Committee Chairman

The John Smoltz Debate: 2015

Dec 29, 2014

Published in Hall of Fame Debates

This is the twenty-first of our series where we here at Notinhalloffame.com, do what else? Debate the merit of twenty-four men on the most loaded Baseball Hall of Fame ballot in our lifetime.

Joining me, the site's Committee Chairman, in this debate are D.K. of the site's Phillies Archivist blog and Darryl Tahirali of the site's DDT's Pop Flies blog. This looks to be a very important part of our site, and we hope you will enjoy reading this as much as we enjoyed writing it.

Chairman: I know that I keep equating last year’s Maddux/Glavine & Thomas to this year’s Randy/Pedro & Smoltz but it seems so much of a given that two of them are going in (Randy Johnson & Pedro Martinez) and John Smoltz, while great is arguably a level below, and not necessarily a first ballot. I think the biggest comparison has to be Dennis Eckersley who got in on the first ballot, and had successful stints both as a starter and a reliever and they have similar bWARs (Eckersley 62.5 – Smoltz 66.5) but for John to replicate Eck’s 83.2% in his first year is so much harder as the man with the feathered coif did not have this kind of competition.

For the record, I far prefer the career of Smoltz and do feel his a Hall of Fame inductee; I just don’t know whether he would get in right away like Eckersley.

D.K.: I’d have to think that Smoltz is so highly respected by his peers and team beat writers that at worst John Smoltz will be a near-miss for election this year with over 2/3 of the writers casting their ballots for him and he might even get elected in his first year of eligibility.

While his victory total of about 220 wins is not that staggering, Smoltz struck out more than 3,000 batters and helped anchor an Atlanta Braves pitching rotation that was vital towards the team’s drive to a record-setting 14 straight division championships. He also made an unselfish switch to the bullpen for a few seasons where he notched more than 150 Saves.

Outstanding qualifications! The only thing that may prevent his election next month is that some writers hold first year eligible candidates to a higher standard than others.

Darryl: John Smoltz and Dennis Eckersley are the only pitchers in major league history to combine 150 wins and 150 saves, while Smoltz is the only one to combine 200 wins and 150 saves, although Eckersley finished three wins shy of 200 and he was a full-time reliever for 12 seasons to Smoltz's three, and Smoltz's period as a closer coincided with higher save totals in the majors as managers brought in the closer in any save situation. In 2011, I labeled Smoltz a "no-brainer" Hall of Famer who will most likely go in on the first ballot.

Frankly, and even though I called him another "no-brainer," I wasn't sure that Tom Glavine was going to be elected last year on his first try. He was, and maybe it was the vestige of the 300-game winner, which Smoltz does not enjoy, and we'll see whether Smoltz's detour into relief pitching will help or hurt him. But I also suspect that part of Glavine's appeal was that he was a pitcher in the Steroids Era, a clean player, and a part of so many winning Braves' teams. Smoltz has that too, and something else besides—he may benefit from a "complete the set" mentality that wants to put him in with Glavine and Greg Maddux with no delays.

Chairman: So we all see Smoltz as a Hall of Fame entry, and we all think he will get into the Hall immediately. Yet, here I am putting that word in italics. Could he somehow slip to next year? For the longest time I thought that it was possible and I thought of all the reasons why it could happen, so much to the point where I convinced myself they would make him wait a year.

Today I was also thinking about how Smoltz has now become a broadcaster, basically crossing over to media. I am not saying that he is politicking for votes, but he is in a position where he crossed over somewhat to “part of us” mentality that the writers might like. What am I saying here? I am saying that the imaginary fence I had him on, or thought he might be on, I am convinced what side he will fall; and I am totally cool with that, and yes I mean that as a first ballot induction.

D.K: I think it’s going to be close, but Smoltz might come up a little short this year. He won 20 games only once and people tend to generalize that he “unselfishly went to the bullpen for a few years to help his team”. Actually he had an injury that caused him to miss the entire 2000 season. Then when he had recuperated enough he rejoined the team in 2001 and went to the bullpen to build up arm strength to help his team”. He worked out of the pen so well manager Bobby Cox kept him there, because he’s discovered a gem in Smoltz’s work as a Closer. The move became semi-permanent and he didn’t return to starting until 2005. That cost him a significant number of career wins, but it also made him an attractive candidate as a rare pitcher who could excel both out of the rotation and out of the bullpen.

