Should Smoltz go in the Hall of Fame?

[Paul Wendt]

They say his velocity is good, and velocity must be the number one hurdle or comeback from major surgery. If it's true then no one will push him out the door; he'll decide whether he plays next year. Yes if he doesn't ask for big buck$.

[Bravesfan1984]

I completely agree - so why did you do it in post #110? You didn't use "w%", but posting his w-l record is a variation of the same thing. So you acknowledge that w% is not reliable because of certain factors, but make no consideration to exteranal factors that can skew a players rote win totals? Like saying Davind Cone's 12-6 season with a great ERA+ wasn't that good, because he only has 12 wins? You have to be consistant here.

If you realize by your own admittance that different factors make w% less than reliable, why do put so many of your eggs in the just as unreliable win-totals basket?

I have no problem with a small-hall theory, but the logic you often use to support it is very inconsistant.


Did I say David Cones season was horrike or not great. I mean that is a good season not a great one. I was explaining that win loss percentage can be decieving because if you have only 2 or 3 more wins then losses it will say you had a high win percetange but that is not true. Like in 2007 when Smoltz went 14-8. That is only 6 more win then loss but he has a win percentage of 636. so it makes it seem he won most of his games.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Did I say David Cones season was horrike or not great. I mean that is a good season not a great one. I was explaining that win loss percentage can be decieving because if you have only 2 or 3 more wins then losses it will say you had a high win percetange but that is not true. Like in 2007 when Smoltz went 14-8. That is only 6 more win then loss but he has a win percentage of 636. so it makes it seem he won most of his games.

Bravesfan, I never have any idea what you're talking about. You should try speaking english from this point forward.

[Cougar]

Did I say David Cones season was horrike or not great. I mean that is a good season not a great one. I was explaining that win loss percentage can be decieving because if you have only 2 or 3 more wins then losses it will say you had a high win percetange but that is not true. Like in 2007 when Smoltz went 14-8. That is only 6 more win then loss but he has a win percentage of 636. so it makes it seem he won most of his games.

Yeah, win percentage tells us that Smoltz won 63.6% of the games where he earned a decision. But Smoltz only won 14 of 22 decisions, which is, uh, 63.6%.

These statistics are really terribly deceptive if, you know, you don't understand junior high school math.

The germ of a valid point here is that both the number of wins and the percentage of wins/decisions matter: A record of 12-6 is not more impressive (all else equal) than a record of 20-12.

It's here that a index like Bill James's Fibonnaci Win Counts is potentially useful.

[Los Bravos]

The killer thing for me is that he sports that username and still whizzes all over Smoltz at every opportunity.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The killer thing for me is that he sports that username and still whizzes all over Smoltz at every opportunity.

At least he's not advocating for David Justice. :clapping:clapping:clapping

Smoltz could still be a productive reliever, if he'd go back to that role. He'll make a lot of money doing so, albeit not the top dollar he once made. If I were a GM, I wouldn't mind having Smoltz as a guy going between long and short relief.

[STLCards2]

The killer thing for me is that he sports that username and still whizzes all over Smoltz at every opportunity.

Well, at least nobody can accuse him of homersism!

[Bravesfan1984]

The killer thing for me is that he sports that username and still whizzes all over Smoltz at every opportunity.

So not thinking a Braves player is a HOFer makes me less of fan? Sorry I am not a homer like you.

[Milt on Tilt]

I don't really have an opinion on whether he should go in or not. But I do hold the opinion that Schilling was better. So my vote is 'After Curt'.

[Los Bravos]

So not thinking a Braves player is a HOFer makes me less of fan? Sorry I am not a homer like you.To quote Lovitz from A League Of Their Own, "Oooh...that hurt." :rolleyes:

Call me a homer when I start making arguments for Kevin Millwood or Steve Avery to make the Hall.

Smoltz is a guy who an overwhelming majority of the posters here (and more importantly, professional Baseball writers) know to be a cinch HOFer. Just like Mike Mussina, a guy you also obdurately refuse to acknowledge .

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

I don't really have an opinion on whether he should go in or not. But I do hold the opinion that Schilling was better. So my vote is 'After Curt'.

Smoltz was better than Schilling.

[Los Bravos]

And more versatile.

[STLCards2]

And more versatile.

Since virtualy all pitchers who have relieved and started have better as relievers (as far as peripherals and ERA, FIP, etc.), it is hard to believe that Schilling wouldn't have been a dominating closer too.

[Los Bravos]

Maybe, maybe not. I still support Schilling for the Hall (even though I can't stand him personally) but I don't recall him exactly thriving when he tried that role on for size and he was a waste of space (and more importantly for his career totals, time) as a middleman with Baltimore and Houston.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Since virtualy all pitchers who have relieved and started have better as relievers (as far as peripherals and ERA, FIP, etc.), it is hard to believe that Schilling wouldn't have been a dominating closer too.

The evidence otherwise, although I think he would have eventually gotten it right. He had 2.54 ERA - 15 GF - 3 SV in 1990 (decent stats with small sample size); but ERA ballooned to 3.81 - 34 GF - 8 SV in 1991 (1.559 WHIP). And of course he had his worst ever season in 2005 when the BoSox tried to convert him to closer 1/3 way into the season, closing with 8-8 - 5.69 ERA - 21 GF - 11 SV (121 H in 93.1 IP!)

If memory serves, his ERA as a reliever that year was in the 7's.

