Schilling - Brown- Mussina- Smoltz

[STLCards2]

In my opinion, all four of these pitchers are pretty close to each other and all deserve Cooperstown election. Who do you feel is deserving? Feel free to discuss the merits of each and compare them against each other. How do you rank them compared to Big 4 - Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, Pedro, and they guy most feel is in between, Tom Glavine?

[ChrisLDuncan]

Smoltz and Brown.

[Cowtipper]

Schilling, Mussina, Smoltz

[Westlake]

Smoltz and Schilling.

[jalbright]

Brown is tough to support until we know if there's more than what supported his mention in the Mitchell report. I think the others are worthy, though of the other three, I think Mussina will have the rockiest path. Smoltz has the Braves aura to help him, and Schilling his postseason heroics.

[Edgartohof]

Schilling and Smoltz

[Urbanshocker13]

Smoltz is no question I think he is a HOFer, Moose and Brown are boarderline but I don't think they will make it. As much as I hate to say it, and how much he annoys the hell out of me! Schilling boarderline too but his post season proformance might put him over the top.

[Paul Wendt]

In my opinion, all four of these pitchers are pretty close to each other and all deserve Cooperstown election. Who do you feel is deserving? Feel free to discuss the merits of each and compare them against each other. How do you rank them compared to Big 4 - Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, Pedro, and they guy most feel is in between, Tom Glavine?

All four were at least as good as Glavine in their primes.

Glavine shows unmatched durability or good fortune. Prorating 1994-1995, he worked 219-246 innings in 32-36 starts for 12 seasons running, at great but not "Big 4" quality. (209 wins = 17.4/season) He has worked 183-246 innings in 20 seasons running! with only 29 starts in 1989 outside that 32-36 range. (301 wins = 15.0/season)

Three of the Big 4 have longevity although not consistent durability to match Glavine. When they have pitched more innings, that is mainly by working more effectively.
Complete Games: Clemens 118, Maddux 109, Johnson 98, Glavine 56
Seasons > 246.7 innings (prorate '94-95): Clemens 6+tie, Maddux 7, Johnson 6; that is Glavine's career high

[wardawg]

I think when you combine what Smoltz has done as a starter and a closer you have to consider him for the hall.

[Los Bravos]

Everybody take one step forward...not so fast, Mr. Brown!

I've made my feelings clear about Smoltz, I think Schilling has pitched himself into eligibility the last few years (and I held out against him for a long, long time) and Mussina is a guy who I've admired since his Orioles days. I always used to say that he would've fit in fine on the Braves staffs of the Big 3 era, with his combo of stuff and intelligence.

[Brad Harris]

For those of you who do so, don't forget to factor in credit for missed opportunities in the 1994 and 1995 seasons.

[jjpm74]

For those of you who do so, don't forget to factor in credit for missed opportunities in the 1994 and 1995 seasons.

Why? It was a player's strike. No one forced them to strike and the season was suspended. It's not like military service where the people in question were serving their country while MLB went on.

Smoltz and Schilling are the strongest candidates. I can see a case for Brown depending on how the steroid thing plays out. Mussina needs 2 good years before I'd consider him which is very unlikely given how terrible he was last year.

[philkid3]

Why? It was a player's strike. No one forced them to strike and the season was suspended. It's not like military service where the people in question were serving their country while MLB went on.
In Schilling's case, he's FAR from a union guy. It was not his strike.

'Course, I don't think it hurt him too much, anyway.


But the point remains: how do you know they supported the strike? Not every player did.

[Brad Harris]

Why? It was a player's strike. No one forced them to strike and the season was suspended. It's not like military service where the people in question were serving their country while MLB went on.

Smoltz and Schilling are the strongest candidates. I can see a case for Brown depending on how the steroid thing plays out. Mussina needs 2 good years before I'd consider him which is very unlikely given how terrible he was last year.
Some people give credit for such things. If you're not one of them, no need to get your knickers in a twist over it.

[AstrosFan]

I see these guys as all being just over the line. They all had or are having very impressive careers.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I view them all as pretty much equally qualified.

I don't see why any one should get in and the other not get in.

[leecemark]

--Their career stats are all close enough its hard to separate them. The shape of their careers is another story. Schilling and Smoltz have the great postseason records and the really big seasons. Smoltz also has the ace/closer combo thing going for him. Brown had some seasons as good as either of them, but they aren't as superfically shiny. And he has to overcome being regarded as one of the most unpleasant people of his generation. Maybe that shouldn't matter, but it will. His collapse with the Yankees isn't going to help him either. Mussina got to where he is with a long succession of good to very good seasons. He never had one where he really elevated himself from the pack. Brown is an unlikley BWAA choice, although he may have better luck with the VC someday. Unless Mussina recovers from his 2007 disaster and adds to his resume I can't see him doing well with the BWAA either.

[yanks0714]

My first thought is none of them. I'm more elietest than most when it comes to the HOF.

My 2nd thought is that Smoltz should go in. His dual career as a starter/closer where he was excellent in both roles should play a major part in his election.

Schilling...somehow I think his post-season exploits will get him there but I just can't see it for overall career. I've felt he was overrated. He's a gamer for sure but I'm not convinced thats enough to get him into the HOF. Now this may be strictly bias on my part because of his BoSox years. I try to be objective about but my response is....'no HOF' for Curt.

Mussina has long been one of my favorites. I liken him to Don Sutton a bit. Good to Very Good but hardly ever excellent. Sutton had the longevity while Moose sems to be grinding down over the past 2 years. I have to say 'no HOF' to Moose.

Brown, while he had some outstanding years, just never caught my eye as a HOF'er. As someone else said, his prickly personality will probably not help him at all. That plus his inclusion on the Mitchell report. Because it was New York, some are going to remember his implosion as a Yankee as well. 'No HOF' to Brown.

[Yankeebiscuitfan]

Schilling. No matter how much I dislike the guy, but he has been outstanding throughout his career. I think Smoltz too, but I have my doubts.

[plask_stirlac]

Schilling, Smoltz, Brown in.

Mussina, I am undecided. I would vote for him if there was only one chance but it isn't like that.

For reasons... after supper, I need a bite.

We need some pitchers in there post Eckersley! Talk about a drought.

[brett]

Brown has to answer some questions.

Smoltz is in for me.

Schilling is probably in.

Mussina is also probably in.

One issue is that career ERA+ gets averaged in what I consider to be an improper way. A change in run environment later in a players career can adversely affect his ERA+ for his career by statistically washing out earlier rates.

As a result, when a player has a long decline phase, or a few really bad years, his ERA+ can drop faster than if all seasons were weighted by innings only.

And with that said, Mussina would be basically equal to Smoltz, Schilling AND Brown with innings based weighting only.

Still, Schilling, Smoltz and Brown are in a category in which, if the other 2 were elected, there would be no one outside the hall who tops the remaining one in BOTH IP and ERA+. Only Blylevin, Quisenberry and Joe Wood meet that standard now.

And with the IP Smoltz lost to be a closer he should be a lock.

[rockin500]

smoltz in, the others out.

[Paul Wendt]

One issue is that career ERA+ gets averaged in what I consider to be an improper way. A change in run environment later in a players career can adversely affect his ERA+ for his career by statistically washing out earlier rates.

As a result, when a player has a long decline phase, or a few really bad years, his ERA+ can drop faster than if all seasons were weighted by innings only.

How is it calculated? I have wondered why Jim Hippo Vaughn is listed at 120 instead of 123. Correction for roundoff error can only get him down to 122. (He did not suffer late decline but the opposite; at least I presume it's the poor start.)

[Skin & Bones]

I voted for them all.

[brett]

How is it calculated? I have wondered why Jim Hippo Vaughn is listed at 120 instead of 123. Correction for roundoff error can only get him down to 122. (He did not suffer late decline but the opposite; at least I presume it's the poor start.)

Yes that will do it too.

Its calculated by taking the players total ERA, and his total career run environment, but as a result, ALL ELSE being equal, the higher run ENVIRONMENT seasons get weighted more. And almost everyone gets too low of an ERA+ with that method (and too high of an OPS+)



Take a fairly wild example of one guy who has an ERA of 2.50 in a 5.00 ERA setting for a 200 ERA+, then the next year a 3.00 ERA in a 3.00 setting for a 100 ERA+

His total era is 2.75 and his league is 4.00 giving him a 145 ERA+

Then another guy who has a 5.00 ERA in a 5.00 setting for a 100 ERA+, then a 1.50 ERA in a 3.00 setting for a 200 ERA+. His composite ERA is 3.25 and his league is 4.00 so his ERA+ turns into 1.23!

Even though each player had 1 average ERA season, and 1 season where their ERA was half of the league average.

[stejay]

All of them in my view, but Schilling and Smoltz are most likely in my view

[plask_stirlac]

I don't think Kevin Brown will even get McGwire's votes, and less than Raines.

Grudges, etc. It's not all about playing ball and contributing to a team, unfortunately. Find a teammate who will derogate Raines, or cuss out McGwire, or a Marlin/Padre who didn't want Brown in the big games. Good luck.

[Brad Harris]

Peak (Best 3)
31.9 Schilling
30.6 Brown
29.7 Mussina
28.0 Smoltz

Prime (Best 7)

68.1 Schilling
65.6 Mussina
61.6 Brown
57.5 Smoltz

Career
131.5 Mussina
121.2 Smoltz
113.9 Schilling
104.2 Brown

Seasonal Average
7.3 Mussina
6.1 Smoltz
5.7 Schilling
5.5 Brown

[Mike90]

Were the 90s easier to dominate than the 80s? IMO, there are 8 pitchers with Hall of Fame caliber numbers who pitched during the entire decade of the 90s: The four pitchers listed above plus Maddux, Johnson, Clemens, and Glavine. There are only 3 pitchers with Hall of Fame caliber numbers who pitched during the entire decade of the 80s: Eckersley, Nolan Ryan, and Blyleven.

I don't know, it's probably just a fluke of timing. Still, it seems that it was harder for both the top pitchers and top position players to dominate in the 80s.

[Mike90]

Peak (Best 3)
31.9 Schilling
30.6 Brown
29.7 Mussina
28.0 Smoltz

Prime (Best 7)

68.1 Schilling
65.6 Mussina
61.6 Brown
57.5 Smoltz

Career
131.5 Mussina
121.2 Smoltz
113.9 Schilling
104.2 Brown

Seasonal Average
7.3 Mussina
6.1 Smoltz
5.7 Schilling
5.5 Brown

I'm surprised Smoltz's peak and prime years are so low. How did you do this ranking?

[Brad Harris]

I'm surprised Smoltz's peak and prime years are so low. How did you do this ranking?

Uh..by calculating the sum of their best three (or seven) seasonal scores, respectively? I apologize if that wasn't implied.

[Paul Wendt]

. . .
Career
131.5 Mussina
121.2 Smoltz
113.9 Schilling
104.2 Brown
. . .
WARP shouldn't be used to compare modern AL pitchers with other major league pitchers. (It's debatable whether Davenport's treatment of pitcher's batting supports comparing Smoltz and Mathewson, either.)

Batting performance is assessed with reference to replacement-level major league batting, not quite good enough to hold a job as a hitter (ph or dh).

Glavine and Smoltz have been two of the best-hitting good pitchers of their time, but they are charged with blowing 80 and 65 runs at the plate. (Smoltz not quite as good as Glavine, but he hasn't batted as much. :rolleyes:)

Carlton and Jenkins were two above-pitcher-average batters, but they are charged with blowing about 100 and 60 runs at the plate.

Drysdale and Gibson were very good and better yet, but they are charged with blowing 50 and 40 runs at the plate.

Do any prominent pitchers break even as batters and thereby get full career credit for the runs they save on the mound?

Sure, Don Newcombe +22 runs, Bob Lemon +17 (but negative after 1950 when he was still used as a pinch-hitter), Ken Brett +9, Walter Johnson +4, Bucky Walters -6, and
Mike Mussina gets -5.

His record covers only 54 PA but it's enough to show that one of these twelve pitchers is a bad hitter.


--
add: Kevin Brown, a very bad hitter: -59 runs in limited NL time. He would be charged with about 200 runs if he batted as much as Carlton.

[Paul Wendt]

Oh, I voted for Smoltz, Schilling, and Mussina.
Injuries knocked out Smoltz and Schilling this year while Mussina is cruising toward career-2ndbest 34 starts. He isn't young but he might still add a lot to his resume.

[gman5431]

I think Smoltz is a sure first ballot guy. I think Schilling in somewhat close but his low win total will hold him back. I think his peak and his playoff exploits will eventually get him in but i didnt vote for him here. I think Mussina is a just miss guy and should never be in. Brown isnt even close.

