Curt Schilling and the Hall of Fame

[seaphil]

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]

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

[seaphil]

Well, two down- three to go.

[scott4_Dallas]

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]

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]

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.

[The Commissioner]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.)

[dgarza]

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]

Originally Posted by dgarza

"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]

Originally Posted by Cougar

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Cougar

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Cougar

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.

Which mid-reliever DOESN'T this describe!

[pretorius]

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]

Originally Posted by Cougar

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.