The Schilling HOF debate

[Moose Milligan]

I'll even add a poll. But here's Stark's link: http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=21220

IMO, he is. His big post season games override his stats and earn him a spot.

[longflyball]

Just check out the "Appearances on Leaderboards and Awards" section of his BR page. When he didn't lead the league in a given stat, he was year after year in the top five, if not second. What else do you have to do to get in?

[whatdoiget000]

The guy only has 216 career victories. And people are debating Moose's 260+.

[ElToro75]

I'll even add a poll. But here's Stark's link: http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=21220

IMO, he is. His big post season games override his stats and earn him a spot.

I also voted yes, but I think it will take him a while to get in. How long may depend on who else is on the ballot from previous years. The voters, for whatever reason they each have, never seem to vote in a large number of HOF'ers in a given year.

That's my guess as to why Fisk didn't get in until 2000. He was also on the ballot with George Brett, Nolan Ryan, and Robin Yount.

Plus, depending who retires at the end of this year, quite a few pitchers will also be on the ballot. Some with much better cases for HOF induction than Schilling has.

Year *Players eligible for the first time for BBWAA election (http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/visit/hof_weekend/index.jsp) (Towards the bottom of the page)

2009: Steve Avery, Jay Bell, Mike Bordick, John Burkett, David Cone, Ron Gant, Mark Grace, Rickey Henderson, Todd Hundley, Orlando Merced, Charles Nagy, Denny Neagle, Jesse Orosco, Dean Palmer, Dan Plesac, Rick Reed, Greg Vaughn, Mo Vaughn, Matt Williams

2010: Roberto Alomar, Kevin Appier, Andy Ashby, Ellis Burks, Dave Burba, Andres Galarraga, Pat Hentgen, Mike Jackson, Eric Karros, Ray Lankford, Barry Larkin, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Mark McLemore, Shane Reynolds, David Segui, Robin Ventura, Fernando Vina, Todd Zeile

2011: Wilson Alvarez, Carlos Baerga, Jeff Bagwell, Bret Boone, Kevin Brown, Cal Eldred, John Franco, Juan Gonzalez, Marquis Grissom, Bobby Higginson, Charles Johnson, Al Leiter, Tino Martinez, Raul Mondesi, Jose Offerman, John Olerud, Rafael Palmeiro, Paul Quantrill, Steve Reed, Kirk Rueter, Rey Sanchez, Benito Santiago, B.J. Surhoff, Ugueth Urbina, Ismael Valdez, Larry Walker, Dan Wilson

2012: Pedro Astacio, David Bell, Jeromy Burnitz, Vinny Castilla, Scott Erickson, Carl Everett, Jeff Fassero, Alex S. Gonzalez, Danny Graves, Rick Helling, Dustin Hermanson, Jose Hernandez, Brian Jordan, Matt Lawton, Bill Mueller, Terry Mulholland, Jeff Nelson, Phil Nevin, Brad Radke, Joe Randa, Tim Salmon, Ruben Sierra, J.T. Snow, Jose Vizcaino, Bernie Williams, Eric Young

2013: Sandy Alomar Jr., Craig Biggio, Barry Bonds, Jeff Cirillo, Royce Clayton, Roger Clemens, Jeff Conine, Steve Finley, Julio Franco, Shawn Green, Ryan Klesko, Mike Lieberthal, Kenny Lofton, Jose Mesa, Damian Miller, Eric Milton, Russ Ortiz, Neifi Perez, Mike Piazza, Reggie Sanders, Aaron Sele, Mike Stanton, Todd Walker, David Wells, Rondell White, Bob Wickman, Woody Williams

[Spoonless]

The guy only has 216 career victories. And people are debating Moose's 260+.

Pedro only has 211.

[ElToro75]

Just check out the "Appearances on Leaderboards and Awards" section of his BR page. When he didn't lead the league in a given stat, he was year after year in the top five, if not second. What else do you have to do to get in?

Unfortunately there is no "checklist", if so there'd be no debate on who is in and who is not. What fun would that be? :p

Some of the things they consider when they vote are:

Dominating your position for a part of your career (not 1 or 2 years)
Leading the league in relavent statistics
How did they perform in the postseason
How many All-Star games
How does he compare to others from his era?
How does he compare historically
What career milestones were accomplished
Awards earned (MVP, CY, etc.)



The guy only has 216 career victories. And people are debating Moose's 260+.

It's not about comparing one stat against one other player. It's way more complicated then that.

[Frobby]

I think he gets in, though it's not clear if he gets in on the first ballot. Certainly he's better than quite a few pitchers in the Hall of Fame. Of course, that's true of a number of pitchers who aren't in the Hall.

Clearly ahead of him - Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, Johnson, Martinez
Part of the same debate - Smoltz, Mussina
Down a notch - Kevin Brown, Moyer, Rogers, Pettitte

[TGO]

I think he gets in, though it's not clear if he gets in on the first ballot. Certainly he's better than quite a few pitchers in the Hall of Fame. Of course, that's true of a number of pitchers who aren't in the Hall.

Clearly ahead of him - Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, Johnson, Martinez
Part of the same debate - Smoltz, Mussina
Down a notch - Kevin Brown, Moyer, Rogers, Pettitte

I personally draw the line after Moyer, which probably lets in more guys than will actually get in. I know Rogers has more wins than Brown but Brown's peak was insane and he probably could have won 235 on different teams.

David Wells is missing from your list.

[RShack]

I think 3rd ballot would be about right.
If it's sooner, IMO it will be because of ESPN.

[Moose Milligan]

I think he gets in, though it's not clear if he gets in on the first ballot. Certainly he's better than quite a few pitchers in the Hall of Fame. Of course, that's true of a number of pitchers who aren't in the Hall.

Clearly ahead of him - Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, Johnson, Martinez
Part of the same debate - Smoltz, Mussina
Down a notch - Kevin Brown, Moyer, Rogers, Pettitte

Gotta disagree about Mussina. His ERA is higher at 3.71. Correct me if I'm wrong but if Mussina were to be elected that ERA would be the highest of anyone in the HOF and by a pretty good margin.

At any rate, Schillings postseason record dwarfs Mussina's 7-9 3.42 ERA.

Schilling also trumps him on 20 win seasons and Cy Young shares by a wide margin as well as strikeouts and k/bb ratio.

I think Smoltz is a shoe-in. He's got the ring, the hardware, the wins, and the saves. While his postseason record is 12-12, he has a 2.65 ERA so it looks like the Braves didn't score many runs for him...and it's not like the Braves did a WHOLE lot of winning in the postseason....he struck out 194 and walked 67 which is a good ratio, too.

[longflyball]

My vote reflects my belief that he should be in. I really don't know if he will get in. The writers haven't yet considered very many pitchers who have played in the "steroid era", for lack of a better word.

BTW, his career ERA+ is 42nd all-time. Better than Palmer, Marichal, Carlton, Feller, Spahn, Bunning and Perry.

[TGO]

Gotta disagree about Mussina. His ERA is higher at 3.71. Correct me if I'm wrong but if Mussina were to be elected that ERA would be the highest of anyone in the HOF and by a pretty good margin.

