Curt Schilling: Deserving of the Hall of Fame?
"Turn out the lights, the party’s over"
Now that Curt Schilling has officially announced his retirement via his internet blog "38pitches," we can start debating his Hall of Fame credentials. Curt Schilling pitched an astounding twenty years in the major leagues, amassing a 216-146 record and a respectable 3.46 ERA. Curt appeared in six All-Star games and finished second in the Cy-Young Award voting on three separate occasions. More impressively was his ability to pitch his team into and through the post-season. Schilling collected three World Series rings, two of which came in a Boston Red Sox uniform (2004, 2007). However, it is no secret that Curt had made some enemies in the media throughout his career, something that could potentially hinder his chance of becoming a member of the MLB Hall of Fame.
Curt Schilling features an impressive career stat line. With over 200 victories, 83 complete games, 3,116 strikeouts, and three seasons with over twenty wins (including a career high 23 in 2002 with Arizona at the age of 35), it's hard to imagine any validity to the argument that he should be excluded from the Hall of Fame. However, despite such impressive numbers put up throughout an era known for being tough on pitchers, Curt still has his doubters. Let me use this article to try and persuade those naysayers.
Curt started his career with the Boston Red Sox, being drafted in the second round of the 1986 MLB draft. The powerful right hander made stops in Baltimore, Houston, Philadelphia and Arizona that included one World Series ring for the Diamondbacks in 2001, going 1-0 with a 1.69 ERA in his 3 World Series starts against the New York Yankees ironically. After bringing a championship to Arizona, Schilling found himself back in a Boston uniform where he was very vocal about his excitement regarding the chance to be a part of the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry, which was then at its peak. In his time with the Sox, the Alaskan native tallied 53 wins and even 9 saves. From the time Curt signed with Boston, he was very adamant about bringing Red Sox fans a World Series championship that had eluded them for eighty-six years. In 2004, his first season with Boston, Schilling came through for those title hungry fans as Boston swept the St. Louis Cardinals to win the World Series. The most memorable pitching performance of course being the infamous "Bloody Sock" game (more on that later).
A lot of Hall of Famers get in based on what they accomplished in the post-season. With that being the case, Schilling should have a great chance. Sporting one of the most impressive post-season resumes in the history of the game, Curt will no doubt go down as one of the greatest playoff performers ever. Schilling appeared in the post-season five times (1993, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2007) accumulating an 11-2 record to go along with his astounding 2.23 ERA. Named the 1993 NLCS MVP and the 2001 World Series Co-MVP (shared with Randy Johnson), Curt's post-season success is truly undeniable.
Some of Curt's most memorable games:
Game 7, 2001 World Series against the New York Yankees
Curt Schilling, then with Arizona, was a part of one of the greatest 1-2 punches of our generation. Along side Randy Johnson, Curt vowed to bring a title to the young franchise in the desert. Handed the ball for the most important game of his life up until that point, the product of Yavapai Community College shined in what would go down as one of the greatest World Series games of all-time. When Yankee captain Derek Jeter stepped in for the game's first at-bat, he could be seen giving a smile and a tip of the hat so to speak to Schilling sensing that this would be an epic game, and he was right. Schilling went 7 1/3 innings pitched striking out 9 and only allowing 2 earned runs, leaving the game's final 5 outs to the bull-pen. The Diamondbacks would go on to touch up Mariano Rivera for 2 runs in the bottom of the 9th inning, scoring the winning run on a Luis Gonzalez game winning bloop single. Curt was named Co-MVP along side Randy Johnson, winning the first of his eventual 3 World Series rings.
June 7, 2007- Near no-hitter against the Oakland Athletics
The Red Sox came to the ballpark on June 7th, 2007 amidst a four game losing streak. Fans knew Curt Schilling was the guy to amend that, what they didn't know is that he would flirt with history in doing so. The Red Sox would need Schilling in a big way on this day, only managing to muster up one run (a 1st inning HR from David Ortiz). Curt came up big for his team, something he had done throughout his entire career. After 8 2/3 innings, the Athletics were held hitless at the hands of the Boston pitcher, going down on strikes four times and reaching base zero times via the walk. In fact, the only base-runner at that point came by way of an error by shortstop Julio Lugo. With Shannon Stewart coming to the plate and Curt one out away throwing a no-hitter, Varitek signaled for a slider having thrown first pitch fastballs to the previous two hitters. Schilling shook him off, deciding on the fastball once again. Stewart would go on to single, spoiling Schilling's no-hit bid. Schilling, 40 years old at the time, would have been the third oldest pitcher to accomplish the feat only behind Nolan Ryan (ages 43 and 44) and Cy Young (age 41). Pretty good company.
The "Bloody Sock" game, ALCS Game 6 @ New York Yankees
Heading into this game, down 3-2 in the best of 7 series and facing a supremely talented Yankee lineup, Schilling was cleared to start despite torn tendon sheath in his right ankle. Schilling would not miss the opportunity to push the series to a deciding seventh game, especially being so eager to be a part of the Yankee/Red Sox rivalry. Prior to the start, Red Sox team doctors surgically sutured the tendon in place, allowing Curt to push of towards the plate during his delivery. Schilling went 7 strong innings allowing only 1 earned run on 4 hits. A tremendous achievement given the circumstances. During the course of the game, Schilling's sock noticeably started to show remnants of blood. Curt pushed through it, was named the winning pitcher, and got the job done as the Red Sox forced a game 7, and eventually went on to the World Series defeating the St. Lois Cardinals in four games. The sock would go on to Cooperstown, hopefully soon to be joined by the man who cemented his clutch status while wearing it.
The bottom line is that Curt Schilling deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. With an ERA almost a full run lower than the league average during his career, Schilling has to go down as one of the greatest pitchers of the last 20 years. Also, keep in mind that Curt was pitching in an era that proved very unfriendly to pitchers overall, steroid use no doubt playing a major role in that. Although some may criticize his win total pointing out that he is tied for 80th all-time along side Charlie Hough with 216, it's also important to recognize the fact that the MLB didn't truly convert to the five man rotation that it features today until 1975. Curt Schilling may be disliked by a good percentage of the media, but I personally hope the voters set those feelings aside and do what's right by putting Schilling in the Hall of Fame.
1 recs |
38 comments
|
Comments
Great post.
For sure he deserves to be in. The low win total and lack of Cy Youngs are the only things that can be used against him. Neyer’s agrees with us.
by BTLove on Mar 24, 2009 2:04 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
wins
The low win total, sadly, can at least partly be ascribed to pitching for some truly awful Phillies teams in the mid-late 1990s.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
by WholeCamels on Mar 24, 2009 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
More stats:
Schilling is tied for 80th on the career wins list, yet his 3,116 strikeouts ranks 15th overall. You also have to consider that many of the HoF pitchers worked in a 4-man rotation. Schilling pitched his entire career in a 5-man rotation, which helps account for the low win total (along with the Phillies teams).
He won more than 20 games three times from 2001 through 2004, and during that period he was 1st in wins (74), 4th in win % (.725), 2nd in Ks (1,006), and 4th in complete games (17). Curt also has the lowest postseason ERA of all time at 2.23, with a minimum of 15 starts.
Those considerations combined with bringing two World Series Championships to Boston and helping to change a loser atmosphere makes him a Hall of Famer in my book.
"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.
by SoxDevil on Mar 24, 2009 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Said this elsewhere
I’d vote for him, but I can see the argument against him. I think he’s a borderline candidate.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Mar 24, 2009 8:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Mar 24, 2009 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
by Buzzy on Mar 24, 2009 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not Agreed
I’ve never really understood the arguments against Shilling…why is he a borderline candidate?
It seems like he’s done more than enough…or am I just being ignorant by following the reputation and not the stats? Arizona didn’t win another WS after he left and Boston won once he came. Yes, it’s a team sport but something should be said for his effect on good teams…jess mah two cents.
You can take the boy outta Boston, but you can't take the Boston outta the boy.
by B Cap on Mar 24, 2009 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
HOF
has some silly “requirements” like wins, etc. Jack Morris (rightfully so) is not in the Hall even though he had a rep as a winner. Schilling is a borderline candidate because there were several more dominating pitchers in his time (Pedro, Johnson, Maddux, Smoltz…) and because the pure numbers are not there. However, he still could get in.
by Buzzy on Mar 24, 2009 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
HOF voters are suckers for the counting stats, and for pitchers wins is the biggest counting stat of them all. 216 just isn’t that impressive.
I don’t agree with the logic, but that’s why I think he’ll be considered borderline by the HOF voters.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Mar 24, 2009 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wins...
Yes I see your points and I’ve heard that about HOF voting. I wonder sometimes if part of the reason that Shilling has a rep is not only that he played well in big games but that he constantly kept himself in the news with that big mouth of his so that there was this sort of mystique around his name that in some ways has nothing to do with baseball per se.
Anyway I think that if the HOF is supposed to measure greatness, and the greatness flows from the intensity and greatness of events in the game, it’s hard to argue that his presence in the post season alone is enough…I mean how would you have a HOF narrative around WS baseball over the last decade without mentioning his name…?
You can take the boy outta Boston, but you can't take the Boston outta the boy.
by B Cap on Mar 29, 2009 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
correction...
“iit’s hard to argue that his presence in the post season alone [ISN’T] enough.”
You can take the boy outta Boston, but you can't take the Boston outta the boy.
by B Cap on Mar 29, 2009 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe you are right.
As I said, I’d vote for him.
I wonder what his mouth does for his candidacy? My guess is it hurts, but I don’t know.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Mar 29, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who would forget his blood sock against big bad guys from New York? The Hall of Fame wants that story for children every generation.
by GreenGrizz on Mar 24, 2009 12:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Curious minds want to know,
IF a player’s sock with his blood on it is already in the Hall of Fame, doesn’t that mean that the player, or at least a part of him, is already there?
by NG on Mar 24, 2009 1:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Depends on how you look at it I suppose, but I think...
The sock itself is more a relic representative of the ‘04 ALCS, not Curt’s career…so to answer your question, no.
by ltrain2 on Mar 24, 2009 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This guy isn't in the HOF
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Mar 24, 2009 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Apples and orangutans.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Mar 24, 2009 7:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really
It was in response to NG’s question.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Mar 25, 2009 8:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In for sure
I don’t really see Schilling as a borderline candidate. The wins are meaningless, and his career ERA+ was 127, same as Bob Gibson’s, and just 4 points lower than Koufax’s. His career WHIP was 1.13, which is pretty damn good in the steroids era, and is .05 lower than Gibson’s career number. His K/BB ratio was 4.36, compare that to some of the all-time greats; Gibson was 2.33, Koufax was 2.93, Seaver was 2.61, Carlton was 2.25, Walter Johnson’s was 2.57, and even Pedro’s was lower at 4.15. Overall, I’d say not only is Schilling easily deserving, but he should be placed among the all-time greats.
by Gnick on Mar 24, 2009 2:55 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
Good arguments.
"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.
by SoxDevil on Mar 25, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In.
He was just too damn dominant in the postseason.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Mar 24, 2009 4:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think he deserves it, but he won't get in
Between not being an obvious HOFer and his less-than-cordial relationship with some of the voters, I don’t see him getting the 75% of the vote he needs to get in.
Maybe the Veterans’ Committee will be wiser than the voters, but that’s over 20 years away.
by RSNexile on Mar 24, 2009 4:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
he'll get in
Not as quickly as Pedro, Maddux, Unit, and Smoltz, but aside from that he’s in decent shape.
The HoF really has not made any adjustment to the growth in the size of the league, has it? By which I mean, the Hall used to take a much larger percentage of players than they do now, right? The league is 50% larger than it was in the 60s, but with the exception of the bubble of Negro League players inducted in 2006, the Hall appears to be inducting new players at about the same rate as it did 40 years ago.
More players should be getting in. I know the steroids issue will mess with that somewhat, as a good portion of a generation of sluggers are tainted, but still, a near-top level player like Schilling should get in.
by RickD on Mar 31, 2009 8:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Holy crap.
This guy’s already an author? Hope he’s a regular contributor.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Mar 24, 2009 4:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
In response
Yes, I will be contributing to the site on a regular basis from here on out. Hope you enjoyed the post.
by ltrain2 on Mar 24, 2009 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I did.
Just surprised to see the list at the bottom change. Hope this blog helps you get your start.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Mar 24, 2009 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Man, good question
I don’t know if I’d vote for him. His numbers are good, but he played with many better pitchers. I really don’t know.
"Hey we got a lot in common here... I'm gonna rape you"
by MerryGoByeBye on Mar 24, 2009 10:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
"many better pitchers"?
Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez constitute “many”?
by RickD on Mar 31, 2009 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he means in the era as a whole, not just on the same team.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Mar 31, 2009 9:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Definitely a good question
I love Schill, will always remember what he’s done for the Sox. One of the best big game pitchers ever. But if you look at his seasons, they haven’t been strong year in and year out. One great year for the Phils, two for the D-Backs and one for the Sox (2004) plus a gutty playoff performance in 2007. I don’t know. BBWA members love playoff success, so he will probably get in, and I’d be very happy for him.
by jsmails on Mar 25, 2009 2:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
"borderline candidate"
I don’t quite understand this. Schilling was clearly a better pitcher than Don Sutton, who got in due solely to longevity. No, he’s not on the level of Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Roger Clemens, and Greg Maddux, but so what? He was a great postseason pitcher and featured in some of the most dramatic games of this decade.
The only arguments against him are from the “cumulative stats” crowd, and that’s just not an argument I take very seriously.
I’ll tell you one thing: his candidacy is a lot stronger than Mike “win the unimportant games” Mussina!
by RickD on Mar 31, 2009 8:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
But does "6th or 7th best pitcher of the era" get him over the edge?
(I’d add Glavine, Smoltz, and RIvera to your list…)
Particularly in a hitter’s era?
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Mar 31, 2009 9:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it should. I was reading somewhere that there are generally considered 9 great pitchers from that era: Pedro, Maddux, Smoltz, Glavine, Johnson, Clemens are all definitely in (I’m ignoring steroids things right now) Schilling should be in and Mike Mussina and Kevin Brown are on the fence. Mussina and Brown are interesting because they are kinda opposites. Mussina was good but not great for many, many years while Kevin Brown was awesome for a few years, mediocre for a few, then injured for a few. Either way, I think Schilling gets in before those guys.
by BTLove on Mar 31, 2009 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree Schilling should get in before Mussina and Brown.
But then figure another two relievers at least (Rivera and Hoffman), and a shit-ton of hitters…
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Mar 31, 2009 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 



















