Is there anyone really doubting his case?

His postseason bonus is Schilling-like, meaning way better than a schlub like Morris.

Yeah. I'm maybe the least biggest Smoltz fan of any Braves fans, but I figured this was a first-ballot done-deal.

With that said, I guess the Aiken Standard has to fluff out its pages somehow, and I'm guessing the fact that Smoltz even took their call made them feel special.

Yeah. I'm maybe the least biggest Smoltz fan of any Braves fans, but I figured this was a first-ballot done-deal.

If Smoltz had played and retired 10 years earlier it would have been. But no one is a lock to be elected on the first ballot anymore with all the "nobody from the steroid era nonsense" going on in the BBWAA right now.

How can anyone think he's a winner? Most of the time he wasn't even the best pitcher in the Braves rotation. They had to remove him from the rotation and stick him in the bullpen for a couple years, for gosh sake. He lost Game 7 to cost the Braves a World Series. I'm just not seeing it...

How can anyone think he's a winner? Most of the time he wasn't even the best pitcher in the Braves rotation. They had to remove him from the rotation and stick him in the bullpen for a couple years, for gosh sake. He lost Game 7 to cost the Braves a World Series. I'm just not seeing it...

Don't forget that as a closer he could never start on Opening Day.

I'm not sure that Willie Mays Aikens is an appropriate standard for the HOF. He was a good, not great, player at his peak; and he had a very short career.

Oh wow, you're not exaggerating about the post-season. 41 games, 27 starts, 209 innings, 15-4 record, 2.67 era. That's close to a whole season worth of work at a really high level.

How can anyone think he's a winner? Most of the time he wasn't even the best pitcher in the Braves rotation.

Assuming this is actually a serious question...

1. one could say the same thing about Tom Glavine using this logic.

2. Smoltz ranks 38th all time in WAR for pitchers (63.9), placing him well within reasonable HoF level. His ERA+ of 125 is tied for 69th all time, better than several solid HoF pitchers such as Juan Marichal, Bob Feller, Eddie Plank, Warren Spahn, Bert Blyleven, Gaylord Perry, and Steve Carlton -- and far better than another start/relief combo HoF-er, Dennis Eckersley (116). If you prefer less saber-meaningful stats, he also managed to win 213 games despite giving up four years of his career to the bullpen -- assume a very modest scenario where he gets only 10 wins on average for those seasons as a starter and that puts him at 247 lifetime, and several HoF starting pitchers are right in that area (Bob Gibson, Joe McGinnity, Amos Rusie, Juan Marichal, Three Finger Brown, among others).

That sure looks like a good HoF case to me. Not necessarily "first ballot," but deserving and likely getting in.

Assuming this is actually a serious question...

Bad assumption.

I remember a lot of talk when Smoltz moved to the bullpen that he was going to be a tough call for the Hall. I don't think anyone expected him to be as good as he was as a closer or to then have a pretty impressive second act as a starter in his late 30s.

What's next, electing an animal?

Wow, 51 IP in the World Series and just 1 home run given up with more K's than IP and a 2.47 ERA despite half of those 8 starts being in the height of the steroid era.

It is too bad (for HOF voting) that he played that final season split between Boston & St. Louis. Otherwise he'd have been a 'one team' guy (big bonus) and still would've had 210 wins and been just shy of 1000 walks while still cracking 3000 K's. Silly that sticking around an extra year can cost, but a 3-8 season with a 6.35 ERA will hurt even if he really wasn't doing _that_ bad (8.4 K/9, 2.1 BB/9, 1.3 HR/9 that season). Of course, that also pushed him back a year from the insane 2013/2014 ballots (he is on 2015's).

Interesting that he led the league in wins with just 16 in 2006 (6 way tie). His Cy Young award helps (24 wins), as does cracking 50 saves one year as a closer (40+ all 3 full seasons). Losing out on 2000 and part of 2001, which led to the closer role, probably hurts though as it cost him conservatively 50 wins (possibly 75) from his totals and 260-285 wins would've put him into lock territory I figure (mixed with Cy Young award, post season, etc.).

As is I say Smoltz has to wait a year or two to get in. Especially since his ballot will have Randy Johnson & Pedro Martinez on it, both of whom are clearly better pitchers. That ballot also has Gary Sheffield and Carlos Delgado who each will get a fair number of votes mixed with the 'steroid crew' who'll probably still be kicking then. Then comes Griffey Jr, Hoffman and Pettitte who will each do well (Griffey going in while Hoffman gets at least 30-40% I suspect).

Getting moved to the bullpen was the best thing that ever happened to Smoltz's HoF case.

2. Smoltz ranks 38th all time in WAR for pitchers (63.9), placing him well within reasonable HoF level. His ERA+ of 125 is tied for 69th all time, better than several solid HoF pitchers such as Juan Marichal, Bob Feller, Eddie Plank, Warren Spahn, Bert Blyleven, Gaylord Perry, and Steve Carlton -- and far better than another start/relief combo HoF-er, Dennis Eckersley (116). If you prefer less saber-meaningful stats, he also managed to win 213 games despite giving up four years of his career to the bullpen -- assume a very modest scenario where he gets only 10 wins on average for those seasons as a starter and that puts him at 247 lifetime, and several HoF starting pitchers are right in that area (Bob Gibson, Joe McGinnity, Amos Rusie, Juan Marichal, Three Finger Brown, among others).

This. I distinctly remember savoring Smoltz's second act as a starter. It was like watching a master at work, and I particularly looked forward to every time the Mets would face him. I don't know that there's a starter in today's game who I love watching quite as much, with the potential exception of Verlander, Felix, or Josh Johnson.

His ERA+ of 125 is tied for 69th all time, better than several solid HoF pitchers such as Juan Marichal, Bob Feller, Eddie Plank, Warren Spahn, Bert Blyleven, Gaylord Perry, and Steve Carlton

Look, I think Smoltz is a clear HoF'er but lets use good arguments for this and not the above.

IP(WAR)
Smoltz - 3473(63.9)

Marichal - 3507(64)
Feller - 3827(66)
Plank - 4495.2(76.3)
Spahn - 5343.2(93.4)
Blyleven - 4970(90.1)
Perry - 5350(96.3)
Carlton - 5217.2(84.4)

Marichal is the only one really comparable to Smoltz in that group, the rest are clearly better. (Feller is only comparable in the numbers because he lost 3 years, ages 23-25, to WWII)

EDIT: For the record, I don't think Smoltz will have much trouble with the voters. My guess is that he goes in after 2 or 3 years on the ballot.

[14] Really? 260 wins would look a lot better than 213. Yeah, he has 150 saves, too. But for somebody who was primarily a starter, the wins would matter more, I'd think.

Smoltz's years as a closer (along with his postseason excellence) give him a hook. Without it, he's not that easy to distinguish from Maddux, Glavine, Johnson, Martinez, Clemens, Brown, Schilling, or Mussina. With the closer years, he's John Smoltz.

Smoltz's ERA+ is a little inflated by his time in the bullpen. His 3.40 career ERA as a starter would put it at 122. So i guess it's not that big a deal.

Smoltz's case is demonstrably weaker than Curt Schilling's, if you care at all about peak. Smoltz never had a season as good as Schilling's 2001 or 2002, and only Smoltz's big 1996 Cy Young year can match up with what Schilling did in Philly in 97-98 or in Boston in 2004.

Schilling spent a lot more of his career being not all that good, while Smoltz was always good, so their career totals match up pretty evenly. For me, the demonstrated greatness of Schilling at his peak makes him clearly more deserving than the more consistent but never-quite-as-good Smoltz.

They're both Hall of Famers, though.

It will be interesting to watch voters over the next few years. If you limit yourself to just starting pitchers...
2013: Clemens, Schilling, Wells (239 wins)
2014: Maddux, Glavine, Mussina, Rogers (219 wins)
2015: Johnson, Martinez, Smoltz
2016: Pettitte, maybe Jamie Moyer (267 wins, but going to spring training again with the Rockies)

So, if you remove all hitters from the ballot (and there are tons of them too) you have 2 clear HOF'ers each year for the next 3 years plus Mussina and Smoltz who normally would make it after a few years, plus guys who at one time would've got good arguments going in Wells and Rogers. Then in 2016 you get Pettitte and Moyer (maybe) who both would get lots of debate if the ballot wouldn't be jammed to the gills.

Luckily that'll be it for pitchers for awhile as Wakefield is the active leader in wins at 200, with the winningest likely HOF'ers in Halladay & Sabathia still a good distance from retirement.

Yet somehow the voters are serious about putting Jack Morris in as part of 2013 or 2014. Sigh.

[14] Really? 260 wins would look a lot better than 213. Yeah, he has 150 saves, too. But for somebody who was primarily a starter, the wins would matter more, I'd think.

But he wouldn't have gotten to 260 wins if he didn't go to the bullpen. Becoming a closer prolonged his career. Plus as #18 says, it gives him narrative, and writers just love narrative.

that'll be it for pitchers for awhile

Hoffman and Rivera will be the next guys in. I agree, no starting pitchers for a while.

[14] Really? 260 wins would look a lot better than 213. Yeah, he has 150 saves, too. But for somebody who was primarily a starter, the wins would matter more, I'd think.

The time in the pen gives him one obvious point of direct comparison - Eck. And he easily wins that comparison, and Eck was a first-ballot HoFer.

I do think he'll wait a ballot due to the strength of the one he's on. But he'll still sail in with little trouble, and the time in the pen will be part what distinguishes him.

The time in the pen gives him one obvious point of direct comparison - Eck. And he easily wins that comparison, and Eck was a first-ballot HoFer.

Allow me to think in "writer-ese" for a moment: There's an argument for Eck as the more historically significant of the two. Eck was the first "modern" close, won a CY and an MVP in a massive season, and had incredible longevity. Eck really had two careers: as a good-very good starter, and then a HOF-caliber closer. Smoltz was the better starter, sure, but Eck was the more *important* closer with a better narrative.

EDIT: I do think Smoltz > Eckersley, but I can see the argument the other way.

that'll be it for pitchers for awhile

How big is the gap by birth year, I wonder:

1962: Clemens
1963: Johnson
1964: ...
1965: Brown
1966: Schilling, Maddux, Glavine
1967: Smoltz
1968: Mussina
1969: ...
1970: ...
1971: Pedro
1972: Pettitte?
1973: ...
1974: ...
1975: ...
1976: ...
1977: Halladay
1978: ...
1979: Santana?
1980: Sabathia?

That's a right gap, that is. Or a right clump.

It could be random, but the cutoff really does seem to be pitchers who had a few years to learn their trade before the sillyball era began. This makes Pedro that much more impressive - he's really the only guy of his generation to put up a true Hall of Fame career, who learned the ropes during the sillyball era.

Halladay after him, and Halladay's really taken his next step toward greatness as offense has returned to normal.

What about Tim Hudson (1975)? I think he still has a shot. The odds are against him, and he'll need some big years in his late 30s, but that's the case for almost anyone looking to make the Hall of Fame.

That's a right gap, that is. Or a right clump.

It could be random, but the cutoff really does seem to be pitchers who had a few years to learn their trade before the sillyball era began. This makes Pedro that much more impressive - he's really the only guy of his generation to put up a true Hall of Fame career, who learned the ropes during the sillyball era.

Going back before that, the gap is much bigger. Morris was born in 1955, Blyleven in 1951, and before that you have the clump of guys born in the 1930s and 1940s (e.g., Nolan Ryan was born in 1947, Jim Palmer in 1945, Seaver in 1944, etc.).

I think there you see the exact same thing as you note. The generation with Seaver, Palmer, Ryan, et al., debuted in the mini-deadball era of the mid/late 1960s. For guys who debuted after offense returned to more normal levels, Blyleven debuted (pretty young) in 1970, and then nothing before Morris in 1977 (Eckersley also debuted in this range - debuted in 1975, born in 1955, but he's in the HOF as a closer).

Anecdotally, I think it's easier for pitchers to amass longer careers when they debut in low-scoring environments than when they debut in high-scoring environments.

[H]is ballot will have Randy Johnson & Pedro Martinez on it, both of whom are clearly better pitchers.

True about Johnson, but I don't know if Martinez is clearly better than Smoltz in the eyes of mainstream fans (and HOF voters).

Anecdotally, I think it's easier for pitchers to amass longer careers when they debut in low-scoring environments than when they debut in high-scoring environments.

I think there's a good chance that you're putting the cart before the horse. I think teams react to low scoring environments by concentrating on producing hitters, and vice versa.

Schilling spent a lot more of his career being not all that good, while Smoltz was always good, so their career totals match up pretty evenly. For me, the demonstrated greatness of Schilling at his peak makes him clearly more deserving than the more consistent but never-quite-as-good Smoltz.

I've never really understood this argument. If two players have essentially identical careers, but player A has a better peak, then by definition that would mean his off years would have to worse than player B's to balance it out, right? And why should off years - especially in the middle of a players career, like Schilling's - NOT be a factor when comparing two players?

What about Tim Hudson (1975)? I think he still has a shot. The odds are against him, and he'll need some big years in his late 30s, but that's the case for almost anyone looking to make the Hall of Fame.

I would love for this to happen. He was my favorite of Oakland's Big Three. Just a pitbull out there. Very easy to root for.

True about Johnson, but I don't know if Martinez is clearly better than Smoltz in the eyes of mainstream fans (and HOF voters).

Seriously? I can't imagine anyone thinking this.

The only off year Schilling had between 1995 and 2007 inclusive was 2005. He was quite solid, if not as solid as Smoltz...but who knows how Smoltz would've done as a starter after he came back from injury? Remember, they made him a reliever to sort of baby him...and they didn't make him a closer right off the bat, either.

True about Johnson, but I don't know if Martinez is clearly better than Smoltz in the eyes of mainstream fans (and HOF voters).

Seriously? I can't imagine anyone thinking this.

Would be especially amusing coming from the HoF voters who spent years slagging Blyleven and attempting to deify Morris and saying that you "had to be there" or "had to see them pitch". I saw Smoltz and Pedro, there is no comparison.

Smoltz's years as a closer (along with his postseason excellence) give him a hook. Without it, he's not that easy to distinguish from Maddux, Glavine, Johnson, Martinez, Clemens, Brown, Schilling, or Mussina. With the closer years, he's John Smoltz.

Every single one of those pitchers is easy to distinguish from Greg Maddux, as none of them were Greg Maddux.

The only off year Schilling had between 1995 and 2007 inclusive was 2005. He was quite solid, if not as solid as Smoltz...but who knows how Smoltz would've done as a starter after he came back from injury? Remember, they made him a reliever to sort of baby him...and they didn't make him a closer right off the bat, either.

