Congrats to Goose on Overcoming Extreme Voter Stupidity Syndrome
Wed, Jan 9, 2008
by Geoff Young
Congratulations to ex-Padre Rich “Goose” Gossage on being voted into the baseball Hall of Fame. Better late than never, eh?
On another note, three of the following five pitchers are in the Hall of Fame. One is still on the ballot, while the fifth has been dropped from consideration. Can you tell which is which just by looking at the numbers? (Answer below the table.)
| G | IP | H/9 | HR/9 | BB/9 | SO/9 | ERA+ | WS | SV | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statistics are courtesy of Baseball-Reference. | |||||||||
| #1 | 944 | 1701.1 | 7.80 | 0.65 | 2.60 | 6.87 | 119 | 188 | 310 |
| #2 | 1002 | 1809.1 | 7.45 | 0.59 | 3.64 | 7.47 | 126 | 223 | 341 |
| #3 | 880 | 1132.1 | 7.95 | 0.87 | 2.85 | 6.97 | 121 | 157 | 367 |
| #4 | 1022 | 1289.1 | 7.91 | 0.62 | 3.39 | 8.73 | 131 | 198 | 478 |
| #5 | 661 | 1042.1 | 7.59 | 0.66 | 2.67 | 7.43 | 136 | 168 | 300 |
I dunno, I’m not seeing a lot of separation here. Good thing the “experts” can ferret out things that aren’t readily apparent to the rest of us.
Who’s who? #1, Rollie Fingers (in); #2, Gossage (in); #3, Jeff Reardon (out); #4, Lee Smith (waiting); #5, Bruce Sutter (in).
You’ll recall that I didn’t like the choice of Sutter at the time. Comparisons to John Wetteland might have been overly harsh, but I still don’t see how Sutter gets in ahead of Gossage. And I don’t believe that Reardon is a Hall of Famer, but in light of some other choices, I’m not sure that he and Wetteland should have been so easily dismissed.
Anyway, we’re talking about Gossage. In the Ducksnorts 2007 Baseball Annual, I named him the #5 reliever in Padres history. Stealing from myself, here’s what I said about him:
Selected by the Chicago White Sox in the ninth round of the 1970 draft, Rich “Goose” Gossage made a rapid ascent to the big leagues. In his first full season as a pro, Gossage dominated the opposition in the Midwest League. The following year, he skipped Double- and Triple-A, spending the entire season in Chicago and holding his own.
After a couple of mediocre years, Gossage blossomed as the White Sox’s closer in 1975, saving 26 games and posting a 1.84 ERA over an unbelievable 141 2/3 innings. To give a further idea of how the closer’s role has evolved, he actually worked 3 innings or more in over a third of his appearances that year.
The following year, Gossage was “rewarded” by being moved into the rotation. He did okay in that role, but was traded after the season to the Pittsburgh Pirates. His new club returned Gossage to the bullpen in ‘77, where he dominated once more before jumping to the Yankees as a free agent that November.
Gossage spent seven seasons in New York and posted ridiculous numbers every year. During that stretch, no big-league pitcher who worked at least 500 innings came anywhere near his ERA of 2.10, the closest being Kansas City closer Dan Quisenberry, who checked in at 2.47.
In January 1984, Gossage signed as a free agent with the Padres. He enjoyed two brilliant seasons in San Diego before fading in 1986 and 1987. Unfortunately, what most people will remember about Gossage’s tenure with the Padres is the mammoth three-run home run he served up to Detroit’s Kirk Gibson in the eighth inning of Game 4 of the World Series that blew the game wide open.
Despite the lingering memory of Gibson’s homer, Gossage remains a crucial figure in Padres history. His 83 saves are good enough for third all-time, and his first two seasons in San Diego are unsurpassed by any reliever not ahead of him on this list. With Tony Gwynn now in the Hall of Fame and Trevor Hoffman not yet eligible, Gossage should be the next ex-Padre inducted; it reflects badly on the voters that Bruce Sutter is in but Gossage is not.
Well, now it just reflects badly on them that Sutter got in first. And also the thing about Bert Blyleven. And now Tim Raines.
