Maddux, Glavine, Thomas elected to Hall of Fame


The BBWAA announced that Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and Frank Thomas have been elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Craig Biggio fell just short at 74.8 percent, which is only two votes shy.

Don Mattingly lives to appear on another ballot, collecting 8.2 percent of the vote. Mike Mussina, in his first year, got about 20 percent of the vote. It won’t get easier for these two, or any of the other guys on the ballot, next year when John Smoltz, Randy Johnson, and Pedro Martinez make their first appearances.

Categories : Asides


  1. DERP says:

    Morris getting 61% and Moose getting 20% is embarrassing.

    • WhittakerWalt says:

      It’s a friggin’ travesty. Moose outperformed Morris in EVERY conceivable way.

      • AndrewYF says:

        It’s due to politics. A lot of writers wanted Morris to get in because it was his last chance, so they voted for him. Those same writers probably thought Mussina didn’t deserve to get in on his first ballot, so they didn’t vote for him. Dumb politics, but there it goes. I actually think Mussina has a great chance to get in eventually.

    • JKK says:

      Totally agree. Moose pitching all 18 seasons a the height of AL East Powers with Blue Jays, Yankees, Red Sox as the most dominant teams in that stretch winning 8 of the 17 WS played. Moose deserves much more respect. He might not be a first B HOF but I was expecting high 60% as a boardermline HOF. AL East is beast of the division to play while NL East did not develop much rivalry for the Braves in their quest. Not fare.

      • KeithK says:

        What’s hurting Mussina is comparison to his peers. No one thought of Mussina as the pitcher in baseball during the years he pitched. He was always behind Clemens, Johnson, Maddux, Glavine, Martinez, etc. So he’s not thought of as a certain Hall of Famer, and rightly so. is he good enough to be inducted? Maybe, but it’ll be a long haul.

        I wasn’t in favor of Morris’ election but he does pass the ace test. he was considered a top pitcher when he was playing and that means something. That might just mean that pitching was weak in the 80′s. But remember Cooperstown isn’t just the Hall of WAR.

        • LK says:

          I don’t necessarily disagree with the substance of your comment, but I’d just like to pose this question.

          If you compare a pitcher to Greg Maddux, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, and Pedro Martinez, how many of them in MLB history would come out of the comparison looking good? Glavine sure as hell doesn’t.

  2. Jack P says:

    Poor Moose, I was pulling for him, but honestly I don’t think he has the numbers to get in, maybe if he played for another 3 years.

    • UncleArgyle says:

      See, that right there, is what’s wrong with the Baseball Hall of Fame. So if Mussina decided to hang on for three more years and went 30-40 with a 4.75 ERA he would have proven himself to be an all time great?

      • Josh S. says:

        Sure because those 30 wins would’ve given him 300 for his career and an automatic bid into the hall of fame. Wins are the most important statistic for a pitcher.


      • Preston says:

        He could have actually been that bad and gotten to 300, with a 4.86 ERA between 2009-2011 AJ Burnett won 34 games with the Yankees.

  3. OldYanksFan says:

    Here is a GREAT article.

    It reinforced what I believe, and what I believe ever more strongly as time passes.

    Baseball is a unique athletic endeavour.
    Baseball is a game of intelligence and approach, as much as talent.

    When looking at our prospects and how they are scouted, that while raw talent is obviously at the top, I am more and more convinced baseball intelligence, approach, ability to learn and change, drive and work ethic, have more to do with success than raw talent alone.

    • dkidd says:

      thanks for posting!

      larry bowa spent serious dugout time with the professor (during the wbc i believe) and said if he were a GM there is no salary he wouldn’t pay to get him as a pitching coach. once-in-a-generation thinker

  4. Dale Mohorcic says:

    16 voters left Maddux off. Crazy.

    So how long until the A-Rod decision? Has to be within the next 7 days, right?

  5. Farewell Mo says:

    How the fuck does Glavine get more than 75% of the vote and Mussina only 20%??

    These writers are completely unqualified to make these kinds of decisions and have turned this into a travesty.

