Bruce Sutter vs John Hiller

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Who had the greater career? Who was better? Who was more valuable?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally Posted by Ytown Tribe fan

Who had the greater career? Who was better? Who was more valuable?

John Hiller. Period.

Hiller could start AND relieve.

Hiller was used in a way that made his career more valuable.

Saves cloud the merits of a pitcher, in that they only give value to what a pitcher does in the 9th inning. Electing a pitcher solely on saves to the HOF is like electing Dave Kingman solely on the basis of his 442 jacks.

[KCBOOMER]

I disagree with Fuzzy and think the difference is quite close. Hiller has a better RCAA with 136 to Sutter's 123. That's better but not a lot better. In there five best consecutive years its Hiller 99/96 which is no difference. Their era's are identical and virtually identical against the league. Sutter had a better BR/9 by a full base runner. Their HR ratios relative to the league are very close. Hiller did start 43 games while Sutter started none. Sutter did appear in 100 more games.

Hiller did pitch 20% more innings for his career (1242 to 1042). This is almost certainly attributable to those 43 starts. To me this is the separating factor. Hiller was better but not a lot better.

[LeGrandOrange]

John Hiller's career was greater from a non-statistical standpoint...nearly died from a stroke in 1971, recovered to set the single-season save record in 1973, then had the greatest "vulture" season of all time in 1974. (I mean, a RELIEVER going 17-14...that's just not right. )

I personally find Sutter overrated, but his impact is more profound, what with the split-fingered fastball and all that. He's got the better ERA+ for his career too. But my personal preference is the Canadian...I'm biased towards him.

[stu]

now, is anyone actually paying attention?
john hiller versus bruce sutter?
one made left-handed batters go 'no so much today'
the one other made batters go 'out'.
no, sutter was the dominant pitcher in his three years (in the ML--including jr & ryan) ; hiller was a really good pitcher. but, at best was a really, really good bob stanley.
this comparision could not be possible without really good drugs. really good ones.
if one wanted to make a good analogy, using hiller's 1973-4 numbers, it would be be support theo epstien's belief that a team is best served by using the best available rp, when it is most important, at that game situation. and not worrying about how to preserve a not-yet existant lead in the ninth, when we're facing a tied game, first & third, one out, in the sixth.
lets try to get out of here, even.
in that case, hiller would be a great choice

[Ytown Tribe fan]

No drugs necessary, stu. Not even good ones.

Hiller and Sutter had nearly identical ERA+'s, and Hiller pitched 200 more innings.

Sutter has more saves, but all that means is getting outs in the 9th inning is more important than getting outs in the other innings to some people.

I, for one, don't buy it. A run saved in the 7th inning is every bit as important as a run saved in the 9th.

[Jim Rice]

I voted Sutter, but it was close. Hiller is far underappreciated and Sutter is far overappreciated, but I still give Sutter the nod (barely) because he was a better post-season pitcher and fielded his position much better than Hiller. Their actual regular season pitching numbers are so close that I had to go to tie-breakers.

[WiredTiger]

Great comparison. My first thought was that Sutter was the hands down winner ( I grew up in the era that he was pitching but I only saw Hiller at the end). But after looking at the statistics it looks Hiller was not only Sutter's equal but may have been slightly better.

I think people forget how good Hiller actually was. Sutter has the rep but I think Hiller was slightly superior. Bring him back and put him on the 2003 Red Sox and they would have been WS champs.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally Posted by WiredTiger

Great comparison. My first thought was that Sutter was the hands down winner ( I grew up in the era that he was pitching but I only saw Hiller at the end). But after looking at the statistics it looks Hiller was not only Sutter's equal but may have been slightly better.

I think people forget how good Hiller actually was. Sutter has the rep but I think Hiller was slightly superior. Bring him back and put him on the 2003 Red Sox and they would have been WS champs.

Hiller could also start, and did so in parts of his career.

I am partial to relievers who can start because I think it is more difficult to be a 4th or 5th starter than to be a closer. I think the 5th starter is more valuble to the team.

I also agree with Y'town on the issue of a run saved in the 7th inning being as valuble as a run saved in the 9th. If the "fire" is in the 7th inning, but the "closer" doesn't come in until the 9th, how can we call that closer a "fireman", since the fire was out when he came in to vulture his save?

John Hiller didn't care when he came in the game; he came in to put out the fire. Bruce Sutter wasn't used that way. I think that's a big difference.

[pwdennis]

Hiller, but only by the thinnest of margins

[sweaver]

Hiller, not by a lot.

[gyb13]

"john WHO?" is the guy