But enough of my crankiness. Way to go, Goose. Way to hang in there until they got it right.
Picking up where last year's version left off, the Ducksnorts 2008 Baseball Annual provides in-depth analysis of and commentary on the San Diego Padres. Get your copy today.
January 9, 2008 at 9:19 am
Well deserved and way overdue. Congratulations Goose!!
GY, I think the context gets washed out when all you look at is the career numbers as in your table above. Sure, career-wise those guys look very similar as presented, but when you look at peak or prime differences are more apparent.
Reardon, for example, looks nothing like Gossage when peak and prime are examined. Reardon v. Gossage in ERA+ (IP):
Reardon: 177 (109), 164 (73), 160 (70.3), 142 (59.3), 135 (110.3)
Gossage: 243 (133), 212 (141.7), 195 (79), 180 (134.3), 178 (93)
Reardon’s “Honorable Mention” is a 208 in his rookie year, but in only 20.7 IP; Gossage’s “Honorable Mention” is a 461 in 46.7 IP. This shows how much higher Gossage’s peak was and how much more he contributed at that level in terms of IP.
Sutter stacks up much better, but has nowhere near the longevity of Gossage; still, I give him a lot of credit for his extraordinary peak (although I’m sceptical of him as a HOF player). Smith, otoh, just doesn’t make it. He has a couple of great seasons, and with decent IP totals as well, but mostly he has a whole bunch of mediocre, for a closer, seasons.
January 9, 2008 at 9:20 am
GY … you seem to imply that, after Gossage, the next ex-Padre to go into HOF will be Hoffy … but Rickey will be class of 2009 …
After reading several of the in/out arguments, I’ve changed my position on Raines … I’m a Raines fan … but I gotta think an HOFer would have at least 1 season worthy of finishing higher in the MVP voting than 5th … perhaps the MVP voting is too skew’d to power … but other “lead-off” hitters managed to put up MVP-caliber seasons …
A similar argument can be made against Blyleven … he never finished higher than 3rd in the CY voting … and to me that is a negative … but for sure the CY voting is *very* skew’d to W’s … and Blyleven’s teams seem consistently bad enough to have made W’s harder for him to come by … for example, look at the numbers and tell me what is the case for Palmer over Blyleven in 1973 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1973.shtml#ALcya) … 242 CGs and 60 SHOs seem HOF-worthy to me …
January 9, 2008 at 9:28 am
HOF Pitcher or not?
Top 10 in ERA for 10 seasons
Top 10 in W’s for 6 seasons
Top 10 in WIP for 11 seasons
Top 10 in K/9 for 14 seasons (including 12 in a row and the entire decade of the 1970’s)
Top 10 in IP 11 seasosn (including leading the league two years in a row at ages 34 and 35)
Top 10 in K’s for 15 seasons
Top 10 in CG’s 12 seasons
Top 10 in SO 10 seasons (including leading the league 3 times)
Top 10 in K to BB 16 times (including leading the league 3 times, first time in 1971 at the age of 20 last time in 1986 at the age of 35)
Top 10 in ERA+ 12 seasons
There’s more, but what is your impression just from this?
January 9, 2008 at 9:35 am
LM, you can look at many of Blyleven’s seasons and then the CY voting results and see he should have had MUCH more recognition there. There is at least one season where he should have won, 1984, but a reliever on the extraordinary Tigers team won despite pitching over 100 fewer innings. I just don’t see how any player can be penalized for failing to gain recognition in such subjective, and often blatantly ridiculous, categories as CY, MVP, GG, or AS appearances. These are all too often not reasonable measures of performance, which is what the HOF is about, imo.
January 9, 2008 at 9:55 am
1,3,4 … well said, thanks!
