Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, January 05, 2014

Phil Rogers talks HOF voting on MLB Network’s Hot Stove

“What do you think of this collecting Gizmo?”

Repoz Posted: January 05, 2014 at 10:26 AM | 82 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hof, site news

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: January 05, 2014 at 11:19 AM (#4630419)
I really underestimated the writers this year in their willingness to max out their ballots.

FTFV: He would have included Walker, Mussina, Kent if he had room.

ETA: Also, when does Repoz get hired away by ESPN?
   2. Wahoo Sam Posted: January 05, 2014 at 11:42 AM (#4630428)
Don't really understand the support for Schilling. At the age of 30 he had a 52-52 record with a pretty crappy ERA. It wasn't like he hadn't been given a chance (like Spahn, for example). Schilling had just been pretty mediocre. Then he pitches really well for 10 years, but within those ten years he had 3-4 years where he was hurt or inconsistent. Sure, he was 11-2 with a 2.23 ERA in 130 or so PS innings, but I thought that didn't matter that much? I'll take Jack Morris, who was consistent for 13-14 years, didn't miss starts, and also won big games in the PS. Morris also averaged more than 7 IP per start, while Schilling did his thing in about 6 per.
   3. Steve N Posted: January 05, 2014 at 11:47 AM (#4630429)
I don't see what Schilling's record through age 30 has to do with it. He was outstanding for many years. As you said he had 10 really good years. Sounds like enough to me.
   4. BDC Posted: January 05, 2014 at 12:07 PM (#4630437)
Morris also averaged more than 7 IP per start, while Schilling did his thing in about 6 per

They both averaged exactly 7.1 innings per start. Schilling pitched far more in relief, so if you just do IP/GS for their careers, his average is lower; but that's not relevant. If anything, Schilling's mark is slightly more impressive for being identical, because of context: during Morris's career, league average in starts was 6.2 innings, and during Schilling's, 6.0. Schilling led the league 4 times in CG, Morris one; Schilling was the last guy to complete 15 starts in a season, etc. It's not a great advantage: Morris was a very durable pitcher who went long in his starts, for sure.
   5. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: January 05, 2014 at 12:18 PM (#4630446)
Jack Morris -- 254-186, 105 ERA+, 3824 IP
Jamie Moyer -- 269-209, 103 ERA+, 4074 IP

Why Jack Morris and not Jamie Moyer?
   6. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: January 05, 2014 at 12:36 PM (#4630457)
Morris also averaged more than 7 IP per start, while Schilling did his thing in about 6 per

They both averaged exactly 7.1 innings per start.


Hilarious.
   7. The District Attorney Posted: January 05, 2014 at 12:47 PM (#4630466)
Why Jack Morris and not Jamie Moyer?
He'll say postseason. For that reason, Hershiser is a better example.
   8. Lassus Posted: January 05, 2014 at 12:48 PM (#4630470)
Why Jack Morris and not Jamie Moyer?

I know it's an invalid argument, but Rogers specifically references the postseason in his Morris vote.

Milk and Pepsi to the DA.
   9. Wahoo Sam Posted: January 05, 2014 at 12:58 PM (#4630480)
Look at Schilling's record, line by line. My point about his career through age 30 is that he STRUGGLED for a decade. He had two decent seasons, but besides that a bunch of years where he lost his job in the rotation or was hurt. Doesn't his first 10 years matter as much as his last 10? And even in his final 10 years he had four seasons in which he made 24 starts or less, and five times his ERA was over 3.50. I am fully aware that W/L record is not a basis for a HOF argument, pro or con, but don't you think that if a starting pitcher is 52-52 through the age of 30, and has consistently been hurt and/or lost his starting job, that is an indication that Schilling was not that effective? I mean, showing up counts. Actually playing the game counts. Otherwise, we could just induct any player who does a pretty good job for half a season for a decade.

I think Schilling's career line would be one of the most curious of any HOF pitcher: 4.48 ERA at age 27 (over 4.00 at age 26). It seems his greatest value came from 2001-2004, when he "became" Curt Schilling, with the towel and the cheesy sound bites. I don't care about his off-the field stuff, but his actual stats are good, but not great, and there are so many seasons that are HOLES. I just think I would rather have a guy who was consistently making 32-38 starts per year.
   10. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: January 05, 2014 at 01:15 PM (#4630495)
Curt Schilling through age 29 - 113 ERA+, 998 IP, 17.0 WAR

Jack Morris through age 29 - 110 ERA+, 1597 IP, 20.7 WAR

Obviously Jack had then (and finished with) a substantial advantage in innings pitched but Schilling was just as good on a rate basis through age 29 and not that dissimilar in an overall value basis if you accept WAR (I'm not sure I do but it's a good starting point).

I'm not sure why Schilling gets dinked for having seasons that are "HOLES" but Morris doesn't. Schilling participated in 20 MLB seasons and was below 2.0 WAR in 6 of them. Morris, in 18 seasons, was below 2.0 WAR in 8 of them, nearly half. If you make the cutoff 1.0 WAR it's 4 seasons for Schilling, 6 for Morris. And Schilling had 7 seasons better than Morris' best (all based on WAR).

Now in fairness WAR is not the be all end all. Let's use ERA+, Morris had 6 qualifying seasons over 120, Schilling had 11. Raw stats? Schilling's ERA 0.44 better than Morris' despite playing in a considerably tougher era for pitchers to put up raw stats.

Post season? Schilling had 133 innings and a 2.23 ERA and 3 rings. Morris had 92 innings and a 3.80 ERA to go with his 3 rings.

I think you have to put a hell of a lot of weight on reliability (and Schilling had 9 200 inning seasons of his own) and virtually none on peak to make a case for Morris over Schilling.
   11. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 05, 2014 at 01:40 PM (#4630508)
ETA: Also, when does Repoz get hired away by ESPN?


They could combine Repoz' data collection with Silver's data analysis to give us live projections on the HoF elections!
   12. The Piehole of David Wells Posted: January 05, 2014 at 01:50 PM (#4630514)
I am fully aware that W/L record is not a basis for a HOF argument, pro or con, but don't you think that if a starting pitcher is 52-52 through the age of 30, and has consistently been hurt and/or lost his starting job, that is an indication that Schilling was not that effective?


To translate troll-ese into English: "I'm aware that W/L record is not a basis for HOF, but still, W/L record demonstrates that Schilling was not an HOF quality pitcher. I have learned nothing about baseball in all my years watching and reading about baseball. I also ignore the fact that Schilling was a reliever for his first 3 years and not a full-time starter until age 25."

If only there was a way to tell if pitchers were effective beyond W/L records. Alas, the science of baseball is still incapable of measuring the black arts of pitching.
   13. bobm Posted: January 05, 2014 at 02:20 PM (#4630541)
Spanning Multiple Seasons or entire Careers, From 1901 to 2013, From Age 31 to 99, sorted by greatest WAR for Pitchers

Player ages are computed as their age on June 30th

                                                                                 
Rk                Player  WAR   Age   G  GS  CG   W   L W-L%  SV     IP   SO ERA+
1          Randy Johnson 84.2 31-45 430 417  65 222 104 .681   1 2890.0 3545  147
2            Phil Niekro 82.7 31-48 662 626 199 264 234 .530   9 4516.0 2806  113
3          Roger Clemens 73.7 31-44 407 406  27 191  98 .661   0 2694.0 2639  140
4               Cy Young 72.5 34-44 401 369 331 225 146 .606   9 3312.1 1563  137
5            Lefty Grove 71.6 31-41 344 278 194 185  84 .688  22 2395.1 1220  150
6          Gaylord Perry 66.5 31-44 488 485 215 219 181 .548   1 3664.1 2300  117
7            Dazzy Vance 63.1 31-44 431 345 215 197 136 .592  11 2933.2 2027  126
8           Warren Spahn 59.5 31-44 528 464 259 255 173 .596  23 3649.2 1766  116
9         Curt Schilling 57.4 31-40 302 280  49 147  83 .639   9 2018.1 1997  133
10        Pete Alexander 56.1 31-43 367 323 218 183 120 .604  17 2698.0  795  130
11             Red Faber 55.3 31-44 467 349 196 172 158 .521  17 2909.1  959  119
12            Bob Gibson 50.1 31-39 272 264 155 139  93 .599   2 2155.2 1682  129
13           Eddie Plank 48.8 31-41 400 316 225 197 115 .631  23 2683.1 1354  125
14            Jack Quinn 47.6 31-49 586 325 168 177 167 .515  53 2889.2  896  116
15           Greg Maddux 47.2 31-42 408 408  34 190 123 .607   0 2642.2 1728  126
16            Nolan Ryan 47.0 31-46 476 476  84 183 160 .534   0 3152.0 3288  111
17           Kevin Brown 46.6 31-40 273 264  29 123  71 .634   0 1805.1 1538  144
18          Hoyt Wilhelm 43.7 31-49 931  52  20 121 111 .522 201 1950.0 1431  146
19           David Wells 43.4 31-44 391 390  52 181 111 .620   0 2564.2 1613  108
20           Jamie Moyer 43.3 31-49 530 502  23 223 146 .604   0 3222.0 1916  106
21        Walter Johnson 43.2 31-39 297 256 170 140 102 .579  14 2114.0 1042  125
22           Tom Glavine 42.1 31-42 384 384  22 166 111 .599   0 2457.0 1395  119
23         Steve Carlton 41.9 31-43 394 380 109 181 125 .592   1 2766.1 2220  114
24          Mike Mussina 40.8 31-39 283 282  18 134  87 .606   0 1790.2 1488  116
25            Tom Seaver 40.5 31-41 337 333  83 143 109 .567   0 2335.1 1541  115 [...]


121            Al Brazle 18.9 32-40 428 108  39  89  62 .589  60 1288.2  528  117
122            Ted Lilly 18.9 31-37 171 171   1  71  55 .563   0 1046.2  882  114
123      Chris Carpenter 18.8 31-37 137 136  13  59  34 .634   0  925.0  720  132
124       Orel Hershiser 18.8 31-41 279 275  10 106  86 .552   0 1673.1 1003  100
125      General Crowder 18.7 31-37 266 196 100 115  79 .593  12 1592.2  543  104
Rk                Player  WAR   Age   G  GS  CG   W   L W-L%  SV     IP   SO ERA+
126     Dennis Eckersley 18.7 31-43 728  34   1  52  54 .491 387  990.2  911  123
127          Wilbur Wood 18.4 31-36 193 185  71  81  80 .503   0 1318.0  650   99
128          Dizzy Trout 18.3 31-42 249 142  63  72  76 .486  21 1243.0  589  118
129          Mike Morgan 18.1 31-42 367 240  16  88  92 .489   6 1622.2  883  101
130          Jack Morris 18.0 31-39 282 282  80 131 100 .567   0 1969.1 1374   99


   14. Wahoo Sam Posted: January 05, 2014 at 02:24 PM (#4630546)
Jesus, why are the regulars on this site such a-holes? I may not be as WISE as you, The Pinhole of David Wells, but I am a baseball fan and been watching baseball for almost 40 years. I had a point and I tried to make it. I'm not a troll. I post here on a fairly frequent basis. I apologize if I didn't make my point as perfectly as you would.

In regards to his W/L record, I am aware he was a reliever for two seasons. He was also removed from the rotation 3 times in his 20s. Someone thought he wasn't that great as a starter. I think his W/L record merely shows how little he pitched during his 20s, because if he was a workhorse (like Morris or Stieb or others were just before him) he would have been on the hill for 200+ innings a lot in his 20s. Then his ERA+ means a lot more.

Did I argue my point to your satisfaction now? Or would you just like to criticize my intelligence?
   15. Wahoo Sam Posted: January 05, 2014 at 02:31 PM (#4630547)
I notice that I mistakenly wrote PINHOLE of David Wells instead of Piehole. My apologies. I will probably get slammed for that.

This message is for only about 2-5% of you on this site: BBTF has AMAZING stuff, I love the site and I like to share links to articles, especially those about the Hall of Fame (where I worked for quite some time). But, there exists a small legion of you who feel you and you alone possess the wisdom, the insight, and the acumen to discuss the game of baseball. Your choice to be smarmy about your baseball IQ turns some of us off. Pick on me all you want for being a fan who likes to view baseball in many different ways, call me a "troll", spam me, whatever. I'm not going anywhere, but it does make me think twice about sharing anything here, and I think that's too bad. This site could be 1000x bigger and more inclusive, but instead many of you seem to be content keeping it constrained to people who think and write the exact same as you do.
   16. Wahoo Sam Posted: January 05, 2014 at 02:38 PM (#4630549)
#13 - that's a great chart to share. I am not a WAR convert (there are some things that make me scratch my head about how it's figured), but it seems to work fairly well. I see the names at the top of that list that I expected, but Schilling is higher than I thought. Maybe I should be thinking of him like Niekro/Spahn, guys who peaked (or got their chance) much later. A HOF pitcher in his 30s for a decade is still a HOF-type pitcher. I didn't realize Morris was that average after the age of 30, I have to rethink his overall value.

In regards to another post above, I do tend to value durability and playing time (what I call "showing up"). Give me a pitcher who logs 240 innings at 110 ERA+ over a SP who goes 175 IP at 130+. I really believe the SP who helps the team rest the bullpen (or skip a turn as some teams did into the 1980s) has value. 5-6 innings starters may be able to log a better ERA+, but those extra 1-2 innings have some real value, IMO.

I realize this has morphed into a Morris v. Schilling debate, but I initially wanted to say I thought Schilling's line in his 20s was pretty mediocre, and it wasn't because he was not given a chance.
   17. Morty Causa Posted: January 05, 2014 at 02:42 PM (#4630553)
Periodically I find myself faced with an opportunity to state that the best way to appreciate baseball is to appreciate it like you did when you were a kid. I again take that opportunity. As much as I love stats and sabermetrics, that is not a kid's way of appreciating baseball, and I feel something is lost if you restrict yourself to only doing it by the numbers--and don't get me wrong: there are times when I prefer a pile of numbers to make sense of than watching an actual game, especially the game as it is exhibited now.
   18. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 05, 2014 at 02:44 PM (#4630554)
At the age of 30 he had a 52-52 record with a pretty crappy ERA.

Then he had that "conversation" with Roger Clemens, and got a lot better. By witch hunt standards, that's pretty significant, no? Would a guy that took Toradol before every start for a decade, and used a dead man's body parts for performance enhancing surgery, not pursue every path to greatness?
   19. Bruce Markusen Posted: January 05, 2014 at 02:50 PM (#4630561)
Well said, Wahoo Sam. The small number of militant and means-spirited posters has been trying to exert more and more of an influence here, and it has hurt the site.

On a separate issue, the quality and relevancy of selected articles has been eroding. Jeff Suppan and Aubrey Huff both retired within the past five days, but I couldn't find an article linking to either of those stories. Neither of them is a Hall of Famer, obviously, but both had significant careers. And earlier this year, Chuck Hinton died and there wasn't a linked article for days.

Instead we get articles about Bill James' house and soccer and NHL threads.

Don't get me wrong, I love BTF and it is often the first site I look to, but it used to be the FIRST site I went to, ALWAYS. That is no longer the case.
   20. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 05, 2014 at 02:51 PM (#4630562)
Don't really understand the support for Schilling. At the age of 30 he had a 52-52 record with a pretty crappy ERA.

Dazzy Vance through 30 was 0-4, 4.91. Hoyt Wilhelm made his debut at 29 (it was admittedly a very good debut). Randy Johnson through age 29 had a worse ERA+ than Schilling (108 to 113) in slightly less than 100 more innings, and had yet to have a year even close to Schilling's age-25 season (150 ERA+ in 226.1 innings, with a WHIP below 1).

