Since we've had the Chipper Jones discussion more than once recently, how about discussing Smoltz's chances?

As a Met fan, I have an intense drive to hijack threads. That said, I'll try to keep this related to the Braves. Do the Braves have the money to sign Tom Glavine this offseason? Do they even want him? He's been hinting that he wants to return and the Mets have made it known that they won't stand in his way. The Mets have a 12 million dollar option on Glavine next season and Glavine has an 8.5 million dollar option.

Yes, Chipper will make the HoF.

how about discussing Smoltz's chances?

I doubt that he has much of a chance. There are 5 locks from this era (Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, Pedro, Glavine), plus 3 others that are at least as good (Mussina, Brown, Schilling).

Smoltz is still going strong. The successful rebirth as a starter will boost his chances significantly. I think when it's all said and done, Mussina and Schilling will have HOF totals. Brown will be looking from the outside.

As Reyes has cooled down recently, I think we need another Reyes thread. What do you think his upside is? I think he could be Barry Larkin, except with more speed.

Smoltz is in, I think. Variables aiding: career spent with one team; integral part of a consistent winter; a variety of roles in which he has excelled (young firethrower, relief ace, veteran mortar of volatile staff); postseason clutch ace.

Decreasing level of votes, I think, for pitchers, right now: Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, Glavine, Pedro, Smoltz, Mariano, Schilling, Hoffman, Mussina, Brown. I see the cutoff as between either Schilling and Hoffman, or Mussina and Brown.

Glavine ahead of Pedro? Smoltz ahead of Rivera and Hoffman?

FWIW I'd go:

Clemens
Maddux
Johnson
Martinez
Rivera
Hoffman
Glavine
Smoltz
Schilling
Mussina
Brown

The cutoff could be anywhere right after Hoffman to right before Brown.

Here's what Smoltz did from 1988-1999, plus what he has done since returning to the rotation in 2006.

183-129, 2847.0 IP, 2452 Ks, 3.36 ERA, 7.75 K/9, 2.81 K/BB.

Here's what he did from 2001-2004, mostly as a reliver.

6-8, 285.1 IP, 300 Ks, 2.65 ERA, 9.46 K/9, 5.45 K/BB, 154 Saves.

If he can be as good in 2007 and 2008 as he has been the last years, he's got to be a better candidate than Schilling if the latter retires after next season like he has previously said he would. He'd roughly the same amount of wins, strikeouts, and ERA. He'd also have 150+ saves and a Cy Young, things Schilling doesn't have.

Smoltz's stuff is still excellent and it's not all that unlikely that he'll pitch well into his forties.

Hoffman before Glavine? The cut off possibly after Hoffman?

B.S.

Hoffman will have a hard time getting in, Saves record or no. Rivera will get in because of the post-season work.

Glavine is in.

Here's what Smoltz did from 1988-1999, plus what he has done since returning to the rotation in 2006.

I meant 2005.

it's not all that unlikely that he'll pitch well into his forties.

Yes, it is. It is unlikely that anyone will pitch well into his forties. The fact that a few guys have done it leately, does not suddenly make it common.

Also, he had serious arm problems, that led to him going into the bullpen.

By the end of the season, Smoltz will have thrown about 450 very effective in his age 38 and 39 seasons. I'm not saying it is a stone cold lock that he'll pitch well in his forties but I wouldn't be surprised if he did.

Okay, Kevin Brown was an ass. But he was a terrific pitcher and clearly better than Mussina, at least. He has still has more innings (barely) and a higher ERA+ overall (127 to 125), and his peak 1996-2000 peak is just ridiculous - 230+ IP each year with the lowest ERA+ of 148. For comparasion, Mussina only has 3 full seasons better than 148 ERA+, and one of them is 149. I also wouldn't be surprised to see Mussina have a bad year as he declines that drags down his ERA+.

He's got a lower K rate and higher WHIP, and as such more dependent on his defense, but I think these points are too fine to overcome his ridiculous peak.

Five years seems to be a standard figure for peak, and I'm willin to put his 5 year peak against any non-Maddux/Pedro/Unit peak of this generation. I think he's going to absolutely get the shaft on HoF voting, just like he got shafted in awards voting.

