Smoltz elected to Cooperstown along with Pedro, Unit, and Biggio.

Knucksie said:
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.)
Click to expand...

Jack Morris shouldn't be inducted. He shouldn't have been on the ballot as long as he was, pick on 2013, he was worse than Kenny Lofton, David Wells, and Bernie Williams, but they were ousted on their first or second ballot. 2011 had Kevin Brown and John Olerud voted out who were better players on thier first ballot. Jack Morris has no business being in the HOF discussion.

And I agree with you about the 3000 K club, assuming Smoltz and RJ get in, only Schilling and Clemens won't be in. Both of them should be in as well. **** the steroid witch hunt.
 
zitothebrave said:
Jack Morris shouldn't be inducted. He shouldn't have been on the ballot as long as he was, pick on 2013, he was worse than Kenny Lofton, David Wells, and Bernie Williams, but they were ousted on their first or second ballot. 2011 had Kevin Brown and John Olerud voted out who were better players on thier first ballot. Jack Morris has no business being in the HOF discussion.

And I agree with you about the 3000 K club, assuming Smoltz and RJ get in, only Schilling and Clemens won't be in. Both of them should be in as well. **** the steroid witch hunt.
Click to expand...

It wasn't my point to discuss Jack Morris's candidacy. Since you brought it up, though, obviously a large enough chunk of voters considered it valid enough to keep him close enough for consideration. You must've went over to Fangraphs to scope up his WAR. Posturing is one thing on a message board, but if it came to explain the intricacies, you probably couldn't do it without assistance. Mentioning position players doesn't even enter into the discussion. Nevertheless, there were factors in Jack Morris's favor, despite the relatively high ERA. (If asked, Smoltzie, himself, would probably regard Morris as a HOFer, not least of all with him being his hero.)

The man came up huge in WS for the Tigers, Twins and Blue Jays. Think he had a no-hitter (yeah, it's only one game, but voters pay attention to such things and they "enhance" credentials). A basic question voters would ask themselves is "was Jack Morris among the best pitchers of the 80's?" Those who are old enough, would have to concede that was one of the top pitchers.
 
thewupk said:
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.
Click to expand...

There are a several examples of top end starters that had to transition to closer due to injuries. And barely any have come close to the level that Smoltz was at closer. And, he made the transition back to the rotation as a top end starter. This is, yet again, an example of diminishing Smoltz' accomplishment. An accomplishment that no one else has done.
 
zitothebrave said:
You really massively suck at reading comprehension huh?
Click to expand...

You said that award (referring to 96) pretty much means nothing.

If you truly believe that when talking about the merits of HOF voting, then you may as well leave this discussion. Major awards are supremely significant in HOF voting. Regardless if you think he "deserved" the award or not, is irrelevant. He still won the Cy Young and you can't take it away from him.
 
Carp said:
There are a several examples of top end starters that had to transition to closer due to injuries. And barely any have come close to the level that Smoltz was at closer. And, he made the transition back to the rotation as a top end starter. This is, yet again, an example of diminishing Smoltz' accomplishment. An accomplishment that no one else has done.
Click to expand...

Give me examples of HOF level starters trying to be a closer.
 
thewupk said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant. Nearly every award is a popularity contest. But those awards are significant in HOF voting.
 
Knucksie said:
It wasn't my point to discuss Jack Morris's candidacy. Since you brought it up, though, obviously a large enough chunk of voters considered it valid enough to keep him close enough for consideration. You must've went over to Fangraphs to scope up his WAR. Posturing is one thing on a message board, but if it came to explain the intricacies, you probably couldn't do it without assistance. Mentioning position players doesn't even enter into the discussion. Nevertheless, there were factors in Jack Morris's favor, despite the relatively high ERA. (If asked, Smoltzie, himself, would probably regard Morris as a HOFer, not least of all with him being his hero.)

The man came up huge in WS for the Tigers, Twins and Blue Jays. Think he had a no-hitter (yeah, it's only one game, but voters pay attention to such things and they "enhance" credentials). A basic question voters would ask themselves is "was Jack Morris among the best pitchers of the 80's?" Those who are old enough, would have to concede that was one of the top pitchers.
Click to expand...

What do you consider the 80s? From 1980-1989? He's probably one of 10 best because of his IP. But he's not top 5, that would be something like Ryan, Blyleven, Clemens, Carlton, and Stieb. Then you have arguable guys like Valenzuela, Saberhagen, Doc Gooden, etc.