Yeah, upon further review I guess saying off years "in the middle of his career" wasn't really accurate, but he did take longer than Smoltz to develope into an All Star caliber pitcher and he did have some off years early on (1993 and 1994, for example) before he began his consistant stretch from 1995-2007.

Still, they look like pretty similar players to me, and I think even in this era of anti-steroid fanaticism and heightened BBWAA idiocy, they'll both still make the HOF within a few years of their debut. The mindset that PED's only helped hitters and that no pitchers except Clemens used them will only help their cases.

Booey-

In my opinion, it's not the Hall of Value. The Hall of Fame is about honoring baseball greatness, and a big part of that is peak. Just how great was this player when he was at his best? How great was his best season, his best stretch of seasons, his prime? A player who simply plugs along as a good player, adding value but never being one of the best in the world, is significantly less great, I think, than a player who spends several years as one of the best in the game, several more being pretty good, and several more being not that good.

How great was he when he was at his best? That's probably the first question I ask of a Hall of Famer. And Curt Schilling's best seasons are clearly better than John Smoltz's best.

EDIT: One other thing - if you're perusing their B-Ref pages, you might notice that Smoltz' best ERA+ seasons are right there with Schilling. this is true, but Schilling has the lowest UER/ER ratio in all of baseball history. He was a flyball pitcher who struck out lots of batters, and he allowed a high percentage of his runs on home runs, so he gave his fielders very, very few chances to commit an error which would lead to a run. If you look at Schilling in terms of RA+ rather than ERA+ (and b-ref WAR is built off of RA+, effectively), you'll see his superiority to Smoltz in their best seasons.

Speaking of what might have been, damn, but Johan Santana was a tremendous pitcher. Even though it seems like forever since he was dominant, those CY awards aren't going to go away (and he's already 11th all time in CY shares). Six very ordinary seasons might pad his career enough to get him into the Hall, but I have to think he's pretty close to done, and might be in the late stages of Bret Saberhagen's career. Wow--Santana's peak blows Saberhagen's peak away. Heck, his career blows Saberhagen's peak away. How good is that?

Anyone know the latest on how Santana's pitching arm is doing?

3

True about Johnson, but I don't know if Martinez is clearly better than Smoltz in the eyes of mainstream fans (and HOF voters).

Seriously? I can't imagine anyone thinking this.

I'm not saying it's true, but 213 wins (plus 150 saves) vs. 219? Reputation as a bulldog vs. reputation for fragility?

Wait... are we really considering if there are writers who think Smoltz = Pedro? I don't even think that's an argument in the Turner Field press box. Yes, I know these are the same people who think Jack Morris should be in the Hall... but is there aybody anywhere who refutes the notion that Pedro is an historic talent?

Maybe it's just me who's worried about this. My sense (and it's nothing more than that) was that Martinez is considered by the casual fan as a probable Hall-of-Famer, but one who's in line behind the big names of his era--Maddux, Johnson, and the hypothetical non-steroidal Clemens--because of his "short" career. That would put him in a group with pitchers like Schilling, Glavine, and Smoltz, with Pedro being perhaps peakier, but less of a workhorse. Few mainstream types seem to acknowledge that he's better than Koufax, for example, and I'm afraid that Nolan Ryan would outpoint him among the same kind of voters.

On the other hand, very cursory googling doesn't turn up any examples, so I could be needlessly paranoid.

Mark Buehrle is going in.

As a Phillies' fan, Smoltz was my favorite Braves pitcher. He didn't seem to succeed on a generous strike zone; he was just a very good pitcher. He was also my pathway into sabermetrics. I picked up on rec.sport.baseball in 1996***, around the argument for Cy Young. I thought Smoltz was a no-brainer because of the winzzz -- I had my eyes opened (even though I knew wins were a flawed stat for a long time) in discussions about Kevin Brown.

*** I had read James around 83/84 a little bit; when the White Sox didn't become some kind of dynasty I kind of dropped him.

I think the only question about Martinez's Hall chances is whether he breaks the record for highest percentage votes. Smoltz will probably have to wait a year or two. I think that people underestimate even the BBWAA.

Kevin Brown is a good comp for discussion. Brown pitched 3265 innings at 127 ERA+. Smoltz pitched 3473 innings at a 125 ERA+, which was boosted by some easier reliever innings. Brown gave up more unearned runs, but he was victimized by some poor defense early carer in Texas whereas Smoltz had great defense behind him for his entire career. Brown wins the career WAR battle by an indistinguishable amount.

Smoltz has his fantastic postseason work over Brown. Brown is remembered for his bad postseason with the Yankees when he was washed up, but before then he was quite good if not great in the postseason.

The peaks were not comparable. Brown put up consecutive peak years of 217 ERA+ in 233IP, 150 ERA+ in 237.1, 164 in 257 IP, 143 in 252.1, 169 in 230, 151 in 115.2, bad injury year, and 169 in 211. That series contained 2 firsts, 1 second, and 3 thirds in pitching WAR in a league with the Braves trio and sometimes Pedro and peak Johnson.

Smoltz scattered his peak, and it was much lower than Brown's. Smoltz's best season was a 149 ERA+ in 253.2 innings. His next best seasons were 138 in 256 innings, 140 in 205.2, and 139 in 229.2 -- 4.5-4.7 WAR seasons. After that, you have a pick of sub 200-IP seasons with low 140s ERA+ or 130 and 128 ERA+ in full seasons. Smoltz's best finish in pitching WAR was one third place in his Cy Young season (when Brown was much better).

I think both should be in the Hall of Fame, but due to the peak I think Brown was better. It's shocking how Brown fell off of the first ballot.

I am going to add nothing new, but in every thread that this comes up I just have to say:

He's Pedro Freaking Martinez. This time three years from now he will be Pedro Freaking Martinez, Hall of Famer.

Smoltz will get in, but he might have to wait just because of the rest of the ballot.

It will be an interesting case study to see if when Schilling goes on the ballot, he gets credit for his low unearned run total.

In my opinion, it's not the Hall of Value. The Hall of Fame is about honoring baseball greatness, and a big part of that is peak.

Oh I agree if you're talking about the HOF. I wasn't sure if you were meaning Schilling was clearly BETTER than Smoltz, or just that he was more likely to get elected. But that said, when you say that Smoltz didn't have any seasons on par with Schillings best, I think you're making the same mistake I did and are talking about actual value rather than HOF voter PERCEIVED value. I do think the voters will consider Smoltz's 1996 season to be just as great as any of Curt's best, and possibly even greater since he won the CYA, something Schilling never did.

And as great as Schillings peak seasons were, I think he'll make the HOF in large part due to his postseason "clutchiness", which Smoltz can match. And only an even greater game by Jack Morris (a game which will unfortunately get Morris a plaque in the HOF) keeps Smoltz's game 7 in 1991 from being remembered as one of the all time great postseason performances.

But both of them will and deserve to make the HOF easily, so who's better is kind of a moot point.


It's shocking how Brown fell off of the first ballot.

Not really. He was listed on the Mitchell Report. If a guy with 583 homers - including a 4 year run of 52, 58, 70, and 65 - only gets 20% because of steroid connections and another with 569 homers AND 3000+ hits gets only 12%, then it makes sense in that fanatically childish anti-steroid BBWAA way that a guy with borderline numbers (by traditional measures) would not even garner enough votes to survive the 1st ballot. I think Giambi - who also has borderline numbers - will get the Kevin Brown treatment and be one and done as well.

