Although he's only 12-12, Smoltz does have a 2.65 ERA in 207 innings of post-season pitching.

Schilling has a better record (10-2) and a slightly better ERA (2.23) but 74 less innings of post-season pitching (for a cool 133.1).

I'd say those post-season innings do help Smoltz, especially as (when October comes around) it feels like he's been around forever.

Other than that, if Smoltz does go to the pen and put up some extra saves and such, he'll be an even more unique and atractive candidate.

I say they both go in, and no later than in their 3rd year of eligibility.....

And which one is better? Once again, Smoltz is second.

Not. Just...no. He's been better. More consistent, more consistently in the rotation, gave up fewer jacks.

Also, Schilling isn't a very good comp anyway because of the relief time Smoltz put in.

How do you compare Blyleven's postseason record to Smoltz's without mentioning John has pitched in 160 more postseason innings?

And criticizing Smoltz because the Braves haven't won more postseason series is questionable at best.

Smoltz is also better than Eckersley. He's pretty darn famous. Etc, etc, etc. This article is grasping at straws. Smoltz is in. It won't be problematic.

Although he's only 12-12, Smoltz does have a 2.65 ERA in 207 innings of post-season pitching.

No. John Smoltz is not 12-12 in the postseason; his teams have gone 12-12 in postseason series.

Smoltz is 15-4.

Drysdale was a big, blonde Southern California surfer type who rode in on Sandy Koufax’ shirttails

That's a little harsh. In fact, the list of players that Shiffert (an excellent writer, BTW) gives as having made the Hall through fame alone is somewhat harshly drawn-up overall. Waddell, Drysdale, Walsh, and Bresnahan are HOMers (Walsh, in particular, was a great, great pitcher for six years, your basic peak candidate for any Hall). Dean, Gomez, Maranville, Marquard, and Hooper were famous because they played key roles on championship teams; yes, they may be famous for being famous, but it's not like they didn't deserve that fame. Chesbro, OK, he is in the Hall for one 41-win season and one wild pitch, perhaps; and Joss for dying young, and Candy Cummings, for a dubious legend. But I don't really think that Dean, Gomez, or Maranville were elected entirely for being "characters."

Flournoy,

You are absolutely right - I misread that Baseball Reference page. My bad.

But in any case, a 15-4 record in the post-season does buttress Smoltz credentials....

(And Schilling is 11-2 in PS, not 10-2).

Not. Just...no.

Right. I'm not the biggest John Smoltz fan in the world but comparing him to Curt Schilling is just silly.

In fact, I find this whole article ridiculous. I will try to summarize Shiffert's argument. Please let me know if I make any mischaracterizations.

1.) He asserts that Smoltz is not as good as Blyleven, and therefore is unlikely to be elected. He bases this mostly on counting totals, not even mentioning Smoltz's time as a reliever until the last paragraph, and only as a segway to an Eckersley comparison. He bizarrely implies that Blyleven's postseason resume is just as good as Smoltz's, despite less than a quarter of Smoltz's innings pitched.

2.) He says that Eckersley is too unique for any comparison to Smoltz. This is, of course, because of similarity scores, which are not all that he makes them out to be. He says that Smoltz and Eckersley were comparable through age 37, but then their career paths diverged. Why can he not examine their post-age 37 careers and determine who was more valuable, regardless of role? I guess the similarity scores told him he couldn't do that.

3.) He says that Schilling is better than Smoltz, which he just throws out there, and then decides that Schilling is more electable than Smoltz since he's more famous. First, I'll attack his reasoning that Schilling is better than Smoltz. He says that they're similar, but Schilling has a "slight statistical edge." The only edges that he cites (or that are apparent from the statistics he presents) are that Schilling's rate stats "make points for him" and Schilling's teams have had better postseason records. That is Schilling's "slight statistical edge" - his teammates' performance and the means in favor of the ends. Nice work.

But he discards this, and says that Schilling is more electable since he's more famous. Apparently outside of his Cy Young season, Smoltz has "never really been the marquee pitcher on his team," which only confirms my growing notion that this man has not watched many Braves games over the past few years. He champions Schilling's quirky character and interview presence, which can only mean that this man has not paid any attention to Smoltz for the last two decades, as supported by the rest of his article. Of course, he cites Schilling as "the greatest clutch pitcher of his generation," which is an odd claim to make when comparing another pitcher to John Smoltz. Maybe Smoltz has never come up big in important games? I remember a few, to say the least. But then again, I've been watching John Smoltz pitch, and Shiffert hasn't.

Bad article. Not recommended.

How do you compare Blyleven's postseason record to Smoltz's without mentioning John has pitched in 160 more postseason innings?

Are you serious? What could Blyleven have done to make up that gap? All I got is he should've played in three-division leagues and had two other HOF pitchers on his team for much of his career.

Are you serious? What could Blyleven have done to make up that gap? All I got is he should've played in three-division leagues and had two other HOF pitchers on his team for much of his career.

Smoltz had more opportunity, obviously, but that's still important.

Chase Utley is on pace to hit 63 home runs this season. In a comparison to Ruth or Maris, is it fair to point out that they held up the pace for a full season? I mean, it's not Utley's fault that 2008 isn't over yet.

I think Smoltz and Schilling are pretty reasonable comparables. Identical ERA+ in similar IP, best two postseason pitchers of the generation. I can see an argument for Smoltz (a few more IP, substantially more postseason IP at similar rate of success, fewer HRs, his excellent work in the pen). It's just as easy to prefer Schilling (higher peak as a starter, fewer unearned runs allowed, better SO pitcher). It really depends on what you value.

They're both pretty comfortable HOFers, as far as I'm concerned.

For instance, Eckersley and Smoltz WERE comparable at the age of 36 and 37 ... , but Eckersley then tacked on another half dozen years of top shelf relief ...

"Top shelf"? No way. After the age of 37, Eckersley was a closer, but his ERA+ went 98, 104, 89, 128, 107, 99. By the standards that attach to closers, that ain't much. I see this phase of his career as being low-value filler that adds almost nothing to his case. If Eckersley wasn't already qualified after his age 37 season, he wasn't going to become qualified, not by doing that.

We did elect Eckersley to the Hall of Merit on his first ballot in 2004, and I had him 12th on my own ballot that year, so I'm OK with the selection. But that's all about what he had already done before his last half dozen years.

For instance, Eckersley and Smoltz WERE comparable at the age of 36 and 37 (around an 870 Similarity Score), but Eckersley then tacked on another half dozen years of top shelf relief, and Smoltz went back to starting, completely changing their career profiles.

So, they're comparable through their age 37 seasons. Then, while Eckersley was "tacking on", post age 37 season, about 305 innings with an ERA+ of 105 ("top-shelf" relief, my eye), Smoltz pitched 694 innings (and counting) with an ERA+ around 135. This is somehow, for the author, an argument against Smoltz?

Just bizarre.

Are you serious? What could Blyleven have done to make up that gap? All I got is he should've played in three-division leagues and had two other HOF pitchers on his team for much of his career.

Blyleven had a huge unfair advantage in that his team was willing to bring him up at an extremely young age and pitch him regularly, which enabled him to pad his career stats. Other Hall of fame type pitchers, who were just as good as Blyleven at a young age, might have been stuck in the minors or in the bullpen for several years, preventing them from padding their stats like he did.

Do I completely believe that? Of course not. But its no worse than complaining about Smoltz' unfair "advantage" that enabled him to pitch a lot of post season games. Every pitcher is given different opportunities, and you should evaluate them based on how they perform in those opporunities. What Smoltz did in the post season is relevant to his value, just like what Blyleven did at age 19.

Chase Utley is on pace to hit 63 home runs this season. In a comparison to Ruth or Maris, is it fair to point out that they held up the pace for a full season? I mean, it's not Utley's fault that 2008 isn't over yet.

Utley will have the chance to finish the season. Blyleven pitched as much post-season baseball as he could; he had no chance to pitch more.

But its no worse than complaining about Smoltz' unfair "advantage" that enabled him to pitch a lot of post season games.

It is worse, because post-season play has a bright line dividing the chance to be in it and having no chance. Being good enough at an extremely young age but not getting the chance is impossible to prove.

I guess all I'm saying is, tack the post-season stats onto their career lines: fine. Tell me Smoltz is in any way superior to Blyleven because he pitched 160 more innings in the post-season: uh-uh.

Just wanted to note that I do not take away from Blyleven because he didn't pitch as many postseason innings as Smoltz. Obviously that's a function of opportunity and the change in the playoff format. And like the majority here, I think it's a crime Blyleven is not in the Hall of Fame.

I just don't think it's fair to fail to mention Smoltz's IP while hinting Blyleven had a better playoff record. Over Smoltz's first 50 playoff innings, he had a 1.99 ERA and was pretty freakin' amazing. I guess if the Braves failed to get to the playoffs beyond 1992, that would make Smoltz a better HoF candidate?

It is worse, because post-season play has a bright line dividing the chance to be in it and having no chance. Being good enough at an extremely young age but not getting the chance is impossible to prove.

Except that we know for a fact that most pitchers are not given the same opportunity to pitch at age 19 that Blyleven is given. Nor are they given an opportunity to pitch 325 innings in a year. Blyleven was given the opportunity to do these things because of not just his talent, but the context in which he pitched.

Smoltz had no chance to pitch 325 innings in a regular season no matter how good or durable he was. Just like Blyleven had no chance to pitch in the post season.

I just don't think it's fair to fail to mention Smoltz's IP while hinting Blyleven had a better playoff record.

I think all the guy said was Blyleven's post-season account doesn't suffer in comparison with Smoltz's. He didn't say Blyleven was better...just that he had some better numbers, so he's not demonstrably worse than Smoltz in that category. That sounds trivial, but I don't think it is. One way makes Shiffert sound unreasonable, which he isn't, I don't think, even though he does some cherry-picking.

Edit: I think he's addressing it with the assumption that everyone knows that Smoltz's post-season numbers are really, really good.

Except that we know for a fact that most pitchers are not given the same opportunity to pitch at age 19 that Blyleven is given....Smoltz had no chance to pitch 325 innings in a regular season no matter how good or durable he was. Just like Blyleven had no chance to pitch in the post season.

Uncle. I don't think we're going to get to a meeting of the minds here. 8-)

What a crazy article. I do think he actually has a point, and a good one, that it will be difficult for Smoltz to be elected because the ballot will be loaded with great pitchers like Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, Glavine, Brown, Schilling, and Martinez, but how he arrives at that conclusion, attempts to prove that point and basically the entire rest of the article are just absurd.

great pitchers like Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, Glavine, Brown, Schilling, and Martinez,

I think "Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz" are known as a trio enough that the "Tinker, Evers, Chance" effect might help Smolts out instead of hurting him.

I guess if the Braves failed to get to the playoffs beyond 1992, that would make Smoltz a better HoF candidate?

That makes no sense. It means that when you consider Smoltz for the HOF, his postseason mark is minimally affected. How many home runs did Hank Aaron hit? Barry Bonds? What about Lou Gehrig? Is Lou in the 500 HR club now?

Smoltz is minimally distinguishable from Kevin Brown - yes, he's a little better, and he's no better than Mike MUssina.

great pitchers like Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, Glavine, Brown, Schilling, and Martinez

Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, Glavine, and Martinez will be no-brainer first ballot HOFers. I'm guessing Smoltz is next to go, due to his association with the great Braves pitching staffs of the 90's, in addition to his overall record and post season performance. I'm guessing Schilling and Brown will be debated for several years - Schilling will eventually make it, Brown may or may not.

I believe that players and pitchers who spend the bulk of their prime with one team (Smoltz) have an advantage over players who play for several different teams (Schilling, Brown, even Blyleven), because its much tougher to form a mental image of the latter group. Not saying its what should happen, but I'm guessing it does.

I am a Mets fan, and therefore legally required to be utterly biased against all things having to do with the Braves.

The idea that John Smoltz is NOT a Hall of Famer is incomprehensible to me.

Smoltz is minimally distinguishable from Kevin Brown

At which point, the fact that Smoltz won the 1996 NL Cy Young, and Brown (who deserved it) didn't, will come into play. Past voting mistakes become part of the argument for future votes, which is double jeopardy.

[In the postseason] Smoltz is a hard luck 15-4.

Fixed.

Smoltz being compared to Kevin Brown and Mike Mussina would make for a better article. Instead, Smoltz is compared to Blyleven (who most agree should be in, and eventually will be in) and Dennis Eckersley (who has a weaker case for the HoF than Smoltz). And then there's the line about the possible argument of Jamie Moyer and David Wells in the HoF over Smoltz. I'd love to see that one.

I don't get why Smoltz's postseason mark should be anything but a huge, huge plus. Neyer glossed over his postseason marks in a Smoltz HoF article a few years back, and this author almost takes away from Smoltz because he 'hasn't had a big moment' and the Braves 'didn't win more World Series.' Hmmm.

I may be biased towards Smoltz, but this article seemed extremely biased against him.

Even as a Braves fan I didn't think Smoltz was a HOFer in his mid 30s. Then he did this:

Smoltz pitched 694 innings (and counting) with an ERA+ around 135.

Then I came around. I'm not a big Smoltz guy either but I can't see him not getting in.

Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, Glavine, and Martinez will be no-brainer first ballot HOFers.

If you had said this last year, I would not have disagreed.

Now, I am not so sure.

I do think Schilling and Smoltz will both get in.

Smoltz because he 'hasn't had a big moment'

I know you're not arguing that he hasn't had a big moment but are saying what the article said, but I'd argue that 7 1/3 shutout innings in game 7 of the world series is a big moment. That it comes while another guy is throwing 10 shutout innings doesn't change that.

Damn I can still get irritated about that game.