Title: Hall of Fame Ballots
Description: Who would you elect?
Description: Who would you elect?
Camus2Kerouac - December 30, 2005 06:19 PM (GMT)
To all, Click Here for a list of their career accomplishments. Best regards, Cle
*** Edited by JoeCub to enable voting for up to 10 electees. ***
*** Edited by JoeCub to enable voting for up to 10 electees. ***
JoeCub - December 30, 2005 06:36 PM (GMT)
I think Smith, Sutter, Gossage, Dawson, and Blyleven all deserve to be in.
Rice, Murphy, Parker, Mattingly, and Garvey are all close with Rice being the closest.
Rice, Murphy, Parker, Mattingly, and Garvey are all close with Rice being the closest.
Camus2Kerouac - December 30, 2005 06:44 PM (GMT)
"I think Smith, Sutter, Gossage, Dawson, and Blyleven all deserve to be in.
Rice, Murphy, Parker, Mattingly, and Garvey are all close with Rice being the closest."
Dear Joe, I agree with your top 5 picks. In the bottom half, perhaps the first 4 deserve consideration. However, there's no way in Hades I'd vote for Steve " The Ladie's Guy" Garvey. In addition to having a serious dislike for the man, his stats aren't nearly good enough anyways. I would have to give some consideration to Tommy John though. Best regards, Cle
Rice, Murphy, Parker, Mattingly, and Garvey are all close with Rice being the closest."
Dear Joe, I agree with your top 5 picks. In the bottom half, perhaps the first 4 deserve consideration. However, there's no way in Hades I'd vote for Steve " The Ladie's Guy" Garvey. In addition to having a serious dislike for the man, his stats aren't nearly good enough anyways. I would have to give some consideration to Tommy John though. Best regards, Cle
JoeCub - December 30, 2005 06:55 PM (GMT)
Cle,
LOL, I'm not a big fan of Garvey either. I think my 2nd group will have trouble ever getting in. I do agree TJ deserves consideration. Too bad the most famous thing he's noted for is the surgery they named after him.
Joe
LOL, I'm not a big fan of Garvey either. I think my 2nd group will have trouble ever getting in. I do agree TJ deserves consideration. Too bad the most famous thing he's noted for is the surgery they named after him.
Joe
Camus2Kerouac - December 31, 2005 12:32 AM (GMT)
To all, I still remember the day Sutter came in versus the Expos to begin the 7th inning when the Cubs were behind. Imagine that? He then went on to strike out 6 in three innings and also stuck out the side in the final frame on 9 pitches!
When he was in his prime, he was the best reliever EVER, if not simply the best pitcher. How many saves might he have had if he pitched only in the 9th inning, as almost all of the babied closers do today? He would easily have been the all time leader. The only thing I didn't like about him was that he ended up with the Cardinals. How I hated THAT trade ! :angry: Best regards, Cle
Sutter earned his saves
ESPN The Magazine
By Tim Kurkjian
The reason Whitey Herzog once called Ryne Sandberg the best player he had ever seen wasn't just because Sandberg had hit two home runs in one game, including a game winner in extra innings to beat the Cardinals, but because he hit those homers off Bruce Sutter.
Sutter was that good, he was that unhittable, he was that revered. No one had ever done to Sutter what Sandberg did that day, a day that Sandberg acknowledged was the biggest of his career, the day that the baseball community -- and Sandberg himself -- realized how good he could be. Such acclaim would not have come had he hit those home runs off some ordinary reliever, only off the brilliant Sutter. Sandberg spoke of the importance of that day during his induction speech at the Hall of Fame last summer, and wondered why Sutter wasn't in Cooperstown. He should be. Sutter was the best closer of his era, he was one of the best of all time and he belongs in the Hall of Fame.
Sutter saved 300 games. Before anyone says that it's only the 19th most ever, three fewer than Doug Jones and 24 fewer than Roberto Hernandez, let's first understand this: When Sutter retired after the 1988 season, only two pitchers had more saves: Hall of Famer Rollie Fingers with 341 and should-be Hall of Famer Goose Gossage with 302. Sutter was the first National League pitcher to reach 200 saves, and the first to save 300, and became the NL's all-time save leader before he turned 30. During the first nine years of his career, Sutter saved 260 games, most in the major leagues, 52 more than Fingers, the runner-up.
But Sutter's career save total -- and some of his brilliant single seasons -- have been lost somewhat in the devaluation of the save over the last 15 years. Cheap saves are easier to achieve today than ever because push-button managers use closers almost exclusively in the ninth inning with a lead. And since some closers today are making around $10 million a year, that salary has to be justified, which means getting as many save situations as possible for the closer. Sutter was saving 30 games every year when it really meant something. Now, 40 saves is the standard. But there were only nine 40-save seasons in the 1980s, including one by Sutter; in 1998 alone, there were eight 40-save performances.
Sutter was a workhorse closer who wasn't used only in the ninth inning with a lead; he occasionally entered a game in the seventh inning. He pitched 100 or more innings in a season five times, and in his 10 full seasons, never pitched fewer than 80 innings. Dennis Eckersley cruised into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot -- as he should have; he first was an accomplished starting pitcher, unlike Sutter -- but he never pitched more than 80 innings in his 10 full seasons as a closer. In Sutter's first nine years, only rubber-armed sidewinder Kent Tekulve made more appearances than Sutter, another tribute to his durability.
Sutter won the National League Cy Young in 1979, and finished in the top five three other seasons. He finished in the top seven in the MVP balloting five times. He closed for the world champion Cardinals in 1982, he led the league in saves five times and he made six All-Star teams. He spent five seasons with the Cubs (1976-1980), who never finished above .500 in that time, but he saved 133 of their 379 victories. He finished his career with a 2.83 ERA despite pitching five seasons at Wrigley Field, which, on many days, was hitter friendly. In his first nine years, Sutter had the lowest ERA (2.54) of any pitcher in the major leagues, starter or reliever, with at least 750 innings.
The mark of a Hall of Famer is that you know he's a Hall of Famer when you see him. That was Sutter. His critics say he didn't pitch long enough, but how many closers pitch effectively for more than 10 years? He was done by age 32 mostly because of arm injuries, but Sutter was the game's most dominant closer for a decade, and he essentially perfected a pitch -- the split-fingered fastball -- that so many pitchers learned because of his success.
How could he throw that pitch so well?
"Look at these!" he once said, spreading out the five fingers on his right hand well out in front of his face. "Look how long these fingers are! I can touch my nose from here."
This is Sutter's 13th year on the ballot. Look at these numbers! Some of us voted for him his first year and have voted for him every year. It's time for him to make it to Cooperstown.
