When Did Tom Glavine Become A HOFer To You?

[dgarza]

Since Tom Glavine came up in the Greg Maddux thread, I'd like to see how Glavine compares here.

After the completion of which season could you say to yourself "Tom Glavine could retire today and I'd support him for the Hall of Fame"?

[RuthMayBond]

Since Tom Glavine came up in the Greg Maddux thread, I'd like to see how Glavine compares here.

After the completion of which season could you say to yourself "Tom Glavine could retire today and I'd support him for the Hall of Fame"?Probably 2006

[Paul Wendt]

Glavine was never good enough that I would have considered the matter of early retirement or career-ending mishap. That is reserved for players such as Maddux and Pujols. In retrospect it's clear that he pitched himself into the Hall of Fame in Atlanta. With his personal popularity, strong Cy Young showing (two 1st, two 2nd, two 3rd), and playoff appearances, there is a good chance he was probably electable before then (2002).

Prorating 1994-95, Glavine has 18 consecutive seasons with at least 32 starts. Only 29 in 1989.

[jjpm74]

It honestly wasn't until he got his 300th win for me. Smoltz and Maddux always overshadowed him in my eyes.

[Westlake]

IMO, his performance from 1991-2002 makes him a HOF by itself, so I picked 2002.

[ElHalo]

With his personal popularity,

Back up a second here. Personal popularity? You barely ever saw the guy, or heard word one about him, when he was in Atlanta, and he just spent a few years playing in New York where he got less respect and press coverage than Brent Mayne. How in the world could you say he's popular? He's not unpopular, in the Kevin Brown mold, but he's completely and totally anonymous, an absolute cypher.

[Edgartohof]

I can see 2002 being the year. That was his last really good year (and also last year with Atlanta). He posted a 140 ERA+ that season with 18 wins. That gave him 242 wins in his career with a decent 122 ERA+ (which was the highest it has been in his career I believe). Since then, his ERA+ has dropped slightly to 119, but his win totals have risen to 303. So anytime from 2002 and 2007 is reasonsable to me. Before that...is kind of pushing it.

[philkid3]

I know I considered him a Hall of Famer in '99, mostly because I was a young'n who was told he was a Hall of Famer by things like Sports Illustrated and ESPN. That's what I voted for since it's what the poll asks.

With hindsight and a little more education, though, it would probably be 2002 for me.

I completely disagree with Halo that Glavine wasn't popular, though.

[Los Bravos]

Personally? Probably 1992 :clapping

When I thought I had a real, logical argument? 2002.

He ended that season at 242-144, with 2 Cy Youngs and 8 All Star selections under his belt, (including the first back to back starts for the NL in 40 years.) That put him over the threshold, for me.

[STLCards2]

Personally? Probably 1992 :clapping

When I thought I had a real, logical argument? 2002.

He ended that season at 242-144, with 2 Cy Youngs and 8 All Star selections under his belt, (including the first back to back starts for the NL in 40 years.) That put him over the threshold, for me.

2000 was probably the year that I would have considered him borderline, but 2002 put him in for good, in my opinion.

[Fuzzy Bear]

2000 was probably the year that I would have considered him borderline, but 2002 put him in for good, in my opinion.

I thought Glavine became a no-questions-asked HOFer in 2000.

It was his 5th 20-win season.

He went over 200 games won for his career.

Glavine also had all of the accoutrements of a HOFer before that point. Two Cy Young Awards, 4 20-game seasons, winning percentage over .600; those are the kinds of things HOF pitchers do. The 200 win barrier is not a HOF threshold for all pitchers, but it IS the point where a guy like Glavine, with a high peak and a number of star seasons under his belt, becomes a "why not?" instead of a "why?" case. If you look at Glavine's record after the 2000 season, you would find that most pitchers who had done what he had done, and won the kind of awards he had won ARE in the HOF.

I consider those persons who think Glavine to be unworthy of the HOF to be motivated either by delusion or personal grudge. Not by facts.

[dgarza]

It honestly wasn't until he got his 300th win for me.
I can't think of a single pitcher who needed 300 to him over the threshold.
300 wins is nice and is a good way to solidify you case, but it has never been a make or break number.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It honestly wasn't until he got his 300th win for me. Smoltz and Maddux always overshadowed him in my eyes.

