Posted December 30, 2012

JAWS and the 2013 Hall of Fame ballot: Curt Schilling

Boston Red Sox, Curt Schilling, Hall of Fame, JAWS, Philadelphia Phillies
Curt Schilling may be remembered best for his role in helping the Red Sox win the World Series in 2004, their first title in 86 years. (Rob Tringali/SportsChrome)

Curt Schilling may be remembered best for his role in helping the Red Sox win the World Series in 2004, their first title in 86 years. (Rob Tringali/SportsChrome)

The following article is part of my ongoing look at the candidates on the BBWAA 2013 Hall of Fame ballot. For a detailed introduction to JAWS, please see here.

On a Hall of Fame ballot where the focus on one starting pitcher centers around his big-game ability, there’s another starter who was even better when the spotlight shone the brightest. Curt Schilling has a strong claim to being the best postseason pitcher of his generation, and one of the best of all time, and his case for Cooperstown is backed by a strong track record of dominance during the regular season as well.

Schilling was something of a late bloomer who didn’t click until his age 25 season, after he had been traded no fewer than three times. He spent some of his peak years pitching in the shadows of even more famous (and popular) teammates, which may have helped to explain his outspokenness. Whether expounding about politics, performance-enhancing drugs, the QuesTec pitch-tracking system, or a cornerstone of his legend, he wasn’t shy about telling the world what he thought, earning the nickname “Red Light Curt” from Phillies manager Jim Fregosi.

In an ideal world, Schilling’s time on the ballot should be smooth sailing, particularly relative to the candidacies of ballot-mates Jack Morris and Roger Clemens, pitchers around whom there’s no shortage of controversy for much different reasons. However, he’s in danger of being overshadowed by debates that have little to do with him — all the more reason to give his candidacy a close look.

Pitcher Career Peak JAWS  ERA  ERA+ 
Curt Schilling 76.1 46.7 61.4 216 146 3.46 127
Avg HOF SP 67.9 47.7 57.8

Born in Anchorage, Alaska, the son of a career Army man, Schilling was part of a family that bounced around the U.S. before settling in Phoenix, Arizona. Undrafted out of high school, he attended Yavapai Junior College in Arizona, and wasn’t drafted until January 1986, when he was chosen in the second round by the Red Sox. He put himself on the prospect map by leading the A-level South Atlantic League in strikeouts in his second professional season at age 20, but midway through the next year he was sent to the Orioles along with Brady Anderson in a deadline deal for Mike Boddicker. He debuted in the majors that September, making four starts but getting rocked for a 9.82 ERA, and was knocked around during a similar cup-of-coffee stint the following year.

Schilling stuck around as a reliever for about half of the 1990 season, putting up a 2.54 ERA in 46 innings, but he didn’t exactly impress Orioles manager Frank Robinson upon arrival. Recounted the pitcher in a 1998 Sports Illustrated profile, “I walk in, I got the earring and half my head shaved, a blue streak dyed in it. He says, ‘Sit down,’ and then just cocks his head and stares at me for a while. Finally, he says, ‘What’s wrong with you, son?’ I just sit there and act dumb and say, ‘Huh? What do you mean?’”

Schilling lost the earring and the blue streak, but his lack of maturity persisted. Summoned from the bullpen in September of that year, he admitted to not knowing who he was facing, an incident that spelled the end of his time in Baltimore. That winter, the Orioles sent him to Houston (along with fellow 2013 ballot newcomer Steve Finley and Pete Harnisch) for Glenn Davis, a deal that’s still reviled in Baltimore. Which isn’t to say Schilling was a big hit in Houston; he spent the 1991 season in the bullpen, notching eight saves and putting up a 3.81 ERA in 75 2/3 innings. The Astros traded him to Philadelphia for Jason Grimsley just before opening day the following year, and after six weeks in the bullpen, he finally got another shot to start. He was outstanding, completing 10 of 26 turns with four shutouts, and he finished the year with a 14-11 record and a 2.35 ERA in 226 1/3 innings; both his ERA and his 5.7 WAR ranked fourth in the league.

