Was Curt Schilling Any Good?

It’s been a while, so I thought it would be fun to dive back into the scorebooks and see how people performed with my watchful eye peering down on them.

Today I chose Curt Schilling. He had some good years with the Sox. He had some lost years with the Sox. How would that play out of games I scored? Let's see.

Wow. Pretty well I'd say.

First, I'm surprised I didn't see Schilling more. But, I guess he wasn't with the Sox as long as I was imagining. But, scoring six games of his is a decent sample. Especially when those two October starts were pretty important.

In the six games, Schilling had a 5-0 record. Not too shabby at all there. He also struck out 29 opposing batters under my watchful eye.

How did his performance project out to an entire season? My fictional Schilling season would see him win 27 games. But, to be honest, his other numbers are really less than spectacular. Sure, a 3.35 ERA and a 1.05 WHIP aren't exactly "bad". But, it's not like he was Pedro out there on the mound. Which, I suppose, means I saw the essence of Curt Schilling. Good in the Playoffs. Above average the rest of the time.

And, certainly not Pedro.

I Scored: August 18, 2007

OK, what do we have here? Today I decided to flash back to a game in the fantastic season of 2007. The Sox were on their way to winning the division, finishing with the best record in the American League. This team had some skill, and the scorecard from this game shows exactly that.

Let’s start with the pitcher box. This box sums up this gave very well. Curt Schilling struggled out of the gate, only being able to go six innings while giving up five runs. But, the rest of the bullpen was able to shut things down to allow the Sox to stay in the game. In fact, that pitcher succession would be seen again in the World Series, simple removing the need for Timlin. This game was also closer than the final score would indicate, because of the Sox scoring so many runs in the eighty. When Timlin and Oki were in there, they were in a hold situation. Then the offense did their thing.

Speaking of the offense, Wow. Just look at it go. As always with these old cards, the names are fun to look at. Julio Lugo leading off? Alex Cora at second base? 

I love the Manny Ramirez line. Could there be a more “Manny” outcome? He started with four swinging strikeouts. But in the eighth he followed an intentional walk by driving in two huge insurance runs with a double. With that double, the Ortiz-Manny combo ended up with fantastic number, driving in six on the ten runs (thanks to an Ortiz grand slam) and scoring three of their own.

The hero of the game? Have to give that to Ortiz. His go-head grand slam in the fifth was enormous. Clutch, you might say. 

The goat? I usually give the horns to a batter. But, the only starter who didn’t score at least one run was Varitek, and he went 2-5 with an RBI. So, I’m going to hang them on Curt Schilling. Five runs in six innings is just not what you’re looking for. He’s lucky the offense bailed him out, of it would have been a disaster.

But, the offense did bail him out. JD Drew collected his 1000^th career hit on the way to an eventual blowout.

And the scorecard shows you how it happened. 

Kevin Durant and Curt Schilling

I’ve often said that there is only one thing that Curt Schilling ever said or did that I agreed with. When he was negotiating with the Red Sox prior to agreeing to a trade bringing him to Boston, he sat down with Theo at his house. He made sure that he set the chairs up so that Theo could see his World Series trophy over his shoulder, and basically said “You want one of those? I’m the guy to get it for you.”

I had never heard anyone say that before. It was in contrast to someone like, say, Mike Mussina who chose to join the defending World Champion Yankees instead of the Red Sox. He didn’t look and say, “boy…add me to the rotation behind Pedro and the Sox would be unstoppable.” Instead he went to the team that already “unstoppable” and wanted to go along for the ride.

Without getting into the argument over which approach is “better”, I’m surprised that the Schilling approach isn’t used more often.

After all, these superstar athletes have been stars for a long time. They were probably the best player on their team since they were six. Everyone has been calling them the best for a decade, if not two. How do they not have the attitude that they can do anything? How did Mussina not look and say, “whichever team I go to will immediately be the favorite to win. So, I’ll just pick one.” How has that attitude not been burned into his brain for years? Johnny Damon talked about having been introduced over the loudspeaker as the best player in the state during high school games. How did he not think he was invincible?

So, why wasn’t Schilling the opposite? He was terrible for so many years. Bouncing from team to team. How did he have that attitude? Why on earth would he assume that he could bring a title to Boston? Was it simply because he had just done it? Like a bandwagon fan pumping his chest with a newfound sense of success? 

Maybe he’s just always been full of himself?

Or, maybe I’ve been giving Schilling too much credit. It’s not like he went to a last place team with the intention of turning them around. The Sox had a lead in game seven of the ALCS the season before Schilling decided to come. He wasn’t suggesting he would be a monumental improvement. But just enough.