Oh I agree if you're talking about the HOF. I wasn't sure if you were meaning Schilling was clearly BETTER than Smoltz, or just that he was more likely to get elected. But that said, when you say that Smoltz didn't have any seasons on par with Schillings best, I think you're making the same mistake I did and are talking about actual value rather than HOF voter PERCEIVED value. I do think the voters will consider Smoltz's 1996 season to be just as great as any of Curt's best, and possibly even greater since he won the CYA, something Schilling never did.

Even just in terms of "value" (allowing that the word still leaves some room for interpretation), it's perfectly possible to argue that a 9 WAR season and a 3 WAR season are more valuable than two 6 WAR seasons, in terms of things like Pennants Added.

Not really. He was listed on the Mitchell Report.

Maybe the Mitchell Report was part of the reason, but if it were the primary explanation I would think you would have seen the dozens of high horse articles putting Brown into his place that you see with other PED-linked candidates. I don't recall reading those articles -- maybe I missed them. My impression is that it felt like the voters just didn't think Brown was all that good. For all the "get your head out of a spreadsheet and watch the game" comments, it seems like a sizable amount of the electorate neither looked at a spreadsheet in the 21st century nor watched baseball in 1990s.

Even just in terms of "value" (allowing that the word still leaves some room for interpretation), it's perfectly possible to argue that a 9 WAR season and a 3 WAR season are more valuable than two 6 WAR seasons, in terms of things like Pennants Added.

Is it? I know Bill James said it was, but in my opinion his research didn't really back it up. If I remember correctly, the example he used showed the two to be pretty much equal.

It didn't seem like the Mitchell Report had anything to do with Brown. In HOF Columns that year, Brown was scarcely even mentioned.

It didn't seem like the Mitchell Report had anything to do with Brown. In HOF Columns that year, Brown was scarcely even mentioned.

Sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean that his steroid-infused past was a non-issue (especially since the columns represent a tiny fraction of the voters). Just that the a juicing ####### whose greatness was overlooked when he pitched (such as the Cy that the thread's subject stole from him) wasn't worthy of mention.

FWIW, I'm getting much better at guessing when you've jumped handles again Shock.

My impression is that it felt like the voters just didn't think Brown was all that good.

Yeah, that too. He just didn't seem to have the hook that guys with "borderline" numbers need to get serious consideration. Similar players Smoltz and Schilling were legendary postseason performers. Smoltz also had a CYA, 150+ saves in his second career as a closer, and was one of the key players on a regular season dynasty that played in 5 World Series in 9 years. Schilling had three 300 strikeout seasons, three 20 win seasons (Brown only had 1 and it was before his peak), a World Series (co) MVP and 3 rings, including the famous bloody sock season in 2004 that broke the curse and gave the Red Sox their first championship since dinosaurs roamed the Earth. Brown had no such hook and a reputation as a douche. Sometimes that's all it takes.

Example: Why Jack Morris over Denny Martinez? A few 20 win seasons, an undeserved reputation as an ace and a "gamer", and game 7. And that's the difference between making the HOF next year and dropping off the ballot after a single attempt.

@50: If Pennants Added are the important metric, I think a plausible argument goes like this:

The average (and "typical," in some sense) team has 81 wins. For an 81-win team, an extra 9 WAR season puts them at 90 wins. A 3 WAR season puts them at 84 wins.

A quick look at a David Gassko Hardball Times article suggests that a 90-win season and then an 84-win season is more likely to put you in the playoffs than two 87-win seasons. In particular (reading off of the figure) 90-win + an 84-win season gets you to a little less than 60% total playoff probability over the two years, while two 87-win seasons is about 30% total likelihood.

If you start at a baseline of 90 wins, the opposite is true. 99-win+93-win gets you ~180% playoff probability, while two 96-win seasons gets you about 190%. This is basically due to the change in curvature of the plot from positive to negative at 90 wins.

The inflection point implies that for a team starting from a baseline above 84 wins, the two 6 WAR seasons are more valuable. If the baseline is below 84 wins, the 9+3 WAR season are more valuable. Because most teams start with a baseline below 84 wins, the 9+3 seasons are valuable more often.

Interestingly, his article reaches the opposite conclusion. It's not obvious to me that his approach is entirely correct: he assumes historical probabilities for winning a certain number of games. (E.g., the probability of winning 90 games is roughly 1 in 40.) Then he adds the WAR value in question to that total to find their "new" win total, and their "new" likelihood of making the playoffs. (This is of course identical to my approach above.) However, it seems to me like a 90-win team is more likely to have an above-replacement baseline, so you can't just add X WAR to their win total. For a 55-win team this is a safe assumption, but a 90-win team probably averages (I'm guessing) 2 or 3 WAR at each position, and so instead of adding X WAR, you ought to be adding X-2 or whatever. I don't have a good intuition for how this would affect the final result.

EDIT: actually I'm pretty sure this would serve to make higher WAR seasons more valuable again. Basically, a 2-WAR guy goes to zero, while a 7-WAR guy goes to five. So the marginal change is much more important for the 7-WAR guy.

In particular (reading off of the figure) 90-win + an 84-win season gets you to a little less than 60% total playoff probability over the two years, while two 87-win seasons is about 30% total likelihood.

This would vary considerably and at least semi-predictably by division, right? We're not likely to see an 87-win AL East playoff berth anytime soon, but fewer wins than that can take the NL Central or West on not infrequent occasions. In other words, marginal WAR is more valuable when you're not chasing the Yankees.

I was arguing that Schilling was indeed greater because of his higher peak. I don't think the Hall of Fame should be only about value, it should be about honoring baseball greatness.

A player whose best established level of performance was significantly greater than another player's was the greater player, generally. We remember great seasons and great performances with good reason, not merely because of the value produced.

I'm interested in how far you want to take this peak-schmeak argument.

Do you think that Hughie Jennings was greater than Rusty Staub? (Same value produced, Staub played 1000 more games, Jennings was the best player in the world for about five years running.)

Do you think Sandy Koufax should be in the Hall of Fame, or is he nothing more than Andy Pettitte with some good PR?

Pedro, 1997-2003: 201 GP, 199 GS. 118-36, 2.20 ERA, ERA+ of 213. 1408 IP, 1009 Hits, 1761 Ks, 315 BBs - a ratio of over 5.5 to 1. Led his league in ERA 5 times in those seven years. In those seven seasons, he pitched (more or less) a full season six times. He won three CYA, twice was the runner up, and finished third the sixth season. He finished in the top 5 for MVP two times.

1999 and 2000 are arguably the two greatest seasons, when put into the context of the era, in the history of pitching:
58 GS, 41-10, 1.90 ERA, ERA+ of 265, 430.1 IP, 288 Hits, 597 Ks, 69 BBs, 8.65 K/BB ratio, Two Cy Youngs, 2nd and 5th in the MVP voting. He also threw 17 innings of playoff ball in 1999, giving up 5 hits, no runs, 23 Ks, 6 BBs.

I had just completed my graduate degree, got my first job in Boston, was single, a sports nut, working hard during the week, and dating and drinking on the weekends, during 1999 and 2000. It was perfect timing to be who I was in the city of Boston. I'll tell you this - in 30 years of being a sports fan, I have never seen an athlete dominate on his or her field the way Pedro did at his peak. Those girls I was dating around that time? Most of them didn't know a baseball from a hockey puck...but even they cared about baseball when Pedro pitched. Whole bars would quiet down, and then react, based on Pedro pitching on the TV. Pedro was the bridge between the pretty uninspiring Sox squads of the 1991-1997 period, and the world champion quality teams of 2003 to the present. When you hear people in New England say that the Impossible Dream 1967 Red Sox were the team that created the crazed baseball environment that is Red Sox Nation, I don't think that's true. The 1975 and 1986 near-misses contributed, but when Pedro got to town, you felt like any team anchored with Pedro had a chance to go all the way. In the 9180s, I could get tickets pretty easily. By the late 1990s, Red Sox games had become events - and I think Pedro is the single biggest reason for that.