And I haven’t thought thru why, but the MVP voting seems “less subjective” than CY/GG/AS … as long as one doesn’t worry about actually winning an MVP … ie. a “top 3″ finish seems equivalent to a “standout season” accounting for some subjective-bias … I think perhaps because the ballot is 10-deep (vs CY ballot only 3-deep) …
Another way to say it is that Raines never seemed an HOFer to me … the way Rickey did (clearly) … the way Tony did (admittedly a bit less clearly, to be honest, with only 1 “top 3″ MVP finish, but getting MVP votes in 12 out of 15 years and 15 out of 16 AS selections are pretty weighty credentials that Raines does not have) …
I’m upset that Blyleven’s not in … I won’t be upset either way with Raines … I’d be happy with him being very high on the list of “great players not in the HOF” … right behind Dale Murphy, for example (whose ‘82 thru ‘87 seasons seems aweful Koufax-like to me, and I’m guessing he didn’t do PEDs) …
January 9, 2008 at 9:57 am
#1: Very true about context, and maybe I wasn’t clear. The point isn’t that someone like Reardon belongs in the HOF, it’s that given the criteria evidently established by voters with the inclusion of Sutter, he’s a more reasonable candidate than we might initially think.
#2: Yeah, Rickey will go first, of course. I loved his time here, but I still have a hard time thinking of him as anything other than an Oakland A. In other words, I forgot about him when I wrote that part of the book.
January 9, 2008 at 10:03 am
#5: Raines really took a hit for spending his prime in Montreal. He was an absolute force throughout the ’80s. Top 5 win shares for that decade:
1. Rickey, 289
2. Yount, 274
3. Schmidt, 265
4. Murray, 250
5. Raines, 246
And that’s with zero WS in ‘80.
January 9, 2008 at 10:21 am
7 … I like that list … can you remind me/us of a link to generate lists like that? I’m interested to see where Dale Murphy turns up on that list … he can’t be far behind Raines, can he?
January 9, 2008 at 10:37 am
5: Well put. You may have a point about the MVP; I haven’t looked at it that closely, but the mere fact Garvey won NL MVP while not even being the best player on his team makes me pretty darn sceptical (a point I’m sure you can relate to :-)).
But let me ask you this: you say Raines never seemed like a HOF to you, but you also say you’re upset Blyleven isn’t in; did Blyeleven seem like a HOF to you when he was playing or have you come around to it after reading and studying the arguments for and against him?
January 9, 2008 at 10:47 am
#7: Well, I’m going from the Win Shares book. A few other names of interest:
6. Dale Murphy, 244
7. Boggs, 237
8. Dwight Evans, 230
9. Brett, 229
12. Ripken, 219
13. Trammell, 219
14. Gary Carter, 215
16. Whitaker, 205
17. Dawson, 204
18. Ozzie, 204
19. Molitor, 198
20. Winfield, 193
21. Sandberg, 191
23. Tony, 183
34. Fisk, 165
43. Rice, 154
44. Morris, 154
Morris is the second-highest pitcher on the list, behind only Dave Stieb (#29, 175 WS).
January 9, 2008 at 10:49 am
6: Sorry if I took you out of context.
It is still shifting ground for relievers looking toward enshrinement in Cooperstown. I think Sutter was a mistake, in some ways, as sustained excellence, particularly in the case of someone who plays significantly fewer innings albeit highly leveraged innings, should be required, and Sutter falls short in this regard.
But as much as I like to deride the HOF voters for some things, I have to admit in general they do a good job in the long run, and I do think they’re trying to get it right with regards to relievers. It’s not an easy task when you stop and think about it.
There is over a century of baseball history which can be used to put a player or a pitcher into context vis a vis the HOF, but the reliever, as a legitimate HOF candidate, has been around for closer to 40 years and usage patterns have shifted significantly just in that brief time. Not only is there not a lot of history there, but it’s also a moving target. And the tools which I really think are required to be able to properly analyze them, such as being able to understand leverage of the innings pitched by a reliever, are only now being developed.
January 9, 2008 at 10:53 am
For added grins, here are the top 10 pitchers of the ’70s according to win shares:
1. Palmer, 235
2. Seaver, 230
3. Mr. Vaseline, 222
4. Phil Niekro, 214
5. Jenkins, 204
6. Carlton, 202
7. Blyleven, 192
8. Sutton, 168
9. Ryan, 161
10. Tiant, 158
That’s nice company to keep…
January 9, 2008 at 10:57 am
#11: Agreed on the larger point about moving targets. Sutter’s inclusion rubs me the wrong way because he only had eight good seasons. I dunno, maybe he’s the closers’ version of Koufax, but it just feels wrong.
Good discussion, folks. I have to cut out now and meet with my friend to discuss spring training plans. More info as it becomes available…
January 9, 2008 at 11:31 am
9 … Blyleven didn’t seem an HOFer either … I’ve “come around” … so I can/will change my mind on Raines if/when necessary … but his mo, in my mind, is going the wrong way … for example, GY criticizes Sutter for “only had eight good seasons” … and my first reaction is that Raines only had 7 … which, for me, is clearly not good enough for HOF … unless your name is Koufax (ie. have a *very* high peak) …
The Black/Grey totals for Raines at b-r.com are not favorable for Raines (they way they are for Dale Murphy, for example) …
http://www.baseball-reference......ti01.shtml
January 9, 2008 at 12:47 pm
A *lot* of good Raines and Blyleven arguments were made a year ago at this time …
http://ducksnorts.com/blog/200.....gwynn.html
… and so seems worth cross-referencing.
From that, my favorite pro-Raines argument came from Kevin …
If Rickey Henderson had never played baseball, Tim Raines would be the best leadoff man of all time.
January 9, 2008 at 12:50 pm
14: Black and Gray ink are handy references but not to be relied on too heavily, imo. For example, you noted MVP voting tends to be power centric, well Black and Gray ink weight HR and RBI at 4 points, the highest number of points possible, and BB and SB at only 2. Clearly this is going to hurt someone like Raines whose assets were getting on base and stealing bases.
Win Shares are, imo, a much better way to judge a player. Raines four best years were 35.8, 33.8, 32.1, and 31.5. The 33.8 was the highest in the NL in 1987 and behind only Trammel’s 35.1 in all of baseball. 32.1 in 1986 was the best in the NL and behind only Boggs at 36.8. 31.5 in 1984 was 3rd in he NL. 35.8 in 1985 was second in the NL to McGee’s 35.9 and only Brett was better than either of them at 37.3.
And only 131 times since 1920 (which I chose to use as the cutoff date for the modern era) has a player had a season with a Win Share score better than his 35.8 Win Shares in 1985. There were 71,930 different player seasons from 1920 through 2007 and only 131 of them resulted in a higher WS total than his 35.8!
Those are clearly 4 MVP caliber seasons, which ought to get someone considered more closely. His career Win Shares are 385.2, which is a lock HOF according to James, iirc. In addition to his MVP-type seasons he has a 28.6, 27.9, 24.8, and 20.7, or four more excellent seasons. He also has 5 seasons in the high teens.
I think this pretty clearly shows he has Peak, Prime and career longevity. And ask yourself who was better than Raines at what he did, which was get on base and steal as a leadoff hitter, as well as play good defense. Rickey Henderson, Ty Cobb and who else? That should really seal it. Third best leadoff hitter of all time! That’s a HOF player.
January 9, 2008 at 12:54 pm
According to Win Shares, Tim Raines was the best player in the league in 1985, 1986 and 1987. He was fourth in 1983 and fourth in 1984. Is there another player with those rankings who is not a Hall of Famer?
The same people who vote for the MVP awards are the same people who don’t know that Raines is a Hall of Famer now.
The case for Jim Rice usually begins with his six top-five MVP finishes, which were undeserved.
January 9, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Where’re all the arguments regarding Alan Trammell?
January 9, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Pat, we are on the same page.
January 9, 2008 at 1:01 pm
A bit on relievers:
Gossage had 10 seasons of sub-3.00 ERAs, four of sub-2.00 and one of sub-1.00. That’s 10 great seasons.
Sutter had seven seasons of sub-3.00 ERAs and two of sub-2.00.
Reardon had five seasons of sub-3.00 ERAs.
