It’s secondary to nothing, but it’s a team achievement. The pitching is but a part of that and it’s unfair to judge the pitcher’s ability primarily on a team achievement.
Most people have realized that by now.
No, but Dean pitched in an era where four man rotations were the norm and Schilling pitched in an era where five man rotation were the norm. In addition, many starters were expected to pitch relief when not starting, that also has changed.
Dean’s averages are dragged down by his last five seasons where he only had one season where he started more than 15 games and pitched more than 75 innings.
You’ll also notice that he pitched in an average of 46 games, nearly twenty more than he started. More opportunities for comeback wins.
Rose should be judged “solely” on his career as a player; not what he did as a gambling crazed manager. To even question his stats as HOF worthy is fucking stupid.
And what the hell is ERA+ anyway? I listen to tons of sports radio and I never hear anyone mention it. You can be sure the HOF committee doesn’t consider it - even if it is a better measure of pitcher quality.
And please stop comparing different eras - you can twist shit anyway you like depending on your preferences/prejudices.
Schilling playing hurt (and playing well) is laudable but not HOF material.
Rose gambled on baseball- that’s all we need to know. If a participant has money riding on the outcome, it corrupts the outcome and the integrity of the game. If you compromise the integrity of the game, you do not belong in the Hall of Fame.
ERA and WHIP are a much better indicator of a pitchers ability. W-L records can be deceiving. Just because a pitcher was tagged with a loss does not mean he didn’t pitch well. It could mean his offense did not score. It could mean the defenders let him down by making errors. It could mean that the team does not have good relief pitching. It could mean he was pulled in the 8th inning of 0-0 game with a runner on 1st and the reliever deals a gopher ball that ends up in the upper deck.
No one’s questioning his stats. But gambling on baseball = no hall of fame for you, there’s no distinction between what you did as a player and what you did as a manger. If you do it while you’re involved in the game, you don’t get in. Pete gambled, he doesn’t get in at all.
That’s mostly because most sports talk hosts are, to put it kindly, some of the more uninformed and ignorant analysts around. I wouldn’t look to 99% of them for mentions of more accurate statistical analysis tools.
ERA+ compares your ERA to the league average ERA, after adjusting for park factors (in other words, you’ll have better raw numbers pitching in Dodger Stadium than Coors). A league average pitcher will have an ERA+ of 100.
So when judging whether a player deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, you shouldn’t take note of how he stacks up against players already in there in terms of dominance? That’s a new take.
Agreed, but his performance up to this point has been. Playing hurt and playing well are just icing on the mythmaking cake.
I’d be inclined to say that on a purely statistical basis, Schilling currently falls into the very good, but not quite great category so he would fall short of the HOF. However, there are 2 factors that I think will change that and lead to him having a plaque.
He is likely to pitch a couple more years. If he is marginally effective with at least one playoff appearance he is in. His raw numbers will improve and he will once again appear on the national stage.
The Joe Namath effect. Looking at the stats, Joe was surprisingly ordinary. HE had good moments and awful moments. But, people remember his Super Bowl brilliance, his boastful claims, and his personality. Like it or not, these things play a role. Schilling certainly has better stats than Joe. He has a memorable and heroic moment or two, he contributed mightily to putting the final chapter on one of baseball’s most talked about stories, and he has been a press room favorite (more for his willingness to be open as opposed to the actual content of his words.) I think most of those things would lead to him getting in as a 3rd or 4th ballot candidate right now.
Characterizing a differece of opinion with respect to ethics and the purpose of an institution as “ignorance” suggests that you don’t know what the word “ignorance” means.
As to Curt Schilling and Dizzy Dean, I don’t really understand how Dizzy Dean was better. Dean was a good pitcher but he’s pretty much in the Hall of Fame because he had one huge season and was quite a character. Schilling has won more games and the primary reason Dean had a better winning percentage was that he pitched the bulk of his career for the best hitting team in the National League, while Schilling has pitched half his career for teams that couldn’t hit. Dean is comparable to Don Newcombe, not Curt Schilling.