He may be the greatest peak pitching HOF candidate in history, and he'll go in with over 95% of the vote. Many voters will see a vote for him as a vote for both greatness and an "F-You" to the Steroid Era hitters. Here was the best example of a pitcher who has arguably the greatest peak ever, during the same years that the Steroid Era was at its peak. "Hey, McGwire and Sosa, you may have felt awesome with your HR duel in the late '90s, but when you're getting 19% of the HOF vote, while the pitcher that had to figure out how to work around your muscle-bound BS, Pedro, did so in historic fashion, gets 97%...tell us how it feels then."

Add to all that the fact that Pedro is an extremely charismatic, candid, smart, and well-spoken guy, who will give an awesome speech, and draw a crazy crowd to Cooperstown...well, all the elements are there for one of the highest vote totals in history. Smoltz is a HOFer, no question, but Pedro is inner circle.

#56 Another way to look at it. While I don't have any doubt that both Mike Piazza and Ivan Rodriguez are HOF worthy, I'd rank Piazza as more HOF worthy even though Rodriguez has a higher career WAR. I'm not disputing their respective WAR totals. What I'm saying is that I think anybody who feels that 785 games of 85 OPS+ by a catcher who's nothing special defensively (Rodriguez since 2005 -- good for just over 10 WAR) adds anything to a HOF case is being as silly as somebody asserting that Pete Rose is an inner circle player based on his career hit total.

Nobody but a Rose fanboy would make that argument of the Rose through 1979. 3372 hits and a career line of .312/.381/.432 (126 OPS+ -- which underrates him a tad, but which is clearly not inner circle). So in asserting he's an inner circle player you're arguing that 894 games by a 1B with a 92 OPS+ makes the difference.

I understand that everybody understands the Rose side of the argument, but when you argue exclusively on career WAR (and I understand you are doing the precise opposite) this is precisely what you're doing. Same applies to anybody who calls Ozzie Smith an 87 OPS+ SS. His glove was good enough that he was playing on merit despite hitting .231/.295/.278 over his first 583 games. Drags his career stats down and has basically zip to do with his HOF case.

and he'll go in with over 95% of the vote. Many voters will see a vote for him as a vote for both greatness and an "F-You" to the Steroid Era hitters.

No way. He may go in on the first ballot, but too many voters will focus on "only" 219 wins, plus BS like beating on Zimmer, headhunting, and his vagabond ending with the Mets and Phillies. I basically agree with the arguments you've put forth in his favor, I just don't think (all/enough of) the voters will see it that way.

Example: Why Jack Morris over Denny Martinez?

Part of it is the identification with one great team, rather than a career bouncing around with different teams. Same applies to Smoltz vs. Brown, and was an obstacle to Blyleven's induction.

I'm interested in how far you want to take this peak-schmeak argument.

Do you think that Hughie Jennings was greater than Rusty Staub? (Same value produced, Staub played 1000 more games, Jennings was the best player in the world for about five years running.)

Do you think Sandy Koufax should be in the Hall of Fame, or is he nothing more than Andy Pettitte with some good PR?


I think you're misunderstanding what I was saying about peak. I never said it didn't matter; of course it does. No, Staub is not better than Jennings and is nowhere near a HOFer. Yes, Koufax should be in the HOF (but he's not upper level like a lot of people think). I was saying that, for example, 10 very good years may be equal to 5 great years + 5 average years. The poster in 48 understood what I meant when he was debating a 9 WAR season and a 3 WAR season compared to two 6 WAR seasons.

Is someone who hits .350 half the time and .310 half the time a better hitter than someone who always hits .330? Is someone like Yaz, who had three 40 homer seasons but also a bunch of 15 homer ones in the middle of his prime a better homer hitter than Eddie Murray, who never hit more than 33 but who'd get at least 25 almost every year? I'd say no on both counts. The first two players are equal in my opinion, and Murray is a better HR hitter than Yaz.

Example: Why Jack Morris over Denny Martinez?

Part of it is the identification with one great team, rather than a career bouncing around with different teams.

I'm not sure if Morris is identified with one great team. I always think of him as a Tiger - a key member of the great 1984 Tigers, in fact - but his signature moment, game 7 of the 1991 WS, came with a different team (Twins). He wasn't a journeyman like Martinez, but he wasn't a guy identified with just one team like Smoltz either.

I was saying that, for example, 10 very good years may be equal to 5 great years + 5 average years.

And why is that different from the question of whether 5 great years and 5 replacement level years aren't better than 10 good years? That's basically what the Jennings/Staub and Koufax/Pettitte questions get at. If Sandy Koufax had pitched another 1000 replacement level innings, it wouldn't change his Hall of Fame case in the slightest.

Effectively, you agree with me that 10, 10, 10, 0, 0 is better than 6, 6, 6, 6, 6. It seems like the same logic would hold for 9, 9, 9, 3, 3, 3 versus 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6. Why not?

I should also say, here, that it really isn't about value for me. I don't think the Hall of Fame is for honoring the players who produced the most value. It's for honoring the greatest players. Being the best in the world, or one of the few best in the world, for a significant period of time (a season, or especially 3-4-5 seasons) is establishing greatness. Schilling established himself as a greater pitcher than Smoltz at his best, so I'll take him over Smoltz by a good margin.

The average (and "typical," in some sense) team has 81 wins. For an 81-win team, an extra 9 WAR season puts them at 90 wins. A 3 WAR season puts them at 84 wins.

The point is valid, but I don't think it works exactly as neatly as that, because "average" is way higher than "replacement level." A team of all replacement level players wouldn't win 81 games,* they'd win something like 50.

*Not sure a team of all average players would either -- I think it would tend to be higher, but I get what you're saying.

I'm not sure if Morris is identified with one great team. I always think of him as a Tiger - a key member of the great 1984 Tigers, in fact - but his signature moment, game 7 of the 1991 WS, came with a different team (Twins). He wasn't a journeyman like Martinez, but he wasn't a guy identified with just one team like Smoltz either.

Pretty much agree, but Morris' narrative is way different than that of Martinez, Brown, Blyleven, etc. He has his Tigers prime, then (so the story goes) became the ace of two separate teams which won the WS with him anchoring the rotation.

And why is that different from the question of whether 5 great years and 5 replacement level years aren't better than 10 good years?

Effectively, you agree with me that 10, 10, 10, 0, 0 is better than 6, 6, 6, 6, 6. It seems like the same logic would hold for 9, 9, 9, 3, 3, 3 versus 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6. Why not?

I don't disagree with you in principle. But I do think some people (not you) act like peak is all that matters and I disagree with that. USUALLY 4-5 years of being one of the best players in the game and not having much else isn't enough to make someone a HOFer in my book (Murphy, Mattingly, Giambi, etc). Koufax is a bit of an exception because his best years are SO damn great, not simply amongst the best of his era. I doubt too many people here would disagree with me regarding say, Koufax vs Giambi. Everyone just has different opinions of how long and how dominant a peak has to be before a player locks up his spot in the HOF.

