lol. True.Originally Posted by CatKnight
All 4 guys are no-doubt HOF'ers to me. I'd rank them in order Maddux, Johnson, Glavine, Smoltz, though.
o
lol. True.
All 4 guys are no-doubt HOF'ers to me. I'd rank them in order Maddux, Johnson, Glavine, Smoltz, though.
Registered User
Just to nitpick, i'd rate Smotlz ahead of Glavine, Smoltz had more of a dominating aura, better K:bb ratio, more K/9, better ERA/ERA+, showed the closer/starter versatility, and was a ton better in the playoffs
o
Yes, true, but Glavine has racked up more value due to better durability and not spending time in a one-inning role. He has over 1,000 more innings than Smoltz has. On a per-inning/game basis, Smoltz was better. For a Hall of Fame case, which is how I was ranking them, Glavine's ahead of Smoltz in my opinion.
BOOM!
I'd agree with that, though I think Maddux is head and shoulders above all of them. Clemens gets a lot of credit for his dominance, but I think Maddux was just as, if not more so, dominant that Clemens was when they were both in their heyday.
Active Dynasty
An Alternate History Dynasty - The 1989 Red Sox
Paused Dynasty
Fishing for Wins - A Florida Marlins Dynasty
I'm not the only one who knows the truth about Matt Ryan.
o
If we add Clemens to the list, I'd place him behind Maddux, ahead of Johnson.
Registered User
None of that has anything directly to do with vanity--character maybe, but not vanity.
And while the voters are supposed to take character into account, it's certainly not the only thing they are supposed to look at.
Oh, and I'd rate 'em Maddox, Clemens, Smoltz, Johnson, and Glavine. I could be convinced otherwise, though.
BOOM!
Thats because you didn't get the part where I quoted m-w.com when you tried quoting me. Go back and read the post again. As for the order I'd rate them, I'd go Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, Glavine, Smoltz.
Active Dynasty
An Alternate History Dynasty - The 1989 Red Sox
Paused Dynasty
Fishing for Wins - A Florida Marlins Dynasty
I'm not the only one who knows the truth about Matt Ryan.
o
What do you think puts Smoltz above Johnson?
o
And Randy Johnson couldn't?
I bet I'm going to get some sort of response like "When did Randy Johnson close games?"
Basically, if you put Smoltz over Johnson because he had some years as a closer, you're basically saying that by John Smoltz being injured, and thus switching to the closer role to ease the pressure on his arm for a while, he's both a) better than Randy Johnson and b) more valuable.
Both are not true. Smoltz was consistently a very good starting pitcher, had one year as a solid reliever, two years as a good closer, and one year as a ridiculously good closer. Randy Johnson was a solid starting pitcher for a few years, and then went on a ridiculous run where he was consistently one of, if not the best, pitcher in his league.
Smoltz had 10 seasons where he placed in the top 10 in his league in ERA+. His highest finish was 3rd, and that was the only time he was in the top 4. He had 3 5th-place finishes. Randy Johnson has one less top 10 finish - 9 - but 6 first place finishes, and a 2nd place finish. Smoltz was more consistent as a starter, but never once approached the level of Johnson when he was at his best.
As a starter, Smoltz's highest ERA+ was 149. He had one ridiculous year as a closer, with a 383 ERA+, but even including the rest of his few years as a reliever, besides that one, his highest ERA+ was 157. Johnson bested 157 7 times.
They both entered the majors in the same year, so lets do a year-by-year "who was better."
1988 - Smoltz pitched 12 games to Johnson's 4, but Smoltz was horrible in those 12 games. Johnson was good in his 4 games. We'll throw this year out as its unfair to both pitchers.
1989 - Smoltz was easily better, throwing over 40 more innings in the same amount of starts, with a 124 ERA+, while Johnson was pretty bad (82 ERA+). Smoltz 1, Johnson 0.
1990 - This is a close one. Smoltz pitched 231 innings, going 14-11 with a 104 ERA+. Johnson threw 219.2 innings, also going 14-11, with a 108 ERA+. This season is a wash. Score is still Smoltz 1, Johnson 0.
1991 - Another wash. Smoltz was 14-13 with a 103 ERA+ in 229.2 innings. Johnson was 13-10 with a 103 ERA+ in 201.1 innings. Smoltz 1, Johnson 0.
1992 - Smoltz easily. 15-12 with a 129 ERA+ compared to Johnson's 12-14 with a 105 ERA+. Smoltz 2, Johnson 0.
1993 - Johnson easily. 19-8 with a 136 ERA+ to Smoltz's 15-11 with a 112 ERA+. Smoltz 2, Johnson 1.
1994 - Strike shortened year. Johnson made two more starts, and threw nearly 40 more innings. Smoltz had a poor 6-10 record with an average (102 ERA+) ERA. Johnson was 13-6 with a 154 ERA+, easily goes to him. Smoltz 2, Johnson 2.
1995 - Smoltz went 12-7 with a 134 ERA+. Johnson had a ridiculous 18-2 record and a 192 ERA+. Johnson by a longshot. Johnson 3, Smoltz 2.
1996 - Johnson was injured, only pitching 60 innings or so, while Smoltz had the best season of his career, amassing 24 wins and a 149 ERA+. Johnson 3, Smoltz 3.
1997 - Smoltz went 15-12 with a 138 ERA+. Johnson went 20-4 with a 196 ERA+. Johnson 4, Smoltz 3.
1998 - Smotlz went 17-3 in 167.2 innings with a 143 ERA+. Johnson went 19-11 combined between Houston and Seattle in 244 innings with a 135 ERA+. Smoltz was better on a per-inning basis, but Johnson amassed much more value thanks to his huge innings lead. Johnson 5, Smoltz 3.
1999 - Smoltz went 11-8 with a 140 ERA+. Johnson, 17-9 with a 186 ERA+. Johnson 6, Smoltz 3.
2000 - Smoltz did not pitch, Johnson scored his second straight cy young. Johnson 7, Smoltz 3.
2001 - Smoltz split 59 innings between setting up and closing. Johnson racked up 372 K's en route to his third straight Cy Young. Johnson 8, Smoltz 3.
2002 - Smoltz saved 55 games with a 128 ERA+ in 80 innings. Johnson got the Cy Young for the 4th straight season in what was the best season of his career - 24-5, 197 ERA+, 260 innings. Johnson 9, Smoltz 3.
2003 - Smoltz had an otherworldly year as a closer. Johnson missed half the season, and had a 110 ERA+ in the 18 games he did pitch. Johnson 9, Smoltz 4.
2004 - Smoltz had a very good year closing - 157 ERA+, 44 saves. Johnson Went 16-14, tossed 245 innings at 177 ERA+ but didn't get a deserved Cy Young has Roger Clemens had a prettier won-loss record. Johnson 10, Smoltz 4.
2005 - Smoltz reverted back to starting and didn't miss a beat from where he left off in 1999 - 14-7 record, 138 ERA+. Johnson went to the AL and had a nice 17-8 record, but just a 112 ERA+. Johnson 10, Smoltz 5
2006 - Smoltz went 16-9, 127 ERA+. Johnson had the worst season of his career despite a 17-11 record, posting an ERA of 5.00, 90 ERA+. Johnson 10, smoltz 6.
2007 - Smoltz had another typical year - 14-8, 137 ERA+. Johnson missed msot of the season due to injury. Johnson 10, Smoltz 7.
2008 - Smoltz made just 5 starts, going 3-2 with a 156 ERA+ in 28 innings. Johnson has made 10 starts, going 4-2 with a 114 ERA+. It's safe to give this to Johnson, barring a collapse the rest of the way, but since the season isn't over, we'll just leave the score Johnson 10, Smoltz 7.
Comparing them year-by-year, Johnson was the better pitcher in most years. In Johnson's best years, he was MUCH better than Smoltz was in his best years. Sure, Smoltz has the "mystique" of both being a closer and a starter, but Johnson has racked up much more value.
o
Do you LIKE Smoltz more than Johnson, or do you think that John Smoltz was a better and more valuable pitcher?
o
....
I'm asking you to clarify what you're saying.
The word "harassment" really needs to stop being thrown around willy-nilly here.
This is a message board. Message boards host discussions. In a discussion, people ask each other to clarify things if they might not understand what they're saying. Sometimes, discussions are debates, in which people argue their opinions. Asking for a clarification is not harassment. Disagreeing is not harassment. Debating opinions is not harassment.
o
You don't need to be, but it's polite to do so during a discussion when somebody (politely) asks you. And somebody asking for an explanation is not harassing you.
There, that's all I was asking. Thank you.I like smoltz better - reason: because he did 2 roles very well
The reason I was asking was because if you think Smoltz was more valuable and a better pitcher, I'd debate that with you, because I disagree. Since you just like him more, there's nothing to debate, as you can't debate likes and dislikes.
o
Okay, so you don't SIMPLY "like" him better, you also think he was more valuable. And I disagree. I'd like to have a civil debate about the topic, but apparantly, you think that's harassment.
Randy Johnson was not unable to do 2 roles. He just never had the misfortune of getting injured bad enough that he felt like he needed to relieve pressure of his arm.
A starting pitcher throwing 250 or so innings of 180 ERA+ or better is more valuable than a relief pitcher throwing 80 innings of around 140 ERA+. Would you disagree with that?
o
You don't have to discuss it with me, but I'm not a bad person for wishing to have a simple civil discussion with you, nor is that harassing you. I'm not forcing you to do anything. If you don't wish to discuss the topic, don't.
E=I*R
You're the one who replied what, 6 times here? No one except yourself is, or can, force you to do anything.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote