Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Morris vs Schilling



Boston Globe columnist, Dan Shaughnessy writing for Sports Illustrated has a recent article up on the SI website on his Hall of Fame ballot.

It is actually rather boring with the exception of this gem of a paragraph:

"(Jack) Morris won 254 games in 18 seasons and pitched one of the greatest World Series games of all time, a 10-inning, 1-0 Game 7 victory over the Braves in 1991. There's already support for Boston blowhard Curt Schilling, who won't be on the ballot for another three years, but Morris has to get in before Schilling gets in. Morris was better."

Hmmm. This is interesting as it does not really square with my recollection of these two players but I am human and prone to error just like everybody else so let's check this out.

Ok did it.

Here are the stats:

Jack Morris: 254-186, .577 winning percentage, 3.90 ERA (just think about that number for a potential Hall of Famer), 1.29 WHIP, 5.8 K/9 rate, 3.3 BB/9 rate.
Post season - 7-4, 3.80 ERA (What would his ERA have been without that 1991 game?)

Curt Schilling: 216-146, .597 winning percentage, 3.46 ERA, 1.13 WHIP, 8.6 K/9 rate,2.0 BB/9 rate.
Post season - 11-2, 2.23 ERA

Sorry, not close. Morris, while good, is just a poser compared to Schilling.

Shaughnessy, you are killing me here with hysterical appendicitis-inducing laughter. Just killing me.

You are stealing from Sports Illustrated.

Ok, that's a little strong.

But if I was them, I wouldn't pay.

4 comments:

Carl Crawford Cards said...

Nice post. I'm not necessarily a big fan of either getting in, but that's a crystal clear comparison.

Here's another: lifetime ERA+
Morris: 105
Schilling: 127
I'm not a big fan of ERA+ as the end all be all, but it underscores your point: there's not much of a comparison between these guys.

As an aside, Bob Feller has an ERA+ of 122. I feel that any adjusted stat that tells me Schilling was better than Feller, or even in the same league, has some SERIOUS flaws. But it is another measure.

Unknown said...

Schill was better stats wise. But both of them probably will make their way in. At the end of the day, or in twenty years from now, nobody will remember who got in first.

deal said...

To me the strogest argument against Schill is the 'only' 216 Wins which is still 50 (yes 50) more than Koufax.

well maybe the jerk factor is bigger.

Contrary Guy said...

I wouldn't put either in.

I am not a big fan of counting stats but I think Schilling would need maybe 40 more wins for serious consideration but to get those at the end of his career his other stats would deteriorate. It's all hypothetical anyway as he was done with nothing left in the tank at the end.

I don't see why Morris is even in the discussion and was quite surprised to see him get over 50% of the vote. That is a head-scratcher to me.