Yes
No
Maybe
A 1-time All Star, Tekulve led the major leagues in games pitched four times, appearing in 90 or more games three times. He and Mike Marshall are the only pitchers in baseball history to appear in 90 or more games more than once (each did it three times). He holds the National League record for career innings pitched in relief (1,436⅔), and formerly held the major league record for career relief appearances; his 1,050 career games, all in relief, ranked second in major league history to Hoyt Wilhelm's 1,070 when he retired.
Tekulve was also known as an extreme ground ball pitcher, surrendering only 63 HR in 1436 career IP while saving 184 games & posted a stellar career ERA of 2.85. He finished 5th in Cy young voting in both 1978 & 1979.
NOTE: Tekulve did not become a full time regular until the age of 29.
So, does Kent Tekulve deserve induction into the HOF?
Last edited by Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan; 05-27-2009 at 07:21 PM.
Responding to the Poll Question: Is KT a HOF'er? In my opinion not really, but he's more deserving than Bruce Sutter no doubt. He was an absolute workhorse of a pitcher who would come in all situations and pitch up to 3 innings at a time. Where should the line get drawn with relievers because its hard to argue he shouldn't be in when not just Sutter but Fingers is in as well.
Besides the saves total, Tekulve is pretty similar to Fingers.
Wearing that uniform, heck yes he does!Originally Posted by Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan
A 1-time All Star, Tekulve led the major leagues in games pitched four times, appearing in 90 or more games three times. He and Mike Marshall are the only pitchers in baseball history to appear in 90 or more games more than once (each did it three times). He holds the National League record for career innings pitched in relief (1,436⅔), and formerly held the major league record for career relief appearances; his 1,050 career games, all in relief, ranked second in major league history to Hoyt Wilhelm's 1,070 when he retired.
Tekulve was also known as an extreme ground ball pitcher, surrendering only 63 HR in 1436 career IP while saving 184 games & posted a stellar career ERA of 2.85. He finished 5th in Cy young voting in both 1978 & 1979.
NOTE: Tekulve did not become a full time regular until the age of 29.
So, does Kent Tekulve deserve induction into the HOF?
I actually almost might say "yes" for Tekulve. Not a lot of relief pitchers - even great relief pitchers - can go 1,050 games with a sub 3.00 ERA. In fact, only three pitchers have pitched over 1,000 career games and posted a career ERA under 3.00, the others being John Franco and Hoyt Wilhelm, and look at them - Franco has his supporters for the Hall, and Wilhelm is in the Hall.
The problem with the Hall of Fame and those who discuss it is that relievers don't get a lot of respect. I wish there was a way to recognize great relievers more (and by relievers I don't mean closers, because they actually are getting into the Hall of Fame nowadays). Especially in today's style of game, they are just as important parts of the team as anybody else and need a little more recognition. Unfortunately, until those who discuss the Hall of Fame get off the "the save is such an uber important stat and the only way to gauge whether a relief pitcher even deserves one iota of discussion for the Hall of Fame" kick, then great relievers like Tekulve won't get the respect they deserve. And by the way, the save in many cases seems to be a worthless statistic, one that you can get even if you aren't even a good pitcher. Shawn Chacon, anyone?
For now I'll vote "maybe," leaning strongly towards "yes."
Last edited by Cowtipper; 05-27-2009 at 07:56 PM.
Tekulve is one of the underappreciated great firemen, largely because he played during a period when relievers were deployed more properly for maximum value rather than in such a way to maximize the save statistic.
For relievers, I would argue that games pitched is as important a statistic as innings pitched. The more games these guys pitch well in, whether it's to one batter or fifteen, the more they advance their team towards a win.
Tekulve did a great job getting outs in high leverage situations for a very long time.
I frankly think he's one of the top half dozen or so eligible, uninducted pitchers who were primarily relievers. These guys probably have to get in line behind position players and starters for the Hall, but in a perfect world, I think I'd put him in.
If you ever voted yes for a reliever beyond the two or three obvious ones (Eckersley, Rivera...those types)...then you should vote yes for Tekulve...one of the all time great relievers and very underappreciated.
I said "Maybe". It would seem that if we okay Tekulve then we have to be okay with John Franco, Lee Smith and a few others.
Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball
There are several relievers who spent significant time in the 70s & 80s who are in line before Tekulve (Franco, Henke, Quisenberry, Smith, Lyle, Reardon).
Like Mike Marshall, I say "No" to Tekulve.
I echo that. It seems to me that I saw almost every one of Teke's games- obviously I didn't but I heard/saw many hundreds of them, being from Western Pa.
Teke WAS very good. He was a bit unusual in that he din't strike out a lot of guys, so he had to rely on getting guys to hit groundballs- which he was excellent at, with his sidearm delivery. The curse of that, of course, is that sometimes ground balls go through the infield.
That said, Teke was a very good reliever with an amazing rubber arm who pitched well for a long time. Fairly or unfairly, he WAS NOT accorded the same status as Sutter. Sutter was a much more dominant pitcher who, when healthy, drove batters crazy with his split fingered fastball. Had Sutter remained healthy for 3- 4 more years I would place him very near the top of all time relievers. I know that is not a popular stand among some BBFers, but I saw him pitch a lot and he was formidable when healthy.
