The Pastime

John Brittain has an interesting article up at The Hardball Times, comparing Curt Schilling and John Smoltz. He asks, if you had to pick one pitcher over the other for the Hall of Fame, which one would you take? His pick was Smoltz. I initially agreed, but then I got to looking through the numbers, as is my wont, and I came to a different conclusion.
- - - - -

I would take Curt Schilling, and I’m surprised at myself for doing so. Schilling has a far better career K/BB ratio (4.39:1) than Smoltz (2.96:1), which I believe to be far more indicative of talent than winning percentage. We’re not discussing simple talent, though, but that nebulous quality known as Hall-of-Fame worth. First, I’d like to lay down some numbers.

Schilling pitched for some bad teams in Philadelphia and Baltimore, while Smoltz’s numbers benefitted greatly from his time spent as a reliever. However, Schilling still had the better numbers.

Here are the neutralized stats from B-R:

As you can see, Schilling — across the board — has better numbers than Smoltz.

I also think Brittain might be giving too much credit to Smoltz for the division title streak. The Braves also had very good careers from Chipper Jones, Andruw Jones, Javy Lopez and Ryan Klesko for the majority of their playoff years.

So the regular-season numbers part of the Hall-of-Fame credentials come down in favor of Schilling.
- - -

What about the post-season? Well, Smoltz had a great post-season career, at 15-4. Two of his wins were in relief, though, so that’s really a 13-4 starting record. Still very good, though, if you’re going by W-L records.

Smoltz has a postseason ERA of 2.65 and a K:BB ratio of 194:67 (2.89:1). In eight World Series games, those numbers are 2.47 ERA and a K:BB ratio of 52:21 (2.48:1).

Schilling’s numbers for the postseason compare favorably, with a 8-2 record, 2.06 ERA, and a K:BB ratio of 104:22 (4.73:1). In six World Series starts, Schilling has a 2.11 ERA and a K:BB ratio of 39:8 (4.88:1).

I’d feel safe saying that while both have been excellent postseason pitchers, Schilling has had just a bit more success.

- - -

Now, since this is the Hall of Fame, meaningless things like All-Star games will come into play. Smoltz has been there seven times; Schilling six. That’s not a big difference.

Cy Young awards can make a difference, though. Smoltz has one, while Schilling does not. However, Schilling has placed second three times, and in the top 5 four times, while Smoltz has one win and three top 5 finishes. There’s a slight edge to Smoltz there.

Schilling does have a World Series MVP to his name, though, and that counts for something. He’s also got one more WS ring to his name than Smoltz does. In the intangibles department, he also has to get a HoF boost from the 2004 Red Sox World Series.

- - -

Brittain brings up the fact that Smoltz, at least according to Brittain’s standards, was a better pitcher down the stretch run.

Here are their career numbers from August 1st to the end of the season:

It certainly looks close. Smoltz has a slight edge in ERA, but Schilling has much better SO/9 and SO:BB numbers. The win-loss record, as usual, is irrelevant, even though it’s close.
- - -

The last factor I’d consider is that you can’t compare Smoltz and Schilling as peers because of the closer part of Smoltz’s career. They’re apples and oranges, in that respect. I’d hesitate to give Smoltz a bonus for being a closer, as it affected his career numbers for ERA and wins. For Hall-of-Fame consideration, I don’t think being a very good starter and a very good closer can equate to being a great starter or a great closer.

It’s very close, but I’d have to take Schilling over Smoltz for the HoF. I think both are worthy, but the point of the exercise was to pick one over the other.

This entry was posted on Saturday, February 17th, 2007 at 5:29 pm and is filed under General Baseball, Stats, History. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.