Schilling’s ERA ballooned to 4.02 the next year as a full-time member of the rotation, but his 186 strikeouts ranked fourth in the league. More importantly, he helped a Phillies squad capture their first division title in a decade, and earned NLCS MVP honors against the Braves with two strong eight-inning starts in which he allowed a combined three earned runs and struck out 19, though he received no-decisions in both. Roughed up in the World Series opener against the Blue Jays, he rebounded to throw a five-hit shutout in Game 5 to stave off elimination, though the Jays won the series on Joe Carter’s homer in Game 6 nonetheless. Injuries — including surgery for a torn labrum in 1995 — and the players’ strike limited Schilling to just 56 starts over the next three seasons, but he returned from his surgery with improved velocity, and began racking up strikeouts. He whiffed 182 batters in 183 1/3 innings in 1996, reaching double digits in seven of his final 11 starts, and though he made just 26 starts overall, his eight complete games led the league. Both his 3.19 ERA and his 4.7 WAR cracked the top 10.

Though the Phillies were going through a rough patch, with three straight losing seasons including a 95-loss one in 1996, Schilling chose to sign a below-market, three-year, $15.45 million extension in April 1997. While the team was again hapless that year at 68-94, he was anything but. He went 17-11 with a 2.97 ERA (143 ERA+) in 254 1/3 innings, with a league-leading 319 strikeouts — the highest total in the majors since Nolan Ryan’s 341 in 1977, and the highest NL total since Sandy Koufax’s 382 in 1965. His 6.0 WAR ranked fourth in the league, and he made the All-Star team for the first time. He placed fourth in the Cy Young voting, losing out to the Expos’ Pedro Martinez, who struck out 305 with a 1.90 ERA, more than a run lower than Schilling. The next year, Schilling became the first pitcher since J.R. Richard in 1978-1979 to reach 300 strikeouts in back-to-back seasons; he finished with an even 300, good enough to lead the league, and his 268 2/3 innings and 15 complete games — still the highest total since 1992 — paced the circuit as well. His 5.9 WAR again placed fourth.

The mileage caught up to Schilling. Though he earned All-Star honors for the third straight year in 1999 — starting the game for the NL squad, even — he made just three starts after July 23 due to shoulder inflammation, and after undergoing offseason surgery didn’t make another regular season appearance until April 30 of the following year. Though not as dominant as he had been in 1997-1998, he pitched reasonably well; with the Phillies out of contention en route to a 97-loss season, he agreed to waive his no-trade clause and was sent to the Diamondbacks for a four-player package on July 26. The Diamondbacks were tied for first place in the NL West at the time of the trade, but they ultimately fell short of a playoff spot.

With Schilling paired with lefty Randy Johnson to form the league’s best 1-2 punch, Arizona won the division the following year. Schilling set career highs with 22 wins and 8.5 WAR, and struck out 293 hitters in 256 2/3 innings while walking just 37 for an eye-popping 7.5 strikeout-to-walk ratio. He would have walked home with the Cy Young award had Johnson not struck out 372 and won 21 games himself en route to the second of four straight Cys. Schilling placed second in the vote.

He sparkled in the postseason, throwing three complete game wins in the first two rounds of the playoffs against the Cardinals and Braves, striking out 30 while allowing just three runs. Facing a Yankees team seeking their fourth straight championship, he yielded one run in seven innings in a winning effort in Game 1 of the World Series. He duplicated that performance on three days’ rest in Game 4, but Diamondbacks closer Byun-Hyung Kim allowed a two-run homer by Tino Martinez in the ninth and then Derek Jeter’s walkoff solo shot in the 10th. The series wound up stretching seven games, and Schilling again took the ball on three days’ rest. He shut the Yankees down for six innings, but departed in the eighth, trailing 2-1 after surrendering a homer to Alfonso Soriano. Arizona rallied for two runs in the bottom of the ninth inning against Mariano Rivera, and the Diamondbacks were champions. Schilling shared co-MVP honors with Johnson; for the postseason, he had put up a 1.12 ERA in 48 1/3 innings, with a 56/6 strikeout-to-walk ratio.

