Comparing a closer to an everyday player in black ink shows you use numbers without understanding them.
Lee Smith was a dominant player at his position throughout his career. To say he wasn't means you have no clue.
So you can't explain his dominance other than the save stat? Got it.
When someone's job is to save games and he does it better than anyone before him by a wide margin, he's earned being in the HOF unless you believe no closer ever deserves in the HOF.
He played 18 seasons. For about 14 of them he was his team's closer. In each of those 14 years. he was in the Top 10 in saves. In seven of those years. he was first or second.
You need to get a life and not continually being a snide little bitch (I know I owe female dogs an apology).
So you can't explain his dominance other than the save stat? Got it.
What else would you want to see other than the save stat, since what Smith did was save games?
If you want to use black/gray for a relief pitcher
So you can't explain his dominance other than the save stat? Got it.
The save stat tells you absolutely nothing about how someone pitched. I'm not being picky, but if we have no way of comparing player A to player B, other than a cumulative statistic highly dependent on factors outside of a player's control, then that is a problem.
The reality is if anyone knows baseball, they know Lee Smith was a dominant player for well over a decade. The only way he doesn't deserve to be in the HOF is if one believes no closer ever belongs in the Hall.
The reality is if anyone knows baseball, they know Lee Smith was a dominant player for well over a decade. The only way he doesn't deserve to be in the HOF is if one believes no closer ever belongs in the Hall.