POLL: Curt Schilling and the Hall of Fame
Posted by Andy on June 20, 2010
Does Curt Schilling belong in the Hall of Fame?
I briefly summarize his credentials here. Please post your thoughts below, read what others have written, and then vote in the poll.
In favor:
- 3,116 career strikeouts (15th all time) and 8.6 strikeouts/9IP (also 15th all time)
- 83 career complete games including 20 shutouts. In the last 30 years, he's tied for 9th-most complete games (guys ahead of him mostly played much earlier, including Jack Morris, Fernando Valenzuela, and Bert Blyleven.)
- Career ERA+ of 128 (46th all time)
- Career K/BB ratio of 4.382 (2nd all time)
- 3 20-win seasons, 6-time All-Star, 1.85 career Cy Young shares (17th all time.)
- Pitched in 4 World Series (1993 with the Phillies, 2001 with the Diamondbacks, and 2004 and 2007 with the Red Sox) including 3 championship wins. Overall record of 11-2 in the playoffs with a 2.23 ERA, including 4-1 in the World Series with a 2.06 ERA. Four complete games (including 2 shutouts) in the playoffs.
Against:
- 216 career wins (82nd all time)
- 3,261 career innings pitched (95th all time): the significance here is that despite regularly pitching deep into games Schilling didn't end up with a very high total of IP, at least when compared to many very good and great pitchers. This is due in part to injuries and also because he wasn't a starter until age 25 when he was acquired by the Phillies. As has been discussed elsewhere, it's easier to maintain high ERA+ and SO/BB numbers when the total number of IP is lower. On top of this, some HOF pitchers beat Schilling's ERA+ despite pitching a lot more innings.
- Many folks will count Schilling's personality against him. I for one appreciate Schilling's outspokenness because I feel he is a lot more open than the average player, and I find his revelations mostly very interesting. But he also lacks appropriate filters and has angered plenty of teammates and managers along the way. He's a guy who would probably have been run out of baseball earlier in his career if not for all the great results he put up.
What do you think?
June 20th, 2010 at 10:52 am
Schilling's a borderline case who will probably get in because of his dazzling postseason record and his string of great seasons. I believe he falls short because he didn't have quite a long enough run of dominance and missed a pretty significant chunk of time due to injury. Yes, he was money in the postseason, but I don't see him as being great enough otherwise to deserve it.
June 20th, 2010 at 11:08 am
He had 5 very good seasons but overall, he had a lot of bad/incomplete seasons. His best years weren't all at the same time, either. Kevin Brown, for instance, isn't much different but had his peak seasons all together. And Brown's best seasons were stronger than Schillings.
My guess is if you think he's a HOFer, you're more into the compiling numbers to equate to the HOF. And if you don't want him in, you want your HOFers to have consistent dominating seasons.
June 20th, 2010 at 11:15 am
I agree with Mike about his postseason performance getting him in the Hall, in particular the 'Bloody Sock' and helping the Sox win the series in 2004. In fact, his pitching in that postseason may have shortened his career, making his overall numbers less impressive.
In the end, he's going to get in because of the 2004 Series. It may take a couple years, but he'll get in.
June 20th, 2010 at 11:15 am
His low IP totals are actually due to him missing starts in his 20s as opposed to the normal case of a guy being good in his 20s and then done at 33 resulting in low IP totals. He dominated in his mid-late 30s so I can only assume if he gets all those starts in his 20s his numbers would not go dramatically down, and possibly even up. I really like at K/BB rates for pitchers so being #2 all-time says a lot to me. Also, being a Red Sox hero will get him more consideration than he deserves (Jim Rice).
June 20th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Is there a fifth option? He's right on the border. I could see him making it, and I could see him not making it. A lot of it is going to depend on how crowded the ballots are in the coming years. There are a lot of great players that are going to be eligible in the coming few years. The BBWAA usually only inducts 2-3 players at a time so he might have to wait his turn.
June 20th, 2010 at 11:33 am
I don't think the bloody sock gets him in. If iconic postseason performances along with a steady string of Very Good regular seasons punch one's ticket into the Hall, Jack Morris would be in already.
June 20th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Also wondering, and I'll put it here since I can't find a working contact link, what's the latest in a season that three teams in the same division have been tied for the best record in baseball? Curious given that the Yankees and Rays are tied and the Sox are a game out, so losses by New York and Tampa and a Boston win would put them in a mathematical tie (though Boston would still be a game out in the loss column).
June 20th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
@7
I don't know if its the record, but the Giants, Pirates and Cubs were tied for 1st on Oct 1st of 1908 with the AL's Tigers seven games back:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/games/standings.cgi?date=1908-10-01
June 20th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Here's the question I'd like to see a poll on: Who deserves the HOF more, Curt Schilling or Mike Mussina? Thing is, if you're either a Red Sox fan or a Yankees fan (like me), your opinion is probably hell yes to one and hell no to the other, so it's hard to judge that one. Personally, I think Mussina was better for a longer period of time, but he doesn't have the postseason numbers and, yes, the Bloody Sock that I feel will propel Schilling into the HOF and perhaps leave Mussina in Bert Blyleven/Jack Morris/Tommy John/Jim Kaat purgatory (assuming Blyleven somehow misses in his last two years).
June 20th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Wow, that's probably it.
I wonder what's the latest since the advent of divisional play/the wild card.
June 20th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Consider this, if (when) Blyleven gets in the hall of fame next year, schilling will be the only member of the 3000k club to NOT make the hall of fame.
June 20th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
There's been about 7,500 pitchers in the majors since 1901, and just 16 struck out 3000 batters, and some people think there's a question about his Hall of Fame status? Every eligible pitcher with 3000+ K's is in the HOF. Schilling has 3000 K's, and has THE BEST Strikeout-to-walk ratio of that group. Think about that a moment. It's incredible. Better than Nolan Ryan. Better than Tom Seaver. Better than Walter Johnson. Schilling's elite....unless you're undervaluing K's. When I think about it, the injuries holding him back make it even more amazing that he made the 3000 strikeout plateau.
June 20th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
@12
"Every eligible pitcher with 3000+ K's is in the HOF."
Maybe you ought to look again. Our friend the Flying Dutchman is fifth on the all-time list and not in the Hall, though I'd concede he belongs there. Anyway I'm wholly against large round numbers used as an automatic metric for Hall entry. Phil Niekro hung around long enough to get his 300 wins and 3000 K's but he has no business being in Cooperstown without a ticket. If Jamie Moyer manages to stay on a big league roster til he's 55 and racks up his 300th victory, should he win election?
Even as a die-hard Yankees fan I would have taken Schilling on my team any day, but he's not a Hall of Famer (and in my opinion, neither is Pettitte or Moose, for that matter).
June 20th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Schilling's WHIP would rank as #7 among HoFers with over 2800 IP and who played significantly in the live ball era (last active year after 1925), right between Catfish and Sutton. His ERA+ among that same cohort of HoFers equals Gibson, Coveleski and Seaver. And there are plenty of guys in the HoF with fewer IP than Schilling: e.g. Ford, Newhouser, Lemon, Gomez, to name a few. Also, a postseason WHIP of 0.968 - far better than cohorts Clemens and Pettitte. He belongs.
June 20th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
The presence of other players in the Hall who don't belong there is not a persuasive argument for the election of yet another. It's worth noting that the baseball writers who actually saw Gomez, Newhouser and Coveleski pitch did not send them to the Hall of Fame, but it was left up to the Veterans Committee, who have punched tickets for such wildly unqualified players as Bill Mazeroski, Orlando Cepeda and Red Schoendienst. Catfish's and Sutton's credentials are also extremely suspect. Hall membership ought to be reserved for the best of the best players. I think the inverse of your argument, that better pitchers than Schilling are not in the Hall of Fame, holds more weight than the observation that equal or worse pitchers to him are in.
June 20th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Just as baseball thought is coming around to not always recognize wins as an accurate barometer of a "quality start" - we should also consider quality bullpen work that results in no significant accumulative stats. From 90-92 Schilling had more than 100 appearances out of the bullpen with an ERA+ of around 130, but only 13 saves to show for his work. After 16 appearances in '92, the Phils switched Schill to a full time starter. Over his next 26 starts, he had ten complete games and averaged 7.6 innings.
just think if Schilling had 50-75 saves to show for that early bullpen work, would this even be a conversation.
And his two bridemaid years in '01-'02 can't be overlooked. Granted no Cy Young came of those seasons, but arguably two of the 20 best pitching seasons in the 2000's just happen to be concurrent with Johnson's two best. 90% of the time two years at 45 wins, 600 K's, 150 ERA+, 500 IP and an 8+ BB/K ratio will get you hardware.
As for the "bloody sock"
These are the things that make baseball and sports great. I know it shouldn't count for anything, but this is our mythology and moments like that are one and a million.
Brett's "pine tar" HR.
Ruth's called shot.
Gibby limping and pumping around second.
200 wins or 3000 strikeouts are just numbers.
Even though Schilling is a great big bag of air most of the time. He gave baseball that little magic moment that doesn't come around to often.
June 20th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
I could see Schiling making it; but to me, Kaat was more of a lock -- and look how that has gone.
June 20th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
I think Schilling deserves to get in and will eventually. Clemens, Johnson, Maddux, and Pedro were the four greatest starting pitchers of this era, and four of the greatest of all time. I think Schilling was the best of the rest, a group that includes Glavine, Smoltz, Mussina, and Kevin Brown. All of those guys belong in the HOF, in my opinion, though Glavine and Smoltz will have a much easier time getting in than the other three.
June 20th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
WAR is all the rage this summer... here's the list of current and future pitching candidates:
Clemens 128.4 (eligible 2013)
Maddux 96.8 (eligible 2014)
RJohnson 91.8 (2015... later?)
Blyleven 90.1
PMartinez 75.9 (2015... later?)
Mussina 74.8 (eligible 2014)
Schilling 69.7 (eligible 2013)
Glavine 67.0 (eligible 2014)
KBrown 64.8 (eligible 2011)
Smoltz 63.9 (eligible 2015)
John -> VC
Morris 39.3
Closers... WAR ranks them below starters... might affect Smoltz
Rivera 50.8 (when will he retire?)
Hoffman 30.3 (2015... later?)
LSmith 30.3
So, summing up... WAR likes Schilling.
June 20th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
I for one think there should be stricter 'requirements' going forward. Due to the steroid era, there has to be a few years of 'wait-and-see'period so smart people can figure out the statistcal effects on league scoring levels after stringent testing. But under this voting climate (read: Schiling 'felt' like a HOFer in very recent memory) Schiling is a 'shoe-in'.
- The numbers are borderline to just-above-borderline
- The personality/impact on the game/iconic moments (let's not forget his performance against the Yankees in the WS)/media market all favor him.
- The postseason numbers favor him.
- His longevity/peak is borderline.
The only thing that can keep him out is a 'Jon Heyman' way of thinking. (he's in quotations because he doesn't exist in my mind)By that I mean a, 'we can't possibly elect 7 pitchers from one generation, can we?', way of thining.
June 20th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
While I always liked Schilling, I'd say no. If Blyleven cant get in with his number of wins, then Schilling surely cant. He's probably deserving of enough votes to warrant continued existence on the ballot. Maybe get in on a slow year. But, if he doesnt wait at least 8-10 years. It is a direct slap in the face of the likes of Blyleven, and Tommy John. The only real advantage Schilling has is the fact he made it past 3000 Ks, and the fact he was a key conributor to several teams who made it to the WS (2 accomplishments the voters put a sometimes irrationally overwhelming significance in)
June 20th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
I'm not a big WAR fan. It has Christy Mathewson ranked 14th all time? But back to Schilling, I think, other than some of the others who have not been retired 5 years yet, he has the 3rd best case behind Smoky Joe Wood and Doc White. Baseball fans need to take a look at those 2 guys, especially Joe Wood. Here are a list of HOF's that, in my opinion, Schilling has better numbers: Jesse Haines, Rube Marquard and Charley Root. I think he will get into the Hall of Fame eventually.
June 20th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
I AM WAY TOO PREDIJUST tohave an opinion (I know i spelled that wrong) He helped us break the curse and he had great numbers. He will always be a HOFer in my mind along with Pedro and all the guys on the 2004 team. As for you #9 my favorite baseball memory was and is the 2004 ALCS when we threw the yankees out of the playoffs,because the yankees had done it too us way too many times before that.-----now if I could only see my football team win it all and stop break er smashing my heart in too. BTW if any of you see Farve tell him to stay lost.(long string of bad words)
June 20th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
XZPUMA has a good point; but I believe that candidates need to be judged against that standards of the era in which they played. Steroid era players should be assessed by the median for that prtiod, just as dead-ball era players, et. al.
June 20th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
BTW: 3000 Ks is a modern aberration. I find it amusing that the sabermetric mindset looks at a position player's SO totals as inconsequential, or just "another" out. While a pitcher's value, measured under the same sabermetric standards, is greatly affected by SO's. You can't have it both ways. Either the SO is important, or its not. Why do SO affect a pitchers Game Score but don't affect the OPS of a guy who whiffed 190 times. I'm sorry, a SO is not just another out.
Today's players SO at a much higher rate than they did 40 years ago, never mind 70 years ago. Of the top 28 single season SO totals for position players, 22 of them occurred in the last 10 years. None of the top 7 happened before 2004, and only one of the top 11 was before 2000. All but 2 of the 16 players to join the 3000 SO club played after 1983. Half of them after '92, and six of them played at least till 2007, that's nearly 40% in 4 years. You have to be thick not to see that SO totals are stacked.
June 20th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
"BTW: 3000 Ks is a modern aberration. I find it amusing that the sabermetric mindset looks at a position player's SO totals as inconsequential, or just "another" out. While a pitcher's value, measured under the same sabermetric standards, is greatly affected by SO's. You can't have it both ways."
Sure you can.
A strikeout for a pitcher is a skill because he's made the batter swing and miss. (Or watch a pitch go by I suppose)
A pitcher who only Ks 4 batters per 9 innings is relying on his defense a hell of a lot more than a pitcher who Ks 9 per 9 innings.
June 20th, 2010 at 10:04 pm
Dukeofflatbush, it's not the sabermetric mindset, what ever that is, it's the facts on the ground. If you look at two teams that have the same OBA and the same SLG but one team strikes out a lot more, you will find (as a general rule) that there is very little difference between the numbers of runs scored by the two teams; in that very important sense, a strikeout is just another out. If you look at two pitchers who have the same ERA+, but one of them has a lot more strikeouts per 9 IP than the other, the guy with more strikeouts (as a general rule) does better the following years. In that very important sense, strikeouts tell you something, not about how well a pitcher has done, but how well you might expect him to do going forward.
It's not about mindset, except insofar as it's a mindset that says let's abandon preconceived notions and go where the evidence leads us.
June 20th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Schilling should be a first ballot HOF, but probably won't but will eventually.
I don't understand this sentiment that he never had any great seasons?? He was a dominant pitcher whose best seasons were spread out rather than bunched up in a group. He had 6!! great seasons; '92, 97, 98, 01, 02, 04, He was stuck on some lousy Phillies teams that tended to drop his W/L record. W/L record sucks anyway, but the writers and a lot of fans still give it too much weight.
He's second on that all-time k/bb list and he's first from any pitcher's whose career started post 1890. Baseball reference should really have a second more accurate list for pitchers since 1901.
He ranks 28th all-time in Pitcher's War. He had 11 Top 10 War finishes in his career. In his best seasons he had (1) 7+WAR season, (4) 6+WAR seasons, and (1) 5+War season.
He had 10 seasons finishing in the top ten in ERA+, 9 seasons with an era+ of over 130+. 300 k's (3) times in his career, 3000k's in his career, 15th.
Oh, and then he had the post-season. First ballot HOF, one of the top 40 pitchers all-time but it will probably take some time for him to get in the HOF.
June 20th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
I voted "Yes, and he will." For me, I think what separates Schilling is that he really was one of the best pitchers in the game for a goodly stretch of time - 3x CY Young runner-up, and he had about a half-dozen other very good seasons. If it weren't for the legendary Randy Johnson, he'd have sauntered off with two Cy Youngs and booked a spot in Cooperstown. Can't blame him for bad timing, and what I value above everything else is how players compare to their peers. Curt was one of the top guys in the game for a fair stretch of time. He also really did play a big role on multiple championship and pennant teams (non-continuous teams, too, so he didn't just ride one wave of good teammates), and I do think that provides a goodly boost. If his raw numbers are borderline (by the Hall standards numbers, he's fairly probable and wouldn't be too much of a slouch), his many, many clutch postseason performances should push him over the top. Don't forget that he has more than the Bloody Sock on his playoff resume.
I do think he'll get in, as the stats people will appreciate his good WAR and peripherals and the "Go with your gut" people will admire his clutch reputation. It may take a couple tries, but he'll get in there, and the Hall will be better for his inclusion.
June 20th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Responding to a previous post: Charlie Root is not in the Hall of Fame.
June 20th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
First rate jerk, first rate pitcher. Is that he's a jerk who likes to talk to reporters what made him a better pitcher than Morris, who was a jerk who mostly groused to himself? Regardless, he's going.
June 20th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
DoF: The conflict is easy to solve. A batter who strikes out 190 times in 600 at bats, if he hits .280 with 35 home runs and 85 walks, he's valuable. The strikeouts are more or less just another out. The guy hit .355 when not striking out or hitting a home run, which isn't implausible for a batter to keep up. A pitcher? They all will have BABIPs between .260 and .300 over time. The best way to prevent a hit is to strike out the guy.
June 20th, 2010 at 10:47 pm
I don't know about this one. Schilling has some good numbers and gutsy performances. I do wonder about his career. He has fewer wins than Jamie Moyer and Bert Blyleven, only twenty shutouts, and no Cy Young Awards. However, neither Nolan Ryan nor Bert Blyleven won a Cy Young Award. Also, I can't ignore six All-Star appearances. I'm torn. I hope Schilling makes it, but I don't know if a BBWAA voter will
vote for him.
June 20th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
First of all, I think Schilling is one of the most consistently obnoxious sports personalities in my long lifetime as a fan. I find his political outspokenness-- as if anyone should care what this lout thinks-- repugnant and inappropriate, and his general demeanor just so smarmy and self-satisfied that it makes my skin crawl. Plus I am a die-hard Yankee fan (though I don't nurture the distaste for the Sox the way some do.)
Having said this, I am absolutely certain Schilling will get elected to the Hall and rightfully deserves the honor. As #19 above states, he's got a WAR of 69, #28 on the all-time list, and this is most certainly a meaningful stat. And he's got 171 on the HOF Monitor; does this mean he should go? Not necessarily, but it means he almost certainly will based upon historic standards. And he was THE key figure in the Sox winning their first Series in 1377 years-- if he was a purely average pitcher his entire career that one event would propel him toward the pantheon. The guy was one of the greatest post-season pitchers in history at 11-2 and a .968 WHIP, with his team going 14-5 in games he started. This all very much matters.
I think he's a first-class self-congratulatory butthole and I will always suspect that was really nail-polish on the sock but he'll get in the Hall and I would vote for him. (I might make him wait a few years just to make him burn a bit, maybe vote for Mussina ahead of him, but eventually I'd relent and I'm sure the Hall voters will too.)
June 21st, 2010 at 1:31 am
Brendan
"Phil Niekro hung around long enough to get his 300 wins and 3000 K's but he has no business being in Cooperstown without a ticket."
I'm against the idea that there ought to be an automatic "in" for people who compile stats or reach certain milestones- although in general someone who plays long enough to get 3000 hits or 300 wins is going to be a very good ballplayer- but singling out Phil Niekro as a simple compiler of numbers is a gross misreading of the numbers. You're reading too much into the W-L column & not paying enough attention to to quality of the rest of the team, the ball park & the huge number of innings pitched.
A better choice for a modern day compiler would be Early Wynn or maybe Don Sutton, although I don't have a big problem with either of them being in the HOF.
June 21st, 2010 at 7:28 am
Pat D. inquired..."Here's the question I'd like to see a poll on: Who deserves the HOF more, Curt Schilling or Mike Mussina? Thing is, if you're either a Red Sox fan or a Yankees fan (like me), your opinion is probably hell yes to one and hell no to the other, so it's hard to judge that one. Personally, I think Mussina was better for a longer period of time, but he doesn't have the postseason numbers and, yes, the Bloody Sock that I feel will propel Schilling into the HOF and perhaps leave Mussina in Bert Blyleven/Jack Morris/Tommy John/Jim Kaat purgatory (assuming Blyleven somehow misses in his last two years)."
Aside from an overall win total that was hugely inflated by run support by the truckload, there's really nothing particularly Hall of Fame-worthy about Mussina's career whatsoever. If memory serves, he's well behind a good half-dozen or more non-Hall of Famers in literally every noteable category that isn't "wins"...and again, his win total is hugely attributable to the fact that he pitched for some heavy hitting Baltimore and New York teams.
If he DOES get in (and that's quite possible, as these voters don't see Pitching Wins as a flawed statistic at all) one would have to assume that he'd go in as an Oriole, as the statistical split is fairly staggering.
June 21st, 2010 at 8:35 am
His politics stink and I'm a Yankee fan. Neither of which matter. He's a deserving HOFer. Career value matters, and so do exceptional performances. He has both.
June 21st, 2010 at 9:23 am
I voted "belong there and will go there." Only a fairly "small Hall" person (one who believes only a handful of legends belong and would exclude a lot of those already in) could justify his exclusion. While there's a statistical element to the HOF, there's always been a softer "feeling" aspect as well. Do we recall many seasons when Schilling was the best or one of the best? Yes. I think that's all that will really play into it in the end. Try making a SABR-metrically based case for Catfish Hunter for instance - I don't know how it can be done. Yet for several seasons he was simply "the man" and at the end of the day that was all that mattered.
June 21st, 2010 at 9:48 am
Aside from an overall win total that was hugely inflated by run support by the truckload, there's really nothing particularly Hall of Fame-worthy about Mussina's career whatsoever
Written like someone who (a) knows nothing about Mike Mussina and/or (b) is a blindly biased Red Sox fan. Maybe you're getting him confused with Andy Pettitte? The only remotely plausible excuse for keeping Mussina out of the Hall is that Bert Blyleven isn't in yet (so after this year, there won't be any reason left at all). Among pitchers not in the HOF, he's sixth in WAR behind Maddux, Clemens, Blyleven, Johnson, and Pedro, five wins ahead of Schilling and eight ahead of Glavine. He's just 27th in innings, but 9th in strikeouts (behind a bunch of sure HOFers and Mickey Lolich), 7th in ERA+ (min. 3000 innings, behind a bunch of sure HOFers and Kevin Brown).
Throw his "wins" completely out the window (as I wish we could), and he's still easily a Hall of Famer. Probably a better candidate than half or more of the pitchers already in.
June 21st, 2010 at 11:53 am
Schilling, like Mussina & Pettite is a borderline Hall of Famer.