You are correct, but consider era. Mussina's ERA+ would be better than at least 1/3 of the Hall's pitchers.

[Moose Milligan]

You are correct, but consider era. Mussina's ERA+ would be better than at least 1/3 of the Hall's pitchers.

True.

Tell that to the voters...but ask first if they know what that means. ;)

[orayole]

The guy only has 216 career victories. And people are debating Moose's 260+.


Wins are a product of the team not the player. Judging a pitcher by how many wins he has is beyond absurd.

[Frobby]

Wins are a product of the team not the player. Judging a pitcher by how many wins he has is beyond absurd.

It is far less absurd when you are talking about career wins, than it is when you are talking about wins in one season. Obviously, the strength of the team you played for and luck still factors into career wins, but less so than when looking at an individual season.

Here are some reasons Mussina has won 44 more games than Schilling:

1. He was better at a younger age. Moose won 36 games by the time he was 24. Schilling had won 4. So, that's +32 in Moose's column right there, and that has nothing to do with who he played for.

2. Schilling had three seasons, 1994, 1995 and 2005, where he missed significant time due to injury. He made only 41 starts in those three years. Mussina made 86 starts in those three seasons (would have been more, except for the baseball strike in 1994-95).

3. Overall, Mussina has made 83 more starts than Schilling - and counting.

Overall, I see them as two very excellent pitchers. Schilling was probably a bit better at his peak, Mussina has been more consistent and has stayed healthier. If they were both on the ballot and you had to choose only one, it would be a very close call. If you froze both of their careers right now, I suspect Schilling would get in a shade before Mussina. But Mussina's not done yet, and we have to see how much longer he pitches and what successes he achieves.

[RShack]

Wins are a product of the team not the player. Judging a pitcher by how many wins he has is beyond absurd.
Saying that W's don't count for a SP is what's absurd.
Name me one great SP who didn't get a whole bunch of W's in his career. You can't do it.
Any great SP has a ton of W's. Those who play for crappy teams also have a ton of L's.

You're pretending this is some either/or thing when it's not.
For a SP, career W's tell you a whole lot about the SP.

[Palmer Esque]

I voted yes. He was a big game pitcher and although his stats arent as great as others in the Hall, they are good enough.

He will be remembered as a gamer and one who took the ball no matter what, and came through when his team needed him most. Plus he won two world series with Boston ,which will help because well it is the Red Sox we are talking about here :angryfire:

I also have met him at family events (he married a distant distant relative) who some on here might recognize from way back, as his wife and him met through HTS (Home Team Sports) and while he gets portrayed as a loud mouth know it all he just speaks what he feels is the truth. No more no less.

But yes, I do think he gets in, maybe not first ballot, but eventually.

[Spoonless]

Saying that W's don't count for a SP is what's absurd.
Name me one great SP who didn't get a whole bunch of W's in his career. You can't do it.
Any great SP has a ton of W's. Those who play for crappy teams also have a ton of L's.

You're pretending this is some either/or thing when it's not.
For a SP, career W's tell you a whole lot about the SP.

I just kind of read it as "judging a starting pitcher on wins alone is absurd." I know he didn't have the "alone" part in there, but it was in response to a guy posting:

The guy only has 216 career victories. And people are debating Moose's 260+.
Which seems to say that since Mussina's HOF chances are up for debate, and he has 260+ wins, Schilling shouldn't be considered since he only has 216.

Of course, we're both just reading into two-line posts. I happen to believe that wins do count for something when you're looking at a guy's body of work at the end of his career. It's by no means the only thing you should be judging a pitcher on, but it certainly should be considered.

[Palmer Esque]

Saying that W's don't count for a SP is what's absurd.
Name me one great SP who didn't get a whole bunch of W's in his career. You can't do it.
Any great SP has a ton of W's. Those who play for crappy teams also have a ton of L's.

You're pretending this is some either/or thing when it's not.
For a SP, career W's tell you a whole lot about the SP.

I agree, wins, while sometimes lucky, demonstate over the long haul of a career that he kept his teams in games and always gave them a chance to win.

There is alot of value in that, and one that all great HOF pitchers possess.

[Sports Guy]

I put Smoltz and Moose in before Schilling but I think Schilling should be in.

High WARP3....Very good postseason pitcher. Over 200 wins and over 3000 k's.

[Spoonless]

I put Smoltz and Moose in before Schilling but I think Schilling should be in.

High WARP3....Very good postseason pitcher. Over 200 wins and over 3000 k's.

19 GS, 10-2 Record, 4 CG, 2.23 ERA, .97 WHIP, 8.1 K/9, 4.8 K/BB in the postseason. IMO, this is what will push him over the top into the HoF.

[Moose Milligan]

I put Smoltz and Moose in before Schilling but I think Schilling should be in.

High WARP3....Very good postseason pitcher. Over 200 wins and over 3000 k's.

I don't get how you put Mussina in before Schilling.

[RShack]

I just kind of read it as "judging a starting pitcher on wins alone is absurd." I know he didn't have the "alone" part in there, but it was in response to a guy posting:

Which seems to say that since Mussina's HOF chances are up for debate, and he has 260+ wins, Schilling shouldn't be considered since he only has 216.

Of course, we're both just reading into two-line posts. I happen to believe that wins do count for something when you're looking at a guy's body of work at the end of his career. It's by no means the only thing you should be judging a pitcher on, but it certainly should be considered.
Nah, he's said this before, about how W's are meaningless re: the P, how they're mainly about the team. Which is just not true.

AFAIK, as a general rule career W's tell you about the SP, while career L's tell you about how good/bad his teams were.
There's probably exceptions to this, there's usually exceptions to most things, but I don't know who the exceptions might be.

[Sports Guy]

I don't get how you put Mussina in before Schilling.

Because, unlike you, I don't underrate Mussina.

Your bias against him clouds just how great he has been in an era dominated by small ballparks and huge offense.

[longflyball]

Because, unlike you, I don't underrate Mussina.

Your bias against him clouds just how great he has been in an era dominated by small ballparks and huge offense.

If one weighs a Hall resume by looking for individual years of dominance, I think Schilling has an edge. And I'm not just talking about Mussina's lack of 20-win seasons. Even when accounting for the league they pitched in, Schilling's best seasons were better than Mussina's best. Mussina's worst years were worse than Schilling's worst. But Moose stayed healthy and never pitched out of the pen.

[Sports Guy]

If one weighs a Hall resume by looking for individual years of dominance, I think Schilling has an edge. And I'm not just talking about Mussina's lack of 20-win seasons. Even when accounting for the league they pitched in, Schilling's best seasons were better than Mussina's best. Mussina's worst years were worse than Schilling's worst. But Moose stayed healthy and never pitched out of the pen.

3 of Schilling's best 4 years were in the NL...Coincidence?

Put Moose in the NL and he may have 300 wins now.

[DrungoHazewood]

Schilling and Mussina should both go in. Had they played in an era that was kinder to pitchers, say 30 or 40 years ago, they'd both have an extra 30-50 wins and there wouldn't be a debate. Put Mussina in a four-man rotation and give him 4, 5, 6 more starts a season and he's a 300-win pitcher with four or five 20-win seasons. In a historically neutral context Schilling's 2001-02 seasons would be about 50 wins, 600 innings, and an ERA under 3.00.