So, for Teke- I'm on the fence. Very good, as was Lee Smith. Why one and not the other?
What's this in reference to?
You put Reardon in line ahead of Tekulve? Really?
To clarify : I place them on the same level.
OK...I just didn't know what Mike Marshall had against Kent Tekulve. (Marshall is notoriously an ornery cuss.)
Since this is considering the HOF, Reardon gets a boost from his subjective elements. More ASGs, Rolaids award, and twice as many saves as Tekulve boost Reardon as a HOF case. Otherwise, he'd be below the fence, just like Tekulve.You put Reardon in line ahead of Tekulve? Really?
Oh, now I see how my post could have been read...that Mike Marchall himself actually said "No". No, that's not what I meant.
Uttering Franco's name in the same sentence as Tekulve is ridiculous.
Those measures are all badly flawed...the difference in saves is an outgrowth of the change in the conception of the role of a reliever (for the worse, I submit), and the fact that Tekulve's prime coincided with Sutter's (He got all the Rolaids awards). I would also add that pitching selections to the ASG are notoriously haphazard.
Comparing their pitching performances, Tekulve was usually better. And that's not intended to be a slap on Reardon, a fine pitcher in his own right.
--Tekulve was an excellent pitcher who was used whenever his team needed him. He had very few seasons where he was reserved for save situations. Reardon was a good pitcher who was designated a closer early on and almost always pitching in save situations. His save totals are much like Joe Carter's RBI totals. They are more the result of managerial decisons than any special skill of the player.
Same is true for Jon Franco and Lee Smith, BTW. They were both merely good...they weren't great relievers like Tekulve was.
I'd like for you to explain why you're sure Tekulve was demonstrably better than Smith. I saw both pitch many many times. Forced to choose, I would be hard pressed. THe one advantage Tekulve had- and I agree it is meaningful- was his ability to pitch an enormous number of games. In terms of comparative performance they are very close.
Tekulve Smith
G 1050 1022
IP 1436 1289
IP/G 1.37 1.26
ERA 2.85 3.03
ERA+ 132 131
>150 ERA+ 4X 4X
WHIP 1.250 1.256
K/9 4.9 8.7
BB/9 3.1 3.4
BA/OBA/SA 244/307/330 236/306/341
PA 6001 5388
Those numbers are REALLY close. Tekulve faced about 10% more batters in a slightly compressed timeframe. That's meaningful. THat's the one advantage I see.
To me, they're both around the cusp for my HOF-worthiness.
I'll get back to you a little later this evening...my DNRA data is at home. But the short version answer to your question was Tekulve's demonstrably superior DIPS performance...an element you left out, for example, Smith's noticeably higher HR rate even once you adjust for league context.
I'll be interested in seeing the comparison. Smith had a MUCH higher K rate, which means fewer balls in play. His BB rate was a little higher, but not much. Tekulve had a very low HR rate, but Smith's was reasonably low- just not as good as Tekulve's.
How much confidence we should place in DIPS is another topic.
How would you compare Tekulve in relation to Rollie Fingers Matt? Fingers has a few more innings, mainly because he started a bunch of games in his first 2 seasons. But judging his relieve career on its own, the role that was solely responsible for getting him into the HOF, who do you think was better? No doubt Fingers was one of the best relievers of all time, so perhaps Tekulve should be thought of in the same light?
I had Fingers in my top 7 or 8 releivers of all time I believe (Tekulve was a bit lower...somewhere in the top 15 still though). The real asset with Fingers was his spectacularly low walk rate...it balances out his much higher HR rate (though it was still a low rate...it was higher than the elite ace relievers). Tekulve had a slightly bigger positive influence on the BABIP than Fingers according to the DNRA dataset, but Fingers had more Ks so it offsets.
According to the CAWS Career Gauge, here is the list of the best relievers. Wilhelm, Eckersley and Gossage (each of whom has HOF numbers) are not included here because of the number of innings pitched.
A CAWS score of 150 is suggested as the benchmark for HOF numbers for a reliever. Only the first five have reached that benchmark so far (end of 2008 season). And, of course, Mariano is well ahead of the rest.
Kent Tekulve is in the middle of the group. He does not have HOF numbers.
The first number is innings pitched, the second is career win shares, the third is core value and the fourth is the CAWS score.
Mariano Rivera 1024 212 175 184
Lee Smith 1289 198 152 164
Bruce Sutter 1042 168 163 164
Dan Quisenberry 1043 157 155 156
Rollie Fingers 1701 188 144 155
Billy Wagner 818 163 143 148
Trevor Hoffman 988 176 135 145
John Franco 1246 183 128 142
Mike Marshall 1387 146 139 141
Kent Tekulve 1436 159 135 141
John Hiller 1242 146 136 139
Sparky Lyle 1390 161 132 139
Tom Henke 790 140 130 133
Doug Jones 1128 146 128 133
Jeff Montgomery 869 134 127 129
John Wetteland 765 127 125 126
If anyone would like an e-copy of the 100 page monograph, A HOF HANDBOOK: Who Belongs and Who Does Not, just drop me a line at
mike_hoban@msn.com
What the heck is "Core Value" and how is it derived? Do your pitching metrics have any basisin DIPS theory? And what is CAWS?
View Profile
View Forum Posts
View Blog Entries
View Articles
Reply With Quote
Visit Homepage
