Quite an amazing comeback by John Smoltz to tie the 1924 round of the Circle of Greats voting. Smoltz appeared on all of the final six ballots of the round, while Duke Snider appeared on only one of those ballots. A five-vote lead with hours to go is generally an insurmountable lead, but is not, apparently, always so.
Smoltz and Snider played entirely different roles during widely separated eras. But they each played on the dominant National League team of their time, with several Hall of Fame quality teammates, while falling short of the number of World Series championships that playing on such dominant teams might have been expected to produce.
Let’s do a relatively short runoff vote, though I want to give a chance both to those who access the site on weekends and those who log on during the week. So let’s say all runoff votes are due in by 11PM EDT on Wednesday, May 28.
Runoff votes must show just one name, Smoltz’s or Snider’s. You also need to add some sort of additional verbiage though, because as I remember the comment function here at HHS won’t work with just one-word comments.
I’m out of town this weekend and don’t have easy access to the spreadsheets, so I’m not posting a counting spreadsheet right now. For the moment, volunteer commenters are welcome to periodically post a running tally of the votes within the comments themselves.
I’m going with John Smoltz.
Duke Snider for the win.
My vote is for Duke Snider
Snider, and here’s some additional verbiage.
Edwin Duke Snider.
I’m 99% certain that Smoltz belongs but I’m 100% certain that Snider does.
Snider
The Duke of Flatbush.
Yet another vote for Snider.
Make mine Snider.
Looks like he’s opening up ANOTHER early lead. We’ll see if Smoltz’s reputation as a ‘closer’ is enough to overcome it this time.
I vote for John Smoltz
A tough decision
Smoltz excelled in two roles, but
I’ll go with the Duke
Really close. I think both belong. I’ll vote for Smoltz because he’s been on the ballot FOREVER.
Make mine Duke Snider.
Watched Smoltz dominate as a starter and reliever throughout his career, can’t say the same for the duke.
Smoltz…
Well, me either, but I’m still voting for Snider first.
My vote: Duke Snider.
Smoltz
Both were great, but Smoltz did it longer.
Smoltz for the win!
Interesting choice for a runoff.
Both of these guys were compared to / overshadowed by two other guys who played the same position in the same city.
(though Brooklyn was its own city until 1898,
and still carried its own identity 50 years later)
Quick, name the Braves’ pitching WAR leaders, in order:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
108.5 Kid Nichols
92.5 Warren Spahn
92.0 Phil Knucksie
67.0 John Smoltz
66.0 Greg Maddux
58.7 Tom Glavine
46.2 Vic Willis
___________________
I vote for Smoltz.
I’ll take Smoltz.
I think both belong; Smoltz has been on the ballot for so long I’m inclined to put him in first.
Ultimately I don’t think it’s going to much matter who wins this runoff; we have 3 more “open” elections coming up before we have one with a top-shelf candidate on the ballot, so I’d guess whoever loses this runoff will be elected soon thereafter.
With my vote, it’s now 11-8 Snider.
Love the Duke but voting for Smoltzie.
I will go with Duke Snider for the Circle of Greats
The Duke for the win
I couldn’t separate out my personal bias even if I wanted to- Smoltz all the way.
I want both eventually, but this round I’ll go with Smoltz.
I vote Smoltzie
John Smoltz…and a few more words.
And with our 26th vote we have a 13-13 tie (assuming David’s post #19 is correct and he seems pretty reliable about this sort of thing…)
Heh. Thanks for the vote of confidence. I counted twice, to be sure, but if anyone wants to double-check my counting I certainly won’t mind. It takes a village to make a CoG….
both belong, but same as the regular ballot, I’ll vote for Smoltz
I’ll go with Duke Snider
Duke Snider
The song goes, “Willie, Mickey & the Duke,” not “Willie, Mickey & the Smoltz”. Duke Snider is synonymous with the game. Smoltz is fine; he’ll get in in time.
Still upset about Hodges, though. I’m not a numbers guy as I’ve said before. And I know this site is geared to the numbers. But, without looking at a stat sheet, I can tell you who the truly greats I ever saw were. Clemente, Mays, Mantle, Rose, Gibson, Barry Bonds, etc., etc. (I’m sure we’re in agreement on most). Hodges was among them. I saw a comparison in the other thread to Keith Hernandez. I don’t care what the numbers say; if we’re doing a pick-up game, I’ll take Hodges every time and you can have Hernandez and we’ll see who comes out on top.
Preeeeetty sure the song goes, “Hoooooomer, Ozzie and the Straw.”
In the CoG:
Roger Clemens clucking all the while
Wade Boggs lay unconscious on the bar-room tile
Ken Griffey’s grotesquely swollen jaw
Ozzie
Not in the CoG:
Mike Scioscia’s tragic illness made me smile
Steve Sax and his run-in with the law
Mattingly and Canseco
the Straw
Yeah, I had to look up a couple of those lines.
It’s just not a complete discussion of the episode without:
Pitt the Elder!
Lord Palmerston!
Edwin “Duke” Snider
If he loses the runoff, Smoltz would have 6 rounds of eligibility remaining.