Schilling placed second to Johnson in the Cy Young voting again the following year, an 8.3 WAR campaign in which he won 23 games and struck out 316 batters while walking just 33, for a 9.6 strikeout-to-walk ratio; he led the league for the second straight year, and would go on to do so five times in a six-year span from 2001-2006. Limited to 24 starts in 2003 by an appendicitis and two fractured metacarpals, the result of a pair of comeback shots in the same game, he was done as  a Diamondback. After the season, he agreed to waive his no-trade clause for a trade to the Red Sox, who had come agonizingly close to their first AL pennant since 1986, only to lose to the Yankees via Aaron Boone’s walkoff home run in Game 7 of the ALCS. As part of the trade, Schilling signed a three-year, $37.5 million extension with a $13 million vesting option contingent on the Red Sox winning the World Series, something that hadn’t happened since 1918.

Pairing with Martinez as the Red Sox co-ace, Schilling put up another banner season, with 21 wins, a 3.26 ERA (148 ERA+ in hitter-friendly Fenway) and 203 strikeouts. He made the All-Star team for the sixth time, but was hampered by a tendon problem in his right ankle as the postseason came around. After a solid but not exceptional start against the Angels in the Division Series, he was chased by the Yankees after just three innings in Game 1 of the ALCS. It didn’t appear as though the injury was going to matter when the Yankees built a 3-0 series lead, but when the Sox clawed their way back into the series, Schilling took the ball for Game 6 in the Bronx. The day before the start, doctors performed an experimental procedure to secure a tendon in place using three stitches. Though shots of Schilling’s ankle bleeding through to the sock were broadcast, his body held together long enough for him to turn in a seven-inning, one-run performance to help the Sox even the series and force a Game 7, which Boston won handily. He threw six innings of one-run ball against the Cardinals in Game 2 of the World Series, helping Boston to their first world championship in 86 years.

Though he underwent surgery on the ankle shortly after the World Series, Schilling’s ankle would continue to trouble him well into the following season. After three ugly early-season starts sent him back to the disabled list, he reemerged as the team’s closer before returning to the rotation late in the year. He finished the year with an ugly 5.69 ERA in just 93 1/3 innings and the Red Sox were dispatched by the White Sox in the first round of the postseason. He rebounded to throw 204 innings of 3.97 ERA ball the following year, striking out 183 and finishing with a stellar 6.5 strikeout-to-walk ratio, but Boston missed the playoffs.

Schilling continued in fine form the following year, until a June 7 outing against the A’s where he came within one out of a no-hitter. Hit hard in his next two starts, he went on the disabled list for six weeks due to shoulder inflammation, and scuffled upon returning. He mustered some semblance of his old form in the postseason, throwing seven shutout innings in the Division Series clincher against the Angels, rebounding from a Game 2 pounding by the Indians to yield two runs over seven innings in Game 6, and wobbling through 5 1/3 innings in Game 2 of the World Series against the Rockies — another sweep, as it turned out. He signed an incentive-laden one-year, $8 million deal to return in 2008, but dealt with further shoulder problems that winter even before reporting to spring training. He publicly battled the Red Sox over his treatment; the team preferred he try to rehab first, so he didn’t undergo surgery to repair his biceps tendon and labrum until June, and never made it into a game. In March of the following spring, he announced his retirement.

Schilling finished his career with “only” 216 wins, a lower total than all but 15 of the 59 starting pitchers in the Hall of Fame, only two of whom — Koufax and Don Drysdale — pitched in the majors during the post-1960 expansion era. The BBWAA voters have taken a long time to come around to the idea that pitcher wins aren’t the ideal measure of success in a modern era where it’s been shown that offensive, defensive and bullpen support are major factors in the compilation of those precious Ws. After electing Fergie Jenkins in 1991, it took 20 years — until Bert Blylelven’s election in 2011 — for another starter with fewer than 300 wins to be elected by the writers.

Even so, Schilling’s candidacy has far more than wins going for it. He was 11-2 with a 2.23 ERA in 19 postseason starts, helping his teams to four pennants and three championships; in the World Series alone, he was 4-1 with a 2.06 ERA in seven starts. Other pitchers of his era racked up more appearances and wins, but no starter from the expansion era with at least 100 postseason innings had as low an ERA. Among pitchers from that era with at least 40 innings in the World Series, only Koufax (0.94) and Bob Gibson (1.89) have lower ERAs; both pitched at a time when scoring levels were much lower, making Schilling’s accomplishments all the more impressive.

Turning back to the regular season, Schilling’s 3,116 strikeouts rank 15th all-time, while his 8.6 strikeouts per nine ranks third among pitchers with at least 3,000 innings, behind only Johnson and Ryan, just ahead of Roger Clemens. It’s true that Schilling pitched in an era where strikeout rates were almost continually on the rise, but he was still ahead of the curve given those 300-K seasons; his trio of them puts him in the company of Johnson, Ryan and Koufax as the only pitchers with more than two such seasons during the expansion era. Eight times he finished in his league’s top five in strikeouts. What’s more, he managed impeccable control while doing so, leading the league in strikeout-to-walk ratio five times and placing in the top five another four times; his 4.4 ratio is the highest of any post-19th century pitcher.

Schilling never won a Cy Young award, but he placed second three times (all in the 2001-2004 period). Because he’s all over the leaderboard in key pitching categories, scores very well in Bill James’ Hall of Fame Monitor metric, which gives credit for awards, league leads, postseason performance and so on; on a scale where 100 indicates “a good possibility” of making the Hall of Fame, and 130 indicates “a virtual cinch,” his 171 points clears the bar by a fair distance.

Schilling’s ability to miss bats and prevent runs enabled him to finished in his league’s top five in WAR and rack up eight seasons of at least 5.0 WAR; among his contemporaries, only Clemens (14) and Johnson (11) had more, while Martinez, Maddux and Roy Halladay had as many. His 76.1 career WAR ranks 25th all-time, 8.2 wins above the standard for Hall of Fame starters. His peak score of 46.7 WAR is one win below the standard — a couple runs per year, spread out over seven seasons — but his overall JAWS is 3.6 ahead of the standard, good for 29th all-time, ahead of five 300-game winners (Tom Glavine, Nolan Ryan, Mickey Welch, Don Sutton and Early Wynn) as well as 33 other starters.

That’s a Hall of Fame pitcher, though you can bet that it may take some time for the BBWAA to notice; after all, it took them 14 years to elect Blyleven, and it’s not yet clear that they can distinguish between his candidacy, founded as it is on dominance and run prevention, and that of Morris, based more on stamina and old-school win totals. Schilling is the first of a cadre of non-300 win pitchers who will hit the ballot in the next few years, with Mike Mussina, John Smoltz and Martinez soon to follow. Working in the highest scoring era since the 1930s, they more than held their own against lineups much deeper than their predecessors faced, working deep into counts to rack up high strikeout totals before yielding to increasingly specialized bullpens. The shape of their accomplishments may be different than the even larger cohort of pitchers from the 1960s and 1970s who helped set that 300-or-bust standard, but they belong alongside them in Cooperstown just the same.

29 comments
Jack15
Jack15

Is this a joke? Schilling? Forget it pal. Schilling is nothing but a run-of-the-mill pitcher who has a couple lucky seasons with teams that give him incredible run support. He never even won a Cy Young.

 

Most importantly, we can't forget the fake bloody sock incident. Schilling puts fake blood on his sock to rally the troops? What a disgrace. The HoF is about integrity, not phony-baloney scammers like Schilling. Just look at Schilling's post-baseball life. The man's company is being indicted for FRAUD! For defrauding the taxpayers! Is that any surprise? No, of course not. Any man that would doctor up a bloody sock has ZERO credibility!

