life before bruce
i'm not here to defend the bbwwa's election of bruce sutter to the hall of fame. my purpose is to review the context -- which you young guys don't recall, and you old ones may have forgotten -- in which sutter came to the cardinals. a dire set of circumstances indeed. the cardinal pitching staff stunk in 1980, finishing last in the league in earned-run average (3.93). injury and ineptitude forced no fewer than 14 pitchers to make at least one start for that fearsome squad, which -- as a group -- struck out a feeble 4.1 men per 9 innings. the starters were terrible but the relievers were worse; four of `em never pitched a big-league inning after 1980, and another three were out of The Show by 1982.
they sucked from their very first appearance of the year. pete vukovich had thrown a complete game three-hit shutout on opening day, beating the defending champion pirates 1-0, and bob forsch went 8 strong innings the next day and handed a 3-2 lead to the bullpen. ken boyer sent left-hander don hood -- the cards' first-ever free-agent signee -- out for the 9th inning to protect the lead against hard-swinging left-handers dave parker, willie stargell (the reigning co-mvp), and john milner. parker reached on an error, stargell walked, and bill robinson pinch-hit for milner; enter mark littell, the incumbent "closer" if you will, who led the cards in saves in 1979 with 13. littell got robinson and bill madlock to groundout, and the cardinals still led 3-2 with an out to go; but ed ott stroked a 2-run single -- the only hit of the inning -- to put the pirates ahead 4-3. that was the final score.
a month later the cards -- stumbling along at about .500, their season still formless -- went out west for one of their two annual california road trips. in the 1970s these were always dreaded journeys; a 4-5 trip constituted a huge success. they started this particular trip in san diego against ex-cardinal rick wise and took a 2-1 lead into the 9th behind hood (pressed into service as a starter after injuries thinned the rotation). pedro borbon (the elder, not the guy who cursed the 2003 bullpen with his presence) started the inning, yielded a one-out double, and then gave way to ageless jim kaat, who completed the job with a single, intentional walk, and game-ending single: padres 3, cardinals 2. just two games later, on may 16, boyer -- justifiably losing trust in the bullpen -- sent bob forsch out for the 9th to protect his own 3-2 lead against the giants. he got the first man, then yielded a single and a double; mark littell came on and promptly coughed up the game-losing single. the loss dropped the cards to 1-3 on the trip, when by rights they ought to have been 3-1.
on may 21, the last night of the road trip -- and the last game before a seemingly inevitable strike, which the players' union had set for may 23 -- littell and co. yielded four runs in the bottom of the 8th, turning a 3-1 lead into another loss and polishing off a 1-8 west-coast swing. at the 11th hour the strike got miraculously averted (or, at least, postponed for a year), but the cardinals' union rep apparently forgot to notify the relief corps that the season was indeed to continue; on may 23 they inherited a scoreless 9th-inning tie and needed all of two batters to put the cardinals in arrears, setting up a 2-0 defeat. the next night, the bullpen sprung a 5-run leak in the 7th inning, converting a 4-3 lead into an 8-4 deficit; and the night after that, they got tagged for 6 runs in the 8th and 9th innings, turning a 5-5 tie into an 11-5 rout. they reached their nadir three days later, blowing a 5-0 lead as the mets posted 6 runs in the 8th inning to hand the cards their 16th loss in 18 games.
that stretch dropped them to last place, 9 games out and essentially ended the season for the cardinals, who had won 86 games in 1979 and harbored visions of returning to the postseason for the first time in over a decade. the bullpen hardly deserved all the blame for the swoon; the offense averaged but 3 runs a game, and the defense yielded 10 unearned runs. but the relievers achieved failure on a far more spectacular scale. their stats for that 18-game stretch (may 13-30):
| ip | h | bb | so | hr | era | whip | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| starters | 100.2 | 90 | 41 | 49 | 3 | 3.59 | 1.31 |
| relievers | 36.2 | 49 | 27 | 17 | 5 | 8.59 | 2.07 |
boyer got fired a week later, whitey herzog took over, and sutter became a cardinal in december 1980, instantly transforming the bullpen from one of the cardinals' primary weaknesses into a major strength. it would remain so for more than 15 years. in that regard, sutter truly helped to redefine the cardinal franchise, giving it something it hadn't had since bob gibson -- what the diaspora calls an intimidation factor.
still doesn't make him a hall-of-famer in my eyes, but opinions vary. see others at get up baby, play a hard 9, bernie's column, the hardball times, baseball analysts, mike's rants, and dan agonistes. see also beyond the boxscore, which in addition to a breakdown of the sutter induction announces its own new inductees to the ray lankford wing of the hall of fame.
30 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Sutter will choose the Cardinal cap?
Sutter will attend a news conference today in New York at the Waldorf-Astoria, where, among other things, he said he would name his team of preference for the cap to be displayed on his Hall of Fame plaque. Sutter declined to say Tuesday whether it would be the Cardinals or the Cubs.But, from all indications, he is expected to choose the Cardinals, for whom he pitched four seasons, 1981-84, with the last season a record-setting one in which he achieved 45 saves, a National League mark that since has been broken, and posted a 1.54 ERA.
Going in as a Card.
It doesn't
Sutter was the best around for a number of years, and his influence on the art of pitching will always be remembered; stats be damned.
I agree about impact
i'm with you on this
i also question his authorship of the split-finger fastball, which i think was just a variation on the forkball. sutter threw it like nobody before or since, and his success spurred a whole generation of imitators. but i don't think the imitators are really throwing the same pitch sutter threw; what they're throwing is more akin to a standard forkball, which had been around long before sutter.
i agree with you that sutter's statistics don't fully capture the impact he had on the game. i only disagree about whether that impact was large enough to justify hall inclusion.