Snider would have 5.
For their careers,
Snider is most similar to Jim Edmonds (1 HOFer in his top 10). Smoltz is most similar to Curt Schilling (3 HOFers on his top 10 list).
At age 30,
Smoltz is most similar to Ray Culp pitching and Joe Niekro batting. Snider is most similar to Willie Mays.
Smoltz led his league for the season in 14 good categories, 5 bad (BB, Hits, WP), and errors once. Snider led in 17 good, 3 bad (strikeouts, ejections), plus 7 good fielding; some of that is OPS and SLG in the same season.
Snider was born in September, Smoltz was born in May.
Snider’s last all-star appearance was 12 years after his first. Smoltz’s last was 16 years after his first.
All that analysis and no vote, so here it is : —
[_] Smoltz
[X] Snider
Smoltzie for the win. He’s hung around long enough.
I’d be curious to know if there’s a generational gap in the voting here. How many of the people voting for Smoltz are old enough to remember Snider’s playing years, how many too young for that privilege voted for the Duke anyway?
I think having a more intimate sense of a player through something beyond statistics makes a deal of difference in our perception of a him. When a man is known only by his association with a set of figures, he becomes just an abstraction to us, not flesh and blood, unless a powerful mythos surrounds him as in the case of a Babe Ruth or Ty Cobb.
Example: I don’t think Vic Wertz got any COG votes, and he shouldn’t have, but younger voters, I’m guessing, rejected him without a thought, whereas older ones might have paused for a moment, thinking of his performance in the 1954 World Series, not just the drive that Mays caught for the ages, but the fact that he alone on a team with 111 wins didn’t fold in the clutch but excelled with 8 hits—two doubles, a triple and a home run, .500 BA, OPS+ of 1.493. Or the fact that the following season he contracted polio, but recovered to have several prime years. Or . . .
What I’m getting at is that Smoltz, having retired only 4-plus seasons ago, is a known factor to all the voters, both as a statistical entity and a human one, whereas Snider, who retired 49-plus seasons ago probably isn’t. How does that difference impact on the voting?
Interesting question NSB but I think it cuts both ways. Snider was before my time, but it means he appeared in baseball stories I read as a child. And therefore appeared as a “larger than life” figure. Smoltz, on the other hand, is basically my age. And since I experienced his playing career as an adult, his exploits seem more “ordinary” to me.
I never saw Snider, play, either; I was born a couple of years after he retired.
I’ve voted for Snider in the regular rounds of voting more often than I’ve voted for Smoltz, but I haven’t voted for either of them very often.
In this runoff I voted for Smoltz, but that was something of a dartboard choice. I think they both belong, and as I mentioned in post #19 I think the loser of the runoff is highly likely to win one of the next 3 rounds; so I chose Smoltz with the thought, “he’s been on the ballot for 57 (!) rounds, let’s put him in already and move on.”
I started following baseball around 1960 so Snider was still around- but also in the NL & since I lived in North Dakota the only source I had for baseball- besides the box scores in the paper- was Minnesota Twins radio broadcasts. I didn’t really start watching baseball on television until the mid-60’s and by that time there were only broadcasting about 2 dozen games nationally televised games a year plus the Twins on one of the Fargo stations once in a blue moon. Still, between Baseball Digest, Sport & Sports Illustrated, I was pretty familiar with Snider.
So, all that said does that figure into how I view Snider as opposed to Smoltz and explain why I voted for him? Buggered if I know.
While I’m a big fan of advanced stats I’m certainly skeptical about how precisely they can compare the value of a slugging centerfielder from the 1950’s to a pitcher from the 1990’s, especially one who was used as a 1-inning closer for part of his career. The Hall of Stats gives the Duke a score of 129 compared to Smoltz’s score of 135. JAWS puts Snider at 58.2 compared to Smoltz’s 54.2. Not much help there.
I decided early on to roughly follow the HOF’s breakdown of about 3 pitchers for every 8 position players- since I didn’t want to try and completely reinvent the wheel- so for our purposes that means approximately 30 pitchers & 80 position players plus a couple extra. By my way of ranking these guys I have Snider over Smoltz, who’s in a group of about 2 dozen or so players vying for the last 10 or 12 spots. I certainly don’t think he’s a bad choice but I’m not positive yet that there might not be a better one to be made somewhere down the road.
I’m most inclined to agree with David P. I actually didn’t really get into baseball until 1997. I had watched a few games starting in 1992 (my first game in person – Brewers-Yankees at County Stadium), but I basically only knew a handful of AL players, plus the Brewers. In 1997, I started really following Baseball – that is, all MLB, rather than just my home team.
If you asked for my gut reaction on the two, Smoltz was the third best pitcher on a team of chokers; Duke Snider was a legend that people wax poetic on during Ken Burns documentaries.
Admittedly, I’m now aware of the ridiculous degree to which people talk about New York baseball in the ’50s,and it bores and annoys me to no end. I have a MUCH more objective view of these things, thanks to numbers, and that includes putting players in their place based on our best understandings of value today. But I’m 27, and I voted for the Duke.
