Rob Neyer says yes. Jayson Stark says yes.
Three World Series rings. 214 career victories. 83 complete games. Three 300-strikeout seasons. The highest postseason winning percentage of all time (.846) for a starter with more than six postseason decisions. The best strikeout/walk ratio of any pitcher in the modern era.
Loading ...
By submitting your comment, you acknowledge that you've read and agree to our comment policy.
 |
Hot Tickets! |
November 8, 2009 - 12:25 pm
Here we go again. Time for another edition of our semi-annual “What They Need” series, where we play GM for all 30 teams. As usual, we’ll be suggesting subtle tweaks for some squads, and major overhalls for others. There’s already movement going on in the Hot Stove front, so there’s no time to waste!
Here’s a [...]
September 3, 2009 - 11:20 am
The 2003 Los Angeles Dodgers had one of the greatest pitching staffs the game of baseball has ever known. At the height of the steroids era, in a season when 104 players would test positive for performance enhancing drugs, the Dodgers hurlers posted a 3.16 ERA, good enough for an insane 128 team ERA+, and [...]
August 31, 2009 - 11:19 am
Okay, so at a time when most people are debating whether or not the Washington Nationals can even break .500 next season, this is going to sound more than a little crazy, but I think the Nats have an outside chance at contending next season.
I’m not saying it’s going to happen, but I am saying [...]
June 29, 2009 - 9:30 pm
We here at Umpbump have done quite a few all-time teams. We’ve also cataloged quite a series of Hot Baseball Wives. In this post, I will attempt the acrobatic feat of bridging the twain. Yes, reader: The All-Hot Team.
For reasons of attention span, or specifically, the lack of it, I am focusing on current major [...]
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:30 pm
214 wins? no.
REPORT COMMENT
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Even if he is a douche, which he has definitely come out to be in recent years (blogging while collecting 8 million dollars for throwing the first pitch in the playoffs this past year, and for being a bush supporter to add to it all) he was still a damn good pitcher.
Before the bloody ankle, he and Randy Johnson single-handedly (double-handedly? multi-handedly? ambidextrously?) pitched the 2001 Diamondbacks to a World Series.
As was already pointed out, he had a number of complete games, and although I’m too lazy (and/or drunk) to look it up currently, I’m pretty sure he had a fairly good k/bb ratio as well.
All in all, Curt Schilling is a Hall of Famer, even if he does have a tad bit of douchiness. Oh, yeah… and he’s definitely right about releasing the other 103 names.
REPORT COMMENT
March 24th, 2009 at 1:09 am
Nick, you are drunk. I already mentioned in the above post that Schilling had the best strikeout/walk ratio of any pitcher in the modern era.
REPORT COMMENT
March 24th, 2009 at 1:19 am
Touche, Mr. Ward…. Touche
REPORT COMMENT
March 24th, 2009 at 9:17 am
On the ESPN website Stark, Neyer, and Olney are all backing Schill’s HOF bid. Stark has the best evidence.
Summary:
-One of, if not the, greatest postseason starter in any era.
-The years he came in second for Cy, lost to Randy Johnson twice and Johan once.
-Of right handed pitchers throwing during his time period: 2nd to Pedro’s K/9 ratio, 3rd to Pedro and Clemens total Ks, 3rd to Pedro and Maddux in WHIP. And as stated before, greatest K/BB for a starter in the modern era.
REPORT COMMENT
March 24th, 2009 at 9:29 am
I got trashed for questioning Jeff Kent’s HOF resume, so if he’s in then Curt Schilling is a no-brainer Hall of Famer. I also think that he gets extra credit because he is a student of baseball history as well, and has a reverence for those who have played in previous generations.
REPORT COMMENT
March 24th, 2009 at 10:24 am
See, Robert, I’m the opposite. I think Kent’s the no-brainer and that Schilling is a more borderline candidate (thought ultimately, I do think he belongs). Odd how this stuff works in people’s minds.
REPORT COMMENT
March 25th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Too few wins. We both played for some crappy teams, but I was knocking on the door of 300.
