I think so. He's borderline but IMO his postseason success puts him over the top. He would also have a lot more wins but he played on some terrible Phillies teams in the 90's.

No

I hate Schilling, but there is no doubt in my mind that he's a Hall of Famer.

Only 216 wins hurts, over 3,000 K's definitely helps, the 3.46 ERA is kind of on the border. I agree his postseason success probably puts him over the top.

 

Personally, I would love to see him get denied simply because of how big of a Dbag he is.

Only 216 wins hurts, over 3,000 K's definitely helps, the 3.46 ERA is kind of on the border. I agree his postseason success probably puts him over the top.

 

Personally, I would love to see him get denied simply because of how big of a Dbag he is.

That's DBack.

 

 

Personally, I would love to see him get denied simply because of how big of a Dbag he is.

^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Oh, and if I have to hear the Boya's talk about his bloodysock and how it makes him more worthy, i will throw my TV out the window.

That 3.46 ERA is almost a full run below the league average for his career, he had a 127 career ERA+, and in 12 of his final 13 seasons (some cut short by injuries or what have you), he had an ERA+ of 118 or better. Four top 4 finishes in the Cy Young, three top 2 finishes in the Cy Young, career WHIP of 1.14 over 3200 innings, 20 shutouts, three 20 win seasons. Curt Schilling was one of the 5 or 10 best pitchers of the past 10-15 years. I don't know how you don't get into the Hall of Fame when you are among the elite for that long of a period of time.

Only 216 wins hurts, over 3,000 K's definitely helps, the 3.46 ERA is kind of on the border. I agree his postseason success probably puts him over the top.

 

Personally, I would love to see him get denied simply because of how big of a Dbag he is.

Curt Schilling is like the poster child for why wins for a pitcher shouldn't really be used as a metric, even over a whole career. Playing for those bad Phillies teams all those years hurt his win totals. Besides, any extrapolation from those numbers about him "not being a winner" or what have you should be trumped by his postseason success. There, he was nails.

That 3.46 ERA is almost a full run below the league average for his career, he had a 127 career ERA+, and in 12 of his final 13 seasons (some cut short by injuries or what have you), he had an ERA+ of 118 or better. Four top 4 finishes in the Cy Young, three top 2 finishes in the Cy Young, career WHIP of 1.14 over 3200 innings, 20 shutouts, three 20 win seasons. Curt Schilling was one of the 5 or 10 best pitchers of the past 10-15 years. I don't know how you don't get into the Hall of Fame when you are among the elite for that long of a period of time.

^^

Curt Schilling is like the poster child for why wins for a pitcher shouldn't really be used as a metric, even over a whole career. Playing for those bad Phillies teams all those years hurt his win totals. Besides, any extrapolation from those numbers about him "not being a winner" or what have you should be trumped by his postseason success. There, he was nails.

 

Bingo. No doubt he is HOF worthy.

If Blyleven is not in, Schilling is not a HOF.

Wite and lost pretty much summed it up. Curt Schilling is one of the best ever.

he's annoying, but with his postseason achievements, yes

If Blyleven is not in, Schilling is not a HOF.

 

There's no reason Bert Blyleven isn't in the Hall of Fame other than writers' ignorance. He's a Hall of Famer as far as I'm concerned and I will regard to him as such, even if he too is a douche.

 

Beyond that, you can't not vote someone in just because there is another player who should be in but is not.

He definitely deserves it, but he's still a douche.

Wite and lost pretty much summed it up. Curt Schilling is one of the best ever.

 

I don't think so. I would put a lot of guys from his own era ahead of him. In no particular order: John Smoltz, Tom Glavine, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Greg Maddux, Johan Santana, and maybe Mike Mussina. Curt Schilling was very good, but certainly not one of the best ever - not even close.

Jack Morris has better post season accolades sans the bloody sock.

 

I am lazy but statistically how do they measure up.

I don't think so. I would put a lot of guys from his own era ahead of him. In no particular order: John Smoltz, Tom Glavine, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Greg Maddux, Johan Santana, and maybe Mike Mussina. Curt Schilling was very good, but certainly not one of the best ever - not even close.

I wouldn't say the best ever either, but his fully body of work is definitely worthy of recognition.

I don't think so. I would put a lot of guys from his own era ahead of him. In no particular order: John Smoltz, Tom Glavine, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Greg Maddux, Johan Santana, and maybe Mike Mussina. Curt Schilling was very good, but certainly not one of the best ever - not even close.

 

 

You would put Johan Santana in front of Curt Schilling? Nothing against Santana, because he's been a dynamite pitcher, but he's been a front of the rotation starter for 6 years and only a full-time starting pitcher for 5 years. How does that even get close to comparing to 15 years of excellent starting pitching? Beyond that, even if there are 5 pitchers better (I'd question if Mussina was better...they appear quite similar to me at the very least, and Schilling was absolutely dominant in the postseason), why should that stop Schilling from getting in? Being one of the 10 best pitchers of his generation still puts him in probably the top 3% of the pitchers of this generation, and you would have to be in the top 2% to get in? I don't think so.

 

Jack Morris has better post season accolades sans the bloody sock.

 

I am lazy but statistically how do they measure up.

 

Jack Morris was a rubber-armed horse who was just slightly above average in his career and is an overrated, but good, postseason pitcher. In 1984 with the Tigers, he was lights out. In 1987 with the Tigers, he got one start against the Twins and got lit the f*** up. In 1991, he was decent in the ALCS against Toronto, he was decent, but he had one of the most memorable World Series performances of any pitcher in history; and he got absolutely torn apart in 1992 as part of Toronto's rotation. In all, he had 2 good postseasons and 2 terrible postseasons.

 

Curt Schilling was a far more dominant postseason pitcher than Jack Morris, compiling a 2.23 ERA in 19 career postseason starts (he went 11-2). Curt Schilling was a far superior pitcher to Jack Morris.

If I was a voter I wouldnt vote him in, but I tend to be more strict than most voters who tend to think its the Hall of really good instead of the Hall of Fame. The one thing that might put him over the top is his post-season performance, but to me he is not in.

You would put Johan Santana in front of Curt Schilling? Nothing against Santana, because he's been a dynamite pitcher, but he's been a front of the rotation starter for 6 years and only a full-time starting pitcher for 5 years. How does that even get close to comparing to 15 years of excellent starting pitching? Beyond that, even if there are 5 pitchers better (I'd question if Mussina was better...they appear quite similar to me at the very least, and Schilling was absolutely dominant in the postseason), why should that stop Schilling from getting in? Being one of the 10 best pitchers of his generation still puts him in probably the top 3% of the pitchers of this generation, and you would have to be in the top 2% to get in? I don't think so.

 

Schilling and Johan are tough to compare right now because Johan is still in the prime of his career, but I originally threw him in the discussion because he's already so dominant. He's already won two Cy Young awards (compared to Schilling's zero). As for Mussina, I think he and Schilling are very comparable pitchers, and I personally see them as borderline HOF pitchers (probably on the outside looking in). The HOF is about about answering the question: is this player one of the best of all-time? I don't think Schilling is.

Edited March 25, 200917 yr by BaseballNick

Schilling was hurt by 3 mediocre years during his peak age seasons. He had a nice career and made a lot of money, but no HOF if I was voting.

Schilling and Johan are tough to compare right now because Johan is still in the prime of his career, but I originally threw him in the discussion because he's already so dominant. He's already won two Cy Young awards (compared to Schilling's zero). As for Mussina, I think he and Schilling are very comparable pitchers, and I personally see them as borderline HOF pitchers (probably on the outside looking in). The HOF is about about answering the question: is this player one of the best of all-time? I don't think Schilling is.

 

Schilling and Johan are very easy to compare right now. One is 42, done with baseball, and he had a very accomplished career that spanned 20 years, 13 of which were very good, and 9 of those where he was outstanding. Johan has been one of the best pitchers in the league for 7 years, but that's it. That's nothing against Johan, and he could very well end up in the Hall, but he doesn't have the longevity nor the postseason dominance that Schilling does.

 

Schilling also finished 2nd in Cy Young balloting three times, and it wasn't as if he wasn't a worthy candidate. In his two top 2 finishes in Arizona, Randy Johnson was freakishly good, and when he finished 2nd with Boston, Johan had a freakishly good year too. I personally don't think you can hold the Cy Young argument against Schilling.

 

I don't think he's a first ballot Hall of Famer, but 4th-6th ballot seems about right, because he was absolutely one of the best pitchers of this generation.

If Schilling is a HOF, than David Wells is right there.

Dude.

 

Schilling is a lock for the HoF in my opinion.