AJC > Sports > Columnists > Archives > 2006 > January > 10 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USNo reliever will get this elector’s vote
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Furman Bisher
To get to the jugular, I’ve never yet voted for a closer for the Baseball Hall of Fame, and I’m rather positive that I never shall. It’s like voting for a guy who only putts as Golfer of the Year, or a guy who only shoots free throws for the Basketball Hall of Fame. He’s only part-pitcher.
Having said that, let me join in the throng slapping Bruce Sutter on the back and say it’s nice for him and his family, but it’s only sending another loser to Cooperstown. There, he joins the only other closer, also the only other losing pitcher in the hallowed hall, though Rollie Fingers did do a few seasons as a starter first. His record is 114-118, Sutter’s 68-71.
It should be said in Fingers’ behalf that he did not go in as somewhat of a last resort. His class included Tom Seaver and Hal Newhouser and Bill Mazeroski, as well as the umpire who belonged on a Saturday Evening Post cover, Bill McGowan, but all the latter three courtesy of the Veterans Committee, which since has been overhauled.
Sutter’s earned-run average was very good, 2.83. His strikeouts-to-walks ratio was good. But he pitched barely over 1,000 innings. Take Bert Blyleven, the right-hander who is running out of time. He pitched 4,970 innings, struck out 3,701 batters — only four other pitchers struck out more, and they’re in (you guessed it) — and won 287 games. Now that’s a career for you. He wasn’t the most obliging cuss when you wanted a word or two, but that has bothered me with only one player, and it wasn’t Jim Rice, for whom I cast a vote this time.
Apparently, Sutter scored heavily in one category, that as a pitcher who created a pitch, the “splitter.” I’ve always heard Roger Craig, manager and coach, get the credit for the “splitter,” but I’ll bet you this, you can go back to one group of players who’ll tell that was the exact same pitch that Elroy Face was throwing with the Pirates around the turn of the 1960s. Only then, they called it a “forkball.”
Along that line of pitch creation, that brings up a case presented by Bob Feller, who had a few pitches of his own. Feller campaigned for a pitcher named George Blaeholder, even said he belonged in the Hall of Fame. Why? Because Blaeholder invented the “slider,” sometimes known as the “nickel curve.” Now, George Blaeholder, in his lifetime, won 104 games and lost 125, hardly Hall of Fame stuff. But you could forgive, even if he’d been throwing bombs. He pitched for the pitiable St. Louis Browns, who were good for more laughs than class. No telling how many careers he saved, for more pitchers have made a living throwing the “slider” than the “splitter.”
But, that just gives you a slant on how much these major league balloteers know about baseball history. Me, I go back an age when pitchers often went both ways. Start a game one day, go in and save one the next. I’m a Firpo Marberry guy.
Now there was a moose. Marberry came from Texas and was built like a sheriff. His real name was Fred, but nobody called him that. One year he started 64 games and saved 22 (before saves became a religion.) Five times he started 50 games or more, and when he was 34 years old, he started 54 with the Senators. You know how many Hall of Fame votes he got? A measly 1.6 per cent.
So don’t feel too wretched Dale. Dale Muprhy got all of 10.6 percent, and I think it’s safe to say we in Atlanta call off our Dale Murphy for Cooperstown campaign.
I know they’re celebrating in the Sutter household this week, and you can’t blame them. This has been going on for years, and the mourners have been wailing at his shrine. But he’s not the only guy who got in without what you and I would consider Hall of Fame credentials. A man I admire exceedingly is Cecil Travis, who does have them but hasn’t made it, but who once said, “There are a lot of guys out there who were better than I was who aren’t in there. It doesn’t bother me.”
Permalink | Comments (121) | Categories: Braves / MLB, Furman Bisher
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Paul Acocella
January 10, 2006 10:06 PM | Link to this
Once again the once-great Furman Bisher reasserts his role as the sports pages leading head-in-the sand curmudgeon with his arrogant column saying he’ll never cast a Hall of Fame vote for a reliever. In Bisher’s world, closers don’t exist. Meanwhile, back in reality, closers and middle men are essential parts of all successful baseball teams.
Yo, Furman, you’ve probably won some journalistic awards. But by your logic, a guy who writes once a week shouldn’t get the same consideration as a reporter who writes every day.
Furman Bisher: great writer, great sports fan, but a total Neanderthal on the bullpen isssue.
By Bender
January 10, 2006 10:19 PM | Link to this
I can’t remember the last column I read that Bisher didn’t quote stuff from the 60’s.
Ok, we get it, Furman, you’re older and wiser and you have some great stories from the past. But steadfastly ignoring the fundamental way the game has changed since the mid 1900’s, i.e. relievers and closers, is naive (at best) or ignorant (at worse).
By Max Sizemore
January 10, 2006 10:25 PM | Link to this
Sad, Furman, very sad. Paul, above, has it exactly right: writing a column once a week is not much different than pitching the ninth inning every second or third day. Big difference, though: If you were a closer you’d have been canned a long time ago.
By Ken M.
January 10, 2006 11:52 PM | Link to this
Thanks for your appreciation for the game the way it was. I would have liked to have seen some of those guys back then. I have to say that with the way the game has changed you have to look at guys like Rivera and appreciate their importance to their team. Last years Braves should tell us that. Smoltz’s Saves are every bit as important to the run of 14 as his wins.
By Scott
January 11, 2006 01:34 AM | Link to this
Time to hang em up Furman. The game has passed you by. The closer is one of the most important parts of a baseball team.
Just ask the Atlanta Braves.
By Caelus
January 11, 2006 06:40 AM | Link to this
Sorry Furman. Normally you hit the spot with your articles but struck out with this one. Like it or not, in today’s baseball, a solid closer is mandatory if a team is able to be a success. The Yankees would be in a heckuva lot of trouble without Rivera coming in to seal their wins. Where would the Braves be with Rivera in their bullpen?
By Other Mark
January 11, 2006 07:36 AM | Link to this
I agree that Furman missed the boat with this one. But, it’s too bad that you can’t have a difference of opinion without the personal attacks and name calling. You must have done awfully well in debate! Or shop!
The day I will be upset at the Hall is when a Designated Hitter gets voted in and some are pointing to Edgar Martinez as the first one to test the waters. They are certainly one-way players and have no business competing with players that actually play defense.
In recent years, I have had less and less respect for the Baseball Writers voting for the Hall and think that the time has come to change the process. Any group that can’t unanimously vote for Hank Aaron, Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle doesn’t deserve to vote at all.
By Matt
January 11, 2006 07:50 AM | Link to this
Mr. Bisher, you sir are an idiot….Bruce Sutter changed the game…..enough said!
