PDA

View Full Version : Is Curt Schilling worthy of the Hall of Fame?


Fenway
01-19-2012, 12:04 PM
Gammons thinks he is....

http://www.nesn.com/2012/01/curt-schilling-deserves-hall-of-fame-induction-despite-reputation-as-polarizing-figure.html

asindc
01-19-2012, 12:04 PM
No.

MUsoxfan
01-19-2012, 12:18 PM
My first instinct would be to say yes because of both longevity and accomplishments, however his numbers make me think otherwise

mzh
01-19-2012, 12:19 PM
lol.

You can't put him in without putting Jack Morris in IMO.

Fenway
01-19-2012, 12:21 PM
My first instinct would be to say yes because of both longevity and accomplishments, however his numbers make me think otherwise

His post-seasons of 2001 and 2004 might tip the scale. His numbers suffer from some bad teams in Philadelphia.

mzh
01-19-2012, 12:27 PM
His post-seasons of 2001 and 2004 might tip the scale. His numbers suffer from some bad teams in Philadelphia.
See, if you count postseason performance then you still have to put a guy like Morris in. Same with Orel Hershiser maybe.

BBref lists the most similar players to Schilling as Kevin Brown, Bob Welch, Hershiser, and Milt Pappas. I'm a bit skeptical.

Daver
01-19-2012, 12:29 PM
If you are talking about the jackass hall of fame he's a perfect fit.

moochpuppy
01-19-2012, 12:30 PM
If you want to see Schilling in the hall you're going to have to visit his bloody sock. That's as close as Schilling is going to get.

SI1020
01-19-2012, 01:01 PM
His numbers are as good or better than more than a few pitchers that are in. 128 ERA+ not bad at all. I'm not saying I liked or disliked him, just match him with some of the others already in. He's 28th lifetime WAR for pitchers. He exceeds the average HOFer in baseball-reference Black ink, Gray ink, HOF Monitor and is very close to the average in HOF Standards. If you're old fashioned like me and actually want to have seen someone play to go along with the dry stats, then all in all Schilling stacks up very favorably. I'd take him over more than a few already enshrined.

soltrain21
01-19-2012, 01:03 PM
No. Him and his bloody sock can go away forever.

SI1020
01-19-2012, 01:06 PM
I wonder if the antipathy for him here is more personal rather than looking objectively at what was a very fine career.

TommyJohn
01-19-2012, 01:17 PM
Gammons thinks he is....

http://www.nesn.com/2012/01/curt-schilling-deserves-hall-of-fame-induction-despite-reputation-as-polarizing-figure.html

Of course he does. If ol' Red sock Curt bleeds onto a sock for the Blue Jays, Orioles, or Phillies, Gammons isn't writing this article or making this argument. But the east coast media and ESPN will howl with outrage if Red sock isn't elected, until he eventually gets in. Ol' red sock is bolstered by his big mouth and the fact that he ended that bull**** "curse." If he never wore the uniform of the Beaneaters, I doubt he'd get 5% on his first try.

TommyJohn
01-19-2012, 01:18 PM
If you are talking about the jackass hall of fame he's a perfect fit.

Like.

johnnyg83
01-19-2012, 01:19 PM
If you are talking about the jackass hall of fame he's a perfect fit.

First ballot. Kevin Millar and he can hold hands as they walk through the gates.

Hitmen77
01-19-2012, 01:20 PM
If you are talking about the jackass hall of fame he's a perfect fit.
:kneeslap:

TommyJohn
01-19-2012, 01:21 PM
See, if you count postseason performance then you still have to put a guy like Morris in. Same with Orel Hershiser maybe.

BBref lists the most similar players to Schilling as Kevin Brown, Bob Welch, Hershiser, and Milt Pappas. I'm a bit skeptical.

Cool list. It reminds me once again of asswipe McGrath, who sneered at Sox fans that he would vote for Harold Baines if Chili Davis was worthy, while stumping Santo for the Hall of Fame. Then Santo makes it, and I see the list of the 10 similar batters to Santo. Who is on the list? Chili Davis! Going to change your mind now, McGrath, you arrogant "This is for all who care about the White Sox" ass****?

EDIT: Sorry about the thread hijack.

soxfanatlanta
01-19-2012, 01:22 PM
I don't think he should get in, but wouldn't his acceptance speech be priceless?
:wink:

Domeshot17
01-19-2012, 01:29 PM
He just was not good enough

Lip Man 1
01-19-2012, 02:16 PM
If there is a 'postseason' Hall of Fame...yes.

But since there isn't, no.

Lip

sox1970
01-19-2012, 02:52 PM
Yes.

5 top-5 Cy's, 3 runner-ups.
2-time 20 game winner.
Over 3000 Ks

11-2 postseason record, with 2.23 ERA.
World Series MVP
Clemente Award winner

It's not even close, really. He'll get in.

mzh
01-19-2012, 03:13 PM
Yes.

5 top-5 Cy's, 3 runner-ups.
2-time 20 game winner.
Over 3000 Ks

11-2 postseason record, with 2.23 ERA.
World Series MVP
Clemente Award winner

It's not even close, really. He'll get in.
Bolded statement is the only one that is relevant. His stats are good but not great. If ~200 wins and a 3.50 ERA are HOF worthy they have a lot more guys to put in.

Fenway
01-19-2012, 03:16 PM
If there is a 'postseason' Hall of Fame...yes.

But since there isn't, no.

Lip

It isn't like the regular season awards where the ballot must be submitted before the playoffs start Lip.

Gammons says he considers the post-season and he has a vote.

Good example of this is Bill Mazeroski - he doesn't have this at bat, he doesn't make the HoF.

ix848GU0gNo

SI1020
01-19-2012, 03:26 PM
This is one of the most aggravating threads ever. Did anyone ever watch him pitch? Check out his stats? He's not better than Catfish Hunter? My list could go about 20 or 30 deep but why bother. I don't even particularly like the guy, but that is neither here nor there. If Barry Larkin is worthy as a position player, and after review I agreed with Seph that he was, then Schilling is more than worthy as a pitcher. The only thing that would change my mind, is he pitched in the vitamin era. Show me the evidence of that, otherwise if I had a vote he is in. Before I sign off I do admit to really liking guys who can shine when the money is on the table. Like Reggie Jackson and some others did. Even without the post season Schilling deserves it.

Brian26
01-19-2012, 07:29 PM
He can go in after Billy Pierce gets elected.

eastchicagosoxfan
01-19-2012, 07:58 PM
My first thought was that Schilling is similiar to Drysdale. Statistically, they're pretty close.

ron_j_galt
01-19-2012, 08:02 PM
Bolded statement is the only one that is relevant. His stats are good but not great. If ~200 wins and a 3.50 ERA are HOF worthy they have a lot more guys to put in.

If that's the standard (and it, or something similar, seems to be the consensus around here), then here's the complete list of recent-ish (Jack Morris or later) pitchers with 200 wins and a 3.50 ERA:

Greg Maddux
Randy Johnson
Pedro Martinez
John Smoltz
Kevin Brown
Orel Hershiser
Curt Schilling

Good, but not great. Forgive me if I missed anybody. I didn't miss David Cone, Mike Mussina, or Tom Glavine, who all missed one or the other by slim margins. Roy Halladay should meet this standard. CC Sabathia might not. Brown and Hershiser won't be in the Hall, at least not through the current method.

At any rate, those are the pitchers similar to Schilling under the wins and ERA criteria. I hope the speeches don't take too long. That's a real crowded podium.

===

Those who define Schilling's playoff history as beginning and ending with a bloody sock would do well to look at 2001 (and not just the seventh game of the World Series). Perhaps the media has a Phoenix bias. Perhaps, now that the playoffs are expanded, pitchers reel off 48 innings with a 1.12 RA annually.

===

Perhaps Schilling never had that single dominant season. He never lead either league in WAR. He came in second three times, behind Randy Johnson (twice) and Johan Santana.

He came in fourth an additional three times. One of those times, every pitcher ahead of him was on the above list. The other two he was behind Maddux, and once both Maddux and Brown. So, toe-to-toe against Maddux, Pedro, and Randy Johnson, Schilling came up a little short.