 

No HoF for Schilling. Not now. Not ever!

KevinNorteno
KevinNorteno

First ballot hall of famer. Period. You guys need to read the article above for the numbers. Bloody sock, heard of it.

sangwoo29
sangwoo29

If Curt Schilling is a HOF, why Jack Morris is still not in? Jack Morri's ERA is .44 higher than Schiling yet he has more wins. Also Morris is another big time playoffs pitcher so I cannot make a logic out of voters if Curt gets more than 40% of votes. It took how many years for Morris to top 40% range...

johngol
johngol

216 WINS IN 20 YEARS IS NOT HOF CREDENTIALS, NOT EVEN CLOSE

johngol
johngol

no way does schilling deserve to be in the hall...true WHEN NOT HURThe was a dominating pitcher..but he had so many years injured with the Phillies ...he just doesn't have the wins to back it and there are too many pitchers that do plus can you imagine his speech the guy just can't shut up

disgracedfury
disgracedfury

The problem is there's so many better picthers in his era that you would put infront of him.Martinez,Maddux,Johnson,MO,Clemens,Glavine,Smoltz and even Cone.

GaetanoTodaro
GaetanoTodaro

So so career few good years. If you think he's HOF because of playoff record then Bernie Williams which had a better career than Schiling and even better playoff record should be in. For the record Bernie was a good player but not HOF player. 

mlablanc
mlablanc

Once again, I fear that your geographical bias and East-Coast fervor has influenced your judgement. 

Masternachos
Masternachos

The people who think a player should be in the HOF because "he FELT like one, dammit!" or "he did X, and is FAMOUS, it's the Hall of FAME, after all" are the exact reason we have guys like Rabbit Maranville and Tommy McCarthy in there. Maranville was elected because he was a ton of fun as a player and manager, was well-known for his basket catches and happened to have the most games at SS among NL players when he retired. Tommy McCarthy was considered an incredible class act who came up with a bunch of cool plays and was part of a nicknamed duo, the "Heavenly Twins."

Tinker, Evers and Chance were inducted because they "were famous." Plenty of questionable candidates did "famous" things. Chick Hafey, for instance, won the 1931 NL batting title- one people remembered because of how close it was. He then faced AL batting title winner Al Simmons in the World Series, only the 2nd time that had ever happened. Hafey then tied a NL record with ten hits in ten consecutive at-bats, was in 'the first' All Star Game, and even got the "very first" All Star Game hit! Famous! ...Well, back then.

Rube Marquard credited being in "The Glory of Their Times" for his being inducted into the Hall. Because it made him famous. Fame!

George Kelly- John McGraw said no one hit more "important" hits than anyone else, and Waite Hoyt said no one was more dangerous in the clutch. Kelly set various single-season defensive records at first base, was the FIRST player to hit homers in six consecutive games, and once hit three homers in three consecutive innings (it's mentioned on his plaque!). FAME!

Point is, the guys who are inducted mostly because they're famous or "felt like" HOFers are the ones later generations point to and say, "This is why the HOF is a joke!"

 

As for having the HOFers themselves vote because obviously they know better than the writers... If you read "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame," there's an excerpt of Bob Feller stating that Firpo Marberry should really be in the HOF. Ted William "really" campaigned hard to get Phil Rizzuto in, and no-doubt HOFers John McGraw and Frankie Frisch are why George Kelly's in there.

robstenzel3
robstenzel3

I don't care what statistical analysis is used. Curt Schilling isn't a Hall of Famer.

 

His career was a lot like Steve Garvey's (even in being controversial). Both were outstanding in the post season but their career numbers during the regular season were just very good when compared to other Hall of Famers.

JerryBelle
JerryBelle

They don't count hits, etc.. that came in the post season when listing MLB players in order in a statistical category (all-time Hits leaders for example), so why should Schilling's post-season record play so heavily in a decision for the Hall?

