Comments on: Is Curt Schilling a Hall of Famer? http://umpbump.com/press/2009/03/23/is-curt-schilling-a-hall-of-famer/ In-your-face baseball commentary Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:44:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: melissa http://umpbump.com/press/2009/03/23/is-curt-schilling-a-hall-of-famer/comment-page-1/#comment-58843 melissa Sat, 04 Apr 2009 19:23:18 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/?p=5247#comment-58843 Ben, You seem to imply that pitching in the post-season is a different skill than pitching in the regular season. His post-season numbers contrast with his regular season to such an extent that one would have to believe the larger sample, his career numbers, are in fact the more representative sample of his skill. Had he pitched in the post-season every single year of his career when he was young and old both, his post-season numbers would probably be much closer to his career averages. A larger sample of post-season numbers, in theory should come closer to his career averages not continue to advance further away. The question is what numbers better represent his true skill a limited number of post-season innings or the numbers he amassed over his entire career? The career numbers are more representative of his true level of performance than the post-season numbers. Ben,
You seem to imply that pitching in the post-season is a different skill than pitching in the regular season. His post-season numbers contrast with his regular season to such an extent that one would have to believe the larger sample, his career numbers, are in fact the more representative sample of his skill. Had he pitched in the post-season every single year of his career when he was young and old both, his post-season numbers would probably be much closer to his career averages. A larger sample of post-season numbers, in theory should come closer to his career averages not continue to advance further away. The question is what numbers better represent his true skill a limited number of post-season innings or the numbers he amassed over his entire career? The career numbers are more representative of his true level of performance than the post-season numbers.

Report this comment

]]> By: Ben L http://umpbump.com/press/2009/03/23/is-curt-schilling-a-hall-of-famer/comment-page-1/#comment-58840 Ben L Sat, 04 Apr 2009 03:42:10 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/?p=5247#comment-58840 But the thing is postseason stats aren't part of his career stats, they are a separate stat to consider. Which means if you include the rules of normal distributions he probably wouldn't regress to career numbers, error terms would in fact decrease. He'd continue to put up his average playoff numbers if you were to hold all other conditions equally... on the other hand if you were to take into account statistics over time (as a player ages) and graph these stats, virtually every player watches his stats act parabolically... every player gets worse as he ages. The again that kinda works into my arguement... imagine if Schilling played his first half of his career for a team that appeared regularly appeared in the playoffs. My theory states his numbers would be better, yours states the opposite. Though I supposed for the sake of arguments, you and I should stick to the principle of "what happened happened," (And I'm not trying to be clever and include a title of a LOST episode) otherwise we're starting to argue philosophy. I have to admit I'm grateful to you, melissa. I haven't been this much of a zealot about a player's worth until I started this argument with you. As I said... this is fun. But the thing is postseason stats aren’t part of his career stats, they are a separate stat to consider. Which means if you include the rules of normal distributions he probably wouldn’t regress to career numbers, error terms would in fact decrease. He’d continue to put up his average playoff numbers if you were to hold all other conditions equally… on the other hand if you were to take into account statistics over time (as a player ages) and graph these stats, virtually every player watches his stats act parabolically… every player gets worse as he ages. The again that kinda works into my arguement… imagine if Schilling played his first half of his career for a team that appeared regularly appeared in the playoffs. My theory states his numbers would be better, yours states the opposite.

Though I supposed for the sake of arguments, you and I should stick to the principle of “what happened happened,” (And I’m not trying to be clever and include a title of a LOST episode) otherwise we’re starting to argue philosophy.

I have to admit I’m grateful to you, melissa. I haven’t been this much of a zealot about a player’s worth until I started this argument with you. As I said… this is fun.

Report this comment

]]> By: melissa http://umpbump.com/press/2009/03/23/is-curt-schilling-a-hall-of-famer/comment-page-1/#comment-58839 melissa Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:56:37 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/?p=5247#comment-58839 50 innings in the post season may give an accurate portrayal of his post season performance but it does not indicate what type of career the player had. Given even more post season innings Schilling's numbers would surely regress to his career averages. I'm sure there are plenty of Yankees that have really nice post season lines that aren't hall of famers. 50 innings in the post season may give an accurate portrayal of his post season performance but it does not indicate what type of career the player had. Given even more post season innings Schilling’s numbers would surely regress to his career averages. I’m sure there are plenty of Yankees that have really nice post season lines that aren’t hall of famers.