I fail to see how Smoltz overshadowed Glavine. Glavine won MORE CYAs than Smoltz, was ahead of Smoltz in the rotation, was more consistent than Smoltz, and won more games, consistently, than Smoltz, while losing fewer.

Smoltz had his years as a closer, but I don't see how that should propel him past Glavine. Smoltz was a closer because there was concern that his operated-on arm might not hold up to the rigors of the rotation. Smoltz has come back in fine fashion, and may well be elected to the HOF, but Smoltz's HOF case at just over 200 wins is nowhere near as impressive as Glavine's if you look objectively.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I can't think of a single pitcher who needed 300 to him over the threshold.
300 wins is nice and is a good way to solidify you case, but it has never been a make or break number.

Don Sutton? :shrug:

[Fuzzy Bear]

I can't think of a single pitcher who needed 300 to him over the threshold.
300 wins is nice and is a good way to solidify you case, but it has never been a make or break number.

Blyleven, John, and Kaat would all be in the HOF if they hit 300.

[vptpt]

Tom Glavine is the type of player I absolutely love. Over the years, he's quietly put together these great stats without drawing any attention to himself. He just goes out there and does his job. I wish we could get about 50 more guys just like him in the MLB, and dump all the cocky whiners...you know the ones I'm talking about.

[STLCards2]

I consider those persons who think Glavine to be unworthy of the HOF to be motivated either by delusion or personal grudge. Not by facts.

The case against Glavine for most (elhalo's criteria is a different case. Call him carzy, but he is consistant) is typically this:

When DIPS theory first came out, it was evident that pitchers didn't have quite as much control over BABIP that was originaly assumed. Therefore, pitchers who threw more strikeouts were less dependent on their teamates, thus making them better pitchers. Glavine was an average/slightly above average K guy during the height of his prime, but was well under average the rest of his career. Therefore, some believed that Glavine wasn't that good and was more of a product of his defense.

Wheras there is much truth in the above statements, this theroy did not factor in several aspects that Glavine happens to be exceptional at: situation pitching (RISP splits, LOB%, etc.), controling the running game, inducing groundball to get double plays and preventing extrabase hits, preventing hit batsmen and wild pitches, and offensive production. More recent DIPS theory aknowleges that pitchers do have some control over BABIP, still less that we though 10 years ago, but certainly more that DIPS originaly assumed. Glavine has saved around 60 runs over his career this way-beyond the help he recieved defensively. Once one looks at how Glavine excelled at these areas, it is less suprising that he was so successful without dominating K rates. Glavine also has superb HR/9 rates and well-above average BB/9 rates.


As far as Glavine's team defense is concerned, there is no doubt that the players behind him (esp. 91-93, 97-98, 01-02, 05-07) were very benefitial to him. What some have never accepted is that Glavine played in front of mediocre to poor defenses during the following years: 87-90, 95-96, 99-00, 03-04). Overall, the Braves/Mets defenses probably saved Glavine, I estimate, around 45 runs. That is substantial, yes - probably around 15% of his run saving total. However, once you include the 30 ignored runs that Glavine created offensively, you have about 15 runs his defense saved, or the eqiuvilant to about 1 ERA+ point.

In conclusion, you have a pitcher who will finish with over 4,700 MLB innings (playoffs included) during the hardest era to accumulate innings (12 top-ten finishes) with a runs saved/created ERA+ equivelant of about 118. This doesn't even include a WS MVP, etc.

With more accurate ways to determine how pitchers are able to prevent runs, there are very few Glavine abstainers now. They realize the "his defense was the biggest reason for his success" argument is similar to those Christmas cookies still on top of your fridge ...old, stale, used to look good, but now fall apart easily.

[STLCards2]

In case anybody is interested, I have estimated Glavine's era+ each year (a +/- 2 each year would be okay) in a defensive neutral setting with offensive production value added in:


87/88 -89
89 - 108
90 - 106
91 - 148
92 - 131
93 - 118
94 - 102
95 - 138
96 - 158
97 - 135
98 - 165
99 - 109
00 - 135
01 - 119
02 - 124
03 - 100
04 - 123
05 - 112
06 - 109
07 - 95

All of these are high-inning years too.

