- NEWS
- SPORTS
- Lakers rout Thunder 2 hours & 25 minutes ago
- O.C. football: Updated playoff brackets
- USC at a crossroads 1 hour & 32 minutes ago
- Bruins have their sights set on victory 1 hour & 25 minutes ago
- BUSINESS
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
Ex-Angel closer’s case for HOF questioned
January 7th, 2009, 8:44 am · 3 Comments · posted by Earl Bloom, staff writer
Lee Smith was an Angel for one season and part of another in his 478-save career, which ranks No. 3 behind Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera.
In the full season, 1995, Smith recorded 37 saves, served as a mentor to a young Troy Percival and earned his seventh and final All-Star selection, so he just wasn’t passing through Anaheim.
The Hall of Fame vote is due to be announced on Jan. 12, with Rickey Henderson expected to be a first-ballot selection, Jim Rice likely to finally make it in, with former Angel Bert Blyleven (fifth in strikeouts with 3,701, ninth in shutouts with 60) probably put on hold for another year. My thoughts on Blyleven’s merits were expressed in November.
Mr. Smith is also on that ballot.
ESPN’s Jayson Stark looks at Smith’s HOF merits and decides, after having once voted for him, the big right-hander now doesn’t measure up. It seems he is lacking in WHIP and ERA rankings compared to other closers. Stark holds a lengthy discussion with readers that brings out many great points, pro and con. A very good read.
Let’s just say this. Lee Smith gets this writer’s HOF vote every year because he was dominant at his position in his era. I don’t care if his position didn’t exist in the 19th century or is evaluated differently now. Others do.
And I appreciate WHIP, I really do — I draft Fantasy team pitchers based on it, just don’t think it’s the end-all stat for everything, especially for a reliever who sealed the deal 82 percent of the time en route to 478 saves.
(By the way, if there’s an adjusted WHIP that removes intentional walks, someone please direct me to it. Relievers — usually not closers — sometimes get called in and immediately issue intentional walks.)
Related posts:
3 Comments
Leave a Reply
-
ADVERTISEMENT
-
ADVERTISEMENT
Earl, I see walk rates with IBB’s removed a lot, but never WHIP. Your instincts on Smith’s WHIP are right — he had 100 Intentional walks in his career, which is awfully high compared to modern contemporaries. Remove those and his WHIP is 1.18, down from 1.26. Still not great for a closer, IMO, but a significant difference.
Earl:
I’m jealous. It must be very cool - but tricky - to vote for HOF.
Smith is an interesting HOF candidate, in part because he was really, really good, but also because he was really, really specialized. Take away the first couple years of his career and he was a one-inning man for a very long time. Nothing wrong with that; it’s what he was asked to do. And he did it spectacularly. But just like a DH would have to be other worldly good to warrant HOF votes, Smith’s peak and longevity might have to lap the field to warrant consideration. I honestly don’t know if Smith rates that. But, even if he does, think about this: After Smith you have Julio Franco (probably a tic better than Smith, given longevity) and then Tom Henke (don’t know if he rates or not) and Robb Nenn (his peak was probably better than Smith or Franco, but he didn’t last long) and a few others. And, among the guys closing now who are certain to come up in the next few years, you’ve got Hoffman/Rivera (both feel to this non-voter like HOF guys), followed by others with bigger question marks: Wagner, Percival… maybe Tom Gordon.
Not to play the Tony Perez game, but if you vote in Smith, where does it stop? That’s a lotta pitchers who logged 70-100 innings a year who might get into the HOF.
uh, Julio Franco might be a fine HOF candidate, but I meant John Franco. or Francisco Franco. Or… you get the idea; the CLOSER named Franco… jeesh.