John Smoltz HOF chances

[mahagga73]

Originally Posted by mzh

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]

Originally Posted by sox1970

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]

Originally Posted by doublem23

No doubt 1st ballot 90%+ vote HOF. I can't believe anyone thinks any less.

Agreed. He was phenomenal.

[mahagga73]

Originally Posted by Boondock Saint

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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by mzh

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]

Don't forget his postseason numbers. 15-4 with a 2.67 ERA.

[mahagga73]

Originally Posted by Huisj

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]

Originally Posted by mahagga73

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]

Originally Posted by mzh

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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by mzh

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]

Originally Posted by sox1970

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]

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]

Originally Posted by chicagowhitesox1

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.