Will Curt Schilling make the Hall of Fame?
GoYankeesGo
Posts: 226
in Sports Talk
I say no. As clutch as he has been in the post season, his W-L record is 192-131 with a lifetime ERA of 3.40. The are more deserving pitchers like Bert Blyleven, Jim Kaat, and Tommy John who are not there.
0
Comments
Jim Kaat
283-237 (Won-Loss)
ERA=3.45
Imagine if Kaat had retired after 1976, when he was 37 years old. If he had, his W/L would have been .561, well above the record of the teams he had played for. His ERA would have been 3.31 compared to a league average of 3.64 - or an ERA+ of 110, better than Catfish Hunter or Don Sutton who were his contemporaries and who are in the HOF. Also, he would have had a batting average of .190, better (I think) than any modern HOF pitcher except Gibson. AND, he would have had 15 Gold Gloves.
Now, a 110 is a pretty low ERA+ for a HOF pitcher. It is better than Sutton and Hunter, but it is just silly that either of those two are in the HOF. But, if we think of a pitcher as a baseball player and not just a thrower, we have to add in the additional impact that his bat and glove are having, at least I would think that we do. Kaat's runs allowed less than average through 1976 was 142 - and 200 is more or less the standard for a HOFer. Did Kaat save with his glove, or produce with his bat, another 58 runs over the course of his career more than the average pitcher? Since that is little more than 3 runs per year, I think (although I could not prove) that the answer is an obvious yes, probably a lot more than that.
So, if I were voting, I would vote for Kaat. I think he was a HOF caliber pitcher. It seems to me that to oppose him one must believe either:
(1) that because Kaat hung around too long that that cancels some of what came before, or
(2) that it makes no difference how a pitcher bats or fields
I think that one would have a hard time defending either of those beliefs, but I'd be interested to hear an argument for either of them - or for a third reason that I am overlooking.
And please note that I am arguing that Kaat belongs in the HOF that we actually have, not a hypothetical one that is for the "best of the best" or where "if you have to ask, you don't belong". That HOF would be lovely, I agree, but it's not the HOF I'm talking about.
Even if he had retired with a .561, he was never dominant, let alone for a period of time, just very good. Very good should not get you in the hall.
Schilling is a more interesting case...not a ton of years on top, but one of the top pitchers in the game when he was.
Spammy, I know all things red sox make you crazy, but who would you rather have at the top of his game: Kaat or Schilling?
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>All you have to do really is look at Roger Clemens numbers. Then look at Curt Schillings, or Jim Kaat, etc, etc, etc. Roger Clemens makes them all look like everday run of the mill chuckers. There should be a separate Hall of Fame for the few players per generation like Clemens. >>
While certainly a player doesn't have to be as good as Clemens to get into the Hall, my feeling has always been that if you have to think about or need convincing that a player should be in the Hall, then they really shouldn't get in. I mean seriously...Jim Kaat??? Come on now!
<< <i>... my feeling has always been that if you have to think about or need convincing that a player should be in the Hall, then they really shouldn't get in >>
The problem with that standard is this: if you have to think about or need convincing that Bert Blyleven belongs in the HOF, then you don't know enough to be trusted with HOF voting. And yet, he's not in and Jim Hunter is. Your standard is great if HOF voters had always been confined to those who really knew baseball and were free from personal bias; but that hasn't been the case, and it seems a bit unfair to apply a standard to Kaat that has not been applied to everyone who came before him.
<< <i>There should be a separate Hall of Fame for the few players per generation like Clemens. >>
I agree. But there isn't, and Kaat fits easily into the HOF we do have.
<< <i>Kaat doesn't belong in the hall...as has been mentioned, he was mediocre and hung around. >>
That is simply incorrect. Kaat was very, very good for a very long time. He then hung around too long and that created the appearance that he was mediocre.
<< <i> Yea, let's water down the Hall of Fame some more. >>
Depends on what you mean by "water down". Kaat was clearly as good a pitcher as several HOFers, and just as clearly a MUCH better pitcher than a few HOF pitchers. Yes, he would expand the bottom tier of HOFers, but he doesn't create a whole new class of ridiculously undeserving members in the way that Bruce Sutter did.
<< <i>Ron Guidry >>
Ron Guidry?
Schilling is an interesting case. I don't think he's got the overall stats for the Hall, but he's got a leg up on many of the pitchers mentioned in this thread as possible comparisons. If I was voting today, as much as I am a fan of his, I would vote no.
If you can't sincerely say he should be in based on his stats, then there's no way in hell the guy belongs.
Kaat was a 3 time all star (in 25 seasons!)
Finished 4th in Cy Young voting once (his only top 10 appearance)
Top 10 in ERA just 3 times (6th, 6th, and 9th)
Top 10 in K's just 4 times (2nd, 4th, 6th, and 10th)
Top 10 in hits allowed 9(!!!) times (led league FOUR times!)
Yes he had a nice career, but to say he should be in the hall of fame is absolutely ridiculous. One need just to look at his stats compared to his counterparts of the same era and see he was mediocre at best. Anyone defending his induction has no clue whatsoever makes a hall of famer.
And Guidry, has a nice resume, one solid year, but the yankee bias comes out and suddenly anyone who ever put on the pinstripes should be in the hall.
who would you rather have at the top of his game: Kaat or Schilling?
For two or three years Schilling but overall Kaat.
How about Jack Morris,John Smoltz(future),Louie Tiant,Ron Guidry.
fiveniner. excellent point. Guidry, arguably had one of the most dominant years by a pitcher ever when it 1978 he went 25-3 with a 1.74 ERA. He single handedly kept the Yankees in the hunt when at one point they were 14 games out of first. His lifetime record is 170- 91 (.651) with an ERA of 3.24.
162 Game Avg: 16- 8
Black Ink: Pitching - 29 (50) (Average HOFer ~ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 140 (109) (Average HOFer ~ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 38.0 (77) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 106.5 (82) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Why the heck isn't this guy in? And what about Mike Mussina?
Why is Jim Bunning in the Hall of Fame? Was his career that much better that Kaat's.
Just because no one's responding to your other 100 threads about yankees who you think should be in the hall, quit derailing this.
<< <i>
For two or three years Schilling but overall Kaat.
>>
The question was at the top of his game...and that's all we needed to hear. Quit dilluting your answer with rambling incoherent garbage about random yankees who you think should be in the hall.
Guidry had one great year, but just wasn't dominant long enough to be a hall of famer. If you are pushing support for Guidry, then how can you not push Schilling? Schillings career ERA vs. the league is nearly a point lower, has similiar winning percentages, and Schilling is WAY more dominant in the strikeout category.
So by throwing support behind Guidry, you're saying Schilling should be in, too. How would your yankee buddies feel about that?
This from a guy who claims that the short stop backs up the catcher on a play at the plate.
One point.............Kaat did not hang on as some of you claim. He was a left handed reliver late in his career. That some owners/gm's
thought highly of enough to give him a contract.
Players are alloowed to hang on when they can put fannies in the seats (Carlton) or In past years to make up for low salaries that were the norm, the owner would give them 1 more year. But make no mistake about it, if the player did not either put money in the owners pockets or was able to get certain batters out they would be gone. No ione is allowed to just hang on as some of you think to pad statistics. That may be the outcome but it certaintly is not the reason.
Kaat's 25 years of ML service is a reason he should be in the Hall, not a reason as why he shouldn't. He just happened to come elgible when many guys did all with similar stats. John, Tiant, etc, etc
As fo Guidry he had more then 1 good year.
Steve
<< <i>
Kaat's 25 years of ML service is a reason he should be in the Hall, not a reason as why he shouldn't. He just happened to come elgible when many guys did all with similar stats. John, Tiant, etc, etc
>>
hahahahahahahaha thanks for the good laugh this morning. 'Hang on for long enough and you're a hall of famer!!!'
