I know the one thing with Maddux that some people pointed to is his 18 gold gloves and I'm glad it was highlighted above. What I don't understand though, is if that is a significant accomplishment, why do 16 gold gloves do absolutely nothing for Jim Kaat? You figure 283 wins would give you a pretty good shot at the Hall even if you were the worst fielding pitcher ever

Good point. Not saying Kaat should be an automatic HOFer but I don't think he got the respect he should have when compared in history.
Drew

This story really surprises me.

A quick Glavine story. I was outside Turner Field getting autographs with my son one day when the Mets were in town with Glavine. As his family still lived there he would stay at home and cab to the stadium. When he got out of the cab at the visitor's entrance on the west side of the stadium he would stop and sign for everyone, I mean everyone. This particular day there was a collector/hound there who discovered that he had left the item that he wanted Glavine to sign in his car parked on the other side of the stadium. Tom told him if he would hurry and go get it, he would wait and sign it - which he did.

With the possible exception of Sean Casey, Tom is the most accommodating signer I have ever encountered.

Anything's possible, Mike. But if a Hall of Fame voter uses a pitcher's win-loss record as the sole basis for their decision, then they shouldn't be voting in the first place. Maddux might have had a losing postseason record, but if you look closer, he was actually quite good. He pitched in 35 postseason games, and had a 3.27 ERA. Not much difference from his 3.16 regular season ERA, really.

I bet if we delved deeper, a lot of those losses should not be blamed on Maddux.

Edit: by the way, Jack Morris, who was supposed to be the post season great, had a 3.80 ERA in extra play. Again, very close to his career 3.90 ERA in the regular season. Yet he had a 7-4 record in the playoffs.