[RuthMayBond]

Well, at least nobody can accuse him of homersism!I didn't think Bravesfan1984 hit for much power

[STLCards2]

The evidence otherwise, although I think he would have eventually gotten it right. He had 2.54 ERA - 15 GF - 3 SV in 1990 (decent stats with small sample size); but ERA ballooned to 3.81 - 34 GF - 8 SV in 1991 (1.559 WHIP). And of course he had his worst ever season in 2005 when the BoSox tried to convert him to closer 1/3 way into the season, closing with 8-8 - 5.69 ERA - 21 GF - 11 SV (121 H in 93.1 IP!)

If memory serves, his ERA as a reliever that year was in the 7's.

Like you eluded too, neither of those times when were in his prime- the very beginning of his career (extremely smal sample size), and the very end of his career (after a zillion injuries). You were right: he would have "gotten it right." I am sure Smoltz would have been so-so in the 80's as a closer (and probably in 2009 too), just like Schilling.

My commentary is less on Smoltz and Schilling and more on the overratedness of closers - we have to start putting closers into context.

[Milt on Tilt]

Like you eluded too, neither of those times when were in his prime- the very beginning of his career (extremely smal sample size), and the very end of his career (after a zillion injuries). You were right: he would have "gotten it right." I am sure Smoltz would have been so-so in the 80's as a closer (and probably in 2009 too), just like Schilling.

My commentary is less on Smoltz and Schilling and more on the overratedness of closers - we have to start putting closers into context.

Yeah, this is important to keep in mind. You can't just look at his splits. But doing so, wow Schilling did not thrive as a reliever.

SP: 3.43 ERA; 1.125 WHIP; 4.66 K/BB
RP: 3.662; 1.343 WHIP; 2.12 K/BB

[Milt on Tilt]

Smoltz was better than Schilling.

Well. You sure convinced me.

I certainly think it's debatable. What troubles me is that even though they are close (in my mind), their perception isn't. Smoltz is considered a shoe-in and Schilling doesn't have a great chance.

[STLCards2]

Well. You sure convinced me.

I certainly think it's debatable. What troubles me is that even though they are close (in my mind), their perception isn't. Smoltz is considered a shoe-in and Schilling doesn't have a great chance.

They will both make it. Schillings 3 W.S. title (and bloddy sock imagary) sealed it for him. Where have you heard the media saying he won't make it? The two guys who will get screwed over are Mussina and Brown, not Schiling or Smoltz.

[Milt on Tilt]

They will both make it. Schillings 3 W.S. title (and bloddy sock imagary) sealed it for him. Where have you heard the media saying he won't make it? The two guys who will get screwed over are Mussina and Brown, not Schiling or Smoltz.

If this is the case, I'm ok with it. But I guess I haven't gotten the vibe that Schilling WILL make it.

[davewashere]

I think Smoltz and Schilling will both make it. Schilling had a great peak but there was always 1 pitcher in his league more dominating than him who won the Cy Young. There are HOFers with a lower ERA+ than his 127, and 3,000 K's is a nice milestone for HOF voters, as are the WS rings. Smoltz has a lower career ERA+, but he's also got 3,000 K's and the 200+ wins and 150+ saves will play well with voters. I don't think it's worth debating whether Schilling could have been as good a reliever during his good years, because it didn't happen. Smoltz certainly proved that Eckersley was not an anomaly; more than one good starter can become a good closer in the modern era.

I think we're going to see HOF voters favoring the marginal HOF pitchers from the steroid era (at least those not implicated or suspected of juicing) as sort of a backlash against the "performance enhanced" slugging numbers that have tainted the record books. I wouldn't be surprised to see Smoltz and Schilling get in on the first ballot, even though neither one can be considered an "inner circle" HOF candidate.

[Milt on Tilt]

They will both make it. Schillings 3 W.S. title (and bloddy sock imagary) sealed it for him. Where have you heard the media saying he won't make it? The two guys who will get screwed over are Mussina and Brown, not Schiling or Smoltz.

After searching the internets reading the informed opinion of respected baseball minds, I've been convinced that Schilling will in fact make it in barring some disastrous PR revelation before his eligibility.

Of course it really doesn't matter since both of these guys are behind Bert.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Well. You sure convinced me.

I certainly think it's debatable. What troubles me is that even though they are close (in my mind), their perception isn't. Smoltz is considered a shoe-in and Schilling doesn't have a great chance.

I think Schilling will make it as well, although he may go the Don Sutton route. I give Smoltz the edge over Schilling as a pitcher because he had the better ERA in more innings, thrived in both dual SP/RP roles whereas Schilling only did the SP real well, won a Cy Young Award and was an intrical member of the biggest playoff dynasty in Baseball history.

In reality though, I don't think the difference between them is very substantial (Schilling has better ERA+ overall), but the edge is clearly to Smoltz.

[dominik]

I think both will go in. Schilling is of course somewhat overrated, because of his postseason heroism, but he was still a very good pitcher,

Hw was sometimes inconsistent, but of course he had very flashy SO numbers and was very dominating when he was on fire.

Those things will help him to get in, even if some stats might be lacking a little.

[Paul Wendt]

[Bravesfan1984]>> Like in 2007 when Smoltz went 14-8. That is only 6 more win then loss but he has a win percentage of 636. so it makes it seem he won most of his games.
<<

Yeah, win percentage tells us that Smoltz won 63.6% of the games where he earned a decision. But Smoltz only won 14 of 22 decisions, which is, uh, 63.6%.

These statistics are really terribly deceptive if, you know, you don't understand junior high school math.

The germ of a valid point here is that both the number of wins and the percentage of wins/decisions matter: A record of 12-6 is not more impressive (all else equal) than a record of 20-12.

It's here that a index like Bill James's Fibonnaci Win Counts is potentially useful.

On my reading the original point seems to concern the proportion wins/starts, not wins/decisions. Recent pitchers tend to win smaller "percentages" of starts than pitchers from two or six generations ago, given the same "percentages" of decisions. That is a historical trend which broadly covers all starting pitchers. Meanwhile there may be very big differences among contemporary starting pitchers too. (may be: I don't know how much variation there is)

Fibonacci Wins represent one adjustment to Wins that accounts for Losses.

"Games above .500", W minus L, is another. One virtue is simplicity. Another is this:
- a starting pitcher gets "no decision" precisely when the score is tied sometime after he leaves the game;
- teams in aggregate win half and lose half of games that are tied at any time;
- a team roughly wins half and loses half of the games where its starting pitchers get no decision.*

So a starting pitcher's "games above .500" is a good account of his responsibility for team wins and losses in his games.

Printed advance notices of "Today's Games" now commonly report team wins and losses in all games worked by the projected starting pitchers. Pitcher "Games above .500" accounts for the starting pitcher responsibility in those games and the remainder
: Team Games above .500 minus Pitcher Games above .500
represents good and bad fortune (luck from the starting pitcher perspective) after the starter departs.

--
(*) The season aggregate W-L records of starting pitchers and relief pitchers may be different from .500 and stable, which would be worthwhile to know.

[Los Bravos]

After searching the internets reading the informed opinion of respected baseball minds, I've been convinced that Schilling will in fact make it in barring some disastrous PR revelation before his eligibility.Exactly.Of course it really doesn't matter since both of these guys are behind Bert.Bert will be in by the time they're eligible.

[Cowtipper]

These can be combined:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=67647&page=4

[cardsfanatic]

I would absolutely, positively, as it stands right now, vote NO to John Smoltz.

[Los Bravos]

How exciting.

[RuthMayBond]

I would absolutely, positively, as it stands right now, vote NO to John Smoltz.You're allowed to be absolutely, positively wrong

[Fuzzy Bear]

I would absolutely, positively, as it stands right now, vote NO to John Smoltz.

Of course, if 75% of the BBWAA would wishy-washily, tentatively, as it stands on the day John Smoltz is first eligible to be enshrined, vote YES to John Smoltz with the gravest of reservations, he'll be in the HOF for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and . . . :highfive:

[cardsfanatic]

Pffft, please.

You guys act like Smoltz is a slam dunk. He was, at best, the 9th best pitcher of his generation.

1. Clemens
2. Unit
3. Maddux
4. Pedro
5. Mussina
6. Glavine
7. Schilling
8. Kevin Brown
9. Smoltz, maybe

By the time their careers are over, I will probably put Petitte above the guy too.

I would like to know since when it became stupid to suggest a guy that was the 9th best pitcher of his generation wasn't HOF worthy. I guess if someone doesn't support Jerry Koosman for the HOF they are stupid too?

Smoltz is not a HOF'er. If he makes it in... well, let's face it, I couldn't have less respect for the HOF as it stands. So, I can't make any grandiose statements, sadly. Smoltz has no eye popping numbers. I don't care about his save numbers, either. I'm sure if Pedro wanted he could have been a hellacious closer as well. Or hell, any good starting pitcher. Most closers are failed starting pitchers anyway. Mo and Hoff were both horrible starters turned elite closers.

Bottomline, Smoltz is the Saberhagen, Cone and Key of his generation. He has far more in common with those three than he does a Hall of Famer.

[STLCards2]

Pffft, please.

You guys act like Smoltz is a slam dunk. He was, at best, the 8th best pitcher of his generation.

1. Clemens
2. Unit
3. Maddux
4. Pedro
5. Mussina
6. Glavine
7. Schilling
8. Smoltz, maybe

By the time their careers are over, I will probably put Petitte above the guy too.

.

You might be right about Smoltz being #8, but there were 12 HOFers *(including Blyleven) who debuted from 1959-1970- with a much smaller pool of players to draw from than today. Why would 8,9, or even 10 HOFers from 1984 (Clemens) 1995 (Pettitte) be so wrong?

*Tom Seaver
Bob Gibson
Steve Carlton
Gaylord Perry
Phil Niekro
Nolan Ryan
Fergie Jenkins
Juan Marichal
Jim Palmer
Don Sutton
Bert Blyleven
Catfish Hunter

So which 4 do you want to take out? (Please say Hunter!)


By the way - the number of HOFers debuting in a 16 team/not integrated league from 1900-1912

Walter Johnson
Pete Alexander
Christie Mathewson
Eddie Plank
Mordecai Brown
Ed Walsh
Stan Coveleski
Joe McGinnity
Eppa Rixey
Addie Joss
Chief Bender
Herb Penncok
Rube Marquard

And Willis, Waddell, Chesbro and a few others were only 1-2 years off either way.

