Recently...
Get the mrjerz.org newsletter!
The Terri Patraw ordeal
- A brief update on my situation and copyright law
- I'm being given no choice
- The Terri Patraw whistle blower decision
- Terri Patraw: the update
- Domingo Rivera calls himself Cyber Lawyer. Is he partners with Robocop?
Reno Baby! Forum
Reactionary Hurl
Short Book Reviews
Product Reviews
Misc: Is Goose Gossage paving the way for mediocrity
Yes, I understand that the Hall of Fame is arguably already very mediocre, but bear with me. I just (like, last night) completed reading the main book part of Freakonomics. Since I started reading it, I’ve been thinking about things that should be looked at a little differently. Considering how I feel about baseball, the recent announcement of who made the Hall of Fame piqued my interest in looking at the way people are elected. So I have an idea.
Goose Gossage made the hall after being denied entry for eight years. Eight years! So for eight years he was eligible but not deemed worthy of being voted in by the aggregate of baseball writers, yet in 2008 he’ll be the only inductee. This situation raises a lot of questions, starting with whether he was voted in simply because he was the best available player on the ballot. The evidence seems to point in that direction.
One thing I think should be considered is that it’s perceived that when a certain player is inducted, the numbers that player carries with him become a kind of precedent for future votes. Having spent his career as a relief pitcher, Gossage has a different set of statistics than just about all the other pitchers in the Hall. He doesn’t have 300 wins (considered an automatic “in”), he doesn’t have 2,000 strikeouts (3,000 is the almost automatic “in”), and he has less saves than decent, but certainly not even in the conversation for the Hall of Fame, relief pitchers. He does have a lot of innings pitched, though, which separates him from just about all relievers.
I don’t care about whether he was worthy of being inducted here—I care about the effects his induction will have on future votes.
Here is what I’m thinking: since Gossage could easily be said to not be worthy of being in the Hall of Fame (based on his eight denials), and his induction presumably sets a precedent for future inductions (especially as we get further from his career high point—the guy was only a marginal reliever for the entirety of my baseball consciousness), can we reasonably expect more relievers with questionable credentials to make their way to the Hall in the next decade or so?
The answer to that will probably always be “yes,” but what I’m searching for here is some sort of data that tells me whether similar inductions in the past—inductions that could be called questionable based on things like previous denials, have led to similar players statistically being inducted in subsequent votes. I think it’s an interesting question and one that could yield some very interesting results. I just wish I could figure out a way to pull everything together.
Comments
I think the critical “data” you are looking for doesn’t exist. Gossage finally made it when the mainstream of baseball starting to feel the pressure to recognize relief pitchers for the fundamental role they play, a role that has only gotten more important over the decades. So it’s not a mathematical answer that you are looking for, but a social one.
Now let’s talk about the Rock n’ Roll Hall of Fame …
granola, Jan 11, 10:59 PM #:
I am thinking that he was not a dominant pitcher for a long duration or was not a “light’s out” type of pitcher for his career. But, what he did do was bridge the gap in a transitional game. He helped create a pitcher that is a little more prevelant today. A guy that can chew up innings, close for a while, but also be a set-up man.
Ryan, I hear what you’re saying. Even if there’s a trend emerging to include heretofore unrecognized roles in Major League baseball—such as relief pitchers—certain standards for inclusion into the HOF need to be established. Compare for example, two other HOFers, recognized primarily as relief pitchers with recent inductee Goose Gossage. Dennis Eckersley, arguably the most well-known reliever, chalked up 1,071 game appearances over a 24-year career, with 3,285 innings pitched, a 197 – 171 won/lost record (.535), 2,401 Ks, an e.r.a. of 3.50, and 390 saves. All stats, except his e.r.a., are rather impressive, when viewed as a whole. And then there’s Hoyt Wilhelm, one of the pioneers in the innovation of relief pitchers as a major aspect of the game. He notched 1,070 game appearances over a 21-year career, with 2,254 innings pitched, a 143 – 122 won/lost record (.540), 1,610 Ks, a 2.52 e.r.a., and 227 saves. Other than topping the 2,200 innings pitched mark, his number of game appearances, and his low lifetime e.r.a., these stats are not overpowering, yet still commendable.
So, now let’s examine the Goose’s record: 1,002 game appearances over a 22-year career, with 1,810 innings pitched, a 124 – 107 won/lost record (.537), 1,502 Ks, a 3.01 e.r.a., and 310 saves. If you enter these stats into the analytical calculator, crunch some numbers, and digest the results, it’s safe to say that Gossage did indeed have a laudable career. Does it compare with Eckersley’s? Hardly. How about Wilhelm’s? I suppose a case could be made. However, are Wilhelm’s stats worthy of standing as a standard for HOF entry? That’s debatable.
Let’s examine both Wilhelm’s and Gossage’s stats in an attempt to uncover the “logarithm” employed by HOF voters to judge these guys worthy of membership in this elite group. It’s possible that Wilhelm was inducted because of his game appearances, his innings pitched, and his low e.r.a.—not to mention he was the one who broke through the glass ceiling, paving the way for other relief pitchers to follow. As for Gossage, is it his crossing the 1000-game appearances mark, his crashing the 300-saves barrier, and possibly his hovering around the 3.00 e.r.a. level? Who really knows for sure?
Since the predominance of relief pitching is a relatively recent component in the evolution of Big-League baseball, we can only speculate what milestones in a player’s career voters will consider in the future.
And as long as relief pitchers are being admitted to the HOF, what about pinch hitters? Is there a place in Cooperstown for Lenny Harris, Mark Sweeney, and Manny Mota? These guys certainly contributed to the game, but do their plaques belong next to Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner and Ty Cobb?
Likewise, do Dennis Eckersley, Hoyt Wilhelm and Goose Gossage deserve to be included in the same company as Cy Young, Christy Mathewson and Warren Spahn? Where do we draw the line? Is there a HOF committee that can establish some hard-line standards that will stand the test of time? Or will MLB always be subject to concessions being made to the original ideals established back in 1936? Huh, it kind of sounds like what our government has done at times with the ideals established in the Constitution. If cherished standards and ideals are modified and re-interpreted too often, it makes it extremely difficult to remember what the original intent was in the first place.
Let’s hope that a paradigm shift occurs back toward the original mission of the founders of MLB’s Hall of Fame. One that explicitly selects the absolute cream-of-the-crop from the vast pool of player talent which competes year in and year out. These should be the standard-bearers, the record-setters, and basically the giants of the game. The ones that ESPN Classic features in its sports biographies.
My hats are off to any man talented enough to compete at the major league level, and to any them who are even considered for entry in the HOF. These guys are certainly deserving of recognition. But as far as which ones actually make it into the Hall, I’d prefer my heroes to really be heroes. That seems to have been the original plan back in 1936 when Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson and Walter Johnson became the first inductees.
Commenting is closed for this article.
