Should Smoltz go in the Hall of Fame?

[Jake]

Although I love the Yankees, I've always been a big John Smoltz fan, and I was arguing with friends yesterday about whether or not Smoltz belongs in the HoF. I say that he does, because he has been dominant both as a starter and as a reliever in the closer role, a feat few pitchers have accomplished.

I submit these stats to you for consideration:

Lifetime era= 3.29
163 career wins.
154 saves.
14 career postseason wins.
Besides Eckersley, I can't think of any other pitchers with >150 wins + >150 saves.

6-time all star.
His strikeouts per innings pitched at 7.95 places him 19th alltime.
Short of an injury plagued season and the year he first came up, Smoltzie has never had an ERA over 4.

Smoltzie has been dominant in the postseason and won a Cy Young during the 90s.

I believe that his stats merit his induction into the Hall of Fame upon his retirement(after waiting 6 years of course).

[toopier]

He really only has 3 HOF caliber years, 2 as a starter, 1 as a reliever.
Thats's not to say that every HOFer always has a HOF year......but......

He is 236 saves below Eck right now

[Brooklyn]

I'd take Smoltz on my team any day, but I don't think he is there yet. Three more good seasons, and I think he'll have a good case. If he stays as a closer and can string together three more seasons of 40+ saves and wind up around 300, he'd be looking real good.

He's also expressed his disire to start again. If he gets his wish and can string together 3 seasons of 15+ wins and get over the 200 win mark, the combined resume would be impressive. And with a few 4-5 seasons as a started, he might be able to put a scare in the 3,000 K mark, but that would have him pitching well into his early 40's, a tugh feat.

He just doesn't have the longevity as either a starter of reliever to make it as one or the other, and his combiend stats don't quite look good enough yet.

[Honest Blues]

First pitcher to both lead his team in wins and saves.Most post-season wins of any pitcher.Yeah I think Smoltzie belongs there eventually. :clapping

[cws55]

not quite yet...but after 3 or 4 more years...which im sure he's good for...i thik he'll have the numbers and the intangibles

[Kroxquo]

When Smoltz moved to the bullpen, his stats were remarkably similar to Eckersley's when he made the same move (or had it made for him). I argued then that if Smoltz could put together about 5 or 6 years similar to what Eckersley had done, that he should go in. I think at this point, he's on target, but not there yet.

[J W]

I feel pretty much the same way as several others. See if Smoltz gets to 300 saves first, while maintaining his performance as a closer.

Wouldn't it cement the Braves' case for best rotation ever if Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz make it to the HOF though? :eek: How many other teams in history had three HOF pitchers going at once, for several years?

[Eddie Collins]

Not yet, but he is well on his way.

[dgarza]

I would like to think not....but in some ways #s tell me he might with time

[MudvilleMike]

Yes, he should be in the HOF, even if he doesn't have some of the superficial numbers like Wins.

Maddux 16989 batters faced .629 OPS
Smoltz 11066 batters faced .641 OPS
Glavine 15725 batters faced .682 OPS

[micsmith]

After 16 seasons:

Smoltz is 163-121, with 154 saves and 2398 Ks in 2699.2 innings pitched.
Eck was 169-140, with 145 saves and 1938 Ks in 2815.8 innings pitched.

At this stage he looks like he's better than last year's first ballot hall of famer.

[J W]

again, the key is at this stage. As of now, he needs to do more. But the guy really does look like Eckersley.

The big difference there is, Eckersley didn't have anyone as dominant as him when he closed. With the closer's role being more and more defined, and with more people being brought up to be closers, Smoltz has more competition.

Funny though that not only Smoltz, but Eric Gagne began as starters, despite all of them.

[Cougar]

His postseason record is extraordinarily good: 13-4, 4 sv, 2.77 ERA, in 195 innings!

Despite this, I concur with the consensus -- he's not quite there yet. On his way, but needs to do more, either as a starter or a reliever. He needs to hit 200 wins or get about 200 more saves, I'd say. 3000K would help too; realistically, he'd need to start again at least one season successfully to come close.

He's 37. Eck pitched until he was 45. Hard to say if Smoltz can do the same -- he has had much more arm trouble than Eck ever did.

It's revealing that there isn't a truly comparable pitcher out there to him at this point.

[Frank Schilling]

If Smoltzie can put together a few more good seasons as a starter, he would be in the unprecedented position of going from a dominant starter to a dominant closer and possibly to a dominant starter again. John has a terrific work ethic, is in fine shape, seems not to have elbow problems and most of the Braves have acknowledged in the past that he is the best athlete on the Braves. I say he will end up in the HOF when it's all said and done.

[Windy City Fan]

I'm going with the crowd on this one. Smoltz isn't there yet, but he's on his way. His postseason performance may end up being enough for him, even if he doesn't put up another great HOF caliber season. Who can forget John Smoltz dueling Jack Morris in the World Series?

[DoubleX]

I think the key for Smoltz will be to pass 200 wins. 200+ wins coupled with his 3.5 years of extremely dominant closing, followed by a successful return to the rotation, could be enough and certainly makes for a good and unique story/career path among hall of famers. Being that he's only 37 wins away, a couple of good seasons could do it for Smoltz, but who knows with that arm. Right now, I rank Smoltz's Hall of Fame chances roughly equal to Mike Mussina and behind:

Roger Clemens
Randy Johnson
Greg Maddux
Pedro Martinez
Tom Glavine
Mariano Rivera
Curt Schilling
Trevor Hoffman

[BoSox Rule]

...And Pedro Martinez

[julusnc]

I hate to be a real downer about John Smoltz but I feel he will end his career on the disabled list over the next two seasons.

Smoltz was a quality starter until he was seriously injuried and he made quite a successful comeback as a top rated reliever but he is plain stupid.

Stupid because why mess with it if it isnt broken.He now wants to try his hand at being a starter again and I can see him injuring his arm from a full season of stress......maybe a career ending injury.

The Atlanta Braves need starters yes but they need the closer that they have depended on for the last three seasons to be a team leader.

If Smoltz continues as a starter I dont think he has a chance at the Hall of Fame unless he wins 220+ games.It would take 4-5 top quality seasons from Smoltz to achieve this and I dont see it happening.......If Smoltz continues as a top notch reliever for 3-4 seasons with 300+ saves then he will have a plaque in Cooperstown after about 8 years of retirement.

I would blame Bobby Cox if he allows Smoltz to throw away his career.

[DoubleX]

...And Pedro Martinez

Oh yeah, just plum forgot :o . I'll go back and add him in, thanks.

[Brad Harris]

Returning to a starting role will seriously handicap Smoltz's chances. Had Smoltz elected to remain the closer, and continued to excel in that capacity for another 4 years, I think he'd eventually have been elected. Not now.

[leecemark]

--I agree that returning to starting will probably hurt Smoltz's chances for Cooperstown. I don't know that it isn't the best thing for the Braves though. Kolb should be fine as a closer and while I don't think Smoltz has 60-70 wins left in that arm he should be a high quality starter at least this season. Hopefully, he'll have several 15+ win seasons before his arm falls off. If one of them includes more WS heroics, that should be enough.

[chunk&sloth]

it's iffy, he'd have to have two good season as a starter for me to vote for him and im a huge fan too

[E.Banks#14]

150 W and 150 S: Incredible! Being a dominant starter and closer is very difficult. You put any starter into a closer spot right now and I guarantee he doesn't put up numbers like Smoltzy did.

[WillieMaysHayes]

Returning to a starting role will seriously handicap Smoltz's chances. Had Smoltz elected to remain the closer, and continued to excel in that capacity for another 4 years, I think he'd eventually have been elected. Not now.

I actually think if he prospers as a starter again, say have a few 15 win seasons, it enhaces his chances (hey,that rhymes).
He would be setting a prescident.

[Roy Hobbs]

Well Smoltz has had said many times that closing left him more tired and with more arm pain than starting ever did. Unless Smoltz is just plain lying I'd say we listen to him, it's his arm and he knows when it's hurting or when it doesn't feel right.

I'm a weightlifter so it makes sense to me. There are a lot of gym-rats who go to the gym every day and do the exact same workout every day. They develop well defined muscles but have *very low* strength levels (basically they have muscles that look good but don't carry a lot of power) and they also are in all the time with pulled muscles or muscular pain.

Muscles just shouldn't be worked out 5 days a week, and I think that's why closing can be so hard, when you have to be out there 5 days a week (as some closers do) it's damn hard on the arm. And plus you can't get into a rhythm when you're a closer. One 7 day period you may go out and close 5 times, another you may only be called on once. So it's definitely a strange situation and it puts your muscles through a lot of stress.

[STLCards2]

As a Braves fan (please read my Glavine post), I hate to say that Smoltz is not a Hall of Famer right now. He has to have have over 200 wins as a starter to get in. With the 150 saves, he is borderline. I hope he makes it though!

[jrbdmb]

OK, so with the 2005 stats now in (14-7, 3.06 ERA, 3 CGs, 169 SOs, 1.15 WHIP) has Smoltz bolstered his case for the HOF?

[Go Bravos!!!#1]

If he can put up those same stats for about 2 more years. He's have my vote.:) :) :coffee

[Chisox]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I'd vote for him. But, barely.

[jpenrod]

I rank Smoltz's Hall of Fame chances roughly equal to Mike Mussina and behind:

Curt Schilling


I see this name creep up a lot when talking about Smoltz, take an honest look at his stats compared to smoltz and tell me why you think he is a HOFer and Smoltz is not?

[Go Bravos!!!#1]

I think Smoltz's transition from Starter to Closer back to Starter, should give him an advantage over Schilling ,who for the 1st 10 years of his career was an average pitcher.

[DoubleX]

I still think Smoltz has to cross 200 wins. Yeah, it's an arbitrary number, but it's something.

[KCGHOST]

If he can put up those same stats for about 2 more years. He's have my vote.:) :) :coffee


That would probably get him over the hump. His quality numbers are enough to offset the lack of counting numbers.

[jpenrod]

I still think Smoltz has to cross 200 wins. Yeah, it's an arbitrary number, but it's something.

I have no problem saying he needs to get to 200 (I happen to think that is more than attainable since he is only 23 wins away). I just do not understand why so many people feel that Curt Schilling is a HOFer and Smoltz is not, there is just no real justification for that when you compare their stats.

[baseball junkie]

If Schilling and Smoltz are in then why isn't Kevin Brown in? And if Kevin Brown is in, then why isn't Orel Hershiser in, and Mark Langston in, and David Cone in, and Dwight Gooden in, and Bret Saberhagen in, and Frank Viola in, and David Wells in, and Fernando Valenzuela in, and Mike Mussina in, and Andy Pettite in, and Jack Morris in, and Frank Tanana in, and Mike Scott in, and on and on forever. There has to be a cut off and I don't think any of them make it, including Schilling and Smoltz.

A more interesting question might be should Tom Glavine go to the Hall of Fame.

He could end up with 280 plus wins and be stuck on the out side looking, like Tommy John (288 wins) and Bert Blyleven (287 wins.)

[STLCards2]

Blyleven belongs, but I will deal with John and Kaat

Huge differences between Glavine and John/Kaat.

First, with two more decent seasons, Glavine will probably reach 300 wins. It will only take him 21 seasons to do so, in all likelyhood. It took John and Kaat at least 25 years just to reach their totals.

Glavine's winning % is way higher than Kaat or John's.

Glavine has 2 Cy Youngs compared to John and Kaat's 0 combined.

Glavine won 20 games 5 times, compared to John and Kaat's 6 combined.(In 4- man rotations)

Glavine's ERA+ is 120, neither John or Kaat has a ERA+ over 110. Okay, John's is 111.

Glavine made 9 All-Star games, compared to 7 combined for John and Kaat.

Glavine won a World Series MVP, John and Kaat did not.

Glavine is close to a slam dunk, and is a far superior pitcher than either Jim Kaat or tommy John.

[jpenrod]

If Schilling and Smoltz are in then why isn't Kevin Brown in? And if Kevin Brown is in, then why isn't Orel Hershiser in, and Mark Langston in, and David Cone in, and Dwight Gooden in, and Bret Saberhagen in, and Frank Viola in, and David Wells in, and Fernando Valenzuela in, and Mike Mussina in, and Andy Pettite in, and Jack Morris in, and Frank Tanana in, and Mike Scott in, and on and on forever. There has to be a cut off and I don't think any of them make it, including Schilling and Smoltz.

A more interesting question might be should Tom Glavine go to the Hall of Fame.

He could end up with 280 plus wins and be stuck on the out side looking, like Tommy John (288 wins) and Bert Blyleven (287 wins.)

Player (Seasons, W, L, SV, K, ERA)
Brown, 19, 211, 144, 0, 2397, 3.28
Hershiser, 18, 204, 150, 5, 2014, 3.48
Langston, 16, 179, 158, 0, 2464, 3.97
David Cone, 17, 194, 126, 1, 2668, 3.46
Gooden, 16, 194, 112, 3, 2293, 3.51
Saberhagen, 16, 167, 117, 1, 1715, 3.34
Viola, 15, 176, 150, 0, 1844, 3.73
Wells, 19, 227, 143, 13, 2081, 4.06
Velanzuela, 17, 173, 153, 2, 2074, 3.54
Mussina, 15, 224, 127, 0, 2400, 3.64
Pettitte, 11, 172, 91, 0, 1525, 3.78
Morris, 18, 254, 186, 0, 2478, 3.90
Tanana, 21, 240, 236, 1, 2773, 3.66
Scott, 13, 124, 108, 3, 1469, 3.54
Schilling, 18, 192, 131, 22, 2832, 3.40
Smoltz, 17, 177, 128, 154, 2567, 3.26

Because none of those guys you mentioned has a better ERA than Smoltz. because while many of those guys have as many wins as Smoltz non of them have 154 saves and none of those guys with as many wins lost 4 seasons to the bullpen. Because only three of the guys you mention have as many K's a Smoltz (and Tanana took 4 seasons to get 206 more K's). Because only one of those guys has the post season record that Smoltz has (and pettitte is young enough do not count him out for the Hall just yet.)

Bottom line I never really said whether or not I though Smoltz was a HOFer, but what I did say as that while many people want to say Schilling is a HOFer and smoltz is not the numbers do not justify it. If you want to say Schilling is a HOFer than I do not see how you can say Smoltz is not. Sure Schilling has 15 more wins and 265 mor K's but if you consider that Smoltz spen 4 seasons in the 'pen and not earning wins or getting the innings then you have to believe he would be a lot closer to those numbers than he is now. Add in his lower ERA and if you say Schilling is a HOFer than you have to believe Smoltz is too and if you believe Smoltz is not a HOFer than you have to believe that Schilling is not either. I realize that is is not all about stats but there is no reason to seperate these two guys, Smoltz is one of the most respected players out there it is not like he alienates teamates or pisses off the media or any of the stuff you here about when guys like Belle are ruled out as a HOFer. If you do not believe either of the Guys are HOFer's fine I am not going to try to convince you differently at least you recognize the similarities in there careers. I will say I think the 154 saves smoltz has and the lower ERA Smoltz has and the K's Smoltz has and the post season record smoltz has gives him a decided advantage over the other guys you listed.

[jpenrod]

Blyleven belongs, but I will deal with John and Kaat

Huge differences between Glavine and John/Kaat.

First, with two more decent seasons, Glavine will probably reach 300 wins. It will only take him 21 seasons to do so, in all likelyhood. It took John and Kaat at least 25 years just to reach their totals.

Glavine's winning % is way higher than Kaat or John's.

Glavine has 2 Cy Youngs compared to John and Kaat's 0 combined.

Glavine won 20 games 5 times, compared to John and Kaat's 6 combined.(In 4- man ratations)

Glavine's ERA+ is 120, neither John or Kaat has a ERA+ over 110. Okay, John's is 111.

Glavine made 9 All-Star games, compared to fewer combined for John and Kaat.

Glavine won a World Series MVP, John and Kaat did not.

Glavine is close to a slam dunk, and is a far superior pitcher than either Jim Kaat or tommy John.

Indeed!

Thank You Cards for this post.

[digglahhh]

If Schilling and Smoltz are in then why isn't Kevin Brown in? And if Kevin Brown is in, then why isn't Orel Hershiser in, and Mark Langston in, and David Cone in, and Dwight Gooden in, and Bret Saberhagen in, and Frank Viola in, and David Wells in, and Fernando Valenzuela in, and Mike Mussina in, and Andy Pettite in, and Jack Morris in, and Frank Tanana in, and Mike Scott in, and on and on forever. There has to be a cut off and I don't think any of them make it, including Schilling and Smoltz.

A more interesting question might be should Tom Glavine go to the Hall of Fame.

He could end up with 280 plus wins and be stuck on the out side looking, like Tommy John (288 wins) and Bert Blyleven (287 wins.)

In answer to your first question, because none of those other guys deserve it as much as Smoltz or Schilling, and obviously Blyleven.

In regard to Glavine, The "interesting" question is what case can you build against him?

[baseball junkie]

I don't mean to be argumentative. That's no fun. But all the pitchers I mentioned were great in their primes and simply couldn't sustain it for another two or three years. Many of the pictchers I listed won mulitiple Cy Youngs awards, earned multiple World Series Rings, and made numerous All Star appearances.

Granted, none of them have 150 plus saves on their resumes but none of them got to work with the great Leo Mazzone either. Smoltz also had the distinct advantage of spending he entire career pitcing in the national league, facing lousy 8 and 9 hole batters which generally don't exist in the American League. And as for the ERA's, Smoltz's is better than Brown's by 0.02 points.

And Brown and Saberhagen both have ERA's lower than Schilling.

Oh yeah, I can't make any case against Glavine -- he's a first-ballot Hall of Famer.

[Dasperp]

I'd say Mussina and Brown are as deserving as Schilling, but none of them are as deserving as Smoltz.

[Brian McKenna]

the braves will be sending quite a few to the hall in the years to come

i wonder if coaches are ever going to make it to the hall?

[STLCards2]

Order of deservedness of active pitchers:

These guys are all yes
1. Clemens
2. Maddux
3. Johnson
4. Pedro
5. Glavine
6. Rivera
7. Smoltz
8. Schilling
9. Mussina (soon to pass up Schilling with a few more good seasons)
10.Hoffman
11. Brown (almost done)

Nobody esle at this point has much of a chance

[DoubleX]

Order of deservedness of active pitchers:

These guys are all yes
1. Clemens
2. Maddux
3. Johnson
4. Pedro
5. Glavine
6. Rivera
7. Smoltz
8. Schilling
9. Mussina (soon to pass up Schilling with a few more good seasons)
10.Hoffman
11. Brown (almost done)

Nobody esle at this point has much of a chance

This is just nitpicking for the sake of conversation, but I have Mussina and Schilling reversed. Mussina is two years younger and has 30 more wins than Schilling (who hasn't yet reached 200). Schilling is certainly the better peak performer, but it was too sporadic for my taste. A good season, followed by three injury plagued and mediocre season, then two more good seasons, followed by two more injury plagued or mediocre seasons. Whereas Mussina, until about two years ago, could be pretty much counted on for the same consistently good performance every year.

I actually don't think either will make the Hall. Schilling because of his lack of consistent production, and Mussina because he is baseball's best at almost getting there, but just missing. He's almost won a World Series, He's almost pitched multiple No Hitters/Perfect Games, he's almost won a Cy Young, and he's almost won 20 games a number of times. But never got there.

[jpenrod]

I don't mean to be argumentative. That's no fun. But all the pitchers I mentioned were great in their primes and simply couldn't sustain it for another two or three years. Many of the pictchers I listed won mulitiple Cy Youngs awards, earned multiple World Series Rings, and made numerous All Star appearances.

Granted, none of them have 150 plus saves on their resumes but none of them got to work with the great Leo Mazzone either. Smoltz also had the distinct advantage of spending he entire career pitcing in the national league, facing lousy 8 and 9 hole batters which generally don't exist in the American League. And as for the ERA's, Smoltz's is better than Brown's by 0.02 points.

And Brown and Saberhagen both have ERA's lower than Schilling.

Oh yeah, I can't make any case against Glavine -- he's a first-ballot Hall of Famer.

Again I am not saying that Smoltz should or should not be there, but that in my opinion he has a better argument than the other guys. The whole point to comparing him to schilling is because more often than not I see people say Smoltz has not done enough but Schilling is a HOFer. I admit that Smoltz ERA is only .02 points lower than browns, but it is lower, and Brown does not have the post season record Smoltz does. At any rate some of the guys you mentioned (current players) may still get in the Hall, who knows.

[Captain Cold Nose]

OK, so with the 2005 stats now in (14-7, 3.06 ERA, 3 CGs, 169 SOs, 1.15 WHIP) has Smoltz bolstered his case for the HOF?
Do those honestly seem like the numbers of a Hall of Famer?

[jpenrod]

Do those honestly seem like the numbers of a Hall of Famer?


I don't know, does 13-15, 3 CG, 136 K, 4.24 ERA sound like a HOFer? What about 17-8, 4 CG, 211K, 3.79 ERA? Maybe 13-13, 2 CG, 105K, 3.53?

I do not think the original post was so much that Smoltz had a HOF year this past season as much that he made a solid return to the rotation (better than his 14 wins show because of 6 BS in games he pitched). Here is an interesting comparison between Smoltz and Eckersly (the only guy in the HOF that was a starter and reliever):

Eck as a starter, 134 W, 100 CG, 20 SHO, 1373 K, 3.63 ERA (12 seasons)
Smoltz as a starter, 171 W, 50 CG, 15 SHO, 2267 K, 3.32 ERA (13 seasons)

Eck as a closer, 389 SV, 752 K, 3.47 ERA (11 seasons)
Smoltz as a closer, 154 SV, 300 K, 2.65 ERA (4 seasons)

Smoltz has the better numbers as a starter and his numbers as a closer are about 40% of the number's for Eck as a closer in 1/3 the seasons. Like I said just an interesting comparison.

[pesky6]

Returning to a starting role will seriously handicap Smoltz's chances. Had Smoltz elected to remain the closer, and continued to excel in that capacity for another 4 years, I think he'd eventually have been elected. Not now.

Well, I guess it's settled then. . .

[letsgocubbies]

About Schilling, I don't really think he deserves it yet, but I'm pretty sure the voters will vote him in anyways because of his great postseasons and the bloody sock thing.

[wilkerson_rulz-06]

I don't know about Kevin Brown...Mark Mulder?

[538280]

Mark Mulder?

Are you even remotely serious about that?

[ElHalo]

I don't know, does 13-15, 3 CG, 136 K, 4.24 ERA sound like a HOFer? What about 17-8, 4 CG, 211K, 3.79 ERA? Maybe 13-13, 2 CG, 105K, 3.53?

I do not think the original post was so much that Smoltz had a HOF year this past season as much that he made a solid return to the rotation (better than his 14 wins show because of 6 BS in games he pitched). Here is an interesting comparison between Smoltz and Eckersly (the only guy in the HOF that was a starter and reliever):

Eck as a starter, 134 W, 100 CG, 20 SHO, 1373 K, 3.63 ERA (12 seasons)
Smoltz as a starter, 171 W, 50 CG, 15 SHO, 2267 K, 3.32 ERA (13 seasons)

Eck as a closer, 389 SV, 752 K, 3.47 ERA (11 seasons)
Smoltz as a closer, 154 SV, 300 K, 2.65 ERA (4 seasons)

Smoltz has the better numbers as a starter and his numbers as a closer are about 40% of the number's for Eck as a closer in 1/3 the seasons. Like I said just an interesting comparison.

The thing there is that Eckersley would never have gotten a single vote for the Hall based on his career as a starter. It's really his relief career and just his relief career that got him into the Hall. From 87 to 92, people thought they were watching the best relief pitcher possible... and that's what got him in the Hall.

Smoltz was greater as a starter, sure, but not really Hall quality. But as a closer, he really only had 3 seasons (10 saves in 2001 doesn't count), and really only one of those, 2003, really sticks out. His 2002 and 2004 years weren't as good as, say, Mariano Rivera's WORST year (2000) as a closer. So, no, I don't think he makes it.

Oh, and yeah: I don't think Eck is deserving of his spot in Cooperstown. Or, at least, not ahead of some other guys. If I'm listing relievers, all time style, I go:

1. Wilhelm
2. Rivera
3. Franco
4. Hoffman
5. Gossage
6. Quisenberry
7. Sutter
8. Wagner
9. Eck

Please note that of the 8 guys I've put above Eck, four are Hall eligible, and three have not yet made it.

[RuthMayBond]

The thing there is that Eckersley would never have gotten a single vote for the Hall based on his career as a starter.Dickie Kerr has received SEVENTY-FIVE votes :eek:


<It's really his relief career and just his relief career that got him into the Hall.>Let's hope not

<From 87 to 92, people thought they were watching the best relief pitcher possible>

He wasn't that great in '87 or '91. If we're assuming his relief ERA+ is 137 (I've heard varying estimates), Quiz, Henke, AND Eichhorn had that or better with that or more innings (Sutter, Nen, Montgomery, Hiller & RHernandez are very close) and they aren't in.

<Oh, and yeah: I don't think Eck is deserving of his spot in Cooperstown. Or, at least, not ahead of some other guys. If I'm listing relievers, all time style, I go:

1. Wilhelm
2. Rivera
3. Franco
4. Hoffman>

I am surprised he's never been in the top10 in games pitched any year, not even once. Isn't he essentially Henke at this point?

<Please note that of the 8 guys I've put above Eck, four are Hall eligible, and three have not yet made it.>

Proving that it wasn't just Eck's relief career?

[digglahhh]

I think EH is saying that the voters got suckered into the novelty of the hybrid starter/closer who had some really nice years.

[RuthMayBond]

I think EH is saying that the voters got suckered into the novelty of the hybrid starter/closer who had some really nice years.At least Smoltz has a 10 point OPS+ edge on Eck for career

[Lindseynelson]

Smoltz , to me , is a guy that should make folks look past pure stats( although his are upper echelon). His love of team and loyalty to same had him go from a Cy Young starter to a Rolaids closer. Comparisons to guys like kevin(gotta love me)Brown amuse me. The Braves needed a dominant closer to maintain their magnificent run and Smoltz, who should, by now, be able to dictate his terms , gave up his possible 45-55 wins to slam the door on the NL keeping a constantly shifting Braves team on top.Isn't that worth something important?

[plask_stirlac]

Dickie Kerr: Hilariously awful. A vote, even.
Brown: He shouldn't be compared with Kevin Brown?
Eckersley: Henke was filthy, as were others. But Eckersley's career was great, with 1990 to put him at a higher level than Henke.

Smoltz: Probably a good HOF election. Still active, definitely.

Regular season, for now. Kind of a segmented career. In the early 90's he was a battler, still young. In 1994 he got hit kind of hard, like most pitchers. Mid-late 90's he was a dominant or "all-you-could-ask-for" starter. Then he had to miss 2000 and became a closer. Easily the #3 closer when active. Of course that segment only lasted four seasons, and he's changed to a very good starter and ace.

Postseason career is impeccable.

[1905 Giants]

He's got a .580 win/loss, 177 wins, 126 ERA+, and 154 saves. Can he make it?

[abacab]

I really don't know how I feel about Smoltz's career. I have no idea whether he'll get elected. Furthermore, I can't decide whether I think he deserves it.

[KCGHOST]

The counting numbers are going to hurt him. You can compare him to Eckersley if you want but Dennis has 20 more wins and 240 more saves. His quality number are better than Eckersley's, though. My guess is he gets real good support, but not enough to get elected.

[julusnc]

I voted NO at this time in his career.I feel he would easily have been a HOFer if he had remained a top notch reliever.

If he reamins a first class starter and ends his career with 250-270 wins then I would vote YES.

[digglahhh]

I support him.

Two things that I think will help are his post season performance and the fact that his induction would complete the Atlanta trio.

[Cougar]

The Cy will help too, and the fact that he will finish at least within shouting distance of 3000 K's.

A hesitant "Yes" from me.

[MyDogSparty]

John Smoltz had his 2007 team option to play one more season picked up by Braves' management.

His career stats currently stand at 193 wins, 154 saves, and 2778 strikeouts

Which would help his HOF chances more, 200 wins or 200 saves or 3000 strikeouts? I was hoping that he would remain a starter for the beginning of the 2007 season, get his 200th win and then return to the closer role for the remainder of the 2007 season plus sign a one year contract with the Braves to earn the remaining 46 saves needed to reach 200 career saves and strikeouts needed for 3000. What's the likelihood of that happening? I'm dreaming, I know.

I think 200 wins, 200 saves, plus 3000 strikeouts would make him a HOF lock. Has any pitcher had 200 wins and 200 saves not to mention the 3000 strikeouts? Dennis Eckersley had 197 wins plus 390 saves (2401 Ks). Hoyt Wilhelm finished with 143 wins and 227 saves (1610 Ks)

[STLCards2]

Smoltz career as a regular season starter are arguably not enough for Cooperstown. Let's say he ends up with around 200 wins as a starter, one Cy Young, 3,000 K's, a 580 W%, and a starter ERA+ around 120 with a little over 3,000 IP. This is a very impressive, but borderline starting career. Throw in the 150 saves and one of the greatest postseason resumes in history, and I think Smoltz gets in. Smoltz is one of the few cases in my opinion in which postseason numbers play a large role in pushing a borderline guy over the line (Brock, Schilling would be another)

[KCGHOST]

I ....... and the fact that his induction would complete the Atlanta trio.


This might hurt actually hurt him. You will have voters who will wonder how a team could have three HoF starters and only win one WS. The obvious answer is they didn't have three HoF starters.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Problem is, he'll never return to closer.

How about this helping him: he needs just 135 strikeouts to pass Phil Niekro as the all-time Braves strikeout leader. That's a down year for Smoltz, people. ;) Granted, this is a consequence of being with the Braves for so long, and if he hadn't closed, he would have broken it by now, but when you pass Warren Spahn and Phil Niekro, I think he should get points for that.

Plus, Smoltz is unique. He went from great starter to super closer to great starter again. No one else has done that in this day and age.

I understand the arguments that say that Smoltz is hurt because he was at closer for 3 1/2 seasons, I just can't accept them.

[SamtheBravesFan]

This might hurt actually hurt him. You will have voters who will wonder how a team could have three HoF starters and only win one WS. The obvious answer is they didn't have three HoF starters.

Um... Smoltz was the most HoF-like in the postseason. Maddux was the worst. Glavine is the middle. I say the Braves lost in spite of Smoltz. You want me to break out the stats, I will.

[STLCards2]

This might hurt actually hurt him. You will have voters who will wonder how a team could have three HoF starters and only win one WS. The obvious answer is they didn't have three HoF starters.

Lets hope the writers aren't that stupid!:laugh

The three started together for only 6 non-strike seasons. 1993, 1995-99.

One championship, two WS losses, and 3 NLCS losses.

The 1996 WS loss can hardly be attributed to the starting pitching failing.

The 1999 team was outmanned everywhere, even though the 2 staffs were pretty even.

The 1993, 1997, and 1998 teams were the heartbreakers. Even so, how much of the losses to clearly inferior teams were Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz' fault? If I am not mistaken, didn't the Braves bullpen suck during those series? Didn't the Braves' offense go cold with RISP?

You might be right, but Feller, Lemon, and Wynn are all in Cooperstown. Also, being the main reason for 14 straight division titles: a monumentaly difficult record (certainly more impressive than the Marlins winning 2 championships in their only 2 winning seasons) should count for something.

I guess it is possible, bu t I don't see the voters seeing it that way.

[SamtheBravesFan]

The 1993, 1997, and 1998 teams were the heartbreakers. Even so, how much of the losses to clearly inferior teams were Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz' fault? If I am not mistaken, didn't the Braves bullpen suck during those series? Didn't the Braves' offense go cold with RISP?


*shudder* Don't remind me. Painful memories. :(

[mwiggins]

He certainly should make it, but I'm not 100% sure that he will. Really, all he doesn't have is a high win total. But unfortunately a lot of HoF voters don't look beyond that. But he's had a better career than many current HoF's from recent times - Hunter, Sutton, Perry, Eck, Sutter, Neikro, Bunning.

[Mike D.]

I voted "Yes". Just based on his starting numbers, I think Smoltz is in. He's doesn't have the counting numbers of a Maddux or Glavine, but he's well within HOF range.

Here's the five current HOF pitchers with between 200 and 210 career wins, which with any kind of year next year, Smoltz should finish with.

Numbers I provide are years played, record, WP, and ERA+. Smoltz compares favorably to most of these guys. Granted, some of them are borderline HOFers, but they're in...and this doesn't give Smoltz ANY credit for his time as a closer.



Rube Marquard 1908-1925 201-177 0.532 103
Bob Lemon 1946-1958 207-128 0.618 119
Hal Newhouser 1939-1955 207-150 0.580 130
Don Drysdale 1956-1969 209-166 0.557 121
Jesse Haines 1918-1937 210-158 0.571 108
John Smoltz 1988-2006 193-137 0.585 126

[JimAbbott]

Put him in the hall please. He'll be in there for certain.

[brett]

I say he is closing in. I'd like to see another good season or two but I'll vote yes, he will make it when all is said and done.

[ChrisLDuncan]

*shudder* Don't remind me. Painful memories. :(

Yeah I agree with you, Smoltz's big game presence was amazing. Plus he lost a lot of wins and Ks to closing. So since he was a great closer and a great starter and a great big game pitcher...he gets in. I mean if Eck got in than Smoltz should too.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Greg Maddux: 32 G, 11-13, 3.44 ERA, 194 IP, 122 K
Tom Glavine: 35 G, 14-16, 3.30 ERA, 218 1/3 IP, 139 K

John Smoltz: 40 G, 15-4, 2.65 ERA, 207 IP, 194 K <- most all time

[Los Bravos]

Lets hope the writers aren't that stupid!:laugh You beat me to it.Didn't the Braves' offense go cold with RISP?The Braves' offense went cold every single October in the 90's.

Look game by game at the stat lines for Smoltz and Glavine's starts, in particular. You will have to search long and hard for games in which those two didn't, at the very, very least, give the team a chance to win. Also, being the main reason for 14 straight division titles: a monumentaly difficult record (certainly more impressive than the Marlins winning 2 championships in their only 2 winning seasons) should count for something.I'm not surprised that someone who follows a team with a winning tradition grasps that :cool:

He's going to be the sole man with 200+ wins and 150+ saves who has ever toed the rubber. 3,000 K's (he's passing some prominent names as he climbs the all time list. He's in the Top 20, now), the sterling postseason record and the dominant year that he won the Cy all argue in his favor, as does participation in that unprecedented string of titles.

[Brad Harris]

Looking at theirs wins above replacement level...

As a Starting Pitcher
90.9 John Smoltz (14 years)
67.9 Dennis Eckersley (12 years)

As a Relief Pitcher
58.9 Dennis Eckersley
21.8 John Smoltz

Total
112.5 Dennis Eckersley (24 years)
126.9 John Smoltz (18 years)

Eckersley was an average to above average starting pitcher for the better part of 12 years, was a phenomenal reliever for 6 years and spent 6 years as a declining reliever. Smoltz was a grade "A" pitcher for 12 years, missed a full season from injury, came back to become a top notch reliever for four years, then returned to being one of the better starting pitchers in the league.

Eckersley undoubtedly was put in the Hall of Fame for his six strong seasons as a dominant reliever. Smoltz had half that many seasons as a dominant closer (none as good as Eckersley's best). However, Smoltz has been a top-flight starter for a long time (including a 1996 Cy Young Award) and perhaps we should be looking at this a little differently.

What if Kenny Rogers, David Wells or Jamie Moyer (none as good as Smoltz, but with similar career value) threw in 3-4 years as arguably the best reliever in the league?

Don't know that that would be enough.

Where Smoltz has a real shot at the Hall is in what he has left to do. Next year is his age-39 season. Rogers, Wells and Moyer are old men, well in their forties, so Smoltz has a few seasons to raise his production to a higher level (like Schilling or Mussina.) Let's assume he adds 10-15 wins above replacement to his resume over 2007-2008, which won't be too difficult if he remains healthy and doesn't have a total collapse. Then you're looking at someone with Curt Schilling or Mike Mussina's career value with the additional years as a dominant reliever.

At that point, I think he's a lock. Frankly, I'm already inclined to vote for him. I think Bobby Cox's experiment with Smoltz in the pen can be blamed if Smoltz finds himself on the outside of Cooperstown looking in. If he'd been given a starting assignment after his surgery, then you'd be looking at someone who's already alongside (if not slightly better) than Moose and Schilling.

That's over the line, for me. And if Smoltz wants to capture the hearts and minds of the BBWAA voters, then I'm afraid he's going to have to duplicate his performance of 2005-2006 for a few more seasons. Hopefully that will be enough to grab their attention.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Looking at theirs wins above replacement level...

As a Starting Pitcher
90.9 John Smoltz (14 years)
67.9 Dennis Eckersley (12 years)

As a Relief Pitcher
58.9 Dennis Eckersley
21.8 John Smoltz

Total
112.5 Dennis Eckersley (24 years)
126.9 John Smoltz (18 years)

Eckersley was an average to above average starting pitcher for the better part of 12 years, was a phenomenal reliever for 6 years and spent 6 years as a declining reliever. Smoltz was a grade "A" pitcher for 12 years, missed a full season from injury, came back to become a top notch reliever for four years, then returned to being one of the better starting pitchers in the league.

Eckersley undoubtedly was put in the Hall of Fame for his six strong seasons as a dominant reliever. Smoltz had half that many seasons as a dominant closer (none as good as Eckersley's best). However, Smoltz has been a top-flight starter for a long time (including a 1996 Cy Young Award) and perhaps we should be looking at this a little differently.

What if Kenny Rogers, David Wells or Jamie Moyer (none as good as Smoltz, but with similar career value) threw in 3-4 years as arguably the best reliever in the league?

Don't know that that would be enough.

Where Smoltz has a real shot at the Hall is in what he has left to do. Next year is his age-39 season. Rogers, Wells and Moyer are old men, well in their forties, so Smoltz has a few seasons to raise his production to a higher level (like Schilling or Mussina.) Let's assume he adds 10-15 wins above replacement to his resume over 2007-2008, which won't be too difficult if he remains healthy and doesn't have a total collapse. Then you're looking at someone with Curt Schilling or Mike Mussina's career value with the additional years as a dominant reliever.

At that point, I think he's a lock. Frankly, I'm already inclined to vote for him. I think Bobby Cox's experiment with Smoltz in the pen can be blamed if Smoltz finds himself on the outside of Cooperstown looking in. If he'd been given a starting assignment after his surgery, then you'd be looking at someone who's already alongside (if not slightly better) than Moose and Schilling.

That's over the line, for me. And if Smoltz wants to capture the hearts and minds of the BBWAA voters, then I'm afraid he's going to have to duplicate his performance of 2005-2006 for a few more seasons. Hopefully that will be enough to grab their attention.

Well they both have a 20 win season, both have a Cy Young, Eck has the MVP. Both were notorious big game pitchers. Both were great closers, but I'd say Smotz was a better starter than Eck.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The Cy will help too, and the fact that he will finish at least within shouting distance of 3000 K's.

A hesitant "Yes" from me.

I'm on the fence. I voted "no", but Smoltz isn't done. If he wins 225 games, he's got a good shot. And he may well do that.

[Atlanta Braves Freak]

I'm on the fence. I voted "no", but Smoltz isn't done. If he wins 225 games, he's got a good shot. And he may well do that.
Yeah, 225 wins sounds like a good number, the years as a closer really hurt his chances, but a few more years of solid play can really catapult him into the Hall.

[THE OX]

Wasn't one of Bill James' prerequisites for HOF that the player was considered the best at his position for a lengthy period of time?

Well, you've gotta figure that Smoltz was right at the head of the class as a starter for a number of seasons, and also as a closer for several seasons.

Unless he ever reverts to being a closer, the 200 saves is not likely to happen, but maybe 230-plus wins, 170-plus saves, and well over 3000 K's sounds like mighty fine credentials to me.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Wasn't one of Bill James' prerequisites for HOF that the player was considered the best at his position for a lengthy period of time?

Well, you've gotta figure that Smoltz was right at the head of the class as a starter for a number of seasons, and also as a closer for several seasons.

Unless he ever reverts to being a closer, the 200 saves is not likely to happen, but maybe 230-plus wins, 170-plus saves, and well over 3000 K's sounds like mighty fine credentials to me.


Yeah if everyone wants to put Blyleven in the hall than Smoltz has a place too, for a while he was the best closer in the NL and the best starter in the NL too. As well as a top big game pitcher. Smoltz has the Cy, you could argue that in 2003 he deserved the Cy Young over Gagne. Blyleven was always good but never won a Cy (Cy Young award usually means the pitcher is the best in baseball)

[THE OX]

.....(Cy Young award usually means the pitcher is the best in baseball)

It did for the first couple of years, but there's been a Cy Young for each league for about 40 years now.....

[candy curveball cummings]

Yeah if everyone wants to put Blyleven in the hall than Smoltz has a place too, for a while he was the best closer in the NL and the best starter in the NL too. As well as a top big game pitcher. Smoltz has the Cy, you could argue that in 2003 he deserved the Cy Young over Gagne. Blyleven was always good but never won a Cy (Cy Young award usually means the pitcher is the best in baseball)

I don't think Smoltz was the best pitcher in the NL by very much in 1996. Kevin Brown had a terrific season and a case could be made that he had the better season.

For Blyleven, the lack of Cy Youngs has nothing to do with his ability. He was most likely the best pitcher in 1973. He led the league in ERA+ (158), Shutouts (9), and K to BB Ratio (3.85). He finished second in the league in ERA (2.52), WHIP (1.11), BB/9IP (1.86), Ks (258). The main reason he didn't get support for the Cy Young was because of his win-loss record. 20-17 is not very impressive. This is indicative to the team he played for, not his own talent.

In 1984, Blyleven received more votes than any other starting pitcher. He was probably the best starter that year.

[hubkittel]

i'm a big, big supporter of smoltz going into the HoF-and i think everybody has already touched on the reasons why he should go in. the guy has had one of the most unique careers we've ever seen. but it's the very uniqueness of the career that has limited his numbers to the point that some folks question his worthiness for the hall.

i think that, as far as his career numbers are concerned, we should give him something like the war credit guys like ted williams get. his career is broken up because of conditions beyond his control (kind of). he wasn't any less great a pitcher because he moved to the pen-but his career win total suffered because of it.

i personally believe that smoltz's total package as a starter and a closer is what makes him a HoFer. i'm not sure if he would have made it just as a starter. it's his uniqueness that makes him better than his numbers.

[Brad Harris]

I happen to agree with the "war credit" idea in the sense that I have to wonder what his counting stats would look like had Cox never utilized him in the bullpen. What if, following his return from injury, Smoltz had gone right back into the rotation?

I think you'd see about 30 more wins and 400 more strikeouts. As an average starter during those seasons, Smoltz would still have greater career value than Schilling or Mussina, putting him just behind Tom Glavine among current starters, perhaps (arguably) just ahead of Glavine, had those "missing" seasons been league-leading ones.

[BoSox Rule]

I don't know if he will, but if he does or doesn't, I won't care either way. 3000 innings and a >3.30 ERA in this day and age doesn't come very often.

[Colorado Express]

Tough call, but I vote "no". I really like Smoltz, but I'm just not sure his numbers support the ultimate recognition as an all-time great. I want to see approximately 10 years of dominance from a HOFer and although Smolts has been very good for a long time, he's never dominated like a Clemens, Maddux or Johnson. If he were to get in, I wouldn't argue, though (I'd just hate to see him get in before Blyleven or Morris).

[SamtheBravesFan]

(I'd just hate to see him get in before Blyleven or Morris).

Well, I think Blyleven will get in in six years. Morris, no way.

[hudsonharden]

He's got just over 75% in this poll, so if the BBWAA votes the same way we do, he's just barely get in.

[plask_stirlac]

Since HOF voters have let some pretty bad numbers get in there, they shouldn't hold it against him that he's starting again, it was a team move.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Well, Smoltz has the sometimes-popular "group" argument on his side now:

The only pitcher with 200 wins and 150 saves. ;)

[catbox_9]

He just won his 200th today and is pitching great this season. He has allowed 0ERs his last 2 starts (@ Fenway and against the Mets who aren't bad teams) and there's no reason to think he won't win 15 games this season. He's on pace to win 18-20 which might be a little high but 15 should be no problem. He's got a good shot at 250 wins (and maybe as high as 275 but that's a little high unless he can pitch until he's 47 like Ryan).

He'll have 3000K's pretty soon and only 1 guy with 3000 isn't in the HOF (unless he's still active). He's about to pass Bunning on the all-time list (who is a HOFer).

I'd call him a no doubt HOFer if he retired right now and I think he should be a first ballot HOFer when he retires. Whether or not the voters agree with me is another thing but I can't see him not making the HOF at some point (and I don't think he'll need the VC either).

[Edgartohof]

Tough call, but I vote "no". I really like Smoltz, but I'm just not sure his numbers support the ultimate recognition as an all-time great. I want to see approximately 10 years of dominance from a HOFer and although Smolts has been very good for a long time, he's never dominated like a Clemens, Maddux or Johnson. If he were to get in, I wouldn't argue, though (I'd just hate to see him get in before Blyleven or Morris).

He doesn't have the best numbers, but you also have to realize that much of his career was overshadowed by one of the all-time greats in Maddux (and to a lesser extent, Glavine).

He won't have 300 wins (which isn't a requirement at all - it just helps).

I say that he is helped by his time as a closer, one it shows he's willing to do what it takes to help his team, and it shows versatility. Not every great starter would make a great closer, and Smoltz enjoyed at least a little success there.

He'll soon be in the top 100 in wins (he led in wins a couple times), he's nearly in the top 50 in ERA+, he's also in the top 60 in Saves (for what it's worth). And the 150+ saves DO look pretty on his resume.

He started off his career, being an above average pitcher, he matured, and became one of the better ones in the league, adapted due to necessity and became a closer for a while, and then came back and has continued to enjoy success as a Starter again, that is quite impressive to me.

And also I would say that the time spent as a closer will help to extend his career a little, due to his arm not having as many innings on it as it would have otherwise.

I would right now put him in the HOF, and everything he does from this point on is gravy.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If you took six wins off of Smoltz's best season and redistributed them throughout his career, he would NOT be a strong candidate. He did have the big Cy Young season, however; big seasons have value in evaluating a potential HOFer.

Smoltz has a lot of plusses. He's borderline, but he's still adding to his case. His years in relief were great years, so his stats need to be evaluated using different criteria.

I think he WILL go in, eventually, as Eckersley did, although Eckersley's career, as has been pointed out, is a much different career than Smoltz's.

[jpenrod]

He's on pace to win 18-20 which might be a little high but 15 should be no problem. I am not so sure 18-20 wins is a stretch for him, remember last year he tied for the league lead with 16 (and that was despite 7 or 8 blown saves by the pen). I think only 3 pitchers have won more games than him in the last 2 years, Santana, Verlander and Beckett.

[Cougar]

Getting a 2nd 20-win season would be a substantial resume boost for Smoltz; I think it would advance his likelihood of getting into the HOF from "probable" to "highly probable".

It would mitigate against the criticism that he has low win totals relative to his pitching performance, and make him look less like a good starter with one great season.

He will probably get in anyway, but appearances count for a lot in HOF voting. Not that they should.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Getting a 2nd 20-win season would be a substantial resume boost for Smoltz; I think it would advance his likelihood of getting into the HOF from "probable" to "highly probable".

It would mitigate against the criticism that he has low win totals relative to his pitching performance, and make him look less like a good starter with one great season.

He will probably get in anyway, but appearances count for a lot in HOF voting. Not that they should.

With the way he's pitching right now, he can get it.

[Chisox]

Tough call, but I vote "no". I really like Smoltz, but I'm just not sure his numbers support the ultimate recognition as an all-time great. I want to see approximately 10 years of dominance from a HOFer and although Smolts has been very good for a long time, he's never dominated like a Clemens, Maddux or Johnson. If he were to get in, I wouldn't argue, though (I'd just hate to see him get in before Blyleven or Morris).

How on earth could you hate seeing Smoltz in before Morris? Blyleven I think should be (and better than Smoltz), but how on earth could you justify Morris before Smoltz when your standard is Clemens, Maddux, and Johnson?

[Los Bravos]

The consensus seems to be that he clinched it last night.

There was a good piece in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution a few days ago taking the pulse of the writers and several influential ones, most notably Richard Justice, spoke up for him. I know Gammons loves him, Kurkjian and Olney both made nice cases for him last night on ESPN, all the sane guys on ATH today talked him up (and Plaschke or Mariotti, I can't remember which, mentioned his stellar rep off the field, including his Clemente Award. Happily, Baseball actually considers that important.)

He's far from done and he'll cement it into no doubt status sooner rather than later, but he's going to get in any way you slice it.

It's richly deserved :clapping

[Brad Harris]

A better candidate than Dennis Eckersley. I'd vote for him.

[Chisox]

all the sane guys on ATH today talked him up (and Plaschke or Mariotti

That's the first time I've EVER heard Mariotti and sane in the same sentence.

Yes, Smoltz deserves the HOF.

[rdonahue]

I'd vote for him. He left yesterday's game injured. I haven't looked at the injury report today but yesterday he said he thinks he can make his next start. If he ends up being hurt and has to miss a few games that would likely cost him a few wins. Right now he has an outside shot at 20 wins and a very good shot at 15. If he wins 20 this year I think he's in for sure. If he doesn't he'd better have a good season next year, too just to be safe.

I think he'd get in eventually right now but it might take a while. 25 more wins (for 225) and he'd get in pretty quick. 50 more wins (he's 40...it could happen) and he's a first ballot HOFer.

[Los Bravos]

That's the first time I've EVER heard Mariotti and sane in the same sentence. Yeah. Believe me, it's not a common practice of mine :disbelief: He got on my bad side a couple of years ago dissing Glavine, which he rectified a year or so later.

Latest reports say John won't miss a start, so...probably no worries on that front.

Also, Ken Rosenthall is on board the HOF train for John.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Well, as of this moment, he has the nod from 64 of 83 BBFers. Heck yes! ;)

[ChrisLDuncan]

I just don't see why not...I don't see at this point how anyone can say no to this man.

[digglahhh]

I just don't see why not...I don't see at this point how anyone can say no to this man.

Well, this thread was started in 2004, so several of the "no" votes may have come a couple of seasons ago.

I know it can't really happen as Glavine and Maddux are older, and first ballot guys (who may or may not retire together), but it would be truly awesome if they all got elected together.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Well, this thread was started in 2004, so several of the "no" votes may have come a couple of seasons ago.

I know it can't really happen as Glavine and Maddux are older, and first ballot guys (who may or may not retire together), but it would be truly awesome if they all got elected together.


It would be more awesome if Maddux wins 400 games.

[lovethegame]

Santo,bernie and if John Smoltz doesn't get first ballot then hey what else matters
Smoltz is the truest team player ever

[jalbright]

Are you trying to make a John Smoltz for HOF thread? Or something else? Whatever it is you're seeking to make of this thread, the title makes it hard for folks to find. I'm willing to try and follow where you're going with this and see what the appropriate way to proceed is, but I really do think some changes would be appropriate here. Let me know, either by post in this thread or PM. Thanks.

[Defense Counts!]

Ironically, Smoltz would have a better chance for the hall if he went back to the bullpen and got 200 saves. The voters would be impressed as hell by a pitcher with 200 wins and saves -- a first! (Yeah, we know saves are grossly overrated, but the voters like big stats).

[Captain Cold Nose]

What exactly does it mean to be the truest team player ever and how does Smoltz fit that bill over everyone else?

I'd take both Maddux and Glavine over him, which is not a slight against Smoltz at all. I don't see him as a first-ballot HOF'er but he has a good chance of getting in, with more and more of the writers talking about how impossible 300 wins is now, the line which got Sutton in but keeps Blyleven out.

Who's Bernie? Bernie Williams? He's a very good player, but he's a little short of being a HOF'er, which has been discussed on this site quite a bit.

[MadHatter]

Smoltz is the truest team player ever


More than Jeter?

[SamtheBravesFan]

I'd argue that Smoltz is a first ballot myself, and not just because I'm a Braves fan. I believe that Ron Santo and Bert Blyleven are the best players not in the Hall of Fame, and when I put on my "dumb voter" glasses, I see that Smoltz has a better case than Blyleven does.

Smoltz is the Braves' franchise leader in strikeouts and has an outside shot to top 3,000 strikeouts this year. If not this year, then the next, because he'll be back next year. He was also one of the top closers in baseball for three years, and in just those three short years, he's the Braves' franchise leader in saves. I know that's not much to crow about, but it is something. The man is 15-4 in the playoffs and is still the career leader in wins and strikeouts, even with the Braves out of the playoffs for two straight years (yes, even this year).

Bernie Williams, well, yeah, it's true that he has a few career postseason records, but his career is like a bell curve: goes up, peaked and then goes right back down. He fell off a cliff when he was 34 and he never recovered. It's kind of like Dale Murphy.

[KCGHOST]

You could consider doubting your own infallibility.

[jalbright]

This thread was formerly called "If the world made sense", and in the humble opinion of this moderator, the new title makes more sense and has the added advantage of clearly stating the topic.

[KCGHOST]

I really don't think Smoltz is a HoFer, but he ranks 21st in career RSAA with 321. That is a pretty ringing endorsement. The only pitchers ahead of who are not in the HoF are the active pitchers (Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, Pedro, Schilling and Glavine) and a retired guy named Blyleven.

So whether you like RSAA or not it really does a good job of moving HoFers to the top.

[Brad Harris]

More than Jeter?

If Jeter was a "team player," he'd have insisted the better shortstop take the field at his position, rather than letting Torre waste A-Rod's defensive skills at third base.

[Cougar]

I'd argue that Smoltz is a first ballot myself, and not just because I'm a Braves fan. I believe that Ron Santo and Bert Blyleven are the best players not in the Hall of Fame, and when I put on my "dumb voter" glasses, I see that Smoltz has a better case than Blyleven does.

Smoltz is the Braves' franchise leader in strikeouts and has an outside shot to top 3,000 strikeouts this year. If not this year, then the next, because he'll be back next year. He was also one of the top closers in baseball for three years, and in just those three short years, he's the Braves' franchise leader in saves. I know that's not much to crow about, but it is something. The man is 15-4 in the playoffs and is still the career leader in wins and strikeouts, even with the Braves out of the playoffs for two straight years (yes, even this year).

Bernie Williams, well, yeah, it's true that he has a few career postseason records, but his career is like a bell curve: goes up, peaked and then goes right back down. He fell off a cliff when he was 34 and he never recovered. It's kind of like Dale Murphy.

I mostly agree with what you're saying, but I've got to correct a couple points.

(1) "[A]n outside shot to top 3,000 strikeouts this year." Um, yeah, if he gets 16 K's in each of his next 4 starts before the season ends...no, actually, if he did that (surely the most dominant multi-game pitching performance since Vander Meer), he'd still be one K shy, and have to get the last K in a relief stint.

(2) Bernie's career resembles a bell curve. Well, yeah...almost everyone's career resembles a bell curve. Another term for a bell curve is a "normal" curve, because it represents a highly typical distribution.

You might say the right hand side of Williams' (and Murphy's) bell curve is unusually steep, because they both had fast declines...to me, that's only a mild criticism, because the HOF case for both rests solely on their peaks...the decline years are almost irrelevant, because they didn't accumulate much or hit key milestones.

[brett]

Blylevin, Kevin Brown, John Smoltz, Smokey Joe Wood and Dan Quizenberry are the 5 pitchers not in the HOF who surpass every other non hall of famer in either innings or ERA+ (no non HOFer with as many innings has a higher ERA+).

Blylevin should be in.

Quiz has a real strong case from me, but I could leave him out.

Brown and Smoltz are in the middle group here, and just above Schilling and Mussina in that region.

Mussina looks done, and I don't have a problem with him going in.


Smoltz may soon top Brown in both ERA+ and IP (he holds a fraction of a point edge in ERA+ and is closing in in the IP department).

3300 IP and 125 ERA+ is pretty select company and we know he could have had another 400 by now.

[SamtheBravesFan]

I mostly agree with what you're saying, but I've got to correct a couple points.

(1) "[A]n outside shot to top 3,000 strikeouts this year." Um, yeah, if he gets 16 K's in each of his next 4 starts before the season ends...no, actually, if he did that (surely the most dominant multi-game pitching performance since Vander Meer), he'd still be one K shy, and have to get the last K in a relief stint.

(2) Bernie's career resembles a bell curve. Well, yeah...almost everyone's career resembles a bell curve. Another term for a bell curve is a "normal" curve, because it represents a highly typical distribution.

You might say the right hand side of Williams' (and Murphy's) bell curve is unusually steep, because they both had fast declines...to me, that's only a mild criticism, because the HOF case for both rests solely on their peaks...the decline years are almost irrelevant, because they didn't accumulate much or hit key milestones.

Okay, I wasn't entirely clear on that strikeout thing and needed to do more research, but yeah, surely if he comes back next year, he'll join the 3,000 club.

I guess that's why most people can't view Williams or Murphy as Hall of Famers because the positive is in the peak.

As it has been stated before many a time, Smoltz is a unique case. It's true he wasn't even the best starter on his own team for a lot of years, and it's also true that the years at closer hurt his counting stats. But Smoltz returned to starting after the closer's stint and, now just starting in his 40s, he's still a very good starting pitcher, even with his power pitching style. I fail to see how this can do anything but help his case.

[Gregory Pratt]

Smoltz is definitely a first-ballot HOFer. His achievements are all there, he'll have 3000 Ks next season, he was the best closer in baseball for a few years and has always been one of the better pitchers. Beyond that, he's classy, and he has always done what's best for the team in Atlanta. He's got a great story, too, from the sports psychiatrist to the four surgeries he's excelled after to the selfless move to Closer to the brave, ultimately successful move back to the rotation.

[Cougar]

Smoltz did get 8 K's tonight in 6 IP. He's got three starts left this season, and there's every reason to expect that he'll begin 2008 less than 50 shy of 3000. So, as long as he's healthy and hasn't completely lost it, he'll get to 3000 K's well before the All-Star break.

[Baseball Guru]

8 allstar games
200+ wins
150+ saves
3000+ k's
Cy Young winner
Rolaids Relief winner
NLCS MVP
Great postseason #'s


I honestly don't see how he is a future HOF'er...

[Los Bravos]

I'm guessing you meant "I don't see how he isn't a future HOFer..." since you made a fine case.

The 3.26 career ERA is also a major plus as is the 3-1 career K-BB ratio.

