Power Pros Forum

Schilling places ahead of Brown, easily. Check out their career ERA+ and WHIP - Schillings is better. Schillings has more wins and Ks, too (way more K's). Throw in the post-season success and it's not a contest.

Mussina is an interesting case - never overwhelmingly dominant, but a great pitcher nonetheless. Schilling...well, he's up there in that top 5. I wasn't paying a lot of attention to baseball from 1993 - 1999 (the strike and puberty, you know), but the numbers put Schilling well ahead of Brown in almost every category. He only was on the Yanks for a few years...so aside from team favorites, I can't imagine why'd you'd easily place Brown and Mussina above him. That doesn't make sense.

Kevin Brown's career: http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/brownke01.shtml

Curt Schilling: http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/schilcu01.shtml

moose should be in the HoF.
remember that he was an oriole before he was a yank, and he could have easily had 3-4 20 win seasons instead of 1 if it wasn't for some bad luck.

if blyleven isn't in, then schilling shouldn't be in.
however, schilling has a decent chance to be in the hall, he is one of the best postseason pitchers of all time.

Blyleven should be in.

Mussina is debatable, but I would just barely draw the line before letting him in. ERA+ of 123, pretty good career WHIP and other numbers. Shined his entire career in the AL East, a tough division. Great, stable pitcher year in and year out. 150 innings or more every year since his rookie season. 5-time all star, high wins and K totals. A truly stable force in the rotation. http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mussimi01.shtml

Schilling is most likely going in - the 3 WS rings help, along with the stories - the dominance of 2001, with him and RJ, and the bloody sock, curse-busting 2004 season. The HOF is a place for legends, and those two acts are part of baseball mythos now. Mussina never really had that high-powered dominance - he was quieter, relying on that fooling knuckle-curve rather than pure power. Mussina was great, and there's an argument for him, but Schilling is ahead.

Slow down, there. No need for caps, unless you are actually trying to show your angry with me. What logic was this? I never explained why Mussina is a hall-of-famer in my mind, so this isn't my logic. What I think is that wins, while a highly overated statistic, matter to a certain extent. They show consitency and they show how long you went in the game. Baltimore wasn't nearly as good a team as the Yanks, he didn't get as many wins there. He also didn't get as much run supports other Yankees. He was just consistent, day in and day out, and pitched a lot of innings, 7 almost every game. He pitched more innings then Schilling. Now Schilling was on good hitting team too, I might add. Plus, his ERA was so good in what some call (and I include myself in this group) the hardest division in history over the past 10 years. To have that ERA against such good teams is phenomenal. Schilling only was there for a few years. That's why I think Mussina's more impressive. That 3.46 ERA is a result of no dh and the weakest division in the game for most of his career. That count for at least 22. 1 more thing. Baltimore's stadium is one of the best hitting parks in the game. Yankee's stadium is a great hitters park too. Arizona? The complete opposite. One more thing Moose did. He was a golden glover. He has the second most golden gloves, next to Maddux, in history for a pitcher. That has to count for something.


Understand my point now? I don't mean whenever you agree with me, because there are arguments on other side. I believe the case for Moose is a decent amount stronger, but I recognize the other side. Can you see what I mean though?

Edit: Brown! A team favorite! Of a Yankee fan! Where would you get that! Haha, Yankee fans hate Brown. I actually don't know Brown too well, so throw what I said out the window. Never mind, I just saw him a lot on future hall-of-fame list. He just kind of fell apart compared to what he could have done. Scratch that then.

Well, wins do matter to a certain extent. Unfortunately, as all of us who have played a lot of Life mode know, hitting is needed to win a game as well. What ERA doesn't account for that wins does is that it shows his stamina and ability to complete a game and do it well. For players on bad teams, wins show they are truly a stud.

For example, Cy Young was on the Cleveland Spiders, who were terrible. He still got 511 career wins. So, if I joined the majors now, and let's just say I'm 21. If I won 30 games each season until I was 38, I would still be a victory shy. Then, put into account that nobody has won 30 games since 1968 (I think). So, wins help him there.

However, in Schilling's case, he did have a good offense for his career. Not the entire time, but he did in the past few years as a Red Sock. So, wins are rendered useless. Wins only matter if your team is on the extreme end and you are on the other.

