Shilling and Schilling
Posted: March 27th, 2009 | Filed under: Baseball | 45 Comments »
Could it be? Another way to buy The Machine? You betcha.
There has been a lot of talk — a LOT of talk — about whether or not Curt Schilling belongs in the Hall of Fame. I am on record saying that yes, I do think he is a Hall of Famer. However, I must admit that by saying that, I could be falling for some of the mass media hype that, in my own small way, I contribute to on a daily basis.
Take two pitchers. One is Curt Schilling. The other is a guy I do not consider a Hall of Famer at all. They are almost exact contemporaries.
Which is which?
Pitcher A: 216-146.
Pitcher B: 211-144.
Pitcher A: 3.46 ERA.
Pitcher B: 3.28 ERA.
Pitcher A: 127 ERA+.
Pitcher B: 127 ERA+
Pitcher A: 3,261 innings pitched.
Pitcher B: .3,256 innings pitched.
Pitcher A: Six-time All-Star.
Pitcher B: Six-time All-Star.
Pitcher A: Zero ERA titles.
Pitcher B: Two ERA titles.
Pitcher A: Twice led the league in victories.
Pitcher B: Once led the league in victories.
Pitcher A: 3-1 with 0.93 ERA in Division Series.
Pitcher B: 3-0 with 0.98 ERA in Division Series.
Pitcher A: Nine seasons with 200+ innings pitched.
Pitcher B: Nine seasons with 200+ innings pitched.
And so on. Now, obviously I am cherry picking a bit on my stats … that’s part of the game. I could tell you that Pitcher A is 4-1 in the World Series with a 2.06 ERA and a bloody sock, and you would know that’s Schilling. I could tell you that Pitcher B is 0-3 in the World Series with a 6.04 ERA, and he was named in the Mitchell Report and you might know that’s Kevin Brown.
But my point is that when it came to pitching, actual pitching, Curt Schilling and Kevin Brown were probably just about equal when it came to effectiveness. They did it in different ways: Schilling’s strikeout-walk ratio is off the charts, but he gave up a lot of home runs. Brown did not get nearly the strikeouts, and hitters got on base a touch more, but because of his preposterous hard sinker he gave up 135 fewer homers and induced 137 more double plays.
Sure, you could make the point that Schilling had a bigger impact. He was better in the postseason. and he was clearly a more popular figure in the game. It’s funny, we often talk here about what makes a Hall of Famer, but let’s face it, the way the thing is set up right now there is a definitive answer: A Hall of Famer is someone who gets 75% of the vote from the Baseball Writers Association of America. And Schilling is in far better position to be become a Hall of Famer based on that standard. I could be wrong, but I don’t think Kevin Brown will even get enough votes to stay on the ballot for a second year.
The way it works is this: There are overwhelming Hall of Famers — hitters with 3,000 hits, pitchers with 300 victories, players who so dominate their era that nobody can deny them — and they will get in no matter what. And then there are the rest, the players who don’t hit the magic numbers, the players who had dominant moments but did not sustain it quite long enough, the players who certainly MIGHT be Hall of Famers but, then again, MIGHT NOT.
And if you are one of those, well, it couldn’t hurt you to create an aura. Here’s a very quick chart:
How to create an aura: ABQ — Always Be Quotable — and win a huge game with blood soaking through your sock.
How to not create an aura: Be a sourpuss and sign a $100 million contract which requires the team to include 12 cross country private plane trips for your family.
Loading ...
Does Schilling come up for voting in 2013 or 2014? He just retired but he didn’t pitch in ‘08. Either way, it’s a crowded field. He has a shot but he won’t go in right away.
Kevin Brown comes up in 2011, along with Bagwell, Palmeiro, Larry Walker and Jose Offerman. I think Brown can stay on the ballot for a couple years until the 2013-2014 groups push him off.
I think Brown was a great pitcher (forget the contract for a minute) whose career path could have pointed him towards the Hall of Fame, until his body broke down on him. Schilling sustained his dominant period through KBs slide.
And if the ‘bloody sock’ were on the other foot in ‘04, KB probably would have already gone under the knife, underscoring Schilling’s periphery credentials.
Put me down in the minority who prefers Kevin Brown to Curt Schilling. I can root for a jerk who’s honest about it. Brown’s attitude translated to a compelling mound demeanor — I always enjoyed watching him pitch.
As for the plane trips — I’d never heard that before, but if they were in the contract, then both parties agreed to them. Nice to hear about an athlete committed to having his family with him. Clearly he did not prefer the company of sportswriters.
If I weren’t a Sox fan — and, of course, if I had a vote — I don’t know that I’d vote for Schilling. But the difference in postseason performances is not trivial. I think of it as his ‘thing’ — the way Ozzie Smith’s thing (his steals notwithstanding) was his defense. That overcame counting stats that aren’t even in Schilling’s class. Schilling’s counting stats really aren’t Hall-caliber either, but he had a thing, and it wasn’t just talking a lot. He greatly helped bring championships to teams that still might be waiting for them otherwise. Not just once, either.
Add in a couple of HOFers to the mix and you see how complicated this HOF is.
HOF A: 224-166, 3.26, 104(ERA+), 3449 innings, 10 years of 200 innings+, 8 times an All Star (once a Cy Young), twice led the league in wins, one ERA title, 9-6 with one save and a 3.26 ERA in post season play
HOF B: 209-166, 2.95, 121 (ERA+), 3432 innings, 12 years of 200 innings+, 7 times an All Star (one Cy Young), once led the league in wins, no ERA titles, 3-3 with a 2.95 ERA in post season play.
I don’t see much difference between these two and Schilling and Brown (and Blyleven is better than all of them), HOF A is Catfish Hunter and HOF B is Don Drysdale.
And don’t break your hand punching the wall when your team needs you. I don’t think the Keltner test gives you points for that.
Why doesn’t anyone mention the word “fame” when discussing Hall of Fame. Webster defines it as “popular acclaim”. We’re going too knee-jerky on stats and not on substance. I think with the Hall, we are leaning too heavily on numbers to justify making an unpopular decision. As a result, we are throwing out the concept of “popular acclaim” and replacing it with strict empirical data and not considering what the player contributed to the game as a whole.
Did Kevin Brown ever have popular acclaim? Maybe because of a ridiculously fat contract from the Dodgers at one point, but he never had any acclaim in my estimation. He was a fine pitcher, but not popular.
Schilling’s stories will be told for generations. My wife tolerates the game to a degree but doesn’t know squat. She knows who Curt Schilling is though. If nothing else, the bloody sock. The bloody sock will become American folklore. It represents a work ethic and determination that we like to claim as American and celebrate. We embrace the story, we love the myth. He comes out against all odds and conquers the opponent, the fates, the history books, and walks away a victor. Popular acclaim. Fame.
Having read Torre’s new book and Buster Olney’s Yankee book a few years ago, the 2001 series is approaching mythical status as well. He was a pitcher of the time,and we can’t keep getting locked into the numbers and stats and forget the “fame”.
Do you think the Hall is better with him in it? Is his plaque and his story something you want your grandkids to see and hear 30 years from now.
And full disclosure- I hated Schilling as a player. I thought he was arrogant and in need of a sock in the mouth. I also think some of his popular acclaim was do to some skillful self promotion. But I cannot deny his accomplishments and that he does belong.
Uh-Oh. Bad news for the ShamWow.
http://consumerist.com/5187757/shamwow-guy-arrested-for-beating-up-prostitute
What you do on the biggest stage in sports defines you. The defining player in one of the best post-seasons in memory gives you huge advantage over anyone. If the Cubs ever win a World Series, their defining player will get huge consideration. It makes you wonder if Kirk Gibson would be in the Hall if he had played for the BoSox or Cubs…
A few things people forget about Brown. He pitched consecutive teams to the World Series: the 1997 Marlins, and more impressively a fairly unimpressive 1998 Padres team. Seriously, the rest of their rotation was Joey Hamilton, Andy Ashby, Sterling Hitchcock, and a 37-year-old (and terrible) Mark Langston.
The other thing working (in my opinion) in Brown’s favor is that while Schilling had a number of very good years, Brown has four seasons where he posted an ERA+ superior to that of Schilling’s best year, including a preposterous 216 ERA+ in 1997, good for 20th all-time (and the best in the last 40 years by anyone not named Maddux, Martinez, or Clemens).
Schilling was a very good pitcher, but deifying him because of his performance in a handful of games seems a bit misguided to me. Brown was a very comparable pitcher, one with almost as much postseason success, and the thought that he might not get even 5% of the vote while Schilling gets into the Hall just shows you how incoherent the voting truly is.