When he was in his prime, he was the best reliever EVER, if not simply the best pitcher. How many saves might he have had if he pitched only in the 9th inning, as almost all of the babied closers do today? He would easily have been the all time leader. The only thing I didn't like about him was that he ended up with the Cardinals. How I hated THAT trade ! :angry: Best regards, Cle
Sutter earned his saves
ESPN The Magazine
By Tim Kurkjian
The reason Whitey Herzog once called Ryne Sandberg the best player he had ever seen wasn't just because Sandberg had hit two home runs in one game, including a game winner in extra innings to beat the Cardinals, but because he hit those homers off Bruce Sutter.
Sutter was that good, he was that unhittable, he was that revered. No one had ever done to Sutter what Sandberg did that day, a day that Sandberg acknowledged was the biggest of his career, the day that the baseball community -- and Sandberg himself -- realized how good he could be. Such acclaim would not have come had he hit those home runs off some ordinary reliever, only off the brilliant Sutter. Sandberg spoke of the importance of that day during his induction speech at the Hall of Fame last summer, and wondered why Sutter wasn't in Cooperstown. He should be. Sutter was the best closer of his era, he was one of the best of all time and he belongs in the Hall of Fame.
Sutter saved 300 games. Before anyone says that it's only the 19th most ever, three fewer than Doug Jones and 24 fewer than Roberto Hernandez, let's first understand this: When Sutter retired after the 1988 season, only two pitchers had more saves: Hall of Famer Rollie Fingers with 341 and should-be Hall of Famer Goose Gossage with 302. Sutter was the first National League pitcher to reach 200 saves, and the first to save 300, and became the NL's all-time save leader before he turned 30. During the first nine years of his career, Sutter saved 260 games, most in the major leagues, 52 more than Fingers, the runner-up.
But Sutter's career save total -- and some of his brilliant single seasons -- have been lost somewhat in the devaluation of the save over the last 15 years. Cheap saves are easier to achieve today than ever because push-button managers use closers almost exclusively in the ninth inning with a lead. And since some closers today are making around $10 million a year, that salary has to be justified, which means getting as many save situations as possible for the closer. Sutter was saving 30 games every year when it really meant something. Now, 40 saves is the standard. But there were only nine 40-save seasons in the 1980s, including one by Sutter; in 1998 alone, there were eight 40-save performances.
Sutter was a workhorse closer who wasn't used only in the ninth inning with a lead; he occasionally entered a game in the seventh inning. He pitched 100 or more innings in a season five times, and in his 10 full seasons, never pitched fewer than 80 innings. Dennis Eckersley cruised into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot -- as he should have; he first was an accomplished starting pitcher, unlike Sutter -- but he never pitched more than 80 innings in his 10 full seasons as a closer. In Sutter's first nine years, only rubber-armed sidewinder Kent Tekulve made more appearances than Sutter, another tribute to his durability.
Sutter won the National League Cy Young in 1979, and finished in the top five three other seasons. He finished in the top seven in the MVP balloting five times. He closed for the world champion Cardinals in 1982, he led the league in saves five times and he made six All-Star teams. He spent five seasons with the Cubs (1976-1980), who never finished above .500 in that time, but he saved 133 of their 379 victories. He finished his career with a 2.83 ERA despite pitching five seasons at Wrigley Field, which, on many days, was hitter friendly. In his first nine years, Sutter had the lowest ERA (2.54) of any pitcher in the major leagues, starter or reliever, with at least 750 innings.
The mark of a Hall of Famer is that you know he's a Hall of Famer when you see him. That was Sutter. His critics say he didn't pitch long enough, but how many closers pitch effectively for more than 10 years? He was done by age 32 mostly because of arm injuries, but Sutter was the game's most dominant closer for a decade, and he essentially perfected a pitch -- the split-fingered fastball -- that so many pitchers learned because of his success.
How could he throw that pitch so well?
"Look at these!" he once said, spreading out the five fingers on his right hand well out in front of his face. "Look how long these fingers are! I can touch my nose from here."
This is Sutter's 13th year on the ballot. Look at these numbers! Some of us voted for him his first year and have voted for him every year. It's time for him to make it to Cooperstown.
ChicoPico - December 31, 2005 02:04 AM (GMT)
I agree, Bruce Sutter was one if not the best reliver/closer EVER! It is a damn shame that he is not in cooperstown!
The Chico
The Chico
Camus2Kerouac - December 31, 2005 05:40 AM (GMT)
To all, Here's an obvious argument for another of our underdogs. Best regards, Cle
Dawson belongs in Cooperstown
ESPN
By Phil Rogers
How do you remember Andre Dawson?
The answer is easy for Dusty Baker.
"Nobody played on sheer guts and bad knees longer than Hawk," said Baker, the Chicago Cubs manager. "He could have had a lot bigger numbers. He was a big-time player."
Is Dawson a Hall of Famer? Not yet, but he should be.
If Kirby Puckett is in the Hall, if Tony Perez is in the Hall, if Gary Carter, Ryne Sandberg and Ozzie Smith are in the Hall, Dawson needs to be there, too. He's every bit the player any of the other five are -- although, yes, we're comparing apples to oranges in some cases -- but is undervalued because he hit the Hall of Fame ballot in 2002, the year after Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs and Bret Boone drove in 141 runs.
It's time many voters take a second look and give Dawson the love he always gave fans, teammates and the clubs that paid him, even once giving the Chicago Cubs a blank check in exchange for his services.
Few remember Dawson when he came up with the Montreal Expos, as an oversized center fielder with Rookie of the Year skills. More, but still not many, remember him when he was at the peak of his skills in Montreal, a triple threat at the plate, on the bases and in right field.
Some will remember him only at the end of his career, when he limped through two hard-to-watch seasons with the Boston Red Sox and two more with the Florida Marlins. For most of us, however, the most vivid memories of Dawson came during his run with the Chicago Cubs.
With the Cubs, Dawson won a Most Valuable Player award in 1987 and helped his team to the National League East title in 1989, putting an end to the New York Mets' dominance. Even then, we weren't getting the best of Dawson.
We saw him struggle against the San Francisco Giants in the championship series. Only his teammates and peers understood the daily battle he went through to get onto the field with knees that only an orthopedic surgeon could love. He had been born with good ones, of course, and still had them when he left Florida A&M in 1976. He destroyed them playing with reckless abandon on the concrete-like artificial turf at Montreal's Olympic Stadium.
Maybe this wasn't as tragic as the irreversible glaucoma that ended Puckett's career in 1995, after 12 seasons. But there's reason to give Dawson the benefit of the doubt in terms of his Hall of Fame candidacy.
No eligible player has ever collected as many hits (2,774) or RBI (1,591) without becoming a Hall of Famer -- a claim that Dawson will almost certainly pass to Harold Baines (2,866 hits, 1,628 RBI) when he goes onto the ballot a year from now.
Despite receiving mail in trainer's rooms and whirlpools, Dawson hated -- and that's not a strong enough word, really -- being out of the lineup. He pushed himself onto the field to establish marks that come with durability.