By Mike
January 11, 2006 07:55 AM | Link to this
By the same logic:
You can’t vote for a designated hitter because they don’t play in the field. You can’t vote for an American League pitcher becuase they don’t havet to bat. You can’t vote for anyone that played after 1968 when the leagues began expanding and hence diluting the talent pool.
Mr. Bisher, it’s time to call it a day.
By John
January 11, 2006 08:03 AM | Link to this
You just summed up why you are an idiot Mr. Bisher.
By Steve
January 11, 2006 08:13 AM | Link to this
Shame on you!!
By Randolph
January 11, 2006 08:16 AM | Link to this
Mr. Bisher, its time to retire !
Just because the title relief specialist didn’t exist 60 years ago, doesn’t mean there are those who do not deserve recognition for it.
In their day Rollie Fingers , Bruce Sutter and Rich Gossage were the bulpen icons, and were so for several years. Unlike todays bullpen heroes, these guys would typically pitch more than one inning at a time.
By Byron
January 11, 2006 08:19 AM | Link to this
A very good closer, yes. Hall of Fame caliber, no way. Your article is right on Mr. Bisher.
By tim
January 11, 2006 08:20 AM | Link to this
At least he’s told us his rationale and is sticking with it. Agree or disagree as you wish. Mr. Bisher does consistently raise another point worth considering: we tend to focus too strongly on our own generation or players we’ve seen in arguing Hall of Fame decisions. Some of the stars of today may not be as deserving as some from the past. Just a thought, not a manifesto.
By George
January 11, 2006 08:24 AM | Link to this
Mr. Bisher,
While I do not agree with your position I respect your thoughts. The folks who call you names and get personal remind me of our current crop of politicians.
By jack
January 11, 2006 08:26 AM | Link to this
I dont agree with Mr. Bisher reference closers as the game certainly has changed and George from NYC would be going crazy if he didnt have Rivera. More diserving than Sutter—-someone ought to take a look at Jim Rice and his stats.He deserves to be enshrined.
By Curt
January 11, 2006 08:28 AM | Link to this
I am with you all the way Furman! I think the sanctity of the Hall is being violated by letting less-than-deserving candidates in. Bruce Sutter was an above average player and had a couple of great years, but as you remember he was a giant bust with the Braves and his longevity was not outstanding. And he never produced the kind of postseason performances like a Mariano Rivera, who might someday get to the Hall. Way to go Furman, no go on Bruce!
By Ryan Quinn
January 11, 2006 08:32 AM | Link to this
A GOOD reporter always checks his facts Furman. Mazeroski was inducted in 2001 with Puckett, Winfield and Hilton Smith. Fingers, Newhouser and Seaver were inducted in 1992.
By Tom
January 11, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this
I wouldn’t ever say that no reliever should ever be elected to the HOF, but I agree with Furman that Sutter shouldn’t be a part of it. The HOF has become very watered-down in the past few years, with numerous players who had long careers with high career numbers (HR’s, wins, etc.), but were never what I would call one of the truly great players of their generations. Don Sutton, Eddie Murray, Maz, Phil Niekro (sorry, Braves fans), Paul Molitor, Tony Perez, etc…very good players, but not the greats of their generations. Guys like Jim Rice and Andre Dawson are in that group, too — they had very good careers, but just not great enough to warrant HOF election.
Just like everything these days, society’s standards have gotten soft. Doesn’t surprise me at all that HOF elections have been soft, too.
By Larry
January 11, 2006 08:58 AM | Link to this
Lucky for Sutter that HOF stands for Hall of Fame and not Hall of Furman!
By gastr1
January 11, 2006 09:02 AM | Link to this
No designated hitters, either, or while we’re on it, managers, coaches, executives, or WRITERS. Wait a minute….no one has to pitch except the pitchers. So we can’t have catchers, infielders, or outfielders, either, because they only do two of baseball’s three things (pitch, catch, hit). Hey, pitchers don’t hit, either! that’s it, no one gets in!
By Tony Tortorici
January 11, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this
Furman, you’re the best sportswriter there is. Only Frank De-whatzisname is close to being in your league. Keep it up, friend.
By Jim
January 11, 2006 09:05 AM | Link to this
Insightful and well reasoned. It is a breath of fresh air to read someone with an understanding and appreciation of the sport’s history. I am disappointed that my current generation thinks that name calling and trash talking passes for thinking.
By clint ellison
January 11, 2006 09:06 AM | Link to this
Yes, the game has changed, and not for the better. Time was when the game was played by real men with talent and drive. There was such a thing as a “brushback” pitch when the batter did not charge the mound for a fight. Radical, I know.
Designated hitters? You gotta be kidding. The bunt was actually a potent offensive weapon. Relief pitchers existed because they didn’t have the talent to be a starter.
Now, the game has morphed into a specialized mess, where you have multi-millionaires blow drying between innings; and any dolt with a fast ball over 90 MPH can be a “closer”. Gawd.
Bruce Sutter is a good guy. He is not deserving of the Hall. He lost more games than he won, for God’s sake. Hello?
By steve
January 11, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this
This was just a way for this idiot (Bisher) to get someone to read his column.
By Jason
January 11, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this
I think Matt is right, Bruce Sutter did change the game from how far a homer was hit in the launching pad from avg 430 ft to 465 ft. All in the late innings for a team that was struggling to not be considered the worst team in baseball. Excellent comment, Matt…you’re on top of things. People who are truly deserving include Dale Murphy and Jim Rice.
By Trottsky
January 11, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this
Good for Bruce Sutter !! As a Braves fan, I wish we had gotten him earlier in his career. And no one should try and disparage this honor from him. But giving up on Murph before you have to may be realistic, but I won’t until he’s no longer on the list. He deserves 300 votes for being one of the best ambassadors baseball has ever had. And I thought I might be a little partisan, but when you compare his stats to such surprizes as Puckett and Sandberg (to me at least), he was just as good. It’s the Atlanta thing. Had he played for New York or LA or Chicago, he would have gotten much more press and therefore, a lot of these young sportswriters would have a clue of what he meant in his time. Just go to baseballreference.com and compare. Then add points for style, grace, and integrity. Don’t forget Role Model . Only Cal can compare and if he wasn’t The Iron Horse…..And then subtract for arrogance, greed, etc. Of course, Bonds has the numbers and can’t be denied but thank god he wasn’t playing during my formidable years. What a player to look up to !!!
By Doc
January 11, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this
Gawd, I was going to call Bishop a quack but I think it’s been said 50 times already.
Hungum’ up Bis!!
By Stan
January 11, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this
Good article, Mr. Bisher. I apologize on behalf of my wretched generation, who find it so easy to slander decent people like yourself.