Granted, there are a few mistakes here (Marquard, Pennock, Bender) - but if there are 8-9 legit guys from that quality league, why not the #8 guy from a post integration league? You're talking over twice as many pitchers per team making the HOF from that era!!!:eek: I mean, that is probably about 20% of all regular starting pitchers. 9 pitchers in 1998 would be about 7% of al regular starters.

Funny how nobody complains about these guys or the 60's guys being overrepresented. The debuts from the 10's-20's is almost as bad.

Bottom line - if you want to make a case against Smoltz - knock yourself out using stats, etc., but the argument about not having 7-8 guys from one era (much less 11, 12, or 13) in the Hall has been lost a long time ago, and multiple times since.

[STLCards2]

Another thing - Pettitte's debut (1995) is actualy a lot closer to that of Halladay (1998), Santana (2000), and Oswalt (2001) than it is to Maddux (1986), Glavine (1987), and Clemens (1984). Maybe we are putting him in the wrong era all together here.

[cardsfanatic]

*Tom Seaver
Bob Gibson
Steve Carlton
Gaylord Perry
Phil Niekro
Nolan Ryan
Fergie Jenkins
Juan Marichal
Jim Palmer
Don Sutton
Bert Blyleven
Catfish Hunter

So which 4 do you want to take out? (Please say Hunter!)


Several of these guys are only in the HOF because they won 300 games. If Smoltz wins 300 he will have a case like Sutton, Neikro or Perry. Hunter being in the HOF is laughable.

If someone were to mount a case against Sutton, Niekro or Perry before they won 300 games, when they were say, at 240 or so. I'm sure that person would meet with more agreement than scorn. Yet, here we sit with Smoltz who has no eye popping numbers anywhere. He's never been the greatest of his generation and isn't even distinguishable from guys like Kevin Brown, who most people seem to think isn't a HOF, depite, IMHO, being a better pitcher than Smoltz. And if someone says Smoltz isn't a HOF we apparently have a peanut gallery around here ready to jump on them due to their non-conformity. As if John Smoltz is a slam dunk HOF'er.

And Hunter absolutely isn't a HOF'er.


Funny how nobody complains about these guys or the 60's guys being overrepresented. The debuts from the 10's-20's is almost as bad.


Perhaps because guys like Sutton, Neikro and Perry hung around to get #300? It's hard to argue against a guy with 300 career wins. I mean, there are people like me who will do it but most people won't. I don't think Sutton's career was the least bit HOF worthy (and considering it took a 300 game winner 5-6 tries to get into the HOF, that should speak volumes) and I would have been one of the 19% of voters that voted against the guy. But, 300 wins seems to be beyond reproach for most people. Once you get there, the quality of your career doesn't matter.

Jamie Moyer is a laughable HOF candidate right now and if I put a poll up he'd be lucky to get 20% of the vote. Yet, if he wins 300 you will have people fervently defending his case. As if the number 300 validates what has been a pretty unspectacular career.



Bottom line - if you want to make a case against Smoltz - knock yourself out using stats, etc., but the argument about not having 7-8 guys from one era (much less 11, 12, or 13) in the Hall has been lost a long time ago, and multiple times since.

You showed two times it has happened and like I said, without the 300 game winners the 60-70 group would have been a lot different. I don't know what Hunter did to get into the HOF... there's no way that guy deserves to be in from that group.

The guy literally had three really good seasons and the rest of his career stunk to high hell.

Although, I'm reminded about the ol' saying you guys love to use when a candidate comes up that you don't support. If someone says, "Well, so/so is in the HOF therefore the HOF precedent and standard has been set, this guy was better therefore he's in..."

It's like someone pulls a ripchord around here and we get...

"Just because the HOF made errors or mistakes in the past doens't mean we have to make the same mistakes in the future."

Yet now, because the HOF was less picky in the early years when it was trying to populate the HOF and opened the floodgates for the 1900-1912 crowd, we must accept good... but far from great, pitchers into the HOF to meet some kind of quota.

And one other thing, since the "relief pitcher" wasn't as dominate in the early game of baseball couldn't we easily put guys like Rivera and Hoffman into the current era's pool? They will be Hall of Fame pitchers as well. Which pushes Smoltz even further back at #10 or #11.

[Ace Venom]

There's a really good reason Smoltz didn't get to 300 wins. He was a closer for a few years and recorded 154 saves. One of those years, he led the league with 55 saves. He recorded his first career save in 2001, a season where he only started five games. From 2001-2004, he record 154 saves, had a 162 ERA+ and had a 2.65 ERA. It's not quite Mariano Rivera territory, but let's look at the big picture. He has 3,084 career strikeouts, one of those even numbers voters like. His 154 saves will offset the lack of wins (213-155). He also won a Cy Young Award in 1996 and was a member of that feared Atlanta rotation back in the 1990's.

I think Smoltz gets in before Schilling, though Schilling is more deserving. One should note that 3,000 strikeouts is not a sure ticket to Cooperstown. Bert Blyleven is still waiting for that phone call. I think people here will be surprised if Smoltz is not a first ballot guy and I think he waits a few years. The BBWAA has proven to be extremely stingy with their votes. This is why I don't expect Smoltz and Schilling to be first ballot guys, but Glavine, Maddux and Johnson definitely will make it on the first ballot simply for having 300 wins.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Perry did not need 300 wins to make the HOF. By the time I started following baseball closely in the late 70's, he was already considered a future HOF'er. When Niekro put up the season he did for the Yankees in 1984, the talk was he was going to make it eventually. Sutton did not receive such accolades, though.

