Tom Glavine: Hall of Famer?
| What an idiotic question. Of course he is! |  31 (26.72%) |
| Yes, but not on the first ballot | 36 (31.03%) |
| When the old-timers committee chaired by Greg Maddux gets to him in 2031. | 13 (11.21%) |
| He deserves consideration, but sorry, no not quite. | 30 (25.86%) |
| What an idiotic question. Of course not! | 6 (5.17%) |
116 votes | 7 featured comments
To me, it's a no-brainer. No debate required. But I suppose it's possible that he might not make it on the first ballot. It's even possible that he might end up in that group with Kaat, John, and Blyleven - punished for not quite making it to 300 wins, and never looking really spectacular while he was coming close.
All three of those guys should be in the Hall anyway. But Glavine has more to offer than any of that group anyway. Two Cy Youngs and five 20-win seasons, which are the sorts of things Hall voters normally like.
You don't have to win 300 games, and you don't have to throw a million miles an hour to be a great pitcher or even to be a Hall of Fame pitcher. Although sometimes it seems like people demand that you do one or the other. Would Whitey Ford be an automatic Hall of Famer if he was retiring today? I sure hope so - but "just" 236 wins, just two 20 win seasons, one Cy Young award?
In this era of long balls and steriods, Tom Glavine, Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson all deserve the Hall of Fame, even though they probably won't win 300 games. Glavine was good for a long period of time, and i think he is Hall worthy.
What about Smoltz? He is an interesting case.
What about Smoltz? He is an interesting case.
The abbreviated summary of the "should he/will he" portion of Glavine's Hall Watch piece to come in the off-season. Yes and yes. He's had a better career than Tommy John or Jim Kaat. 300 wins never has been the minimum standard, nor should it be. He's not a no-doubter like Clemens or the Big Unit, but he's clearly over the line.
FWIW, I answered my own question with "What an idiotic question. Of course he is!" But like Mags, I feel the same way about Kaat and John and especially Blyleven.
I fear that Tommy's time in the city so nice they named it twice will *hurt* him ... he has not been Tom Glavine, Hall of Famer, since pulling on the blue and orange pinstripes.
Oh, and the relative "lack of success" by the Braves in the postseason will hurt him, too. If he was wearing five rings from his Atlanta time, there'd be no argument anywhere.
I fear that Tommy's time in the city so nice they named it twice will *hurt* him ... he has not been Tom Glavine, Hall of Famer, since pulling on the blue and orange pinstripes.
Oh, and the relative "lack of success" by the Braves in the postseason will hurt him, too. If he was wearing five rings from his Atlanta time, there'd be no argument anywhere.
I'm really not looking for the subject to tangent in this direction, but I don't think you can assume that only hitters benefit from and/or used steriods.
I agree, there is no proof that hitters were the only ones on steriods, however, there is no denying that this is a live ball era. Smaller ballparks, juiced balls and steriods have all changed the game to a more hitter friendly game.
I can hear Glavine's speech already,
"After Leo Mazzone, i would like to thank the following home plate umpires, if it wasn't for their generous outside corner, i would have had to bring my fastball into hitters, which would have effective my era."
I can hear Glavine's speech already,
"After Leo Mazzone, i would like to thank the following home plate umpires, if it wasn't for their generous outside corner, i would have had to bring my fastball into hitters, which would have effective my era."
I am dumbfounded at the considerable number of votes (1 in 4) cast in the Not-a-Hall-Famer camp. I am honestly puzzled and bewildered. I hope someone will explain the argument. How many Cy Youngs did he need to win, how many games, how 20 win seasons? How did he fall short?
I just don't get it.