Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz ... Walking Into The Hall of Fame Together ...

JackWESQ

It appears that Tom Glavine's career might be over. Same for John Smoltz. And while Greg Maddux could probably pitch for a couple of more years (and I would want him to), the idea of all three (3) walking into the Hall of Fame at the same time is extremely appealing.

/s/ JackWESQ

WinPitcher

I doubt it will happen the way you expect.

All 3 should get in though.

Steve

Goot

While Glavine and Maddux are 1st ballot guys, I'm not 100% sure that Smoltz is. He'll get in, it may take a few years though.

lawnmowerman

I like all 3 of those guys and they all will get in.

MantleMarisFordBerra

All will get in; however unlike Glavine & Smoltz I think Maddux still has a few years left.

BobaFett72

maddux may pitch one more year, but if they ALL retire at the same time, i think it would be a super classy move to have them all go in at the same time. Smoltz was, and is a better pitcher than Glavine.

SDSportsFan

JMO, but say Glavine and Smoltz hang it up this year, and Maddux pitches another year or two...it would be nice for Glavine and Smoltz to wait a year so all three can still go in together

Personally, I would think going in together would be worth the short wait for the one or two of them, and would override any perceived "slight" of not going in the first year of eligibility. I know if I was in their shoes, I would want to go in all together


Steve

Hyperion

Think Maddux will go for 400 wins? is that even realistic? maybe for a good offensive squad, but NOT for the padres I think

SDSportsFan

<< <i>Think Maddux will go for 400 wins? is that even realistic? maybe for a good offensive squad, but NOT for the padres I think >>




It sure doesn't seem realistic, considering that he would need at least three more years to do it. Then again, seeing what Jamie Moyer's doing in Philly, you never know. You'd think that if Moyer could go that long, then Maddux could too. I'd sure like to see Mad Dog reach 400


Steve

MantleMarisFordBerra

At the beginning of the season the idea of Maadux sniffing 400 was in my mind; however the Padres gave him little run support & he only has 6 wins so far this year. Of course he did just get traded to the Dodgers so with that line-up he'll win a few - they are projecting 8 starts for him. His style of pitching which does not rely on fastballs does not put much stress on his arm so he could last a few more years.

perkdog

It is too bad he didnt get much help from that Padres team earlier on, he definately should have more than 6 W's! Maybe another year in the tank for him but highly unlikely these 3 will get in at the same time.

dallasactuary

If Glavine and Smoltz walk into a HOF that does not include Bert Blyleven then I will simply vomit.

That is all.

Goot

<< <i>If Glavine and Smoltz walk into a HOF that does not include Bert Blyleven then I will simply vomit.

That is all. >>



Get the bag ready.

BobaFett72

Hopefully Blylevn gets in before Smoltz and Glavine.

joestalin

Three guys who were not only great, but great to watch and nice guys. You can put them next to guys like Ripken and Gwynn...remind
us what was good about the sport. Maddux looks like he is going to LA...he still has something left in the tank, looked very good against
the Phils.

Kevin

jdip9

<<If Glavine and Smoltz walk into a HOF that does not include Bert Blyleven then I will simply vomit. >>

Mickey71

Not to turn this into a Blyleven thread, but I had to look a few stats up. I grew up watching sports in the mid 70's till now, and I not once thought Blyleven was a great pitcher. I never looked at the days starting pitchers and got excited to see Bert. He was a good pitcher with a strong arm who in the course of a 22 year career accumulated some nice numbers. 8 years of his career he had a .500 or lower win percentage. He won above 17 games only twice in 22 years- this does not show greatness at all and in my opinion is the one stat that does him in. To me Blyleven's claim to fame is his shut out total. His strikeouts were more the product of a long career without major injury. Also, just to add, I am not comparing him to other non deserving hall of famers from that pitching era; I'm looking at his stats by themself.
Mickey71

dallasactuary

Mickey, you're looking at wins - the one stat that means nothing. Look at everything else.

jaxxr

"wins - the one stat that means nothing....look at everything else"



Just a bit extreme,
the ultimate goal of any team is to win, the main purpose of any pitcher should be to try to win the game.
Sure its dependent on other factors, other players, because, it is, a team sport. A pitchers' win total or win percentage is probably not the most effective way to measure a hurler's ability, but it has some bearing on his quality.

Everthing else better not include All Sar game selection, as Bert in 22 seasons, was thought to be among the top 9 or 10 hurlers in just his own league, exactly twice.
Pitcher triple crown stats, Bert has a total of one league leading season, in any of the 3 stats.

Bert was a fine pitcher, perhaps HOF worthy, however, Glavine is a lock for the HOF.

dallasactuary

<< <i>Just a bit extreme,
the ultimate goal of any team is to win, the main purpose of any pitcher should be to try to win the game. >>


Yes, it's a bit extreme. Wins do mean more than, for example, All Star game selections. But less than their batting averages, and how much weight would you put on a pitcher's batting average in deciding if they belonged in the HOF?

And yes, a pitcher's goal is to win the game. But he can't control that. What he can control is how many earned runs he allows, and how many innings per game he can remain effective. On those two stats - including adjusting the ERA for park and era - hang 95% of a pitcher's value. In every respect that matters and that was within their control, Blyleven was, at the very least, the equal of Glavine.

edit to add:

It was mentioned that Glavine had led the league more in "triple crown" stats. Interesting, but it ignores how good the Braves were and it really only scratches the surface. How about looking at ALL of the stats within a pitcher's control that provide some indication that he's doing a good job. For this purpose, I'm counting ERA, WHIP, H/9 inn, W/9 inn, K/9 inn, innings, Ks, GS, CG, SO, K/W ratio, and adjusted ERA+. Those are the stats shown on baseball-reference that meet those criteria. They show:

Led league: Glavine 9, Blyleven 13
2nd or 3rd: Glavine 16, Blyleven 37
4th or 5th: Glavine 14, Blyleven 38
6th to 10th: Glavine 39, Blyleven 46

I wish to rephrase what I said earlier upon further consideration. Stating that Blyleven was at least the equal of Glavine does a disservice to Blyleven. I now wish to state without qualification of any kind whatsoever that Blyleven was better than Glavine.