You have to start getting into the weeds a bit to figure out how Schilling produced as much value in 1250 fewer innings -- peak vs. prime, unearned runs, postseasons, a higher-scoring era, etc.

I dunno. WAR doesn't care about peak vs. prime or postseason. Using runs instead of earned runs is obvious and easy, and so is adjusting for run environment. Park factors, while difficult to implement, are fairly obvious as well. Schilling was exactly even on defensive support over his career so that's a non factor.

What's the easiest way to judge a pitchers value? I'd say RA - league RA * innings. Now that's going to hurt Schilling a little bit because it doesn't include park factors which help him over his career. However comparing to league average instead of replacement level is going to hurt long career guys like Jenkins as the value of additional innings are most apparent in a system that uses replacement level.

Edit: slam dunk for me is when you're far clear of the line. We tend to think 50-60 WAR is a borderline HOFer (and naturally adjustments are made for defense, peak vs. career, postseason, being a catcher). Schilling's 20 WAR above what we would consider borderline and all of things not accounted for in WAR are in his favor (peak and postseason).

Put me on the list of those that find it hard to think of Schilling as a maybe... He's a middle of the pack hofer, as mentioned, just like Glavine, Ryan, Mussina(who is going to get jobbed), etc.

Having said that, it's absurd to think he's more qualified than Piazza.

Agree with those who say that Schilling is an obvious HOFer. But also agree with those that say there's no way he should be ahead of Piazza or Bagwell. Schill is a top 25-30 pitcher. Piazza and Bags are top 5 at their positions. Not even close.

Agree with those who say that Schilling is an obvious HOFer. But also agree with those that say there's no way he should be ahead of Piazza or Bagwell. Schill is a top 25-30 pitcher. Piazza and Bags are top 5 at their positions. Not even close.

That pretty much sums it up. All three are very worthy, essentially we have a 1930s level HOF ballot, yet no one is getting inducted?

But if by "slam dunk" we mean something like "should pretty easily make it in 5 years or so" then he's slam dunk. Well, I'm pretty confident Schilling will go in although the crowded ballot will slow him down a lot so I'm not betting on 5 years. But he is the ... I was going to say Perry, Jenkins, Roberts of his generation but those guys are all in largely for their durability. He's the Drysdale and Marichal (but not Koufax) of his generation. Or, to relate it back, he's kinda the Sosa of pitchers -- never the #1 guy, never alone in the spotlight except for the bloody sock game.

I get what you're saying, but the difference between Schilling and Sosa is that Schilling was actually among the best in baseball for many years while Sosa simply wasn't.

Schilling was among the top 10 pitchers in rWAR 11 times, including 8 times in the top 5. Including position players, Schilling was still in the top 10 five times and the top 5 three times. He was never really the best pitcher in the league, but he was in the discussion for a decade.

Sosa, meanwhile, finished in the top 10 in rWAR among position players just 3 times: 2nd in 2001, 6th in 1995, and 10th in 1998. It sucks for him that his 66 homers in '98 were overshadowed by McGwire and that his awesome 2001 was overshadowed by Bonds. But it's also true that his fame and relatively strong saber support for the HOF are due in large part to the shape of his performance (lots of dingers) and the era in which he played (great time for hitting dingers). As much as his key achievements were overshadowed at the time, he'd likely be among the top 5 vote-getters this year without the steroid taint.

what is rWar?

Note: anyone that is using fWar to compare current pitchers(past 40 years) to the past, is making a huge mistake in my opinion. The nature of the game has changed and fWar relies way too much on the silly fip stat to be fair to pitchers of the past.

I think that most people who doubt the certainty of Schilling's case basically just don't trust WAR for pitchers that much.

I will admit that I hadn't realized the extent of the unearned runs thing - which has pushed him up my charts a little bit. So these conversations are useful and persuasive. But still, quoting raw WAR numbers isn't going to do much to persuade people who start out skeptical of those numbers.

The Hall of Stats has Schilling as the fifteenth best pitcher of all time: http://www.hallofstats.com/position/p

I guess the thing with Schilling is that it's hard to think of him as the 15th best pitcher of all time when he seems, at best, the fifth best pitcher of his era behind Clemens, Maddux, Pedro, and Randy Johnson.

The other problem with Schilling is that if you just look at the less advanced metrics, he falls nicely in a group with John Smoltz, and Kevin Brown. Even ignoring W/L (as, of course, we should), if we look at IP & ERA+, you get:
3261/127 for Schilling
3256.1/127 for Brown (who failed to get 5%)
3473/125 for Smoltz

Now, the deeper you look past that, the more obvious it becomes that Schilling is the strongest of the three and Brown the weakest, but to get there it does take some work.