    • mitch says:

      If Mussina hung around and had 3 crappy years that put him over 300 wins he would have been a lock just like Glavine. Sucking at the end of your career usually puts you over the edge when it comes to HOF voting.

    • WhittakerWalt says:


      • Preston says:

        Mike Mussina won a higher percentage of both his decisions and overall starts. He was more of a “winner” than Glavine.

  6. AllyinCt says:

    How about Biggio? He had 74.8 percent…okay, now give us the A-Rod verdict!

  7. Kramerica Industries says:

    If Glavine is a Hall of Famer (and he is), then so is Moose. And a 70% gulf is ridiculous.

    • Mister D says:

      Just imagine how much better Mussina would have if he pitched exclusively in the NL rather than AL East and got 9″ into the same side batters box.

      • LK says:

        Not to mention peak Andruw Jones running down his fly balls. Glavine’s a deserving HOFer, but Moose is clearly on the same level. And any writer who voted for Morris and not Mussina apparently doesn’t think there should be a shred of objectivity in the process.

  8. Ed says:

    At least it’s a lot better than the predictions that only Maddux would make it in.

    I’d don’t really see how you can vote for Glavine but not Smoltz, Johnson, and Martinez, so I imagine those 3 guys make it in next year. Biggio should find at least one more vote and make it as well. I guess Piazza has an outside shot, considering he got 62% this year. I doubt we’ll see 5 guys elected next year though.

    • I'm a looser and a trader baby so why don't you kill me? says:

      Piazza has more than an outside shot I think. I think he gets in in the next two years. Next year is also a bumper crop iirc so that may make next year tough for him. Biggie definitely gets in.

      • Ed says:

        Oh, I think Piazza gets in eventually. I just don’t think it happens next year. Like I said, I think there’s 4 guys that are more likely than him to get in next year. I think he’ll get screwed because a lot of voters don’t like to put too many names down. The average votes per ballot tends to be about 5, so I just don’t think it’s likely to see 5 guys get elected.

    • Caballo Sin Nombre says:

      I don’t agree about Smoltz. Johnson and Martinez are worthy first-ballot HOFers. Smoltz is marginal for the HOF at all. There is no criteria where Smoltz is in the class of Glavine, Mussina, or even Schilling; by any standard, WAR, Wins, or whatever.

      • Cliff says:

        Huh? Smoltz has 15 more WAR than Glavine! And he spent 4 entire years as a reliever! He has 80 WAR and he’d probably have 90 if he had been a starter that whole time. He is way, way better than Glavine and easily a HOFer

        • Cliff says:

          Anyone know why Smoltz’s bWAR is 66.5 and his fWAR is 78.5? His FIP was only .09 below his ERA, which if you multiply by his career IP is only a difference of 35 runs or 3.5 WAR. Where does the other 8.5 WAR difference come from?

  9. Darren says:

    I’m glad to see that Donnie Baseball is staying on the ballot.

    • TWTR says:

      IMO, he will have to do a Torre to get in (iow, win some WS as a manager to go along with his very fine playing career).

      • Darren says:

        Agreed he probably needs an excellent managing career to get in, but I’m just happy that he stays on the ballot. I think his career warrants that much.

        • I'm a looser and a trader baby so why don't you kill me? says:

          Totally agreed. Still my fave player.

          • Darren says:

            Me too. And he was special in a way that is not reflected in the numbers. I feel bad for the younger Yankee fans that never got to see him play and don’t understand how good he was. There is a direct lineage from Donnie to Jeter in the way jeter hustles to first and never gives up.

    • WhittakerWalt says:

      Mattingly has hung around longer than I ever thought he would, but he’s just not a Hall of Famer.

      • KeithK says:

        I agree that Donnie doesn’t deserve induction based on his playing career (but oh if not for the back!) But he was good enough that I’m very glad to see him stay on the ballot. It may pale compared to actual induction but it’s a nice honor to be considered for the Hall of Fame and to get votes.

        If I were a voter I would definitely consider using my extra votes (after I’d already picked the players I thought were worthy) to give symbolic acknowledgement of some of the fringe guys on the ballot. No one could argue that jacque Jones deserves a plaque in Cooperstown. But I bet he’s happy to say that he did get at least one vote when he was on the ballot.

        • LK says:

          The problem is, there are too many deserving players on the ballot now to do that. I like Mattingly, but every vote going to him is a vote that’s not going to a clearly superior player.

  10. CanoSoup4u says:

    Something to consider regarding Biggio’s vote

    162 Game AVG’s for Biggio (excluding rookie season)
    Triple slash: .282/.364/.434

    162 game AVGs for Johnny Damon (excluding rookie year)
    Triple slash: .284/.352/.433

    In support of Biggio you could point to his defensive value compared to Damon, or if you wanted to argue Damon’s merits you could point to some of his postseason performances (Biggio struggled badly in his playoff sample)

    Point is to me they’re both great players that were never the best players which I believe the HOF should be reserved for. Biggio is more appealing than Damon will be to voters because he stuck around long enough to hit shiny round numbered benchmark counting stats that voters love to see. Damon probably won’t get 3000 but their careers were very similar IMO.

    • Farewell Mo says:

      Biggio did it as a 2nd baseman, not a left fielder.

      That makes all the difference in the world.

      • Preston says:

        Johnny spent most of his career in CF not left field, which makes them much closer on the defensive spectrum. The difference is Biggio was better at defending his position. Also that .012 difference in OBP doesn’t look like a huge difference but over the course of 10,000 PAs it really adds up. Not to mention that Biggio played nearly 400 more games.

    • Ed says:

      Biggio played C, 2B, and CF at different points in his career. Damon played a lot of CF, but also was in the OF corners for over 1/3 of his career. Biggio gets a bump for playing the harder positions.

      Also, there’s value to longevity. While both guys were done when they retired, Biggio had a few extra years as a value player.

      • mitch says:

        Aside from the obvious positional difference, Biggio also had a better peak. From 95-98 he was one of the best players in the league. Damon was never more than a fringe all star.

        • Darren says:

          That’s not true at all. You can say Damon was often an All Star and a very good to great player, but never really dominant or of the top 5 players in the league, but you can’t say he was never more than fringe All Star. When he was at the top of his game he was a legit, starting all star.

          Biggio was better only because he played a position where that kind of offense was harder to find (a huge “only”, granted), but pound for pound he wasn’t much better than Damon.

  11. King of Fruitless Hypotheticals says:

    Before you let yourself get spun up about how shameful these votes are (regardless of your position) keep in mind ballots are sent in blank, and there’s a guy that is so steadfast about never voting for any steroid era players he has resigned his ballot.

    And maths are hard.

  12. Dan says:

    If the 10 player limit gets lifted I’d assume that Donnie Baseball and Moose would both benefit. Moose is a hall of famer. I’d vote for Donnie out of sentimentality, but sentimentality couldn’t get him into my top 10 this year.

  13. King of Fruitless Hypotheticals says:

    Now I want the Arod decision and the Tanaka decision!

  14. BBWAA should burn in hell says:

    Dan Shaughnessy of The Boston Globe, wrote:

    Glavine and Maddux were 300-game winners. Those are magic plateaus … unless you cheated.

    The rest of the list of players I reject are good old-fashioned baseball arguments. (Craig) Biggio got 68.2 percent of the vote last year, but I don’t think of him as Hall-worthy (only one 200-hit season). Same for Mussina and his 270 wins (he always pitched for good teams) and (Lee) Smith and his 478 saves (saves are overrated and often artificial).

    Pitching WAR Glavine: 74.0 Mussina: 82.7

    ERA+ Glavine: 118 (3.54 career ERA in the National League with great defense behind him) Mussina: 123 (3.68 career ERA in the American League with often bad defenses behind him)

    5+ WAR seasons Glavine: 4 Mussina: 10

    Postseason Glavine: 14-16, 3.30 ERA, 1.27 WHIP Mussina: 7-8, 3.42 ERA, 1.10 WHIP

  15. Brooklyn Ed says:

    All in all, I wonder who is seriously stupid enough voted Armando Benitez?

  16. The Great Gonzo says:

    So…. despite the travesties mentioned above, I want to change gears, if only slightly.

    I think Smoltz/Johnson/Pedro are all HoFers, but are any of them First Ballot guys?

    • mitch says:

      No doubt Johnson and Pedro are 1st ballot guys

      • jim p says:

        Besides being perhaps the dominant pitcher for years, Pedro holds the record for the oldest man pushed to the ground on a ballfield. (Sorry, can’t let that go.)

    • Dan says:

      I’d vote for all of them. I think Johnson and his 300 wins gets in no doubt first ballot. I think Pedro gets in first ballot because his peak was insane. I’d lump Smoltz with Schilling and Mussina, I’d vote for all 3, I’m not sure if all 3 get it, especially while there’s a 10 player limit. (So no to Smoltz on the first ballot).

    • dkidd says:

      imo, all three are the definition of obvious first ballot hall of famers

    • Holy Ghost says:

      Johnson and Pedro for sure. Smoltz gets in eventually but not on the first try

    • vin says:

      If a voter thinks a player is worthy of the HOF, then you he/she should vote for him on the first ballot. I seriously dislike the BBWAA.

      • KeithK says:

        Agreed. But what if you’re not sure if a guy is worthy? Better to be conservative and not vote for him. if he’s really worthy of your consideration you’ll get many more chances to decide.

    • Ed says:

      Johnson & Pedro I don’t even see how you can question at all. Those two, Maddux, and Clemens are probably easily the top 4 pitchers of their generation, with a big gap between them and their peers.

      Smoltz is the next tier down, but still easily better than Glavine. I can’t see how you can vote in Glavine on the first ballot and not vote for Smoltz.

    • LK says:

      As with those above, I don’t see how it’s even possible to question Johnson and Pedro’s cases. The big 4 pitchers of that era (Johnson, Martinez, Maddux, and Clemens) all have legitimate arguments as top 10 pitchers of all time.

    • OldYanksFan says:

      Career ERA+: Minimum of 1000 IP

      1. Mariano Rivera 205 R
      2. Pedro Martinez 154 R (Best ERA+ in HISTORY for a SP)
      3. Jim Devlin 150 R
      4. Lefty Grove 148 L
      5. Walter Johnson 147 R

  17. I'm a looser and a trader baby so why don't you kill me? says:

    Stupid voters are stupid.

  18. Baked McBride says:

    Piazza is a no brainer. Dominant offensive catcher for years, game changer like Big Hurt… Puh-lease people, are their memories that short?

  19. EndlessJose says:

    Morris should be in.I know people like Schilling and Mussina had better stats than Morris yet Morris was the best pitcher of his era.Besides Clemens who would anyone else take back in that day?

    Mussina and Schilling weren’t even the top 5 and hardly the top ten of their era. I would take MO over Mussina career and Schilling is a NL pitcher and like Maddux and Glavine would have never survived the AL East.Thats why they stayed their whole career in the NL.

    • WhittakerWalt says:

      Morris was NOT the best pitcher of his era.

    • BBWAA should burn in hell says:

      Morris in lower offense era never had an ERA under 3..

    • Preston says:

      You can’t possibly have been watching the Yankees during the 2000′s if you think Schilling was just an NL pitcher who couldn’t survive in the AL East. Starting with his 3 starts in the 2001 WS with a 1.69 ERA. Then you know the time he actually pitched in the AL East, like 2004 where at age 37 he went 21-4 with over 220 ks and a 3.23 era (finishing 2nd in the CY) and then went on to have a pretty good post season and help break the curse. I legitimately hate the guy. But he was really, really good.

    • LK says:

      Dude, this is one of the best troll comments I’ve read in a while.

      First it claims that Morris was the best pitcher of his era, without offering any support or even defining what that “era” is. Then, in the very next sentence, it admits that Clemens was better. Fantastic.

