Curt Schilling Hall of Fame bound?

[njcurveball]

Orioles fans still probably puke when they think of the trade that sent Schilling, Pete Harnish and Steve Finley out the front door in exchange for "future" Hall of Famer Glenn Davis! How could this one miss?

Davis was a 30 home run guy in an era where 30 home run guys were at the top of the home run standings in September, not July (like today).

The Orioles were so bull headed in their "Davis" thinking, they actually signed him to an extension. 2+ years later he still hadn't accounted for 30 home runs for them and they sent him packing.

Finley on the other hand thrived in Houston and was a productive outfielder for 16 more seasons. He also hit over 30 home runs 4 times, 4 more than Davis.

Harnish had all star stuff with a "pea brain". He had some great years and some bad ones. Leaving the game with an ERA under 4 and more wins than losses. His claim to fame may be his much publicized withdrawal from chewing tobacco. :bang:

Now we come to Schilling. Three years with over 20 wins, but only 216 total. A Cy Young in the NL and a runner up finish in the AL. A lifetime ERA of 3.46. All Star numbers, but certainly not Hall of Fame numbers.

Does he get a Post Season bonus for being a big game pitcher? His record is 10-2 so certainly he has done well. A 2.23 post season ERA adds to it.

Is that enough to make him a Hall of famer?

[Overlay]

What goes around comes around. Trading away Schilling (and others) for Davis was long-delayed payback for sending Milt Pappas, Jack Baldschun, and Dick Simpson to the Reds, and getting Frank Robinson, who only managed to win the Triple Crown and the World Series with them the following season (1966).

Schilling had his moments in the post-season, and over 200 wins is respectable, but not Hall of Fame material (at least from the writers).

[JustRalph]

not enough wins............but he ought to get an honorable mention for the post season................he was great in the Post season. There are lots of guys who would trade his ability to get up for the post season............for tons of great numbers in the reg. season. I can think of a some like

A-Rod.........?

[njcurveball]

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=21220

THE CASE AGAINST


If you base your Hall decisions just on the old wins column, you won't vote for this man. That seems obvious. His 216 wins are 72 fewer than Tommy John, 71 fewer than Bert Blyleven and 38 fewer than Jack Morris. And none of those guys had a plaque last time I checked.


For that matter, if Schilling has thrown his last pitch, he'll also wind up with fewer wins than Joe Niekro (221) or Dennis Martinez (245). And neither of those guys even made it to a second year on the ballot.


Yet he still gets his vote!

I'd vote for him because I don't know how anyone could argue he was NOT one of the most dominating pitchers of his time, or that he was not one of the great money pitchers of ALL time.

So we may have some pretty lively hall of fame discussions for the next decade. Guys with lots of home runs and wins being left out. Other guys with less than stellar career totals getting in.

If nothing else, it should keep baseball in the News. :ThmbUp:

[OTM Al]

If you mean money pitcher as in playoff success, his record is comperable to Orlando Hernandez. Both excellent post season pitchers, but that doesn't put you in the Hall. The criteria is best in his era. Let's think who else was in his era that we may want to rank above him

Roger Clemens
Pedro Martinez (these 2 may be two of the best of all time btw)
Randy Johnson
Greg Maddux
Tom Glavine
John Smoltz

then if you want to add relievers in the mix, you must include
Mariano Rivera
Trevor Hoffman

That is six starters (well, 5 and one who did both) from his era that I have to rank above him. I think Schilling is close on par with someone like Mike Mussina. Both very very good pitchers with long careers, but a shade under the cutoff.

[Bubbles]

I think the "best of the era" stuff is very subjective. It wasn't Schilling's fault he was born in the same time period as Clemens, Maddux, etc. If a guy's great, he's great, and while greatness may be overinflated in lean years, it shouldn't be ignored when a guy like Schilling comes along, has a stellar career, and wins rings.

Also, say what you want about win totals. Bob Lemon has less wins (and no record in the postseason) and he's in. Jim Bunning has 222 wins, very comparable to Schilling, and he's in. Those guys pitched when rotations were four-deep instead of five-deep, meaning they had more chances to win games than Schilling did.

