PDA

View Full Version : John Smoltz HOF chances


mahagga73
01-21-2013, 01:43 PM
I'm hearing a lot of chatter and people assuming this guy is going to get in and I did some research on it. It looks like to me for most his career he was pretty much a solid 2 and maybe a 1 on a lot of other teams with ERA's hovering in the high 3's . He did have one magnificent season with Atlanta, won a Cy I think. and one or two other great years. Career won lost is good, not great. He was a very good closer, but his ERA in three of the four years he was in the role weren't the greatest. High strikeout totals career is what voters love so he has that. I personally think he is a notch below Eckersley as a reliever, as I think Eck was as good as there ever was when he was on top of his game, and he closed longer with better numbers in the ERA department. Outside Smoltz one big year he an Eck were pretty comparable as starters, Eck has a lot of low 3 and high 2 ERA seasons as a starter, and amazing ERA's as a reliever. The reason I say no to Smoltz if I was a voter is he just was not top notch dominant in either closing or starting. Eck was undoubtedly an all time great as a closer. Just couldn't vote for a guy that was just very good at both. I don't remember sitting there watching Smoltz back in the 90's and thinking this guy is HOF material. He has a great postseason record whereas a lot of his Brave's teammates with bigger reps weren't so great. But is that enough to get him in, 19 decisions in the postseason. Schilling was a better starter I believe and he didn't get in with the same type of postseason performance.

mzh
01-21-2013, 01:51 PM
a 2.41 ERA as a reliever with 154 saves in essentially 3.5 years as a closer is more than 'very good'. Extended, that's a HOF career as a reliever. He had a few high-3 ERA seasons as a starter, but 209 wins and a 3.40 ERA is pretty damn impressive considering that most of his career came during the greatest offensive era in the history of the game. I don't think it's a stretch to say that he probably would have won at least 280 games had he not spent 5 years out of the rotation due to injury.

Also, Eckersley's career statline as a starter: 149-130 with a 3.71 ERA. Not even close. He may not get in on the first ballot, I don't think there's any doubt that Smoltz is a HOFer. As for Schilling, like I said, the only reason they look similar is because Smoltz spent 5 years either hurt or in the bullpen. They aren't really close.

mahagga73
01-21-2013, 01:55 PM
a 2.41 ERA as a reliever with 154 saves in essentially 3.5 years as a closer is more than 'very good'. That's a HOF career as a reliever. He had a few high-3 ERA seasons as a starter, but 209 wins and a 3.40 ERA is pretty damn impressive considering that most of his career came during the greatest offensive era in the history of the game. I don't think it's a stretch to say that he probably would have won at least 280 games had he not spent 5 years out of the rotation due to injury.

Also, Eckersley's career statline as a starter: 149-130 with a 3.71 ERA. Not even close. He may not get in on the first ballot, I don't think there's any doubt that Smoltz is a HOFer.
He didn't close enough to be counted as a HOF reliever and he wasn't as good as Eckersley. Not sure the starting numbers are lockdown HOF either. My point is he was very good at both, great at neither. Eck was great at closing. I'm not disputing your info just pondering whether his closing or starting individually are good enough. Eck spent a lot of time in the AL too, Smoltz didn't , might have a lot to do with ERA disparity as starters.When Eck was a closer I thought for sure this guy was one of the all time greats at his job, never ever felt that way about Smoltz.

johnnyg83
01-21-2013, 01:58 PM
He may get in, but IMHO he's just a good pitcher. Not a HOFer.

yes, there were injuries but you can't go on "shouldas." He was the third best pitcher on a dominant dominant team, his stats are good not HOF. IMHO, of course.

CoopaLoop
01-21-2013, 02:03 PM
That first post is tough to read.



16th member of 3,000 strikeout club.
Only guy with 200 wins and 150 saves.
Career ERA of 3.33.


I think he gets in.

doublem23
01-21-2013, 02:06 PM
No doubt 1st ballot 90%+ vote HOF. I can't believe anyone thinks any less.

mahagga73
01-21-2013, 02:07 PM
He may get in, but IMHO he's just a good pitcher. Not a HOFer.

yes, there were injuries but you can't go on "shouldas." He was the third best pitcher on a dominant dominant team, his stats are good not HOF. IMHO, of course.
Yeah, to me if he gets in you got literally dozens of other pitchers with similar careers who also could lay claim to enshrinement who probably were never thought of like that before.

mahagga73
01-21-2013, 02:08 PM
No doubt 1st ballot 90%+ vote HOF. I can't believe anyone thinks any less.
Believe it, very good at starting, very good at closing albeit a few years, doesn't get you in the Hall in my book, maybe the Hall of very good. He was the third pitcher on his team, no team that won 1 WS should have 3 starters in the Hall, no way. Based on the eye test, stats, he isn't a surefire candidate to me.

amsteel
01-21-2013, 02:09 PM
Do the BBWAA members think they're better than him? That's really the only question that matters.

mahagga73
01-21-2013, 02:12 PM
That first post is tough to read.



16th member of 3,000 strikeout club.
Only guy with 200 wins and 150 saves.
Career ERA of 3.33.

