Curt Schilling retires--is he a Hall of Famer?

[UMass922]

So, let's cut to the chase. Does he belong in the Hall of Fame?

(Note: the question is not if he will get in, or if he'll get in on the first ballot--just if you think he should get in at any point.)

[Lehigh Football Nation]

No question. Especially if you remove all the steroid guys.

[ISUMatt]

NO WAY!!! Bert Blyleven is not in and Schillings numbers dont even come close to the Flying Dutchman's

[Ivytalk]

Schilling's mouth deserves to be in the hall of shame.

Otherwise, no.xcoffeex

[appfan2008]

NO WAY!!! for me either... a very good pitcher who was great at times but if it wasnt for a bloody sock we wouldnt be having this discussion

[gmoney55]

To me it's more than numbers, he was great in two WS runs.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

So who gets in in front of him?

There are some clear-cut ones (Greg Maddux, David Wells, Randy Johnson, Tom Glavine, Josh Beckett).

Then there's everybody else.

Clemens? Pettite? Pedro Martinez? Steroids. Next.

Mussina? Jamie Moyer? Kenny Rogers? Please.

Then you're already in the Johan Santana/Brandon Webb area.

Schilling ABSOLUTELY deserves to be in the list of Maddux, Wells, Glavine, Johnson and Beckett.

[ISUMatt]

To me it's more than numbers, he was great in two WS runs.

El Duque had great WS runs, 2-1 in 5 WS appearances with a 2.20 ERA, but hes not going into the HOF anytime soon..El Duque was Mr Clutch when it came to playoff time with a 12-3 record

[ISUMatt]

Schilling ABSOLUTELY deserves to be in the list of Maddux, Wells, Glavine, Johnson and Beckett.

When they let Blyleven in, Ill re-think my Schilling answer

[Lehigh Football Nation]

El Duque had great WS runs, 2-1 in 5 WS appearances with a 2.20 ERA, but hes not going into the HOF anytime soon..El Duque was Mr Clutch when it came to playoff time with a 12-3 record

El Duque, now there's a guy you could make a case for in the HOF. And if El Duque is in, Schilling is in. Period.

El Duque is helped by that White Sox world series immensely. He was the main reason they won. On the Yankees, he was a No. 3 starter, but on the White Sox, he was "the Man".

[UNHWildCats]

To me it's more than numbers, he was great in two WS runs.
he wasnt so bad in 2007 either... one bad game but still 3-0 with a 3.00 era overall in that post season.

10-2 career with 2.23 postseason era.

[UMass922]

NO WAY!!! Bert Blyleven is not in and Schillings numbers dont even come close to the Flying Dutchman's

Bert should be in--he's the only eligible member of the 3,000-strikeout club who isn't. If Schilling doesn't get in, he would become the second (Maddux, Pedro, and Smoltz are of course all safe bets to get in).

[ISUMatt]

El Duque is helped by that White Sox world series immensely. He was the main reason they won. On the Yankees, he was a No. 3 starter, but on the White Sox, he was "the Man".

Are you serious...He had 1 phenominal inning vs Boston in a game where the WHITE Sox had a 2-0 series lead...While that inning was ultra impressive, Id never say he was the main reason...Id pin that on Jose Contreras, Jon Garland, Freddy Garcia, and Mark Buehrle...Oh wait AJ, Tad vs Boston, Konerko, Crede, AJ vs LAA, and Dye, Podsednik, Konerko, Uribe, crede vs the Astros...When you look at the big picture, El Duque really had a very small part in helping the White Sox, but he did his part like he was supposed too...he didnt pitch vs LAA and only had 1 inning pitched vs houston with 4 walks before he hurt himself

[UNHWildCats]

So who gets in in front of him?

There are some clear-cut ones (Greg Maddux, David Wells, Randy Johnson, Tom Glavine, Josh Beckett).

Then there's everybody else.

Clemens? Pettite? Pedro Martinez? Steroids. Next.

Mussina? Jamie Moyer? Kenny Rogers? Please.

Then you're already in the Johan Santana/Brandon Webb area.

Schilling ABSOLUTELY deserves to be in the list of Maddux, Wells, Glavine, Johnson and Beckett.
WHOA slow down t5hat train.... Josh Beckett is still far from a HOFer, he needs to put up similar career numbers to schilling to ride his post season sucess into the hall.

[ISUMatt]

dont forget to call kenny rogers a cheater too...In the WS vs the Cards, MLB gave him a free pass with that pine tar on his hand, they couldnt affords to have that guy nailed cheating when baseball was being hammered for cheaters

[UMass922]

If you look at the career numbers (regular season and post-season), Schilling basically has John Smoltz's resume--minus the saves, the Cy Young award, and the classy reputation. Most people (myself included) seem to think Smoltz is a mortal lock for the Hall, so whether or not one thinks Schilling gets in would seem to depend on how much one weighs those last three factors . . .

[Lehigh Football Nation]

If you look at the career numbers (regular season and post-season), Schilling basically has John Smoltz's resume--minus the saves, the Cy Young award, and the classy reputation. Most people (myself included) seem to think Smoltz is a mortal lock for the Hall, so whether or not one thinks Schilling gets in would seem to depend on how much one weighs those last three factors . . .

Interesting. If Smoltz, Glavine and Maddux all make the hall, the Braves will have had THREE HOF pitchers on their staff at the SAME TIME and still not win a World Series xeekx

However, Schilling has two world series rings. What about Smoltz?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

dont forget to call kenny rogers a cheater too...In the WS vs the Cards, MLB gave him a free pass with that pine tar on his hand, they couldnt affords to have that guy nailed cheating when baseball was being hammered for cheaters

Fair point. Interesting, too, that you say Blyleven should be in when he was accused of cheating as well. I think that's what is keeping him out of the Hall.

[ISUMatt]

Fair point. Interesting, too, that you say Blyleven should be in when he was accused of cheating as well. I think that's what is keeping him out of the Hall.

Maybe, but he wasnt caught with pine tar on his hand, steroids in his system, or filing boards in his pockets, never had a hat confiscated for too much vasoline on it

[UMass922]

W-L (%):
Schilling: 216-146 (.597)
Smoltz: 210-147 (.588)

K/BB:
Schilling: 3116/711
Smoltz: 3011/992

ERA+:
Schilling: 127
Smoltz: 127

WHIP:
Schilling: 1.137
Smoltz: 1.170

[UMass922]

Interesting. If Smoltz, Glavine and Maddux all make the hall, the Braves will have had THREE HOF pitchers on their staff at the SAME TIME and still not win a World Series xeekx

However, Schilling has two world series rings. What about Smoltz?

The Braves won the World Series in '95 (over the Indians).

[UNHWildCats]

Interesting. If Smoltz, Glavine and Maddux all make the hall, the Braves will have had THREE HOF pitchers on their staff at the SAME TIME and still not win a World Series xeekx

However, Schilling has two world series rings. What about Smoltz?
1995

[UNHWildCats]

W-L (%):
Schilling: 216-146 (.597)
Smoltz: 210-147 (.588)

K/BB:
Schilling: 3116/711
Smoltz: 3011/992

ERA+:
Schilling: 127
Smoltz: 127

WHIP:
Schilling: 1.137
Smoltz: 1.170
but 150+ saves over 3 + seasons is pretty damn impressive... he likely missed out on 55-65 wins over that time... His resume is far superior to Schillings, but they are both still HOFers

[ISUMatt]

Interesting. If Smoltz, Glavine and Maddux all make the hall, the Braves will have had THREE HOF pitchers on their staff at the SAME TIME and still not win a World Series xeekx

However, Schilling has two world series rings. What about Smoltz?

Just like the old Cubs...Fergie Jenkins (HOF), Ernie Banks (HOF), Billy WIlliams (HOF) and Ron Santo...how on earth can you have 4 of these guys in the HOF on a team that NEVER made the playoffs...plus Santo was good, just not HOF worthy

[ISUMatt]

but 150+ saves over 3 + seasons is pretty damn impressive... he likely missed out on 55-65 wins over that time... His resume is far superior to Schillings, but they are both still HOFers

How about 242 Complete Games and 60 shutouts!!

[UNHWildCats]

does Blyleven belong? YES im not arguing that.

[ISUMatt]

YES im not arguing that.

What about Josh Bard...I mean we had a thread on his departure, it had to be BIG NEWS :p

[UMass922]

but 150+ saves over 3 + seasons is pretty damn impressive... he likely missed out on 55-65 wins over that time... His resume is far superior to Schillings, but they are both still HOFers

Yeah, as I said in a previous comment, the saves are one of the distinguishing factors for Smoltz. His unique status as the only pitcher ever with 200+ wins and 150+ saves works in his favor (as it should).

Anyway, I think they're both Hall of Famers as well. (Though personally I'm a much bigger fan of Smoltz than I am of Schilling.)

[UNHWildCats]

What about Josh Bard...I mean we had a thread on his departure, it had to be BIG NEWS :p
everything to me is big news.... heck I would start a thread about you cutting your toe nails if I had photos xlolxxlolxxlolxxlolxxlolxxlolx

The people have the right to know everything, and I take it as my duty to keep them informed xsmashx

[ISUMatt]

everything to me is big news.... heck I would start a thread about you cutting your toe nails if I had photos xlolxxlolxxlolxxlolxxlolxxlolx



Actually it is big news around here when I cut my toe nails, I dont do them so often

[blueballs]

The Braves won the 1995 WS with the "Big Three" in the starting rotation... Glavine was the series MVP.

The following pitchers in Schilling's era are locks for the HOF... Maddux, Johnson, Glavine, Smoltz, Rivera, Hoffman, Pedro. Clemens would be but the whole PED situation clouds his chances.

Schilling, Mussina, Morris, Smith, Hershiser, etc are on the next level... they'll get consideration and may or may not get elected.

Pitchers like Beckett, Santana, Oswalt, Peavy, etc just don't have the complete body of work to warrant serious discussion at this point.

As for Schilling, a GREAT big game pitcher whose candidacy will be helped by playing in the Philly and Boston markets as well as his two signature WS performances.

He would have my vote but I'm not convinced he'll go in on the first ballott and he certainly doesn't qualify as a lock.

[UMass922]

Practical question about Schilling's HOF eligibility: since he didn't pitch in '08, does this mean his first appearance on the ballot will be in 2013 instead of '14?--i.e., would that make him eligible a year before Maddux and Mussina, even though they all officially announced their retirement in the same offseason?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I include Beckett since he's a dominating pitcher in the steroid era and he already has two world series rings. Yes, it may be a bit early for consideration with eight seasons under his belt. But he's got to be the frontrunner of the up-and-comers, with a Cy Young already under his belt.

I hate putting relievers and starters for consideration as "pitchers" for the HOF, since their roles are completely different. It's like saying "well, Ivan Rodriguez only has X statistics, but they pale in comparison to A-Rod's X statistics at 3rd base, so they're not in." That's why I don't include Hoffman, "the Sandman" and the others.

I don't include Pedro since I'm utterly convinced that before he's done he's going to be reeled in by steroid allegations. But if he isn't caught, yeah, he's a first-ballot.

[UNHWildCats]

I include Beckett since he's a dominating pitcher in the steroid era and he already has two world series rings. Yes, it may be a bit early for consideration with eight seasons under his belt. But he's got to be the frontrunner of the up-and-comers, with a Cy Young already under his belt.

I hate putting relievers and starters for consideration as "pitchers" for the HOF, since their roles are completely different. It's like saying "well, Ivan Rodriguez only has X statistics, but they pale in comparison to A-Rod's X statistics at 3rd base, so they're not in." That's why I don't include Hoffman, "the Sandman" and the others.

I don't include Pedro since I'm utterly convinced that before he's done he's going to be reeled in by steroid allegations. But if he isn't caught, yeah, he's a first-ballot.
soon to be three :p

[bluehenbillk]

I find it curious there's even a discussion, he's an automatic.

[UNHWildCats]

I find it curious there's even a discussion, he's an automatic.
to Philly fans and Boston fans... and perhaps still a few D Back fans, but everyone else argues against it because it was done for teams that arent theirs xcoolx

[Cobblestone]

I say he gets in on his first ballot.

[TheValleyRaider]

He's in

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if he takes more than 1 ballot (ridiculous, but it is what it is), but Schilling will and should get in

[UMass922]

I include Beckett since he's a dominating pitcher in the steroid era and he already has two world series rings. Yes, it may be a bit early for consideration with eight seasons under his belt. But he's got to be the frontrunner of the up-and-comers, with a Cy Young already under his belt.

Beckett doesn't have a Cy Young under his belt (he finished 2nd in '07, the only year he's even gotten Cy Young votes). As great as he's been in the postseason, and as much as I like him, he's not close to being the frontrunner of the up-and-comers. Santana, Halladay, Webb, and Oswalt have much, much better regular-season pitching resumes to their credit so far. Santana has won multiple Cy Young awards, Webb and Halladay have each won one, and all four are locks each year to start 30 games, throw 200 innings, put up great ERAs, and contend for the Cy Young.

Beckett, meanwhile, has only started 30 games twice, only pitched 200 innings twice, and has a relatively modest career regular-season ERA of 3.78 (ERA+ of 116). Post-season dominance can certainly help a guy get into the Hall of Fame, but the meat and potatoes of your resume still has to be what you do in the regular season over the long-haul. Smoltz, Schilling, and Mariano Rivera are good examples of guys who have great regular-season numbers that put them in the HOF discussion, and then post-season dominance that puts them over the top. Beckett, so far, seems more like a Jack Morris--a guy with some great, memorable post-season performances, but whose regular-season numbers are just a little too modest to warrant inclusion in the Hall.

Of course, this is all just hypothetical. Beckett could very well go on to be a consistently great, durable regular-season pitcher and have a HOF career. I just wouldn't put him at the top of the list of "work-in-progress" guys, despite his postseason greatness.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Beckett, so far, seems more like a Jack Morris--a guy with some great, memorable post-season performances, but whose regular-season numbers are just a little too modest to warrant inclusion in the Hall.

xlolx I have argued a long time Morris should be in the HOF. He's the answer to the question "if you have one baseball game to determine your status to going towards the Good Place or the Fiery Place, who do you want pitching?" Morris, Gibson, Beckett. In that order.

I think that should count for something for HOF inclusion.

