Health matters a lot in becoming a HOFer. Glavine is certainly over-rated, but at the same time provided more value than Smoltz over their careers, which lasted the same length, largely because he stayed healthy. I'm comfortable with Smoltz as a HOF, but I don't think he was an easy first-ballot guy on such a deep ballot.
Mike Mussina > Tom Glavine The postseason should count for the HOF, which is ultimately why Schilling & Smoltz clearly belong. Oswalt isn't a HOFer because he didn't last as long as those guys. Hershiser got a little later start on his career, and then never fully came back from a shoulder injury. Roy Halladay will be a borderline candidate. Kevin Brown is a borderline candidate, but tied to steroids, so he has no shot.
I think Halladay is in. He had a long enough stretch (2002 - 2011) where he was one of, if not the best pitcher in the game. 2 Cy Youngs and finished in the top 5 in voting 4 other times. Lack of postseason play is really the only thing I believe you could hold against him.
Sure, health matters... but so does stuff. Presuming both had long enough careers (which they did), I'd probably take Smoltz at his best for one game over Glavine at his best. Glavine's win totals were certainly the driving force in him getting in.... as he trails Smoltz on the pure pitching "stats" based on stuff (or the black ink on BR's HOF monitors).
That's certainly not *my* opinion, nor an opinion I would ever defend. In fact, it's actually infuriating and an idea I've railed against often. Unfortunately, too many voters *do* think that way. It's why they don't think Greg Maddux being an effective pitcher into his 40s is suspicious. He's a tiny, finesse pitcher, and they've long ago signed off on a narrative that steroids are all about muscles and power. Yeah, I don't really get Mussina's candidacy, either - but I know a lot of writers that I respect a great deal that love his case. I think Glavine and Schilling, for instance, are better candidates. Smoltz, too Speaking of Schilling & Smoltz - agree to disagree. I don't personally like the guy, but Schilling's peak ('95-'04) may be better than Glavine's: 140+ ERA; 60.9 WAR with 11-2, 2.23 postseason performance that includes two series MVPs and 4-1, 2.06 record in three WS appearances, not to mention two rings). I think he's a pretty easy choice, IMO. Smoltz's case is interesting. He has an 8-year peak ('92-'99) as a starter that is, by itself, probably not HoF worthy (though it's very good: 131 ERA+, 30.8 WAR). Then he has a four-year stretch of being a dominant closer (162 ERA+; 154 saves), which is really just a wildly impressive feat more than anything else (his WAR is only 7.4). But, like Biggio switching positions, a feat that nonetheless shouldn't be discounted. And then he seemingly picks up right where he left off as a starter and posts four more very good seasons ('05-'08 - 136 ERA+; 16.3 WAR, giving him 47.1 over a 12-year stretch). Add in a fairly dominant postseason resume (15-4; 2.67 ERA) and he has a pretty good case, IMO. I try not to get too terribly wrapped up in ballot politics - if you want to argue he's not first ballot, I can buy it - but not a HoF? That's a much tougher sell for me.
I don't think he's overrated, unless you mean in terms of HoF-worthy, in which case, I'd argue he has a really strong case. His 12-year peak ('91-'02): 134 ERA+; 55.3 WAR; 2 CYs, three more top 3 finishes while averaging 34 starts/230 IP; WS MVP. I'd rate Schilling ahead of him; probably Smoltz, too (his candidacy is sort of wonky, though very impressive). Mussina's the guy I don't really get but, again, I know a lot of writers who love the guy. And I'll say this, worthy or not, not having Glavine and Smoltz clog up the ballot is good business for Bagwell so... there's that.
Mussina was an excellent pitcher, whose prime years overlapped with the steroid years, and he did it in the AL east. His ERA doesn't look spectacular, but when you look deeper he has a very strong case. An ERA+ of 129 over a 12 year stretch. He won 270 games, and could have probably gotten to 300 if he had hung around like other guys do. Over that same stretch he averaged a pitching WAR of 5.3. His career pitching WAR is 82.7, that is good for 24th all time. Every pitcher ahead of him (except Clemens) is in the HOF. Got Cy young votes in 9 seasons. He was never a dominant guy, but his cumulative and consistent excellence warrants strong consideration IMO.
You (and juice in the post just before yours) offer a good perspective. I am probably guilty of being too repulsed by the big hypocrisies (Rose, Clemens, Bonds) and the outright injustices (Bagwell) to see that the overall system has worked decently and might have some merit. I like some of juice's ideas. But for me, until they whole holier-than-thou thing is rectified, I have difficulty respecting the Hall of Fame. Rose belongs in; period. And, so do Bonds and Clemens. The fact that Jeff Bagwell is in this conversation instead of already enshrined takes the conversation to "WTF??" status.
I understand the sympathy for the PED users. In fact, if I had a vote, I'd put Bonds and Clemens on my ballot without a second thought. But I hope I don't live to see Pete Rose enshrined. IMO, gambling is so much worse of a crime against baseball than steroid use. I don't see how anyone could forgive Rose for betting on games that he managed, I really don't. His half-admissions and insincere attitude has me hoping that he stays on the banned list forever. Unfortunately, there seems to be a growing sentiment in favor of Rose's reinstatement.
I'm right there with you. Gambling almost destroyed the credibility of the game forever, it's a LOT different than players using PED's like they have throughout the entire history of the game.
The mind-numbing thing about Bonds and Clemens is that they were Hall of Famers before they started using. There's a very clear line of demarcation for each of them, where before they were clean and after they were not. Both players were on the decline off of unquestionable HOF careers. As they looked around, however--at all the pissant juicers like McGwire and Sosa who wouldn't even have cracked the majors without their horse serum's ability to increase their visiual acuity just enough to get a batting average above the freaking Mendoza line--both Bonds and Clemens, out of indignation more than anything, started using steroids as well just to put all these faux-allstars in their place. What resulted were unreal career numbers appended like a twelve-inch cancerous growth to the back of your hunched over grandpa. So what if they've got their warts. Bonds and Clemens are HOFers whether or not the demented BBWAA chooses to acknowledge it, and the only thing at stake here is the legitimacy of the Hall of Fame. Not the legitimacy of their careers, which we were all around to witness.