I hope your opinion of the ’90s Braves has changed since then. Chokers? That’s a tough sell.
I always thought a lot of people held that opinion about the Braves when I first starting commenting on saber-inclined blogs. I’ve been pleasantly surprised: no one on this site has ever suggested that before.
They seem to see the Braves as I see them: overachievers in the regular season who never were the best team in any World Series they participated in. Maybe they were equals with the ’91 Twins, but anyone else? They were over-matched by the ’92 Jays and ’98 Yankees for sure. They were at least slightly over-matched against the ’95 Indians (that team went 100-44!) and the ’96 Yanks.
Yes, if they had won two out of five World Series I would feel better about it. But you can’t come much closer than the 10th inning of Game 7 in ’91, so there’s that.
If the Braves actually are playoff chokers, you at least have to admit their 14-consecutive-year run as division winners is one of the more astonishing accomplishments in professional sports history.
I don’t think the ’96 Braves were overmatched by the ’96 Yankees – the Yankees had the better bullpen, but the Braves had the better rotation, and their lineups I’d call a wash:
OPS+
Yankees 100
Braves 96 (100 excluding pitchers)
ERA+
Yankees 108
Braves 125
batting WAR
Yankees 20.7
Braves 21.0
pitchers WAR
Yankees 24.9
Braves 25.2
W-L record
Yankees 92-70 (pythag 88-74)
Braves 96-66 (pythag 94-68)
Looks pretty closely matched to me.
Fair enough, David. I did say “slightly” overmatched.
I just remember thinking at the time that the Yanks’ bench was much stronger. Though past their primes, having a bench with Tim Raines, Cecil Fielder, and Daryl Strawberry inspires more confidence than the names of the Braves non-starters.
And then the ’96 Yanks had maybe their best-ever back of the bullpen with the unhittable Mo in the 7th and 8th and Wetteland in the 9th.
True, bstar, you did say ‘slightly’; I didn’t mean to go overboard in my response.
I agree that the Yankees had a better bench (although by the postseason Fielder and Strawberry were more or less regulars, and the bench was featuring guys like Mike Aldrete and Luis Sojo), and of course they had that outstanding 1-2 punch of Rivera & Wetteland in the bullpen – the bullpen always seemed to be the Braves’ weakness in those days.
On the other hand, the Braves’ pitching troika of Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz were all at the top of their game, and their frontline position players matched up pretty well with the Yankees’. It’s easy to forget (for me, at least) that in 1996 the Yankee Mystique ™ was still in abeyance, this was their first WS appearance since 1981 and they didn’t have the aura about them that they would have by say 1999-2000. And it was a pretty close series, after all – the Yankees won 4 straight after the Braves won the first 2, but all 4 of those games were close – the Braves actually outscored NY in the series by virtue of their Game 1 blowout.
*****
As I was looking over the 2 teams’ respective stats, I found myself wondering “how the heck did Mariano Duncan hit .340 that season?” Turns out he had a BABIP of *.400* – one of the 50 highest BABIPs ever posted for players with 400+ PA (Duncan had 417 PA). Talk about hitting in good luck…
David, I had the same response to the Yanks ’96 team page. I had forgotten Mariano Duncan was even on that team!
bstar, yes! I have definitely changed my opinion since then! Those were the days when I was an all-too-impressionable youth, and sports journalists colored my thinking too much. That was the narrative of the ESPN-types, so I took it as gospel. Obviously now I recognize that those were fantastic teams, and the playoffs are just pretty much a crapshoot.
That 14-year Braves run as division winners should have an asterisk, as they finished six games behind Montreal in the 1994 season when no division titles were awarded; they were in position for the Wild Card and did have the second-best record in the senior circuit (third-best in the Majors).
bstar,
Atlanta did not make the WS in ’98.
They were shut down by Sterling Hitchcock of San Diego.
Oops! I meant ’99! Thanks.
The Duke’s playing career ended more than a decade before I was born. It hasn’t stopped me at all from voting for him, though it’s only in the last few rounds that I have voted for him because I thought there were better players (or a guy I didn’t want to see fall off the ballot) on the ballot until now.
I’ve considered voting for Smoltz in the regular round voting because I find him to currently be the most appealing pitcher on the ballot. If he doesn’t win this runoff it’s very likely that I vote for him next round (though I forget where we are in the voting – as long as it’s not the round where Spahn comes on the ballot, because I’m not voting for Smoltz over Spahn). When the Braves made Smoltz a closer I remember thinking, as a Mets fan, … well, something I won’t type here (keeping in mind that no one was sure if he would be able to pitch well as a starter coming off of surgery). It seemed kind of obvious to me that Smoltz would dominate in that role.