REPORT COMMENT
March 26th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Bert, Umpbump gives you love. Speaking personally, you should be in. But Curt’s got a damned good case too, wins or no wins. Besides, Schill’s adjusted ERA is 127, more than Hall worthy. Yours is 118. One point for Schilling.
REPORT COMMENT
March 28th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
only after bert gets in
REPORT COMMENT
March 30th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
My initial reaction (two years ago) to the Schilling question was that he was very good, but not good enough for the Hall. But then this past fall, I surprised myself by looking into his numbers more deeply and deciding he does belong in Cooperstown. It’s really the amazing K/BB ratio that seals the deal for me. I realize that’s not something many members of the BBWAA are going to care about, but it’s damn impressive.
REPORT COMMENT
March 31st, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Posnanski, who thinks Schilling is a HOFer makes a compelling comparison of Schilling to Kevin Brown. I don’t think Schilling is HOF material and believe that it’s his career post-season performance that is getting people to believe he is deserving. His regular season numbers don’t cut it in my book and even though he has that great k/bb ratio he gave up a lot of homers in the process. I would rather he had more walks and fewer homers.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/joe_posnanski/03/30/schilling.brown/index.html
REPORT COMMENT
April 1st, 2009 at 8:54 am
Melissa, you do have to take into consideration that the guy racked up over 3000Ks. I’ve heard the Kevin Brown comparison too, but like with most comparisons, it only goes so far. Their win totals, Adjusted ERA, win percentage, it’s all strikingly similar. But Schilling had a lot more Ks, much less walks. Plus, the guy pitched most of his career in hitter’s parks – Veterans, the BOB, and Fenway – which in my mind justifies how many HRs he’s given up. Brown pitched in more favorable environments – Arlington (when it played neutral), Joe Robbie, Qualcomm, and Dodger Stadium (when it was very pitcher friendly).
Besides, if you’re going to harp on HRs allowed, then you’re also going to have to knock Glavine, Clemens, Maddux, and Randy Johnson. They were his contemporaries who gave up more HRs in their careers.
I don’t think Schilling is a slam dunk and I reserve the right to change my mind. But at the moment, I think he deserves induction.
REPORT COMMENT
April 1st, 2009 at 1:49 pm
I was harping?
Glavine, Clemens, Maddux and Johnson have such an overwhelming case for HOF that homers allowed isn’t really relevant. Schilling is borderline and please tell me why he is so much more deserving than Brown. Simply because of his k/bb ratio? That’s not enough in my opinion. If the low walk total is considered a plus then it has to be considered in the context that he gave up homers in order to avoid walks. Brown gave up walks and also racked up a larger volume of double plays instead of sacrificing the homers.
REPORT COMMENT
April 1st, 2009 at 2:33 pm
The only area where Glavine has Schilling clearly beat is durability, which, mind you, is very important. Glavine has pitched over 4400 innings and counting, which is rather amazing. And as a result, Glavine has over 300 wins while Curt is at 216 (their win percentage is very similar).
Even so, Schilling has Glavine beat in Ks by a mile. Glavine has also walked 3.06 per nine innings. Curt’s at 1.96. And yeah, Curt’s given up almost one HR per nine innings pitched while Glavine’s been better than that. But Schilling’s adjusted ERA is 127. Glavine’s is 118 and trending down. Put them side by side and I really can’t decide which was the better pitcher. Do I take the pitcher who was very good over an incredible span of time or the guy who was excellent for a good amount of time?
REPORT COMMENT
April 1st, 2009 at 2:59 pm
And I thought I already explained why Curt Schilling is a better pitcher than Kevin Brown was. Curt Schilling struck out alot more and walked quite a bit less. Curt Schilling was not a sinkerballer. Kevin Brown was, and a damned good one too. Hence, Kevin Brown allowed fewer HRs. Because his primary pitch is intended to miss bats or induce groundballs, neither of which result in HRs. Plus, Curt pitched in hitters’ parks. Kevin didn’t.
“If the low walk total is considered a plus then it has to be considered in the context that he gave up homers in order to avoid walks.”