If you look at his basic career 75-95 instead of just the 80s, He's then outclassed by Eckersley, and more arguable guys come in like Reuschel, Tanana, Maddux, Guidry, Viola.

As far as morris, he was in there because of his WS production for sure. But it's another example of selective memory. He Was strong then sucky. For example you cited the Blue Jays, his 4 starts that year, he only pitched 23 innings, and let up 19 ERs, getting the loss in 3 of his starts. How is that came up huge? He was huge for Detroit, he was big for Minnesota, but Schilling was huge in 2 of his WS victories as well. For sure the best PS for him was his DT WS run, 3 starts 25 innings, 5 ER 4 BB 17K, Schilling was just as dynamic (IMO much more since he had more starts) in 2001 for Arizona, 6 starts 48.1 IP, 6 ER 6BB 56K/ Schilling's worst PS was 2004 4 starts 22.2 IP 9 ER 13 K 5 BB
 
Carp said:
You said that award (referring to 96) pretty much means nothing.

If you truly believe that when talking about the merits of HOF voting, then you may as well leave this discussion. Major awards are supremely significant in HOF voting. Regardless if you think he "deserved" the award or not, is irrelevant. He still won the Cy Young and you can't take it away from him.
Click to expand...

THat's fine, it's just a dumb award. Shouldn't factor into the HOF voting. Brandon Webb a HOFer? Bret Saberhagen? Mark Davis? Doug Drabek? David Cone? Doug Drabek? Mark Davis? Barry Zito? Chris Carpenter? Steve Bedrosian?
 
Carp said:
I didn't say HOF starters. I said top end starters who have had to transition due to injury (which is what Smoltz did).
Click to expand...

Name them. It was a unique situation for Smoltz. Most starters that get hurt and come back who are still effective go back to starting. They get put in the bullpen because they just aren't as good anymore.
 
zitothebrave said:
What do you consider the 80s? From 1980-1989? He's probably one of 10 best because of his IP. But he's not top 5, that would be something like Ryan, Blyleven, Clemens, Carlton, and Stieb. Then you have arguable guys like Valenzuela, Saberhagen, Doc Gooden, etc.
Click to expand...

Carlton was already shot by mid-80's. Clemens did indeed make a name for himself with strikeouts, but he solidified his credentials in the 90's and beyond (pushing the "other factors" aside, I still think he & Bonds should be inducted).

IP is an important stat, as he was from that generation that finished what was started. It wasn't any of this 100 pitches/6 innings crap, which is the way now.

When you cite guys like Saberhagen, Gooden and Valenzuela, they all would have phenomenal years, but not sustainable through several years in their careers. That's what voters want to see.

zitothebrave said:
If you look at his basic career 75-95 instead of just the 80s, He's then outclassed by Eckersley, and more arguable guys come in like Reuschel, Tanana, Maddux, Guidry, Viola.
Click to expand...

Eckersley is in because of what he accomplished as a closer.

Not sure why Maddux's name is even brought into the conversation, as there wasn't much overlap. For all intents and purposes, they were different generations.

zitothebrave said:
As far as morris, he was in there because of his WS production for sure. But it's another example of selective memory. He Was strong then sucky. For example you cited the Blue Jays, his 4 starts that year, he only pitched 23 innings, and let up 19 ERs, getting the loss in 3 of his starts. How is that came up huge? He was huge for Detroit, he was big for Minnesota, but Schilling was huge in 2 of his WS victories as well. For sure the best PS for him was his DT WS run, 3 starts 25 innings, 5 ER 4 BB 17K, Schilling was just as dynamic (IMO much more since he had more starts) in 2001 for Arizona, 6 starts 48.1 IP, 6 ER 6BB 56K/ Schilling's worst PS was 2004 4 starts 22.2 IP 9 ER 13 K 5 BB
Click to expand...

I was attempting to go from memory. Anybody can conduct a search from Baseball Reference, and pretend like it was on the tip of the tongue.

Would've been nice to see Jim Kaat and Tony Oliva get in by the Veteran's Committee. The best way to really consider whether a player/pitcher is HOF-worthy is by benchmarking against those who are currently inducted. You probably could find some pitchers there who might not stack up as well in certain categories.

Anyway, it's not something that that really elicits a strong reaction from me. You really have to experience the place for yourself and feel the history. Remember that only 200 or so total players from history are members. So, it is a very select fraternity by any standard.