Report this comment

]]> By: Ben L http://umpbump.com/press/2009/03/23/is-curt-schilling-a-hall-of-famer/comment-page-1/#comment-58838 Ben L Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:15:20 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/?p=5247#comment-58838 If the guy had 1 start in the postseason then you would be right. But we're talking over 50 innings or more of work. When you test for normal distribution in statistics, the minimum accepted observations is around 50. So technically it does give an accurate portrayal. Sarah, no. If the guy had 1 start in the postseason then you would be right. But we’re talking over 50 innings or more of work. When you test for normal distribution in statistics, the minimum accepted observations is around 50. So technically it does give an accurate portrayal.

Sarah, no.

Report this comment

]]> By: melissa http://umpbump.com/press/2009/03/23/is-curt-schilling-a-hall-of-famer/comment-page-1/#comment-58837 melissa Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:11:46 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/?p=5247#comment-58837 Ben, Post season is such a small sample that the numbers don't carry a lot of weight to me. A player's post season numbers don't give you an accurate portrayal of what type of career he had. Ben,
Post season is such a small sample that the numbers don’t carry a lot of weight to me. A player’s post season numbers don’t give you an accurate portrayal of what type of career he had.

Report this comment

]]> By: Sarah Green http://umpbump.com/press/2009/03/23/is-curt-schilling-a-hall-of-famer/comment-page-1/#comment-58836 Sarah Green Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:53:13 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/?p=5247#comment-58836 Well Ben L, consider yourself "educated" now. Now make me a sandwich. Well Ben L, consider yourself “educated” now.

Now make me a sandwich.

Report this comment

]]> By: Ben L http://umpbump.com/press/2009/03/23/is-curt-schilling-a-hall-of-famer/comment-page-1/#comment-58830 Ben L Fri, 03 Apr 2009 04:05:14 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/?p=5247#comment-58830 For the record, I've never even heard the word "harp" be used as a sexist dismissal. I use the word because it sounds nicer than "dwell upon." Ultimately for me, I'll argue my point with anyone regardless of gender, race, creed, sexuality, roots for the yankees, or whatever as long as they're willing to argue the issue as well. So can we get back to the argument on hand... this is just too much fun. Now melissa. In regards to some of your points: Yes, had Schilling stayed his entire career in Philadelphia, he'd have less of an argument about his admittance to the Hall. Reason is he wouldn't be back in the postseason. He got several shots that other players didn't... but also he succeeded more than anyone else who had the same shots. Atlanta's big 3, Clemens on and off drugs, the Big Unit, Pedro, Whitey Ford, Catfish Hunter, Steve Carlton, Jim Palmer, and many more all had a good deal of postseason experience and Schilling has done better than all of them in the postseason. As a closer Hoffman actually has better clutch stats than Mo... but if someone wants to argue Mo is a better closer, they'll bring up his postseason performance and rightly so. Postseason is a higher level that not all can reach, but when you do, not everyone will shine. You switch postseasons with Brown and yes, Schill loses a lot of weight to his argument, enough so to dismiss him... but I don't think adding a performance to Brown helps him as much as you think. Of players active in the same era, Schilling was 4th in Ks. Brown not even in the top 10. K/9, Schill is 13th all time (6th for those above 2000 innings), Brown not even in the top 100. This era, Schill had the 4th lowest BB/9 ratio, Brown's barely in the top 20... etc etc. Brown was a good pitcher of his era, even had some great seasons... overall though he was a good pitcher. On the other hand, overall, Schilling was a great pitcher of this era. For the record, I’ve never even heard the word “harp” be used as a sexist dismissal. I use the word because it sounds nicer than “dwell upon.” Ultimately for me, I’ll argue my point with anyone regardless of gender, race, creed, sexuality, roots for the yankees, or whatever as long as they’re willing to argue the issue as well.

So can we get back to the argument on hand… this is just too much fun.

Now melissa. In regards to some of your points:
Yes, had Schilling stayed his entire career in Philadelphia, he’d have less of an argument about his admittance to the Hall. Reason is he wouldn’t be back in the postseason. He got several shots that other players didn’t… but also he succeeded more than anyone else who had the same shots. Atlanta’s big 3, Clemens on and off drugs, the Big Unit, Pedro, Whitey Ford, Catfish Hunter, Steve Carlton, Jim Palmer, and many more all had a good deal of postseason experience and Schilling has done better than all of them in the postseason.

As a closer Hoffman actually has better clutch stats than Mo… but if someone wants to argue Mo is a better closer, they’ll bring up his postseason performance and rightly so. Postseason is a higher level that not all can reach, but when you do, not everyone will shine.