I think he gets in.
150 saves is not a huge number. What you are saying is if you had a very good starting career and closed successfully for a few years you are in. Strikeouts are outs like any other, a lot of non- HOFers have huge strikeout careers, an out is an out. A lot of pitchers have great career ERA's and don't get in.

mahagga73
01-21-2013, 02:15 PM
Do the BBWAA members think they're better than him? That's really the only question that matters.
don't get me wrong, I think he's going to get in just based on what I've heard, the buzz. I just don't think he was as good as a lot of people think. He never entered my mind as a sure HOFer ever. Eckersley has a better resume as far as I'm concerned.

johnnyg83
01-21-2013, 02:25 PM
No doubt 1st ballot 90%+ vote HOF. I can't believe anyone thinks any less.

90%! Wow. I'd take that bet. I guess that year's class would have a lot to say about.

johnnyg83
01-21-2013, 02:40 PM
No doubt 1st ballot 90%+ vote HOF. I can't believe anyone thinks any less.

90%! Wow. I'd take that bet. I guess that year's class would have a lot to say about it.

mzh
01-21-2013, 02:48 PM
150 saves is not a huge number. What you are saying is if you had a very good starting career and closed successfully for a few years you are in. Strikeouts are outs like any other, a lot of non- HOFers have huge strikeout careers, an out is an out. A lot of pitchers have great career ERA's and don't get in.
Yes, 150 saves IS a lot. Here's some trivia:

Pitchers who have saved 144+ games over a 3 season stretch:

Francisco Rodriguez
Eric Gagne
John Smoltz

That's a pretty exclusive list. You could name a ton of closers who were probably better than Smoltz overall who never did that.

As for the rest, I'm not sure what your point is. Smoltz was a top-tier pitcher during the biggest hitting boom in history. Numbers deserve to be taken in some context.

sox1970
01-21-2013, 03:36 PM
Lock HOF.

mahagga73
01-21-2013, 04:16 PM
Yes, 150 saves IS a lot. Here's some trivia:

Pitchers who have saved 144+ games over a 3 season stretch:

Francisco Rodriguez
Eric Gagne
John Smoltz

That's a pretty exclusive list. You could name a ton of closers who were probably better than Smoltz overall who never did that.

As for the rest, I'm not sure what your point is. Smoltz was a top-tier pitcher during the biggest hitting boom in history. Numbers deserve to be taken in some context.
Rodriguez and Gagne are only getting in the hall the same way I am , buying a ticket. So that is hardly a reason for induction. He wasn't a top tier pitcher when his won loss hovered close to .500 most his career on one of the best teams in the league. My point is if he gets in there are a lot, and i mean a lot , of pitchers who are suddenly in the conversation.

mahagga73
01-21-2013, 04:21 PM
Lock HOF.
Why a lock ? If barely above .500 most years, 3rd pitcher on his team, and a few good closing years are the standard heck yea lock. He was great in the postseason, much better than his teammates, which is weird, because Glavine and Maddux were both better pitchers than him normally. I'm not sure what to make of that .But it is a plus. I'm just struggling , looking at the numbers, and seeing a very good career, how so many are saying LOCK, LOCK, LOCK, oh yea, he's a LOCK . Tom Seaver is a lock, way better than Smoltz ever was.

Boondock Saint
01-21-2013, 04:26 PM
No doubt 1st ballot 90%+ vote HOF. I can't believe anyone thinks any less.

Agreed. He was phenomenal.

mahagga73
01-21-2013, 04:29 PM
Agreed. He was phenomenal.
Kevin Brown and Pedro Martinez both had better numbers as starters, look it up. But I bet most of you would say no to Brown and yes to Smoltz, which makes no sense. Smoltz 213-155, 3.33 with better teams, 5 time top 6 in CY voting. Kevin Brown (lot of AL experience) 211-144, 3.28 ERA, 5 top 6 finishes in CY voting. But most of you would say yes on Smoltz but no on Brown I bet. Makes zero sense.

mzh
01-21-2013, 04:41 PM
Why a lock ? If barely above .500 most years, 3rd pitcher on his team, and a few good closing years are the standard heck yea lock. He was great in the postseason, much better than his teammates, which is weird, because Glavine and Maddux were both better pitchers than him normally. I'm not sure what to make of that .But it is a plus. I'm just struggling , looking at the numbers, and seeing a very good career, how so many are saying LOCK, LOCK, LOCK, oh yea, he's a LOCK . Tom Seaver is a lock, way better than Smoltz ever was.
How is it Smoltz fault that he was the number 3 on a team with 2 absolute lock first ballot HOFers?

As for Kevin Brown, his ERA was a full run lower and then some pitching for LA, Florida and San Diego than in the AL. Pitching in the 3 best pitchers parks in baseball will do that. Smoltz home/road splits are almost identical, and while he never did pitch in the AL outside of 8 starts at the end of his career, we do have all the empirical evidence that he was a dominating pitcher wherever he went. You can't say that about Brown.

mahagga73
01-21-2013, 04:45 PM
How is it Smoltz fault that he was the number 3 on a team with 2 absolute lock first ballot HOFers?