Clemens ( with or without Roids)
R. Johnson
Maddux
Pedro
Glavine
Smoltz
Hoffman
Rivera are all ahead of Schilling Pettite and Mussina
They will all have to wait along time till they get considered.
Jack Morris and Blyleven are more deserving due to total career .
Pettite will have more wins, more WS championsips and more playoffs wins, so he is more worthy than Schilling. Also- Pettite may end up being one of 4 others to win 20 games in a season in three different decades. Schillings mouth is big, but his resume does not compare with Pettitte.
June 21st, 2010 at 12:29 pm
The poll results seems pretty similar to the comments above: 2/3rds say he deserves it, 1/3rd say he doesn't. That's pretty close to borderline considering that 75% is needed.
June 21st, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Schilling gets in, because he's got a career record that properly places him there.
Black Ink/Gray Ink/Hall of Fame Monitor all say "yes". Hall Standards says "below average", not "not good enough". Just because you're not Walter Johnson doesn't mean you aren't good enough.
WAR says "yes".
There should be no artificial limit as to how many players are "good enough" for the Hall in any given generation. If the numbers say you should be there (and you were "clean" in compiling them), you're there. Period. Some decades were more blessed than others.
Because of all the talent that was away in the war effort, being the 10th-best player of the 1940's is not the same as being the 10th-best player of the '50's, or '60's, etc.
The NFL puts much emphasis on earning a ring. Schilling was one of the greatest postseason pitchers in the game's history. He was a key component on two Championship teams, and owns one of the most iconic performances in Series history.
He was frequently injured, but when it counted most, he was there. His is one case where the postseason numbers should be given much consideration.
In that comparison, Mussina doesn't stand a chance. I might make the argument that Mussina was the Don Sutton of his era. Always very good, but not necessarily great, for a long time. Sutton eventually compiled enough good numbers, that his portfolio was stamped "in". Moose will likely get there some day, too. But he'll have to wait.
I'd also rank Schilling ahead of Pettitte, who -- despite having the Yankee powerhouse behind him most of those seasons -- has a mediocre World Series record of 5-4, 4.06. His overall postseason W/L is good -- 18-9 -- but his success may speak more to his support. Many others have pitched much better, with lesser results.
Back to Schilling. He is a blowhard at times, yes. He is clumsy, at best, when it comes to staking out positions on various topics. There are also many performers -- across all of professional sports -- who have done/said much, much worse.
At least Schilling never accidentally shot himself in the leg in a crowded nightclub. He's never been accused of sexual misconduct, or public intoxication, or causing/participating in a bar fight. So far as we know, he's clean on the PED issue (though awkwardly misspoken).
He has also done much good for the game, beyond winning games. He has won the Hutch, the Lou Gehrig Memorial Award, the Roberto Clemente Award, and the Branch Rickey Award. He and Jamie Moyer (I believe) are the only two players to make that Grand Slam sweep.
I believe in the "total package", when applicable. If a player's contributions to the game go beyond the games themselves, that should also earn consideration.
June 21st, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Nicely written, JeffW. You have become one of my favorite commenters.
One thing in particular you wrote really hits home with me, and that's that Schilling rarely missed time due to injury when it counted. When the Phillies needed him in 1993 he was there and he came through. Same with the D-backs and the Red Sox.
I often wonder about players and injuries. The two names that spring to mind right away are Jeter and J.D. Drew. The reputation of these players is that Jeter plays often through injuries while Drew sits with any type of injury, even mild. I don't know if either of those is true. Pain affects people differently and even if the reputations reflect reality I'm not sure that should be a condemnation of Drew or celebration with Jeter.
Nevertheless, I'm inclined to think that across all of MLB, there is a vast spectrum of effort in the face of injury or discomfort. I have no idea where Schilling falls on that scale but given that he did have various injuries at different times and yet was always there for his team when it counted most, I am guessing that he was a tough SOB who fought through the pain on numerous occasions.
I say all of this with no consideration of the bloody sock. I have always believed that was a fabrication--either something that happens more often than we know but wasn't properly bandaged in his case, or it was a dramatization. (But don't let my comments in this paragraph take away from my central point--my belief that Schilling was tough as nails.)
June 21st, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Andy,
Many thanks. I know I'm a lightweight, when it comes to being able to deal with the numbers side of the discussion. It means a lot to know that I can still make a substantial contribution.
Today's system (free agency, and the potential for the huge payday that comes with it) makes players (on the advice of their agents, no doubt) more willing to forego doing too much that might damage that future payout.
Oftentimes, they sit, because they can.
On the flip side, management is too willing to stifle growth because of that investment. Evolution says we should be getting bigger/stronger/better (even without the needle). However...
The incentive to truly (legitimately) maximize performance potential is frequently just not there. Rather, it's the incentive to show just enough to maximize the contract. Or, to avoid having to pay out the contract to a guy whose career has ended prematurely.
The era of 40-start, 30-CG, 400-inning workhorses is gone, not because today's pitchers couldn't do it. But because there is a way to get the huge reward -- on both sides --without the risk.
I'm not advocating a return to the "Finish the game, or it's back to the coal mines for you" mentality. Just like politics, we need to find the real middle ground.
A hundred -- or even 75 -- years ago, Cal Ripken Jr. would have not been out-of-place. Lots of guys played every game. As you noted, Jeter is different. That's why he's the Captain of the Yankees.
If Felix Hernandez wants to show he can finish a game, throwing 130+ pitches like staff aces used to, maybe they need to give him the chance to prove it. Let him show he can be Seaver. Or Gibson. Or Morris. Or Schilling.
The 128 pitches he threw in 8-2/3 innings in a recent start was still no more than six above what they let him throw three years ago. That's growth?
He doesn't have to be a CG-throwin' machine. But enough to let him/the M's know he can be counted on when that need arises. Especially since Cliff Lee may not be around much longer.
True, the bullpen may save wear-and-tear. I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way, however, to where a seven-man bullpen can actually be overworked.
On the subject of the bloody sock, I would allow as to where there is certainly some self-promotion (we are talking Schill here...), but there is no doubt as to the actual injury. And he did pitch through it.
All-in-all, it made for a nice bit of baseball history.
June 21st, 2010 at 3:34 pm
I remember when all of these names were discussed in last week's thread re: Glavine. And I'll say the same things I did then. I think Schilling might fall just on the good side of borderline, but it's close. He won't be a first ballot guy, but I think he may eventually get in. He didn't have the consistency and overall body of work of some of the other guys of his era, and the first half of his career was nothing special. But he definitely had some excellent seasons in the second half of his career, and he'll be helped by people's memories of him as a big game pitcher, and his postseason numbers and the two rings which he was a large factor in winning for his teams bear that out.
As for the issue re: Mussina that others have begun discussing, I think if anything, he's just as strong of a candidate for the Hall as Schilling, if not more. As I mentioned above, consistency and overall body of work are big when we start talking about the Hall. Mussina had that more than Schilling did. He's also been seen as a decent, quiet, unassuming guy, as opposed to Schilling's image as a boorish loudmouth, which like it or not, counts for something. He pitched in the very tough AL East his entire career, and while I admit that wins don't mean what many people think they do, 270 wins and a .638 career winning percentage will look very good to the voters.
June 21st, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Do people really think that they used a special paint capable of browning like real blood? I mean, really? Maybe the sock also shot Kennedy.
June 21st, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Joe,
Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to slight Moose. He'll get in.
I was mostly making the comparative point, using Mussina and Pettitte, to highlight Schilling's special rep as a big game postseason performer.
Schilling's relatively light regular-season record makes this necessary, when you attempt to gauge where he belongs on the list.
Also true, I've never heard anything bad about Mussina that would compare to the things Schilling says. That part of the "total package" (personal character) I refer to completely swings in Mussina's favor.
