• Red Light & Boomer

    Posted by on March 24th, 2009 · Comments (13)

    The Red Light Schilling parade continues…

    …everywhere you turn, the question appears: “Is Curt Schilling a Hall-of-Famer?” (Michael Kay even asked Paul O’Neill the question during this evening’s YES coverage of the Sox-Yanks game.)

    Well, to that question, I offer two words: David Wells.

    Curt Schilling pitched in the major leagues from 1988 through 2007 – playing for 5 different teams. David Wells pitched in the major leagues from 1987 through 2007 – playing for 9 different teams. Let’s look at each of these pitchers as starters, non-starters, and during the post-season:

    As starters:

    • Curt Schilling made 436 starts, pitching 3,079.3 innings, going 206-134, with an ERA of 3.43 during his career.
    • David Wells made 489 starts, pitching 3,171.6 innings, going 221-144, with an ERA of 4.21 during his career.

    As non-starters:

    • Curt Schilling pitched out of the bullpen 133 times during his career – throwing 181.6 innings while allowing an opponent’s OPS of .686 and an ERA of 3.62.
    • David Wells pitched out of the bullpen 171 times during his career – throwing 267.3 innings while allowing an opponent’s OPS of .680 and an ERA of 3.23.

    During the post-season:

    • Curt Schilling pitched in 19 post-season games, all starts, throwing 133.3 innings, going 11-2 with an ERA of 2.23.
    • David Wells pitched in 27 post-season games, 17 being starts, throwing 125 innings, going 10-5 with an ERA of 3.17.

    Two pitchers who threw in the same exact era. And, their numbers as starters, relievers, and post-season pitchers are extremely close. Therefore, if Curt Schilling is a Hall-of-Famer, then so is David Wells. Think about that the next time you hear the question “Is Curt Schilling a Hall-of-Famer?”

    Comments on Red Light & Boomer

    1. thenewguy
      March 24th, 2009 | 11:31 pm

      As much as I hate to say it:

      Career OPS+:
      Wells: 108
      Schill: 127

      Whip:
      Wells: 1.266
      Schill: 1.137

      Ks:
      Wells: 2201 (In roughly 100 more innings)
      Schill: 3116 (4.38 K/BB ratio- 2nd all time)

      Those are just some of the stats. Wells has more Wins because he threw more as a starter.

      I dunno, Steve. I don’t think their number’s are “extremely close,” unless all you care most about the post-season (and even so, Schilling has superior numbers.)

      I just don’t think the comparison is that strong. Maybe it’s just me.

    2. March 24th, 2009 | 11:32 pm

      Sorry, but Wells was no Schilling.

      Wells: 108 RSAA
      Schilling: 346 RSAA

      The 3rd worst pitcher over the past 20 years was Jimmy Haynes, with -120 RSAA. Schilling was superior to Wells by a bigger margin than Wells was superior to Haynes (238 RSAA vs. 228).

      Wells’s best year was 1995, when he had 31 RSAA. Even if we were only to count those years in which Schilling was better than Wells’s best year, those years kick Wells’s whole career’s big fat ass by a 233 to 108 margin.

    3. March 24th, 2009 | 11:44 pm

      True guys, but, we know that the Cooperstown voters, and the general public, for the most part, ignore the advanced metrics and go with the stuff on the back of the bubble-gum cards…therefore, for them, this is a fair debate, no?

    4. March 25th, 2009 | 12:02 am

      The problem with that is you are going about that debate in the wrong way. You don’t want to talk about IP, ERA or OPS.

      The way to debate, for the blooperstown voters, is Schilling had 206 wins, Wells had 221, so if Schilling gets in, since Wells was the better pitcher, Wells should also get in.

    5. thenewguy
      March 25th, 2009 | 12:03 am

      True guys, but, we know that the Cooperstown voters, and the general public, for the most part, ignore the advanced metrics and go with the stuff on the back of the bubble-gum cards…therefore, for them, this is a fair debate, no?
      ————

      Yeahhhhhh, but Boomer is a drunk too, which doesn’t help. Not to mention the Bloody Sock, Schilling’s WS MVP, and the ERA (which even the least statistically-minded baseball writers use.)
      Also, Wells ended his career middling around the NL West.

      I do think there can be a healthy discussion about this, but ultimately I think Wells falls short.

    6. March 25th, 2009 | 12:16 am

      LOL – but, Boomer had a perfect game too!

    7. thenewguy
      March 25th, 2009 | 2:02 am

      LOL – but, Boomer had a perfect game too!
      ————

      Jeez, how could I forget the best one of the bunch? True. A (drunkenly pitched) perfect game is quite a feat.

    8. March 25th, 2009 | 8:15 am

      Yeah, this comparison just doesn’t hold water. The career stats aren’t really as similar as you’re making them out to be, and the peak comparison (in seasons with >150 IP) isn’t even close (ERA+, IP):

      Wells: (140, 203), (131, 189), (127, 214), (123, 221), (118, 206), (114, 198)

      Schilling: (159, 168), (157, 256), (150, 226), (150, 226), (143, 254), (142, 259)

      So Schilling’s top six seasons are better than Well’s single best.

      And if we’re just talking about how the HOF voters will vote, well, I think you know that the perception of Schilling >>>> than the perception of Wells. As, frankly, it should be. Wells was a good, sometimes very good pitcher. Schilling was a great, often freaking fantastic pitcher.

    9. Corey
      March 25th, 2009 | 9:25 am

      they shoulda put wells in the pen as the 8th inning set up guy! (:P)

    10. butchie22
      March 25th, 2009 | 10:47 am

      Schill the Shrill will be a Hall of Famer without a doubt. I don’t think he is …it took him 20 years to win 216 games is something I don’t like. He has a mythic quality for beating the Yankee dynasty in 2001(which thanks to Mariano was a loss and Schill gave up that 2 run home run to Soriano and would have been a goat)and in 2004(he was shelled for 6 runs in that first game that Boston lost)so writers love that quality, even though he’s a jerk. AS great as Scill was in the postseason, there are guys like Cone and wells that were somewhat comparable BUT they didn’t slay the Yankee beast or reverse the curse.

    11. March 25th, 2009 | 12:43 pm

      I don’t think he is …it took him 20 years to win 216 games is something I don’t like.
      ================
      This is not good analysis. Did you see that set of seasons I listed up there in the eighth comment? I’m not a huge fan, but Schilling’s absolutely deserving of the HOF.

      He’s probably the best of the Mussina, Smoltz, Brown group. Cone and Wells are a tier below that, and don’t belong in the discussion. Actually, Wells is probably two tiers below that, as Cone’s peak was a fair amount better than Wells’ peak, too.

    12. butchie22
      March 25th, 2009 | 1:16 pm

      Justin wrote:

      I don’t think he is …it took him 20 years to win 216 games is something I don’t like.
      ================
      This is not good analysis. Did you see that set of seasons I listed up there in the eighth comment? I’m not a huge fan, but Schilling’s absolutely deserving of the HOF.
      He’s probably the best of the Mussina, Smoltz, Brown group. Cone and Wells are a tier below that, and don’t belong in the discussion. Actually, Wells is probably two tiers below that, as Cone’s peak was a fair amount better than Wells’ peak, too.

      Justin, this is another time where you are on a totally different tip. So what are you babbling about? You miss my point…yet again! Schill would have been a shoe-in to be in the Hall of Fame if he won much closer to 300, you dispute that. What does your Sabermetric calculator say about that? He will get in despite that fact because of his dominance in the postseason and despite being a jerk and not winning over 250 games. Do you disagree with that?Just ask the sportswriters who vote for HOF people. I think that Schill will be a Hall of Famer ,no doubt it’s just that you seem so fixated on sabermetrics that you might not understand an old school opinion of things. Schill took 20 years to win 216 games….very relevatory,no? You don’t think that he should be closer to 300 with his skills etc so on? AS for Cone and Wells, they were not that bad in relation to Schill especially Cone.BTW, I think Schill was an awesome pitcher BUT not awesome enough to be in the HOF, BUT the sportswriters will remember the Bloody Sock, slaying the Yankees, and his great pitching against Toronto in the WS. Schill should be in the conversation BUT the fact that he only won 216 wins can/is /will be held against him by his naysayers!

    13. March 25th, 2009 | 1:39 pm

      Butchie, isn’t your point that you don’t think Schilling is a HOFer because he only has 216 wins? If that is your point, then I think you’re wrong, and I told you why. If I’ve misinterpreted, then I apologize.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.