitter. Obviously, this discounts the fact a team is a group of hitters while there is only 1 pitcher on the mound at any time.

Alex

 

[nevermore]

Relievers are full-time players, they play in over 60-70 games per season. It is not fair to compare relievers to pinch hitters and second-string guys based on playing time. A reliever coming in for 3 outs is more like the the DH coming in for just 3-4 AB per game. They are not substitutes, but are specialists for those particular roles and situations.

Is the above a vote for "Yes, set-up men should be considered for the Hall of Fame" and "No, pinch-hitters should not"?

If so, that means a guy like Lenny Harris who had 810 games where he served as a pinch-hitter is "part-time", yet a reliever who makes "60-70" appearances a season makes him a "full-time player."

Again...just playing devil's advocate, but the better the case made for closers, makes the same case for set-up men, which in turn makes the case easier for pinch-hitters and defense replacements.

Just to clarify by relievers above, I was referring to closers in particular not setup men.

In theory, a middle reliever can be considered for the HOF if he has a dominating career at that position. However, that is never the case as those guys are always moved up to the closer role eventually. I can't think of any outstanding pitchers who have played their entire career as a middle reliever. Same can be said for defense replacements and pinch-hitters, the better guys are always promoted as position players.

With closers however, you have people like Rivera & Hoffman who have made their careers in that position. Previously closers may have been washed up guys who were put into to fill the role temporarily, but in today's game it has evolved into a full time job making it possible to have candidates who are hall-worthy. I am going to leave it at that.