Curt Schilling and the Hall of Fame

[brett]

A pitcher's bat does create value. How it should be judged is a whole separate argument, but it should be.



My basic problem with couting a pitcher's hitting as negative is that the same player could have played in the AL, had to do LESS and at the same time avoided a downgrade.

[Los Bravos]

I think that's going to be Mussina's problem. There's no easy "sound bite" way to pitch his HoF worthiness.".638 winning percentage. Everyone else who is 100 games over .500 is in the Hall of Fame." There's your soundbite.

I share your dismay that Schilling's lack of wins seems to be such a point of contention (and a cursory look at my posts will show that I often defend the stat against the overcorrection that many around here apply to it.)

Mussina pitched well in 1997 playoffs: four starts, 29 innings, only four earned runs. Unfortunately the Orioles did not score against Hershiser or Nagy of Cleveland. Mussina left game three of that ALCS trailing 1-0 after seven and game six tied 0-0 after eight; they lost both.That was some of the most stellar pitching of his career, especially that duel against Hershiser.

His work in Game 7 of the '03 ALCS, restoring order after Clemens left the Yankees behind the proverbial 8 ball and holding the Sox where they were, doesn't get nearly enough praise.

[philkid3]

My basic problem with couting a pitcher's hitting as negative is that the same player could have played in the AL, had to do LESS and at the same time avoided a downgrade.
And that is part of the debate: how do you go about accurately evaluating that? I talked about it some in the post.

[Freakshow]

Jason Schmidt?
Koufax?
Dean Chance?
Bill Doak?
Nolan Ryan?
Bob Buhl?
Gaylord Perry?
Jerry Koosman?
Bob Friend?Lowest OPS+, 500+PA
Cnt Player OPS+ RC BA OBP SLG PA From To
+----+-----------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+
1 Dean Chance -46 11 .066 .113 .069 759 1961 1971
2 Al Benton -41 7 .098 .112 .111 579 1934 1952
3 Ron Kline -39 9 .092 .122 .100 548 1952 1970
4 Bob Buhl -38 12 .089 .129 .091 952 1953 1967
5 Roger Craig -35 10 .085 .146 .089 509 1955 1966
6 Al Leiter -34 13 .085 .142 .102 613 1987 2005
7 John Burkett -34 10 .093 .136 .104 629 1987 2003
8 Bill Hands -33 12 .078 .150 .091 562 1965 1975
9 Pedro Martinez -32 9 .100 .134 .124 502 1992 2008
10 Mike Morgan -31 13 .109 .132 .119 573 1978 2002
11 Dick Ellsworth -30 16 .088 .151 .097 774 1958 1971
12 Sandy Koufax -26 16 .097 .145 .116 858 1955 1966
13 Pedro Astacio -25 20 .133 .146 .146 775 1992 2006
14 Terry Mulholland -25 17 .111 .131 .145 687 1986 2006
15 Bob Veale -24 14 .114 .139 .129 676 1962 1974
16 Preacher Roe -24 13 .110 .161 .119 721 1938 1954
17 Jack Knott -24 11 .120 .169 .127 559 1933 1946
18 Jason Schmidt -23 18 .105 .140 .156 705 1995 2007
19 Clay Kirby -23 11 .098 .157 .109 556 1969 1976
20 Bill Wight -22 13 .115 .160 .127 546 1946 1958
21 Si Johnson -22 17 .123 .147 .131 759 1928 1947
22 Randy Johnson -21 14 .127 .155 .155 663 1988 2008
23 Jack Billingham -21 16 .111 .152 .125 656 1968 1980
24 Vinegar Bend Mize -21 14 .111 .149 .144 570 1952 1962
25 Scott Sanderson -20 16 .097 .150 .137 571 1978 1996 Lowest OPS+, 800+ PA
Cnt Player OPS+ RC BA OBP SLG PA From To
+----+-----------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+
1 Bob Buhl -38 12 .089 .129 .091 952 1953 1967
2 Sandy Koufax -26 16 .097 .145 .116 858 1955 1966
3 Bob Friend -19 33 .121 .150 .144 1297 1951 1966
4 Nolan Ryan -18 21 .110 .148 .134 957 1966 1993
5 Jerry Koosman -17 24 .119 .151 .141 1052 1967 1985
6 Gaylord Perry -10 32 .131 .153 .164 1220 1962 1983
7 Curt Schilling -9 31 .151 .178 .171 901 1988 2007
8 Larry Dierker -9 23 .136 .149 .169 876 1964 1977
9 Bill Doak -9 24 .127 .157 .158 1008 1912 1929
10 Lefty Gomez -7 29 .147 .194 .159 1024 1930 1943
11 Burt Hooton -6 30 .123 .173 .163 913 1971 1985
12 Al Downing -5 21 .127 .169 .160 809 1961 1977
13 Jimmy Ring -5 28 .147 .167 .192 877 1917 1928
14 Tully Sparks -5 22 .114 .171 .144 884 1897 1910
15 Milt Pappas -3 38 .123 .157 .197 1174 1957 1973
16 Danny MacFayden -3 32 .142 .180 .178 1007 1926 1943
17 Bob Groom -3 21 .128 .170 .157 849 1909 1918
18 Case Patten -3 17 .127 .172 .147 810 1901 1908
19 Don Sutton -2 46 .144 .183 .157 1559 1966 1988
20 Steve Rogers -2 34 .138 .195 .152 1045 1973 1985
21 Mickey Lolich -2 32 .110 .215 .121 1017 1963 1979
22 Sam McDowell -2 26 .154 .171 .176 851 1961 1975