#6 was intended to be how I rank them, not necessarily how I expect the voters will go (although in re-reading, its obvious that that's what the first poster was presenting). I agree that for the BBWAA Glavine's chances are probably better than Hoffman's, although I'm pretty confident that both will make it within their first half dozen ballots or so.

The HOF standards for closers are still very much a work in progress for both fans and mediots alike. We're not going to convince the other of our positions by making provincial statements like "BS" and probably not even by making more cogent arguments. So I'll just state my position as follows: Hoffman is one of the greatest modern closers whose HOF credentials go far deeper than his (practically inevitable) career saves record. He's a hair less deserving than Rivera, but still quite deserving.

YMMV.

...Mathews and Robinson, who whiled away much of their careers in the 1960s and 70s, when runs were generally hard to come by.

Kind of odd to lump Mathews and Robinson together in the same environment. During most of Mathews' peak years - 1952-1963 - the NL was actually a relatively high run scoring environment and HR rates were higher than at any other time until the '90s (the downturn started in 1963, which was his eleventh straight year with an OPS+ of at least 120 - in his remaining 5 seasons he had just one such season). In contrast, the bulk of Robinson's career was indeed during the long drought years that followed immediately after..

Just nitpicking, of course ... but it always annoys me when people talk about how cheap HR totals are today, but then conveniently forget that several of the older members of the 500 club also played significant portions of their careers during a rather HR rich environment in the '50s. By way of illustration: when Willie Mays hit 51 HRs in 1955 there were 1.04 HR/G in the NL; that was the all time high in the NL until 1999 - last year there were only 1.01. The good old days weren't as different from today as some people like to think.

LSR:

To complete the Eddie Mathews background information Mathews hit fewer homers at home then any slugger. Mathews hit 237 of his 512 home runs in his home parks. Compare that to the likes of Frank Robinson whose numbers are 321 home and 265 road. Or Jimmie Foxx at 299 and 235. Of course, that all-time "homer" is Mel Ott who hit 323 of his 511 in New York.

So what offense conditions "giveth" Milwaukee County Stadium taketh away. Unitl the renovations of the late 80's County Stadium was a tough home run park. Honest. Really.

Folks don't want to believe that because of guys like Aaron, Mathews, Adcock, Gorman Thomas, etc. But it's a fact.

Just wanted to point that out.........................

Smoltz, I don't know. 189-137 does not scream "Hall of Fame" and a couple more years going 12-9 will put him at 213-155, which resembles the career record of Jesse Haines, not usually enough to punch one's ticket unless one is Jesse Haines. Better than Dennis Eckersley's career record, granted, but Eck is in as a reliever; as a starter no-one would think twice about his candidacy. Smoltz was a fine reliever but just one of many fine relievers during his (brief) time there.

Association with the Braves champions and the tendency to think of Smoltz/Glavine/Maddux as a unit may in fact gain Smoltz induction, but if it does people will be complaining about it on Primer in 3006.

So what offense conditions "giveth" Milwaukee County Stadium taketh away. Unitl the renovations of the late 80's County Stadium was a tough home run park. Honest. Really.

James has a good essay on this in one of the Abstracts. He apparently experienced the same difficulty as you. People assumed that COunty Stadium was a home run park because of the sluggers there.

Jones’ defense at third is often pilloried, but in reality he’s an average defender

Why? How? I'd like an explanation of this evaluation that doesn't involve ZR. He certainly is throwing FRAA under the bus, because that has Chipper at -150 runs, and that would be enough to take him out of the HOF. But it is wrong.

Chipper is actually about +50. FRAA misses Chipper by *200* runs. That's pretty good evidence you can't use "adjusted" RF. Sort of. As I noted, most players tend to come out really close to average, so all methods will end up with close to the same estimates, except where a player is grossly downgraded by traditional numbers due to BIP distribution.

You'll be surprised to hear Jeter, while not as bad as FRAA, isn't terribly far from it considering his IP.

chris, i've been waiting for "the misunderstood" for a while - shall we expect it soon?

i hope smoltz can make it... woulda been nice if he could have picked up a couple more wins down the stretch. he's really tired in the past month or so.

Also, Jones will almost certainly wind up as one of only 24 players in history to tally 400 homers, 400 doubles and 1,000 walks.

My hatred of round numbers continues to grow.

