Like Sosa, he'll most likely have to sit out 2013.

likely have to sit out 2013

And 2014 (Maddux, Thomas, Glavine).
And maybe 2015 (Randy, Pedro, Sheffield).

Agreed, Dan. Curt has fine credentials, but there are just too many superior players he has to compete with.

If this is off-topic here, then so be it, but I was wondering why you guys didn't go with a certain % of the vote to get elected like the actual HoF does. IIRC you did add an extra electee; if you hadn't (or haven't), then there's going to be a huge backlog on your ballots before too long.

John, that's not off topic. The HoM, at least as far as I can figure out from reading the constitution and seeing several ballots, allows a certain number of candidates in each year so that the number of players in the HoM will be very close to the number actually in the HoF. Different people sometimes, but the same number. I doubt it will take you any time to figure out why this is a cornerstone policy for the HoM. - Brock Hanke

Certain % of the vote makes less sense when you're just telling people to rank the top 15.

It seems Schilling isn't getting too much hype--is there any particular reason people don't see him as a viable #3 or #4 candidate for this election? It seems to me he is easily ahead of Biggio, although I don't know about Piazza. He could be unlucky in that he could be the #4 candidate this year and then #4 again possibly behind Maddux, Mussina, and Thomas.

RA+ PythPat equivalent record: 227-135. Top 5 equivalent seasons: 21-8, 20-9, 19-10, 18-8, 17-8. "Big seasons" score in my system of 50, which is a lot.

Some comparisons to that 227-135:

Smoltz as a starter: 208-137, but only 16 for "big seasons".
Kevin Brown: 216-146, big seasons 46.
Whitey Ford: 218-134, big seasons 34.
Dazzy Vance: 201-129, big seasons 58. Another late bloomer.
Stan Coveleski: 209-134, big seasons 61.
Hal Newhouser: 202-131, big seasons 62.
Dave Stieb: 190-131, big seasons 34.
Sandy Koufax: 163-95, big seasons 63. So Schilling minus Koufax, career, comes to 62-40, which is pretty strongly in Schilling's favor.

The upshot: Schilling can be reasonably compared to a number of short-to-medium career, high-peak pitchers, almost all of whom are in the HoM, and appears by some measures to be better than any of them. There's no real doubt in my mind that he's a "frontlog" candidate for the HoM. I'm probably not putting him in my top 3 or 4 this time, but he doesn't need to mix with any of the backlog.

I asked my office's two resident Redsox fans what they thought of Schilling's chances and whether they thought he deserved to be in. One guy wasn't sure if he was going or deserved to go in, but was certain that if some long term dominant guy (loose paraphrase) like Jack Morris wasn't in then Schilling shouldn't go in (BTW he's about 30, I doubt he has any clear recollection of watching Morris). I told him he was nuts, Morris at his best was not half the pitcher that Schilling was at his best.... He then stated to say did Schilling ever have a game like.... and then stopped himself...

Most wins of the 80s- to which I said, so what, Don Sutton had the most wins over a 20 year period, and that's what Morris was, a good pitcher a durable pitcher who pitched a long time for good teams, just not as long as Sutton, and therefore not quite as good as Sutton... he said no no no, Morris was an ace, Sutton was just an endless finesse guy like Moyer- that's when we started arguing- I said that for much of his career Sutton was the "ace" (i.e., #1 starter) for his teams, and he was not a soft tossing finesse guy forever like Moyer- or Tommy John- and that if he had ever seen any of these guys pitch he'd know that...

that went real well, but if this guy is representative of how Sox fans feel, then Schilling may be in trouble...

Oh, the other one thinks Schilling should go, but thinks he won't...

They both think he "faked" the bloody sock thing... there is something wrong with Sox fans who live and work in NYC.

I'm a Sox fan. I have no particular love for Schilling, despite Game 6 2004 ALCS. It was a great moment for him and the franchise, all kinds of fun, but it doesn't move the HOF meter for him, IMO.

Still, he's clearly deserving anyway.

Would it be fair to consider Schilling a member of the Robin Roberts - Fergie Jenkins "family" of pitchers? I think the way Bill James phrased it when talking about such things, the #1 criterion for that family is "a firm belief in strike one." And Schilling had that. Schilling struck out more batters than Roberts and Jenkins, but at least some of that comes from the differences in time period. The differences in time period also account for Schilling having fewer IP per season than Roberts or Jenkins.

Sure, in the sense that they were guys with good control who pitched up in the zone, challenged hitters, and gave up a lot of solo home runs. Ben Sheets was a similar pitcher, as is Brandon Beachy today.

Schilling is a bad comp for Morris (so is Smoltz), since he had the postseason stones career that the casual Morris fan thinks that Morris had....

Can't find the quote but one of his fellow pitchers was talking about a meeting about an upcoming series and the book on various hitters. Schilling kept offering nuggets like "get him thinking low and away and put him away with a high fastball". Not really helpful for most pitchers because they didn't have a high fastball like Curt.

Best K/BB ratio in the ME, lowest % of total runs allowed that were unearned all time. ERA underates him.

Best K/BB ratio in the ME, lowest % of total runs allowed that were unearned all time. ERA underates him.

That his RA+ was better than his ERA+ due to the fact that he did not give up unearned runs is a good point- his K/bb less so since in large part that was result of his ALWAYS being in the zone- and he gave up extra hist because of that- and he was typically up in the zone- which meant more homers, he's someone who may have benefited a little from strategic wildness every now and then.

If total K's are a feather in your cap for HOM consideration, so should be K/BB ratio, IMHO. His low KK/B ratio was a result of his
"throw strike one, stoopid" approach to working a batter, which led to an economy of pitches, which led to an increase in his ability to eat innings, which led
to more team wins, no?

He was strategicly wild when he had a guy 0-2, and made him wave at a splitter in the dirt, or heat at the letters. Strike one is the best pitch in baseball. If they swing at it and put it in play, you got yourself a ~60%* chance of getting them out on one pitch--this is one way to look at it.

*IIRC, when the 0-0 is put into play, the batter hits around .400, maybe I'm mis-remembering.

(edited for * comment)

If total K's are a feather in your cap for HOM consideration, so should be K/BB ratio, IMHO. His low KK/B ratio was a result of his
"throw strike one, stoopid" approach to working a batter, which led to an economy of pitches, which led to an increase in his ability to eat innings, which led
to more team wins, no?

And all of that stuff is reflected in his other numbers, including ERA+. But his low UER% is not, which is why it's important to note it when dealing with Schill's case.

Caught about five minutes of Clubhouse Confidential discussing Schilling's HOF candidacy. Kenny made a good argument - he's a borderline case, probably out, until you factor in his post-season success, which puts him barely in. Mitch Williams then comes on and says he's not a HOFer and you can only judge him by his regular season stats...then cites....JACK MORRIS????? Click.

If Schilling is borderline then the standards for pitchers are ridiculously high.

Mitch Williams then comes on and says he's not a HOFer and you can only judge him by his regular season stats...then cites....JACK MORRIS????? Click.

Sounds like Mitch might still be a little miffed about that whole towel thing.

18-I was responding to 16, which seemed to suggest that throwing strikes is some kind of double edged-sword. I am far too lazy to do a quick and
dirty and see if Schill gave up more than his share of 0-2 hits...

21-Immediately that sprang to my mind as well.

Just to note in the talk about ER, UER, and RA+: my numbers in post #8 above are based on RA, not ERA. Perhaps the most important contrast is to Kevin Brown. Brown had relatively high UER and Schilling relatively low UER. In both cases that's easily explainable: ground ball pitchers allow more UER, fly ball pitchers allow fewer UER. By RA+, Schilling is clearly better than Brown; the difference between Schilling's 227-135 and Brown's 216-146 is sizable.

If Schilling is borderline then the standards for pitchers are ridiculously high.

Agree completely. Of course, we at the HoM have already collectively made that statement by electing Stieb, Saberhagen, Brown, Reuschel, Cone and by strongly considering the likes of Tiant.

If total K's are a feather in your cap for HOM consideration, so should be K/BB ratio, IMHO.

I don't care about Ks or BBs for HOF purposes. I care about run prevention. I don't care how he got there.

In that sense, ERA+ and RA+ (unearned runs) are relevant to me, as they are to you.

I suppose if one is making some sort of fielding-independent argument, K/BB might be relevant. Otherwise, they're style points. And I don't reward players for style.

That was one of my big problems with Lederer's Blyleven schtick, by the way. Blyleven was very deserving, but Lederer made the case on the basis of Blyleven ranking "fifth in career strikeouts, eighth in shutouts and 17th in wins" or whatever. It was a horrible example of stooping to the intelligence level of your audience to try to force a correct outcome. Strikeouts, shutouts, and wins are not why we should be electing Hall of Fame pitchers.

The argument for Blyleven should have been fought on intelligent and informed grounds, to help pitchers in the future. And for the sake of... intelligence. I wasn't interested in Getting Blyleven Elected at all costs, or in bending over so that the idiots could reach the right conclusion for the wrong reasons and learn nothing from the process.

It was a horrible example of stooping to the intelligence level of your audience to try to force a correct outcome. Strikeouts, shutouts, and wins are not why we should be electing Hall of Fame pitchers.

I think the point that Lederer was making was that, even by traditional standards, Blyleven should have gotten in. I don't think Lederer was using them to make his own case.

To Mitch's credit, he acknowledged that there were personal animosities between him and Curt.

To confirm the point RJames makes in #26, here is the first Blyleven article Lederer wrote: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2003/12/only_the_lonely_1.php

I don't see what is "uninformed" and "unintelligent" with using runs saved above average, ERA vs. league average, and neutral wins.

Here is another article where he compares Blyleven's ERA+ with that of contemporary Hall of Famers: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2005/12/the_hall_of_fam.php

Also, while sure, 17th in wins doesn't mean very much (if anything), I'm not exactly sure what is wrong with including fifth in career strikeouts and eighth in shutouts. Strikeouts are very important to run prevention, and shutouts define preventing runs, so those seem like something you want from your pitchers.

As for Schilling possibly over Biggio, here's my thought process:

Schilling ranks ahead of Biggio in B-R WAR, FG WAR, and BG WAR, along with also the JAWS calculations for each version. The JAWs calculations along with the seeming general consensus according to the Biggio thread has Biggio at around the middle of the pack of HOM worthy 2B. According to the JAWs metrics, Schilling would be at the bottom of the upper third of pitchers. That would seem to make him more worthy than Biggio. Am I missing something (quite possible)? Also, assuming you believe Schilling and Biggio to be of equal value, doesn't the tie breaker go to the pitcher?

Also, assuming you believe Schilling and Biggio to be of equal value, doesn't the tie breaker go to the pitcher?

Why would it?

I'm assuming that since you need more pitchers and it is more specialized, there is a larger replacement value. I don't have any sort of numbers to back up that stance, though. If anyone has anything different, that would be good to know (at least for me if everyone else already does).

Why would it?

I'd guess because there's stronger agreement on the proper assignment of value and responsibility for the offensive component of the game. We know that Biggio hit X HR, and Y 2B and so on, and we know that (on average) these events result in Z runs. In comparison, for pitchers, there's still significant disagreement on how to split assignment of value between the pitcher himself, and the defense behind him. We know that K's are good, and HR are bad, and both can be assigned (in the massive majority of cases) to the pitcher, but all the in-play stuff isn't nearly as cut-and-dried in terms of the pitcher's percentage of responsibility.

I'd guess because there's stronger agreement on the proper assignment of value and responsibility for the offensive component of the game.

Then wouldn't the tie go to the batter?

doesn't the tie breaker go to the pitcher?

Then wouldn't the tie go to the batter?

Guys, everyone knows tie goes to the runner.

Then wouldn't the tie go to the batter?

Yes. I didn't get a chance to edit before the time limit. We have a greater degree of certainty as to the value of Biggio's (offensive) contributions that make up the bulk of his estimated total value than we do as to the value of Schilling's pitching contributions that make up the bulk of his estimated total value.

DL: Good point.

So say Biggio gets the tiebreaker. Do people think it is close enough that this applies, even with the Schilling out-WAR-ing Biggio across the board and ranking in a higher percentile for his position?

So say Biggio gets the tiebreaker. Do people think it is close enough that this applies, even with the Schilling out-WAR-ing Biggio across the board and ranking in a higher percentile for his position?

It depends. By B-Ref WAR, I'd say it's close - 69.7 WAR for Schilling vs. 66.2 for Biggio, and best 5 of 7.3/6.8/6.4/6.0/6.0 vs. 9.5/6.6/6.6/5.2/5.1. By Fangraphs, it's all Schilling, as he's at 86.1 WAR vs. 70.5 for Biggio, with a best 5 of 9.7/8.6/8.6/7.6/7.3 vs. 9.7/6.8/6.2/5.2/4.8.

Given that B-Ref also has Biggio at -7.9 dWAR for his career, which seems low for a guy who was good enough to win multiple Gold Gloves and skilled enough to capably switch from C to 2B to CF to LF and back to 2B, and given that I don't agree with the FanGraphs decision to use FIP/xFIP in their evaluation of pitcher WAR, I'd probably go with Biggio over Schilling, on a combined peak/uncertainty of evaluation of pitching argument.

bump

From my own perspective on schilling v. Biggio....

As a WAR & DRA guy, I don't see them as remotely similar. Schilling places among the top third of pitchers for me, very near Mussina, and Biggio around 18-20 for 2Bs. Right around Billy Herman.

Here are two factors that push Schilling up and Biggio down.
A. I adjust all pitchers' usage to a common baseline league where ~250 IP leads the league, and that pushes Schilling upward in the rankings compared to some pitchers whose value came primarily from eating up innings (which doesn't float my boat at all).
B. I use a 1/3 Rfield and 2/3 DRA combo on defense, and DRA knocks a couple wins off Biggio more than Rfield.

2B is densely packed below Gordon, with Randolph, Biggio, Herman, McPhee, even Tony Phillips having similar cases and straddling the borderline among them. Biggio travels in much less dynamic company than Schilling does among pitchers in my way of looking at things.

Are you peak only? Seems to me like Biggio has a lot of career value . . . his career is exceptionally long for a 2B, almost all of whom blow out in their early 30s or move to 1B.

Peak only? No. Especially because Schilling had better career value than Biggio.

I use BBREF WAR as the basis of my system. It has Biggio at only four seasons (adjusted for sked) above 6 Wins, and only one of those four seasons above 7 wins. So it's not like he's piling up value by being an All-Star every year. Less than half of his value comes from being above average (28.5 WAA on 64.9 WAR). I give him bonus credit for his catching, and I adjust out to 162 in 1994 and 1995. However, as I mentioned, he gets additionally debited for his fielding. So in the end, he closely resembles a number of other middling-peak, decently long career players (Herman, McPhee, Phillips, Randolph), most of whom we've enshrined. And I would support Biggio's induction. But Schilling comes first by far. In docWAR, here's what the nonconsecutive 5/7/10/15/career for Biggio and the second basemen looks like along with a JAWS-like score that in a moment of complete uniqueness and innovation I called CHEWS (CHaleeko's Equivalent WAR Score) that puts a 10% premium on peak, and that I use as a sifting tool, not a final ranking tool:

CB: 30 / 39 / 50 / 62 / 63 / 49.5
BH: 31 / 40 / 51 / 61 / 60 / 49.1
BM: 28 / 38 / 51 / 67 / 72 / 53.4
TP: 28 / 38 / 50 / 61 / 62 / 48.7
WR: 28 / 38 / 50 / 66 / 69 / 51.8

For context, here's the 2B CHEWS scores above these guys:
Hornsby: 106.0
Collins: 95.2
Lajoie: 95.0
Morgan: 74.0
Frisch: 65.8
Gehringer: 65.3
Barnes: 64.5 (does not include 1870)
Grich: 63.9
Robinson: 59.7
Sandberg: 58.0
Alomar: 58.0
Whitaker: 57.7
Gordon: 55.4 (does not include war credit)
Childs: 50.1

Schilling, on the other hand, in raw BBREF WAR outranks Biggio by 11 career Wins (~81 to ~65). It is, in fact, Schilling who is the better career candidate right out of the box. Two of Schilling's seasons are cups of coffee, so he's got 18 real seasons to Biggio's 19 or 20. Considering how poorly Biggio finished his career, there's not much difference in career length there. More over, Schilling's got 54 WAA, so about ? of his total value was from being above average. As I said, he's a top-third pitcher in my eyes. Biggio is much more compiler than dominator, and I prefer the latter.

If you don't trust WAR or DRA (or me!), YMMV.