I’m Bruce Sutter, Baby! The Cock of the Walk!

Today’s column theme could be returning to reality, which would be appropriate to me not only for transitioning my rising and falling series into its second half, but also for its timing, on the eve of my final semester of undergraduate work. But I’m not the only one with a fancy ceremony in the near future (sorry for that shamelessly stretched transition), as Bruce Sutter was elected to the Hall of Fame today, headlining something of a lackluster class. So I’ll put off the forthcoming disappointments for a day or two in order that I comment on Sutter’s election.

First of all, I should clear the air on the facial hair issue. Some people think any facial hair looks sloppy, but I believe the opposite; pretty much any facial hair is better than none at all. I love the ‘80s Keith Hernandez porn-stache, the Priestly-to-Prior borderline lamb chops, Jeff Bagwell’s imitation of Scott Ian from Anthrax circa 2000, Gagne’s goat and Kevin Millar’s Hulkamania Fu Manchu. I even liked it when Shaq sported his “sideburns only” do, perfectly complementing his bic’d skull with some carefully crafted chops. Bruce Sutter may wear the crown for baseball’s best facial hair in the all-time category with his Bob Seger-esque mountain man beard. In fact, this picture of Sutter approximates my own head and facial hair styling now, so it would be natural to think that I’m a big Bruce Sutter fan. On the contrary, I’m not particularly fond of voting in any relievers unless they are remarkably dominant AND have some other qualification on the resume. Mariano Rivera will retire with much more impressive stats than Sutter AND he has his World Series heroics to bolster his case.

The case for Sutter does not even seem particularly compelling to me. True, I did not see him at his most dominant, recording the final out of the 1982 World Series, winning the 1979 Cy Young and leading the league in saves five times. Maybe the “you had to be there” defense and some intangible “vibe” rating make Sutter a better candidate than, say, Bert Blyleven (whom has withstood criticism for not being dominant or electrifying enough), but his performance record should also speak for itself. Sutter piled up 300 saves with a sub-3.00 ERA, but struck out at least a batter/inning only three times in his career (his 2nd-4th seasons) and barely topped 1000 career IP. The tank was basically empty by the time he got to Atlanta at age 32, so the BBWAA is essentially voting for nine years of very good, but relatively infrequent relief pitching- he topped 90 IP only 6 times. I’ll even concede that he was probably the best relief pitcher in baseball for most of those seasons, but usage patterns beg the question of how much that title is worth. I certainly don’t think that Cooperstown is the correct answer. If one batboy stands out above the rest for a decade straight, does that qualify him for the Hall of Fame, just because he clearly the best at what he did? More appropriately, is it really necessary for every position to be represented in every generation? If MLB had an absolute dearth of decent catchers for ten or fifteen years, I hope that the BBWAA would not elect an average player just because he was the best available.

I know that this column comes off as very negative, but I do not mean to slander Bruce Sutter. As I said earlier, he has an excellent beard. My major concern is the precedent set by his election as the first generation of one-inning closers heads towards retirement. Sutter was very good, but how can he be elected without Goose Gossage, who, as Joe Sheehan recently pointed out, bests Sutter in nearly every statistical category? Gossage accumulated 10 more saves, 56 more wins, 767 more IP and, most importantly, 28.8 more wins according to Wins Above Replacement Level. Sheehan also points out that Lee Smith, not a deserving HOF’er by most standards, is statistically more qualified than Sutter. I realize that not every exceptional election has opened the floodgates to less qualified players (the election of Koufax did not lead to every 165 win pitcher entering the Hall), but Sutter stands as an important litmus test for the upcoming wave of closers (Eckersley’s career as a starter makes him unique). I think the message that Sutter’s election sends is that voters, unsurprisingly, give relievers too much credit when portioning out the win-pie.

To give you a rough idea of how valuable a reliever can be, consider that Derek Lee led all of baseball with 106.0 runs of Value Over Replacement Player in 2005, Roger Clemens led all pitchers with 80.6 runs of VORP (approximately equal to Jason Bay) and Huston Street led all relievers at 33.3, barely beating out Mariano Rivera’s 32.3 (about the same as Tim Wakefield, Shea Hillenbrand and Kenny Lofton). In other words, pitchers, generally, are not worth as much as position players because of their limited playing time. By the same logic, relief pitchers are less valuable than starters. Adjusting for leverage, Clemens piled up 9.4 Support Neutral Value Added wins over the theoretical replacement player to K-Rod’s 5.6 Expected Wins Added (best among relievers). Putting Sutter in the Hall of Fame indicates that many writers don’t grasp the importance of playing time. Sutter over Blyleven is not the end of the world, but Smith, Gossage, John Franco, Trevor Hoffman and Troy Percival over Blyleven is. Literally, it would be the end of the world by tearing a hole in the universe, or at least something close to that. Hyperbole aside, I’m happy for Bruce Sutter, his beard and his gold-plated diapers, but frustrated with the voters who picked him.