Posted by tecwrg on 1/6/2015 3:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/6/2015 3:41:00 PM (view original):
And you did say that you'd put Mussina in. Which is weird, since Schilling was probably better than Mussina.

Mussina had 9 seasons where he was top 6 in CY voting.  Schilling had 4.

Which one of those says "dominant pitcher" better?

Mussina and Schilling had very different careers, which is why I was trying to compare Smoltz to Schilling. Mussina was very, very, very good for many years, while Schilling was great-to-dominant for a shorter period of time.  Schilling didn't have his 3rd season of 185 innings or more until he was 30.  I understand the argument for Mussina > Schilling, I was having trouble with Smoltz > Schilling.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/6/2015 3:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/6/2015 3:40:00 PM (view original):
You know why Schilling was never transitioned to the bullpen? Because quality starters are WAY more valuable than quality relievers. Smoltz never would have moved if it hadn't been for his arm problems.

Would Schilling have moved to the bullpen?  Of would he have been an arrogant douchebag and insist he's a starter?  Because I see from his stats that he blew chunks when he pitched out of the pen.

He "blew chunks" in general until his late 20s.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/6/2015 3:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/6/2015 3:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/6/2015 3:41:00 PM (view original):
And you did say that you'd put Mussina in. Which is weird, since Schilling was probably better than Mussina.

Mussina had 9 seasons where he was top 6 in CY voting.  Schilling had 4.

Which one of those says "dominant pitcher" better?

Cy Young voting is just Wins all dressed up for Halloween.

Why are you so afraid of looking at the actual stats?

I know you don't like starting pitchers who win games. 

Why are you so afraid to answer simple yes/no questions?  Burnsy did.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/6/2015 3:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/6/2015 3:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/6/2015 3:41:00 PM (view original):
And you did say that you'd put Mussina in. Which is weird, since Schilling was probably better than Mussina.

Mussina had 9 seasons where he was top 6 in CY voting.  Schilling had 4.

Which one of those says "dominant pitcher" better?

Cy Young voting is just Wins all dressed up for Halloween.

Why are you so afraid of looking at the actual stats?

Four best years

MM        IP          ERA          ERA+          WHIP
1994   176         3.06            164             1.16
1992   241         2.54            157             1.08
1995   221         3.29            145             1.07
2001   228         3.15            143             1.07

CS
2003   168        2.95            159              1.05
2001   256        2.98            157              1.08
1992   226        2.35            151              0.99
2004   226        3.26            148              1.06



Those best four look very, very similar to me. 

Probably the difference between Mussina and Schilling depends on if you are a Yankee fan of a Red Sox fan.

Actually i think I would take Jeff Kent or Alan Trammel before either. And Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza before them.

Although I could understand if none of them made HOF. After all it's not the Hall Of  Very Good.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/6/2015 3:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/6/2015 3:40:00 PM (view original):
You know why Schilling was never transitioned to the bullpen? Because quality starters are WAY more valuable than quality relievers. Smoltz never would have moved if it hadn't been for his arm problems.

Would Schilling have moved to the bullpen?  Of would he have been an arrogant douchebag and insist he's a starter?  Because I see from his stats that he blew chunks when he pitched out of the pen.

Exactly

Posted by tecwrg on 1/6/2015 3:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/6/2015 3:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/6/2015 3:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/6/2015 3:41:00 PM (view original):
And you did say that you'd put Mussina in. Which is weird, since Schilling was probably better than Mussina.

Mussina had 9 seasons where he was top 6 in CY voting.  Schilling had 4.

Which one of those says "dominant pitcher" better?

Cy Young voting is just Wins all dressed up for Halloween.

Why are you so afraid of looking at the actual stats?

I know you don't like starting pitchers who win games. 

Why are you so afraid to answer simple yes/no questions?  Burnsy did.

The win stat is a horrible way to make an evaluation.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/6/2015 3:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/6/2015 3:40:00 PM (view original):
You know why Schilling was never transitioned to the bullpen? Because quality starters are WAY more valuable than quality relievers. Smoltz never would have moved if it hadn't been for his arm problems.

Would Schilling have moved to the bullpen?  Of would he have been an arrogant douchebag and insist he's a starter?  Because I see from his stats that he blew chunks when he pitched out of the pen.

He pitched 35 games in relief (46 IP) for Baltimore in 1990 and had an ERA+ of 151.

In reality, had Schilling pitched out of the pen, he would have been just as dominant as Smoltz. Smoltz being forced into relief is not a positive.

Posted by stlnathan on 1/6/2015 4:18:00 PM (view original):
"The win stat is a horrible way to make an evaluation"

For some reason baseball people have looked at wins for a pitcher as important for over a hundred years. I wonder why that is. I guess they just didn't know any better.

Come on, tec jr. If you want to argue that it's a good stat, argue that it's a good stat. Don't just appeal to some vague "baseball people" authority.

Posted by stlnathan on 1/6/2015 4:18:00 PM (view original):
"The win stat is a horrible way to make an evaluation"

For some reason baseball people have looked at wins for a pitcher as important for over a hundred years. I wonder why that is. I guess they just didn't know any better.

I guess that is why Satchel Paige had such a great ML career ,,,

Posted by bad_luck on 1/6/2015 4:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/6/2015 3:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/6/2015 3:40:00 PM (view original):
You know why Schilling was never transitioned to the bullpen? Because quality starters are WAY more valuable than quality relievers. Smoltz never would have moved if it hadn't been for his arm problems.

Would Schilling have moved to the bullpen?  Of would he have been an arrogant douchebag and insist he's a starter?  Because I see from his stats that he blew chunks when he pitched out of the pen.

He pitched 35 games in relief (46 IP) for Baltimore in 1990 and had an ERA+ of 151.

In reality, had Schilling pitched out of the pen, he would have been just as dominant as Smoltz. Smoltz being forced into relief is not a positive.

How did he do out of the bullpen in '91 and '05?

In 1991 he was slightly below average over 75 IP of relief, after being very good in relief in 1990.

In 2005, he was a disaster as both a starter and a reliever. He was actually slightly better in 24 innings of relief than he was as a starter that year. But I think he was injured in 2005, so it's probably an injury driven outlier considering how well he pitched in 2004 and 2006.