John Smoltz HOF chances

[DSpivack]

Originally Posted by mahagga73

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]

Originally Posted by mahagga73

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]

Originally Posted by mahagga73

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/pl...ching_standard

Not exactly a barely above .500 pitcher there.

[mahagga73]

Originally Posted by CoopaLoop

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


http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...ching_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]

Originally Posted by chicagowhitesox1

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]

Originally Posted by chicagowhitesox1

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]

Originally Posted by DSpivack

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]

Originally Posted by mahagga73

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]

Originally Posted by mahagga73

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]

Originally Posted by doublem23

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]

Originally Posted by doublem23

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]

Originally Posted by doublem23

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]

I think Smolz was a far-better pitcher than Glavine.

[mahagga73]

Originally Posted by Tragg

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]

Originally Posted by Tragg

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.