Dawson, who was such a good athlete that Davey Johnson started him in center field and Eric Davis in left in the 1987 All-Star Game, was the first player to ever put together 12 consecutive seasons in which he finished with double-figure home run and stolen base totals. He piled up 45 extra-base hits in 15 consecutive seasons, becoming the sixth name on a list that included only Henry Aaron, Stan Musial, Willie Mays, Mel Ott and Honus Wagner.
On the picture-perfect day he was enshrined into the Hall last summer, Sandberg took time to campaign for Dawson, whose free-agent signing in 1987 energized a Cubs franchise that had grown dormant since an unexpected trip to the National League Championship Series in 1984.
"No player in baseball history worked harder, suffered more or did it better than Andre Dawson," Sandberg said. "He's the best I've ever seen. I watched him win an MVP for a last-place team, and it was the most unbelievable thing I've ever seen in baseball. He did it the right way, the natural way, and he did it in the field and on the bases and in every way, and I hope he will stand up here some day."
Sandberg's comment about "the natural way,'' was, of course, a shot at the Jose Canseco generation of illegally-enhanced, often one-dimensional sluggers. The numbers Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Bonds and others put up from 1997 through 2003 diminished -- at least in reflection during that time -- the career statistics of hitters from the 1980s and early '90s, including Dawson and Jim Rice.
How much of a bump those guys get in voting remains to be seen.
Dawson gained 56 votes from 2002, his first year on the ballot, to '05, his fourth year. But because the electorate also grew in that span, that wasn't as big a gain as it might seem -- only from 45.3 percent to 52.3 percent. It meant he moved from 140 votes to 117 votes short of the 75-percent requirement for election.
That's a whole lot of minds to change. But if Canseco's book and the Richard Nixon moment experienced by Rafael Palmeiro aren't enough to get you thinking, well, maybe your reasoning, like Dawson's knees, is beyond repair.
Dawson belongs in Cooperstown
ESPN
By Phil Rogers
How do you remember Andre Dawson?
The answer is easy for Dusty Baker.
"Nobody played on sheer guts and bad knees longer than Hawk," said Baker, the Chicago Cubs manager. "He could have had a lot bigger numbers. He was a big-time player."
Is Dawson a Hall of Famer? Not yet, but he should be.
If Kirby Puckett is in the Hall, if Tony Perez is in the Hall, if Gary Carter, Ryne Sandberg and Ozzie Smith are in the Hall, Dawson needs to be there, too. He's every bit the player any of the other five are -- although, yes, we're comparing apples to oranges in some cases -- but is undervalued because he hit the Hall of Fame ballot in 2002, the year after Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs and Bret Boone drove in 141 runs.
It's time many voters take a second look and give Dawson the love he always gave fans, teammates and the clubs that paid him, even once giving the Chicago Cubs a blank check in exchange for his services.
Few remember Dawson when he came up with the Montreal Expos, as an oversized center fielder with Rookie of the Year skills. More, but still not many, remember him when he was at the peak of his skills in Montreal, a triple threat at the plate, on the bases and in right field.
Some will remember him only at the end of his career, when he limped through two hard-to-watch seasons with the Boston Red Sox and two more with the Florida Marlins. For most of us, however, the most vivid memories of Dawson came during his run with the Chicago Cubs.
With the Cubs, Dawson won a Most Valuable Player award in 1987 and helped his team to the National League East title in 1989, putting an end to the New York Mets' dominance. Even then, we weren't getting the best of Dawson.
We saw him struggle against the San Francisco Giants in the championship series. Only his teammates and peers understood the daily battle he went through to get onto the field with knees that only an orthopedic surgeon could love. He had been born with good ones, of course, and still had them when he left Florida A&M in 1976. He destroyed them playing with reckless abandon on the concrete-like artificial turf at Montreal's Olympic Stadium.
Maybe this wasn't as tragic as the irreversible glaucoma that ended Puckett's career in 1995, after 12 seasons. But there's reason to give Dawson the benefit of the doubt in terms of his Hall of Fame candidacy.
No eligible player has ever collected as many hits (2,774) or RBI (1,591) without becoming a Hall of Famer -- a claim that Dawson will almost certainly pass to Harold Baines (2,866 hits, 1,628 RBI) when he goes onto the ballot a year from now.
Despite receiving mail in trainer's rooms and whirlpools, Dawson hated -- and that's not a strong enough word, really -- being out of the lineup. He pushed himself onto the field to establish marks that come with durability.
Dawson, who was such a good athlete that Davey Johnson started him in center field and Eric Davis in left in the 1987 All-Star Game, was the first player to ever put together 12 consecutive seasons in which he finished with double-figure home run and stolen base totals. He piled up 45 extra-base hits in 15 consecutive seasons, becoming the sixth name on a list that included only Henry Aaron, Stan Musial, Willie Mays, Mel Ott and Honus Wagner.
On the picture-perfect day he was enshrined into the Hall last summer, Sandberg took time to campaign for Dawson, whose free-agent signing in 1987 energized a Cubs franchise that had grown dormant since an unexpected trip to the National League Championship Series in 1984.
"No player in baseball history worked harder, suffered more or did it better than Andre Dawson," Sandberg said. "He's the best I've ever seen. I watched him win an MVP for a last-place team, and it was the most unbelievable thing I've ever seen in baseball. He did it the right way, the natural way, and he did it in the field and on the bases and in every way, and I hope he will stand up here some day."
Sandberg's comment about "the natural way,'' was, of course, a shot at the Jose Canseco generation of illegally-enhanced, often one-dimensional sluggers. The numbers Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Bonds and others put up from 1997 through 2003 diminished -- at least in reflection during that time -- the career statistics of hitters from the 1980s and early '90s, including Dawson and Jim Rice.
How much of a bump those guys get in voting remains to be seen.
Dawson gained 56 votes from 2002, his first year on the ballot, to '05, his fourth year. But because the electorate also grew in that span, that wasn't as big a gain as it might seem -- only from 45.3 percent to 52.3 percent. It meant he moved from 140 votes to 117 votes short of the 75-percent requirement for election.
That's a whole lot of minds to change. But if Canseco's book and the Richard Nixon moment experienced by Rafael Palmeiro aren't enough to get you thinking, well, maybe your reasoning, like Dawson's knees, is beyond repair.
ithreeputt - December 31, 2005 08:56 AM (GMT)
I'd probably vote for 10 players if I had the opportunity since the Hall is filled with several not quite dominant types (especially Yankees - Phil Rizzuto?!?) the following would be my choices.
Sutter absolutely belongs, no doubt in my mind. He was the most dominant pitcher in the game for a period of time and EARNED his saves. He should have been enshrined years ago IMO.
Dawson also belongs. He was one of the 3 or 4 best all around players in the game.......when he was an Expo. Winning an MVP when he wasn't in his prime doesn't hurt either. Take him out of Montreal and he would have finished with over 3000 hits and 500 home runs.