213 wins, 154 Saves and 3,084 Saves mark Smoltz as one of the toughest pitchers to face of his era but he’ll be competing against 303 game winner and #2 all-time in strikeouts in Randy Johnson who also had a higher winning percentage than Smoltz, Pedro Martinez another 3,000 strikeouts pitcher with the second highest winning percentage of any 200 game winner, plus holdover Curt Schilling whose numbers are very similar to Smoltz’s in wins, win percentage and strikeouts. Smoltz will be a Hall of Famer soon, although perhaps not this year.

Darryl: I don't know that the move to broadcasting will be that big of a factor, although as I watch him on MLB Network that does cross my mind occasionally. I think the bigger factor is that he is the third of the Braves' starting-pitcher trio, and with both Maddux and Glavine being voted it last year, it may be a "complete the set" mentality to vote for him this year, as I mentioned previously. Given the ballot logjam, I would not mind seeing him not be voted in this year, but I would hate to see a poor showing. And although I've stated repeatedly that I don't go for the contingency approach that "Player A may be a Hall of Famer, but Player B needs to go in first," it would rankle me if Smoltz gets elected this year while Curt Schilling does not.

Chairman: Easy one for me here. A definite yes.

D.K.: I ranked him at #8. - YES.

Darryl: No. Not this year. I think he is a Hall of Famer, and I think that he will get a lot of support. However, I do not think he is "inner circle" enough to leapfrog over candidates just as deserving as he is who have been on the ballot previously. Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez, yes. John Smoltz, no. Not this year.

The Lee Smith Debate: 2015

Dec 29, 2014

Published in Hall of Fame Debates

This is the twenteth of our series where we here at Notinhalloffame.com, do what else? Debate the merit of twenty-four men on the most loaded Baseball Hall of Fame ballot in our lifetime.

Joining me, the site's Committee Chairman, in this debate are D.K. of the site's Phillies Archivist blog and Darryl Tahirali of the site's DDT's Pop Flies blog. This looks to be a very important part of our site, and we hope you will enjoy reading this as much as we enjoyed writing it.

Chairman: I don’t know about the two of you, but my biggest turn around over the past ten years has been on Lee Smith, and not for the better. I was all in on respect for closers and I was taken in by the 478 Saves (retiring with the all time Saves record) and four Saves Titles. This is still an accomplishment to celebrate, but when compared to a true dominating closer like Mariano Rivera, he doesn’t come close. Forgetting the Saves, we have Rivera’s 1.000 WHIP to Smith’s 1.242, Rivera’s 205 ERA+ to Smith’s 132, and a bWAR of 56.6 to Smith’s 29.4. I haven’t even talked about how he shit the bed in his two playoff appearances. What was I thinking?

Perhaps the writers are thinking the same as this is Lee Smith’s 13th year and like so many others here, he hit his low last year with a 29.9%, down from 50.6 two years ago. I don’t think it is looking good for Mr. Smith.

D.K.: Lee Smith’s case for the Hall of Fame brings up an interesting topic. Should someone who once led a sport in a statistical category be a Hall Of famer if that record has been surpassed or even obliterated? Smith’s 486 Saves was the record for at least a decade until that total was surpassed by Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera.

Well you could say that before Babe Ruth came to prominence a guy named Gavvy Cravath was the all-time home run leader. No one brings his name up for the Hall of Fame in the Pre integration (1871-1945) category. The same is true for other sports:

In the NFL Philadelphia Eagles 1950s and 1960s receiver/kicker, Bobby Walston was once the NFLs all-time leader in Scoring and Billy Howton another star of the 1950s and early ‘560s was briefly the all-time pass receiving record holder with 503 catches.

Today, however these NFL stars accomplishments have pretty much been forgotten. Smith is likely to receive the same treatment from writers as sportswriters have given Cravath, Walston and Howton in the past.

