- This topic has 69 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I don’t think there’s any way to really know if the 1982 team couldn’t have won without Sutter. Remember, prior to acquiring Sutter, they already had Rollie Fingers, and Fingers ended up having a much better 1982 season than Sutter. It’s not like the cupboard was bare.
I can’t help it if some can’t look at players and how they play and determine their status. With the best players you don’t have to watch a lot of to know if you know. I don’t need some numbers to back up my thoughts, my thoughts are my own. Numbers mean very little as well sometimes particularly when we are talking about different times.
By trading fingers and simmons, we ended up indirectly of that getting Daryl porter who was probably a better defensive catcher and maybe leader than simmons. Getting Sutter made it possible for the cardinals to make that trade and probable as well. It’s also important to remember that the cardinals traded Sykes for Mcgee before the 82 season. I believe without a smidgen of a doubt, if those trades aren’t made, they don’t win the world series that year. Whitey was s big reason for those trades and I trust whitey far more than I trust anyone on this board far as baseball player knowledge.
Whitey liked Porter from his days in Kansas City. He felt Porter would be a better fit for the team. I believe he wanted to move Hernandez to left field and Simmons to first base, but Simmons balked at that and Whitey shuffled the deck.
On Sutter, he was a phenomenon when he first came up in ‘76, and was near unhittable in ‘77. The split-finger was similar to the old fork ball, but Sutter perfected it to the point of being nearly impossible to square up. Hitters swung over it or hit it on the ground.
The revolutionary nature of his signature pitch and following success makes him worthy of Hall recognition IMHO. Guys who changed the game are in a different class.
No one had ever seen a pitch with that type of late downward movement and hitters all across the NL had to regroup. The only way to combat it was to lay-off which was nearly impossible to do at times. When you watched it, it seemed unfair to the hitter and as you mentioned, the pitch was revolutionary at the time.
Bicyclemike — Agreed re the split-fingered fastball. I made reference to that earlier in the thread, I think the fact that he pioneered/revolutionized a pitch that became such a huge staple in MLB–and that his name will always be associated with it–was a not insignificant factor in differentiating his “story” from other relievers’ who had pretty similar numbers but aren’t in the HOF.
Albert asked:
…Brian can you explain why Medwick isn’t on the wall? 10 or 11 seasons as a Card. WS Champion. MVP. Triple Crown. 64 doubles in a single season…
I have no idea why it didn’t happen long ago. Today, so few people know of him, there would probably never be a groundswell of fan support to push for it. The PR angle from the team perspective would be far better if he was still alive.
gscottar said:
I don’t have an opinion on whether Sutter’s number should have been retired or not but I do know that the Cardinals don’t hoist the 82 World Series trophy without him. It should also be pointed out that no Cardinal could wear number 42 anyway because of the Jackie Robinson rule.
Agree with those who suggest we don’t know for sure about 1982. And if one accepts that logic, David Freese’s number should be retired because the Cards would not have won in 2011 without him.
The fact 42 was already retired by MLB was a convenient point made by some to try to ease the concern from those who disagreed. Personally, I don’t buy it now and I didn’t back then, either. Either he earned the recognition or he didn’t. The digits he wore on his uniform doesn’t matter in terms of qualification.
Oh I think some of us do know about 1982. Without Sutter, Mcgee, probably porter and Def Ozzie who was also got that year, we don’t get a sniff of the world series. All the trades and people brought in are linked in my opinion. Whitey built a championship type club out of an organization that hadn’t really done much in a long while.
I can comfortably say I attended at least 35 to 40 Cardinal games in 1982 including Game 1 of the NLCS and to me, L. Smith was the offensive catalyst on that team and probably the most important component other than Sutter.
Agree with those who suggest we don’t know for sure about 1982. And if one accepts that logic, David Freese’s number should be retired because the Cards would not have won in 2011 without him.
I was referring to the entire 1982 season and not just one magical game. And correct me if I am wrong but didn’t the Cardinals offer to put Freese in the Cardnal HOF and he refused? I know that it is different than retiring his number but I can’t think of any other reason they would want to put him in the HOF except for that one game.
Freese’s Cardinal Hall of Fame candidacy was decided by a fan vote. When he was on the ballot I felt he was a shoe in, as most fans would remember his 2011 post season heroics, which were incredible. But his body of work as a player is not Hall worthy. His 2011 post season certainly should be honored as a display in the museum, but as a player he does not get there. And yes, David chose to decline the honor.
The committee does not decide who among modern era players get in, just who goes on the ballot. After Freese was retired for three years, he was eligible for the fan ballot. Most of the committee, including me, knew he would be voted in immediately by the fans. Ultimately, that is how the process works, so he went on the ballot and was easily voted in.
If he was going to decline, the proper way to handle it would have been to do so when the ballot was announced, not after he was selected.
Freese has noting to do with Sutter other the parallel of him considered by many to be responsible for a World title. That is the only reason I mentioned him.
Brian — That’s interesting about Freese. Was he not familiar with the details of the process? Did he have an opportunity to decline to be placed on the ballot prior to its public announcement? (I.e., at the time of announcement, could the committee say a player was nominated but declined the nomination?)
Maybe he just doesn’t like the way he looks in a red blazer. You have to acknowledge that they’re more than a little gaudy…
Maybe he just doesn’t like the way he looks in a red blazer. You have to acknowledge that they’re more than a little gaudy…
Always remind me of Judge Smails’s dinner jacket in Caddyshack . . .
RBK, I don’t know what Freese knew ahead of time. I also don’t know if he was contacted before the ballot was released. If he wasn’t, he should have been. I also don’t know what the team would do if told a player would not accept, though essentially that is what Freese did. They respected his wishes.
There was once a veteran player who got a message to the committee that he did not want the Hall of Fame recognition. Eventually, we voted him in anyway because he was so clearly deserving. Fans were questioning why he wasn’t in, but his personal wishes needed to remain private.
Obviously, I don’t know anything about what happened behind-the-scenes, but at the time I kinda felt for him–local kid who is intimately familiar with the rich history of the franchise, it seemed like he genuinely felt he wasn’t worthy of the honor and was embarrassed by it. To your point, how one handles the situation is a completely different matter, but it seemed like his heart was in the right place.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.