On a related tangent, I firmly believe that within the next 10-15 years, we'll see an edge downward in win totals considered automatic in's at Cooperstown. It's almost impossible to get 300 wins; you'd have to average 15 wins a season for 20 years, and in an era where few guys get to 15 wins for ONE season, it's not going to happen often unless managers make the move back to four-man rotations.

Is he a first-ballot guy, or even a second-ballot guy? No. But he'll get in.

[njcurveball]

Let's think who else was in his era that we may want to rank above him

Roger Clemens
Pedro Martinez (these 2 may be two of the best of all time btw)
Randy Johnson
Greg Maddux
Tom Glavine
John Smoltz



Nice list! I think all of these guys are HOF bound. :ThmbUp:

[njcurveball]

It's almost impossible to get 300 wins; you'd have to average 15 wins a season for 20 years, and in an era where few guys get to 15 wins for ONE season,

You make a good point here, I would say the "class of the field" in the Under 30 crowd right now is Jake Peavy and he is 27 years old with 81 wins right now. unlike home run hitters who can get to 250 by that age and be halfway to the magic HOF 500 number, Peavy still has a lot of work ahead to get 300.

[Bubbles]

With 81 wins right now, let's do a little Peavy math. Let's assume, just for kicks, that he wins nine games the rest of the way. It's a stretch, but it's possible. That gives him 90 wins.

At 27 years old, he probably has between six to eight more years as an elite starter. 15 wins every year, which is a reasonable estimate, over a period of eight years gives you 120 wins. Added to the 90 we have, we're up to 210 wins at age 35.

Then, like most pitchers, he tails off a bit in his late-30's. I'll give him five years of twelve wins, which is 60. 210 +60 = 270 wins by the time he's 40.

With this in mind, Peavy is going to have to do some SERIOUS work to get to 300 wins in his career. As mentioned before, 300 wins has gone from a tough accomplishment to almost impossible. I would say that the magic number for career wins is probably going to be somewhere around 250 by the time the Hall of Fame voters get accustomed to evaluating guys from this generation.

Even then, 200-225 wins is probably going to be treated like 250 is now, as borderline HOF status. Here are some guys who may end up being considered for the HOF under this criteria...

- Andy Pettitte. Current WL record: 207-118, with four World Series rings to his credit. He's 14-5 in the postseason, with just under 2,000 career strikeouts. He doesn't strike a lot of people as a Hall of Famer, but if he can have a few more good seasons in the last few years of his career, he's a guy who may get in.

- Mark Buehrle. Current WL record: 112-81. Won a ring with the Sox, and is just 29 years old. Again, he's not considered as one of the greats of the game, but if he can stick around for a while, he could approach 250 wins by the time he's done.

- Jamie Moyer. Current WL record: 237-183. It's a stretch, to say the least, but he's a junkballer who's hung around forever and racked up wins because of it.

I would rank Schilling right around where Pettitte is, and if Buehrle and Moyer end up being considered for induction, Schilling HAS to be in there.

[OTM Al]

I have to agree with Bubbles in that on review Schilling is much more like Pettite than Mussina. Mussina should be ranked above Schilling. While Mussina does not have a 20 win season to his credit or as good as a playoff record, though the ERA is still very solid, he regularly put in much better seasons on average than Schilling and currently has a record of 260-149. That's 111 games OVER .500. If he can keep pitching the way he is now he has a very outside chance of actually making it to 300 wins (he is "only" 39 years old right now)

I find the whole "how many rings" thing irrelevant, much moreso in baseball than football and especially basketball. Baseball has too many individual aspects to it that do not appear in the other sports which allows players to be better judged separate from the teams they were on. Need I say more than Ernie Banks, Billy Williams and (hopefully some day as it is wayyyyyy overdue) Ron Santo.

[Bubbles]

I think both Mussina and Bert Blyleven should get in, as they're going to end up with similar win totals and high-200's will look more impressive as time goes on.

Maybe I'm a hair too lenient with HOF admission, but Schilling and Pettitte should both get in. Not on the first few ballots, but when voters realize what they did isn't going to be matched by many, it's going to be tougher and tougher to exclude them.

[Valuist]

The win totals are a little deceptive since before 1980 or so (give or take a couple years either way), most teams had 4 man rotations, not 5. Back then, guys would get 40 starts a season. Now its 32 or 33 tops.

Schilling will get in. His post season record virtually guarantees it. I agree with most on the above list although I'm not sure Glavine will get in. Of the list mentioned above, he's the least worthy.

[Bubbles]

Glavine got 300 wins, he's in. Even with win totals becoming less and less suitable as HOF criteria every year, 300 wins is 300 wins, and nobody'll ignore that.

[Valuist]

Glavine got 300 wins, he's in. Even with win totals becoming less and less suitable as HOF criteria every year, 300 wins is 300 wins, and nobody'll ignore that.

I had forgotten that.

No comparison between Petitte and Schilling, however. Petitte has had excellent supporting casts around him his whole career. Schilling played on a number of Philly teams who were nothing to write home about. Moyer will have no chance because he was never dominant, or anywhere close to the best of his generation. His win total is strictly a matter of longetivy.

[Marshall Bennett]

I had forgotten that.

No comparison between Petitte and Schilling, however. Petitte has had excellent supporting casts around him his whole career. Schilling played on a number of Philly teams who were nothing to write home about. Moyer will have no chance because he was never dominant, or anywhere close to the best of his generation. His win total is strictly a matter of longetivy.
The hall is reserved for the best , Petitte and Schilling don't cut it in my opinion , Moyer is out of the question . Schilling was really good when he was on but never could string good years together . I often think of Floyd Bannister , he had amazing stuff , just couldn't put it all together , and thats what it takes to be with the best .

[Bubbles]

Again, I think the theory of "the HOF is reserved for the best of an era" is questionable. Example: If Schilling had been born ten years later, what pitcher in THAT era would you rather have on your side? I can only think of a few.

Beckett (and he's not a young buck anymore)
Johan Santana (neither is he)
Peavy
Lincecum (SI did a feature about him. 40 career starts, 30 quality starts. That ratio is unbelievable.)

There's not much to choose from in the "great" ranks before the drop-off to "guys who could be great at some point or were just very good for a while." Felix Hernandez is the poster-child of this group. FILTHY stuff, but a combination of no lineup and inconsistency is going to kill him. I'd put Buehrle in that group as well, along with John Lackey, Cliff Lee, Tim Hudson, Chien-Mien Wang, Roy Halladay, C.C. Sabathia, and Roy Oswalt, among MANY others.

The era stuff is another theory I don't buy into. You could put Schilling's career up with any ace today and he'd compare pretty favorably. Based on that, I think it's foolish to immediately dismiss him from the Hall just because he was born in the same time period as so many other great pitchers.

To use a horse racing reference, nobody knocks Alydar because he was born in the same year as Affirmed.

[dylbert]

Schilling is solid pitcher who excelled later in career. Above average in his era -- but hardly HOF candidate.

I met Schilling when he did Astros pre-season caravan through Alexandria, Louisiana in 1991. He was accompanied by Luis Gonzalez (who would go on to World Series fame with D-Backs) and Scott Servais. All three young players were extremely humble and courteous. Each signed autographs for my daughter and joked with her. She was six year old who was still upset that Astros had traded her favorite player, Glenn Davis! Schilling actually quipped that Bagwell would impress her. Her allegiance shifted to Biggio and Bagwell that season.

Better argument is that Biggio & Bagwell are first-ballot Hall of Famers!

[skate]

Not sure about Total wins being a good factor anymore. Use to be, but now 15 wins per year would be a better scale, imo.


Gotta put these guys up against their own Life Times. Bull pens play a much bigger role and take away from the stats of yesterday.

Ballparks, much smaller. But not everything is against the Pitchers.

[skate]

I'm guessing, Whitey Ford had about 200/250 wins, played with good teams and might be in the Hall.


Curt, played with Philly, when they had nothing.

If so, then put him IN.:cool:

[Bubbles]

Yeah, Ford is in. 236 career wins, to be exact. Not many more than Schilling, and a known cheater to boot (ball-doctoring).

[Storm Cadet]

http://www.spudart.org/blog/images/2005/realredsock_withtag.gif

His sock belongs there...he doesn't!