Relievers and the HOF

[Skip]

In the 2003 BBWAA HOF thread, the question of relievers came up. I mentioned that I thought Goose and probably Eck might be the only two relievers/closers elected by the BBWAA as the pendulum seems to be backswinging already on the value/importance specifically of the closer. Thought it was worth its own discussion given the number of well known relievers either now eligible or active - i.e. Smith, Goose, Quiz, Sutter, Eck, Hoffman, Rivera, Franco, Smoltz(? :) ), etc.

As this is about baseball's future past, I'll put it here in History unless otherwise notified.

[JamesI]

The very best closers are still hall worthy. I said in the 2003 Hall thread who I felt would get in, so I won't repeat myself here. But a truely dominant closer, someone so good any team would want them, should be in the Hall. Not many are this good.

[Skip]

BTW - before you smartypants join in, I realize that Eck has credentials outside of being a closer. That doesn't affect the basic argument though. Should a primarily reliever/closer get in? Should a guy today who is dominant for 10+ years as a closer, but doesn't get 1000 total innings, be elected?

I'm actually sort of opinionless here, so am looking forward to what people think.

[SmedIndy]

The question is really how much closers ADD to a team. How many wins do Nen or Hoffman add that Tim Worrell doesn't add?

Guys like Goose and Sutter pitched more innings, when the heat was on - 7th through 9th when the game was on the line, down 1, tied, up one, whatever.

I always though Gene Nelson (87 through 90 vintage) could have done what Eck did to a certain degree, but maybe not a pretty as Eck did, which is why Lee Smith (king of the ugly save) may not get a lot of love.

[Duque]

The question arises from James's point - we all know that closers have fairly short shelf lives, so how long must they be truly dominant before they merit enshrinement?

Guys like Rob Dibble or Mark Wohlers have a couple of years where they're the best in the business - and then burn out soon after. In their prime, I might take a Wohlers, or Billy Wagner in '99, over a Lee Smith, who was consistent but rarely excellent. But in the long term, Smith might be the more stable pick.

Meanwhile, guys who were both consistent and excellent, like Tom Henke or John Wetteland, are given little attention, probably because they weren't consistent and excellent enough.

[JamesI]

Here's a question, what about Orosco? He was never a closer, but he's been good for a long time?

[Skip]

I guess some additional relevant questions are:

1. Is a few year run as a dominant closer more significant than that of another player (e.g. George Foster)?

2. For those who complain about pitcher v. everyday players in MVP type votes, how do you feel about everyday allday players v. starting pitchers v. nearly everyday but just a few (or one) innings pitchers?

3. How important are these predefined roles of setup, closer, etc. and what should it take for people in these roles to gain entry to the HOF?

4. Will the BBWAA agree with whatever 'we' come up with to the point that they'll ever elect these guys? Or, are they more likely to be looser, and elect more of them than we would?

[Duque]

Originally posted by Skip
Should a primarily reliever/closer get in? Should a guy today who is dominant for 10+ years as a closer, but doesn't get 1000 total innings, be elected?


Just offhand, I would only pick a guy who was utterly dominant for at least five years, and for the rest of his career was solidly above average. Adding on to my first post, I think for relievers/closers, being unbeatable for a period of time is more important than being pretty good for a long time, as long as that first period of time isn't just 2 or 3 years.

e.g. - Mariano Rivera, in his full seasons, has had ERA+s of 242, 235, 235, 246, 178, 191, and 160. Those first four seasons ('96-'99), I would argue he was the most consistently dominant reliever in the league, and you can make a solid argument the following seasons weren't too shabby either. If he were to finish out his career with a string of 120/130 ERA+s, I'd put him in the Hall.

Conversely, Trevor Hoffman, in his full seasons as a reliever, has posted ERA+s of 107, 161, 104, 178, 146, 258, 205, 143, 117, and 140. At his peak he was Rivera's equal, but it wasn't as long as Rivera's peak. I'm not sure if I'd send him to the Hall yet.

[JamesI]

Originally posted by Skip
I guess some additional relevant questions are:

1. Is a few year run as a dominant closer more significant than that of another player (e.g. George Foster)?

2. For those who complain about pitcher v. everyday players in MVP type votes, how do you feel about everyday allday players v. starting pitchers v. nearly everyday but just a few (or one) innings pitchers?