And
by flynn on Jan 11, 2006 4:08 PM EST up reply actions
Did you hear that...
by elderj on Jan 11, 2006 12:08 PM EST up reply actions
I have to give
Yeah...
by rockin redbird on Jan 11, 2006 11:03 AM EST reply actions
Nice comments....
HOF Press Release -- January 8, 2005
"The choice of which team's logo appears on a player's plaque is our decision," said Hall of Fame President Dale Petroskey. "The wishes of each inductee were considered, but ultimately, it is important that the logo be emblematic of the historical accomplishments of that player's career. A player's election to the Hall of Fame is a career achievement, and as such, every team for which the Hall of Famer played will be listed. The logo selection is based on where that player makes his most indelible mark."
Re: HOF credentials - I've heard the suggestion of "careers in baseball" being honored by the HOF and I think it has some merit. Think of a guy like Ron Santo - borderline HOFer who has also been a radio broadcaster for many, many years, he's Chicago's Mike Shannon. (Santo was a better player but Shannon's a better broadcaster, so they even out, IMO.) Frank Jobe and Marvin Miller, noted above, are also great names to consider for the HOF. Their oveall contribution to the game should be recognized, the argument goes.
One guy I think deserves some attention is George Steinbrenner, he of the 6 World Championships and undying, critics-be-damned, committment to winning. He certainly has left an "indelible mark" on the game in the manner of HOF owners Mack, MacPhail, and Yawkey. Is the guy an absolute a-hole? Probably. Check out Cap Anson, Ty Cobb, and the other assortment of big time jerks in the HOF and you'll see that The Boss would have company of his own ilk should he make the HOF. Does the guy take advantage of being in the media capital of the world to generate ungodly amounts of revenue and outspend everyone? Of course, but it's all within the rules of the game (unlike the tactics of HOFer Gaylord Perry). And, has been shown time and again, spending the most money doesn't guarantee anything.
HOF - one more thing. I'd love to see an "inner circle" of HOFers who are elevated above the rest. Give them their own gilded room or something. I mean, guys like Bruce Sutter, Kirby Puckett, Red Schoendinst, Bobby Doerr, and Tony Perez were terrific players and should be recognized, but they are not in the same class as Musial, Aaron, Spahn, Wagner, and the others in baseball's super elite. The way it is now, they are all lumped in together. Plus, the "inner circle" could give us all one more thing to debate, which of course we would.
by flynn on Jan 11, 2006 12:21 PM EST reply actions
Inner circle
No matter where you draw the line, there are going to be guys on the border. Who are inner circle OFers?
Cobb, Ruth, Williams, Aaron, Mays, Musial?
What about Speaker? or to lesser extent (IMHO) Dimaggio, Mantle, Robinson...
Thanks..
First, I'm sort of surprised not one person has anything to say about my mention of Steinbrenner, as he is pretty much a polarizing figure.
Second, one method that could be applied to an "inner circle" of players is to select a certain percentage of HOFers who qualify. Let's say it's 10% of the overall cast of HOFers who get the First Level of Superiority. So, right away you select 22 guys (or whatever 10% of the current membership is) as being "above" the rest of the Hall of Fame. Then, every few years, when the HOF cast reaches a new level, a new guy can be added to the elite caste, which would generate added interest and debate.
by flynn on Jan 11, 2006 3:49 PM EST up reply actions
I really don't like
Who said
I guess most HOFers fall into either "really white-hot good for a period in time" like Bob Gibson, or "really steady and great over the long haul but never otherworldly" like say, Don Sutton. I agree that the second group of guys could be expanded to inlcude the ranks of Blyleven and John.
The group I'm talking about are those few players who were either just amazingly phenomenal during their white-hot streak, like Koufax, or who had a super-long, always productive career like, say, Warren Spahn. Or, there are those very few who managed to do both, performing way above the rest of the league for a very long time - Ruth, Musial, Cobb, Walter Johnson, etc.
by flynn on Jan 11, 2006 4:15 PM EST up reply actions
Wagner
by flynn on Jan 11, 2006 4:59 PM EST up reply actions
I didn't forget Johnson.
by flynn on Jan 12, 2006 10:06 AM EST up reply actions
Before they take my credentials away...
by flynn on Jan 11, 2006 12:34 PM EST reply actions
Outstanding
by rockin redbird on Jan 11, 2006 1:23 PM EST up reply actions
I'm thrilled to see
From a more rational standpoint goes, I'm not sold on this selection. I agree with lboros, the Splitter was what rung in the minds of voters more then the player himself. I think Sutter had some spectacular seasons, and worked harder for saves then your modern closer. But I think he's getting most of his props from being the rep of having the best Splitter of all time.
But with all things in consideration, I don't think i don't think it's a terrible selection. It's not going to lower the bar so much that suddenly Aguilera, or Wetteland or other guys of the sort get in. But it does open it up more to Goose, Lee Smith, & Trevor Hoffman.
In my mind, the only justifiable closers in the hall/or will be in the hall are
Hoyt Wilhelm,
Eck,
Mo Rivera.
ok...let the rumors begin
I have been barking
Not sure if the cards want him or have enough to get him though. I do like Valatans thought, but would hate to see Thompson go.
by Just Rope Ball on Jan 11, 2006 2:35 PM EST up reply actions



















