Smoltz says Mets pitchers 'way better' than 1990s-era Braves

Runnin said:
I'm not convinced they are as good yet. They'll have to get it done on the field for several years in a row to even deserve comparison.

Smoltz is just being humble on his stroll to the HOF.
Click to expand...

Yep. You'll see this from time to time. A great former player being humble and talking about how much better a current player is than they were. Maddux was perhaps the greatest pitcher of his generation. Glavine is only eclipsed by Randy Johnson among lefties of the era. And Smoltz's transition from dominant starter to dominant closer and back to dominant starter has never been done by anyone else.

Harvey is 26 and has pitched 349 innings. DeGrom is 27 and has just 251 IP. They each have one All Star appearance.

At 27, Glavine had 1,357 IP, three All Star appearances, and a Cy Young. Maddux had thrown 1,709 innings, had two All Star appearances, and two Cy Youngs. Smoltz had thrown 1,358 IP with three All Star appearances.

The Mets have a very, very talented staff. I wish we had one pitcher with the talent of any of Harvey, DeGrom, or Syndergaard right now. But they haven't pitched nearly enough to begin to mention them in the same breath as the Braves of the 90's. You could add all three of them together right now and throw in Wheeler and still not have 1,000 IP between them.
 
With all due respect to the Mets talented staff, I don't see how they add up to Maddux, Smoltz, Glavine.
 
thethe said:
Not until they do it first but Harvey and Degrom are just as dominant so far.
Click to expand...

Dominate as Greg Maddux during the 90's? He has to be a top 10 pitcher of all time. So you're saying Harvey and Degrom are pitching as well as one of the greatest pitchers to ever live did during his prime?
 
Smoltz is my favorite player ever. I think he's being humble here. This Mets group could very well grow up to be as good or better (there was a time early in his career that people would have said no way in Hell Smoltz will be a Hall of Famer), but they don't have the 800-plus wins, seven Cy Young Awards and everything else between them.

Maddux in his prime is probably among the top 3-4 pitchers ever IMO. There's no one ever that's had the control and precision he did when he was at his best.
 
FreemanFan said:
I'll take our 90s staff, including a healthy Steve Avery, over the Mets' staff. Avery looked destined for greatness before he got hurt. Maddux's 1995 season was a top-10 all-time season and probably top 5. We were all spoiled watching him pitch. Likewise, Smoltzie and Glavine.
Click to expand...

Avery was total package. Of the 4 he could have easily been the best of the 4 including Maddux if not for injury. From 1991 to 1993 I would expect Avery to win every time out. Even against his own teammates if it were possible to match up.
 
Three Hall of Famers in that rotation. Avery could've gone down with them into the Hall if it wasn't for injury too.
 
striker42 said:
Yep. You'll see this from time to time. A great former player being humble and talking about how much better a current player is than they were. Maddux was perhaps the greatest pitcher of his generation. Glavine is only eclipsed by Randy Johnson among lefties of the era. And Smoltz's transition from dominant starter to dominant closer and back to dominant starter has never been done by anyone else.

Harvey is 26 and has pitched 349 innings. DeGrom is 27 and has just 251 IP. They each have one All Star appearance.

At 27, Glavine had 1,357 IP, three All Star appearances, and a Cy Young. Maddux had thrown 1,709 innings, had two All Star appearances, and two Cy Youngs. Smoltz had thrown 1,358 IP with three All Star appearances.

The Mets have a very, very talented staff. I wish we had one pitcher with the talent of any of Harvey, DeGrom, or Syndergaard right now. But they haven't pitched nearly enough to begin to mention them in the same breath as the Braves of the 90's. You could add all three of them together right now and throw in Wheeler and still not have 1,000 IP between them.
Click to expand...

It really is amazing how durable they were. I remember Maddux's first ever DL stint was right before opening day 2001. I remember Glavine too also had a consecutive years without being on DL stint as well. Smoltz was fairly durable. The fact he pitched and altered his delivery to try and keep playing was not only bad ass but it showed how much of a warrior and teammate he was and how much he wanted to win.
 
depley said:
There are not many rotations through out the history of the game that can compare with the Braves of the 90s. The only one I can think of is the 1970 Orioles, but then they did not maintain that dominance on the same team for over a decade, I cannot think of any rotation that accomplished that other than Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz.

Think about this, the 3 combined to win 870 games, save 154 and finish a total of 293 games OVER .500 combined in the regular season. They also won a combined 40 post season games.
Click to expand...

Because in history, there didn't used to be multi layered playoffs. The Dodgers could've felt confident entering a season with Koufax, Drysdale and a young Sutton.

The '94 Expos matched up pretty well (within the context of the time) against Our Guys: Pedro Martinez, Ken Hill and others.
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teamstats/roster.php?y=1994&t=MON

Not saying that this was necessarily one of the great all time rotations, but just that there was no way that the Braves would have overtaken Montreal in the standings that year.

Here's a bone for the so-called "statheads":
http://joeposnanski.com/great-four-man-rotations-wbill-james/

(Yes, it's old information)

The 1930 New York Yankees had Lefty Gomez, Waite Hoyt, Herb Pennock and Red Ruffing. That’s four Hall of Famers.
Click to expand...

The 1949 Cleveland Indians also featured four Hall of Fame starters — Bob Feller, Bob Lemon, Early Wynn and Satchel Paige. Lemon was in his prime, Wynn was about to enter it and Feller at age 30 still had a couple of good years later. But Paige was a “rookie” of indeterminate age and he only made five starts. Incidentally, that team also finished third.
Click to expand...

As for Smoltz's remark, he was probably just referring to where the Mets pitchers are now in relation to Braves pitchers in '90-'91. From that perspective, it's not a ridiculous comment. Nobody knew what to expect back then.
 
The Mets' pitchers have a spectacular ceiling and incredible potential. However, having potential just means you have a lot to prove.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top