3. How important are these predefined roles of setup, closer, etc. and what should it take for people in these roles to gain entry to the HOF?

4. Will the BBWAA agree with whatever 'we' come up with to the point that they'll ever elect these guys? Or, are they more likely to be looser, and elect more of them than we would?

1) No
2) A 1 inning pitcher, even if they pitch nearly every day, is not as valuable as a starter.
3) The roles are meaningless, or should be. Let the best pitcher pitch when you need them. As for the Hall, they should look at overall quality. If some the coaches and media have classified a setup guy is dominant in the 7th and 8th inning all the time, they may be worthy.
4) They will either never elect them other than a few token ones (Fingers, Eck) or they'll let them all in and we'll have a crowbar party.

[Max Power]

GAMES FINISHED >= 500
GAMES >= 800
INNINGS PITCHED >= 1400

RSAA RSAA GF G IP
1 Hoyt Wilhelm 282 651 1070 2253
2 Dennis Eckersley 209 577 1071 3285.2
3 Goose Gossage 159 681 1002 1809.1
4 Kent Tekulve 148 638 1050 1436.1
5 Rollie Fingers 103 709 944 1701.1
6 Gene Garber 102 609 931 1510
7 Tug McGraw 85 541 824 1514.2
8 Lindy McDaniel 75 577 987 2140

If Wilhelm is in, and Fingers is in, you then have to consider Eck, Goose, and Tekulve, no?

No one ever mentioned Kent............

[LeGrandOrange]

Relievers are baseball's special teamers, there will never be a ton of them in the hall but you better believe there's going to be a push for them.

There are only a handful of relievers in history who are worthy of the hall, and oddly enough the majority of them are on the ballot next year. Sutter, Smith, Gossage, and Eckersley all should be in...I will never vote for Sutter but that's not important. I think if you get those guys out of the way, everybody else can follow. The only other closer I would put in should they all not be in would be John Franco, he's a lock for getting in after only a couple ballots, especially if there's East Coast bias. :)

You get those 4 or 5 guys out of the way and you can open the floodgates for every one else. And then you can truly have even more spirited arguments about the legitimateness of a closer being inducted without 1,000 IP.

I still think right now, writers are not going to induct a guy without those kind of innings, this is why Randy Myers will be one-and-done next year despite good reputation and good save totals. If Hoffman falls short of 1,000 IP, this idea may change, but it ain't going to happen anytime soon, Trevor's got a few more years to ring hell's bells.

Hopefully you understood this because I didn't. ;)

[Jim Rice]

My problem isn't so much that there's a new crop of relievers that are finally starting to get some attention. Maybe the BBWAA will figure out the criteria for relievers and finally start to induct some. (Whether that's a good thing or not remains to be seen.) No, my problem is that no one is mentioning the guys who have already had their shot at the Hall ballot, dropped off for lack of support and now aren't mentioned at all. Let's face facts - the value of the Sutters and Smiths of the world isn't that different from the value of Henke, Reardon, Quisenberry, Tekulve, Dave Smith, Sparky Lyle, et al. Usage has certainly added to some of the more gaudy career numbers, but I don't see much difference in actual value. Yet the only reliever who even made the final 26 of the Veteran's ballot was Mike Marshall. Why him? What difference is there between Marshall and Gene Garber? Or Roy Face? Or Tug McGraw? Or Clay Carroll for that matter? It's pretty clear that whoever is determining that ballot doesn't have any better idea about what makes a good reliever than the BBWAA does.

[WiredTiger]

It's so early in the game for the evaluation of relievers. The players who were closers for their whole career are finally starting to retire and be eligible for the HOF. But there isn't a lot history there and there aren't a lot of former players to compare them to.

Part of what makes the baseball statistics so relevant is that there are ways to compare players of different playing times. With this first group of closers we really don't have a lot of statistical history to compare it to.

I don't have a problem with the HOF taking it slow with the relievers. I would like to see how guys like Hoffman and Rivera progress before putting Lee Smith in the HOF. We may find that Smith was an exceptional talent but we also may find that he was just the right man at the right time.

Off-topic side note: Lee Smith had to be one of the most fan friendly players I have seen. I saw him in two stadiums stand in the OF and throw baseballs into the stands before the game.

[SmedIndy]

I think there's still a stigma about relievers, much like there was a stigma about third basemen.