As for Kevin Brown, his ERA was a full run lower and then some pitching for LA, Florida and San Diego than in the AL. Pitching in the 3 best pitchers parks in baseball will do that. Smoltz home/road splits are almost identical, and while he never did pitch in the AL outside of 8 starts at the end of his career, we do have all the empirical evidence that he was a dominating pitcher wherever he went. You can't say that about Brown.
Brown was one of the best pitchers in baseball , sure you can. He had some of the nastiest stuff ever. They are very comparable pitchers. Smoltz was near .500 for a long time before he broke out and flourished for a few years more as a starter with a couple great years. Dominating he was not for a long long time. Fact is, Smoltz had a higher ERA and never pitched in the AL like Brown. I guess I'm just not getting it because I am not seeing it. Nobody has made a convincing case he is anywhere near a LOCK. When I hear lock I'm thinking Steve Carlton, Tom Seaver, Clemens, Koufax, not John Smoltz. He was a third banana so so ERA pitcher for a good portion of his career.

Huisj
01-21-2013, 04:50 PM
Don't forget his postseason numbers. 15-4 with a 2.67 ERA.

mahagga73
01-21-2013, 04:56 PM
Don't forget his postseason numbers. 15-4 with a 2.67 ERA.
I did, they are awesome. But enough to override his rather borderline hall of fame numbers, not too sure. He is well below the hall of fame standard according to James formula . A 44 when 50 is the norm. This takes into consideration all facets of pitching and who has been elected before. Schillings numbers are very comparable as a starter in the regular and postseason . I think Schilling was a better starter . So if Smoltz is in, Schilling has to not be far behind. Schilling scores a full 2 points higher on James system as a 46 .

mzh
01-21-2013, 04:57 PM
Brown was one of the best pitchers in baseball , sure you can. He had some of the nastiest stuff ever. They are very comparable pitchers. Smoltz was near .500 for a long time before he broke out and flourished for a few years more as a starter with a couple great years. Dominating he was not for a long long time. Fact is, Smoltz had a higher ERA and never pitched in the AL like Brown. I guess I'm just not getting it because I am not seeing it. Nobody has made a convincing case he is anywhere near a LOCK. When I hear lock I'm thinking Steve Carlton, Tom Seaver, Clemens, Koufax, not John Smoltz.
After his 3rd or 4th year in the league, Smoltz was never near .500. He was nearly 50 games over by the time he was 32.

You have to take those numbers into context. Smoltz pitched in the steroid era, and his ERA+, which takes league numbers into context, was 125, 25 points above the average pitcher. Carlton pitched in a much more pitcher friendly time, and conversely his ERA+ was 117. Seaver's was 127. Koufax was 131. Bob Gibson was at 127. The two guys you compare in your other thread, Tommy John and Bert Blyleven, were at 111 and 118. Clemens and Martinez aren't even in the discussion, they were a tier above all the rest. At that point we're talking top 10 pitchers all time, and that's irrelevant to the conversation.

I'm far from a total stathead, but I think that's really important. The difference you perceive other who belongs in the Hall and who doesn't is clearly influenced by the fact that putting up 25 wins and a 2.50 ERA was seen much more often in the great pitchers of the 60s and 70s than in the 90s and 2000s.

mahagga73
01-21-2013, 05:05 PM
After his 3rd or 4th year in the league, Smoltz was never near .500. He was nearly 50 games over by the time he was 32.

You have to take those numbers into context. Smoltz pitched in the steroid era, and his ERA+, which takes league numbers into context, was 125, 25 points above the average pitcher. Carlton pitched in a much more pitcher friendly time, and conversely his ERA+ was 117. Seaver's was 127. Koufax was 131. Bob Gibson was at 127. The two guys you compare in your other thread, Tommy John and Bert Blyleven, were at 111 and 118. Clemens and Martinez aren't even in the discussion, they were a tier above all the rest. At that point we're talking top 10 pitchers all time, and that's irrelevant to the conversation.

I'm far from a total stathead, but I think that's really important. The difference you perceive other who belongs in the Hall and who doesn't is clearly influenced by the fact that putting up 25 wins and a 2.50 ERA was seen much more often in the great pitchers of the 60s and 70s than in the 90s and 2000s.
Maybe your right . I can see where that may have slipped my mind, the steroid era and of course the rise of the bullpen specialists , which take wins away from starters. Still I have to say I am bemused and confused about the wide differences of opinions about pitchers that pretty much had similar careers. Schilling is a slightly better pitcher in my opinion than Smoltz but nobody calls him a lock. He even scores higher on the HOF standard by Bill James , which incorporates all the existng factors known to influence what voters see as a Hall of Fame pitcher. He didn't get in, so why should Smoltz be a lock. Not seeing it. Schilling is sometimes a generally disagreeable person so maybe that has something to do with it. Likewise, I have shown Kevin Brown, who had a better won loss on poorer teams than Smoltz, and pitched in the AL, yet still had better numbers, he gets no HOF support.

sox1970
01-21-2013, 05:10 PM
Why a lock ? If barely above .500 most years, 3rd pitcher on his team, and a few good closing years are the standard heck yea lock. He was great in the postseason, much better than his teammates, which is weird, because Glavine and Maddux were both better pitchers than him normally. I'm not sure what to make of that .But it is a plus. I'm just struggling , looking at the numbers, and seeing a very good career, how so many are saying LOCK, LOCK, LOCK, oh yea, he's a LOCK . Tom Seaver is a lock, way better than Smoltz ever was.

He's a lock because he was a big part of the Braves run of division wins. Over 200 wins, 150 saves, 3000 K's, led the league in wins a couple times, Cy winner, multiple All stars, 15-4, 2.67 ERA postseason, NLCS MVP, good with charity stuff (Clemente Award), good with the media. He's not Seaver, but he's still a lock HOF.

mahagga73
01-21-2013, 05:10 PM
After his 3rd or 4th year in the league, Smoltz was never near .500. He was nearly 50 games over by the time he was 32.