Personally, I’m a little surprised that Glavine had an easier time making it into the COG than Smoltz, but Glavine garnered 50% of the vote when he won and Smoltz only 15% that year. In addition to Smoltz, Glavine beat out current COG members Molitor, Raines, Gwynn, Trammell, and Whitaker, as well as long-time ballot members Biggio, Sandberg, and Murray (and Roberto Alomar). Maybe people got confused by this:
http://www.halloffamememorabilia.com/p-575263-john-smoltz-tom-glavine-1990-donruss-bc-12-error-atlanta-braves-aw-55056.aspx
In other posts I’ve made comments that are kind of a combination of David P and Dr. Doom – the players “pre-my own existence” were built up to be legendary performers, the likes of which could almost never be equaled by a current player. Keith Hernandez over Gil Hodges – heresy!!! Though now I take Hernandez over Hodges without even thinking about it (if I can get the teams they’re on – yeah, I take the Dodger teams). But some of those legendary players had stats to match their legends – Mantle, Mays, Aaron, F. Robinson, Clemente, Gibson, Mathews – the bloodbath birth years of the 1930s. But others … to me their legend was a little overblown (as an example, Willie McCovey – he’s a great player but certainly not in the Mays/Mathews category). But I only know that now because I can look at the numbers a little more objectively.
I think the Snider vs. Smoltz vote really comes down to peak value. They both have the exact same WAR, 66.5, or at least the WAR that matters for each as I don’t think too many people are looking at the extra 3.0 batting WAR Smoltz has when making a decision. And Snider had a massive peak, whereas Smoltz had one really great year and many other solid really good years.
AZ @ 48 –
Spahn was born in 1921, so you’ll have a few more chances to vote for Smoltz if he doesn’t win the runoff. After that we’ll have:
1920 – Musial
1919 – J Robinson
1918 – T Williams, also Feller and Reese
I was a little startled to realize that Feller and Robinson were born within a year of each other.
139
1,400
49.2
Bob Feller’s wins, strikeouts and WAR
respectively; before Jackie Robinson was
allowed to play MLB.
On Memorial Day weekend let’s remember
those who served.
Thanks Gramps.
Let’s remember that Bob Feller was the 1st
MLB player to enlist after Pearl Harbor.
Thanks Bob.
Let’s also remember that Jackie Robinson was
drafted and rose to Second Lieutenant. The Army,
operating in the parlance of its times, was kind
enough to mentally prepare Jackie
for some of the BS he was destined to face,
when he would take his rightful place in the
Pantheon of great Americans.
Thanks Jackie.
I think that watching a player with your eyes cuts both ways. I think we appreciate great players that we’ve seen more, but I also think we sometimes elevate players with certain spectacular abilities beyond their general level.
I am one of those (somewhat) younger voters, born in 1968 and my parents were never interested, so I first followed baseball at all in the late 70s, and not seriously until I started playing softball in the 90s.
That said, one thing I’m finding is that understanding of the numbers, especially the new advanced numbers has given me *more* appreciation for the second tier of modern players than I otherwise would have had. Smoltz is a perfect example of somebody that I think more of now that I’ve really started comparing numbers across time.
Note that each of these guys got the same number of votes, which implies that the collective values them essentially equally. So unless you think that Snider is really clearly better, it doesn’t seem like that’s hurting him much.
As others have mentioned, both were outstanding performers sometimes overshadowed by inner circle greats on their own teams. It took 11 years for the bbwwaa voters to let Snider in, though he looks like a pretty clear selection to me.
It is instructive for me to look at the hall of fame ballots from Snider’s time there. Looks like the voters were just as big jerks then as now. Baseball reference link shows how many people are in the hall now that were on the ballot and not making it in. Some really clear selections took their time making it. And even the first year guys were surprisingly close to the line. Warren Spahn with only 83% of the vote? Mickey Freaking Mantle with 88?
I suppose one potential problem was strategic voting. Now that I look at those ballots, like today I’d have had 12-14 players I think should be in on most of those ballots, so if I were sure that say big mick would make it without my help, I might decide to leave him off to build support for somebody else. Part of the problem with the BBWWAA voting system is the high bar when you have a stacked ballot. In 1972 nobody made it above 75%, Here are the top guys on the ballot by JAWS: Johnny Mize, Duke Snider, Hal Newhouser, Richie Ashburn, Pee Wee Reese, Early Wynn, Yogi Berra, Ralph Kiner. Only Berra, Kiner and Wynn got over 50% of the vote. It’s hard for me to believe that Berra, Mize and Snider weren’t considered slam dunk first ballot guys.
Another really interesting note is that Gil Hodges, though he never made it, had more ballot support than Snider for quite a few years.
Looking at the ballot again, gave me some more appreciation for Johnny Mize too.
71 WAR and 45 WAA in only 7300 PA, due to missing 3 years right in his prime during WWII.
And this guy never got above 50% from the writers. SERIOUSLY? .312 career BA, 359 HRs? WTF?
I think part of the problem is that information didn’t flow as freely then as it did now. If I’m remembering correctly, the first Macmillan Baseball Encyclopedia didn’t come out until 1969, so records were probably more based on memory than what actually happened. At the end of his career Mize was a part-time player/pinch hitter for the Yankees, and that image may have been the one that stuck in the minds of the voters.
Also, the number of players receiving votes was huge – in 1960, Mize’s first year on the ballot, 134 players received votes. The player with the most votes, Edd Roush, was on his 19th year on the ballot. Lefty Grove, who was already elected to the HOF in 1947, received 6 votes in 1960. Perhaps they meant to vote for Lefty O’Doul? And writers were only voting every other year for about a decade beginning in the late 1950s, which certainly didn’t help speed up the process of electing members.
I didn’t vote in the regular balloting. I logged in twenty minutes after balloting had ended. I would have voted for Snider. Maybe we could push the 11 p.m. Eastern deadline an hour or two later for us nighthawks out west.
Snider.
I believe the selection of Snider over Smoltz is based on two factors:
1) Snider had the better peak and “peak” separates the talent
2) Color of hair: Snider, silver. Smoltz, scalp.
End of discussion…..
My vote is for John Smoltz.
Count me for the duke
Snider currently leads 19-16.
I’m in for Snider, because I’m still mad at John Smoltz for… reasons that are no longer clear to me.
Snider is my vote
I will go with Snider.
John Smoltz in the runoff.
Smoltz
I voted for him consistently early on, then neglected him until these later rounds with no inner circle candidates. Didn’t want to know the count but since it was recorded above it’s looking like Duke. Smoltz will have to wait. Forever?
Don’t forget that we are only having this runoff because Smoltz picked up 5 votes in the last few hours of voting- so I wouldn’t let a 3 or 4 vote deficit worry me overmuch just yet.
And Darien if you’re looking for a new reason to be mad at Smoltz you can use mine and be mad at him for getting traded away from the Tigers to the Braves even tho: a) from Detroit’s perspective the trade could not possibly have worked out any better than it did, b) even if the Tigers had kept him he wouldn’t have been enough to make up for more than a decade and a half of lousy teams and finally c) he had absolutely no say in the matter.
From the standpoint of 2014, it’s hard to think of that trade as working out well for the tigers. If they could have known that a) Smoltz would be a hall of fame talent, b) Alexander’s brilliant half season wouldn’t be enough to win the world series and c) said half-season would be the last solid MLB pitching he had in him — surely they would not have done that deal.
True enough that it probably wouldn’t have mattered in the long run. Except, maybe a young prime Smoltz at 23-24 with 2 ace level years under his belt could have fetched 3 or 4 good but less proven prospects that might have made the nucleus of an earlier rebuild.
Maybe, but Smoltz’s age 23-24 seasons (1990-91), while quite respectable, weren’t really ace-level – his ERA+ those seasons were 105 and 103, respectively.
My recollection is that in the early part of his career he was considered talented but an underperformer, and that Steve Avery was more highly regarded, what with his being younger, and more left-handed.
I was looking at his 22 and 23, and he did have ERA+ of 123 in 1989 for a nearly full season. I guess 3.5-4 WAR doesn’t really count as ace, but it’s certainly well above average, and very respectable for your first two full years in the majors. I’ve definitely seen guys described as “aces” who weren’t any better than Smoltz was in those 2 years.
I’d think he would have fetched much more in trade as a young stud with those two years behind him than he did as a prospect not yet dominating in AA (as he was when the tigers traded him to the Braves).
When you trade a 20 year old prospect for a 36 year old journeyman you know going into the deal that you can get burned. What you expect is that you are giving up “maybe great, maybe nothing” in the future for “probably good” now.
What they got was 9-0 with a 1.47 ERA in 11 starts, 4.4 WAR in 88 innings. Without him the Tigers don’t play in the ALCS.
Would Detroit still make the trade if they knew EVERYTHING that was going to happen including Alexander not pitching well in the LCS & Smoltz having a Hall of Fame career? No, probably not under those circumstances.
But Milwaukee traded Michael Brantley, Rob Bryson, Zach Jackson and Matt LaPorta for half a season of CC Sabathia in 2008. At the time, it was thought that the PTBNL would be Brewers reigning Minor League Player of the year Taylor Green and the trade was generally viewed as a huge overpay since it was pretty clear that Sabathia was only going to be around for that half season.
Sabathia went 11 -2 and produced 3.9 WAR in 130 innings. Milwaukee made the post-season for the first time since 1982.
Brantley’s performance has muddied the waters a little since then but does anyone seriously believe that there’s a Brewers fan anywhere on the planet who now would not go back and trade Green, Bryson, Jackson & LaPortia for half a season of Sabathia? I suspect even if you changed Brantley for Green they vast majority would still have made the trade.
Detroit didn’t get back to the post-season until 2006. They would have been crazy not to go for it in 1988 when they had the chance.
Even if it wound up costing them Smoltz.
Plus, looking at Smoltz’ minor league record it’s not very clear that he would be an ace-caliber starter.
He definitely had age going for him, as he was younger (by 3-3.5 years) than most of the players in the leagues he was pitching in. A definite plus there. A big plus.
But Josias Manzanillo put up a 2.27 ERA in 142.2 innings in the same league as Smoltz (who had a 3.56 ERA), and Manzanillo was only 18. Smoltz (who has 19) only struck out 47 in 96 innings, so we’re talking 4.5 K/9. Manzanillo was at 6.4. Al Leiter, age 20, was at 7.7. Randy Johnson, who was 22, was striking out 10 per 9 innings.
In 1987, before the trade, Smoltz was 4-10 with a 5.68 ERA in 130 innings in AA. He gave up 131 hits, had upped his K/9 to 6.0, but was walking almost as many as he struck out (86 Ks, 81 BBs). His WHIP was 1.631.
When the Braves acquired Smoltz they started him 3 times in AAA and he was a complete disaster. 16 innings, 17 hits, 11 ER, 11 BBs, 5 Ks.
They put him back in AAA the following year (1988) and he blossomed. His K/9 went to 7.6, his BB/9 dropped to 2.5, he only gave up 5 HRs in 135.1 innings. Looking at all that can we really project that Smoltz would have done the same thing in Detroit? It’s quite possible the Braves did something with Smoltz in the minors that allowed him to blossom into the pitcher we know now, and that the same thing wouldn’t have happened had the Tigers not traded him.
I remember the days when I knew the totals of every big career home run hitter down to DiMaggio’s 361. At the time Duke, Evans and Billy Williams had the lower 400 slots, which I think jumped from there (Williams’ 426) to Yaz at 452? The cutoff for me now is 500.
I had to look to see how many 500 home run hitters there even are now. I was even off on how many Bonds had (I thought it was 763). I couldn’t list them in order now or how many each player had (except for the old guys) if my life depended on it- I could probably come up with all 26 names if you gave me a couple of minutes to do so.
Duke’s 407 sure seemed a lot more then than it does now. I don’t know who the next guy up is. Papi may get there. Not sure about Dunn. Giancarlo has a long way to go.
PP @ 82 –
Dunn would seem to have a decent shot at 500, he’s only 52 away and has been good for 35-40 HR a season as long as he’s healthy and not hitting .159.
Cabrera is “only” 128 away in his age 31 season, so I think he’s in pretty good shape to reach the milestone.
Depending on exactly how many guys like Killebrew & McCovey had hit thru the 1964 season when Duke retired he should have been no worse than 15th on the all-time home run ranks, which is where Mike Schmidt ranks now.
I just did a quick check- it look like he was not only still ahead of Killebrew & McCovey but also Frank Robinson, Ernie Banks & Hank Aaron as well. If my math is right (I did it all in my head) then when he retired Snider was 10th on the list of all-time career home run hitters.
Looks you figured it right – here’s a handy page showing the top 10 in career HR year by year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lifetime_home_run_leaders_in_Major_League_Baseball
Oops, forgot about Cabrera
And that’s a great list, 583 gets 10th place, wow
I tried this, and I couldn’t name all 26. 20 years ago, I could have named every one over 500 and how many at least the top 5-6 had hit (down to Jackson or Schmidt).
I found I forgot many of those numbers and order after the big 4.
I had to wrack my brains a bit before remembering that Banks and Murray were on that 500 list, and that Gehrig wasn’t. Then I had trouble coming up with some of the new ones. After I gave up, and looked at the list, I had missed Sheffield and Pujols (apparently he hit #500 this season and I didn’t notice), and thought Guerrero had done it.
Thanks for that link, David. Fascinating. From 1989 to 1998, the top ten were the same. Then, this:
1999- McGwire passes Williams & McCovey w/#522, ends the season 10th
2000- 32 more HR bump McGwire to 7th
2001- 29 more HR bump McGwire to 5th
2002- 46 from Bonds knock McGwire to 6th
2005- Sosa’s last 14 knock McGwire to 7th
2007- 30 from Griffey knock McGwire to 8th
2010- Rodriguez and Thome knock McGwire to 10th, with Killebrew outside the top 10
2016?- Pujols knocks McGwire off the page
2020?- Cabrera knocks Robinson off the page?
David- what a great find. Who would have thought that that behind Ruth, Aaron and Roger Connor for the longest tenure as baseballs home run king was Lip Pike? I thought I knew a lot of baseball history and I’d never heard of the guy.
That page was a fortuitous find, I didn’t know it was out there but it sure is handy.
Anyway, I’d heard of Lip Pike, but didn’t actually know anything about him, and had no idea he was the career HR leader for a time.
I see Lip’s buried here in Brooklyn. Would have been a trip to see a game in that time. Hartford Dark Blues against the Baltimore Canaries. How good would that be? Did they sell dogs and brews at the games in those days? I’m thinking yes?
Active HR Leaders:
Rank Player (yrs, age) Home Runs
1. Alex Rodriguez (20, 38) 654
2. Albert Pujols (14, 34) 506
3. Adam Dunn (14, 34) 448
4. David Ortiz (18, 38) 443
5. Jason Giambi (20, 43) 439
6. Paul Konerko (18, 38) 436
7. Alfonso Soriano (16, 38)412
8. Adrian Beltre (17, 35) 381
9. Miguel Cabrera (12, 31) 372
10. Carlos Beltran (17, 37) 363
11. Aramis Ramirez (17, 36) 359
12. Mark Teixeira (12, 34) 350
13. Torii Hunter (18, 38) 320
14. Ryan Howard (11, 34) 319
15. Raul Ibanez (19, 42) 303
Smoltz, ’cause Maddux and Glavine need their golf partner.
