Curt Schilling a Hall of Famer?
TheVon
Posts: 2,725 ✭
in Sports Talk
I just read that Curt Schilling has decided to keep pitching beyond 2007. It sounds like he may want to pitch a few more years and would eventually even consider the sort of schedule that Roger Clemens had last year. That got me started wondering about Schilling's legacy. If he pitches two or three more years and wins about 15 games each year, do you think that would make him a good candidate for the Hall of Fame?
He's had some pretty anemic years (such as 94-96 when he won a total of 18 games), but he's also had some outstanding seasons including 3 seasons with more than 20 wins and 8 seasons with 15 or more wins. He's already accumulated over 3000 strikeouts and he's shown true guts in the post season . . . on the other hand, he's really yet to put up the kind of dominating numbers over the long term that other contemporary pitchers such as Clemens, Johnson and Maddox have.
He's had some pretty anemic years (such as 94-96 when he won a total of 18 games), but he's also had some outstanding seasons including 3 seasons with more than 20 wins and 8 seasons with 15 or more wins. He's already accumulated over 3000 strikeouts and he's shown true guts in the post season . . . on the other hand, he's really yet to put up the kind of dominating numbers over the long term that other contemporary pitchers such as Clemens, Johnson and Maddox have.
0
Comments
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
However, he will forever be a part of Red Sox lore. He could retire today and never have to purchase a drink or dinner in Boston ever again
<< <i>Great career, motivator, and outstanding performances in the World Series but I wouldn't consider him a HOFer.
However, he will forever be a part of Red Sox lore. He could retire today and never have to purchase a drink or dinner in Boston ever again
Agreed, if it was up to Me I would retire his Red Sox # but dont think he is a HOF'er
Now, I'm not so sure. He doesn't have the numbers, but I've heard several sports writers say that it's not about numbers these days because the sport has evolved and it's very difficult for a pitcher to get the same numbers that pitchers of yesteryear could accumulate. I really think he's borderline and it all depends on how he exits the game. If he leaves strong, I think his chances are really good. If he leaves the game looking like a pitcher who is just hanging on, I don't think he'll get in.
Early this morning, he announced on WEEI that will not retire and will return in 2008 after his final year with the Red Sox. Whether he will still be on the team, that is still a question mark, but he will be back.
I think Roger Clemens has really blazed a trail here with these half-season options. I think it can really extend the careers of a lot of older pitchers who can still pitch strong, but no longer have the full-season endurance of a younger body.
Schilling contemporaries.....
Clemens 627
Maddux 477
Pedro 425
Unit 397
Smoltz 317
Schilling 311
Moose 298
Glavine 291
Brown 237
Cone 201
Pettite 144
Wells 131
Some up and comers who are already flying high...
Oswalt 166
Johan 156
Halladay 112 (which includes a whopping negative 47 he got early on one season!)
Clearly the top four guys are the cream of the crop. THe next four are almost indistinguishable in value for hte Hall of Merit. The Hall of Fame gives big boosts to Schilling, Glavine, and Smoltz...not quite as much for Mussina.
Since the Hall of Fame is a strange entitty, it is tough to debate. THe Hall of Merit is very accurate. Unlike the proponents we hear for other players, Schilling actually has a case for the Hall of Fame, and his is based on Merit as much as fame. It is simply a matter now if one wants the second group of four to be inducted(after the four biggies are in).
There is still time to play of course, but Schilling, Glavine, and Smoltz will all end up being Hall of Famers, and have enough evidence to merit their induction.
About Brown and Cone. How much distance do they have between them and the next group of Glavine, Smoltz, Schilling and Mussina?
Cone has a lot of fame. He was a big game pitcher and did well under pressure. How far away is he merit wise. Besides the 8 great, only Brown is above him? I suspect you left out some names only to make the list shorter. I am sure Dwight Gooden would be up there with Cone and Wells.
Nice job with the analysis!
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
Yes, that is an abbreviated list, though I don't think there is anybody missing between Brown and the group above him. Brown was pretty darn good for a bit there.
Bret Saberhagen is a guy from Schilling's time(though he has his prime years in the tougher era to separate from league average).
Saberhagen 241
Key 200
There might be more guys near the 200 mark, but I don't think there would be many missing above Brown.
The thing to remember about Schilling's close knit group is that they are still going.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
A few more great seasons will not hurt him, but if he retired now, I say it will still be hard not to consider him.
Tom Glavine looks to get 300 wins this year and once he does, he becomes a shoe in. Mussina ranks right up there with those guys and I think he is the one guy that has been overlooked the most out of that foursome.
People are use to traditional stats, and that is why Saberhagen does not get enough notoriety even though he competed mostly in a tougher era and is ranked just behind the borderline HOF foursome:Schilling, Smoltz, Glavine, Mussina.
I guess Cone had to have been better than Saberhagen and Brown to have a shot at the HOF. However, Cone had a lot of intangibles. He was a WS hero for the Yankees and pitched them into the playoffs during his first season there as a "hired gun." He certainly has a lot of fame to go on his side. For some reason, Brown was not as likeable as Cone in NY. I heard of too many complaints about Brown, and none about Cone. What if Jim Abbott had the stats of a Kevin Brown? I think many people would then want him in the HOF.
Schilling has that special something to him as well. That gutsy move in the WS is simply legendary. So, if he is considered a borderline HOF based on merit, I guess you can elect him in because of the intangibles carrying him over the top.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
Arguments for Schilling as of today:
He is one of only 15 pitchers in the history of the game to acheive 3000 career strikeouts. Shoe-in right there. Every single one of those 15 is in the hall of fame (except Blyeven, who belongs in the hall) or is still playing. BAM!
He has won 20 or more games 3 times. Who else has done that and managed to avoid the hall of fame?
A career ERA of 3.4 in the homerun era--several points below the league average.
82 complete games in an era where nobody completes their games-- as of 2005, he had completed 20% of the games he started during his career. That's a higher percentage than any other active pitcher.
He had 3 seasons of 300+ strikeouts. An amazing feat which puts him with greats like Ryan, Johnson, and Koufax.
Led the major leagues in starts twice, in innings pitched twice, in wins twice, and in strikeouts once.
NLCS MVP, and World Series MVP. Memorable as a member of the game's most dominant pitching duo since the 1960's--he and Johnson in Arizona--a short but effective run.
Now, lately his performance seems to be faltering. But if he pads his career numbers with a few more seasons, I don't see how you can deny him HOF entry. He won't win 300 games, but the first 5 years of his career he was pitching relief.
<< <i>Real Quick. If you want to know the true value of the pitcher, check his Pitchers Runs Above Average. It accounts for his effectiveness(ERA), and incorporates his total value with his IP. This measurement really only has true worth for pitchers in the same era...it needs a BIG adjustment for cross era comparisons.
Schilling contemporaries.....
Clemens 627
Maddux 477
Pedro 425
Unit 397
Smoltz 317
Schilling 311
Moose 298
Glavine 291
Brown 237
Cone 201
Pettite 144
Wells 131
Some up and comers who are already flying high...
Oswalt 166
Johan 156
Halladay 112 (which includes a whopping negative 47 he got early on one season!)
Clearly the top four guys are the cream of the crop. THe next four are almost indistinguishable in value for hte Hall of Merit. The Hall of Fame gives big boosts to Schilling, Glavine, and Smoltz...not quite as much for Mussina.
Since the Hall of Fame is a strange entitty, it is tough to debate. THe Hall of Merit is very accurate. Unlike the proponents we hear for other players, Schilling actually has a case for the Hall of Fame, and his is based on Merit as much as fame. It is simply a matter now if one wants the second group of four to be inducted(after the four biggies are in).
There is still time to play of course, but Schilling, Glavine, and Smoltz will all end up being Hall of Famers, and have enough evidence to merit their induction. >>
Skinpinch,
Mussina has a higher number than Glavine. What are you referring to that gives the other three a hall of fame boost but not him?
Assuming he has a couple more very good seasons (and now that he's healthy, there's nothing to say he won't) he will easily make the hall.
"he is at best a semi-star"
lol. really? so he ranks right up there with... charles nagy lol.
IMO I feel both are HOF's
500 homers.....nevermind
Steve
<< <i>I am a Phillies fan, and I've always thought Schilling's chances of being a HOF-er were hurt because he pitched for them. It may be only my impression, but it seemed like they didn't give him much run support. One year (1996?) he had a pretty decent ERA, but he still went 9-10. >>
Absolutely. Curt spent his first 5 years in relief. He spent many years with the Phillies and his wins/losses suffered as a result. His greatest years were spent with the greatest teams -- Diamondbacks and BoSox. His numbers are simply too great to keep him out of the hall. If he had pitched in the 1960's he'd be average. Come on, in the modern era he's an ace--no doubt about it.
<< <i>No reason that Schilling is a first ballot HOF'er. Blyleven should be in front of him, as well as other veterans. He may get it, but he is just a semi star in today's game with some longevity. >>
Blyleven didn't pitch in the steroid-era. Kaat didn't pitch in the steroid era. Yet, both belong in the hall. So does Schilling. There is no reason why all 3 can't make it. I think maybe the voters aren't paying any attention to stats when they vote--the fact that Blyleven isn't in is testament to that fact. His career numbers are more than enough for the hall, but he played for some pretty rotten teams too which would justify his admittance even if his numbers weren't up to snuff, but they are! He's 5th on the all-time list of strikeout leaders, wedged between Carlton and Seaver! 60 career shutouts, are you kidding me!? The list of people who've shutout more games than Burt can be counted on 2 hands... Mathewson, Cy Young, Pete Alexander, Nolan Ryan, Spahn, Seaver... and then there's Blyleven. Wha? 287 career wins! A 3.31 career ERA, which for any modern day pitcher to have in any given year would be a "career season".
Joe Torre is in the public eye years after retiring from an excellent career. He did well as manager. I think the veterans will vote for him this time around.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
He has had some superb seasons, real dominating ones plus some legendary Post-Season moments, he is clearly not just a semi-star.
He had some good, but tough seasons with awful Phillies teams.
three Cy Young caliber seasons, 3 years with 300+ strikeouts, has over 3000 K's. Definitely one of the games feared pitchers, without a doubt a superstar. The numbers support it.
Finished 2nd in the voting 3 times for Cy Young, top 10 in MVP twice too, six all star selections. NLCS MVP, World Series MVP.