You have to take those numbers into context. Smoltz pitched in the steroid era, and his ERA+, which takes league numbers into context, was 125, 25 points above the average pitcher. Carlton pitched in a much more pitcher friendly time, and conversely his ERA+ was 117. Seaver's was 127. Koufax was 131. Bob Gibson was at 127. The two guys you compare in your other thread, Tommy John and Bert Blyleven, were at 111 and 118. Clemens and Martinez aren't even in the discussion, they were a tier above all the rest. At that point we're talking top 10 pitchers all time, and that's irrelevant to the conversation.

I'm far from a total stathead, but I think that's really important. The difference you perceive other who belongs in the Hall and who doesn't is clearly influenced by the fact that putting up 25 wins and a 2.50 ERA was seen much more often in the great pitchers of the 60s and 70s than in the 90s and 2000s.
Wrong, he was an awesome 3 games above .500 after 6 years with consistent high 3 ERA's.

mahagga73
01-21-2013, 05:12 PM
He's a lock because he was a big part of the Braves run of division wins. Over 200 wins, 150 saves, 3000 K's, led the league in wins a couple times, Cy winner, multiple All stars, 15-4, 2.67 ERA postseason, NLCS MVP, good with charity stuff (Clemente Award), good with the media. He's not Seaver, but he's still a lock HOF.
maybe, but then Schilling should be too. And I think it's going to take him awhile or even the veterans vote.

chicagowhitesox1
01-21-2013, 06:12 PM
He''ll make it but I don't know about first ballot only because the ballots are so clogged up now and will be for quite awhile.

I would say he's very deserving, I also would say he had a much better career than Eckersley. His era might have been a little high a times but the league quality was alot better when he pitched. He ended up with a career 125 era+ which is very good.

Kevin Brown probably won't get in anytime soon because of his steroid use but he actually has a very good case if you looked past the roids. David Cone and Dave Stieb are other guys who have pretty good cases. They remind me of a Billy Pierce career. Stieb was arguably the best pitcher of the 80's and Cone had some nice peak years but they never won 300 games so they more than likely will never get in.

mahagga73
01-21-2013, 06:40 PM
He''ll make it but I don't know about first ballot only because the ballots are so clogged up now and will be for quite awhile.

I would say he's very deserving, I also would say he had a much better career than Eckersley. His era might have been a little high a times but the league quality was alot better when he pitched. He ended up with a career 125 era+ which is very good.

Kevin Brown probably won't get in anytime soon because of his steroid use but he actually has a very good case if you looked past the roids. David Cone and Dave Stieb are other guys who have pretty good cases. They remind me of a Billy Pierce career. Stieb was arguably the best pitcher of the 80's and Cone had some nice peak years but they never won 300 games so they more than likely will never get in.
Eckersley clearly had a better career in my opinion, hands down, so we disagree on that. Eck was an all time great closer and a very good starter. Smoltz was a really good closer and a very good starter. Eck was great at one and Smoltz was great at neither. Like I said before when I saw Eck close I always thought this guy has to be one of the best ever and the numbers bear it out. Never once did I ever think that about Smoltz. Eck is clearly above him in my opinion, he had longer peak years of excellence. Curious as to why you think Smoltz is above Eck, I mean I would like to hear the reasoning, maybe there was something I missed. 194-126, 3.46 career ERA, 7-2 postseason play, all in the steroid era . David Cone's numbers are also comparable to Smoltz, though you will never hear him being trumpeted for the Hall. I know I sound like a hater but the reality is if you let Smoltz in there are dozens of pitchers , very comparable, who could also lay a legitimate claim . And Billy Pierce is one of them, along with Brown, John, on and on and on.

DSpivack
01-21-2013, 07:04 PM
Eckersley clearly had a better career in my opinion, hands down, so we disagree on that. Eck was an all time great closer and a very good starter. Smoltz was a really good closer and a very good starter. Eck was great at one and Smoltz was great at neither. Like I said before when I saw Eck close I always thought this guy has to be one of the best ever and the numbers bear it out. Never once did I ever think that about Smoltz. Eck is clearly above him in my opinion, he had longer peak years of excellence. Curious as to why you think Smoltz is above Eck, I mean I would like to hear the reasoning, maybe there was something I missed. 194-126, 3.46 career ERA, 7-2 postseason play, all in the steroid era . David Cone's numbers are also comparable to Smoltz, though you will never hear him being trumpeted for the Hall. I know I sound like a hater but the reality is if you let Smoltz in there are dozens of pitchers , very comparable, who could also lay a legitimate claim . And Billy Pierce is one of them, along with Brown, John, on and on and on.

Eck was a mediocre starter, Smoltz was a very good one. And starters are worth a lot more than relievers.

chicagowhitesox1
01-21-2013, 07:10 PM
Eckersley clearly had a better career in my opinion, hands down, so we disagree on that. Eck was an all time great closer and a very good starter. Smoltz was a really good closer and a very good starter. Eck was great at one and Smoltz was great at neither. Like I said before when I saw Eck close I always thought this guy has to be one of the best ever and the numbers bear it out. Never once did I ever think that about Smoltz. Eck is clearly above him in my opinion, he had longer peak years of excellence. Curious as to why you think Smoltz is above Eck, I mean I would like to hear the reasoning, maybe there was something I missed. 194-126, 3.46 career ERA, 7-2 postseason play, all in the steroid era . David Cone's numbers are also comparable to Smoltz, though you will never hear him being trumpeted for the Hall. I know I sound like a hater but the reality is if you let Smoltz in there are dozens of pitchers , very comparable, who could also lay a legitimate claim . And Billy Pierce is one of them, along with Brown, John, on and on and on.