Unless you are a huge peak guy or a exclusive HOF guy (both legitamate sides), how can anybody say this is not a HOF career?

[Fuzzy Bear]

The case against Glavine for most (elhalo's criteria is a different case. Call him carzy, but he is consistant) is typically this:

When DIPS theory first came out, it was evident that pitchers didn't have quite as much control over BABIP that was originaly assumed. Therefore, pitchers who threw more strikeouts were less dependent on their teamates, thus making them better pitchers. Glavine was an average/slightly above average K guy during the height of his prime, but was well under average the rest of his career. Therefore, some believed that Glavine wasn't that good and was more of a product of his defense.

Wheras there is much truth in the above statements, this theroy did not factor in several aspects that Glavine happens to be exceptional at: situation pitching (RISP splits, LOB%, etc.), controling the running game, inducing groundball to get double plays and preventing extrabase hits, preventing hit batsmen and wild pitches, and offensive production. More recent DIPS theory aknowleges that pitchers do have som control over BABIP, still less that we though 10 years ago, but certainly more that DIPS originaly assumed. Glavine has saved around 60 runs over his career this way-beyond the help he recieved defensively. Once one looks at how Glavine excelled at these areas, it is less suprising that he was so successful without dominating K rates. Glavine also has superb HR/9 rates and well-above average BB/9 rates.


As far as Glavine's team defense is concerned, there is no doubt that the players behind him (esp. 91-93, 97-98, 01-02, 05-07) were very benefitial to him. What some have never accepted is that Glavine played in front of mediocre to poor defenses during the following years: 87-90, 95-96, 99-00, 03-04). Overall, the Braves/Mets defenses probably saved Glavine, I estimate, around 45 runs allowed. That is substantial, yes - probably around 15% of his run saving total. However, once you include the 30 ignored runs that Glavine created offensively, you have about 15 runs his defense saved, or the eqiuvilant to about 1 ERA+ point.

In conclusion, you have a pitcher who will finish with over 4,700 MLB innings (playoffs included) during the hardest era to accumulate innings (12 top-ten finishes) with a runs saved/created ERA+ equivelant of about 118. This doesn't even include a WS MVP, etc.

With more accurate ways to determine how pitchers are able to prevent runs, there are very few Glavine abstainers now. They realize the "his defense was the biggest reason for his success" argument is similar to those Christmas cookies still on top of your fridge ...old, stale, used to look good, but now falls apart easily.

I like this essay.

I have, and continue to believe, that a pitcher's won-loss record is far too easily discounted here. While I recognize that there are pitchers who have parlayed super run support into 20-win seasons (Jose Lima, Bob Welch), these guys were not consistent 20 game winners. (Lima may have the highest career ERA of any pitcher who ever posted a 20-win season; he really stunk.)

There does seem to be pitchers who, in the end, WIN the game, whereas other pitchers, in the end, tend to LOSE the game. I contrast Tom Glavine with Nolan Ryan. Nolan Ryan is this storied, hallowed icon, with a record for strikeouts that will never be broken, but he has more losses than any pitcher elected to the HOF whose career began after 1920. I have seen Nolan the Overrated lose games that were his to win for one reason, and one reason only; he collapsed into a pile of walks.

The argument that Ryan played on "weak teams" doesn't always hold water. Ryan played on Met teams that were over .500, one of them a World Champion, but he could NEVER stay in the starting rotation. And he could NEVER maintain success over the course of a year. He would start out gangbusters, but his control would cause him to lose games he should have won. It's true that Ryan had his very best years with losing Angel teams, but he also posted a losing record in 1978, when the Angels went 87-75, and was a mere 16-14 when the Angels won the AL West in 1979. In 1980, Ryan's Astros won the NL West, and were one game away from the World Series, but Ryan was a mere 11-10. (Ryan did have a great 1981, a strike year, and did play a role in the Astros going to the postseason that year.) Much is made about Ryan's bad luck 8-16 in 1987 when he posted a super ERA and strikeout totals, but how many games did he blow that year with untimely walks?