Why not also include singles and triples there, buddy? Then we could add up the number of bases the person got in all their at-bats. It could be like, a total or something!

What? Someone's already done that? So where does Chipper fall on that list?

Active Leaders for Total Bases (via bbRef)


7. Julio Franco (46) 3533 R
18. John Olerud* (36) 3530 L
19. Ivan Rodriguez (33) 3503 R
20. Mike Piazza (36) 3440 R
21. B.J. Surhoff* (40) 3414 L
22. Jim Thome* (34) 3327 L
23. Moises Alou (38) 3241 R
24. Chipper Jones# (33) 3213 B
25. Vinny Castilla (37) 3161 R
26. Robin Ventura* (37) 3133 L
27. Carlos Delgado* (33) 3089 L
28. Shawn Green* (32) 3081 L
29. Garret Anderson* (33) 3062 L
30. Kenny Lofton* (38) 3041 L

An illustrious crowd to be sure, but Chipper doesn't even make the top 100 All-Time in total bases (being behind BJ Surhoff kinda gets in the way of that), also falling behind a number of more deserving sluggers, including Dale Murphy, Ron Santo, Roberto Alomar, Harold Baines, Craig Biggio, and Andre Dawson. Not to mention non-starters like Andres Galarraga, Joe Carter, Gary Gaetti, Bill Buckner, and Ruben Sierra.

Smoltz's post-season record (206 2/3 IP, 2.66 ERA, 7.3 HA/9, 2.9 BB/9, 8.4 K/9) gives his HOF candidacy a significant boost. I would be shocked if the writers did not vote him into the Hall.

So what offense conditions "giveth" Milwaukee County Stadium taketh away. Unitl the renovations of the late 80's County Stadium was a tough home run park. Honest. Really.

True. I've got no problem recognizing Mathews as a deserving member of the 500 club - I was just nitpicking the perception of him as having suffered deflated statistics because of the era he played in. Ballparks are a different issue as you pointed out.

(being behind BJ Surhoff kinda gets in the way of that)

I think age might have something to do with that. If TB are you thing, Chipper's going to need to fall off a large cliff, and not have any "hang around" years to not finish his career with more than eveyone listed except IRod (and finish at least top 50 all time).

I agree that Smoltz's post-season record has to weigh heavily in the HoF discussion. It's basically an extra season's worth of elite pitching in high leverage situations. I don't have any idea of a fair way to do this, but if you're going to compare win totals between the 5-man and 4-man rotation eras, you should be able to count the expanded post-season stats as well.

... and Mathews — both “inner circle” guys...

Yeah, inner circle---that's why it took the voters five years to finally enshrine Mathews.

Robinson, Scmmidt, Brett and Boggs were all voted in their first year. Either Mathews isn't really an "inner-circle" guy, or else the bar was drastically lowered between 1973, when Mathews became eligible, and 1982, when Brooks became eligible.

Either Mathews isn't really an "inner-circle" guy, or else the bar was drastically lowered between 1973, when Mathews became eligible, and 1982, when Brooks became eligible.

Or maybe the voters were wrong not to induct him earlier? DiMaggio didn't get in on his first ballot, does that mean he isn't "inner-circle"?

Yeah, inner circle---that's why it took the voters five years to finally enshrine Mathews.

I think we can mostly agree that the voters sometimes have their heads up their asses, no?

i will be REAL surprised if smolz don't get voted in. right along with glavine and maddux

because smoltz is looked at as a big game winner. which he has been. and the staying with one team thing is big.

and i think the voters gonna adjust for him being an elite closer for all those years.

me i think he should go in

I think we can mostly agree that the voters sometimes have their heads up their asses, no?

Perhaps, but I also think that standards have been lowered...

No. of players voted in, first year on ballot, from 1937-1949: Zero
No. of players voted in, first year on ballot, from 1950-1959: Zero
No. of players voted in, first year on ballot, from 1960-1960: Four
No. of players voted in, first year on ballot, from 1970-1979: Five
No. of players voted in, first year on ballot, from 1980-1989: Ten
No. of players voted in, first year on ballot, from 1990-1999: Ten
No. of players voted in, first year on ballot, from 2000-2006: Seven

Perhaps, but I also think that standards have been lowered...

Perhaps it's just that the definition of "HOFer" has been better codified.

