Curt Schilling vs Steve Carlton

[willshad]

This is closer than it would appear by Carlton's 4 CY awards, and SChilling's big fat zero. They have about the same amount of career WAR, despite an almost 2000 innings difference, meaning that Schilling may have been a LOT better when he did pitch.

[chicagowhitesox1173]

I went with Carlton, he seemed alot more consistent and stayed away from injuries. from 1967-1984 Carlton was usually good for over 200 innings and 15-20 wins.

[pheasant]

This one is similar to the Pedro vs Randy matchup. ONe has the better peak, the other has much more durability. I have Carlton squeaking out a victory here due to having 2000 more IP. Schilling had a better peak and pitched against better players.

[Bothrops Atrox]

This is closer than it would appear by Carlton's 4 CY awards, and SChilling's big fat zero. They have about the same amount of career WAR, despite an almost 2000 innings difference, meaning that Schilling may have been a LOT better when he did pitch.

Carlton is behind in WAA 53 to 47. So a little better... not a lot better. And then 2,000 more IP. Carlton's top 3 seasons were much better than Schilling's too. Lefty takes this one, but it is closer than what most would believe.

[willshad]

Carlton is behind in WAA 53 to 47. So a little better... not a lot better. And then 2,000 more IP. Carlton's top 3 seasons were much better than Schilling's too. Lefty takes this one, but it is closer than what most would believe.

If Schilling was just BIT better, then how do you explain that they have about the same WAR, and Schilling destroys him in WAA, despite almost 2000 less innings pitched?

[filihok]

These situations need to have a better definition of 'better'.

It's quite obvious that Schilling was better per inning.
It's also obvious that Carlton pitched a lot more.


For the sum of their careers Carlton had more value; 107 WAR by FIP and 105 WAR by RA-9, compared to Schilling's 86 and 86.

But, Carlton was in the neighborhood as pitching TWICE as much as Schilling did (22000 batters faced vs 13000 batters faced).


If I'm going back in time and know exactly how each player is going to perform, and I get one of them on my team. I'm taking Schillling. More dominant. I find another pitcher to make up the difference in innings.

[Bothrops Atrox]

If Schilling was just BIT better, then how do you explain that they have about the same WAR, and Schilling destroys him in WAA, despite almost 2000 less innings pitched?

How is the heck is 6 WAA in almost 20 seasons "destroying" him? WAA is stripping replacement points from the equation completely.

The WAR gap (9), which you said was "about the same" is larger than the WAA gap (6) which you say is "destroying." Whaaaaaat? I can certainly see a case for Schilling, and his great WAA total is the top billing, but you can't say that their WARs are about the same at 9 wins apart and then say Schilling destroys Carlton at 6 wins apart in WAA. WAA needs to be multiplied by 1.7 to put them on the same scale, so the two gaps are about the same, 9 to 10.

To me, Carlton's top couple of seasons is the tie-breaker, but I could certainly see a case for Curt's PS to put him over.

[brett]

Just using ERA+, Schilling is about 126 and Carlton 115 I think. That puts Schilling at about .80 and Carlton at about .87 relative runs allowed. If we compare that to a 90 ERA+ (or about 1.10 relative ERA), Schilling is saving about 30% and Carlton about 23%. That would mean that Schilling would have had to put up those rate for about 30/23 as many innings, or something around 3900.

And that's a fairly high replacement level, though Schilling might look good when defense is neutralized, and also had the post season greatness.

Anyway, I go for Carlton, but I have Schilling as an almost certain deserving small hall of famer. Carlton maybe around 20th and Schiling perhaps as high as 35 with the post season.

[JR Hart]

Carlton by acomfortable margin. He was a workhorse, with huge success

[SamtheBravesFan]

Though Schilling started at the same age as Carlton, his injury-plagued middle seasons is a problem.

[willshad]

How is the heck is 6 WAA in almost 20 seasons "destroying" him? WAA is stripping replacement points from the equation completely.