[cardsfanatic]

Um...the fans don't vote for the pitchers, dude.

The Managers picked him.

Well, the managers pick Gold Glove winners and that doesn't stop people from attacking the validity of the Gold Gloves and bashing guys like Jeter with them. So, now the managers are infallible when it comes to naming All-Stars?

So, if I used Jeter's GG's as a reason he belongs in the HOF no one around here would attack that premise? Since, you know, we're using AS picks by managers as proof someone is a HOF'er.

They basically equate to the same thing. Well, actually, with the AS being picked by ONE manager and the GG's being picked by all managers, I would put more stock in the group opinion over one lone manager. It appears Cox selected Smoltz twice for the AS game in seasons where, IMHO, he was not All-Star caliber. He probably would have picked him a third time had Smoltz not been on the DL. He also made the AS game twice as a closer and really... I yawn at closer accomplishments.

Maybe Kevin Brown should have signed with the Yankees sooner so Torre could have picked him a few more times.

[Paul Wendt]

what CCN says but he is too nice

Several of these guys are only in the HOF because they won 300 games. If Smoltz wins 300 he will have a case like Sutton, Neikro or Perry. Hunter being in the HOF is laughable.

If someone were to mount a case against Sutton, Niekro or Perry before they won 300 games, when they were say, at 240 or so. I'm sure that person would meet with more agreement than scorn.

[yadda, yadda, yadda]
This troll is catching a lot of fish.

When Niekro and Perry were middle-age pitching stars in the early 1970s it was reasonable to suppose that there would never be another 300-game winner and many of us expected there would not. Gibson and Marichal would probably win 250, but that would be a great accomplishment in the future. Some of the younger generation would probably get there but some would fall short, too. (Jenkins, Sutton, Seaver, Palmer, Carlton. Few would have put Nolan Ryan in the consideration set.) Any 250-game winner would probably be elected to the Hall of Fame. duh.

[cardsfanatic]

I think Smoltz is a HOFer but how can someone justify him as such a no questions asked guy yet not want Kevin Brown in? Even on this website Smoltz is getting near unanimous support yet there are many people not so sure about Brown. I think they're both HOFers but I think that as a starter Brown clearly was better than Smoltz. Smoltz's best season as a starter was probably his CYA year in 1996 when he pitched 253 innings with a 149 ERA+. Well, that's nice, but Brown the same year pitched 233 innings with a 216 ERA+. Brown had four seasons all with ERA+ greater than 160 in 200+ innings, all of those are probably better than Smoltz's 1996 which is his best year. Brown had a 127 ERA+ and was a starter for pretty much his whole career. Smoltz's ERA+ as a starter is probably around 122-123 or so. Their won-lost records are essentially the same (211-144 vs. 213-152) despite Brown getting less run support than Smoltz (Brown's 3% below average, even worse in his best years, Smoltz's essentially average, much better in his best years). And one of the most significant factors in this comparison I still haven't mentioned which is that Smoltz's pitched with significantly better defenses behind him for his whole career.

Smoltz does have his time as a reliever going for him, but Brown was a good amount better as a starter IMO-and Smoltz is a guy who most view as a slam dunk candidate. I think Kevin Brown should be viewed the same way

As usual, I agree with 538280. We tend to agree on a lot, heh. Although, we kind of split this issue. I agree that if Smoltz is in, Kevin Brown is in. Brown was better... although, I feel neither one deserve to be enshrined. But, there has been a trend lately with the HOF.

We want to keep the truly great players out (Bonds, Clemens, McGwire) and let the merely "good" players in.

[cardsfanatic]

This troll is catching a lot of fish.


Troll? Seriously? Well, I guess if you can't defend your position and debate like a grown up you just slap some "yadda yadda's" into someone's quote and call them a troll.

Some of us actually grew up past name calling and putting our fingers in our ears.

[cardsfanatic]

When Niekro put up the season he did for the Yankees in 1984, the talk was he was going to make it eventually.


Funnily enough, Niekro's seasons with the Yankees are what pushed him to 300 wins.


Sutton did not receive such accolades, though.

Sutton is probably the best example of a compiler. An average pitcher who pitched an incredibly long time to get 300 wins.

As far as Perry goes, I recall watching the Pine Tar game where he played a prominent role in taking the bat. The announcers then were questioning whether or not the guy was a HOF'er and that was the 80's after he had 300 W's. Looking at his stats he was better than Niekro and Sutton both but without the 300 W's, I think he struggles to get into the HOF.

[Ace Venom]

The supposed magic number really does raise a question. What about 300 wins is so important? Tommy John and Bert Blyleven both tried to hang around to reach this mark, but only one should be considered Cooperstown material (Byleven). Early Wynn reached 300 wins after trying for seven starts. He never won another game after that, but hanging around to get that win is probably what put him in because his 107 ERA+ just isn't that impressive for a 300 game winner. Pud Galvin also had a 107 ERA+, but he did win 64 more games than Wynn did.