"He wasn't as good as Randy Johnson" is a pretty weak case to keep a guy out of the Hall.

ron_j_galt
01-19-2012, 08:14 PM
lol.

You can't put him in without putting Jack Morris in IMO.

Morris: 3824 IP, 3567 H, 1390 BB
Schilling: 3261 IP, 2998 H, 711 BB

Morris = Schilling + 563 IP + 569 H + 679 BB

Morris = Schilling + 563 IP at a 2.20 WHIP

I fail to see how these two have anything to do with each other. Show me what I'm missing. It's not wins and losses.

Morris: 254-186
Schilling: 216-146

Morris = Schilling + 38-40 record

mzh
01-19-2012, 08:23 PM
If that's the standard (and it, or something similar, seems to be the consensus around here), then here's the complete list of recent-ish (Jack Morris or later) pitchers with 200 wins and a 3.50 ERA:

Greg Maddux
Randy Johnson
Pedro Martinez
John Smoltz
Kevin Brown
Orel Hershiser
Curt Schilling

Good, but not great. Forgive me if I missed anybody. I didn't miss David Cone, Mike Mussina, or Tom Glavine, who all missed one or the other by slim margins. Roy Halladay should meet this standard. CC Sabathia might not. Brown and Hershiser won't be in the Hall, at least not through the current method.

At any rate, those are the pitchers similar to Schilling under the wins and ERA criteria. I hope the speeches don't take too long. That's a real crowded podium.

===

Those who define Schilling's playoff history as beginning and ending with a bloody sock would do well to look at 2001 (and not just the seventh game of the World Series). Perhaps the media has a Phoenix bias. Perhaps, now that the playoffs are expanded, pitchers reel off 48 innings with a 1.12 RA annually.

===

Perhaps Schilling never had that single dominant season. He never lead either league in WAR. He came in second three times, behind Randy Johnson (twice) and Johan Santana.

He came in fourth an additional three times. One of those times, every pitcher ahead of him was on the above list. The other two he was behind Maddux, and once both Maddux and Brown. So, toe-to-toe against Maddux, Pedro, and Randy Johnson, Schilling came up a little short.

"He wasn't as good as Randy Johnson" is a pretty weak case to keep a guy out of the Hall.

You've completely missed the point. Maddux, Johnson, Smoltz, and most likely Pedro are all HOFers. Brown, Hershiser, and Schilling are not. Nobody is saying shouldn't be in because he wasn't as good as Randy Johnson. But anyway, it's irrelevant. I don't know where you got the idea that those 4 were in the same realm as the latter 3, but to be simple they aren't. Johnson and Maddux both have 300+ wins and astounding ERA, Smoltz would probably be up around 250-270 if he hadn't spent 4 years closing games, and Pedro has an ERA a full half a run lower than Schilling. So no, they are most certainly not similar under the wins and era criteria.

Again, nobody thinks Schilling shouldn't be in because he wasn't as good as Johnson or Pedro or Smoltz or Maddux specifically. He shouldn't be in because wasn't that good, period.

mzh
01-19-2012, 08:29 PM
Morris: 3824 IP, 3567 H, 1390 BB
Schilling: 3261 IP, 2998 H, 711 BB

Morris = Schilling + 563 IP + 569 H + 679 BB

Morris = Schilling + 563 IP at a 2.20 WHIP

I fail to see how these two have anything to do with each other. Show me what I'm missing. It's not wins and losses.

Morris: 254-186
Schilling: 216-146

Morris = Schilling + 38-40 record
Fair enough, I rattled that off the top of my head. But statistically, the 5 most similar pitchers to Schilling are Kevin Brown, Bob Welch, Milt Pappas, Freddie Fitzsimmons, and Orel Hershiser. None of those guys are or should be in the HOF. Ergo, neither was Schilling. The only exceptional reason for Schilling to be in is his postseason performance, and while that might sway some writers in the Phoenix and Boston area, it still doesn't elevate him to 'sure thing without a doubt' level.

A. Cavatica
01-19-2012, 08:29 PM
Should be in? Of course not.

Will be in? Depends. The voting's never fair, and the bloody sock thing carries weight in the big Northeast media markets.

SI1020
01-19-2012, 09:18 PM
He can go in after Billy Pierce gets elected. That's just it. A mindset that totally dismissed Pierce, Minoso, and Baines from ever getting fair consideration. They never got it. They never will. The same attitude is at work here.

Tragg
01-19-2012, 10:29 PM
No.

pythons007
01-20-2012, 08:16 AM
That blurb of an article stated that he's HOF worthy for the bloody sock alone. Well if he's HOF worthy for that Kirk Gibson should be HOF worthy for the homerun he hit in 88. Silly Gammons, tricks are for kids.

Railsplitter
01-20-2012, 09:12 AM
Yes.

5 top-5 Cy's, 3 runner-ups.
2-time 20 game winner.
Over 3000 Ks

11-2 postseason record, with 2.23 ERA.
World Series MVP
Clemente Award winner

It's not even close, really. He'll get in.
I don't have his stats inf front of me. Did Schilling ever lead the league in strikeouts, wins, or ERA?

Irishsox1
01-20-2012, 09:34 AM
Never let Schilling in while he's alive and as soon as he's dead, then put him in.

sox1970
01-20-2012, 10:05 AM
I don't have his stats inf front of me. Did Schilling ever lead the league in strikeouts, wins, or ERA?

Never ERA, but wins and K's twice. He struck out 300+ three times, and has the best K/BB ratio in ML history.

Correction: he won 20+ three times.

He had an uneven regular season record over his career because of injuries, but he had enough very good to great regular seasons, plus the postseason record, plus some of the off the field awards which they take into consideration.

I don't like the guy personally, but he's deserving to get in.

Golden Sox
01-20-2012, 10:45 AM
If the announcers on the Red Sox say he should be in the HOF on all of there broadcasts, and keep doing it game after game, month after month, year after year, he might get in. This is what the the bad guys on the northside of Chicago did for Ron Santo, and it finally got him into the HOF. If you tell people the same thing over and over, they sometimes believe it. Last but not least, Schilling has more business being in the HOF than Santo does.

asindc
01-20-2012, 10:53 AM
If the announcers on the Red Sox say he should be in the HOF on all of there broadcasts, and keep doing it game after game, month after month, year after year, he might get in. This is what the the bad guys on the northside of Chicago did for Ron Santo, and it finally got him into the HOF. If you tell people the same thing over and over, they sometimes believe it. Last but not least, Schilling has more business being in the HOF than Santo does.

I said no, but that I agree with.

LITTLE NELL
01-20-2012, 11:55 AM
He can go in after Billy Pierce gets elected.

I wanted be the first to post this, you beat me to it.
Shilling had a little better W-L record but Billy had a better ERA.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/piercbi02.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/schilcu01.shtml

soxfanreggie
01-20-2012, 12:46 PM
If you want to see Schilling in the hall you're going to have to visit his bloody sock. That's as close as Schilling is going to get.

I think he'll get in, but I would love it if you were right.

SI1020
01-20-2012, 01:11 PM
I wanted be the first to post this, you beat me to it.
Shilling had a little better W-L record but Billy had a better ERA.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/piercbi02.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/schilcu01.shtml Billy Pierce was, is and always will be my favorite White Sox player. He meant so much to so many of us for a long time. His W-L record does not reflect his true worth and effectiveness. For many years he was the best the Sox had and thus was "spotted" against aces like Bob Lemon, Early Wynn and Whitey Ford. He was 24-24 lifetime against other HOF pitchers. The White Sox were almost always short of hitting when he played for them and consequently scored 2 or less runs in 1/3 of his starts for the team. He pitched 38 complete game shutouts and yet won only 36 of those games. In HOF voting from 1970-74 he polled 1.0 to 1.9% of the vote. Unbelievable. In various years he received less votes than the likes of Harvey Haddix, Harry Bracheen, Bobby Shantz, Vern Law and of all people Don Larsen. Of course Larsen is the only pitcher in MLB history to pitch a perfect game in the World Series. I guess that was worth a few votes. His treatment by the HOF voters was beyond shabby. I have no idea how many voters had Chicago connections back then, but if New York can get behind a Phil Rizzuto then whey the hell can't Chicago pull for Billy Pierce. It was surely done for Ron Santo, wasn't it? Billy Pierce is a big reason why I like to see all decent eligibles get an objective look. Billy never got one. Neither did Minnie and to a lesser extent Harold.

Again as far as Schilling goes, ERA's were much higher in the steroid era. His ERA+ is better than quite a few big name pitchers. If you look at his record objectively he is right there. At the very least right there for pitchers in his era. Not a Maddux or a Randy Johnson but as good or better than literally dozens of others enshrined. Now I'm finally done with this. I don't even particularly like the guy.

Fenway
01-20-2012, 02:15 PM
If the announcers on the Red Sox say he should be in the HOF on all of there broadcasts, and keep doing it game after game, month after month, year after year, he might get in. This is what the the bad guys on the northside of Chicago did for Ron Santo, and it finally got him into the HOF. If you tell people the same thing over and over, they sometimes believe it. Last but not least, Schilling has more business being in the HOF than Santo does.

Gammons may be a Red Sox fan but his love of the history of the game can not be disputed.

Now when you mention Bill Pierce

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/piercbi02.shtml

You then have to look at Luis Tiant

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/t/tiantlu01.shtml

The numbers are very, very close. Tiant was a very popular player with the writers and he gets little support so that blows the whole Red Sox conspiracy to threads.

TheVulture
01-20-2012, 05:42 PM
He pitched 38 complete game shutouts and yet won only 36 of those games.

How's that possible?

TheVulture
01-20-2012, 05:46 PM
I'm not saying Schilling is a HOFer, but as far as the Pierce and Tiant comparisons go, you guys are leaving out the significance of the eras in which they pitched. Schilling pitched in the height of the steroid era. A look at ERA+ indicates Schilling has them both beat.

SI1020
01-20-2012, 07:31 PM
How's that possible?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHA/CHA195208030.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHA/CHA195405092.shtml

I imagine the games were called on account of the weather. The statistics went into the record books.

Daver
01-20-2012, 10:46 PM
Again as far as Schilling goes, ERA's were much higher in the steroid era. His ERA+ is better than quite a few big name pitchers. If you look at his record objectively he is right there. At the very least right there for pitchers in his era. Not a Maddux or a Randy Johnson but as good or better than literally dozens of others enshrined. Now I'm finally done with this. I don't even particularly like the guy.

There have been more pitchers caught using steroids than positional players in the minors, I have little doubt this holds true at the MLB level as well, this doesn't get mentioned because pitchers don't put up gaudy numbers on a daily basis. That combined with the fact that pitchers would benefit from steroids more than hitters do by only playing every five days suggests that "the steroids era" excuse doesn't hold a lot of water.

Nellie_Fox
01-21-2012, 12:13 AM
There have been more pitchers caught using steroids than positional players in the minors, I have little doubt this holds true at the MLB level as well, this doesn't get mentioned because pitchers don't put up gaudy numbers on a daily basis. That combined with the fact that pitchers would benefit from steroids more than hitters do by only playing every five days suggests that "the steroids era" excuse doesn't hold a lot of water.
Then why was someone hitting over 60 home runs every damn year, teams were scoring more runs per game, and suddenly it has stopped? If pitchers were benefiting more, it would seem that offensive numbers would have been down.

Daver
01-21-2012, 12:27 AM
Then why was someone hitting over 60 home runs every damn year, teams were scoring more runs per game, and suddenly it has stopped? If pitchers were benefiting more, it would seem that offensive numbers would have been down.

Alexei Ramirez could hit 60 HR's in a year if he really wanted to, hitting well is pure timing, you don't get that from steroids. Steroids allow your body to heal faster from exertion, they make marathon workout schedules possible, but you still have to put the work in increase muscle mass. Pitchers use steroids to escape dead arm issues that happen during the season from exertion, and they need not put in any extra effort aside from the shot.

