Power Pros Forum

I just heard on ESPN that curt schilling has announced retirement, I'll miss the guy. Do you guys think he has any chance at hall of fame?

Well, his sock is already in the Hall, so why shouldn't he?

Well, if you're socks' in the hall, your golden.
Hey, i went to the hall of fame once, and i lost the extra socks i was carrying (we had gone to a waterpark earlier that day.) shouldn't i be in the hall?

He definitely has a chance. His 11-2 postseason record can't be ignored. But he's certainly no shoo-in. He had four, maybe five very good seasons. That's enough to make it past the screening committee, and he'll probably stay on the ballot for years, but his candidacy is debatable.

He had 3 good 20 win seasons, but 2 of them came in the NL West which is a very easy division, compared to the AL East he had a 20 win season once. 11-2 record in postseason is best ever, but his regular season W/L is not that good. I dont think he would make it as 1) >220 wins 2) Inconsistant 3) Pitchers, average ERA (3.46)

I'm pretty sure wins and loses don't count towards if someone gets into the hall. That's not his fault - a pitcher can be very, very good in a game and give up one hit (a home run) and have no offensive support and thus lose.

However, you got to remember, Schilling pitched in a easy division with good run support. Diamondbacks were a good team then. His postseason wins have to go credit to the number of appearences he made. 3 in the 01 world series is alot. 19 appearences is alot in post season. Sorry, i meant starts.

Let me tell you something - Schilling lead the Diamondbacks to a championship. He also lead the Red Sox to one, twice. He'll be in the Hall for sure, unless they decide to piss me off and ban him from it (like they did to Pete Rose). However, there is no legitimate reason to ban him.

Yah - Curt Schilling is pretty much a lock for the HOF. Look at his career K/BB ratio. > 3000 strikeouts, 6 all-star selections, pitched over 250 innings what, 4 times? He and Johnson carried the D-Backs in '01 and '02. Then comes to Boston, promises to end the curse, and does so - first year there, wins 2 rings total.

That doesn't even start to look at his unreal post-season dominance. That was just insane - take away the first ALDS game against the yanks in 04 where he was hobbling around, and his numbers would be even more impressive.

Anyone remember that 2002 all-star game, where he faced A-Rod and told him he would be throwing fastballs? "Here comes my best, let's see your best." Who sat down? A-Rod.

Schilling wasn't the most dominant pitcher at all times, but is definitely in the same world as Maddux, Glavine, Johnson. That's the cream of the pitching crop from 92-2005 or so, and that's most likely enough to edge him into HOF status.

Then, there's him talking about getting 55,000 Yankee fans to shut up. That, alone, is worth a HOF vote for me.

Blyleven's career record is 287-250. He had poor run support plenty of times in his career. He's not in the HOF after being on the ballot for 12 years so far. Some of the reasons to support his case are found here:

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/20 ... nely_1.php

This win/loss bias sometimes exhibits itself in Cy Young voting. In 2004, Randy Johnson had a lower ERA, lower WHIP, and more strikeouts than Clemens while pitching more innings. Yet Clemens won by a landslide. The reason: Clemens was 18-4 while Johnson was 16-14. I would say that winning 16 games for a team that went 51-111 that year is downright mind-boggling.

Same thing happened with the 2005 AL Cy Young. Johan Santana was better than Colon in ERA, WHIP, and K's while pitching slightly more innings. But Colon's 21-8 record swayed voters over Santana's 16-7.

That's all correct.

1) Blyleven should be in the HOF.
2) Wins mean something, but not nearly as much as the emphasis placed on them. Since they rely on the offense, something outside of a pitcher's control, they are not as directly useful as other stats - K/BB ratio, WHIP, ERA+, etc.

Baseball writers (and voters for awards like HOF, Cy Young, etc) are still looking at wins as a deciding factor. That is disgusting.

As for championships, Jack Morris won four times, including three in a row. He won once (1984) during his long tenure with Detroit. Later he signed a one-year contract with Minnesota, winning that year (1991). He then pitched two seasons with Toronto, won both years (1992, 1993). It should be noted that he pitched well during the 1992 regular season, but poorly in the postseason. He was injured during the 1993 season, not pitching in the postseason that year.

Overall, he was pretty good in the postseason, going 6-1. His best performance occurred in the 1991 WS. He threw a 10-inning shutout in game 7 on three days' rest.

I can't see Schilling being a lock.

He has 3116 career K, but Blyleven's not in with over 3701. He had three 300+ K seasons and another one with 293. The rest of the time was not remarkable.

His win total (216) isn't great, even compared to his comtemporaries, but his winning percentage (.597) is the same as Warren Spahn's.

His injuries over the years have hurt his career totals, but was excellent in his good years.

He was runner-up for Cy Young three times, having the misfortune of playing in the same league and at the same time as Randy Johnson and Johan Santana during their award-winning years.

Schilling has a lot going for him, especially his postseason success, but not enough in my mind to say he's a sure-fire HOFer.

No, and here's why. When you consider who is a hall-of-famer, you consider who were the best of the era. Despite the fact that this is a hitting era, the very best pitchers had suprisingly low eras. One pitcher does not make an era. Here are some certain hall of famers. If you disagree, let me know and I'm certain I can convince you of these guys:
1. Tom Glavine
2. Randy Johnson
3. Pedro Martinez
4. Greg Maddux
5. Mariano Rivera
6. Trevor Hoffman
Now admitidly closers aren't competition for Schilling as they are of a compleatly different breed.
Now let's looks at the guys who are major contenders
1. Roger Clemens
2. Mike Mussina
3. Kevin Brown
4. John Smolts
5. Curt Schilling
Roger Clemens and Kevin Brown are locks if their potential steroid use is ignored. Clemens appeared to have not taken them before he went to Toronto, and he was already a hall of famer then. It's an interesting argument.
Mike Mussina I think is a hall of famer and is better then Schilling. In fact, generally most writers say that Mussina, if he is not a hall-of-famer, will be the best non hall of fame pitcher ever. But he's not a lock. Still, he played in the toughest division in the game for his whole career. He won 270 games. He struggled one year only to recreate himself and get that 20 win season. Last year really helped him chances as he changed his pitching strategy and left the game on top. In fact, he was the first pitcher to leave the game by choice after a 20 win season (Koufax was forced out by injuries and 2 pitchers from the Black Sox scandel were banned from baseball).

I believe that 5-6 starters in each era can be hall-of-famers. I count Mike Mussina amoung my four starting pitching locks if I were a voter. Clemens I haven't made up my mind for (I'm against Brown), and if I voted for him, he'd be the 6th. Schilling would be 7th, and that's too late. While I have not entirely made up my mind and if I was a hall-of-fame voter I would look into this much more indepthly, at this point I would not vote for Schilling as a hall-of-famer.

Extra Notes: I didn't include Johan Santana in my list of future hall of famers as he is part of a young era. If he pitches for 10 years and nothing (knocks on wood) happens to him, then he is a lock also in my mind. It is rare that I say that for someone so early in their career, but he has been good enough for just long enough that I believe I can.

I'd just like to point out to you Cownip, that Schilling and Mussina have almost identical career stats. Schilling will be in the Hall of Fame, he's a shoe in. Why? It's simple - he has one of the best (if not the best) playoff record out of every pitcher in the history of the game. In the course of Schilling's career, he recorded three thousand strikeouts and has an ERA of 3.46. Mr. Mussina has 2.8k strikeouts and an ERA of 3.68. Sure, MUSSINA HAS MORE WINS, BUT THAT MEANS AND PROVES NOTHING. IF YOU WANT TO PLAY WITH WIN/LOSS RECORDS, THEN CURT HAS LESS LOSTS SO HE SHOULD BE IN THE HALL - THAT'S WITH YOUR LOGIC.