Re: Schilling likely headed to Boston

Paul Wylie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> 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.
> 

Why is it relevant to point out Schilling had odd reasons for missing
itme last year, but it isn't to point out that Pedro missed time in
2001 with an arm problem that hasn't benn a problem since then?

> > 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.
> 

I understand it is convienent becuase of the ESPN breakdowns, that is
fair.
Also I agree that it is an okay timeframe to try to minimize sample
size issues.  But in this case it is NOT spotting a trend becuase 2001
is no a typical season for Pedro.  If you meant it or not you can't
deny that the 3 season timeframe is the one that makes Schilling look
the best and Pedro look the worst, and it is completely because 3
seasons ago Schilling probably had his best season while Pedro had his
only major time missed due to injury.

> > 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.  
> 

So why should I not be concerned that he isn't going to have
reoccuring shoulder problems?

> 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.
> 

I'll agree that it is easy and so is one season and there Pedro is
much more valuable.

> > 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.
> 

Well you asid that Schilling was putting up more valuable seasons year
in and year out.  That is not the same thing as being more durable.
Pedro was clearly more valuable in 03, 00, 99, 97, 95, and 94.
Curt was clearly more valuable in 01, and 93(Though Pedro pitched way
better than Schilling but in half the innings as a middle reliever).
02, 98, and 96 are all debatable, I personally would take Schilling in
96 because he was much more effective despite throwing far fewer
innings.  I'd take Pedro in 98 for the same reasons though I think
this one is more clear cut(I almost put this in the initial Pedro
line), and in 02 is is tough becuase Pedro was much more effective,
but Schilling had 60 more innings.  I'll take Curt in a close one.
And of course Curt was more valuable every season before 93 since
Pedro wasn't around in those days.

So it is far from clear that Schilling in putting up more valuable
seasons year in and year out.  He is much more durable, and that is
why he is more valuable at times, but it is not directly analogous.

> [...]
> > 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.

And he very well may be.
Just like he was in AZ.  Of course he would not have been enough to
push them over the top without Randy Johnson there, and he won't be
enough in Boston WITHOUT Pedro there.
IF the Sox win next year with both those guys then you can say that
Schilling put them over the top, but you can't say that it makes him
better than Pedro.

> 
> 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.
> 

It is also silly to ignore that Schilling is old, and old pitchers
sometimes go down hill fast.  I don't think he will, at least not next
year, but if I had to better who will be better in 3 years I think
Pedro is a safer bet.