Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The perception of the "big game pitcher"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The perception of the "big game pitcher"

    ...as applies to HoF credentials.

    I was thinking about it in terms of Schilling, who most here seem to rate at least a 3 and many rate a sure thing. I've never thought of him as a HoF pitcher- doesn't have any of the lofty numbers and was pretty much an average pitcher for the first half of his career. Mind you the same can be said for Koufax, but he dominated the league just a bit more. Imagine no bloody sock- is he still anything close to a sure thing? Barely 200 wins, an ERA+ for his career that's tied for 49th all time with folks like Kevin Brown and Sal Maglie (plus Seaver, surprisingly). It may be my prejudice as I've never liked the man, but I think he's borderline at best.

    I also had a friend of mine absolutely insist that "big game pitcher" Jack Morris had to go in- high career ERA and all- while Bert Blyleven shouldn't, despite the far superior regular season numbers and comparable post-season ones besides (just without the one 'legendary' game).

    So how much truth is there in it? And how much does the perception help? It didn't help Morris any- as it shouldn't've- but what about Schilling or others?
    Found in a fortune cookie On Thursday, August 18th, 2005: "Hard words break no bones, Kind words butter no parsnips."

    1955 1959 1963 1965 1981 1988 2017?

  • #2
    Originally posted by toomanyhatz View Post
    ...as applies to HoF credentials.

    I was thinking about it in terms of Schilling, who most here seem to rate at least a 3 and many rate a sure thing. I've never thought of him as a HoF pitcher- doesn't have any of the lofty numbers and was pretty much an average pitcher for the first half of his career. Mind you the same can be said for Koufax, but he dominated the league just a bit more. Imagine no bloody sock- is he still anything close to a sure thing? Barely 200 wins, an ERA+ for his career that's tied for 49th all time with folks like Kevin Brown and Sal Maglie (plus Seaver, surprisingly). It may be my prejudice as I've never liked the man, but I think he's borderline at best.

    I also had a friend of mine absolutely insist that "big game pitcher" Jack Morris had to go in- high career ERA and all- while Bert Blyleven shouldn't, despite the far superior regular season numbers and comparable post-season ones besides (just without the one 'legendary' game).

    So how much truth is there in it? And how much does the perception help? It didn't help Morris any- as it shouldn't've- but what about Schilling or others?
    Unlike Morris,who's postseason ERA is almost the same as his ho-hum regular season ERA, Blyleven's is a lot better.
    Anyway,a lot of it is a sample size issue, but I do give credit for postseason excellence. I use it as a tie breaker those right on the HOF bubble and when comparing two close pitchers directly.

    As far as lofty numbers -Schilling had an ERA+ of 127 or so over 3,000 innings, which is well, well into HOF territory.
    1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

    1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

    1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


    The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
    The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

    Comment


    • #3
      Morris was a classic front end of the rotation workhorse, awfully good and durable for a long time. I wouldnt mind if he made the Hall, his ERA is kinda high and some the pretty WAR stats analysts like aren't that nice to Black Jack clearly.

      The bogus Burt B vs Morris duel that exists in messageboard land helps nothing, Burt is better and a deserving HoF pick. I think 'big game pitcher' does exist, but like 'clutch hitter'-you know it when you see it, its hard to prove.

      Comment


      • #4
        I am getting to the point where I'm more convinced about Schilling, anyway. Once I actually looked at his post-season record, it's really pretty amazing. And actually his career parallels Koufax pretty well, only it's longer so there's more average seasons but also more great ones (albeit nowhere near as great). Though even with him, perception has a great deal to do with it. And there's always the dilemma- pretty constant for me- of weighing statistics both new and old. The old ones don't favor him particularly- good but not great ERA career-wise, barely 200 wins- but the new ones do, and are gaining more and more acceptance. I guess a side question is, which counts more in voters' eyes- metrics or perception? I should think it's changing, rendering the answer not a particularly simple one.
        Found in a fortune cookie On Thursday, August 18th, 2005: "Hard words break no bones, Kind words butter no parsnips."

        1955 1959 1963 1965 1981 1988 2017?

        Comment

        Ad Widget

        Collapse
        Working...
        X