Today's pitchers can't be blamed for an environment that makes six or seven innings a game as taxing as going nine or 10 was in the 1960s.

[TonySoprano]

Schilling and Mussina should both go in. Had they played in an era that was kinder to pitchers, say 30 or 40 years ago, they'd both have an extra 30-50 wins and there wouldn't be a debate. Put Mussina in a four-man rotation and give him 4, 5, 6 more starts a season and he's a 300-win pitcher with four or five 20-win seasons. In a historically neutral context Schilling's 2001-02 seasons would be about 50 wins, 600 innings, and an ERA under 3.00..This assumes that the longevity of their careers would be the same despite the 25% extra workload per year. That's a big assumption, IMO. The increased possibility of injury due to the added workload should be a factor.

[DrungoHazewood]

This assumes that the longevity of their careers would be the same despite the 25% extra workload per year. That's a big assumption, IMO. The increased possibility of injury due to the added workload should be a factor.

I don't think it's much of an assumption. Pitchers from the 1960s didn't work any harder, the conditions were much easier. 230 innings today really is the same workload as 300 or so in 1966. Or 400 in 1910.

I think a bigger leap would be to assume that Jim Palmer or Don Sutton would have win/inning totals any better than Mike Mussina if they were born in 1970.

[TonySoprano]

Pitchers from the 1960s didn't work any harder, the conditions were much easier.
How where the conditions easier then? In today's LaRussian age of LOOGY's and bullpen specialists, managers are less inclined to push their starters deeper into the ballgames.

[DrungoHazewood]

How where the conditions easier then? In today's LaRussian age of LOOGY's and bullpen specialists, managers are less inclined to push their starters deeper into the ballgames.

Everyone had two, three, four Luis Hernandezes in the lineup. No DH. Bigger ballparks. Fewer walks and Ks. Guys like Luis Aparicio leading off with .300 OBPs and no one thinking anything of it. Complete games in under 100 pitches constantly. 5' 10", 175 being about average size for a hitter. Strikezones that really were knees to the shoulders. Mounds only slightly shorter than Denali.

Pitchers in the 60s and 70s often could throw a complete game in under 100 pitches, with 20%-40% of those 100 pitches at less than 100% effort. Today we find it remarkable that a .500 team like the Orioles, in a down offensive year, has one lineup spot that they've punted and the other team can coast through.

[TonySoprano]

Everyone had two, three, four Luis Hernandezes in the lineup.
This cuts both ways. Maybe you surrender less runs but also get less run support from the Luis Hernandezes in their own line-ups.

[Eight]

I don't buy the argument about older pitchers benefiting from being able to give less than 100% effort, because pitchers today don't throw with 100% effort on ever pitch, or even close to it. They couldn't possibly unless they were relievers that had a limit of 20-30 pitches per outing. To throw with max effort for 100+ pitches in any era is impossible, at least while maintaing effectiveness. I don't doubt that pitchers in lower run environments were able to do it more often, but they were still facing major league hitters.

For every sub-100 pitch complete game, there were probably two or three games where the pitcher threw 150+ pitches.

And while there's a huge difference between say the 1968 AL and 2008 AL, the same high run environment was seen back in the 30s, but pitchers still routinely threw tons of innings. Jim Palmer threw 300 innings a few times in the 70s where the run environment wasn't exactly what it was in the 60s.

As for Schilling, I think he's in. It's hard for me to distinguish between him, Smoltz and Mussina, and in the end I think all three are deserving.

[Mad Mark]

He was in the moment his sock turned red...
Because he was a (relatively) late bloomer, and because of the time he missed due to injury, he won't have the victory totals some would like, but he will have two WS wins, and that sock...
In, but not immediately.

[Orioles1954]

Some of the players on Schilling's BR who have career stats that are similar to him....

Kevin Brown, Freddie Fitzsimmons, Orel Hershiser, Mike Mussina, John Smoltz and Bob Welch. Schilling was a durable pitcher who did some great work in an inferior league. He is a charter member of the "Hall of Very Good" in my book. Schilling did star for Bandwagon Nation though, so he will probably get in that way. Unfortunately, no such luck for Bert Blyleven though....travesty he isn't in.

[Hallas]

This cuts both ways. Maybe you surrender less runs but also get less run support from the Luis Hernandezes in their own line-ups.

While not untrue, because the pitchers are completing their games more often they are pitching more high-leverage situations which gives them an increased chance to be in line for the victory.

We can do the old Keltner test.

Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

Definitely no. Even among pitchers, Maddux, Pedro, and Randy Johnson surpassed him. However, I think he gets a pass on Pedro and Maddux since Pedro during his prime was the most dominant pitcher ever to walk the earth, and Maddux is a no-doubt-about-it first ballot HOFer.

Was he the best player on his team?

He was the best player on some of his Phillies teams, and he was darned close on the D'Backs teams that made the playoff runs.

Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

See above. (no.)

Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

Yes. Hello sock?

Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?

He had his best years while "past his prime"

Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

Blyleven is probably better. He's the only one that stands out. And, at least according to BaseballProspectus, Schilling had a much better peak.

I don't really even know why we debate Blyleven. Hes such an obvious HOF candidate that it's a pointless exercise in my opinion to bring his name up every time someone runs the Keltner test.

Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?

Among his B-R top 10, 3 are in the HOF, 1 will be if eligible, and 2 are questionable. It's pretty close.

Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

He's a little short on career wins due to him taking so long to figure himself out, but otherwise he's got a pretty solid resume.

Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

He put his numbers up during one of the most prolific offensive surges in the history of the game, so I think that he (and all pitchers of this era) deserve additional accolades for overcoming the era.

Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?

Again, see above, even if I don't think Blyleven should even count.

How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

Received votes for CYA 4 times, came in 2nd 3 times. While he probably deserved to come in second for his 3 second-place finishes, each of those seasons was good enough that it might have won in a different year.

How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?

6 all-star games. He doesn't earn or lose points for this.

If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

Absolutely.

What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

I think he gets bonus points for guts (ie. the bloody sock.)

He also was one of the first (and certainly the most high-profile) baseball players to track and sort scouting reports/video on a computer.

Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

Though a bit abrasive at times, he's apparently devoutly religious and a good human being by most accounts.

-----

I think he pretty safely passes, especially if you leave out the questions he failed because of Blyleven. It's unfortunate that some very deserving pitchers may get left off the HOF roster because the voters don't understand the concept of context. Schilling may be a victim there.

[The Wedge]

I said yes, but unless his class is really barren and other people haven't gotten in yet, he won't be first ballot.

[Avsfan]

I say no....he clearly wasn't in the top echelon of pitchers during his career. His dominant years weren't long enough to outweigh those years when he wasn't dominant.

If he does get in, which probably will eventually happen...it will be later down the line, not instantaneously.

[mefogus]

This cuts both ways. Maybe you surrender less runs but also get less run support from the Luis Hernandezes in their own line-ups.

