Curt Schilling and the Hall of Fame [Archive]

seaphil

01-11-2003, 04:40 PM

For many years, Curt Schilling has been my favorite pitcher. In my opinion, there is not a better big-game guy active today. However, while he is undeniably one of the premier hurlers of his era, his career numbers will be severely hurt by the fact that he lost parts of five different seasons due to injury between the ages of 27 and 34. It didn't help either that, except for 1993, he played on losing Phillie ballclubs. However, he may be a late-bloomer, and he might buck the odds and keep performing at the level he's currently at for more than just the next couple of years. If he could average 16 victories a year for the next five years (very possible so long as he stays healthy), he'd end up with about 235 victories. Will that be good enough to get him in? Not by itself, but maybe with enough other credentials, he'll slip in. One of his more solid credentials will be his career strikeout total, which will have climbed past 3,000 before he's done (he's currently at 2348). Another thing that can only help his chances is his post-season performance. Before he was co-MVP of the 2001 World Series, he was MVP of the Phils' triumphant NLCS over the Braves in '93. He's 5-1 in 6 post-season series. If he makes it to another Fall Classic or two, his Cooperstown fate could become assured. Memorable WS moments can go a long way towards being remembered years later. Nonetheless, barring a run of three or four more 20-win/300 strikeout seasons, he'll probably be a borderline candidate along the lines of a Don Drysdale or Jim Bunning.

What do people think? Does my man Curt have what it takes to join the immortals in Cooperstown someday?

scott4_Dallas

01-11-2003, 07:36 PM

I'd say he has virtually no chance. But if he could put together 5 straight years of 20 wins I'd reconsider.

seaphil

01-11-2003, 07:45 PM

Well, two down- three to go.

scott4_Dallas

01-11-2003, 08:47 PM

I meant 5 ADDITIONAL YEARS of 20 Wins

Schilling has won 15 games 6 times in his career. Two of those years he won 20 games. Just not HOF material.

But that's no reason for him not to be your favorite player:)

Drysdale is an iffy HOF at best - he also won 15 games 6 times but the big difference is that he had 12 straight years (only pitched 14) of double digit wins. Remember that the Dodgers weren't exactly setting the world on fire when it came to scoring runs. Drysdale had 49 career shutouts, almost 25% of his win total.

I would rank Drysdale ahead of Schilling by a good margin. Schilling can make up ground in the next 3-5 years if he can keep it going.

seaphil

01-11-2003, 09:27 PM

Well, he's almost certain to get over 3,000 K's by the time he's done, which used to mean almost automatic induction, but that might not be the case anymore, as Bert Blyleven prooves. As far as the Drysdale comparison goes, you make a good point about the shutouts, but it's tough to compare someone from DD's era and someone today in that catagory because there are so many fewer complete games. Also, Drysdale was more consistent, but Schill will have been around quite a bit longer, for what that's worth. I think that in the end, all those injuries through the mid-90's will have shot his chances.

Brad Harris

01-12-2003, 09:51 AM

Schilling will be 36 on Opening Day.

Let's assume he's got five years left (ages 36-40).

Let's further assume that the next five years will average out to the same as his career averages to date (which is a BIG assumption, given his age and injury history.) But let's assume...

Looking at those measurements by which voters tend to judge Hall of Fame credentials -

Wins
Schilling has a 155-108 career record through 2002. He has averaged a 14-9 record each year, which means an additional 70 wins. If he maintains his career average for the next 5 years, we're looking at something in the neighborhood of a 225-158 (.587) lifetime record.

Good, but not great. It certainly doesn't come anywhere near an "automatic" selection. Nonetheless, I think Schilling will need to surpass 200 wins at least in order to receive serious consideration.

Earned Run Average
Schilling's career ERA of 3.36 may not seem "Hall of Fame" caliber, but considering that, over the same timeframe, the league ERA has been 4.27, Schilling's ERA is very impressive. Unfortunately, other than the occasionally crude estimation by this or that individual, the voters don't really bother to make such distinctions.

This is why Wes Ferrell has ZERO chance of ever being elected, unless the Veterans Committee were composed solely of SABR members.

Nonetheless, Schilling's ERA+ of 127 in 2,418 innings of work is extremely impressive. Short of legendary proportions - Randy Johnson's ERA+, for example, is 144 - but very, very good, nonetheless.

While some voters will think Schilling's ERA is a big plus, most will just see 3.36 (or likely higher) and think "no big deal."

Strikeouts
Schilling has 2,348 strikeouts at present and has averaged 215 per season, meaning he's likely to wind up with around 3,423 strikeouts.

Someone mentioned Blyleven's lack of support among Hall voters, despite his high career totals. Schilling has one thing going for him that Blyleven does not, some extremely impressive peak seasons. Blyleven's argument is in his consistency, Schilling's is in his best seasons. Players with peak performances tend to receive more attention because they are, by nature, better remembered.

Even more impressive, perhaps, is the fact that Schilling is averaging better than a strikeout per inning over the course of his career, something only two retired players (Nolan Ryan and Sandy Koufax) have ever done. That fact, may of course, be mentioned as trivia for a guy like Schilling when his turn comes to be considered, but it isn't likely to be as much considered as his career total.

"Jamesian" Measurements
For those who've read The Politics of Glory, or are familiar with its subject matter and some of the tools James presented in the book, here are Schilling's scores by those means:

Black Ink Test - 33 (avg. Hall of Famer rates 40)
Gray Ink Test - 153 (avg. Hall of Famer rates 185)
Hall of Fame Standards - 35 (avg. Hall of Famer rates 50)
Hall of Fame Monitor - 122 (100+ indicates likely Hall of Famer)

Given another two years of league-leading type performance out of the next five, Schilling ought to be in solid Hall of Fame territory among these measurements. He's past the marginal point already, but still has a way to go to be a "solid" candidate.

The Hall Monitor, in my opinion, is the weakest of the four tools.

The problem with Schilling, as a candidate

Schilling is a very, good (perhaps great) pitcher. He's got three things going against him, however, that I believe will keep him out of the Hall unless his performance from age 36-40 mirrors (or improves on) that of his performance from age 31-35.

1. Schilling's best selling points (strikeout rate, WHIP, ERA relative to league average, "Jamesian" Hall of Fame measurements like the Black Ink Test, Hall of Fame Monitor, etc.) aren't things a vast majority of the voters bother to consider or put much stock in.

Voters tend to look primarily at career totals and annual awards. Something Schilling has, unfortunately, fallen short in.

2. Schilling has only pitched as many as 120 innings in 9 of his 15 seasons. His injury history hurts his career numbers to date to a great extent and, worse, makes it more likely that his body won't hold up another five years, like it has these past five.

3. Schilling has only appeared in five all-star games, has never won a Cy Young Award (and only placed in the top ten thrice), has never won an MVP (finished 10th twice) and is vastly overshadowed by an overqualified Hall of Famer, Randy Johnson, who has won the Cy Young Award each year Schilling has been his teammate.

Not fair, perhaps? But those are the kinds of things that stand out in a voters' mind. Those or a historically impressive season (like Bob Gibson's 1968, Steve Carlton's 1972, Ron Guidry's 1978, etc.) Schilling may have had some great seasons (including last year), but none of them are memorable in the same way that...say, Dwight Gooden's 1985 or Fernando Valenzuela's 1981 was memorable.

Furthermore, since it was mentioned, Schilling's masterful post-season appearances don't amount to much. Don Larsen isn't in the Hall of Fame, after all. Any effect they might have anyway has been minimized by the fact his only World Championship came as the #2 starter on a staff with Randy Johnson. Another unfair observation, but "co" MVPs just aren't as well remembered. (Ask Steve Yeager.)

In the end, Schilling really needs five, productive, healthy seasons before he hangs it up and I'm not sure that will be enough unless the voters wise up and begin doing their research a little better.

After all, he'll be at the mercy of the same people who gave Ryne Sandberg less than half the votes.
:hp

The Commissioner

01-12-2003, 09:11 PM

The keys for Schilling to have any chance of making it are going to be to get over 200 wins and to keep that ERA down. Right now he's at 3.36 and since he's improved on that for the past couple of seasons a lot of people are assuming he can continue to maintain that over the next several years as well. However, the problem is, that it wouldn't be too difficult for him to raise it over 3.40. That obviously isn't too much of a difference, but I'm afarid on paper that just looks an awful lot worse. If he can have a few more seasons where he can continue to dominate, winds up with 200+ wins, 3000+ strikeouts, and a reasonable ERA there isn't any reason why he shouldn't go into the Hall. That's just a lot of "if"s to assume at this point.

J W

01-12-2003, 10:46 PM

This is one guy Scott4 and I agree on. Schill needs to keep it up and get to 200 wins while pitching at a high level. This is the same problem for Orel Hershiser, and how many other pitchers out there? Just not enough great, or merely very good, seasons.

On one hand, in today's game, I'd equate 17 wins for a starting pitcher with 20 wins before the "bullpen-crazy" era.

On the other hand, Curt is one of the handful of pitchers left in the game who routinely goes 8-9 innings. So, his win total won't be driven down as much by blown saves.

Gut feeling, I think he'll get to 200 wins and then retire... and then hope for the best. Only then will he be comparable to Drysdale, who in my book is a HOFer but borderline--quite a different book than Scott's, but nonetheless...

Brad Harris

01-13-2003, 11:52 AM

Schilling's contract expires after 2003, I believe, which would give him some options in where he pitches. If he's willing to take less money in exchange for an ideal situation, that would certainly help his chances for a plaque in Cooperstown.

I would think Schilling's best options would be with either the Dodgers, Giants or Mariners - all three of which play in parks that are favorable to pitchers (maintaining a low ERA) and all three of which are competitive ballclubs (maintaining high win totals).

If he stays in Arizona, his win totals will slowly dwindle, while his ERA rises like the heat on the desert sands.

rockin500

01-16-2003, 04:31 PM

i dont think he gets in. realistically, i think 250 is the amount of wins a pitcher really needs. he wont stick around long enough for that.

ted_cogswell

09-22-2004, 01:31 PM

A few years ago it seemed pretty improbable that Curt Schilling would find himself anywhere near the HOF because of all of his injuries and the fact that he was a late bloomer- he just didn't seem to have the career numbers to get in. However, as he nears the completion of a 20+ win season in '04 it's time to revisit his credentials.

If he can win 20 again in '05, he'll be over 200 wins. More importantly, he's on pace to pass 3,000 K's in late '05 or early '06. His post-season record is stellar, and if he can help carry Boston into the World Series this year, his reputation as one of the all-time big game pitchers will be even more solid.

I don't know how many wins he'll finish with, he's already surpassed anyone's best expectations over the last few years, but he's real close to pushing himself over the bubble if you ask me.

Cougar

09-22-2004, 01:48 PM

dgarza

09-22-2004, 02:49 PM

I just looked at his HOF Monitor and it scared me. 127? and that was from '03.

"Drysdale-Hunter-Bunning" type maybe, but it seems odd that this is level a pitcher is working at after 17 years. Maybe if he peaks and doesn't let himself slide downhill at all, he will have his bast shot.

Cougar

09-22-2004, 03:03 PM

"Drysdale-Hunter-Bunning" type maybe, but it seems odd that this is level a pitcher is working at after 17 years.

The reason is that so many of those 17 seasons were abbrieviated by the slow start to his career and the many injuries. He really only pitched two complete seasons before age 30.

dgarza

09-22-2004, 03:09 PM

The reason is that so many of those 17 seasons were abbrieviated by the slow start to his career and the many injuries. He really only pitched two complete seasons before age 30.
I'm counting 3-4 complete seasons, but still, yes, late and slow start.

Cougar

09-22-2004, 03:15 PM

I was calling it 200 innings; one year he had 180-something, so that's probably "full" too.

I agree, though, that this is a distinction without a difference.

dgarza

09-23-2004, 07:16 AM

I was calling it 200 innings; one year he had 180-something, so that's probably "full" too.

I agree, though, that this is a distinction without a difference.
Well, he also started off in relief, too, full time. This "indecisive" career path hurt him, too. Eck also pitched his way into the Hall in his mid 30s.

Cougar

09-23-2004, 07:52 AM

You could call it relief; my recollection is it was more a case of his being a starter who hadn't cracked the rotation yet, so if he were going to pitch at all it would have to be in relief.

He was certainly a full-time starter once he got going in Philadelphia.

dgarza

09-23-2004, 07:53 AM

pretorius

09-23-2004, 11:58 PM

I think Schilling will play himself into the hall. When I look at Schilling I think he is cut in that Nolan Ryan, Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson high k power pitcher mode. I think Schilling can and will remain a dominant pitcher into his 40's just like the pitchers I mentioned above. I think he has 3 to 4 really good years left in him and during these years he will average 15 wins and 200 k's. That type of average over a three year stand would put him at 225-230 wins and at 3,300-3,350 k's. I would say that should get him in the hall.

Eastvanmungo

09-24-2004, 04:57 PM

I think he's rapidly working his way to a Drysdale-Hunter-Bunning quality candidacy. He'll get 3000 K's, he'll need 200 wins and either an elusive CY (looks like another 2nd for him this year) or another signature "moment" (WS heroics, a perfect game, etc.)
I wouldn't count on a second CY this year, considering the way Santana has been pitching.

But to answer your question, I think another year or two like this one, and maybe another good WS showing could quite easily vault him into the HOF

MudvilleMike

10-25-2004, 08:02 PM

If Boston wins the World Series, Schilling should go in the Hall of Fame as a Red Sox. 100 years from now people will still talk about how he brought a championship to Boston after 86 years of suffering.

Fire away!

Captain Cold Nose

10-26-2004, 05:42 AM

Schilling is still short of the mark when it comes to the Hall of Fame. If he plays another 3-4 years and posts numbers that will put him as hall-worthy while playing for Boston, then, yes.

But, right now, he is not a Hall of Famer. His career numbers would not warrant it.

give_it_a_ride

10-28-2004, 02:16 AM

Schilling is a Hall of Famer in my book. The only thing you could have against him is his number of wins, which is more affected by how his offense does then his own performance. The only reason he didn't win 2 Cy Youngs because Randy Johnson, soon-to-be voted 11th greatest pitcher of all time, was taking them all. He has the same ERA+ as Sandy Koufax with 500 more innings, and a tremendous postseason reputation. Also, being remembered as the leader of the now legendary 2004 Red Sox will definitely help his HOF case. His performances in the 2001 and 1993 seasons definitely don't hurt either.

For those who look for domination, he doesn't really have any year that astounds you, as his 2001 season was his highest ERA+ with 154. But, in 2001 he had one of the greatest runs by a pitcher ever, going 4-0 with a microscopic 0.12 ERA and 56 strikeouts in 48 1/3 innings. If that's not domination, I don't know what is.

So basically, you have a pitcher who is in top 40 ERA+, top 10 in wins among active players, top 10 in innings among active players, top 20 in K's all-time, 2nd among active players in WHIP, top 40 in black ink, top 50 in grey ink, and is one of the top 5 pitchers in Postseason/World Series history. I say we have a Hall of Famer on our hands.

ElHalo

10-28-2004, 06:14 PM

I think Similarity Scores are a good way to look at Schilling.

Schilling's ten most similar pitchers:

Jimmy Key
David Cone
John Candelaria
Dave McNally
Bret Saberhagen
Mike Cueller
Mike Mussina
Dazzy Vance
Art Nehf
Dwight Gooden

Only one of those guys is in the HoF, and none of the others are likely additions. He does still have time, though. But he's having ankle surgery, and missed most of last season due to injury... not good signs for a 38 year old pitcher. I don't see it.

DoubleX

10-29-2004, 08:43 AM

Ok Sox fans...

If Schilling should wear a Red Sox cap in the Hall of Fame, should Roger Clemens wear a Yankees cap?