Yeah, I’d have to put Schilling up there with the borderline but approaching status right now. Give him 2 or 3 more good years and he’ll have a pretty good shot.
And say what you will about ERA+ and such but if we’re discussing the HoF we’re talking about Wins and ‘presence’. Unless there’s been one hell of a change on the part of the BBWAA there’s no real indication they’re adopting stat-head numbers for their criteria.
Rose = no. He knew the risks. He gambled and lost. Tough crap.
I thought we were debating whether he should get in, not whether he will.
And for the BBWAA, there’s Schilling’s key role in the Red Sox World Series, the bloody sock game, being part of the duo that picked up the D’Backs and carried them to a WS. I think he’s got enough “intangibles” for the BBWAA to vote him in even if he retired right now.
Mmm. I suppose that is two separate things. But if you want to use stat-head terms than things like the bloody sock game and such should be out the door.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the writers will eventually put him in. But that W count is going against him right now. Hershiser’s not really being talked about for enshrinement (though it could happen) and he was a very good pitcher with a ring, a record, some great media coverage, 200+ wins, personable on television, a career ERA+ of 112, etc.
Schilling needs to differentiate himself, stat and media-wise, from the Hershisher’s of the worldj to guarantee his ticket.
Mientkiewicz? It is to laugh (so far).
He needs 3 more seasons in the majors to qualify.
His lifetime AVG is .272, his lifetime OPS is .768 and is at the league norm.
30 years old and has only 614 hits. Unless we’re assuming he can get another 2000+ in the next 10 years…
I think more worrying for Schilling is the Blyleven situation.
He’s clearly above Hershiser. Let’s face it, Hershiser had a 6 year stretch between 184 and 1989 where he was really good, everything else was pretty much just “above average” or “below average.” Hershiser’s more comparable to Chuck Finley than Schilling.
Hershiser career ERA+: 112
Schilling career ERA+: 131
Hershiser seasons with ERA+ below 100: 6
Schilling seasons with ERA+ below 100: 4
Hershiser seasons with ERA+ over 120: 5
Schilling seasons with ERA+ over 120: 12
Well, that’s all very interesting and true, but not particularly germane. I don’t think there are many of us who would argue that Schilling is as good as Carlton was. But that wasn’t the question – the question was whether wins are the best measure of how successfully a pitcher pitches. Your contention seems to be that a pitcher who pitches well will always get more wins than another pitcher who doesn’t pitch as well. Certainly it’s possible to win a lot of games even without much run support or with a porous defense behind you, but you’re much more likely to win more games if your team scores runs and doesn’t kick the ball all over the place, regardless of how well or poorly you pitch.
This year’s Cardinals are a perfect example: 105 wins, and four starters who won 15 or 16 games, despite none of the starters having an ERA below 3.46 (three of them were over 4.00), none pitching more than 202 innings, and none having more than 152 Ks. Why? Because they scored 5.28 runs per game and their unearned run percentage was about 8.2% (they only allowed 54 unearned runs all season). They scored runs and handled the ball, so their pitching staff all got 15 wins (except for Woody Williams, who won 11).
As for your Carlton examples, the '69 Cardinals weren’t exactly an exhibit in futility – they finished fourth in their division, but finished above .500 (87-75), so it wasn’t just Carlton – Gibson won 20 and Briles 15, and the team scored more runs than they allowed. With the 1972 Phillies, Carlton did indeed win 27, but he also started 41 and went the distance in 30. He started at least eight games more than most starters today (or then, for that matter), and only 11 times did he give anyone else a chance to screw it up for him. Likewise, in 1982 he started 38 times – at least five more than the average – and finished 19. Finally, while both the '72 and '82 Phils had their problems with the stick, they both did pretty well with the leather: both teams had a .981 fielding percentage, which led the league in '72 and put them in a tie for second in the league in '82. So they weren’t giving away the store behind his back.