[lovethegame]

This thread was formerly called "If the world made sense", and in the humble opinion of this moderator, the new title makes more sense and has the added advantage of clearly stating the topic.remind me again when I care what you think.
The title was to point out the high level contributions of Bernie Williams, Ron Santo and John Smoltz.
Why do I feel Smoltz is the ultimate team player?
He would no doubt have 300 or very close wins had he not taken one for the franchise and been a stellar closer

[digglahhh]

Why do I feel Smoltz is the ultimate team player?
He would no doubt have 300 or very close wins had he not taken one for the franchise and been a stellar closer

You mean already?... You mean that Smoltz would have won 94 games in three and a half seasons if he didn't close?


I'd vote for Smoltz easily. He's under the radar in a lot of respects, but he's been top notch for a real long time. He also has that "big game pitcher" rep, that many voters find alluring.

I wouldn't vote for Bernie though - but then again, "my world" doesn't make sense to a lot of people...

[lovethegame]

You mean already?... You mean that Smoltz would have won 94 games in three and a half seasons if he didn't close?


I'd vote for Smoltz easily. He's under the radar in a lot of respects, but he's been top notch for a real long time. He also has that "big game pitcher" rep, that many voters find alluring.

I wouldn't vote for Bernie though - but then again, "my world" doesn't make sense to a lot of people...
Bernie was a switch hitting cleanup hitter for a dynasty and very top level player.
Smoltz may not have 300 but he ,in his staring prime ,changed roles/
That to me means a lot
Santo is a crime, Brooks offensively is a Santo bad year

[digglahhh]

Bernie was a switch hitting cleanup hitter for a dynasty and very top level player.
Smoltz may not have 300 but he ,in his staring prime ,changed roles/
That to me means a lot
Santo is a crime, Brooks offensively is a Santo bad year

The Yankee dynasty rested on no individual player. He was an important part of a team during a very successful run.

So was Mike Cuellar, Dave Stewart, Ryan Klesko, Kenny Lofton, Joe Carter...

That in and of itself is not a good HOF argument. Being a switch hitter is a small bonus, but not something on which a good HOF argument can at all rest.

Personally, in their primes, I'd take Dale Murphy over Bernie in a heartbeat.

There are a lot of players on the outside who I feel are more deserving of enshrinement than Bernie Williams.

I don't know if there were more than one or two seasons in which I would consider him one of the top ten players in the game. The MVP voters seem to agree, he cracked the top 10 MVP voting once in his career.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Those four years of closing cost him any chance at 300 wins. He'd have about 260-270 wins by now.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Those four years of closing cost him any chance at 300 wins. He'd have about 260-270 wins by now.

But that doesn't kill his Hall of Fame chances. Why should that be held against him?

[PVNICK]

There are a lot of players on the outside who I feel are more deserving of enshrinement than Bernie Williams.

I don't know if there were more than one or two seasons in which I would consider him one of the top ten players in the game. The MVP voters seem to agree, he cracked the top 10 MVP voting once in his career.

Bernie had the huge disadvantage of not juidcing and playing his home games in Yankee Stadium rather than the bandboxes the competition played in. This deflated his numbers or conversely artificially inflated his competitors numbers so that the average voter who probably looked at HR, RBI, Avg first would not have Bernie's numbers jump out at him, when slap hitting 2B were knocking 40 HR with 140 RBI. I don't know that he belongs but I wouldn't use the MVP vote against him.

[Baseball Guru]

I'm guessing you meant "I don't see how he isn't a future HOFer..." since you made a fine case.

The 3.26 career ERA is also a major plus as is the 3-1 career K-BB ratio.

lol... Yes, that's what I meant... It would've been kinda crazy for me to make all those good points about him only to say he wasn't:laugh

But I am a Met fan so I am allowed to change my mind on Braves players:laugh

[Baseball Guru]

He would no doubt have 300 or very close wins had he not taken one for the franchise and been a stellar closer

How many of those seasons that he closed did he actually "take one for the team"?

Personally I am one that doesnt think those few years in the pen damaged his chances but didn't he close the 1st year or so due to an injury and he was trying to save his arm?

[digglahhh]

Bernie had the huge disadvantage of not juidcing and playing his home games in Yankee Stadium rather than the bandboxes the competition played in. This deflated his numbers or conversely artificially inflated his competitors numbers so that the average voter who probably looked at HR, RBI, Avg first would not have Bernie's numbers jump out at him, when slap hitting 2B were knocking 40 HR with 140 RBI. I don't know that he belongs but I wouldn't use the MVP vote against him.

Neither would I, per se.

But I still don't think that he is a HOFer.

Anyway, how did you get Bernie to pee in a cup for you a decade ago?...

[PVNICK]

Neither would I, per se.

But I still don't think that he is a HOFer.

Anyway, how did you get Bernie to pee in a cup for you a decade ago?...
Touche. Just my own educated guess.

[Baseball Guru]

He would no doubt have 300 or very close wins

I'm not so sure about that either... Even if you say he averaged 15 wins those 3 seasons, he's still only at around 250 for his career...

[Baseball Guru]

But I still don't think that he is a HOFer.

.

I agree that Bernie is not a HOF'er either... He scores low on black and gray ink but he scores favorably on HOF Standards and the HOF Monitor..

To me though he is the same type of player as a Will Clark or Paul O'Neill with the addition of lot of post season success and #'s... JMO:)

[jalbright]

remind me again when I care what you think.
The title was to point out the high level contributions of Bernie Williams, Ron Santo and John Smoltz.

Whether you care what I think is beside the point. The title, however, did nothing to help people find the discussion you were trying to have. I rectified that--and informed folks of the change. BTW, I gave you a chance in post 2 of this thread to deal with this issue yourself, and you ignored my request.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Smoltz is perceived as a HOFer, and will be inducted, although not necessarily on the first try. His career is somewhat truncated, and he was a number THREE starter for most of his career, but, then again, he was behind Glavine and Maddux.

Smoltz is still a star pitcher; he can still last long enough for 3,500 Ks and 250 wins. If he does that, it will remove all doubt, although I think he'll eventually go anyway.

Here's a question: Who's had the better career; Schilling or Smoltz?

[SamtheBravesFan]

How many of those seasons that he closed did he actually "take one for the team"?

Personally I am one that doesnt think those few years in the pen damaged his chances but didn't he close the 1st year or so due to an injury and he was trying to save his arm?

It was in 2001, and he had 10 saves that year, so I think Smoltz decided it was best to remain as the closer. I'm pretty sure it was his decision to return to the starting rotation, too, but don't quote me on that.

[PureBaseballFan]

How many of those seasons that he closed did he actually "take one for the team"?

Personally I am one that doesnt think those few years in the pen damaged his chances but didn't he close the 1st year or so due to an injury and he was trying to save his arm?He came back in 2001 and tried to start but they moved him to the bullpen and this was after they traded John Rocker that year. The next year the Braves had enough starting pitching (Maddux, Glavine, Damian Moss, and Millwood) and no sure thing closer that they kept John in that role. I believe he and management agreed that was the best option for now. The year he came back to the starting rotation was forced because of the losses on the rotation like Russ Ortiz, Jaret Wright, and Paul Byrd. The Braves were forced to put him in the rotation since other then Hudson we really didn't have any good starters unless you consider Hampton.

With all the articles I have read about how Smoltz is a sure fire HOF and seen Gammons and Kurkjian talk on ESPN about him being a HOF it is hard to believe he won't be. I really think the only real question is if Smoltz gets in on the first ballot because I think a good amount of baseball writers consider him HOF worthy so I think he will get in eventually.

As far as Bernie Williams goes he just doesn't have that wow factor that I think some voters love. His good years were deserving but his bad years brought down his numbers where they could be considered borderline. He has never done anything that jumps out at you like HRs or Hs and will not get a large amount of credit for those Yankees' teams when he was on those teams with guys like Jeter, Rivera, Wells, Cone, and Hernandez. Bernie was good but I think he just isn't really HOF worthy.

[digglahhh]

Here's a question: Who's had the better career; Schilling or Smoltz?

Year in and year out, Smoltzie. At their respective bests, Schilling.

That's the way I see it.

Schilling is one of those guys whose careers don't look as impressive as I think they are. Remove the injury ridden seasons, and look at what this guy was able to do when healthy, and he's easily HOF caliber. Durability from year to year is certainly a legit knock, but he's put up enough healthy campaigns to pass muster for me.

If given the chance to have either pitch their careers for my team, I'd take Smoltz. Both have amassed tremendous postseason numbers too.

[Los Bravos]

Remove the injury ridden seasons, and look at what this guy was able to do when healthy, and he's easily HOF caliber.While I think that's true, it's just as true of Smoltz, who has had several seasons curtailed, and has missed a full season completely, during his career.

[lovethegame]

Whether you care what I think is beside the point. The title, however, did nothing to help people find the discussion you were trying to have. I rectified that--and informed folks of the change. BTW, I gave you a chance in post 2 of this thread to deal with this issue yourself, and you ignored my request.
Wow Researcher, advocate and moderator.
Forgive me.
Maybe some folks were intrigued by the title and looked to see what it was about
My intention was to inspire curiosity rather then supply trite out front boring options.
Forgive me man of letters
Santo as stated is a crime not being in the HOF
Bernie I think a strong case can be made , switch hitter, cleanup on a dynasty,batting champ,clutch.
Someone pointed out what I've said all along, you can't judge a Bernie or a McGriff vs numbers you then say are tainted.
One or the other
Smoltz I gave too many wins to but still he would be in rarified air and yes in my opinion he took one for the team by solidifying the former bullpen by committee and giving the Braves a few more shots at it

[jalbright]

I'm sorry you don't agree with my choices as moderator, but unless the administrators overrule my choice of retitling the thread (very doubtful), you're going to have to live with it, I'm afraid. If you want to discuss this with me further, please PM me rather than having our conversation interrupt the thread.

[STLCards2]

While I think that's true, it's just as true of Smoltz, who has had several seasons curtailed, and has missed a full season completely, during his career.

If I am not mistaken, Smoltz leads Schilling in ERA+ and IP, correct? I know Schilling played with less capable defenses, which has to be factored in, yes.

Plus, I have always looked as Smoltz as a guy who lost time because of one big injury, not because of durability problems like Schilling. I hold Schilling much more "responsible" for his inability to make starts. I may be biased, of course.

Considering all things are pretty similar (ERA+, IP, wins, posteason success), I think Smoltz' closing dominance for 3+ seasons is the tiebreaker for me.

Either way, lets take another chance to marvel at what happened from 1991-2002 (or 93 - 02 when Maddux arrived) in Atlanta's pitching staff which has never happend before, and may never happen again.

[Los Bravos]

Yes. John is 127 and 3349 to Curt's 126 and 3247.3, respectively.

I prefer to extend it back to '91, myself. Steve Avery had every likelihood in the world of joining those guys on that career path.

[MyDogSparty]

Ironically, Smoltz would have a better chance for the hall if he went back to the bullpen and got 200 saves. The voters would be impressed as hell by a pitcher with 200 wins and saves -- a first! (Yeah, we know saves are grossly overrated, but the voters like big stats).

Two things I'd like to see Smoltz accomplish would be 3000 career strikeouts and to finish by playing his entire career for one franchise, the Braves but they are not requirements, IMO, for him to be a HOFer. I'd put him in if he retired today.

I agree with you, that going back to the bullpen to earn his 200th save would probably help his case for a lot of voters. It would be a unique accomplishment and would help explain or give reason (or excuse, whatever you need) that he did not reach 300 victories like Maddux and Glavine.

Two other things that will help him tremendously will be the fact that the media loves him. He's always been approachable, quotable, and professional to the media. His post season performance is the other. He's been involved in some very memorable performances.

I kind of look at him like a pitching version of Robin Yount and I think he gets in with about 75% of the vote on the first or second ballot.

[MudvilleMike]

I'm not aware that there is really any debate about John Smoltz making the HOF. I think he's pretty much a consensus "future HOFer."

[plask_stirlac]

I'm not aware that there is really any debate about John Smoltz making the HOF. I think he's pretty much a consensus "future HOFer."

As Buck O'Neill and Blyleven might have been.

[SamtheBravesFan]

As Buck O'Neill and Blyleven might have been.

Well, I guess that means if Smoltz gets in, Blyleven should get in.

[Los Bravos]

When Peter Gammons, Tim Kurkjian, Richard Justice and Ken Rosenthal all enthusiastically respond positively when the subject is raised, that represents a fair sampling of the leading voices in the BBWAA. It's also a signpost indicating a broad consensus.

[SamtheBravesFan]

When Peter Gammons, Tim Kurkjian, Richard Justice and Ken Rosenthal all enthusiastically respond positively when the subject is raised, that represents a fair sampling of the leading voices in the BBWAA. It's also a signpost indicating a broad consensus.

Well, we'll see how any of them feel in 2014 or so.

[plask_stirlac]

I think Smoltz will go in.

Well, I guess that means if Smoltz gets in, Blyleven should get in.

I know that means Blyleven should get in, among about a dozen other reasons. If Phil Niekro, why not Blyleven? If Early Wynn... seriously, given the choice would you build around Wynn or Blyleven? Who's taking Wynn? Blasted round numbers. For some reason a standard applies to him that didn't to others.

[Los Bravos]

You'll have to look long and hard to find many people around here who feel like the writers have it right about Bert. He's got a lot of support here, rightly so.

[SamtheBravesFan]

It is truly a bizzare case. You'd think he'd have some support because he actually pitched in a couple of World Series and was fourth on the strikeout list when he retired. They need to give him the Don Sutton treatment.

[Walt Zink]

smoltz is a LOCK. depending on who is on the ballot with him, he may have to wait a year, but that's the only thing i could see preventing enshrinement. he's only 33 Ks from 3000, and i don't see why he wouldn't come back next year, which would also mean him up around 220 wins.

[digglahhh]

Plus, I have always looked as Smoltz as a guy who lost time because of one big injury, not because of durability problems like Schilling. I hold Schilling much more "responsible" for his inability to make starts. I may be biased, of course.

I agree with this. There's certainly a difference in being a guy who can't be counted on to remain healthy and a guy who happened to just suffer a serious, but relatively isolated injury.

Is it just me, or did this "consensus" support for Smoltz kind of just pop up out of nowhere? I remember, even a two years ago, when I would say that Smoltz has a pretty good shot of finishing with a pretty solid HOF argument, the reception was lukewarm.

I think Smoltz is a guy whose career is more impressive than people remember it as. I think Chipper is the same way. Of course, Mets fans need not be reminded.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

But that doesn't kill his Hall of Fame chances. Why should that be held against him?
I'm not saying it should be held against him. The hybrid type pitchers are harder to deal with in terms of HoF credentials. The voters doesn't really know what do make of them. If Smoltz had stayed in starter those four years his case would be easier to consider. Like I say if it were not for those four years as a closer he'd probably have about 260-270 wins by now.

