Glavine, Maddux & Smoltz

You don't wait to elect someone because their buddies are going in soon. I hope they all leave at the end of this season so there's a possibility of them sharing the stage. But there's no way someone's not going to vote for one or two just so all three are inducted during the same year.

 

I'll give you Maddux, though I'm not sure Glavine will get it on the first shot -- but you never know with the HOF.
I think Smoltz has to be in eventually too, but like someone said earlier, he's a tough call because there are other guys with similar numbers that aren't in either. But the one thing that might separate Smoltz is his dominance in both the starter and closer role during his career. Who knows. The HOF is almost a joke anymore anyhow.

 

Factoring in Smoltz's bullpen time makes it a bit trickier.

I'm guessing he does not make first ballot, but he will get in at a later time.

 

There is precedent for this: Tinker, Evers and Chance went in as a group in 1946.

But that was 62 years ago, not to mention a colossal fuck-up by the Veterans Committee. (Chance and Tinker were nowhere near Hall of Famers, and you could argue that Evers wasn't either, though he was easily the best player of the three).

Then again, Glavine, Smoltz and Maddux didn't have Franklin P. Adams write a poem about them:



Baseball's Sad Lexicon
by Franklin Pierce Adams

These are the saddest of possible words:
"Tinker to Evers to Chance."
Trio of bear cubs, and fleeter than birds,
Tinker and Evers and Chance.
Ruthlessly pricking our gonfalon bubble,
Making a Giant hit into a double-
Words that are heavy with nothing but trouble:
"Tinker to Evers to Chance."

Published by New York Evening Mail (July 10, 1910)

While we're on the subject, can someone explain to me what "gonfalon" means?

As for Glavine, Smoltz and Maddux, I think they're all three Hall of Famers, Glavine and Maddux obviously slam-dunks.

Smoltz probably gets the benefit of his great relationship with the writers. Plus, he was/is a better starter than Eckersley and almost as good a reliever (just for not nearly as long).

 

I think how Smoltz seemlessly transitioned from starter to closer back to starter is remarkable, and his ERA has been below 3.2 every year since '95.

The thing about him is he accomplished a feat that has no precedent for reaching the Hall: only player every with over 200 wins and 150 saves. Since saves haven't been kept all that long, and no one has shifted between closer and starter like him, he would be the first (and likely last) of his kind.

 

For what it's worth, SABR has gone back and retroactively awarded saves for guys who compiled them before it became an official statistic.

The all-time leader of "pre-save era" guys is Hoyt Wilhelm, who had 196 of his 227 career saves before 1969. He is 31st all-time.

That's how much the game has changed since then. It's not necessarily that saves weren't kept, but that they weren't "accomplished," because pitchers more often finished what they started when they had the lead.

 

I'm really struggling with how to root for him since he's back with the Braves, but anything he does that elicits displeasure from Spnited is a step in the right direction. ;D

 

Smoltzie goes in quicker than Lee Smith and Bert Blyleven.

Glavine/Maddux/Smoltz were easily the bet 1-2-3 rotation in the majors in the 90s, perhaps ever. It wasn't until you got to Charlie Leibrandt/Steve Avery/Kent Mercker/etc, although oddly enough, Mercker has two no-hitters to his credit.

 

Avery and Mercker did have some very good years. They weren't exactly the easiest guys to face.

 

I'd put those Braves teams from the early '90s against any team, bet on them and feel good about it. Between the solid pitching and the hitting -- from Terry Pendleton to Ron Gant -- they were fantastic. It's a shame Atlanta only has one title to show from its run.

 

I wouldn't say no way. This is baseball writers we're talking about. No logical assumptions can be made, and as evidence I point to the deserving players already mentioned here.