PDA

View Full Version : Why doesn't Lee Smith get more consideration?


HawkISox
01-11-2006, 03:33 PM
I dont see how Sutter can be in and Big Lee can't.

Lee Smith

478 Saves 3.03 ERA 1289 IP

Bruce Sutter

300 Saves 2.83 ERA 1042 IP

EastCoastSoxFan
01-11-2006, 03:40 PM
Just as the "steroid era" is going to throw a lot of question marks on the HOF credentials of many of today's sluggers (*cough*, Palmeiro, *cough*), the "cheap save" era has made the statistical qualifications of recent closers seem a bit more questionable.
I'd be curious to see a more detailed comparison of some of these closers like Sutter, Smith, Gossage, Reardon, etc., like how many of their saves were "cheap saves" (1 inning or less, tying/go-ahead run not on base), how many of their saves were more than 1 inning long, etc.
Simply comparing saves, ERA, and innings pitched doesn't seem to yield much information...

HawkISox
01-11-2006, 03:50 PM
Their careers did overlap somewhat, Sutter had 5 years where he pitched over 100 innings. Smith had 3. Smith has 178 more saves career.

Chicken Dinner
01-11-2006, 03:56 PM
Readon=going to the pen

The save is not a very good indicator.

SAVES FOR RELIEF PITCHERS
10.20
Credit a pitcher with a save when he meets all three of the following conditions: (1) He is the finishing pitcher in a game won by his club; and (2) He is not the winning pitcher; and (3) He qualifies under one of the following conditions: (a) He enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitches for at least one inning; or (b) He enters the game, regardless of the count, with the potential tying run either on base, or at bat, or on deck (that is, the potential tying run is either already on base or is one of the first two batsmen he faces); or (c) He pitches effectively for at least three innings. No more than one save may be credited in each game.

ChiSoxRowand
01-11-2006, 04:03 PM
This is just something to think about, I'm not saying this guy deserves consideration. Look at Dan Quisenberry's stats compared to Sutters. Sutters aren't much better, and these guys played in the same era. Sutter has about 50 more saves. Quiesenberry has a higher winning percentage and a slightly better ERA while playing in the AL most of his career. The 50 more saves is why Sutter is the better of the canidate, and I'm not saying Quisennberry should get consideration. How long was quiesenberry on the ballot? Here are their numbers.

Quiesenberry (http://www.baseball-reference.com/q/quiseda01.shtml)

Sutter (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/suttebr01.shtml)

HawkISox
01-13-2006, 01:18 PM
Because not a lot of people will finish with 450+ career saves. Even if it is a somewhat cheapened statistic.

soxinem1
01-13-2006, 01:48 PM
Smitty pitched a long time and threw hard most of it. Sure he bounced around, but closers tend to, especially after they hit 30 years old.

The first part of hs career as a closer he pitched a lot of innings. But as you change managers and teams, usage changes too. Smith pitched in both the era of 2+ inning saves and the 2-3 out saves. And he closed for a long tme, in fact he closed longer than Goose, Sutter, Fingers, and all the rest except Franco.

He has a crappy winning percentage, but I believe Fingers and Sutter both had losing records. In all honesty, he is a better choice than Sutter.

soxfan13
01-13-2006, 02:28 PM
I think that closers are just now starting to get recognition by the hall voters. I think when its all said and done all deserving closers such as smith, quisenberry, gossage etc. will be in the HOF

Domeshot17
01-13-2006, 06:58 PM
also, if you look at most HOF's they played with only 1-2- maybe 3 teams. Smith played for 8, so that hurts him.

I agree though, he holds the record. Its baseballs fault the cheap cave era existed, not lee smiths. he did his job and has the record.

DSpivack
01-15-2006, 02:44 AM
also, if you look at most HOF's they played with only 1-2- maybe 3 teams. Smith played for 8, so that hurts him.

I agree though, he holds the record. Its baseballs fault the cheap cave era existed, not lee smiths. he did his job and has the record.

Sutter played for 3. Then again, I don't think he should be a HOF'er. Doug Jones has better stats.

Brian26
01-15-2006, 11:48 PM
Just throwing this out there for discussion: How much does that '82 World Series win (especially the Game 7 strikeout by Sutter) sway people's opinions and, ultimately, their votes? History has a way of fogging memories and maybe even statistics. When I think about that World Series, and that entire season, Sutter is right up there at the top.