So, i only voted fro Smoltzie.

G Rizzle

[Brad Harris]

Is there some way Jim can reset this poll? It strikes me this thread was started a few years ago and a fair number of opinions may have changed since that time.

[rockin500]

Is there some way Jim can reset this poll? It strikes me this thread was started a few years ago and a fair number of opinions may have changed since that time.
January 31, 2008 was a few years ago?

[dgarza]

There are only 3 pitchers with Hall of Fame caliber numbers who pitched during the entire decade of the 80s: Eckersley, Nolan Ryan, and Blyleven.

Quisenberry, Gossage, Smith? Carlton and Sutton just miss.

[jalbright]

Is there some way Jim can reset this poll? It strikes me this thread was started a few years ago and a fair number of opinions may have changed since that time.

As pointed out, this thread started in January, 2008, less than eight months ago as I write. The only way I might be able to "reset" the poll would be to create a new thread with the same poll and merge the two threads, hoping the new poll would win out (I think I could get it to work, but I'm not certain). However, I think the poll is recent enough that such an effort isn't appropriate yet.

[Brad Harris]

Agreed.

I "saw" 2006 at first glance. My bad. :hide:

[Honus Wagner Rules]

January 31, 2008 was a few years ago?

Well no, but Mussina's great '08 season may sway some voters.

[Mike90]

Quisenberry, Gossage, Smith? Carlton and Sutton just miss.

Smith should not be in the Hall, and I completely forgot about Gossage. Looking at Quisenberry's stats, I'm a little surprised he didn't get more votes. His 2.76 ERA is awesome, 46% better than league average. He had 5 120+ inning seasons and led the league in saves 5 times. He's not like Blyleven who wasn't appreciated by the press during his time. Quisenberry best finishes in MVP voting were 3rd, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 11th. He was runner-up in Cy Young voting twice and in the top-5 three other times. He was a great pitcher.

Oh, and I was wrong about Mussina. His debut was in 1991.

I wish there was a systematic way I could compare the level of play across eras. I have a feeling the quality of play was at its highest in the 80s, but the only evidence I have for that is the best players didn't seem to dominate as much as the best players from other eras. I don't know, maybe I'm completely wrong.

[jalbright]

Agreed.

I "saw" 2006 at first glance. My bad. :hide:

Bad eyes or a "senior moment"? Take it from me, neither are any fun! ;)

[Brad Harris]

From the advent of the deadball era (1920) through today, there are only eight pitchers with more innings and a better ERA+ than Mussina. Lefty Grove, Carl Hubbell, Bob Gibson, Tom Seaver and Jim Palmer are already in the Hall of Fame and Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson and Greg Maddux are on their way. Moose has more wins than Hubbell or Gibson and only one fewer than Palmer and a better winning percentage than Seaver, Gibson, Hubbell or Maddux. All while appearing in fewer games that all but one (Gibson) of them.

Moose has certainly been "good enough for long enough."

[Mike90]

I'm kind of surprised Mussina's only at 24%. He's 115 games above .500. I don't think any post-19th century pitcher has ever been 100 games above .500 and not easily made the Hall of Fame (Marichal probably had to wait the longest).

[STLCards2]

I'm kind of surprised Mussina's only at 24%. He's 115 games above .500. I don't think any post-19th century pitcher has ever been 100 games above .500 and not easily made the Hall of Fame (Marichal probably had to wait the longest).

Most of the votes happened before the 2008 season, I am sure it would be a little higher now.

[Brad Harris]

Most of the votes happened before the 2008 season, I am sure it would be a little higher now.
Which, in itself, is proof that a lot of voters are as swayed by the 20-win season argument as the BBWAA purportedly is.

[philipthegreat]

Which, in itself, is proof that a lot of voters are as swayed by the 20-win season argument as the BBWAA purportedly is.

Or they are swayed by an 11-10 season with a 5 plus era. On that list only Mussina and Smoltz should be in the Hall of Fame.

[Brad Harris]

Win Shares
315 Glavine (for comparison purposes)
288 Smoltz
271 Mussina
254 Schilling
251 Martinez (for comparison purposes)
241 Brown

[gman5431]

Its funny - the voting here is going basically the same way i expect it to go when these guys get their turn - Smoltz is a shoe-in. Schilling will be close (he is at 75 % right now in this pool when you add his votes plus people who voted for everyone). Mussina isnt that close and Brown isnt even in the discussion.

G Rizzle

[Brad Harris]

You may have a point, but in terms of actual worthiness, I don't see Smoltz as being such a popular choice. Had Eckersley not been elected, would Smoltz still be such a shoo-in?

[Bravesfan1984]

Or they are swayed by an 11-10 season with a 5 plus era. On that list only Mussina and Smoltz should be in the Hall of Fame.

Mussina needs 300 to make it.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Mussina needs 300 to make it.

Mussing doesn't need 300 to make it.

Ha!

[Mike90]

Mussina needs 300 to make it.

That's probably not true. So far, Mussina has won 267 games with a .637 WP%. I think Carl Mays (207 wins, .622 WP%) is the only eligible 200-game winner with a WP% exceeding .600 who has not been elected to the Hall.

Non-Hall of Famers with 250 wins:
Bert Blyleven: 287 wins, .534 WP%, ERA .59 better than park-adjusted league average
Tommy John: 288 wins, .555 WP%, ERA .35 better
Jim Kaat: 283 wins, .544 WP%, ERA .26 better
Jack Morris: 254 wins, .577 WP%, ERA .18 better
Mike Mussina: 267 wins, .637 WP%, ERA .81 better

[Brad Harris]

Mussina needs 300 to make it.
Well....now that that's been settled. :laugh

[gman5431]

You may have a point, but in terms of actual worthiness, I don't see Smoltz as being such a popular choice. Had Eckersley not been elected, would Smoltz still be such a shoo-in?

I see Smoltz as a hall of famer but not a slam dunk type guy. I agree that his comparison to Eck will help his case, for sure. Also, for all the closer who are over rated (the position of closer, not the actual players) who are comming down the pipeline, the election of Sutter will improve their cases even though most of the guys who were recieve election are the strickly 1 inning save class.

G Rizzle

[Brad Harris]

...most of the guys who were recieve election are the strickly 1 inning save class.