      Then, it says that Moose and Schilling weren’t top 5 and “barely” top 10 of their era, once again without defining the era, or mentioning who else would be in this top 10. (For the record, from 1990-2010 Schilling and Moose are 5th and 6th in fWAR.)

      Then, though, we get to the true genius. Schilling is an NL pitcher who “would have never survived the AL East”. This despite Schilling, you know, pitching in the AL East and doing so quite well. But, even better, it says that Maddux and Glavine would’ve never survived the AL East. So, just for the record, Mussina is barely a top 10 pitcher of his era, but neither Maddux nor Glavine can be part of the guys above him, because they wouldn’t have survived the AL East. Where you’re finding close to 10 pitchers from that time better than Mussina without those 2, I have no idea, considering you can’t do it even with those 2.

      Also, despite the fact that I’ll probably get a lot of backlash on this, Mussina had a better career than Mo. Mo’s a first ballot hall of famer, and I love the guy, but the next reliever to have a better career than Mike Mussina will be the first.

      • BBWAA should burn in hell says:

        To be honest I don’t think Tom Glavine would’ve really survived in the AL East.

        • WhittakerWalt says:

          Or without the strike zone of the NL umps. He’d have been Kenny Rogers pt. 2, always looking for that call 8 inches off the plate, rarely getting it.

  20. BBWAA should burn in hell says:

    Dave Stieb was just as good or if not better then Morris during the 80′ while posting very impressive numbers for some bad Blue Jays teams. Jack Morris had tons of run support

  21. Preston says:

    Everybody always brings up Kirby Puckett as the reason that Don Mattingly should be in. But I think the better comp is Thurman Munson.

    In a twelve full seasons Puckett amassed 50.8 WAR, he was a 10 time AS and 6 time GG winner in CF. He finished in the top ten in MVP voting an impressive 7 times but never won and he won two WS with a spectacular .309/.361/.536 post season batting line. He was forced into retirement after his age 35 season.

    Thurman Munson played only eleven seasons (counting a 26 game stint in 1969 and his partial 1979 season) racking up 45.9 WAR. He was a 7 time AS, 3 time GG winner at C, he won the ROY in 1970, finished in the top ten in MVP voting 3 times, winning it in 1976. He won a world series in 1978, and had a spectacular post season line of .357/378/.496. He died 97 games into his age 32 season.

    If we’re going to put Puckett in because we think he would have gone on to do more without his tragic circumstances, I don’t see how you can leave Munson out. He was every bit as accomplished and a full three years younger, meaning more likely to continue to be good when tragedy struck. Yet he never got much more than 15% on any ballot.

    • WhittakerWalt says:

      Munson was pretty much done as an impact player when he died. Puckett was not.

      • Preston says:

        In there final seasons

        Munson in 97 games 2.0 fWAR 2.4 bWAR

        Puckett in 137 games 2.1 fWAR 3.1 bWAr

        and like I said, Munson was only 32.

        • WhittakerWalt says:

          But Munson was already losing playing time to Jerry Narron in 1979. Who knows, maybe he rebounds and has a great career finish, but that’s not how catchers usually go.

        • Farewell Mo says:

          IMO, neither Puckett or Munson deserve to get into the HOF.

          Had the truth about just what a low life Puckett really was come out before he was elected, he would have never gotten in.

        • Macho Man "Randy Levine" says:

          This is where using WAR as a comparison tool doesn’t work. Just look at the normal stats and you’ll see that Munson had lost his power stroke and his batting average was already declining. Not to mention the fact that the played the most demanding position on the field and was highly likely to continue to post declining offensive numbers.

          Puckett showed no signs of slowing down offensively in his last season. This isn’t to say he wouldn’t have suddenly or even gradually begun to decline had he continued to play, but it’s not as likely.

Leave a Reply

You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

If this is your first time commenting on River Ave. Blues, please review the RAB Commenter Guidelines. Login for commenting features. Register for RAB.