Also, it's not like Schilling was ever a World Series MVP on a different team and had the best seasons of his career on that team, or pitched almost nine seasons and made a World Series appearance with yet another team. In fact, Schilling has made more appearance for the Orioles (44) and the Astros (56) than he has for the Red Sox (32).

Yes, he had a great year for the Sox, he might very well have been that missing piece that got them over the hump, but one season does not define a long career.

mojorisin71

11-06-2004, 01:01 PM

DTF955

11-06-2004, 01:51 PM

Grover Cleveland "Pete" Alexander's cap is blank, it appears from checking the website.

He's a far different type pitcher, far better, but...IMO what Schilling did for Boston is similar to "the Great Alexander." He won a couple Series games in '26, against the great Yankees, and then on no rest relieved in Game 7. And, he suffered from epilepsy & drank, too, which made it worse, fromw hat I've heard..

Should Alexander have a Cardinals' cap on?

ElHalo

11-06-2004, 02:16 PM

nightal

11-06-2004, 02:31 PM

When I think of Alexander, it's as a Phillie all the way. I can't believe he doesn't have a Phillie cap on.

Did the first few bunches of HOF's put anything on their caps?? I don't think so.

al

OuTLaWs_BrAnDy10

11-08-2004, 05:21 PM

I totally agree that Schilling should be in the hall of fame, he did a dang awesome job in the world series he deserves it

pesky6

11-09-2004, 10:19 AM

The most recent HOFer not to have an emblem on his cap is Catfish Hunter.

maxcarey

11-09-2004, 05:57 PM

Schilling right now is this generation's Jack Morris. He will more than likely not be a Hall of Famer if his career ended today, a couple more strong seasons may push him over the top.

BoSox Rule

11-09-2004, 06:07 PM

Morris: 3.90 ERA, 105 ERA+
Schilling: 3.32 ERA, 131 ERA+ (which is the same as Sandy Koufax)

DoubleX

11-10-2004, 04:13 PM

Morris: 3.90 ERA, 105 ERA+
Schilling: 3.32 ERA, 131 ERA+ (which is the same as Sandy Koufax)

Koufax's ERA+ is a mirage of sorts. His career started when he was only 19 and it took him 6 seasons of struggling to come into his own. Those 6 seasons represent half of his career and thus depress his ERA+. Koufax's ERA+ for the first half of his short career was not much higher than an even 100; but his ERA+ for the last 6 years of his career was closer to +160 and was near +175 for his final four years. Being that his arm troubles induced his retirement at the young age of 30 and after he pitched one of the greatest seasons ever, it's plausible to think that Koufax's ERA+ would have gone way up had he been able to pitch a few more years...

My basic point...Schilling is a very good pitcher, one of the most dominant of the past decade, but I don't know if anyone was as good as Koufax was once he harnessed his potential. Schilling, for all his success, does not come close to Koufax. Schilling is a +130 pitcher, which is very good. Koufax, on the other hand, was well over a +150 pitcher.

maxcarey

11-10-2004, 04:56 PM

Curt Schilling is not the same as Sandy Koufax regardless of what statistic you use.

MudvilleMike

11-10-2004, 10:51 PM

Morris: 3.90 ERA, 105 ERA+
Schilling: 3.32 ERA, 131 ERA+ (which is the same as Sandy Koufax)

You committed the ultimate sin: comparing Schilling with Koufax :) Actually, I think your comparison is fair. Schilling is truly great, but we live in a hitter's era and a lot of us haven't fully adjusted. We see numbers like a 3.00 ERA and it's doesn't feel that impressive when of coruse it is.

I'd really like to see Morris in the HOF as well. The World Series performances clinch it for me. But no way does he compare with Schilling.

MudvilleMike

11-10-2004, 10:54 PM

My basic point...Schilling is a very good pitcher, one of the most dominant of the past decade, but I don't know if anyone was as good as Koufax was once he harnessed his potential. Schilling, for all his success, does not come close to Koufax. Schilling is a +130 pitcher, which is very good. Koufax, on the other hand, was well over a +150 pitcher.

Schilling was 150 this year, and 159 last year. But I'll admit that Koufax at his best was better than Schilling at his best.

MudvilleMike

11-10-2004, 10:58 PM

Ok Sox fans...

If Schilling should wear a Red Sox cap in the Hall of Fame, should Roger Clemens wear a Yankees cap?

I'd much rather see Schilling in a Red Sox cap than Roger Clemens :)

DoubleX

11-11-2004, 01:28 PM

Schilling was 150 this year, and 159 last year. But I'll admit that Koufax at his best was better than Schilling at his best.

Indeed it was. Like I said, I think Schilling was a very good to occasionally great pitcher from 1992-2000, and has been a phenomenal pitcher since 2001 and has built a decent Hall of Fame case for himself. I just felt the Koufax comparison was out of context.

It's a shame Schilling took so long to get everything together and get to that next level. Getting to at least 200 wins will definitely help his case, and he should do that next year. But right now, if you were to just look at a stat sheet, it doesn't look that impressive. He could really use a few more strong years to add an element of consistency to the stat sheet. Here's a look at just his W/L totals since he became a regular starter in 1992:

14-11
16-7
2-8
7-5
9-10
17-11
15-14
15-6
11-12
22-6
23-7
8-9
21-6

I don't know if any hall of famers W/L stats look as sporadic as Schilling's. I know and you know there's a lot more to being a good pitcher than wins and losses, and in Schilling's case he was a victim of injuries and some poor Phillies teams; when he's been healthy, he's pitched very well throughout his career. However, a lot of the writers will go by what they see on paper, and on paper, Schilling doesn't look anywhere close to Hall of Fame impressive until 2001. That's why I think he needs a few more years to beef up his case on paper. Given his history of injuries, the fact that he'll be 38 next year and coming off an injury, and has missed significant time due to injury as recently as 2003, who knows if Schilling will be able to keep going like he has been since 2001, or if he'll have more injury-plagued years that severely limit his availibility and effectiveness. If for some reason he doesn't reach 200 wins, I think he'll have a very, very tough time getting in. 200 wins should at least induce the voters to give him the benefit of the doubt.

BoSox Rule

11-11-2004, 03:22 PM

Indeed it was. Like I said, I think Schilling was a very good to occasionally great pitcher from 1992-2000, and has been a phenomenal pitcher since 2001 and has built a decent Hall of Fame case for himself. I just felt the Koufax comparison was out of context.

It's a shame Schilling took so long to get everything together and get to that next level. Getting to at least 200 wins will definitely help his case, and he should do that next year. But right now, if you were to just look at a stat sheet, it doesn't look that impressive. He could really use a few more strong years to add an element of consistency to the stat sheet. Here's a look at just his W/L totals since he became a regular starter in 1992:

14-11
16-7
2-8
7-5
9-10
17-11
15-14
15-6
11-12
22-6
23-7
8-9
21-6

Schilling played for some ****** PHI teams (yeah, I know you explained that). In his first full year as a starter, when he went 14-11, he had a 2.35 ERA in 227 innings.

Here are his ERA's and ERA+ in the years you mentioned
2.35, 150
4.02, 100
4.48, 96
3.57, 121
3.19, 138
2.97, 143
3.25, 134
3.54, 130
3.81, 124
2.98, 154
3.23, 136
2.95, 159
3.26, 130

Schilling isn't injury prone, either. His 2003 injury was from a ball hit off his hand during a game, and he already got surgery for his anke so I don't see why won't come back very strong.

yankeesrule013

12-18-2004, 05:58 PM

is curt schilling a future hall of famer?

hes not thrilling hes just schilling!

mac195

12-18-2004, 10:28 PM

is curt schilling a future hall of famer?

No, but one more great year, or two more good ones, would probably do it for him.

BoSox Rule

12-18-2004, 11:06 PM

I figure Curt Schilling will pitch 4 more years. That will bring him to age 41.

If he wins __ games this year he will have
16: 200
17: 201
18: 202
19: 203
20: 204
21: 205

With the Red Sox offense, he should able to win 16 games every year for the next four years, and that would give him 248 wins. If he only pitches 3 seasons he should reach 232.

His 131 ERA+ right now ties him with Sandy Koufax. If he gets 255 K's this year, with I doubt, he will have 3000. He should reach 3000 K's by April 2006. He has a 1.11 WHIP. In case you don't know, that is better than Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens, and Greg Maddux. Of the four locks, only Pedro has a better WHIP than Schilling. Pedro's 1.03 is the third best of any pitcher ever. He has the 8th best K/9 rate of all-time, and only

Schilling will finish with an ERA of about 3.30, which amazing for this era.

He also has an unbelievable postseason track record. He is 7-2 with a 2.22 ERA in 109.3 innings, 6.51 H/9, 4.73 K/BB, and 8.56 K/9. He has a 1.42 ERA in the DS, 2.83 in the LCS, and 2.32 in the WS.

He is quite easily the 5th best pitcher that is active behind the four HOF locks: Pedro Martinez, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, and Greg Maddux.

J W

12-19-2004, 10:59 PM

I've still gotta put him behind Tom Glavine, but he's closing that gap at a torrid pace.

My first question will be, how is his ankle going to affect him, if at all?

Designated Fielder

12-24-2004, 07:40 AM

Yes, for the same reason that I would be voting for Jack Morris as one of the dominant pitchers of his era.

I would vote for Morris over John, Kaat or Blyleven. The later mention may have more career wins, but Morris was more of a dominant pitchers.

Likewise, I would vote for Schilling 3 World Series appearances, 2 World Series wins, and the dominant pitcher in all 3 World Series appearances. He has my vote over Musinna, Wells, and Pedro.

BoSox Rule

12-25-2004, 06:37 PM

Considering Pedro is arguably the best pitcher of this era, and most dominant of all-time, you can't vote him in after Schilling.

Pedro, Randy, Maddux, and Roger get in before anybody.

pacewon

12-28-2004, 02:54 PM

He is quite easily the 5th best pitcher that is active behind the four HOF locks: Pedro Martinez, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, and Greg Maddux.

I say yes to Schilling, but I wouldn't say he's "easily" the 5th best active pitcher. Kevin Brown, Mike Mussina, Tom Glavine have had similar or better careers off the top of my head.

Knick9

02-20-2005, 11:26 PM

Roy Hobbs

02-21-2005, 01:02 PM

I wish Curt would make it into the Hall of Fame because he's a great guy and a hard worker. But I think his career has been too up and down, and he seemed to be a fairly middle of the road pitcher up until about age 34.

Maybe if he pitches til he's 43 and does so well, but unless he does that he doesn't have the stats in my opinion.

Roy Hobbs

02-21-2005, 01:03 PM

And of course he has been hurt by the fact that he's had some gem seasons where he lost a ton of games despite actually pitching very well.

Honus Wagner Rules

02-21-2005, 01:06 PM

Curt needs to pitch until age 43 at least and have some more dominating seasons. He needs to get to 250 wins minimum...

The Commissioner

02-21-2005, 11:19 PM

What would you guys say about Curt's chances of making the hall? It's a fact that he was co-MVP with Randy Johnson for the 2001 WS, helped win 2 WS titles (D-backs and BoSox) and appeared in 4 WS. (or 3 I forget)

Can Curt make it?

It's 3 WS...and his chances seem to be improving every year.

I actually say he probably makes it. Keep in mind that his career stat line doesn't look overly impressive right now. However, after he collects win #200 and strikeout #3000, he may be seen in a new light.

RuthMayBond

02-22-2005, 09:47 AM

Curt needs to pitch until age 43 at least and have some more dominating seasons. He needs to get to 250 wins minimum...43, wow! If he stops now, he's already equal to or better than Newhouser. Guess it will depend upon his decline

rockin500

02-22-2005, 09:54 AM

i dont think he has a legitimate shot. a) he would have to pitch much longer than he intends to (hasnt he said that he plans on retiring after this contract is up). b) his career was lackluster for a long time.

Yankeebiscuitfan

02-22-2005, 02:17 PM

Though he is a bigmouth, I think he deserves to be in the HOF.

He helped two teams to a WS championship.

And the way he pitched through the pain in his ankle during last year's WS is admirable.

The way he is dedicated to the game deserves a spot in the HOF.

abacab

02-22-2005, 02:53 PM

I say yes. His postseason performance puts him over the top. He really hasn't had that many good years, but his good years have been really good. A good comp might be Dizzy Dean (though Dean's great years were in his early 20s and Schilling's were in his mid 30s).

DoubleX

02-22-2005, 08:38 PM

Curt Schilling has certainly received a ton of positive exposure since joining the Diamondbacks and I believe that attention will help his candidacy tremendously. However, his career is very similar to Kevin Brown's - brilliance coupled with several injury marred years. Schilling's ERA+ is 131 while Brown's is 130 (it should be added that Brown pitched several years against a DH while 2004 was essentially Curt's first full-time in the AL). Brown has 22 more wins right now, but he's also 2 years older. So if Schilling is qualified at this point, why not Kevin Brown? Or what about Mike Mussina who is 26 wins ahead of Schilling and is 3 years younger?

Edgartohof

02-22-2005, 08:41 PM

STLCards2

02-23-2005, 10:49 PM

If Schilling retired now, he would not be a HOFer. Think about this, Schilling has started 30 or more games only six times in his career. SIX! Schilling was a bullpen guy for four seasons, a mediocre to good starter for the next four or so, then a injury prone, dominate when healthy guy for the next 10. That being said, if Schilling has two more dominate seasons, he will make it deservingly. SIX!!! It is obvious that this stuff about Schillings workmanship and durability is vastlt overatted.

J W

02-23-2005, 11:01 PM

Maybe he started 'roiding up :eek: . I'm sorry, that shouldn't have been said.

I think Schilling's getting dangerously close to receiving my vote. There are five active pitchers that do, and I'd probably rank him sixth. His resume is starting to look a lot like Dazzy Vance (http://www.baseball-reference.com/v/vanceda01.shtml)... who also turned on the jets after age 30.

Imapotato

02-24-2005, 02:42 AM

Two Words

Rube
Marquand

Yes, Marquand belongs in the HOF, so doesn't Schilling

abacab

02-24-2005, 08:14 AM

Too bad they inducted the undeserving Rube Marquard instead :laugh

leecemark

02-24-2005, 08:27 AM

--I think the Schilling-Brown comparison is a good one. Based strictly on the numbers, they are about the same pitcher. However, Schilling is much better to have in your clubhouse and has a much better relationship with the press. How much those things should count we can argue, but that they influence voters is unarguable.
--Schilling I think will make it via the BWAA, while if Brown makes it (and he probably should) it will likely be through the VC or a long, Blylevenesqe campaign. Besides the fact that Schilling is a good guy, while Brown is not, Curt has the advantage of having his best years toward the end of his career where they will be remembered more clearly. Plus they were for championship teams of which he was a (the?) key component. Brown's collapse for the Yankees last year will be remembered more than it ought to be if he doesn't bounce back with a good season in 2005.

STLCards2

02-24-2005, 08:34 AM

Brown interests me. His career number stack up nicely against many pitchers currently in the Hall, but there is just something about him that tells everybody he shouldn't make it. I get that feeling too. I can't explain it, I just don't think he deserves to go. I won't even try to create a bogus mathamatical formula to proove this.

In comparison to Schilling, if their careers ended today, brown would go in ahead of Schilling. He has better numbers. Despite his reputation, Brown has missed by far fewer games due to injury than Schilling. This being said, I think Schilling has more time to improve his chances of making it. Brown has one more year to put up a great season. Won't happen.

J W

02-24-2005, 09:04 AM

Besides the fact that Schilling is a good guy, while Brown is not...