Brown gets killed on the postseason, but Smoltz's 15-4 2.67 in 209 innings doesn't really drop him much in relation to Schilling's 11-2 2.33 in 133 innings.

Smoltz also gets a narrative boost for moving into the closer role for a few years and then returning to the rotation.

There are really two things that put Schilling ahead. An historic BB/K ratio, which, naturally, DIPS based systems love, and an extremely low number of unearned runs allowed. Those aren't exactly the kind of nuances we'd expect the average BBWAA member to pick up on.

An historic BB/K ratio, which, naturally, DIPS based systems love,

And is what is wrong with any system that tries to compare pitchers by components through different eras. The acceptance of striking out by hitters has helped make pitchers like Schilling look better in comparison to pitchers of the past. It's like using quarterback rating for quarterbacks today and comparing it to them from 20-40 years ago, the components that go into making it look good are easier to accumulate than in the past.

The number of unearned runs for Schilling is a major factor, so let's put some perspective on it.
Schilling pitched 3261 ip, had 1318 runs allowed, 1253 unearned runs...
Smoltz pitched 3473 ip, had 1391 runs allowed, 1284 unearned runs. Schilling at the same percentage of unearned runs allowed would have posted an era+ of 131.(Era of 3.36, 1216 earned runs allowed)
Brown pitched 3255 ip, had 1357 runs allowed, 1185 unearned runs allowed... Schilling at the same percentage of unearned runs would have posted an era of 139 (3.17 era, 1150 unearned runs allowed)

Either ranking would put him top 12 all time among pitchers with at least 3000ip. (the 139 puts him top 5)

what is rWar?

RayWar.

I guess the thing with Schilling is that it's hard to think of him as the 15th best pitcher of all time when he seems, at best, the fifth best pitcher of his era behind Clemens, Maddux, Pedro, and Randy Johnson.

Even more, I suspect many fairly well-informed fans would say that they would start looking at Schilling as they debate #6. I suspect many people consider the top 5 locked in with the four you mentioned plus Glavine.

Over the years, I have learned a lot about Schilling's case from the people here. I did not previously see a clear argument that he was that much better than really really great pitchers like Kevin Brown or Mussina or Smoltz, much less Glavine. Now I can see a better case for why he's #5 or at least #6.

It's tricky to figure out what to do about the glut of pitchers for the era. I do think the Hall should name something like 10, but I can understand the intuitive wariness to that, given the paucity of starters in the generation before that.

I am for him but I also can see why thoughtful people would be a little wary of rushing him in. It wouldn't shock me if the top 5 (or at least top 4 minus Clemens) all get voted in and then the absence of new candidates plus the modest numbers of the best active pitchers as they head toward retirement lead people to re-evaluate Schilling and give him a bump in 5-6 years.

Piazza is top 5 catcher. If you eschew WAR and just use positional rankings that makes Piazza a top 40 position player. Schilling by bWAR is a top 30 pitcher. I'm just not sure what your logic is here. When you look at postseason numbers (Piazza is at .242/.301/.458 in 133 PA, Schilling 2.33 ERA with 525 batters faced), Schilling clearly has a strong case over Piazza.

Which four catchers are better than Piazza?

I count Bench as being clearly better. You could make an argument for Gary Carter, but I think that argument has to depend rather heavily an an evaluation of Piazza as a very poor defensive catcher based off limited information.

Which four catchers are better than Piazza?

I'm not him, and not sure there are four better than Piazza, but Bench, Berra and Gibson are three. (I know some people don't include Gibson, but he's on many peoples list)

I thought his point was that Piazza being clearly ahead of Schilling isn't exactly obvious, depending on how you look at it. I thought it was a valid point. I think Piazza is clearly ahead of Schilling, but I could see others seeing it differently.

I thought his point was that Piazza being clearly ahead of Schilling isn't exactly obvious, depending on how you look at it. I thought it was a valid point. I think Piazza is clearly ahead of Schilling, but I could see others seeing it differently.

I think that when you consider that Piazza was the best player in the game for a year or two, and the best Catcher in the game for several more, but Schilling was never even the best pitcher in his league, you have to favor Piazza.

I think Schilling is in, but he's closer to the in/out line than he is to the inner circle.

Agree with those who say that Schilling is an obvious HOFer. But also agree with those that say there's no way he should be ahead of Piazza or Bagwell. Schill is a top 25-30 pitcher. Piazza and Bags are top 5 at their positions.

I agree with this. In fact I said exactly this above. But I don't see how top 5 at a given position is better than a top 25 pitchers. There's 8 positions which means we Piazza is top 40 at least among position players. Schilling is better than that. Now position players are slightly more valuable than pitchers because of defense, but I'm not sure if that gets you from 40 to 25.