We can discuss over that single malt before dinner in Cooperstown for Smoltzie's induction.
 
zitothebrave said:
So? Smoltz won in 96 when Kevin Brown was clearly a better pitcher, that award means pretty much nothing.
Click to expand...

That's not true. The rWAR difference was 7.3 (Smoltz) vs. 8 (Brown). That's within the margin of error; they were basically equally valuable there.

If you prefer fWAR (which I don't), Smoltz has a definite edge (8.2 vs. 6.6). Brown's season looks superficially better because of park factors. Remember 1996 was the last year for the Braves at the Launching Pad, while Brown was pitching in that spacious converted football field.

Smoltz's Cy Young was completely legit.
 
zitothebrave said:
THat's fine, it's just a dumb award. Shouldn't factor into the HOF voting. Brandon Webb a HOFer? Bret Saberhagen? Mark Davis? Doug Drabek? David Cone? Doug Drabek? Mark Davis? Barry Zito? Chris Carpenter? Steve Bedrosian?
Click to expand...

This is dumb. No one would argue it should be the only factor. But claiming that a pitcher being perceived as the best pitcher in the league should be irrelevant? Come now. Cy Young awards speak the peak portion of a hall of fame case, though obviously they are just one component. But pitchers also need to be judged on their total career value.

Brandon Webb, to use your example, certainly had a HOF peak. If he had stayed healthy for a full career, he might have looked like Roy Halladay. But he got hurt and doesn't even qualify for the 10 year minimum to be considered. So he fails on that criteria. Smoltz on the other hand had a HOF peak and a HOF career in terms of quantity. The CY speaks to the former and his WAR totals speak to the latter.
 
Which reminds me, why didn't JS pull the trigger on Schilling in 2000? We ended up getting scraps with Ashby.
 
Metaphysicist said:
That's not true. The rWAR difference was 7.3 (Smoltz) vs. 8 (Brown). That's within the margin of error; they were basically equally valuable there.

If you prefer fWAR (which I don't), Smoltz has a definite edge (8.2 vs. 6.6). Brown's season looks superficially better because of park factors. Remember 1996 was the last year for the Braves at the Launching Pad, while Brown was pitching in that spacious converted football field.

Smoltz's Cy Young was completely legit.
Click to expand...

215 ERA+ vs 149. And nearly a full win better isn't within the margin of error. Smoltz's lone advantage was about 20 more IP. He won the award cause he won 24 Brown won 17. We both know how pointless wins are, but fact was that was one of the biggest considerations in the day.

Metaphysicist said:
This is dumb. No one would argue it should be the only factor. But claiming that a pitcher being perceived as the best pitcher in the league should be irrelevant? Come now. Cy Young awards speak the peak portion of a hall of fame case, though obviously they are just one component. But pitchers also need to be judged on their total career value.

Brandon Webb, to use your example, certainly had a HOF peak. If he had stayed healthy for a full career, he might have looked like Roy Halladay. But he got hurt and doesn't even qualify for the 10 year minimum to be considered. So he fails on that criteria. Smoltz on the other hand had a HOF peak and a HOF career in terms of quantity. The CY speaks to the former and his WAR totals speak to the latter.
Click to expand...

Cy Young isn't the only indicator of a peak. Many guys have had dominant peaks and never won a Cy Young. Cy Young is largely a popularity contest. I'll admit the results have been getting better in the internet age, but still, look at 98 when Glavine won. Glavine wasn't the best pitcher on our team, much less in the league. Brown had virtually the same ERA+ with 20 more innings. But the silliest thing is SMoltz pitched 167 very good but not amazing innings (2.90 ERA) and got as many points as Maddux who pitched 251 innings of 2.22 ERA ball. And Schilling didn't find his way on the ballot despite leading the IP, CG, and Ks, even if his ERA was pedestrian, he certainly had more qualifications than Smoltz, and was arguably every bit as good as the winner Glavine.

It's a popularity contest, sure it looks good for the Voters, because they're the same people who voted for the Cy Young award winners (well maybe not exactly the same people but you know what I mean) It's a pointless award when it comes to judging someone's career.

Webb's peak wasn't that great, 150ish ERA+ for 2 years. Sure if he could have lasted at that level for a decade you'd have a point, but ti's not like he was Lincecum or Kershaw. Smoltz belongs in the Hall of Fame, saying he won a Cy Young and that's why he is better than Schilling is just wrong. And probably the dumb shid BBWAA the believes in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top