Comments on: Later, Schill

By: gnomez

gnomez — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 07:35:30 +0000

Sutter was in for his historical importance, not necessarily value.

By: PHXMLB

PHXMLB — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 01:38:50 +0000

I agree w/ Eric’s conclusion re Schilling’s worthiness for the HOF. As interesting a question as whether he should be in the Hall is which team he should he represent.

I’ve made the case that he ought to wear an Arizona cap on his plaque in Cooperstown: http://www.diamondbacksnation.com/Feature/46-Curt-Schilling-Should-Enter-HOF-as-a-Diamondback/

I’m not a neutral, but I think his career arc supports my position. In brief, I see it this way –

PHI = mostly very good, sometimes great; injury riddled and w/o team success.

ARI = at height of his powers as a pitcher for a sustained period; w/ brilliant regular & post-seasons, established himself as HOF-caliber performer.

BOS = still big on biggest stage, but no longer dominant force; skills in rapid decline.

DiamondbacksNation.com / Twitter.com/DBackNation

By: D

Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:18:58 +0000

I’ve never posted here before but I have to respond to this.
A) “The argument of innings pitched is ridiculous” This is simply asinine. The ability to pitch innings is in fact the single most important thing a pitcher can do. After adjusting for era and league IP is actually the most important standard statistic for evaluating a pitcher.
B) “Glavine has racked up crazy stats, but I wouldn’t have wanted him on my team for the last 10 years (except for 2002).” Then you really must hate your team. One of the most difficult things to find in pro sports is a pitcher who can give you 34 starts at replacement level, let alone 15% above average which is what Glavine would have given your team from 1999-2007. He did pitch like crap last year, but that also coincided with his first trip to the DL in his career.
C) “I guess for me it comes down to his elite performances in big playoff games.” Glavine’s stats for 10 career LCS: 3.31 ERA in 103.1 IP. Schillings stats for 4 career LCS : 3.47 ERA in 46.2 IP. Glavine’s stats for 5 career WS: 2.47 ERA in 58.1 IP. Schillings stats for 4 career WS: 2.06 in 48 IP.
D) “Pedro doesn’t even have 3000 IP, and I don’t hear anyone wanting to keep him out.” True, Pedro does not have hall worthy IP totals but he is also the most dominant pitcher in the history of the game when healthy. He has the best WHIP of any pitcher born since 1910, the third best K/9 rate in history, the the third best SO/BB rate in history, the 8th best H/9 rate and, most importantly, the best ERA+ in the games history. In fact the difference between Pedro and the #2 pitcher is the same as the difference between #2 and #11. And considering that of the 35 seasons that a pitcher has accumulated an ERA+ of 200 or more, Pedro has 5 of them.
I don’t mean to seem like a jerk and I think Schillings belongs in the Hall, but it seems to me you are undervaluing the importance of IP and have selective memory when it comes to “big games”. Guys like Gale Sayers are the exception not the standard.

By: sen-baldacci

sen-baldacci — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:11:06 +0000

Please, raging a-hole is very narrow-minded. His generosity, not just for his ALS research funding, but all of the work and money he has donated to help others I think separates himself enough to not be a ‘raging a hole’. He is unarguably a right wing narcissist, who likes to hear himself talk, but the more I think of the good he’s done, the more willing to ignore the crap that spills from his outspoken mouth at times.

The argument of innings pitched is ridiculous. Who cares if he pitched for 3 decades. Glavine has racked up crazy stats, but I wouldn’t have wanted him on my team for the last 10 years (except for 2002). Schilling, however, I’d take right now if he wanted to come back. He’s a big game pitcher who keeps a good era and strikes out a lot of dudes. Who else would you want leading your pitching staff to the playoffs? i think career totals are nice. it means you got to start early and avoid the injury bug, but greatness can come in shorter stints. I keep thinking to Gale Sayers in football. Pedro doesn’t even have 3000 IP, and I don’t hear anyone wanting to keep him out. I guess for me it comes down to his elite performances in big playoff games. That defines greatness for me.

By: CH

CH — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:07:52 +0000

I understand this isn’t the most scientific way of looking at things, and I’m not saying this is the only reason someone should or shouldn’t be voted into the HOF, but Schilling doesn’t pass my own personal “smell test.”

When I think of Curt Schilling, I go through a 3 step mental progression.

1.) Wow, that guy was a rambling a-hole.
2.) He WAS a very good pitcher, though. I wonder if he has the numbers to make the Hall Of Fame?
3.) Hmm. Upon further inspection, he has pretty good numbers. Wait, people aren’t really going to vote this rambling a-hole into the Hall Of Fame, are they?

Again, not exactly the most intelligent or adult way of evaluating his career, but I doubt I’m the only one who goes through that progression of thoughts. If the baseball writers are as petty as I am, he’ll never make it.

By: Rob in CT

Rob in CT — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:29:51 +0000

I think you can argue this one either way. You can point out that he was very good overall and that his playoff performances were downright excellent. Then you can add a dash of extra credit for “narrative” reasons (bloody sock, 2001 WS).

Flipside is a fairly low IP total. That does matter. His stats are good, but not eye popping. Playoff performance certainly boosts his case, but how much?

I think reasonable people can disagree here.

By: Preston

Preston — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 04:21:14 +0000

Wally, I think that pitcher’s fielding differences largely are included in their ERA/ERA+anyway – if their own defense is saving them runs, it actually already is built into their statistics. For that reason, I don’t think it’s all that necessary to consider it when comparing them. Granted, if you’re just comparing them on FIP or K totals, that’s a little bit of a different matter. Brown and Schilling’s ERA+ are identical, while Schilling’s FIP is a bit better – it’s possible that Brown’s own defense is one of the factors in that difference (how big a factor I wouldn’t begin to guess).

By: Wally

Wally — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:23:41 +0000

And I really think all these negative ratings are a bit unwarranted, why don’t you refute my points instead?

By: Wally

Wally — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:59:21 +0000

I think it’s worth pointing out that Kevin Brown was a vastly superior fielder to Curt Schilling. When we’re talking about “slim margins” I’m surprised how quickly this is being forgotten.

By: joser

joser — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:05:41 +0000

HOF arguments are as much about perception as performance, and the only perception that actually counts is that of the HOF voters (who of course are notably and in many cases willfully ignorant of modern statistical methods). In that respect, Bill James' "HOF Monitor" has done a pretty good job of predicting how the voters eventually decide. By that metric (where 100 is usually good enough and 130 is a virtual lock), Schilling at 170 is certain to go in. Regardless of what they rest of us may think (or not).