Way too often in the past the bullpen was perceived as the place for the has-beens, never weres, or green rookies. Now, as we all know, it's a vital piece of the game.

There has to be a happy medium somewhere, where we can recognize guys like Goose in HOF but keep out guys who accumulate saves that don't mean much. Will we ever get there? Maybe in 20 years.

[LeGrandOrange]

He was tossing them softly into the OF, I hope...:)

To answer Jim, Marshall was picked because, first of all, Garber and McGraw weren't eligible. He's picked over Roy and Clay because for about 5 or 6 years he was the single most impressive relief pitcher in major league baseball. Probably an overstatement, but when you throw 208 1/3 innings IN RELIEF during a season...a person like me can make such grandios claims, I mean that's just an unbelievable accomplishment, and the 106 games thing is even more impressive.

He's also on the final ballot because he was the best reliever on the initial ballot. Fred Marberry and Lindy McDaniel fans will argue as well as Face's groupies, but Marshall was the best relief pitcher that was eligible.
I'm not going to advocate his selection, because I have too many other guys that I'm advocating to begin with, but if the VC wants to put a reliever in they've picked the most capable guy...

Or something. I need to go find the train of thought that derailed while typing this...

[KCBOOMER]

I just have trouble pulling the trigger on voting for a reliever for the HoF. I do go back to the era when being a reliever was a sign someone not good enough to start so I certainly have a cultural bias.

I just can't put a guy in the HoF who didn't pitch 2000 innings. Even Eck, who pitched 3300 innings) really had less than 1000 innings as a reliever.

[sweaver]

This is interesting territory, the first time in many years that Hall voters will actually be blazing a new trail. So far, they have been reluctant to admit anybody. Rollie Fingers is the only real career reliever in so far, because while Hoyt Wilhelm was mostly a reliever, he was also a successful starter for a few years.

If the voters decide to set the bar of worthiness at Rollie Fingers, there are several relief pitchers who deserve to go in. Gossage, Quisenberry, and Trevor Hoffman would be good examples. Success sustained over a long period of time, and a measure of consistency. This as opposed to Mike Marshall, who had a very high peak, but burned out quite quickly due to back problems, in spite of his kinesiology background.

The voters have so far been reluctant to set any kind of standard, by refusing to elect any more relievers. Maybe Fingers got in just because of "Fame" and his connection to the 1970s A's.

[LeGrandOrange]

Marshall is the best VC reliever, but he's far down the proverbial totem pole in guys I'd put in. Although keep in mind with Marshall that his peak was Himalayan. :) You'd have to get like another dozen or more in before you consider him.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
I just have trouble pulling the trigger on voting for a reliever for the HoF. I do go back to the era when being a reliever was a sign someone not good enough to start so I certainly have a cultural bias.

I just can't put a guy in the HoF who didn't pitch 2000 innings. Even Eck, who pitched 3300 innings) really had less than 1000 innings as a reliever.

This is essentially my thinking.

Selecting a reliever for the HOF is a subjective thing. I suppose there are relievers that were SO great that their induction appears obvious.

As for me, I was surprised when Hoyt Wilhelm was inducted. I never thought of him as a great player growing up. A good player, and one of my favorites, but never a HOFer. Yet, there he is.

Why Gossage, for example, and not Sparky Lyle? Lyle had about as long of a period of greatness, and he won a Cy Young Award; the first AL reliever to do so. Why Eck, and not Allie Reynolds? One of the hallmarks of the Super Chief's career was that he could both start and relieve. Why Sutter and not Tug McGraw, who had a much longer career, and whose 1971 season was, IMO, as good as Sutter's Cy Young season, except that McGraw got more wins and fewer saves because he was often called into the game not in the 9th inning, but when the Mets were in danger of losing a lead (the time for a fireman to come in).

Relievers should be selected in the same manner that managers are (or should be) selected:

(A) Subjectively

(B) Occasionally (very occationally, IMO)

[TimmyB]

I would hate to think that today's pumped-up garbage stats for relievers are having an adverse effect on the the first great wave of real relievers of the '70s and '80s (much like today's pumped -- and I do mean "pumped-up" -- power stats may be having an adverse affect on the sluggers of the '70s and '80s whose numbers now look somewhat pedestrian).

I am certain that Bruce Sutters 30 some-odd saves meant more in a season than Ugie Urbina's 40+ saves in most any season.

Yes, these guys are baseball's special-teamers, but, like anything, we have to let the cream rise. The BBWAA don't seem to be willing to acknowledge some true greats vs. all the other merley good ones.

To address gyb's questions:
1. NO

2. (I don't complain about pitchers vs. everyday players in MVP votes, BTW). Domination and excellence is the answer. If a starting pitcher goes 24-4 with 1.87 ERA, that's dominance, and certainly should at least get equal consideration for the MVP award vs. Joe Slugger (IMHO). So, for relievers, it's the same thing -- what Gossage, Wilhelm, Eck, Fingers, etc. did was outstanding and can be considered alongside starters. Give them a look.

3. I don't see a setup man ever making it into the hall. Mike Stanton is a great set-up man, but the innings just don't add up. Set-up man < DH. Modern-day pampered closer = DH. It will take prolonged excellence for closers. Maybe 7+ years of absolute dominance. No "I was the best for 3 straight seasons" stuff.

4. They'll probably elect fewer. I can see the VC righting some wrongs down the road.

[gyb13]

Originally posted by TimmyB
To address gyb's questions you mean skIp

[TimmyB]

Originally posted by gyb13
you mean skIp

:dizzy:

Oops... who's on first?!?

[pwdennis]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear
This is essentially my thinking.

Selecting a reliever for the HOF is a subjective thing. I suppose there are relievers that were SO great that their induction appears obvious.

As for me, I was surprised when Hoyt Wilhelm was inducted. I never thought of him as a great player growing up. A good player, and one of my favorites, but never a HOFer. Yet, there he is.



I must admit that this comment really surprises me. As a person who saw an old Wilhelm pitch a number of times over a six year period, he consistantly was impossible for anyone to hit.

Check some of those ERAs - they are astounding. Watch old game films, even Ted Williams looked really bad hitting against Wilhelm.

Toward the very end of his career, when he got too fat and rickety to field his position adequately so that teams started bunting on him. Prior to that, he was the one man in baseball, more so than even Koufax, that over an extended period of time, no one could hit against. If that isn't the very definition of a hall of famer, then I don't know what is.

[ChicagoDave]

I have put a little spreadsheet together. I'm not going to comment on the numbers. Just want to show some comparisions.

Click Here for the PDF version of the spreadsheet on Relief Pitchers (http://www.thc.to/baseball/Relief%20Pitchers.pdf)

For Ecks, I only used his Closer Years 1987 - 1998

[gyb13]

please do comment, because the comparisons don't say anything about how relievers should be treated by the HoF.

[ChicagoDave]

Okay lets take a look at IP/GF.

Past Closers
Goose Gossage 2.7 innings per game finished
Rollie Fingers 2.4 (HOF)
Bruce Sutter 2.0
Dan Quisenberry 1.9

Current Closers
Trevor Hoffman 1.3
Dennis Eckersley 1.4
Lee Smith 1.6

The past closers worked harder for their saves. Rollie Fingers numbers would imply he came into the game most of the time with at least 2 outs in the 7th. Goose Gossage with about 1 out in the 7th. Bruce Sutter to start the 8th and the same with Dan Quisenberry.

Current Day Closers like Trevor Hoffman come in with 2 out in the eight or to start the ninth. Eck and Lee Smith the same thing.

When I compare all of the PCT. fields and use Rollie Fingers as the HOF standard, I have to put Goose Gossage, Bruce Sutter, and Dan Quisenberry in the HOF. I think Eck should also be in because of his overall pitching record as a starter and closer.

[Max Power]

Didn't Gossage and Fingers start a number of games as well?

[Jim Rice]

Originally posted by Max Power
Didn't Gossage and Fingers start a number of games as well?

They each started 37 - essentially one year as a full-time or half-time starter, plus a few other starts sprinkled into their early careers. So each probably had 250 innings or so that should be excluded when reviewing strictly their relief work.

[gyb13]

right, it should be IP in (G-GS) / GF

but why use GF? there were situations in which other relievers may have entered the game after.

[ChicagoDave]

gyb

Yes, a reliever may have come in after but then the previous reliever wouldn't have been credited with finishing the game, so the reason for using GF.

[gyb13]

sure, but we're evaluating a relief pitcher, not a game-finisher

[WiredTiger]

Originally posted by ChicagoDave

When I compare all of the PCT. fields and use Rollie Fingers as the HOF standard, I have to put Goose Gossage, Bruce Sutter, and Dan Quisenberry in the HOF. I think Eck should also be in because of his overall pitching record as a starter and closer.

I think it is a slippery slope to go solely by innings pitched per game finished. It inordinately punishes modern day closers who don't have much say in how many innings that they pitch. It may be useful in being able to compare the number of saves over different time periods. We may need a stat like GSAA (Games Saved above average)?

[ChicagoDave]

Originally posted by gyb13
sure, but we're evaluating a relief pitcher, not a game-finisher

For me, I am evaluating Closers.

[ChicagoDave]

Originally posted by WiredTiger
I think it is a slippery slope to go solely by innings pitched per game finished. It inordinately punishes modern day closers who don't have much say in how many innings that they pitch. It may be useful in being able to compare the number of saves over different time periods. We may need a stat like GSAA (Games Saved above average)?

If does punish them, but it also shows how tough the closers were in the 70's.

Today's Closers don't have much to say about how many innings they pitch, but it does show us that they don't have to face as many batters as previous closers. Goose was facing many more batters than Hoffman does today.

I think a stat like GSAA would be great. Evaluating Closers is such a diffecult task.

[ChicagoDave]

I wish I had the stats for Blown Saves. From years of watching Lee Smith, I'm sure he would have plenty of 'em.

[Skip]

It sounds like we're even further stratifying the conversation to separate closers and other relievers. Perhaps that's inevitable, but good grief. We seem no more able to come up with standards for relievers than the BBWAA has.

The more we compartmentalize, the more unqualified players are elected simply because they are the greatest throws right, bats left, pinch-hitting, American League, shortstop/CF, player-manager, balk-inducing player of all time.

[TimmyB]

Originally posted by Skip
It sounds like we're even further stratifying the conversation to separate closers and other relievers. Perhaps that's inevitable, but good grief. We seem no more able to come up with standards for relievers than the BBWAA has.

The more we compartmentalize, the more unqualified players are elected simply because they are the greatest throws right, bats left, pinch-hitting, American League, shortstop/CF, player-manager, balk-inducing player of all time.

Blame it on LaRussa. (oops, I mean HWSNBN)

I doubt that any reliever other than a closer would ever get as much as a passing glance for HOF consideration. I feel safe in saying we'll never debate which set-up man belongs in the hall.

I agree with CD that relievers in the '70s carried a larger load when they came to pitch and the BBWAA need to acknowledge this.

I also agree with WT that it would be nice to find a better measure for relievers. Any Sox fan will attest to the limited value of a 40+ save player (read: Ugeth Urbina) whose blown saves had a great impact in the mid-season troubles of the team, but who still looked like "WOW! 40 saves!" on paper.

[TimmyB]

This article on ESPN.com deals with a current-day situation, but it seems to touch on many of the issues raised in this thread...

Red Sox going with the closer-by-committee approach (http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/mcadam_sean/1489225.html)

The article starts out as a "lots of guys will be the Red Sox closer" piece, but it covers more ground than just who will pitching the ninth inning for the Olde Towne Team.

[ChicagoDave]

Great Article and yes it does raise some of the same issues that we have covered here. Maybe Sean McAdam is a NetShriner.

[TimmyB]

Originally posted by ChicagoDave
Great Article and yes it does raise some of the same issues that we have covered here. Maybe Sean McAdam is a NetShriner.

Sean? Sean? Are you out there??? :jsmile:

[Max Power]

Originally posted by Jim Rice
They each started 37 - essentially one year as a full-time or half-time starter, plus a few other starts sprinkled into their early careers. So each probably had 250 innings or so that should be excluded when reviewing strictly their relief work.

Agreed. It would change the numbers on Dave's sheet.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by pwdennis
I must admit that this comment really surprises me. As a person who saw an old Wilhelm pitch a number of times over a six year period, he consistantly was impossible for anyone to hit.

Check some of those ERAs - they are astounding. Watch old game films, even Ted Williams looked really bad hitting against Wilhelm.



I'm not saying Hoyt Wilhelm shouldn't be a HOFer. I am 46 years old, now. I remember Wilhelm making the All-Star team in 1970. It was the first time I remeber a reliever on the team.

At no time in my youth do I recall Hoyt Wilhelm discussed as a future HOFer. I remember other players described as such, but not Hoyt. His election took me by surprise, especially in light of the fact that, in my youth, Yogi Berra and Eddie Mathews were NOT 1st ballot choices!