By Mohican
January 11, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this
Furman- I agree with you 1000% Next thing you know they will want Pete in the Hall. Go figure- this is the now- right now age and no one has any sense of history- only a snap shot of what this game was once about. By the way- MLB lost me during the first strike. I haven’t paid for a ticket since then. I attend when someone offers me one paid for by rich corporations. You can’t take a family to the game anymore unless you mortgage the house! Bring back Ponce ballpark and the crackers!
By Gary
January 11, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this
The Hall of Fame is a lot like the umpire calling balls and strikes: It’s a Hall of Famer when the voters say so!
We could argue for eternity about what is a “Proper set of qualifications” for entry into the Hall, but never answer the question. The only thing I take issue with in this column is the mean-spirited slap at Sutter that serves nothing. Furman, go ahead and state your personal criteria for HoFers and be glad you have a public forum to do so. But why belittle a man in the moment of his glory? What good does that serve? One of my definitions of a loser is someone who mocks a person in the moment of their “winning.” And, agree or not, Sutter is now a Hall of Famer for eternity, so he “won.”
By JoeFundo
January 11, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this
This is why I love baseball! There are SO many differing opinions and viewpoints.
By George
January 11, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
Hey Furman we cant help the fact that you have been around since the beginning of baseball and you was Honus Wagners ghost writer. You obviously did not see the braves and every other team without a solid closer die last year. Whether you or anyone else dont like it the closer is one of the most important positions on any team and without one you sink. Ask John Smoltz if he would have been a CY YOUNG contender this year if the braves had one. Well I guess you will never get in the hall with articles like this unlike a real baseball writer like PETER GAMMONS who is already in. Good Day and Please Retire!
By Bob
January 11, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
Ask any manager or any GM or any team for that matter if they can win without a top closer. They can’t. You may not like it or the pitchers doing it but it is an integral part of the game and it must be respected. The cream of the crop should be in the Hall. Goose is part of it.
By S P Carl
January 11, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
Like most things in life, baseball changes, too. Some for the better and some for the worse. Closers from the Sutter…Fingers…Gossage era were artists in their right, regardless of where you stand. Avid fans at the time were ecstatic to see one of them come in to save the game, repeatedly. I hate to see so much intense division over something that should be a plus for the game. There apparently is nothing today that can withstand so much acidic and vitiolic partisanship!
By Jay Potter
January 11, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this
Send this article to Selig please. It’s proof positive that HOF voting needs to be taken out of the hands of the sportswriters.
By Buck
January 11, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
Just because you are old and grumpy doesn’t mean you have to be so set in your ways. Maybe it does but who cares what you think anyway. Closers are a very important part of baseball and the role of a closer is a lot different now than it used to be. Sure there are several people out there who deserve to be in the HOF. In comparing Bruce’s stats to starters shows me that you sir have a lack of knowledge about the game of baseball and what it takes to be successful. A lot of starting pitchers that are in the Hall would not have several wins, especially in today’s era, if it were not for quality relief pitchers. A closer is not put in games to get wins, but saves. So bringing up the career record is extremely irrelevant in your argument. Bruce did a helluva lot more for the game of baseball than you will ever do for your profession. To knock someone like Bruce at a special time like this is a shame. It’s not like he begged and pleaded for votes. Rules are rules and he got 75% of the vote and will be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. You sir need to wake up and smell the sweet aroma of the 21st Century. You don’t have to explain your vote to me. You did what you could to keep Bruce Sutter out of the Hall of Fame and 76.9% of the voters disagreed with you and your opinion on relief pitchers. Don’t attempt to tarnish this great accomplishment because you don’t think any relief pitcher should be in baseball’s most elite group.
Congratulations Bruce!
By Josh Pate
January 11, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
WHO ARE YOU TO CALL BRUCE SUTTER A LOSER!!!? I for one am ashamed to live in the same city as this moron, it’s people like him who will keep John Smoltz out of the Hall of Fame!!! SOMEONE PLEASE FIRE HIM
By Allen
January 11, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
I agree the HOF bar has been lowered significantly. To this point I believe there are a very few active players who are truely HOF great. Clemmons and Bonds with the steriods not widthstanding come to mind. Not even Smoltz and Glavine would be shoe-ins if this were 50 years ago. I also agree that you can disagree with FB without being an ill-mannered jerk about it. Grow up and have some class if at all possible.
By T 2 the D
January 11, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
Bish, I’m glad for Sutter too albeit undeserving. Rice was my choice to. Sports Writers electing to the Hall will eventually be a thing of the past, when writer’s with intergrity denie this generation’s ‘roid squad. Crossover stud Smoltzie has nothing to fear; Best big game money pitcher of his era.
By Bob
January 11, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this
Furman it’s about time and that old 1931 Underwood typewriter called it a day. Eat more fiber and keep getting your reguar PSA test done. Just because and you and Shoeless Joe Jackson were once friends does ot qualify you to be calling anyone a loser unless of course you’re standing in front of a mirror. You and Andy Rooney have fun fishing. You’re out of touch old man.
By clay
January 11, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this
By your logic, you wouldn’t have voted Gale Sayers into the Pro Football Hall of Fame either. Bruce Sutter changed the game of baseball which is the same reason Sayers was elected into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Sayers isn’t in the Top 50 of any category but is probably one of the more deserving players there.
By Shirley Povich
January 11, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
I remember when I was in journalism school and we’d laugh at Bisher for being a curmudgeonly dinosaur. This, BTW, was in the 1970s!
By Ken
January 11, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this
Furman Bisher needs to quit trying to live in the past. The “closer” position is a part of baseball and if you are outstanding at the position there is no reason in the world why you should not be considered for the Hall of Fame. I am sure that we may have players in the Hall of Fame that may not have made it if they played in today’s game. We can only judge players by how they succeed in their performance of the game whether it is now or in the past. Congratulations to Bruce Sutter for he was deserving. Consideration needs to be given to reducing the influence of sportwriters on the vote.
By glenn
January 11, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this
Unlike it seems most of you folks, I was born and raised in Atlanta since 1966, and have been reading Mr. Bisher’s columns since I was able to read. He is an Atlanta institution and is entitled to his opinions whether you like it or not, so take all your “yo’s” back up north you yankee transplants.
By scribe
January 11, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this
Mr. Bisher is the exact reason the baseball hall of fame is a joke. Narrow minded voters have no place voting for the fans game. He should have his credentials revoked because of this article.
By brewerfaninATL
January 11, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
Furman: I love your articles…MOST of the time! This is NOT one of them! I’m one of those that is very glad to see Bruce Sutter enter the hallowed doors, but I still am at a loss for words that Gossage is not in there either. Any way, the releiver is a very important part of our game, just ask the Atlanta Braves who probably lost the last few playoff series because of the bullpen, esp. last year. Also, don’t tell me you won’t vote for Mariano Rivera when it’s his turn for election…he’s only the iciest relief pitcher in the history of the game and check out his playoff stats, you know, the games that REALLY count! They are just unreal! Sorry Furman, you are WAY off on this one!