You switch postseasons with Brown and yes, Schill loses a lot of weight to his argument, enough so to dismiss him… but I don’t think adding a performance to Brown helps him as much as you think. Of players active in the same era, Schilling was 4th in Ks. Brown not even in the top 10. K/9, Schill is 13th all time (6th for those above 2000 innings), Brown not even in the top 100. This era, Schill had the 4th lowest BB/9 ratio, Brown’s barely in the top 20… etc etc. Brown was a good pitcher of his era, even had some great seasons… overall though he was a good pitcher. On the other hand, overall, Schilling was a great pitcher of this era.

Report this comment

]]> By: melissa http://umpbump.com/press/2009/03/23/is-curt-schilling-a-hall-of-famer/comment-page-1/#comment-58829 melissa Thu, 02 Apr 2009 23:47:44 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/?p=5247#comment-58829 Thanks for putting that more tactfully than I could have, Sarah. Thanks for putting that more tactfully than I could have, Sarah.

Report this comment

]]> By: Sarah Green http://umpbump.com/press/2009/03/23/is-curt-schilling-a-hall-of-famer/comment-page-1/#comment-58828 Sarah Green Thu, 02 Apr 2009 22:47:12 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/?p=5247#comment-58828 At the risk of getting caught in the crossfire, allow me to gently point out that "harping" is one of those words like "shrill" that just carries baggage when applied to women. I'm sure you guys didn't mean it that way. But it is what it is: You say "harping." We hear "nagging hussy." You say "shrill." We hear "opinionated shrew." You say "What's for dinner?" We hear "Back to the kitchen, wench!" At least, that's what I hear. Which maybe explains the habitual look of confusion on my bf's face. /feminism At the risk of getting caught in the crossfire, allow me to gently point out that “harping” is one of those words like “shrill” that just carries baggage when applied to women. I’m sure you guys didn’t mean it that way. But it is what it is:

You say “harping.” We hear “nagging hussy.” You say “shrill.” We hear “opinionated shrew.” You say “What’s for dinner?” We hear “Back to the kitchen, wench!” At least, that’s what I hear. Which maybe explains the habitual look of confusion on my bf’s face.

/feminism

Report this comment

]]> By: Paul Moro http://umpbump.com/press/2009/03/23/is-curt-schilling-a-hall-of-famer/comment-page-1/#comment-58826 Paul Moro Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:21:52 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/?p=5247#comment-58826 I actually think that Kevin Brown is getting royally screwed. And I hope that by the time his name appears on the ballot, more people pay attention to how good this guy was. Ten years ago, he absolutely would have made my list of the top 5 pitchers in baseball, along with Pedro, Maddux, and Schilling (don't know who my fifth would have been...). And I don't think anyone here is in any way shape or form marginalizing your argument. I mean, we're paying pretty damned close attention to it, aren't we? If the topic wasn't worth raising, we wouldn't be addressing it in the first place. And I have no idea when/where we are not actually disputing your points. Isn't that what we've been doing? But I will say this - your argument that Schilling should have walked more hitters to decrease his HRs is disproven by pretty much every statistical analysis of what a pitcher ought to do. It also goes against most old baseball adages. If you're afraid of giving up a HR, you don't belong on the mound. Because EVERY strike you throw could be a HR. By your idea, no one should ever throw a strike because it could be a dinger. This, I don't understand. You're making it sound like a pitcher actually chooses to give up HRs. I actually think that Kevin Brown is getting royally screwed. And I hope that by the time his name appears on the ballot, more people pay attention to how good this guy was. Ten years ago, he absolutely would have made my list of the top 5 pitchers in baseball, along with Pedro, Maddux, and Schilling (don’t know who my fifth would have been…).

And I don’t think anyone here is in any way shape or form marginalizing your argument. I mean, we’re paying pretty damned close attention to it, aren’t we? If the topic wasn’t worth raising, we wouldn’t be addressing it in the first place. And I have no idea when/where we are not actually disputing your points. Isn’t that what we’ve been doing?

But I will say this – your argument that Schilling should have walked more hitters to decrease his HRs is disproven by pretty much every statistical analysis of what a pitcher ought to do. It also goes against most old baseball adages. If you’re afraid of giving up a HR, you don’t belong on the mound. Because EVERY strike you throw could be a HR. By your idea, no one should ever throw a strike because it could be a dinger. This, I don’t understand. You’re making it sound like a pitcher actually chooses to give up HRs.

Report this comment

]]>