Why Heath Rockefeller is a Hall of Famer

[jcrmoon42]

The great pitcher, Heath Rockefeller, has been on the Hall of Fame ballot since 1999 with mixed results. He finished third in each of his three seasons on the ballot with between two and four first place votes on each ballot. This is a travesty for one of the greatest pitchers in MBBA history who suffers from a career that ended at age 34 but included 3 Pitcher of the Year Awards and 2 Reliever of the Year Awards. Unfortunately, his start in the bullpen means that his career totals don't look as impressive as some others. Still, over a career that spanned 11 full seasons, he was deemed the best starter or reliever in nearly half of them.

Lets look at his career numbers:
ERA - 2.58, Third all time among pitchers with more than 2000 innings.
Winning % - .665, Fifth all time among pitchers with 200 or more decisions
BB/9 - 1.16, Fifth all-time, 2000 IP
WHIP - 0.97, Second all time, 2000 IP
Wins - 143, 60th all time in spite of only spending 7 years as a starter

He only had one year in his career that could be considered even average, and that was his last full season after his movement declined. In that year, he still won 14 games, struck out 201 against 28 walks and surrendered a 3.96 ERA. Take that season out, and his ERA drops to 2.41, second only to the great Nebraska. That was also only one of two seasons in his career when he lost more than 8 games. Unfortunately, his CATO page is broken, making it difficult to see his full career and where he stood on the leader boards. We do know, however, that along with his 5 Yearly Awards, he was also an All Star 8 times in 11 seasons. In the MBBA, this is one of the best measures of excellence when compared to other players as you have to be having an awfully good year just to make an All Star team, and that selection is based on a comparison with other players at your position with no minimum, per-team requirement.

Needless to say, given the evidence, Rockefeller is clearly a Hall of Famer. Had he spent those four years as a reliever pitching as a starter, he would likely have been over 200 wins, where only 11 other pitchers have gotten. Had he continued as a reliever, he would likely be considered the greatest reliever of all time. As it is, in spite of a short career, there is nobody on the ballot who was more dominant and who is more deserving.

[recte44]

I voted him much higher this year than I have in years past. Taken out of context, his numbers don't look all that great. But, with the explanations given and bearing in mind he was split between a dominant closer and a dominant starter, he's kind of amazing.

[blake]

I don't think he should be in there. It's too short of a career even if he does start those first 4 years. It sets a bad precedent. It means any player that dominates over a 10 year career is a Hall of Famer. And that can apply to a lot of players.

I think Finch deserves it a lot more. Finch has a 1.05 WHIP over 3245.1 IP and 3989 K's. If he was on better teams early on he'd easily have 215+ wins.

[jcrmoon42]

Okay, let me get this straight. You are saying that a player dominating over a 10 year period is NOT a Hall of Famer? The fact is that the majority of Hall of Famers have questionable years at the front and the back of their careers with 10 or so dominant years in between. Rock doesn't deserve to get in JUST because he didn't have the crappy front and back of his career like everybody else?

In my personal opinion, and to stir the pot, I think being dominant for a decade is EXACTLY the definition of a Hall of Famer.

[blake]

If he had the extra 3 or 4 seasons as a starter then maybe. He was so dominant and consistent that I might be able to look beyond the longevity issue in his case.

Johan Santana is the best example I can find. Santana switched between the bullpen and starting his first four seasons. And then he dominated for 7 seasons as a starter. He won two Cy Youngs and made 4 all-star teams. I don't think if Santana never pitches again hes a Hall of Famer.

The Hall of Fame should be super strict. I just want the best of the best of the best in there. Which means the Gary Barr's and the Ken Howell's of the world. Rockefeller isn't even cracking the top 100 in IP. If hes a Hall of Famer then we can make a case for a ton of other pitchers then. By this standard Jay Lee is a Hall of Famer right now. And if Robbie Sargent has 3 more good seasons then he is too. It's just not enough to put him in there.

[elligator]

Honestly, this is a really thin year. There weren't more than about four guys I even wanted to consider. Heath was one of those four. But on the whole...woof!

[aaronweiner]

The guy was so good, for so long, that I've been putting him near the top for a while.

[jcrmoon42]

If he had the extra 3 or 4 seasons as a starter then maybe. He was so dominant and consistent that I might be able to look beyond the longevity issue in his case.

Johan Santana is the best example I can find. Santana switched between the bullpen and starting his first four seasons. And then he dominated for 7 seasons as a starter. He won two Cy Youngs and made 4 all-star teams. I don't think if Santana never pitches again hes a Hall of Famer.

The Hall of Fame should be super strict. I just want the best of the best of the best in there. Which means the Gary Barr's and the Ken Howell's of the world. Rockefeller isn't even cracking the top 100 in IP. If hes a Hall of Famer then we can make a case for a ton of other pitchers then. By this standard Jay Lee is a Hall of Famer right now. And if Robbie Sargent has 3 more good seasons then he is too. It's just not enough to put him in there.

Great comparison to Santana. However, the comparison falls down in that Santana only had one dominant year in which he relieved more than he started. He was also never a closer. On top of that, as a starter, he only had 4 truly HOF calibre seasons. Rockefeller was the best closer in his league two years before becoming a starter after which he had six years of being a dominant starter.

Considering the "super strict" mentality, I am less so than many in that regard. The RL HOF has not been that at all, and the idea that it should be so is more personal preference than anything set by precedent in RL. That doesn't mean it is wrong, it just isn't what it has been. The model we are using here puts about 1.5 people in the Hall every year. That follows the RL model. That means that the top 15 players from each decade when compared to their peers should get in. If Heath Rockefeller does not fit that description, I don't know who does. The idea that longevity is what makes a player a HOFer is also personal preference. In RL, a player with 10 years in the league is eligible. There are many, many players in the Hall with less than 15 years of experience, and most with more than that were far below their ability at the beginning and end of their career.