Looking at the ranks of 300 game winners by ERA+:
Rank Player Wins ERA+
1 Lefty Grove 300 148
2 Walter Johnson 417 147
3 Roger Clemens 354 143
4 Kid Nichols 361 140
5 Cy Young 511 138
6 Randy Johnson 303 136
t7 Christy Mathewson 373 135
t7 Pete Alexander 373 135
9 John Clarkson 328 134
10 Greg Maddux 355 132
t11 Tim Keefe 342 127
t11 Tom Seaver 311 127
13 Eddie Plank 326 122
14 Gaylord Perry 314 119
t15 Warren Spahn 363 118
t15 Tom Glavine 305 118
t17 Steve Carlton 329 115
t17 Phil Niekro 318 115
19 Mickey Welch 307 114
20 Nolan Ryan 324 111
21 Don Sutton 324 108
t22 Pud Galvin 364 107
t22 Early Wynn 300 107

Hard to believe where some of these guys rank. Randy Johnson is actually the sixt best 300-game winner in terms of ERA+. Wins certainly don't mean everything.

[Captain Cold Nose]

what CCN says but he is too nice


This troll is catching a lot of fish.

When Niekro and Perry were middle-age pitching stars in the early 1970s it was reasonable to suppose that there would never be another 300-game winner and many of us expected there would not. Gibson and Marichal would probably win 250, but that would be a great accomplishment in the future. Some of the younger generation would probably get there but some would fall short, too. (Jenkins, Sutton, Seaver, Palmer, Carlton. Few would have put Nolan Ryan in the consideration set.) Any 250-game winner would probably be elected to the Hall of Fame. duh.

We do have trolls on this site. As often as I have disagreed with him (and I have often agreed with him, too), cardsfanatic is definitely not a troll.

Perry did win two CYAs and had quite a bit of acclaim for the overstated use of his spitball. If those anouncers were seriously questioning his HOF candidacy around the pine tar game, they were in the minority. It was well-acknowledged at the time Perry was able to do what he did while pitching for the teams he did after he left the Giants.

[Freakshow]

All pitchers with 2700+ ip, debuting since 1979.
Cnt Player ERA+ W W-L% WHIP DbYr IP From To
+----+-----------------+----+---+-----+-----+----+------+----+----+
1 Pedro Martinez 154 219 .687 1.054 1992 2827.1 1992 2009
2 Roger Clemens 143 354 .658 1.173 1984 4916.2 1984 2007
3 Randy Johnson 136 303 .646 1.171 1988 4135.1 1988 2009
4 Greg Maddux 132 355 .610 1.143 1986 5008.1 1986 2008
5 Curt Schilling 127 216 .597 1.137 1988 3261 1988 2007
6 Kevin Brown 127 211 .594 1.222 1986 3256.1 1986 2005
7 John Smoltz 124 213 .579 1.176 1988 3473 1988 2009
8 Mike Mussina 123 270 .638 1.192 1991 3562.2 1991 2008
9 Dave Stieb 122 176 .562 1.245 1979 2895.1 1979 1998
10 David Cone 120 194 .606 1.256 1986 2898.2 1986 2003
11 Tom Glavine 118 305 .600 1.314 1987 4413.1 1987 2008
12 Andy Pettitte 116 229 .629 1.361 1995 2926.1 1995 2009
13 Chuck Finley 115 200 .536 1.376 1986 3197.1 1986 2002
14 Frank Viola 112 176 .540 1.301 1982 2836.1 1982 1996
15 Orel Hershiser 112 204 .576 1.261 1983 3130.1 1983 2000
16 Dwight Gooden 111 194 .634 1.256 1984 2800.2 1984 2000
17 Tom Candiotti 108 151 .479 1.301 1983 2725 1983 1999
18 Tim Wakefield 108 189 .538 1.350 1992 2931.2 1992 2009
19 David Wells 108 239 .604 1.266 1987 3439 1987 2007
20 Kenny Rogers 108 219 .584 1.403 1989 3302.2 1989 2008
21 Mark Langston 108 179 .531 1.354 1984 2962.2 1984 1999
22 Jamie Moyer 105 258 .570 1.323 1986 3908.2 1986 2009
23 Fernando Valenzue 104 173 .531 1.320 1980 2930 1980 1997
24 Livan Hernandez 96 156 .508 1.450 1996 2734.2 1996 2009
25 Mike Moore 95 161 .478 1.418 1982 2831.2 1982 1995

[cardsfanatic]

Another thing - Pettitte's debut (1995) is actualy a lot closer to that of Halladay (1998), Santana (2000), and Oswalt (2001) than it is to Maddux (1986), Glavine (1987), and Clemens (1984). Maybe we are putting him in the wrong era all together here.

If that is the case then you need to shorten up the groups you listed as they cover 12-13 year spans as well. I consider Pettite part of the Clemens group primarily because his career is winding down at pretty much the same time that group is exiting the game. I don't think Pettite will pitch past his 40th Birthday which means his retirement will come within about 4-5 years of Clemens and even closer to Unit, Pedro, Glavine, Smoltz etc...

To me, when you are voting for the HOF of this era, Pettite will show up on the same wave of ballots those guys appear on. Unless he shocks me and pitches until he's 43 to get to 300 W's... but I put that as an extreme long shot. The guy has talked about retirement just about every season. It's possible he could pull a Clemens/Favre and continually talk about retirement but never actually do it. As of right now, I just don't think the guy will be pitching past 2011.

[Freakshow]

Smoltz' election would not lower the standards of the hall of fame.

HOF starters, lowest ERA+, <3700 IP
Cnt Player ERA+ W W-L% IP From To Ages
+----+-----------------+----+---+-----+------+----+----+-----+
1 Rube Marquard 103 201 .532 3306.2 1908 1925 21-38
2 Catfish Hunter 104 224 .574 3449.1 1965 1979 19-33
3 Herb Pennock 106 240 .597 3571.2 1912 1934 18-40
4 Jesse Haines 108 210 .571 3208.2 1918 1937 24-43
5 Jack Chesbro 110 198 .600 2896.2 1899 1909 25-35
6 Chief Bender 112 212 .625 3017 1903 1925 19-41
7 Dennis Eckersley 116 197 .535 3285.2 1975 1998 20-43
8 Bob Lemon 119 207 .618 2850 1946 1958 25-37
9 Joe McGinnity 120 246 .634 3441.1 1899 1908 28-37
10 Don Drysdale 121 209 .557 3432 1956 1969 19-32
11 Juan Marichal 123 243 .631 3507.1 1960 1975 22-37
12 Lefty Gomez 125 189 .649 2503 1930 1943 21-34
13 Dazzy Vance 125 197 .585 2966.2 1915 1935 24-44
14 Stan Coveleski 127 215 .602 3082 1912 1928 22-38

[Ace Venom]

Smoltz' election would not lower the standards of the hall of fame.

Agreed. If you rank 200 game winners that have less than 300 wins, but are not in Cooperstown:

Rank Player Wins ERA+
1 Pedro Martinez 219 154
t2 Curt Schilling 216 127
t2 Kevin Brown 211 127
4 John Smoltz 213 124
t5 Mike Mussina 270 123
t5 Bob Caruthers 218 123
t5 Eddie Cicotte 208 123
t5 Silver King 203 123
t9 Will White 229 120
t9 Carl Mays 207 120
t9 Jack Stivetts 203 120
t12 Bert Blyleven 287 118
t12 Tony Mullane 284 118
t12 Jim McCormick 265 118
15 Andy Pettitte 229 116
16 Chuck Finley 200 115
t17 Jack Quinn 247 114
t17 Luis Tiant 229 114
t17 Rick Reuschel 214 114
20 Mel Harder 223 113
21 Orel Hershiser 204 112
22 F. Fitzsimmons 217 111
t23 Tommy John 288 110
t23 Jerry Koosman 222 110
t23 Milt Pappas 209 110
t23 Charley Root 201 110
27 Gus Weyhing 264 109
t28 David Wells 239 108
t28 Paul Derringer 223 108
t28 Kenny Rogers 219 108
t28 Vida Blue 209 108
t32 Jim Kaat 283 107
t32 Charlie Hough 216 107
t32 Bobo Newsom 211 107
t35 Dennis Martinez 245 106
t35 Jack Powell 245 106
t35 Frank Tanana 240 106
t35 Jim Perry 215 106
t35 Bob Welch 211 106
t40 Jamie Moyer 258 105
t40 Jack Morris 254 105
t40 Mickey Lolich 217 105
t40 George Uhle 200 105
44 Sam Jones 229 104
45 Hooks Daus 222 102
46 George Mullin 228 101
t47 Jerry Reuss 220 100
t47 Earl Whitehill 218 100
t47 Al Orth 204 100
50 Lew Burdette 203 98
51 Joe Niekro 221 97

Pedro Martinez, Curt Schilling, Kevin Brown, John Smoltz and Mike Mussina round out the top five. Mussina ties in ERA+ with Caruthers, Cicotte (one of the Black Sox) and King, though he out-won them all by a large margin. Smoltz record 154 saves in his career, which only serves to boost his resume.

[tearforamariner]

Here's my thing with Schilling:

Greg Maddux
Roger Clemens
Tom Glavine
Randy Johnson
Pedro Martinez
Mike Mussina
Curt Schilling
John Smoltz

Eight pitchers from one era. That's a lot of guys to make the hall from one era. Smoltz might have an argument over Schilling, but that's pretty much it. The Hall of Fame is a place to enshrine the best and if you were the eighth best pitcher in your era, I truly believe you do not belong in the Hall of Fame. With Smoltz it's deeper, because for a great while, he wasn't the best pitcher on his team. For a decent amount of his career, he was number 3 behind Maddux and Glavine.

[brett]

Here's my thing with Schilling:

Greg Maddux
Roger Clemens
Tom Glavine
Randy Johnson
Pedro Martinez
Mike Mussina
Curt Schilling
John Smoltz

Eight pitchers from one era. That's a lot of guys to make the hall from one era. Smoltz might have an argument over Schilling, but that's pretty much it. The Hall of Fame is a place to enshrine the best and if you were the eighth best pitcher in your era, I truly believe you do not belong in the Hall of Fame. With Smoltz it's deeper, because for a great while, he wasn't the best pitcher on his team. For a decent amount of his career, he was number 3 behind Maddux and Glavine.

There are about half as many pitchers as position players in the hall.

There is roughly 1 position player per position per league per generation (20 years). That is about 16 position players and would correspond to about 8 pitchers.

In fact just looking at the 1900s, there are 5 20 year spans. If we put in 8 pitchers from each 20 year span that would only be 40 pitchers from that time period in the hall.

I am just saying that we currently are getting about 16 position players and 8 pitchers per 20 year period as LOCKS in the hall of fame.

[STLCards2]

There are about half as many pitchers as position players in the hall.

There is roughly 1 position player per position per league per generation (20 years). That is about 16 position players and would correspond to about 8 pitchers.

In fact just looking at the 1900s, there are 5 20 year spans. If we put in 8 pitchers from each 20 year span that would only be 40 pitchers from that time period in the hall.

I am just saying that we currently are getting about 16 position players and 8 pitchers per 20 year period as LOCKS in the hall of fame.

Right, and we have already established that several eras have 10-13 pitchers in the HOF, from leagues half of the size as the 90's. Even throwing out some bonehead pics, like Hunter or Haines or Marquard, the 00's and 60's both post double-digit inducties that very few, if any, complain about being legit (and yes, most everybod considered Niekro and Perry to be HOFers well before their 300th wins.) There are well over 60 pitchers in the HOF, and even if you add another "20" year period to account for 1871-1900, that would still indicate about 10-11 pitchers per 20 year period. (And the only reason the average per 20 years isn't higher is becasue the 80's is so underrepreseneted). And all of these eras had far fewer pitchers to draw from that the 90's. Not only should we be okay with 8 HOF pitchers (I'd argue 9 including K. Brown), but it should be expected.

Heck, the mid 1880'-mid 1890's' only had like 40 full-time starting pitchers, and about 1/4 of them are in the HOF or are considered close. But consider 5% of current starters to be HOFers, and everybody screams "overepresentation."

And brett is right - there are about 7-8 LOCK HOFers from each 20 years. We aren't dealing with a "just because mistakes have happened in the past doesn't mean we should continue the mistake" argument. That would be if we were arguing for Wells, Moyer, or Rodgers to be elected. With Mussina, Brown, Schilling, and Smoltz, we are dealing with guys that have similar IP and ERA+ numbers as guys like Marichal, Drysdale, and others.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Here's my thing with Schilling:

Greg Maddux
Roger Clemens
Tom Glavine
Randy Johnson
Pedro Martinez
Mike Mussina
Curt Schilling
John Smoltz

Eight pitchers from one era. That's a lot of guys to make the hall from one era. Smoltz might have an argument over Schilling, but that's pretty much it. The Hall of Fame is a place to enshrine the best and if you were the eighth best pitcher in your era, I truly believe you do not belong in the Hall of Fame. With Smoltz it's deeper, because for a great while, he wasn't the best pitcher on his team. For a decent amount of his career, he was number 3 behind Maddux and Glavine.
The following pitchers debuted from 1955-1967. That's 10 HoF pitchers from one era and this was at a time when there were fewer major league teams.

Sandy Koufax (1955)
Don Drysdale (1956)
Bob Gibson (1959)
Juan Marichal (1960)
Gaylord Perry (1962)
Phil Niekro (1964)
Steve Carlton (1965)
Don Sutton (1966)
Nolan Ryan (1966)
Tom Seaver (1967)

[STLCards2]

Did anybody read post #284? :)

[brett]

With Mussina, Brown, Schilling, and Smoltz, we are dealing with guys that have similar IP and ERA+ numbers as guys like Marichal, Drysdale, and others.

For the record,
Smoltz has a 125 ERA+ and 3473 IP.

No eligible pitcher with his ERA+ and IP totals are not in the hall of fame.

Here are the 10 eligible hall of famers who top him in both:

Nichols
Young
Clarkson
Rusie
Grove
W. Johnson
Alexander
Mathewson
Hubbell
Gibson

Here are the 13 hall of famers who he tops in BOTH IP and ERA+
Griffith
Gomez (virtual tie in ERA+)
Vance
Cummings
Fingers
Lemon
Ward (special case)
Eckersley
Bender
Chesbro
Haines
Hunter
Marquard

While using strictly hall of fame comparisons can lower the hall to the lowest common denomonator, I would argue that when you top more hall of famers in both rates and longevity than the number of hall of famers who top YOU in BOTH rate and longevity, you have a strong case for the hall of fame.

Now I think we would agree that many of the 13 who he tops in both IP and ERA+ should not be in or got in due to other factors than just their pitching performance, but I think we would all also agree that ALL of the 10 guys who top him in both DESERVE to be in.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Did anybody read post #284? :)

I guess that would be a no. :)

[STLCards2]

For the record,
Smoltz has a 125 ERA+ and 3473 IP.

No eligible pitcher with his ERA+ and IP totals are not in the hall of fame.

Here are the 10 eligible hall of famers who top him in both:

Nichols
Young
Clarkson
Rusie
Grove
W. Johnson
Alexander
Mathewson
Hubbell
Gibson

Here are the 13 hall of famers who he tops in BOTH IP and ERA+
Griffith
Gomez (virtual tie in ERA+)
Vance
Cummings
Fingers
Lemon
Ward (special case)
Eckersley
Bender
Chesbro
Haines
Hunter
Marquard

While using strictly hall of fame comparisons can lower the hall to the lowest common denomonator, I would argue that when you top more hall of famers in both rates and longevity than the number of hall of famers who top YOU in BOTH rate and longevity, you have a strong case for the hall of fame.

Now I think we would agree that many of the 13 who he tops in both IP and ERA+ should not be in or got in due to other factors than just their pitching performance, but I think we would all also agree that ALL of the 10 guys who top him in both DESERVE to be in.

I'm not sure that the few who do not support Smoltz on this thread recognize/use ERA+ at all. We might be beating a dead-horse here in terms of all the ERA+ analysis.

[brett]

I guess that would be a no. :)

I did. That's why I started to do some calculations.