John smoltz in 21 seasons compiled a 62.8 career war, Dennis Eckersley in 24 seasons compiled a 58.6 career war. Now i'll admit thats pretty even but what closes the deal for me is Smoltz was a much better starting pitcher and Smoltz could have had a career as a closer equal to Eckersley but he decided to be a starter again something Eckersley would never have been able to do. Eckersley gets alot of accolades for coverting from starter to reliever and being succesful as a reliever but he was actually somewhat overrated as a closer. He had some outsatnding years with Oakland. I would give him 3 great years as a closer and the rest were pretty average and borderline below average. He gets alot of credit for racking up a bunch of saves which is one of the most overrated stats in baseball.

Smoltz had a career era+ of 125 while Eckersley was 111. Thats not even close and that should tell you right there Smoltz was better. I will give Eckersley credit for having the most dominating season ever for a closer (1990) but one or two seasons aren't enough in my opinion to be considered better than Smoltz.

CoopaLoop
01-21-2013, 07:13 PM
Why a lock ? If barely above .500 most years, 3rd pitcher on his team, and a few good closing years are the standard heck yea lock. He was great in the postseason, much better than his teammates, which is weird, because Glavine and Maddux were both better pitchers than him normally. I'm not sure what to make of that .But it is a plus. I'm just struggling , looking at the numbers, and seeing a very good career, how so many are saying LOCK, LOCK, LOCK, oh yea, he's a LOCK . Tom Seaver is a lock, way better than Smoltz ever was.

So Glavine and Maddux being better than him means he cannot be in the Hall of Fame?


http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/smoltjo01.shtml#1988-1999-sum:pitching_standard

Not exactly a barely above .500 pitcher there.

mahagga73
01-21-2013, 08:34 PM
So Glavine and Maddux being better than him means he cannot be in the Hall of Fame?


http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/smoltjo01.shtml#1988-1999-sum:pitching_standard

Not exactly a barely above .500 pitcher there.
He was 3 games over .500 after 6 full seasons , that's pretty .500 to me.

mahagga73
01-21-2013, 08:36 PM
John smoltz in 21 seasons compiled a 62.8 career war, Dennis Eckersley in 24 seasons compiled a 58.6 career war. Now i'll admit thats pretty even but what closes the deal for me is Smoltz was a much better starting pitcher and Smoltz could have had a career as a closer equal to Eckersley but he decided to be a starter again something Eckersley would never have been able to do. Eckersley gets alot of accolades for coverting from starter to reliever and being succesful as a reliever but he was actually somewhat overrated as a closer. He had some outsatnding years with Oakland. I would give him 3 great years as a closer and the rest were pretty average and borderline below average. He gets alot of credit for racking up a bunch of saves which is one of the most overrated stats in baseball.

Smoltz had a career era+ of 125 while Eckersley was 111. Thats not even close and that should tell you right there Smoltz was better. I will give Eckersley credit for having the most dominating season ever for a closer (1990) but one or two seasons aren't enough in my opinion to be considered better than Smoltz.
My point is this, Eck was a hall of fame closer period. Smoltz was neither a hall of fame starter or reliever with his 3 seasons of closing. Since when should you get in not being great at either.

mahagga73
01-21-2013, 08:37 PM
John smoltz in 21 seasons compiled a 62.8 career war, Dennis Eckersley in 24 seasons compiled a 58.6 career war. Now i'll admit thats pretty even but what closes the deal for me is Smoltz was a much better starting pitcher and Smoltz could have had a career as a closer equal to Eckersley but he decided to be a starter again something Eckersley would never have been able to do. Eckersley gets alot of accolades for coverting from starter to reliever and being succesful as a reliever but he was actually somewhat overrated as a closer. He had some outsatnding years with Oakland. I would give him 3 great years as a closer and the rest were pretty average and borderline below average. He gets alot of credit for racking up a bunch of saves which is one of the most overrated stats in baseball.

Smoltz had a career era+ of 125 while Eckersley was 111. Thats not even close and that should tell you right there Smoltz was better. I will give Eckersley credit for having the most dominating season ever for a closer (1990) but one or two seasons aren't enough in my opinion to be considered better than Smoltz.
but "could have" don't count.

mahagga73
01-21-2013, 08:38 PM
Eck was a mediocre starter, Smoltz was a very good one. And starters are worth a lot more than relievers.
Eck was a good starter.

doublem23
01-21-2013, 08:40 PM
He was 3 games over .500 after 6 full seasons , that's pretty .500 to me.

Probably nobody is a Hall Of Famer if you conveniently cherry pick out 67% of their career.

doublem23
01-21-2013, 08:43 PM
My point is this, Eck was a hall of fame closer period. Smoltz was neither a hall of fame starter or reliever with his 3 seasons of closing. Since when should you get in not being great at either.

