By Aaron M Smith
While I was still reveling in the aftermath of Nazareth’s triumph in Troy, NY, the news out of Boston wasn’t as joyous. Curt Schilling announced on Monday through his blog 38Pitches.com, he was officially retiring from the game of baseball. With “zero regrets” Schilling was walking away from the game. Immediately the debate began – his bloody sock from 2004 is in the Hall of Fame – would he be joining it? If you ask anyone on New England the answer would undoubtedly be yes. New Englanders aren’t quick to forget and when he arrived in Boston in 2004, he promptly announced, “I guess I hate the Yankees now.” A legend was born and Schilling was annointed the role of savior. For most of New England, it was music to their ears and he quickly delivered on his promise with a World Championship that year. He followed that up with another in 2007. But is he a Hall of Famer? Let’s take a look:
The Case:
A. While most people will point to the fact that at the age of 30, Schilling was a mere 52-52 in his major league career. For the next 12 years, Schilling went on to win 164 more games. Only 7 other pitchers won more during that span and four of them are Randy Johson, Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux and Pedro Martinez. That is pretty elite company – of which all 4 are probably Hall of Famers.
B. Schilling ranks 14th on the all-time strikeout list with 3,116 strikeouts. Which by itself doesn’t seem that impressive until you consider:
C. Schillings strikeout to walk ratio was 4.38 – the best of any pitcher since 1900. That isn’t a typo – that really is 1900.
D. According to Bill James’ Adjusted ERA (Thanks Chas :-)), Schilling’s is 127 – good for 43rd on the all-time list. It also ties him with players such as Bob Gibson and Tom Seaver – Hall of Famers.
E. His Postseason record. Ask any New Englander and they will tell you that Schilling has a big mouth. But he also walked the walk, and talked the talk. During 19 postseason starts, he was 11-2 with a 2.23 ERA and 0.97 WHIP. He was also 4-0 in 5 Elimination games and could be considered the best “big game” pitcher of this century.
F. 3 World Series Championships
While most people will argue that his career 216 wins and no Cy Young Awards should prevent him from getting in the Hall of Fame, I would charge that Schilling probably cost himself another 20-30 wins by sacrificing his body during 2004. Most pitchers would have packed it in, but Schilling sacrificed everything for his teammates and for fans that had been waiting 86 years for a championship. Personally that supersedes any amount of wins needed to get into the Hall. And for the Cy Young awards – he finished second 3 times behind historic seasons from Randy Johnson and Johann Santana. That is like punishing Phil Mickelson for being the second best golfer behind Tiger Woods, because Tiger was taking over the golfing world.
In the end, as a Red Sox fan – I am grateful for Curt Schilling. Watching Schilling gut out every moment of the 2004 playoffs was incredible to witness. I believe it is safe to say that he will never have to pick up another tab in New England. Do I think Curt Schilling is Hall of Famer? Yes, but not a first ballot. I just hope I am able to be there for his speech in Cooperstown. Better bring a chair though – it is going to be one heck of a speech.
Nice use of Adjusted ERA, Smitty. 🙂
As I said over on Wally’s post, I think Schilling deserves to get into the Hall of Fame.
As real baseball people know, winning percentage and ERA don’t even begin to measure a pitcher’s performance. Using winning percentage as a chief argument for a player’s Hall of Fame worthiness seems like an argument only a Yankee fan would make. And let me say…it takes one to know one. If we were talking about tennis players, then winning percentage would mean a lot more to me.
Adjusted ERA is more meaningful. Did you ever wonder why the greatest ERAs of all-time are by turn-of-the-century players? Is it because the greatest pitchers in history all pitched around 100 years ago? Is Ed Walsh (1.80 career ERA) the greatest pitcher of all-time?
NO. As Smitty uses it here, adjusted ERA is so much more revealing. This is not some convoluted SABRmetric stat. It’s simply the player’s ERA relative to the era he played in, and also park-adjusted. With 100 being an average pitcher, and anything above reflecting the percentage above average the pitcher’s ERA is, here are some more revealing numbers:
C. Schilling: 127
C. Hunter: 104 (undeserving HOFer)
B. Blyleven: 118
J. Morris: 105 (clearly not a HOFer)
N. Ryan: 111 (overrated HOFer)
G. Maddux: 132 (easily a first-ballot HOFer)
J. Palmer: 126 (HOFer)
D. Sutton: 108 (questionable HOFer)
Schilling compares favorably to the guys on this list who belong in the Hall of Fame. Hunter doesn’t belong, Sutton’s possibly the worst 300-game winner of all-time (although that’s a list I wouldn’t mind being at the bottom of), and Jack Morris does NOT belong in the Hall. Palmer and Maddux are worthy and so is Schilling, although he’ll probably have to wait a few years to get elected.
