PDA

View Full Version : Spot the Hall of Famer



FromWayDowntown
10-28-2004, 11:45 AM
Without disclosing identities, here are the statistics for 2 pitchers who are not in the Hall-of-Fame:

PITCHER 1:
Regular Season
GP: 482
ST: 370
CG: 82
SHo: 19
W: 184
L: 123
IP: 2812 2/3
H: 2492
BB: 638
SO: 2745
ERA: 3.32
WHIP: 1.11

Postseason
GP: 15
ST: 15
CG: 4
SHo: 2
W: 8
L: 2
IP: 109 1/3
H: 79
BB: 22
SO: 104
ERA: 2.06
WHIP: 0.92
Championships: 2


PITCHER 2
Regular Season
GP: 692
ST: 685
CG: 242
Sho: 60
W: 287
L: 250
IP: 4970
H: 4632
BB: 1322
SO: 3701
ERA: 3.31
WHIP: 1.20

Postseason
GP: 8
ST: 6
CG: 1
SHo: 0
W: 5
L: 1
IP: 47 1/3
H: 43
BB: 8
SO: 36
ERA: 2.47
WHIP: 1.07
Championships: 2

Now, which of these pitchers belongs in the Hall-of-Fame?

Spurminator
10-28-2004, 11:52 AM
Is the first one Jack Morris?

Is the second one Bert Blyleven?

Are we supposed to be guessing identities?

FromWayDowntown
10-28-2004, 11:59 AM
It's not about identities, it's about quality. I'm curious, just looking at the numbers, as to whether anyone thinks those pitchers are hall-of-famers or not.

Spurminator
10-28-2004, 12:08 PM
I would have to know the era they pitched in. For example, a 3.32 era is impressive for a 90's pitcher, but not as much for an 80's or 60's pitcher.

Also, when I judge a person's HOF credentials, I'm less likely to look at career stats than I am to look at a player's 8-10 best years... For example, Ken Griffey Jr. may retire without having eye-popping career numbers, but his numbers in the 90's were phenominal.

But enough of that bullshit, I'll just answer the question by saying they both have a legitimate argument, and I probably wouldn't argue against their selection judging by career stats on the surface. They both look pretty borderline to me.

FromWayDowntown
10-28-2004, 12:28 PM
See, I agree with the contextual argument and I always have. You have to judge a player by the era in which he played. But, since so many hall-of-famers are there solely on lifetime achievement, I think you have to also throw that into the equation. In this case, you're dealing with two pitchers without Cy Young awards, with a handful of All-Star appearances, and with historically middling statistics.

The difference is that one is perceived to be a fierce competitor whose lead teams to titles despite spending some time with some bad teams. The other is perceived as a guy who was pretty average, but who just hung around for a long time. I agree that, in the main, both are pretty borderline. But I think you'd have to agree that statistically speaking, Pitcher 2 is on a par, if not better than Pitcher 1.

Last night, in watching the coverage of the World Series, I heard more than one commentator offer an opinion that this postseason has cinched a Hall-of-Fame birth for Pitcher #1 -- Curt Schilling. That got me thinking again about the Hall worthiness of Pitcher #2 -- Bert Blyleven. (I could have thrown Jack Morris into the same equation and had three historically similar pitchers). I think Blyleven gets lost in the shuffle sometimes, because he played in small markets and was never a huge star -- but the fact of the matter is that when you sit down and compare his career numbers to many other pitchers with HOF credentials, Blyleven comes out either superior or very close to those guys.

With the postseason performances in mind (and historically, Blyleven and Schilling are quite similar), I think Blyleven is a superior Hall-of-Fame candidate to Schilling at this point. But I suspect I'd be hard-pressed to find many who'd agree with me about that.

Spurminator
10-28-2004, 12:59 PM
I think I'd be one of those who would not agree...

Schilling's career ERA is 31% better than other pitchers in his era... Blyleven's is 18% better. Schilling's has been 50% better than the league ERA 4 times the 13 years he has been a starter. In 23 seasons, Blyleven reached that ratio twice.

Schilling has been an All Star 6 times, Blyleven twice.

Schilling has been top 5 in the Cy Young voting 4 times (if you count this season... a safe assumption I think), Blyleven 3 times.

Schilling has led the league in wins twice... Blyleven never led the league in wins.

Both have pretty impressive career strikeout numbers... but Schilling is 8th all-time in K's/9 innings (8.78) while Blyleven is 89th (6.70).

With that in mind, I'd choose Schilling ahead of Blyleven.... and that's without knowing what Schilling will do over the next 2 or 3 years.

The one thing I'd say in Blyleven's favor is that he consistently pitched a LOT of innings and had a TON of complete games, and he apparently did not have the injury problems that have plagued Schilling in his career. To pitch that long, with that kind of consistency, and still put together a Cy-Young quality season at the age of 38 with the California Angels, is certainly Hall-worthy.

Brodels
10-28-2004, 12:59 PM
Blyleven was a horse. He should be in the Hall of Fame.

But I don't know that he's a superior candidate to Curt. As others have pointed out, Curt has put up similar numbers in an era dominated by offense. Hitters get bigger and bigger every year.

I'll take Curt over Bert, but both deserve to be in The Hall.


See, I agree with the contextual argument and I always have. You have to judge a player by the era in which he played. But, since so many hall-of-famers are there solely on lifetime achievement, I think you have to also throw that into the equation. In this case, you're dealing with two pitchers without Cy Young awards, with a handful of All-Star appearances, and with historically middling statistics.

The difference is that one is perceived to be a fierce competitor whose lead teams to titles despite spending some time with some bad teams. The other is perceived as a guy who was pretty average, but who just hung around for a long time. I agree that, in the main, both are pretty borderline. But I think you'd have to agree that statistically speaking, Pitcher 2 is on a par, if not better than Pitcher 1.

Last night, in watching the coverage of the World Series, I heard more than one commentator offer an opinion that this postseason has cinched a Hall-of-Fame birth for Pitcher #1 -- Curt Schilling. That got me thinking again about the Hall worthiness of Pitcher #2 -- Bert Blyleven. (I could have thrown Jack Morris into the same equation and had three historically similar pitchers). I think Blyleven gets lost in the shuffle sometimes, because he played in small markets and was never a huge star -- but the fact of the matter is that when you sit down and compare his career numbers to many other pitchers with HOF credentials, Blyleven comes out either superior or very close to those guys.

With the postseason performances in mind (and historically, Blyleven and Schilling are quite similar), I think Blyleven is a superior Hall-of-Fame candidate to Schilling at this point. But I suspect I'd be hard-pressed to find many who'd agree with me about that.

tlongII
10-28-2004, 01:21 PM
#1 yes.
#2 no.

2pac
10-28-2004, 01:50 PM
I dont think either is a HOF canidate.

Schilling:
never won Cy Young
never won MVP
never led the league in ERA

He had two seasons where he lead the league in wins. Two where he lead in strikeouts. He has only had 6 seasons where he had more than 30 games started.

Brodels
10-28-2004, 02:09 PM
Schilling is one of the best postseason pitchers in history, and that should count for something. He's been an NLCS MVP and a World Series MVP.

His regular season numbers aren't among the best ever, but his postseason numbers are. I'd vote for him.

2pac
10-28-2004, 02:14 PM
The Hall of Fame is not something to be voted on based on a couple of post seasons.

This is an accomplishment based on the career of a player. Had Schilling been able to beat the injury bug, he would have been a HOF pitcher, but he only played 6 complete seasons.

I am sure there are HOF players who never even sniffed a World Series.

Schilling's career just doesn't rise to the levels of a HOF pitcher. He is a stud, but you need more than 6 complete seasons in a 16 year career.

Spurminator
10-28-2004, 02:18 PM
never won Cy Young

Neither did Nolan Ryan, Phil Niekro, Juan Marichal, or Don Sutton (all Hall of Famers).


never won MVP

He's a pitcher. Pitchers have only won the award 9 times since the Cy Young award was introduced in 1956... and two of them were relievers.


never led the league in ERA

Neither did Pud Galvin, Mickey Welch, Eddie Plank, Gaylord Perry, Fergie Jenkins, Don Drysdale, Robin Roberts, Dizzy Dean, or Jim Bunning... all Hall of Famers.

2pac
10-28-2004, 02:21 PM
Nolan, Phil, Juan and Don all pitched more full seasons than Schilling ever will.

There is an anti-pitcher bias for the MVP (I dont think they should be eligable) but sure fire HOFers like Roger Clemens and Dennis Eckersley have won it.

None of the pitchers you have mentioned for ERA played in the last 20 years.

Spurminator
10-28-2004, 02:21 PM
Had Schilling been able to beat the injury bug, he would have been a HOF pitcher, but he only played 6 complete seasons.

How do you define "complete" season?

I'd say he has closer to 8 or 9.

Spurminator
10-28-2004, 02:23 PM
None of the pitchers you have mentioned for ERA played in the last 20 years.

Why should that matter... aside from the fact that those players had less competition for the ERA title than Schilling?

Besides, most Hall of Fame-quality pitchers in the last 20 years haven't been inducted yet.

2pac
10-28-2004, 02:36 PM
30 starts is how I define it. Generally a starter gets 35 starts if he is healthy all year. Sometimes 36. That means he can get off 5 of his 35 starts, and still have a complete season.

Play in 28 games, and you missed 20% of the season.

If Duncan plays in 65 games this year, will you consider him playing a full season? Maybe by Webber or Shaq standards, but I expect more than 80% of the year from a top athlete.


When they played matters, because you dont judge a player by players in different eras. You judge them by their contemporaries. The game was different in the 60s and 50s.

Spurminator
10-28-2004, 02:44 PM
Well, not to knit-pick, but it would be 7 if your threshold was 29. ;)

I do see your points though. Schilling's career is a bit overrated due to the fact that he has been *considered* one of the game's best pitchers for over a decade... but he has only been healthy enough to put together that type of season in half of those years. And if he had pitched like Sandy Koufax when he WAS healthy, he'd be a lock, but he hasn't.

I think he'll get in, mainly because he won a World Series with the Red Sox in dramatic fashion... but he'll probably have to have a couple more Cy-Young-calibur seasons to erase all doubt.

2pac
10-28-2004, 03:00 PM
I wouldnt count on too many more seasons. Dude is 38, and his problem has always been health. This year he was good, but last year he was 8-9 with 24 starts.

Roger has missed 30 starts just once since he left Boston - that year he had 29 starts. For his career - 1986-2004, he has missed 30 games 4 times with 29, 24, 23, and 29 games. From 1968-1993, Nolan Ryan averaged 29 starts. Those guys are the exception. Most power pitchers don't last until they are 40. I am suprised Schilling is still this good now.

Spurminator
10-28-2004, 03:11 PM
His record was poor in 2003, but his other numbers were some of the best in his career. It all hinges on whether or not he can stay healthy, especially after the upcoming surgery.

Brodels
10-28-2004, 03:33 PM
I wouldnt count on too many more seasons. Dude is 38, and his problem has always been health. This year he was good, but last year he was 8-9 with 24 starts.

Roger has missed 30 starts just once since he left Boston - that year he had 29 starts. For his career - 1986-2004, he has missed 30 games 4 times with 29, 24, 23, and 29 games. From 1968-1993, Nolan Ryan averaged 29 starts. Those guys are the exception. Most power pitchers don't last until they are 40. I am suprised Schilling is still this good now.

He was healthy enough to dominate this season, last season's injury was a freak thing, and he's been pretty healthy for the past four years.

He was 8-9 last season, but his ERA was 2.95 and he struck out 198 in 164 innings.

Power pitches who use their legs pitch for a long time. Schilling uses his legs for power just like Ryan, Clemens, and others. He's built the same way.

He could be very good for a few more seasons.

Brodels
10-28-2004, 03:40 PM
He's pitched over 200 innings seven times. That's not too shabby in today's league. He's pitched 180 or more nine times. Again, not too bad.

And we're talking about three postseasons. He was NLCS MVP in the early 90s, he was awesome with the DBacks, and he pitched very well this season in the playoffs.

I mean, he's pitched 2812 innings not including his postseason work. Pedro Martinez is a HOF and he hasn't pitched that many innings. Others have tallied more innings, but 2812 is a lot in today's game.


The Hall of Fame is not something to be voted on based on a couple of post seasons.

This is an accomplishment based on the career of a player. Had Schilling been able to beat the injury bug, he would have been a HOF pitcher, but he only played 6 complete seasons.

I am sure there are HOF players who never even sniffed a World Series.

Schilling's career just doesn't rise to the levels of a HOF pitcher. He is a stud, but you need more than 6 complete seasons in a 16 year career.

Jimcs50
10-28-2004, 04:29 PM
Put em all in the HOF.