Curt could slip into the Hall sooner, though, due to his postseason exploits. Tommy John, Jim Kaat and Bert Blyleven might also be indicative of what could happen with Mussina. I feel they should all be in.
Hopefully, he won't have as long a wait. The fact that he's fresher in voters' minds right now might help.
June 21st, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Mike above, your anti-Red Sox arguments have no place in the Schilling discussion. He played more games with the Phillies and will be going in with a Phillies cap if elected.
P.S., Jim Rice is well deserving of being in the hall. HOF monitor score 144.
June 21st, 2010 at 4:31 pm
I believe Schilling has said he wants to wear a Diamondbacks hat if he makes it. Of course the HOF may choose differenty.
And I don't know about JFK but I'm sure the bloody sock sunk the Titanic.
June 21st, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Against the 'Moose'
While I love the 'Moose', if were going to vote for Jack because of his 'big game' notoriety does Mussina get docked for never winning a WS despite playing on, arguably, one of the three best teams in the league for eight seasons? He was on a team with
GodJeter, Bernie, Pettite, Mo, Posada, Cano (for half the time anyway), and countless other mercenaries (Giambi, Damon, Abreu). Those teams scored over 800 runs in seven of eight of those years, and over 870 runs in six out of eight of those years. Yet he never took them to the promise land. Yes I know WS wins are team accomplishments, but think about those teams. Then realize the guy won 20 games once, and was consistently 'only' an above average pitcher as opposed to being dominant.For the 'Moose'
As far as I can tell he defined 'above average' for his entire career. He was the model of for consistency for his 18 seasons. He never missed significant time, having started at least 25 games every year except the strike year in '94. If he hung around a few more years he would have easily surpassed 3000K's and 300W's, the fact that he had the guts to walk away when so many others cant speaks for his character in a positive way. he was a model citizen and a great representative for the sport, that counts.
All in all the case against 'Moose' is a reach at best. While he's not an 'inner circle' guy, he's certainly in the square just around the corner. As the case with Schilling, Bert, Jack, Kevin Brown, Smotlz…it all comes down to what you value as a voter - consistency with virtually no peaks or valleys, never dominant but always one of the 15 best in the league. Should be fun to watch.
June 21st, 2010 at 4:52 pm
JeffW, no worries, you make a number of eloquent and valid points that I actually agree with. I was more responding to posters (in this thread and others) like SoxPopuli (#36) who were plainly dismissing Mussina, which is a sentiment that surprises me somewhat.
As for Pettitte, I think he's just a notch below both Schilling and Mussina. Similar to Mussina, but I always saw Moose as more of a true 'ace' than Pettitte, as unscientific as that is. Pettitte's been good, and consistent, but never really dominant.
I compare my impression of the differences between Mussina and Pettitte to my impression of the differences between Blyleven and the other two guys you brought up - Tommy John and Jim Kaat. Mussina - like Blyleven (who I think everyone here, including me, thinks will get in next year) - is remembered as being more of a true 'ace', while Pettitte - like John and Kaat - is remembered as being a good pitcher for a long time, but never really an 'ace'.
June 21st, 2010 at 5:50 pm
It's always fun to see the Peak Value v. Career Value arguments.
I think most of us could agree that if you have both PV and CV, you're a lock for the Hall (or should be). The argument comes in with the guys who were clearly amazing but whose careers ended too soon (Sandy Koufax) and guys who could take the ball and give you quality work year after year (Don Sutton). Is eight years of grade-A work worth as much as 15 years of B+ work? Do you need the occasional "A" season to get in?
I remember Sutton being derided as a compiler upon his induction, but you know, he had to be good-to-great to compile all those shutouts and strikeouts. It's not sexy to say "He led the league in WHIP four times," but keeping guys off the bases is usually a good way to keep too many guys from scoring, and in his case, it worked. For a stretch of 16 seasons ('71-'86) he was below-average in ERA only three times, and those times his ERA+ was in the 90's. He never really got to an A but he was never a C- until maybe the very end.
To bring it back to topic, I'd say that Schilling had enough A seasons to offset his C's.
June 21st, 2010 at 6:02 pm
@ #50
While Mussina was never on a World Series-winning team, and while his postseason record (7-8) doesn't look like anything special, he was actually a very, very good postseason pitcher. His postseason ERA (3.42), WHIP (1.103), and K/BB (4.39) are even better than his career regular-season numbers (3.68/1.192/3.58), and he made a number of superb postseason starts for both the Orioles and the Yankees. Look in particular at game-logs from the '97 playoffs with Baltimore: 2-0 with game scores of 68 and 73 in the LDS against Seattle, and two extremely tough-luck no-decisions in the LCS against Cleveland in which he posted game scores of 80 and 88. I don't know how many pitchers have made back-to-back postseason starts with game scores of 80+, but it can't be a very long list.
He also was very good in the '01 playoffs for the Yankees, going 2-1 with a 2.63 ERA and three quality starts (in two of which he posted game scores of 70+).
In later postseasons he was more inconsistent, but when he was in his prime as a pitcher he was excellent in big games. Schilling and Smoltz will deservedly be remembered as the two greatest postseason pitchers of the era, but Mussina held his own.
June 21st, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Curt Schilling is a HOF'er. When you take into consideration that there are only 16 pitchers who have struck out 3,000 batters and 27 hitters who have collected 3,000 hits, it is a pretty select group there. Not to mention, the 3,000 hit club has a chance over the next 5 years to jump to 31 members (Jeter, A-Rod, Damon, Manny as possibilities.....I Rod and Ichiro maybe). Take a good look at the active leader in strikeouts and find one guy who will be able to reach the 3,000k mark. Also, Schilling allowed less than 3.000 hits over his career with over 3,000k's which I find unreal. The only other pitcher to do that is Pedro.
June 21st, 2010 at 8:15 pm
To Gerry:
Ok, of the the two pitchers with similar stats, the pitcher with the higher SO rate usually does better the next few years, that argument is completely mute since we are speaking of a career. I can only assume Schilling has nothing left.
In regards of the two hypothetical teams with similar OPS but different SO totals, I just think in terms of players, I'd rather have Luis Castillo up with a man on second, down a run in the 9th with none out than Mark Reynolds. Play that scenario out with every big league manager. See who'd they like up.
June 21st, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Joe,
I do question the general lack of respect specifically surrounding Tommy John.
He's 43rd all-time in WAR (59.00), won 20 games three times in four years (80 in all during that span), was a top-5 Cy Young candidate three times. Those wins and Cy Young votes all came after the surgery.
There are about 30 pitchers with lower WARs than John's in the Hall already.
One of his two second-place finishes was to Carlton, the other to Mike Flanagan.
He led the league in shutouts three times. What is astonishing to me is that the third time -- 1980 -- was 12 years after the second time! If that doesn't speak of quality over time, I don't know what does.
He is 26th all-time in wins...better than -- I'd guess -- 99% of all other pitchers in the history of the game.
What more do they want?
That same argument (adjust the percentage of pitchers topped in career wins slightly) goes for anyone over the 250-win point. It is rarified air.
If you're better then 97-99% of the rest, that says something.
Kaat, Blyleven, Glavine and Tony Mullane are the only four in his top-10 similarity scores group not already in the Hall. Half of them should be in soon enough. Kitty should have been in already.
