Back in the day, really until the mid 1980's, relievers were mainly starters who weren't good enough to stay in the rotation. From 1972 through 1974, Gossage's first three seasons in the Big Leagues, he walked 128 batters and posted a 4.93 ERA (73 ERA+) in 219 innings for the White Sox. In 1975, Gossage had a fine season, 9-8 with a 1.84 ERA and 26 saves, and he was slotted into the starting rotation in 1976. Gossage went 9-17, and it was back to the bullpen for Gossage after that, and with much less strain on his arm, he excelled until 1986, his age 34 season. From then on, Gossage was used less often, and wasn't nearly as effective. He pitched until 1994, when he was released by the Mariners.
Gossage was very good for a decade. He wasn't Mariano Rivera for a decade, but he was a star reliever for a long time. However, he had a lifetime ERA of 3.01 (which is a little high for a Hall of Fame relief pitcher from the 1970's and 1980's) and reached 300 saves by the skin of his teeth. The fact that he was used exclusively as a reliever from 1977 on because he wasn't even good enough to hold a job as a starter is evidence that Gossage wasn't really a great pitcher. Two innings ain't nine.
My opinion: Goose Gossage is not a Hall of Famer.
To exaggerate what you're saying a little, that's like saying that Mariano Rivera wasn't really that good because he had a 5.51 ERA in 1995, and was just a failed starter. Goose Gossage was the ideal reliever, which was why he started out as one in the majors, but Paul Richards who was the manager in 1975 was an old school manager, behind the times, made him a starter for a year. Predictably, he failed. There's no way you can fault the Goose for that.
ReplyDeleteA career 3.01 ERA for a reliever is not stunning, but a lot of that is due to the fact that he pitched until 42. From 34-42, he just wasn't the same, which raised his ERA a good bit. From 1977 to 1985, he had an ERA of 2.10 with 227 saves.
To at least some extent, I challenge your assertion that relievers back then were just failed starters. Hoyt Wilhelm led the league in ERA, but went back to the bullpen. Ellis Kinder won 23 games, but the Sox wanted a reliever like Joe Page, and they picked him for the job. The bullpen was often used as a refuge for failed starters, but many of the best were chosen to be relievers because of their ability.
I'm not talking about Hoyt Wilhelm or Ellis Kinder. I'm talking about Goose Gossage.
Delete-Rivera was the single greatest reliever ever, by far, which makes him pretty important to history. Was Gossage? No.
-Rivera only made ten starts, and went 5-3, but with a season or two of failed starts, I may have doubted even him. Gossage pitched a whole season as a bad starter, and pitched in a pitcher's era.
-Anyone can pitch an inning or two without starting to struggle from exhaustion. A complete game shutout is, on paper, nine times as significant as a scoreless ninth, and the starter would be tired after eight innings, whereas the reliever wouldn't be after zero.
-The two inning saves really don't differ from one inning saves, either (although they do differ from one out saves).
Finally, Rivera was the best reliever in the game when he was 43. Gossage was through at 35. Are you really trying to compare the two?
I know that the Goose is nowhere near Mariano. I wasn't actually comparing them, just using Mariano to illustrate my point. But I think you'd agree with me if I said that he was better than Lee Smith, Hoffman, and Fingers.
DeleteAnd on the starter/reliever point: A reliever is just a different creature than a starter. A starter has 3+ pitches, while most relievers have just one or two pitches. If you take a reliever and put him in the rotation, it's not going to work for that reason. That does not devalue relievers as a whole. To me, that Gossage was mediocre in his time as a starter doesn't mean that he was a bad pitcher, but that he was not a starter. We're measuring Gossage as a reliever, so what he did as a starter should be irrelevant.
The fact that he was elected by the BBWAA is another point in his favor. I know voters don't always do the right thing, but they're a lot more reliable than the Veterans' Committee. His lowest voting percentage was 33%, and was elected with a healthy 85%.