By Larry Turtleman
January 11, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this
What smells like mothballs?
By Kris Sauriol
January 11, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
Mr. Bisher,
As a fan of the game I always enjoy reading your articles, but I just can’t agree with you on this particular issue. You mentioned that voting for a reliever to get into the Hall of Fame is like voting for a guy who putts to be the Golfer of the Year. Well, I don’t follow golf very closely, but I am pretty sure that no such job exists on the PGA tour. If there was such a job then I would recognize those who were the best at it because it is such major part of the game.
Since relievers and closers are jobs in MLB, and while they may not play the whole game (find me a starter who plays or can play the whole game every time and I will stand corrected) they play an essential role in finishing games.
If you are the best at your position in the game why shouldn’t you be allowed into the Hall of Fame? I don’t think that those who play the position should just be ignored, had the Braves had a top-notch closer this past season Smoltz might have been a Cy Young candidate. Baseball is a better game because of relievers and closers because they allow starting pitchers to have longer careers and they reduce the liklihood of having overworked pitchers become injured.
By Curt
January 11, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
Anyone who is a fan of the Atlanta Braves, or humankind for that matter, should ever condone calling off the Dale Murphy for the Hall of Fame Campaign. Murphy rivals Jim Rice or Andre Dawson in so many statistics beyond the back-to-back MVPs and all the All Star appearances and Gold Gloves. He did all of this playing for one of the worst franchises in sport and did it remaining one of the great gentlemen any profession has ever seen. If Murphy had played for the Cubs or the Yankees he would already be in. He remains one of the top-5 players from the ’80s. On the contrary, we should do more as Atlantans to fight for Murphy’s place in the Hall. For Furman Bisher to suggest anything less offends me. Our heroes have been discredited for entirely too long. I will never forget the grace and skill displayed by Dale Murphy in roaming our outfield. I wore #3 on every jersey I ever wore and still do.
By Ala Jim
January 11, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this
Glenn, I’m like you except I was born in 1932. You’re right. Mr. Bisher is entitled to his opinion even when it’s wrong, as in this case. He’s still the best.
By David
January 11, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this
Bruce who?
By brent
January 11, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
In a twist on the old bumpersticker he used to give out “YOU CAN’T BEAT BISHER.”
By Eric Von Sockthroat
January 11, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
Furman Bisher for President of the Flat Earth Society!!
By Larry M
January 11, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this
Typical old school bull crap from Bisher.Probably still think that Bob Cousy could play today and that Dick Butkus would still be great,they wouldn’t even make the team.
By ben
January 11, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
Furman, you can break the modern game down into these words: steroids, money, going yard, and closers. Do you really have to ask yourself why a closer is voted to the hall when these “fans” who insult you are fine with a steroid made player breaking the most cherished record in the game? Just like the NBA, the players, owners and fans lost respect for the game years ago.
By Larry M
January 11, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
Oh by the way Mariano Rivera will go in the HOF on the first ballot and will receice a higher pct of the votes than just about any of your old school pitchers that are currently in the HOF,Higher pct than many of the 300 game winners also.Put that in your old school pipe and smoke it!
By Anthony
January 11, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
Furman: Face facts, the closer is an integral part of the modern game. If you can honestly sit there and say players such as Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman are not Hall Worthy than the game has indeed passed you by. Calling them “part pitcher” is ridiculous. Very few have the intestinal fortitude to take a job like closing out a baseball game and still manage to be good at it. The real travesty here is that Sutter went in and Gossage didn’t. They should have gone in together.
By Mark
January 11, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this
Bisher’s right. Sutter is a nice guy who had a few incredible years as a closer but there are many others who are more deserving. The Hall needs to be a place where the best of the best go, not the best of the good.
By JB
January 11, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
Furman,
You are an idiot and you spell bad!
By War Eagle
January 11, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
The Giants Win The Pennant! The Giants Win The Pennant!-Are you stuck in this year Mr. Bisher? Pitchers rarely go 9 innings nor make 40 starts like in the 50’s and 60’s. Another reason why sportswriters should not have ANYTHING to do with awards-ala Hall fo Fame, College Football Rankings, etc. Most of you have never played the game or sports. Without a relief pitcher, The Braves might not have won a World Series. Glavine was tired and Wohlers pitched a great ninth. Relief pitchers were supposedly designed to ensure a fresh arm on the mound at all times. Do you compare a relief pitcher to a kicker? He only comes in on certain plays. In which case, Adam V in New England does not matter-he has a few Super Bowl Rings-how many do you have Furman? Mario Rivera has a few World Series Rings. How many do you have Furman? And what do you say about Fingers, Eckersley and the Big Red Machine’s Closers? Just another reason why the AJC should be proof read for idiotship prior to realsing the paper. BTW Furman, The Giants just won the Pennant.
By Connie Mack Berry Jr
January 11, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
“Furman Bisher: great writer, great sports fan, but a total Neanderthal on the bullpen isssue.”* Some lower evolutionary form of baseball fan
They just don’t teach respect of their elders anymore do they old wise one of sports Furman. I wonder how long these young pups would have made it in the depression by telling the Babe he was a sorry pitcher for the Boston Braves and should be traded!
Your good buddy still fighting the political neo-cons of baseball….. Connie Mack Berry Jr.
By Ben
January 11, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this
Mariano Rivera is a first ballot hall of famer.
It’s plain and simple
By NoNameDude
January 11, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this
Most of the comments above have hit the nail on the head…how many championships would the Braves now have if they had a decent bullpen and a great closer every year? I would venture to say, that with the exception of the ‘91 World Series, they would have won EVERY one of the other Series they were in, and possibly made it to at least 2, maybe 3 more Series than they did.
Don’t say Sutter isn’t deserving, he held many records in baseball, which were only overcome because the closer role has become even more succinct, often with closers pitching only 1 or less innings. He was an outstanding pitcher in his time.
Do you think Bisher is only saying this because he is holding a grudge against Sutter because he got hurt after being traded to the Braves and was not able to save much for us?
By Will
January 11, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this
Eyeryone stop bashing Mr. Bisher! He has a right to his own opinion.
I believe that baseball is a sport that should elect its HOFers in two tiers:
Positional balloting would elect one baseball player for each of the following areas: Infield (incl. Catcher), Outfield (incl. DH) and Pitcher.
That way, the newest retirees can be voted upon the traditional 15 year maximum before going to the positional balloting.
Positional balloting would step in and honor those deserving ballplayers who weren’t “popular” enough to get voted in originally.
The positional balloting would be voted on by the living HOFers. The process would start with the most deserving of each of the three “positions” during the different “eras” of baseball. Then, that smaller list would then be narrowed down to the final three selections.
If it were in place today for the first time, my positional HOFers would be Jim Rice-OF/DH, Steve Garvey-IF, and Bert Blyleven-P.
Who would argue with a 2006 Hall of Fame class of this caliber of players?
The NFL inducts at least 4 players, coaches, etc. each year.
It is time to retire the current voting system, not Furman Bisher!
By Steve
January 11, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this
68-71 is a LOSING record, anyway you want to calculate it. Do you know how hard it is for a pitcher who is strictly a reliever to LOSE 71 games…(for 1 inning every other game, 2 innings tops, I DOMINATE). Every year from now on, someone is going to have a hellacious # of saves. Does stringing a few of these type seasons together constitute a HOF career? No, it doesn’t.
By Sam
January 11, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this
Mr. Bishop,
Like most of the comments regarding to your column, I cannot agree that a closer needs to be considered a “part time player”, a “putter - only” or “just a free throw shooter”. I have always enjoyed your comments though sometimes I disagreed with them. My concern is not your comments - it is your responsibility. You have something that very few others have - the opportunity to choose someone for a special acknowledgement - access to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Your apparent lack of acknowledgement of the actual impact that these “part time” players have on the game now causes one to think that you may not understand the game. Is it time to reevaluate your actual privilege to be someone who can ACCURATELY assess and choose who is “Hall of Fame” criteria?
Sam
By Luke C. Waters
January 11, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this
This makes absolutely no sense. To say that Bruce Sutter is not worthy of the Hall simply because he has never started a game is ignorant and foolish at best. Let’s look at this logically:
Sutter was a specialist, that’s true, he came in during a certain situation, and he excelled in said situation. This reminds me of a Punter, or maybe a Kicker in football. Should these people be exempt from their Hall simply because they are not a full-time football player and can, in some cases, go a couple of games without use? Hardly.
Unfortunately for you, and many of your old vanguard buddies, the times are a changin’. Major League Baseball recognizes the Save as a statistic of interest, and has for over 30 years. It is high time that you pull your head out of your rear and realize this.
In today’s game, starters aren’t going all 9. Rarely, RARELY, does a pitcher go the whole game. It’s been declining since the late 70’s, and it’s only getting worst. SO, this brings us to closers, they are necessary. Probably in the top 3 most important players on the team. Closers have to be consistent, intelligent, and most importantly, clutch. They exhibit every quality that you want every player on your team to have.
Also, whether a person pitches one inning, or six, it doesn’t matter. The Hall of Fame is a measure of greatness of skill at a given position. If an umpire, an owner and a broadcaster can make it, so can a closer. If he was the best of his time, and dominated his time, he deserved it. Sutter did this.
Finally, if the Braves had a closer of Sutter’s magnitude last season, they would have won 10-15 more regular season games and at least two more postseason. That’s how important a closer is, your season relies on him. If he’s great, he deserves to go, get off your high horse. You shouldn’t be allowed to vote. That’s all.
By SouthernJackassradiopersonalitygonehaywire
January 11, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
Well much has been said in this blog concerning the importance of a good closer…if only John Schuerholz understood this fact as well!…Oh by the way, Mr. Bisher can remember the days when a ‘starter’ also had the ‘jewels’ to ‘close’ their games…I guess the next big trend will be a ‘finisher’ to come in and get the ‘closers’ last out!…
By KH
January 11, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
I usaully agree with Furman but I have to say he defiantely missed the call on this one. Bruce Sutter was a baseball player who did what was asked of him by his employer and he did it better than anyone else. Major league baseball had evolved to where closers were required to make a team successful. They said Babe Ruth was not a very good fielder but he was not in the lineup to chase down fly balls in the gap, he was in there to hit homeruns and he did that well enough to be considered one of the best of all time. Bruce Sutter was not on the team to pitch 6 innings a game he was on the team to insure that they won the close games, because after all winning the game is the main goal. We will never no if Bruce Sutter could have been a 300 game winner because his value was far to great to his team as a closer. As far as being a part time player, baseball is full of them. Pitchers do not hit in the AL, fielders do not pitch and starting pitchers only play every 4 or 5 games. I feel that in order to be in the Hall you need to have demonstrated that you were one of the greatest during your era and you needed to do your job better than anyone else during your time. Based on this Sutter should be in the Hall of Fame because he was the best at what was asked of him by Major league Baseball during his time.
By waynehoobler
January 11, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
Furman is right on the money. 1st off, everyone here should read some of Bill James’s books on the topic of HOF. The voting has NOT become diluted in recent years and if anything it’s more strict than it used to be. Based on who was admitted in the past, Ted Simmons and a few other very-good-players-with-long-careers should be in the HOF.
Voting was the weakest when several journeymen such as Jesse Hanes were voted in due to cronyism and connections to the baseball commissioner. Thus, the minimal HOF standards are pretty low.
Bruce Sutter had 3 good seasons, was not nearly as dominant as Goose Gossage, was never a good starter (like Eckersly or Smoltz), was not as good as Murphy, Dawson, Rice. He was a good reliever for a little while and he wasn’t good enough to be a starter.
I’m okay with admitting BS, but how the heck can you keep out mvp’s like Murphy (also an SI sportsman of the year), Dawson, etc.??
By ron mexico
January 11, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this
your analogy of a golfer who only putts is probably the worst I’ve ever heard of in my entire life.
By brewerfaninATL
January 11, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this
I think what gets lost in the shuffle when it comes to voting relievers in the Hall is the fact that, in the 70’s and 80’s, they used to pitch more than 1 inning at a time, sometimes even 3. That is why Sutter and Gossage and others have a losing record. It is much different today where we now have set-up men and specialists who only pitch to one batter. OK Furman, you are not impressed with Gossage, Sutter, Fingers, or anyone else for that matter, but I ask this again: How many more championships would the Braves have won if they had a better bullpen? I thought so!
By George
January 11, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this
Again I cant believe some of you agree with this fossil. Bruce Sutter deserves to be in and as long as we leave the power in there hands on who gets in my hero Dale Murphy wont get in because of comments like that. You would think that someone from Atlanta would be lobbying for Murphy not writing him off. And something else Furman how come since you lived through this decade how come Roger Maris is not in. Him and Murphy both have two MVP’s, many All Star Appearences and gold gloves and I cant think of any name that was greater than Roger Maris in the 60’s breaking the Babe’s record. Is it because you and the Babe we close friends. CONGRATS BRUCE and good luck Rog and Murph.