The WAR gap (9), which you said was "about the same" is larger than the WAA gap (6) which you say is "destroying." Whaaaaaat? I can certainly see a case for Schilling, and his great WAA total is the top billing, but you can't say that their WARs are about the same at 9 wins apart and then say Schilling destroys Carlton at 6 wins apart in WAA. WAA needs to be multiplied by 1.7 to put them on the same scale, so the two gaps are about the same, 9 to 10.

To me, Carlton's top couple of seasons is the tie-breaker, but I could certainly see a case for Curt's PS to put him over.

The stats I'm looking at have Schilling at 54 career WAA , and 76.9 WAR. It has Carlton at 40 WAA and 78.6 WAR. To me, the fact that Schilling has much more WAA than Carlton, and about the same WAR, in about 2000 less innings either signifies that he was MUCH more effective when he did pitch, or that WAR and WAA are off somehow. Am I incorrect?

[brett]

The stats I'm looking at have Schilling at 54 career WAA , and 76.9 WAR. It has Carlton at 40 WAA and 78.6 WAR. To me, the fact that Schilling has much more WAA than Carlton, and about the same WAR, in about 2000 less innings either signifies that he was MUCH more effective when he did pitch, or that WAR and WAA are off somehow. Am I incorrect?

I will point out however that Carlton was -6.2 WAA and -3.5 WAR for his last 338 innings (which brings up a conundrum in itself because if a sub-replacement performing pitcher racked up 338 innings, then he actually contributed to the league AVERAGE level during that period) but it puts Carlton at about 46 and 82 for 4800 innings.

By the way, it looks like the new war gives added value to saving runs than producing them, as Carlton saved 308 (environment adjusted) versus average but got 40 WAA from it. Schlling saved 487 but only got 54 WAA from it though. He should have had MORE WAA if anything because he saved them in fewer games (saving more runs per game increases win probability more.

[Bothrops Atrox]

The stats I'm looking at have Schilling at 54 career WAA , and 76.9 WAR. It has Carlton at 40 WAA and 78.6 WAR. To me, the fact that Schilling has much more WAA than Carlton, and about the same WAR, in about 2000 less innings either signifies that he was MUCH more effective when he did pitch, or that WAR and WAA are off somehow. Am I incorrect?

You are ignoring offense, which isn't the right thing to do, especially since both played a large majority of their time in the NL. Carlton was one of the best hitting pitchers of his era and Schilling was a little below average. Since offensive runs are worth just as much as a run saved, I see no reason to not include them whatsoever. I always look the playersin totality and not just compartments of how they contribute to their teams.

[Bothrops Atrox]

I will point out however that Carlton was -6.2 WAA and -3.5 WAR for his last 338 innings (which brings up a conundrum in itself because if a sub-replacement performing pitcher racked up 338 innings, then he actually contributed to the league AVERAGE level during that period) but it puts Carlton at about 46 and 82 for 4800 innings.

By the way, it looks like the new war gives added value to saving runs than producing them, as Carlton saved 308 (environment adjusted) versus average but got 40 WAA from it. Schlling saved 487 but only got 54 WAA from it though. He should have had MORE WAA if anything because he saved them in fewer games (saving more runs per game increases win probability more.

I know many people are in favor of eliminating negative WAA from totals when looking at HOF, etc, but I do not like to do that myself.

I think Carlton is getting more wins per runs saved do to the lower run scoring environment.

[willshad]

You are ignoring offense, which isn't the right thing to do, especially since both played a large majority of their time in the NL. Carlton was one of the best hitting pitchers of his era and Schilling was a little below average. Since offensive runs are worth just as much as a run saved, I see no reason to not include them whatsoever. I always look the playersin totality and not just compartments of how they contribute to their teams.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but when deciding who was the better PITCHER, should offense really be included? Also, how do you handle a situation when comparing an AL pitcher to an NL one in that situation? The AL pitcher will not get any at bats in order to accumulate any WAR. is that fair?