I should also say, here, that it really isn't about value for me. I don't think the Hall of Fame is for honoring the players who produced the most value. It's for honoring the greatest players. Being the best in the world, or one of the few best in the world, for a significant period of time (a season, or especially 3-4-5 seasons) is establishing greatness. Schilling established himself as a greater pitcher than Smoltz at his best, so I'll take him over Smoltz by a good margin.

Again, I agree in principal. It just doesn't always work out that everyone with a super dominant peak will end up being better than someone with a lower peak but a longer career. Longevity is underrated, IMHO. I wouldn't, for example, take Giambi over Palmeiro or McGriff. But if you would, well, to each their own. And I'd take Schilling over Smoltz too, though I don't think my margin between them would be as great as yours. And I'm not sure if the BBWAA is going to see much difference at all. I actually won't be surprised if Smoltz gets MORE voter love than Schill does.

And why is that different from the question of whether 5 great years and 5 replacement level years aren't better than 10 good years? That's basically what the Jennings/Staub and Koufax/Pettitte questions get at. If Sandy Koufax had pitched another 1000 replacement level innings, it wouldn't change his Hall of Fame case in the slightest.

That's one reasonable way to look at it, and I kinda agree if those replacement level innings come at the beginning or tail end of a career. But if a player who puts up replacement level seasons in the middle of his prime, I do think that hurts his case.

That's because there's an opportunity cost involved. A replacement-level season may be $0 in a $/WAR context, but playing a replacement level player for a full season, even if he makes 0 marginal $'s, isn't really a break-even proposition in the broader view. It's a wasted opportunity. A team full of replacement level players who play for free wouldn't actually be a good value, because it would waste an opportunity to win a pennant.

This is one of the problems with comparing players by adding up WAR. A team that signs a short career player isn't obliged to play replacement level players after the short career guy retires or loses effectiveness. They can use those opportunities more fruitfully.

I should also say, here, that it really isn't about value for me. I don't think the Hall of Fame is for honoring the players who produced the most value. It's for honoring the greatest players. Being the best in the world, or one of the few best in the world, for a significant period of time (a season, or especially 3-4-5 seasons) is establishing greatness.

I agree, and this is another reason I don't like the add-up-the-WAR approach, even as a starting point.

Pretty much agree, but Morris' narrative is way different than that of Martinez, Brown, Blyleven, etc. He has his Tigers prime, then (so the story goes) became the ace of two separate teams which won the WS with him anchoring the rotation

True, but this narrative kinda goes against the "identified with one great team" comment from earlier. I see Morris's narrative being more similar to Schillings than Smoltz's (except Schilling actually was what Morris's supporters claim that Jack was) - a dominant pitcher that put teams over the hump and brought WS success wherever he went. Schilling played the majority of his career and was a young ace with the Phillies, had some big seasons with them (1992, 1997, 1998) and led them to the WS (1993). Then he went to the D-Backs and had some more big seasons (2001, 2002) and led them to a WS championship (2001). Then he went to the Red Sox and as the veteran leader had another big season (2004) and led them to 2 championships (2004, 2007). This narrative actually seems pretty similar to what Morris is believed to have done (Tigers = Phillies, Twins = D-Backs, Blue Jays = Red Sox).

The difference is that Schilling really was as good as he was believed to be.

Edit:corrected a spelling error

I agree, and this is another reason I don't like the add-up-the-WAR approach, even as a starting point.

I don't have a problem with the add up war approach, but do have a problem when someone tries to use up career war as a proxy to quality when comparing two players. Most people only do it as a quick way of showing value, but shape of career does matter, heck I'm not a fan of just looking at seasonal war and pointing to that, there is too much narrative even within one season to point to a raw number.

I see Morris's narrative being more similar to Schillings than Smoltz's

Good point.

He may be the greatest peak pitching HOF candidate in history, and he'll go in with over 95% of the vote. Many voters will see a vote for him as a vote for both greatness and an "F-You" to the Steroid Era hitters. Here was the best example of a pitcher who has arguably the greatest peak ever, during the same years that the Steroid Era was at its peak. "Hey, McGwire and Sosa, you may have felt awesome with your HR duel in the late '90s, but when you're getting 19% of the HOF vote, while the pitcher that had to figure out how to work around your muscle-bound BS, Pedro, did so in historic fashion, gets 97%...tell us how it feels then."

Add to all that the fact that Pedro is an extremely charismatic, candid, smart, and well-spoken guy, who will give an awesome speech, and draw a crazy crowd to Cooperstown...well, all the elements are there for one of the highest vote totals in history. Smoltz is a HOFer, no question, but Pedro is inner circle.

I recall having several conversations with my uncle in the early 2000's about Pedro & Koufax. My uncle was born in 1956 and is at this point in his life a fairly casual baseball fan who's more interested in football, but was a huge baseball fan when he was young. As such, for him, it's pretty much an article of the faith that Sandy Koufax was the greatest pitcher ever. When confronted with numbers that show Pedro did all the same things Koufax did even before one adjusts for park and era and that when you do adjust for those things, Pedro's peak blows Koufax's away, his response was NOT to be impressed, it was to come up with whole lists of spurious reasons why Pedro wasn't better than Koufax... (230 innings of Pedro isn't as good as 330 of Koufax... pitching is diluted... more of the best athletes are going elsewhere... blah, blah, blah). Unfortunately, I think there are still a pretty substantial number of people in the BBWAA who think exactly this way, and who despite thinking Sandy was the best pitcher ever based on his 5 year peak, will look at Pedro and see a guy with a relatively short career and durability issues and who just isn't Koufax. Are they right? No. Will it lead to some people who don't vote for him? Yes.

Also, I think your perceptions of the "extremely charismatic, candid, smart, and well spoken guy" are somewhat colored by being a Boston fan. Yankee fans tended to see him as an obnoxious, mouthy, arrogant headhunter during the same period, and I suspect the perceptions of the rest of the country were somewhere in between. Personality-wise, he certainly never had the positive reputation around the country that a Kirby Puckett or a Tony Gwynn did.

All that being said, I do think he gets in on the first ballot, but I think it's much more likely to be with 80-85% of the vote than with 95%+

Also, I think your perceptions of the "extremely charismatic, candid, smart, and well spoken guy" are somewhat colored by being a Boston fan. Yankee fans tended to see him as an obnoxious, mouthy, arrogant headhunter during the same period, and I suspect the perceptions of the rest of the country were somewhere in between. Personality-wise, he certainly never had the positive reputation around the country that a Kirby Puckett or a Tony Gwynn did.

I was going to jump in with this. I think Pedro's public persona/reputation is going to hurt him, if anything. It isn't going to be a net positive for him at the very least. And it's why I'm sure there are lots people out there who would say Smoltz was better because Smoltzie was a bulldog-gamer, and Pedro was perceived as something else. They'd be wrong of course. But I have little doubt there are plenty of people who think that.

Personally I think peak-Pedro was probably the greatest pitcher ever. I think he'll get around 90%.

Good points by #70 and #71. As a New Englander, it is hard for me to be purely objective on the subject of Pedro, but a couple of questions for you all:

1) what other pitcher in history would be comparable on the intangibles (cockiness, intelligence, candid, etc.)? Is it a guy like Bob Gibson? Was Gibson talkative enough to merit the comparison? It strikes me that most of the real talkative, smart players of the last several decades were either sort of dumbasses (Rocker, Paps) or choir boy type stuff (Gwynn, Puckett, Ripken). Who was very smart, very good, very verbose and articulate, but just a little bit edgy?

What would Pedro have done in Dodger Stadium in the mid-1960s, by the way?

Hint: Koufax's best ERA+ was his final year, 1966.He had a 190 ERA+, going 27-9 with a 1.73 ERA.

Another hint: Bob Gibson's ERA+ in 1968, the year his ERA was a record 1.12? 258

If Pedro had pitched in the NL in the mid-to-late 1960s, he would've had multiple years with an ERA under...1. He was the best for a few years, ever. Unreal.



Pedro's best year was 2000, when he went 18-6 with an ERA of 1.74...and an ERA+ of 291! An ERA+ of 291 in 1966 would be an ERA of...

72: It obviously depends on the park. Dodger Stadium or the Astrodome, 291 ERA+ would probably be around 0.80. Wrigley or Crosley it'd be about 1.35

Who was very smart, very good, very verbose and articulate, but just a little bit edgy?

You're asking this in a thread about John Smoltz? This is kind of obvious.

I should also say, here, that it really isn't about value for me. I don't think the Hall of Fame is for honoring the players who produced the most value. It's for honoring the greatest players. Being the best in the world, or one of the few best in the world, for a significant period of time (a season, or especially 3-4-5 seasons) is establishing greatness. Schilling established himself as a greater pitcher than Smoltz at his best, so I'll take him over Smoltz by a good margin.

By the way, I think this is a better argument for honoring peak performance than my 54. The only complication I see is if the severe inconsistency happens season-to-season, instead of in lumps at the beginning and end of a career, for the reasons given in 66.

All that being said, I do think he gets in on the first ballot, but I think it's much more likely to be with 80-85% of the vote than with 95%+

With all the BS and moral outrage going on with the BBWAA right now and the "no one from the steroid era" nonsense that some voters will undoubtedly pull, I think the only retired players that will be eligible for election in the next few years that will sail into the Hall on the first ballot with 95% of the vote will be Maddux, Johnson, and Griffey. Guys like Glavine, Thomas, and Pedro could make it on the first ballot, but I suspect they'll be more in the 75-85% range.

Pedro's best year was 2000, when he went 18-6 with an ERA of 1.74...and an ERA+ of 291! An ERA+ of 291 in 1966 would be an ERA of...

According to BB-Ref, neutralizing Pedro's 2000 season to the 1968 Dodgers, he puts up a 22-3 record with a 1.04 ERA, a 0.562 WHIP, and a K-BB of 296-25. Neutralizing Pedro's entire career to the '68 Dodgers, he ends up with a career ERA of 1.91 and a career WHIP of 0.824.

Fabulous pitcher, in the conversation for best ever at his peak, but I'm with the 80-85% crowd. They were quite a while ago, but a couple of names that have come up as comps: Sandy Koufax got 86.9% in his 1st (and only) year on the ballot (and I agree with the above comment that people from Koufax's generation who think he's the best ever won't believe that Pedro was his equal, or even particularly close), Bob Gibson got 84.0%.

With all the BS and moral outrage going on with the BBWAA right now and the "no one from the steroid era" nonsense that some voters will undoubtedly pull, I think the only retired players that will be eligible for election in the next few years that will sail into the Hall on the first ballot with 95% of the vote will be Maddux, Johnson, and Griffey. Guys like Glavine, Thomas, and Pedro could make it on the first ballot, but I suspect they'll be more in the 75-85% range.

Have to agree with that.

And I'll disagree with people saying Pedro is best ever, not even best of his generation. He was a fragile porcelain mouse out there, who routinely missed a month of starts in a season, who never pitched hurt so unlike the Gibsons or even Jack Morris's of the world, he doesn't have nagging injuries bringing his numbers down. Absolutely great pitcher, but no way do I take him over Maddux, Randy or Clemens. And just like Clemens in his last years, it's easier to put up ungodly era+ if you aren't asked to pitch past the point of your best. (note: the preceeding comment doesn't apply to Pedro prior to his age 27 season)

The beauty of pitchers like Koufax and Pedro is that they are so good that they tend to blow up stats like ERA+.

Koufax hardly ever gave up any runs, it seemed, and Pedro (and Maddux and Johnson and Clemens) put up crazy numbers even with the scoring environment so much higher.

The great and late Stephen Jay Gould, an anthropologist and gifted writer, once remarked how interesting it was that so many animals "got the same amount of heartbeats," or words to that effect. His point was that a tortoise might live 150 years, but they don't do a whole lot. The hummingbird doesn't live very long, but it basically never takes a break. I think he mentioned fruit flies as well.

That's sort of analogous to Koufax and Pedro. The Dodgers crammed a lifetime's worth of great pitching into six Koufax years, and the Red Sox decided to accept less per year with the reward of more years of benefiting from that.

Poetic license here, but I think there's a point there. And both still left an indelible mark.

And I'll disagree with people saying Pedro is best ever, not even best of his generation.

Absolutely great pitcher, but no way do I take him over Maddux, Randy or Clemens.


Agreed. And I was a huge Pedro fan. And it's not just that the three pitchers above lasted longer and thus had more CAREER value than Pedro; it's that Pedro wasn't really a big innings eater even relative to his own era, so the PEAKS of these players alone might be just as good when you add in the extra 30 or innings they were throwing each year.

And if you're talking about career, obviously there's no comparison.

I wonder if Pedro's persona might not be perceived a bit like Ricky? I know Ricky played dumb on occasion, in a zen master kind of way.

My sense (and it's nothing more than that) was that Martinez is considered by the casual fan as a probable Hall-of-Famer, but one who's in line behind the big names of his era--Maddux, Johnson, and the hypothetical non-steroidal Clemens--because of his "short" career.

Is the comparison not objectively true? -- Martinez is in line behind Maddux/Johnson/Clemens, mostly because those guys have much longer careers, adding considerable value outside peaks that are comparable to slightly better than Martinez.

But just as it is not to Frank Robinson's discredit that he's not Hank Aaron or Willie Mays, it's not to Pedro's discredit that he's behind the approximately 2nd (Clemens), 3rd (Maddux), and 9th (Johnson) best pitchers in MLB history.

OTOH, he may get Duke Snider'd. But I think he's more Robinson to Aaron/Mays than Snider to Mays/Mantle.

it's that Pedro wasn't really a big innings eater even relative to his own era, so the PEAKS of these players alone might be just as good when you add in the extra 30 or innings they were throwing each year.

Um, no.

Pedro's WAR in his two best years, 99-00, is 18.5. And WAR relies a lot on being above a low replacement level; runs above average would show a bigger difference. Randy ain't near that, and I don't believe WAR even accounts for the Unit's pathetic .904 career fld pct - the man made lots of errors. And then you have post-season stuff (clear advantage Pedro). And then you have Pedro pitching in a tougher league, AND getting intentionally matched against the best hitting team there was, the Yankees, very often.

And then you have Pedro pitching in a tougher league, AND getting intentionally matched against the best hitting team there was, the Yankees, very often.

The AL wasn't demonstrably better than the NL until around 2004.

Pedro's WAR in his two best years, 99-00, is 18.5.

Clemens WAR in his best two years is 19.8. Anyone know how to pro-rate Maddux's 1994 and 1995 and find out what his WAR would have been? Hell, Giambi's best two years is 19.0.


Clemens - 10.3, 9.5, 8.4, 7.9, 7.9 - 44.0
Maddux - 8.8*, 8.4, 7.8*, 7.3, 6.3 - 38.6
Johnson - 8.8, 8.4, 8.2, 7.8*, 7.7 - 40.9
Pedro - 10.1, 8.4, 8.2, 7.4, 6.6 - 40.7

* = strike shortened

Pedro's peak only looks better than these contemporaries if you consider one season a "peak" (and even then he's behind Clemens). Sammy Sosa's best year is better than Albert Pujols best year. It doesn't mean he had a better peak.

#79 ? Koufax isn't anything like an ERA+ monster. He's got 2 ERA+ titles and 190 (his high) is tied for 57th all-time. Far from awesome as a best year.

It's the very low raw era combined with the high IP totals (even this is less than awesome in context -- only 2 IP title. Only two other times on the IP leaderboard) that give him an outlandish looking stat line.

Don't get me wrong, lots of inning combined with rate stats that were among the best in the league produces a 6 year prime where he was first in value twice, second in value twice and third once (and his "off" season was a 142 ERA+ in 184.1 IP. I'll settle). Damned few pitchers have a run like that.

But just as it is not to Frank Robinson's discredit that he's not Hank Aaron or Willie Mays, it's not to Pedro's discredit that he's behind the approximately 2nd (Clemens), 3rd (Maddux), and 9th (Johnson) best pitchers in MLB history.

Maddux was better than Clemens.

And then you have post-season stuff (clear advantage Pedro).

If you ask the average fan about Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez in the post-season, the dominant memory of the former will be Johnson coming in to win game 7 in the 2001 series after pitching 7 innings the game before, and winning World Series co-MVP. The dominant memory of Pedro will be his inability to hold a lead in Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS and blowing the series to the Yankees. People remember Randy Johnson as clutch in the postseason. They remember Pedro saying "The Yankees are my daddies".

Maddux was better than Clemens.

How so? The only knock against Clemens (other than roids) is that his best years weren't all consecutive, so he may not have had a stretch of consecutively great years as long as Maddux or Johnson. But if you add up all their best seasons, he comes out on top easily.

#83 Sean adjusts for the general quality of the defense behind a pitcher. If you check you'll see that for his career Johnson got very slightly above average defensive support (12 runs).

This suggests that if his error were resulting in a disproportionate number of unearned runs it'd be on his head (since Sean deals with runs rather than unearned runs).

Johnson's ratio of runs to unearned runs is 1.13 -- the same as Greg Maddux's (and Maddux is seen as playing in front of better defenses than Johnson -- but the difference is maybe 3 runs a year). Pedro's is 1.09 (with defensive support roughly the mid-point between Johnson and Maddux -- closer to Maddux)

Johnson's rate of unearned runs is more typical of a groundball pitcher, but it's nothing huge. He's slightly overrated by ERA+ but it's no big deal.

2 random top-of-my-head thoughts:

1) Pedro Martinez was obviously more durable than Sandy Koufax. He pitched about 500 more career innings than Koufax. End of story.

2) Koufax, conversely, would impress you a lot more in any given game. From 1961 through 1966, Koufax completed over half his starts, 35 of them for shutouts. From 1997 through 2003, when he threw slightly fewer innings than Koufax did in 1961-66, and was simply unhittable, Martinez completed about a sixth of his starts. To some extent, I am sure that innings are fungible and that value provided in seven-inning starts is just as good pro rata as value provided in eight-inning starts (their rough average during those peak spans). But all of Koufax's nine-inning starts were justly impressive.

Oh, and a third thing: Martinez was a good pitcher, sometimes very good, before and after his peak. Koufax was mediocre or worse beforehand, and retired afterwards. Advantage Pedro in that department.

How so?

Cause he just was, that's how.

#85: I was not saying Pedro's peak was better than Clemens or Maddux. Only better than Johnson's. And Johnson still had a tremendous peak!

#90: Sean adjusts for def behind pitcher, but does WAR account for the pitcher's own errors? That is what I mentioned.

#87: Clemens >>> Maddux. Not close. Only if you fail to account for NL-no-DH, defense behidn him, etc. is it close. I mean, look at their career W-L records, and try to tell me that if Maddux and Clemens switched teams that Maddux would gain 14 games. Now, if you wish to argue that Greg will get more HoF votes, I won't deny it. But HoF voters can be silly.

Pedro never pitched hurt? Like, the man's signature moment in the postseason was shutting down a thousand-run offense with just a 92 mph fastball because his shoulder was owies.

The dominant memory of Pedro will be his inability to hold a lead in Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS and blowing the series to the Yankees. People remember Randy Johnson as clutch in the postseason. They remember Pedro saying "The Yankees are my daddies".

It's not my dominant memory and attaching the blame for one of the greatest managerial blunders in baseball history to the pitcher is like blaming Dave Henderson for Bill Buckner blowing a groundball.

#93 Why should it? That's a method error (functional-double counting) that appears in early versions of TPR. A pitcher's value is the runs allowed adjusted for defensive support (and adjusted for context)

If a really good fielding pitcher (say Greg Maddux or Jim Kaat) is an adjusted 20 runs above baseline (replacement or average) he's not 5 runs better for being a good fielder. The value of a pitcher's fielding already shows up in the runs allowed.

EDIT: If you're dumb enough to use some form of FIP for value then Johnson will (probably) show up as slightly overrated.

Also, I think your perceptions of the "extremely charismatic, candid, smart, and well spoken guy" are somewhat colored by being a Boston fan. Yankee fans tended to see him as an obnoxious, mouthy, arrogant headhunter during the same period, and I suspect the perceptions of the rest of the country were somewhere in between.

I never rooted for Pedro in my life, but I can't imagine that coloring my perception of him to the point where I'd leave him off my HoF ballot. And if he was a head-hunter, so were God knows how many other great pitchers who made the HoF without anywhere near his credentials.

Personality-wise, he certainly never had the positive reputation around the country that a Kirby Puckett or a Tony Gwynn did.

Neither did Carl Yastrzemski, a cold fish clubhouse lawyer who still managed to get 94% on the first ballot.

All that being said, I do think he gets in on the first ballot, but I think it's much more likely to be with 80-85% of the vote than with 95%+

I can't believe he'll get under 90%, and I'd love to see how any writer justifies voting against him.

1) what other pitcher in history would be comparable on the intangibles (cockiness, intelligence, candid, etc.)? Is it a guy like Bob Gibson? Was Gibson talkative enough to merit the comparison? It strikes me that most of the real talkative, smart players of the last several decades were either sort of dumbasses (Rocker, Paps) or choir boy type stuff (Gwynn, Puckett, Ripken). Who was very smart, very good, very verbose and articulate, but just a little bit edgy?

Not a pitcher, but Reggie! is the one that comes to mind for me, and people either loved or hated him.... I don't think Pedro is quite as polarizing, but there's a bit of that in there.

I can't believe he'll get under 90%, and I'd love to see how any writer justifies voting against him.

Welcome to the current state of the BBWAA, where the extreme backlog and anti-steroid hysteria is going to make it hard for almost anyone to get 90% of the vote on the first ballot. Writers will just use the "no one from the steroid era" nonsense to justify their votes. There was a time when it would've seemed unimaginable that the likes of Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Bagwell, Biggio, Piazza, etc, wouldn't make it on the first ballot either, but it's happening. This entire era seems to offend the voters and they're gonna take their ball and go home. Pedro isn't immune to the anti 90's/2000's temper tantrum that is the current BBWAA.

Neither did Carl Yastrzemski, a cold fish clubhouse lawyer who still managed to get 94% on the first ballot.

And that was a very different era. A comparably great player today like say, Jeff Bagwell, gets 41% on the first ballot.