[Walt Zink]

I'm not saying it should be held against him. The hybrid type pitchers are harder to deal with in terms of HoF credentials. The voters doesn't really know what do make of them. If Smoltz had stayed in starter those four years his case would be easier to consider. Like I say if it were not for those four years as a closer he'd probably have about 260-270 wins by now.

well, that's just it. he spent 3 1/2 seasons as a closer, and missed another full season (2000, at age 33, probably a prime year). give him good health, and say he stays in the starter job, that's 5 seasons you have to refigure. 16 wins a season? then he's a few shy of 300.

even WITH those 5 seasons, he still will end up with over 3000 Ks, and most likely get to 220 wins, and maybe further depending on his durability (and considering how long guys are pitching? who knows). this is a guy who, regardless of his role, excelled at it. he's likable, intelligent (if i remember correctly, he's been harsh on the testing policy - which will win votes), and has been a guy who's career should've been over as a starter, but bulldogged his way back to not just a mediocre starter, but an excellent one still in his later 30's and now at 40.

there's no question the hall will vote this guy in and i think it's safe to say he gets about 80-85% his first year. again, i think it also depends on who is on the list with him. even if he's on a massively strong list, he'll garner 60-65% and then get in his 2nd year with the aforementioned.

[philkid3]

I agree with this. There's certainly a difference in being a guy who can't be counted on to remain healthy and a guy who happened to just suffer a serious, but relatively isolated injury.

Is it just me, or did this "consensus" support for Smoltz kind of just pop up out of nowhere? I remember, even a two years ago, when I would say that Smoltz has a pretty good shot of finishing with a pretty solid HOF argument, the reception was lukewarm.

I think Smoltz is a guy whose career is more impressive than people remember it as. I think Chipper is the same way. Of course, Mets fans need not be reminded.

Co-sign on the Chipper statement. The man does not get enough recognition as far as his place among the all-time greats.

[lovethegame]

Co-sign on the Chipper statement. The man does not get enough recognition as far as his place among the all-time greats.
Outstanding. I agree wholeheartedly.
Chipper a switch hitting big number mainstay on a dynasty is all too often overlooked.
I hope Smoltz and Jones get what they have earned

[Los Bravos]

I agree with this. There's certainly a difference in being a guy who can't be counted on to remain healthy and a guy who happened to just suffer a serious, but relatively isolated injury.

Is it just me, or did this "consensus" support for Smoltz kind of just pop up out of nowhere? I remember, even a two years ago, when I would say that Smoltz has a pretty good shot of finishing with a pretty solid HOF argument, the reception was lukewarm.That's true. I think he was viewed as a once dominant starter who became a dominant closer but didn't do enough of each to really put him over the top. Coming back from the sojurn in the pen and picking up right where he left off as a starter (unprecedented), dominating again for three years (and counting) and notching the 200th win while approaching 3000 Ks has put him over the top.well, that's just it. he spent 3 1/2 seasons as a closer, and missed another full season (2000, at age 33, probably a prime year). give him good health, and say he stays in the starter job, that's 5 seasons you have to refigure. 16 wins a season? then he's a few shy of 300.

even WITH those 5 seasons, he still will end up with over 3000 Ks, and most likely get to 220 wins, and maybe further depending on his durability (and considering how long guys are pitching? who knows). this is a guy who, regardless of his role, excelled at it. he's likable, intelligent (if i remember correctly, he's been harsh on the testing policy - which will win votes), and has been a guy who's career should've been over as a starter, but bulldogged his way back to not just a mediocre starter, but an excellent one still in his later 30's and now at 40.

there's no question the hall will vote this guy in and i think it's safe to say he gets about 80-85% his first year. again, i think it also depends on who is on the list with him. even if he's on a massively strong list, he'll garner 60-65% and then get in his 2nd year with the aforementioned.That's the case, in a nutshell :thumbsup:

Has anyone projected his strikeout total, assuming a starter's load of innings in those years, and maybe including 2000's presumptive totals, and where that would have placed him on the career list?

[rockin500]

I agree with this. There's certainly a difference in being a guy who can't be counted on to remain healthy and a guy who happened to just suffer a serious, but relatively isolated injury.

Is it just me, or did this "consensus" support for Smoltz kind of just pop up out of nowhere? I remember, even a two years ago, when I would say that Smoltz has a pretty good shot of finishing with a pretty solid HOF argument, the reception was lukewarm.

I think Smoltz is a guy whose career is more impressive than people remember it as. I think Chipper is the same way. Of course, Mets fans need not be reminded.
two years ago, i wasnt quite sure. i thought he was but hadnt completely decided even if i was strongly leaning towards deciding he was. he had the one significant injury late in his career but not significant enough that it totally prevented him from pitching. and 2003 he had no business pitching in the postseason even if he was their best pitcher there at the time.

but he clearly belongs. combine his regular season starting career, his closing career (which was VERY VERY good) and then add his awesome postseason? no doubt about it. put him in first ballot. definitely well in the middle of the "second tier" of the HOF pitchers

[Brad Harris]

How many Hall of Famers will eventually make it from the 2002 Atlanta Braves?

Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz
Chipper
Andruw?
Sheffield?
Bobby Cox?

[Los Bravos]

Cox is in, easily.

AJ is borderline as of now and Sheff will probably have to fight the rumor factor, but he'd get my vote. (I've defended him in more arguments than I care to chronicle or remember, going well back to his pre-Atlanta career.)

[Bravesfan1984]

I would say no. He had to many seasons at or barley above 500. From 1988 to 1994 he was 78-75. From 1999 till 2008 he was 64-42. He had some good years in between but not enough.

[Mike90]

I would say no. He had to many seasons at or barley above 500. From 1988 to 1994 he was 78-75. From 1999 till 2008 he was 64-42. He had some good years in between but not enough.

Smoltz was a reliever from 2001 to 2004; his win-loss record in that time-span (which happened to be 6-8) has nothing to do with anything. Why did you not include 1995 to 1998 when Smoltz was 38 games above .500 and won a Cy Young?

[SamtheBravesFan]

Smoltz was a reliever from 2001 to 2004; his win-loss record in that time-span (which happened to be 6-8) has nothing to do with anything. Why did you not include 1995 to 1998 when Smoltz was 38 games above .500 and won a Cy Young?

Simple: because that would destroy his flimsy case. :cap:

BF1984, are you a Small Hall kind of guy? Do you need to keep out the "mediocre" likes of Mike Mussina and John Smoltz?

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

From 1999 till 2008 he was 64-42.

You just cited the fact that John Smoltz has a .604 winning percentage since turning 32 years old as a reason he doesn't belong in the HOF. Enough said.

[STLCards2]

You just cited the fact that John Smoltz has a .604 winning percentage since turning 32 years old as a reason he doesn't belong in the HOF. Enough said.

Not that I it means much, but that is a better w% than the following pitcher's careers:

Walter Johnson
Nolan Ryan
Gaylord Perry
Phil Niekro
Fergie Jenkins
Steve Carton
Tom Glavine
Warren Spahn
Don Drysdale
Robin Roberts
and a dozen other HOF guys

And only slightly worse than...

Tom Seaver
Greg Maddux
Cy Young

Again, I am not saying that Smoltz is better than any of these guys, but using a .600+ w-l% during a decline faze as a reason against the HOF is absurdity.

[RuthMayBond]

I would say no. He had to many seasons at or barley above 500. From 1988 to 1994 he was 78-75. From 1999 till 2008 he was 64-42. He had some good years in between but not enough.Babe Ruth had some barley seasons too (washed down the hotdogs with it) and I wondered if he's good enough for your Hall

[Bravesfan1984]

Babe Ruth had some barley seasons too (washed down the hotdogs with it) and I wondered if he's good enough for your Hall

Of course great players can not be great every year but Smoltz had a lot of average to below average years. Smoltz does not have enough good years to be a HOFer. Yes I am a small Hall person if you wanted to know. He was only a great closer from 2002-2004. Being a great closer for 3 years and an average starter does not equal HOF

[Bravesfan1984]

Not that I it means much, but that is a better w% than the following pitcher's careers:

Walter Johnson
Nolan Ryan
Gaylord Perry
Phil Niekro
Fergie Jenkins
Steve Carton
Tom Glavine
Warren Spahn
Don Drysdale
Robin Roberts
and a dozen other HOF guys

And only slightly worse than...

Tom Seaver
Greg Maddux
Cy Young

Again, I am not saying that Smoltz is better than any of these guys, but using a .600+ w-l% during a decline faze as a reason against the HOF is absurdity.

You know that having 1 or 2 great years can make a pitchers winning percentage a lot higher if other years they have an average winning percentage. If you are 14-11 or 15-12 and you have one 20-4 season it will significantly raise your winning percentage to make it look like you won more when you really just had one great season. So what if he has a better win percentage these players have more cy youngs more 20 win seasons. That is why using winning percentage to judge a player can be dangerous.

[Bravesfan1984]

Smoltz was a reliever from 2001 to 2004; his win-loss record in that time-span (which happened to be 6-8) has nothing to do with anything. Why did you not include 1995 to 1998 when Smoltz was 38 games above .500 and won a Cy Young?

I said they were in between good years. Only two of those years 1996 and 1998 were great years. Being consistent is also a sign of greatness and Smoltz was not.

[Cowtipper]

Of course great players can not be great every year but Smoltz had a lot of average to below average years. Smoltz does not have enough good years to be a HOFer. Yes I am a small Hall person if you wanted to know. He was only a great closer from 2002-2004. Being a great closer for 3 years and an average starter does not equal HOF

Yeah, a guy who's an eight time All-Star with a Cy Young Award and Rolaids Relief Man of the Year Award is below average.

[STLCards2]

using winning percentage to judge a player can be dangerous.

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.

[The Splendid Splinter]

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.

I also have no problem with him being a "small hall" guy. Sometime he just goes the wrong way about doing it. Using raw stats to discount guys or make them not worthy and taking numbers as the truth/only thing to go by instead maybe there were other variables into the years as to why some season are deceiving.

Also, bravesfan, I am curious as to how many players would be in your HoF as of right now in history? I think there's like 240 or so in the HoF right now. How many do you have in yours? Who is your worst guy in the HoF? Answering these would go a long way for me to understand you better and just how high of a standard you have.

[Los Bravos]

Someone seems anxious to reassert his position as resident gadfly. It's been under siege of late.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

using winning percentage to judge a player can be dangerous.

That is true. So why did you cite John Smoltz's won/loss records from handpicked segments of his career as an argument against him being inducted into the HOF?

[westsidegrounds]

Yeah, a guy who's an eight time All-Star with a Cy Young Award and Rolaids Relief Man of the Year Award is below average.


Doug Drabek, John Denny, Steve Bedrosian, Dean Chance, Bob Turley ...

[Domenic]

I believe Smoltz is a Hall of Famer.

210 W, 154 S, and 3011 K are very nice counting stats, and his 3.26 ERA, 127 ERA+, and 1.17 WHIP are very impressive, as well. The 193 Gray Ink is excellent, to boot.

[Cowtipper]

Doug Drabek, John Denny, Steve Bedrosian, Dean Chance, Bob Turley ...

They all won a Rolaids Relief Man of the Year Award too?

Actually, come to think of it, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Drabek: 1 All-Star, 1 CYA
Denny: 1 CYA
Bedrosian: 1 All-Star, 1 CYA
Chance: 2 All-Star, 1 CYA
Turley: 3 All-Stars, 1 CYA

They accomplished nowhere near what Smoltz has accomlished.

[SABR Matt]

Smoltz is absolutely a HOFer...is right in the same area as Glavine (less durability more star power) and Mussina as maybe not a first-ballot slam dunk, but a probable early-entrant.

[Cougar]

They all won a Rolaids Relief Man of the Year Award too?

Actually, come to think of it, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Drabek: 1 All-Star, 1 CYA
Denny: 1 CYA
Bedrosian: 1 All-Star, 1 CYA
Chance: 2 All-Star, 1 CYA
Turley: 3 All-Stars, 1 CYA

They accomplished nowhere near what Smoltz has accomlished.

The 8-time All-Star is the real attention getter. Precious few pitchers have accomplished that.

[Captain Cold Nose]

The only mark against Smoltz is his low win total. For some, at least. But his time in the bullpen cut a considerable amount of wins. He's been consistently a top-level pitcher when healthy for almost two decades, and that's generally what a HOF'er should be. Add to that the post-season rep and actual production, as stong as any pitcher in history despite the overall end results, and he's got an excellent HOF case.

[RuthMayBond]

The 8-time All-Star is the real attention getter. Precious few pitchers have accomplished that.I believe seventeen. Of course some 8+time All-Stars are headscratchers, Walker Cooper, Harvey Kuenn ...

[Captain Cold Nose]

I believe seventeen. Of course some 8+time All-Stars are headscratchers, Walker Cooper, Harvey Kuenn ...

So seventeen pitchers have that many? It's kind of confusing when you use non-pitchers as examples of players who weren't superstar quality as 8+ all-stars.

I did see Ewell Blackwell pitched in six in a row (from Baseball Almanac's ASG page), so that many appearances are only indicative of high-caliber play for a few seasons but not a surefire sign.

[RuthMayBond]

For pitchers?I didn't specifically say pitchers there. You could say Catfish Hunter was

[Captain Cold Nose]

I didn't specifically say pitchers there. You could say Catfish Hunter was

I've amended my post. But, thanks.

[SamtheBravesFan]

The bottom line is this: John Smoltz is a textbook case of someone that has an unusual resume, but what he has done is quite exemplary and should put them in there.

[westsidegrounds]

The 8-time All-Star is the real attention getter. Precious few pitchers have accomplished that.

Pitched a total of 5.2 innings, picked up a win and two losses.

[Cowtipper]

Pitched a total of 5.2 innings, picked up a win and two losses.
All-Star stats aren't what matter, since that's an exhibition anyway. What matters is the fact that he pitched well enough to earn a spot to the All-Star game in the first place.

[westsidegrounds]

Smoltz won one Cy Young award. So did half a dozen guys nobody thinks belong in the Hall.


The fans voted Smoltz onto 8 All Star teams. The managers of those teams used him very little (avg. two-thirds of an inning per game), and when they did he was ineffective.

Smoltz won one Rolaids award. Bruce Sutter won four, Rollie Fingers three, Lee Smith two.

[SABR Matt]

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

The Managers picked him.

[Cougar]

Smoltz won one Cy Young award. So did half a dozen guys nobody thinks belong in the Hall.


The fans voted Smoltz onto 8 All Star teams. The managers of those teams used him very little (avg. two-thirds of an inning per game), and when they did he was ineffective.

Smoltz won one Rolaids award. Bruce Sutter won four, Rollie Fingers three, Lee Smith two.

Come on...the selection to the All-Star Game is far more relevant than the usage (when a manager is dealing with a dozen different factors, including the rest a pitcher is on) or even the performance in those games. It wasn't a case of the manager having to choose someone off the Braves, because Smoltz has always had All-Star caliber teammates. Managers and National League Presidents thought he was good enough to be on that team that often.