Tiger Woods was once asked who the best non-professional golfer was that he ever played against. Without hesitation, he said, “Smoltzie….by far.” Tiger went on to say that Smoltz has taken money from him—straight up!! What an athlete.
I’m sure he never let Maddux and Glavine forget who the best golfer (and best hitter) was of the three.
unless Glavine is off playing hockey…
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=34965
I missed the COG voting to this round due to some real-world issues, which is too bad because that means I could have changed the outcome by voting for Snider in the first place. Oh well. Pencil my vote in for the Duke.
Smolts because I dig his new hair style.
In 1996 WS, braves blew 6-0 lead in “pivotal” game 4. Cox replaced Neagle in 6th inning and bullpen failed miserably. Neagle was their 4th best pitcher and I guess that wasn’t good enough for Bobby…
Paul, Neagle was cruising thru 5 but couldn’t get anybody out in the top of the 6th. The first four runners reached, and all of a sudden it’s 6-3 instead of 6-0. That’s when Cox came and got Neagle. Seems like the right move. The bullpen did put out the fire that inning; no more runs scored as Mike Bielecki struck out the last three batters.
And then the #### hit the fan in the 8th when Mark Wohlers hung that slider to Jim Leyritz…this is my worst baseball memory.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/ATL/ATL199610230.shtml
bstr:
Yes, it was the right move. But, to me, it seemed that Cox was always removing an ace to bring in someone like Brad Clontz (?) or McMichael. You know, like his 11th best pitcher replacing Hall of Famers. But, if you have three Hall of Famers in your rotation, I guess that will be the case more often than not.
I certainly do remember that, Paul. It did seem that way. Cox certainly wasn’t afraid to use his bullpen and often did seem fairly rigid about who he was going to use and when, no matter the circumstances.
I looked at Brad Clontz’s career and noticed he pitched in 81 games in ’96 with only a 78 ERA+. FWIW, that is the second-lowest ERA+ ever for a pitcher appearing in 80 games or more (Luis Ayala had a 76 ERA+ in 81 games in 2008), so maybe that does support your notion that Bobby would just keep plugging in relievers even when they were having a crappy year.
I feel that both belong. I feel that duke snider was better than John smoltz. However, snider will get in. I’ve been trying to get smoltz in for months with no success and this may be his best chance. I don’t want to take the chance of voting dynamics changing and him falling back down into the pack.
I vote John smoltz
I double-checked, ’cause I wanted to be sure to be right. I’m pretty sure, and no one’s updated for a while, so I’ve got this:
Snider leads 23-21.
That’s what I had too, before adding bells’ vote at 87. I’ve got a vote-counting spreadsheet up and running now: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AklDUJiangSrdDMwS0N6TE1HQ3dMVmtoS3hVNVNqRWc#gid=0
As has been discussed in the past, if this runoff round vote ends in a tie, the tie will be broken in favor of the candidate who led immediately before the final vote was cast. So there may be some incentive not to leave your vote to the end this round.
WAR – Smoltz 69.5, Snider 66.5: Advantage Smoltz (sorta, since 3 WAR is from batting, so let’s call it a draw)
WAA+ – Smoltz 40.1, Snider 39.2: Advantage Smoltz
JAWS – Smoltz 54.1, Snider 58.2: Advantage Snider
Pretty close between these two, like comparing apples and oranges. Great discussion above, I really appreciate the insight on display in these posts. I’m gonna give the tiebreaker to Smoltz for similar reasons as Josh in #76, namely that whoever loses this is likely to get in one of the next three rounds, and Smoltz has just been around for SO long he should have his due.
John Smoltz
The Duke wins my vote. Avocado growers know what I’m talkin’ about.
The Duke after all the song is “Willie, Mickey, and the Duke ” not Willie, Mickey, and the Smotlz
Smoltz. Been on and off my ballot for a long time.
More WAR and more WAA
Best postseason resume
I vote for John Smoltz
My vote is for Smoltz.
Ben voting for Smotlz forever so no need to change now.
Mr. John Andrew Smoltz, sez I.
Edwin Duke Snider.
Snider’s last few great years were right before I was born, but I don’t need personal observation to believe that Snider’s dominance amongst CFers is greater than Smoltz’s peak amongst starting pitchers. JAWS confirms this (7th for Snider, 58th for Smoltz). Of course, Smoltz’s four years as a closer muddies the analytical waters somewhat.
I think both belong in the COG.
I also think that at #7 in the JAWS ranking, Snider is the last of the “truly” great CFers; everyone below him, with the possible exception of Billy Hamilton (the 1888-1901 guy), falls short of that designation in some way. …and Slidin’ Billy played when a number of rules were different (no strikes for foul balls, 50-foot pitching distance, one umpire usually, tiny gloves).
Personally I think Jaws values peak in a bit of an arbitrary manner. Hall rating makes more sense, and actually values peak more. By hall rating, it’s not clear that Snider stands out so much from the 3-4 guys who are behind him in Jaws.
IMO somebody like Jim Edmonds, who we’re not putting in COG, or ashburn (similar HR) who we might, are a fair bit closer to Snider than Snider is to Griffey or DiMaggio (who I assume are #5 and 6 on that list). Lofton, I have behind the Duke, but only by a little. I just can’t see a line behind Snider the way you do. If there’s a gap between all time all-timers are mere HOFers in CF it’s at #4 or #6. I see a relatively slow decline as you go down the list past him.
Technically we haven’t had a chance to make a collective decision on Edmonds – this is an old man’s COG, and Edmonds is just too young right now. I’d suspect he would fare okay in the voting.
Should we get to 1970 (if we do what we did last year and “go forward” one year on the anniversary of the beginning of COG voting), then Edmonds competes with Jim Thome and a group of hitters not likely to receive a vote (Javy Lopez, Grudzielanek, Higginson, and Counsell) as well as a completely uninspiring group of pitchers (Lieber, Wilson Alvarez, Trachsel, Helling, Oliver, and Sele). And whoever the holdovers happen to be (Kenny Lofton, Eddie Murray, and Lou Boudreau – I don’t know, I’m just throwing out a name we haven’t gotten to yet).
Thanks a lot for that “old man’s COG” remark.
–Mariano Rivera
If I had to put money on it before looking, I was going to guess that Griffey is the youngest member of the COG. The main reason I thought that is because I knew he was born in late November 1969 and just going by sheer odds I would have guessed Mariano was a little older.
But nope, Jr. is older than Mo by 8 days. Still, it’s an old man’s COG until Andruw (first player younger than me to play MLB) hits the ballot!
I don’t have a strong preference here but I’ve been backing Smoltz. I value relief pitching as a separate skill from starting and the ability to transition from one to the other was just unique with that level of dominance. Smoltz is also a great ambassador these days and pushed the Braves beyond just a baseball success.
I got Smoltz here.
Also, point of reference, I think we should formally state the intended tie breaker rule in the runoff again: Last vote doesn’t count in the event of a tie.
Only clarification is very technical: the final vote counts, but the tie breaker is that the inductee is the candidate who had the most votes prior to the final vote. Yes, that’s form over substance, but a little more respectful of that last voter.
I have Smoltz leading 28-26 (as of mosc @105). Anyone care to confirm or deny as we head into the final day of voting?
Also to mosc @105, birtelcom (or Birtelcom, as he is apparently sometimes known) made this point @87. But it’s a good idea to reiterate the rule anyway.
There is a vote, I think, for Snider at comment 98 that is a reply to comment 14 and that you may not have counted.
Having been in the nation’s capital, that location apparently infected the first letter of my screen name.
Smoltz is my vote!
This vote is tough- it is really hard to compare a Brooklyn Dodger and an Atlanta Brave, but I’ll go with John Smoltz.
Willie, Mickey and the Duke
Or, if Willie and Mickey are no longer eligible, I’ll settle for the Duke.
I have been on the road the last couple of weeks, I would have voted for Smoltz, and will vote for Smoltz here.
31-29 in favor of Smoltz as we enter the final hours of voting…
31-28, I think. Typing on a phone is hard…
My vote is for Duke Snider. I can’t imagine a CoG round without Smoltz on the ballot.
Duke Snider, my tiebreaker was that he was on a team that beat the Yankees in the World Series unlike Smoltz
Duke Snider… So close though. Ended up tossing the stats and going with my gut
Been flip-flopping on this quite a bit the past couple of days.
In the end, I go with Snider.
I’m going with Smoltz, because that coin just came up Heads.
So all tied with a few hours to go and 64 votes in. For the moment at least, Snider holds the tiebreaker. Someone out there may hold the power to pick who wins induction this round.
This is so tough. Smolder. I mean Sniltz.
I always thought Snider was over rated. But then I found out that I was under rating him.
But I’m going with Smoltz. And here’s why:
Those three years (or was it four?) that Smoltz agreed to be Atlanta’s closer and for those three years he was among the best closers in the league. And then after that, he went back to starting and was still excellent as a starter (three top 10 war seasons, three top 10 ERA seasons, two top ten K’s seasons).
I suggest that if Smoltz had refused to do that, we wouldn’t even be having a runoff vote.
He would have 30 or 40 more wins, another 400 to 600 K’s, and another 10-15 WAR.
I do not know of another instance where a player did something like that. Okay, Babe Ruth when he switched from pitcher to OF.
I think that puts him over Snider. Close call, but my opinion.
Joseph, only one rebuttal to your argument about Smoltz, which is that he missed a full year (2000) because of TJ surgery, came back at the start of 2001, had a 5.76 ERA through five starts, went back on the DL for seven weeks, and then returned in the bullpen. He didn’t start as the closer. They put him in lower leverage situations initially, and he didn’t pick up his first save until August 17. At the time, it was thought that’s all the arm strength he had. TJ wasn’t that prevalent then.
That being said, Smoltz had a great career. But, (I think for the first time in the entire COG voting) I’m skipping this round. I just don’t have a strong enough preference to want to possibly be the decisive vote.
That may be a bit of an optimistic projection. At least in his first year back, he closed because they did not expect he could stand up physically to pitching starter innings. So he probably only missed out on about 2 years.