The Brewster

Here's the place to talk about the career of: Lionel "Megaphone" Sanguinacco
Relief Pitcher

Active Career: 2010-2025 (16 seasons)
83-101, 461 saves, 2.86 ERA, 1,522 K WAR: 23.7
Landis Memorial Ring: 2024
7-Time All-Star
EBA Victor Paez Hurler of the Year

Hall of Fame Metrics: (average HoF)
JAWS: 18.3 (12)
Black Ink: 8 (34)
Gray Ink: 69 (162)
HOF Standards: 65 (49)
HOF Monitor: 114 (125)
[hr]
Sanguinacco was a light0out closer who got his start in the old BBA, being named as the European league's best pitcher at one point, and not arriving in the BBA until age 25. Despite missing several seasons, #11 on the league's all-time save list. He broke in with Chicago but had most of his service time with Hawaii and Carolina...experiencing what was probably his best season in 2017 with Hawaii when he went 4-2 and registered 40 saves while posting a 0.90 ERA.

Gonna have to think really hard about relievers this next time.

I like closers.
But Justin Marco is not in.
Skip Glendenning is not in.
There are nine closers with more saves not in.
Therefore, no.

We still make Glendenning happen. All one has to do is vote for him.

scottsdale_joe wrote:I like closers.
But Justin Marco is not in.
Skip Glendenning is not in.
There are nine closers with more saves not in.
Therefore, no.

Isn't this sort of a "let's let another mistake force us to make the same mistake again for the sake of consistency" kind of argument? Now, if you don't like relievers in the Hall, that's another debate. But if it's just because another deserving person didn't make it, we can't put this guy in, that's a bit odd. By that argument we sohuld never elect another starter not named Steve Nebraska based on some of the guys we've passed up who should probably be in.

Ted wrote:

scottsdale_joe wrote:I like closers.
But Justin Marco is not in.
Skip Glendenning is not in.
There are nine closers with more saves not in.
Therefore, no.

Isn't this sort of a "let's let another mistake force us to make the same mistake again for the sake of consistency" kind of argument? Now, if you don't like relievers in the Hall, that's another debate. But if it's just because another deserving person didn't make it, we can't put this guy in, that's a bit odd. By that argument we sohuld never elect another starter not named Steve Nebraska based on some of the guys we've passed up who should probably be in.

Then have a mechanism to bring in players other than the vote.
Like the MLB HOF Veteran's Committee (or whatever it is called).

Not having Marco and Glendenning in sets a standard in my mind.

The Nebraska comparison is not valid. Nebraska is in. Maybe there are pitchers that should be in, but never based on a comparison to Nebraska. Maybe there is some pitcher not in that might preclude me voting for a similar candidate.

Anyway, I'm not making a big deal out of it.
I was just saying this candidate was not as good as other closers who are not in.
If he gets in, so be it.

Again. Glendenning is an active candidate.

And, yes, recte has also included vets at times. This could be done in a more systemic fashion. I suppose.

RonCo wrote:Again. Glendenning is an active candidate.

And, yes, recte has also included vets at times. This could be done in a more systemic fashion. I suppose.

Good, I'll vote for Glendenning
You would HAVE to if he's on the same ballot as Sanguinacco and you voted for Sanguinacco.
Wouldn't you?
Btw, Sanguinacco is a hall of fame name (independent of statistics).

Bumping these threads because there will be voting again earlier than you think!

I think he should be in. While the EBA numbers don't have the weight of BBA numbers, I think you have to take into account how good he was there and making a seamless transition.

Not sure what could be more systematic than I include two deserving vets every season for one season only.

EBA players are fascinating to consider, I suppose. Add three EBA years as a closer to the BBA and you've got a pretty interesting set of numbers. Glendenning is a sure bet vote for me. Sanquinacco is clearly a step down. If we're doing a straight ballot I probably vote for him--if nothing else to keep him on the ballot. If we're ranking...well...that'll be an interesting one.

He has my vote, and here's why. We can go back and forth all we want about players who had long careers but weren't exactly great, just good. Sanguinacco was unmatchable in a few seasons and great in the rest. The line below is from his best season, and I think those numbers are so fucking insane that they have to at least warrant consideration. In a FULL SEASON, he was that good. I'd implore you to at least take a long look.

Year/Team/League Age G GS W L SV ERA IP HA R ER HR BB K CG SHO WHIP BABIP FIP WAR ERA+
2017 Hawaii - BBA 32 62 0 4 2 40 0.90 70.0 32 8 7 2 13 115 0 0 0.64 .250 0.84 3.2 466

Bumping for continued eligibility. Languinacco got 50% of the vote last year.

Megaphone was the first Rule VI candidate to get stolen from their selecting team with a huge deal - which set the stage for some truly comical contracts to future Rule VI guys (either from a team trying to steal or from a selecting team trying to protect from a steal). He should get a whole wing in the HOF for lore alone.

Dominant closer. Definitely a yes

Sanguinacco got 48% of the ballot last year. He has four years left.

Let's get this ball rolling. The elite of the elite closers should be in. Go Megaphone.

Reliever

You know, the seemingly contradictory thing about my last comment is that I don't believe in using "closers" anymore at all. But since Sanguinaaco played at a time we all did, and he was one of the best at it, I think he should be considered.

Going forward, if the number of innings by starters declines significantly, I think we'll have to consider more relievers. We could see a ton of 110-140 inning 3-4 WAR guys that put up those numbers for 10+ years. Then what do we do? Especially when the (non elite) starters are only throwing 160 innings a year.