Many people think Lee Smith should be in the hall but John Franco's name never comes up in conversation. His career win-loss record is better and is not that far behind Smith in career saves. What's your take? Before answering check other relief pitchers with 300 plus saves and compare Franco to them. By the way Franco ended his career with 424 saves. Third all time.
2007-05-14 03:57:49 · 10 answers · asked by Yankee Dude 6 in Sports ➔ Baseball
I prefer Franco's numbers, but I don't believe that either belongs in the Hall of Fame. I believe that closers are way overvalued, so they really have to wow me over an extended period of time. I don't think Smith or Franco did that, at least not on the level of what I would expect - say, guys like Hoffman and Rivera.
Smith and Franco both have excellent career ERAs, but I'm not all that impressed by their peripherals. And the number of saves really doesn't matter much to me, because they're a pretty easy counting stat to accumulate if you hang around long enough.
Finally, neither had an extended period of absolute dominance, like we saw from Eck (1988-92) or Rivera (almost his whole career). Without that dominance, I'd have a hard time giving a vote to either of them.
2007-05-14 04:09:23 · answer #1 · answered by Craig S 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
As of today, Franco has no chance at the Hall.
As analysis and research evolve and advance, and crusty old-fart voting writers die off, there is the possibility of a sea change in the consensus view of the writers, such that Franco would rather suddenly look much better. It's not a very good chance, but it could happen, and should such a thing come to pass Franco would be at the fore of a large class of re-evaluated relief pitchers.
2007-05-14 17:06:26 · answer #2 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't believe so either.
So far, save numbers haven't meant JACK.
Lee Smith, the career leader (up until this year) isn't in. Why should someone who is 3rd get in.
The way people move in and out of that one inning, high paying role, pretty well means that a lot of people can do it.
2007-05-14 04:09:09 · answer #3 · answered by brettj666 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Franco was very good but he wasn't a dominant closer for a long enough period. He had many good years and his longevity added to his numbers. But NO, he is not a HOF pitcher.
2007-05-14 08:52:46 · answer #4 · answered by ronald g 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
he wasn't a dominate closer that's why I don't consider him a hall of famer or lee smith. I do consider Goose Goosege a hall of fame because he dominated.
2007-05-14 16:10:39 · answer #5 · answered by Dodgerblue 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
john Franco was lucky that he was able to play as long as he did. so no way will he see the hall unless he go visit it himself.
2007-05-14 04:05:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not think the closer role is a postion that should be considered for HOF.
They work one inning and get credit?
gimme a break
OVERRATED!!!!!!!!!!
2007-05-14 05:20:34 · answer #7 · answered by LamboThom 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he should be.i dont think theres many 'third all time best' guys that arent in.
2007-05-14 08:14:45 · answer #8 · answered by mike hunt 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
good point! he has good numbers, but sadly, with the politics of baseball, he will not get in!
2007-05-14 04:35:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no
2007-05-14 05:40:03 · answer #10 · answered by mamacow 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