Re: Schilling likely headed to Boston

SportsChump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As good as Schilling was last year explain how he was more valuable
> than Pedro LAST year?  Pedro had more innings and a MUCH better ERA,
> in the AL.

I wasn't talking about last season.  Schilling's appendectomy and broken 
hand kept him out of the lineup for much of last season.  However, if you 
look at the overall trend of the last three seasons, Schilling's put in a 
substantially bigger workload (36% more innings is a *lot*), which is 
valuable, in and of itself.

> Nice Cherry picking.  
[...]

It wasn't cherry picking.  Three seasons is a fairly commonly-used sample 
size for spotting trends or determining whether a given season was a 
fluke.  Presumably for similar reasons, the last three seasons are also 
very conveniently summarized on ESPN.COM's player stats, which is why I 
used them.  Choosing to use stats from only last year--which was clearly 
atypical for Schilling--is cherry picking.

> You used a very favorable timeframe though.  Last year alone is
> already covered but..

> Since 1999:    IP     ERA    H/9    BB/9   K/9     HR/9
> Schilling    1074.2   3.29   8.056  1.616   9.405  1.131
> Pedro         933.0   2.10   6.395  1.746  11.624  0.492

> Decent innings advantage to Schilling.

Decent?  It's still 15% more innings than Pedro, and that's over a 
timeframe where Schilling had shoulder problems and spent parts of two 
seasons dealing with shoulder surgery and recovery from that surgery.  

Pedro hasn't thrown 200 innings in a season since 2000, and his peak in 
Boston came his first season there (1998).  The trend line shows Pedro's 
innings per season declining over the last six seasons.  Since 1997, 
Schilling has had exactly two seasons of less than 200 innings pitched.  
One was 1999, when he suffered the injury that required surgery.  The 
other was 2003, when had an appendectomy and a broken hand.  In 2002, 
Schilling threw almost 260 innings, a feat Pedro has *never* accomplished.  
His peak is 241 1/3 in 1997.  Schilling has four seasons with more innings 
than that.

Clearly, when Schilling avoids freak injuries, he's a horse of an order 
that Pedro just can't match any more.  Yes, Pedro's ERA is great, and 
there's no doubt in my mind that Pedro's already a HOFer while Schilling 
is still borderline, but I'm talking about current value, and that's where 
Schilling's sheer ability to eat innings comes into play.

[...]
> Not that there are good reasons to pick these timeframes, but there
> wasn't any good reason to pick the last 3 seasons except that
> Schilling had a great season in 2001 while Pedro missed half the
> season (The only major time he has ever missed).

Except, as I've already pointed out, the three season snapshot is 
widely used and was an easily-available metric at the time I posted.

> OF course he missed time this season with a throat ailiment and a
> pulled muscle in his abdomen and didn't miss any time in 2002.
> If "usually" means 3 seasons ago then I agree.

Pedro also never pitches with less than four days' rest these days, and 
has been known to get even more rest on occasion.  Since 1999, Schilling 
has managed to put up at least 24 starts per season, with two seasons of 
35 starts (another feat Pedro has never managed to accomplish).  In that 
same time frame, Pedro has one season with 30 starts, three at 29 and one 
at 18.  That comes to 147 starts for Schilling vs. 135 for Pedro.  IOW, 
even considering they've both had stretches of injury during that 
timeframe, Schilling still managed 12 more starts, and in two seasons, 
managed five more starts than Pedro's peak.

My point is that Schilling's more durable than Pedro, and that can't be 
disputed.  Yes, Pedro has a substantial edge in ERA, but Schilling has 
more starts, and more innings pitched, especially over the last few years, 
which definitely counts for something.

[...]
> So do lots of shitty players (Not that Shcilling is) and I woulnd't
> rather have them than Pedro.

Great.  Would you rather have Pedro than have the Sox win a World Series?  
The point is that Schilling has established himself as a *great* big game 
pitcher, just as Pedro has.  In fact, Schilling's recent performance in 
the postseason has been more consistently brilliant than Pedro's. 

And anybody who thinks Pedro was flat-out brilliant in the 2003 
postseason needs to have his head examined.  Pedro's stats in the LDS were 
good (not great), but in the LCS, they weren't even good.

2003   LDS: 2 GS, 1-0, 3.86 ERA, 14 IP, 6 BB, 9 K.
       LCS: 2 GS, 0-1, 5.65 ERA, 14 1/3 IP, 2 BB, 14 K.  

Overall: 4.77 ERA, 28 1/3 IP, 8 BB, 23 K.

Schilling's postseason numbers with the D-Backs:

2001   LDS: 2 GS, 2-0, 0.50 ERA, 18 IP, 2 BB, 18 K.
       LCS: 1 GS, 1-0, 1.00 ERA, 9 IP, 2 BB, 12 K.
       WS:  3 GS, 1-0, 1.69 ERA, 21 1/3 IP, 2 BB, 26 K.

2002   LDS: 1 GS, 0-0, 1.29 ERA, 7 IP, 1 BB, 7 K.

In other words postseason stats for Schilling in AZ are:
       1.14 ERA, 55 1/3 IP, 7 BB, 63K.

So when it matters most, Schilling has managed to pitch even better, while 
Pedro, recently, has not.

What's the point?  The point is that the evidence says Schilling will make 
the Sox better.  Maybe a lot better.  Maybe enough to push them over the 
brink to their first championship in 85 years.

My other point is that while Pedro is clearly still one of the great 
pitchers in the game, his durability is questionable and it's stupid to 
ignore the downward trend in his innings pitched.

--Paul
** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **