First, I would like to thank everyone for checking out my 2004 World Series replay, especially all the new visitors (thanks for picking it up, lboros!). I had a lot of fun playing the games, and I also enjoyed posting the results online. I only wish I had been able to update on a more timely basis. Working full time and raising two kids younger than 5 doesn’t leave a whole lot of time to spend on such a delightfully trivial matter. That, and I also am trying to get through David Halberstam’s “The Fifties,” which I’ve had checked out from the library for about three months now. I’m a good 80 percent through it.
As such, I know I’m way late on this, but I wanted to add my two cents’ worth to The Great Bruce Sutter debate.
On an emotional level, I am elated to see Sutter join the ranks of baseball’s greatest. I can still vividly recall my 7-year-old self jumping around like a scalded cat after Sutter whiffed Gorman Thomas to seal the 1982 World Series. And that he was the first to employ the splitter as a tool to make major-league hitters look silly.
But my rational self (one that’s admittedly smaller than the former) wonders if the above contribution got him in this year more than his stats, especially when compared to those of that deserving bridesmaid Rich “Goose” Gossage.
Other, more competent bloggers have done the comparo between the two, so I won’t rehash it. But take a look at their respective similar pitchers and you’ll see that Goose’s two most comparable are none other than the Hall of Fame’s first two relievers: Rollie Fingers and Hoyt Wilhelm. The simple question is this: If the man’s closest numerical kin both are enshrined, why isn’t Goose?
Looking at Sutter’s comparables, his two closest are the inimitable Doug Jones and Tom Henke. Meh.
And while both had nine dominant seasons, Goose had eight more borderline-great to more-than-acceptable seasons, while Sutter had just three mediocre or worse seasons before hanging it up. Yes, he was injured, but I think part of becoming a Hall-of-Famer involves not only the bread-and-butter seasons but also putting up numbers as a successful-but-no-longer-transcendent major leaguer. Goose certainly qualifies there; it’s not as if he was hanging around the yard collecting a paycheck.
I don’t intend for this to read like I think Sutter doesn’t belong in the Hall; I really think he does belong. I just that I don’t understand how Sutter gets in but a guy like Goose is kept out. (EDIT: Goose has some choice words for the unenlightened Hall voters.)
p.s. It also could be argued that Sutter had his best seasons with the Cubs, but earned more acclaim with the Cardinals. Should he have gone in with a Cubs hat?
December 28, 2006 at 4:54 am
[...] Rich Gossage: When it was announced last year that old friend Bruce Sutter made the Hall, I tried to make a case for the Goose’s inclusion. My feelings haven’t changed. During nine seasons, Gossage played Harlem Globetrotters to the rest of the league’s Washington Generals. He straight-up housed opposing hitters. From the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, he was the most lethal reliever in the major leagues. Just check his ERA+ from those years, and you’ll see what I mean. Honestly, I think it’s kind of a shame that Sutter made the Hall before the Goose. [...]