Really? I mean, I'm not one to speculate on anyone's private affairs, but in the public arena, Schilling stikes me as a bit of a blankety-blank.

leecemark

02-24-2005, 10:02 AM

--I've always liked Schilling. He seems like a throwback kind of guy. Unlike many of today's players he knows the history of the game. He seems to really love playing and competing.
--He does have a tendancy to speak his mind, but I like that too. Bland quotes and saying what people want to here doesn't impress me at all.

pacewon

02-24-2005, 10:37 AM

However, Schilling is much better to have in your clubhouse and has a much better relationship with the press.

Besides the fact that Schilling is a good guy, while Brown is not

Brown is a first rate a-hole, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that Schilling is a good guy to have in the clubhouse. He angered a ton of people in Philly, including the entire front office, on his way out. Remember the saying that according to Schilling himself came from Ed Wade, "every fifth day he's a horse; on the other four days he's a horse's ass" (paraphrased). His outspokenness has not won him a lot of friends over the years. It's pretty clear that Randy Johnson did not and does not like him. He pissed off Scott Williamson last year by questioning his toughness for coming out of a game with an injury, then it turned out that Williamson is hurt so bad that he needs yet another arm surgery and will be out for likely most of the 2005 season, if not all of it.

Again, I won't say that Schilling's behavior is more detrimental to his team's than Brown's is, but let's not make Schilling look like Mother Theresa here.

STLCards2

02-24-2005, 10:43 AM

Attacking Williamson for a major injury is quite gutsy coming from a guy with as many injury problems as Schilling. I will repeat: Only SIX 30 + start seasons. SIX! That sucks! Putting on a bloody sock is not enough to cover a career of durability problems, early career lack of intensity, and personality problems. At least he supported Bush.

STLCards2

02-24-2005, 10:45 AM

Responding to the "who is a bigger jerk" coversation; it doesn't matter. Neither one of them are saints, and the reason neither is a Hall of Famer as of now is irrelevent to their personalities. Neither is currently a hall of Famer because they have not had good enough careers.

Brad Harris

02-24-2005, 12:18 PM

Neither is currently a hall of Famer because they have not had good enough careers.

Actually, neither is currently a Hall of Famer because neither is eligible yet.

STLCards2

02-24-2005, 12:21 PM

That is implied. Writing "eventual" or "future" gets old after awhile.

Mike D.

05-16-2006, 10:39 AM

I know Schilling has been discussed on here recently, but you guys all gave such great comments when my brother posted his blog entries on catchers and relievers, I couldn't resist putting my latest article up:

Rule V Baseball Blog Hall of Fame Case: Curt Schilling (http://www.darowski.com/rulev/?p=19)

Would love comments on the article, it's conclusions, and the methods I use for determining HOF worthiness.

jalbright

05-16-2006, 12:30 PM

Two things I didn't see in the article which I believe bolster Schilling's case:

1) those placements in the metrics are well within the territory we'd expect of a HOF caliber pitcher, given that there are about 70 in the Hall right now; and

2) He's 15th in career Cy Young Award shares, well within HOF range even allowing for the fact the award wasn't given until 1956. The following guys: 1) are in the HOF, 2) had very little if any of their careers before 1956, c) are career starters, and d) are behind Schilling's mark:

F. Jenkins, N. Ryan, D. Drysdale, D. Sutton, P. Niekro, and J. Bunning.

Jim Albright

538280

05-16-2006, 02:43 PM

I agree that Schilling should be in the HOF, and with his roles on great teams recently (especially lifting the Red Sox to their first WS in 86 years and the whole "bloody sock" incident) should get him enough respect from the writers as well.

The Commissioner

05-16-2006, 08:51 PM

I hate to use such troglodytic stats, but the guy's going to have 200 wins, 3000 strikeouts, a couple of 20 win years and was a huge factor in helping two different teams secure a World Series title. He is undoubtedly Cooperstown bound.

Blackout

05-16-2006, 09:03 PM

Schill is borderline in my opinion, I couldn't argue with either side

KCGHOST

05-17-2006, 08:29 AM

Schilling probably gets a lot of support from the sabre community for the quality of his work. He may have problems with people that want to see more quantity. The guy has been in the bigs 18 years and hasn't reached 3000 IP's or 200 wins. My guess is he gets in for the stellar campaigns he posted from 1997-2004.

DoubleX

05-17-2006, 09:30 AM

STLCards2

05-17-2006, 04:23 PM

The biggets problem with Schilling for Cooperstrown is the fact he has only started 30 or more games 6 times in his entire career. However...despite his many injuries, and lack of games started and inings pitched, his innings pitched totals are not much different or more than guys like Gomez, Lemon, Vance, Drysdale, etc., none of which I have a problem accepting into the Hall of Fame.

I don't know, he could go either way.

538280

05-17-2006, 07:08 PM

I don't think he' had a Hall of Fame career. To be 39 and not yet have 200 wins speaks volumes for me. He will get to 200 this year, but for someone who has supposedly had a "Hall of Fame" career, I would have expected more to this point. Schilling has had portions of a Hall of Fame career, but not a Hall of Fame career, IMO.

This goes back to something I wrote on another thread about Mike Mussina. I think we can't look at pitchers from the 1990s and 2000s in the same way we look at pitchers before that, for the simple reason that pitchers today are just not pitching nearly as many innings as they used to. Today you can lead the league with 220 innings, in the 1960s that was part time work. You hardly ever see any seasons with 25+ wins anymore, and there are far less 20 win seasons. I think it's important we realize that in this era for pitchers it is much harder to put up big counting stats.

This is a particularly sticky issue because there is no straightforward way to adjust for it, like the way we can with league average OPSs or ERAs to get a normalized ERA+. There is no real league average for innings pitched, so that makes it hard to really make an era adjustment for it in a straightforward, definitetive way.

DoubleX

05-17-2006, 07:35 PM

This goes back to something I wrote on another thread about Mike Mussina. I think we can't look at pitchers from the 1990s and 2000s in the same way we look at pitchers before that, for the simple reason that pitchers today are just not pitching nearly as many innings as they used to. Today you can lead the league with 220 innings, in the 1960s that was part time work. You hardly ever see any seasons with 25+ wins anymore, and there are far less 20 win seasons. I think it's important we realize that in this era for pitchers it is much harder to put up big counting stats.

This is a particularly sticky issue because there is no straightforward way to adjust for it, like the way we can with league average OPSs or ERAs to get a normalized ERA+. There is no real league average for innings pitched, so that makes it hard to really make an era adjustment for it in a straightforward, definitetive way.

What does 220 innings have to do with what I said? What I said was based on two things: First, that he's 39 and doesn't have 200 wins. Mussina is three years younger and has 30+ more wins than Schilling. The problem with Schilling is that his dominance was too sporadic because he was injured seemingly every other year.

Fuzzy Bear

05-17-2006, 08:43 PM

leecemark

05-17-2006, 10:11 PM

--As of the end of last season Schilling was 10th in wins, IP and ERA+ amoung active pitchers. At least in the wins and IP you'd expect a future Hall of Famer to rank a little higher at age 39. Schilling's most similar player (and this is more accurate than most since they are close contemporaries) is David Cone. Cone was a fine pitcher, but his Hall of Fame chances are not so good. His most similar through age 38 is Kevin Brown. Brown I think has had a better career, but I think Schilling is likely to get a much warmer reception from the BWAA.

edsachs1

05-28-2006, 04:39 PM

I think Schilling is very borderline. He is a big name pitcher in today's game. But his numbers don't really seem to add up to his fame. I was very surprised when I saw that he still doesn't have 200 wins yet. Personally I think that if he gets to 3,000 K's he definitely deserves to get in. Also if I were voting I probably won't vote for him unless Bert Blyleven was in. Blyleven is also a borderline guy, but I think has much better numbers than Schilling.

Myankee4life

05-28-2006, 05:47 PM

No, he compares favorably to David Cone and Orel Hershisher and they're not in.

rsuriyop

05-28-2006, 07:01 PM

If Schilling has a big year this year, he should be a lock for the HOF. He's a star, and he's famous, and this bolsters his chances.

Guys like Schilling, with chrome and leather, are favored for the HOF if they win 200. It's the guys who are workmanlike that need 250 and up to get in. Schilling's a big star now, and he's got enough of a career to get in.

Plus, he finished strong. The HOF tends to support players who finished strong.

I agree with that.

IMHO, Schilling is borderline for now, although one more good season (17+ wins, .600+ W-L, sub-3.50 ERA) should put him over the top.

I'm sure he'll get in eventually.

Fuzzy Bear

05-28-2006, 07:02 PM

No, he compares favorably to David Cone and Orel Hershisher and they're not in.

The difference, of course, is that Schilling isn't done, while Hershiser and Cone are.

baseball junkie

05-28-2006, 08:21 PM

I'd vote no. He came close to winning a few Cy Youngs but he never did. In addition, he plans to retire after next season. That means his career will end with about 230 wins.

With Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux already past 320 plus wins and Tom Glavine and Randy Johnson steadily approaching 300 -- Curt just misses the cut.

baseballPAP

05-28-2006, 08:23 PM

I think win #200 might be enough to get him in....which means he's in. He didn't get his starting career on track until a few years in the bullpen, then had health problems for a couple years in the middle (I don't remember the specifics), and then was an integral part in 2 teams' championship runs. Oh, and the whole bloody sock thing...that's legendary HOF story type stuff that the "intelligent" writers won't let pass by the board.

baseball junkie

05-28-2006, 09:00 PM

I sure hope 200 wins doesn't become the new HOF milestone for pitchers.

A few years ago most of the baseball writers were pontificating about how we'd never again see another 300 game winner. Now it sure looks like we're going to have at least four from this generation alone. The milestone shouldn't be lowered.

Other pitchers in this generation with 200 wins include Mike Mussina, Kevin Brown, David Wells, Jamie Moyer, Pedro Martinez. Kenny Rogers has 197 wins and John Smoltz has 181 and counting.

As for of post-season heroics, Brown has a WS Championship in 1997; Wells has WS Championships in 1992 & 1998; Rogers has a WS Championship in 1996; Martinez has a WS Championshp in 2004; Smoltz has a WS Championship in 1995. Between them they share 4 Cy Young Awards.

Do you honestly want all of these pitchers in the Hall of Fame?

Of course there were rare exceptions in the past like Drysdale and Koufax and there should be more in the future. Pedro Martinez is a no-brainer. And the legend of Curt's blood sock will live forever in Boston lore but I still don't think he meets the standards of Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, Glavine or Martinez.

Curt is like this generations version of Orel Hershiser -- remember his dominance in the '88 WS?

baseballPAP

05-28-2006, 10:31 PM

I'm not saying I'd vote him in....I'm saying I think the writers will.

He's a borderline case for me at this point, but I lean towards yes.

Food

05-28-2006, 11:21 PM

I like Schilling a lot, so color me biased.

I would like to see him in, but I know that he's borderline at best. Mystique alone might push him over the hump.

Bronxbombers

05-29-2006, 01:02 PM

Mike D.

05-29-2006, 01:45 PM

No, he compares favorably to David Cone and Orel Hershisher and they're not in.

David Cone is his "most similar" pitcher, with similarity scores (score of 914). Of course, Cone is already done, and Schilling isn't...so anything Schilling does from now on only adds to his case. As of the end of 2005, Schilling already beats Cone in all four Jamesian HOF metrics.

Hershiser isn't on Cone's list of top 10 similar pitchers, and has 204 wins, a slightly lower winning percentage than Schilling, a lower ERA+, a lot less K's, and again gets beat heartily by Schill in all four Jamesian metrics.

Guys like Wells, Mussina, Rodgers, Smoltz, Gooden, Brown, etc are all similar in some ways to Schilling, but I'd say he's a better candiate than all of them with the possible exception of Mussina.

He's far worse a candiate than Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, Martinez, and Glavine, but really...after those guys, what starting pitchers who began their career's after 1980 make a better case for the Hall of Fame? And I'd have to assume more than 5 starters will make it from that 25 year period (1980-2005).

Pine Tar

05-30-2006, 01:42 AM

The difference, of course, is that Schilling isn't done, while Hershiser and Cone are.
Maybe so, but as of today, I think that if you vote for Schilling you have to be prepared to vote for Cone as well. Cone was much more consistent, actually had more postseason success, and was probably the third or fourth best pitcher in the american league during the 90's (after Clemens, Johnson, and maybe Mussina). I actually would vote for both of them so saying Schil is comparable to Cone isn't an insult IMO.

Fuzzy Bear

05-30-2006, 03:42 AM

I sure hope 200 wins doesn't become the new HOF milestone for pitchers.

200 wins is a negative milestone. Getting 200 wins doesn't put you in the HOF, but not getting it tends to winnow you out, unless you are Dean or Koufax, with an incredible peak.

200 wins is the gray area; some guys with 200 wins are in (the big season guys) while others aren't (the more workmanlike pitchers). There are cases where pitchers over 200 got in (Pennock, Hoyt) while similar pitchers of the same era who were better pitchers (Shocker, Shawkey) didn't get in because they were under 200.

There are many pitchers with over 200 wins who are not in the HOF. 200 wins is the start of the gray area, not the "automatic" point.

chrismarullo

05-31-2006, 07:21 PM

I think he's a lock to get in. Playing a big part on that 2004 Red Sox team won't hurt his chances either.

I'm just dreading his HOF induction speech. He's such a drama queen he'll make Sally Feild look stone cold.

digglahhh

06-01-2006, 02:10 PM

I've said this before, but one of the problems with Schilling's case is his disjointed dominance. He has enough HOF caliber seasons in my mind, but the writers might not like the fact that they are more dispersed than the traditional candidate.

Seattle1

07-27-2006, 12:36 PM

Well, he's having a good year this year, but I still don't think he gets in. Even with the gutty World Series performance for the Red Sox that he gave since this thread was originally posted. He's barely won 200 games and he's got to be near the end of his career at this point. Maybe if he wins 25 games this year, the Red Sox win the Series and he's MVP. Then he has at least one more 20 win season before he retires. I dunno he's got to do something spectacular at this point, imho.

Myankee4life

07-27-2006, 03:58 PM

This thread was started 3 years ago....his injury filled 2005 season sealed his fate.

digglahhh

07-27-2006, 04:23 PM

I would be virtually shocked if he is not elected.

Fuzzy Bear

07-27-2006, 04:41 PM

I'm noting when this thread was started. At that time, I had started threads on other forums about this same subject.

During 2001 and 2002 Curt Schilling did more than ANY player, bar none, to advance his HOF chances. He went from a guy with NO chance to a guy who could make it if he kept up what he was doing.

Schilling has pretty much done that. He was hurt in 2003 and 2005, but he won 20 again in 2004. He's a three time 20 game winner. Plus, he's a World Series Hero; this partially makes up for the lack of a Cy Young Award.

As I post this, Schilling is 13-3. He's on pace for 20 wins this year. He's 50-50 to get that.

I think that if Schilling wins 20 games this year, he seals the HOF deal. He passed the 200 game milestone. His ERA vs. league is typical of a HOF starting pitcher. His W-L percentage has improved incredibly this decade, and is now just over .600.

Even if he DOESN'T win 20 this year, I think he gets in. I'd feel safe in saying that if Schilling wins 18 this year, he'll get in. He's not done, either; he'll be back next year, and he's not likely to go into the tank all at once.

I'll sum it up: Schilling is already a PROBABLE HOFer. He's a LOCK if he wins 20 this year.

Sliding Billy

07-27-2006, 05:11 PM

This thread was started 3 years ago....his injury filled 2005 season sealed his fate.
He's on track for his fourth 20-game season and 212 wins by the end of this year. Barring further injuries or hitting the wall, 230 wins seems quite likely, 240 not unreasonable, and 250 within reach. Historically, a .600 pitcher with 230+ wins and a very good era is a pretty good bet, especially with the best years coming in the second half of his career. Then you've got the post-season heroics and the bloody sock. I think the 2005 season may actually work in his favor, as taking one for the team the season before, especially if his comeback continues. He could be hurt, though, if he comes on the ballot alongside some of the first-rounders in his age cohort.