I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at here. Yes, it’s true that if a guy walked every batter he faces, he’d give up zero HRs over his career. He’d also log zero innings pitched because he would never record an out. It’s great that Schilling walked so few. And yes, if he walked more, I’m sure he would’ve given up less HRs. But I’m also sure he would’ve been a much crappier pitcher had he done so. I don’t know how you look at his low walk totals as a negative.
It should also be said that Schilling still allowed fewer than a HR per nine innings pitched. Which actually isn’t bad at all. It’s average. When you again consider that he spent his career going from hitters parks to hitters parks, it’s not bad at all.
REPORT COMMENT
April 1st, 2009 at 4:25 pm
300 plus wins= surefire Hall of Famer
214 wins= not so much
There is no debate as to whether Glavine belongs in the Hall of Fame and no reason to suggest otherwise. Whether you think so or not longevity and being very good for a longer period of time does factor into who is voted in. It is more difficult to be good for a longer period of time.
If you don’t understand why it is worse to allow a home run than a walk then I guess I should attempt to explain it again. Schilling doesn’t have the stats that say no doubt hall of famer thus people say look at the impressive k/bb ratio. At this point in the discussion, I say, not that impressed with the low walk totals because of homers given up. He gave up home runs in order to avoid walks which lessens the significance of his low walk totals. If his hr/9 was better than average and he had low walks then I would give him more credit.
There are quite a few pitchers that deserve to be in the hall of fame more than Schilling. He wasn’t even one of the five best pitchers of his era. He was very good but not great.
REPORT COMMENT
April 1st, 2009 at 5:10 pm
This is why the argument is fun! To me, Glavine isn’t a sure fire Hall of Famer. Yes, he won over 300 games, which obviously speaks highly of him. But his ERA has been only 18% better than the average pitcher of his era. That doesn’t tell me that he was among the greats.
I’m sure he gets in. And I’m not going to make a stink about it in any way shape or form. But I still don’t know if he was a better pitcher than Curt Schilling.
And of course a walk is preferable to a HR. But you’re creating a false dichotomy. Both walks and HRs are bad. But there is never a situation where you have to choose between those two. There are always much more preferable options. And Curt Schilling capitalized on those preferable options enough to make it into the Hall.
REPORT COMMENT
April 1st, 2009 at 6:22 pm
I have a hard time penalizing Schilling for his low win total. He didn’t have a 20-win season until he turned 34. Glavine had five by that age. Is it because Glavine was the better pitcher over that period of time, or because Glavine played for far superior teams? Maybe a little of both. But let me submit that when Curt was 25 he won only 14 games despite throwing 226 innings, striking out 147 and recording an ERA plus of 150. When he was 31 he pitched in 268 innings and struck out 300 batters while turning in an ERA plus of 134 — and that season he was only one game over .500. I think it’s clear that Schilling was robbed of a few wins playing for the craptacular Philly teams of the 1990s.
Glavine stayed healthy, and that’s a big part of making the Hall of Fame, to be sure. And he played on a lot of very good teams, which certainly never hurts. But when they were on the field, both Glavine and Schilling had nearly identical winning percentages and Schilling was harder to score runs against. And given the choice, I would have always preferred to have Schilling on the mound if my team was playing a big game.
I think there’s room for both guys in the Hall, but if I could only have one I’d probably choose Schilling.
REPORT COMMENT
April 1st, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Unfortunately, I believe there were times Schilling chose to throw the ball over the plate and risk giving up the home run in an effort to avoid walking the batter. Other pitchers with lower home run rates like say, Kevin Brown, might have chosen to walk the batter. Brown gave up on average just 14 home runs per season while Schilling coughed up 23. They have the same career ERA plus of 127. Schilling had a WHIP of 1.137 and Brown’s was at 1.222. If you are going to tell me Schilling deserves to be in then you ought to be making a case for Brown as well. Wait, Brown never pitched for Boston in a World Series with a bloody sock nor did he pitch for a team that defeated the Yankees in the WS.
Schilling broke in as a full time starter at age 25 while Glavine was 22 when he broke through as a starter. Maybe Glavine was actually better at a younger age, thus accumulating wins sooner. Glavine started 682 games and Schilling had 436 starts so that has a lot to do with the difference in their win totals and should be considered when you debate who’s career had more value. I never injected Glavine into the debate and pointed out, I believe rightly so, that he will be voted into the Hall of Fame. The voters will look at the 300 wins and not much else.
REPORT COMMENT
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:20 am
Quite frankly I find that the argument around win totals to be incredibly silly. Most fans nowadays can vaguely agree that while a 20 win season is a nice mile marker, it’s kinda meaningless. Bartolo Colon went 21-8 in 2005 and won the Cy Young. He was in no way the best pitcher in the AL that year, he was a guy who the offense backed on the right day. That same year Johan went 16-7, more innings pitched, better strikeout rate, WHIP, pretty much across the board he was better. Yet for some damn reason, history states Colon was a better pitcher that year… but you want to know the real funny part: The Twins were 25-8 the same day Johan went on the hill. Angels went 22-11 the same year when Colon was on the hill (No, I’m not looking up the totals for Schilling, anyone who wants to debate the point find it yourself, I was simply bringing up an amusing story about why win totals are overrated).
Now I brought that part up purely for the “He only has 216 wins argument.” I know the Blyleven fans will sound off on me that Blyleven was on crappy teams. Actually more than half the time he was on a winning team and had 21 years as a starter. Schilling had 15 years as a starter and wasn’t on a good team for more than half his career (that part I just find ironic, considering the “Blyleven spent most his career on bad teams” argument that I keep hearing). The real difference is Schilling spent the last half of his career on a good teams, so people tend to forget. Another Funny thing about the Blyleven/Schilling comparison, if we are going to harp on about him winning 287 games, will we also consider the 250 the lost? 53.4% v. 59.7%… can you guess who’s winning percentage is which? Nolan Ryan had over 300 wins… he also came within 8 of having 300 losses. Anyway, enough about the win/loss argument, didn’t mean to bite anyone’s head off. I do believe a W/L record is meaningless, I just used it to make a point. People think if they have a stat it can argue just about anything. Schilling was better than Blyleven
Now for the Kevin Brown comparison. Here’s why I think Schilling should be in the Hall and Brown not, since they pitched in the same era let’s compare that alone:
1) Schilling’s K/9 ratio was 2nd best among righties (8.59), Brown had a 6.62.
2) Schilling also during this era had the 3rd best K total among righties.
3) Schilling also had the 3rd best WHIP among righties.
4) Same era, Schilling lead all righties in complete games.
5) Brown was a dud in the playoffs. 5-5 with a 4.19 ERA and he never won a game he started in the WS. Who think Schill doesn’t deserve in tend to think everyone else is bringing up the “bloody sock” game when we refer to Schilling as a postseason warrior. But:
-Schill was 11-2 with a 2.33 ERA in postseason and never lost an elimination game. Ironic I’m bring up W/L right? But if people want to use that argument against Schill I can fight fire with fire…
-That ERA is also 2nd best in postseason history for starters with more than 100 postseason innings.
REPORT COMMENT
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:25 am
“Make ‘em beat you.” “Make ‘em hit your stuff.” “Go after the hitter.” That’s what they tell everyone young pitcher coming up, and for good reason. Frankly, there are very few instances in which it is actually preferable to walk someone rather than go for the K or take the risk of giving up a hit. Given that most batted balls do turn into outs. Plus, Schilling would move up a notch on most leaderboards of the era if he didn’t have the luck to pitch at the same time as Pedro Martinez – sort of the way that we’d all remember Heinrich Schutz a lot more fondly if not for some genius named Bach.
I don’t know why there’s this desire to keep Schilling’s postseason heroics out of the HoF debate. His regular season accomplishments get him far enough to be a borderline-to-high-borderline case – certainly, he’s no first-balloter. But his postseason accomplishments put him over the top. This goes beyond the bloody sock stuff (Ben L elaborated nicely) but, while we’re at it, I do think Schilling should get an extra point for the bloody sock. I mean, it’s a great story! Who doesn’t love a great baseball story? Who thinks we shouldn’t have great stories in the Hall? Don’t penalize a great pitcher because he won a dramatic game for legions of insane, baseball-crazed fans whom the baseball world now agrees are pretty much universally annoying. It’s not his fault.
REPORT COMMENT
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:31 pm
You can’t have it both ways and say Schilling didn’t play on good enough teams to amass regular season wins but he had a lot of wins in the playoffs. His losses were because of the teams he was with but his wins in the playoffs were all him. What about pitchers that didn’t have the chance to pitch in the playoffs? Schilling made the most of his playoff opportunities but that does not make him a Hall of Famer in my opinion.
If he had spent his entire career in Philly and put up the same regular season numbers he probably wouldn’t even be considered HOF material. Winning in Boston and defeating New York carries more weight than it should and because of that the writers will most likely vote him in. It’s not that his post season shouldn’t factor in but it shouldn’t be half the argument which in his case, I think it is. You switch post seasons and Brown is the guy that everyone is clamoring to put in the Hall.
Sarah, you can say, make ‘em hit your stuff, and you can also say, don’t give in to the hitter and make them hit your pitch. His homers allowed is less than impressive.
REPORT COMMENT
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Melissa, I don’t know why you keep harping on Schilling’s HR rate. As Paul pointed out, Schilling allowed fewer than a HR per nine innings pitched, which is average. And when you consider that he spent his career pitching in hitters parks, it’s not bad at all. It’s just high compared to Brown, who was a sinker ball pitcher.
REPORT COMMENT
April 2nd, 2009 at 1:22 pm
His HR rate is neither impressive nor unimpressive, to me. It neither helps nor hinders his case for the Hall.
If I had to break it down, I’d say his regular season accomplishments are about 87% of a Hall of Famer, and that his postseason accomplishments in general get him to 97%, and that the bloody sock is worth maybe the final 3%.
REPORT COMMENT
April 2nd, 2009 at 1:48 pm
I understand why Brown gave up less homers and I guess to some that doesn’t count in his favor because he was a sinker baller. The reason I was bringing it up is because of the comparison between Schilling and Brown, it seems relevant if you look at the career numbers of the two.
I guess when people don’t agree they just try to marginalize my argument by calling it harping. I guess it’s easier to tell a woman she’s harping when you disagree with her rather than just dispute her actual points. Quite frankly, once someone tells me I’m harping on a point they can expect it to be brought up, give or take, a thousand more times.
REPORT COMMENT
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:21 pm
I actually think that Kevin Brown is getting royally screwed. And I hope that by the time his name appears on the ballot, more people pay attention to how good this guy was. Ten years ago, he absolutely would have made my list of the top 5 pitchers in baseball, along with Pedro, Maddux, and Schilling (don’t know who my fifth would have been…).
And I don’t think anyone here is in any way shape or form marginalizing your argument. I mean, we’re paying pretty damned close attention to it, aren’t we? If the topic wasn’t worth raising, we wouldn’t be addressing it in the first place. And I have no idea when/where we are not actually disputing your points. Isn’t that what we’ve been doing?
But I will say this – your argument that Schilling should have walked more hitters to decrease his HRs is disproven by pretty much every statistical analysis of what a pitcher ought to do. It also goes against most old baseball adages. If you’re afraid of giving up a HR, you don’t belong on the mound. Because EVERY strike you throw could be a HR. By your idea, no one should ever throw a strike because it could be a dinger. This, I don’t understand. You’re making it sound like a pitcher actually chooses to give up HRs.
REPORT COMMENT
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:47 pm
At the risk of getting caught in the crossfire, allow me to gently point out that “harping” is one of those words like “shrill” that just carries baggage when applied to women. I’m sure you guys didn’t mean it that way. But it is what it is:
You say “harping.” We hear “nagging hussy.” You say “shrill.” We hear “opinionated shrew.” You say “What’s for dinner?” We hear “Back to the kitchen, wench!” At least, that’s what I hear. Which maybe explains the habitual look of confusion on my bf’s face.
/feminism
REPORT COMMENT
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Thanks for putting that more tactfully than I could have, Sarah.
REPORT COMMENT
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:05 pm
For the record, I’ve never even heard the word “harp” be used as a sexist dismissal. I use the word because it sounds nicer than “dwell upon.” Ultimately for me, I’ll argue my point with anyone regardless of gender, race, creed, sexuality, roots for the yankees, or whatever as long as they’re willing to argue the issue as well.
So can we get back to the argument on hand… this is just too much fun.
Now melissa. In regards to some of your points:
Yes, had Schilling stayed his entire career in Philadelphia, he’d have less of an argument about his admittance to the Hall. Reason is he wouldn’t be back in the postseason. He got several shots that other players didn’t… but also he succeeded more than anyone else who had the same shots. Atlanta’s big 3, Clemens on and off drugs, the Big Unit, Pedro, Whitey Ford, Catfish Hunter, Steve Carlton, Jim Palmer, and many more all had a good deal of postseason experience and Schilling has done better than all of them in the postseason.
As a closer Hoffman actually has better clutch stats than Mo… but if someone wants to argue Mo is a better closer, they’ll bring up his postseason performance and rightly so. Postseason is a higher level that not all can reach, but when you do, not everyone will shine.
You switch postseasons with Brown and yes, Schill loses a lot of weight to his argument, enough so to dismiss him… but I don’t think adding a performance to Brown helps him as much as you think. Of players active in the same era, Schilling was 4th in Ks. Brown not even in the top 10. K/9, Schill is 13th all time (6th for those above 2000 innings), Brown not even in the top 100. This era, Schill had the 4th lowest BB/9 ratio, Brown’s barely in the top 20… etc etc. Brown was a good pitcher of his era, even had some great seasons… overall though he was a good pitcher. On the other hand, overall, Schilling was a great pitcher of this era.
REPORT COMMENT
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:53 am
Well Ben L, consider yourself “educated” now.
Now make me a sandwich.
REPORT COMMENT
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Ben,
Post season is such a small sample that the numbers don’t carry a lot of weight to me. A player’s post season numbers don’t give you an accurate portrayal of what type of career he had.
REPORT COMMENT
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:15 pm
If the guy had 1 start in the postseason then you would be right. But we’re talking over 50 innings or more of work. When you test for normal distribution in statistics, the minimum accepted observations is around 50. So technically it does give an accurate portrayal.
Sarah, no.
REPORT COMMENT
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:56 pm
50 innings in the post season may give an accurate portrayal of his post season performance but it does not indicate what type of career the player had. Given even more post season innings Schilling’s numbers would surely regress to his career averages. I’m sure there are plenty of Yankees that have really nice post season lines that aren’t hall of famers.
REPORT COMMENT
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:42 pm
But the thing is postseason stats aren’t part of his career stats, they are a separate stat to consider. Which means if you include the rules of normal distributions he probably wouldn’t regress to career numbers, error terms would in fact decrease. He’d continue to put up his average playoff numbers if you were to hold all other conditions equally… on the other hand if you were to take into account statistics over time (as a player ages) and graph these stats, virtually every player watches his stats act parabolically… every player gets worse as he ages. The again that kinda works into my arguement… imagine if Schilling played his first half of his career for a team that appeared regularly appeared in the playoffs. My theory states his numbers would be better, yours states the opposite.
Though I supposed for the sake of arguments, you and I should stick to the principle of “what happened happened,” (And I’m not trying to be clever and include a title of a LOST episode) otherwise we’re starting to argue philosophy.
I have to admit I’m grateful to you, melissa. I haven’t been this much of a zealot about a player’s worth until I started this argument with you. As I said… this is fun.
REPORT COMMENT
April 4th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Ben,
You seem to imply that pitching in the post-season is a different skill than pitching in the regular season. His post-season numbers contrast with his regular season to such an extent that one would have to believe the larger sample, his career numbers, are in fact the more representative sample of his skill. Had he pitched in the post-season every single year of his career when he was young and old both, his post-season numbers would probably be much closer to his career averages. A larger sample of post-season numbers, in theory should come closer to his career averages not continue to advance further away. The question is what numbers better represent his true skill a limited number of post-season innings or the numbers he amassed over his entire career? The career numbers are more representative of his true level of performance than the post-season numbers.
REPORT COMMENT