[vincesanity82]

Back in their primes all three were great pitchers and still are, but who was the best?

[Lefty Noob]

I've always been and always will be a big Maddux fan, so he gets my vote.

[vincesanity82]

I had a hard time deciding but I believe Maddux was the best, he was a magician on the mound..

[bears9]

Maddux did it all.

[EmpireWF]

I dislike Maddux the most, especially that stupid goofy smirk of his.

Glavine left a bad taste in my Met mouth.

So Smoltz it is.

[legend]

Smoltz hands down. This isn't even close. He had and still has by far the best stuff, as evidenced by his time as a closer. His post-season record is beyond reproach, unlike the other two. They were helped by an expanding strike zone that they had the incredible skill and guile to take advantage of. Who do you think a batter would rather face in a big spot?
It isn't John Smoltz.

[Lefty Noob]

Hard to compare Maddux and Smoltz statistically (wins, innings pitched, etc.) because of the time the latter spent as a closer. Smoltz has a better strikeout per season ratio, while Maddux while Maddux boasts the better ERA and WHIP. I won't argue that in terms of velocity, Smoltz has the edge, but no one was better utilizing what he had than Maddux. I still take the cerebral king of the hill, Maddux, over Smoltz.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

I've always been and always will be a big Maddux fan, so he gets my vote.

Ditto...the thinking man's pitcher...the artist that paints the corner...the gold glover...the kid with glasses (for a while any way)...I think he is one of my favorites of all-time.

[legend]

I would wager anything that if you polled players who have faced both they would choose to bat against Maddux by about a 9-1 ration rather than face Smoltz. The fact that Smoltz could become a dominat closer tells you about his stuff and makeup.