There's plenty of precedent for pitchers putting it together late, and I don't see a compelling argument for giving weight to Schilling's early performance beyond simply saying "he didn't put together a huge amount of value before he turned 30."
   21. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: January 05, 2014 at 03:04 PM (#4630569)
On a separate issue, the quality and relevancy of selected articles has been eroding. Jeff Suppan and Aubrey Huff both retired within the past five days, but I couldn't find an article linking to either of those stories. Neither of them is a Hall of Famer, obviously, but both had significant careers. And earlier this year, Chuck Hinton died and there wasn't a linked article for days.

Instead we get articles about Bill James' house and soccer and NHL threads.


You've got the ability to post any article/topic for consideration and discussion you'd like, just like everyone else.

Be the change you want to see and all that jazz ...
   22. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 05, 2014 at 03:07 PM (#4630571)
This site could be 1000x bigger and more inclusive, but instead many of you seem to be content keeping it constrained to people who think and write the exact same as you do.

I'd agree that BBTF is not especially welcoming, at least among sites that purport to aspire to something beyond mass appeal at any price. Lots of responses tilt toward hostility rather than education when disagreeing with others. Maybe that's due to many carrying grudges over from thread to thread. In any event, it does seem like the new blood is limited to folks changing their handle.

And if BBTF was even trying to be user-friendly, wouldn't it be a good idea to attach some explanatory info on using the various posting buttons? Sure a lot of people these days know such things before arriving here, but it doesn't seem to be universal based on the comments when the issue comes up, especially in regard to linking to articles.

   23. puck Posted: January 05, 2014 at 03:28 PM (#4630590)
Periodically I find myself faced with an opportunity to state that the best way to appreciate baseball is to appreciate it like you did when you were a kid. I again take that opportunity. As much as I love stats and sabermetrics, that is not a kid's way of appreciating baseball, and I feel something is lost if you restrict yourself to only doing it by the numbers--and don't get me wrong: there are times when I prefer a pile of numbers to make sense of than watching an actual game, especially the game as it is exhibited now.


Good point, but what does this say about a Morris vs Schilling debate? I was around for both players careers (as you and Wahoo Sam were), but not as a fan of their team, so I saw some but certainly nowhere near a majority of their starts. I'd have to say I enjoyed watching Schilling's starts more. He was a strike-throwing machine.
   24. LargeBill Posted: January 05, 2014 at 03:30 PM (#4630594)
16. Wahoo Sam Posted: January 05, 2014 at 01:38 PM (#4630549)

I realize this has morphed into a Morris v. Schilling debate, but I initially wanted to say I thought Schilling's line in his 20s was pretty mediocre, and it wasn't because he was not given a chance.


I think you'll find near universal agreement on that and if Schilling retired at 30 (or 32, etc) no one would be arguing his case for the Hall of Fame. However, he played until 40 and was extremely good at it the second half of his career. He ended up with the second best ratio of strike outs to walks in baseball history. Those are basically the two things a pitcher controls without any reliance on a great shortstop, diving catches in the outfield or an offense that scores a lot of runs to improve his w/l record. I have him as clearly a HOF'r, but can see where a voter who over values wins or other counting stats like innings could have trouble including him on this years ballot. And that is how he is slightly penalized for taking several years to figure out how to be great. Thing is, while Schilling maybe be borderline, Morris is no where near Schilling in quality and only has a little more quantity (3,824 to 3,261 innings). Neither one has the milestone numbers to merit election as a compiler (though Schilling does have the 3,000 K's which doesn't impress the voters like 300 wins). If you don't have the quantity you better have great quality and only one of those two does.
   25. morineko Posted: January 05, 2014 at 03:30 PM (#4630596)
I don't know if it's so much "new user hostility" than "just plain wrong"--Schilling never lost a spot in an MLB rotation for performance reasons, unless you count the crappy first start he had in 1989. As a September call-up. (He got demoted to AAA in 1991 due to what looks like a control problem/failure to perform as closer, but that's not what was implied by the comment.) In 1992, he was moved into the rotation on May 19th and didn't make a relief appearance for the rest of the season. His only relief appearances after that were one in 2002 on the last day of the season and 21 in 2005 when he was coming back from injury and serving as the Red Sox closer. His AAA stints in 1994, 1996, 2000, 2003, and 2007 were rehab assignments.

Baseball Reference and Retrosheet have these nice, useful game log functions; it's a shame people don't seem to use them.
   26. puck Posted: January 05, 2014 at 03:32 PM (#4630599)
Don't get me wrong, I love BTF and it is often the first site I look to, but it used to be the FIRST site I went to, ALWAYS. That is no longer the case.

Where do you go? Team-specific sites? It's hard to find a general baseball site without a substantial noise issue.

The threads that tend to get posted are the ones that generate a lot of discussion...so usually the goofy stuff. A lot of interesting articles get no comments. Maybe people read the articles, I dunno. But the lack of comments has led to me not submitting a lot of articles I come across.
   27. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 05, 2014 at 03:33 PM (#4630601)
ETA: Also, when does Repoz get hired away by ESPN?


I love Darren as much as anyone. We're friends outside of the BTF/SABR nerd crowd at this point. Nothing makes me happier than the Repoz Gizmo love. But if there were ever a man who should be Sonic Youth to Szymborski/KLaw/NSilver's Nirvana, it's Repoz. Hell, the raw percentage of Grantland's uber hipster readers who would get Darren's references has to approach zero. The number of ESPN'ers is dipping into the negative WAR...

I'd agree that BBTF is not especially welcoming, at least among sites that purport to aspire to something beyond mass appeal at any price.


Concur. Wahoo hasn't made any argument in this thread that deserves the derision he's gotten. There are, of course, a few topics where the dreaded "BTF Groupthink" takes over and knives come out without considering the argument at hand. "Jack Morris" is one of the biggies. It is sacrosanct, holy ground. Jack Morris is the devil. Anyone suggesting otherwise is evil and vile and probably joined Bill Conlin in his forays with after-school programs. Folks could use a breather on that every now and again.

Wahoo makes a really good point that is missed by the WAR counting Schillingnites. For the first half of his career, Curt Schilling was a mediocrity. He was all talent and no results. He was repeatedly pulled from the starting rotation because he simply wasn't producing. Arguing "you can't take off points for him being a reliever" ignores the point that he was a reliever so often *because he failed as a starter.* That knife cuts both ways.

You can make a strong case for Schilling on the second half of his career. I personally think it's a strong enough case to get him into the Hall's outer suburbs, but not quite into the inner ring of the true greats. He wasn't, you know, Tom Glavine or anything. But the argument that he was one of the greats ignores the decade he spent as a mediocre #3 starter who bounced back and forth between the rotation and the pen (until he had that "conversation" with Roger Clemens, of course.)

A lot of folks could bear some perspective on that.
   28. Publius Publicola Posted: January 05, 2014 at 03:34 PM (#4630602)
Sure, he was 11-2 with a 2.23 ERA in 130 or so PS innings, but I thought that didn't matter that much?


It matters more, IMO, since the post-season is what everybody is playing for.
   29. morineko Posted: January 05, 2014 at 03:38 PM (#4630607)
I think you'll find near universal agreement on that and if Schilling retired at 30 (or 32, etc) no one would be arguing his case for the Hall of Fame.


It didn't help that he spent 3.5 seasons in relief and then his age-27 and 28 seasons were the strike years, and that he was on the DL for extended periods twice before his age-30 season.

How many low-walk flyball pitchers are there who have been effective for extended periods? (question asked due to living through too many Griffin and Milone starts this season)
   30. BDC Posted: January 05, 2014 at 03:47 PM (#4630618)
Jack Morris is the devil. Anyone suggesting otherwise is evil

Chris Truby played for the Tigers for a while, right? Wasn't Morris a roving instructor for them around the same time? Where there's brimstone there's probably eternal fire.
   31. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 05, 2014 at 03:50 PM (#4630627)
Chris Truby played for the Tigers for a while, right?


Exactly. (More truthfully, Jack Morris gets support from the wrong type of voter, and in the great war between grouchy old sports writers and stat drunk computer nerds, the friend of my enemy is my enemy.)
   32. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 05, 2014 at 03:53 PM (#4630629)
For the first half of his career, Curt Schilling was a mediocrity. He was all talent and no results. He was repeatedly pulled from the starting rotation because he simply wasn't producing. Arguing "you can't take off points for him being a reliever" ignores the point that he was a reliever so often *because he failed as a starter.*


Except as #25 points out, there's no evidence that Schilling was "repeatedly pulled from the starting rotation". Schilling was never in a rotation until 1992, and in 1994 and 1995 the time that he missed was due to injury.

-- MWE
   33. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: January 05, 2014 at 03:57 PM (#4630634)
How many low-walk flyball pitchers are there who have been effective for extended periods? (question asked due to living through too many Griffin and Milone starts this season)
Here's a few possibilities:

Jered Weaver
Jarrod Washburn
Paul Byrd
Johan Santana
Woody Williams
Denny Neagle
Aaron Harang
Ismael Valdez
Javier Vazquez
Pedro Martinez
Jose Lima
Jeff Weaver
Justin Verlander
Jake Peavy
Cliff Lee
Bronson Arroyo
John Burkett

There seem to be lots more depending on your definition of "flyball pitcher" and "low walk rate"
   34. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 05, 2014 at 04:00 PM (#4630635)
But the argument that he was one of the greats ignores the decade he spent as a mediocre #3 starter who bounced back and forth between the rotation and the pen

Again, this applies to pitchers other than Schilling. Randy Johnson at age 23 pitched 140 innings and walked 128 batters... in AA. He pitched his first full season at 25 and put up an ERA+ of 82, walking 5.4 batters per 9. The two years after that, he managed to be slightly above average in ERA despite leading the league in walks both years, the second time by an enormous margin (152 to 105 over the second-place finisher). He didn't have a 110 ERA+ or higher until he was 29.

Does that keep him from being one of the greats, or make him worse than Tom Glavine?
   35. tshipman Posted: January 05, 2014 at 04:07 PM (#4630642)
Except as #25 points out, there's no evidence that Schilling was "repeatedly pulled from the starting rotation". Schilling was never in a rotation until 1992, and in 1994 and 1995 the time that he missed was due to injury.


Wouldn't any young pitcher who starts the season as a reliever be pulled from the starting rotation?

Schilling in 1990, for instance, had pitched the previous two years as a starter in the minors and made spot starts in the majors (performing poorly). It took until 1992 for him to crack the starting rotation. I'd have to assume that he was given a chance in spring training and failed to make the most of it.
   36. bobm Posted: January 05, 2014 at 04:08 PM (#4630643)
How many low-walk flyball pitchers are there who have been effective for extended periods? (question asked due to living through too many Griffin and Milone starts this season)

Wells and Mussina?


For cumulative seasons, From 1988 to 2013, Fly Balls (within Hit Trajectory), (requiring IP_from_outs?3000 for entire season(s)/career), sorted by greatest percentage of total Balls In Play in this split

                                                                
Rk            Player     Split From   To  BIP BIPtot    %  IPtot
1      Tim Wakefield Fly Balls 1992 2011 3934   9921 39.7 3226.1
2        Jamie Moyer Fly Balls 1988 2012 4162  12045 34.6 3785.2
3      Randy Johnson Fly Balls 1988 2009 3398   9962 34.1 4135.1
4        David Wells Fly Balls 1988 2007 3628  10809 33.6 3409.2
5     Curt Schilling Fly Balls 1988 2007 2992   8932 33.5 3261.0
6        John Smoltz Fly Balls 1988 2009 3240   9692 33.4 3473.0
7       Mike Mussina Fly Balls 1991 2008 3488  10467 33.3 3562.2
8    Livan Hernandez Fly Balls 1996 2012 3345  10159 32.9 3189.0

9       Chuck Finley Fly Balls 1988 2002 2706   8791 30.8 3060.1
10     Roger Clemens Fly Balls 1988 2007 3350  11207 29.9 4149.1
11       Tom Glavine Fly Balls 1988 2008 4079  13671 29.8 4363.0
12      Kenny Rogers Fly Balls 1989 2008 3070  10576 29.0 3302.2
13     Andy Pettitte Fly Balls 1995 2013 2716  10145 26.8 3316.0
14       Greg Maddux Fly Balls 1988 2008 3328  14679 22.7 4821.2
15       Kevin Brown Fly Balls 1988 2005 2002   9786 20.5 3251.1


Spanning Multiple Seasons or entire Careers, From 1988 to 2013, For players in the saved report : (From 1988 to 2013, Fly Balls (within Hit Trajectory), (requiring IP_from_outs?3000 for entire season(s)/career), sorted by greatest percentage of total Balls In Play in this split: Results), sorted by smallest Bases On Balls per 9 IP

                         
Rk            Player BB/9
1        Greg Maddux 1.71
2        David Wells 1.87
3     Curt Schilling 1.96
4       Mike Mussina 1.98

5        Jamie Moyer 2.42
6        Kevin Brown 2.49
7        John Smoltz 2.62
8      Andy Pettitte 2.80
9      Roger Clemens 2.96
10   Livan Hernandez 3.01
11       Tom Glavine 3.03
12      Kenny Rogers 3.20
13     Randy Johnson 3.26
14     Tim Wakefield 3.36
15      Chuck Finley 3.72


   37. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: January 05, 2014 at 04:11 PM (#4630646)
I really don't see why it would even matter at all if he struggled for the first half of his career. Why does it matter when he managed to put it all together?
   38. Publius Publicola Posted: January 05, 2014 at 04:11 PM (#4630647)
How many low-walk flyball pitchers are there who have been effective for extended periods? (question asked due to living through too many Griffin and Milone starts this season)


Palmer and Seaver were that type.

Wahoo, you caught some flack because you made an argument that was based on facts that were either untrue and easily checkable (the IP/start thing, Schilling's unusual career arc tilted towards his thirties, relative comparison of quality seasons Morris/Schilling), based on faulty logic (consideration of the quality of a pitcher's record should be weighted towards the front, post-season shouldn't matter much), naive about era adjustments (strike penalizing Schilling, ERA comparisons, Schilling pitching during steroids era, decreasing rate of complete games and innings pitched by starters) and seemingly biased (relative comparison of quality seasons Morris/Schilling, only focusing on areas where Morris apparently does well against Schilling, i.e skipping won/lost record, strikeouts, post-season record, walk rates, unearned run rates etc.)

Additionally, there has been a massive amount of discussion about both Morris and Schilling, covering everything practically down to shoesize, and the broad consensus is that Schilling had a considerably more successful career than Morris. Everybody has read it all, or at least a lot of it, and checked the numbers. There's really no legitimate argument for Morris. So you stepped on a landmine by coming in and posting an ill-conceived and naive argument for Morris. Sorry for the flack you got. Some of the replies you got could have been more cordial. OTOH, perhaps in the future it might be better for you to validate what you intend to write by doing a bit of research first. it's a public forum and you never know who might be reading. There's always somebody who's having a bad day so don't give them the opportunity to vent on you.
   39. asinwreck Posted: January 05, 2014 at 04:12 PM (#4630648)
But if there were ever a man who should be Sonic Youth to Szymborski/KLaw/NSilver's Nirvana, it's Repoz.

Meaning entity that signed to the same megacorporation as the more accessible contemporary? Or would Repoz be more Fish & Roses than Sonic Youth?
   40. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 05, 2014 at 04:16 PM (#4630651)
Except as #25 points out, there's no evidence that Schilling was "repeatedly pulled from the starting rotation". Schilling was never in a rotation until 1992, and in 1994 and 1995 the time that he missed was due to injury.


That doesn't mesh with my recollection, but I'll cop to the possibility that I'm misremembering injury issues as straight performance issues. The larger point stands. Much like John Smoltz, Curt Schilling was a ton of potential wrapped up in nothing but disappointment and underperformance for the first half of his career. Both players turned it around in the second half and I think both deserve to be in the outer rings of Cooperstown. But then again, I think Orel Hersheiser and Kevin Brown deserve those same honors, and I'm damned near convinced that Kevin Appier does too. Schilling is a HOF pitcher on the second half of his career. He particularly gets credit for "post season narrative" - which is ironic, considering the vitriol such an argument receives if made for a certain former Tiger/Twin starter. But he's not inner circle Hall material, and no amount of decontextualized WAR counting is ever going to change that fact.
   41. Publius Publicola Posted: January 05, 2014 at 04:16 PM (#4630652)
Why does it matter when he managed to put it all together?


It doesn't. Not really anyway. If Schilling had pitched the first half of his career they way he pitched the second, he'd have well over 300 wins and 4000 strikeouts and he'd be a no-brainer first balloter.
   42. Publius Publicola Posted: January 05, 2014 at 04:19 PM (#4630654)
That doesn't mesh with my recollection, but I'll cop to the possibility that I'm misremembering injury issues as straight performance issues.


It's true. Schilling became a horse once he stopped throwing his split so much, which had been his outpitch, and started throwing more four and two-seamers, which are easier on the arm and easier to control.

Much like John Smoltz, Curt Schilling was a ton of potential wrapped up in nothing but disappointment and underperformance for the first half of his career.

That's not quite true either. He was very good in his age 23, 25, 28 and 29 seasons. He was also a key to the Phillies pennant run when he was 26 and had an excellent post-season (redundant, I know). Two of those seasons he didn't log that many innings. His first monster year was when he was 30, and went 17-11 with 319 strikeouts. So his first decade was good, if not HoF caliber.
   43. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 05, 2014 at 04:28 PM (#4630659)
Schilling is a HOF pitcher on the second half of his career. He particularly gets credit for "post season narrative" - which is ironic, considering the vitriol such an argument receives if made for a certain former Tiger/Twin starter.


Schilling, like the guy you mentioned earlier in your post, was legitimately excellent over his entire postseason career. Morris had one great start, but was otherwise the same pitcher. That's the difference. Of course, I think you know this, but you're bored and decided to go into full let's make ridiculous assertion mode*, as you're wont to do.

* A theory supported by the other thead's How's Come Gary Carter and Not Dale Murphy howler.

   44. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 05, 2014 at 04:31 PM (#4630663)
* A theory supported by the other thead's How's Come Gary Carter and Not Dale Murphy howler.


Is that your counter assertion then?
   45. bobm Posted: January 05, 2014 at 04:32 PM (#4630664)
Spanning Multiple Seasons or entire Careers, From 1901 to 2013, For players in the saved report : (Spanning Multiple Seasons or entire Careers, From 1901 to 2013, (requiring WAR_pitch?40), sorted by greatest WAR for Pitchers: Results), Age 30 and Younger, sorted by smallest WAR for Pitchers

Seasons/Careers found: 135. 

                                                                
Rk            Player  WAR   Age   G  GS   W   L W-L%     IP ERA+
27     Randy Johnson 19.9 24-30 188 186  81  62 .566 1245.1  113
28     Eddie Cicotte 21.3 21-30 255 181  91  81 .529 1593.0  116
29    Mordecai Brown 21.6 26-30 152 130  88  47 .652 1172.2  158
30        Eppa Rixey 21.6 21-30 292 234 106 121 .467 1905.0  111
31       Kevin Brown 22.1 21-30 213 212  88  73 .547 1451.0  111
32          Jim Kaat 22.7 20-30 356 318 142 121 .540 2228.2  112
33      Herb Pennock 23.1 18-30 316 210 117  87 .574 1831.0  103
34    Curt Schilling 23.3 21-30 267 156  69  63 .523 1242.2  118
35     Jerry Koosman 23.4 24-30 201 181  79  68 .537 1330.2  122
36     Urban Shocker 24.2 25-30 167 122  78  46 .629 1105.1  127
37      Curt Simmons 24.7 18-30 321 261 115 110 .511 1935.2  108
38     Larry Jackson 25.7 24-30 294 174  85  75 .531 1420.0  113
39   Burleigh Grimes 25.8 22-30 298 249 139 108 .563 2193.2  107
40       Jack Morris 25.9 22-30 267 245 123  86 .589 1854.2  111
41         Jimmy Key 26.1 23-30 284 217 103  68 .602 1479.0  122
42       Whitey Ford 26.5 21-30 245 208 121  50 .708 1561.2  140
43        Luis Tiant 26.8 23-30 250 187  83  74 .529 1365.0  116
44        Ron Guidry 27.0 24-30 176 141  87  34 .719 1099.0  140
45     Gaylord Perry 27.1 23-30 289 205  95  84 .531 1685.2  117


Johnson and Schilling had almost identical IP through Age 30, but Schilling started earlier and pitched more in relief.
   46. The Piehole of David Wells Posted: January 05, 2014 at 06:38 PM (#4630787)
Wahoo, you caught some flack because you made an argument that was based on facts that were either untrue and easily checkable (the IP/start thing, Schilling's unusual career arc tilted towards his thirties, relative comparison of quality seasons Morris/Schilling), based on faulty logic (consideration of the quality of a pitcher's record should be weighted towards the front, post-season shouldn't matter much), naive about era adjustments (strike penalizing Schilling, ERA comparisons, Schilling pitching during steroids era, decreasing rate of complete games and innings pitched by starters) and seemingly biased (relative comparison of quality seasons Morris/Schilling, only focusing on areas where Morris apparently does well against Schilling, i.e skipping won/lost record, strikeouts, post-season record, walk rates, unearned run rates etc.)


Exactly what I wanted to say to Wahoo. I like this new Kevin. I wasn't exactly trying to be mean but I wasn't trying to be nice either. I'm sorry if it upset you but this is the "Baseball for the thinking fan".... My main beef was, as Kevin rightly notes, the facts on which your argument is based are "easily checkable" and you don't need to look at advanced metrics to determine the difference between the two pitchers. Sure, it's inconvenient to compare all of the stats listed on the BB-Ref pages for Morris and Schilling but this is exactly the type of question that's easily answered by oneself.

ALSO, I'm not sure if you're referencing the Gawker article on smarm when you claim that I'm "all smarmy" with my baseball IQ, but smarm is exactly the opposite: it is the ######## about civility that Scocca claims sidesteps the important questions. If you're not referring to that article, I'd recommend it.

I was also going to write what CoB wrote to Bruce Markusen. I see that Bruce has submitted 92 articles, but really, why is it incumbent on Repoz or the rest of us to post articles that you'd like to read? If you think something is important, post it.
   47. The Piehole of David Wells Posted: January 05, 2014 at 07:02 PM (#4630820)
And actually, I realized that Bruce is hitting on a bigger issue that has almost nothing to do with Repoz or the Newsblog or the articles linked. This site used to have a lot of different content. We've lost Sox Therapy, Gonfalon Cubs, Royal Ingenuity, etc., but all kinds of other stuff too. There used to be actual research presented here, Cooperstown Confidential, the 'today in baseball history' thing, yearly team previews. All that's left is HOM and the Newsblog. So I no longer come to BBTF first either. I used to be here every single day, but now about once a month or so. Sometimes a couple of times a month. I go to RLRS every day, but they only have one posting per day.

The way to fix this problem is, of course, money. The free content that used to be freely given is now freely given elsewhere or it just faded away.
   48. Bruce Markusen Posted: January 05, 2014 at 07:07 PM (#4630823)
I have never submitted someone else's article to BTF, basically because I don't know how to and never knew that I had the power to do so. I thought only a few people had such power. Would be very interested in learning about the process to submit an article.

I used to write Cooperstown Confidential for BTF, but that was several years ago and that's different than submitting someone else's article.
   49. shoewizard Posted: January 05, 2014 at 07:21 PM (#4630833)
Sam, since you set the parameter at "through" age 30, I think it is a little misleading to quote just his career numbers up through age 30 without examining some of the individual seasons that made up that portion of his career.

At age 25 he threw 226 IP, had a 2.35 ERA, 150 ERA+ and 5.9 WAR. That was a really good season.
At age 26 he regressed in terms of ERA, but was durable, making 34 starts and throwing 234 IP, went 16-7 with a 4.02 ERA, and had a very good post season.
At age 29 he made just 26 starts, 183 IP, but put up a 134 ERA+ and 4.9 WAR

And then at age 30, which you have to include, since you are the one that set things at "thru age 30" he became a monster, putting up a 143 ERA+ in 254 IP , leading the league in strikeouts with 319, and went 17-11 for a team that finished 68-94

I see two excellent seasons, age 25 and 30, and two good seasons, age 26 & 29 in the "line by line" examination you asked for.

So if this is the central argument you are making to hand wave away his later accomplishments and total body of work, it's a poor argument.

   50. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 05, 2014 at 07:32 PM (#4630854)
Bruce, on the homepage, on the top left side, just below the logo, there is a yellow box with red text that is the Submit News Item link. Click that, copy your URL in, add any block quotes or commentary, and hit submit. It will process through to the queue and be approved by one of the admins. Depending on how busy Repoz is that day, it may take a couple of hours.
   51. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: January 05, 2014 at 07:34 PM (#4630857)
Bruce Markusen,

Go to the BTF homepage. On the left side by the top is a thing with a yellow background saying "Submit News Item." Click on that and go through the steps to submit an article.
   52. T.J. Posted: January 05, 2014 at 07:56 PM (#4630887)
Thanks to Rickey! and Dag Nabbit. I've been lurking/posting on this site since the Primer days and never knew how to submit a news item. That's probably because I have always bookmarked the Newsstand rather than the home page.
   53. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 05, 2014 at 08:45 PM (#4630972)
. . . why is it incumbent on Repoz or the rest of us to post articles that you'd like to read?

I don't think it's incumbent on anyone to post niche articles, but Repoz has some responsibility to cover the news of the day, doesn't he. He's the editor. #19 has a legitimate point about posting retirements & obituaries.

And #s 48 & 52 reinforce my earlier point that BBTF lacks user-friendly information on how to utilize the site's features. Why is that?
   54. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: January 05, 2014 at 08:54 PM (#4630981)
That's probably because I have always bookmarked the Newsstand rather than the home page.


If this is the URL you mean by "Newsstand," the link is there, too. Upper left corner.
   55. Blackadder Posted: January 05, 2014 at 09:04 PM (#4630997)
Wahoo makes a really good point that is missed by the WAR counting Schillingnites. For the first half of his career, Curt Schilling was a mediocrity.


Yeah, someone really needs to tell Sean that WAR should stop ignoring seasons before age 30.
   56. cardsfanboy Posted: January 05, 2014 at 09:26 PM (#4631005)
Look at Schilling's record, line by line. My point about his career through age 30 is that he STRUGGLED for a decade. He had two decent seasons, but besides that a bunch of years where he lost his job in the rotation or was hurt. Doesn't his first 10 years matter as much as his last 10?


Not in one bit. Why should his age matter in one bit, except if you are trying to evaluate a pitcher over the next few seasons. After their career is over, who cares what they did as a kid or when they discovered their touch.

Look at Randy Johnson, prior to his age 29 season he had zero all star quality seasons and was just a league average pitcher. Phil Niekro didn't get his first start in the majors until he was 28, etc. Schilling at least put up an excellent season at 25 where he had 26 starts, 200+ ip at 150 era+....

Mind you, Curt Schilling's age 25 season is better than EVERY single season that Jack Morris put up. 26 starts, 150 era+, 226 ip. (note not that I'm using War for this argument, but it does agree with this point as Morris best season was a 5.8 war, and Schilling's 1992 was 5.9....mind you, even if I believed in war as a primary tool for arguing for pitchers, a .1 difference is well within the margin of error, so me saying EVERY is possibly an overstatement)

If Albert Pujols goes the next decade putting up a 110 ops+ and being a drain on the Angels, does it invalidate the good he did as a youth?

   57. BDC Posted: January 05, 2014 at 09:35 PM (#4631013)
Conversely, there are a few uncontroversial HOF/HOM pitchers who put in the great majority of their value before ages 30 or 31, notably Koufax and Drysdale. It's not easy to do, just as it's not easy to take the Schilling/Unit/Dazzy Vance route.
   58. T.J. Posted: January 05, 2014 at 09:42 PM (#4631015)
If this is the URL you mean by "Newsstand," the link is there, too. Upper left corner.
Huh. Guess I should have looked at that before I posted. :)
   59. caprules Posted: January 05, 2014 at 09:42 PM (#4631016)
I don't think it's incumbent on anyone to post niche articles, but Repoz has some responsibility to cover the news of the day, doesn't he


Yes, but I'm guessing he also has a sense of what the readership wants to discuss. There probably wasn't going to be much interest in a Suppan article, except maybe someone calling him evil.

As for user-friendly, the commands that are above the place we type have info when you hover over them. We can experiment with them to see what they do and can edit our posts if we made a mistake. And the submit news item is in the upper left hand section of the homepage and its highlighted in yellow, its not buried anywhere. I've submitted two links to articles and both have posted in reasonable time. One was a Mota suspension, it was going to get linked anyway, mine just happened to be first I guess. One was a news item that the Brewers were carrying 14 pitchers for a bit. I think it got a dozen or so comments and fell off the page.
   60. Sandlapper Spike Posted: January 05, 2014 at 10:07 PM (#4631026)
Dazzy Vance through 30 was 0-4, 4.91. Hoyt Wilhelm made his debut at 29 (it was admittedly a very good debut). Randy Johnson through age 29 had a worse ERA+ than Schilling (108 to 113) in slightly less than 100 more innings, and had yet to have a year even close to Schilling's age-25 season (150 ERA+ in 226.1 innings, with a WHIP below 1).


The pitcher I thought of first was Red Ruffing. 70-115 in his first eight seasons (through age 26), with an ERA of 4.52 (ERA+ of 93), then 203-110 for the rest of his career with an ERA of 3.39 (ERA+ of 122).
   61. Jim Wisinski Posted: January 05, 2014 at 10:29 PM (#4631039)
I'd agree that BBTF is not especially welcoming, at least among sites that purport to aspire to something beyond mass appeal at any price. Lots of responses tilt toward hostility rather than education when disagreeing with others. Maybe that's due to many carrying grudges over from thread to thread. In any event, it does seem like the new blood is limited to folks changing their handle.


I agree that people here can be a bit quick to go to the snark or borderline hostile replies when they disagree with something but for the most part I prefer the way this site tends to come down hard on illogical arguments. It pretty much acts as a filter, I was once a part of the now defunct Raysbb.com (formerly Raysbaseball.com and home-plate.net) forum/site and it was once a great site for intelligent and interesting discussion about the Rays. I joined it in 2004 and feel that it peaked around 2005, over time it grew in popularity, a lot of new people joined, and the quality of the discussion went badly downhill because of all the crap and noise. DRays Bay was also good when it started, I wrote for it a little while at the beginning but it didn't really pick up steam until later on. Now it's like any other major blog, full of junk that too often drowns out the quality discussions going on. So I don't want that to happen here, BBTF exploding in popularity would probably be a disaster. I agree with a later post though lamenting the loss of almost all original content.

   62. Morty Causa Posted: January 05, 2014 at 10:39 PM (#4631044)
Yes, but I'm guessing he also has a sense of what the readership wants to discuss.

I don't know. I think we were disabused of the idea that we were in any way important or significant to this site back when extensive discussions were had with regard to segregating off-topic discussion. We were told exactly where we stood in the overall scheme of this site. And it ain't at the front of the line.
   63. caprules Posted: January 05, 2014 at 10:46 PM (#4631048)
I think we were disabused of the idea that we were in any way important or significant to this site back when extensive discussions were had with regard to segregating off-topic discussion.


I believe exactly the opposite is true. Segregation of off-topic is what many of the readers of this site want and what has been delivered. There are many more people who enjoy reading the site than the few who are regular posters.
   64. McCoy Posted: January 05, 2014 at 11:15 PM (#4631069)
Except the thing is the regular posters are the ones that drive discussions. Would this place be as popular if it was simply a link factory for baseball? I kind of doubt it would be. I think plenty of people come here for the links and to read what people have to say about the articles.
   65. Morty Causa Posted: January 05, 2014 at 11:16 PM (#4631070)
63:

That's besides the point. It had to do with the WAR of all posters here.

64:

Some people are not remembering what were plainly told at that time.

And that's all I'm going to say about it.
   66. caprules Posted: January 05, 2014 at 11:20 PM (#4631073)
Except the thing is the regular posters are the ones that drive discussions.


It's not clear to me what you are arguing against. Yes, the posters drive the discussions, but how many posters have been driven away from the site specifically because non-baseball discussions are done in designated threads? Conversely, the people who run the site have received feedback that politics in multiple threads at the same time detracted from the experience.
   67. McCoy Posted: January 05, 2014 at 11:25 PM (#4631077)
Some people are not remembering what were plainly told at that time.

Yes. He said that the vast majority of hits came from people who didn't comment. My point is that if there were no discussion there were wouldn't be a vast amount of hits on a daily basis. Plenty of places provide links to baseball articles. BTF is "famous" in baseball circles in part because of the discussions. Many authors and writers will cite posts created here when writing their own articles or will write articles in response to discussions had here.
   68. valuearbitrageur Posted: January 05, 2014 at 11:34 PM (#4631079)
He was also removed from the rotation 3 times in his 20s. Someone thought he wasn't that great as a starter


Obviously this wasn't actually true about Schilling, but it's also an interesting thought process. If it had been true that he was removed from the rotation because the teams he pitched for didn't think he was very good, weren't they obviously very, very wrong (a 3.38 ERA through age 30 that works out to 118 ERA+ meant he was already one of the best pitchers in baseball)? And you would rely on their mistaken opinions of a young pitcher over what Curt actually did?

Cal Ripken Jr's draft evaluation was weak enough to drop him to the 2nd round. Does that make him not worthy of the HOF? What about Piazza, the famous last pick in the 58th round or something like that, again, if every team in baseball couldn't see his talent doesn't that disqualify him? Wade Boggs hit .322/ .418/.416 for 2 full years in AAA before the Red Sox gave him a starting job, doesn't that tell you he really just didn't have HOF skills?

This argument is similar to "appeal to authority", except it's "appeal to authority figures who made awful mistakes".

And everyone here has also missed one of the most amazing facts about Curt Schilling.

Pitcher  Innings/ERA/ERA+/Unearned Runs
Morris  3
,840/3.90/105/158
Schilling 3
,261/3.46/127/65 


Curt Schilling is the best in history at preventing un-earned runs. Partly a function of his era (better defensive equipment/defenses), but mostly a function of his pitching skills (lots of strikeouts combined with lots of easy to field can of corn flyballs). But what this means is his ERA suffers in relation to other pitchers, who got more runs magically taken off their "earned" run column by the whim of scorekeepers.

Pitching for years with Trammel/Whitaker up the middle, and Chet Lemon in center, Jack still averaged twice as many unearned runs as Curt did. His RA is over 4.00, while Curt's is barely over 3.5 in a much higher offensive environment. Games are won based on all runs allowed, not just "earned" ones.

Curt Schilling is tied for 46th all-time in ERA, Jack Morris is barely in the top 500.. If BBRef every has an all-time RA+ list, Schilling will probably be top twenty, and Jack still barely in top 500. Curt Schilling is 26th all time in pitching WAR (by BBRef standards), Jack Morris is 133rd.

How can a guy who is 26th all time in the best standard measure of career value not a HOFer, and why does it matter how old he was when he created most of that value? Curt Schilling had 23.3 of his 80.7 WAR by end of his age 30 season, but Jack Morris only had 25.8 of his 43.8 by then. If Schilling's 20s were marginal, then so were Jack's, only Jack started getting worse when Curt got only better.

And even you thought Curt's regular season value marginal for the HOF, you then have to add in that Curt Schilling is the greatest starting pitcher in playoff history. And Jack Morris isn't even in that conversation. Jack Morris did pitch one of the greatest world series games ever, but Curt Schilling also pitched one of the greatest league championship games ever.

And even in his final 10 years he had four seasons in which he made 24 starts or less, and five times his ERA was over 3.50.]


This might be the silliest comment that totally ignores historical offensive levels and context.

During Schilling's final decade, he averaged a 3.50 ERA was good for an awesome 133 ERA+. In 16 of his 20 seasons, the league averaged an ERA over 4.19.

From 1979 to 1987, Jack Morris averaged a 3.51 ERA, but that was only good for a 116 ERA+. In 17 of his 18 seasons the league averaged an ERA under 4.19 (13 under 4.00).

No matter how many years you watch baseball, if you come here and post as facts things that are easily researchable and easily refutable, you aren't going to be treated well. At best, you are lazy. At worst, you are misleading and wasting others time.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, your memories tell you Jack was a great pitcher, and those wonderful memories were always in mind when you compared Curt Schilling to Jack during Curt's career. And those memories are clearly biasing you to attempt to make Jack look better than Curt. But your memories are wrong, lead you to mistake tremendous team performances for Jack's actual skills, just as poor team performances blind you to Curt's outstanding skills demonstrated clearly from his mid twenties.

Jack Morris is in the HOF discussion only because he was on a tremendous team with a HOF quality middle infield. He got more wins with those teams than he would have gotten virtually anywhere else, they covered for his high ERA and made the most out of his excellent durability.

Curt Schilling played for a lot of marginal teams, many with mediocre offenses and defenses (the 2001 Diamondbacks had a great defense, and Luis Gonzalez hit .325 with 57 HR for a 174 OPS+ but the entire team averaged a 94 OPS+ with lousy base running). He improved team defenses, and carried poor offenses. Due to the teams he pitched for, managerial mistakes not putting him in the starting rotation sooner and his own injuries, he never had the opportunity to put up the glittery win totals of a Jack Morris, but surely made his team win a lot more games than Jack ever did.
   69. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: January 05, 2014 at 11:46 PM (#4631082)
If Schilling isn't the pitcher with the most obvious PED profile, who is?
   70. cardsfanboy Posted: January 05, 2014 at 11:48 PM (#4631083)
Jack Morris is in the HOF discussion only because he was on a tremendous team with a HOF quality middle infield. He got more wins with those teams than he would have gotten virtually anywhere else, they covered for his high ERA and made the most out of his excellent durability.


The durability issue for Jack is a big part of his candidacy, and it's about the only piece of evidence for Jack that gives me pause. Even during his era, he completed a lot of games and started a lot of games. 11 times top 10 in games started, 10 top ten finishes in complete games. Guys who do that well, generally are legitimate aces.

I do not for a second think that Jack is a legitimate hof candidate, but he has a lot of borderline "features" that make it possible to argue for him. But I think most people arguing for him are delusional and as I have said before, he's a C+ candidate, that with all the "extras" he has is moved into maybe B range(where A = hofer) His advocates want to take the host of extras, which are all miniscule, and make them more important than they really are.
   71. cardsfanboy Posted: January 05, 2014 at 11:49 PM (#4631084)
damnit...double post
   72. cardsfanboy Posted: January 05, 2014 at 11:50 PM (#4631085)
If Schilling isn't the pitcher with the most obvious PED profile, who is?


Nolan Ryan... that much is obvious.
   73. Morty Causa Posted: January 05, 2014 at 11:53 PM (#4631087)
68:

Good analytical piece.
   74. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2014 at 12:10 AM (#4631095)
68:

Good analytical piece.


Agree.

There was a lot of it I liked... I absolutely loved the part about
This argument is similar to "appeal to authority", except it's "appeal to authority figures who made awful mistakes".


I personally disagreed with this part and even started to comment on it, but stopped myself.
then have to add in that Curt Schilling is the greatest starting pitcher in playoff history.
as my love for Bob Gibson knows no bounds... but I erased anything I wrote out as it boils down to league eras, and deflected from the point being made etc...
   75. The District Attorney Posted: January 06, 2014 at 12:21 AM (#4631100)
The durability issue for Jack is a big part of his candidacy, and it's about the only piece of evidence for Jack that gives me pause. Even during his era, he completed a lot of games and started a lot of games. 11 times top 10 in games started, 10 top ten finishes in complete games. Guys who do that well, generally are legitimate aces.

I do not for a second think that Jack is a legitimate hof candidate, but he has a lot of borderline "features" that make it possible to argue for him.
Researching the BBTF HOF referendum, only three names that came up (other than relievers) had single-digit Wins Above Average: Morris, Andres Galarraga, and Harold Baines. It's a little unfair insofar as Morris just misses that cutoff and Baines is well below it (only 1.7 WAA for Harold!), but overall, the Morris phenomenon seems as (un)likely to me as if Harold Baines were averaging 60% of the vote right now.

You could totally make the Baseball Digest case for Harold Baines. He played more than virtually anyone in history: 19th in games played, 29th in at-bats, 35th in plate appearances. He's a six-time All-Star. He's got 2,866 hits. But he would take a walk also, and in fact is 20th all-time in intentional walks. 30th in RBI. He's got stories, too. A first overall pick whose selection (IIRC) was belittled because it was based on the owner's (Bill Veeck) personal scouting... who became a terrific, well-rounded player... whom injuries robbed of his speed... so he became one of history's best designated hitters. He was amazingly beloved by the fanbase. His number was retired before he even retired himself.

You can make the case sound just about as good as anyone else's case. And yet, the whole thing is crazy.
   76. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2014 at 01:09 AM (#4631112)
You can make the case sound just about as good as anyone else's case. And yet, the whole thing is crazy.


I hate to be the guy defending the Jack Morris argument (which is a utterly ridiculous argument)

But he does have a lot of "indicators" of an ace... and then you factor in that he did it for a relatively long period, and he makes an interesting case as a career candidate.

I mean let's look at a few things.(which everyone here already knows)

1. second all time in opening day starts(14) while doing it for three different franchises.... (here is the list of players with 10 opening day starts)
Rk            Player #Matching
                              
1         Tom Seaver        16
                              
2        Jack Morris        14
3      Randy Johnson        14
4      Steve Carlton        14
                              
5      Robin Roberts        13
6      Roger Clemens        13
                              
7      Bert Blyleven        12
                              
8    Dennis Martinez        11
9     Fergie Jenkins        11
                              
10      Warren Spahn        10
11       CC Sabathia        10
12     Juan Marichal        10
13      Roy Halladay        10
14        Bob Gibson        10 


Halladay, Sabathia and Martinez are the only ones not in the hof(ignoring Clemens of course)

2. Complete games post 1950 Morris is 21st with 175.... The following are ahead of him and not in the hof. Mickey Lolich, Billy Pierce, Jim Kaat, Luis Tiant.

3. Obviously we've talked about most wins in the 80's... but before anyone tries to dismiss this as an artifact of timing.... let's mention one thing. Every pitcher who is the top winning pitcher of ANY 10 year segment in baseball history and eligible is in the hof... with the exception of Jack Morris, Ron Guidry and Clemens(note...this point is from memory, I could be wrong) . Jack Morris owns not just 1980-1989....but 1978-1987, 1979-1988, 1980-1989, 1981-1990, 1982-1991, 1983-1992... I know people dismiss wins, but a pitcher who is able to go deep into the game has more control over the win, than a current pitcher that relies on relievers to help out. (mind you, I personally dismiss wins to an extent, but the ability to go deep into games does have value)

(note any silly pitching to the score nonsense argument has been absolutely, and utterly destroyed by analysts)

4. Obviously his post season performance, People dismiss it because over his career he has pitched relative to expectations, but the value is added by the years he was excellent. He appeared in 7 post season series. He pitched excellent in 3 series that his team won. He pitched poorly in one series his team lost....and pitched Ehh.... in series where his team won even though he wasn't that great.... On a bonus basis, he gets 3 plusses and one minus...the others ultimately it didn't matter. So people might bag that he was "average according to expecations." but the reality is he was a plus pitcher when his team needed him. (yes this is a pitching to the score argument taken to the post season...)


again... I don't think that he remotely belongs and I don't think there is a real argument to be made...but I think people could argue without sounding completely crazy.... mind you I think they are absolutely wrong, but again, I think a few of these points could move him from a C+ candidate to a B candidate.
   77. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 06, 2014 at 01:25 AM (#4631118)
Every pitcher who is the top winning pitcher of ANY 10 year segment in baseball history and eligible is in the hof... with the exception of Jack Morris, Ron Guidry and Clemens(note...this point is from memory, I could be wrong)

I think Paul Derringer had one or two ten-year spans in which he led the majors in wins. He also has his own Game 7, for what it's worth.
   78. bobm Posted: January 06, 2014 at 01:33 AM (#4631122)
Every pitcher who is the top winning pitcher of ANY 10 year segment in baseball history and eligible is in the hof... with the exception of Jack Morris, Ron Guidry and Clemens(note...this point is from memory, I could be wrong)

Eligibility aside: Will White, Jim McCormick, Paul Derringer, Bucky Walters, Ron Guidry, Jack Morris, Roger Clemens, Frank Viola, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Andy Pettitte, CC Sabathia, Roy Halladay (updated through 2004-2013 using BB REF PI)

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/reusse_hall_should_have_a_plaque_for_jack_morris/#751224

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/sportsline_miller_like_this_winters_free_agents_hall_of_fame_class_isnt_dee#1795321

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/hall_of_merit/discussion/jack_morris#2384170

EDIT: Coca-Cola Life to Eric J
   79. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2014 at 02:52 AM (#4631137)
Knew if I put it out there someone would help me.... I wasn't 100% sure on that point.
   80. zonk Posted: January 06, 2014 at 09:47 AM (#4631182)

I think Paul Derringer had one or two ten-year spans in which he led the majors in wins. He also has his own Game 7, for what it's worth.


Yeah, but Rock N Roll Hoochie Koo is an abomination... The McCoys were cromulent, though.
   81. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 06, 2014 at 09:56 AM (#4631185)
the good blogs like sox therapy left for the explicit reason that bruce elucidated so clearly. there is a small contingent of posters who along with being mean-spirited are routinely offensive.

I am all for open discourse. but not of obviously wrong-headed discourse.

   82. Bruce Markusen Posted: January 06, 2014 at 08:06 PM (#4631838)
Thanks, Rickey and Dag Nabbit, for the info on how to submit articles. Very helpful, guys!

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 1 OMNICHATTER
(80 - 8:09pm, Oct 21)
Last: The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott)

NewsblogBaseball's hardest throwing bullpen - Beyond the Box Score
(10 - 8:02pm, Oct 21)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

NewsblogDombrowski told that Iglesias 'will be fine' for 2015
(20 - 7:58pm, Oct 21)
Last: Bug Selig

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(309 - 7:43pm, Oct 21)
Last: theboyqueen

NewsblogRoyals’ James Shields passed kidney stone during ALCS but is ready for World Series | The Kansas City Star
(37 - 7:43pm, Oct 21)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(104 - 7:25pm, Oct 21)
Last: theboyqueen

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(851 - 7:05pm, Oct 21)
Last: frannyzoo

NewsblogMorosi: Could Cain’s story make baseball king of sports world again?
(107 - 7:04pm, Oct 21)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogFan Returns Home Run Ball to Ishikawa; Receives World Series tickets
(55 - 6:26pm, Oct 21)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(2891 - 6:24pm, Oct 21)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogBaseball Prospectus | Pebble Hunting: An Illustrated Guide to the People of Kauffman Stadium
(10 - 6:00pm, Oct 21)
Last: Perry

NewsblogCardinals proud of fourth straight NLCS appearance | cardinals.com
(58 - 5:44pm, Oct 21)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogBrisbee: The 5 worst commercials of the MLB postseason
(173 - 4:45pm, Oct 21)
Last: Squash

NewsblogOT:  October 2014 - College Football thread
(446 - 3:37pm, Oct 21)
Last: AuntBea

NewsblogSo You’re About to Pitch to Pablo Sandoval | FanGraphs Baseball
(4 - 2:45pm, Oct 21)
Last: deputydrew

Page rendered in 1.3091 seconds
52 querie(s) executed