Around the Web today, baseball writers hailed the induction of the newest member of the Baseball Hall of Fame, John Smoltz. If his career is indeed over as a result of season-ending shoulder surgery at age 41, then the game has lost a respected member of its club. But is John Smoltz really the first-ballot, shoo-in Hall-of-Famer that the mainstream media is making him out to be?
If you think the answer is "yes," it's probably because you've been reading articles that suggest as much for the last three or four years - including commentary this weekend that Smoltz's injury could have a silver lining in that he could retire this season alongside contemporaries and teammates Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine such that all three could be voted into the Hall at the same time.
But looking at the numbers themselves makes me wonder why respected baseball writers are rushing to write Smoltz's induction speech for Cooperstown…and whether the Smoltz-love will hold up five years from now when he is on the ballot for the first time and the numbers themselves may play a more prominent role.
Make no mistake - Smoltz is one hell of a pitcher, and an exceptional performer over the last 20 years. But the Hall of Fame is only for the best - not just the very good and memorable. So is John Smoltz really one of the best pitchers ever?
Apologies in advance, because we're going to look at a lot of numbers here today. PED's or not, baseball is the sport where the numbers matter the most, even when applying comparisons across generations. However, there will be no apologies for the length. If you're not looking for a good, long read to print out for when you go to the can this morning, then you might want to move on to another blog.
But before we get into pure numbers, I'd also submit that it's important to keep one thought in the back of your mind. For the majority of his career, Smoltz was either the second- or third-best starter on his own team, behind Glavine from 1988-2002 and also Maddux from 1993-2003. So for a ten-season stretch from 1993 to 2002, when Smoltz took the mound in his prime his Braves were often batting against the opponent's #3 starter. I'd have to speculate that might have inflated his win total just a bit as compared to teammates Maddux and Glavine, who regularly faced the opponents' ace hurler and #2 pitcher.
Now, with that said, Smoltz has still amassed a career record of 210-147, along with 154 saves and an ERA of 3.26. He has one Cy Young award to his credit, in 1996 (after teammate Maddux won the previous four in a row, including one while still with the Cubs), as well as the 1992 NLCS MVP. He also made eight MLB All-Star teams. These are his only major MLB accolates, unless you count the 2002 Rolaids Relief Man of the Year or his one Silver Slugger.
Smoltz broke through the magical 3,000 career strikeout barrier this season, which is certainly impressive. Statistically, it might be the most important line on his resume. Of the other 15 members of the 3,000 strikeout club:
- Nine are in the HOF (Nolan Ryan, Steve Carlton, Tom Seaver, Don Sutton, Gaylord Perry, Walter Johnson, Phil Niekro, Fergie Jenkins, and Bob Gibson)
- Three will certainly be in the HOF once they are eligible (Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez)
- One will probably be in the HOF once he is eligible (Curt Schilling)
- One would have been in the HOF if he would have stayed retired and certain indiscretions had not come to light (Roger Clemens)
- One is the subject of an annual debate as to his HOF-worthiness (Bert Blyleven)
That's the list of Smoltz's peers in the 3,000 Strikeout Club. Impressive, to be sure.
But let's look at the rest of the top-20 in career strikeouts: HOF'ers Jim Bunning and Cy Young, as well as Mickey Lolich and Frank Tanana. And then just below them are #21-25 all-time: Mike Mussina, David Cone, Chuck Finley, future HOF'er Tom Glavine, and HOF'er Warren Spahn.
What's my point here? Smoltz hit a magical plateau with 3,000 strikeouts. And he almost represents a line of demarcation whereby everyone above him is or should be (under normal circumstances) in the Hall. Being close to 3,000 without actually going over? A much more slippery slope. Smoltz appears to have finished his career with 3,011 strikeouts. He should be glad he reached that height; breaking 3,000 may be the number that outweighs all others in five years.
Some would argue that, had he not been an All-Star reliever for a portion of his career, Smoltz might have easily racked up more strikeouts -- as well as more wins. Personally, I'd dispute that. And Smoltz gave us proof today in his press conference by admitting that had he not gone into relief pitching, his career might not have lasted long beyond the 2001 season.
Think back to the beginning of this decade. Smoltz had missed the entire 2000 season recovering from Tommy John surgery. In 2001, he tried to return as a starter, but transitioned to middle relief and then into the closer's role.
It has often been written, including yesterday by Jayson Stark on ESPN.com, that the move to the bullpen was to attempt to relieve stress on his elbow. It was not a matter of choice; injuries forced his hand. Had he not gone to the bullpen, there's a good chance that his resume would be less impressive than more because there's a good chance it would have ended sooner.
By the time he switched to the 'pen, Smoltz had started 11 full seasons in the major leagues and parts of two others. He was 34 years old. Ignoring the five attempted starts at the beginning of the 2001 season, he had a career record of 157-113, 2,098 strikeouts, and a 3.35 ERA in his twelve seasons. If it had ended then, Smoltz would be recognized for his solid career as a starter; certainly not HOF-worthy at that point in time.
What is remarkable about looking over those first 11 full seasons is his consistency. He averaged just over 14 wins and 9.5 losses per season. Take out his best (1996 Cy Young) and worst (1994, 6-10 record) season, and his average is just under 14 wins and 9.8 losses per season. In fact, those best-and-worst seasons were the only years in which he didn't have between 11 and 17 wins (three away from his mean in either direction). Again, everything about Smoltz's career when he moved to the bullpen -- abdicating his role as the #3 starter on a perennial pennant-winner -- was solid but not HOF-worthy.
Among modern pitchers, Smoltz's prime as a starter most closely resembles that of one of my favorite pitchers, David Cone. Cone's career at that point was two years longer, and he had amassed a record of 193-123 with more than 2,600 strikeouts and an ERA around 3.44. The difference is that after 2001, Cone's career was virtually over; he had a failed comeback with the Mets in 2003 that lasted all of five games before retiring for good.
Is Cone HOF-worthy? As much as it pains me to say it, certainly not. Neither are most of the other modern-era pitchers that the (incredible) website baseball-reference.com statistically projected as comparable pitchers to Smoltz through that point in his career:
1. Orel Hershiser
2. Kevin Brown
3. Curt Schilling
4. David Cone
5. Joe Niekro
6. Luis Tiant
7. Jerry Koosman
8. Rick Reuschel
9. Phil Niekro
While Cone's my favorite, Phil Niekro is the only one of those pitchers in the Hall - and he was one of the more controversial entrants of the last 25 years. Schilling will probably get in (aided, no doubt, by his postseason heroics and the infamous bloody sock). But that list is largely nice pitchers with strong careers - not HOF'ers.
So what of Smoltz's post-season heroics? He's known as the postseason career leader with 15 wins. Surely he stood out as stellar during that run of Braves’ postseason failures that included only one World Series title, though? Right?
In 1996, Smoltz did follow up his award-winning regular season with one of the most dominant postseason pitching performances ever – going 4-1 with a superhuman 0.94 ERA in five postseason starts. The Braves lost the World Series to the Yankees in six games; in Smoltz’s only loss, he surrendered one run over eight innings in a Game 5 loss. So we can admit that John Smoltz had, from start to finish, an AMAZING 1996 season.
(We might also argue that this amazing season could have caused the beginning of his arm troubles, given that he pitched over 290 total innings in the regular season and playoffs in 1996, followed by over 270 innings in 1997 and, as a starter, was never as impressive again. Bobby Cox should be grilled over this. But that's not our point here.)
Aside from this '96 postseason performance and a 1992 NLCS MVP award (2-0, 2.66 ERA versus Pittsburgh), Smoltz had only decent postseason success. In 1995, the Braves' only World Series win of the Smoltz era (against the Cleveland Indians), he went 0-0 in the postseason with a 6.60 ERA. In his only World Series start, he lasted less than three innings in a game 3 loss.
Elsewhere in his posteason career, there are as many lows (laying eggs in the 1997 and 1998 NLCS, a game 4 loss in a 1999 Yankees World Series sweep) as highs (dominant 1991 World Series performance in two starts with two no-decisions to show for it, two clutch saves in the 2001 NLDS).
The postseason conclusion? Smoltz may hold the record for most career postseason wins, but it's largely due to a combination of longevity and service to one team, the Braves' consistent appearances, and the fact that the Yankees didn't have a similar career-long employee as a starter during the same time period.
Of course, Smoltz's career didn't end in 2001. He did go to the bullpen and rack up 154 saves in three and a half seasons. He is the therefore the only pitcher with 200 career wins and 150 career saves…but only because Dennis Eckersley finished with only 197 wins. And, of course, 390 saves - more than 2 1/2 times as many as Smoltz.
Smoltz, as a reliever, was simply nowhere near as dominant as Eckersley was. Smoltz tallied 154 saves and a 2.65 ERA in less than four seasons. His 2003 was an amazing season as a closer; on the heels of an NL-record 55 saves in 2002, Smoltz turned in another 45 in 2003 but, more impressively, finished with a 1.12 ERA and only eight earned runs in 62 appearances. And yet, Smoltz wasn't even the best closer in the NL in 2003. That honor went to Eric Gagne – who took home the 2003 NL Cy Young Award by tying Smoltz's NL saves record of a year earlier.
But Smoltz's brief run of bullpen dominance can't compare to the eleven seasons when Eck redefined the position from 1987 to 1997. His best year was, statistically, the best ever by a closer: 48 saves and a 0.61 ERA for the pennant-winning 1990 Oakland A's. And, by the way, Eckersley racked up 151 wins in his eleven career seasons as a starter…not too far off of Smoltz's pre-bullpen totals.
Smoltz does get major credit for transitioning back to a starter's role in 2005, and tacked on another 44 wins to his career totals. Again, though, his retransformation was injury-driven. He'd had yet another surgery and (according, again, to Stark) decided that "pitching every fifth day would be better for his arm."
So now here Smoltz stands at his potential retirement, a very unique case. No one has ever transitioned from starter to 154-save-reliever, and then back to 44-win starter before. But have we cast enough doubt yet on whether the career itself was worthy of induction to the Hall? If not, then consider also these points:
With his 154 career saves, Smoltz is only 18th among active pitchers. Yeah, mainstays like Trevor Hoffman, Mariano Rivera, and Billy Wagner have more. But so do Eddie Guardado, Keith Foulke, Tom Gordon, and Francisco Cordero. Yes, Smoltz only racked up saves in four years. But is Billy Koch a HOF'er as a reliever (163 saves in under five seasons)? Or is Brad Lidge, at this point in his career (138 in five)? Sure, Smoltz is different than any of these guys (except Gordon, and believe me, I'm not comparing Smoltz to Flash) in that he was an All-Star closer in his second career. But his credentials as a closer alone don't have the longevity of a Wagner, Rivera, or Hoffman…or an Eckersley. Or, said differently, four seasons of closing games doesn't make someone an elite closer.
Smoltz only finished in the top-3 in NL Cy Young voting twice - his win in 1996 and his impressive 2002 season. In his 2003 season - that dominant Gibson-esque ERA year - he didn't even receive a single vote. He also only has one top-10 MVP finish (also 2002). But shouldn't a Hall of Famer be among the top three pitchers in his league more than twice in his career?
In 1998, Smoltz did finish tied for 4th in Cy Young voting, alongside Maddux. Who won that year? Glavine. Ignoring Maddux's Cy Young win as a Cub in 1992, Braves pitchers won 6 of 8 NL Cy Young awards from 1991 to 1998. Smoltz only won one of them. Again, isn't it hard to argue that he's one of the best of all-time when he was clearly the third best pitcher on his own team? And if not, shouldn't the rest of his stats jump off the page at you?
Given the strength of his Braves teams, shouldn't winning percentage matter? Despite being on the best team in the NL for most of his career, Smoltz didn't even win 60% of his games. His career winning percentage of 58.8% places him 21st among active pitchers, below Kenny Rogers, Chris Carpenter, Josh Beckett, Mark Mulder, Freddy Garcia, Bartolo Colon, and Tim Hudson. The six pitchers just underneath Smoltz? Mariano Rivera (which surprised me), El Duque, Jason Schmidt, John Lackey, Mark Buehrle and Wade Miller. Yes, above him are also names like Peavy and Schilling but it's not exactly a stellar percentage - especially for a perennial pennant winner. And, back to the Braves again, note that Glavine is at 60.3% and Maddux 61.6%.
For his career, that winning percentage is only good enough for 153rd on the all-time list (minimum 1,000 innings pitched and 100 decisions), tied with Bret Saberhagen and Tom Morgan. Yes, there are about a dozen modern-era HOF pitchers with winning percentages of less than 60%, but they're generally names like Spahn and Drysdale and Gibson (with a couple of Gaylord Perry-types dropped in as well). Bottom line: Smoltz's career winning percentage doesn't jump off the page as indication of a stellar front-line starting pitcher.
As far as I can see, if this is the end of the line for John Smoltz, then the game is losing one of its best and fiercest competitors. But I'm not sure whether the game is watching one of the best players ever ride off into the sunset. Maybe in five years we'll actually see the voters look at the facts and not just the articles from tomorrow's papers that declare it a foregone conclusion.
