John Smoltz is a Hall-of-Famer....
One of the more interesting careers in modern times has been the career of John Smoltz, a traditional power pitcher who has run the gamut of possibilities through his career, and is now at what seems to be nearing the end of his career. To be sure, Smoltz may have three good years left in him, but as he reaches 40 years of age the clock is definitely ticking. So it's a good time to evaluate his HOF credentials, if only because it seems to be the fashionable thing to do these days.
Here's what we know about John Smoltz: he's pitched his entire career for the Atlanta Braves, and is one of the few players in the modern era to spend an entire career with one team. His role has been that of both starter and closer, and he has excelled in both. In 1996 he won a Cy Young award; in 2002 he won a Rolaids Relief award. This year he is well on his way to another successful starting campaign, while last year he had 45 saves. Smoltz has been one of a few pitchers to have successful careers both as a starter and as a closer, but he has been the only one to go back to starting after closing.
Smoltz has been an All-Star seven times, including this year. While his win totals are less than most Hall-of-Famers, (partially due to a lost year of pitching in 2000, when he had Tommy John surgery) his win/save totals still impress. He is the only pitcher (I think) to lead the league in both wins and saves. His credentials in wins and ERA match up with Schilling and Kevin Brown (Schilling as a borderline HOFer, Brown not as close), and his postseason stats are good as well (14-4, 2.70 ERA).
So I've made a case for why Smoltz will be in the Hall, but according to good speechwriting principles, it is necessary to bring up opposing viewpoints, show where they may be valid, and then disspell them. Here's what I came up with, and here's what I think people will say about Smoltz.
1) He was never dominant.
2) His stats do not add up.
3) He rode the coattails of Maddux and Glavine.
Well, Smoltz has been pretty dominant over the last part of his career. How dominant has Smoltz been? Consider 2003. Smoltz had a paltry 1.12 ERA in 2003, with 73 strikeouts and only 8 walks. In short, it was one of the most dominant performances of the modern era; unfortunately for Smoltz, it came when Eric Gagne had probably the best season ever for a relief pitcher (except for maybe early Eck). and so it was quite overlooked.
When John Smoltz won 24 games in 1996, it was the highest win total in quite some time. In fact, over the last 15 years, two players have won 24 games- Smoltz and Randy Johnson. Now, wins are notoriously overrated, but Smoltz also led the league in strikeouts that year, lending credence to those totals. Interestingly enough, Smoltz also led the league in strikeouts in 1992, opening a window to what I feel will be a second point of contention- that Smoltz's stats don't add up.
Smoltz has enough All-Star appearances to warrant the HOF bid; he also won a Cy Young. Yet it is quite possible that he will not reach 200 wins or 200 saves. Many will see his less than impressive win-loss totals from the 1990s and draw the erroneous conclusion that Smoltz doesn't deserve to go to the Hall. But as all good sabermetricians know, man doesn't live on wins and losses alone. Smoltz has twice led the league in strikeouts (a measure of dominance), innings, and win-loss percentage. He was also two saves away from the all-time record in 2002, and he had a year of his career taken away in 2000. It's completely plausible, given this year's results, that Smoltz would be well over 200 wins if he hadn't closed for three years, and would be very close to 250, in which case there would be no doubt.
Finally, the idea that Smoltz rode Glavine and Maddux's coattails is certainly laughable now (they're both gone). But in 1996, Smoltz was the ace, winning the Cy Young. Additionally, Smoltz made All-Star teams during their careers together, implying that many of the years he was as good or better than Glavine or Maddux.
Why is this discussion important now? It's important simply for the fact that too often we talk players out of the Hall of Fame instead of into it; it's important because players like Palmeiro, Sosa, and Glavine may get talked out of the Hall by sensationalist twits who seem to think that you need to jump out of burning buildings while pitching in game 7 of the World Series for either Boston, New York, or Chicago in order to make the Hall. And that enough is reason to spare a good player from this mess.
Mike
Here's what we know about John Smoltz: he's pitched his entire career for the Atlanta Braves, and is one of the few players in the modern era to spend an entire career with one team. His role has been that of both starter and closer, and he has excelled in both. In 1996 he won a Cy Young award; in 2002 he won a Rolaids Relief award. This year he is well on his way to another successful starting campaign, while last year he had 45 saves. Smoltz has been one of a few pitchers to have successful careers both as a starter and as a closer, but he has been the only one to go back to starting after closing.