Fuzzy Bear

07-27-2006, 08:38 PM

He's on track for his fourth 20-game season and 212 wins by the end of this year. Barring further injuries or hitting the wall, 230 wins seems quite likely, 240 not unreasonable, and 250 within reach. Historically, a .600 pitcher with 230+ wins and a very good era is a pretty good bet, especially with the best years coming in the second half of his career. Then you've got the post-season heroics and the bloody sock. I think the 2005 season may actually work in his favor, as taking one for the team the season before, especially if his comeback continues. He could be hurt, though, if he comes on the ballot alongside some of the first-rounders in his age cohort.

Assuming he has the year he's projected to have at this point, I'd say he's in. He may not be first ballot, but he'll get there within the first 5 years.

Imapotato

07-28-2006, 01:24 AM

csh19792001

07-28-2006, 01:28 AM

I would be virtually shocked if he is not elected.

I'd be literally shocked.

His pristine, intrepid image and the bloddy sock ruse alone will get the guy in. :rolleyes:

Q: What does Curt Schilling need to do to get in the HOF?

Retirement and a five year interim period sans ugly incidents or accusations.

baseball junkie

07-28-2006, 01:39 AM

I think he gets in for what he did in Boston in 2004, and less so for Arizona in 2001.

Apparently he is retiring after this season. To me that leaves his Hall of Fame induction in a precarious position. I think he should reconsider retirement. Two more good years with the Red Sox would solidify his HOF case and he'd likely come out of it with another $30 million and maybe another World Series Ring.

The bloody sock, mythos, however is probably grand enough to get him elected.

Consider this rotation for Boston in 2007:
Curt Schilling
Josh Beckett
Jonathan Papelbon
Jon Lester
Tim Wakefield/Matt Clement/David Wells

With their offense they'd easily be the WS favorite.

Sliding Billy

07-28-2006, 07:26 AM

Sorry to the saber-heads

But Schilling ALREADY made the HOF

The bloody sock, his game during it and after, winning a WS for a beloved club that was waiting 86 years?

He is soooo in

and that would be for any very good P who is not HOF worthy stat wise A guy like Kornerko or Dye t make it due to the White Sox

If a a P like Roy Oswalt took the Cubs to the WS he might make it
If Schilling does retire after this season, it will be interesting to see what happens. He'd be a similar candidate to Drysdale and Lefty Gomez, probably stronger than both.

But five years is a long time, especially where the attention-span and thought processes of the BBWA are concerned. Who could have predicted 5 years before the fact that Bob Ryan would be flogging on-base-percentage?

A little bit of Schilling's personality goes a very long way, and if he, say, got a slot on Fox, and if some clubhouse attendant allowed as how, yeah, he did paint that sock red, things might look very different. We'll see.

Cougar

07-28-2006, 07:23 PM

Barring injury, he'll have 3000 strikeouts by season end as well. That's not an insignifiact milestone, especially when you consider that he'll have surrendered less than 700 walks while getting to 3000 K's.

I'd expect him to make it.

Seattle1

07-28-2006, 09:22 PM

His pristine, intrepid image and the bloddy sock ruse alone will get the guy in. :rolleyes:

Didn't he have incidents at strip clubs and so forth when he played for the AAA Rochester Red Wings?

BoSox Rule

07-28-2006, 09:27 PM

Apparently he is retiring after this season.
Next season.

Fuzzy Bear

07-28-2006, 10:20 PM

I think he gets in for what he did in Boston in 2004, and less so for Arizona in 2001.

Apparently he is retiring after this season. To me that leaves his Hall of Fame induction in a precarious position. I think he should reconsider retirement. Two more good years with the Red Sox would solidify his HOF case and he'd likely come out of it with another $30 million and maybe another World Series Ring.

The HOF is rather kind to players who go out on top. The guys with short careers who have trouble are guys that have early declines, or who started late.

The Commissioner

07-29-2006, 09:33 AM

Well, 3 1/2 years ago I said this:The keys for Schilling to have any chance of making it are going to be to get over 200 wins and to keep that ERA down. Right now he's at 3.36 and since he's improved on that for the past couple of seasons a lot of people are assuming he can continue to maintain that over the next several years as well. However, the problem is, that it wouldn't be too difficult for him to raise it over 3.40. That obviously isn't too much of a difference, but I'm afraid on paper that just looks an awful lot worse. If he can have a few more seasons where he can continue to dominate, winds up with 200+ wins, 3000+ strikeouts, and a reasonable ERA there isn't any reason why he shouldn't go into the Hall. That's just a lot of "if"s to assume at this point.

Since then, he has gone 50-26 with a 3.61 ERA. While, yes he has gone over 3.40 as I feared (3.41 presently) he also has broken the 200 win plateau and is about to surpass the 3K mark in strikeouts. Combined with his one 20 win season in there and a potential second one this year he should be a lock. When you add to his career stats, his performance in helping to lead Boston to its World Series title in '04, he should be a shoo in. One could argue about the 200 wins and 3000 Ks as just looking good on paper, but when you combine the two World Series performances, he has a great case for Cooperstown.

Blackout

07-29-2006, 09:39 AM

he needs to rig the election

or win a cy young for once

Cougar

07-29-2006, 11:48 AM

3 WS appearances, actually; he had a good series for the Phillies in 1993 as well. (Phila lost thanks to Wild Thing and dumb Jim Fregosi, so it's largely forgotten.)

Well, 3 1/2 years ago I said this:

Since then, he has gone 50-26 with a 3.61 ERA. While, yes he has gone over 3.40 as I feared (3.41 presently) he also has broken the 200 win plateau and is about to surpass the 3K mark in strikeouts. Combined with his one 20 win season in there and a potential second one this year he should be a lock. When you add to his career stats, his performance in helping to lead Boston to its World Series title in '04, he should be a shoo in. One could argue about the 200 wins and 3000 Ks as just looking good on paper, but when you combine the two World Series performances, he has a great case for Cooperstown.

verybadbreath

09-20-2007, 02:17 PM

STLCards2

09-20-2007, 04:21 PM

After last week's fiasco vs. NYY, I suddenly have a very strong leaning toward NO on Schill's HOF chances. An outing like that indicates to me that even the legendary post-season record may have been largely based on chance...and I anticipate that record will be further diminished in this year's playoffs. If he proves me wrong, great; but I don't expect to be wrong.

I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up being the player with the highest Bill James scores (other than Rose and Shoe) that doesn't get into the Hall. The outing was quintessential Schilling...just short of greatness.

A few years ago, I would have thought that Schilling was going to be a guy who didn't deserve it, but would make it. He threw the billion strikeouts, tandemed with Johnson for "the greatest duo ever" (for those with sort memories), won 2 WS (with a bloody sock, none-the-less), and was all big-mouthed and always on the news for his comments about whatever. I never got the impression he deserved it, but wouldn't make it. Now, I feel he will get in and does deserve it.

plask_stirlac

09-20-2007, 04:59 PM

It would be extremely sad if Schilling doesn't get in. Is this the Hall of Fame or the Top 100 ever?

Is there some rule against inducting the best starters of our era? A lot of these guys aren't eligible yet, but also in the discussions here. There haven't been any since Nolan Ryan and he debuted in the 60s. Then it's Niekro. After Clemens, Maddux, Pedro, Johnson it's Schilling, Glavine, and Brown or Mussina. Yes, Kevin Brown. That's over the last 15-20 years. Don't people stress the importance of starting pitching? And there's Smoltz as a SP/RP.

David Cone? And people are talking about Curt not sustaining. He also did better than Cone in the playoffs.

Yes, though an old question, I want Smoltz and Pedro in the HOF. Kevin Brown would be a-ok, he pitched well enough. Will they celebrate his career? I truly doubt it, so it probably won't come close.

After last week's fiasco vs. NYY, I suddenly have a very strong leaning toward NO on Schill's HOF chances. An outing like that indicates to me that even the legendary post-season record may have been largely based on chance...and I anticipate that record will be further diminished in this year's playoffs. If he proves me wrong, great; but I don't expect to be wrong.

I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up being the player with the highest Bill James scores (other than Rose and Shoe) that doesn't get into the Hall. The outing was quintessential Schilling...just short of greatness.

Wait, you're belittling a "postseason winner" with two rings getting into the HOF? There are about a dozen Yankees like that.

:laugh The postseason is highly erratic and Schilling isn't a 2.06 ERA pitcher normally, but that discrediting probably doesn't apply to a guy consistently giving up 0-2 ER per start. Who gets postseason credit if not him?

KCGHOST

09-21-2007, 09:40 AM

FWIW, Schilling has an RSAA of 344. The only pitcher to face the electorate with an RSAA that high or higher and not be elected is Bert Blyleven (who coincidentally has a 344 RSAA).

brett

09-21-2007, 10:01 AM

FWIW, Schilling has an RSAA of 344. The only pitcher to face the electorate with an RSAA that high or higher and not be elected is Bert Blyleven (who coincidentally has a 344 RSAA).

Where do Kevin Brown, John Smoltz and Mike Mussina rank?

Here's my take.

Blylevin is the best eligible pitcher not in the hall (we really need to look at value aboe replacement to see what almost 5000 IP is really worth).

Then we have Brown, Smoltz, Schilling and Mussina in the "middle inning" crown with 3000+ but with better rates than Blylevin.

I think they are the 5 best pitchers who are not in and might not get in.

mwb

09-21-2007, 10:30 AM

I'm curious how Schilling ranks with pitchers who have pitched at around the same time frame. His numbers compared to HOFers may not be great but he probably has more favorable numbers as compared to pitchers in his own era.

brett

09-21-2007, 11:48 AM

His numbers compared to HOFers may not be great but he probably has more favorable numbers as compared to pitchers in his own era.

His "numbers" are great. There are only two pitchers in baseball history with more innings and a better relative ERA that might not get in (Brown and Smoltz) and both of them should get in.

PVNICK

09-21-2007, 12:41 PM

Schilling is a very close call. The sub-200 wins is a drawback. It seems ludicrous to think that if he hangs around for three years and finishes with @225 that three crappy years post 40 will make him worthy. The ERA+ is huge but his career is so broken up. Very solid 92-93 then drops off he radar until 97-98 when he's on the very short list for best pitcher in baseball. 99-00 injuries and get traded to Arizona. 01-02 and 04 dominant. Just as good but injured in 03. Above average but nothing special since. It's just hard to put him in with maybe half a dozen to eight all star caliber seasons and 4-5 cy young type over a dozen plus years. Had he bunched those years together he might be looked at in a different light.

digglahhh

09-21-2007, 01:18 PM

It's just hard to put him in with maybe half a dozen to eight all star caliber seasons and 4-5 cy young type over a dozen plus years. Had he bunched those years together he might be looked at in a different light.

That's what I said. But, I think it is important not to lose sight of the fact he has had many great campaigns. Personally, I can't stand the guy.

But after the big four + Glavine, only Smoltz would get my support before Schilling among pitchers of this generation.

I'd vote for him and I can't stand the guy...

PVNICK

09-21-2007, 01:33 PM

I should have used footnotes, since you got me curious enough to look at his season by season stats.

BoSox Rule

09-21-2007, 01:39 PM

Schilling is a very close call. The sub-200 wins is a drawback. .
Huh? He has 215.

plask_stirlac

09-22-2007, 08:01 AM

Schilling will also probably be overshadowed in his first elig. year by one of the Big Four but not Pedro.

PVNICK

09-24-2007, 10:04 AM

Huh? He has 215.

My bad I didn't register the date of the orginal linked article which is over a year old.

KCGHOST

09-24-2007, 12:42 PM

Where do Kevin Brown, John Smoltz and Mike Mussina rank?

Brown - 304
Smoltz - 326
Mussina - 307

To me, everyone loves Smoltz so he's in. Every NY writer absolutely hates Brown, so he has little chance. They sure wouldn't want to look at his career before he got to NY as that would down play the importance of their beat. Mussina is somewhere in between Smoltz and Brown. And, of course, Smoltz and Mussina are still active.

PVNICK

09-24-2007, 12:59 PM

Every NY writer absolutely hates Brown, so he has little chance. They sure wouldn't want to look at his career before he got to NY as that would down play the importance of their beat.

Pretty funny take on the NY sportswriters. Sad to say, but not too far from my overall impression.

plask_stirlac

09-25-2007, 08:17 AM

Will they in NY applaud Schilling for postseason success (a lot against them) or resent him? Is it possible they could find phony reasons to delay him or even stymie his entry? I hope they're more neutral, but Rizzuto is in the Hall of Fame as a player.

Could this absurd logic appear?
"Schilling was gold, but couldn't sustain greatness as well as others."
"And Koufax could?"
"Well, he had arthritis."
"How about Rizzuto?"
"Sure, the Yankees were always superb in the 50s and early 60s."
"Umm, I said Rizzuto as a player."
"Right."

Curt was excellent for the early 90s Phillies, then slowed down some (every pitcher has, Maddux has had his Zambrano-like years), then dominated with the Phillies, then the D-Backs, then the Red Sox before the ankle got to him, then in 2006 came back well. It was a pattern, not much injury, either.

Captain Cold Nose

09-25-2007, 08:55 AM

plask_stirlac

09-25-2007, 12:34 PM

I think the New York effect is overblown here. The writers who vote are from across the country. And they didn't vote Rizzuto in, a committee of 18 or so men did. How many of the 500 or so writers who vote are from New York? Is it that great a percentage?

Okay, I overdramatized. It's not that bad.

But, come on, Phil Rizzuto? It must have been massive Yankee sentiment, especially from when the Yankees were IT even more with no baseball west or south of St. Louis.

And Jeter won the 2006 Hank Aaron award for "overall hitting". This was after the MVP voting, I believe, which was shocking. Jeter would have been a fine MVP, great team year, shortstop with much-improved defense over 1999 or 2000. But overall hitting over Ortiz and Hafner is a maaajor stretch, and non-hitting factors including NY voting probably got him the award as a makeup, or why not give it to Mauer with a higher BA and the same power? What GM wouldn't take Jeter with 54 HR and a .413 OBP from Ortiz over what he did have, .343/.417 with 34 steals standing out?

Walt Zink

09-27-2007, 09:09 AM

schilling, as much of a moron i think he is for his right-wing political diatribes, is a lock IMO. 216 wins, and people forget that he was hurt a LOT before 30, not to mention he wasn't a starter primarily until he was 25. watch the guys we're seeing now hit about the same #s as schilling when they approach his age. and as was said earlier, the game's changed so much that it's hard to make comparisons.

216-146 record, over 3100 Ks, over 3200 IP, and just over 700 BB. only player to win a WS game for 3 teams, and one being in the WS right after 9/11 (which he'll get bonus points for probably), plus the fact that that dude had his freakin ligament sutured to his ankle twice and pitched the games of his life? hell yeah, that is gonna earn him bonus points, too. if anything affects him, it'll be the fact that he doesn't know when to shut the hell up :) :D

philkid3

09-27-2007, 12:39 PM

Shilling's 10 straight wins in the top 6 in WHIP, along with his 1992 season leading in the number, really sells me. He's also second all-time in strikeout-to-walk ratio and once led the league 5 out of 6 years. The adjusted ERA is good and the value numbers are good. His rate stats are very good, some of them through-the-roof great, and the counting stats I care about are all up there. And I'm rare to say things like this, but I think he should get some boost for the bloody sock game and the 01 series.

He's far from borderline for me. If I were a voter it wouldn't take a second thought. I'm not sure if he will get in, but his fame and his big games would seem to give him a great case to me.

philkid3

09-27-2007, 12:42 PM

No, he compares favorably to David Cone and Orel Hershisher and they're not in.

Whoah. How?

Captain Cold Nose

09-27-2007, 12:50 PM

Okay, I overdramatized. It's not that bad.

But, come on, Phil Rizzuto? It must have been massive Yankee sentiment, especially from when the Yankees were IT even more with no baseball west or south of St. Louis.

And Jeter won the 2006 Hank Aaron award for "overall hitting". This was after the MVP voting, I believe, which was shocking. Jeter would have been a fine MVP, great team year, shortstop with much-improved defense over 1999 or 2000. But overall hitting over Ortiz and Hafner is a maaajor stretch, and non-hitting factors including NY voting probably got him the award as a makeup, or why not give it to Mauer with a higher BA and the same power? What GM wouldn't take Jeter with 54 HR and a .413 OBP from Ortiz over what he did have, .343/.417 with 34 steals standing out?

There are rumors Rizzuto was in large part because of massive Ted Williams sentiment.

As for Jeter's Hank Aaron Award, who knows? What is the voting body on that, anyway? Is that from MLB.Com? This is something that has been discussed many times, something somewhere is not fair and balanced, you know . . .

Ah, but back to Curt Schilling. Have I commented somewhere in the several threads we've had on him over the years? When the man has been healthy enough, he is an elite pitcher, maybe even better than Glavine or Smoltz but lacking their consistency. Of coourse, that consistency over the years is a very reason Glavine and probably Smoltz will make it. But I have no issues with Schilling making it and expect him to be voted in eventually.

Walt Zink

09-27-2007, 12:57 PM

he figures "favorably", yes. his stats on the whole are better. and as was mentioned, he won some huge games. hershiser and cone will never get more than 50%. schilling will make it in, albeit i think it'll be close. 75-80% and maybe not his first year, but that i think all depends on those also up for induction.

cone and hershiser may have had better years at points, but schilling - when healthy - has been a horse and remember he has three 300K seasons. his last one was in 2002, and between 01 and 02, he struck out 599 batters, while walking only 72 in 516 IP. that's remarkable, to me.

even in the AL (with the DH) the last 4 years, in 675 IP, he's walked 108 batters. he's one of the best when healthy, and he's managed to put up numbers despite the injury bug he's fought.

Brad Harris

09-27-2007, 01:57 PM

Whoah. How?

Because the BBWAA rejected Hershiser and because Cone isn't eligible yet.

philkid3

09-27-2007, 02:30 PM

Because the BBWAA rejected Hershiser and because Cone isn't eligible yet.

Wait, but how does that make him favorably comparable?

KCGHOST

09-27-2007, 02:55 PM

I think the New York effect is overblown here. The writers who vote are from across the country.

I agree that the NY effect is not significant in electing a player, but I am convinced that they can be a potent force to keep someone from being elected. Tough to get 75% of the BBWAA to vote for you if all the NY ones vote against you.

Brad Harris

09-27-2007, 05:06 PM

Wait, but how does that make him favorably comparable?

I misread your post. My assumption was that your shock was over Hershiser and Cone not being elected, not that Schilling compares favorably to them. ;) My bad.

philkid3

09-27-2007, 05:16 PM

I misread your post. My assumption was that your shock was over Hershiser and Cone not being elected, not that Schilling compares favorably to them. ;) My bad.

Yeah, I figured that out afterwards. I don't see Cone and Hershiser as HOF guys.

plask_stirlac

09-28-2007, 12:17 AM

Here's something to stir the pot, and it won't even use Koufax: Why is Bob Gibson a total shoo-in, first ballot Famer and Schilling might be on the edge? Both pitched a lot and great when healthy and dominated the postseason.

It's not like he has more total dominant seasons to his credit, especially with 1968 being WAAAAY ahead, as in several deviations. He's 600 IP ahead when it was easier to get outs. His winning percentage is slightly lower if that matters.

Look at Gibson's numbers and Schilling's. Curt's been very good since 1992 other than two or three years, similar to Gibby.

philkid3

09-28-2007, 01:00 AM

Makes me wonder if I overrate Gibson or underrate Shilling.

plask_stirlac

09-29-2007, 12:52 AM

philkid3

09-29-2007, 02:39 AM

Probably underrating Schilling. The impression that Gibson dominated the 1960s into the postseason, tons of CGs, is pretty accurate.

The "oft-injured Curt Schilling" is pretty flimsy. From 97-04 he missed about 22 starts and went deep in games.

Thing is, I think Schilling SHOULD be a first-round lock. At least he'd get my vote if I had one. And I'm usually treated as overrating him.

Brad Harris

09-29-2007, 08:44 AM

For right or wrong, Schilling went from Interesting Candidate to Future Hall-of-Famer in October, 2004.

plask_stirlac

09-29-2007, 10:46 AM

Other than total wins, yes, he's in.

Edgartohof

10-07-2007, 04:20 PM

Well, since much of Schilling's support is due to his postseason accomplishments, it's worth noting another good day of work for him today, as he helps Boston go up 3-0 on the Angels.

In Game 3 of the ALDS Bos vs. LA, Schilling goes 7 Innings, with 0 Runs, 6 Hits, 1 BB, and 4 SO, on exactly 100 Pitches!

So is Career Postseason ERA is down to 1.93, in 116 1/3 IP!!!

He now has a 9-2 postseason record to date!

plask_stirlac

10-07-2007, 08:11 PM

Walt Zink

10-09-2007, 03:06 PM

That's what I think gives him that last little push.

The example I gave to a guy at my bar was Bill Mazeroski. Now, this guy and his friend had said "no" on him. I mentioned Mazeroski. Take a guy with his career. A fine one, but nothing extra special. Add that walk-off home run. That last little thing - the bit of "fame" - was I think the thing that put him in. Right or wrong, it really was.

With that, I mentioned the "bloody sock" game, and the amount of media hype and the fact that he won - and won the WS for a team in a media center - is about the equivalent. He's going to get in. The stats of his postseason career are also staggering. He and Smoltz were probably the two best postseason starters I saw.

blslivewire

10-10-2007, 10:18 AM

I think any "on the bubble" pitcher in this era of offense should get in.

verybadbreath

10-25-2007, 11:55 PM

even the legendary post-season record may have been largely based on chance...and I anticipate that record will be further diminished in this year's playoffs. If he proves me wrong, great; but I don't expect to be wrong.
Man, I hate to eat crow...but Schilling has shoved the black bird directly down my throat. Here he is, seemingly with nothing in the velocity department, and he comes through big in the clutch. 11-2, 2.23 (or at worst 11-3 and 2-middle) says it all: Welcome to Cooperstown, Curt.

Mike Hoban

10-26-2007, 09:18 AM

Bosox

10-26-2007, 10:04 AM

From a life long Redsox fan, I'll give you the arguments for & against:

For HOF:

-gutty post season performances... and we saw it again last night!
-career strikeout total (especially vs walks allowed)

Against HOF:

-injuries hurting career totals (would have close to 300 wins by now)

I really think his chances hang on the outcome of the 2007 WS. If the redsox win, then I'd say he has a decent chance. Since this thread started in 2003, everyone keeps mentioning "Locks" for Schilling. So here is my "lock" for Schilling to make the HOF:

Redsox win 2007 WS ... AND... Schilling helps them get to the post season again in 2008... OR... Redsox win 2007 WS... AND... he gets 14 more wins to reach 230 in 2008

All things considered, he will surely be inducted into the Redsox HOF! Not to mention the fact that, as a Redsox fan, I will never forget his valiant performances when the sox really needed him... CURT IS THE MAN!!!

leecemark

10-26-2007, 10:14 AM

Macker

10-26-2007, 10:35 AM

11-2

And that could have been a 13-2 post-season record if not for Mitch Williams vulturing two wins in the 1993 NLCS. Schilling was named series MVP with no wins.

Shade

10-26-2007, 10:35 AM

At the end of the 2007 season, Curt Schilling did not have HOF numbers according to the NEWS HOF Gauge (based on a creative use of win shares). Here are some comparable pitchers (with their NEWS score - 235 needed for HOF numbers):

Jack Chesbro 209
Waite Hoyt 207
Billy Pierce 207
Curt Schilling 206
Dizzy Trout 206
Kevin Brown 205
Jim Kaat 203
Bobo Newsom 203
Mike Mussina 202

None of these pitchers has HOF numbers even though Chesbro and Hoyt are in the Hall.

Of course, Schilling may be elected. But, at the moment, he does not DESERVE to be there.

Getting a little off the subject here, but where does John Smoltz rate in the NEWS gauge? At this point I don't see much resistance to his HOF candidacy on these boards, but I don't know how the NEWS system would see him.

Also, I think Schilling has earned it as well, even though I never liked the guy personally.

PVNICK

10-26-2007, 11:07 AM

He seems like this generation's Bob Gibson. A great competetive pitcher that steps it up in the post-season.

KCGHOST

10-26-2007, 11:53 AM

In a primitive comparison amongst the 64 pitchers elected to the HoF who pitched in the major leagues for the bulk of their career (i.e. no Negro Leaguers) Schilling would rank 19th in WARP3, 13th in RCAA, and 18th in win shares. Now you can massage those ranking s around any way you like, but when a guy ranks in the top third of his position group HoFers it is a pretty good sign he belongs amongst them.

Mike Hoban

10-26-2007, 11:57 AM

--Well he doesn't make your abritrary cutoff anyway. Of course, your system identifies a significantly smaller number of players than are actually in Cooperstown. It seems your cutoff would more appropriately be set at a number which includes something close to the actual size of the Hall. Maybe what you could try is a list based on your current numbers as absolute Hall of Famers annd set another number (maybe down to player #250) who would be identified as Hal of Fame candidates.

This is interesting reasoning. In working on the NEWS Gauge, I made the assumption that only the very best players deserved to be in the Hall of Fame. I still believe that.

According to the NEWS, only 93 position players and 49 pitchers (20th century) have "HOF numbers." That is a much smaller number than are actually in the Hall. But, of course, there are players who deserve to be there who may not have the numbers.

As long as people realize that the NEWS is a tough standard, then they can take it in that light.

John Smolz has a NEWS score of 211. Here are those around him.

Urban Shocker 214
Luis Tiant 213
John Smoltz 211
Dolf Lugue 210
Jack Chesbro 209
Waite Hoyt 207

However, Smoltz is closing in on 300 career win shares (he has 288). And 300 CWS also represents HOF numbers for a pitcher according to the NEWS Gauge.

Mike Hoban

10-26-2007, 12:07 PM

He seems like this generation's Bob Gibson. A great competetive pitcher that steps it up in the post-season.

At the end of the 2007 season, Curt Schilling did not have HOF numbers according to the NEWS HOF Gauge (based on a creative use of win shares). Here are some comparable pitchers (with their NEWS score - 235 needed for HOF numbers):

Jack Chesbro 209
Waite Hoyt 207
Billy Pierce 207
Curt Schilling 206
Dizzy Trout 206
Kevin Brown 205
Jim Kaat 203
Bobo Newsom 203
Mike Mussina 202

None of these pitchers has HOF numbers even though Chesbro and Hoyt are in the Hall.

Of course, Schilling may be elected. But, at the moment, he does not DESERVE to be there.

Curt Schilling can only wish he were anywhere close to Bob Gibson. Gibson is the #11 best starting pitcher of the 20th century. His NEWS score is 273. Schilling is a good pitcher - Gibson was a great pitcher (true HOF material).

I think we should remember that a few postseason heroics do not make a player a Hall of Famer.

Brooklyn

10-26-2007, 12:21 PM

I think we should remember that a few postseason heroics do not make a player a Hall of Famer.

I think you should remember that you can't sum up everything about a player with a formula

leecemark

10-26-2007, 12:50 PM

--How did you determine what the cutoff for HoF numbers was?

jalbright

10-26-2007, 02:13 PM

Merged a bunch of Curt Schilling threads over the past three years into one. So, please note when the posts were made when reading them.

DoubleX

10-26-2007, 02:55 PM

I was looking at how many times a pitcher has had an ERA+ of at least 130 in a season since 1901, and I was surprised to see that Schilling is tied for the sixth most with 9 such seasons (being seasons with qualifying IP) since 1901 (though his peak is not as high as others). That's pretty impressive and select company, IMO, and a strong argument for him to be in the Hall.

Anyway, here's the list of the 154 players with at least 3 seasons with an ERA+ of 130 or higher, there are definitely some surprises along the way, IMO (ties are ordered by higher peak) (Hall of Famers are in Red, Active Players are in Blue, and Players Not yet Eligible are in Green):

1) Roger Clemens - 14 (226, 221, 213, 177, 175, 174, 169, 164, 154, 146, 141, 139, 132, 130)

2) Lefty Grove - 13 (219, 188, 185, 185, 175, 166, 160, 159, 158, 155, 151, 134, 133)

3) Walter Johnson - 12 (259, 242, 214, 214, 191, 183, 172, 164, 149, 147, 139, 137)

4) Christy Mathewson - 11 (230, 222, 168, 168, 160, 156, 152, 147, 138, 134, 133)

5) Greg Maddux - 10 (271, 262, 189, 187, 171, 166, 162, 159, 153, 146)

t6) Randy Johnson - 9 (197, 196, 192, 188, 186, 181, 166, 154, 136)
t6) Tom Seaver - 9 (193, 175, 165, 150, 145, 142, 140, 137, 136)
t6) Curt Schilling - 9 (159, 157, 150, 150, 143, 142, 135, 134, 134)

t9) Bob Gibson - 8 (258, 164, 151, 148, 139, 137, 133, 132)
t9) Jim Palmer - 8 (169, 156, 154, 150, 143, 134, 132, 130)
t9) Tom Glavine - 8 (168, 153, 147, 141, 140, 139, 135, 133)

t12) Pedro Martinez - 7 (291, 243, 219, 210, 202, 163, 145)
t12) Mordecai Brown - 7 (253, 193, 179, 160, 156, 143, 137)
t12) Pete Alexander - 7 (225, 170, 168, 167, 157, 153, 133)
t12) Kevin Brown - 7 (216, 169, 169, 164, 150, 143, 132)
t12) Addie Joss - 7 (205, 160, 151, 149, 137, 130, 130)
t12) Ed Walsh - 7 (189, 167, 164, 151, 150, 146, 136)
t12) Ted Lyons - 7 (173, 171, 153, 143, 137, 133, 132)
t12) John Smoltz - 7 (149, 143, 140, 138, 138, 137, 134)
t12) Tommy Bridges - 7 (147, 144, 140, 140, 140, 140, 137)

t21) Cy Young - 6 (216, 194, 166, 148, 145, 136)
t21) Hal Newhouser - 6 (195, 188, 161, 161, 145, 132)
t21) Carl Hubbell - 6 (193, 169, 168, 149, 143, 140)
t21) Dave Stieb - 6 (172, 145, 142, 140, 138, 130)
t21) David Cone - 6 (170, 159, 146, 138, 137, 131)
t21) Stan Coveleski - 6 (164, 156, 152, 148, 145, 144)
t21) Jose Rijo - 6 (163, 153, 150, 148, 141, 136)
t21) Mike Mussina - 6 (163, 157, 145, 142, 137, 134)
t21) Hippo Vaughn - 6 (161, 161, 145, 144, 136, 132)
t21) Bert Blyleven - 6 (158, 151, 144, 142, 140, 134)
t21) Babe Adams - 6 (153, 150, 147, 144, 140, 140)
t21) Jim Bunning - 6 (149, 148, 143, 143, 134, 132)
t21) Curt Simmons - 6 (145, 143, 142, 134, 131, 130)

