schilling hall of fame
jad22
Posts: 535 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
i think so, if you don't like deal with it.
0
Comments
Kevin
I say if he pitches another couple of years, is able to get to 220-230 wins and keeps a .600 winning percentage, throw in the 3 2nd place Cy Young finishes, and likely to finish over 3000 K's, I dont think you can keep him out.
If he can stay healthy, I think he's a lock. The days of the 300 win guys are long gone.
edit to add.. i am not a glavine supporter... but he will get in also. even if he misses 300... but the way he is pitching he looks like 300 will be in reach.
For comparison, here are the average seasons for other Non Hall of Fame, 190+ game winners:
AVERAGE SEASONS
W/L ERA
Schilling 14-9, 3.40 ERA
Stieb 13-10, 3.44 ERA
K. Brown 14-10, 3.28 ERA
Moyer 13-10, 4.16 ERA
D. Wells 14-9, 4.06 ERA
Blyleven 14-12, 3.31 ERA
T. John 13-10, 3.34 ERA
J. Morris 16-11, 3.90 ERA
I think Schilling's a Hall of Famer, but he could really improve his case with a couple more solid seasons.
For instance, Schilling was an OK pitcher in Philly. In AZ, he teamed with Randy Johnson (much more dominant pitcher) to achieve greatness and then went on to Boston. He has had great years later on in his career and this is why people remember him so much and talk extensively about his inclusion into the HOF. They forget about all the previous years.
This is in sharp contrast to Frank Thomas, who had great and dominating years early in his career and became an injured dud later in his career. People only remember the injuries since that is the most recent news reported; thus, his chances for the HOF are now ludicrous to many.
Plus, here we are talking about Bonds not making the HOF because of steroids, but no one mentions that Schilling had to get shot up to be able to play in the WS game. Without drugs, he could not have done what he did. Yet, he is the hero, and the steroid using batters are the cheaters. In both instances, they could not have done what they did without the aid of pharmaceuticals.
I would have to say No for Schilling at this time without several more dominating seasons.
Remember these Chuck Norris Facts
1. When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down
2. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, Chuck Norris can actually roundhouse kick you yesterday
3. There are no such things as lesbians, just women who have not yet met Chuck Norris
If he had won those 3, would those saying no say any differently?
Jeff
Interesting stat: only pitchers with 3000 Ks not in the Hall--Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Bert Blyleven, Greg Maddux.
Forget blocking him; find out where he lives and go punch him in the nuts. --WalterSobchak 9/12/12
Looking for Al Hrabosky and any OPC Dave Campbells (the ESPN guy)
<< <i>Interesting stat: only pitchers with 3000 Ks not in the Hall--Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Bert Blyleven, Greg Maddux. >>
But, they all will be eventually - except maybe for Blyleven. Schilling is a lock for 3000 K's (and he's 15th on the all time strikeout list currently). Given that, you have to say he's not a "borderline" case at all.
But since he is not, the usual suspects line up and slobber over the guy.
I'm sure if he was a yankee we would hear the old " the only way he is getting in the hall is like the rest of us BS"
ok now for my unbiased opinion.
Looking at his stats I do not see him as a shoe in like our resident yankee bashers do.
yes he will have 3000 k's but that no longer is a ticket to the hall.
just ask Blyleven
He does not even have 200 wins as i write this. So why the "no one will win 300" applies here is beyond me.
Now all of a sudden rings count bla bla bla.
You make it too easy axhole. stop talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Steve
<< <i>I wonder if he was a yankee what the replies would have been?
But since he is not, the usual suspects line up and slobber over the guy.
>>
Who's slobbering over the guy? The common sentiment seems to be of those who think he should be in, he needs several more strong years. Schilling has dominated, and could easily have 3 Cy Youngs. But dopes like you can't see through things like that.
<< <i>I'm sure if he was a yankee we would hear the old " the only way he is getting in the hall is like the rest of us BS"
>>
Please show me any pitcher with remotely the same dominance that Schilling has had that's not in the hall. Guidry? hah he had one great year. Moose? Please don't make me laugh.
<< <i>ok now for my unbiased opinion.
>>
How can you possibly say unbiased when all the crapola you stated above? Please.
