HOF question for Andy and other baseball fans (Schilling)

[B-Man]

I got into a spirited debate with one of my friends a couple of weeks ago. The issue (driven by local sports radio) is whether Curt Schilling is a "future Hall of Famer," whatever that means.

IMO, the category of "future Hall of Famer" includes players who are locks for the Hall of Fame (like Clemens and Bonds), and also may include players who, if they continue at their historical pace, should someday be elected (this would include players like Pujols and Nomar).

Based on my very unscientific survey of listening to local sports radio, a lot of baseball fans in the Boston area seem to think Curt Schilling is a future Hall of Famer. I disagree. I think at present he's a great pitcher, and has been since 2001, but he is not close to being a Hall of Famer because he was nothing extraordinary prior to 2001. I think he needs 2-3 more great seasons, or 3-4 more good years, to have a shot. My friend, on the other hand, thinks he is a lock if he gets 200 wins.

Here are Schilling's career numbers coming into this season:

16 seasons, 163-117 (.582), 3.33 ERA (129 ERA+), 1.12 WHIP.
He's won more than 15 games 4 times, and more than 20 games twice (2001 and 2002). He's never led the league in ERA, and has only finished in the top 3 once (2001). He's never won the Cy Young or MVP, but his postseason numbers are dazzling (5-1, 1.66, NLCS MVP and WS MVP in 2001).

Notwithstanding the great postseason numbers, his numbers are good but not Hall of Fame-worthy. He's only had 2 great years, and only 2 more that could even be considered very good. Who ever made the Hall of Fame with only 2 great years? On top of that, he's going to be up for election just after or around the same time as Clemens, Pedro, Maddux, Randy Johnson and Glavine (the first 4 of which I consider locks, and Glavine has a good possibilitiy of getting in, too). Schilling's numbers just don't compare to any of those guys.

Comments?

P.S. If he leads the Red Sox to a championship, I might have to change my opinion.

[M2d]

If he can get to 200/3000 I think he got a shot. 220/3300 might make it a better shot, but he's 37 now.

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
P.S. If he leads the Red Sox to a championship, I might have to change my opinion.


[/ QUOTE ]

If the Red Sox win the world series every player on the team should be a lock for the Hall of Fame.

[Clarkmeister]

He gets a lot of bonus points for playing on some terrible Philly teams. Still, I agree that he's a highly debatable selection.

[bugstud]

I think he is, simply because win totals are bunk with the crap teams he played on. If he'd been on that 90's Braves staff he'd be a lock. If he does well for the Sox in the playoffs, he will probably get in regardless.

[Sooga]

[ QUOTE ]
Based on my very unscientific survey of listening to local sports radio, a lot of baseball fans in the Boston area seem to think Curt Schilling is a future Hall of Famer. I disagree. I think at present he's a great pitcher, and has been since 2001, but he is not close to being a Hall of Famer because he was nothing extraordinary prior to 2001. I think he needs 2-3 more great seasons, or 3-4 more good years, to have a shot. My friend, on the other hand, thinks he is a lock if he gets 200 wins.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm i don't get it. Wouldn't it take 2 or 3 more great years or 3 or 4 good years to get to 200 wins? That aside, he's been a great pitcher since 1997. As to his HOF candidacy... I'd say if he does get get 200+ wins and 3000+ K's, he's as good a shoo-in as anyone. But I must admit, the longer Bert Blyleven is not in the Hall, the less respect I have for it.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
he's been a great pitcher since 1997.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you change "great" to "good" then I would agree, but not otherwise. He's had 2 great years in the last 7 (2 in his entire career).

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say if he does get get 200+ wins and 3000+ K's, he's as good a shoo-in as anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is that? There are a lot of pitchers with 200+ wins that aren't in the Hall of Fame. Schilling has a good ERA, but its not out-of-this world in a way which would make up for his relatively low (by Hall of Fame standards) win total.

Compare Schilling's numbers to Clemens, Maddux, Pedro and Randy Johnson. Do you still think he should be a lock? Those guys are all-time greats, and certainly are better than a lot of pitchers in the HOF, but Schilling doesn't even come close to them (he did in 2001 and 2002, and hopefully will this year, but over an extended period his numbers are not comparable).

I think if he has 2-3 great years or 3-4 good years then he has a shot, but I certainly don't think 200 wins should make anyone a shoo-in. (I think Pedro is a shoo-in with 170 wins, but that's because his other numbers are spectacular; Schilling's are not).

[Sooga]

Yes, I misspoke. I meant to say that with 200W and 3000K, he'd be as good a shoo-in as anyone else with those same numbers. Not anyone in general. I haven't looked at the names, but I'm pretty sure the list of 200W/3000K pitchers who are not in the hall is a pretty short one.

Also, if you look at the numbers, his '97-'98 numbers are really not far off from his '01-'02 numbers. His '01-'02 numbers have a few less walks, but other than that, they are very similar. The only difference, of course, is that he won 45 games in '01-'02 and 32 in '97-'98. But the numbers are terrific for all those years.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
I meant to say that with 200W and 3000K, he'd be as good a shoo-in as anyone else with those same numbers. Not anyone in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, that I can agree with. It's just that I don't think 200 wins and 3,000 K's makes anyone a shoo-in, unless their other numbers are spectacular (like Pedro or Koufax). I also don't think strikeouts are a major consideration among voters; they are a secondary stat, not as important as wins or ERA.

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't looked at the names, but I'm pretty sure the list of 200W/3000K pitchers who are not in the hall is a pretty short one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a partial list of pitchers with more than 250 wins that are eligible but not in the HOF, along with their all-time rank in wins:

24. Tommy John 288
25. Bert Blyleven 287
29. Jim Kaat 283
T38 Jack Morris 254

Schilling needs about 100 more wins just to get into that neighborhood.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, if you look at the numbers, his '97-'98 numbers are really not far off from his '01-'02 numbers. His '01-'02 numbers have a few less walks, but other than that, they are very similar. The only difference, of course, is that he won 45 games in '01-'02 and 32 in '97-'98. But the numbers are terrific for all those years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Outside of wins and losses, there is not a huge difference, though he was 2nd in the league in ERA in 2001, 9th in '97 and '98. 2nd is outstanding, 9th is very good.

For example, here are the top-5 in ERA from 1997:

Martinez-MON 1.90
Maddux-ATL 2.20
Kile-HOU 2.57
Valdes-LAD 2.65
Brown-FLA 2.69

Schilling had a 2.97--very good, but 8 other NL starters were better that year.

[banditbdl]

[ QUOTE ]
25. Bert Blyleven 287
29. Jim Kaat 283
T38 Jack Morris 254


[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, all 3 of these guys spent significant time with the Twins, and all 3 aren't in the Hall, what's up with that?