Hall of Fame

I'm surprised that no one has brought this up before. Maybe it was brought up and I wasn't paying attention or there isn't a lot of controversy about the choices. Having said that I agree with Johnson, Martinez, and Biggio but I wholeheartedly disagree with Smoltz. Smoltz belongs in the Hall of the Pretty Good not the Hall of Fame. IMHO

Are you saying Smoltz doesn't belong in the Hall as currently constructed, or doesn't belong in YOUR Hall of Fame?
Those are two different discussion points.

I think, as currently constructed, with some of the players that are IN the HOF, I think Smoltz belongs. Compare Smoltz to Red Ruffing, who was voted in by baseball writers, not the Veterans committee. Both pitched for ubiquitous postseason teams in the 1990s Braves and 1930s Yankees. A cursory glance of their careers says that Smoltz was at least as good, if not slightly better than Ruffing.

The only 20th Century SPs with higher WAR than Smoltz who are not in the Hall is quite an eclectic group: Roger Clemens, Curt Schilling, and Rick Reuschel.
Jim Palmer, Carl Hubbell, Don Sutton, Don Drysdale, Bob Feller, and Hal Newhouser all have lower WAR than Smoltz. I think the bloom on Smoltz' rose fades a little with Maddux going in last year and Pedro and Randy Johnson going in this year, but I don't think that means he doesn't belong.

Well we can continue to use the argument "He should be "in"because (insert name) is "in", but that just further cheapens the Hall. Where does it end? Heck if it were a true "Hall of Fame" there would only be about three or four dozen players in it. But yes Andy to answer your question I guess it is "my Hall of Fame" but it's how the one in Cooperstown should be. How's that for arrogance? But it is my opinion.

Ed

What are numbers and stats for though, if not for comparison?

andycummings65 wrote:

What are numbers and stats for though, if not for comparison?

Well I should refine my argument. Maybe Ruffing shouldn't be in in the first place. But also when people compare things they often take an inferior product and try to make it seem as good as the superior one. I'm not saying that is the case with Smoltz vs Ruffing, but it is often the case. So we get a continual dumbing down where we are electing people that are "pretty good" and not great.

Ed

I can't help but wonder what Smoltz' numbers would have looked like had he not been a closer for 4 years. Enough to get in then? I'd say he suffers from "reverse Eckersley syndrome". I think he's at least borderline. He was also pretty comparable to Schilling, another "borderline" case.

Smoltz definitely belongs in the HOF, and the voters were right to make him a first-year inductee. He is the only pitcher in history with 200 wins and 150 saves. That means he shined as both a starter and closer for extended periods of time. The Hall has to acknowledge particular brilliant achievement as well as more "common" brilliant achievements, such as 275 wins.

Considering those achievements, as well as his 3.33 E.R.A. and 1.17 WHIP during the Steroids Era, Smoltz had a superior career to Schilling, Schilling's impressive post-season career being noted.

My opinion:
In the Hall- yes
First ballot- no

Smoltz is a HOF but first time ballot? Not so sure - If he got in, what about Schilling who had a similar career? Mussina should get in and was surprised he only got 25% of the vote. He put up great numbers pitching in the AL East for his career and in the steroid era.

My opinion:
In the Hall- yes
First ballot- no

By first ballot, I think most people mean to say, "I want there to be an inner circle of Hall of Famers."
However, the voting process is not designed to create an inner circle of Hall of Famers. The voting process is designed to add deserving candidates to the Hall, and when we try to superimpose the "first ballot" argument, we can't always reconcile the two.

I wish there was only ONE BBWAA vote which considered the candidates who have been retired five years. No limit on number of votes. If 11 players are worthy, vote em in. If 1 is, or there are no worthy candidates, vote accordingly. Candidates are either in or out. If I had a vote, this is how I would operate. Either a guy is a Hall of Famer or he's not. He doesn't magically become one in his 14th year on the ballot.