We've started this discussion elsewhere, and it seems pretty split. So let's put it to a vote ... Curt Schilling, Hall of Famer?
| Yes! |  94 (44.13%) |
| No! | 54 (25.35%) |
| He *will* get in, but he shouldn't | 57 (26.76%) |
| He *won't* get in, but he should | 8 (3.76%) |
213 votes | 13 featured comments
Schilling is a marginal HOF'er imo, but clearly over the line to get in. Postseason mixed with over 200 wins and a 120+ ERA+ is enough for me. The HOF needs the big story guys along with the big number guys, as long as the story guys are good enough to be on the edge.
If the early returns on this poll are an indication (49 votes), he's getting 65% support, which I suspect would get him in over time, if not early.
47% of voters think he doesn't belong? Hmm. I guess if you're a small-Haller, or if you place a lot of weight on career wins, you could get there. I suspect that people aren't aware of the performance of the typical Hall of Fame starting pitcher (ie. below your Walter Johnson/Pete Alexander/Lefty Grove greatness and above your Waite Hoyt/Herb Pennock goodness)
Apparently even on this site a fair number of voters are big number HOF voters. Or maybe it's the first time thing?
If Bert Blylevin or Jack Morris can't get in, I don't think Schilling is worthy either.
Blyleven and Schilling are different types. Blyleven had a much longer career, but had a lower peak/prime than Schilling.
On the other hand, I just don't see the argument that Jack Morris was as good as, or even close to Schilling, whether you look at peak, prime or career.
On the other hand, I just don't see the argument that Jack Morris was as good as, or even close to Schilling, whether you look at peak, prime or career.
While I agree with the Blylevin argument, I have to disagree with you in saying Jack Morris wasn't nearly as good as Schilling in his peak, prime or career Mike and here is why.
Morris has more career wins (254 vs 216), shutouts (28 vs. 20), complete games (175 vs 83) and world series rings (4 vs. 3) than Shilling. Morris also lead MLB in victories for the 80's and is the only pitcher that is HOF eligible that led a decade in victories that is not enshrined in the hall.
Schilling was far more dominant later in his career than in the early part where he struggled in almost every facet. Both where great pitchers. The memory eveyone has of Schilling is his bloody sock, but I remember Morris's 10 inning shut out in the world series.
Morris lost 40 more games than Schilling, more than offsetting the value of his many fewer extra wins. Morris did throw 600 more innings than Schilling, but if you toss out the last 300 of Morris' career as essentially valueless (they were), the difference in in-season durability between Morris and Schilling was relatively small and the difference in performance was huge.
Why are people using wins as a metric for hall-of-fame entry. Just because three quarters of baseball writers are drooling mongoloids doesn't mean that we have to be too. Jack Morris has a 105 ERA+. That isn't very good, and absolutely not comparable to Schilling (120), or Blyleven (118).
And if you're going to use Blyleven as the standard for getting into the Hall then you're going to have to consider like 80% of HOF pitchers undeserving.
And if you're going to use Blyleven as the standard for getting into the Hall then you're going to have to consider like 80% of HOF pitchers undeserving.
It pains me, but yes he's a Hall of Famer and perhaps one of the best post season pitchers of our time. Ouch, that hurt.
Small correction to Ozzie's post: Schilling's ERA+ was actually 127, furthering the distance between himself and Morris.