True true... but we are talking about Moose and Schilling no? They are the dominant pitchers and more likely to get the win. Not to mention the fact that they would most likely be pitching later into the game and controlling their destiny.

-m

[RShack]

This cuts both ways. Maybe you surrender less runs but also get less run support from the Luis Hernandezes in their own line-ups.
I agree with this point, and I think Drungo is maybe over-selling his point, but the fact that it does cut both ways doesn't change the fact that SP's face fewer hitters who they can take lightly. So, you can make a case that the SP has to work harder against a higher % of batters. Your point boils down to saying that the other team's SP has the same problem, which is true. Which means that SP's in general have it harder than they used to.

Personally, I think a lot of it is the bats. The whole bat-speed thing means that anybody can put one in the seats or in the gap. If they ever fix the problem with too-skinny bat handles, and thus return the length/weight ratio back to what it used to be, I wonder if this will change any.

[DrungoHazewood]

I agree with this point, and I think Drungo is maybe over-selling his point, but the fact that it does cut both ways doesn't change the fact that SP's face fewer hitters who they can take lightly. So, you can make a case that the SP has to work harder against a higher % of batters. Your point boils down to saying that the other team's SP has the same problem, which is true. Which means that SP's in general have it harder than they used to.

That's the point I'm trying to make. All starters had it easier. Sure, maybe you get cheated out of some wins where you allowed one run in 10 innings. But you were able to throw 300+ innings because of the environment, and if you're good you'll get more than your share of those extra starts, and innings, and decisions.

For anyone who doubts this is the case, turn this argument on its head. If it was equally as difficult to pitch in 1965 as it is today we have the question of why today's starters throw 2/3rds as many innings and still get injured at least as much. Somehow pitchers would have become more fragile and less durable over time. The rest of the world has seen constant progress in athletic endeavors - marathon times constantly go down, high jumps get higher, players in all sports spend more time on conditioning and training, biomechanics was unknown in 1965 and is a crucial part of every major sport today, expansion hasn't even kept pace with the ever-growing talent pool... and despite this you're (not shack - the folks who doubt each inning is harder today) suggesting that pitchers have taken a massive step backwards over the last 40 years. It doesn't make any sense.

[lint06]

Well, he does have 8 seasons of 15 wins or more, but the rest of his seasons seem very good, just not HOF-like, to me. However, some years he had a sick number of strikeouts...it's close for me, but I say no (probably).

[Eight]

For anyone who doubts this is the case, turn this argument on its head. If it was equally as difficult to pitch in 1965 as it is today we have the question of why today's starters throw 2/3rds as many innings and still get injured at least as much. Somehow pitchers would have become more fragile and less durable over time. The rest of the world has seen constant progress in athletic endeavors - marathon times constantly go down, high jumps get higher, players in all sports spend more time on conditioning and training, biomechanics was unknown in 1965 and is a crucial part of every major sport today, expansion hasn't even kept pace with the ever-growing talent pool... and despite this you're (not shack - the folks who doubt each inning is harder today) suggesting that pitchers have taken a massive step backwards over the last 40 years. It doesn't make any sense.

Wasn't it Bill James who suggested that pitchers (starters) were getting injured just as much, if not more, precisely because they were pitching less and not building their arm strength up enough?

Instead of comparing pitching to 40 years ago, compare it to ten years ago. The environment that pitchers' faced in the latter part of the 90s was just as harsh as today, possibly harsher. But since then we've seen a pretty drastic change in how starters are used. Letting them go 120+ pitches (or even 130 or 140) was pretty common back then. Now starting pitchers are limited to the 90-120 pitch range probably close to 99% of the time. But pitching injuries are just as prevalent as they were ten years ago.

I'd certainly agree that the expectation that a pitcher can throw 310 innings in a season shouldn't be there, but now guys can't throw 210, and I don't think that's purely an adjustment to the level of competition.

[DrungoHazewood]

Wasn't it Bill James who suggested that pitchers (starters) were getting injured just as much, if not more, precisely because they were pitching less and not building their arm strength up enough?

Yes. But he doesn't have much besides anecdotal evidence for his theory.


Instead of comparing pitching to 40 years ago, compare it to ten years ago. The environment that pitchers' faced in the latter part of the 90s was just as harsh as today, possibly harsher. But since then we've seen a pretty drastic change in how starters are used. Letting them go 120+ pitches (or even 130 or 140) was pretty common back then. Now starting pitchers are limited to the 90-120 pitch range probably close to 99% of the time. But pitching injuries are just as prevalent as they were ten years ago.

Is that true?


I'd certainly agree that the expectation that a pitcher can throw 310 innings in a season shouldn't be there, but now guys can't throw 210, and I don't think that's purely an adjustment to the level of competition.

Part of it is the realization that some of those 310 innings were at a competitive disadvantage. Even if you haven't thrown 140 pitches, your last inning or two of a game is likely to be at a lower level of effectiveness than what you'd see from a rested Jon Paplebon or Billy Wagner or Randy Meyers.

Starters pitch less, in part, because that wins more games. Short term and long term. With or without injuries. (Obviously there's a limit. You'd probably be worse off with a 25-man roster and starters going three innings but pitching like Eck.)

[Eight]

IIRC, James did some studies that refuted some of what BP had done with pitcher abuse and seemed to come to the conclusion that "overuse" wasn't quite as big a deal as it had been made out to be.

I'm not sure if it's true or not about the injury level. I've certainly never seen anything to show that the decrease in workloads has correlated to a decrease in injury. I suspect that a study of that could be done fairly easily, at least at the major league level, though problems of controlling for advancements in medicine and perhaps increased risk aversion for teams due to the monetary stakes would be problematic.

Anecdotally, it certainly seems that pitcher injuries haven't gone down much in recent years. Now anecdotes ain't proof, but it's all either side has. I do agree with your general point that it's tougher to pitch today in some respects, neither of us have a clue just how much tougher. It's even possible that it's not tougher to pitch as compared to 100 years ago given the better training that players take part in today. I don't think it's probably, but it's possible.

I do agree about the usage of the bullpen being more optimal than having a fatigued starter pitch the ninth. But that's a different situation discussion altogether.

[orayole]

Saying that W's don't count for a SP is what's absurd.
Name me one great SP who didn't get a whole bunch of W's in his career. You can't do it.
Any great SP has a ton of W's. Those who play for crappy teams also have a ton of L's.

You're pretending this is some either/or thing when it's not.
For a SP, career W's tell you a whole lot about the SP.

No. Pitching well will get you more wins on the average than a bad pitcher over a career but using wins as a measuring stick is absurd. Wins are a by product of your team and other stats far more important.

[RShack]

No. Pitching well will get you more wins on the average than a bad pitcher over a career but using wins as a measuring stick is absurd. Wins are a by product of your team and other stats far more important.
You keep saying this, but I don't know why.
Have you actually looked at SP's career records? I don't think you have.
I think you're just taking one little idea, and making a federal case out it, based on nothing.

Show some actual evidence to back up what you're saying.
Show me 1 great SP who didn't amass a ton of W's even on a bad team. You can't do it.
Playing on a bad team will get a great SP a bunch of L's, but he'll still have a ton of W's.
If you wanna say that a SP's winning pct is based on the team, that's fine.
But you're saying something else, and it's just wrong.

