Re: Schilling likely headed to Boston

Paul Wylie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> SportsChump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> The point is that the reason Pedro's innings have been going down the last 
> three seasons is a direct result of his shoulder injury.  Pedro has opted 
> not to have shoulder surgery to repair his shoulder.  Schilling's injuries 
> last year had nothing to do with his arm falling off, and in other words, 
> had nothing do with his workload.  Pedro's injury was directly related to 
> his workload, and his limited him since.
> 

His innings have gone down mostly because they have been overly
cautious with him since his injury.  I'll agree that the managment
have not tried to maximize his innings at all.  Maybe that has kept
him healthier or maybe they just get 20 innings less form the best
pitcher in baseball each year.  I don't know and nobody else does
either.

> [...]
> > 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.
> 
> Okay, you choose to believe that 2001 was unrelated to everything that's 
> happened since.  I clearly can't convince you to see what I see, which is 
> that Pedro's shoulder can't generate the velocity and workload it used to, 
> and that this development is directly related to his injury in 2001.
> 

And you got your medical degree from where???
I won't say that he doens't throw less inings becuase of his 2001
injury, but I will insist that he has had ZERO arm or shoulder
problems since then.  He missed no time in 2002 and the time he missed
last season was as unrealated to his arm or shoulder and Schillings
time.

> > So why should I not be concerned that he isn't going to have
> > reoccuring shoulder problems?
> 
> Because Schilling has had shoulder surgery which repaired his 
> injury--something Pedro has not done--and he's put up monster workloads in 
> the seasons since then--also something Pedro has not done.
> 

Hasn't he had shoulder surgery 3 times?
3rd time the charm???

> > I'll agree that it is easy and so is one season and there Pedro is
> > much more valuable.
> 
> Fine.  I could have cherry-picked just the 2001 season to show Schilling 
> was a lot more valuable than Pedro, but I didn't.

And I could have picked 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 00 as well as 03 to
make that point.  Not a great argument...

> 
> > 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.
> 
> Actually, I said Schilling was putting up more high-value innings year in 
> and year out, which *is* the same thing as being durable.

Okay I reread what you said and it was:
"Schilling may be getting old, but he's still putting up more valuable
innings every year than Pedro."
I read that as an individual inning was more valuable rather than just
putting up more innings.
However... despite my misunderstanding of what you meant you are still
wrong.  Pedro had more innings than Schilling in 03, 00, 99, 96, 95,
and 94.  So in the 10 years since they were both starters Pedro has
had more innings in 6 of them, and has won 3 of the last 5 years
including last season.
So even though I agree that Schilling is more durable it isn't the
huge discrepancy you want to make it into.


> 
> > 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.
> 
> Probably true, but clearly Pedro alone couldn't do it, either.
> 

And neither could Randy Johnson, but he was still the better of the 2
Arizona pitchers.

> > 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.
> 
> I wasn't trying to.  I was just pointing out that Schilling is not so easy 
> to dismiss by the people who're decrying the deal because it means they'll 
> lose Pedro.  I'm pointing out that by the time Pedro leaves the Sox (if he 
> does), Schilling will probably be the more valuable pitcher, thanks to the 
> steady decline of Pedro's health.
> 

What data are you looking at to see a steady decline?  He missed like
2 starts with arm trouble in each of 99 and 00 then had a major injury
in 01 and has had no arm problems since and for that matter had no
injuries of any kind in 02.  I would not call him the picture of
perfect health, but it isn't like the guy lives of the DL either.

> > 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.
> 
> Now you're engaging in wishful thinking.  Schilling is blessed with a very 
> durable body.  He's built a lot like Roger Clemens, who has pitched 
> effectively into his 40s.  Randy Johnson has also pitched very effectively 
> in his late 30s and into his 40s.  Nolan Ryan in some ways was a better 
> pitcher in his 40s than in much of his youth.  Pedro's five years younger 
> than Schilling, but his body is much less durable, and there's a history 
> in his family of shoulder problems (remember his older brother Ramon?).
> 

WEll you have 3 examples I stand corrected!
Anyway Clemens had his last great season at 35, and at the age that
Schilling will be when this contract runs out he was a league average
pitcher and was only about 10% better this year.  Still usefull, but I
can't see Pedro going that far down by then.  Also Clemens hasn't put
up the kind of innings that you want Schilling to put up at those
ages, so he really doesn't help your argument that much.
Johnson had great seasons at 37 and 38 but last year got hurt and
wasn't all that good when he wasn't.  Maybe he will be great next
year, or maybe he is hurt and ineffective again and retires.
Ryan isn't a good example since he was NEVER as good as Schilling, and
since he was only a little above average to start he wasn't going to
fall all that far unless he wasn't worth even bring out there anymore.

And as far as Ramon goes I do believe a lot in genetics, but you can't
take the assumptions to far.  Remember Ozzie Canesco sucked, Billy
Ripken wasn't all that good, Ken Brett was a below average pitcher and
only a good hitter "for a pitcher", Moises Alou is a better player
than his dad or uncles, and staying with that Alou's The brothers
weren't all that similar.  Oh and the Dimaggio brothers weren't at all
alike.  This isn't even considering all the superstars that had
brothers that weren't good enough to even play ball.
So yes it is good to remember that Ramon did break down, but take that
information with a grain of salt.



> Maybe the Sox will do what the Dodgers wouldn't do with Ramon and they'll 
> manage to baby Pedro's shoulder until he's bored with baseball and he'll 
> continue to pitch brilliantly in fewer and fewer innings until they move 
> him to the bullpen to close games and he becomes the second coming of 
> Dennis Eckersley.
> 

Well as long as he is good for at least 5 innings with an ERA in the
low 2's he shoulnd't move to the pen.
If he becomes a 175IP a year pitcher because they try to skip a day
for him as much as possible and only lets him pitch 6 innings tops
then so be it.  But I strongly believe that they will let him pitch
next year and he will get at least 30 starts and will average around 7
innings a start.  He should be at his 99-00 level as long as they
dont' pussify him again.

> But I doubt it.  Pedro's got some existing damage to his shoulder that has 
> not completely healed, and as he gets older, his body's ability to deal 
> with that damage will decline until he can't pitch anymore.  That's a sad 
> thought, but wishing it weren't so doesn't make it less likely.
> 

Maybe you are right, but wild speculation doesn't make it more likely.