I'd put Rice third on my list. The guy was one of the most feared hitters in the game for over ten seasons. He was a power guy that could hit for average at a time there weren't many of them around. Three straight years of 35+ homers and 200 hits? The guy was dominant. That's enough for me. He deserves a spot.
Gossage and Smith belong as well IMO. Gossage because he was a dominant closer for ten plus years and Smith just for the number of saves. Pioneer of the 1-inning save or not, I can't argue against 478 saves.
It's hard for me to keep Blyleven and John out. As time goes by, we'll start to see how impressive 280+ wins really is.
Allen Trammell was an offensive AND defensive shortstop. Put him on the east coast and he'd be in no doubt.
Dave Concepcion. I may be a bit biased as he was one of my favorite players in the '70s......but......if Ozzie is in, I add Concepcion.
My 10th choice came down to Parker, Murphy, Morris, and Belle. Parker was one of the better hitters I ever saw play and a very good outfielder and among the best 4 or 5 players on the ballot but he snorted his way out of the Hall IMO (as did Gooden). Murphy was one of the best big game pitchers ever, but just short of Hall worthy to me. I really would want to vote for Murphy as he was a classy player but he just doesn't scream HoFer at me. That leaves Albert Belle. A world class JERK off the field but man could he rake. He was one of the few guys I would make sure to go see play whenever he was in the same town I was in. Like him or not I loved to watch him hit so he gets my imaginary 10th vote.
Hal Morris gets sentimental consideration from me since his father was my (as well as 5 of my brothers) Pediatrician as a kid and logged in many hours stitching us up and putting casts on our broken bones. I always thought Hal's younger brother would be a better player but injuries certailed his career.
Sutter absolutely belongs, no doubt in my mind. He was the most dominant pitcher in the game for a period of time and EARNED his saves. He should have been enshrined years ago IMO.
Dawson also belongs. He was one of the 3 or 4 best all around players in the game.......when he was an Expo. Winning an MVP when he wasn't in his prime doesn't hurt either. Take him out of Montreal and he would have finished with over 3000 hits and 500 home runs.
I'd put Rice third on my list. The guy was one of the most feared hitters in the game for over ten seasons. He was a power guy that could hit for average at a time there weren't many of them around. Three straight years of 35+ homers and 200 hits? The guy was dominant. That's enough for me. He deserves a spot.
Gossage and Smith belong as well IMO. Gossage because he was a dominant closer for ten plus years and Smith just for the number of saves. Pioneer of the 1-inning save or not, I can't argue against 478 saves.
It's hard for me to keep Blyleven and John out. As time goes by, we'll start to see how impressive 280+ wins really is.
Allen Trammell was an offensive AND defensive shortstop. Put him on the east coast and he'd be in no doubt.
Dave Concepcion. I may be a bit biased as he was one of my favorite players in the '70s......but......if Ozzie is in, I add Concepcion.
My 10th choice came down to Parker, Murphy, Morris, and Belle. Parker was one of the better hitters I ever saw play and a very good outfielder and among the best 4 or 5 players on the ballot but he snorted his way out of the Hall IMO (as did Gooden). Murphy was one of the best big game pitchers ever, but just short of Hall worthy to me. I really would want to vote for Murphy as he was a classy player but he just doesn't scream HoFer at me. That leaves Albert Belle. A world class JERK off the field but man could he rake. He was one of the few guys I would make sure to go see play whenever he was in the same town I was in. Like him or not I loved to watch him hit so he gets my imaginary 10th vote.
Hal Morris gets sentimental consideration from me since his father was my (as well as 5 of my brothers) Pediatrician as a kid and logged in many hours stitching us up and putting casts on our broken bones. I always thought Hal's younger brother would be a better player but injuries certailed his career.
JoeCub - January 1, 2006 04:42 PM (GMT)
You may now vote for up to 10 players that you believe should be inducted. You do not have toi vote for that mamy if you don't believe 10 are worthy of the honor.
Camus2Kerouac - January 3, 2006 05:37 AM (GMT)
To all, Ok, who voted for Gary? Art perhaps? ;) Best regards, Cle
Camus2Kerouac - January 13, 2006 06:44 AM (GMT)
Snubbed Gossage rips Hall of Fame voters
Fox Sports
Former closer Rich "Goose" Gossage isn't too happy that he failed to win election into baseball's Hall of Fame, according to a report in the New York Post.
Gossage received 336 votes, which is short of the 390 needed for election. The former right-hander finished behind fellow closer Bruce Sutter, who won election by getting 400 votes, and former slugger Jim Rice who got 337 votes.
"I just don't get it," a frustrated Gossage told The Post from Colorado on Tuesday. "I'm at a loss for words."
Gossage, a former Yankees' fireballer, seems angry that he failed to get into the Hall of Fame despite the fact that he has, among other things, more career saves, victories, and strikeouts (948) than Sutter.
"I just can't believe Sutter got in before me," Gossage added."He deserved it. I was hoping Sutter and I could go in together. ... I don't know if I ever will make it."
"You know what, I never hear from these guys who don't vote for me," Gossage said. "But I'll take on any writer, anywhere, on any show, and I will bury him."
Gossage also feels badly for peers such as Rice, Andre Dawson and Bert Blyleven — all of whom were left on the outside looking in.
The "Goose's" feelings concerning Rice's snub were particularly strong as he called it a "joke" that the Twins' Kirby Puckett was elected on the first ballot. Rice meanwhile is now 0-for-12 in Hall entry attempts.
"If Jim Rice had played in the Metrodome, he would have torn the place down, and that's nothing against Kirby Puckett, that's just the way it is," Gossage said.
What's more, Gossage often pitched two or three innings to earn his saves, and he says comparing him to current closers such as Trevor Hoffman or Mariano Rivera is like comparing apples to oranges.
"The job is so easy because they're only pitching one inning," Gossage said. "Writers have forgotten how the role has changed."
And don't get him started on Barry Bonds and other allegedly drug-enhanced sluggers we watch now.
"Hitting in a game is no different than hitting in a home run contest," Gossage said. "It [ticks] me off to say Barry Bonds is the greatest hitter. He's playing in a wussy era. The game is soft. You never get thrown at today. Last thing a hitter has to worry about today is getting hit. The first thing Hank Aaron had to worry about is: Am I going to survive this at-bat because I'm black."
_________________________________________________________________________
Really, Bruce Sutter
The Hardball Times
By Aaron Gleeman
When I first began writing about baseball for an audience several years ago, I frequently got worked up about the way "real" baseball writers voted for things. From yearly awards like the MVP or Cy Young to career honors like the Hall of Fame, how various members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America cast their ballots often confused me and occasionally infuriated me. For better or worse, somewhere along the line I came to realize that it was easier to stop caring than it was to get upset several times each year about things over which I have no control.
Along those lines, I was not shocked to see that in electing just one player to the Hall of Fame yesterday, the BBWAA chose someone who is undeserving. Bruce Sutter was an excellent player, and at his peak one of the elite pitchers in baseball. He is not, however, a Hall of Famer in any sense that hopes to have the honor remain meaningful throughout history. His resume not only fails to compare to guys who didn't make the BBWAA's cut, like Bert Blyleven and Alan Trammell, but it fails to compare to another closer from the '70s and '80s on the ballot: Goose Gossage.
Sutter's career stats include a 2.83 ERA and 300 saves, which look extremely good when taken without any sort of additional information. However, he pitched for just 12 seasons, only eight of which were good ones, and totaled 1,042 innings of work. There are certainly circumstances in which pitchers can build convincing cases for the Hall of Fame based on 1,000 career innings, but in my opinion Sutter's just isn't one of them. Whether you compare his body of work to a starter's, like Blyleven, or a closer's, like Gossage, the numbers just aren't there:
PL INNPITH ERA SVE WIN LOS WARP RSAA WNS
GG 1,809.1 3.01 310 124 107 83.8 O160 223
BS 1,042.1 2.83 300 O68 O71 54.5 O123 168
Gossage pitched 74% more innings than Sutter while maintaining an ERA that was 6.3% worse, which is staggering. Like Sutter he is a member of the 300-save club, and unlike Sutter he also won more than 100 games during his 22-year career. If Sutter was a more effective pitcher than Gossage it wasn't by much, and Gossage more than made up for any gap by pitching nearly twice as many innings (which is shown above in his superior Wins Above Replacement Player, Runs Saved Above Average and Win Shares totals, for anyone into advanced metrics).
As Joe Sheehan so cleverly put it over at Baseball Prospectus earlier this week, if you subtract Sutter's career totals from Gossage's career totals, you're still left with a guy who pitched 767 innings with a 3.25 ERA. Considering Sutter's entire resume consists of 1,042.1 innings of a 2.83 ERA, that's pretty amazing. That's the apples-to-apples comparison between two closers. Now let's compare Sutter to Blyleven:
PL INNPITH ERA SAV WIN LOS WARP RSAA WS
BB 4,970.1 3.31 000 287 250 140.4 0344 339
BS 1,042.1 2.83 300 068 071 054.5 0123 168
Gossage pitched 74% more innings than Sutter, but Blyleven makes that difference look miniscule. During his 22-year career Blyleven logged a grand total of 4,970.1 innings, which beats Sutter by a startling 3,928 innings or an equally ridiculous 377%. Now, a very compelling case can be made for "closer innings" being more valuable than "starter innings" on a per-inning basis, but we're talking about a gap of nearly 4,000 innings when Sutter's entire career barely lasted over 1,000 frames.
Broken down to the most simplistic terms possible, would you rather have 4,970 innings of a 3.31 ERA or 1,042 innings of a 2.83 ERA? Would you rather have 300 saves and 68 wins or 287 wins? And even if for some reason you chose Sutter's contributions in each of those two questions, you still haven't explained why his resume is better than Gossage's (not to mention Lee Smith's).
As is so often the case when it comes to the opinions expressed by members of the BBWAA, I just don't get it. I don't get why people who presumably should be taking the voting process seriously cast ballots for Walt Weiss, Gregg Jefferies and Hal Morris. I don't get how Rick Aguilera, John Wetteland and Doug Jones combined for nine votes while Sutter received 400. I don't get why Jim Rice has four times as many supporters as Trammell. I don't get how Will Clark and Don Mattingly combined for 50 fewer votes than Steve Garvey.
I don't get why only 53.3% of the voters are able to see past Blyleven being 13 wins short of some silly magic number that wouldn't even begin to describe his greatness anyway. I don't get how a player's chances for the Hall of Fame routinely change dramatically the further away from actually playing he gets, like Sutter's vote total rising annually from a measly 24.3% in 1999 to an election-inducing 76.9% this year.
With each passing year there is more and more about this whole process that I just don't understand. Thankfully, I've stopped trying.
Fox Sports
Former closer Rich "Goose" Gossage isn't too happy that he failed to win election into baseball's Hall of Fame, according to a report in the New York Post.
Gossage received 336 votes, which is short of the 390 needed for election. The former right-hander finished behind fellow closer Bruce Sutter, who won election by getting 400 votes, and former slugger Jim Rice who got 337 votes.
"I just don't get it," a frustrated Gossage told The Post from Colorado on Tuesday. "I'm at a loss for words."
Gossage, a former Yankees' fireballer, seems angry that he failed to get into the Hall of Fame despite the fact that he has, among other things, more career saves, victories, and strikeouts (948) than Sutter.
"I just can't believe Sutter got in before me," Gossage added."He deserved it. I was hoping Sutter and I could go in together. ... I don't know if I ever will make it."
"You know what, I never hear from these guys who don't vote for me," Gossage said. "But I'll take on any writer, anywhere, on any show, and I will bury him."
Gossage also feels badly for peers such as Rice, Andre Dawson and Bert Blyleven — all of whom were left on the outside looking in.
The "Goose's" feelings concerning Rice's snub were particularly strong as he called it a "joke" that the Twins' Kirby Puckett was elected on the first ballot. Rice meanwhile is now 0-for-12 in Hall entry attempts.
"If Jim Rice had played in the Metrodome, he would have torn the place down, and that's nothing against Kirby Puckett, that's just the way it is," Gossage said.
What's more, Gossage often pitched two or three innings to earn his saves, and he says comparing him to current closers such as Trevor Hoffman or Mariano Rivera is like comparing apples to oranges.
"The job is so easy because they're only pitching one inning," Gossage said. "Writers have forgotten how the role has changed."
And don't get him started on Barry Bonds and other allegedly drug-enhanced sluggers we watch now.
"Hitting in a game is no different than hitting in a home run contest," Gossage said. "It [ticks] me off to say Barry Bonds is the greatest hitter. He's playing in a wussy era. The game is soft. You never get thrown at today. Last thing a hitter has to worry about today is getting hit. The first thing Hank Aaron had to worry about is: Am I going to survive this at-bat because I'm black."
_________________________________________________________________________
Really, Bruce Sutter
The Hardball Times
By Aaron Gleeman
When I first began writing about baseball for an audience several years ago, I frequently got worked up about the way "real" baseball writers voted for things. From yearly awards like the MVP or Cy Young to career honors like the Hall of Fame, how various members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America cast their ballots often confused me and occasionally infuriated me. For better or worse, somewhere along the line I came to realize that it was easier to stop caring than it was to get upset several times each year about things over which I have no control.
Along those lines, I was not shocked to see that in electing just one player to the Hall of Fame yesterday, the BBWAA chose someone who is undeserving. Bruce Sutter was an excellent player, and at his peak one of the elite pitchers in baseball. He is not, however, a Hall of Famer in any sense that hopes to have the honor remain meaningful throughout history. His resume not only fails to compare to guys who didn't make the BBWAA's cut, like Bert Blyleven and Alan Trammell, but it fails to compare to another closer from the '70s and '80s on the ballot: Goose Gossage.