Smoltz has been an All-Star seven times, including this year. While his win totals are less than most Hall-of-Famers, (partially due to a lost year of pitching in 2000, when he had Tommy John surgery) his win/save totals still impress. He is the only pitcher (I think) to lead the league in both wins and saves. His credentials in wins and ERA match up with Schilling and Kevin Brown (Schilling as a borderline HOFer, Brown not as close), and his postseason stats are good as well (14-4, 2.70 ERA).
So I've made a case for why Smoltz will be in the Hall, but according to good speechwriting principles, it is necessary to bring up opposing viewpoints, show where they may be valid, and then disspell them. Here's what I came up with, and here's what I think people will say about Smoltz.
1) He was never dominant.
2) His stats do not add up.
3) He rode the coattails of Maddux and Glavine.
Well, Smoltz has been pretty dominant over the last part of his career. How dominant has Smoltz been? Consider 2003. Smoltz had a paltry 1.12 ERA in 2003, with 73 strikeouts and only 8 walks. In short, it was one of the most dominant performances of the modern era; unfortunately for Smoltz, it came when Eric Gagne had probably the best season ever for a relief pitcher (except for maybe early Eck). and so it was quite overlooked.
When John Smoltz won 24 games in 1996, it was the highest win total in quite some time. In fact, over the last 15 years, two players have won 24 games- Smoltz and Randy Johnson. Now, wins are notoriously overrated, but Smoltz also led the league in strikeouts that year, lending credence to those totals. Interestingly enough, Smoltz also led the league in strikeouts in 1992, opening a window to what I feel will be a second point of contention- that Smoltz's stats don't add up.
Smoltz has enough All-Star appearances to warrant the HOF bid; he also won a Cy Young. Yet it is quite possible that he will not reach 200 wins or 200 saves. Many will see his less than impressive win-loss totals from the 1990s and draw the erroneous conclusion that Smoltz doesn't deserve to go to the Hall. But as all good sabermetricians know, man doesn't live on wins and losses alone. Smoltz has twice led the league in strikeouts (a measure of dominance), innings, and win-loss percentage. He was also two saves away from the all-time record in 2002, and he had a year of his career taken away in 2000. It's completely plausible, given this year's results, that Smoltz would be well over 200 wins if he hadn't closed for three years, and would be very close to 250, in which case there would be no doubt.
Finally, the idea that Smoltz rode Glavine and Maddux's coattails is certainly laughable now (they're both gone). But in 1996, Smoltz was the ace, winning the Cy Young. Additionally, Smoltz made All-Star teams during their careers together, implying that many of the years he was as good or better than Glavine or Maddux.
Why is this discussion important now? It's important simply for the fact that too often we talk players out of the Hall of Fame instead of into it; it's important because players like Palmeiro, Sosa, and Glavine may get talked out of the Hall by sensationalist twits who seem to think that you need to jump out of burning buildings while pitching in game 7 of the World Series for either Boston, New York, or Chicago in order to make the Hall. And that enough is reason to spare a good player from this mess.
Mike
posted by mike at 6:22 PM
2 Comments:
I think Glavine is in the Hall; he won two Cy Youngs, so his credentials are very good. He also won 20 games at least five times. His ERA numbers are comparable with other Hall-of-Fame quality players of the era.
Here are the guys that I think are more on the fringe:
1) Sosa, though he probably will get in...
2) Mike Mussina... crazy winning percentage, but he doesn't have a Cy Young and never a 20 game winner.
3) Bernie Williams... the ultimate barometer for how many Yankees of the late '90s get in.
4) Edgar Martinez... he had the nicest looking swing for a right-handed batter I've ever seen
5) Jim Thome... needs a few more good years.
There are more of these players, but I'm too lazy to think of them.
Put Juan Gonzalez in the "I won an MVP in the year I did not make the All-Star team" category with Robin Yount.
Really, I swear when he wants to play he's not that bad.
The problem with all these guys is what I'll call the Belle test. To get in, I think it's necessary and sufficient to show that you are at least as good or better than Albert, since he won't be making the Hall. Gonzalez really didn't do it, and I'm afraid Martinez didn't either. Thome has to hurry to get there, as do some other guys.
Post a Comment
<< Home