Let's compare that to some contemporaries:

Tom Seaver - 12 ASG
Roger Clemens - 11
Randy Johnson - 10
Tom Glavine - 10
Steve Carlton - 10
Greg Maddux - 8
Pedro Martinez- 8
John Smoltz - 8
Jim Hunter - 8
Jim Palmer - 7
Gaylord Perry - 5
Phil Niekro - 5
Don Sutton - 4
Fergie Jenkins - 3

[Cowtipper]

Smoltz won one Cy Young award. So did half a dozen guys nobody thinks belong in the Hall.


The fans voted Smoltz onto 8 All Star teams. The managers of those teams used him very little (avg. two-thirds of an inning per game), and when they did he was ineffective.

Smoltz won one Rolaids award. Bruce Sutter won four, Rollie Fingers three, Lee Smith two.

Bruce Sutter: closer for 12 years.
Rollie Fingers: closer for 15 years.
Lee Smith: closer for 14 years.
John Smoltz: closer for 4 years.

Sutter won the Rolaids award once every three years. Fingers once every five, and Smith once every seven. Smoltz won it once it every four years too.

Using that logic, Sutter > Smoltz > Fingers > Smith

Since Sutter and Fingers are in the Hall, Smoltz, the middleman, should get in too.

However, none of them spent the majority of their careers as starting pitchers like Smoltz.

Guys who won the Cy Young Award and are not in the Hall, excluding guys who are current and not eligible yet:

Don Newcombe
Bob Turley
Vern Law
Mike McCormick
Jim Lonborg
Denny McClain
Mike Cuellar
Jim Perry
Vida Blue
Mike Marshall
Randy Jones
Sparky Lyle
Ron Guidry
Mike Flanagan
Steve Stone
Fernando Valenzuela
Pete Vukovich
John Denny
La Marr Hoyt
Rick Sutcliffe
Willie Hernandez
Dwight Gooden
Bret Saberhagen
Mike Scott
Steve Bedrosian
Orel Hershiser
Frank Viola
Mark Davis
Bob Welch
Doug Drabek
Jack McDowell

How many of those guys have a Cy Young Award and Rolaids Relief Award?

2: Steve Bedrosian and Mark Davis

How many won a Cy Young Award and a Rolaids Relief Award, and have been elected to eight All-Star games?

1: John Smoltz

McClain and Saberhagen deserve special mention too, because they each won two Cy Young Awards.

Smoltz' list of accolades is far more impressive than any of them. That, in itself, makes his Hall of Fame case pretty strong.

Also, as far as I know the fans don't pick the pitchers for the All-Star Game. The managers do.

That is also a testament to how great of a pitcher he is.

Smoltz is like a mini-Eckersley - he was a great starter and a great closer.

[Los Bravos]

...and then a great starter, again.

[SABR Matt]

I hate the Braves.

With the fire of a thousand suns.

Hate them.

With no limits!!

But there can be no denying the HOF worthiness of their big three (Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz)...and from defense alone, you might be able to make the case for Andruw Jones if he has anything left in the future for a few more decent years. They had others, but they were always led by those big three.

[Paul Wendt]

OPS+ ERA+
104 : 112
_99 : 117 : Terry Pendleton's last big season
------ ------ add Maddux
103 : 129 : Ron Gant's last big season ; add McGriff, july;
103 : 118 : Dave Justice's last big season
_96 : 124
100 : 124 : C.Jones's first big season; add A.Jones, september

[RuthMayBond]

Smoltz won one Cy Young award. So did half a dozen guys nobody thinks belong in the Hall.
I hear he was up against a guy who was above average, some irate bird.
Mad Ducks?

[henrich]

I agree that his case is unusual. How comparable is it to Eckersley? Just curious to your opinions...

[STLCards2]

I agree that his case is unusual. How comparable is it to Eckersley? Just curious to your opinions...

Smoltz was a much better starter than Eck (who is underrated as a starter in his own right). Smoltz has more IP, a far better ERA+, better postseasons, and most importantly, way more GS than Eck.

As closers, Eck had about 6 very good closer season, Smoltz had 3. The gap here isn't as big as you would think, either.

Both are HOF, but Smoltz was better.

[westsidegrounds]

I got nothing personal against the guy. But Maddux and Glavine are clearly superior pitchers, and they'll go in before Smoltz. And he's not just competing against pitchers, of course. Quite a few position players are going to go in before Smoltz. Plus the voters like to spread it around a bit - putting in three guys who pitched for the same team at the same time isn't likely to happen.

The probable scenario is that Smoltz will come close to the Hall first time around, and then slip back year by year as other candidates come along.

Sorry about the A.S. selection mistake. I'm so totally not interested in that game since it started to "mean something"* that I didn't bother to check.


* Per Grandmaster B.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I checked out Smoltz' postseason performance. It's quite impressive.

207 IP, 40 G, 27 GS, 15-4 W-L, 4 SV, 2.65 ERA, 194 K, 67 BB, 168 hits

And remember he did this against playoff teams.

[SABR Matt]

That's basically a whole season's worth of pitching...and it looks like any other Smoltz season...impressive indeed. :)

[brett]

That's basically a whole season's worth of pitching...and it looks like any other Smoltz season...impressive indeed. :)

Personally, I give value based credit for the post-season greater than the regular season. With 32 teams, the regular seasons 162 games effectively determine 75% of the championship (because 75% of the teams are eliminated) and a typical 16 post season games account for the other 25% of determining the champion. In other words 160 post season games=.25 "x" while 160 regular season games= .75 "x"

or 1 post season game = 10 x .25/.75 times a regular season game or

3.33 regular season games per post season game.

True, players on poor teams don't get this chance, but a) regular season games on a poor team are just not as meaningful and b) the guys who play in the post-season have to use their physioligical resources rather than resting and preparing for next year.

[SABR Matt]

I don't know if I'd give it 3.3 times the weight universally. I'd give DS games less weight and WS games more.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

That's basically a whole season's worth of pitching...and it looks like any other Smoltz season...impressive indeed. :)
I was thinking the same thing. :)

[Paul Wendt]

Smoltz was a much better starter than Eck (who is underrated as a starter in his own right). Smoltz has more IP, a far better ERA+, better postseasons, and most importantly, way more GS than Eck.
I think it hurts more than it helps to bring "more IP" and "way more GS" under the meaning of "better" among starting pitchers.
--especially in cases like this one concerning a pitcher or two who worked notably both as starters and as relief pitchers. Sometimes it may be a reasonable abbreviation for some vague combination of quality starts, durability, and longevity. Here we don't have longevity as a starter or longevity as a reliever; we have managerial decisions to terminate one career or the other by "converting" the pitcher (Eck once, Smoltz twice).

[SABR Matt]

Except those managerial choices were connected to durability issues.

Eckersley was becoming ineffective as a starter.

Smoltz was battling back from massive injury.

[The Splendid Splinter]

Here's something interesting...

Smoltz is the only pitcher (1900-present) to have 5 shutout innings, 10 Ks and a win.

I'm surprised that hasn't happened before. Rich Harden missed it this year(didn't get the win).

[Paul Wendt]

Except those managerial choices were connected to durability issues.

Eckersley was becoming ineffective as a starter.

Smoltz was battling back from massive injury.
I don't see the significance. That is, what do you mean by "except"?

It is odd in any case to call A "much better" than B primarily because A pitched many more games (starts in this case).

Maybe I am taking this out of context. Maybe the point of "much better" is that a career sum such as Henrich's measure, if it is well done, should give many more points to Smoltz for the starting pitcher years of his career than it does to Eck for the starting pitcher years of his career.

[Paul Wendt]

Personally, I give value based credit for the post-season greater than the regular season. With 32 teams, the regular seasons 162 games effectively determine 75% of the championship (because 75% of the teams are eliminated) and a typical 16 post season games account for the other 25% of determining the champion. In other words 160 post season games=.25 "x" while 160 regular season games= .75 "x"

or 1 post season game = 10 x .25/.75 times a regular season game or

3.33 regular season games per post season game.
Suppose we take this reasoning seriously.

Then 75% is an approximation in two respects. First, the "regular season" now eliminates 22 of 30 teams or 73.3%. Second, one team is never eliminated. The playoffs now eliminate 7 of 30 teams, or 23.3%. Perhaps you mean to double-count the World Series when 1 of 30 teams is eliminated and 1 of 30 is crowned champion.

Let me accept the 75% approximation for sake of argument.

(short version)

This approach implies that for 25 years 1969-1993 the playoff season was worth about half as much as it is today. It also implies that the first round is worth most today, because it eliminates 4 teams; and that makes first round even more valuable on a per-game basis, because the first round eliminates those teams in about four games rather than about six games. (The entire playoff season, "typical 16 games" evidently represent four, six, and six in the three best of 5, best of 7, and best of 7 rounds.)

(longer observations)

The first round of playoffs now eliminates 4 teams or about 1/8 (same type of approximation as above); the second round eliminates 2 teams or about 1/16 (ditto); the third round eliminates 1 team but suppose that we deliberately double-count it, hence about 1/16 (ditto).

What then should we say about the 154-game seasons with 16 teams and World Series alone, 1904 to 1960/61? The regular season eliminated 14 teams or about 7/8.

What then about the 162-game seasons with 24 teams and LCS alone, 1969 to 1976/92? The regular season eliminated 20 teams or 5/6 and the LCS 2 teams or 1/12.

[brett]

Suppose we take this reasoning seriously.

Then 75% is an approximation in two respects. First, the "regular season" now eliminates 22 of 30 teams or 73.3%. Second, one team is never eliminated. The playoffs now eliminate 7 of 30 teams, or 23.3%. Perhaps you mean to double-count the World Series when 1 of 30 teams is eliminated and 1 of 30 is crowned champion.

Let me accept the 75% approximation for sake of argument.

(short version)

This approach implies that for 25 years 1969-1993 the playoff season was worth about half as much as it is today. It also implies that the first round is worth most today, because it eliminates 4 teams; and that makes first round even more valuable on a per-game basis, because the first round eliminates those teams in about four games rather than about six games. (The entire playoff season, "typical 16 games" evidently represent four, six, and six in the three best of 5, best of 7, and best of 7 rounds.)

(longer observations)

The first round of playoffs now eliminates 4 teams or about 1/8 (same type of approximation as above); the second round eliminates 2 teams or about 1/16 (ditto); the third round eliminates 1 team but suppose that we deliberately double-count it, hence about 1/16 (ditto).

What then should we say about the 154-game seasons with 16 teams and World Series alone, 1904 to 1960/61? The regular season eliminated 14 teams or about 7/8.

What then about the 162-game seasons with 24 teams and LCS alone, 1969 to 1976/92? The regular season eliminated 20 teams or 5/6 and the LCS 2 teams or 1/12.

a) Yes, basically to the point that the balance of value switches depending on how many games were in the season, and how many teams were in the post season. It ranges from a post season game being around 3-3.5

b) Actually I might weight the post season series by the following multipliers

First round x 1/8
Second round 1/4
Final round 1/2

If you win the first round you go from 1 in 8 to 1 in 4 or you improve your odds by .125

IF you win round 2 you go from 1 in 4 to 1 in 2, or improve your odds by .25

And the last round you go from 1 in 2 to 100% or .50

Granted, that doesn't work when applying to the regular season, which only changes your average odds from 1/32 to 1/8, but I assume that there is intrinsic value in making the playoffs which is independent of your odds of winning the world series.

And ultimately I'm just trying to put a reasonable approximate value on a post season game played. I think this gets largely ignored. We can't NOT give players at least equal credit for a game that is MORE important than one that is LESS important.

It's pretty amazing that Smoltz has pitched that much in the post season.

[brett]

A) This approach implies that for 25 years 1969-1993 the playoff season was worth about half as much as it is today. It also implies that the B) first round is worth most today, because it eliminates 4 teams; and that makes first round even more valuable on a per-game basis, because the first round eliminates those teams in about four games rather than about six games. (The entire playoff season, "typical 16 games" evidently represent four, six, and six in the three best of 5, best of 7, and best of 7 rounds.)



A) I agree here because a team that made the playoffs had about a 1 in 4 chance of going all the way. Now you have to win 3 series. There used to be more significance in winning a division pennant as well.

B) But in the regular season teams are interactively competing for wild card spots etc. Once you are one of the final 8, it is inevitable that half of the teams will be eliminated by other teams in round 1. In the regular season, there are 13-15 other teams that could take your playoff spot and you are going to play some against all of them. In the post season, you are bracketed and can not have influence on other teams.

Really, I'm just trying to create an approximate guess at post-season value. How do we measure value anyway. The "LQ" for post season games would be higher because the teams are better. A .270/.350/.460 line might be excellent for the post season.

[SABR Matt]

I don't see the significance. That is, what do you mean by "except"?

It is odd in any case to call A "much better" than B primarily because A pitched many more games (starts in this case).

Maybe I am taking this out of context. Maybe the point of "much better" is that a career sum such as Henrich's measure, if it is well done, should give many more points to Smoltz for the starting pitcher years of his career than it does to Eck for the starting pitcher years of his career.

I was disagreeing with your contention that it was meaningless how much Smoltz has pitched compared to Eckersley when we are talking about durability. He threw more starts BECAUSE he was more durable and his manages didn't have to bullpen him permanently.

[Mike90]

I got nothing personal against the guy. But Maddux and Glavine are clearly superior pitchers, and they'll go in before Smoltz. And he's not just competing against pitchers, of course. Quite a few position players are going to go in before Smoltz. Plus the voters like to spread it around a bit - putting in three guys who pitched for the same team at the same time isn't likely to happen.

The probable scenario is that Smoltz will come close to the Hall first time around, and then slip back year by year as other candidates come along.

Sorry about the A.S. selection mistake. I'm so totally not interested in that game since it started to "mean something"* that I didn't bother to check.


* Per Grandmaster B.

The Hall of Fame Monitor does a very good job of assessing how likely (not how deserving) a player is to make the Hall. Smoltz's Monitor score is 167, which makes him a Hall lock. Excluding 19-century guys, Lee Smith has the highest Monitor score for a non-Hall pitcher with 135. Here are all the Hall-eligible 20-century pitchers with Monitor scores between 135 and 167:

- Joe McGinnity 164
- Juan Marichal 158
- Phil Niekro 157
- Don Sutton 149
- Ed Walsh 148
- Hal Newhouser 140
- Rollie Fingers 139
- Early Wynn 138
- Rube Waddell 137

All of the above guys are enshrined. (Fun fact: Eppa Rixey has the lowest Monitor score of any hall of fame pitcher with 75). Smoltz has been consistently recognized by the media as one of the game's best pitchers (1 Cy Young, 1 Rolaids Relief, 8 All-Star selections) and has the rep for being an ace and a big-game pitcher. He is such a lock.

[henrich]

Maybe the point of "much better" is that a career sum such as Henrich's measure, if it is well done, should give many more points to Smoltz for the starting pitcher years of his career than it does to Eck for the starting pitcher years of his career.