[Paul Wendt]

I think you may be looking at something wrong, becuase his career OPS+ is -9, and he was negative most of his careers. Not just way, way below average, but negative. He was a very, very bad hitter, even by OPS+ standards.
No, he is very close to average.

In my career data table covering more than 600 good pitchers (see "Data available") there are 79 with mlb debuts in the 1980s. Only 28 have career OPS+ > 0 and the median is -14 (Saberhagen). That includes relief pitchers and AL pitchers with few or no atbats, almost all below the median.

Instead consider 44 good career pitchers with 1980s debuts and at least 100 plate appearances. The median OPS+ is -7. Schilling and Tewksbury at -9 rank above 19 and below 23 of the other pitchers. Here are the trailers.

career OPS+ (1980s debuts, 100 PA; N=44)
-55 Boyd Dennis
-41 Bedrosian Steve
-34 Burkett John
-34 Leiter Al
-25 Pena Alej
-25 Mulholland Terry

At 200 plate appearances all of the mainly relief and largely relief pitchers drop out (Bedrosian 168, Pena 193). There are 37 pitchers with 1980s debuts and 200 PA in the table. The median OPS+ is slightly greater at -5 (Ramon Martinez). Now Schilling and Tewksbury rank above 14 and below 21 of the others, about 40 percentile. --but the difference between -9 and -5 is trivial. The entire range is -34 to +43, compare -55 to +45 at 100 pa.

career OPS+ (1980s debuts, 200 PA; N=37)
-34 Burkett
-34 Leiter A
-25 Mulholland
-24 Candiotti
-22 Wells
-21 Johnson R

FanGraphs has him at -127.6 weighted runs above average for his career.

I used the runs above replacement available at Baseball Pro[spectus] for Schilling.
The DT cards by Clay Davenport do compare pitchers with replacement-level batters --approximately with their pinch-hitters, not with other pitchers. So he debits almost all of the strongest batting pitchers in history with blowing runs.

Even if you agree that pitcher batting should be compared with league average or league replacement-level batting, there is a big problem with the Davenport measures. If a team replaces its pitchers with pinch-hitters at every opportunity, that would use 16 or 20% of the roster and the average quality of those batters would be much less than he measures. Indeed, by saving one infielder and one catcher for other emergencies, most teams would provide five pinch-hitters only by using other pitchers!

[Paul Wendt]

With 1990s debuts and 200 plate appearances I have only 25 pitcher careers in my table. Any threshold number of plate appearances is more restrictive for this group, so those who qualify may be slightly better pitchers slightly better batters, or both, relative to those qualifiers with 1980s debuts.

The median OPS+ is +2 among 25 pitchers with 200 pa, or -1 among 30 pitchers with 100 pa. The range is -42 to +65 either way. Leader Mike Hampton seems to be an outlier at +65 although there are several younger pitchers with better career records so far.

career OPS+ (1990s debuts, 100 PA; N=30)
-42 Carpenter
-37 Fassero
-32 Martinez Pedro
-25 Astacio
-23 Schmidt


For the 1970s debuts in my table, the median OPS+ is +2 for 35 pitchers with 200 plate appearances, or +1 for 42 pitchers with 100 pa.

These two articles do not cover all pitchers who meet the debut-decade and the career PA threshold. The data table covers only 600+ of the better pitchers, perhaps everyone with 2500 innings, a liberal selection down to 1500 innings, and a conservative selection down to 500 innings.

[Paul Wendt]

I think you may be looking at something wrong, becuase his career OPS+ is -9, and he was negative most of his careers. Not just way, way below average, but negative. He was a very, very bad hitter, even by OPS+ standards.
No, he is very close to average.

In my career data table covering more than 600 good pitchers (see "Data available") there are 79 with mlb debuts in the 1980s. Only 28 have career OPS+ > 0 and the median is -14 (Saberhagen). That includes relief pitchers and AL pitchers with few or no atbats, almost all below the median.

Instead consider 44 good career pitchers with 1980s debuts and at least 100 plate appearances. The median OPS+ is -7. Schilling and Tewksbury at -9 rank above 19 and below 23 of the other pitchers. Here are the trailers.

career OPS+ (1980s debuts, 100 PA; N=44)
-55 Boyd Dennis
-41 Bedrosian Steve
-34 Burkett John
-34 Leiter Al
-25 Pena Alej
-25 Mulholland Terry

At 200 plate appearances all of the mainly relief and largely relief pitchers drop out (Bedrosian 168, Pena 193). There are 37 pitchers with 1980s debuts and 200 PA in the table. The median OPS+ is slightly greater at -5 (Ramon Martinez). Now Schilling and Tewksbury rank above 14 and below 21 of the others, about 40 percentile. --but the difference between -9 and -5 is trivial. The entire range is -34 to +43, compare -55 to +45 at 100 pa.

career OPS+ (1980s debuts, 200 PA; N=37)
-34 Burkett
-34 Leiter A
-25 Mulholland
-24 Candiotti
-22 Wells
-21 Johnson R

FanGraphs has him at -127.6 weighted runs above average for his career.

I used the runs above replacement available at Baseball Pro[spectus] for Schilling.
The DT cards by Clay Davenport do compare pitchers with replacement-level batters --approximately with their pinch-hitters, not with other pitchers. So he debits almost all of the strongest batting pitchers in history with blowing runs.

Even if you agree that pitcher batting should be compared with league average or league replacement-level batting, there is a big problem with the Davenport measures. If a team replaces its pitchers with pinch-hitters at every opportunity, that would use 16 or 20% of the roster and the average quality of those batters would be much less than he measures. Indeed, by saving one infielder and one catcher for other emergencies, most teams would provide five pinch-hitters only by using other pitchers!

[Bravesfan1984]

I kinda on the fence on this one. He has great postseason stats. I would probably say no though he just was not consistant year to year. An example would be in 1993 he has a good seaon and went 16-7 then the next three years he went 2-8, 7-5, 9-10. 10 years of his career he had less then ten wins to me a HOfer needs to be consistant.

[STLCards2]

The DT cards by Clay Davenport do compare pitchers with replacement-level batters --approximately with their pinch-hitters, not with other pitchers. So he debits almost all of the strongest batting pitchers in history with blowing runs.

Even if you agree that pitcher batting should be compared with league average or league replacement-level batting, there is a big problem with the Davenport measures. If a team replaces its pitchers with pinch-hitters at every opportunity, that would use 16 or 20% of the roster and the average quality of those batters would be much less than he measures. Indeed, by saving one infielder and one catcher for other emergencies, most teams would provide five pinch-hitters only by using other pitchers!

Correct - in other words, if runs created above position were convereted into RSAA an applied toERA+, Schilling would lose about 1 ERA+ point- probably a little less. About the same run prevention/creation he gains from playing with slighlty below average defenses.

[philkid3]

No, he is very close to average.
Oh, for a pitcher.

The DT cards by Clay Davenport do compare pitchers with replacement-level batters --approximately with their pinch-hitters, not with other pitchers. So he debits almost all of the strongest batting pitchers in history with blowing runs.
You mistakenly corrected me. I didn't use Baseball Prospectus. I used Baseball Projection (http://baseballprojection.com/); "CHONE" Smith's numbers.

[brett]

I kinda on the fence on this one. He has great postseason stats. I would probably say no though he just was not consistant year to year. An example would be in 1993 he has a good seaon and went 16-7 then the next three years he went 2-8, 7-5, 9-10. 10 years of his career he had less then ten wins to me a HOfer needs to be consistant.

If you look at Schilling's "neutralized" projections, he actually projects to 9 straight seasons with at least 13 wins. That's in an average setting with average defense and offensive support. His top years get washed out a little in neutralization though.

Here's his top 11 qualifying ERA+ years with IP compared to Glavine's:

Schilling
159 (168)
157 (257)
150 (227)
150 (226)
143 (254)
142 (259)
135 (180)
134 (269)
134 (183)
124 (210)
120 (204)

Here's Glavine's
168 (229)
153 (247)
147 (235)
141 (240)
140 (225)
139 (199)
135 (241)
133 (225)
127 (239)
125 (219)

And that's with Glavine getting a significant ERA+ edge on defense over his career.

[STLCards2]

If you look at Schilling's "neutralized" projections, he actually projects to 9 straight seasons with at least 13 wins. That's in an average setting with average defense and offensive support. His top years get washed out a little in neutralization though.

Here's his top 11 qualifying ERA+ years with IP compared to Glavine's:

Schilling
159 (168)
157 (257)
150 (227)
150 (226)
143 (254)
142 (259)
135 (180)
134 (269)
134 (183)
124 (210)
120 (204)

Here's Glavine's
168 (229)
153 (247)
147 (235)
141 (240)
140 (225)
139 (199)
135 (241)
133 (225)
127 (239)
125 (219)

And that's with Glavine getting a significant ERA+ edge on defense over his career.

Yes, Glavine has a net (est.) -50 drop in regards to defensive runs saved compared to Schilling. However, Glavine also has a +40 edge in regards to runs created above position. That leaves Schilling picking up 10 runs, or less than 1 ERA+ point (if runs created were converted into runs prevented) on Glavine- all things considered.

That being said, I woukld still take Schilling over Glavine - even though it is close.

[brett]

Yes, Glavine has a net (est.) -50 drop in regards to defensive runs saved compared to Schilling. However, Glavine also has a +40 edge in regards to runs created above position. That leaves Schilling picking up 10 runs, or less than 1 ERA+ point (if runs created were converted into runs prevented) on Glavine- all things considered.

That being said, I woukld still take Schilling over Glavine - even though it is close.

My main point however is that Schilling's top 11 seasons look like a hall of fame line based on IP and ERA+. His W-L records make him look inconsistent, but his IP and ERA+ are very consistent for a fairly long stretch, and he was a workhorse for his time with 4 250 IP seasons.

How many guys have 11 qualifying seasons with a 120 ERA+, (Pedro has 9; Nolan Ryan had 7) or 5 seasons of 225 IP and 140 or better ERA+ (Robin Roberts had 1; Spahn had 2)?

[STLCards2]

My main point however is that Schilling's top 11 seasons look like a hall of fame line based on IP and ERA+. His W-L records make him look inconsistent, but his IP and ERA+ are very consistent for a fairly long stretch, and he was a workhorse for his time with 4 250 IP seasons.

How many guys have 11 qualifying seasons with a 120 ERA+, (Pedro has 9; Nolan Ryan had 7) or 5 seasons of 225 IP and 140 or better ERA+ (Robin Roberts had 1; Spahn had 2)?

Oh yeah, your main point is dead-on correct. Just unecessarily splitting hairs.:waving

[Paul Wendt]

phil:
You mistakenly corrected me. I didn't use Baseball Prospectus. I used Baseball Projection (http://baseballprojection.com/); "CHONE" Smith's numbers.
OK.
(I will not make any correction above. Given the other replies that are now in place that would only create more confusion.)

The huge negative numbers you provided, and your extreme assertions that Schilling was simply awful at bat, assure me that my remarks pertain to Chone Smith's rating system too. Evidently the benchmark for pitcher batting is league average or league replacement --presumably replacement where the final measure is expressed against a replacement benchmark as the acronym 'WAR' suggests. Either way, the point of reference is roughly the pitcher's typical pinch-hitter rather than the other pitchers in the league or the squad of pinch-hitters who would be utilized if one of them were burned every time through the lineup.

[Paul Wendt]

If you look at Schilling's "neutralized" projections, he actually projects to 9 straight seasons with at least 13 wins. That's in an average setting with average defense and offensive support.
How good is that? It may seem impressive because we don't know anything about the neutralized wins of other pitchers. Maddux earned 15 official wins every season "forever" but who else gets even 13 official wins every year? No one. But there may be others with 13 neutral wins every year for a decade, or 14 every year for nine seasons, better than Schilling either way. We don't know. Nine consecutive at 13 neutral wins isn't enough for me to be sure that that is a special hypothetical achievement.

[Bravesfan1984]

I think if you put Schilling in you have to put Andy Pettite in. They both have the about the same amounts of wins. The thing is Pettite has more top 10 cy placings, a better win percentage and a better postseason record. Pettite has the same amount of wins in 6 less seasons

[philkid3]

I think if you put Schilling in you have to put Andy Pettite in. They both have the about the same amounts of wins. The thing is Pettite has more top 10 cy placings, a better win percentage and a better postseason record. Pettite has the same amount of wins in 6 less seasons
What if you don't know why any of those things should matter in Hall of Fame voting? Do you still have to put Pettitte in?

[Bravesfan1984]

What if you don't know why any of those things should matter in Hall of Fame voting? Do you still have to put Pettitte in?

Pettite is not considered a Hall of Famer right now. Yet he still has better career then Schilling so if Pettite is not a Hall of Famer how can Schilling be?

[SamtheBravesFan]

Pettite is not considered a Hall of Famer right now. Yet he still has better career then Schilling

That asseration itself is laughable. Schilling beats Pettitte career-wise in just about every single important category. Just because Pettite leads in winning percentage and played on four World Series champs doesn't mean he has the better carrer.

[brett]

Pettite is not considered a Hall of Famer right now. Yet he still has better career then Schilling so if Pettite is not a Hall of Famer how can Schilling be?

There's only 10 HOF eligible pitchers with a better career ERA+ than Schilling who are NOT in and none is within 1200 innings of Schilling.

Also, there are no eligible non hall of famers with more innings AND at least a 120 ERA+

(On the other hand, there are very few hall of fame starting pitchers with worse ERA+ AND fewer IP, Gomez, Vance, Cummings, Faber, Lemon, Ward-who hit a lot).

[Cougar]

I think if you put Schilling in you have to put Andy Pettite in. They both have the about the same amounts of wins. The thing is Pettite has more top 10 cy placings, a better win percentage and a better postseason record. Pettite has the same amount of wins in 6 less seasons

Schilling: 19 postseason starts, 133.1 innings, 11-2, 2.23 ERA, 120 K's, 25 BB

Pettitte: 35 postseason starts, 218.1 innings, 14-9, 3.96 ERA, 139 K's, 69 BB

In what Bizarro world does Pettitte have a better postseason record than Schilling?

Look, I like Pettitte...I actually agree he's got a half decent claim to the HOF gray area. And his postseason record is nothing to be ashamed of...it's quite solid.

But this is a ridiculous claim.

------------------------

I think if you put Schilling in you have to put Andy Pettite in. They both have the about the same amounts of wins. The thing is Pettite has more top 10 cy placings, a better win percentage and a better postseason record. Pettite has the same amount of wins in 6 less seasons

Not to mention that Top 10 Cy placements is a ridiculous criteria. Pettitte has 5, Schilling has 4. However, in four of Pettitte's five "Top 10" appearances, his Cy votes basically amount to BBWAA dandruff.

Meanwhile, in Schilling's four "Top 10" appearances, he came in 2nd three times.

The statistic is obviously deceptive on a moment's consideration. The author either knew this and made an intellectually dishonest post, or didn't, and made a patently foolish one.

------------------------

I think if you put Schilling in you have to put Andy Pettite in. They both have the about the same amounts of wins. The thing is Pettite has more top 10 cy placings, a better win percentage and a better postseason record. Pettite has the same amount of wins in 6 less seasons

This one's too easy:

Winning percentage...hmmm, Pettitte pitched for the dynastic Yankees most of his career, while Schilling spent the preponderance of his career on pathetic Phillie teams in the latter part of the 1990's. Might that explain some of the disparity?

And Pettitte has four t's.

A Hall of Shame post, all around.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Upon further consideration, I'm throwing my hat into the ring supporting Schilling's candidacy. Reading all these posts throughout the past few months have swayed me into his camp. Anybody who reads my posts know I'm a small Hall guy, but you all have convinced me Shill belongs. Jalbright, if you care enough to change into the 'yes' camp, please do so by all means.

Schilling is right near the cutoff level for me though.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Pettite is not considered a Hall of Famer right now. Yet he still has better career then Schilling so if Pettite is not a Hall of Famer how can Schilling be?


Schilling has a far higher peak than Pettitte. He's a peak value HOFer if there ever was one.

Schilling's career value isn't the most overwhelming, but his peak is consistent with a number of HOF pitchers. The rest of his career is the background scenery, but Schilling has enough chrome and leather to go with the nuts and bolts of a HOF career.

[STLCards2]

Schilling has a far higher peak than Pettitte. He's a peak value HOFer if there ever was one.

Schilling's career value isn't the most overwhelming, but his peak is consistent with a number of HOF pitchers. The rest of his career is the background scenery, but Schilling has enough chrome and leather to go with the nuts and bolts of a HOF career.

Despite his relatively low IP numbers caused by many partial seasons, Schilling still managed over 320 RSAA (a rather simple, but good starting-out career value tool since it basicaly weighs ERA+ and IP+) - which is in the top 10 since 1957.

Who is ahead? Maddux, Seaver, Blyleven, Clemens, Martinez, Johnson, Gibson and maybe a few others.

Who is behind? Ryan, Perry, Calrton, Glavine, Koufax, Drysdale, Mussina, Glavine, Smoltz, Niekro and everybody else.

Not that it means Schilling is better than these guys, but his career value competes with most of the greats of the past 50 years.

[jalbright]

Upon further consideration, I'm throwing my hat into the ring supporting Schilling's candidacy. Reading all these posts throughout the past few months have swayed me into his camp. Anybody who reads my posts know I'm a small Hall guy, but you all have convinced me Shill belongs. Jalbright, if you care enough to change into the 'yes' camp, please do so by all means.

Schilling is right near the cutoff level for me though.

I have edited the total to reflect your change of heart, but I do not have the ability to change the system's record reflecting who voted for and who voted against.

[jaxxr]

An intersting stat, boosting Schilling, which I hope has not been listed before in this thread, is BR +.

BR +, or Base Runner Plus, the average base runners allowed in relation to one's peers, or above the league average.

Similar to WHIP, but includes batters hit by a pitch, which is another element of which the hurler has considerable influence.
The all time best WHIP average was an amazing .097 by Addie Joss, over a shorter than typical, fine career, Schilling gets a very good 1.14, same as Greg Maddux, Fergie Jenkins, and Bret Saberhagen, being just a fraction poorer than Catfish Hunter.

HOF ( or potential ) starting pitchers ranked by BR +
1 Pedro 133
2 Walter Johnson 123
3 Addie Joss 123
4 Ed Walsh 123
5 CURT SCHILLING 122
6 Cy Young 121
8 Mike Mussina 121
9 Carl Hubbell 120
10 B Saberhagen 120
Next five, Koufax, Clemens, Maddux, Alexander, and M Brown.

Pretty good company for Curt !

[Bravesfan1984]

That asseration itself is laughable. Schilling beats Pettitte career-wise in just about every single important category. Just because Pettite leads in winning percentage and played on four World Series champs doesn't mean he has the better carrer.

I guess you just discarded where I said he had played 6 less seaons and has almost as good numbers

[philkid3]

Pettite is not considered a Hall of Famer right now. Yet he still has better career then Schilling so if Pettite is not a Hall of Famer how can Schilling be?
How on earth has Pettitte had a better career?

[Brad Harris]

I guess you just discarded where I said he had played 6 less seaons and has almost as good numbers
He didn't discard it. You're just dead wrong. Pettitte absolutely does not have "almost as good numbers" as Schilling. It's that simple.

Pettite is not considered a Hall of Famer right now. Yet he still has better career then Schilling so if Pettite is not a Hall of Famer how can Schilling be?
Pettitte has never been considered one of the game's best pitchers. He's been an above average pitcher on great teams who stayed healthy for a long time. Schilling, unlike Pettitte, has almost always been his teams' "ace" and one of the best pitchers in the league (when healthy). In no way does Andy Pettitte have a better case than Schilling. Again, your perception of these players' relative values is just flat wrong.

I think if you put Schilling in you have to put Andy Pettite in. They both have the about the same amounts of wins. The thing is Pettite has more top 10 cy placings, a better win percentage and a better postseason record. Pettite has the same amount of wins in 6 less seasons
Schilling prevented runs better than Pettitte, kepts runners off base better, pitched in front of worse offenses, went deeper into games, was more dominant (both during the regular and post-season), had more MVP votes, was runner-up for the Cy Young Award three times (to Pettitte's one time), was selected to three times as many All-Star Games, earned better salaries (despite not pitching for the Yankees), struck out more over 1,000 batters more than Pettitte (with fewer walks) in spite of starting only 10 more games in his career, won 10 games with 22 saves as a reliever and has generally been regarded throughout his career as a Hall of Fame talent who only needed to stay healthy (as opposed to a good pitcher on great teams).

[The Fine Chi]

As of right now 73% of us are in favor of submission, almost but not quite above the threshold among the Baseball Fever community. If this is any reflection of the sportswriters he should get in within the first 3 years of eligibility at most and he could be first ballot.

I voted yes. He's had a number of huge seasons and suffered from being a teammate of an even better pitcher in Randy Johnson. We shouldn't hold this against him. He was a key player in the two best postseason series of the past 15 years in 2001 and 2004. I think he's worthy of the hall.