Yes, steroids helped hitters put on the muscle to turn the occasional double into a homerun, but it took a lot of wotk on the player to achieve that, while the pitchers avoided that occasional four game slump in June and no one ever sees it in the overall numbers till it comes time to talk contract numbers.

DSpivack
01-21-2012, 12:29 AM
Alexei Ramirez could hit 60 HR's in a year if he really wanted to, hitting well is pure timing, you don't get that from steroids. Steroids allow your body to heal faster from exertion, they make marathon workout schedules possible, but you still have to put the work in increase muscle mass. Pitchers use steroids to escape dead arm issues that happen during the season from exertion, and they need not put in any extra effort aside from the shot.

Yes, steroids helped hitters put on the muscle to turn the occasional double into a homerun, but it took a lot of wotk on the player to achieve that, while the pitchers avoided that occasional four game slump in June and no one ever sees it in the overall numbers till it comes time to talk contract numbers.

So what (else) explains the explosion in offensive numbers in the 90s and early 00s not seen since the 1930s?

Daver
01-21-2012, 01:04 AM
So what (else) explains the explosion in offensive numbers in the 90s and early 00s not seen since the 1930s?

Expansion and watering down rosters has a lot to do with it, the insistence on a five man rotation even though most teams don't have five quality starters is another. The fact that teams feel that they need a rapid return on money spent on draftees is forcing players through the system at an ever increasing pace, developing talent be damned, and a lot of them are pitchers.

Look through the history of the game, offense always increases during periods of expansion, and the lowering of the mound increased that trend ten fold. The steroid witch hunt has forced teams to look away from the long ball and put more emphasis on the fundamentals.

Fenway
01-21-2012, 01:41 AM
All I ask in this argument is that those of you who support Billy Pierce would concede that Luis Tiant must be in the mix.

Tiant may well be the most beloved Red Sox player from the good 70's teams. Yaz is respected but not beloved.

There is a movement building that the HoF would also accept votes from broadcasters who have 10+ years of service. Broadcasters in theory are watching every game closely.

DSpivack
01-21-2012, 01:43 PM
All I ask in this argument is that those of you who support Billy Pierce would concede that Luis Tiant must be in the mix.

Tiant may well be the most beloved Red Sox player from the good 70's teams. Yaz is respected but not beloved.

There is a movement building that the HoF would also accept votes from broadcasters who have 10+ years of service. Broadcasters in theory are watching every game closely.

Well, there's 1 vote Yaz will get every year.

Red Barchetta
01-21-2012, 01:55 PM
If you want to see Schilling in the hall you're going to have to visit his bloody sock. That's as close as Schilling is going to get.

According to the great Boston/New England metro area, that game (and sock) alone is worthy of the HOF. After all, we are talking about the epicenter of all professional sports activity. All professional seasons are effectively over after either Boston or New York is eliminated.

chicagowhitesox1
01-21-2012, 03:34 PM
How do you explain Brady Anderson.

WLL1855
01-22-2012, 03:42 AM
How do you explain Brady Anderson.

I'll take "Better living through chemistry" for 200, Alex.

Replace Bret Boone with Brady Anderson and you've got about the same thing.

asindc
01-22-2012, 07:14 AM
How do you explain Brady Anderson.

The same way I explain Roger Clemons or Eric Gagne.

SI1020
01-22-2012, 12:08 PM
All I ask in this argument is that those of you who support Billy Pierce would concede that Luis Tiant must be in the mix.

Tiant may well be the most beloved Red Sox player from the good 70's teams. Yaz is respected but not beloved.

There is a movement building that the HoF would also accept votes from broadcasters who have 10+ years of service. Broadcasters in theory are watching every game closely. Tiant topped out at 30.9% of the BBWAA vote for the HOF. Pierce never got more than 1.9%. It makes me mad to even think about that. I did like Tiant. He made quite a comeback after going 9-20 in 69, and pitching very little in 70 and 71. Loved that pitching motion.

Fenway
01-22-2012, 12:31 PM
Will Curt Schilling benefit in Hall of Fame voting next year from backlash against Roger Clemens, who is also on the ballot for the first time? I think so.