t34) Billy Pierce - 5 (201, 148, 141, 136, 133)
t34) Sandy Koufax - 5 (190, 187, 160, 159, 141)
t34) Eddie Cicotte - 5 (186, 175, 174, 155, 131)
t34) Steve Carlton - 5 (182, 164, 162, 153, 150)
t34) Bret Saberhagen - 5 (180, 152, 145, 136, 135)
t34) Kein Appier - 5 (179, 165, 139, 138, 137)
t34) Whitey Ford - 5 (176, 170, 156, 143, 130)
t34) Orel Hershiser - 5 (170, 148, 148, 132, 131)
t34) Al Leiter - 5 (170, 140, 139, 133, 130)
t34) Juan Marichal - 5 (169, 168, 167, 144, 132)
t34) Doc White - 5 (168, 140, 139, 136, 132)
t34) Jimmy Key - 5 (164, 142, 141, 139, 138)
t34) Frank Viola - 5 (159, 153, 148, 141, 131)
t34) Mel Parnell - 5 (157, 139, 137, 137, 135)
t34) Burleigh Grimes - 5 (152, 145, 138, 136, 131)
t34) Robin Roberts - 5 (152, 141, 136, 135, 133)
t34) Red Ruffing - 5 (149, 148, 137, 132, 130)
t34) Bob Lemon - 5 (144, 139, 136, 134, 133)
t34) Eppa Rixey - 5 (144, 143, 142, 139, 137)

t53) Ed Reulbach - 4 (209, 159, 147, 142)
t53) Nolan Ryan - 4 (194, 142, 141, 139)
t53) Dazzy Vance - 4 (191, 189, 174, 146)
t53) Lefty Gomez - 4 (191, 175, 149, 136)
t53) Joe Wood - 4 (187, 178, 162, 152)
t53) Joe Horlen - 4 (183, 146, 134, 130)
t53) Johan Santana - 4 (182, 161, 155, 130)
t53) Phil Niekro - 4 (179, 159, 142, 142)
t53) Thornton Lee - 4 (173, 140, 136, 131)
t53) Red Faber - 4 (171, 145, 138, 137)
t53) Gaylord Perry - 4 (170, 144, 142, 130)
t53) Dizzy Trout - 4 (168, 155, 142, 136)
t53) Bucky Walters - 4 (168, 154, 146, 140)
t53) Sam McDowell - 4 (165, 161, 134, 133)
t53) Bob Feller - 4 (161, 154, 153, 130)
t53) Tommy John - 4 (161, 138, 137, 135)
t53) Gary Peters - 4 (160, 149, 138, 132)
t53) Carlos Zambrano - 4 (160, 139, 136, 135)
t53) Rick Reuschel - 4 (158, 157, 131, 131)
t53) Chuck Finley - 4 (158, 148, 143, 140)
t53) Dutch Leonard - 4 (157, 150, 146, 131)
t53) Early Wynn - 4 (154, 142, 136, 135)
t53) Dennis Martinez - 4 (153, 152, 141, 132)
t53) Eddie Plank - 4 (153, 151, 140, 136)
t53) Roy Oswalt - 4 (149, 144, 143, 138)
t53) Carl Mays - 4 (148, 148, 145, 139)
t53) Virgil Trucks - 4 (148, 144, 140, 134)
t53) Jim Maloney - 4 (148, 140, 136, 133)
t53) Burt Hooton - 4 (147, 146, 136, 130)
t53) Frank Sullivan - 4 (147, 146, 135, 130)
t53) Deacon Phillippe - 4 (147, 136, 134, 133)
t53) Waite Hoyt - 4 (146, 140, 137, 131)
t53) Wes Ferrell - 4 (146, 134, 131, 130)

t86) Carl Lundgren – 3 (212, 137, 133)
t86) Ron Guidry – 3 (208, 146, 140)
t86) Spud Chandler – 3 (197, 165, 145)
t86) Mort Cooper – 3 (194, 147, 144)
t86) Vean Gregg – 3 (189, 135, 133)
t86) Warren Spahn – 3 (188, 168, 130)
t86) Luis Tiant – 3 (186, 170, 133)
t86) Vida Blue – 3 (185, 142, 139)
t86) Harry Brecheen – 3 (182, 149, 138)
t86) Rube Waddell – 3 (179, 179, 165)
t86) Max Lanier – 3 (178, 138, 134)
t86) Al Benton – 3 (175, 152, 136)
t86) Jake Peavy – 3 (171, 159, 134)
t86) Noodles Hahn – 3 (170, 142, 141)
t86) Mike Garcia – 3 (169, 141, 139)
t86) Joe McGinnity – 3 (169, 137, 136)
t86) Rube Marquard – 3 (169, 134, 132)
t86) Danny Darwin – 3 (168, 142, 130)
t86) Jon Matlack – 3 (167, 149, 144)
t86) Ewell Blackwell – 3 (166, 142, 136)
t86) Brandon Webb – 3 (165, 157, 152)
t86) Howie Pollet – 3 (164, 150, 131)
t86) Vern Law – 3 (163, 133, 130)
t86) Don Sutton – 3 (161, 160, 144)
t86) Jerry Koosman – 3 (160, 145, 130)
t86) Dizzy Dean – 3 (159, 148, 135)
t86) Roy Halladay – 3 (158, 145, 143)
t86) Ray Collins – 3 (157, 136, 135)
t86) Bob Shawkey – 3 (156, 137, 130)
t86) Don Drysdale – 3 (154, 149, 139)
t86) Jim Scott – 3 (154, 147, 135)
t86) Frank Tanana – 3 (154, 136, 134)
t86) Denny McLain – 3 (154, 135, 134)
t86) Phil Douglas – 3 (153, 141, 131)
t86) Ed Lopat – 3 (153, 131, 130)
t86) Preacher Roe – 3 (152, 148, 138)
t86) Sal Maglie – 3 (151, 140, 134)
t86) Dennis Eckersley – 3 (150, 144, 139)
t86) Tex Hughson – 3 (150, 144, 134)
t86) Jesse Tannehill – 3 (150, 141, 131)
t86) Chief Bender – 3 (149, 147, 145)
t86) Andy Messersmith – 3 (149, 137, 132)
t86) Jack Chesbro – 3 (148, 137, 133)
t86) Herb Pennock – 3 (147, 146, 144)
t86) Jerry Reuss – 3 (146, 141, 139)
t86) Ned Garver – 3 (146, 133, 131)
t86) Kenny Rogers – 3 (144, 143, 134)
t86) Catfish Hunter – 3 (144, 140, 134)
t86) Mark Buehrle – 3 (144, 140, 131)
t86) Jack Pfeffer – 3 (144, 139, 132)
t86) Urban Shocker – 3 (144, 138, 136)
t86) Charles Nagy – 3 (144, 135, 133)
t86) George Uhle – 3 (144, 132, 131)
t86) Bump Hadley – 3 (143, 142, 140)
t86) Wilbur Cooper – 3 (143, 136, 135)
t86) Larry Gura – 3 (142, 137, 132)
t86) Jim Perry – 3 (142, 135, 131)
t86) Mark Langston – 3 (141, 137, 135)
t86) Bob Shaw – 3 (141, 137, 135)
t86) Eddie Rommel – 3 (141, 136, 131)
t86) Jack Weimer – 3 (140, 136, 131)
t86) Firpo Marberry – 3 (139, 132, 131)
t86) Jack Quinn – 3 (138, 133, 130)
t86) Charley Root – 3 (137, 134, 133)
t86) Milt Pappas – 3 (137, 134, 132)
t86) Tommy Thomas – 3 (136, 134, 131)
t86) Slim Sallee – 3 (134, 132, 132)
t86) Danny Jackson – 3 (132, 132, 132)
t86) Jamie Moyer – 3 (132, 130, 130)

leecemark

10-26-2007, 03:01 PM

DoubleX

10-26-2007, 03:40 PM

--Very interesting list, XX. Schilling is definately in some good company on the number of excellent seasons. Biggest surprises of the 33 men with 6 or more are Jose Rijo (including 3 with over 150!) and Curt Simmons (but never reaching 150). Biggest surprise with 5 or more - and probably the biggest surprise period - is Al Lieter. I always thought of him as just pretty good on the rare occasions he was healthy, but he was apparently better than I realized.

Thanks. I just edited the list to also include players with 3 seasons of at least 130. You can see when you get down to 3, you really get more of a mixed bag. I should also note that it is possible that I missed a few seasons along the way. When I made this list I was largely relying on yearly leaderboards. If the top 10 in a league in a given year were all over 130, then I'd look at all players in the league for that year to see who else was at 130 or higher. However, this system might not catch all players that switched leagues during a season and had an overall ERA+ of at least 130 (unless they made the top 10 on the ML leaderboard, in which case I got them). So I wouldn't be surprised if there are a very small handful missing.

Anyway, I was also surprised by the players you mentioned, particularly Jose Rijo. I remember Rijo, and I don't remember him being that good, let alone for six seasons. Though, looking at his stats, a couple of those seasons barely met the IP minimum.

I was also surprised that Bob Feller had just 4 seasons (even with missing WWII time), and that Warren Spahn had just 3. I'm really starting to think that Spahn might be a little overrated and that he may have been more like the Gaylord Perry/Phil Niekro/Don Sutton of his time, in that he had great longevity being good for a long time, rather than a truly all time top 10-12 great (as many would argue). Steve Carlton's 5 also surprised me a little, but all 5 were at least 150.

Finally, Tommy Bridges is also in some select company here as one of just 20 with 7. Granted, his peak just 147, but his consistency, at least in this measure, is pretty rare. I think he's someone who deserves more Hall consideration than he gets.

leecemark

10-26-2007, 03:50 PM

--Feller did miss 4 prime seasons to WWII, so he probably would have several more. Nolan Ryan also only had 4 and he had a quarter of a century to do it in. Spahn only had 3 over 130, but if you'd drawn the line at 120 he had 13 of those. He also played at a time when nobody was separating from the pack my sensational margins, so those 120's may be more dominant than they would have been at other times. What might be more reflective of the true number of outstanding seasons would be qualifying seasons in the top 10 in ERA+, whatver that number might be (which would eliminate some 130 seasons, but add many in the 120 or perhaps even lower in times of lower standard diviations).

DoubleX

10-26-2007, 04:06 PM

What might be more reflective of the true number of outstanding seasons would be qualifying seasons in the top 10 in ERA+, whatver that number might be (which would eliminate some 130 seasons, but add many in the 120 or perhaps even lower in times of lower standard diviations).

You're exactly right. A lot of 130 seasons would be eliminated, and even some 140 seasons, but a number of 120 seasons would be added and even some 110 (but I don't believe many).

I agree that in some ways leaderboard finish would be more telling, but I still think showing the number of times a player reached this level is pretty telling. It's not like using raw numbers, which can fluctuate pretty dramatically from era to era, this number is adjusted to show how the player performed compared to the league, and set at a level here that is fairly difficult to attain, especially multiple times. Using leaderboards could punish players because there happened to be a couple of more players that stepped up their games that year, and what would otherwise be a nice 140 ERA+ year, could thus look more pedestrian using leaderboards. I'd rather give a player his due for getting that high, because not many do it.

Also, in regards to the NL of the 1950s, where no one was really separating from the pack, perhaps that means that there was no one that dominant at the time to separate from the pack, rather than conditions being adverse to it? I'm not saying that is the case, just throwing it out there as perhaps an alternative reason to explain why guys like Spahn and Roberts didn't better separate from the pack (in that, perhaps they just weren't as good as we perceive them to be).

I also did this for OPS+ of at least 150. Maybe I'll start a thread with these lists and see what kind of discussion they start (if any).

Mike Hoban

10-26-2007, 04:31 PM

--How did you determine what the cutoff for HoF numbers was?

The brief explanation is that it was a judgment call based on the number of players who had established those numbers - and a desire to keep the Hall of Fame as a very select club.

I also find XX's post to be fascinating. But here is the problem I have. Clemens had 14 such seasons while Schilling had 9. Seems to be pretty good.

However, if you consider 18 or more win shares as a really good season for a starting pitcher (which I do), Clemens had 13 such seasons while Schilling had only 5. Is this a better way to compare? I am not sure but I think so.

DoubleX

10-26-2007, 04:45 PM

I also find XX's post to be fascinating. But here is the problem I have. Clemens had 14 such seasons while Schilling had 9. Seems to be pretty good.

However, if you consider 18 or more win shares as a really good season for a starting pitcher (which I do), Clemens had 13 such seasons while Schilling had only 5. Is this a better way to compare? I am not sure but I think so.

A lot of the reason for that is probably IP, and that is a good reason why just looking at ERA+ can be misleading (though interesting). Racking up quality IP is the most valuable thing a pitcher can do, IMO (and ERA+ will likely decline as innings increase). In three of Schillings 130+ seasons, he pitched less than 200 innings, thereby diminishing his value, as reflected in Win Shares. Clemens, on the other hand, had no problem racking up innings in most seasons while with the Sox.

leecemark

10-26-2007, 04:45 PM

--Both ERA+ and OPS+ extremes were very rare in the 50s, 60s, 70s and and 80s. The frequency of acheiving extreme relative numbers and the heigth of those numbers dropped pretty steadily from early baseball up until the last rounds of expansion (and the prevelance of PEDs?) in the 1990s. Many people regard Sandy Koufax's peak as amoung, if not the, best of all time yet his relative numbers were not amoung the all time best. Many regard the pitching depth in the 60s and 70s as the best ever, yet none of those pitchers show up as well as you'd expect in your 130+ study.
--This is true for both hitters and pitchers. I haven't done all the research for pitchers, but looking at this topic for hitter I found that only 2 hitters managed a 200 or better OPS+ in a season between 1961 and 1980 (McCovey 69 and Allen 72). Its hard to believe that sveral decades just happened to pass without any truely great stars.
--Again the 130+ study was interesting. It made me look at a few guys in a new light. I just wouldn't mark down Spahn or Perry or other pitchers who fared less well than you'd expect (although their sub-120 career ERA+s maybe should have kept expectations low) based on this work. When I get the time I'll run this again using top 10 vice 130. Of course, that will be flawed too since it will be easier to make it in an 8 team league than a 10, 12, 14 or 16 team league.

WJackman

10-26-2007, 05:57 PM

Thanks. I
.

Finally, Tommy Bridges is also in some select company here as one of just 20 with 7. Granted, his peak just 147, but his consistency, at least in this measure, is pretty rare. I think he's someone who deserves more Hall consideration than he gets.

Oddity on Bridges. In 1935, one of his best seasons, he made just one start against NY. Rowe, that season, made six or seven starts against NY. Since Bridges didn't have to face the best team in the league, his own, and did not work often against the second best team, it makes that season a little suspect.

Senor Octobre

10-26-2007, 07:19 PM

he needs to rig the election

or win a cy young for once

How utterly ignorant that comment was

mojorisin71

10-26-2007, 07:32 PM

I think we should remember that a few postseason heroics do not make a player a Hall of Famer.

Tell that to Bill Mazeroski.

jalbright

10-27-2007, 06:03 AM

One more Schilling thread merged into the mix, which sends our first post back to 2003.

jjpm74

01-26-2009, 09:26 AM

KevinWI

01-26-2009, 09:36 AM

I'd vote for him. He's one of the best postseason/clutch performers in my baseball watching-lifetime.

In the postseason, Schilling has put up an 11-2 record, 2.23 ERA, and 0.9692 WHIP, and collected 3 rings and 1 World Series MVP honor.

Walt Zink

01-26-2009, 09:39 AM

he will get in. and honestly? what do most people (meaning casual baseball fans) think of when they hear schilling's name? the bloody sock. he was a bulldog in the postseason, and despite being hurt for so much of his career, he still managed to finish with over 200 wins and over 3,000 Ks. people who are naysayers bring up blyleven, and to a point i agree, but schilling still put up great numbers missing a lot of time.

and as a side note? i wish he'd shut the hell up many times. i disagree vehemently with his political opinions and all, but i can separate the two personas and be objective about his pitching career. i say he is in.

nyykan_t

01-26-2009, 09:53 AM

He, Moose and Smoltz, who have similar career value, are all HOFer to me. Their comparasion should be interesting.

KCGHOST

01-26-2009, 10:25 AM

I think he is, but someone is going to have to sort out objectively why he is deserving and Kevin Brown isn't.

sturg1dj

01-26-2009, 11:16 AM

maybe if he was more consistent his first 9 seasons or more dominate since (he's been great, but not Koufax great which would help me forget the first 9 seasons).

post-season is important, but not as important as some think. Its so hard to make the playoffs in MLB, yet for those who are on loaded teams they get an advantage.

Mike90

01-26-2009, 11:17 AM

I think he is, but someone is going to have to sort out objectively why he is deserving and Kevin Brown isn't.

Schilling is deserving, and I'm pretty sure Brown is too. What separates Brown from Schilling in public opinion is that Schilling has three 20-win seasons to Brown's one, Brown has been implicated with PEDs, and, probably most importantly, Schilling excelled on the big stage while Brown was mediocre in the postseason and flamed out spectacularly in New York. Schilling's going to be enshrined, and Brown won't get close, which is a bit unfair.

vtbub

01-26-2009, 02:54 PM

He had some mediocre seasons and some incredible post-seasons. If his career had been more consistent, then he'd be a slam dunk. I voted no. I don't think his post-season accomplishments trumps those 94, 95, and 200 seasons. His valleys are as noticable as his peaks.

SamtheBravesFan

01-26-2009, 03:49 PM

henrich

01-26-2009, 03:56 PM

I think the poll is written in the negative, meaning a yes vote would be a no for the hall of fame and a no vote would be a yes. did I understand that correctly? I voted maybe because I have him on par with David Cone, who didn't get 5%, though I thought that was unjust.

SamtheBravesFan

01-26-2009, 04:46 PM

did I understand that correctly?

I seriously doubt you did. The question is "Is Curt Schilling a Hall of Famer?".

"Yes" means "Yes, I think he is a Hall of Famer."
"No" means "No, I don't think he is a Hall of Famer."
"Maybe" means "I'm not sure."

henrich

01-26-2009, 05:00 PM

I guess I was reading the title of the thread instead of the poll question. Thanks. My answer was maybe anyway, so it didn't mess up the poll results.

STLCards2

01-26-2009, 05:28 PM

Adjusted for team defense, Schilling is at about a career 129 ERA+ with over 3,100 IP. In other words, Dazzy Vance or Rube Wadell with much higher league quality and a blistering postseason record. His win total should be irrelevant, but it is as high as Vance and Waddell and Lemon and Drysdale.

His injury-prone career is counteracted by his high number of peak years.

Schilling is an easy HOFer - as is Brown.

Paul Wendt

01-26-2009, 05:29 PM

If he says it, No,
I don't agree, not no-how
(and I vote Yes here).

STLCards2

01-26-2009, 05:31 PM

Maybe he is trying not to look whiny like Morris and Blyleven. Schilling has enough of a public-image battle to face.

jalbright

01-26-2009, 06:46 PM

Threads merged and retitled.

Pghfan987

01-27-2009, 09:10 AM

Fuzzy Bear

01-27-2009, 03:58 PM

I would probably vote for Schilling for the HOF. He did more than any player active in 2000 to project himself forward as a viable HOF candidate during this decade. This is even more remarkable because he didn't win a single major award, yet he became as famous as those who did.

I'm not sure how the lack of a Cy Young Award will affect Schilling, as his career ended suddenly, and on a down note. Still, Schilling achieved much fame during this decade, and that will be a key factor in the minds of voters.

Cougar

01-27-2009, 10:45 PM

Not so sure about the down note...he went out with another good postseason and a Series win.

I suppose because his career ended more from injury than choice, it's a bit of a bummer, but the glass seems more full than empty to me.

Los Bravos

01-28-2009, 12:07 AM

Schilling is deserving, and I'm pretty sure Brown is too. What separates Brown from Schilling in public opinion is that Schilling has three 20-win seasons to Brown's one, Brown has been implicated with PEDs, and, probably most importantly, Schilling excelled on the big stage while Brown was mediocre in the postseason and flamed out spectacularly in New York. Schilling's going to be enshrined, and Brown won't get close,Agreed, as well.which is a bit unfair.Intellectually, I realize that's not far from being true, but...I can't find it in myself to care. I can't stand either man, personally, but I have tons more respect for Schilling, for many reasons.

A couple of ancillary things: Curt's been saying for years that he thinks he's short of the mark. Not sure if that's calculated or not but he's been consistent. And I'm glad he mentioned Murph in his panoply of great teammates.

Walt Zink

01-29-2009, 05:45 PM

not to mention kevin brown had a rep as a moody guy with a bit of a mean streak. part of the hall vote consideration is character, and brown's was definitely not a chipper and happy one. that's what's keeping guys like albert belle out, for example. schilling, despite the major number of injuries (not to mention getting a pretty late start, his first real impact season at the age of 25, w/ only 4 wins prior), put up excellent numbers. his numbers aren't too different than pedro martinez', either. pedro has an edge in K/9IP, and has the 3 CYAs, however.

brown had a chance to become a true impact player and dropped the ball on many occasions.

csh19792001

01-29-2009, 05:55 PM

Maybe he is trying not to look whiny like Morris and Blyleven. Schilling has enough of a public-image battle to face.

How exactly are Brown and Schilling "shoe ins" for the Hall of Fame? Because people feel the need to automatically induct a quota from each generation?

Brad Harris

01-29-2009, 07:26 PM

In a recent article posted on January 22 here, (http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090122&content_id=3765256&vkey=hotstove2008&fext=.jsp) Curt Schilling is quoted as saying:

"I feel very good about what I was able to do, I'm very proud of my career," Schilling said when posed the question by a caller. "I did [20] years -- far more than I ever expected. But I played with Randy Johnson, I played with Pedro Martinez, I played with Dale Murphy. I played with guys that have [Cy Young Award] plaques. I'd like to think I did well. I'd like to think that, if I had a must-win game, the guys I played with would want me to have the ball. But no, I don't think I deserve to be in the Hall of Fame."

Now that his career is likely over, do you agree with him?

Personally, I have him as a definite maybe leaning towards yes as a HOFer. He may struggle and take 10 years to get there, but Schilling may be surprised one day to find out that the media disagrees with him regarding his HOF candidacy.

For me, Schilling is somewhat on the fence, but I recognize that Schilling meets the standards of what constitutes a Hall of Fame pitcher - both the modern and historical standards - so it's hard to say he doesn't belong with the group that's actually in Cooperstown.

However, if Schilling doesn't think he, himself, is a worthy candidate, I have to be concerned that, should he be elected (and I think it's very likely he will be eventually), that's just one more unreasonable voter "protecting the high standards of the Hall of Fame" who'll be casting a very exclusive ballot when he's passing judgment on the post-WWII veterans election. Of course, it's not Schilling's fault that the Hall continues with this faulty process and that they do shouldn't influence the decision of whether or not Schilling himself is worthy of the honor. But it sure makes it difficult to be more sympathetic to his case when a statement like the above is giving a clue to how he'll likely vote once he has the power to do so.

That said, Greg Maddux is a "shoo in;" Curt Schilling is a probable inductee. Huge difference.

STLCards2

01-29-2009, 07:36 PM

How exactly are Brown and Schilling "shoe ins" for the Hall of Fame? Because people feel the need to automatically induct a quota from each generation?

First of all, I said "an easy HOFer", not "shoe-in". I am not sure where you are getting that quote from. Secondly, I was speaking "easy" in terms of my perception of his deservedness, not chance of being elected. I personaly believe that a 130 defensive adjusted ERA+ with over 3,000 IP, a handful of great peak seasons, and a splended postseason record is well over the HOF line. For the purpose of this thread, I am not commenting on what voters feel is Hall worthy, but what I feel is Hall worthy. I have never endorsed a quota from each generation, but I do recognize that Schilling has similar career numbers to Dazzy Vance (who does have an advantage in top 2-3 seasons) in a much better era with much better postseason credentials. I doubt much critisism would come for believing that Vance was an "easy" HOFer.

RuthMayBond

01-29-2009, 08:31 PM

not to mention kevin brown had a rep as a moody guy with a bit of a mean streak. part of the hall vote consideration is character, and brown's was definitely not a chipper and happy one. that's what's keeping guys like albert belle out, for example. Yes, Cobb, Ted Williams, Anson, Hornsby, Grove, Frank Robinson, Murray & Henderson would be appalled :rolleyes:

Cougar

01-29-2009, 09:19 PM

For me, Schilling is somewhat on the fence, but I recognize that Schilling meets the standards of what constitutes a Hall of Fame pitcher - both the modern and historical standards - so it's hard to say he doesn't belong with the group that's actually in Cooperstown.

However, if Schilling doesn't think he, himself, is a worthy candidate, I have to be concerned that, should he be elected (and I think it's very likely he will be eventually), that's just one more unreasonable voter "protecting the high standards of the Hall of Fame" who'll be casting a very exclusive ballot when he's passing judgment on the post-WWII veterans election. Of course, it's not Schilling's fault that the Hall continues with this faulty process and that they do shouldn't influence the decision of whether or not Schilling himself is worthy of the honor. But it sure makes it difficult to be more sympathetic to his case when a statement like the above is giving a clue to how he'll likely vote once he has the power to do so.

That said, Greg Maddux is a "shoo in;" Curt Schilling is a probable inductee. Huge difference.

This is an interesting point, but one can't really place too much weight on Schilling's answer about himself. His answers are compromised, obviously.

I'd be more interested in Schilling's thoughts about the cases of guys like Blyleven, Morris, Mussina, Smoltz, and Brown. That would illuminate his decision criteria much more clearly.

Mike90

01-29-2009, 10:32 PM

Yes, Cobb, Ted Williams, Anson, Hornsby, Grove, Frank Robinson, Murray & Henderson would be appalled :rolleyes:

Ah, but all those guys have much better statistical cases for the Hall than Brown. Perhaps, since the standards for the Hall includes a character clause, character should be considered for those players who are considered borderline cases.

But...I tend to agree with your view that character is usually forgotten when separating the greats from the very good. The fact that Brown had a prickly personality will probably fade in the public's consciousness over time, and his statistical record will determine whether he's enshrined. And he won't be.

Paul Wendt

01-30-2009, 08:29 AM

First of all, I said "an easy HOFer", not "shoe-in". I am not sure where you are getting that quote from. Secondly, I was speaking "easy" in terms of my perception of his deservedness, not chance of being elected.
Let's be frank, people. This forum is plagued with ambiguity. Think of it next time you write, "Is Albert Belle a HOFer?". Then rewrite.

Paul Wendt

01-30-2009, 08:44 AM

For me, Schilling is somewhat on the fence
Curt Schilling is never on the fence!
If he converges with Humpty Dumpty in middle age, it is in physical conditioning alone.

It's great to have the Classic Cincinnati Red back in town. Voila, something old brings us something new in Hall of Fame conversation.
However, if Schilling doesn't think he, himself, is a worthy candidate, I have to be concerned . . . it sure makes it difficult to be more sympathetic to his case when a statement like the above is giving a clue to how he'll likely vote once he has the power to do so.
Curt Schilling, guilty as charged.
I hereby sentence you to fifteen years on the ballot with opportunity for parole in January after the fifth year. Your opportunity will come in public interviews about recent election results. To be postponed one year if five coincides with a US Presidential cycle.

Walt Zink

01-31-2009, 07:05 PM

Yes, Cobb, Ted Williams, Anson, Hornsby, Grove, Frank Robinson, Murray & Henderson would be appalled :rolleyes:

as someone else said, these guys FAR exceed brown in the area of talent and a career numbers case.

btw, ted williams i find to be somewhat given a bad rap. i was listening to howard stern one day when artie lange made some comment about dimaggio VS williams and lightly bashing williams for a supposed "selfish" attitude. last i checked, teddy ballgame gave up 5 1/2 prime baseball years to fight in not one, but TWO wars.

not to mention, with cobb, you're talking about an overtly racist man, compared to ted williams, who pushed for integrating the game (although his team was the LAST in the majors to integrate their team, which is a massive black eye to the red sox organization).

williams was definitely surly, but i think the things he did (toss in his work for the Jimmy Fund) without asking for something in return shows a different sort of character.

sorry, went way off base there.

Brad Harris

02-03-2009, 12:35 AM

Curt Schilling is never on the fence!
If he converges with Humpty Dumpty in middle age, it is in physical conditioning alone.

It's great to have the Classic Cincinnati Red back in town. Voila, something old brings us something new in Hall of Fame conversation.

Curt Schilling, guilty as charged.
I hereby sentence you to fifteen years on the ballot with opportunity for parole in January after the fifth year. Your opportunity will come in public interviews about recent election results. To be postponed one year if five coincides with a US Presidential cycle.

:rofl::bowdown:

I bow to the master.

philkid3

03-24-2009, 01:10 PM

There's already been this thread, but now with his career done and nothing more coming for his case (and perhaps some opinions having changed): yay or nay to Curt Schilling?

Brad Harris

03-24-2009, 01:13 PM

I don't like the man, but the argument rests on keeping him out and, given his ability and accomplishments, that argument lacks substance. He gets an unenthused, but deserved "yes" from me.

Cougar

03-24-2009, 01:16 PM

I actually kinda do like the guy, but I don't think that's unduly affecting my "yes" vote.

You can't have over 3000 K with a better than 4:1 K/BB ratio and not be a HOFer. It's just not possible.

bambambaseball

03-24-2009, 01:26 PM

I cant stand him as a person and think he puts his foot in his mouth a lot. He is a definite HOFer though!:rainy:

Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan

03-24-2009, 01:51 PM

I voted no for now because I'm not sure. I could see Schilling's case grow on me over time, and I do acknowledge quite a few valid points supporting his candidacy, but I would vote no if I had to vote tomorrow.

There's at least 7 pitchers ahead of him in line, so he'll have to wait a few years after he's eligible probably (Maddux, Smoltz, Glavine, Mussina, Johnson, Martinez, Rivera). He's definitely not a first ballot guy.

MetPhanPhil

03-24-2009, 01:57 PM

There's at least 7 pitchers ahead of him in line, so he'll have to wait a few years after he's eligible probably (Maddux, Smoltz, Glavine, Mussina, Johnson, Martinez, Rivera). He's definitely not a first ballot guy.

Most of those guys you mentioned haven't retired yet, so Schilling will be voted on before they will.

My money's on first ballot--3000 K's, an unrivaled post-season record, 3 World Series Championships and a (co) Series MVP....I think he's a no-brainer.

He and Maddux will go in together in 2014.

FWIW, I don't see Mussina getting in at all, much less before Schilling.

Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan

03-24-2009, 02:01 PM

Most of those guys you mentioned haven't retired yet, so Schilling will be voted on before they will.

My money's on first ballot--3000 K's, an unrivaled post-season record, 3 World Series Championships and a (co) Series MVP....I think he's a no-brainer.

He and Maddux will go in together in 2014.

FWIW, I don't see Mussina getting in at all, much less before Schilling.

Yup, might happen. But I'm inclined to believe Maddux & Mussina will go in together, and Schilling will get left behind. Then, most likely, Smlotz, Glaving or Martinez will become eligible and delay Schilling's enshrinment. I would put odds at 25-75 at this point. You gotta remember, Schilling himself doesn't believe he's a HOF, so this may have an impact on the voting. It will be interesting to see if Schilling becomes the Blyleven or Bunning of this era because so many players will be HOF bound over the next decade+ and Schilling will never be the headliner. He'll be taking a backseat every year.

jalbright

03-24-2009, 02:17 PM

merged threads, but with the new poll in place in recognition of his retirement announcement

philkid3

03-24-2009, 02:48 PM

So, after making this poll, I decided to do a little stat write up on Schilling (http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/3/24/809174/curt-schilling-war)to try and get a simple measure of his career performance. I basically converted FIP in to WAR, and while judging a pitcher on just FIP (park adjusted but that's it) is not entirely comfortable for me, it should be a good guideline. And my jaw just about dropped.

I've always considered Schilling borderline, but close enough that I'd give him the edge for his post season accomplishments. Having now looked at the numbers, I may be underrating him.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2emeyhg.jpg
http://i40.tinypic.com/t5r7f4.jpg

Career: 82.9

8+ Seasons: 3

6+ Seasons: 5

4+ Seasons: 12

2+ Seasons: 16/18 (Qualifying)

5 Year Peak Average: 6.7

10 Year Peak Average: 6.3

Top Three Season Average: 9.1

WAR per 200 IP: 5.9

If those are to be taken at face value, that's unquestionably a Hall of Famer.

Seattle1

03-24-2009, 02:53 PM

The X-axis is easy to see, but what does the Y-axis represent in those graphs?

Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan

03-24-2009, 02:57 PM

Yeah, he's probably a HOF but will he be Blyleven or Bunning? There's a lot of potential for that scenario to take place, although it may be a shorter wait than them. A slot may open up for pitchers after the Big 7 get in (9-10 yrs.), and I predict Schilling may get in then. \

That's gonna be the real question here

Ace Venom

03-24-2009, 03:01 PM

FWIW, I don't see Mussina getting in at all, much less before Schilling.

I disagree. Mussina won't have an easy path to Cooperstown, but he definitely belongs. His ERA was about 80% better than the rest of the league. He pitched three more shutouts in his career than Schilling. Mussina could be practically lights out as was demonstrated by his near perfect game against the Red Sox in 2001 (a one-hit 1-0 shutout). He has a .638 winning percentage and has a 3.58 K/BB ratio. Let's not forget his seven gold gloves or his 123 ERA+. He is what I would consider the lower end of the second tier greats and he certainly belongs when you consider he put up his stats in the DH league and in the East division. The only thing he's short on is the black ink, but every other yardstick says he belongs. He deserves it.

philkid3

03-24-2009, 03:06 PM

The X-axis is easy to see, but what does the Y-axis represent in those graphs?

Wins Above Replacement.

KCGHOST

03-24-2009, 03:20 PM

It will be interesting to see who gets more votes: Schilling or Clemens.

mwiggins

03-24-2009, 03:28 PM

It will be interesting to see who gets more votes: Schilling or Clemens.

I don't think that's going to be really that close. I don't know if Schilling will get in, but I do know that Clemens won't.

I'm really not looking forward to years of "Jack Morris has more wins than Schilling, and he was a great post season pitcher too..."

philkid3

03-24-2009, 03:43 PM

I don't think that's going to be really that close. I don't know if Schilling will get in, but I do know that Clemens won't.

I'm really not looking forward to years of "Jack Morris has more wins than Schilling, and he was a great post season pitcher too..."
Thank you. Now I'm queasy.

Brad Harris

03-24-2009, 03:43 PM

Yup, might happen. But I'm inclined to believe Maddux & Mussina will go in together, and Schilling will get left behind.
That's highly unlikely. The voters tend to like the kind of things that would make Schilling stand out over Mussina. I think it's likely to be the scenario you went on to describe, but it will be Moose who gets shafted, not Schilling.

As for Schilling not believing that he, himself, is a Hall of Famer, that bodes extremely poorly for his credentials as a future voter on the Veterans Committee. In fact, he's precisely the kind of ex-player that proves why living Hall of Famers shouldn't have exclusive voting privileges on the old-timers.

Seattle1

03-24-2009, 03:45 PM

Maybe if he had had a few more seasons like 2001 or 2002...

mwiggins

03-24-2009, 04:13 PM

Maybe if he had had a few more seasons like 2001 or 2002...

He did. 1992, 1997, and 2004. He was just as dominant in 2003, though he missed time with injuries. And he was nearly that good in 1996 & 1998.

gman5431

03-24-2009, 05:12 PM

I voted no because in general i like a tighter HOF than most people. Also, i dont support Blyleven's campaign so i cant support Schillings really, as i think Burt's may be stronger. He pitched over 1,000 innings more.

On the other hand, Schilling will get in, not first ballot, but in the first 5 years, largely on his playoff exploits.

G Man

brett

03-24-2009, 05:27 PM

Top 10 win seasons:
Schilling: 162
Koufax: 159

brett

03-24-2009, 05:29 PM

He did. 1992, 1997, and 2004. He was just as dominant in 2003, though he missed time with injuries. And he was nearly that good in 1996 & 1998.

If his top 8-win seasons were strung together he would look better on paper:

23
22
21
17
16
15
15
15

I have always felt however that the voters like to see a string of consistency to gauge a player's greatness and that having great years chopped up by partial seasons hurt players in the voting.

jjpm74

03-24-2009, 05:33 PM

This will get him in.

TonyK

03-24-2009, 06:11 PM

Top 10 win seasons:
Schilling: 162
Koufax: 159

Like Koufax, he defeated the ace of the WS opponent's staff to help win the World Series for his team. Who knows how many wins he had taken away because he pitched with an ankle injury?

Los Bravos

03-24-2009, 06:16 PM

According to ESPN's graphic that I saw this morning, Schilling will be eligible along with the players who last played in 2007, rather than Maddux and Mussina. That is to say Biggio, Piazza, Bonds, Clemens and Sosa. Only one of those guys is completely free of steroid taint (although Piazza's connection is purely anecdotal and, if I had to guess, will not hurt him nearly as much as the others, who I sincerely believe will never even sniff induction.) Given that field, Curt could benefit from his perception as a guy who was clean. (Mike Golic made the same point, this morning, but I had already come to the same conclusion, seeing the list of guys he'd be up alongside as first balloteers.)

If he misses in the first year, then suddenly he has Maddux and Mussina coming up as first timers, then Johnson and Glavine in short order. He could be in for a Niekro-Sutton style mini-delay.

RyanExpress30

03-24-2009, 06:33 PM

I'd vote yes, without much hesitation.

brett

03-24-2009, 06:43 PM

According to ESPN's graphic that I saw this morning, Schilling will be eligible along with the players who last played in 2007, rather than Maddux and Mussina. That is to say Biggio, Piazza, Bonds, Clemens and Sosa. Only one of those guys is completely free of steroid taint (although Piazza's connection is purely anecdotal and, if I had to guess, will not hurt him nearly as much as the others, who I sincerely believe will never even sniff induction.)

Not so fast on Biggio. Again, I'll mention that there is a rumor that Bonds, Sosa, McGwire and Clemens will be blackballed by a group of current HOFers.

Another question: Will Clemens and Bonds mess up the chances for others if they get split support?

Fuzzy Bear

03-24-2009, 07:05 PM

Schilling had BIG seasons. That's key in getting into the HOF. He did more to project himself forward to the HOF from 2001 on than any other player, bar none.

Schilling would have been a slam dunk if he had won a Cy Young Award, but his WS performance, and his Bloody Sock give him the kind of legend that is worth a Cy Young Award in the memory of voters. He has a REPUTATION as a GREAT pitcher now, and this will project him forward to the HOF.

Brad Harris

03-24-2009, 08:22 PM

This will get him in.
From a practical standpoint, I believe that will be the single biggest difference maker, proving Schilling's margin of victory.

Los Bravos

03-24-2009, 10:21 PM

Not so fast on Biggio.Really? That's news to me.

Well, if that's the case, then he gets to be the only major new guy that year with no taint, (unless a few of the dimmer writers think testifying at that hearing tarnishes him, regardless of what he said :laugh)

Paul Wendt

03-24-2009, 10:56 PM

So, after making this poll, I decided to do a little stat write up on Schilling (http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/3/24/809174/curt-schilling-war)to try and get a simple measure of his career performance. ...

If those are to be taken at face value, that's unquestionably a Hall of Famer.
Phil's bottom line is favorable but I believe his ratings overrate the impact of Schilling as a poor batter. He was below average but I don't believe that he cost his team one win per season.
(The graphs show about one win in '93, '97-98, and 2002-04; about half a win in other NL seasons. Say, he moved to the American League in 2004. How could his batting cost one game?)

philkid3

03-24-2009, 11:55 PM

Phil's bottom line is favorable but I believe his ratings overrate the impact of Schilling as a poor batter. He was below average but I don't believe that he cost his team one win per season.
Nor do the numbers say they cost him one win per season. It's more like half a win. And the only place they're included is on the second line on the graph. What is your reason for disagreement? I'd be interested to see your correction and why.

(The graphs show about one win in '93, '97-98, and 2002-04; about half a win in other NL seasons. Say, he moved to the American League in 2004. How could his batting cost one game?)
Typo. Now fixed.

Brad Harris

03-25-2009, 06:46 AM

Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan

03-25-2009, 06:48 AM

That's highly unlikely. The voters tend to like the kind of things that would make Schilling stand out over Mussina. I think it's likely to be the scenario you went on to describe, but it will be Moose who gets shafted, not Schilling.

As for Schilling not believing that he, himself, is a Hall of Famer, that bodes extremely poorly for his credentials as a future voter on the Veterans Committee. In fact, he's precisely the kind of ex-player that proves why living Hall of Famers shouldn't have exclusive voting privileges on the old-timers.

We'll agree to disagree on your first point. For better or for worse (and I agree beforehand that these ARN'T the best way to judge pitcher credentials), Mussina has 56 more wins, a huge advantage in win % - all this over more than 300 innings pitched. In fact, his win % is amongst the best in history for pitcher with over 100 decisions. I think especially because his win totals are much closer to the magical 300 mark, he will get the nod by the writers over Schilling. So yes, I think it will Mussina, not Schilling going in first.

As to which pitcher had the better career? Schilling has the better raw statistics in 300 less innings, and his best peak seasons are better than Mussina, I would narrowly take Mussina mainly because he could be depended on taking the ball every fifth day. I also think that while Schilling's postseason exploits are excellent obviously, people have to realize this was only 133 innings of pitching, albeit special pitching.

mwiggins

03-25-2009, 07:14 AM

I'll also say that Morris is a poor comparison. I've seen in several places Jack Morris get mentioned in conversations about Schilling's Hall credentials. Schilling was a great pitcher who had great post-season performances. Morris just had the great post-season performances; he wasn't a great pitcher. Big difference.

And Morris overall wasn't the post-season pitcher Schilling was, but he did have the two great World Series in '84 & '91.

It was interesting listening to the ESPN morning radio guys yesterday discussing the issue with Buster Olney. They compared him to Morris and Blyleven, and in at least 5 minutes of discussion the only stat that was mentioned was win totals. It was nothing but "Does the fact that he was the best post-season pitcher of his generation make up for the fact that he doesn't have a lot of wins?"

I think that's going to be Mussina's problem. There's no easy "sound bite" way to pitch his HoF worthiness. Schilling will be the "great post-season guy" the way Rice was the "most feared hitter of his era guy". I think Mussina's going to end up like Blyleven. Hang around on the ballot for years as the SABRmetrics crowd pushes for him while a decent chunk of the voters say "He was never a great pitcher."

His years as a consistently good-to-very-good pitcher in NY seem to have mostly obscured that he was a great pitcher with Baltimore early in his career.

Paul Wendt

03-25-2009, 10:22 AM

Nor do the numbers say they cost him one win per season. It's more like half a win. And the only place they're included is on the second line on the graph. What is your reason for disagreement? I'd be interested to see your correction and why.
The time period is 1992-2003. The graph seems to show a half-game knock on Schilling as a batter in about two seasons (1994-95), otherwise closer to one than to one half game, perhaps -0.8 games per season overall.

One basis for my disagreement is OPS+ where Schilling is not much below average. There have been many pitchers three to five times so far above or below pitcher-average as batters but we never talk about pitchers generating anything like +/-3 games at bat and I don't believe they do so (another basis for disagreement).

Do you incorporate pinch-hitters in the batting norms for pitchers who work a lot of innings. That seems attractive at first thought. If Schilling gets three plate appearances and the norm is two, maybe his third plate appearance should be compared with a pinch-hitter. Along those lines, high-innings pitchers as a group would be credited with negative batting contributions in aggregate; normal-innings pitchers with zero batting contributions; low-innings pitchers with positive batting contributions in aggregate.

Paul Wendt

03-25-2009, 10:51 AM

His years as a consistently good-to-very-good pitcher in NY seem to have mostly obscured that he was a great pitcher with Baltimore early in his career.
Baltimore was not a strong team generally and its autumnal performances were mediocre when the team was one of the favorites.

In 1996 Mussina pitched game three only in both series with Cleveland and New York. Jeffrey Maier was part of that story although one more win for the Orioles (game one) would yield a sixth game but might not give Mussina one more start (game seven).
Mussina pitched poorly against Cleveland, Baltimore's only defeat, 9-4. Against New York he led 2-1 after seven and got the first two batters but then coughed up double, single, double, home run. (1996 ALCS game three, box and play-by-play-by-play) (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BAL/BAL199610110.shtml) Thus he was one important co-author of the 1996 chapter in the latest Yankees story.

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.

brett

03-25-2009, 10:58 AM

Really? That's news to me.

Well, if that's the case, then he gets to be the only major new guy that year with no taint, (unless a few of the dimmer writers think testifying at that hearing tarnishes him, regardless of what he said :laugh)

He had some forearms and jaw muscles on him.

philkid3

03-25-2009, 01:00 PM

The time period is 1992-2003. The graph seems to show a half-game knock on Schilling as a batter in about two seasons (1994-95), otherwise closer to one than to one half game, perhaps -0.8 games per season overall.
That's actually pretty close to the truth.

One basis for my disagreement is OPS+ where Schilling is not much below average.
But I wouldn't ever use something like OPS+ for this. It has too many limitations compared to what else is out there. That said, 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. FanGraphs has him at -127.6 weighted runs above average for his career.

I used the runs above replacement available at Baseball Projection for Schilling. I'm not positive that's the best way to evaluate his offense at all and I'm looking in to what makes sense. Which is why I'm asking if anyone would have a substantiated suggestion. But for now, that's why I included it on the graph but not anywhere else.

There have been many pitchers three to five times so far above or below pitcher-average as batters but we never talk about pitchers generating anything like +/-3 games at bat and I don't believe they do so (another basis for disagreement).
I'm not sure there have been that many pitchers that far below average for pitchers. Using old VORP is flawed, but just as a quick assessment, no one was even close to that bad as a pitcher last year. What pitchers are you talking about being this bad? And if they are, maybe they should be talked about losing that much value at the bat.

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

Do you incorporate pinch-hitters in the batting norms for pitchers who work a lot of innings. That seems attractive at first thought. If Schilling gets three plate appearances and the norm is two, maybe his third plate appearance should be compared with a pinch-hitter. Along those lines, high-innings pitchers as a group would be credited with negative batting contributions in aggregate; normal-innings pitchers with zero batting contributions; low-innings pitchers with positive batting contributions in aggregate.
That may make some sense. The other issue is punishing or rewarding pitchers who pitch ing the NL vs. pitchers who cannot add or detract from their value in the AL (part of why I only included his offensive adjustment on the graph). The solution there would probably be a positional adjustment for AL pitchers, but that would still carry with it some questions.

Of course, that's no problem in MVP debates, but in actually trying to measure value for a conversation like this it is.