Curt Schilling
Curt Schilling provided a list of 14 teams, including Boston, that he would consider playing for next season. Schilling, on his blog 38Pitches, give us insight into the free agency process from a players point of view. Very interesting. I have heard/read a lot in the past 24 hours that it is looking like he won't be back, but he really doesn't say that and in fact expresses his desire to remain with Boston given the choice.
After Boston, he lists: Cleveland, Detroit, Anaheim, New York (Mets), Philadelphia, Atlanta, Los Angeles, San Diego, Arizona, Chicago (Cubs), St. Louis and Milwaukee.
Take a read and decide for yourself.
My take on Schilling is that it would be very nice to have him around next season. Certainly his season doesn't warrant another year at $13m, but I would consider $8-10m. Here are some of the cold hard facts:
| 2006 | 2007 | |
| ERA | 3.97 | 3.87 |
| WHIP | 1.216 | 1.245 |
| IP | 204 | 151 |
| H | 220 | 165 |
| BB | 28 | 23 |
| K | 183 | 101 |
| W | 15 | 9 |
| L | 7 | 8 |
| K/BB | 6.54 | 4.39 |
| K/9 | 8.07 | 6.02 |
ERA and WHIP look pretty similar. What is noticeable is the drop off in innings. As pitchers get older, it isn't expected that they will pitch more innings than the year before, so it should be expected that they shouldn't be paid as much either. But moving on, His K/BB ratio and K/9 are the most telling stats. Essentially his K rate has dropped meaning he is getting more of his outs via balls put in play. While a pitcher can't control what happens to balls put into play (other than home runs) he can control things by avoiding BB, Hit-by-pitches and by striking out more batters.
Voros McCracken has pioneered Defense Independent Pitching Statistics (DIPS) which many teams, probably like the Red Sox, use extensively to evaluate pitchers. I say the Red Sox probably use it b/c they employed McCracken for a time (I'm not certain if he still works for them or not). For Schilling, his inability to strike guys out has limited his effectiveness.
Anyway, I'm not sure he will be back, but given his drop in effectiveness, I'd like him back at a reduced rate. A rate that isn't going to kill should Schilling get hurt. Schilling offers some additional perks as well as he is always going to help the young pitchers. Thoughts?
Comments
I'm in for $8-$10M
I understand the strikeout and balls in play theory, but the bottom line, with a very good defensive team, is to reduce the WHIP. His went up by 0.029
as long as he doesn't float up significantly I would say he helps.
Posted by: blmeanie | October 31, 2007 04:18 PM |
He was relatively affective. So I say sign him up for 1 year and try to get him for something south of $10m.
If not, you are looking at:
Beckett
Matsuzaka
Lester
Buccholz
Wakefield
In no particular order. I like that staff, but Beckett, Wakefield and Matsuzaka have missed innings in the past (Daisuke in Japan) and Buccholz and Lester will be on tight innings controls, so a 6th starter is needed in my book.
Posted by: Andy | October 31, 2007 10:11 PM |
I agree that we should bring him back if he's willing to accept $8M. We can't be certain of Lester or Buckholz being consistent in 2008. Wakefield is aging. Another reliable arm would be an asset and he contributes in other ways by mentoring the young pitchers.
Posted by: Dave Landry | November 1, 2007 12:48 PM |
I'm hearing they are willing to bring him back if he accepts a low base with incentives that would make it a good sized contract. Now I don't know any specifics and I heard this from the Globe, so I'm giving anyone a scoop here.
Posted by: Andy | November 1, 2007 08:09 PM |
The warning sign I see flashing on Schilling is his BABIP. You mentioned McCracken's research and I imagine the Red Sox will have noticed that in 2006 it was .328 and in 2007 it was .301. That means his 2006 season numbers are that much more impressive.
From a numbers standpoint, Schilling probably survived in 2007 off of an incredible K/BB rate. (even though it was worse than 2006). The problem is, you are betting on his control right now and if you are wrong, he is going to get hit all over the place. Sure you could bench him then, but is Schilling the type of guy who would be happy on the bench when he has an incentive-laden contract? He doesn't seem like it to me and if I were Boston management, I would thank him for everything and send him packing.
Posted by: Peter![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://yankeesredsox.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 1, 2007 09:30 PM
|
I actually think Schilling is the last person to publicly complain about being benched. After all that stuff he spews about playing the game the right way, I think he would be a gentleman about it.
A recent example is this past spring training when the Red Sox did not sign him to a 1 year extension. He took it like a man and never had a bad thing to say about it.
Posted by: Andy | November 2, 2007 02:05 PM |
Andy's original thought, having 6 starters, is the right way to look at it.
Injuries will happen.
Ineffectiveness will happen.
Having 6 is insurance against it ruining a good year.
Posted by: blmeanie![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://yankeesredsox.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 2, 2007 07:04 PM
|
Blmeanie, thank you for recogniznig my genius and my thinking the Red Sox need 6 starters.
Posted by: Andy | November 2, 2007 08:54 PM |
genius is relative, compared to me, you may be
Posted by: blmeanie![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://yankeesredsox.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 3, 2007 08:56 AM
|