January 9, 2008 at 1:03 pm
8: Check this entry from Joe Poz:
http://tinyurl.com/36tfny
January 9, 2008 at 1:03 pm
#14: Raines had more than seven good seasons. I count roughly 10, with several decent seasons thrown in for good measure. Sutter had eight good seasons and three lousy ones, that’s it.
January 9, 2008 at 1:04 pm
I read that, Didi. I enjoy his work.
January 9, 2008 at 1:06 pm
18: I only argue when there’s someone to argue with.
I don’t think anyone has said Trammell doesn’t belong, so I don’t feel like I have to argue for him. I know I certainly feel he belongs.
January 9, 2008 at 1:07 pm
19: Yep, and with Blyleven, too.
January 9, 2008 at 1:07 pm
#21: Okay, I haven’t made it through the entire post yet, but that rant about orange juice is inspired.
January 9, 2008 at 1:11 pm
25: On Trammell, too.
My ballot would have been:
Raines
Gossage
Blyleven
Trammell
Tommy John (most disagree here, I think)
January 9, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Lynch…thanks for bringing last years discussion back up…man, I still like my Bly comments…and Pat, I am always here to debate!
I am a fairly recent convert on Raines…
Kevin…your list is 3 names too deep.
January 9, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Tommy John is an interesting one. IMO, he’s a lot better candidate than Jack Morris. Anyway, I can’t see how you can vote for Morris and not John, which apparently happened quite a bit. Then again, I can’t see how Raines was so low, or Blyleven still isn’t in, or …
January 9, 2008 at 1:37 pm
re: 29
Right, basically there are two types of ballots out there.
The one I listed above is basically the Bill James-crowd ballot, minus John, with McGwire often thrown in. I think John is about 80 percent of a Hall of Famer, but I think his surgery is significant enough to put him in.
The typical writers’ ballot was (players who received more than 50 percent):
Gossage
Rice
Dawson
Blyleven
Two schools of thought that don’t always intersect.
January 9, 2008 at 1:54 pm
What’s upsetting to most is that there is no reason for most of the writers votes. Rice wasn’t close to getting in a few years ago, now he is just about a lock. What has changed? Nothing really, except that people are saying he was “the most feared batter” during his career. Was he? He certainly might have been in 1978 (his MVP year) and maybe for a few seasons around that but overall, he wasn’t even the best all-around player in his own OF (Dwight Evans was). But because Rice didn’t walk that much and batted 4th in that lineup, his counting stats are great (don’t get me wrong, I think durability is an excellent trait to have but let’s not get crazy). There is some great stuff by both Joe Sheehan on BP.com and Joe Pasnanski on his blog explaning (to them of course) why they don’t think Jim Rice belongs. The main problem with putting Rice in the Hall is that there are a ton of better players out there that you should induct plus some that have already fallen off the ballot.
I don’t understand why it’s always Morris vs. Blyleven, like you have to take one or the other. Morris (much like Rice) was fortunate to have played on good to great teams his entire career. He was certainly part of that, but to make that the centerpiece of his HOF argument seems a little weak. Again, he pitched a long time and threw a lot of innings but they weren’t much above average. His number are similar to Jaime Moyer’s and I doubt that he’ll get much consideration for the HOF.
Lastly, I think that we have to realize that it’s writers making these decisions. It’s probably in their nature to vote for players that give them the better story. Plus by ignoring stats, they can over-emphasize their own role — they saw the fear in pitchers when they talked about facing Jim Rice while stat geeks like us sat in our basements and watched games on tv.
January 9, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Here’s an example of the old-school baseball people vs. new school:
http://sports.espn.go.com/broa.....p;n8pe6c=2
You can just picture Phillips and Kurkjian digging in their heels vs. those “young whippersnappers.” (or covering their ears and shouting “la-la-la-la” so they can’t hear).
On a related note, how in the world did Steve Phillips become a GM of a major team? On another segment, as he dismisses Tim Raines’ HOF chances, he said something along the lines of “He doesn’t look like a HOF player to me.” Jonah Keri showed great restraint in not responding “That’s why you weren’t a very good GM.”
January 9, 2008 at 2:16 pm
31: Schlom, what changes/changed are perceptions and/or understanding. I don’t think we’re the only ones who debate the HOF worthiness of players. In fact this year I noticed a significant amount of public debate by HOF voters. ESPN even ran a series of “debates” between their own writers over HOF voting, and in some cases those voters changed their minds after listening to the other point of view. No, a player’s record does not change after he’s retired, but our understanding of that record and how we perceive it within the historical context of baseball and the HOF certainly does.
January 9, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Here’s a link to the aforementioned Joe Sheehan BP article …
http://www.baseballprospectus......cleid=7035
… no subscription required to access this article … always good from JoeS …
January 9, 2008 at 2:21 pm
28: Run away! Run away!
January 9, 2008 at 2:31 pm
31, 33: There are writers who use the years a player waits for election as a kind of internal HOF ranking system. That is, if players were only eligible for one election, and dropped if they didn’t make it that year, we might see a lot more players get in the first time. Since the writers know that players with average/good chances will be around for a while, they sort of get tabled.
In many cases I’m sure Pat is right, that writers change their tunes. But sometimes it’s a way to distinguish between HOFers.
January 9, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I was specifically referring to the changes in Jim Rice’s voting totals. I guess he could be getting some “he was clean so his numbers look better” votes but what else could explain his totals going up. The more you look at stats, the less qualified he becomes (the opposite of Bert Blyleven who looks better the more you dig into his stats). The only reason I can see for people voting for Jim Rice is that it’s backlash against the “stat guys.” What other reason could there be?
I have no problem with vote totals changing as I think that some players need more time for the writers to be convinced. But Jim Rice doesn’t fit in there because most of the convincers are trying to keep him out of the Hall of Fame, not into it.
January 9, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Goose should get in for the mustache alone. Isn’t that why Fingers got in?
January 9, 2008 at 3:56 pm
36: TW, you’re right on. I’d forgotten the big to do some people make over first ballot HOF.
37: I suppose there could be backlash against stat guys, but I think it’s more likely backlash against steroids guys and the inflated offensive numbers of the 90’s and through today. Perhaps they are looking at stats and saying his look better today now that the Mitchell Report is out.
January 9, 2008 at 6:18 pm
This article …
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/ne.....;type=lgns
… implies that Gossage will be doing the “Top 10″ list on Letterman tonight
January 9, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Two thoughts:
1. Some of the way votes are cast is related to the class of players eligible. That shouldn’t matter, but it does. Things may not work out so well for Rice next year, if Ricky is eligible. Which leads me to-
2. It’s not the truly great players that leave the writers (and the readers) confused - everyone knows (or should know - who were those writers who didn’t vote for Tony & Cal) that those guys belong in the Hall. And I think it used to be that that’s who ended up in Cooperstown - the absolute, everyone knows, the-walls-would-fall-down if they weren’t there players.
As a lifetime fan of the game, when I walked through the Hall in July (with 13,999 of my closed friends), I knew more than 75% of the names on the wall. They were the names of guys who any reasonable baseball fan would know, even from the early years of the game. Mostly, their stats showed them to be great players (or managers or umps or executives), but the argument for their inclusion was not only driven by those numbers.
There are great players in every game and even casual fans know who they are. Pharmaceuticals aside, I think the Rocket is a Hall player, hands down (and I don’t like him so that’s not easy to say). His pitching fame is bigger than baseball. But where do you put the line between good and great when it comes to win shares, and EQA+, and WHIP and and and…..? Is there something to ‘fame’ that may divide who should be in and who shouldn’t? And I’m not talking about infamy, so Canseco doesn’t count!
One last thought - I think some of these decisions would be easier without the five year lag time. I know it has its purpose, but I think time away makes some of these decisions more difficult.
January 10, 2008 at 10:46 am
Sorry if this has been asked, but why do we put so much stock into award finishes when we complain so much about said finishes? Even some of the smarter writers use this “so many top 5 finishes” as an argument, although I think Neyer or someone like him recently asked my same question.
Also, I don’t want to be one of those who asks himself, “Does he feel like a HOFer?” What the YKW does that mean?