Is that what Kevin Durant did? Did he decide that he couldn’t bring OKC all the way up…but could bring Golden State up just enough?

But, boy, Durant is about 100 times the player Schilling was. Durant has been the chosen one. Durant actually did bring Oklahoma City up from nothing to the finals. He of all people should have assumed that he was superman. That he could bring any team wherever it wanted to go. But, even he decided it wasn’t enough. He just slid into the best team he could find. He didn’t see himself as the missing piece to the next Celtics dynasty. He wasn’t the next Larry Bird. He was just the next Ray Allen.

How on earth did he get that idea in his head?

Who Had the Best 1-2 Punch?

With all this talk about Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez’s election to the Hall of Fame, I was reminded of something.

When Curt Schilling was traded to the Diamondbacks to join Johnson in the rotation, somebody (probably ESPN) ran a poll asking what the best #1/#2 starting pitcher combination in the majors was. The first choice was, of course, the newly minted duo of Johnson and Schilling. I don’t exactly remember all the other choices, but they were the likely candidates…Clemens/Pettitte, Maddux/Glavine, probably Hudson/Mulder. The last choice was “Pedro Martinez and any other Red Sox starter.” I remember getting a chuckle out of that one. Especially since it was getting some votes. Of course, it was just a silly choice. The idea that Pedro and Jeff Fassero, for example, would be the best #1/#2 combo in the majors was good for a laugh. Although, it did speak to just how good Pedro was at the time that they even suggested it. It wasn’t “Maddux and any other Braves starter.” It wasn’t even “Johnson and anybody else.” It was telling, but obviously just a throwaway entry.

Or, was it?

Just for fun, I thought I’d see just how close those entries would have been. After all, any time spent browsing around Pedro’s baseball-reference page is time well spent. I decided to use WAR for the comparisons because, well, why not?

The top five that year for “combined WAR” between two pitching staff members, not including any Red Sox entries, were:

13.2 Randy Johnson-Curt Schilling

12.2 Kevin Brown-Chan Ho Park

12.2 Randy Johnson-Bryan Anderson

11.5 Greg Maddux-Tom Glavine

9.8 Randy Johnson-Greg Swindell

So, there you go. Obviously, Johnson’s massive 8.1 number allowed him to team with a few people to get a bigger number.

How about Pedro and his rotation-mate?

Baseball-reference lists six pitchers for the Sox that year as “starting pitchers.” Going with Pedro and ANY other starter, the worst combination is actually him and his brother. That year they combined for a WAR of 11.4. If you look at the list, that would place them fifth. Amazingly, that’s because Ramon actually had a negative WAR that year, and dragged down Pedro’s unbelievable 11.7. (Side note…Ramon finished the season with the second most starts on the Sox, behind Pedro, even with his -0.3 WAR. Imagine if the Sox had another even average starter?) On his own, Pedro would have finished fourth. So, while the combination of Pedro and “any other starter” shouldn’t have won the poll, it was clearly deserving of the mention after all.

How crazy is that?

Just for even more fun, what if we didn’t just use the worst starter on the Sox? How would “Pedro and starter X” do in the comparison? I’m glad you asked. Here’s the new major league top five, if you include Red Sox pitchers.

14.0 Pedro Martinez-Tomo Ohka

13.4 Pedro Martinez-Jeff Fassero

13.2 Randy Johnson-Curt Schilling

12.6 Pedro Martinez-Pete Schourek

12.6 Pedro Martinez-Rolando Arrojo

Are you friggin’ kidding me? So thanks to Pedro, Tomo Ohka was part of the best #1/#2 punch in the majors? Let that sink in for a minute. Jeff Fassero was part of a better #1/#2 combination than Johnson/Schilling? Pete Schourek teamed up with Pedro to beat out two first-ballot Hall of Famers?

Yeah.

Pedro was good.

The 2015 Hall of Fame Ballot

It's that time of year again. It's time for the Baseball Hall of Fame to announce its Hall of Fame election results. These have been more fun for me recently, since I've started to be old enough to have really experienced the players involved. I feel like I can make a more informative opinion on who should, or shouldn't be, elected. I bet you're just dying to know who I would vote for if I had a ballot, aren't you?

Too bad. I'm going to do it anyway. Well, at least I'm going to tell you which former Red Sox players I would vote for. That makes this a much shorter, more manageable post, after all. Shall we get on with it?

First of all, what's a Hall of Famer? I've said it before, but once again, here's how I answer that question. The Hall of fame requires a ten year career. This is how they eliminate flashes in the pan. It makes sense to have some sort of minimum, and ten years seems about right. So, I figure, if you only play ten years, they better all be "All-Star" years. I don't mean actually being an all-star, since those team elections are jokes. But, I mean years where people would consider you all-star caliber. As luck would have it, baseball-reference actually puts a number to it. They call a WAR above 5 an all-star season. While I would never use a stat like that as an absolute, it's a handy way to think about things. So, above and beyond having ten all-star seasons, if you want me to call you a Hall of Famer, five of those years better be elite years. I'm not looking for long-time mediocrity. I want superstars. (This requirement, BTW is where players like Tim Raines and Craig Biggio fall off my ballot. Lots of all-star years, but not enough elite seasons) Baseball-reference to the rescue once again. They call a WAR of 8 to be an MVP season. Again, that's a great guideline to keep in mind. Now, if you played more than ten years, I don't give you much credit for it. You just can make a fool of yourself out there. (Again, sorry Biggio...I don't care if you hung on long enough to reach those 3000 hits everyone gets so excited about. I mean, you never even won a batting title.)

So, know that, what would my Red Sox ballot look like? Glad you asked.

Tony Clark. An easy one off that bat. I like Tony Clark a lot. Not that I know him personally. Never actually met him. (Met his wife once, but that's a different story.) He seemed like a nice enough guy. But, his career doesn't even warrant further discussion. Fine player, not a Hall of Famer.

Roger Clemens. Interestingly, for a guy with seven Cy Youngs, he only had six seasons with 8+ WAR. Not that his resume is really the question here. It's all those PEDs he kept using in order to establish the resume. My hunch is that if you can keep Joe Jackson out of the hall for something he wasn't found guilty of, you can do the same for Clemens. Is it fair? No. Is it fair that Jackson is banned but Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker were two of the first six Hall of Famers? No. Sorry.

Cliff Floyd. A long major league career is something to be proud of. Playing in the league for 17 years is quite an accomplishment. There's no shame in having a career that long that isn't good enough for the Hall of Fame. Hope Floyd feels the same way.

Nomar Garciaparra. At first, I thought this one was going to be tougher. After all, he was a monster when he was healthy in Boston. Plus, he made that all-star team in LA. I thought, maybe, He'd squeak in. It pains me to no end that he didn't. He just didn't have the years. I could make a case that his had the five years I need. He never had a WAR over 8, but he was pretty steadily a valuable player. He had six seasons over 6, including two over 7, in Boston. I could almost stretch it. But, that was all he had. He had nothing after Boston. Even the actual all-star year was under 3. Damn.

Tom Gordon. As much as I like the fact that he wore #36 for a lot of his career, and all he did for the Sox in 2004...I can't do it. The numbers just aren't there.

Pedro Martinez. Remember when I said I wouldn't use the 8+ WAR as an absolute? This here is why. Pedro Martinez is the type of pitcher you create a Hall of Fame for. But, he only had four seasons of 8+ WAR. One of the years he didn't was 2001. That year he had a 5 WAR in half a season. That's also the season that he made the all-star team as a special inclusion. While the manager/coaches of the team realized that his season didn't warrant it, they couldn't imagine an all-star team without Pedro Martinez on it. So, they added a roster spot just for him. That's really all you need to know about his career. They changed the rules of the all-star game just for him. He gets a vote as fast as possible.

Curt Schilling. I have to admit, he was closer than I thought he would be. Looking at the numbers strictly, I see two seasons with a WAR over 8, with another at 7.9. Then, I see five other seasons over a 5.0, with a 4.9 and 4.8. So, he's a bit short on the peak years, and stretching it on the overall excellence. But, as I mentioned with Pedro, these aren't "chiseled in stone" type requirements. So, can I give him anything to help push him over the edge? Four times he finished fourth or better in Cy Young voting, but never won one. He was pitcher of the month four times. Never in the top nine for MVP. Led the league in wins twice, and WHIP twice. I also notice that he was a much better pitcher playing second fiddle as a #2 man in the rotation. No idea what that means, but it's something. Like I said, it was closer than I though, but I can't see a way I would vote for him.

Lee Smith. I can't imagine voting for a modern closer. I certainly can't imagine doing it for an old-time one. A top WAR of 4.8 for his career? Pass.

John Smoltz. Much like Nomar, I thought this might be a close one. Once I looked at the numbers, though, I don't get it. His highest WAR was 7.3, and only two other times was he over 5. People keep talking like he's a shoe in. But those numbers certainly don't scream at me. Even "classic" stats don't seem to help. He won twenty games once. Saved 40 games three times. I look at Pedro's career stats, and am just in awe of all the bold numbers. I look at Smoltz, and I feel "eh." I'm not saying that any team wouldn't be thrilled to have him. But, I don't elect "eh" to the Hall of Fame.