As I said before, why should a player be penalized simply because he skipped the crappy years on the front and back of his career which give the impression of longevity? At the same time, there are players who are in the Hall simply BECAUSE of their longevity rather than their greatness. Which is the greater error?

[TimB]

I'm not ashamed to say he was top of my ballot. The arguments for and against have been well articulated but I have to agree that for a considerable period he was dominant, his overall career figures compare with the best of the best and I just felt he would grace the HOF.

[blake]

It should be looked at from a historical perspective. How does the player compare with all the other players in the leagues history?

Historically Rockefeller isn't close to measuring up to other Hall of Fame pitchers. He didn't pitch enough innings. A guy that pitches 2000 innings and puts up around a 1.0 WHIP should not be considered in the same class as one who put up around a 1.0 WHIP over 3200+ innings.

The Hall of Fame is All-Time best. We should be having this discussion about Finch not about Rockefeller. Finch put up a 1.05 WHIP over 3245 innings. If he retired at 35, two years beyond Rockefeller, his WHIP would have been 1.00. So we're going to punish Finch for pitching until 40 and raising the WHIP up to 1.05 and then reward Rockefeller for retiring and not pitching beyond 33?

[jcrmoon42]

Rockefeller's place in the historical perspective is laid out in the first post. Simply the best quality pitcher not named Nebraska, IMHO, at least as far as rate stats are concerned.

Saying that he doesn't measure up to other HOFers because he didn't pitch enough innings suggests that you know how many innings one must pitch in order to measure up. Is it 2500? Is it 3000? The answer is entirely subjective, and we clearly don't agree on where it should be set. And that's...okay.

I have no problem with a Finch discussion. The problem is that, while he did pitch 1200 more innings than Rockefeller, he isn't even necessarily the second best pitcher on the ballot, let alone the very best. His ERA is the worst of the six starters on the ballot. He outstrips everybody in Ks, of course, and has two pitcher of the year awards. That's a good argument. At the same time, he only has 46 more wins than Rockefeller in a whole lot more starts, and a 189-153 record is clearly not knocking anyone's socks off. For all of his Whippiness, it appears perhaps he just couldn't keep the ball in the park well enough to be a consistent winner.

[robster49]

I think Finch is a no question Hall of Famer based on the amount of career K's. Rockefeller is a good candidate and I can see the arguments on both sides, but my question is why did he retire so early, and apparently suddenly? That could play into the discussion.

[blake]

Wins are team based and if Finch was on winning teams in those early years he would have had at least 215+ wins which would easily be good enough.

Yeah he gave up some HR's but he didn't walk much and he didn't get hit hard. A career H/9 of 7.7, a BB/9 of 1.8, and a K/9 of 11.06 over 3245.1 innings is a dominant Hall of Fame career. If that and a career 3.71 ERA over the equivalent of 15 full 35 start seasons is not a Hall of Fame career, then nothing is basically.

Imagine you have a starter that for 15 straight years puts up 35 starts, a 3.71 ERA, 7.7 H/9, 1.8 BB/9, and 11.06 K/9.

[blake]

And 2600-3000 innings should be around the standard for Hall of Fame starters. Like the 2600-3000 hits range is for hitters.

If Rockefeller had 3-4 more years of dominant starting then I would say yes. 2500 innings and 10 seasons as a dominant starter like that would be enough. If a guy absolutely dominates like that over 10 seasons and hes the best of the best then hes in. But I can't put a guy in there who started only 7 seasons.

[LambeauLeap]

Can you put in zeros if you don't want to rate anyone?

[recte44]

Daniels is the only pitcher on the ballot to crack the "magical" 200 win mark, yet I haven't heard anyone mention him.

[recte44]

Take a look at Rockefeller and see if you think he's as good as Ken Howell.

[jcrmoon42]

The fact is that any measure of wins, innings, strikeouts or anything else is entirely arbitrary. There is no such standard for the Hall of Fame. We give magic numbers like 300 wins or 3000 Ks, but those don't mean anything either.

Each voter needs their own definition of greatness. If you think Finch is greater than Rockefeller, I say you are crazy. Put them side by side, and Finch pales in peak value. He lasted longer and struck out more. Once upon a time, that many strikeouts meant a lot. Now we know that it is of relatively minimal value in player evaluation. Doesn't mean Finch isn't a HOFer. Every guy on the ballot has an argument. However, by this voter's criteria, it is no contest.

You can tell from Rock's last season that his movement seems to have dropped rapidly. Can't tell from the records we have, but it looks like it must have continued to drop, and he either got hurt or dropped before retiring.

[jcrmoon42]

By the way, this discussion seems to have inspired people to vote. Lots of ballots coming in. I will update that thread tomorrow.

[7teen]

I love the way Moonie does the HOF voting, but I feel it also hurts some guys like this.

It ensures we get the best of the best inducted. If I'm not mistaken, we've only had 1, maybe 2, guys inducted at most a year. so only the best are getting in. it doesn't water down the HOF. But at the same time, when you have guys like this whose numbers don't look overly impressive when compared to other guys on the ballot (or have numbers we have in our own minds to be HOF worthy) then it makes it difficult to get in.

Rockefeller will never appear high on a lot of ballots because of his career numbers. He is probably an MBWBA HOF, but I don't think he'll ever get in.