Smoltz also has that Cy Young award. None for Schill or Moose.
Smoltz elected to Cooperstown along with Pedro, Unit, and Biggio.
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
Schilling was better in the playoffs. Only thing Smoltz has is more appearances. Hardly a way to judge a player since you can't control how many times you go. He was also better in the regular season. How different would Schilling be if he had a cy young which he should have gotten? Both are HOFers imo. Schilling is more deserving though.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Shilling had 19 PS starts and in only 3 did he allow 3 or more ER 1 5 2 6s. But thats pointless because we have the stats that say Schilling had a lower ERA.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
So? Smoltz won in 96 when Kevin Brown was clearly a better pitcher, that award means pretty much nothing. It's cool when someone on your team wins it but it often will go to not the most deserving pitcher. Glavine had no business winning it in98 either. We were lucky we were a great and popular team.
If you want to throw out awards there as well, Schilling was a world series MVP, something Smoltz wasn't.
Schilling was slightly better on a per start basis sure, but with far less innings pitched. Smoltz doing it over a far greater number if innings is much more impressive.
Much like 2014. Would you say Tulo was better than Cutchy (offensively only)? Of course not. Sure on a per at bat basis Tulo was better, but it's way more impressive what Cutchy did over a larger amount of at bats.
With 70 less innings pitched. Highly unlikely Schilling maintains that pace over another 70+ innings.
So a Cy Young means nothing when voting for HOF, but somehow a WS MVP does?
LMAO!
DirkPiggler
Well-known member
It's amazing when you compare the two just how similar their resumes really are. Both had 13 productive full seasons as a starter (using 24 starts as a minimum for a full year). Both were beasts in the postseason. The difference is that Smoltz's seasons where he wasn't a productive starter were almost exclusively the seasons where he was a badass closer - the only bad years he had starting were his first and last, although '94 was pretty average. Schilling had some time in the bullpen as well, and wasn't nearly as effective as Smoltz. Schilling also missed a lot more time due to injury.
Some have argued that any front line starter could have moved to closer and put up Smoltz-like numbers. I think that's a stretch, mainly because if it was so easy more pitchers would have done it. It's not the exact same skill set. Some guys are just better going max effort for fewer innings than having to manage their effort levels for a full game. Smoltz also gets extra credit for making the transition to closer and then going back to being a dominant starter again, as opposed to someone like Eckersley who made the transition once and never went back. Doing something unique (or being the first to succeed at something) is valued by HOF voters, as it should be.
If I had a ballot I'd put them both on it, but Smoltz would have a slight edge.
Some have argued that any front line starter could have moved to closer and put up Smoltz-like numbers. I think that's a stretch, mainly because if it was so easy more pitchers would have done it. It's not the exact same skill set. Some guys are just better going max effort for fewer innings than having to manage their effort levels for a full game. Smoltz also gets extra credit for making the transition to closer and then going back to being a dominant starter again, as opposed to someone like Eckersley who made the transition once and never went back. Doing something unique (or being the first to succeed at something) is valued by HOF voters, as it should be.
If I had a ballot I'd put them both on it, but Smoltz would have a slight edge.
Both are impressive. I don't think Smoltz's extra innings makes him some more deserving candidate when you account for Schilling actually be better on a per innings basis. Also factoring in Schilling was better in the regular season as well. Both are deserving. One getting in on the first chance when one is still waiting is absurd. All this proves is that voters are biased. Smoltz is likely getting in due to his connection to the 90's Braves and the fact his rotation mates got voted in last year. Is that fair? Does that have anything to do with what Smoltz actually did on the field? If Smoltz had pitched for another team he wouldn't be getting voted in this year more than likely even though he would still be deserving. If Schilling was on the Braves all those years he would of been a first ballot guy. To me those things don't matter. But it does to the HOF voters and that's why the HOF is pretty much a joke. Old guys who some have admitted not to even watch baseball anymore. To me on field performance is the only thing that matters (with taking into consideration steroids, etc) and to some voters it's one of the least things looked at. Just take a look at Jack Morris almost getting after years of barely being on the ballot. Things like that and what happened to Rice are just dumb.
Tapate50
Well-known member
Wierd post
CyYoung31
Shift Leader
Schilling isn't more deserving. If anything, they are equally deserving.
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
Once again, Smoltz was a dominant starter and then an elite closer. Case closed.
I think they're equally deserving.
I think they're equally deserving.
I think Schilling was a better pitcher. With that said they are both equally deserving in the sense that both belong and a hall of famer is a hall of famer.
Smoltz also won a Cy Young. And he is 1 of 2 players have 150 W's and 150 saves. Lots of reasons why voters would choose him over Schilling than just "he was attached to Maddux/Glavine"
But I digress. I could get behind both are equally deserving. But I think voters do view his postseason performance better as a whole, along with the Cy Young award and the saves.
Braves1976
It's OVER 5,000!
All things considered, I'd argue that both Smoltz and Schilling were better than Glavine. So if Glavine is a first ball HOFer then so should be both Smoltz and Schilling IMO.
Maddux of course was the best of his generation. The very best of the best as even Smoltz and Glavine would tell ya.
Maddux of course was the best of his generation. The very best of the best as even Smoltz and Glavine would tell ya.
Cy Young is just another popularity contest like other season awards. They are nice but aren't always indicators of what they are supposed to be. And there are several top end starters (Schilling being one of them) that if given the chance would have 150 saves. Smoltz only did it because he got hurt and it was the fastest way for him to come back.
That is true. Glavine was really good but blessed to be on a Braves team that won him a **** ton of games. Without 300 wins he wouldn't of been in first ballot.
Voters were going to benchmark Smoltz vs. Eckersley more than Schilling. Eck was a good starter and elite closer. Smoltz was an ace starter (on staff with 3 of them) and elite closer. The difference is that Smoltz was able to return to be an excellent starter after being a closer, something Eck never attempted. Losing substantial time from surgeries showed his dedication during periods, which would've produced more excellent numbers. 3,000 K club doesn't have a lot of members. So, that's icing on the cake.
Kicking it up a notch in post season solidifies his candidacy. Many voters recognize '91 WS Game 7 as one of the best ever, and they know that Smoltz held his own. (Notice how Jack Morris was not inducted.)
Kicking it up a notch in post season solidifies his candidacy. Many voters recognize '91 WS Game 7 as one of the best ever, and they know that Smoltz held his own. (Notice how Jack Morris was not inducted.)
DirkPiggler
Well-known member
Schilling pitched out of the bullpen early in his career, including some time as a closer, and was nowhere near elite level.
Let's not act like Schilling was at the top of his game in his early 20's. If in the year 2000 Schilling was closing out games I have little doubt he would of been of the best in baseball.