[DrungoHazewood]

No. Pitching well will get you more wins on the average than a bad pitcher over a career but using wins as a measuring stick is absurd. Wins are a by product of your team and other stats far more important.

Other things are more important, but at a 30,000-ft level pitcher wins are indicative of both quality and durability. You don't win 250 games unless you were a pretty good pitcher for a very long time. You don't win 300 unless you were very good for a very long time, or pitched in the 1870s and 1880s.

It does take more analysis to figure out which 250 or 275 game winners were better, and it is true that many pitchers who won 200 games are better than many pitchers who won 250.

It's pretty crazy to say that using career wins by a pitcher as a measuring stick is "absurd". It's part of the puzzle.

[oriole_way]

Will Curt Schilling get into the HOF? Will Mussina? That's an interesting question.

While Schilling's cumulative win total isn't that impressive, he's widely considered one of the best postseason pitchers of his era. And it's probably justified.

One thing about Mussina and Schilling that I haven't seen mentioned is that Schilling went to the World Series with 3 different teams (Phillies, Diamondbacks and Red Sox) while Mussina only got to the WS with the Yankees.

- Schilling was the ace on the 1993 Phillies, who were a ragtag group of scrappy underdogs. Granted they lost the WS, but just getting there was a mighty achievement for that team. Remember that the Phillies had finished in last place in a 6 team division the year before. And they had beaten the 104 win Braves in the NLDS.

- The Diamondbacks were certainly underdogs to the mighty Yankees in 2001. And while Schilling had Randy Johnson by his side, the rest of that pitching staff was below average. Schilling was also 34 years old by this time, and he pitched 305 innings that year when you include the postseason.

- And even though the Red Sox are considered the new evil empire nowadays, when Schilling went there, the Red Sox hadn't won the WS since 1918. He went there to help them finally overcome the Yankees and win a WS, which they finally did in 2004. Schilling was 37 years old by this time but still played a large role in that.

Mussina, on the other hand, went to join the powerhouse Yankees in 2001, when they were coming off 3 straight WS championships and 4 in 5 years. They haven't won a WS since.

Is that fair? Probably not completely. But that's a big part of how each of them are viewed.

[Frobby]

Will Curt Schilling get into the HOF? Will Mussina? That's an interesting question.

While Schilling's cumulative win total isn't that impressive, he's widely considered one of the best postseason pitchers of his era. And it's probably justified.

One thing about Mussina and Schilling that I haven't seen mentioned is that Schilling went to the World Series with 3 different teams (Phillies, Diamondbacks and Red Sox) while Mussina only got to the WS with the Yankees.

- Schilling was the ace on the 1993 Phillies, who were a ragtag group of scrappy underdogs. Granted they lost the WS, but just getting there was a mighty achievement for that team. Remember that the Phillies had finished in last place in a 6 team division the year before. And they had beaten the 104 win Braves in the NLDS.

- The Diamondbacks were certainly underdogs to the mighty Yankees in 2001. And while Schilling had Randy Johnson by his side, the rest of that pitching staff was below average. Schilling was also 34 years old by this time, and he pitched 305 innings that year when you include the postseason.

- And even though the Red Sox are considered the new evil empire nowadays, when Schilling went there, the Red Sox hadn't won the WS since 1918. He went there to help them finally overcome the Yankees and win a WS, which they finally did in 2004. Schilling was 37 years old by this time but still played a large role in that.

Mussina, on the other hand, went to join the powerhouse Yankees in 2001, when they were coming off 3 straight WS championships and 4 in 5 years. They haven't won a WS since.

Is that fair? Probably not completely. But that's a big part of how each of them are viewed.

I suppose there is something more Mussina could have done, in 1997, to get the Orioles to the World Series, besides pitching four games to an ERA of 1.24, allowing 11 hits in 29 innings while striking out 41 batters, beating Randy Johnson twice, and throwing 8 innings of one-hit, shutout ball in the final game of the ALCS. Clearly it was his fault that the O's didn't go to the Series. :rolleyes:

Look - Schilling definitely gets some extra credit for his post-season performances. But Mussina has a career 3.60 ERA in the ALDS, 3.34 in the ALCS, and 3.00 in the World Series. That's not exactly bad. The last Series he was in he won the only game he started, allowing 1 run in 7 innings. Wells, Clemens and Pettitte lost the next three games and Moose never got another shot. His fault? When NY was up 3 games to 1 on Boston in the ALCS in 2004, Mussina (who already had beaten the Sox once that series) allowed 2 runs in 6 IP and left with a 4-2 lead. Rivera blew the save and the Sox won the next 2 games. His fault?

[DrungoHazewood]

I suppose there is something more Mussina could have done, in 1997, to get the Orioles to the World Series, besides pitching four games to an ERA of 1.24, allowing 11 hits in 29 innings while striking out 41 batters, beating Randy Johnson twice, and throwing 8 innings of one-hit, shutout ball in the final game of the ALCS. Clearly it was his fault that the O's didn't go to the Series. :rolleyes:

Look - Schilling definitely gets some extra credit for his post-season performances. But Mussina has a career 3.60 ERA in the ALDS, 3.34 in the ALCS, and 3.00 in the World Series. That's not exactly bad. The last Series he was in he won the only game he started, allowing 1 run in 7 innings. Wells, Clemens and Pettitte lost the next three games and Moose never got another shot. His fault? When NY was up 3 games to 1 on Boston in the ALCS in 2004, Mussina (who already had beaten the Sox once that series) allowed 2 runs in 6 IP and left with a 4-2 lead. Rivera blew the save and the Sox won the next 2 games. His fault?

Obviously not. But I think part of the prior poster's argument is that perceptions influence HOF voting almost as much as actual results and actual value. Mussina is (arguably) objectively more valuable than Schilling. In terms of career value it's not even close. But many of the writers with Cooperstown votes probably value bloody socks and teammates' abilities as much as the details you noted.

[RShack]

Mussina, on the other hand, went to join the powerhouse Yankees in 2001, when they were coming off 3 straight WS championships and 4 in 5 years. They haven't won a WS since.

Is that fair? Probably not completely. But that's a big part of how each of them are viewed.
Schilling will probably get helped by all the ESPN stuff. But the part I bolded is not something that's gonna hurt Mussina. Not his fault, he did his part. It's just something that Mussina-haters around here like to talk about.

BTW, he did help get the MFY's to a WS. It was the last one they went to before the Jeter Curse kicked in. No such thing as a Moose Curse, despite what some folks here like to think ;-)

[BaltimoreTerp]

Schilling will probably get helped by all the ESPN stuff. But the part I bolded is not something that's gonna hurt Mussina. Not his fault, he did his part. It's just something that Mussina-haters around here like to talk about.

BTW, he did help get the MFY's to a WS. It was the last one they went to before the Jeter Curse kicked in. No such thing as a Moose Curse, despite what some folks here like to think ;-)

He got them to two - '01 and '03. But he won neither.

[oriole_way]

I suppose there is something more Mussina could have done, in 1997, to get the Orioles to the World Series, besides pitching four games to an ERA of 1.24, allowing 11 hits in 29 innings while striking out 41 batters, beating Randy Johnson twice, and throwing 8 innings of one-hit, shutout ball in the final game of the ALCS. Clearly it was his fault that the O's didn't go to the Series. :rolleyes:

Look - Schilling definitely gets some extra credit for his post-season performances. But Mussina has a career 3.60 ERA in the ALDS, 3.34 in the ALCS, and 3.00 in the World Series. That's not exactly bad. The last Series he was in he won the only game he started, allowing 1 run in 7 innings. Wells, Clemens and Pettitte lost the next three games and Moose never got another shot. His fault? When NY was up 3 games to 1 on Boston in the ALCS in 2004, Mussina (who already had beaten the Sox once that series) allowed 2 runs in 6 IP and left with a 4-2 lead. Rivera blew the save and the Sox won the next 2 games. His fault?

Sigh.

You know, I don't mind different points of view. But I expect more than a :rolleyes: emoticon from you, Frobby.

I never said that Mussina didn't perform well in the postseason. I also asked if that playoff perception is completely fair and said probably not.

But when you hear people talk about great postseason pitchers of this era, you will often hear Schilling's name mentioned. Do you hear Mussina's name mentioned in this context? I don't.

And if you really want to compare their postseason performances, Schilling clearly outshines Moose, Moose's 1997 postseason performance notwithstanding.

1. You allude to Moose's postseason era, which is 3.42 over 139.2 innings. Schilling's postseason era is 2.23 over 133.1 innings. That's a significant disparity.

Mussina has given up 1 or 0 runs in 6 of his 21 postseason starts. Schilling has given up 1 or 0 runs in 11 of his 19 postseason starts. Again, that's a significant disparity.

You're right that Moose's performance isn't exactly bad. But is it great? And how does that compare to Schilling's postseason era? Frankly, it doesn't.

2. You mention that Mussina allowed 2 runs in 6 innings in the 2004 ALCS when the Yankees were up 4-2 and the bullpen blew it and ask if it was his fault? I'm glad you bring that game up as evidence to his postseason effectiveness.

Moose has started 21 postseason games and not completed even one of them. In fact, he's only gone 8 innings twice. In those 21 starts, Moose has averaged slightly less than 6.1 innings. (He has two postseason relief appearances.)

Meanwhile, giving up 2 runs in 6 innings (= 3.00 era) is a slightly below average/median postseason start for Schilling. Not only does he usually give up fewer runs than Moose, he usually lasts longer.

Schilling has started 19 postseason games and completed 4 of them, 2 of which were shutouts. He went 9 innings in another game that went into extra innings and went 8 innings 2 other times. That's 7 times that he's gone at least 8 innings. Schilling has averaged slightly over 7 innings per start in the postseason. Again, this is a significant disparity.

In that same 2004 ALCS where you mention Moose's game 5 performance, Schilling pitched with an unstable peroneus brevis tendon that had to be sutured down. This tendon is one of 3 tendons that normally run behind the lateral malleolus, which is the bump on the outside of your ankle. I don't know if that bloody sock was authentic or not, but regardless, pitching under those circumstances was a minor miracle (for multiple reasons which I won't go into for fear of boring the board). And I state this as a physician.

Meanwhile, what is Moose's signature moment in the playoffs? The 1997 ALCS?

3. Moose's record in the playoffs is 7-8. Schilling's record is 11-2. Sure, I'll grant that wins aren't necessarily an accurate portrayal of how one pitches. But in the playoffs, when you are facing good teams and the games are more likely to be close, the ability to last longer in certain games and give up 2.2 runs/9 IP instead of 3.4 runs/9 IP can be the difference between winning and losing, and is probably a large reason for the disparity in their postseason W-L records.

4. Mussina deserves credit for spearheading the Orioles rotation in the 90s and leading the team to a couple of postseason appearances. He pitched very well in the 1997 playoffs. But he's not going to get many brownie points for going to a Yankee team that was coming off of 4 WS titles in 5 years but hasn't won a single WS since his arrival. Whether it's fair or not, he will just be seen as another mercenary who signed with the Yankees who couldn't quite get it done in the playoffs.

Meanwhile, Schilling similarly deserves credit for spearheading playoff efforts with the Phillies and the Diamondbacks. He then came to a Red Sox team that could almost never beat the Yankees when it mattered and hadn't won the WS since 1918. Schilling helped them do both. Fair or not, that is a stark contrast to Moose going to the Yankees.

5. Last year, the Yankees didn't trust a 38 year old Mussina to start game 4 (or any game) against the Indians in the ALDS.

Meanwhile, a 40 year old Schilling was still pitching reasonably effectively for the Red Sox in the postseason, even though he looked like a junk ball pitcher. (He pitched to a 3.00 era over 4 starts, 24 innings, 16/3 K/BB, and 1.17 WHIP.)

I'll refrain from using a sarcasm emoticon.

[RShack]

He got them to two - '01 and '03. But he won neither.
He can't win a whole WS by himself. Jeez.

In Mussina's 1st WS start, his ERA was 9.00. His team scored 1 measly run.
In Schilling's 1st WS start, his ERA was 8.53. His team scored 5 runs.
They both had lousy 1st WS starts. So what?

In his 2nd WS start, he went 8 IP, gave up 2 runs on 5 hits, got 10K's, and threw 129 pitches (84 for strikes). His team finally won it in 12.

In his 3rd WS start, he went 7 IP, gave up 1 run on 7 hits, got 9 K's, and threw 111p (79 for strikes). His team won. (Beckett gave up 2 runs and lost.)

That's all the WS opportunities he had. Mussina did his part.

What's your point?

[BaltimoreTerp]

He can't win a whole WS by himself. Jeez.

In Mussina's 1st WS start, his ERA was 9.00. His team scored 1 measly run.
In Schilling's 1st WS start, his ERA was 8.53. His team scored 5 runs.
They both had lousy 1st WS starts. So what?

In his 2nd WS start, he went 8 IP, gave up 2 runs on 5 hits, got 10K's, and threw 129 pitches (84 for strikes). His team finally won it in 12.

In his 3rd WS start, he went 7 IP, gave up 1 run on 7 hits, got 9 K's, and threw 111p (79 for strikes). His team won. (Beckett gave up 2 runs and lost.)

That's all the WS opportunities he had. Mussina did his part.

What's your point?

What's your's?

You said that he led them to one World Series, and therefore there was no "curse".

I pointed out he led them to TWO, but didn't win either (which could be evidence of a curse if one wanted to go that far). The fact that he pitched well in the playoffs and those World Series just makes a curse argument eaiser, since it was others who didn't help him.

[orayole]

You keep saying this, but I don't know why.
Have you actually looked at SP's career records? I don't think you have.
I think you're just taking one little idea, and making a federal case out it, based on nothing.

Show some actual evidence to back up what you're saying.
Show me 1 great SP who didn't amass a ton of W's even on a bad team. You can't do it.
Playing on a bad team will get a great SP a bunch of L's, but he'll still have a ton of W's.
If you wanna say that a SP's winning pct is based on the team, that's fine.
But you're saying something else, and it's just wrong.