Hoyt Wilhelm was a favorite of mine, but he was not someone I expected to go to Cooperstown. Nowadays, youngsters that know and care about the HOF may expect to see Eck and Trevor Hoffman in the HOF someday; relievers ARE viewed differently now, than in 1970, and the HOF balloting this year clearly reveals it. (I wonder if the support for the relievers in the balloting came disproportionately from the younger writers, by the way.)

I will say that however surprised I initially was at his induction, I am glad that Wilhelm is in the HOF, and I will sacrifice my body to prevent his plaque from being defiled by the Crowbar of Smed! :D

[ChicagoDave]

I have updated the sheet to exclude 250 innings for Gossage and Fingers 37 starts. I started to do the same for others, but decided not to at this time.
Link to the sheet again (http://www.thc.to/baseball/Relief%20Pitchers.pdf)

[gyb13]

you removed 250 games, not 250 innings

[SmedIndy]

I would contend that GF may not be the best tool, either.

I have a rememberance of some of those guys taken out of a game after the fire was out, especially if the lead got comfortable, and Joe Schlub closed the game out.

I could be wrong - but it seems that was the case a few times.

[pwdennis]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
I would contend that GF may not be the best tool, either.

I have a rememberance of some of those guys taken out of a game after the fire was out, especially if the lead got comfortable, and Joe Schlub closed the game out.

I could be wrong - but it seems that was the case a few times.

You're not wrong - in the days when relief aces might pitch multiple innings it was not uncommon to remove the ace if your team erupted for a lot of runs following the fireman's extinguishing the fire - from 1962-1965 Radatz averaged 2 IP per relief appearence and John Wyatt averaged about an inning and a half during the same period (Wyatt had a few starts so my data is not quite as precise for him)

[ChicagoDave]

Originally posted by gyb13
you removed 250 games, not 250 innings

Whoops...I was trying to finish the change and I had my 4 year old daughter Stephanie telling me it was dinner time every 20 seconds. I meant to remove the 37 games from the total games and the 250 innings from the total innings. It is fixed now.

Sorry, any one with little ones can relate.

[Goose]

When it comes to relievers then stats aren't so necessary.

Guys like Gossage and Eckersley were dominant, and that's what I thought this was about.


Did any batter want to see Rich Gossage come out of the bullpen? He was much more dominant than a guy like Mariano Rivera is today, and pitched 2-3 times more innings a year.

I don't believe Eckersley was as good as Gossage, and the role of the closer already changed by that point, but he probably belongs in as well.


I don't need to see either of their stats to determine that. Anyone who saw either of them during their periods of dominance know it.

[WiredTiger]

As a Tiger fan the only thing I remember about Goose is him giving up a long home run to Kirk Gibson in the 1984 series. :D

[poorme]

i remember him from his days with the yanks. he was the man. i also remember him from his days with the cubs. (yikes!)

he's the best reliever not in the hall. he should be in.

[ChicagoDave]

Originally posted by poorme
i remember him from his days with the yanks. he was the man. i also remember him from his days with the cubs. (yikes!)

he's the best reliever not in the hall. he should be in.

I agree that he should be in the hall. If Rollie Fingers is in, Goose should be as well.

I also remember him with the Yanks and with the Cubs. Again, the Cubs signed a great player well after his prime in hopes that there was still some magic in that old baseball cap.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by ChicagoDave
I agree that he should be in the hall. If Rollie Fingers is in, Goose should be as well.

Beware the "slippery slope" argument for HOF induction, ChicagoDave! :D

If Bill Mazeroski is in, why not Frank White?

If Dave Bancroft is in, why not Tony Fernandez?

I simply don't believe that relievers belong in the HOF. Rollie Fingers was a mistake; he was FAMOUS, but not GREAT.

If Rich Gossage, why not Sparky Lyle? If Sparky Lyle, why not Tug McGraw? If Tug McGraw, why not Jeff Reardon? If Jeff Reardon, why not Kent Tekulve.

The truth is that most players similar to Fingers and Gossage are NOT in the HOF.

I simply do not believe that a reliever's career, even a Gossage-Sutter career, equals greatness. I still believe that a reliever is a reliever because he can't start, due to limited pitch selection, endurance, etc. If I can do YOUR job, but you can't do MY job, who's more valuble?