>>
>>IMO when you're looking at a career, winning close to 100 more games means more than a small difference in inside-baseball stats like WHIP.
>
>
>Mike, I understand what you are saying, but the dynamics of the game are such that WHIP can still potentially be important.
>
>There's a statistic I wish were available (I'm assuming it's not)....W/L record of the team in which the starter begins the game, even if he didn't factor into the decision.
>
>For instance...years ago the Phils had Joe Blanton. Blanton didn't have a fantastic W/L record, but he kept the Phils in plenty of games that they eventually won.
>
>By contrast, a higher WHIP can POTENTIALLY mean a pitcher had a no-decision in the game where his team lost. I do recall a few games the Phils played against Glavine over the years where Glavine left with an ND in a game where Philly won. (Yes, I know that's not scientific, hence my interest in such a stat).
>
>Again, Glavine was a great pitcher and deserves the HOF. But aside from career wins, Schilling is better than Glavine in every category.

The hundred or so career wins ;-) Any friendly neighborhood sabermatrician will easily process that. It dwarfs any slight advantages in fine print statistical measures.