It's called common sense. If your team doesn't score runs or blows your leads you don't get a win no matter how well you pitch. It doesn't matter if there are or aren't any great pitchers without a lot of wins. The whole thing is about using wins as a measuring stick to judge versus other pitchers. One pitcher having more wins than another means ABSOLUTELY ZERO. Saying pitcher A is better than pitcher B because he has more wins over his career is nonsense.

[BaltimoreTerp]

You keep saying this, but I don't know why.
Have you actually looked at SP's career records? I don't think you have.
I think you're just taking one little idea, and making a federal case out it, based on nothing.

Show some actual evidence to back up what you're saying.
Show me 1 great SP who didn't amass a ton of W's even on a bad team. You can't do it.
Playing on a bad team will get a great SP a bunch of L's, but he'll still have a ton of W's.
If you wanna say that a SP's winning pct is based on the team, that's fine.
But you're saying something else, and it's just wrong.

Here's two pairs of pitchers. I'm going to give the wins and the total years pitched. Tell me who is the better pitcher:

Pitcher A: 324 wins, 23 years
Pitcher B: 287 wins, 22 years

and

Pitcher C: 209 wins, 14 years
Pitcher D: 165 wins, 12 years.

[Frobby]

Sigh.

You know, I don't mind different points of view. But I expect more than a :rolleyes: emoticon from you, Frobby.

Fair enough, and I didn't mean to offend you. But I wasn't debating your point that Schilling deserves extra credit for his great postseason performances. Clearly, he does.

What rankled me a bit was the suggestion that Schillign should get credit for going to the WS with three different teams, compared to Mussina's one. Mussina has only played on two teams. He did everything humanly possible to get the O's to the series in '97. The fact that they didn't get there was beyond his control - that's all I was really trying to say.

It's kind of a personal point with me because I was at the '97 ALCS game that the O's lost 1-0 in extra innings despite Mussina's gem. As anyone who attended that game will tell you, Mussina could not have been any more dominant than he was. The O's blew multiple chances to score in that game:

1st inning: left runners on 1st and 2nd with 2 out.
2nd inning: Ripen goes only from 1st to 3rd on a double with 2 out, O's strand runners on 2nd and 3rd with 2 out.
3rd inning: O's strand runner on 3rd with 2 out.
4th inning: O's strand a leadoff double.
5th inning: O's strand runners on 1st and 2nd.
7th inning: O's have runners on 1st and 2nd, nobody out and strand them.
8th inning: O's waste runners on 1st and 2nd, one out.

Suffice it to say that if I was writing the headline for that game, the headline would not be "Mussina Fails to Pitch O's Into the Series."

[RShack]

It's called common sense. If your team doesn't score runs or blows your leads you don't get a win no matter how well you pitch. It doesn't matter if there are or aren't any great pitchers without a lot of wins. The whole thing is about using wins as a measuring stick to judge versus other pitchers. One pitcher having more wins than another means ABSOLUTELY ZERO. Saying pitcher A is better than pitcher B because he has more wins over his career is nonsense.
No, it's called backpedaling. Nobody ever said that W's are the one and only thing to go by. Nobody said to judge a P based on nothing but that. You're changing your story and making up a phony argument, trying to shoot down a point that nobody is even saying.

What you said was this:

Wins are a product of the team not the player. Judging a pitcher by how many wins he has is beyond absurd.
That is complete baloney. Any great SP will have a ton of career W's regardless of his team. Playing on a bad team will up his losses and cost him a few wins, but he's still amass a ton of W's anyway. Claiming that "Wins are a byproduct of the team not the player" is just a completely false thing to say. Multiple times I've challenged you to show me one great SP who did not amass a ton of W's, even if he played with a bad team. You can't do it, so now you're changing your story, and pretending it's about something else.

As I've said multiple times, if you want to say that a good SP's career L's are highly team dependent, or that a good SP's winning pct is team dependent, fine. But saying that career W's don't matter, that they're mainly a byproduct of the team and not the player, is just flat-out wrong.

What you're calling "common sense" is a lame excuse for not knowing the facts. If you wanna make blanket statements, at least do your homework first, instead of spouting junk that's demonstrably false. And if you goof, just admit it. There's nothing wrong with saying, "Ooops, I was wrong". That's much better than trying to cover your butt when you've made a mistake and said something that's bogus.

[Moose Milligan]

Fair enough, and I didn't mean to offend you. But I wasn't debating your point that Schilling deserves extra credit for his great postseason performances. Clearly, he does.

What rankled me a bit was the suggestion that Schillign should get credit for going to the WS with three different teams, compared to Mussina's one. Mussina has only played on two teams. He did everything humanly possible to get the O's to the series in '97. The fact that they didn't get there was beyond his control - that's all I was really trying to say.

It's kind of a personal point with me because I was at the '97 ALCS game that the O's lost 1-0 in extra innings despite Mussina's gem. As anyone who attended that game will tell you, Mussina could not have been any more dominant than he was. The O's blew multiple chances to score in that game:

1st inning: left runners on 1st and 2nd with 2 out.
2nd inning: Ripen goes only from 1st to 3rd on a double with 2 out, O's strand runners on 2nd and 3rd with 2 out.
3rd inning: O's strand runner on 3rd with 2 out.
4th inning: O's strand a leadoff double.
5th inning: O's strand runners on 1st and 2nd.
7th inning: O's have runners on 1st and 2nd, nobody out and strand them.
8th inning: O's waste runners on 1st and 2nd, one out.

Suffice it to say that if I was writing the headline for that game, the headline would not be "Mussina Fails to Pitch O's Into the Series."

I remember that game. Mussina was filthy.

Schillings postseason record is better overall.

Looking back at Mussina's stats, I can see the argument for the Hall...i don't know if he's a first balloter or not...I think Schilling should be, though. His postseason record puts him over the top.

[RShack]

I remember that game. Mussina was filthy.

Schillings postseason record is better overall.

Looking back at Mussina's stats, I can see the argument for the Hall...i don't know if he's a first balloter or not...I think Schilling should be, though. His postseason record puts him over the top.
I think they both should go, and neither one of them deserves first ballot.

[Moose Milligan]

I think they both should go, and neither one of them deserves first ballot.

I think Blyleven deserves to be in before both of them, if you want to play the "______ deserves to be in before ________" game.

Blyleven apologists say that he pitched for some bad teams, and he did....but he also was on the Pirates team that beat us in 79. He also pitched for the 87 Twins, so it's not like his whole career was spent in the abyss.

[RShack]

I think Blyleven deserves to be in before both of them, if you want to play the "______ deserves to be in before ________" game.

Blyleven apologists say that he pitched for some bad teams, and he did....but he also was on the Pirates team that beat us in 79. He also pitched for the 87 Twins, so it's not like his whole career was spent in the abyss.
I agree that Blyleven's been screwed.

[oriole_way]

Fair enough, and I didn't mean to offend you. But I wasn't debating your point that Schilling deserves extra credit for his great postseason performances. Clearly, he does.