So, there you go. Looks like I would only vote for one former Red Sox player. I guess that makes sense.

It's supposed to be hard to get in the Hall of Fame.

Catching or Pitching

The Red Sox are currently without a starting catcher. The team captain and starting catcher for the last ten years or so is currently a free agent. While it appears that the Sox would like to have him back, you never know how it will end up with free agents. You never know when a team comes out of nowhere thinking that what a free agent has is exactly what his team needs to put him over the top. In the case of Varitek, the skill most often cited is his ability to handle a pitching staff. That’s one of those immeasurable intangibles that I greatly dislike. What exactly does it mean? How do you know when you’re good?

Where does a catcher’s ability end, and a pitcher’s ability start? Pedro Martinez won a Cy Young without Varitek, and won two with him. Hideo Nomo threw a no-hitter without Varitek, and one with him. Curt Schilling didn’t finish better than second in Cy Young voting without Varitek, and no better than second with him. Did Varitek have any role in any of it?

I’m not a major league pitcher, so I have no idea what it all means. (If there are any major league pitchers reading this, feel free to set me straight.) But, when I look at this issue, I have more questions than answers. When Josh Beckett first joined the Sox, he got beat up a little his first season. The EEIdiots said he was relying too much on his fastball, and not throwing enough curves. They slammed him almost daily saying he was in a new league and needed to mix it up a bit more. Where did Tek fit into all this? Wasn’t he the one calling the pitches? Wasn’t it up to him to call the curve more often? Was Beckett shaking Tek off constantly? Similar issues arose with another new pitcher, Daisuke Matsuzaka. His rookie season, and last season as well, he threw a lot of pitches. Again, the EEIdiots slammed the pitcher. He was nibbling too much. Rather than try to paint the corners with every pitch he needed to pump it in there more. Again, what was Tek’s role? Doesn’t the catcher set the target? [Side question…when exactly does the catcher tell the pitcher where the location should be? The glove isn’t in position sometimes until the pitcher is into his windup. Is this enough time for the pitcher to direct the ball to the desired target? Again, any MLB pitcher reading this please set me straight] Is it up to Tek to put his glove in the middle of the plate and tell Dice-K to throw it there? Is Daisuke trying to hit the target in the middle and not doing it? Is Tek placing his glove on the corner? Who really is to blame for Beckett and Daisuke, the pitcher or the catcher?

I have to believe that Tek really does have something special. Too many pitchers have given too many specific examples as to why he’s so valuable. When a guy like Schilling who has micromanaged every pitch he’s thrown for his entire career turns the reins over to Tek his first year, I have to believe something’s up. I just don’t know what it is. I definitely hope that the Sox sign Tek for at least another season.

I wish I knew why.

Schilling's Shoulder

It looks like the sports gods were tired of all this “Boston, the Hub of Sports” talk that was running around. So, in one week they took down the Patriots and knocked off the Sox number three starter. Just how bad this latest news in depends on how wide of an angle you use to look at it. It’s probably safe to assume that Curt won’t be pitching in any sort of useful capacity this season. He may make it back for a late season push, but I don’t know how much I want to expect from a rusty old pitcher late in the season after shoulder problems. So, what does that mean?

Quick view, it puts Buchholz into the forefront. He would appear the front runner for the now vacant number five starter. Assuming the Sox don’t use Coco to grab a starter, that puts the rotation at Beckett-DiceK-Wakefield-Lester-Buchholz. Not a bad rotation. The Sox have made the playoffs with rotations much worse. I have no problem going into opening day with that. After all, Schilling only gave us 9 wins last year. I can feel comfortable with Clay approaching that total. So, narrow view, not a huge deal to part with Curt.
Slightly larger picture. Buchholz was supposed to be the insurance police in case Curt or Wake needed time off during the season. He’s no longer available for that. So, if Wakefield needs some rest or recovery, we’re down to Snyder. We’re also more likely to see Snyder take some starts since the Sox are still going to be careful with Clay. They’ll want to be able to give him extra rest whenever possible to avoid killing his young arm. So, losing whatever starts Curt would have taken, exposes more starts for Snyder. Is that a big deal? Probably not. They'll figure out some way to rest the youngsters, and still throw a starting pitcher out there every day. Frankly, baseball doesn't have enough good teams to worry about and inconsistant fifth starter.

That leaves the playoffs. With Beckett as the ace, that hides a lot of probelms. Curt would have been nice, but he's really not required. The way Lester handled himself in '07 was great.

Basically, it's too bad since the Sox are already paying for him. But, this certainly doesn't crush the Sox chances this year. Nothing that dramatic. It might even be a good thing if Clay can emerge and show us all that he deserves to be in the rotation anyway.