Using ERA to compare them is a little misleading, since Brown allowed an above average number of unearned runs, while Schilling was historically great at preventing them. Some of that was probably Schilling pitching in front of better defenses, but a lot had to do with their pitching styles (wouldn’t you expect an extreme groundball pitcher to have more errors than a high strike out flyball pitcher?), and thus should be credited for it. On the other hand, Brown did have a better peak than Schilling.
In any case, I think both are easy Hall of Famers.
I notice that Jon Heyman has already cast his vote for Schilling, meaning his position is Schilling-in, Blyleven-out. I wonder how much the voting is influenced in cases like these by what a player did for or against the Only Two Teams That Matter.
Most of Schilling’s postseason brilliance came for the Red Sox or against the Yankees. Or both, obviously. Double points for that. In an era in which eight of 30 teams made the playoffs.
Bert Blyleven pitched in the playoffs for the Pirates and Twins against the Orioles, Reds and Tigers. In his time, four teams made the playoffs. Generally, he pitched brilliantly. In Game 5 of the 1979 World Series, the Pirates were just about dead. Down 3-1 in games, down 1-0 after 5 innings. The Pirates pinch-hit for Jim Rooker in the bottom of the fifth but didn’t score. Who gets called on to pitch in the most desperate moment? Blyleven, the Game 2 starter, on two days’ rest. He throws 4 shutout innings, the Pirates rally and go on to win the Series. It was a famous team, the “We Are Family” Pirates. Blyleven’s contribution was at least as significant as Dave Roberts’ stolen base. He also pitched well in Game 2. And helped the Twins beat the Cardinals in 1987. But he never pitched for or against the Yankees or Red Sox in the playoffs.
Kevin Brown pitched for the Marlins against the Giants, Braves and Indians; for the Padres against the Astros (basically beat them singlehandedly), Braves and Yankees (just OK against them); and for the Yankees against the Red Sox (he got creamed twice, as I don’t need to tell you). Double negative points for the 2004 AL championship series.
And there you have it — how the Hall of Fame is made.
I’m a fan of neither Brown or Schilling but, as a Cardinals fan, I remember seeing both of them more than I’d like. I would not put either one in the HOF but if I had to choose, I would go w/Brown. I remember him as being dominant longer
[...] post on Joe Posnanski’s blog Joe Posnanski had this lengthy, smart post comparing Curt Schilling and Kevin Brown in a Hall of Fame discussion. I added this comment. I have [...]
This made my mind up when I checked it last week. Ordered by ERA, here’s all the pichers who have 200+ wins, 3000+ K’s, and ERA under 3.50, between 1969-2008 (that’s 40 seasons; all the post-mound lowering & K zone widening). Keep in mind that many of those guys with the lowest ERA’s pitcher pre-offensive-boom-of-the-90s.
Nice work there Devon. I think I’d agree that all of those names belong in the hall. And you further support that Blyleven is snubbed by not being in.
Even from 1957-2008, the list is still very very impressive.
This dilemma is simple; vote for both of them
It’s weird how you can play this game. On Nov 17(stuck the link in the website field) JP talks about Mike Mussina being a hall of famer, and they only think Mussina had on Schilling was longevity(and hence more wins). They were both guys who missed getting Cy’s because they were contemporaries with Pedro and Randy Johnson. A 127 ERA+ seems to be pretty squarely in the middle though of those in the hall(better than Gossage also, and in more innings). I sort of hate the way everyone is either no-doubt or borderline. It would be nice if there was a term for candidates between no-brainers and maybes(with Ricky and Rice last year illustrating both extremes). I don’t really think fame should count for that much(aka Rice), but it should count for something. Kevin Brown should get a look, but I think the Mitchell report could be the deciding factor there.
I can see the why folks would go for Schilling over Brown: the extra Ks and the media-hyped World Series performances are difficult to set entirely aside. These are not irrelevant to greatness and fame.
But if we’re simply looking for the best starting pitchers, I think it’d be difficult to include one and not the other. If this is the task, the only question is whether we want our Hall to be big enough to include them or not. I myself am inclined to think that Drysdale and Hunter should not be in the Hall. Relatedly, I am inclined to think that neither Schilling nor Brown should be there. Great pitchers? Undoubtedly. But there’s a *big* gap between Schilling and Brown, on the one hand, and Maddux, Clemens, and Pedro, on the other hand, and that makes some of us like the idea of a skinny Hall.
