Circle of Greats 1924 Runoff: Snider vs. Smoltz

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

133 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
MJ
MJ
10 years ago

I’m going with John Smoltz.

donburgh
donburgh
10 years ago

Duke Snider for the win.

Francisco
Francisco
10 years ago

My vote is for Duke Snider

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
10 years ago

Snider, and here’s some additional verbiage.

KalineCountry Ron
10 years ago

Edwin Duke Snider.

Hartvig
Hartvig
10 years ago

I’m 99% certain that Smoltz belongs but I’m 100% certain that Snider does.

Snider

Dr. Remulak
Dr. Remulak
10 years ago

The Duke of Flatbush.

David P
David P
10 years ago

Yet another vote for Snider.

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
10 years ago

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.

koma
koma
10 years ago

I vote for John Smoltz

Nick Pain
Nick Pain
10 years ago

A tough decision
Smoltz excelled in two roles, but
I’ll go with the Duke

Chris C
Chris C
10 years ago

Really close. I think both belong. I’ll vote for Smoltz because he’s been on the ballot FOREVER.

Bix
Bix
10 years ago

Make mine Duke Snider.

Jeff Hill
Jeff Hill
10 years ago

Watched Smoltz dominate as a starter and reliever throughout his career, can’t say the same for the duke.

Smoltz…

brp
brp
10 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Hill

Well, me either, but I’m still voting for Snider first.

ATarwerdi96
ATarwerdi96
10 years ago

My vote: Duke Snider.

Doug
Editor
10 years ago

Smoltz

Both were great, but Smoltz did it longer.

Jeff Harris
Jeff Harris
10 years ago

Smoltz for the win!

Voomo Zanzibar
Voomo Zanzibar
10 years ago

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.

David Horwich
David Horwich
10 years ago

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.

robbs
robbs
10 years ago

Love the Duke but voting for Smoltzie.

PaulE
PaulE
10 years ago

I will go with Duke Snider for the Circle of Greats

JamesS
JamesS
10 years ago

The Duke for the win

Mike HBC
Mike HBC
10 years ago

I couldn’t separate out my personal bias even if I wanted to- Smoltz all the way.

Mike G.
Mike G.
10 years ago

I want both eventually, but this round I’ll go with Smoltz.

Aidan Mattson
Aidan Mattson
10 years ago

I vote Smoltzie

Luis Gomez
Luis Gomez
10 years ago

John Smoltz…and a few more words.

Hartvig
Hartvig
10 years ago
Reply to  Luis Gomez

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…)

David Horwich
David Horwich
10 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

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….

Michael Sullivan
Michael Sullivan
10 years ago

both belong, but same as the regular ballot, I’ll vote for Smoltz

Andy
Andy
10 years ago

I’ll go with Duke Snider

Stubby
10 years ago

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… Read more »

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
10 years ago
Reply to  Stubby

Preeeeetty sure the song goes, “Hoooooomer, Ozzie and the Straw.”

Bryan O'Connor
Editor
10 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

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.

Artie Z.
Artie Z.
10 years ago
Reply to  Bryan O'Connor

It’s just not a complete discussion of the episode without:

Pitt the Elder!

Lord Palmerston!

Artie Z.
Artie Z.
10 years ago

Edwin “Duke” Snider

oneblankspace
oneblankspace
10 years ago

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… Read more »

oneblankspace
oneblankspace
10 years ago

All that analysis and no vote, so here it is : —

[_] Smoltz
[X] Snider

bstar
10 years ago

Smoltzie for the win. He’s hung around long enough.

no statistician but
no statistician but
10 years ago

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… Read more »

David P
David P
10 years ago

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.

David Horwich
David Horwich
10 years ago

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… Read more »

Hartvig
Hartvig
10 years ago

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… Read more »

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
10 years ago

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… Read more »

bstar
10 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

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… Read more »

David Horwich
David Horwich
10 years ago
Reply to  bstar

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.

bstar
10 years ago
Reply to  David Horwich

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.

David Horwich
David Horwich
10 years ago
Reply to  David Horwich

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… Read more »

bstar
10 years ago
Reply to  David Horwich

David, I had the same response to the Yanks ’96 team page. I had forgotten Mariano Duncan was even on that team!

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
10 years ago
Reply to  bstar

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.

oneblankspace
oneblankspace
10 years ago
Reply to  bstar

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).

Voomo Zanzibar
Voomo Zanzibar
10 years ago
Reply to  bstar

bstar,

Atlanta did not make the WS in ’98.
They were shut down by Sterling Hitchcock of San Diego.

bstar
10 years ago
Reply to  Voomo Zanzibar

Oops! I meant ’99! Thanks.

Artie Z.
Artie Z.
10 years ago

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… Read more »

David Horwich
David Horwich
10 years ago
Reply to  Artie Z.

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.

JasonZ
10 years ago
Reply to  David Horwich

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.

Michael Sullivan
Michael Sullivan
10 years ago

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… Read more »

Michael Sullivan
Michael Sullivan
10 years ago

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?

Artie Z
Artie Z
10 years ago

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… Read more »

Arsen
Arsen
10 years ago

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.

PaulE
PaulE
10 years ago

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…..

opal611
opal611
10 years ago

My vote is for John Smoltz.

BryanM
BryanM
10 years ago

Count me for the duke

David Horwich
David Horwich
10 years ago

Snider currently leads 19-16.

Darien
10 years ago

I’m in for Snider, because I’m still mad at John Smoltz for… reasons that are no longer clear to me.

Mo
Mo
10 years ago

Snider is my vote

Gary Bateman
Gary Bateman
10 years ago

I will go with Snider.

RonG
RonG
10 years ago

John Smoltz in the runoff.

PP
PP
10 years ago

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?

Hartvig
Hartvig
10 years ago
Reply to  PP

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… Read more »

Michael Sullivan
Michael Sullivan
10 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

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… Read more »

David Horwich
David Horwich
10 years ago

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.

Michael Sullivan
Michael Sullivan
10 years ago
Reply to  David Horwich

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… Read more »

Hartvig
Hartvig
10 years ago

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… Read more »

Artie Z.
Artie Z.
10 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

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,… Read more »

PP
PP
10 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

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.

Hartvig
Hartvig
10 years ago
Reply to  PP

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.

PP
PP
10 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

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.

David Horwich
David Horwich
10 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

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.

Hartvig
Hartvig
10 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

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.

David Horwich
David Horwich
10 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

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

PP
PP
10 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

Oops, forgot about Cabrera

And that’s a great list, 583 gets 10th place, wow

Michael Sullivan
Michael Sullivan
10 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

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… Read more »

Bryan O'Connor
Editor
10 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

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?

Hartvig
Hartvig
10 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

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.

David Horwich
David Horwich
10 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

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.

PP
PP
10 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

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?

Joseph
Joseph
10 years ago
Reply to  PP

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

--bill
--bill
10 years ago

Smoltz, ’cause Maddux and Glavine need their golf partner.

bstar
10 years ago
Reply to  --bill

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.

oneblankspace
oneblankspace
10 years ago
Reply to  --bill

unless Glavine is off playing hockey…

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=34965

Insert Name Here
Insert Name Here
10 years ago

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.

Low T
Low T
10 years ago

Smolts because I dig his new hair style.

PaulE
PaulE
10 years ago

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…

bstar
10 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

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

Paul E
Paul E
10 years ago
Reply to  bstar

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.

bstar
10 years ago
Reply to  Paul E

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… Read more »

Josh
Josh
10 years ago

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

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
10 years ago

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.