I don't think this is the point you are making, but I didn't break it down the way that you wrote about-sorry. Maybe I'll do that sometime, but overall their point totals are
Eck 16,801
Smoltz 13,648 (thru 2007) I should finish pitching statistics for 2008 sometime this weekend.

Both are well over the lock point. (of course Eck is already enshrined)

[STLCards2]

Smoltz was a "much better" starter than Eckersley because not only did he pitched a lot more innings, but was better at preventing runs during the many more innings that he started. More quality and quantity all-together make for a better total pitcher.

Was Eck a better closer? Yes. Would I rather have a good to great starter for 13 years and a good closer for 3 years, or would I rather have a good starter for 10 years and a great closer for 10 years?

I will take the guy who had his best seasons pitching 4 times as many innings as the other guy.

The gap isn't huge, but I'll take Smoltz - especialy with postseason inculded.

[brett]

Is Smoltz finished?

[RuthMayBond]

Is Smoltz finished?Yep, bravesfan finished him off

[SABR Matt]

LOL RMB...good one.

[Fuzzy Bear]

How many Hall of Famers will eventually make it from the 2002 Atlanta Braves?

Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz
Chipper
Andruw?
Sheffield?
Bobby Cox?

Andruw Jones will not make the HOF.

Smoltz, oddly enough, is the most questionable of the lot, although I'm sold.

That's a LOT of HOFers, when you think about it.

[STLCards2]

How many Hall of Famers will eventually make it from the 2002 Atlanta Braves?

Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz
Chipper
Andruw?
Sheffield?
Bobby Cox?

Who will make it? Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, C. Jones, and Cox. Sheff. should make it, but may not depending on how steroid perception changes. A. Jones is pretty bordelrine in reality, but unless he has a big career comeback, he is facing a very tough road!

[Fuzzy Bear]

Who will make it? Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, C. Jones, and Cox. Sheff. should make it, but may not depending on how steroid perception changes. A. Jones is pretty bordelrine in reality, but unless he has a big career comeback, he is facing a very tough road!

Andruw Jones is perceived as a flameout; he's going to get little more support than Jose Canseco. (I've long believed he's a few years older than he says he is, and that's a BIG deal in terms of projecting counting stats.)

[CircleChange11]

How is Smoltz NOT a HoF'er?

200+ wins, 150+ saves ... and a well-earned rep as a "Big Game Pitcher" (and not based on one great start in the playoffs).

His 15-4 2.65 performance in the playoffs is what is going to stick out in voters' minds, along with the 200-150 milestone.

IMO, his membership as "one of the trio" that made up perhaps the best pitching staff in baseball history is what people are going to remember.

His playoff performances are very good! That has to carry weight. He was a key player on a team that won something like 13 straight division titles. People will remember Smoltz's name with the idea of "winner". Looking at his post-season numbers is impressive. Again, that IMO trumps any shortage of 300 wins. He's a 1st ballot guy, no question.

Maddux and Glavine are below .500 pitchers in the playoffs, this is where Smoltz has a BIG edge. He will be remembered primarily for being damn good when the games mattered the most.

[STLCards2]

Maddux and Glavine are below .500 pitchers in the playoffs, this is where Smoltz has a BIG edge. He will be remembered primarily for being damn good when the games mattered the most.

Yeah, but Glavin'es ERA in the playoffs is better than the regular season. Maddux' Cubs starts early on really skew his data as well. Glavine (in 220 IP) was a very, very good posteason pitcher (esp. in the W.S. - 5-2... 2.47 ERA), and Maddux was much better than advertized. Smoltz was the best of the three, however.

[538280]

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

[STLCards2]

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

Both are definitely HOFers...

Here are Smoltz main advanatges - he is up several hundred innings, is a far superior postseason pitcher, was a much better hitter (about 30 RAP differerence). The defensive advantage isn't too much. Smoltz is about 30 runs saved by his defense and Brown is about negative 5. 35 runs is about 2 ERA+ points - almost negated completely by the offensive advantage.

They are pretty close, but I do have Smoltz ahead. And of course if one discounts for steroids (I know you don't Chris), Brown may slip even further. If you don't leverage for closing Smoltz, they are about even.

[BenHertz]

Over a six year span (1994-99), Brown pitched for 5 different teams. Great players shouldn't be bouncing around team-to-team, especially in their peak years. I think that's hurting the amount of votes he's been getting in HOF polls. Who ever heard of a journeyman HOFer?

[leecemark]

--Rogers Hornsby? 4 teams in 4 years in mid-career. Like Brown it wasn't that teams didn't like his talent - they just didn't like him.

[Los Bravos]

Yeah, but Glavin'es ERA in the playoffs is better than the regular season. [...] Glavine (in 220 IP) was a very, very good posteason pitcher (esp. in the W.S. - 5-2... 2.47 ERA)If anyone takes the time to look at Tom's 35 October starts game by game you will see that time after time after time, far more often than not, he gave the Braves (and the Mets) a great chance to win.

[Jsquared83]

Over a six year span (1994-99), Brown pitched for 5 different teams. Great players shouldn't be bouncing around team-to-team, especially in their peak years. I think that's hurting the amount of votes he's been getting in HOF polls. Who ever heard of a journeyman HOFer?

Gaylord Perry comes to mind. Even though he didnt start bouncing around until 32, but had plenty of wins left (and both Cy Young wins)

[jalbright]

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

If we could eliminate steroids as an issue, I'd agree with you. As Brown was named in the Mitchell report, he's got to get by that issue--and here's where Brown's other problem comes into play--he and the writers didn't get along. I'm not about to say that should have the effect it will, but Brown is not well liked, and when a guy is not well liked and has a black mark like being named in the Mitchell report, it's tough to overcome. We're debating whether Barry Bonds should be DQ'd by PEDs (Barry's got the same problem of being disliked, but he's a far better player).

[davewashere]

Gaylord Perry comes to mind. Even though he didnt start bouncing around until 32, but had plenty of wins left (and both Cy Young wins)

I remember a picture of him wearing a jersey that featured all his teams' logos on it. He looked like a NASCAR driver. Kevin Brown won't get rejected by the writers because he was a journeyman, he'll get rejected because he was a borderline HOFer who was named in the Mitchell Report, which basically gives him no shot at the Hall.

[CircleChange11]

If anyone takes the time to look at Tom's 35 October starts game by game you will see that time after time after time, far more often than not, he gave the Braves (and the Mets) a great chance to win.

Well, that's very interesting.

Overall, we tend to look at wins-losses, even though we all know that pitchers only control/influence a certain amount of that. It might be interesting to see "career Quality Starts" for a variety of pitchers with all types of w-l records. Dan Haren, this year, is a great example. There are guys each year that don;t win 20 games that *should* if their teams would give adequate run production and bullpens close out games they *should*.

Even discussing Smoltz ... perhaps his best playoff game performance ended in a game 7 loss.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Is it just me, or did this "consensus" support for Smoltz kind of just pop up out of nowhere? I remember, even a two years ago, when I would say that Smoltz has a pretty good shot of finishing with a pretty solid HOF argument, the reception was lukewarm.

I believe that your perception is crrect. Several things happened which boosted Smoltz's chances:


In 2005, Smoltz returned to the starting rotation in Atlanta, and was highly successful.

In 2006, Smoltz had a Cy Young Award-type season. It doesn't look like it with a mere sixteen (16) wins, but 16 wins led the NL that year.

In 2007, Smoltz topped 200 career wins. Now 200 wins isn't an "automatic" milestone, but it does do a lot to make a pitcher appear to have a HOF-type career, if other things are present.


In a short period of time, Smoltz did three things that push his HOF candidacy forward from a debatable case to a consensus selection. Everything went right for him, and he's now at the point where he can't do anything to hurt his chances.

[CircleChange11]

In a short period of time, Smoltz did three things that push his HOF candidacy forward from a debatable case to a consensus selection. Everything went right for him, and he's now at the point where he can't do anything to hurt his chances.

Hopefully, I'm not getting ahead of myself as a Cardinals fan (because anyone can look good against SD, even Jonathan Snachez), but Smoltz could put a lasting exclamation point memory image on his career with a good showing in this year's playoffs ... cementing his "winner" image.

He's been dominant at whatever he's done on the mound, as a starter and as a closer. He just wasn;t an ""adequate" closer but a very good one. He just wasn't a very good starter, but a dominant one ... and in the playoffs, he is one of the best ever (seriously).

That screams HoF to me, especially given the longevity and success of his overall career and teams he has played on.

Eckersley was 197-171 3.50 as a starter and 390 saves in 11 years as a closer. Hall of Fame. Smoltz was/is 213-152 3.31 as a starter and 154 saves over 4 seasons as a closer. His 3 seasons as full time closer resulted in 55, 45, and 44 save seasons. That's just rare ... and "dominant" in two pitching 'positions'.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Hopefully, I'm not getting ahead of myself as a Cardinals fan (because anyone can look good against SD, even Jonathan Snachez), but Smoltz could put a lasting exclamation point memory image on his career with a good showing in this year's playoffs ... cementing his "winner" image.

He's been dominant at whatever he's done on the mound, as a starter and as a closer. He just wasn;t an ""adequate" closer but a very good one. He just wasn't a very good starter, but a dominant one ... and in the playoffs, he is one of the best ever (seriously).

That screams HoF to me, especially given the longevity and success of his overall career and teams he has played on.

Eckersley was 197-171 3.50 as a starter and 390 saves in 11 years as a closer. Hall of Fame. Smoltz was/is 213-152 3.31 as a starter and 154 saves over 4 seasons as a closer. His 3 seasons as full time closer resulted in 55, 45, and 44 save seasons. That's just rare ... and "dominant" in two pitching 'positions'.

Eck is overrated. Smoltz is rated about where he should be, and has had a more valuable career, IMO, than Eck.

[STLCards2]

I believe that your perception is crrect. Several things happened which boosted Smoltz's chances:


In 2005, Smoltz returned to the starting rotation in Atlanta, and was highly successful.

In 2006, Smoltz had a Cy Young Award-type season. It doesn't look like it with a mere sixteen (16) wins, but 16 wins led the NL that year.

In 2007, Smoltz topped 200 career wins. Now 200 wins isn't an "automatic" milestone, but it does do a lot to make a pitcher appear to have a HOF-type career, if other things are present.


In a short period of time, Smoltz did three things that push his HOF candidacy forward from a debatable case to a consensus selection. Everything went right for him, and he's now at the point where he can't do anything to hurt his chances.

That is popping out of nowhere? Whispers about Smoltz making the HOF started after he had the three great years as a closer. He posted a unique mark- with 150 wins and 150 saves. He was an all-star starter and reliever. Writers and voters eat that sort of thing up. Smolzt solidified his HOF stature with 3 all-star calliber seasons (125-140 ERA+, 200+ IP). He is more than desereving - but not because he has 150 saves. he was much more valuable from 2005-2007 than he was in 2002-2004.

[CircleChange11]

Eck is overrated. Smoltz is rated about where he should be, and has had a more valuable career, IMO, than Eck.

That's what I was getting at. Eck is a bonafide HoF'er, if that's how we view it ... and Smoltz has had IMO a far more impressive career than Eck.

I guess I'm trying to understand any reason why Smoltz ISN'T a 1st ballot HoF'er, because it seems obvious to me, that he most certainly is ... and as old men we'll tell our grandsons about the Maddux-Glavine-Smoltz pitching staff, the same way our dads talk about the Big Red Machine.

[Cougar]

I believe that your perception is crrect. Several things happened which boosted Smoltz's chances:


In 2005, Smoltz returned to the starting rotation in Atlanta, and was highly successful.

In 2006, Smoltz had a Cy Young Award-type season. It doesn't look like it with a mere sixteen (16) wins, but 16 wins led the NL that year.

In 2007, Smoltz topped 200 career wins. Now 200 wins isn't an "automatic" milestone, but it does do a lot to make a pitcher appear to have a HOF-type career, if other things are present.


In a short period of time, Smoltz did three things that push his HOF candidacy forward from a debatable case to a consensus selection. Everything went right for him, and he's now at the point where he can't do anything to hurt his chances.

Don't forget he also passed the 3000 strikeout mark last season before his arm fell off**.

**Metaphorically...I think.

[Bravesfan1984]

Hopefully, I'm not getting ahead of myself as a Cardinals fan (because anyone can look good against SD, even Jonathan Snachez), but Smoltz could put a lasting exclamation point memory image on his career with a good showing in this year's playoffs ... cementing his "winner" image.

He's been dominant at whatever he's done on the mound, as a starter and as a closer. He just wasn;t an ""adequate" closer but a very good one. He just wasn't a very good starter, but a dominant one ... and in the playoffs, he is one of the best ever (seriously).

That screams HoF to me, especially given the longevity and success of his overall career and teams he has played on.

Eckersley was 197-171 3.50 as a starter and 390 saves in 11 years as a closer. Hall of Fame. Smoltz was/is 213-152 3.31 as a starter and 154 saves over 4 seasons as a closer. His 3 seasons as full time closer resulted in 55, 45, and 44 save seasons. That's just rare ... and "dominant" in two pitching 'positions'.


I disagree that he was dominate as a starter. The real only great seasons he had were 1996, 1998. He had only 6 seaons with 15 or more wins out of the 17 he pitched as a starter.

[Brad Harris]

I disagree that he was dominate as a starter. The real only great seasons he had were 1996, 1998. He had only 6 seaons with 15 or more wins out of the 17 he pitched as a starter.
Good thing wins aren't the best measure of how dominant a starter is.

Smoltz won a Cy Young Award.

By way of comparison, the voters elected Dennis Eckersley in his first year of eligibility and Smoltz (by virtue of his value as a starting pitcher) is a better candidate than Eckersley. Hence, he surpasses the standards of the BBWAA.

I will agree that Smoltz rarely seemed like a Hall-of-Famer, but the totality of his accomplishments exceeds any such impressions one might have held of him earlier in his career. He's done enough to warrant induction.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Good thing wins aren't the best measure of how dominant a starter is.

Smoltz won a Cy Young Award.

By way of comparison, the voters elected Dennis Eckersley in his first year of eligibility and Smoltz (by virtue of his value as a starting pitcher) is a better candidate than Eckersley. Hence, he surpasses the standards of the BBWAA.

I will agree that Smoltz rarely seemed like a Hall-of-Famer, but the totality of his accomplishments exceeds any such impressions one might have held of him earlier in his career. He's done enough to warrant induction.

In some ways, Smoltz is the Don Drysdale of his generation; he was #2 (indeed, he was actually #3) behind two 300-game winners. This always took some of the luster off of his case, but he ended up with his share of chrome and leather. He's not at the top of the HOF, but he was a great pitcher at his best, and his career value is within HOF norms.

[Cowtipper]

This was probably his last year, not a great way to end a Hall of Fame career.

[MyDogSparty]

Should have stayed a Brave or retired last season.