HOF: Smoltz and Schilling

[rowech]

If neither one of them throws another pitch, do they make the HOF?

[path12]

I was listening to sports radio this morning and they had Furman Bisher (sp?) from Atlanta on. He said he would never vote Smoltz for the HoF, mainly because of him moving to the bullpen.

I'd vote him though. Less sure about Schilling.

[kcchief19]

I think they belong in the same discussion withe Pedro if you talk about none of them ever throwing another pitch. They have similar numbers although Pedro was more dominant in his prime, and they were a bit more steady during their careers.

I can't see how going to the bullpen somehow negates his 200 wins and 3000 strikeouts. Everyone with 3,000 strikeouts is in the Hall or should be (assuming steroids don't keep Roger out, and yes, Bert Blyleven should be in the Hall of Fame).

Would more wins help their cases? No doubt. But I vote yes.

[kcchief19]

baseballreference.com's HOF section would point to both making it.

Funny thing: On Smoltz's record, Shilling is the second-most similar pitcher. Smoltz is Shilling's sixth-most similar.

No. 1 on both their lists? Kevin Brown. Discuss. :)

[molson]

If anything, Smoltz' years as a dominant closer increase his candidacy to me.

I'd take Schilling over Smoltz for HOF, very similar numbers, but the post-season success gives the edge to Schilling. I'd probably vote for both though.

I don't see a whole lot of modern pitchers getting anywhere near 300 wins.

[hoopsguy]

How do you rank post-season success? Smoltz has a terrific reputation in this area - I don't have the numbers in front of me but I would be surprised if Schilling exceeds him in this area outside of the 2-1 ring count.

[MikeVic]

In all honesty, the bloody sock thing made me a huge Schilling fan. And I loved the dominant Braves teams, so I like both guys.

[larrymcg421]

If anything, Smoltz' years as a dominant closer increase his candidacy to me.

I'd take Schilling over Smoltz for HOF, very similar numbers, but the post-season success gives the edge to Schilling. I'd probably vote for both though.

I don't see a whole lot of modern pitchers getting anywhere near 300 wins.

Schilling's postseason numbers aren't THAT much better than Smoltz's. It's not like Smoltz was a dud in the postseason. I think they should both go in, but I can't see how Schilling goes in over Smoltz. As you said, they have very similar numbers (right down to a dead even 127 ERA+), but Smoltz has 132 more saves than Schilling.

[MikeVic]

And one more ring. :)

[larrymcg421]

How do you rank post-season success? Smoltz has a terrific reputation in this area - I don't have the numbers in front of me but I would be surprised if Schilling exceeds him in this area outside of the 2-1 ring count.

Schilling 11-2, 2.23 ERA
Smoltz 15-4, 2.65 ERA, 4 Saves

Schilling is a bit better, but certainly not enough to overcome Smoltz's dominant performance as a closer for several years.

[molson]

How do you rank post-season success? Smoltz has a terrific reputation in this area - I don't have the numbers in front of me but I would be surprised if Schilling exceeds him in this area outside of the 2-1 ring count.

It's actually 3-1, Schilling helped bring the D'backs their first WS (where he was co-World Series MVP), and the whole 1918/Bloody Sox thing bring him some points.

But by the numbers, in the World Series:

Smoltz: 2-2, 2.47 ERA, 51 innings, 52 Ks.
Schilling: 4-1, 2.06 ERA, 48 innings, 43 Ks.

Or Playoffs as a whole:

Smoltz: 15-4, 2.65 ERA, 207 innings, 194 Ks.
Schilling: 11-2, 2.23 ERA, 133 innings, 120 Ks

Smoltz isn't a dud, but he'll be remembered for being on a dud playoff team. Schilling will be remembered as the cornerstone of several high-profile World Series Champions. He'll get more votes.

[larrymcg421]

Well I really hope this doesn't get into a "number of rings" discussion, because that's one of the dumbest ways to judge an individual athlete, especially a baseball pitcher who has zero control over several aspects of his team's performance.

[larrymcg421]

Question: (/Schrute) Smoltz spent three full years as a closer. The three years after that, he got 44 wins as a starter. If you add that to Smoltz's win total, it gives him 254 wins for his career. If Smoltz has 254 wins, are we even having this discussion?

[molson]

Well I really hope this doesn't get into a "number of rings" discussion, because that's one of the dumbest ways to judge an individual athlete, especially a baseball pitcher who has zero control over several aspects of his team's performance.

I agree that it's not a good way to judge an individual athlete, but if you're high profile, have been on memorable championship teams, it's going to impact your legacy. I don't have a problem with that kind of thing giving a boost to someone's HOF candidacy.

The HOF isn't just a reward for players who have good stats - there's a "fame" element, it's also a slice of baseball history and a physical museum - I don't mind a bias towards high-profile, colorful personalities who made big headlines in a positive way.

That's also how the HOF writers vote - look at Kirby Pucket's near-unanimous selection.

[molson]

Question: (/Schrute) Smoltz spent three full years as a closer. The three years after that, he got 44 wins as a starter. If you add that to Smoltz's win total, it gives him 254 wins for his career. If Smoltz has 254 wins, are we even having this discussion?

Probably not - but note that only 2 people have voted "no" for Smotlz in the poll and nobody's made the argument yet that he shouldn't be there. So it's not really a discussion anyway.

[PackerFanatic]

I don't think you can say no to either one of them. I doubt they will get in first ballot, but both are more than deserving.

[larrymcg421]

I agree that it's not a good way to judge an individual athlete, but if you're high profile, have been on memorable championship teams, it's going to impact your legacy. I don't have a problem with that kind of thing giving a boost to someone's HOF candidacy.

The HOF isn't just a reward for players who have good stats - there's a "fame" element, it's also a slice of baseball history and a physical museum - I don't mind a bias towards high-profile, colorful personalities who made big headlines in a positive way.

That's also how the HOF writers vote - look at Kirby Pucket's near-unanimous selection.

I don't mind giving Schilling bonus points for the bloody sock game. He deserves it. But my whole point is that if the Red Sox had blown game 7, then Schilling wouldn't have got a ring that year. Great postseason performances should definitely be taken into consideration, but not the number of rings.

[rowech]

I think Pedro will make it...people will inevitably make comparisons to Koufax with him. I think Schilling is most like Drysdale. One important thing on Schilling is no Cy Young award unlike Smoltz. I think Schilling finished second three or four times but never won. Smoltz I believe just had the one year when he was in the top 3.

[hoopsguy]

I'm embarrassed to admit it, but the ring I was shorting Schilling wasn't his D'Backs one, but the one from last season :redface:

[molson]

I'm embarrassed to admit it, but the ring I was shorting Schilling wasn't his D'Backs one, but the one from last season :redface:

Cearly nobody pays attention unless it's Sox/Yankees in the ALCS.

[path12]

Question: (/Schrute) Smoltz spent three full years as a closer. The three years after that, he got 44 wins as a starter. If you add that to Smoltz's win total, it gives him 254 wins for his career. If Smoltz has 254 wins, are we even having this discussion?


That assumes that his endurance/arm would have been able to continue at a starter's rate. I'm an American League guy but it was my impression that a part of the reason he moved to the bullpen was to help ease the stress on his arm. Am I mistaken in that?

[Shkspr]

I think if you want to look at wins as a quick and dirty benchmark of value, you can convert every three saves a pitcher has to a win. That would put Smoltz at 261, which is about where he probably could be were he a full time starter. Really, though, neither of them drag down the standards of the place.

(Incidentally, the benchmark I mentioned would wind up pegging a HOF career as a closer in the modern era to start at about the 450-500 save mark. Trevor Hoffman, Lee Smith, and Mariano Rivera are the only pure relievers that have a shot at being inducted for the next twenty years.)

[MrBug708]

It would be fitting if Kobe were to call out Curt and tell him to play through the pain...

[ISiddiqui]

I think Pedro will make it...people will inevitably make comparisons to Koufax with him. I think Schilling is most like Drysdale. One important thing on Schilling is no Cy Young award unlike Smoltz. I think Schilling finished second three or four times but never won. Smoltz I believe just had the one year when he was in the top 3.

If Pedro doesn't make it (and if he doesn't make it on the first ballot), they ought to just close the damned Hall down.

Btw, I voted both yes for Smoltz and Schilling, but Pedro outpaces both of them.

[DaddyTorgo]

If Pedro doesn't make it (and if he doesn't make it on the first ballot), they ought to just close the damned Hall down.

Btw, I voted both yes for Smoltz and Schilling, but Pedro outpaces both of them.

absolutely agree. Pedro ought to be a shoe-in, unanimous, first-ballot.

[Sublime 2]

absolutely agree. Pedro ought to be a shoe-in, unanimous, first-ballot.

No-Diggity

[Mustang]

He said he would never vote Smoltz for the HoF, mainly because of him moving to the bullpen.


Odd. Makes me want to vote for him even more. He was dominant as a closer. Not like he was some 6th/7th inning 4+ ERA guy just extending his career.

[Tormaz]

They are both HoF pitchers. I don't look at numbers as much as the time they played.

Smoltz is still the all time leader in post season wins I believe.

Just like I feel Dale Murphy should be in the Hall of Fame. He was great for his era. Smoltz and Schilling have been great for theirs.

A better poll might have been Bonds vs Clements who gets in first.... heh

[ISiddiqui]

I don't look at numbers as much as the time they played.

Uh... what? So Julio Franco is up there for you?

[CU Tiger]

They are both HoF pitchers. I don't look at numbers as much as the time they played.

Smoltz is still the all time leader in post season wins I believe.

Just like I feel Dale Murphy should be in the Hall of Fame. He was great for his era. Smoltz and Schilling have been great for theirs.

A better poll might have been Bonds vs Clements who gets in first.... heh


Uh... what? So Julio Franco is up there for you?


I know he is still in n00b status, but did you read his post.
Granted he worded it poorly, but he was saying compared to their contemporaries, they were studs....agreed.

Both are first ballot no doubt about it guys to me.
As are Clemens, Bonds, and McGuire(well maybe a touch of doubt about first ballot, but he is a HOFer to me)

[sterlingice]

Smoltz isn't a dud, but he'll be remembered for being on a dud playoff team. Schilling will be remembered as the cornerstone of several high-profile World Series Champions. He'll get more votes.

Some good revision going on as I always remember Smoltz being one of the most dominant postseason pitchers in our era. Remember, during the Braves run, "he's not as good as Maddux and Glavine but the clutch guy in the postseason".

SI

[sterlingice]

Funny thing: On Smoltz's record, Shilling is the second-most similar pitcher. Smoltz is Shilling's sixth-most similar.

No. 1 on both their lists? Kevin Brown. Discuss. :)

What would Kevin Brown's stats/career look like if he didn't get injured as often as he did, particularly later in his career.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

I know he is still in n00b status, but did you read his post.
Granted he worded it poorly, but he was saying compared to their contemporaries, they were studs....agreed.

But wouldn't you have to look at their numbers in the time they played? Otherwise... it makes no sense.

[Shkspr]

But wouldn't you have to look at their numbers in the time they played? Otherwise... it makes no sense.

The Keltner List (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keltner_list) doesn't make note of numbers, and it's a fine qualitative system. A quantitative system like the Ink Tests or JAWS is always a great way to focus the discussion, but the Keltner List is a good judge of whether a player "feels" like a HoFer. And let's be honest, when you choose to honor players for their "greatness", what you're really doing is celebrating your memories of how great you thought they were.

[Grammaticus]

I think they both get the nod.

[Big Fo]

Both should get in, Smoltz more quickly than Schilling.

[Jas_lov]

Smotz is a lock, Schilling is borderline and I hope he never gets in. Even Schilling admits he's not a hall of famer.

[molson]

Some good revision going on as I always remember Smoltz being one of the most dominant postseason pitchers in our era. Remember, during the Braves run, "he's not as good as Maddux and Glavine but the clutch guy in the postseason".

SI

I didn't say Smoltz wasn't terrific in the post-season, only that is legacy is different because of the dud playoff teams he was on. Not his fault, but it does impact how he's remembered, compared to a Schilling.

[rowech]

Smotz is a lock, Schilling is borderline and I hope he never gets in. Even Schilling admits he's not a hall of famer.

I heard about him saying that. I'm not sure if I believe him despite the fact he's always been honest.

[molson]

I heard about him saying that. I'm not sure if I believe him despite the fact he's always been honest.

Maybe he believes that, but I think he says it publicly to be more likeable.

He's an odd, odd guy but one of the few real distinctive personalities left in sports so I dig him.

[cody8200]

I think they both get in. I like Smoltz better and think he is even more deserving but both are worthy.