Michael10
Michael10

I think the voters will judge Schilling against Mussina, Pedro and Smoltz (he is clearly not in the vicinity of Clemens, Maddux and Johnson).  Perhaps they are willing to lower the bar on old-school counting stats like wins, but I doubt 200 will become the new 300 anytime soon.  Mussina, I think stands a better chance -- even after downgrading wins, it's tough to overlook a difference in record of 54-7 with a better career value.  He was simply seen as a more consistent winner -- 17 straight 11+ wins seasons during which he posted 15+ eleven times and a losing record only ONCE (Schilling posted 11 winning seasons in 20 years).  Users at baseball-reference.com rank Mussina as the #14 pitcher of all time; Schilling is rated #141.  Like it or not, this is the perception.  And Moose was no Jack Morris -- he's got the WAR and peripherals to back the reputation (he just missed your 5-WAR season list with seven, but had two more at 4.8 including a final season in which he won 20 games and his seventh Gold Glove).

 

Pedro is the other side of that coin.  If Mussina looks better than Schilling by traditional standards with similar saber-value,  Pedro looks similar by the old math (Schilling is his #2 comp despite 46 more losses) and far superior by the new.  Pedro's peak was ridiculous -- Bob Gibson/Sandy Koufax ridiculous.  He had one less Cy Young runner-up season than Schilling...and three more actual Cy Youngs.

 

I think Smoltz will be the closest HOF case to Schilling's (Schilling is his #1 comp on BR).  Their numbers are nearly identical across the board -- except for the 154 saves Smoltz earned during his four years as an elite closer.  He also managed to land a Cy Young, has a Tinker-Evers-Chance thing going with Maddux and Glavine, and his own postseason record of 15-4 with a 2.67 ERA wasn't too shabby, either (he also notched four saves and 199 Ks in 209 innings -- that's a full Cy Young-calibre season).

 

I think Schilling's going to need a bit more than three near-misses and a bloody sock (especially since the sock's already in the Hall).  He'll make it eventually -- seems like everyone does anymore -- but he'll have to take a number.

 

"Now serving 216..."

sangwoo29
sangwoo29

 @disgracedfury

MO is not ahead of any SPs. Have to consider him as a different pos player. Aside from Mo, I only consider Maddux and Johnson to be the sure locked HOFs. Pedro will get in with his Sandy Koufax like years and Glavine will get in with his 300 wins but they are not true HOF pitchers like Maddux and Big Unit. Also Smoltz will get in with his 200W and 150 saves but let's face it. Save stat is overrated and Smoltz is another Cone and Schilling like pitcher. Well, Clemens is a PED users so we all know where he belongs...

XTC
XTC

 @disgracedfury Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, and Martinez had better careers than Shilling.  Cone or Glavine didn't put up the kind of numbers Shilling did.  Comparing Rivera to Shilling is like apples to oranges.  Smoltz had a longer career but his peak was not near as good as Shilling's. 

RandyHill
RandyHill

 @GaetanoTodaro He had four years that he threw over 250 innings (256 actually was his low) with an ERA under 3.25.  Do you know how long it's been since any pitcher has thrown 256 innings in a year?  EIGHT years.

 

Expand it to 225 innings and 3.26 and Curt has 6 seasons with at least 225 innings and a 3.26 ERA or better.  225 innings would be good for top 8 over the last six years. This year it would have been 8th.

 

ERA+ takes ERA and adjusts it for the average year ERA and the average park ERA where the pitcher pitched. 160 means 60% better than average and can be good enough to lead the league, 135-145 is usually top ten. Curt had 4 150 ERA+ seasons,  7 140 ERA+ seasons, and 12 118 ERA+ seasons. His career 127 ERA+ is only 48th all time due to a very peculiar fact.

 

Curt Shilling is the greatest pitcher in history at preventing "unearned" runs. He either struck guys out or forced weak flys that were easy to catch, while other pitchers gave up lots of ground balls and have to count some of the runs they gave up because scorekeepers let them off the hook by giving their fielders errors. But Schillings fielders made an all time record low number of errors, no matter which teams he pitched for and no matter how good or bad his defense was.