What rankled me a bit was the suggestion that Schillign should get credit for going to the WS with three different teams, compared to Mussina's one. Mussina has only played on two teams. He did everything humanly possible to get the O's to the series in '97. The fact that they didn't get there was beyond his control - that's all I was really trying to say.

It's kind of a personal point with me because I was at the '97 ALCS game that the O's lost 1-0 in extra innings despite Mussina's gem. As anyone who attended that game will tell you, Mussina could not have been any more dominant than he was. The O's blew multiple chances to score in that game:

1st inning: left runners on 1st and 2nd with 2 out.
2nd inning: Ripen goes only from 1st to 3rd on a double with 2 out, O's strand runners on 2nd and 3rd with 2 out.
3rd inning: O's strand runner on 3rd with 2 out.
4th inning: O's strand a leadoff double.
5th inning: O's strand runners on 1st and 2nd.
7th inning: O's have runners on 1st and 2nd, nobody out and strand them.
8th inning: O's waste runners on 1st and 2nd, one out.

Suffice it to say that if I was writing the headline for that game, the headline would not be "Mussina Fails to Pitch O's Into the Series."

Hey, I completely agree with you with regards to the 1997 AL playoffs. Gem is the appropriate word. Mussina pitched great that postseason, against both the Mariners and the Indians. I do not mean to imply that he was a reason for the Orioles losing that year.

On a side note, losing to the Indians that year was tough. I really thought that once the Orioles got past facing Randy Johnson twice in the opening best of 5 round and the Yankees were eliminated by the Indians, that they had a pretty good shot at going all the way.

But while he was no way responsible for the Orioles losing in the 1997 ALCS, he hasn't had those same type of masterful (gem) performances for the most part in his other playoff performances, which of course have mostly been with the Yankees. When the Yankees have flamed out in the playoffs during Mussina's tenure there, he hasn't really stood out like he did with the Orioles in 1997.

(I'm not saying that he has never pitched well in the playoffs outside of 1997, but I think his 4 starts in the 1997 postseason stand out for him. Earlier I mentioned that he gave up 0 or 1 runs 6 times in the playoffs. Three of these performances came in his 4 starts in 1997.)

Schilling has just had more gem appearances like the ones Mussina had in 1997.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think Blyleven deserves to be in before both of them, if you want to play the "______ deserves to be in before ________" game.

Blyleven apologists say that he pitched for some bad teams, and he did....but he also was on the Pirates team that beat us in 79. He also pitched for the 87 Twins, so it's not like his whole career was spent in the abyss.

Do you mean to say apologists? Who has to apologize for supporting the candidacy of a man who's arguably one of the 25 or 30 best starters in the history of baseball?

The sportswriters should apologize to Blyleven for inducting many of his peers who weren't 3/4s the pitcher he was, and for not doing the legwork to realize it.

[Frobby]

Hey, I completely agree with you with regards to the 1997 AL playoffs. Gem is the appropriate word. Mussina pitched great that postseason, against both the Mariners and the Indians. I do not mean to imply that he was a reason for the Orioles losing that year.

* * *

But while he was no way responsible for the Orioles losing in the 1997 ALCS, he hasn't had those same type of masterful (gem) performances for the most part in his other playoff performances, which of course have mostly been with the Yankees. When the Yankees have flamed out in the playoffs during Mussina's tenure there, he hasn't really stood out like he did with the Orioles in 1997.

(I'm not saying that he has never pitched well in the playoffs outside of 1997, but I think his 4 starts in the 1997 postseason stand out for him. Earlier I mentioned that he gave up 0 or 1 runs 6 times in the playoffs. Three of these performances came in his 4 starts in 1997.)

Schilling has just had more gem appearances like the ones Mussina had in 1997.

I don't disagree with you at all. If Mussina gets in, the reason will be his consistently fine performance over a very long, remarkably healthy career. His post-season performances are largely consistent with his regular season performances, but as a whole they don't stand out from the rest of his career.

If Schilling gets in, it will be because of the fact that he was able to turn it up a notch in the playoffs and World Series. If he stood solely on his regular season record, I think he'd fall just short of the Hall. But there are only a handful of pitchers in the history of the game (if that many) who pitched better in the post-season than he did.

To put it another way: Schilling's post-season career strongly boosts his HOF candidacy, whereas Mussina's post-season career neither helps nor hurts, on the whole.

I'd be remiss, however, if I didn't mention a couple of notable Moose post-season performances other than the ones in 1997:

1. 2001 ALDS: With the Yankees down 0-2 and facing elimination in a 5-game series, Mussina pitches 7 innings of shutout ball and beats Oakland, 1-0, in the game famous for the play where Jeter backed up a bad relay throw and flipped the ball backhand to get Jeremy Giambi at home plate. The Yankees go on to win the series and then the ALCS to go to the World Series.

2. 2003 ALCS: In Game 7 vs. Boston, Mussina relieves Roger Clemens with nobody out and runners on first and third in the 4th inning, Yankees already down 4-0. Mussina, pitching on 2 days' rest, strikes out Varitek and gets Damon to hit into a double play, and goes on to pitch 3 scoreless innings as the Yankees come back and win 6-5 to go to the World Series.

Those are two times that Mussina saved the Yankees' bacon when they were on the brink of elimination, and both times they went on to go to the World Series.

[DrungoHazewood]

I don't disagree with you at all. If Mussina gets in, the reason will be his consistently fine performance over a very long, remarkably healthy career. His post-season performances are largely consistent with his regular season performances, but as a whole they don't stand out from the rest of his career.

Mussina has a 3.71 in the regular season, playing equally against good and bad teams.

He has a 3.42 in the postseason, playing exclusively against, well... playoff-caliber teams.

I'd say that rises significantly above the level of the rest of his career. It adds to his resume.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think there are a lot of parallels between Schilling and Dizzy Dean (http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/deandi01.shtml). Both big strikeout pitchers with very good durability, despite the fact that both had problems with injuries. Both had outspoken personalities and their reputations benefited from publicity and stories in the media.

If Dean had access to modern medicine he might have come back from his injuries and had a Schilling-like career with several different peaks and down periods. And if he'd had access to the internet I guarantee Dizzy would have had a blog that would make Aubrey Huff blush.

[RShack]

The sportswriters should apologize to Blyleven for inducting many of his peers who weren't 3/4s the pitcher he was, and for not doing the legwork to realize it.
There's *lots* of things Drungo and I agree about. It's just that they're not so noticeable because, well, we agree about them ;-)

[RShack]

To put it another way: Schilling's post-season career strongly boosts his HOF candidacy, whereas Mussina's post-season career neither helps nor hurts, on the whole.
Frobby with another dunk, er, uh, I mean dinger...



1. 2001 ALDS: With the Yankees down 0-2 and facing elimination in a 5-game series, Mussina pitches 7 innings of shutout ball and beats Oakland, 1-0, in the game famous for the play where Jeter backed up a bad relay throw and flipped the ball backhand to get Jeremy Giambi at home plate. The Yankees go on to win the series and then the ALCS to go to the World Series.
A perfect example of how ESPN accidently helps us remember the wrong things.
Not that Jeter didn't make an excellent play, only that Mussina did absolutely great, pitch after pitch, for a couple hours... and that doesn't show up in a video clip.