Wait..there is a notion that Scott was a one-year wonder. Not so. 1985 -- 18-8 with a 3.29 ERA 1986 -- 18-10 with a 2.22 ERA 1987 -- 16-13 with a 3.23 ERA 1988 -- 14-8 with a 2.92 ERA 1989 -- 20-10 with a 3.10 ERA That's 5 very solid years where his ERA never went about 3.29.
Max, those would be spectacular in Minute Maid Park, in 2005. I'd take those any day. But 3.23 in the Astrodome, in 1987, was just league-average. Not a bad year, but nothing special. The 1986 numbers were far and away better than anything he did before or since.
I thought it came out afterwards that he did. I know that I have heard writers & journalists who covered the astros at the time say that he did.
I'll give you that 1987 was a statistically abberational year, though still not at the level of current scoring. So ignore that year for a second and look at 1988 or 1985. NL Average Runs/Game (per team) 1985 4.07 1986 4.18 1987 4.52 1988 3.88 1989 3.94 2004 4.64 When you factor in park factor, here's Scott's ERA compared to (league numbers) at the Dome. 1985 3.29 (3.45) 1986 2.22 (3.61) 1987 3.23 (3.92) 1988 2.92 (3.32) 1989 3.10 (3.40) Doing 0.2 or 0.3 better than league average is not that impressive, imo. Scott's strikeout numbers were way down in every year other than 1986 as well. Struck out 300 in 86, and only one other time (87) exceeded 200.
Actually, that was good enough for 6th best in the NL for Adjusted ERA+. See - http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/scottmi03.shtml
Really. Players have out of the ordinary years all the time. Maybe it was the first year he perfected the pitch, maybe he just felt better that year, who cares. The fact is that the ump can check the ball right there during the game! As was pointed out, this happened all the time. What, did he just know exactly when the ump was going to check the ball, and not scuff on those pitches? It's completely ridiculous to compare Mike Scott to someone taking ILLEGAL performance-enhancing substances.
Mike Scott was the scariest player in baseball in 1986, and was accused of cheating that year, and you don't care. There were allegations that he scuffed the ball, I didn't make them, but many did. He's listed in ESPN Page 2's "Biggest Cheaters in History", right behind the Black Sox. Multiple people say that he used an emory board, and that Doran was complicit in it. Look at bobrek's post below. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but I don't think you can say "nobody cares" about whether a player is cheating or not. Dierker's comparison, not mine.
Just speculation evidence is all I've ever heard. There may have been books that said he did, but I've never seen any hard evidence. I just have a hard time believing other teams were that incompetent such that they didn't catch Scott, the catcher, Doran, etc doctoring the ball once. The lynch mob mentality on this board about Scott surprises me considering since his name isn't Bush.