 

Pitchers/Earned Runs/Runs Allowed

Grove 1339 ER/ 1594 RA

Clemens 1707 ER/ 1885 RA

Big Unit 1513 ER/1703 RA

Maddux 1756 ER/1981 RA

Schilling 1253 ER/1318 RA

 

Because of this, Schillings ERA and ERA+ are deceptively high, and he rates much closer to Clemens, Randy Johnson, and Greg Maddux than raw ERA would lead you to believe.

 

Schilling pitched in an era where pitchers aren't given as many starts in a season, so we have very few 20 game winners and may never have another 300 game winner. Despite that Curt piled up  innings by pitching deeper into games than other pitchers while being among the toughest of his generation to score on, and that makes him a historically great pitcher.

RandyHill
RandyHill

 @mlablanc That's not saying he isn't right. FanGraphs ranks Schilling 20th of all time in value, and that doesn't count the post season where Curt was the greatest playoff starter of all time.

RandyHill
RandyHill

 @robstenzel3 LOL, no. Schilling is one of the top 20 pitchers of all time and there is little doubt about it no matter what stat you use. For example, people are pumping Jack Morris and his 3.90 ERA for the hall because of the statistical wins he was credited for while pitching in front of great offenses.  Curt Schilling's ERA was 3.46 in an era where offense was significantly higher, and ERA+ (which adjusts ERA to match the era and the parks pitchers threw in), has him at 127, 27% better than average or 48th best all time. But ERA+ under-rates him as he was the best in history at preventing unearned runs, so his ERA includes almost all the runs he gave up while a ground ball pitcher gets to push some off on his fielders as "errors".  Add in the fact that Schilling is the greatest post-season starter in history and it's a slam dunk.

RandyHill
RandyHill

 @JerryBelle Obviously the post season counts heavlly in HOF voters minds as that "something extra", which it did for Reggie and which Jack Morris supporters are trying to make work for him. Jack Morris arguably has the greatest playoff pitching performance of all time with his 10 inning game 7 shutout, but Curt Schilling is inarguably the greatest post season starter ever.  But it doesn't even matter because he was a tremendously dominant starter in the regular season who is roughly top 20 without the playoffs even being factored in.

N
N

That question doesn't even make sense. You're comparing two completely different things. A Pitchers post season win total doesn't count as far as records and official statistics go, either.

 

Both are heavily discussed when the subject of a players Hall of Fame candidacy is brought up. Reggie Jackson was a great player but was never anywhere near the best at anything, and was inducted almost entirely because of his "Mr. October" status.

RandyHill
RandyHill

 @Michael10 ERA+.

- Schilling 127

- Smoltz 125

- Mussina 123

ERA+ also under-rates Schilling, as he was the best of all time at preventing unearned runs, so the real difference in run prevention between them is bigger than what ERA+ indicates.

 

FanGraphs Pitchers WAR (all time rank)

- Clemens 145.5 (2nd)

- Maddux 120.6 (5th)

- Johnson 114.7 (6th)

- Pedro 89.4 (18th)

- Schilling 86.1 (19th)

- Mussina 85.6 (20th)

-  Smoltz 82.5 (25th)

 

Mussina has more BB-Ref WAR because he pitched more innings being healthier (he had eleven 200 IP seasons vs. Curt's 9), but his peak wasn't as good as Curt. Despite the advantage unearned runs gave Mussina in ERA and ERA+ over Curt, Moose had only had four 140 or better ERA+ seasons while Curt had seven, and four 150 or better (Moose 2), 

 

Obviously Mussina & Smoltz should be in the HOF too (what an era for pitchers!) but as Curt is the greatest playoff starter of all time makes him clearly head and shoulders better than Smolts and Moose.