To add to the gloom of Smith’s case you have to note that he finished his career 21 games below .500 (71-92), had a significant number of blown Saves (103) and led the league as often in Blown Saves as he did in Saves (four times in each category).

Darryl: D.K. brings up a good point about pioneers who have since been surpassed, and Lee Smith I think is the prototype of the "one-inning closer." As such, he falls between two stools: One stool has the "firemen" from the previous eras—Hoyt Wilhelm, Rollie Fingers, Goose Gossage, Bruce Sutter—the relievers who stepped in to quell the rally and stayed in to finish the game, and the other stool has the lights-out closers who followed Smith including Dennis Eckersley (although technically Eckersley's career began before Smith's, Eck was a starter until 1987), Trevor Hoffman, Mariano Rivera—and Billy Wagner, who I think has a legitimate Hall case, but that is for another time. Smith may have blown 103 saves, but his .823 save percentage is still better than the four Hall of Fame relievers I just named.

And although the Chairman thinks the newly-instituted 10-year rule for ballot appearances is a conspiracy theory to eliminate the PEDs candidates, I think it is also to slough off clean guys like Smith, who have hung around year after year but who are stalled at a voting plateau and show only negative movement. In other words, in each of more than ten ballot appearances, Lee Smith has simply not been impressive enough to garner the three-fourths needed for election. And there is a very good reason why: Lee Smith was very good but not elite.

Chairman: D.K., I like your analogy about holding an all-time major statistical category for over a year as a huge deal, and one that should be celebrated, but I personally don’t view the Save as a major stat anymore, and I don’t see it anywhere near as important as a Home Run. A Home Run is not ambiguous, a Save can be obtained so many ways, and you frankly have a lousy two thirds of an inning, let in a run and allow three people on base, and still get a Save.

At the end of the day, I just don’t see Lee Smith as an elite guy, just like Darryl states. We have seen some relievers change the game; and Lee just isn’t that guy.

D.K.: If part of the reason that Lee Smith dropped from around 50% of the vote to about30% was because of the competition heating up with three first time eligibleMaddux, Glavine and Thomas reaching the Hall, then things won’t get any easier forhim this year. Something tells me that the writers will definitely put Craig Biggio over the top after his near-miss last year. Then you have Randy Johnson, John Smoltzand Pedro Martinez becoming eligible this year and with those factors plus the 10vote maximum per writer and you can see how lesser candidates like Smith could getsqueezed out.

After the rule change was adopted limiting new candidates to 10 years on the
ballot, Smith will be the last candidate to get a full 15-year run on the ballot, ending in 2017. The extra years probably won’t help him much.

Darryl: Good point, Chairman, and not to put too fine a point on it, but while the game did change during Smith's tenure, to an interventionist bullpen capped by the one-inning closer, it was an institutional change and not as a result of Smith's impact. He was merely an instrument used for that change and not the catalyst for that change.

Chairman: Here is where I like the extra time to think about it. If I had a vote seven years ago, I would have said yes. I would have been wrong, and I vote no.

D.K.: NOPE

Darryl: No.

The Gary Sheffield Debate: 2015

Dec 28, 2014

Published in Hall of Fame Debates

This is the nineteenth of our series where we here at Notinhalloffame.com, do what else? Debate the merit of twenty-four men on the most loaded Baseball Hall of Fame ballot in our lifetime.

Joining me, the site's Committee Chairman, in this debate are D.K. of the site's Phillies Archivist blog and Darryl Tahirali of the site's DDT's Pop Flies blog. This looks to be a very important part of our site, and we hope you will enjoy reading this as much as we enjoyed writing it.

Chairman: I forgot just how much Gary Sheffield accomplished. 9 All Star appearances, 509 Home Runs, a Batting Title, an OPS Title, 6 OPS seasons over 1.000, a 60.2 bWAR and a World Series Ring. Screams Hall of Fame right? Here we may have another Rafael Palmeiro (without the wagging finger to congress) but with a more surly attitude. Here is another difference; I wouldn’t be surprised to see Sheffield hang on the ballot another two years like Raffy did.