June 21st, 2010 at 10:35 pm
To Jeff, regarding Tommy John:
I think it is hard to think of TJ without thinking of the surgery. Of course if he didn't get it first someone else would of, but as it turned out... that's why we call it TJ surgery. But to hear him tell of his comeback is one of the truly great baseball stories. He said players openly mocked him and refused to help him rehab. He had more than one player and coach pull him aside and tell him he was embarrassing himself when he would show up to the stadium. He says that for a few weeks post surgery, his hand wouldn't open, much less hold a baseball. I believe he referred to his hand at that point as a "claw." The only person he could find to have a catch, to strengthen his arm, was his wife. He threw to her every day. TJ had enough class not to name the players who mocked him or told him to hang it up... but he did point out, that he had more post-surgery wins then they had in their career. Regardless of stats, maybe if he gave up, the TJ surgery is set back 10-15 years. How many players does that effect? People talk about the "bloody sock" as a barometer of guts. Just look at TJ's career.
June 22nd, 2010 at 12:15 am
Jeff W,
I think part of the problem is that the MLB baseball/baseball writers/baseball fans put way too much weight on W/L record. Another problem is that the Baseball Writers have recently underrepresented starting pitching in the HOF and most of the time they skew the voting towards pitchers with more career value.
IMO once a pitcher gets to about 60 career WAR they should be in the HOF. There is something wrong with the way that baseball acknowledges these pitchers.
I guess the one fair knock on Tommy John is that his peak value isn't that great. Let's compare him to 2 other pitchers of his era that are not in the HOF and have roughly the same career WAR value, Luis Tiant and Jerry Koosman:
Tiant: 60.10 Career WAR, (2) 7+WAR seasons, (4) 5+WAR seasons, (8) Top 10 WAR finishes, 115ERA+, He was the best pitcher in the American League in 1968 and should have won the Cy Young, Great Peak/Great Career, I really don't know why he's not in the HOF??
Koosman: 58.80 Career WAR, (3) 6+WAR seasons, (2) 5+WAR seasons, (1) 4+WAR season, (6) Top 10 WAR finishes, 110ERA+, His best seasons were kind of spread out, Great Post-Season, He was on some lousy 70's Mets team that really hurt his W/L%, Still a terrific peak and great overall career, kind of underrated.
John: 59.00 Career WAR, (3) 5+WAR Seasons, (3) 4+WAR seasons, (4) top ten WAR Seasons, 111ERA+, Great career value, suffers a little in peak value, best seasons are bunched up with the late 60's White Sox and late 70's Dodgers/Yankees.
June 22nd, 2010 at 12:46 am
There's 23 major league pitchers who finished their careers with a WAR between 55-65. One player is still active (John Smoltz-63.9), One player is retired but not yet eligible for the HOF (Kevin Brown-64.8), 15 of the remaining 21 (71%) have been elected to the HOF.
Here's the HOF list:
C. Hubbell (64.7), J. Marichal (64), J. Palmer (63.5), A Rusie (60.6), J. Bunning (60.1), T. Lyons (58.8), D. Eckersly (58.7), V. Willis (57.2), M Welch (56.2), D. Vance (56.4), H. Newhouser (56.3), M. Brown (56.1), W. Ford (55.3), R. Farber (55.2).
Here's the non-HOF list:
J. McCormick (64.7), L. Tiant (60.1), T. John (59.0), J. Koosman (58.8), D. Cone (57.5), C Buffington (56.1), L. Jackson (55.6).
McCormick & Buffington were 19th century pitchers from the 1880's. John is the only one of the 7 not to have at least one 6+ WAR season, Cone had (4) 6+ WAR seasons, may have had a 7+ if the strike didn't happen in 1994.
June 22nd, 2010 at 2:19 am
Dukeofflatbush, John Q,
Thanks for taking the time to write those well-thought-out responses. I had guessed that a fair cutoff for the Hall, based on WAR, would be right around 55-60.
As you have doubtlessly noticed, I write from my heart, as much as cold, hard, numbers.
Perhaps the emphasis on W/L comes from a time when it was simply the pitcher's job, to do whatever it took to win the game. Pitch nine, 12, even 26 innings. If he couldn't handle it, they'd go find someone who could.
Pitchers took on their task with a sense of responsibility, and took pride in a job well-done. It's a little different nowadays. "Just keep us in the game for six innings" doesn't quite ring the same. I love watching Felix Hernandez battle late in a game, not wanting to be pulled.
The backstory on John (which I did not know -- I was away in the Navy at the time) reinforces my belief that he has been screwed. This literally screams out for justice. Especially since he was entering what likely would have been the peak years of his career. Look at what he did in '73, and where he was when he got hurt in '74 (29-10 combined, and barely halfway through '74).
He flat-out lost a year and a half of peak time, plus spent the next year on his comeback. He finished that season 10-10, then won 80 games over the next four years. His record, 1973-1980 was 119-53, 3.06, 1.231 WHIP.
If his peak was lower than some of the others, it's fair to say that's because he was robbed of a solid chunk of it.
From '73-'80, he averaged 17 wins per season that he pitched, even considering the fact that 1974 was limited to a half-season. I know I'll get knocked by some for this, but it's easy to see another 30+ wins over the second half of '74, '75 and a completely healthy '76.
John seemed to have been on his way to great success when he got hurt. He was 37 at the end of 1980, his final 20-win season, a natural time to start end-of-career decline. And he won just 74 games in his last nine seasons ('81-'89).
I don't know what the tradeoff was, in terms of extra years it added to what his career would have been, minus the injury. Did he pitch longer than he could have, had he never been hurt?
Koosman's WAR number, as I mentioned in another post, is pleasantly high. I always liked Jerry (great signature, too!). I always felt he was unjustly overshadowed by Seaver in his early years.
Tiant, too, was a dandy. That first game of the 1975 Series was another iconic performance. I watched it while I was in Navy Journalism School, in Indianapolis. There I was (quietly) rooting like Hell for the Red Sox, in the middle of Reds' country!
They make for an interesting trio, as each had to bounce back from arm miseries of one sort or another. Plus Jerry was killed by lack of support for a number of years, after the Mets '73 World Series team broke apart.
Seaver got away, scot-free, but Koosman was left to take the hit. Koos, Jerry Grote, and Buddy Harrelson were always my faves from those Series teams.
Something just occurred to me: Imagine Jamie Moyer undergoing TJ surgery.
"Forty-seven? Heck, I'm just getting started..."
June 22nd, 2010 at 5:51 am
[...] rates also came up as part of the Curt Schilling Hall of Fame discussion, with a few folks taking the position that Schilling's 3000 strikeouts were not as impressive as [...]
June 22nd, 2010 at 10:13 am
Jeff W,
I have no problem with Tommy John being in the HOF. He had a great overall career, plus the story of his surgery and come-back is an added bonus.
June 22nd, 2010 at 11:05 am
"I'd rather have Luis Castillo up with a man on second, down a run in the 9th with none out than Mark Reynolds. Play that scenario out with every big league manager. See who'd they like up."
And who would you want up when down a run with two outs and no one on?
Just because someone who makes contact would be more useful in one particular situation doesn't make him a superior player.
June 22nd, 2010 at 11:45 am
I've been looking at Schilling and Mussina again because there are certain similarities (at the very least in when they played) so they're going to get compared.
I really, really dislike Schilling the person, but I personally can't look past the K/BB ratio -- 2nd all-time in combination with the counting stats, he was pretty amazing. So I think he's in.
But even though I think of Schill as the more dominant, that's only because he was more dominant more recently than Mussina -- go look at their stats through their age 29 years. Schilling turned 30 with a 52-52 record. Mussina at the same age was 118-59!!! Playing for Baltimore!!! During steroids!!! Against the Yankees!!! He had a higher cumulative WAR than Pedro through their age 29 years, too, and it's not close.
This was sort of an eye-opener for me. Granted, we should expect our HOF pitchers to be useful longer than our hitters -- and Moose clearly falters compared to Schill there (though he still posted a cumulative WAR of 39.8 from age 30 onward). But if you're like me and remember Schill the dominant power pitcher and Moose the talented-but-hittable-horse, you're really only looking at the second halves of their careers.
June 22nd, 2010 at 12:04 pm
I'm starting to take issue with people saying Curt was a jerk. Why? Because he was outspoken and cocky? The majority of athletes are cocky, but a lot of aren't outspoken.
Schilling has done (and continues to do) amazing amounts of work towards fighting ALS. You may disagree with his politics or his opinion, but c'mon now, he's far from a bad person.
June 22nd, 2010 at 12:07 pm
I could agree more with Rich. I do not agree with Schilling's political views but I do not begrudge him his views. His big mouth hurts in some ways, but helps in others (such as his fundraising efforts for ALS research.)
June 22nd, 2010 at 1:11 pm
@64
Henry, I think you're right on about Mussina. To the extent that he's underrated, it's because people primarily associate him with the Yankees and forget the first half of his career in Baltimore. Mussina won more games with the Orioles than with the Yankees (147-123), had a higher W-L% (.645-.631), had a better ERA (3.53-3.88) and ERA+ (130-115), and accumulated more WAR (44.5-30.3). Six of his top eight WAR seasons came with the Orioles, including his best season (7.4 WAR in 1992). Six of the nine seasons in which he finished in the top ten in WAR for pitchers came with the Orioles. He did have a couple great years with Yankees ('01--when he led AL pitchers in WAR--and '03) and a couple other very good ones ('06 and '08), but the prime of his career was spent mostly with the Orioles.
It's also easy to forget, because of how bad they are now, that the Orioles were actually a very competitive team during much of the '90s. Between '92 and '97, they were over .500 every year except for '95 (when they were just under, finishing 71-73). In '96 they won the wild card and advanced to the ALCS, and in '97 they won the AL East with a 98-64 record and advanced to the ALCS again (in a comment above a pointed out how brilliant Mussina was in the postseason that year). During Mussina's time in Baltimore, the Orioles lost 90 games only once (in '91, his rookie year). Since he left, they've never had a winning a season, and have lost 90 games seven times (and are well on their way to another 90-loss season this year).
June 22nd, 2010 at 9:07 pm
I'm a big Yankee fan and I believe Schilling should and will make it in within 5 years. In some ways though, I do see Schilling (216 wins) being a bit similar to David Cone (194 wins), but Coney couldn't even get the requisite 5% of the vote to stay on the ballot. Schilling has approximately 20 more wins than Cone, but Cone has a Cy Young, a perfect game, and 2 more world championships and he had some big games in the playoffs as well. I'll never understand how Coney didn't get enough votes to stay on the ballot. With that said, I believe Schilling is a Hall of Famer, but Coney isn't --he needed 2 more years which would have put him over 220 wins and 3000k's.
As for Pettite, which I'm a huge fan of, I think he'll still need one more year after this year assuming he wins ~18 this year, gets to 20 playoff wins and keeps his ERA at 3.85 (adjusted ERA of 117 is actually better than Ryan, Carlton, Jenkins, Hunter, Niekro, Perry) and basically the same as Glavine's. I think he needs to get to 260 wins to go along with 20+ playoff wins and 5+ world series wins (8 world series appearances). Who knows how the HGH would effect this, but I could see how him admitting to it in perhaps the most honest way compared to others could work to his favor 10-15 years from now? 250 wins will likely somewhat become the new benchmark. My suspicion is he's going to retire at end of year. I hope he doesn't and he realizes he could make the hall with another good year. Many would likely disagree with this, but that's cool.
I'm not a Hall of Fame snob, I see there being two ways into the Hall-- one where the player has at least 6-8 dominant years in addition to 5+ other years and one where the player is consistently good to really good for at least 16+ years. What the player does in the playoffs can tip the balance. Schilling's performance in the playoffs tips the balance in his favor. Mussina, Blylevyn, and Morris are also Hall of Famers IMO. I don't think Kaat and John are, but could see them getting in via Veterans Committee as should perhaps Tiant.
June 22nd, 2010 at 11:35 pm
Matt,
I think he should be in the HOF. I think he get's short-changed by the strike of 94-95, he wins 20 games in each of those years if there wasn't a strike.
Then he really got screwed in 1993 when he had an excellent season but only got 2.9 runs/game, the lowest run support in the American league. It's just another example of why judging pitchers by w/l sucks.
June 23rd, 2010 at 2:53 am
John Q,
About the 20-wins thing, all of Moose's contemporaries lost out on the same opportunities. Unless their careers didn't start until 1996, I think maybe the point loses its validity.
I do agree that he would have likely had 20+ both seasons.
Using the strikes/lockouts as an argument is tricky, however, and has to be limited to comparing players who played their entire careers after 1961. Remember that everyone who played prior to 1962 did so in seasons that were eight games shorter to begin with.
Once the asterisk was removed from Maris' record, no one talked about the length-of-season difference anymore.
But, a 20-year career set entirely prior to 1962, would have cost an oldtimer the equivalent to a full modern season in total games.
Even the combined games lost between '94-'95 only comes to about 55. The '81 strike only cost about 55 games. And they only lost about 6-8 games in the '72 work stoppage. That's just 116-118 games.
An oldtimer in the pre-'62 era loses out on that many games simply by playing 15 years of the shorter seasons.
A player would have had to play from 1972-1995 to catch all three strikes, and still would have had more games to play than an oldtimer who played the same number of years, prior to '62.
Even with so many fewer games, though, the oldtime hurlers usually come out on top in career totals for wins, innings, starts, CG's, etc.
Your example of 1993 (typo?) being a good year belies the fact that he had a 4.46 ERA. His 167.2 innings were the third-lowest he ever pitched in a full season. He also posted the fifth-highest seasonal WHIP of his career.
If you're thinking of '92, he did lose or received no decision in several low-scoring contests. But he also won two games in which he surrendered five runs, got no decision in another game in which he gave up nine hits and four runs in six innings, and another no decision in a three-inning, six-hit, four-run, start.
Even the run support argument can be a little dicey, though.
Check out this bit, from a piece I wrote once about Bob Gibson's incredible 1968 campaign:
It's a truism that teams get up for their ace. The top regulars are all in the lineup, and they play with an edge. Generally, the ace supposedly gets more all-around support.
The Cardinals, however, actually gave Gibson their worst support. St. Louis finished fourth in the league in runs scored, with 583, an average of 3.6 per game.
In Gibson's 34 starts, however, the Cardinals scored just 103 runs, an average of 3.029 per contest. The Redbirds averaged 3.75 runs/game when Gibson wasn't pitching!
Just imagine Gibson, pitching with Juan Marichal's support.
Marichal managed to win 26 games, despite surrendering more than four runs in a game seven times (high of seven -- twice -- and six -- twice). On the other hand, Gibson lost nine of 31 decisions despite allowing more than three runs in a game just four times (high of six -- once). He lost two 1-0 contests (one, a no-hitter by Gaylord Perry).
The Giants, on the other hand, gave their ace way-better-than-average support. Overall, they scored 599 runs, an average of 3.67, in 163 games. For Marichal, they scored 186 runs, an average of 4.895, with a high of 13 twice! Everyone else on the Giants' staff got "just" 3.30.
"Everyone else on the Giants' staff" even got more support than Gibson got from the Cardinals. Gibson got eight runs twice, but those two 13-run efforts in support of Marichal were joined by games in which the Giants scored nine (once), eight (5 times!!!), and seven runs (twice) for their top gun. That's 84 runs in just 10 games, 82 percent of the support Gibson got for the entire season!
The truly great pitchers usually manage to hold their own.
June 23rd, 2010 at 4:51 am
JeffW, I think the opposite has been shown to be true. Aces tend together lower-than-average run support although there is lots of variation. For one thing they tend to oppose the other team's ace, making it harder for their own team to score runs. For another, I hear the opposite from you, that teams tend to relax--they figure once they score 2-3 runs they can relax since their ace is pitching, and they are less likely to put up 4-6 runs.