I don't believe that Ryan's W-L record is merely a function of his teams, and of "luck". I believe it's a result of the particular skill base he brought in; a skill base that was big on power pitching and pure heat, but weak on control. I'm not trying to rip Ryan's plaque out of the HOF, but there's a reason besides his teams that a guy who was the most specatcular pitcher of my lifetime, other than Koufax, could not win the game with greater frequency than he did. It's great to be spectacular. Ryan was spectacular. Glavine wasn't. Ryan's problem is that major league baseball is not a spectacle.

[dgarza]

Blyleven, John, and Kaat would all be in the HOF if they hit 300.
Hey, I thought of that after I wrote.
I meant to say that no HOF pitchers needed the 300th win.

[RuthMayBond]

I can't think of a single pitcher who needed 300 to him over the threshold.
300 wins is nice and is a good way to solidify you case, but it has never been a make or break number.Early Wynn?

[RuthMayBond]

Blyleven, John, and Kaat would all be in the HOF if they hit 300.Maybe, but there are plenty HOFers without 300 wins

[dgarza]

Early Wynn?
Early Wynn is HOF-worthy at 299.

[RuthMayBond]

Early Wynn is HOF-worthy at 299.I'm not sure he's HOF worthy at 300 :eek::think:

[philkid3]

I can't think of a single pitcher who needed 300 to him over the threshold.
300 wins is nice and is a good way to solidify you case, but it has never been a make or break number.

Tommy John's not in. His team scores another run or his bullpen holds a lead just 12 more times and he is in.


Meanwhile, Early Wynn wouldn't be in without 300 wins. It makes borderline (or even worse) guys locks. Which is a problem.


I fail to see how Smoltz overshadowed Glavine. Glavine won MORE CYAs than Smoltz, was ahead of Smoltz in the rotation, was more consistent than Smoltz, and won more games, consistently, than Smoltz, while losing fewer.
I agree with this. Over years of watching TBS, growing up with Braves fans for parents and the ever-present ESPN/SI media, Smoltz was always the third wheel. The not-as-great-as-his-counterparts guy.

[leecemark]

--Welch, Wynn, Sutton and Galvin probably aren't in the Hall without 300 wins. Blyleven, Kaat and John almost certainly are in with 300 wins. A few wins one way or the other maybe shouldn't make a difference, but they always have. I'd rank them
1) Blyleven
2) Sutton
3) Galvin
4) Kaat
5) Wynn
6) John
7) Welch
--So while I don't think 300 wins should be the dividing line amoung long career borderliners it always has been one of the prime xriteria in which of them make it and which don't. Glavine did not need 300 wins to make it IMO, but it did seal the deal for him.

[STLCards2]

--Welch, Wynn, Sutton and Galvin probably aren't in the Hall without 300 wins. Blyleven, Kaat and John almost certainly are in with 300 wins. A few wins one way or the other maybe shouldn't make a difference, but they always have. I'd rank them
1) Blyleven
2) Sutton
3) Galvin
4) Kaat
5) Wynn
6) John
7) Welch
--So while I don't think 300 wins should be the dividing line amoung long career borderliners it always has been one of the prime xriteria in which of them make it and which don't. Glavine did not need 300 wins to make it IMO, but it did seal the deal for him.


Suprised to see Kaat ranked higher than Wynn. Consider, perhaps the following?

IP:

Wynn 12 top 7 finishes with 3 leads
Kaat 6 top 10 finishes with one lead

CGs:

Wynn 14 top 10 finishes
Kaat 4 top 10 finishes

SOs:

Wynn 11 top 10 finishes
Kaat 3 top 10 finishes

ERA+

Wynn 6 top 10 finishes
Kaat 4 top 10 finishes

Also keep in mind: 1.Wynn lost a war season and 2. Both were helped by good defenses. 3. Both were horrible postseason starters 4. Wynn created almost 50 runs offensively more than the average pitcher. Applied to his ERA+, that gives him a 112 ERA+ with 4,500 IP. Kaat's comes out to about 108. I'd probably put Wynn ahead of Galvin. Not a great HOFer, but certainly in with more room to spare than others believe.