[UMass922]

xlolx I have argued a long time Morris should be in the HOF. He's the answer to the question "if you have one baseball game to determine your status to going towards the Good Place or the Fiery Place, who do you want pitching?" Morris, Gibson, Beckett. In that order.

I think that should count for something for HOF inclusion.

It definitely should, and does, count for something. Just not everything. If it did, Robert Horry might be a legitimate candidate for the basketball HOF. ;)

[ASUMountaineer]

He was at his best when it counted the most. To me, championships and post season success weigh much more heavily than putting up awesome regular season numbers (staring you straight in the eye ARoid).

[Gil Dobie]

To me it's more than numbers, he was great in two WS runs.

Jack Morris was in 3 WS Runs and is not in (should be IMO)

[Go Lehigh TU Owl]

Schilling deserves to get in and i think ultimately he will. He was one of the best post season pitchers of all time. Many people forget how great he was in '93 with the Phillies. Schill would have 300 wins imo if he didn't play on so many crappy teams. When he was on a quality team he was nearly unbeatable. He had several Cy Young worthy years only to be passed over. I'd list him as one of the top 5 pitchers of the last 20 years. Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux the only three that are clearly better. I think Schilling is better than Smoltz and Glavine and more durable and than Pedro.

[UNHWildCats]

Schilling deserves to get in and i think ultimately he will. He was one of the best post season pitchers of all time. Many people forget how great he was in '93 with the Phillies. Schill would have 300 wins imo if he didn't play on so many crappy teams. When he was on a quality team he was nearly unbeatable. He had several Cy Young worthy years only to be passed over. I'd list him as one of the top 5 pitchers of the last 20 years. Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux the only three that are clearly better. I think Schilling is better than Smoltz and Glavine and more durable and than Pedro.
over the past 20 years I would rate Pedro as the best pitcher.

[ISUMatt]

Tim Kirkjan just said he would vote him, but 216 wins over 20 seasons may be a bit too thin for HOF

[UNHWildCats]

Tim Kirkjan just said he would vote him, but 216 wins over 20 seasons may be a bit too thin for HOF
first off the first two seasons were cups of coffee, his next two he was used solely as a reliever.

Then as is the case with all players of his era theres the lost games from the lockout.

If you take his career starts and divide by 34 (average starts for a #1 starter today it comes out to 12.8 seasons.

You cant purely just look at a stat total, you gotta read the story behind it and put it into perspective.

[JoltinJoe]

Mussina? Jamie Moyer? Kenny Rogers? Please.

Are you aware that Mussina's career numbers are significantly better than Schilling's?

[JoltinJoe]

dont forget to call kenny rogers a cheater too...In the WS vs the Cards, MLB gave him a free pass with that pine tar on his hand, they couldnt affords to have that guy nailed cheating when baseball was being hammered for cheaters

Yea, too bad they didn't catch him when he was cheating against the Yankees earlier that post-season.

Rogers was a bum and a lousy post-season pitcher who suddenly came on like Sandy Koufax that post-season. Should have known he was cheating.

[ngineer]

A very good pitcher, but IMO not a HOFer.

[otto4pres]

His sock is.

[UMass922]

Are you aware that Mussina's career numbers are significantly better than Schilling's?

Other than his win total and percentage, what numbers are you referring to?

Mussina: 270-153 (.638) in 537 G (536 GS)
Schilling: 216-146 (.597) in 569 G (436 GS)

Mussina: 2,813 Ks and 785 BBs in 3,562.2 IP
Schilling: 3,116 Ks and 711 BBs in 3,261.0 IP

Mussina: 3.68 ERA (123 ERA+)
Schilling: 3.46 ERA (127 ERA+)

Mussina: 1.192 WHIP
Schilling: 1.137 WHIP

Note that Mussina had 100 more career starts in which to gain his 54-win advantage over Schilling (only a handful of Schilling's wins came in the seasons where he was used primarily as a reliever) . . . Anyway, I'd vote for Mussina for the Hall of Fame (see the Mussina thread from a few months back), and I'm a bigger fan of Mussina than of Schilling (despite being a Red Sox fan)--but I don't see where Mussina has the signficant statistical advantage.

[UNHWildCats]

Other than his win total and percentage, what numbers are you referring to?

Mussina: 270-153 (.638) in 537 G (536 GS)
Schilling: 216-146 (.597) in 569 G (436 GS)

Mussina: 2,813 Ks and 785 BBs in 3,562.2 IP
Schilling: 3,116 Ks and 711 BBs in 3,261.0 IP

Mussina: 3.68 ERA (123 ERA+)
Schilling: 3.46 ERA (127 ERA+)

Mussina: 1.192 WHIP
Schilling: 1.137 WHIP

Note that Mussina had 100 more career starts in which to gain his 54-win advantage over Schilling (only a handful of Schilling's wins came in the seasons where he was used primarily as a reliever) . . . Anyway, I'd vote for Mussina for the Hall of Fame (see the Mussina thread from a few months back), and I'm a bigger fan of Mussina than of Schilling (despite being a Red Sox fan)--but I don't see where Mussina has the signficant statistical advantage.
wins are sexy just like HRs sometimes people dont look past that. As I mentioned yesterday, if people really dig in and read the story behind the stats and put it into perspective...

[JoltinJoe]

Other than his win total and percentage, what numbers are you referring to?

Mussina: 270-153 (.638) in 537 G (536 GS)
Schilling: 216-146 (.597) in 569 G (436 GS)

Mussina: 2,813 Ks and 785 BBs in 3,562.2 IP
Schilling: 3,116 Ks and 711 BBs in 3,261.0 IP

Mussina: 3.68 ERA (123 ERA+)
Schilling: 3.46 ERA (127 ERA+)

Mussina: 1.192 WHIP
Schilling: 1.137 WHIP

Note that Mussina had 100 more career starts in which to gain his 54-win advantage over Schilling (only a handful of Schilling's wins came in the seasons where he was used primarily as a reliever) . . . Anyway, I'd vote for Mussina for the Hall of Fame (see the Mussina thread from a few months back), and I'm a bigger fan of Mussina than of Schilling (despite being a Red Sox fan)--but I don't see where Mussina has the signficant statistical advantage.

Mussina has 54 more wins in two fewer seasons, and a huge advantage in winning percentage. That's precisely what I was referring to. ERA is even on a league-adjusted basis; WHIP is almost identical.

You say Mussina had 100 more starts, but he managed to get 54 more wins in those starts. In other words, he turned 54% of those starts into wins.

More importantly, though, in 100 more starts, Mussina managed to lose only seven more times than Schilling. (153 losses v. 146 losses).

So in those hypothetical 100 starts, Schilling needs to go 54-7 in order to match Moose.

I stand by my statement that Mussina's numbers are significantly better.

[JoltinJoe]

wins are sexy just like HRs sometimes people dont look past that. As I mentioned yesterday, if people really dig in and read the story behind the stats and put it into perspective...

Wins are wins. That what a pitcher is paid to deliver...

I love it when sabermeticians talk down wins. Just shows they just don't get it.

[GannonFan]

Wins are wins. That what a pitcher is paid to deliver...

I love it when sabermeticians talk down wins. Just shows they just don't get it.


And we love it when a Yankee fan resorts to dismissing all other stats that aren't wins - kinda shows that they get that those other stats aren't favorable for their guy.

Of course, Yankee fans also used to talk about postseason wins and performances, but we know that recently that isn't a topic much discussed in Yankee circles, especially as it relates to Schilling. :p

[Gil Dobie]

If the game is on the line I would take Jack Morris, then Schilling, then Blyleven, then Mussina. I liked Mussina because I followed his career since I watched him in the College World Series, but the other guys have more stuff when the game is on the line, and that's JMO.

[JoltinJoe]

And we love it when a Yankee fan resorts to dismissing all other stats that aren't wins - kinda shows that they get that those other stats aren't favorable for their guy.

Of course, Yankee fans also used to talk about postseason wins and performances, but we know that recently that isn't a topic much discussed in Yankee circles, especially as it relates to Schilling. :p

Keep quiet and enjoy your once-every-century title.

[GannonFan]

Keep quiet and enjoy your once-every-century title.

In the words of the immortal Chase Utley... "World Champions...World $%^#%# Champions!" :p:p:p:p:p

[UMass922]

Wins are wins. That what a pitcher is paid to deliver...

I love it when sabermeticians talk down wins. Just shows they just don't get it.

Actually, wins are not, strictly speaking, what a pitcher is paid to deliver. A pitcher is paid to keep runners off base and, ultimately, to keep runs from scoring. That's as much as he can be asked to do as an individual. Wins are what teams are put together to deliver.

[UMass922]

xlolx I have argued a long time Morris should be in the HOF. He's the answer to the question "if you have one baseball game to determine your status to going towards the Good Place or the Fiery Place, who do you want pitching?" Morris, Gibson, Beckett. In that order.

I think that should count for something for HOF inclusion.

Jack Morris made 13 postseason starts. In seven of them--all three of his '84 starts, Game 4 of the '91 ALCS, and all three of his '91 World series starts--he was great. In the other six--Game 2 of the '87 ALCS, Game 1 of the '91 ALCS, and all four of his '92 starts--he was not. (In the '87 game, incidentally, he was outpitched by Blyleven.)

In other words, in the biggest games, Morris was great a little more than half of the time. Are you sure he's your #1 choice to pitch that game for you? It's hyperbole, to say the least, to put him in the same class as Bob Gibson, whose career postseason ERA was nearly two full runs better than Morris's (1.89 to 3.80).

But even that's beside the point. As brilliant as Morris was in those seven games, you can't put a guy in the Hall of Fame based on seven games--seven out of 562 in which he pitched--no matter how big those games were. "Would you give the guy the ball in a big game?" and "Did the guy have a Hall of Fame career?" are, in my opinion, two different questions. The Hall of Fame is a career achievement. And Morris's career ERA+ is 105--which is to say, he was, on the whole, an above average pitcher--good, but not great (by comparison, Gibson, Schilling, and Smoltz each have a career ERA+ of 127). He had a number of very good seasons, and deserves to be remembered for his brilliant postseason moments--but his rewards for those moments are the World Series rings he gets to wear. It doesn't necessarily mean he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

[89Hen]

Bert Blyleven is not in and Schillings numbers dont even come close to the Flying Dutchman's
xrulesx

[JoltinJoe]

In the words of the immortal Chase Utley... "World Champions...World $%^#%# Champions!" :p:p:p:p:p

You're the Phillies. Geez, even the Marlins have won a WS. But they are still the Marlins, and you're still the Phillies.

You Phillies fans are like the loser guy in college who never got laid, and then finally, he got something, and then wouldn't shut up about it.

[JoltinJoe]

Actually, wins are not, strictly speaking, what a pitcher is paid to deliver. A pitcher is paid to keep runners off base and, ultimately, to keep runs from scoring. That's as much as he can be asked to do as an individual. Wins are what teams are put together to deliver.

No, a starting pitcher is paid to deliver wins.

[UNHWildCats]

No, a starting pitcher is paid to deliver wins.
A starting pitcher is paid to put his team in position to win... That means allowing as few hits, runs, walks as he can....

[JoltinJoe]

A starting pitcher is paid to put his team in position to win... That means allowing as few hits, runs, walks as he can....

No, what it means it pitching to your situation ...

One stat I think that baseball should keep is earned runs allowed when leading by one or two runs (what I call "ERA<3"). I guarantee that the pitchers with the higher win totals and higher winning percentage would have the lower ERA<3s.

I have heard sabermeticians tell me Louis Tiant was just as good as Catfish Hunter; or that Dave Steib was better than Ron Guidry, even though Hunter and Guidry were significantly better in terms of winning. They point to overall adjusted ERA; WHIP; etc.

Adjusting ERA is misleading, because a good pitcher pitches to his situation, and is stingier with his stuff when he has a smaller lead or is pitching in a tighter game. But when you have a four or five run lead, you may be more willing to challenge hitters, minimize pitches, and take a risk that that long fly ball will go 358 feet into an outfielder's glove rather than 361 feet, and over the wall.

Wins, winning percentage, and ERA<3 tell you how tough a pitcher is when dealing in a tighter game. It was why Guidry would usually beat Steib, and why at year's end, Guidry would have more wins, even though Steib would have the better overall ERA.

Pitchers are paid to deliver wins, and that means pitching to their situation, and being stingier with smaller leads.

[UMass922]

No, what it means it pitching to your situation ...

One stat I think that baseball should keep is earned runs allowed when leading by one or two runs (what I call "ERA<3"). I guarantee that the pitchers with the higher win totals and higher winning percentage would have the lower ERA<3s.

Why just the runs allowed when leading by one or two runs? Shouldn't the runs a pitcher allows in a tied game or when he's trailing by just one or two runs be considered just as crucial? "Pitching to your situation" doesn't just mean holding your own team's lead. It also means not allowing the other team to break a tie, or not allowing a narrow deficit to mushroom into an insurmountable one.

[JoltinJoe]

Why just the runs allowed when leading by one or two runs? Shouldn't the runs a pitcher allows in a tied game or when he's trailing by just one or two runs be considered just as crucial? "Pitching to your situation" doesn't just mean holding a lead. It also means not allowing a deficit to begin with, or not allowing a narrow lead to mushroom into an insurmountable one.

Because ERA<3 would tend to measure how well a pitcher delivers a slim lead into a win opportunity. That would be the point of the stat.

It may well be interesting to have a stat like ERA -3 (ERA when minus 3) -- and there well may be a high correlation between ERA<3 and ERA -3 -- but ERA -3 would not measure how well a pitcher turns a slim lead into a win.

[GannonFan]

You're the Phillies. Geez, even the Marlins have won a WS. But they are still the Marlins, and you're still the Phillies.

You Phillies fans are like the loser guy in college who never got laid, and then finally, he got something, and then wouldn't shut up about it.

Aww, the Yankee guy who said the Phils would never win one again is all upset that the Phils won it last year. Don't worry man, I'm sure the Yanks will make it back to the playoffs one of these years. xlolxxlolxxlolxxlolx:pxlolxxlolx

[UMass922]

Because ERA<3 would tend to measure how well a pitcher delivers a slim lead into a win opportunity. That would be the point of the stat.

It may well be interesting to have a stat like ERA -3 (ERA when minus 3) -- and there well may be a high correlation between ERA<3 and ERA -3 -- but ERA -3 would not measure how well a pitcher turns a slim lead into a win.

But that's the thing, you're disregarding or discounting the effort of a pitcher who does the best he can with little run support. Your stat rewards a pitcher who puts his team in a 5-0 hole, gets lucky to have his offense come back and score six runs for him, and then manages not to give that lead back up. While there's at least something to be said for a guy who can right himself after his team picks him up and gives him a second chance, I'd rather take the guy who loses 1-0 every time out, even though he didn't "deliver the win." That guy essentially is delivering me wins--I just need to get some better bats so I can cash them in.

The point is, a pitcher has to have some run support to have "win opportunities" to begin with. The opportunities are the most important thing. Keep in mind that a pitcher also doesn't get credit for "delivering the win" if his bullpen blows the narrow lead that he held (on which note, no sane person could argue that Mussina had a better season last year than Johan Santana, even though Mussina "delivered" four more wins for his team).

There may be such a thing as a good "situational" pitcher, but given two pitchers with equal ERAs who pitch an equal number of games and an equal number of innings, the guy who "delivers" the most wins is, 99.99% of the time, going to be the guy who gets better run support, better bullpen support, and better defensive support (since a pitcher can get a loss even if the only runs he gives up are unearned).

[Hoyadestroya85]

In my opinion.. Schilling is a Don Mattingly case.. Several outstanding years, but never distinguished himself as one of the best for a multiple year stretch.

[UMass922]

In my opinion.. Schilling is a Don Mattingly case.. Several outstanding years, but never distinguished himself as one of the best for a multiple year stretch.

I'd actually say that Mattingly did distinguish himself as one of the best for a multiple year stretch ('84-'89). He just didn't have the longevity to reach the kinds of career milestones that are usually necessary for Hall induction (although his career numbers are pretty similar to those of Kirby Puckett, who is in the Hall . . . )

Schilling (who I would also say distinguished himself as one of the best for a mulitple year stretch; I guess that's a matter of opinion), did reach a significant career milestone: 3,000+ strikeouts. There's only one eligible pitcher with that many who isn't in the Hall (Blyleven, who should be). The K milestone, his career ERA+ (127) and his postseason dominance should get Schilling in the Hall of Fame, or at the very least at a Blyleven level of close-but-not-quite.

[UNHWildCats]

Schilling also has the best k/bb ratio among all pitchers with atleast 3000 Ks

[JoltinJoe]

Aww, the Yankee guy who said the Phils would never win one again is all upset that the Phils won it last year. Don't worry man, I'm sure the Yanks will make it back to the playoffs one of these years. xlolxxlolxxlolxxlolx:pxlolxxlolx

Like I said, Phillies fans are like that guy in college who never got laid ....

[GannonFan]

:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p

[bulldog10jw]

xlolx "if you have one baseball game to determine your status to going towards the Good Place or the Fiery Place, who do you want pitching?"

Koufax

[UMass922]

Koufax

xnodx I'd like my chances.

[ISUMatt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmomtpL92t8&feature=player_embedded

Blyleven weighs in

[Gil Dobie]

Koufax

Koufax or a 1968 vintage Bob Gibson. Even Willie Mays wouldn't dig in against Gibson.

[UNHWildCats]

give me 2000 Pedro any day of the year

[Mr. C]

Koufax

We don't agree on much politically, but we agree on this one. I was fortunate to see Koufax and Marichal face off in my first Major League game. Never seen anyone better than Koufax. Don't think I ever will.

[Mr. C]

No, what it means it pitching to your situation ...

One stat I think that baseball should keep is earned runs allowed when leading by one or two runs (what I call "ERA<3"). I guarantee that the pitchers with the higher win totals and higher winning percentage would have the lower ERA<3s.

I have heard sabermeticians tell me Louis Tiant was just as good as Catfish Hunter; or that Dave Steib was better than Ron Guidry, even though Hunter and Guidry were significantly better in terms of winning. They point to overall adjusted ERA; WHIP; etc.

Adjusting ERA is misleading, because a good pitcher pitches to his situation, and is stingier with his stuff when he has a smaller lead or is pitching in a tighter game. But when you have a four or five run lead, you may be more willing to challenge hitters, minimize pitches, and take a risk that that long fly ball will go 358 feet into an outfielder's glove rather than 361 feet, and over the wall.

Wins, winning percentage, and ERA<3 tell you how tough a pitcher is when dealing in a tighter game. It was why Guidry would usually beat Steib, and why at year's end, Guidry would have more wins, even though Steib would have the better overall ERA.

Pitchers are paid to deliver wins, and that means pitching to their situation, and being stingier with smaller leads.
Interesting post. I saw a lot of Catfish Hunter during his Oakland A's days, being I grew up just three hours away. For the late 60s and 70s, we got a lot of Oakland games on TV. I think a lot of people shook their heads at Hunter as he gave up bases empty homers, but somehow managed to win games. He was sort of like Robin Roberts in Roberts' heyday with the Phils. Hunter did have an ability to protect leads. He also was helped by having Hall of Famer Rollie Fingers in the bullpen.

Luis Tiant was, in my opinion, as good as Hunter. He was very underrated. Tiant pitched for some dreadful Cleveland Indians teams as a hard thrower before injuring his arm, being released by the Twins and re-emerging as the ace of the Red Sox. If I had a Hall of Fame vote, which I don't (I do have a college football Hall of Fame vote and someday will have a Heisman vote), I would have voted for Tiant, Blylevan (best right-handed curveball I've ever seen), Tommy John and Jim Kaat. Blylevan, John and Kaat are the winningest pitchers that have been eligible that HAVE NOT been elected yet. Hopefully, the veteran's committee will some day get back to reality and start correcting some oversights. Gil Hodges, Ron Santo and Maury Wills are three I think deserve to be in among others. I would also put Sadaharu Oh in for contributions to the game, in addition to some others who deserve to be there for that reason.

On the comparison of Guidry and Steib: Guidry in his prime was as effective as almost anyone I've seen. That 1978 season was one of the best in history. Steib, in my opinion, was more consistent. Steib would have been even better, but for his temper. He wasn't the best of teammates.

One of the things to analyze when considering what a Hall of Fame voter will do is to determine if a player was among the best of his era (one of the reasons I'd vote for Jack Morris, despite the high lifetime ERA). In that regard, I think Schilling passes the test. His regular-season record would keep him out in of itself, but his postseason work is among the best ever and that will be what pushes him over the top. Schilling will also get points from some voters because of his outspokeness against performance-enhancing drugs.

My personal ranking of this era would put Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, Tom Glavine and Greg Maddox in. Roger Clemens probably falls into Barry Bonds purgatory, even though Clemens obviously deserves it on his body of work. Mike Mussina might have sealed an eventual Hall of Fame invite with his final season. But he could also be overlooked like Blyleven, John and Kaat have been.

I have to laugh at seeing names like David Wells, Jamie Moyer and Josh Beckett mentioned. If Beckett returns to form as one of the top hurlers in the game and stays healthy, he has a chance, but I don't think it is likely that he stays healthy.

Too early to tell on any of the younger pitchers.

[JoltinJoe]

:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p

You are quite right. So, in honor of the Phillies, the 2008 World Series champions, I dedicate this song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwqqZPlAI7E

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

Koufax or a 1968 vintage Bob Gibson. Even Willie Mays wouldn't dig in against Gibson.


give me 2000 Pedro any day of the year

Got to play a little devil's advocate here since I know Travis is young. As good as Pedro was in 2000, I still have memories of how dominant Gibson was in the 1967 World Series. Didn't have the same TV coverage back in the 60's so I can't say much about Koufax and defer to others who watched more NL baseball. But one thing is clear, baseball in the 1960's was before the mass expansion. The lineups were deeper and for guys like Koufax and Gibson to not only excel but to dominate speaks volumes to me.

[GannonFan]

You are quite right. So, in honor of the Phillies, the 2008 World Series champions, I dedicate this song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwqqZPlAI7E

Man, how long did it take you to type the bolded part above - must've been horrible for you!!!!!???? xlolxxlolxxlolxxlolxxlolxxlolxxlolxxlolxxlolxxlolx xlolx:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p

[bulldog10jw]

No, what it means it pitching to your situation ...

One stat I think that baseball should keep is earned runs allowed when leading by one or two runs (what I call "ERA<3"). I guarantee that the pitchers with the higher win totals and higher winning percentage would have the lower ERA<3s.

I have heard sabermeticians tell me Louis Tiant was just as good as Catfish Hunter; or that Dave Steib was better than Ron Guidry, even though Hunter and Guidry were significantly better in terms of winning. They point to overall adjusted ERA; WHIP; etc.

Adjusting ERA is misleading, because a good pitcher pitches to his situation, and is stingier with his stuff when he has a smaller lead or is pitching in a tighter game. But when you have a four or five run lead, you may be more willing to challenge hitters, minimize pitches, and take a risk that that long fly ball will go 358 feet into an outfielder's glove rather than 361 feet, and over the wall.

Wins, winning percentage, and ERA<3 tell you how tough a pitcher is when dealing in a tighter game. It was why Guidry would usually beat Steib, and why at year's end, Guidry would have more wins, even though Steib would have the better overall ERA.

Pitchers are paid to deliver wins, and that means pitching to their situation, and being stingier with smaller leads.

The stat I would like to see is a pitcher's winning %-age vs. the teams winning %-age. This is what makes Tom Seaver so great. He had 100 more wins than losses on basically bad teams. Sort of like Steve Carlton winning 27 games for a team that won 53.