 

johngol
johngol

 @XTC  @disgracedfury are you crazy glavine and cone both have better numbers...the problem isn't that schilling was great but schilling was great when he wasn't injured he had 5 or 6 seasons where he didn't start 20 games and effected his win total 216 wins in 20 years is not HOF material

johngol
johngol

 @RandyHill  @GaetanoTodaro  schilling didn't have the earned runs because he was always hurt   216 wins in 20 years is not hof credentials ....if he didnt spend the time on the injured list and had closer to 300 wins maybe

Rich6
Rich6

top 20 pitchers of all time doubt that very much maybe top 200

JerryBelle
JerryBelle

 @N  Next time I won't use Hits, etc... I'll think of your confusions and ype out pitching and the other stats so you aren't confused.  I have to laugh - I didn't make sense, but you do?  You write, "Reggie Jackson was a great player but was never anywhere near the best at anything, and was inducted almost entirely because of his "Mr. October" status."  

You don't know Reggie well - He hit 47 home runs in 1969 and 563 home runs in a career. Jackson led the American League in home runs four times, hit 30 home runs in 7 seasons, and had 100-plus RBIs in 6 seasons. He had 1,702 RBIs.  Sure he was a World Series beast and several time MVP, but Jackson's 32 home runs, 117 RBIs, and .293 batting average helped him win the 1973 AL MVP.  I think that means he was the BEST at something, but you can enlighten me perhaps, if you disagree.....

johngol
johngol

 @XTC  @johngol  @disgracedfury 

tom glavine 305 wins like i said if glavine was not hurt and won say 275 i'd say shoe in but he had 5 or 6 years with 20 starts or less david cone again like schilling hurt alot and played for some bad teams

XTC
XTC

 @johngol  @XTC  @disgracedfury 

Player ERA ERA+ IP K/9 BB/9

Shilling 3.46 127 3261 8.6 1.96

Glavine 3.54 118 4413 5.32 3.06

Cone 3.46 121 2898.2 8.28 3.53

 

Shilling was better at preventing runs than either Glavine or Cone, who either were not as dominant or had shorter careers.  

JerryBelle
JerryBelle

 @N Next time when attempting to make a quip or witty reply, you can't take over two days to think about it and then have someone help you with the grammar before you post the silly reply - it doesn't quite work like that.... In any event, you must think you're the best at trolling these forums and posting your inane, discourteous comments, because someone expressed an opinion that you just didn't grasp or disagree with....  I'm okay that you were the only one to reply to my comment with a dose of immaturity, while attacking me further for a few typos.  You showed a touch of racism in attacking me, as if English were my second language, and I hope that made you feel like a big man (woman) while you typed.  I didn't know that you were the self appointed moderator on here either.  You can have the last word (I know your type and I know you'll reply, you can't help yourself), so after you do, just understand I won't be replying back.  I've moved on from your immaturity and attacks on me for asking a simple question - why should Schilling's post-season record play so heavily in a decision for the Hall?  I didn't know you'd be so crushed by the question.....smh.

 

 

N
N

There's nothing to disagree with. Your point doesn't even make sense and you said exactly what I said. He was a great player but nowhere even near the best at anything, and he got in almost entirely because of his postseason reputation. He deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, but it's on very similar merits that Curt Schilling deserves to be in. A great player who's big game reputation pushes him over the edge.

 

And the confusion comes from the fact that what you're saying doesn't make any sense. "Next time I won't use Hits, etc... I'll think of your confusions and ype out pitching and the other stats so you aren't confused." What does that even mean? I understand what you said perfectly. Your point was nonsensical because you were complaining that a batter's post season stats aren't counted towards their all time career total, so it's not fair that a pitcher's post season stats are taken into account when they're discussing the Hall of Fame. They are two completely and utterly different things. If a batter's post season stats weren't considered when they were brought up for Hall of Fame discussion it would be a point, but they are so it's not.

 

I understand that English is clearly not your first language and that's fine, but when you have a loose grasp on the language at best you probably shouldn't insult people while defending the fact that what you said doesn't make any sense.