June 23rd, 2010 at 11:07 am
Andy,
That's very interesting. I'd have thought that they'd be more amped-up to have a big day. I hadn't really dwelled much on the fact that the other team's ace would be going, too (which isn't always the case...).
I was focused more on the comparitive differences between Gibson and Marichal.
How do you feel it contributes to the difference in support received between Marichal and Gibson? One got mega-support, while the other received his team's worst backing.
June 23rd, 2010 at 11:12 am
I don't think it applies across the board, just in an average sense. For Gibson, I can easily see his team thinking in 1968 he was so good they needed score only 1 run to win every time.
June 23rd, 2010 at 11:25 am
I know Lou Brock said they regretted not being able to do more, adding that Gibson could have won 30.
At one point, Gibby was 3-5, with a 1.52 ERA. He had lost four straight (all CGs), giving up three, one, one, and three runs.
That is a weird zone to be in...
June 23rd, 2010 at 1:33 pm
"There should be no artificial limit as to how many players are "good enough" for the Hall in any given generation. If the numbers say you should be there (and you were "clean" in compiling them), you're there. Period. Some decades were more blessed than others."
There shouldn't be an artificial limit, but it's also true that if you go by pure numbers you can be fooled by differences in the game as it is played over the years.
Should everybody with 500HR go in still, even though for those who played in the 90s/00s this was nowhere near the feat that it was for those who played in the 50s-80s. One way to guage whether your number cutoffs make sense is to compare how many people you would put in the hall from this era, to how many are in from others.
This cuts both ways. It's been very rare that a pitcher with fewer than 250 wins gets in the hall, but I believe that number should change based on how much less often starting pitchers start and finish games than even 30 years ago.
On the other side, 3000Ks has been automatic (except for blyleven) in the past, but it's not clear to me that it should be anymore, given how much the averages have gone up. If NL pitchers are now striking out 7/9IP, that means a pitcher who is an average K guy for 20 years, and pitches 3800 innings, would go in the hall. Of course, Schilling with a huge K/BB ratio, and great ERA+ has a lot more on his resume than 3000 Ks, but my point is that in today's game, you can be pretty average and get 3000 Ks if you have a long career. Average guys aren't supposed to make the hall just because they last 20+ years. That honor normally belongs to players who are well above average for that long, or who are truly dominant for shorter periods.
That said, I'd vote for Curt, even if his politics make me gag.
I think you have to consider that his postseason record amounts to a half a season of Koufax-esque results against top teams.
Kevin Brown is my new borderline guy, and maybe you'll all convince me he belongs in too, right now I'm leaning away, and the postseason record is part of the difference. I think all the games pitched count, and that postseason record isn't in the career totals, so it matters to differentiate guys, especially as it comes against top competition.
June 23rd, 2010 at 2:24 pm
I think the 500 HRs barrier (only 25 in all of baseball history) is still rare enough (especially if we exclude the seven we believe were tainted), that it's legit.
Even tossing the taint issue aside, it still amounts to just 10 players (and counting...) who played the bulk of their careers in the Steroid Era (1988(?)-present).
Eliminate the suspected abusers, and we have just three (Griffey Jr., Thome, and Thomas). That's pretty rare. And we have yet to see how many out of the next tier (Delgado, Chipper Jones, Vlad Guerrero, and Albert Pujols), will make it all the way.
At least eight of the current 25 (or 18 untainted) hit the bulk of their homers during the '50's-'60's.
June 23rd, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Just wondering....did "the taint issue" in #76 above make anybody else grin?
June 23rd, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Did I make an unintentional funny? Inside joke?
If I used language that described how I really feel about PEDs, I'd be banned.
Beyond MLB's lame stand on the issue in the early '90's...the stuff was illegal to begin with. That means at least some of the accused/suspected players knowingly broke the law to gain an advantage on the field.
How is the network of suppliers/users any different from an international drug cartel (minus the gun violence, of course)?
Why should we coddle/admire suspected felons?
June 23rd, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Google taint when used as a noun (not for kids.)
June 23rd, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Oh (extreme mortification here).
My sincere apologies.
June 24th, 2010 at 10:32 am
It's not that rare for pitchers under 250 wins to go into the hall --it's all relative though. I'd say it's much rarer that pitchers with 250+ don't get in. Other than a handful of pre-war guys, you only have Morris, John and Kaat not in the hall with 250+ wins. All the others that aren't eligible yet but have more than 250 wins will eventually get in, including Moose. I think John's and Kaat's last 6-7 years hurt more than it helped. I think Morris should go in, but I don't think Kevin Brown should --he's on the edge, but the wrong side IMO.
I'd say yes to Vlad, Jones and Pujols, but no to Delgado.
June 27th, 2010 at 8:02 am
[...] about Mike Mussina's HOF chances, given that his name got brought up quite a bit during the recent Curt Schilling HOF debate. For Schilling, nearly exactly 2/3rds of voters believe he deserves to be in the HOF while 1/3rd do [...]
June 27th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Schilling is very borderline. What impresses me most is that he was able to win championships with three different teams. It's not like he stayed with one organization with a loaded lineup and won with the same players.
I think the sportswriters will hold against him his personality and his politics. If he does get elected, the Red Sox "curse" and the Bloody Sock will be the extra push he needs to get in. Without a specific target reached, these debates often are decided not by numbers but by impressions. Schilling has plus and minus in both categories.
June 27th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
On the Phil Niekro tangent: I have to stand up for Knucksie, even more strongly than his previous defender. The notion that Niekro "hung around" to get 300 wins and 3,000 Ks is silly. Niekro got his 3,000th K in 1984, when he went 16-8, 3.09, with a 123 ERA+. He got his 300th win in 1985, when he went 16-12, 4.09, with a 99 ERA+. Hanging around? Even league-average is not hanging around. Niekro was a vital piece on a Yankees team with championship aspirations, finishing '85 2 games behind Toronto with 97 wins. In 3 starts against Toronto that year, Knucksie pitched 25 innings with an 0.72 ERA.
But his HOF credentials go far beyond 300 wins or 3,000 Ks. His biggest contribution was his huge number of effective innings -- 5,404 IP, 4th on the career list. Combine that with his 115 ERA+, toss in an ERA title, four 20-win seasons, 5 All-Star selections and 5 Gold Gloves, and you have a no-doubt Hall of Famer.
Only one eligible pitcher with at least 4,000 IP and an ERA+ of at least 110 is not in the Hall (Tommy John, 4,710 IP, 111 ERA+). And while I haven't fully digested W.A.R. yet, I do notice that Niekro's career W.A.R. of 93 ranks 32nd on the all-time list. Blyleven (90.1) is the only eligible pitcher with even 75 W.A.R. who has not yet been inducted.
What did Niekro do when the Braves were competitive? In 1969, they won the division; Niekro went 23-13, 2.56, in 284 IP. In '74, they won 88 games; Niekro was 20-13, 2.38 in 302 IP. In '82, they won the division with 89 wins; Niekro went 17-4, 3.61, leading the team in wins, IP, and ERA (among qualifiers). 1983 was the only year that Atlanta contended but Niekro wasn't their best pitcher, going 11-10, 3.97, at age 44. I've already noted what he did in 2 years with contending Yankee teams; in '84, he led the team in wins, IP, ERA (qualifying) and Ks, while in '85 he was their 2nd-best SP.
Phil Niekro became a rotation starter in 1967, and over the next 20 seasons, he never had a bad one. In 1987, at age 48, he finally lost his effectiveness -- and he promptly retired. Phil Niekro never hung around to pad his Hall of Fame resume; he didn't need to.
June 29th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Gaylord Perry is the one who hung on, just to get number-300.