rynoattack posted:luv baseball posted:It probably doesn't hurt to get 15 starts a year for a decade against what might have been the worst division in the history of baseball....the 90's Mets, Expos, Phils and Marlins (one really good season and then blown up) not to mention another 12 against lousy teams throughout the league in that time... Cubs, Reds, Astros, D-backs, and Pirates after Bonds left.
On top of that he had one of the leagues best lineups. There was a reason those teams only won one time...they weren't that great. I have contended for some time that Maddox is the most overrated pitcher in history. He had average stuff and excellent command. But against good teams he was very mediocre.
In truth it was his durability that made him great, he started 25 or more games 19 years in a row and over 30 in 17 of those. The thing he SHOULD have been telling those players was - join the best team in the league and start 33 games a year and throw 200 innings for 20 years and you will be a great pitcher too. In this facet he was exceptional and a total outlier.
Try to tell me with a straight face that a guy who got 30 starts in the post season with a 11-14 record, 3.27 ERA with a 1.24 WHIP for the Analytics guys is an all-time great. He wasn't.
Smoltz by comparison started 27 games with a 15-4 record, 2.67 ERA and a 1.14 WHIP in pretty much the same post seasons. He had the killer stuff that works against good hitters consistently... Maddox did not.
Maddox won 355 games but 250+ of them might have been against teams with losing records that were actually terrible teams. Full marks for getting on the hill and doing his job but as for his actual stuff - I could probably name 40/50 pitchers that I would start against him in a Game 7 and feel like I had the upper hand.
I am honestly at a loss for words. Can you please explain how a 3.27 ERA in 30 post season starts is not HOF worthy?
Sorry to have such a deleterious effect on your health. I hope your voice has returned.
Never said not worthy of Hall of Fame or was not a great pitcher. Try to find that statement anywhere in my post. Just to be sure I have reread it twice and am very confident such a statement is not there so I am at a loss, although not speechless as to where that is coming from.
He is simply overrated IMO but had exceptional durability. They guy he best compares with is Ryan. Long and wonderfully durable careers but not as good as people think as displayed by his postseason record which was less than overwhelming. He went 11-14 in the post season when he had to face good teams every time out.
I think he was the third best pitcher on that Braves team. Just a short list of guys I'd rate better: Seaver, Palmer, Gibson and Carlton. and that is only the 70's guys.
Saying he is one of the 50 all time great pitchers (although closer to 50 than 1) hardly trashes the man. Please read the words and do not infer things that are not there.