Both or neither.
Back in 2001, Bill James ranked Brown 73rd of all-time, not least because of his excellent 1996-2000 run (114 Win Shares: only Clemens, Maddux, Johnson and Pedro have beaten that in the last 30 years). Brown would be up to about 50th when he retired, which looks very HoF-like. He had 241 Win Shares and only 211 wins, which is a bit of an indicator that he pitched for bad teams.
So I would be inclined to vote for him, having no idea what to make of the Mitchell Report, but I can imagine a few people saying “How could he have put up such big numbers without us noticing?”
Neither to both. I think when you vote you also have to consider Schilling’s bad seasons as well. The ones where he missed all or most of the season, the ones where he was a below avg pitcher. Compare his career to Mark Buerhle’s through their respective age 29 seasons. Schilling had that late career jump that a lot of people of his generation seemed to get, somehow.
The bloody sock is just lidocaine hype. I’ve sewed up my own hand so I could use it, but I’m nothing special.
2001’s best-WS-ever is not hype. I don’t know if he’s a HOF pitcher, but I’d probably say, instinctively, yes.
Brown? No.
Late to the dance. Will keep it brief.
Shill is not a HOFer by any measure.
Doesn’t have the counting stats. The anecdotal stuff shouldn’t hold up.
Scrutiny of the numbers….will bear this out.
Just a thought on the “fame” concept – Numbers don’t, and shouldn’t, carry the day. Big moments should count as much as a lot a little ones.
As far as I know, there’s only one HOF that admits its members strictly by numbers – The women’s golf HOF – and who really cares about that one?
Cynically, I wonder if Schilling was self-aware enough to know that the bloody sock certainly couldn’t hurt his HOF chances.
Both made their (multi) millions, both won titles. I don’t think Brown could care either way if he made it in(I’ve never seen an athlete who appeared to enjoy being miserable so much) and I think, despite what he says, Schill desperately wants to be there and feels he should be. Honestly, I haven’t read Schillings blog very much, so I would wonder how much he compares himself to others.
My gut feeling is neither should be in, but Schilling will get in eventually.
“A Hall of Famer is someone who gets 75% of the vote from the Baseball Writers Association of America.”
Well yeah, that’s one definition. But since almost 50% of all players in the Hall weren’t elected by the writers (well over 50% once Negro League players are included), maybe it’s time the writers expanded that definition a bit.
Why doesn’t anyone mention the word “fame†when discussing Hall of Fame.
Because “fame” is not a criterion for induction:
Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
The counting stats that Devon presented (post #15) show that Schilling is right up there with some truly AMAZING pitchers. The win count is low, but his entire career was played in the 5-man rotation era and he got a late start in the bigs. The 5-man era stunts a lot of pitchers win totals – which makes guys like Maddux and Clemens all the more impressive (Maddux, especially, since, well, you know).
I do think that those “historic moments” need to be taken into consideration when thinking about Hall of Fame credentials. Of course, there IS a museum in Cooperstown that has memorabilia concerning those moments. I think Schilling being a major part of 3 different teams reaching the World Series on 4 occasions and being a direct contributor to 3 championships is vitally important.
As a person and a teammate, he seems to put the team first. I can’t imagine Kevin Brown having a surgery and then pitching that night. Say what you will about the sock, I’m not talking about that, per se. I’m merely mentioning that Brown always seemed to be a “me first” type player. In 2005, after risking his career to play with the injured foot in ‘04, Schilling said he’d pitch as a closer just so he could try to help the team in any way he could. That didn’t work out so well, but it wasn’t for lack of effort on Schilling’s part.
I do think that, ultimately, Schilling will be elected into the Hall. Whether that will be on the merits of his regular season statistics, post-season dominance, or off the field generosity with the ALS foundation is up to the voters. Also, being someone who was never accused of using steroids in an otherwise tainted era doesn’t hurt his chances either.
Finally, and I apologize if someone answered this already, I believe he is eligible in 2013 since his last game played was in 2007. Remember, Rickey Henderson never actually announced his retirement, but he was inducted this past year because of when he played his last MLB game. Something tells me that if someone offered Rickey a contract tomorrow, he’d probably come back to play!
