Schilling vs. Smoltz and Glavine
Nonetheless, I mention Smoltz and Glavine to invalidate the laughable proclamations uttered by some of the more vindictive members of the voting electorate who claim that the voting process is purely objective, based solely on a candidate’s “playing” career. For example, both Smoltz and Glavine were first-ballot Hall of Famers, yet Curt Schilling, whose baseball resume slightly trumps those of Smoltz and Glavine, has yet to approach the obligatory number of votes required for enshrinement in four attempts.
There is something very wrong with that.
Schilling is a three-time champion, while Smoltz and Glavine have sipped the champagne on only one occasion.
The only advantages that I concede to Glavine are that he has reached the 300-win plateau, while also winning two Cy Young Awards. The only advantages that I concede to Smoltz are that he was a uniquely accomplished hurler, a very successful closer and a very successful starter, and he does own a Cy Young Award as well.
The one caveat that I must include for fairness is that both spent the great majority of their careers on the perennial division winner Atlanta Braves, and, as a result, all else being equal, both were in much more favorable situations to accumulate victories than Schilling was.
In terms of postseason pitching Smoltz was outstanding, while Glavine was merely average. Nonetheless, neither one’s postseason resume is comparable to that authored by Schilling.
Schilling’s scores for JAWS, Baseball-Reference.com’s career WAR, and Baseball-Reference.com’s 7-year peak WAR are all significantly higher than the corresponding scores attributed to Smoltz, and it is advantage Schilling in two of the three metrics relative to Glavine.
Curt Schilling’s three scores are 64.5, (27th in baseball history), 79.9, (26th in baseball history), and 49.0, (49th in baseball history), respectively.
John Smoltz’s three scores are 54.2, (58th in baseball history), 69.5, (34th in baseball history), and 38.8, (102nd in baseball history), respectively.
Tom Glavine’s three scores are 62.9, (30th in baseball history), 81.4, (25th in baseball history), and 44.3, (67th in baseball history), respectively.
Schilling trumps both Smoltz and Glavine in virtually every pitching category: FIP, ERA+, SO, BB, WHIP, K/BB ratio, SO/9, and BB/9.
Of the three, Schilling was the best postseason pitcher, won more championships, possesses the highest JAWS, and is the leader in nearly every single pitching category.
I mention all of this not with the intent to denigrate the careers of John Smoltz and Tom Glavine, as both are deserving of enshrinement.
However, it should be abundantly clear that Curt Schilling had the best baseball career; however, the fact remains that Smoltz and Glavine were first-ballot Hall of Famers, while Schilling has yet to sniff enshrinement on what will be his fifth attempt.
The results of the Hall of Fame voting are in no way commensurate with the pitching statistics accumulated by the three aforementioned hurlers, leaving little doubt that voters are not applying the same criteria to all players. Such a farce cannot be allowed to perpetuate unchecked and those voters denying Curt Schilling his well-deserved baseball immortality for reasons completely unrelated to baseball are not fulfilling their privileged responsibility that they are expected to uphold.