I mentioned in the Mussina vs. Schilling poll post that I thought this would be a more interesting argument; Glavine was the superior regular-season pitcher by a long way (2 Cy Youngs and four top-3s versus 3 second place finishes and a fourth for Schilling; nearly 1200 more innings pitched; 90 more wins), but Schilling was a better postseason pitcher and slightly better on a inning-by-inning basis (128 ERA+ vs. 118 for Glavine).
I vote Glavine. He’s got a ring, tons of playoff appearances, and was better over the long haul.
Not to knock Schilling. I think he belongs in the HoF, too. Along with his bloody sock.
As I get older, I tend to prefer players who burn brighter but shorter. Curt Schilling, at his peak, was a better pitcher than Tom Glavine.
Not sure I agree. If you look at ERA+, for example, Glavine has the better “best” individual season, 168 vs. 157. If you look at the best 8-year span for either of them, they are pretty much even (144 for Schilling vs. 138 for Glavine). If you want to get a “tighter” peak, Schilling had a 4-year run with 151 ERA+. But Glavine can almost match that with a 4-year run with 148 ERA+.
I’d say that they were rather comparable at their peaks.
Then add in that Glavine pitched more than 1000 more innings than Schilling did, and my vote has to go to Glavine.
I tend not to look at ERA+ (or ERA) anymore, because there are underlying metrics which can more properly indicate a pitcher’s ability.
Maybe these metrics also show that Glavine was a better pitcher, but I doubt it. His K/BB was quite pedestrian; his success was almost entirely due to his ability to keep the ball in the park. Meanwhile Schilling was setting records in the K/BB department.
I don’t see how Schilling was a better pitcher than Glavine at their peaks.
Glavine’s best five years by ERA+:
168
153
147
141
140
Schilling’s:
159 (short season)
157
150
150
143
I’m discounting the 152 Schilling had in a 46-inning season early in his career. Schilling’s numbers are a bit higher towards the end of the list but Glavine had the best season of either. Glavine wasn’t just piling up a lot of 16-9 years; he had big, big seasons. He won two Cy Young Awards, something Schilling never did.
And while Glavine went 14-16 in the playoffs, it’s worth noting he also had a 3.30 ERA, so his W-L is to a great extent a function of no support. Glavine was, after all, a World Series MVP, so he has some playoff accomplishments.
Don’t think this one’s close. Schilling is a marginal candidate. I’d vote him in but there’s other pitchers with impressive credentials who maybe should go in first. Glavine is a no-brainer.
As I said previously, I’m not a huge fan of using ERA or ERA+ now that we are in the fangraphs era. I would prefer to use WAR:
Schilling’s best 5 seasons, in WAR:
9.7 (2002)
8.6 (1997)
8.6 (1998)
7.6 (2001)
7.3 (2004)
Glavine’s:
5.7 (1991)
5.3 (1996)
4.9 (1998)
4.8 (1992)
4.7 (2000)
By this measure, Schilling’s 5 best seasons were all better than any season Glavine pitched. The main reason? Innings. Glavine may appear better based on ERA or ERA+, but Schilling threw more innings, making his contributions more valuable on the whole.
Meh. I think WAR puts way too much emphasis on leverage and game outcomes (if it’s the version of WAR I’m thinking of). For a comparison, here is BaseballProspectus’s WARP top-5 for each pitcher:
Schilling:
6.9 (1997)
6.4 (1992)
6.2 (2001)
6.2 (2002)
6.0 (1998)
Glavine:
7.0 (1998)
6.8 (1991)
6.3 (1996)
5.3 (1995)
5.2 (2000)
Career Totals: Glavine 81.4, Schilling 64.8
I think the take-away, as far as I’m concerned, is that they were both transcendent at their peaks, and Glavine was an effective pitcher for a longer period of time.
I think the postseason has to count for something-Glavine as noted wasn’t horrid, but Schill was scintillating. I’m always suspicious of the various WAR models, because one pernicious assumption by the system-creator (that you don’t agree with) can throw things significantly off. For example, one guy I know of puts a lot of weight on contemporaries at the same position, which means Davey Concepcion gets a big boost competing against Johnny LeMaster and Mario Mendoza, while Jeter, Nomar et al. take a hit because ~a third of all teams now have a SS who can hit. I don’t buy that at all. BBRef’s WAR, for example, has Schilling ahead, 69 to 67, not Glavine 81 to 64.