D.K.: Sheffield was sort of a Dick Allen with better numbers and more career longevity. While 509 home runs is great to put on his HOF resume, like Allen he was one of the more divisive players in any MLB dugout, any time, any place. Love him or hate him one thing was certain - and Sheff could care less. Yankees beat writers circa 2004-2005 and media found him to be a clubhouse cancer. Things were never harmonious with Sheff around. He sometimes seemed to be more interested in proving what a BADASS he was than in winning games.

It’s interesting that now in retirement he’s putting up a lot of his own money to build a baseball stadium and instructional baseball camp in Pasco County, Florida (just North of Tampa/St. Pete/Clearwater) to teach the game properly and to develop some future major leaguers. If this kinder, gentler edition of Sheff had been present during his playing days then he’d have a lot easier time in securing writers’ votes to put him into the Hall of Fame.

Darryl: The Dick Allen comparison is good, but Gary Sheffield has always reminded me more of Dave Winfield. Both have reached Cooperstown milestones—Sheffield with 500-plus home runs, and Winfield with 3000-plus hits—both were excellent hitters for whom you put up with their deficient defensive skills (although, surprisingly, Winfield was a designated hitter just over 400 times in a nearly 3000-game career, while Sheffield DH'ed about 300 times in more than 2500 games), and although neither was the superstar in the lineup, you didn't want either one to beat you—because each could.

But, gentlemen, let's make explicit what the Chairman alluded to: performance-enhancing drugs. Sheffield was named in the Mitchell Report as having received PEDs from the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative, and the BALCO scandal has been the biggest bugbear to Barry Bonds—with whom

Sheffield is associated as he worked out with Bonds in 2001, during which time Sheffield's trainer applied "the clear," a topical application reputedly containing steroids and obtained from BALCO, to Sheffield. Chairman, you may be right about Sheffield hanging on, then disappearing, as did Rafael Palmeiro. In any case, on an overcrowded ballot with a PEDs taint hanging all over him, Gary Sheffield, whom I think is definitely borderline, won't need to book a flight to Cooperstown anytime soon except as an onlooker.

Chairman: I hate to use the likability card, as I completely agree with you Darryl that this should have absolutely no merit as to whether a candidate gets in or not, but there is always that human element. The baseball writers have met a lot of these guys and there is no doubt in my mind that many of them have held grudges against certain people and refused to vote for them.

With Sheffield, this is a guy who ruffled more feathers than Barry Bonds did, and while his numbers are Hall of Fame worthy, they are not Play Station numbers like Bonds. I only bring this up to add a little fuel to the potential one and done of Sheffield on the ballot. If you were a writer torn between Sheffield and let’s say for argument sake Mike Mussina as the tenth guy you would pick, maybe you go with the guy who didn’t blow you off for an interview.

Again, that should never be a factor, but it’s like why I keep my mouth shut at the airport; I am not giving anyone with power over me for that brief period of time a reason to use it.

D.K.: One and done, Darryl? - I don’t think it’s going to play out that way, but who knows how the voters will treat Sheff his first ballot? My guess is he’ll get closer to 25% of the votes than 5% and that he may be stuck in that neighborhood for years to come.

Darryl: Yes, I can see that if it came down to choosing between two candidates, and you know both of them, and one of them has been more of a jerk than the other, how you might vote for the nicer guy. Writers are only human, after all. I think Sheffield may play out more like Mark McGwire: Career numbers on the bubble and a PEDs taint although not of the finger-wagging hubris of Rafael Palmeiro. He may survive for several years with percentages in the 20s and 30s.

Chairman: I think Sheff is going to get “Palmeiro’d”, but in other years he would get my vote. Here, I have to pass. Just too much competition, and I vote no.

Darryl: No.

D.K.: He probably hurt his teams with his attitude as much as he helped them with his talents. - NO.

The Curt Schilling Debate: 2015

Dec 27, 2014

Published in Hall of Fame Debates

This is the eighteenth of our series where we here at Notinhalloffame.com, do what else? Debate the merit of twenty-four men on the most loaded Baseball Hall of Fame ballot in our lifetime.