Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I posted this in a prior thread, but...

From a recent NY Times article on Leo Mazzone (which is well worth reading).  Greg Maddux asked Mazzone to let him speak with the Braves young pitchers in spring training:  

“You know why I am a millionaire? Because I can put my fastball wherever I want to,” Maddux told them. “Do you know why I own beachfront property in L.A.? Because I can change speeds. O.K., questions?”

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.  

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'm all for proverbial barstool arguments, but...  You are talking about a pitcher with 355 MLB wins, 4 Cy Young Awards, and a 106+ WAR.  Part of the case for any Hall of Famer is longevity--a couple of great seasons aren't enough.  And recall that Maddux pitched during the steroids era, when offense looked quite a bit different than today. 

The dude got the 10th-highest percentage of HOF votes all-time (97.2%).  The baseball writers get a lot of things wrong in their voting (like the insistence of some that no HOF candidate should ever be unanimous), but Maddux was a Hall of Famer by acclamation.   

IMO, Maddux was a great pitcher.

Unfortunately, power pitching wins in the playoffs. Smoltz, and the like, could always reach back and get a strikeout when needed. Batters could mostly put the ball in play versus Maddux which give teams a chance to generate runs by moving runner over or getting a sack fly for example.

His postseason numbers were not bad. He lost a lot of close games. 

luv baseball posted:

 

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.

 

That's a bad take. The era in which he pitched was a very high offense era (PEDs). Yes, Smoltz was a great post-season pitcher, and so were others like Schilling who couldn't match Maddux's overall career.

A 3.27 ERA in 30 starts against the very best teams (playoffs/world series) during his high-scoring era was very good. Here are a few others:

  • Roger Clemens, 34 postseason starts, 3.75 ERA
  • Tom Glavine, 35 postseason starts, 3.30 ERA
  • Pedro Martinez, 14 postseason starts, 3.46 ERA
  • Randy Johnson, 16 postseason starts, 3.50 ERA
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?  

In regards to "stuff." The movement & command combination on G Maddox's fastball alone, by any objective measure, were a cut above anything seen in the modern era of baseball. (There have been some with the movement (Kevin Brown, Bill Swift; but not the command) Some with the command (Jamie Moyer, Pedro; but not the movement) Toss in the secondary command & longevity & you have a no brainer, top shelf, HOF pitcher.

Now, if you want to argue "stuff," at their best, for a single game. Give me Nolan at his best & you can pick from the rest.

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.  

He had the opportunity to pitch all those innings BECAUSE he didn't suck. 

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.

russinfortworth 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.  

He had the opportunity to pitch all those innings BECAUSE he didn't suck. 

Tex...where did I say he sucked?  Overrated does not mean sucked.  Only he wasn't as good as a lot of people think or remember.

Dudes ….read the statements....Top 50 All time.  If you read that as he sucked...then I really cannot help that twisted interpretation.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×