I think Schilling is a douche, but I have no doubts he belongs in the HoF (my cut-off point is Mussina, who I think should go in, and anybody worse than him shouldn't).

Well, we've learned over the last year that he is, ironically, a better candidate for the Liberal Hall of Fame than the Conservative Hall of Fame, as the former champion of small government sprinted to Rhode Island for a handout from the state. Combine that with some inconsistencies in the past and he's got a swell case as a first-ballot Fraud Hall of Famer.

This screams "Stop reading my column right now!" to me.

This screams "Stop reading my column right now!" to me.

The cutoff point should have been the "Kirt Minihane" by-line. He's awful. I find him to be part of a small group of local writers lining up to be the next Dan "Everything Sucks" Shaughnessy.

And there is the matter of his very large role in costing the state of Rhode Island $112 million bucks, but that has nothing to do with his Hall of Fame candidacy.

In my opinion things like this should be a much bigger deal than whether or not someone stuck a needle full of steroids in their butt. This isn't the Federal Government that can borrow and/or print any amount it wants. A State losing 112 million means a lot of other things it can't spend money on, some of them important. Schilling's no thief, as I understand it he's lost quite a bit of his own money. Just a bad businessman.

I would not hold that against Schilling's playing career. He'd get my vote.

I used Play Index to find HOF pitchers born after 1900 (pitchers that had to pitch their whole career in the post-Babe homerun era), and exclude relievers (60% games started). There are 28 pitchers. The averages are:

65 WAR
238 Complete Games
263-189 record
3.19 ERA
121 ERA+
4037 Innings
2598 Strikeouts

Schilling's an average HOF starter on WAR, below average on volume (innings and wins), above average on rate (ERA+ and #1 in strikeout to walk). He's got more strikeouts than average despite fewer innings, though a lot of that is a product of the time when he pitched, just like his relative lack of complete games.

In that group, I'd pick Jim Palmer as the closest to the average modern HOF starter:

63 WAR
211 CG
268-152
2.86 ERA
125 ERA+
3948 IP
2212 K

That's a pretty elite group.

my cut-off point is Mussina

Odd, I think of Mussina as a far better candidate than Schilling.

Odd, I think of Mussina as a far better candidate than Schilling.

While 300 innings is nothing to scoff at, I can't see how that's enough to make him "far better," considering Curt has the edge pretty much everywhere else (except wins, though those are generally frowned upon here).

Where are we posting ballots? Here's mine, roughly in order of most worthy since I have more than 10 qualified candidates:

In:

1. Bonds
2. Clemens
3. Piazza
4. McGwire
5. Bagwell
6. Schilling
7. Trammell
8. Biggio
9. Raines
10. Palmeiro
11. Sosa
12. McGriff
--------------

Borderline but could be convinced:
1. LWalker
2. LSmith
3. DMurphy
4. BWilliams
5. EMartinez
6. KLofton

Out:
1. DMattingly
2. DWells
5. JMorris

Odd, I think of Mussina as a far better candidate than Schilling.

Why? Mussina had a slightly longer career (9% more IP), but Schilling's postseason performances were far superior overall (11-2/2.23 to 7-8/3.42), and they were virtually tied in ERA+ and WAR. On balance I'd call it for Schilling on the basis of a postseason tiebreaker, maybe 51-49, but in any case I'd put them both in.

Where are we posting ballots? Here's mine, roughly in order of most worthy since I have more than 10 qualified candidates:

Most of us posted them here, but since those ballots have already been tabulated, I'm not sure you'll want to add yours now.

The results to that election are linked on the home page.

Why? Mussina had a slightly longer career (9% more IP), but Schilling's postseason performances were far superior overall (11-2/2.23 to 7-8/3.42), and they were virtually tied in ERA+ and WAR. On balance I'd call it for Schilling on the basis of a postseason tiebreaker, maybe 51-49, but in any case I'd put them both in.

It's peak that puts Schilling over the top for me. I'd take Schilling's 2001, 2002, and 2004 over any season Mussina had. Schilling at his best was a better pitcher than Mussina at his best.

Both were excellent pitchers and deserving middle-tier Hall of Famers.

I've got the following rough ordering of this past generation's pitchers:

1. Clemens
2. Maddux
3. Johnson
4. Pedro
5. Glavine
6. Schilling
7. Brown
8. Smoltz
9. Mussina
10. Rivera

No, I still don't care about the postseason with respect to the HOF.

EDITed because I forgot Brown.

It's peak that puts Schilling over the top for me. I'd take Schilling's 2001, 2002, and 2004 over any season Mussina had. Schilling at his best was a better pitcher than Mussina at his best.

Both were excellent pitchers and deserving middle-tier Hall of Famers.

Yes.

Schilling is such an obvious HOF Pitcher that no one even had to mention his strongest argument, RA vs. ERA.

Ray - how do you figure Smoltz over Mussina? Smoltz had four seasons as a relief pitcher and still doesn't meaningfully beat Mussina on rate stats (125 v 123 ERA+). Between the two of them, Mussina had four of the five best seasons (92, 94, 95, 01, plus Smoltz' 96).

EDIT: Also, nitpicking, since I'm basically in agreement with the whole list, I'd put Kevin Brown in the top 10, ahead of Smoltz and Rivera.

Most of us posted them here, but since those ballots have already been tabulated, I'm not sure you'll want to add yours now.

Thanks. I posted mine there anyway.

Thinking about it more, I probably should have Walker in. Not sold on Edgar yet, but admittedly me supporting Palmeiro/McGriff/Sosa while leaving Walker/Edgar out might be problematic. I'm having trouble with Walker's durability issues and Edgar's DH'ing.

Ray - how do you figure Smoltz over Mussina? Smoltz had four seasons as a relief pitcher and still doesn't meaningfully beat Mussina on rate stats (125 v 123 ERA+). Between the two of them, Mussina had four of the five best seasons (92, 94, 95, 01, plus Smoltz' 96).

You've convinced me. I agree Mussina should be placed over Smoltz. It's not a huge difference, but I can see it.

EDIT: Also, nitpicking, since I'm basically in agreement with the whole list, I'd put Kevin Brown in the top 10, ahead of Smoltz and Rivera.

Er, yes, this was an oversight. I absolutely think Brown is qualified. I've edited my list to include him.

By the way, I wouldn't quite include Tim Hudson in the above list of pitchers because his career started later, but he's making a run.

How do people see the Hudson/Halladay/Lee/etc class? (I say this even though I think Lee still has a lot of work to do.)

You've convinced me. I agree Mussina should be placed over Smoltz. It's not a huge difference, but I can see it.

Testing. Testing. Testing.

Is the internet still working? Can anyone see this?





(I kid, I kid!)

2. Maddux
3. Johnson

I've been looking at this one recently for the next Hall of Merit election (I like following along and, if I can get my act together, actually work on a system) and I'm curious to hear the reasoning (not because I disagree, but purely because of curiosity). Is it Maddux's fielding ability which is the tiebreaker? Longevity of career? (as an aside, Maddux has a higher FIP than Johnson but also a higher fWAR...anyone know why that is? Is that, again, the fielding difference? I can't seem to find where the disparity is in their Fangraphs pages).

How do people see the Hudson/Halladay/Lee/etc class?

Halladay - yes
Santana - needs work
Oswalt - needs work and is probably done.
Hudson - don't see it
Lee - no chance

edit: forgot Sabathia. He's probably 2nd, but shouldn't be in yet.

How do people see the Hudson/Halladay/Lee/etc class? (I say this even though I think Lee still has a lot of work to do

This is a bit off the top of my head, so I'm surely missing things, but I see it as basically.

1. Halladay
-Hall of Fame in/out line-
<gap>
2. Sabathia
3. Santana
4. Hudson

Guys like Lee, Verlander, and Lincecum are too far from having HoF career bulk to be legitimate candidates. Putting Santana and Hudson on the list at all (if we're talking HoF) is debatable. Santana's got all the peak a Hall of Famer needs, but he might be Dave Stieb. Hudson has some good seasons, but he needs a serious career value argument to get in, and he's not young. Mark Buehrle has a shot at being Tommy John. Roy Oswalt is a classic HoVG pitcher. CC Sabathia is the only guy from this generation clearly on a good Hall of Fame track.

Haren and Webb actually had good starts, but have faded.

Haren and Webb actually had good starts, but have faded.

Brandon Webb? Faded is quite the understatement.

(as an aside, Maddux has a higher FIP than Johnson but also a higher fWAR...anyone know why that is? Is that, again, the fielding difference? I can't seem to find where the disparity is in their Fangraphs pages)

It's IP, right? Maddux threw 900 more innings than Johnson.

For me, (1) Maddux's 94-95 peak, when adjusted for season length, stands up to Johnson's peak just fine, and (2) I don't like using FIP for pitcher value when we know that over 3000+ inning samples, the signal overwhelms the noise on hit prevention and situational pitching. You have to give him credit for his full run prevention value, but Fangraphs nicks 11 wins from his tally despite the fact that those runs didn't actually score.

It's IP, right? Maddux threw 900 more innings than Johnson.

That's probably it.

(2) I don't like using FIP for pitcher value when we know that over 3000+ inning samples, the signal overwhelms the noise on hit prevention and situational pitching. You have to give him credit for his full run prevention value, but Fangraphs nicks 11 wins from his tally despite the fact that those runs didn't actually score.

I'm not a huge fan of fWAR for pitchers either, I just happened to be looking at Fangraphs at the time and noticed that, haha. The disparity between the two of them isn't massive whichever system you use: BRef WAR has Johnson slightly behind with 98.6 to 99.4 and Fangraphs WAR has the same overall result (Maddux over Johnson), 120.6 to 114.7 (if you use the run-based RA-9 Wins calculation of theirs, the gap is even more extensive, 131.2 to 110.4). I'm more interested in hearing the general reasons for Maddux over Johnson (which is where I stand on the issue, but I wanted to hear other opinions).

EDIT: I mean WAR as just a starting-point for the discussion, of course. When I first looked into the issue, I noticed how close the WARs were and was intrigued at the magnitude of the difference (putting my peaky tendencies to the side temporarily, of course). Thus the start of inquiries!

Guys like Lee, Verlander, and Lincecum are too far from having HoF career bulk to be legitimate candidates. Putting Santana and Hudson on the list at all (if we're talking HoF) is debatable. Santana's got all the peak a Hall of Famer needs, but he might be Dave Stieb. Hudson has some good seasons, but he needs a serious career value argument to get in, and he's not young. Mark Buehrle has a shot at being Tommy John. Roy Oswalt is a classic HoVG pitcher. CC Sabathia is the only guy from this generation clearly on a good Hall of Fame track.

I think Mark Buehrle has a shot at being Don Sutton. 300 wins is a long shot for him (he'd need to average 14 wins through age 42), and he has no chance at Sutton's innings, but 280 wins, 4,000 IP, 115 ERA+ is possible, and that would be close to a modern version of Don Sutton. They also share the same (lack of) peak. Sutton's top 5 WAR - 6.3, 6.0, 5.2, 4.2, 4.2. Buehrle - 5.9, 5.7, 5.2, 4.7, 4.5.

280 wins, 4,000 IP, 115 ERA+ is possible, and that would be close to a modern version of Don Sutton

Tommy John won 288 games, threw 4700 innings, and put up a career 111 ERA+. I stand by my comparison. Buehrle may have a little more peak than John, but Sutton's best seasons are pretty clearly better than his, too.

Schilling should be in. If someone with his regular resume can't get over the top with his playoff record (2.23 ERA in 133 1/3 IP, 2 or fewer runs allowed in 16 of 19 playoff starts, 2nd all time in pitcher WPA behind Mo), then practically nobody can. The Morris argument is Schilling's actual argument, not Morris's.

I've long thought Schilling's strongest selling point was his 3,116 strikeouts, in barely more IP. Yet I seldom see it mentioned. I wonder if it's because it doesn't really help his case (see Blyleven and his 14-ballot escapade), or if it's more a matter of voter ignorance.

I've got the following rough ordering of this past generation's pitchers:

1. Clemens
2. Maddux
3. Johnson
4. Pedro
5. Glavine
6. Schilling
7. Brown
8. Smoltz
9. Mussina
10. Rivera

No, I still don't care about the postseason with respect to the HOF.

I your order Ray with Rivera after Pedro.

I think Verlander is a lock as soonn as he reaches 10 years.

Cliff Lee is a tough one, but I wouldn't put it past him if he has 3 or 4 more years in him like 2011 (objectively, ANY of Kershaw, Halladay or Lee could have won that Cy Young).

Lincecum looks a lot like Johan Santana too me (great peak, no bulk).

And Sabathia is probably in already (and if he is not in, he is a good 2013 away).

And Sabathia is probably in already (and if he is not in, he is a good 2013 away).

He's further away than that.

2564 IP, 125 ERA+ - CC Sabathia
-----------------------------
2563 IP, 126 ERA+ - Bret Saberhagen
2895 IP, 122 ERA+ - Dave Stieb
2899 IP, 121 ERA+ - David Cone
2592 IP, 122 ERA+ - Jimmy Key

Sabathia's very young to have compiled the career he has, so I think he's on a very nice HoF trajectory. He he won't be "in" for a couple more years barring an unexpected new peak.

34, this is all very subjective, but I think that Sabathia is seen as a level-1 Ace in a way that perhaps Stieb or Key aren't.

I don't see any point in considering the relative rankings of pitchers until they are done. Consider:

Jamie Moyer. In 1991, 0-5 with a 5.74 ERA. In 1992, did not pitch in the majors, and at 29 was no sort of prospect. He had 20 years left after that.

Kelvim Escobar, 2007. Age 31, won 18, ERA+ of 133, K-W of 160-66. He had one game left in him.

Tim Hudson is 37 and has a year left on his contract. He could get bashed around, win 5 in 2013, and hang them up with 202 wins. Or he might stay effective into his early 40's and win near 275. Or in terms of WAR (51 now), He could end up anywhere from 51 to 70.

Sabathia needs three more good years to get him up to the 3100-innings level which is what he needs with a 125 ERA+.

EDIT: I mean, really, his peak isn't all that impressive on rate. It's fairly impressive for bulk (IP) at a high level, given the era. But while his peak fits _ok_ into a HOF career, he needs the career bulk to round out his case. And even at 3100 innings, looking at him again, I'm not all that impressed. He might need 3500 or 3800. He's missing the scintillating seasons that the others have, although I guess Smoltz as a starter is a fair comp. I'll have to look again when I have more time. Frankly, I'm surprised because I thought he was a lot closer than he appears.

Tommy John won 288 games, threw 4700 innings, and put up a career 111 ERA+. I stand by my comparison.

Different era. Not that they are that far off. 4700 innings today would be more impressive than when John did it. John is 20th all time in IP, but he is merely 8th in his era. The last pitcher to top 4000 innings is Jamie Moyer (4074). If Buehrle passes him, it's likely the only contemporary pitchers with more than him would be Maddux, Clemens, Glavine, and Johnson.

You guys love Schilling because he Broke the Curse (tm) against the dreaded Evil Empire. He had a good run, but was he that much better than Brown, Cone, Wells, Hershiser, et al?

The guy had a rep for getting hurt, and was perceived as a solid #2 pitcher on a staff, even during his 9 consecutive year peak.

Only 4 years getting Cy Young votes, never won a Cy even though he switched leagues, so let's not rewrite history and make him a universally recognized ace or mention him in the same breath as Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, or Pedro.

216 wins, big deal.

His raw stats are similar to:


Kevin Brown (920)
Bob Welch (900)
Orel Hershiser (889)
Freddie Fitzsimmons (883)
Milt Pappas (880)
John Smoltz (876)
Don Drysdale (875) *
Dazzy Vance (873) *
Jim Perry (871)
Pedro Martinez (870)

20 year career, 11 seasons with over 3 WAR (8 over 5 WAR)
9/20 years 200+ innings.
14/20 ERA+ 100 or better.

Solid career. Hall of Fame worthy? I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

Comparing him to Brown, Moose, or Smoltzy is fine, but compare him to pitchers who are in the HOF. He has a 46 in HOF Standards.

His whole argument is based on his post-season, which flies in the face of your arguments that the post-season is a small sample, or at worse that they should not be considered for induction.

You guys love Schilling because he Broke the Curse (tm) against the dreaded Evil Empire. He had a good run, but was he that much better than Brown, Cone, Wells, Hershiser, et al?

That's why I love him. That's not the reason most of him consider him a worthy Hall of Famer.

He's better than Brown, particularly when you look at RA instead of ERA (though Kev's also a deserving Hall of Famer), and considerably better than those other guys you mention.

His whole argument is based on his post-season, which flies in the face of your arguments that the post-season is a small sample, or at worse that they should not be considered for induction.

There's only a few guys who argue that, and they're wrong. The postseason is only a small sample if looked at in isolation. It should be considered part of a pitcher's record. It doesn't make any sense to ignore a significant portion of a pitcher's record, particularly one that has some innings heft to it.

Some solid lower and middle tier Hall of Famers, best seasons by WAR in order:

7.4, 6.7, 5.7, 5.5, 5.0, 5.0, 4.3, 4.3, 3.9, 2.9, 2.7, 2.6 - Don Drysdale (career 57.4)
8.1, 7.0, 6.2, 6.2, 6.0, 5.9, 4.9, 4.5, 3.9, 3.8 - Jim Palmer (career 63.2)
9.6, 7.3, 7.0, 6.8, 6.0, 5.5, 5.2, 4.7, 3.8, 3.5, 3.3, 3.2, 3.1, 2.8, 2.7 - Fergie Jenkins (career 77.4)
8.5, 8.3, 7.5, 6.0, 5.9, 5.8, 5.7, 5.2, 4.7, 4.7, 3.8, 2.5 - Curt Schilling (career 76.9)

Schilling's easily a HoFer.

There are two adjustments that must be made to properly compare 21st century guys to 20th century guys: (1) accounting properly for the enormous advances in nutrition, sports medicine, and the fundamental fact that certain injuries that used to be career changers, if not career-enders, no longer are; and (2) the ability to put up outlierish seasons engendered by TTO baseball (and roided-up baseball, though that isn't necessary to the point).

The best proxy for (1) is to focus very closely and overweight the ages at which an athlete in any era is at his physical peak -- roughly ages 23-32 or 33. Accounting for (2) is both art and science.

Curt Schilling got CYA votes in one season before the age of 34. That bears repeating: Curt Schilling got CYA votes in one season before the age of 34. His best run of years were at and after the age of 34. He's a textbook example of a guy who was uniquely a product of the secular changes I've outlined -- changes that the adjustments that make up ERA+ do not adequately address.

Curt Schilling got CYA votes in one season before the age of 34. That bears repeating: Curt Schilling got CYA votes in one season before the age of 34. His best run of years were at and after the age of 34. He's a textbook example of a guy who was uniquely a product of the secular changes I've outlined -- changes that the adjustments that make up ERA+ do not adequately address.

So where is all of this headed? You support Morris but not Schilling?

But he would rank 21st in WAR—ahead of Jim Palmer, Bob Feller, Juan Marichal and Whitey Ford, among others.

And at least 3 of those 4 seem wrong to me. Of course if Feller doesn't miss nearly 4 full seasons for the war then he might have added 25-30 WAR.

Is Palmer's WAR negatively affected by his low K rate? From ages 23-32, Palmer had 2770 IP with a 139 ERA+. That looks better than Schilling's career right there -- 500 IP of 86 ERA+ would make them even. Outside of that, Palmer adds about 1000 innings of 110 ERA+ and some partial, mostly bad seasons.

In retrospect, Marichal is a fair comp, I'm probably overly influenced by his reputation. But Marichal is pretty much a pure peak candidate (7 seasons, 2020 IP, 146 ERA+, 154 wins).

Comparing starters across eras is hard because of changing usage patterns. And I admit that growing up on 70s baseball spoiled me and I got used to 4000 IP, 300 wins, 3000 Ks. But even if you look from 1980 on, Schilling's IP total is only 11th. He really looks more like one of Morris's contemporaries than Maddux's. A lot of that is trivial of course -- it's only 300 IP between 11th and 6th. But then it's also less IP than Morris, Martinez and Tanana; less than Rogers and Wells; barely more than Wakefield, Finley and even Livan. It's only 300 IP between 11th and 22nd too.

Schilling is Cone plus 300 IP or Stieb plus 500 IP. For those happy to put Stieb in and strongly considering Cone, he's a no-brainer. But to me we've just had an era with 4 great pitchers, 1 damn good one who stands out from the others (Glavine) and 4 damn good ones. I don't see any of those 4 damn good ones as slam dunks any more than Perry, Jenkins, Marichal or Drysdale were seen as slam dunks.

Anyway, I'm conflicted and have Schilling at the bottom of my mythical ballot although he might well have to fall off next year.

In a similar vein ...

Curt Schilling is not an immortal. He’s not Cy Young, Walter Johnson, Steve Carlton or Tom Seaver. But that’s not the established standard in Cooperstown

True but, until Morris slips in, that is pretty close to the current standard. Morris and Hunter are hard to figure but Blyleven was the first starter inducted since Ryan and he too forever. You have to go back to Hunter in 76 to find an elected starter with fewer than 250 wins. You have to go back to Palmer in 1990 to find one with fewer than 3000 Ks and Ks were a lot harder to come by in those days. Skipping Hunter, the three "short" career guys inducted just before the massive wave were Gibson, Drysdale and Marichal who were each pretty dominant in their way. Immediately before that, you get a parade of the best of a mostly uninspiring era of pitchers (and true greats like Koufax and Spahn).

So, yeah, Schilling certainly fits in or was better than Gomez, Ford, Lemon, Drysdale but that's the HoF starter standard of 35+ years ago. Fairly or unfairly, that standard got a lot higher. The 80s pitchers (except unexpectedly Morris) got wiped out by that new standard. And it seemed like that standard was going to have to change because nobody was going to reach those levels again ... but then Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, Glavine and Pedro came along and threw 4000 IP, won 300 games, K'd 3000 guys, had amazing peaks and won tons of CYAs. (I know, not all of them did all of those.)

Finally I guess another reason Schilling doesn't feel like an HoFer to me is his lack of consistency from year-to-year. He was awesome in 92, then mediocre in 93, then hurt some from 94 to 96, excellent in 97 and 98 but then hurt some in 99. Awesome from 00-02, hurt a bit in 03, awesome again in 04, hurt in 05. Don't get me wrong, the 97-07 run is outstanding and averaging 200 IP a year so, by the standards of the day, you can't ask for more really.

Anyway, my problem not yours. And while I think JAWS/WAR are quite over-rating Schilling and others (Saberhagen, Stieb and Cone all well ahead of Sutton on JAWS? Really?), Schilling must sit pretty comfortably in the top 50 starters of all-time and one of the 10 best to start his career in the last 40 years so I'm fine with him going in (as long as he's joined by Mussina and Smoltz, poor Brown).

And before I forget, I'll admit I keep forgetting about UER. It would be nice if the main stat page did an RA+ as well. Palmer and Schilling are a lot closer if you adjust for RA. Palmer still wins in my opinion.

You guys love Schilling because he Broke the Curse (tm) against the dreaded Evil Empire. He had a good run, but was he that much better than Brown, Cone, Wells, Hershiser, et al?

My rooting interests are opposite to that. During the bloody sock game I was screaming at the TV for the Yankees to test Schilling with some bunts. But I'm just objective enough to say that yes indeed, Curt was better than that group. Brown is closest, but when you consider earned vs unearned runs and the bias that gives groundballer Brown in ERA+, Schilling is comfortably ahead of him too. Especially with the postseason.

So where is all of this headed?

Hopefully to a better way of evaluating the guys from the early 70s to around 1994, because I don't think OPS+ and ERA+, awesome as they are, are perfect. That way has to revolve around overweighting how good a player was, as opposed to the "value" he accumulated.

I remain anti-anti-Morris, though these observations are plainly aimed at the 70s/80s/early 90s guys who are getting screwed.

And at least 3 of those 4 seem wrong to me. Of course if Feller doesn't miss nearly 4 full seasons for the war then he might have added 25-30 WAR.

For Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams, I agree with that kind of analysis. With Feller, I'm skeptical. He was worked extremely hard from ages 17-22. The military gave his arm some rest, and he came back to blow away his already dominant strikeout rate, with 348 whiffs in his first full season back. After that year, his strikeout rate very steadily faded.

My guess is that WW2 just pushed his career back a bit. He had a given amount of pitches in his arm, and the war just delayed the point where he ran out of bullets.

Is Palmer's WAR negatively affected by his low K rate?

It's the defense adjustment. Palmer played his career in front of perhaps the greatest fielders ever. WAR's adjustment for this is rough, but I think with Palmer it's fair.

Schilling is Cone plus 300 IP or Stieb plus 500 IP.

No, he's a lot better than that. Schilling by ERA+ is not far from that, but he's the single best pitcher in history at preventing unearned runs. If you adjust Schilling's ER/UER rate to that of Stieb and Cone (roughly .1 UER for every ER), keeping his total runs allowed constant, these are their career numbers:

2895 IP, 122 ERA+ - Stieb
2892 IP, 121 ERA+ - Cone
3261 IP, 134 ERA+ - Schilling

He's at an entirely 'nother level.

The best proxy for (1) is to focus very closely and overweight the ages at which an athlete in any era is at his physical peak -- roughly ages 23-32 or 33

Glad to see you're coming around on Dave Steib.

Ages 23-32:

Steib - 146-100 2294 IP 129 ERA+ 6 ASG, 4 years with CYA votes
Morris -161-104 2342 IP 115 ERA+ 4 ASG 5 years with CYA votes

I would have loved to see Tim Hudson in the HOF but 2 things killed his chances.

#1 obviously was the arm injury in 2008 and the hip injuries that he had toward the end of his tenure with the A's

#2 It was mentioned in the book "Aces" by Mychal Urban that Hudson lost at least 3-6 wins a season because of bad luck with blown leads from his bullpen. It started in 2002 with the famous 200th win of the 20 game win streak and was most noticeable during the Rhodes/Foulke/Dotel closer era.