I, personally, think he belongs in the Hall. Others may not. That's fine. You have the right to your opinion, as I do to mine.

I just found out a very suprising statistic. Shilling had a 20 year career yet only won 216 games. That's just 10.8 games a year. He also has an average of 9 losses a year. that's 10.8 wins and 9 losses each year on average. That's really unimpressive and frankly surprising. THAT has to count for something. Mussina holds the record for most seasons of 10+ wins.

Yeah, it does. And I have a feeling that just might keep him out of the Hall.

I read in a book that came out quite a few years ago this fact: of the 88 Cy Young winners (again, read first statement), 55 led the league in Wins. 31 led the league in only wins, not ERA or K. So, wins is looked as if it is way more important than it actually is. So, I think he definitly should be in the Hall, but he might not end up there.

I think wins can be an overated statistic, I wouldn't say they always are. It really goes writer to writer (which is basically voter to voter). I think wins should count for something, but I consider ERA much more valuable. Yet they count for enough that Shilling's slightly above average win-loss record hurts him.

Wins can be a very overrated stat- for instance:

Pitcher A has a 2.50 ERA but is 8-15

Pitcher B has a 5.15 ERA but is 18-5

People who bases wins as important stats would probably say that pitcher B was better just by looking at the wins, see what I'm saying?

But wins can be looked at when on a bad offensive team like the Giants where Lincecum managed 18 wins and the blue jays where halladay won 20

I just want to say - Yankee Stadium is by no means a great hitter's park. It is a great home run park for left-handed hitters only. The left field fence is as far away as the right field fence is close.

I am not sure where I read this but I believe that Yankee Stadium is actually slightly a pitcher's park.

Just an opinion.

(And the Hall-Of-Fame debate? Just throw 'em both in the Hall and be done with it. )

They should both be in the Hall in my opinion, and Blyleven too; but if push came to shove, I would say that Schilling is slightly, slightly better.

You can pitch well and lose. You can pitch poorly and win. But over the course of a 30+ start season, those scenarios tend to be the exception, not the rule. I submit that it's unlikely for someone with a 2.50 ERA go 8-15 on the year. I would say with poor run support and rotten luck, 12-11 is a more realistic example.

Over the course of a 15+ year career, a starting pitcher's win/loss record and his winning percentage are fairly accurate statistics to look at -- along with all of his other numbers, of course.

Back to Schilling...He's had some outstanding years, and many mediocre ones, usually because of injuries. 216 wins is fairly low compared to other HOFers with long careers. His .597 winning percentage isn't impressive. But his postseason resume is a big plus. My gut feeling is that he will probably make it, but calling it a lock is a bit far-fetched.

As for Mussina, he's been consistently above average his entire career, not missing too many starts, which explains his higher win total. His .638 winning percentage is pretty good too. But there's just nothing exceptional to point out about him. HOF voting has historically not been kind to those who were very good but not great. And defense generally doesn't count for a whole lot, especially for pitchers. I'm afraid his chances aren't as good.

If you want to consider ballparks, that's what adjusted ERA+ is for. Schilling's career number is very good at 127, with Mussina just a tick below at 123. (Average is 100. The best career mark for starters is Pedro's 154.)

Tell that to Matt Cain...

In 2008, Cain went 8-14 with a 3.76 ERA, which was 0.62 better than the league average. That's a far cry from a 2.50 ERA -- almost two whole runs better than the league average that year.

Look at Randy Johnson in 2004, when his ERA was 2.02 better than the league average (2.60 vs 4.62). The D'backs of that year went 51-111, much worse than the 2008 Giants (72-90). He still managed to end up 16-14.

Going back to Cain, he struck out less than one batter per inning pitched, but his poor record can be partially explained by his unsightly 1.364 WHIP.

IF they are ignored? Oh they won't be. They might not get into the HOF now, hell even A-Rod might not. There are a number of people on the commitee that WILL NOT vote for anyone who used steriods. Example, Mark Mcquire. With all Clemens been through....


Anyways. Schillling is NOT a lock. However, I can see him making the HOF. Great player but will be a late ballot if anything.

schill will get in at some point, but mussina gets in first easily.
that's my opinion.