No. of players voted in, first year on ballot, from 1937-1949: Zero

There were special circumstances, but Gehrig was elected in '39. Either in his first year on the ballot or without ever being on the ballot(depending on how you want to argue the semantics).

DiMaggio didn't get in on his first ballot

Well, as people often point out, the election rules kept changing. DiMaggio was inducted just four years after he retired, which is quicker than anyone else (IIRC) except Ruth, Gehrig, and Clemente.

well there were a lot of writers didn't want someone to go in on the first ballot but they DID want them to go in.

me i think this making sure joe D (and other guys) is not a "first ballot" is horsestuff

if you think a guy belongs in the hall, then vote for him now not 3 years from now.

like everybody KNOW that there is only 1 babe ruth. only 1 cy young.

but it is not like they getta take a place in line once they get in.

freddie lindstrom is a hall of famer
willie mays is a hall of famer

same difference

remind me of the old joke - what do you call the person who graduates last in the medical school class?
- doctor

189-137 does not scream "Hall of Fame" and a couple more years going 12-9 will put him at 213-155, which resembles the career record of Jesse Haines, not usually enough to punch one's ticket unless one is Jesse Haines.

Of course, John Smoltz also had four years as a reliever, the last three as arguably the best in the National League.

What if we give him the equivalent W-L that a starter with the same level of win impact would have had, for those three years? We'll leave his 3-3 mark in 2001 alone, but back out the 3-5 he put up in 2002-04 and give him a starter's record with similar win impact (I'll use WARP to measure instead of Win Shares because I have it to hand). This will incorporate those three seasons as a closer better into his W-L record and make his W-L record more reflective of his overall performance as a pitcher.

His WARP for those three years are 5.8, 7.4 and 5.6. The three guys I used as comparisons were 2002 Matt Morris (5.8 WARP), 2003 Hideo Nomo (7.7 WARP) and 2004 Jaret Wright (5.8 WARP). Morris went 17-9, Nomo went 16-13, and Wright went 15-8, and I am officially calling this "close enough".

That's a combined 48-30 of "starter equivalent" that Smoltz put up in those three years. Add that to his current 189-137, back out the 3-5 record he had as a reliever in those seasons, and you get a won/lost record of 234-162 as of right now. Two more 12-9 seasons would make that 258-180.

I can see both arguments, but I think a guy who goes 258-180 would make it in.

Mussina and Smoltz have very similar numbers. ERA+ 125 and 126 (before this year), IP 3187.1 and 3132.1 (including this year), BB 717 and 929, K 2554 and 2752. Smoltz does have an advantage in ERA, 3.30 to 3.65, but he spent a few years as a closer and his entire career in the NL while Mussina has been a starter in the AL. Smoltz's W-L is currently at 189-136, while Mussina's is 237-133 (Smoltz's years as a closer obviously hurt him here). I don't really see how you can say 1 is a HoF'er and the other isn't, personally I think they should both be in.

I don't really see how you can say 1 is a HoF'er and the other isn't, personally I think they should both be in.

That's an easy one: Smoltz's postseason record is what puts him over the top. That and being part of the Brave's mystique. I think now that the run is over, there's going to be a flurry of articles putting the last 15 years into perspective and John Smoltz is going to go down as the one constant on the team (well, him and Bobby).

I think Smoltz would probably get in if he retired today. Given a couple more years to get past 200 wins, and he's no brainer. Has Mussina been just as good during the regular season? Probably. But Mussina will probably go down as this generation's Bert Blyleven.

moose has pretty good postseason numbers too. not as good, and without quite as much success, but he's no slouch (i was about to say the same thing but looked at bref first).

In the Postseason,

Smoltz 206.7 IP, 194 K, 67 BB, 2.66 ERA, W-L 15-4
Mussina 128 IP, 137 K, 29 BB, 3.30 ERA, W-L 7-7

Clearly Smoltz has an advantage here, but his ERA at least is helped by the fact that he pitched a lot of postseason innings in the early 90's when fewer runs were being scored.

That's a combined 48-30 of "starter equivalent" that Smoltz put up in those three years

And an ingenious way to look at it, which I think will convince some voters; the relief years and the postseason will make it hard to ignore Smoltz. I have to think that the smaller-Hall crowd will see him as a Catfish-Hunter type, a famous champion who wasn't truly any better a pitcher than Cone or Saberhagen or Hershiser, probably a notch below them at his peak.

Why not also include singles and triples there, buddy? Then we could add up the number of bases the person got in all their at-bats. It could be like, a total or something!

What? Someone's already done that? So where does Chipper fall on that list?

This is obtuse, but I'll play.

7. Julio Franco (46) 3533 R
18. John Olerud* (36) 3530 L
19. Ivan Rodriguez (33) 3503 R
20. Mike Piazza (36) 3440 R
21. B.J. Surhoff* (40) 3414 L
22. Jim Thome* (34) 3327 L
23. Moises Alou (38) 3241 R
24. Chipper Jones# (33) 3213 B
25. Vinny Castilla (37) 3161 R
26. Robin Ventura* (37) 3133 L
27. Carlos Delgado* (33) 3089 L
28. Shawn Green* (32) 3081 L
29. Garret Anderson* (33) 3062 L
30. Kenny Lofton* (38) 3041 L

Hrm, what can we read from this list... Wow, Chipper is much younger than anyone else on this list, save for a first baseman and a couple corner outfielders, all of whom are lower than he is. I wonder if Chipper will be able to last long enough to post the 320 total bases he needs to catch Julio Franco. He only has 223 this year. At that rate, it'd take him until next year's ASB. In May 2008, when he is 36 years old, he'd make the top 100 all-time.

Wait, what are walks? What is the postseason? What is Hooters?

Wow, Chipper is much younger than anyone else on this list, save for a first baseman and a couple corner outfielders, all of whom are lower than he is.

And a catcher who's above him.

The fact that Chipper has fewer TB than one of the top five catchers in history doesn't bother me. Chipper played in worse offensive parks and has 600 more walks than pudge; adjusted for position (and including defense), Pudge is probably more valuable, but that's hardly a mark against Chipper.

One thing i find amazing - BP has pudge worth roughly 335 runs behind Piazza on offense over his career. Fine, that sounds about right. Amazingly, though, Pudge has a higher WARP1/2/3, meaning that he made up for the entire shortfall (and more) with his defense.

Love to see Dial's take on that, if he's reading this.

who asked you, #####?

my snark was aimed at Java Runtime Environment

I find it difficult to believe that 10 or 11 pitchers from roughly the same era will all make the Hall of Fame. Here are some of my ill-informed opinions:
<u>Mussina</u>: Hall of the Very Good, but closing in on the Hall of Fame. I also think Mussina could end up as his generation's Blyleven -- consistently very good, but overshadowed by some greats (Johnson, Clemens, Pedro, etc.); just look at his paucity of black ink as indication of his good-but-not-great status. He'll likely go down as the best starting pitcher to never have a 20-win season, which is not exactly a HoF boost in writers' minds. Conclusion: He needs to keep pitching until he tops 250 or 260 wins to have a shot.
<u>Smoltz</u>: Sure, he has the Cy over Mussina, but Mussina finished in the top 5 in Cy voting six times, while Smoltz had just his one victory and two other top-5 finishes (and one of those was as a closer). In other words, not an impressive prime for Smoltz. Plus, he was a dominant closer for only three seasons, two of which saw Gagne be even more dominant. Conclusion: He's going to need to get well over 200 wins, which isn't likely.
<u>Brown</u>: In some ways, an underrated pitcher by the mainstream. But, like Mussina, he was overshadowed by other pitchers during his prime. Plus, he never took home the Cy. And his HoF case really relies on that 1996-2000 stretch (plus 2003). Unfortunately, after 2000 he was known mostly for injuries and being a jerk, which is not your typical legacy builder. Conclusion: He doesn't get in.
<u>Schilling</u>: Three 20-win seasons, three Cy Young runner-ups, rep as a big game pitcher and as a gamer in general (he led the league in IP twice). The W-L record does not impress, and he's aging quickly. How voters view his postseason heroics is the wild card. Conclusion: If he gets to 230-240 wins then he's got a shot, but I still think his chances are slim.

One thing i find amazing - BP has pudge worth roughly 335 runs behind Piazza on offense over his career. Fine, that sounds about right. Amazingly, though, Pudge has a higher WARP1/2/3, meaning that he made up for the entire shortfall (and more) with his defense.

Love to see Dial's take on that, if he's reading this.

I bet Dial's take is similar to mine: BP's defensive metrics are unworthy of any credence at all. That said, Pudge is undoubtedly a vastly superior defensive catcher to Piazza, and makes up a lot of Piazza's offensive advantage. But not all of it -- not nearly.

well, their catcher metric is going to be very different from their (say) SS metric - it will be heavily focused on CS and SB allowed. In theory they should correlate better. i don't know what the difference will be, but pudge is probably the very best defensive catcher in history (at least in terms of career value), and piazza might be one of the very worst (except at blocking balls in the dirt).

Other Maddux, I don't think there's a group of HOFers I've had a higher degree of both hatred and respect for than the core of the Braves dynasty.

I can't stand Smoltz, I loathe Chipper, and don't really care for Glavine... but that said - if I had a ballot when they're eligible, I'd vote for all 3 in their first year.

But then - I'm a big hall guy, so my vote only counts for half.

How voters view his postseason heroics is the wild card. Conclusion: If he gets to 230-240 wins then he's got a shot, but I still think his chances are slim.

I think you greatly misunderestimate Schilling's chances. His post-season rep is huge -- he is viewed as the key ingredient for two World Series Champions, both of which involved beating the Yankees. He also had an NLCS MVP from before then. He may already have punched his ticket because of them, and if he hasn't, he does not need to do all that much more. He may not make it first ballot, but I will be very surprised if Mr. Bloody Sock does not get a plaque.

Schilling is in.

I pretty much agree with #45. Any of those guys could make it in, but they'll need some generousity by the voters as well as need at least another good season or two (exception obviously of Brown, who is probably the least likely of the foursome to be elected).

Which is pretty much what I was trying to get at in #6. In my HOM, Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, Martinez, Rivera, and Hoffman are definitely in if they never throw another inning in the majors. Glavine, Smoltz, Schilling, and Mussina could be in, depending in part on how they finish their careers. Brown's almost certainly on the outside looking in.

</i>and piazza might be one of the very worst (except at blocking balls in the dirt).</i>

I think it's better phrased as "Piazza might be one of the very best (except for throwing out basestealers)." Simply tremendous at blocking balls in the dirt, always has had a good catcher's ERA, doesn't allow many passed balls or wild pitches, pitchers like working with him. And yet the only thing that anyone can focus on are ####### basestealers. And that he's gay. No justice.

well, their catcher metric is going to be very different from their (say) SS metric - it will be heavily focused on CS and SB allowed.

Which is exactly why it's #### when it comes to catchers -- especially in this era, in which stolen bases are NOT a big offensive weapon and thus their prevention not as big an asset for a catcher. There is so much more to catcher defense (as G.U.O. alluded to) that to reduce it to CS and SB is just nonsense. Not that B-Pro does QUITE that, of course, but they clearly don't measure catcher defense anywhere near adequately, and their claim that Pudge more than makes up the offensive canyon that separates him from Piazza is preposterous.

By the way, with the Mets' comeback win over the Marlins tonight (just over), the Braves were officially eliminated from the NL East race, and their run of first place finishes has come to an end. And a magnificent accomplishment it has been, as I tried to capture late last week. I'm glad it's the Mets who have climbed the mountain and taken them down. The king is dead . . . .

by the way sam that was really an awesome eulogy you wrote forgot to tell you

My point about the total bases thing was not that Chipper won't be Hall-worthy one day - it's that the writer tried to make him part of an elite group ("only 24 players") based on acquisition of bases, when in fact Chipper isn't even in the top 24 of total bases among players playing the game today, much less "in history."

I'm sure that when the dust settles, Chipper will be in the top 100 of all Time. 50? I can see that. But that puts him more in line with McGriff, Dwight Evans, Brooks Robinson, and Charlie Gehringer, not an elite 24-man group that includes the likes of Mays, Aaron, Ruth, Gehrig, etc.

I complain more about the cherry picking of stats than Chipper's actual batting acumen. And I think if he makes the top 50 all-time in Total Bases, then yes, he should be a Hall of Famer.

Is there a list of the HOM's "inner circle"? I suppose I could name 90% of them but isn't Mathews a close call? James rates him the 3rd best 3B of all time so that must mean Brett's an inner circle guy too?