Sutter's career stats include a 2.83 ERA and 300 saves, which look extremely good when taken without any sort of additional information. However, he pitched for just 12 seasons, only eight of which were good ones, and totaled 1,042 innings of work. There are certainly circumstances in which pitchers can build convincing cases for the Hall of Fame based on 1,000 career innings, but in my opinion Sutter's just isn't one of them. Whether you compare his body of work to a starter's, like Blyleven, or a closer's, like Gossage, the numbers just aren't there:
PL INNPITH ERA SVE WIN LOS WARP RSAA WNS
GG 1,809.1 3.01 310 124 107 83.8 O160 223
BS 1,042.1 2.83 300 O68 O71 54.5 O123 168
Gossage pitched 74% more innings than Sutter while maintaining an ERA that was 6.3% worse, which is staggering. Like Sutter he is a member of the 300-save club, and unlike Sutter he also won more than 100 games during his 22-year career. If Sutter was a more effective pitcher than Gossage it wasn't by much, and Gossage more than made up for any gap by pitching nearly twice as many innings (which is shown above in his superior Wins Above Replacement Player, Runs Saved Above Average and Win Shares totals, for anyone into advanced metrics).
As Joe Sheehan so cleverly put it over at Baseball Prospectus earlier this week, if you subtract Sutter's career totals from Gossage's career totals, you're still left with a guy who pitched 767 innings with a 3.25 ERA. Considering Sutter's entire resume consists of 1,042.1 innings of a 2.83 ERA, that's pretty amazing. That's the apples-to-apples comparison between two closers. Now let's compare Sutter to Blyleven:
PL INNPITH ERA SAV WIN LOS WARP RSAA WS
BB 4,970.1 3.31 000 287 250 140.4 0344 339
BS 1,042.1 2.83 300 068 071 054.5 0123 168
Gossage pitched 74% more innings than Sutter, but Blyleven makes that difference look miniscule. During his 22-year career Blyleven logged a grand total of 4,970.1 innings, which beats Sutter by a startling 3,928 innings or an equally ridiculous 377%. Now, a very compelling case can be made for "closer innings" being more valuable than "starter innings" on a per-inning basis, but we're talking about a gap of nearly 4,000 innings when Sutter's entire career barely lasted over 1,000 frames.
Broken down to the most simplistic terms possible, would you rather have 4,970 innings of a 3.31 ERA or 1,042 innings of a 2.83 ERA? Would you rather have 300 saves and 68 wins or 287 wins? And even if for some reason you chose Sutter's contributions in each of those two questions, you still haven't explained why his resume is better than Gossage's (not to mention Lee Smith's).
As is so often the case when it comes to the opinions expressed by members of the BBWAA, I just don't get it. I don't get why people who presumably should be taking the voting process seriously cast ballots for Walt Weiss, Gregg Jefferies and Hal Morris. I don't get how Rick Aguilera, John Wetteland and Doug Jones combined for nine votes while Sutter received 400. I don't get why Jim Rice has four times as many supporters as Trammell. I don't get how Will Clark and Don Mattingly combined for 50 fewer votes than Steve Garvey.
I don't get why only 53.3% of the voters are able to see past Blyleven being 13 wins short of some silly magic number that wouldn't even begin to describe his greatness anyway. I don't get how a player's chances for the Hall of Fame routinely change dramatically the further away from actually playing he gets, like Sutter's vote total rising annually from a measly 24.3% in 1999 to an election-inducing 76.9% this year.
With each passing year there is more and more about this whole process that I just don't understand. Thankfully, I've stopped trying.
DrunkenDragon™ - January 13, 2006 07:42 AM (GMT)
Haha, you don't want me to get started on the HOF stuff. There are people in the Hall who don't really belong there, and now there are a few I'd love to see get in, but probably won't.
As a kid I loved Dawson and Will Clark, and I'd love to see them both make it, sooner or later, along with Gossage and some others.
Here's an article I found while surfing that you may find interesting.
http://baseball.about.com/od/halloffamers/a/hoffmistakes.htm
As a kid I loved Dawson and Will Clark, and I'd love to see them both make it, sooner or later, along with Gossage and some others.
Here's an article I found while surfing that you may find interesting.
http://baseball.about.com/od/halloffamers/a/hoffmistakes.htm
JoeCub - January 13, 2006 04:55 PM (GMT)
The Hall of Fame will always be a sham as long as Brooks Robinson is in and Ron Santo is not! Not that Robinson doesn't belong but no way does he deserve ir more than Santo. East Coast bias at its best.
Camus2Kerouac - January 13, 2006 06:25 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (JoeCub @ Jan 13 2006, 12:55 PM) |
| The Hall of Fame will always be a sham as long as Brooks Robinson is in and Ron Santo is not! Not that Robinson doesn't belong but no way does he deserve ir more than Santo. East Coast bias at its best. |
Dear Joe, If Ronnie had a World Series ring, he would have been inducted long ago. For some reason, that factor hold way too much weight. With the present ownership, it might well never happen. Best regards, Cle
Camus2Kerouac - January 14, 2006 06:07 AM (GMT)
Sutter's Mill-Stone:
Herman Franks's Fallacious Fable
Management by Baseball
In the U.S., individuals' childhood life issues too often become pillars of their management practice. Some people are programmed to feel "it's not fair", and if they are proactive, that urge may drive them to try to right wrongs. In the more passive type personalities, that urge frequently drives them to sit on the sidelines and wait for some unfairness to happen, at which point they will point it out or complain or whine about it. Because these people believe cognitively that life is unfair/bad, when they hear info that asserts something unfair happened, they are likely to jump on it because it fits their world view. Sometimes in that particular case that view is false, unsupported by the data or other forms of reality, and since, more often than not, their complaints are supported by data, they don't even bother to check to see if the "news" is true.
This week something happened that was a perfect illustration of the "it's not fair" chorus singing off-key.
Bruce Sutter was elected to Baseball's Hall of Fame. Worse, a better candidate, Rich Gossage, wasn't, falling short again. Amplifying the it's-not-fairness of the whole situation is that at least one person with a vote suggested he's always opposed Gossage but now that Sutter was in, he'd vote for Gossage, which is akin to saying "I've always opposed the froth-at-the-mouth Talibaptist maniacs in Iran, but now that our ally in Baghdad is supporting them, I will, too".
A fair number of people have railed against the Sutter installation citing the apocryphal story spread by Cub ex-manager Herman Franks that:
1. Franks had developed the method of using Sutter only with a lead and only for an inning.
2. In earlier seasons, Sutter had failed in the second halves of seasons, probably from overuse, and Franks learned to reserve/preserve the reliever for fewer, more important, situations.
3. Sutter had therefore been the precursor to the classic "Clean 9th" closer (term mine), coming into games almost exclusively in a save situation, almost exclusively at the beginning of the 9th inning.
There's at least one problem worth noting. Franks' story is false on all three counts.
That apocryphal story is believed by many for good reason. Bill James cites the story in his fine Bill James Guide to Baseball Managers. Paul Votano reinforces it in his book Late and Close: A History of Relief Pitching. In the discussion around Sutter HoF candidacy and his success, many commentators, including my own favorite, Steven Goldman of YES Network, have taken Franks' comments as frank. A small handful support Franks and therefore Sutter (perhaps that really they support Sutter and therefore Franks) while most oppose Sutter cite Franks' alleged invention as an abomination and, therefore, oppose Sutter's induction. Sutter is seen as some fragile couple-of-batters trust fund kid who had decent stuff but lucked into a cushy job.
These kind of problems occur beyond baseball all the time. People hitch their energy to a story, either to support its moral or oppose it, even when the story is a gilded telling of something untrue, or once-true-now-passé. Detaching them from that emotionally-triggered, behavior-shaping story is harder than getting a $2 microbrew at a major league ballpark.
FACT: Franks never used Sutter in a lead situation in a Clean 9th half or more of the time.
Franks managed Sutter in Chicago from 1977-1979. If this evolutionary innovation story was true, the actual pitching lines for their final year together would reflect this. It doesn't.
Franks was just as likely to use Sutter for more than an inning as an inning or less. The mode average use was 2 innings, the median 1-2/3. Sutter pitched 5 innings once. Bruce Sutter wasn't the Woman of Kleenex, (repoz...you must read that link) the foil to Goose Gossage's Man of Steel. He wasn't Gossage, but neither was he Tony Fossas.
Sutter's effectiveness and swell career stats are not a function of being coddled. In his last serious season of use, closing for Whitey Herzog's 1984 St. Louis Cardinals.
Median and mode average for appearance length was 2 innings. If anything, it's possible that he could have had a longer successful career if Herzog hadn't gotten him into 71 games where he notched 122 innings (and I don't know how many times Herzog warmed him up without putting him in a game once warmed).
Someone with better Retrosheet tools who wanted to could build a chart like this for every season Sutter labored, but a quick glance says the others would show a pattern similar to 1979. Sutter was simply not a Clean 9th, quick-in-quick-out guy. Others invented that rôle -- not Franks with Sutter.
FACT: The stats don't indicate Sutter wore down in the second half of his seasons with Franks..except for the last season in which Franks alleged he was using him differently.
In 1977, Sutter was flat out fantastic. July and August were brilliant, and even if you pour his crappy October game into September and he still has a Baserunner/9 of 11.2 and an ERA under 3.00.
In 1978, he was truly fine in July and truly poor in both August and September. Franks didn't throw Sutter out there any less. This one season is where he flagged in August and never perked up.
In 1979, the year Franks allegedly managed him for lesser first half use to preserve the reliever, Sutter didn't show up until after the 11th game of the season. In April, Franks used him less than he had the year before (over 11 fewer games, so perhaps no different per game), in May he actually used him more inninings and the same number of games as he had in '78, and then in June, the same number of games and innings both. In the second half of 1979, he used Sutter in more games and more innings than he had in the "lesson learned" 1978.
It's clear that in terms of games, total innings, or length of appearance, Franks never markedly altered his use of Sutter. And again, Sutter was not the poster boy for the "Clean 9th" closer. Sutter has become a lightning rod for the "it's not fair" folk -- the actual career has been distorted by the untrue (probably not malicious, just not verified) claims of a manager, the fact that bullpen use has been dis-optimized by lazy managers and players seeking comfort in highly prescribed rôles, the pursuit of a univerally-accepted as goofy statistic, the save, and finally, the idea that somehow he's being held up to Rich Gossage as an either/or Ahura Mazda Less-Filling-Tastes-Great duality totem on which to beat 5/9ths time. Ridiculous.
I have a research paper on what I believe to be the actual origin of the Clean 9th closer. I'll run that in some form in a different forum later.
BEYOND BASEBALL
The same sort of story distorts non-baseball organizations regularly.
A friend of mine was working with a software company that had their main product upgraded annually, always near the beginning of each year. Technical support demand always went up temporarily as a result. The people who worked in techncial support were going nuts, because even though the company knew they were going to have this predictable demand surge every year, they wouldn't hire temps to sub for people who could do support or hire temp support agents. Morale was rock-bottom in support and in customer service (the people who got to hear the customers complain).
Management wouldn't try to hire any temp help. The "reason", actually a creation myth, was that because the software company had a contract to develop custom add-ons for their main product specifically for a customer that was a defense contractor, that everyone working in the company was required to have a security clearance, and because it routinely took about four months to get one, it was not feasible for the company to hire any temporary staff. Everyone thought this was terribly unfair, one of those insurmountable problems, like Soviet Communism or the IMF that even though everyone knew it was a terrible abusive failure, we somehow just had to learn to live with and say "it's not fair" whenever we thought about it or talked about it.
My friend was skeptical, so he started nosing around trying to find where this draconian regulation was invented. Not, certainly, but the Defense Department. I got to collaborate with my friend on searching out the citation. Here's what we found.
The human resources department had hired an expensive contractor to research what security requirements they needed to apply and to whom once they started developing for the weapons customer. The contractor had called someone at the customer's legal department. The client's paralegal stated a truth, that everyone who worked at the weapons customer had to have a clearance. The contractor took that back to our company as a requirement. They instituted it, and it sat unquestioned for four years.
There was so much instituional inertia and fear of letting this unfairness go ("what if they make the rule that we have to but we've already changed it?") that it took two more years and untold dollars and customer ill-will before they actually changed the requirement.
People who see the world through "it's not fair", if they're passive, can come close to sabotaging the very fairness they crave. The best start to changing that is examining the basis for the unfairness, never with the assumption that it's an insurmountable given, that the story of why it has to be is true, but asking the skeptical questions and following up until, like a good historian or ethnographer, you know enough of the truth to accept or spike the story.
Don't let you cognitive setting affect the way you make decisions or view others. There's plenty of unfairness out there, just not as much as people are programmed to see.
Herman Franks's Fallacious Fable
Management by Baseball
In the U.S., individuals' childhood life issues too often become pillars of their management practice. Some people are programmed to feel "it's not fair", and if they are proactive, that urge may drive them to try to right wrongs. In the more passive type personalities, that urge frequently drives them to sit on the sidelines and wait for some unfairness to happen, at which point they will point it out or complain or whine about it. Because these people believe cognitively that life is unfair/bad, when they hear info that asserts something unfair happened, they are likely to jump on it because it fits their world view. Sometimes in that particular case that view is false, unsupported by the data or other forms of reality, and since, more often than not, their complaints are supported by data, they don't even bother to check to see if the "news" is true.
This week something happened that was a perfect illustration of the "it's not fair" chorus singing off-key.
Bruce Sutter was elected to Baseball's Hall of Fame. Worse, a better candidate, Rich Gossage, wasn't, falling short again. Amplifying the it's-not-fairness of the whole situation is that at least one person with a vote suggested he's always opposed Gossage but now that Sutter was in, he'd vote for Gossage, which is akin to saying "I've always opposed the froth-at-the-mouth Talibaptist maniacs in Iran, but now that our ally in Baghdad is supporting them, I will, too".
A fair number of people have railed against the Sutter installation citing the apocryphal story spread by Cub ex-manager Herman Franks that:
1. Franks had developed the method of using Sutter only with a lead and only for an inning.
2. In earlier seasons, Sutter had failed in the second halves of seasons, probably from overuse, and Franks learned to reserve/preserve the reliever for fewer, more important, situations.
3. Sutter had therefore been the precursor to the classic "Clean 9th" closer (term mine), coming into games almost exclusively in a save situation, almost exclusively at the beginning of the 9th inning.
There's at least one problem worth noting. Franks' story is false on all three counts.
That apocryphal story is believed by many for good reason. Bill James cites the story in his fine Bill James Guide to Baseball Managers. Paul Votano reinforces it in his book Late and Close: A History of Relief Pitching. In the discussion around Sutter HoF candidacy and his success, many commentators, including my own favorite, Steven Goldman of YES Network, have taken Franks' comments as frank. A small handful support Franks and therefore Sutter (perhaps that really they support Sutter and therefore Franks) while most oppose Sutter cite Franks' alleged invention as an abomination and, therefore, oppose Sutter's induction. Sutter is seen as some fragile couple-of-batters trust fund kid who had decent stuff but lucked into a cushy job.
These kind of problems occur beyond baseball all the time. People hitch their energy to a story, either to support its moral or oppose it, even when the story is a gilded telling of something untrue, or once-true-now-passé. Detaching them from that emotionally-triggered, behavior-shaping story is harder than getting a $2 microbrew at a major league ballpark.
FACT: Franks never used Sutter in a lead situation in a Clean 9th half or more of the time.
Franks managed Sutter in Chicago from 1977-1979. If this evolutionary innovation story was true, the actual pitching lines for their final year together would reflect this. It doesn't.
Franks was just as likely to use Sutter for more than an inning as an inning or less. The mode average use was 2 innings, the median 1-2/3. Sutter pitched 5 innings once. Bruce Sutter wasn't the Woman of Kleenex, (repoz...you must read that link) the foil to Goose Gossage's Man of Steel. He wasn't Gossage, but neither was he Tony Fossas.
Sutter's effectiveness and swell career stats are not a function of being coddled. In his last serious season of use, closing for Whitey Herzog's 1984 St. Louis Cardinals.
Median and mode average for appearance length was 2 innings. If anything, it's possible that he could have had a longer successful career if Herzog hadn't gotten him into 71 games where he notched 122 innings (and I don't know how many times Herzog warmed him up without putting him in a game once warmed).
Someone with better Retrosheet tools who wanted to could build a chart like this for every season Sutter labored, but a quick glance says the others would show a pattern similar to 1979. Sutter was simply not a Clean 9th, quick-in-quick-out guy. Others invented that rôle -- not Franks with Sutter.
FACT: The stats don't indicate Sutter wore down in the second half of his seasons with Franks..except for the last season in which Franks alleged he was using him differently.
In 1977, Sutter was flat out fantastic. July and August were brilliant, and even if you pour his crappy October game into September and he still has a Baserunner/9 of 11.2 and an ERA under 3.00.
In 1978, he was truly fine in July and truly poor in both August and September. Franks didn't throw Sutter out there any less. This one season is where he flagged in August and never perked up.
In 1979, the year Franks allegedly managed him for lesser first half use to preserve the reliever, Sutter didn't show up until after the 11th game of the season. In April, Franks used him less than he had the year before (over 11 fewer games, so perhaps no different per game), in May he actually used him more inninings and the same number of games as he had in '78, and then in June, the same number of games and innings both. In the second half of 1979, he used Sutter in more games and more innings than he had in the "lesson learned" 1978.
It's clear that in terms of games, total innings, or length of appearance, Franks never markedly altered his use of Sutter. And again, Sutter was not the poster boy for the "Clean 9th" closer. Sutter has become a lightning rod for the "it's not fair" folk -- the actual career has been distorted by the untrue (probably not malicious, just not verified) claims of a manager, the fact that bullpen use has been dis-optimized by lazy managers and players seeking comfort in highly prescribed rôles, the pursuit of a univerally-accepted as goofy statistic, the save, and finally, the idea that somehow he's being held up to Rich Gossage as an either/or Ahura Mazda Less-Filling-Tastes-Great duality totem on which to beat 5/9ths time. Ridiculous.
I have a research paper on what I believe to be the actual origin of the Clean 9th closer. I'll run that in some form in a different forum later.
BEYOND BASEBALL
The same sort of story distorts non-baseball organizations regularly.
A friend of mine was working with a software company that had their main product upgraded annually, always near the beginning of each year. Technical support demand always went up temporarily as a result. The people who worked in techncial support were going nuts, because even though the company knew they were going to have this predictable demand surge every year, they wouldn't hire temps to sub for people who could do support or hire temp support agents. Morale was rock-bottom in support and in customer service (the people who got to hear the customers complain).
Management wouldn't try to hire any temp help. The "reason", actually a creation myth, was that because the software company had a contract to develop custom add-ons for their main product specifically for a customer that was a defense contractor, that everyone working in the company was required to have a security clearance, and because it routinely took about four months to get one, it was not feasible for the company to hire any temporary staff. Everyone thought this was terribly unfair, one of those insurmountable problems, like Soviet Communism or the IMF that even though everyone knew it was a terrible abusive failure, we somehow just had to learn to live with and say "it's not fair" whenever we thought about it or talked about it.
My friend was skeptical, so he started nosing around trying to find where this draconian regulation was invented. Not, certainly, but the Defense Department. I got to collaborate with my friend on searching out the citation. Here's what we found.
The human resources department had hired an expensive contractor to research what security requirements they needed to apply and to whom once they started developing for the weapons customer. The contractor had called someone at the customer's legal department. The client's paralegal stated a truth, that everyone who worked at the weapons customer had to have a clearance. The contractor took that back to our company as a requirement. They instituted it, and it sat unquestioned for four years.
There was so much instituional inertia and fear of letting this unfairness go ("what if they make the rule that we have to but we've already changed it?") that it took two more years and untold dollars and customer ill-will before they actually changed the requirement.
People who see the world through "it's not fair", if they're passive, can come close to sabotaging the very fairness they crave. The best start to changing that is examining the basis for the unfairness, never with the assumption that it's an insurmountable given, that the story of why it has to be is true, but asking the skeptical questions and following up until, like a good historian or ethnographer, you know enough of the truth to accept or spike the story.
Don't let you cognitive setting affect the way you make decisions or view others. There's plenty of unfairness out there, just not as much as people are programmed to see.