The 100 Greatest in 100 Days: #63 John Smoltz

Joining the list at #63 is Braves ace and closer John Smoltz. Smoltz truly was the most versatile pitcher in Major League Baseball history. He’s the only pitcher in history with 200 career wins and 150 career saves and the only pitcher in history with a 24-win season and a 55–save season. Smoltz won the Cy Young in 1996 when he became one of only three pitchers in history to compile a season with 24 wins, 250 innings, 275 strikeouts, and a K/9 of at least 9.8. Smoltz was even better in the postseason, throwing 209 innings with a stellar 2.67 ERA and 1.14 WHIP both of which represented improvements over his spectacular regular season marks. Smoltz is third all-time in postseason innings, second in postseason wins, and his 15-4 record is the highest winning % ever among pitchers with at least 135 postseason innings.

Leave a Reply

Hi (hopefully) awesome reader! I welcome your comments. However, please be aware that I make all of my arguments using facts, statistics, and logic. Unfortunately, the average comment on a top-100 list goes something like this:

"UR StooPid. (Insert player) is trash. I've watched (pick a sport) for (pick a number of years) and (pick a player) is better than everyone. UR DUMB. HAHA6969."

–Some Jabroni

As cognitively stimulating as this species of comment is, it ends up being a missed opportunity to share a nuanced perspective. I reply to all comments that show even the most basic levels of thought and humility. The people who make the comments like the example above are under the assumption that the three seconds of thought that popped into their brains after reading the list is more than the 1000s of hours that I put into creating and maintaining the lists. I would be happy to defend any placement, or make an adjustment if one is warranted. If you are a jabroni, like the one above, then your comment will die in the lonely void of the unpublished comments section.

For everyone else, I look forward to your comments!

P.S. The theme of this site and the top-100 lists is that athletes from previous generations have historically been grossly overrated by sports publications in a way that is statistically improbable. Click on the "About" dropdown menu to see just how badly the average top-100 list disproportionately favors athletes from older generations when leagues were smaller, race quotas existed, and globalization wasn't a thing. Also, please consider reading "The History" section of the sport you are commenting on.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *