View Single Post
  #24  
Old 01-21-2013, 03:57 PM
mzh mzh is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,987
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mahagga73 View Post
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.
__________________
Obligatory Attendance Record:
3-3
Reply With Quote