Also, Smitty, nice use of the post-age 30 argument. I didn’t realize he was only 52-52 at that point in his career. Imagine how could he could have been had he lived up to that potential earlier.
Chas – I read somewhere that Schilling openly admitted that he was immature about his approach to the game at the age of 30. He credits Clemens with waking him up and the results speak for themselves. Later in his career his preparation was what won him games.
I saw this morning on the Mike and Mike show a list of players that would be eligible for the Hall of Fame the same time Schilling would be. They are using 2013 as the year he is eligible, so apparently he is getting credit for not pitching last year. But I believe the list was the following:
1. Roger Clemens
2. Craig Biggio
3. Mike Piazza
4. Sammy Sosa
Looking at that list, I think Piazza is the only player that would be elected on the first ballot. Let’s face it – Clemens and Sosa are going to be punished by the writers because of suspicion. Clemens more then Sosa. Biggio is probably in the same boat as Schilling. That being said, I think Schilling gets in before Biggio, but it will be interesting how everything plays out for the rest of the group.
If Sammy gets elected, do you think he will able to speak English for his acceptance speech?
Is it ‘Swingin Sammy’ or ‘Silent Sammy’ ? 🙂
Barry Bonds will be in that class of 2013 as well. I think Biggio gets in before Schilling, although I haven’t really heard as much discussion about where he stands. I’ve seen a lot of rankings (including Bill James) that have him in the top 10 second basemen of all-time. I think he compares favorably to Robin Yount and, of course, is way better than Ryne Sandberg. 😉
And did ya ever see Sandberg pitch? He was better than Schilling 😉
Anyway, I support the adjusted ERA analysis … that’s the right way to go. there are major differences between eras … you should be compared to your peers.
Although I think Schilling is a HoFer, I don’t think he should be “boosted” by a post-30 performance argument. It’s the whole career thay matters.
I don’t know how much weight I put with him winning championships and his post season performances. So if a guy never reaches the postseason yet has similar numbers to Scilling, does he miss the cut? What do you guys say about that? Although, Smitty, it is hard to ignore your pioint about the elimination games. I don’t know, tough decision for me.
I know this has been discussed before, but does Mussina get in?
Rey brings up an interesting point, and it’s part of the reason I don’t like to over-emphasize the post-season. I’d say the post-season performance should help Schilling, to some extent, but the guy who didn’t make it shouldn’t be penalized for that. Relative to Schilling, it hurts him, obviously, but otherwise not.
If we don’t consider the post-season, an interesting comparison is Schilling to Kevin Brown. I suppose that’s not a condemnation of Schilling, though, as there were times in his career when it appeared Brown was on his way to a Hall of Fame caliber career, and in the end, it was still a good one.
I think Mussina should make it. Not counting Negro League players, Eckersley and other guys who were almost strictly relief pitchers, there are 35 pitchers in the HOF with fewer wins than Mussina. 16 of them have fewer than Schilling. It obviously never used to be the case that 300 was some magical number, then the voters got that idea in their heads and can’t get it out. I’m just saying.
Kevin Brown is a great comparison. I was trying to think of another pitcher with no hardware and Mussina was the first name to come to mind. And Chas perhaps said it better – can’t penalize a guy who didn’t make it but hard to ignore if a guy did and performed exceptionally well.
To Chas or anyone who wants to comment … why isn’t Bert Blyleven in the Hall? Is it performance on the field … or something he’s done off the field that’s an obstacle?
I don’t have their respective numbers at my disposal right now, but when I think of Blyleven and try to relate him to someone in his era that is a HoFer, I think of Fergie Jenkins, both pitched for some very good and very bad teams … neither has a World Series. Both had great breaking balls and control; both gave up a lot of dingers. I know Fergie won more games. I’m looking at the “adjusted ERA” numbers about 10 notes prior to this above and again I’m wondering why BB has not been voted in.
Wally
Your man crush with Bert Blyleven is getting ‘a bit embarrassing.’ We can’t have a HOF discussion without you carrying on about his exploits. We get it already. You think Bert should be in the Hall.
Now go shovel some snow. No snow? How about manicuring your lawn? Too early for that? Get your lawn equipment ready – grass grooming season is right around the corner.