G-Riz,
Not quite sure what you mean by this, but here's the IP/G of the relievers already elected to the Hall of Fame. (Only counting relief appearances.)

IP/G Pitcher
1.77 Wilhelm
1.66 Fingers
1.61 Gossage
1.58 Sutter
1.14 Eckersley

[Bravesfan1984]

It does not look he will get to 20 wins this season. I do not see how they will elect someone with less then 300 wins who does not have a 20 win season or cy young award.

[Mike90]

It does not look he will get to 20 wins this season. I do not see how they will elect someone with less then 300 wins who does not have a 20 win season or cy young award.

Why use 20 wins? It's just an arbitrary number. How about 15-win seasons? Mussina has 11 of those. How about 21-win seasons. Mussina's never had one, and neither has Greg Maddux. Russ Ortiz, however, once went 21-7. Put that man in the Hall of Fame!

It's true that he's never won a Cy Young, but he has finished in the top-5 six times and in the top-6 eight times. That's not bad, even for a hall of famer. That's a lot of seasons where he was considered one of the best pitchers in the league.

Even then, there's an argument to be made that the Cy Young voting has underrated his value. In 1992, Mussina might have been the best pitcher in the AL going 18-5 with a 2.54 ERA in 241 innings. He lost to Eckersley, who pitched 80 innings. I'm sorry, but there is no way that a reliever with 80 innings and a 1.91 ERA is more valuable than a starter with 3 times as many innings and an ERA of 2.54.

In 2001, Mussina pitched 229 innings with a 3.15 ERA but lost the award to his teammate Roger Clemens who had 220 innings with a 3.51 ERA. Why did Mussina lose? He had run support of 4.21 runs per 9 innings so his record was only 17-11. Clemens had run support of 5.74 runs per 9 innings so his record was 20-3. Clemens did not pitch better that year than Mussina, he just had more luck in terms of run support.

[Paul Wendt]

229 innings with a 3.15 ERA but lost the award to his teammate Roger Clemens who had 220 innings with a 3.51 ERA. Why did Mussina lose? He had run support of 4.21 runs per 9 innings so his record was only 17-11. Clemens had run support of 5.74 runs per 9 innings so his record was 20-3. Clemens did not pitch better that year than Mussina, he just had more luck in terms of run support.
But we will not sample again from 2001 so their W-L records will not change. Mussina will still be 17-11 when he is on the Hall of Fame ballot. Will the same writers judge him differently for that purpose? Or will his fate depend on turnover? Dozens of older writers will retire or die before he is on the ballot in 2015 or so and that will continue while he remains eligible for as many as 15 years.

[Mike90]

But we will not sample again from 2001 so their W-L records will not change. Mussina will still be 17-11 when he is on the Hall of Fame ballot. Will the same writers judge him differently for that purpose? Or will his fate depend on turnover? Dozens of older writers will retire or die before he is on the ballot in 2015 or so and that will continue while he remains eligible for as many as 15 years.

Really? You think Mussina could potentially stay on the ballot 15 years? There is no way a pitcher with a lifetime 267-153 record is going to be kept out of the hall. Even without the 20-win season, Mussina is getting into the hall. He won't sail with 90%+ of the vote, but he is getting in.

The Cy Young voting may have underrated Mussina's value, but he still did pretty well. As I said before: six times in the top-5, eight times in the top-6. He deserves to be enshrined, and I think the writers will enshrine him without a lot of controversy.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Really? You think Mussina could potentially stay on the ballot 15 years? There is no way a pitcher with a lifetime 267-153 record is going to be kept out of the hall. Even without the 20-win season, Mussina is getting into the hall. He won't sail with 90%+ of the vote, but he is getting in.

The Cy Young voting may have underrated Mussina's value, but he still did pretty well. As I said before: six times in the top-5, eight times in the top-6. He deserves to be enshrined, and I think the writers will enshrine him without a lot of controversy.

I've come around to this pont of view on Mussina.

[Colorado Express]

Smoltz and if Mussina can put up 3 more years like this one, I might even say him.

[STLCards2]

Smoltz and if Mussina can put up 3 more years like this one, I might even say him.

You think Mussina needs 3 more All-Star type, 200 IP, 120 ERA+, 17+ win seasons to be a HOFer? And you only "might" say him? :eek: That would put him at 315-320 wins, 4,200 IP, and a 122 ERA+ for his career. Your talking a top 20-25 pitcher if that very unlikely scenario happens. I bet even BravesFan would find that a bit harsh for Moose.

[Mike90]

As of right now Schilling has 35 votes, and Brown only has 5. Schilling will probably be elected to the Hall while Brown won't get close - surprising considering how similar their career records are. Schilling is 216-146 with a 3.46 ERA, and Brown is 211-144 with a 3.28 ERA. Their innings, complete games, and shutouts are very close. Neither has won a Cy Young, but both have had great peak seasons. Here are their best seasons by ERA+:

Brown: 216, 169, 169, 164, 150, 143, 132
Schilling: 159, 157, 150, 150, 143, 142, 135

Both have led the league in WHIP twice. Schilling is more of a workhorse leading the league in innings twice and finishing in the top-3 three other times, while Brown has "only" led the league in innnings once and finished as runner-up twice. Still, Schilling doesn't have an ERA title while Brown has two.

I don't see a whole lot to seperate them unless you give a lot of weight to postseason play. Schilling definitely has the edge there.

[Brad Harris]

Smoltz and if Mussina can put up 3 more years like this one, I might even say him.

Wow. You'd support a 318-180 winner with 3,211 strikeouts, and a 122 ERA+ in nearly 4,100 innings? That's mighty big of you.

[jalbright]

Don't forget that Brown was named in the Mitchell report, which probably has something to do with the disparity.

[gman5431]

G-Riz,
Not quite sure what you mean by this, but here's the IP/G of the relievers already elected to the Hall of Fame. (Only counting relief appearances.)

IP/G Pitcher
1.77 Wilhelm
1.66 Fingers
1.61 Gossage
1.58 Sutter
1.14 Eckersley

Yeah, sorry, i made a hellacious typo. What i meant was, the guys you have listed above, are quality HOF (with the possible exception of Gossage and Sutter who are marginal). My point is the closers of today, who are basically strictly 1 innings guys, will have a better chance at enshrinment now that the Hall has opened its doors to "relievers."

G Rizzle

[Brad Harris]

Gotcha. Totally agreed.

[Bravesfan1984]

You think Mussina needs 3 more All-Star type, 200 IP, 120 ERA+, 17+ win seasons to be a HOFer? And you only "might" say him? :eek: That would put him at 315-320 wins, 4,200 IP, and a 122 ERA+ for his career. Your talking a top 20-25 pitcher if that very unlikely scenario happens. I bet even BravesFan would find that a bit harsh for Moose.

I would vote for him no question if he did this. Most of the years Mussina had 18 19 wins he had an era of 3.00 or worse. This shows he needed a lot of help to get wins. When he went 19-11 he had a 4.81 era. When he went 18-10 he had a 4.05 era. Only in 1992 when he went 18- 5 did he have an era less then 3.

[Brad Harris]

I would vote for him no question if he did this. Most of the years Mussina had 18 19 wins he had an era of 3.00 or worse. This shows he needed a lot of help to get wins. When he went 19-11 he had a 4.81 era. When he went 18-10 he had a 4.05 era. Only in 1992 when he went 18- 5 did he have an era less then 3.
So a pitcher with an ERA over 3.00 needs "a lot of help to get wins" but a pitcher with a sub-3.00 doesn't?

[Bravesfan1984]

That means a team has to acheive 3 runs a game to even tie and at least 4 to win. He obvioulsy had run support to help him win.

[Brad Harris]

That means a team has to acheive 3 runs a game to even tie and at least 4 to win. He obvioulsy had run support to help him win.
Name a pitcher who doesn't need run support to help him win.

From 1991-2008 (the length of Mussina's career), the American League has averaged 4.91 runs per game per team. Hence, on average a team has to achieve at least 5 runs per game to beat their opponent these days. That Mussina's teams only need to score 4 runs to win makes Mussina an asset, not a liability.

If you think a 3.00 ERA is still the gold standard for a pitcher in this day and age, then perhaps you've been watching more ESPN Classic than ESPN.

[Mike90]

Name a pitcher who doesn't need run support to help him win.

Jack Morris went 21-6 in 1992 without his team scoring a single run for him. He willed his team to victory through pure determination and clutch ability. Plus that awesome mustache.

[Brad Harris]

Jack Morris went 21-6 in 1992 without his team scoring a single run for him. He willed his team to victory through pure determination and clutch ability. Plus that awesome mustache.
That's what 233 BBWAA members seem to think. :banghead:

[Bravesfan1984]

If you think a 3.00 ERA is still the gold standard for a pitcher in this day and age, then perhaps you've been watching more ESPN Classic than ESPN.

Here are recent players who have had era less then 3 or under at least 2 years

Pedro Martinez
Roger Clemons
Curt Schilling
Greg Maddux
Andy Pettitte
Johan Santana
Tom Glavine

So do not tell me that 3.00 era or under is not the standard

[Captain Cold Nose]

If you think a 3.00 ERA is still the gold standard for a pitcher in this day and age, then perhaps you've been watching more ESPN Classic than ESPN.

Here are recent players who have had era less then 3 or under at least 2 years

Pedro Martinez
Roger Clemons
Curt Schilling
Greg Maddux
Andy Pettitte
Johan Santana
Tom Glavine

So do not tell me that 3.00 era or under is not the standard


Standard for what? Since none of the above pitchers are even eligible, how is that the standard for voting on the HOF?
Two years of information has never been the standard for anything in regards to HOF voting.

[jalbright]

Here are recent players who have had era less then 3 or under at least 2 years

Pedro Martinez
Roger Clemons
Curt Schilling
Greg Maddux
Andy Pettitte
Johan Santana
Tom Glavine

So do not tell me that 3.00 era or under is not the standard

Yeah, and only one has an ERA under 3 for his career (Martinez, and that at 2.90--and if he pitches too long, it could easily get over 3). In fact, if we exclude relievers and guys with big inning totals before 1920 or from 1960-69, there are darned few pitchers even in the Hall with career ERAs under 3.

PS: lest anyone think I'm hasty about Martinez, he's currently 41.5+ runs under a career 3.00 ERA--but he's come 26.6+ runs closer to a 3.00 career ERA in a mere 97 innings this year.

[KCGHOST]

I'm okay with Schilling, Mussina, and Smoltz (in that order). I am still borderline on Brown so I said no to him for now.

[Bravesfan1984]

Standard for what? Since none of the above pitchers are even eligible, how is that the standard for voting on the HOF?
Two years of information has never been the standard for anything in regards to HOF voting.

These are pitchers that Mussina is playing against. It shows that he has a much higher era then other pitchers that play during his time. If Mussina has no cy or no 20 win season with never being the best pitcher any year what reason is there to elect him?

[Captain Cold Nose]

These are pitchers that Mussina is playing against. It shows that he has a much higher era then other pitchers that play during his time. If Mussina has no cy or no 20 win season with never being the best pitcher any year what reason is there to elect him?

Because the HOF has always been more than just the CYA or 20 win seasons. The voters have, for the most part, focused on entire careers and not looked at the players one year at a time. That's reflected and has been discussed ad nauseum by those who are actually part of the process.

It's fine to have a personal standard. Everyone who regularly posts in this forum has their own idea on who should or who shouldn't be in the HOF. And why. But the bottom line in regards to what the actual HOF has done over the years is Mussina is well over the line on who has been elected. Which is why more and more and saying he will be elected regardless of what their own personal standard is.

[Bravesfan1984]

Because the HOF has always been more than just the CYA or 20 win seasons. The voters have, for the most part, focused on entire careers and not looked at the players one year at a time. That's reflected and has been discussed ad nauseum by those who are actually part of the process.

It's fine to have a personal standard. Everyone who regularly posts in this forum has their own idea on who should or who shouldn't be in the HOF. And why. But the bottom line in regards to what the actual HOF has done over the years is Mussina is well over the line on who has been elected. Which is why more and more and saying he will be elected regardless of what their own personal standard is.

That is true but Cy and 20 win seasons have also been a big factor in deciding HOF worthiness. I do not see what Mussina has done to show he is well over the line. The only thing that Mussina has for him is his win total.

[Captain Cold Nose]

That is true but Cy and 20 win seasons have also been a big factor in deciding HOF worthiness. I do not see what Mussina has done to show he is well over the line. The only thing that Mussina has for him is his win total.

Only thing? Have you looked at what everyone has posted here in regards to him the last few months?

2 Cy did diddly for Denny McClain and Bret Saberhagen and rightfully so. Not winning the CYA or 20 games didn't hurt Don Sutton's candidacy too much. What a pitcher does for their career supercedes single seasons accomplishments in the great majority of cases.

[jalbright]

That is true but Cy and 20 win seasons have also been a big factor in deciding HOF worthiness. I do not see what Mussina has done to show he is well over the line. The only thing that Mussina has for him is his win total.

Repeated comments like this earn you a Troll Alert. Please do not respond to persons earning such a designation. Thank you.

[Brad Harris]

http://www.zagura.ro/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/god-kills-kitten-troll.jpg

[Cougar]

Only thing? Have you looked at what everyone has posted here in regards to him the last few months?

2 Cy did diddly for Denny McClain and Bret Saberhagen and rightfully so. Not winning the CYA or 20 games didn't hurt Don Sutton's candidacy too much. What a pitcher does for their career supercedes single seasons accomplishments in the great majority of cases.

Just a point of information...Sutton did win 20 games once; it's believed that helped his HOF case.

CCN is substantively correct, however.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Just a point of information...Sutton did win 20 games once; it's believed that helped his HOF case.

CCN is substantively correct, however.

It may have helped his case but certainly was not looked at more closely or even as close as his 324 wins and 3,000+ Ks.

Sutton got in for his career, in spite of never being the top pitcher in his league. Being very good to great for a long time, which sounds awfully familair here. Considering how the writers have been saying 300 wins is not something we're going to see anymore despite the fact we are still seeing it, I don't see how Mussina needs it.

[Cougar]

It may have helped his case but certainly was not looked at more closely or even as close as his 324 wins and 3,000+ Ks.

Sutton got in for his career, in spite of never being the top pitcher in his league. Being very good to great for a long time, which sounds awfully familair here. Considering how the writers have been saying 300 wins is not something we're going to see anymore despite the fact we are still seeing it, I don't see how Mussina needs it.

Oh, yeah, it was his career that got him in, no argument. But the one 20-win season took an argument against him away, that he never had a single season that reach that traditional benchmark of excellence (as arbitrary as the number "20" happens to be, and as flawed a measure as wins can be).

Mussina may not need 20 to get into the Hall, and he certainly shouldn't. But you've got to admit it would help.

[Brad Harris]

Mussina may not need 20 to get into the Hall, and he certainly shouldn't. But you've got to admit it would help.
He's got two more starts before his season ends. Keep your fingers crossed.
It may have helped his case but certainly was not looked at more closely or even as close as his 324 wins and 3,000+ Ks. Sutton got in for his career, in spite of never being the top pitcher in his league. Being very good to great for a long time, which sounds awfully familair here.
He's 32 wins shy of 300 and 196 strikeouts shy of 3,000. Sutton got in on his 5th try, never drawing less than 56% of the vote in a single election. Mussina may have to march from ballot-to-ballot (with or without 300 wins), but he's almost certainly going to be elected by the BBWAA at some point. I'd also venture to say that Moose was a better pitcher than Sutton, with or without the 300 wins.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Oh, yeah, it was his career that got him in, no argument. But the one 20-win season took an argument against him away, that he never had a single season that reach that traditional benchmark of excellence (as arbitrary as the number "20" happens to be, and as flawed a measure as wins can be).

Mussina may not need 20 to get into the Hall, and he certainly shouldn't. But you've got to admit it would help.

Very true, while in reality it's not really that different, perception has always reigned and nice round numbers do look compelling. 20 wins has always been what the everyday fan has perceived as the pitcher's goal.

[108stitches]

That is true but Cy and 20 win seasons have also been a big factor in deciding HOF worthiness. I do not see what Mussina has done to show he is well over the line. The only thing that Mussina has for him is his win total.

Let us not forget that while Cy Young has the most wins in a career, he also has the most losses. Mike Mussina has proven he can win. The HOF is about celebrating the best of the best. Mussina may not have put up his numbers in Cy Young's era, but Cy Young could not have put up his numbers in Mussina's era either.:coffee

[Brad Harris]

Welcome to the forum, Stiches!

[Captain Cold Nose]

Hey Stitches, are you located anywhere near Dog River?

The argument is basic, but it's true.

[STLCards2]

Repeated comments like this earn you a Troll Alert. Please do not respond to persons earning such a designation. Thank you.

There is a fine line between a troll and having an opinion that goes against mainstream. Is he being a troll, or is he just anable to fully articulate his point? Having several bouts of banter with him - I truly feel he believes everything he is saying.

[Walt Zink]

sort of away from all of this.

schilling i think is in. it may take him a couple years, but he's in. the game 6 against the yanks in '04 was the lock. over 3000 Ks, over 200 wins, and a postseason bulldog. i hate his opinions, but i think he's a HOFer.

smoltz is in. w-out a doubt. anyone arguing against this guy getting in doesn't really watch a lot of baseball IMO.

mussina i think is in, but he suffers the same fate roy halladay will about 7-8 years down the road. he's not a personality. he doesn't stand out. he is a above average pitcher, bordering on great, and he plays on teams filled with people that outshine him, many times. however, i think he's in. his numbers merit that.

kevin brown i would pass on. good numbers in his career, but he willbe known many times as the overpaid dodgers and yankees pitcher. if he had 2-3 more healthy seasons, i'd say yes in a heartbeat.

[stejay]

1. Smoltz
2. Mussina
3. Schilling
4. Brown

That is the order in my opinion.

[108stitches]

Hey Stitches, are you located anywhere near Dog River?

The argument is basic, but it's true.

The site for Dog River is about 15 minutes down the road from me. My daughter just had her picture taken with Hank. Small, stupid world...:eek:

[108stitches]

1. Smoltz
2. Mussina
3. Schilling
4. Brown

That is the order in my opinion.

I agree with three quarters of your list. I would personally leave Brown off. He is not in the same league as the others. HOF worthy but later...much later

[Mike90]

Smoltz seems to be a lock for almost everyone. That's a little surprising. His best finishes in Cy Young voting were 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th, and 7th. His 1.19 Cy Young shares are 39th all-time, right behind Kevin Brown and Frank Viola who are tied at 37th. After his great 24-win season in 1996, his career-high in wins is 17.

He only passes two of Bill James' HOF "tests":
- Black Ink: 34 (45th) (average is 40)
- Grey Ink: 193 (47th) (average is 185)
- HOF Standards: 46 (48th) (average is 50)
- HOF Monitor: 167 (38th) (likely HOFer > 100)
Overall rank is in parentheses. He's borderline according to these standards.

I hope he's not considered a lock because of his relieving work because that is an overrated position. For his career, he’s pitched 3133.7 innings as a starter and 261.3 innings as a reliever, but when Smoltz’s HOF case is discussed, his supporters first cite his Cy Young and then the 154 saves. His relief work is not that impressive to me because relieving is much easier to dominate then starting.

I think Smoltz is a worthy Hall of Famer, but mostly because of his starting work. His relief appearances are icing.

[Cougar]

Black ink tests favor old timers because they played in smaller leagues. There was less competition for league leaderships (and gray ink, for that matter). Given his era, Smoltz's ink scores are quite good.

In addition, considering that Smoltz had a hybrid career as a starter-reliever, the fact that he still achieves 46% of HOF standards is remarkably good. The Standards test is heavily weighted toward starting pitchers; standards for relievers were poorly established when BJ designed the test (it's coming into clearer focus now, I think, with the recent inductions of Eck, Sutter, and Goose).

Hence, Smoltz gets very little credit there for his relieving. One might not think he deserves a lot, but 4 percentage points? I'd grant him that.

Oh, and he blows the Monitor score away. A lot of that is due to his length postseason resume, which owes a lot to the Tigers boneheadedly giving him away for two months of Doyle Alexander, but still...

[Captain Cold Nose]

The site for Dog River is about 15 minutes down the road from me. My daughter just had her picture taken with Hank. Small, stupid world...:eek:

That's very, very cool. My life is so much better without the potato bowl.

Is it really boneheaded to get a very key component toward winning the division? They won it by all of one game that year. An unready Smoltz would not have helped. And who's to say Smoltz would have turned out as he did under the tutleage of their pitching coaches. Yeah, as a Tiger fan I do wish they kept him. But that 87 season may have even been more fun thaan 1984, except for the ending, of course. I won't trade that memory for a what could have been.

[Cougar]

That's very, very cool. My life is so much better without the potato bowl.

Is it really boneheaded to get a very key component toward winning the division? They won it by all of one game that year. An unready Smoltz would not have helped. And who's to say Smoltz would have turned out as he did under the tutleage of their pitching coaches. Yeah, as a Tiger fan I do wish they kept him. But that 87 season may have even been more fun thaan 1984, except for the ending, of course. I won't trade that memory for a what could have been.

That's fair enough. Winning a pennant is worth a whole, whole lot.

But talents like Smoltz don't come along every day...they could have just as easily lost the pennant by a game as won it, and then what have you got?

I dunno...the Braves were smart -- Smoltz was the price for a reliable veteran starter. I bet the Tigers wish they had offered the other really good starter in their system, though!

I'll accept the friendly amendment, and retract "boneheadedly" from the previous post.

[Walt Zink]

I hope he's not considered a lock because of his relieving work because that is an overrated position. For his career, he’s pitched 3133.7 innings as a starter and 261.3 innings as a reliever, but when Smoltz’s HOF case is discussed, his supporters first cite his Cy Young and then the 154 saves. His relief work is not that impressive to me because relieving is much easier to dominate then starting.

I think Smoltz is a worthy Hall of Famer, but mostly because of his starting work. His relief appearances are icing.

i think it's amazing that smoltz was largely effective in BOTH roles. you have to have a completely different mentality when you're a closer. in some senses, you dumb down your pitching, which to some people may be sort of a slap in the face (as if they say to some younger guys "look, you have one GREAT pitch, and two average ones. you'd be better suited closing games."). some guys may look at it as a challenge.

if you look throughout ML history, not many guys can say they pitched in both roles exceptionally well. that is something i admit i find remarkable.

also, he's been a VERY vocal backer of the testing of PEDs, and that's going to get him a few extra votes, too. that's something i'm 100% certain of.

[Mike90]

Black ink tests favor old timers because they played in smaller leagues. There was less competition for league leaderships (and gray ink, for that matter). Given his era, Smoltz's ink scores are quite good.

In addition, considering that Smoltz had a hybrid career as a starter-reliever, the fact that he still achieves 46% of HOF standards is remarkably good. The Standards test is heavily weighted toward starting pitchers; standards for relievers were poorly established when BJ designed the test (it's coming into clearer focus now, I think, with the recent inductions of Eck, Sutter, and Goose).

Hence, Smoltz gets very little credit there for his relieving. One might not think he deserves a lot, but 4 percentage points? I'd grant him that.

Oh, and he blows the Monitor score away. A lot of that is due to his length postseason resume, which owes a lot to the Tigers boneheadedly giving him away for two months of Doyle Alexander, but still...

Good points. I'm still skeptical about the amount of credit we give relievers. Eckersley won an MVP in '91 pitching 80 innings. Clemens pitched over 3 times as many innings that season with an ERA only a half a run lower. Mussina went 18-5 with 3 times as many innings as Eck. How could Eck have been the most valuable that season?

How is K-Rod even being considered for the Cy Young when he's only pitched 66.3 innings with a WHIP worse than both Lee's and Halladay's (his WHIP of 1.312 would not rank in the top 10)? I think saves, like a pitcher's win-loss record, are a useful stat but overrated by the public and media.

EDIT: Eck won the MVP in '92

[Cougar]

Lee and Halladay will both finish ahead of K-Rod in the 2008 AL Cy vote.

[Walt Zink]

Good points. I'm still skeptical about the amount of credit we give relievers. Eckersley won an MVP in '91 pitching 80 innings. Clemens pitched over 3 times as many innings that season with an ERA only a half a run lower. Mussina went 18-5 with 3 times as many innings as Eck. How could Eck have been the most valuable that season?

How is K-Rod even being considered for the Cy Young when he's only pitched 66.3 innings with a WHIP worse than both Lee's and Halladay's (his WHIP of 1.312 would not rank in the top 10)? I think saves, like a pitcher's win-loss record, are a useful stat but overrated by the public and media.

well, he was one of those guys who instantly changed a game. i think he was also the last (outside of rivera) of the closers that the media and fans loved. even though closers are a dime a dozen, none have really still approached the ridiculous numbers he had. and actually, he won in '92. i think the numbers he put up in '90 would've been more deserving, though.

but between '89 and '90, eck walked a total of SEVEN guys in 131 IP. that's just nuts.

on a weird side note, back in '98. i went to a game at fenway with my best friend and his dad and sister. when we were outside the park getting the tickets, here i see eckersley running around the park and right past me. and of course, no one else of the three freakin' saw it so they thought i was BSing them :rofl:

[Captain Cold Nose]

That's fair enough. Winning a pennant is worth a whole, whole lot.