It's tricky to figure out what to do about the glut of pitchers for the era. I do think the Hall should name something like 10, but I can understand the intuitive wariness to that, given the paucity of starters in the generation before that.

I think it is interesting that in an era of high-offensive context such as the '90s there were so many dominant pitchers anyway (Clemens, Johnson, Pedro, Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, Schilling, Brown, Mussina, etc. - and I'm probably forgetting some others as well).

How come this didn't happen in the previous "high-offensive context" era of the '20s and '30s? I know Grove and Hubbell stand out as the same kind of dominant pitchers, I suppose, but the list thins out considerably after that. I know some pitchers from that era have been elected (Ted Lyons, Waite Hoyt, Herb Pennock, etc.) but I never sensed the impression that they were seen as "dominant" in their day.

IMO, Schilling's primary problem is one of perception (and not enough wins). He first comes to prominence in 1993 with a big year (though in retrospect not a very good year) for that wacky Phillies team, but then he disappears from the national radar playing on some truly terrible Phillies teams until 99-00 when the Phils talk about trading him. He has a big 2001-2003 for Arizona, a big 2004 for Boston, and then he's injured and then he has two more pretty good but cosmetically bad years (high 3s ERAs) and then he's gone for good. Narrative plays a huge part in HOF voting, and the Schilling story (before it's been refreshed for the writers, which it may as he stays on the ballot over the next couple of years) happens in 1993, then disappears and picks up again for 2001-2004, but then is pretty much over. It's that whole deadzone in the middle when he disappeared on terrible teams that hurts him - it makes his career feel short, like he really only "mattered" for four or five years out of the entire thing. His career weirdly feels short, even though it wasn't.

I think it is interesting that in an era of high-offensive context such as the '90s there were so many dominant pitchers anyway (Clemens, Johnson, Pedro, Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, Schilling, Brown, Mussina, etc. - and I'm probably forgetting some others as well).

How come this didn't happen in the previous "high-offensive context" era of the '20s and '30s? I know Grove and Hubbell stand out as the same kind of dominant pitchers, I suppose, but the list thins out considerably after that. I know some pitchers from that era have been elected (Ted Lyons, Waite Hoyt, Herb Pennock, etc.) but I never sensed the impression that they were seen as "dominant" in their day.

Lack of consistency probably. Look at Dazzy Vance or Dolf Luque . I think of that time frame as a transitional time frame for pitchers and that probably hurts them(I think the same thing happened in the 70's-80's also)

Bill's mailbag today:

Hey Bill, what would your 2012 HOF ballot looked like?

Raines, Rocket, Biggio, Piazza, Edgar Martinez, Trammell, McGriff, McGwire. Maybe another one or two. ..I dunno.

Huh, passed on Bagwell.

My sense is that James simply isn't interested in this stuff anymore, at least not at the level he was in past decades, or maybe he's just interested in different aspects of it now. Or maybe it's just that he doesn't have as much free time, working for the Red Sox, to comment in depth on anything other than Penn State. I don't know. But people are writing to him, or reading him, expecting the Bill James of 1988, and that entity is gone.

Many of his answers betray a lack of interest in or respect for the question. Maybe the problem is that he can't give the kinds of answers he wants to for some questions because his work is proprietary. Who knows.

He also seems disinterested in player evaluation systems, despite the fact that he spent a lot of time devising Win Shares not too long ago. It comes off as bitterness towards the fact that Win Shares was not widely accepted/used, or that others did it better.

How come this didn't happen in the previous "high-offensive context" era of the '20s and '30s? I know Grove and Hubbell stand out as the same kind of dominant pitchers, I suppose, but the list thins out considerably after that. I know some pitchers from that era have been elected (Ted Lyons, Waite Hoyt, Herb Pennock, etc.) but I never sensed the impression that they were seen as "dominant" in their day.

Kind of like the problem with the 80's. Vance and Luque were mentioned. Also Dean. Lefty Gomez had a couple of danmed good years. All were dominant for short periods, much like Guidry, Steib, Saberhagen, et al, in the 80's.

#35 Jackson wasn't acquitted of throwing ballgames. The Black Sox were charged with defrauding and discrediting the public and Charles Comiskey through criminal conspiracy.

The judge gave the following charge to the jury:

"The State must prove that it was the intent of the ballplayers and gamblers charged with conspiracy through throwing the World Series, to defraud the public and others, not merely to throw ballgames."

And guess what? They weren't out to defraud others, they were out to line their own pockets. Given these instructions to the jury, aquittal was inevitable.

Jackson himself admitted taking the money and specifically to playing intentionally poorly on defense.

It's also worth noting that Arnold Rothstein was acquitted. Didn't mean that the series wasn't fixed.

EDIT: A better example of "not guilty" not mattering would be Benny Kauff

.