<< <i>Looking at his stats I do not see him as a shoe in like our resident yankee bashers do.
yes he will have 3000 k's but that no longer is a ticket to the hall.
just ask Blyleven
>>
How many people said he was a shoe in? I think (as I said above) the majority feels he needs more great years to merit induction. And unlike Blyleven, who never dominated, Schilling has.
<< <i>He does not even have 200 wins as i write this. So why the "no one will win 300" applies here is beyond me. >>
Because, you dope, the 300 win barrier is not going to be approached by any more pitchers....250 is going to be the new 300. Maybe if you knew a bit about baseball trends you would know simple facts like this.
<< <i>Now all of a sudden rings count bla bla bla.
You make it too easy axhole. stop talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Steve >>
edit: missed part of this dopes quote.
I didn't say rings counted...please point out where I said they did here?
And you know this how?
Please expand on that.
Please show me any pitcher with remotely the same dominance that Schilling has had that's not in the hall. Guidry? hah he had one great year. Moose? Please don't make me laugh.
Blyleven and Jack Morris. Glavine, Gooden, Cone, Mussina, need more names?
LOL Axhole this was too easy, you fell for it hook line and sinker. Only dope here is you pal, 50 people can't be wrong. Yes 50 people think that you are (no, make that know) you're a schmuck.
you make it too easy.
Edited to add: Why is it you are the only person here that has to resort to name calling? I mean many here also call you names but that is only AFTER you fire the first salvo. Are you that insecure in life, that you have to constantly refer to people as jerks, buffoons, morons, etc? I bet in real life, without the security of the keyboard you really are a timid lil man afraid of his own shadow.
Steve
didn't say rings counted...please point out where I said they did here?
I did not say you did. My reply was not directed soley at you. learn to comprehend properly please. you know like the time Dan said how your mariner pitcher will break the M's record for walks and you come up with Amos Russie's total who by the way played in 1890 or something. not every sentence is directed at you axtell. Unlike you i do reply to others. You seem hell bent on following every word I say.
now go away please.
do what you promised the board so long ago and stop bltchin about everything I say. It is getting old and stale.
<< <i>Blyleven and Jack Morris. Glavine, Gooden, Cone, Mussina, need more names? >>
Uh, Steve - I think you are doing here what you accuse me of doing on the Jeter thread...Schilling is now a Red Sox player, and perhaps for that reason you don't like him. But please - how can you mention those names (I like Glavine however) in the same breath as Schilling? Dwight Gooden??? I'll give him three great seasons with the Mets from 84-86, but that compares to Schilling?
<< <i>
I did not say you did. My reply was not directed soley at you. learn to comprehend properly please.
>>
You said:
<< <i>So why the "no one will win 300" applies here is beyond me.
Now all of a sudden rings count bla bla bla.
You make it too easy axhole. stop talking out of both sides of your mouth >>
So IT WAS DIRECTED AT ME YOU DOPE.
Why don't you learn how to properly comprehend what YOU yourself are posting, you dipsh*t?
<< <i> you know like the time Dan said how your mariner pitcher will break the M's record for walks and you come up with Amos Russie's total who by the way played in 1890 or something. not every sentence is directed at you axtell. Unlike you i do reply to others. You seem hell bent on following every word I say. >>
Well the record is as stands, as I quoted. It doesn't matter when it was set, does it? I am sorry you only want to spin records to back up the things you say. As it were, the guy who holds the record for walks in a year will not be set by a Mariner. I am sorry to disappoint you, you simple minded nitwit.
<< <i>now go away please.
do what you promised the board so long ago and stop bltchin about everything I say. It is getting old and stale. >>
Hmm I seem to remember you making the same promise...yet like always, you lie and spew mistruths. Now, that you've had your ass handed to you yet again, get back under your bed with your pacifier.
<< <i>
And you know this how?
Please expand on that.
>>
Due to the specialty relievers, limited pitch counts, and high priced contracts...pitchers are more protected now than ever before. 300 win pitchers won't be coming around again.
<< <i>
Blyleven and Jack Morris. Glavine, Gooden, Cone, Mussina, need more names?
>>
You are going to compare these guys to Schilling? Mussina couldn't carry his jock, Morris was solid but never dominant. Gooden was great for a year or 2 then fell into drugs, on and on and on.
<< <i>LOL Axhole this was too easy, you fell for it hook line and sinker. Only dope here is you pal, 50 people can't be wrong. Yes 50 people think that you are (no, make that know) you're a schmuck. >>
What are you talking about? Are you drunk posting again as usual? Get a life, you dope.
<< <i>Edited to add: Why is it you are the only person here that has to resort to name calling? I mean many here also call you names but that is only AFTER you fire the first salvo. Are you that insecure in life, that you have to constantly refer to people as jerks, buffoons, morons, etc? I bet in real life, without the security of the keyboard you really are a timid lil man afraid of his own shadow.
Steve >>
I call things like I see them. You are a simple minded twit. You are a moron. Now get lost, simpleton.
<< <i>Q]
But, they all will be eventually - except maybe for Blyleven. Schilling is a lock for 3000 K's (and he's 15th on the all time strikeout list currently). Given that, you have to say he's not a "borderline" case at all. >>
Yet Jeter who is a virtual lock for 3,000 hits gets ripped apart by you CT. And 3,000 hits is no "borderline" case either. No doubt if Schilling was a Yankee you would be pasting some inane article by a writer with an agenda to tear Schilling down too.
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
How soon we forget.
was that not you that 50 people (polled) called the worst poster on the boards?
That wa sa nice way for many of them to say in effect that you are a jerk.
name calling will get you no where axtell. Lil timid man with insecurities such as you are the true dopes.
Steve
That scenario has been going on for the past 20 years or so and 2 guys have achieved it. a few more are on the cusp. please do not imply things that you have no idea about. a 300 game winner will most assuredly happen again.
Steve
Please tell me what pitchers you see as potential 300 game winners...after Maddux achieved it, I don't see any pitchers coming close.
Steve
But then, he started pitching back in 1987, and was able to run up a lot of wins with the Braves.
Jery
Gooden as late as 1990 was a 19 game winner. his career looks awfully like Schillings.
Gooden had more then 3 good years.
I am glad you finally admitted to being biased against new york clubs, yes i was doing exactly what you weredoing in the jeter thread. In reality, I feel the guy falls short, like Gooden and the names I mentioned. I like Schilling as a pitcher. where he plays is of no consequence to me. I just figured that what was good for the goose was good for the gander. I guess you now see what you were doing and how others percieved it? or you knew it all along. It was simply anti new york bashing on your part?
Axtell no one can tell the future. guys like Dontrelle Willis could win 300 games. To say it will never happen again is just not right. yes you can have an opinion that it may or may not happen but to claim it with certainty is wrong.
Now I hope you can see that my entire post was not directed at you. I have broke it down into parts just to make sure that you understand what is directed at you and what is not
In the past I have answered to many and referred to you only causing you to have a nervous breakdown of sorts.
my comment regarding the rings was directed at the person that made the statement. I thought (wrongly) that you would only interpret those statements that you made that were being rebutted. It seems that a person needs a legal secretary when speaking to you.
Regards,
Steve
<< <i>
Now I hope you can see that my entire post was not directed at you. I have broke it down into parts just to make sure that you understand what is directed at you and what is not
>>
When you sandwhich a statement in between 2 things directed at me, how exactly am I supposed to read that? I thnk anyone reading that with knowledge of the history of the posts would think you directed it at me. Perhaps a little different arranging of the statements would make it clearer for all.
<< <i>In the past I have answered to many and referred to you only causing you to have a nervous breakdown of sorts.
my comment regarding the rings was directed at the person that made the statement. I thought (wrongly) that you would only interpret those statements that you made that were being rebutted. It seems that a person needs a legal secretary when speaking to you.
Regards,
Steve >>
Please, when you make a 3 line statement, with lines 1 and 3 directed at me, how am I supposed to not assume line 2 isn't? Perhaps if you had a more complete grasp of how to make an argument, things would be much clearer for all.
I would never say never, but Ax may be right that, after Glavine, there may never be another 300-game winner.
<< <i>I would bet money (not a large sum, mind you) that Glavine will crack 300 wins. He's basically been free of arm trouble and his delivery is so fundamentally sound that he could pitch until he is 45. He's been lights out this year too. His ERA is under 2.00.