But talents like Smoltz don't come along every day...they could have just as easily lost the pennant by a game as won it, and then what have you got?

I dunno...the Braves were smart -- Smoltz was the price for a reliable veteran starter. I bet the Tigers wish they had offered the other really good starter in their system, though!

I'll accept the friendly amendment, and retract "boneheadedly" from the previous post.

You really don't have to retract it. I just tell myself what I said to justify trading Smoltz. It worked great in the very short team but four years later when Smoltz was dueling the 1987 Tiger ace in game 7 of the WS, we were wondering if it really was worth it. Yes, but oh the subsequent heartache.

[Los Bravos]

I just tell myself what I said to justify trading Smoltz. It worked great in the very short team but four years later when Smoltz was dueling the 1987 Tiger ace in game 7 of the WS, we were wondering if it really was worth it. Yes, but oh the subsequent heartache. If you guys ever want to enoy the belated taste of schadenfreude, we all feel the same way watching Wainwright pitch now.

[Captain Cold Nose]

If you guys ever want to enoy the belated taste of schadenfreude, we all feel the same way watching Wainwright pitch now.

That's the consolation and the breaks. Pretty much every team has done away with a future hall-of-famer or superstar.

I really hope we're not seeing deja vu all over again with Jurrgens.

[Paul Wendt]

[revised after the game and #110]

nice game by Mussina
Yankees.com (http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=nyy)

The Bosox radio team said that Rivera was not available, presumably because (a) he has some repetitive stress injury and (b) when Joba Chamberlain got in 8th inning trouble they brought in Brian Bruney and Damaso Marte although "The Yankees really want this game." But after Chamberlain's two baserunners scored off Bruney and Marte, thenn Rivera did come in, the fourth pitcher of the 2-run inning!

Rivera pitched the ninth for 39 saves in 40 save opportunities. I suppose that is the maximum with one blown save.

[Cougar]

Paul's a little unclear, so just for the sake of clarification -- Mussina won his 20th. Rivera saved it by coming in with 2 outs in the 8th inning and closing it out. (Joba didn't have it.)

Mussina pitched 6 shutout innings; he left after only 73 pitches, which struck me a little funny, but I'm sure Girardi or Mussina will address it in post-game comments.

[Mike90]

Paul's a little unclear, so just for the sake of clarification -- Mussina won his 20th. Rivera saved it by coming in with 2 outs in the 8th inning and closing it out. (Joba didn't have it.)

Mussina pitched 6 shutout innings; he left after only 73 pitches, which struck me a little funny, but I'm sure Girardi or Mussina will address it in post-game comments.

Maybe this will sound strange, but I was hoping that the bullpen would blow Mussina's lead. I wanted there to be at least one starting pitcher in the Hall without a 20-win season so the inane "he didn't have enough 20-win seasons" argument becomes less important. He clearly deserved the win today considering how he pitched, and if the bullpen messed up, I think that would highlight a weakness in judging a pitcher by his w-l record.

[Bravesfan1984]

Smoltz is the only sure thing right now but there is still time. I do not see much of a case for Schilling. He had 9 losing seasons and was in the cy young top 5 only 4 times.

[Mike90]

Smoltz is the only sure thing right now but there is still time. I do not see much of a case for Schilling. He had 9 losing seasons and was in the cy young top 5 only 4 times.

For his career, Schilling has 70 more wins than losses despite pitching with mostly below average support. In those cy young votes, he finished 2nd three times to historic seasons by Randy Johnson and Johan Santana and finished 4th the other time.

I'm pretty sure Mussina is a sure thing. At least you said Smoltz was a sure thing.

[hudsonharden]

Since this poll allows for multiple choices, I'm going to remove the 'All of the above' option. I added the total from that option to each pitcher's total.

[jalbright]

Smoltz is the only sure thing right now but there is still time. I do not see much of a case for Schilling. He had 9 losing seasons and was in the cy young top 5 only 4 times.

I see you've used your usual depth of analysis. :rolleyes: Thanks for wasting some bandwidth.

[Bravesfan1984]

For his career, Schilling has 70 more wins than losses despite pitching with mostly below average support. In those cy young votes, he finished 2nd three times to historic seasons by Randy Johnson and Johan Santana and finished 4th the other time.

I'm pretty sure Mussina is a sure thing. At least you said Smoltz was a sure thing.

Schilling only has 216 wins. If he has like 250 then I could see that. If you put Schilling in you might as well put David Wells in. Wells has more wins and a better winning percentage.

[Mike90]

Schilling only has 216 wins. If he has like 250 then I could see that. If you put Schilling in you might as well put David Wells in. Wells has more wins and a better winning percentage.

Wells has an ERA of 4.13; Schilling's is 3.46. Do you honestly believe that Wells is even almost close to being within sniffing distance of being almost as good as Schilling? Cause he's not.

[Paul Wendt]

1.
Remarkably this forum "benefits" from threads on
Smoltz
Smoltz & Schilling
Smoltz, Schilling & Mussina
Smoltz, Schillng, Mussina & Brown
I like reverse alphabetical order but interested seekers will find greater variety in the forum archive.

This one of the four is less than a year old, so here we go.

2.
Remarkably two of the three voters for "None of the above" also voted for Smoltz. That explains his 98.7% and None's 4%.

3.
Reportedly Smoltz is close to signing with the Boston Red Sox for $5.5M.
(in the Boston Metro free newspaper today)

Reportedly Schilling hope to pitch next season, but not the whole season. He would like to pitch for a few months plus playoffs, the working life Roger Clemens pioneered a couple years ago.
(probably in the Boston Metro sometime last month)
Probably sometime last month

[Paul Wendt]

:banghead:

(dupli-post, but I have found a use for it)

brett,
On the matter of your reply #25,
Which pitchers and batter generate the biggest discrepancies you have discovered, between conventional career ERA+ or OPS+ on the one hand and on the other hand IP-weighted average of career ERA+ or PA-weighted average of career OPS+?