Quote:
 Bruce Sutter enjoys first day as Hall of Famer yesterday at Waldorf-Astoria, but some wonder why he's all alone. The latest Hall of Fame election, in which the Baseball Writers' Association ordained Bruce Sutter and nobody else, has left a lot of people angry and perplexed. Goose Gossage, for one, doesn't understand a process in which a closer contemporary (Sutter) with nearly 800 fewer innings, 741 fewer strikeouts and 56 fewer wins could somehow garner 64 more votes. Bert Blyleven, for another, continues to wonder how 287 wins and 60 shutouts still aren't enough to sway barely more than 50% of the electorate. As one who votes for both of them, I can only say: Keep the faith, fellas. For some, it's an evolutionary process, and even though you haven't thrown a pitch since the '80s, you're looking better and better every year. It would, of course, be far less taxing on all of those who care so passionately about the Hall of Fame if there were set criteria for election. Unfortunately, like it or not, there are two kinds of Hall of Famers - the no-doubt-about-it "automatics" and those whose records require more perspective. For different reasons, Gossage and Blyleven fall into the latter category, but judging by the steady, significant gains they've made in the voting process, they should count on one day joining Sutter in Cooperstown. In Gossage's case, it may well be as soon as next year, although he could be impeded by a ballot that will include two first-category "automatics" in Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn. Now that the relievers barrier in Cooperstown has finally been broken down, Gossage's closer credentials look better than anyone's. He had four 100-inning seasons as a closer and one 99-inning year, and five times struck out more than 100 batters. (To put this in context, Mariano Rivera's innings high as a closer is 80-2/3, and his strikeout high in that role is 83.) Gossage also had 15 seasons in which his ERA was lower than the league average. What Gossage needs to understand is that, for the longest time, relievers were regarded as "specialty" performers. It was not until the last few years in which the managing emphasis has shifted so much toward bullpens and closers in particular that the accomplishments of Sutter and Gossage were put in a different perspective. As Sutter noted yesterday at the Waldorf-Astoria in his first official press conference as a Hall of Famer: "You can't compare (starters and relievers). Blyleven had more strikeouts than Goose, Lee Smith and myself combined. We just play a different position. But without us, it's tough to win." It wasn't always that way. Even when Sutter and Gossage were pioneering the art of closing (in their cases pitching two or three innings at a time), complete games were still more the norm than the aberration they are now. And this is why Blyleven is now being looked at in a different light as he enters his 10th year on the Hall ballot. I admit, I did not vote for Blyleven his first five years on the ballot, despite his 287 wins and (fifth all-time) 3,701 strikeouts. The reason: In 22 seasons, he won 20 games once and led his league in strikeouts only once and innings twice. In that (dominance factor) regard, I felt he didn't measure up to his "automatic" contemporaries - Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, Nolan Ryan and Jim Palmer. But as I have watched how the game has evolved in just the last 10 years to this new era of specialized relief pitching - i.e., "Creeping La Russaism" - I have come to feel that Blyleven's body of work should not be denied. The 60 shutouts are what especially grabbed me. At this rate, in 20 years, we'll be electing pitchers to the Hall of Fame with no shutouts, many of them presumably regarded as "automatics." How then will Blyleven's omission be explained? For now, however, I only wish I could explain why Jack Morris doesn't get more Hall of Fame support. With 254 victories, including three 20-win seasons, five All-Star Games (three as a starter) and 41 more wins than any pitcher in baseball from 1979-92, I always felt Morris was a borderline "automatic." He was the ace of all his staffs with the Tigers, Twins and Blue Jays and a great postseason pitcher. But in seven years on the ballot, he's made only modest gains from 22% to 41%, and, unlike Gossage and Blyleven, it doesn't look as if he's ever going to get that necessary 75%. Morris' detractors cite his 3.90 ERA, which would be the highest of any pitcher in the Hall. To that, I say Black Jack simply pitched to win. It's come to cost him, but maybe with eight more years on the ballot there's still enough time for the voters - as they've done with Sutter, Gossage and Blyleven - to look at his record from a different perspective. Who would you rather have pitch a Game 7: Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez or Jack Morris? |