Smoltz is absolutely a HOF starter, the fact that he was a dominant closer when his team needed him is only the cherry on top. He is without a doubt a 1st ballot HOF pitcher. I'm sorry that he ran over your dog or whatever.

mahagga73
01-21-2013, 08:44 PM
Probably nobody is a Hall Of Famer if you conveniently cherry pick out 67% of their career.
I'm just making the point that this guy wasn't all that for a long time in his career. I watched baseball back then and never once did I say boy that Smoltz is on track for Cooperstown. He did turn it up a notch after several years and was a very good closer , but it just isn't enough to me to be very good at 2 things and have that make you a baseball immortal. Not buying it . If you look at the records of the teams he was on, he probably should have more wins than 215 or so, and like I said be barely above .500 after 7 seasons. I don't care how many batters he struck out. So did Schilling . Nolan Ryan had the excuse of being on some mediocre teams for his career record at least.

mahagga73
01-21-2013, 08:48 PM
Smoltz is absolutely a HOF starter, the fact that he was a dominant closer when his team needed him is only the cherry on top. He is without a doubt a 1st ballot HOF pitcher. I'm sorry that he ran over your dog or whatever.
Sorry, no he's not. He is not HOF material, if my opinion is different than yours , well..

mahagga73
01-21-2013, 08:53 PM
Smoltz is absolutely a HOF starter, the fact that he was a dominant closer when his team needed him is only the cherry on top. He is without a doubt a 1st ballot HOF pitcher. I'm sorry that he ran over your dog or whatever.
Did you even read my posts about Schilling, you know the ones where I lay out the fact he was just plain as good if not better. Bet you wouldn't vote Schilling in first ballot would you? Smoltz is not first ballot by a longshot. The fact some are getting irritable tells me you might have bought into the hype without doing any research.

Tragg
01-21-2013, 08:58 PM
I think Smolz was a far-better pitcher than Glavine.

mahagga73
01-21-2013, 09:00 PM
I think Smolz was a far-better pitcher than Glavine.
Glavine had just as good an ERA and a better won lost than Smoltz when they were teammates, so I wouldn't say that. Maybe they were much closer than a lot of people think. Glavine was 100 games over .500, that's real real good.

chicagowhitesox1
01-21-2013, 09:09 PM
I think Smolz was a far-better pitcher than Glavine.

I think alot of people would agree with this. I was gonna say it but I didn't wanna get my head ripped off. I can see the arguments for both sides though.

mahagga73
01-21-2013, 09:13 PM
I think alot of people would agree with this. I was gonna say it but I didn't wanna get my head ripped off. I can see the arguments for both sides though.
Glavine has a much better won loss and about the same ERA . What was it that made you think that? This is a discussion, just curious.

tstrike2000
01-21-2013, 09:22 PM
I think he gets in as well. Other than burning himself because he ironed his shirt while wearing it, Smoltz has done a lot of good things on and off the field.

chicagowhitesox1
01-21-2013, 09:51 PM
Glavine has a much better won loss and about the same ERA . What was it that made you think that? This is a discussion, just curious.

The career stats are deff in Glavines favor but in the playoffs Glavine was pretty medicore while Smoltz has a argument as being the best post season pitcher of all time. I think Smoltz was 15-4 in the playoffs and Glavine was like 11-14. Smoltz had a higher era+ and he usually went up against other teams aces while Glavine faced other teams third or fourth starters. In a big game I'm taking Smoltz. I guess looking at it carerwise i'm taking Glavine.

pythons007
01-22-2013, 10:17 AM
I'm still not understanding the comparison to Smoltz and Eckersley. Eckersley as a starter (13 seasons) had one 20 game win season and one additional of 15 or more. Smoltz had one 24 game win season five 15 or more (14 seasons). He was 58 games over .500

If you cherry pick Eck's best years as a closer 51 48 45 for 144 saves. Smoltz as a closer for the 3 consecutive years had 55 45 44 for 144 saves. Someone already stated that in 3 consecutive years only 2 other closers have done this. To call him a good closer is insane. He was THE best closer when he was closing.

Smoltz made the All-Star team 8 times 1 CY Young as a starter
Eckersley made the All-Star team 6 times 1 CY Young/MVP both as a reliever. I can't express how much it pisses me off that a RP wins a MVP let alone a CY Young.

Tragg
01-22-2013, 12:19 PM
I think alot of people would agree with this. I was gonna say it but I didn't wanna get my head ripped off. I can see the arguments for both sides though.
Well, I get mine ripped off all the time...you become immune.
Numbers don't show the 6 inches outside of the plate that Glavine consistently got from the umps.

Mr. Jinx
01-22-2013, 12:51 PM
I think he will eventually make it, but it wouldn't surprise me if he waits a ballot or two. Over 90% is a overly optimistic in my opinion as only 6 other pitchers have ever made it with that level of support.

doublem23
01-22-2013, 01:08 PM
I think he will eventually make it, but it wouldn't surprise me if he waits a ballot or two. Over 90% is a overly optimistic in my opinion as only 6 other pitchers have ever made it with that level of support.

Maybe you're right, but I think Smoltz is a lock for the 1st ballot. If the best you can do to argue against him is bring up numbers you've obviously not been paying attention to how backward thinking the BBWAA when it comes to stats.

Boondock Saint
01-22-2013, 01:29 PM
Maybe you're right, but I think Smoltz is a lock for the 1st ballot. If the best you can do to argue against him is bring up numbers you've obviously not been paying attention to how backward thinking the BBWAA when it comes to stats.

I think the numbers aren't as important as the fact that he was one of the faces of the most dominant rotation of the generation, and one of the greatest all-time.

mahagga73
01-22-2013, 01:32 PM
I think the numbers aren't as important as the fact that he was one of the faces of the most dominant rotation of the generation, and one of the greatest all-time.
that won 1 stinkin world Series . They sucked, except for Smoltz, when it counted. Even ESPN made a show with a litany of excuses for the Braves. Blamed the relievers for it .They had Jeff Reardon, who was a pretty good pitcher , and ESPN blamed him. Wohlers was pretty good also. You got 3 starters like that and win 1 series, that's a damn shame.

mahagga73
01-22-2013, 01:34 PM
Well, I get mine ripped off all the time...you become immune.
Numbers don't show the 6 inches outside of the plate that Glavine consistently got from the umps.
Maddux too.

mahagga73
01-22-2013, 01:36 PM
I'm still not understanding the comparison to Smoltz and Eckersley. Eckersley as a starter (13 seasons) had one 20 game win season and one additional of 15 or more. Smoltz had one 24 game win season five 15 or more (14 seasons). He was 58 games over .500

If you cherry pick Eck's best years as a closer 51 48 45 for 144 saves. Smoltz as a closer for the 3 consecutive years had 55 45 44 for 144 saves. Someone already stated that in 3 consecutive years only 2 other closers have done this. To call him a good closer is insane. He was THE best closer when he was closing.

Smoltz made the All-Star team 8 times 1 CY Young as a starter
Eckersley made the All-Star team 6 times 1 CY Young/MVP both as a reliever. I can't express how much it pisses me off that a RP wins a MVP let alone a CY Young.
Eck had an ERA under 1 though, he was the GOAT in my opinion for a few years there, even including Mariano, who is the best overall careerwise.

mahagga73
01-22-2013, 01:39 PM
The career stats are deff in Glavines favor but in the playoffs Glavine was pretty medicore while Smoltz has a argument as being the best post season pitcher of all time. I think Smoltz was 15-4 in the playoffs and Glavine was like 11-14. Smoltz had a higher era+ and he usually went up against other teams aces while Glavine faced other teams third or fourth starters. In a big game I'm taking Smoltz. I guess looking at it carerwise i'm taking Glavine.
Smoltz went against the other teams 1 in the playoffs ? Is that how they set up their rotation in the playoffs? I'm just asking because I don't remember that far back . That's pretty amazing there could be such a disparity between the regular season performances and the postseason performances of the 3 pitchers.

doublem23
01-22-2013, 01:45 PM
that won 1 stinkin world Series . They sucked, except for Smoltz, when it counted. Even ESPN made a show with a litany of excuses for the Braves. Blamed the relievers for it .They had Jeff Reardon, who was a pretty good pitcher , and ESPN blamed him. You got 3 starters like that and win 1 series, that's a damn shame.

I think personally you're overrating the 1 World Series win and underrating the 14-year run atop the NL East.

Boondock Saint
01-22-2013, 03:17 PM
that won 1 stinkin world Series . They sucked, except for Smoltz, when it counted. Even ESPN made a show with a litany of excuses for the Braves. Blamed the relievers for it .They had Jeff Reardon, who was a pretty good pitcher , and ESPN blamed him. Wohlers was pretty good also. You got 3 starters like that and win 1 series, that's a damn shame.

So do you want to discredit Griffey, Bonds, Ted Williams, Ichiro, Mattingly, Fisk, Gwynn and any other number of hall of famers who never won any? It's remarkably hard to win just one title, let alone several. To lay the blame at the feet of an individual for a lack of team success (which the Braves didn't even have) is flawed. He won the series once, pitched in the series five times, and pitched in the NLCS nine times, with fantastic postseason numbers. There's only so much you can lay at a guy's feet before you're just reaching.

chicagowhitesox1
01-22-2013, 04:18 PM
Smoltz went against the other teams 1 in the playoffs ? Is that how they set up their rotation in the playoffs? I'm just asking because I don't remember that far back . That's pretty amazing there could be such a disparity between the regular season performances and the postseason performances of the 3 pitchers.

I meant during the regular season, Bobby Cox usually pitched Maddux and Smoltz in the big games and Glavine usually went up against other teams 3rd or 4th starter. Not that it mattered to much because he still had to face the same hitters Maddux and Smoltz did but facing a number 4 starter makes it a little easier to win when your not facing the other teams ace. There were times where Glavine pitched against other teams aces but not like Maddux and Smoltz.

mahagga73
01-22-2013, 04:20 PM
So do you want to discredit Griffey, Bonds, Ted Williams, Ichiro, Mattingly, Fisk, Gwynn and any other number of hall of famers who never won any? It's remarkably hard to win just one title, let alone several. To lay the blame at the feet of an individual for a lack of team success (which the Braves didn't even have) is flawed. He won the series once, pitched in the series five times, and pitched in the NLCS nine times, with fantastic postseason numbers. There's only so much you can lay at a guy's feet before you're just reaching.
I was more indicting the others than Smoltz . He did his part, although I am still not convinced he's a solid HOfer, though it is apparent I'm in the minority there and he will get elected from what I've read. I'm just thinking they may not have been all that great as a staff like people seem to believe if they only have one ring to show for it. Matt Cain and Tim Lincecum are already more successful in that department . I believe pitching talks and you know what walks in the postseason. They had 3 guys who were very very good to great , should have won it more than once. That 10 reasons why (the Braves won one stinkin series)thing on the Braves on ESPN was nonsense blaming everyone but the big 3, who besides Smoltz sucked. Yes of course a great player can not win it no matter how great he is if the rest the team isn't good enough. But the Braves, with 3 #1 starters, have no such excuse , they had a lot of good players around them. Bonds is a bad example to bring up because his complete failure to hit anything in the playoffs with the Pirates was a HUGE reason they didn't make it to the World Series even though they had the best team in the NL for a few year period.. It wasn't till he got to SF he had that one monster-roided postseason.

doublem23
01-22-2013, 04:34 PM
I was more indicting the others than Smoltz . He did his part, although I am still not convinced he's a solid HOfer, though it is apparent I'm in the minority there and he will get elected from what I've read. I'm just thinking they may not have been all that great as a staff like people seem to believe if they only have one ring to show for it. Matt Cain and Tim Lincecum are already more successful in that department . I believe pitching talks and you know what walks in the postseason. They had 3 guys who were very very good to great , should have won it more than once. That 10 reasons why (the Braves won one stinkin series)thing on the Braves on ESPN was nonsense blaming everyone but the big 3, who besides Smoltz sucked. Yes of course a great player can not win it no matter how great he is if the rest the team isn't good enough. But the Braves, with 3 #1 starters, have no such excuse , they had a lot of good players around them.

I think that speaks more to the volatility of the baseball playoffs than anything else. It'd be one thing if the people talked up the Maddux/Glavine/Smoltz Braves as one of the greatest rotations ever and then they consistently finished 2nd in the division and out of the playoffs, but they had a 14-season run as division champs. That's unprecedented and, frankly, probably more indicative of actual talent. Real teams win out over 162 games, anyone can win a short series.

Oh, and Tim Lincecum sucked this year and was basically out of the Giants rotation by the time the playoffs came around. He started 1 game for San Francisco this postseason and was promptly shelled.

mahagga73
01-22-2013, 04:37 PM
I think that speaks more to the volatility of the baseball playoffs than anything else. It'd be one thing if the people talked up the Maddux/Glavine/Smoltz Braves as one of the greatest rotations ever and then they consistently finished 2nd in the division and out of the playoffs, but they had a 14-season run as division champs. That's unprecedented and, frankly, probably more indicative of actual talent. Real teams win out over 162 games, anyone can win a short series.

Oh, and Tim Lincecum sucked this year and was basically out of the Giants rotation by the time the playoffs came around. He started 1 game for San Francisco this postseason and was promptly shelled.
Is he done, mental now or what, Lincecum. People are saying he might do a Smoltz and go into the pen as a closer or something. I see your point, but outside of hockey there are no prizes for being the best team that fails to win the title . Rarely does the Presidents Trophy winner win the actual Stanley Cup. Lincecum pitched well out of the pen in the playoffs so he earned his ring I think.

chicagowhitesox1
01-22-2013, 05:53 PM
Is he done, mental now or what, Lincecum. People are saying he might do a Smoltz and go into the pen as a closer or something. I see your point, but outside of hockey there are no prizes for being the best team that fails to win the title . Rarely does the Presidents Trophy winner win the actual Stanley Cup. Lincecum pitched well out of the pen in the playoffs so he earned his ring I think.

I think he earned his ring too, I would find it hard to believe he would be the Giants closer ever though. Although you never know how Brian Wilson will come back and Sergio Casilla is probably better suited for a setup role even though he did a good job last year as a closer.

DSpivack
01-22-2013, 06:05 PM
I think he earned his ring too, I would find it hard to believe he would be the Giants closer ever though. Although you never know how Brian Wilson will come back and Sergio Casilla is probably better suited for a setup role even though he did a good job last year as a closer.
Wilson is a free agent and likely won't return to San Francisco.

http://www.mercurynews.com/giants/ci_22411224/san-francisco-giants-brian-wilson-likely-wont-return

chicagowhitesox1
01-22-2013, 06:27 PM
Wilson is a free agent and likely won't return to San Francisco.

http://www.mercurynews.com/giants/ci_22411224/san-francisco-giants-brian-wilson-likely-wont-return

I didn't know that, I suppose Lincecum has a decent chance at closing. I don't think I would want him as a closer but I really have no clue on his health either.

mahagga73
01-22-2013, 06:52 PM
I think he earned his ring too, I would find it hard to believe he would be the Giants closer ever though. Although you never know how Brian Wilson will come back and Sergio Casilla is probably better suited for a setup role even though he did a good job last year as a closer.
Wilson is pretty much out from what I've read, they don't feel like they need him or want to pay what he's going to want maybe. Or Maybe Wilson wants a bigger contract. Somebody already beat me too it. ^^

mahagga73
01-22-2013, 06:56 PM
I didn't know that, I suppose Lincecum has a decent chance at closing. I don't think I would want him as a closer but I really have no clue on his health either.
Lot's of concern that motion is going to make it a short career. That's the most likely reason he may get moved to closer, keep his career going longer. That windup and release is violent and looks like it is extremely stressful on the arm.