Ridiculous.
<< <i>As fo Guidry he had more then 1 good year.
Steve >>
I said one 'great' year...he had a good career, and absolutely neither one of these guys belongs in the hall. Schilling, on the other hand, is still playing, If he gets to 225, 230 wins, I suspect he'll have a great chance of making it.
Guidry had one great year, but just wasn't dominant long enough to be a hall of famer.
1977: 16-7
1978: 25-3
1979: 18-8
1980: 17-10
1982: 14-8
1983: 21-9
1985: 22-6
When does 7=1? Yeah, right, Guidry is just another ho hum mediocre pitcher.
ha ha ha thank you as well. It appears that you have a comprehension problem.
What part of hanging on did you not understand ?
Steve
By throwing your weight behind Guidry, you are throwing your weight behind Schilling, as Schilling has the better career stats (ERA vs. the league and strikeouts).
Or does your support for marginal candidates only extend to yankees (Guidry, Mussina, Mattingly)?
<< <i>One point.............Kaat did not hang on as some of you claim. He was a left handed reliver late in his career. That some owners/gm's
thought highly of enough to give him a contract.
>>
Steve - I agree, I was trying to make a similar point. Kaat appears "mediocre" when you look at his lifetime stats because of all those years at the end when he was pitching long relief and spot starting. Obviously, he was good enough or the Phillies, etc. wouldn't have kept putting him out there, and so those seasons have to count for some positive value. But the casual fan, and I suspect the average HOF voter, jumps straight to the bottom line and sees an average W/L of 12-10 and dismisses him. I think that approach is clearly wrong, but it is the only argument against Kaat I have heard so far.
I also haven't seen anyone who thinks Kaat doesn't belong address his hitting or fielding. As I said, I think Kaat obviously does not belong in the HOF if pitching statistics are the only thing that count. But then we'd also have only 5 or 6 middle infielders in the HOF if batting stats were all that counted for them. Is the argument that for a pitcher hitting and fielding do not count? Or is it that upon careful consideration of Kaat's fielding and hitting, he still comes up short? If someone here has given careful considerstion to his hitting and fielding, please stop keeping it a secret.
That Axtell disagrees with me tells me that I am obviously right, something the rest of you may want to consider, too.
<< <i>Guidry had one great year, but just wasn't dominant long enough to be a hall of famer.
1977: 16-7
1978: 25-3
1979: 18-8
1980: 17-10
1982: 14-8
1983: 21-9
1985: 22-6
When does 7=1? Yeah, right, Guidry is just another ho hum mediocre pitcher. >>
Now you are just being ridiculous. Those are Hall Of Fame years? 17-10? A lousy 14 win season? You are just looking to make trouble with these posts. I am done with them.
<< <i>I am surprised that the poll results are so lopsided. >>
I'm surprised a grown man is as childish as you.
<< <i>It is the Hall of FAME not the Hall of Statistics or Hall of Longevity. Schilling has done plenty that has impressed the voters and his numbers are not a total deterrent to him being elected when he is eligible. His post-season performance combined with some dominant seasons gives him a legitamate chance. >>
But, but, but he didn't play FOR the yankees...how can he possibly be elligible?
1985 24-4 ERA 1.53
1986 17-6
1987 15-7
1988 18-9
1990 19-7
Career 194 112 3.51 ERA
Using the logic I"ve seen then this guy belongs in the Hall also....can you guess who he is??? no fair cheating and looking at the other thread about Guidry....
Hint. He's snorted a lot of "stuff" with his buddy D. Strawberry.
If he gets to 225, 230 wins, I suspect he'll have a great chance of making it.
Sounds like you are talking about Mussina.
Schilling: 3 20 win seasons, Mussina ZERO
Schilling: Strikeout leader twice, second twice, Mussina ONE secone place finish
Schilling: 3.40 ERA for a career, Mussina 3.64
There's no comparison, Schilling has had a more complete and better career.
<< <i>
I am glad you have looked back and found out how ridiculous it is comparing Mussina to Schilling.
If you are pushing for Mussina's induction, you must certainly follow Schilling is worthy too.
<< <i>NO I wasn't talking about Mussina, who never dominated like Schilling did.
Schilling: 3 20 win seasons, Mussina ZERO
Schilling: Strikeout leader twice, second twice, Mussina ONE secone place finish
Schilling: 3.40 ERA for a career, Mussina 3.64
There's no comparison, Schilling has had a more complete and better career. >>
Top 10 ERA: Schilling 9, Mussina 9
Top 10 (W+H)/IP: Schilling 10, Mussina 10
Top 10 K/9IP: Schilling 9, Mussina 9
Top 10 shutouts: Schilling 10, Mussina 11
Top 10 K/W: Schilling 10, Mussina 13
Top 10 Adj. ERA+: Schilling 9, Mussina 9
Career Gold Gloves: Schilling 0, Mussina 6
Career Adj. ERA+: Schilling 128, Mussina 125
Runs saved > average: Schilling 304, Mussina 305
Schilling has a better career ERA because, and only because, he spent more of his career in the DH-less National League. To pick and choose 3 stats and present them as meaningful is either ignorant or obtuse. There is virtually no difference between Schilling and Mussina over the course of their careers; to say there is no comparison is flat out wrong.
<< <i>Schilling has a better career ERA because, and only because, he spent more of his career in the DH-less National League. To pick and choose 3 stats and present them as meaningful is either ignorant or obtuse. There is virtually no difference between Schilling and Mussina over the course of their careers; to say there is no comparison is flat out wrong. >>
Sorry that I looked at the stats that matter, not stuff for stat dorks like you.
Schilling has been more dominant over his career than Mussina, as the raw number of K's and the greater number of 20 win seasons.
Next?
So in that case Schilling is far superior to Mussina.
216-146 WIN-LOSS RECORD
3.46 LIFETIME ERA
3116 STRIKEOUTS
3261 INNINGS
128 CAREER ADJUSTED ERA (ranked 46th all time)
He had 10 years in his relatively short career where he was in the top 10 in ADJ ERA. This is all in addition to having some Strikeout titles, World Series MVP, etc.
The most compelling and comprehensive stat to me is being ranked 46th all-time in adj ERA. That is probably the best single stat to determine how good a pitcher was when taking ballparks and the decade played into account. This and the fact that he has some black ink numbers, World Series MVP, and basically the savior of the Red Sox....that would tip the scales to go ahead and induct him.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
I guess the sentiments for Schilling are growing in his HOF bid. If he does not get in on the first ballot, I think he will still garner something like 50% of the ballots cast.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
Although most people did not think Schilling will get in 4 years ago, I think that sentiment has really changed. He finished his career on a high note and it tipped the scales.
Here is one test question to ask: How does he compare to his peers like David Cone, Dwight Gooden or Mike Mussina. Their numbers are not too dramatically different. They all missed 300 wins. They were all strikeout pitchers (Mussina might have reinvented himself in the latter part of his career).
Johnson, Maddux and Glavine are sure fire HOFers. But there are some bordelines that have to be looked at more closely. I think most will put Schilling above Gooden, Cone and Mussina. However, looking at Cone more closely, you will see Cy Young, multiple 20 win seasons, ranked in the top 30 with total strikeouts, and was a World Series hero for the Yankees on more than one occasion.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
<< <i>I think most will put Schilling above Gooden, Cone and Mussina. However, looking at Cone more closely, you will see Cy Young, multiple 20 win seasons, ranked in the top 30 with total strikeouts, and was a World Series hero for the Yankees on more than one occasion. >>
Cone's lack of durability kills his HOF candidacy. Way too many incomplete seasons - lots of years in single-digit wins, under 200 IP, etc. Only 194 wins total, etc. He was elite for most of his career but missed way too much time.
Tabe