Schilling was really good, and he always seemed to come up big in the postseason, but I’m not sure that “team first” is quite right. Schilling (who was outraged at J.D. Drew for not signing with the Phillies) promptly scorned the Phillies and engineered a trade to Arizona as soon as that looked like a better opportunity. Then he promptly scorned the Snakes and engineered a trade to Boston as soon as that looked like a better opportunity. Schilling has always seemed exactly as loyal and “team first” as Clemens.
I can understand somebody thinking that Schilling is a HOFer. I can somehow maybe kinda stretch my mind around the notion that Blyleven is not a HOFer, if that’s the guy that also thinks that Hunter and Drysdale and Gossage and many other pitchers don’t belong in the HOF. But for the same person to hold both opinions shows a degree of bias that is unhealthy. In every respect except postseason opportunities, Blyleven is Schilling with the counting stats for the HOF. I mean, Blyleven had half again the length of career Schilling had. Blyleven had 16 seasons with 200+ innings pitched. They had almost the same postseason ERA (Schilling’s is slightly better, both of them are under 2.5) and Blyleven’s 5-1 record is half of Schilling’s 11-2, reflecting that Schilling had far more opportunities (133 postseason IP to 47 for Blyleven). In one possible measure, postseason wins per innings, Blyleven crushes Schilling: 9.4 IP per victory for Blyleven versus 12.1 IP per victory for Schilling. In other words, Schilling has a lot of no decisions to go along with his wins. Blyleven’s worst postseason series was the 1987 ALCS, where he had an ERA of 4.05 (while going 2-0). His next worst series was 2.77, and the other three was an ERA under 2. Schilling’s worst postseason series was the 2004 ALCS, with a 6.30 ERA (he went 1-1). His next worst was 5.40 ERA (he went 1-0). So it’s pretty clear that Schilling got some cheap wins and avoided some earned losses thanks to his offense. If you *really* want to consider horses, Schilling may be a horse. But Blyleven, with *eight* seasons with more IP than Schilling’s career high, is the clear cut stud stallion of the two. So Jon Heyman’s just plain biased, and so biased that he can’t even see he’s biased. That’s “we need another four years of Bush” level of biased.
As for Kevin Brown, much as I dislike the guy, he was screwed by circumstances in public opinion. After the 1998 season, the Fox owned Dodgers were facing an enormous fan revolt. They’d dropped to 5th in league attendance (over 3,000,000, not bad for a team that finished 3rd in the NL West, but strongly indicative of a team that was losing its fan base). They’d traded away their best and most popular player, Mike Piazza, because Piazza was supposedly asking for too much money to sign, only to see him sign the contract he was asking the Dodgers for with the Mets, proving that he really was worth that much. And despite the big trade, the team was well out of the playoffs. There was also a managerial firing, from popular former Dodger Bill Russell to inexperienced non-Dodger Glenn Hoffman. So fans were really turning against the team. The Dodgers needed a huge free agent signing to win back the fans, and Kevin Brown was by far the best free agent available that winter. Brown just got lucky to get the huge contract.
And it’s not that Brown was bad in LA. He got CYA votes his first three seasons, putting up ERA+ of 143, 169, and 150. But he got hurt in 2001, only pitching 115 innings for that 150 ERA+, came back too soon in 2002, then healed up and pitched 211 innings (ERA+ 169) in 2003. But Brown had the tag of injury prone, and fans never liked him because, well, because he just wasn’t Mike Piazza. So the Dodgers dumped him on the Yankees, and he didn’t pitch well there, and his career ended.
But then there’s the Mitchell report. And there’s the New York factor. How much do you want to bet that Jon Heyman is in New York? Curt Schilling had some good outings beating the Yankees in the playoffs. Bert Blyleven never pitched for nor against a New York team in the playoffs. Kevin Brown pitched lousy for the Yankees (and one good game in the playoffs against the Twins, one terrible game against the Red Sox). Thus, the bias: Heyman is responding in part to heavy buzz in New York (and Boston) that was not nearly as loud in the rest of the country. So when everybody in New York is talking about Curt Schilling, of course he seems famous. But it’s just a New York thing. And for a professional sports writer, a man given the almost sacred duty of choosing who gets into Cooperstown, to be swayed by it, is unconscionable.
As for the “Fame”, that is bestowed upon being admit to the Hall.
As a NL fan I found Kevin Brown a tough opponent. But, is that enough?
If Don Sutton is in and Blyleven not in, there is no rationality to the process.
Sportswriters should not have the vote (Joe P. is one of the few I respect, and
most are too young to have a proper voting perspective). It should be done by a process
involving the fans (perhaps as a clearing committee) and a group of former
players, managers, coaches, scouts and general managers in some capacity.
Matt @ #30: Something tells me that in 2009, Rickey could still outhit (and outrun, but you knew that already) more than a few fifth outfielders with MLB jobs, too. The idiots who left him off their HOF ballots should have their voting and breathing privileges revoked.
When statistics are so close to being negligable, then you look at intangibles which are very…well…tangible in Schilling’s case. He was a major reason for three world championships. That, to me, puts him in. Plus, Deven made a strong case as well. And for crying out loud, get Mr. Blyleven in there, will you!
Norm @ #33: You do realize that to have a Hall of Fame vote, a sports writer must be a member of the BBWAA, which means he must have been covering baseball for 10 years — not be a sports writer for 10 years, but actively be covering baseball for 10 years.
So I’m not sure how you can say that “most are too young to have proper voting perspective,” considering that. Exactly who do you mean by that?
Would the perception of Schilling be different had the doctors put a few extra layers of gauze on his ankle and prevented blood from seeping through to his sock during the game?
Not trying to minimize his performance in that game. I’m always struck by how much little things like that can to the drama of an event, and hence to our feelings about the participants.
If people will discount a players career because they never won a world series, then shouldn’t a great world series record be a boost? Schilling’s stats are good, not great, but his postseason performances are legendary.
Curt Schilling had a bloody sock. Kevin Brown was a giant douche.
This is the **ONLY** thing that 98% of all HoF voters will be thinking about.
What about Bob Gibson almost identical stats to Curt.
Gibson first
Wins: 251 vs. 221
ERA+: 127 vs. 127
Postseason: 7-2 vs. 11-2
Ks: 3117 vs 3116
Cys: 2 vs. 0
MVP: 1 vs. 0
WP: .591 vs. .597
Gibsons 2 seasons with cys was when no one else had excellent yrs too. and that is also a factor.
IMO Brown isn’t that close at all compared to dominant numbers of these two.
I don’t think Schilling gets in because the “big game pitcher” stuff only gets you so far.
To wit — Jack Morris.
It’s indisputable that Brown struggled in the World Series but in the playoffs before then, he was outstanding, well, aside from the 2004 playoffs against the Red Sox. But in the divisional series, he was as dominant as they come. I feel it’s an injustice when everywhere I read that Brown wilted in the playoffs because that erases some fabulous performances.
#41 said: I don’t think Schilling gets in because the “big game pitcher†stuff only gets you so far.
To wit — Jack Morris.
this seems so strange to me: being a big game pitcher doesn’t get you as far as winning meaningless games? like it or not, greatness is measured in october at yankee stadium, as opposed to, say, april at camden yards.
I say neither to both.
Schilling was fantastic in the postseason, but his regular season numbers don’t add up. I only see about 7 HOF-type seasons out of 20 total. Standards should be higher than that.
If Brown had the bloody sock while pitching for Florida or San Diego in the WS, everyone would have forgotten about it the next day. Schilling clearly benefits from having pitched in Boston.
I personally prefer Brown of the two. The game he pitched for the Padres in Game 1 of the 1998 Divisional Series was the second-best pitching performance I’ve ever seen, right behind the Kerry Wood 20-strikeout game. I believe Brown’s 16 Ks are second-most in playoff history to Bob Gibson. Then he came back 3 days later to go 7 IP in another San Diego 2-1 win. But because it was in laid-back San Diego it never accrued him much fame.
Not suggesting Brown deserves HOF support, just sticking up for him a little in the debate. All in all I believe they are close to equals, but were dealt completely different hands.
Who is the greatest post-season pitcher of all-time?
It’s debatable, but you could make a pretty good case for Schilling. I’d say that that is a pretty compelling distinction between him and Brown.
Also, the fact that those two have the same career ERA+ numbers is a bit of a red herring.
Tony Gwynn’s OPS+ was 132. Same OPS+ as Joe Morgan and Jackie Robinson.
Other players who had an identical career OPS+ of 132: Mo Vaughn, Jose Canseco, and Jim Edmonds.
So, are those guys HOF slam-dunks like Tony, Jackie and Little Joe?