By SouthernJackass
January 11, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
If you want to see real HOF material go down to McDonalds and watch a braindead John Rocker flip burgers with one hand while scratching his grease chute with the other—just my opinion…
By Furman Bisher
January 11, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
You whipper snappers missed my point! The great game of Base ball has not been a great as it was before Jackie Robinson.
By Tbone
January 11, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this
Let me see if if I can translate this properly, old man: “Every current baseball manager (including at least 3 first-ballot HOFers) is an IDIOT because they allocate one of their precious roster slots to a closer” - that seems like a rough approximation of your theory. If they weren’t valuable why would these managers use them to help win games? Why would baseball writers (those that actually have attended a game or two in the last twenty years) often consider these specialty players for such lofty honors as Cy Youngs and MVPs? Hmmmm. Furman I’ve enjoyed your columns for years, but this time I believe you forgot to engage the cogitation device before the typing one.
By Jerry Shea
January 11, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
To those who think that Bruce Sutter was juat an “above average” closer, it should be pointed out that he let the National League in saves four straight years and won the Cy Young award in 1979. Bruce Sutter and Rollie Finger,at their peak, were the two greatest relievers of all time.
By Ralph
January 11, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
If you feel so strongly about this, then as a “relief” writer, give back all your awards to prove your point. Relief Pitchers pitch more games a week than you write articles. You seem to subscribe to “Do As I Say, Not As I Do”…..
By Dr. Joe Moses
January 11, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this
Mr. Bisher, If there is anyone who should be in baseball’s hall of fame, and isn’t, would be my uncle, Wally Moses. He played for 20 years and coached for 20 years. He had great stats and several world series rings. Check him out!!
By Glenn
January 11, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this
Well, when golf becomes a team sport and you use someone just to putt, then your analogy might stick. In team sports, each person plays a vital role in the position they play. Look how the Braves did this year without a viable closer compared to years when we’ve had Wohlers and Rocker at their prime as well as Smoltz. Closers deserve to win the Cy Young, MVP, and to have a spot in the Hall if they earn it. I have no idea how you got on the AJC’s payroll. After all, you only write about sports. Round yourself out and write about politics and Wall Street. Only then will I consider you a journalist.
By Chris
January 11, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this
While I disagree entirely with Mr. Bisher’s feelings, I disagree more with the people calling him an “idiot” and various other names.
Show not only some respect, but also some class, people. It is very possible to disagree with someone (especially someone like Mr. Bisher, who has always done a great job and actually does deserve some respect) without resorting to name-calling.
It is immature and, once again, disrespectful.
Keep up the good work, Mr. Bisher. We all have differences of opinion.
By Clyde
January 11, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
It is sad to see what many people consider to be reasonable discussion and blogging. I wonder if they behave so rudely in face to face discourse. In point of fact Furman’s points show reasoned opinion and many of the comments rely on raw emotion. I am personally very happy to see that Sutter did make the Hall of Fame and there is no doubt that if any reliever deserves the honor he does. I thoroughly enjoyed the article.
By George
January 11, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this
HEY CHRIS!! I think the reason we are responding the way we are to this obsured article is because your precious Mr. Bisher’s is not being respectful to Bruce Sutter and his family at a time of celebration. Can you imagine if you just got elected to the hall and someone like this fossil is downing you and everyone like you how that would make you feel. NOT GOOD RIGHT!!
By Rick Goins
January 11, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this
Furman, you old scribe … The mindset that you and many other baseball writers subscribe to is, if anything, wrong minded and short-sighted. Baseball has evolved into a game of specialists due, in part, to game management by innings and, yes, former scribe Jerome Holtzman’s invention of the save. Had the game not evolved, I would agree with you. But, it has and I cannot. Baseball is timeless, a game that cannot end without the completion of nine innings and 27 outs. Without closers, the game as it is cannot end — unless the umpires gasp call it due to lack of interest. Come to think of it, I share a lack of interest in BBWAA Hall voters that still see the game through rose colored glasses vintage 1950 and vote accordingly. Please don’t tell me that you aren’t going to vote in Cal Ripken Jr., Tony Gwynn and Mark McGwire next year on the first ballot because of the time-honored tradition of “no one deserves to go in on the first ballot.” I did notice that Walt Weiss did get one vote. Perchance did your pencil slip?
By Other Mark
January 11, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this
Well said, Chris. I disagree with Mr. Bisher, but it doesn’t make me a genious anymore than it makes him a moron. But unfortunately, that’s the only way that some can argue - they can’t yell and scream, so they call names like they did in kindergarten. Always wins the argument.
I thought the putting analogy was a good one - someone else hits all the big shots and avoids all the pitfalls, then another guy hits the putt and finishes the hole to get the final score. What’s so hard to figure out about that?
For the writer that compared it to keeping out punters in the NFL - you better check it out, because that is EXACTLY what the NFL has done. Ray Guy is one of the greats and was crucial to the Raiders great years, but he is not in. Coincidence? Or a backlash against specialists?
By Other Mark
January 11, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this
Does anyone think that Bruce Sutter is actually reading the AJC today?
There are going to be articles discussing his being voted in, just as there are articles about others not getting in. He has seen the other side for 12 years!!! This is not a new argument for Sutter and I guarantee he would be much more gracious in disagreeing with Furman’s opinion than most readers here.
By gastr1
January 11, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this
I will refrain from calling Bisher an idiot, because I don’t think he is one, but i have no problem calling his opinion “idiotic.” For those who think the under-50 genration(s) would rather name-call than reason, here are my points for why this Bisher opinion is asinine:
Whether Sutter belongs in the hall on his own merits is irrelevant, because Bisher has made clear his vote is not about Sutter but about relief pitchers as a whole.
As has been pointed out above, specialists have existed for some time in sport and will continue to do so. I’ll bet there were some who lamented that Ruth lost his bid for the Hall the day he stopped pitching and being a “complete” player. Isn’t this why we have positions on the field?
That said, clearly some specialists are NOT as important as others. Was it Bill North that was a defensive replacement and pinch-runner only for the 1970’s A’s…and Rusty Staub, who had 2,700 hits, likley 2699 of them pinch hits? Which specialist is more valuable?
The closer enters the game at atime when there is littlr to no margin for error, OR they don’t enter the game AT ALL. This in itself engenders a high degree of pressure that not many will be able to do every time. Smoltz was good at it, but he couldn’t stand having to deal with losing the game if the other team scored a run or two. This means the closer IS a specialist of significant value.
The development of the closer has become recognized as a high-skill position to the point that few pitchers do it well for a very long time—and it is now a very in-demand position. Let’s put it this way: no team wins a World Series now without a very good closer.
I’ll bet we can imagine most winning without a notable pinch-runner or pinch-hitter…but the closer is a position of high-pressure, real skills that, like a kicker or kick returner in football, is worthy of Hall status under the right circumstances.
So the question, then, is—does Sutter have the right statistics?
Well, clearly, longevity should be a big factor because many closers have a good year or two, then disappear. Because the nature of the position is one of high-pressure, then response in those situations at the CHAMPIONSHIP level should be a factor, lack of opportunties notwithstanding. By this rationale I would give Rivera a better chance than Trevor Hoffman, for example, at this point in their careers. Record would be of little importance beacuse the starters are the ones who have the most control over this, and the lack of margin of error dooms a closer’s w-l record. Using w-l for a closer is like saying Ruth struck out too much.
But dominance and unhittability over a few seasons in the course ofa good career could be enough. Does Eckersley get in as a closer 9excluding his starter stats) because he was unhittable and put up the best closer numbers ever for three years? Maybe, maybe not…
By Ryan
January 11, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this
For the person that said writers shouldn’t even get a vote for Halls of Fame since they probably didn’t play the sport:
If they aren’t the voters, who should be? Current players? Former players? Former players that are only in the Hall-of-Fame? Current college players? Or maybe you, some person that sits on a couch or goes to a game to do what? That’s right. WATCH. Are you playing? No, so don’t knock Furman Bisher or writers in general for that.
I bet that you also think writers shouldn’t vote to rank college b-ball and football teams, either. Well you want to know something? The football coaches that “rank” teams usually do a horrible job of it, worse than most writers.
I may be only 16, but you seem to be even least informed than kids that go to my school and say that Kobe Bryant and Kevin Garnett are already two of the greatest NBA players of all-time. I tell them that maybe one day, but not yet.
By Abner Doubleday
January 11, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
Back in the day, pitchers had to pitch uphill…both ways!!
By John Munford
January 11, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this
I see your point, Mr. Bisher. But consider this:
A starter knows he will pitch every four (or five) days. A reliever usually is summoned upon in short order and must be at the ready mentally at all times.
Closers can go days in between outings, or they can pitch five, six games in a row. They often come in under the most heavy of pressure, with fans wailing and opposition mounting, and they’ve got to have the stuff (and the know-how) to put out the fire.
Talk about working in a pressure-cooker.
Maybe the job is a little tougher than you think.
By CT
January 11, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this
If you did not vote for Sutter because you looked at his stats, compared him to the greatest of all time, and said “not good enough!”, then I’d have respect for your vote. But if all you did was say “relief pitcher, never!”, then I think you have done a disserice to Sutter, other great relievers, and the HOF. HOF voters should have open minds and not arbitrary litmus tests. The fact that Sutter was the 19th best closer, had a losing record, and pitched few historic games should have been your rationale. But luckily the HOF had plenty of other voters that were objective and voted Sutter in anyway despite your shortsightedness.
By joe
January 11, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this
You’re ALL wrong.
The first reliever into the Hall of Fame should have been Dick Radatz.
Relief pitchers used to be washed up starters, but Radatz changed that.
Y’all can go back to arguing about the rest.
By sully
January 11, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
The article is totally wrong. Sutter changed the game and was the best closer of his time. He deserves to be in. My big question is why isn’t anyone talking about the omition of Jim Rice. He was the most feared hitter of his time. He no one had better years between 1975-1987. He was the one American League hitter that managers had to plan for. I feel that Sutter is deserving, Rice is more.
By ebineezer
January 11, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this
I pretty much agree with Mr. Bisher but don’t like him calling Sutton a “loser”. He was tabbed with a loss more than with a win but he was far from a “loser”. That was mean spirited and uncalled for and Mr. Bisher should apologize for it.
By jimmy
January 11, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
I agree with Bisher. Does Bruce Sutter belong in the Hall of Fame for his contribution to baseball history, yes. But not as a member cast in bronze. Modern Relief pitching came about as a function of higher priced starting pitching and longer contracts. Owners needed to protect thier investment and have used a plethora of cheap fly by night pitchers to extend the life of their premadona starters. Some, like Sutter, have stood out as relief pitchers who have endured longer than their peers but does that merit eternal enshrinement in the HoF? No. Sutter only recieved the recognition he did because of what modern relief pitching has become (hoffman, gange, closer-smoltz, et all.) he is being recognized as a piece of baseball history, not as a Hall of Fame player.
By Tomas
January 11, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
Dr. Moses, I checked Baseball-Reference.com and your uncle managed to stay in the big leagues a long time (‘35 to ‘51)!!! 2 things stick out about him. The 25 homeruns in ‘37 (You weren’t passing him the steroids were you?? Kidding). But the biggest thing was the 56 stolen bases in ‘43. Did he only discover at age 32 he could run? Good hitter, but would expect more power since he was a right-fielder. But since I don’t have a vote, sure, put him in the HOF.
By Abraham J. Simpson
January 11, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
Back in my day pitchers pitched the entire game!! Not like today’s blow-dryed Nancy Boys!! We also called sandwiches “Flappy Joe’s”. We wore Onions as belt buckles, as was the fashion of the day..
These days it’s a little harder to concentrate sometimes, especially when the porcupines join the parade, Admiral.
By ATLien4Life
January 11, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
Everyone please forgive Furman. Just another old fart waxing poetic about the “good old days”. The older he gets, the better he was.
By Mimi from Marietta
January 11, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
Thanks Mr. Bisher. I thought I was the only who thought that. But you and I shouldn’t be surprised. It shows the sorry state of the game of baseball. If the BS got in, Bedrock should be a cake walk!!
By Drew Price
January 11, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this
Furman has the mentallity of a craggy old man, what with his opinions straight out of the 1960’s. But that time that we met up at the manhole for dinner and drinks is a time that i will never forget. That man can dance like fred astaire and knows how to shag like a 1970’s p0rn star!
By Furman Bisher
January 11, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
HEY! Just cause I though Mickey Mantle was the sexiest man alive does not mean I am a pillow biter!
By George Clements
January 11, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
After Paul Acocella got this blog off to a great start, it quickly deteriorated. Train wrecks are usually interesting to observe.
Mr. Bisher, you must enjoy reading comments about you being too old and your columns irrelevant, and then watching as your young critics fume with so little class and sophistication.
As for the people editing this blog, don’t you think you should stop some contributors from making themselves look so foolish? The reader who calls himself “George” hurts his cause because he apparently skipped most of his English classes.
Few of your critics, Mr. Bisher, have ever tried to make a living as a writer. It’s not easy telling people what they don’t want to hear.
Keep those columns coming, old timer. We purists still believe Warren Spahn was a far better left-handed pitcher than Tom (I can pitch seven innings every five days) Glavine ever was, and we count on guys like you to keep reminding today’s Neanderthals what baseball is really all about.
By Micky Mantle's Ghost
January 11, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
Ohhh Furman, you little skamp you! Remember that time where I pounded your a$$ like a drum? It was as tight as a drum too!
By Roy K
January 11, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this
well said, as usual.
By geechee
January 11, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this
It is one thing to make an argument that Sutter does not belong in the HOF but to call the man a loser is way over the line.
By Matt
January 11, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
in my opinion, the ones who should have the majority vote for the hall of fame are the players themselves. they’ve actually experienced the game, and the ones being nominated for its highest honor. people like furman bisher who obviously has his own set of standards and is upset that those of the baseball writers don’t match them, need not try to represent the public opinion again…..
By George Wilson
January 11, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this
Im sorry George Clements is it. I am not trying to win a writing contest here and I am not paid to write a column. I did not now you had to be a scholar to put a blog on here but I guess since your so f——-g perfect I will have to make sure I audit my responses from now on. If you want to help me with my writing in the future face to face I would be more than happy to get together so we can take care of it.
By Patrick Samara
January 11, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this
WOW George Wilson, lay off the roids! Was it a toss up between the I’m rubber, you’re glue argument and the one you used?
By Ryan
January 11, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
George Wilson>
What is wrong with you? Get a grip.
By Tim
January 11, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this
I’m a publisher and you are embarrassing me to be in the same profession. To only one put one player in this year isn’t bad enough for you. You have to say that Bruce Sutter isn’t even worthy. You are part of the reason baseball has taken such a scud in the last 10 years. Please stop voting.
By Rick
January 11, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this
hear, hear!!
Sal the Barber would be a better choice than Sutter, even if he doesn’t fit Mr. Bisher’s criteria.
21st century baseball… it’s not the principle of the thing, it’s the money
By Keith Matras
January 11, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this
Furman, you write about never voting for a reliever because he’s “only part-pitcher”. However, I’ll bet you voted for many a “part-hitter”. You honestly think the great hitters of the past would have put up the same stats had they went against African American or any other minority pitchers that are so much a part of today’s game? They played against only part of the population. You think they would have put up the same numbers had they gone against the relievers that are so much a part of today’s age of specialization? Instead of facing watered-down, tiring starting pitching in the late innings and late in the season, they would have gone against fresh relievers. However, just like you couldn’t control the race barrier or a manager’s use of over-used starting pitching in the late innings in the “good ole’ days”, you can’t control the way the game is shaped today. You may not like the present state of the game, but just like you had to vote for players with inflated stats because of the above, you have to consider those players based on the state of the game today. Shame on you for being so close-minded. Bruce Sutter was one of the very best to do what he did and should be recongized for it - period.
By Jonah Falcon
January 11, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this
You, sir, are the reason no one takes the BBWAA seriously. They should excise the fat and just have 20-30 national press columnists voting, or (cough) actual Hall of Famers. Oops, that pesky Veteran’s Committee.
By Charles
January 11, 2006 05:16 PM | Link to this
Mr Bisher,I am not going to call you names but i totally disagree with your article,You mentioned about closer,how about the old Sarge himself,hoyt Wilhelm,he was both a starter and a reliever,he made the Hall,how about John smoltz,he at one time was a starter and a closer and has done very well at both,so according to your logic when john retires he doesn’t deserve to be in the hall,that is ludicrous,there are a lot of relievers who should be there,Goose Gossage one of the best of his time,he deserves to be there,just remember if the Braves didn’t have smoltz as there closer back then they would not have made the playoffs,true they didn’t win a world series but it is still a record that is hard to beat,closer are very essential to the game and those who excell at it should be in,look at Lee Smith,he deserves it.he was a good pitcher in his day.Wake up furman,this is 2006 and times have changed.
By Jeff R
January 11, 2006 05:20 PM | Link to this
Ideally, the same sports writers who “lived” during a particular era should be the ones voting for that era’s hall-of-famers. A reporter who grew up and began his career in the 70’s-80’s would understand how much this era is being ignored and how players like Murphy, Rice, Dawson, or Gossage are being ignored because their stats don’t compare to the home-run hitting 60’s or 90’s or the save-happy current era. Likewise, Bisher will never be able to “relate” to any era beyond the 60’s since that is past his favorite baseball years, so he should not have a say in who the HOFers are for those post-60’s years.
By Robert V. Simons
January 11, 2006 05:23 PM | Link to this
I suggest Mr. Bisher’s comments be taken with a grain of salt, or more appropriately, cotton. This is a sportswriter who wrote that Jackie Robinson did not belong in the Hall of Fame. I came across this in an article written by Mr. Bisher and printed in an issue of Baseball Digest in the 1960s. I cannot cite the date of the magazine as I am writing this from my office and do not have access to the magazine. I will provide that information and a quote in a later posting. I am probably closer to Mr. Bisher’s age than many who have taken issue with his comments regarding Bruce Sutter. Like Mr.Bisher I recall when pitchers threw complete games, uniforms were made of flannel, and doubleheaders were played. I also recall when fire hoses and dogs were turned on people who only sought to be treated fairly and equally. Does Mr. Bisher also pine for those “good old days.”
By Joe Brown
January 11, 2006 05:47 PM | Link to this
I think someone’s diaper needs to be changed!
By ron
January 11, 2006 08:37 PM | Link to this
mr.fisher i was deeply disturbed to read that you feel that relievers aren’t worthy of being elected to the hall.after years of growing up in rural georgia reading your colums along with JESSE OUTLAR was rewarding because you both were very good at your craft.once one descriminates against one area you have to wonder are there other areas also. i often wonder why LATIN players have a difficult time in getting into the hall.look at davey concepicion who was one of the finest ss to play offensively as well as defensively,another is tony olivia who i believe won probably six al batting championships with the twins.why did it take luis aparicio so long to enter.mr.fisher don’t let the game pass you by,these relievers were so important to their teams and without them nowadays teams cannot win divisional championships nor world series.where would have the yankees been without a manny rivera throughout the years.rollie fingers was important with the A’S during their world series years.continue the good work and keep you dislikes to yourself because you open yourself up to exposure.
By Brandon Hobbs
January 11, 2006 10:39 PM | Link to this
Hey Bish, its a shame that guys like you even get a hall of fame vote. You remind me of some old sour puss who sits around trying to figure out who you can denounce and try and make them as miserable as you are.
By Chuck
January 11, 2006 11:53 PM | Link to this
Furman,
great article just because it exposed all the commy readers who got their little boxer shorts tangled after reading your post.
I may not totally agree with you either.
But that’s okay. It’s just an opinion for thought.
Now all you baseball geeks, get back to work.