I would never say never, but Ax may be right that, after Glavine, there may never be another 300-game winner. >>
Glavine has an outside chance, but after him, I can't see anyone even coming close. Too many fragile pitchers, too many over cautious (and not cautious) enough managers, too much money at stake to let pitchers go much over 100 pitch counts very often.
How often are pitchers in the last 5 years winning 20 every year?
Hint to Einstein axtell. maybe if you did not say it?
maybe if the person above or below you did?
You are so smart even you should know what you say or did not say.
That is how.
Steve
Admit it, you got caught being wrong.
<< <i>
<< <i>Q]
But, they all will be eventually - except maybe for Blyleven. Schilling is a lock for 3000 K's (and he's 15th on the all time strikeout list currently). Given that, you have to say he's not a "borderline" case at all. >>
Yet Jeter who is a virtual lock for 3,000 hits gets ripped apart by you CT. And 3,000 hits is no "borderline" case either. No doubt if Schilling was a Yankee you would be pasting some inane article by a writer with an agenda to tear Schilling down too.
Actually, I wasn't ripping Jeter for his 3,000 hit potential, but for the other aspects of his game and career that cause him to be hyped beyond reality (this mysterious infatuation with "intangibles" and his poor fielding, for example).
<< <i> I am glad you finally admitted to being biased against new york clubs, yes i was doing exactly what you weredoing in the jeter thread. In reality, I feel the guy falls short, like Gooden and the names I mentioned. I like Schilling as a pitcher. where he plays is of no consequence to me. I just figured that what was good for the goose was good for the gander. I guess you now see what you were doing and how others percieved it? or you knew it all along. It was simply anti new york bashing on your part? >>
I am not admitting any such thing, just saying that you accused me of it - and I felt you were doing the same thing here. I am not biased against NY clubs (I like the Mets to some degree, for example) but as a Red Sox fan it's pretty tough to like the Yankees. However, I can still accept and realize when a Yankee player does something good, or achieves something good. I will not hate the player just because of his uniform - as you said, where he plays is of no consequence to me from a player standpoint. My arguments regarding Schilling here and Jeter on the other thread are the same regardless if they switched uniforms tommorrow.
I did not minimise what schilling has done in his career?
Ok I'll buy that.
I think maybe it is best to just humour some of you here and agree. yeah thats it .... I agree jeter is over rated, a poor fielder that has meager power and does not deserve the rings he has as the team would have won them with or without him. That about sum up our feelings on that issue?
because if not, I agree with this:
So then, Jeter is:
- a hitter with average power and offensive stats that are rarely considered exceptional
- an average to below average fielder, who isn't even the best player at his position on his very own team
- a byproduct of being on the Yankee teams that won several WS in the late 90's, which would have happened with or without him
- compiling a nice resume of stats, because he has stayed healthy and in a productive lineup for 10+ years
Can't you see why his name was the first one to come to mind (with many of us) when the title to this thread is read?
I still would like to know who "many of us are" at the time it was 3 people out of 20 or so. I guess that can be construed as many. I mean you could say the sky is green and your buddy would agree with you.
...and just so I can say i stayed on topic, I also further agree regarding Schilling. he is a first ballot HOF'r.
and I felt you were doing the same thing here
is that because you were in fact doing it as well?
Steve
David Cone and Dwight Gooden were both dominant pitchers as well and most people agree that it just was not enough years. Unfortunately, both Gooden and Cone were not at their best in the latter part of their careers, so those are what people remember the most.
Schilling is showing a recent resurgence and that has made it possible for people to think of him in a positive light with momentum to Cooperstown.
I am pulling for Schilling but he needs this year to be a dominating one to starting talking about his credentials. I am surprised Cone does not get any more support.
As for the argument that the era of 300 game winners is over is a bit short sighted. There will be new techniques methods in the future that will extend athletic longevity. Anti-aging technology is growing exponentially. People said there will be no more 300 game winners ever since Niekro got his. However, we have seen both Clemens and Maddux go well over that mark since then.
Glavine could most likely make it. He does not have arm troubles and is a finesse pitcher--so its hard to bet against him. His injury rate is extremely low. I think he faltered with the Mets the first two years is because he was without Leo Mazzone. People underestimate what he has done. However, Glavine is a smart pitcher and he is finding his groove right now again. Realistically, he can get 15-20 wins this year. He is in very good shape to pitch effectively next year too. 25 wins can be done.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee