« Cheaper Than Heating Oil | Main | Time to Fess Up »
June 30, 2008
This Gets Me Mad
People are debating whether or not Curt Schilling belongs in the Hall of Fame.
When, exactly, did the Hall of Fame become the Hall of Math? A common argument against Schilling is that Bert Blyleven had better numbers, or Tommy John had a slightly lower [(walks/inning * park-adjusted ERA)/(K/balk ratio in day games * the square root of switch-hitting opponents' batting average on artificial turf)] so there's no way Schilling should get in until they do.
Hogwash. Schilling was a very good regular season pitcher and a transcendent pitcher when the stakes were the highest. Maybe (well...definitely) I'm biased, but the guy helped carry Arizona to a championship, and he carried the Sox to a World Series win when his foot was attached by rubber bands and Popsicle sticks.
The Hall of Fame test, which I always thought and Bill Simmons elucidated nicely, is, will you ever tell your grandkids that you watched someone play. People will be talking about Schill for decades to come. Did anyone ever buy a ticket to a Twins game because Blyleven was pitching?
It amazes me how many Hall of Fame voters base their votes on numbers and numbers alone. If that's what gets you into the Hall, why use voters at all? Why not just let a computer decide?
Filed Under: Boston Red Sox | Permanent Link, Comments (4) | Linking Blogs
Comments
I agree 100%. Schilling is a Hall of Famer.
Posted by: Vin | July 2, 2008 10:16 PM
Bingo! It's the Hall of FAME. Very well-written. Of course Schill should be in there.
Posted by: Suldog | July 3, 2008 12:51 PM
I'll go ahead and be the jerk who suggests that the numbers are more important than anyone here seems willing to allow. Baseball, more so than just about any other team sport is built on statistics. But more importantly, without using the numbers as a firm backbone for any hall of fame bid, every vote becomes a popularity contest. It's as easy for this to sound appealing as it would be unfair to the players whose careers should earn them a spot in the hall, who didn't have the good fortune to be in large market or part of an epochal team.
And there in lies the rub with Schilling, and with the "will you tell your grandkids about having seen so-and-so" line of reasoning. The glow of the team that he's been a part of for the last half-decade (some years a much bigger part than others) is standing in the place of more objective forms of assessment that are only attributable to the player as an entity to himself. I think it would be hard to deny Schilling's goodness, but I'm certainly not sold on his greatness. If a player is on the line, or if it isn't clear that they belong in the Hall, to my mind it's better to leave them out and let induction into the Hall be that much more meaningful when it happens. Reading over the wikipedia page, I can say that I recognize about half the names on the list, and while I'm certainly not a baseball scholar, this still strikes me as wrong.
Posted by: The Rev. | July 9, 2008 08:31 PM
Note that it is never a "computer", it is an algorithm developed by a person that is just easily calculated using a computer. Really bugs me when the BCS rolls around.
Posted by: Nico | July 15, 2008 05:40 PM
