schilling retires. HOF?

[RAmst23]

Sure, but Schilling finished 2nd in the Cy Young voting 3 times and 4th once and got MVP votes in all of those seasons.

Kevin Brown had a 2nd-place finish, a 3rd-place, and 3 6th-place finishes with no MVP votes.

And the postseason does matter. Kevin Brown's team won, despite him, in 1997. Schilling was a pivotal player in winning the 2001 WS and the 2004 WS and had a great start (although it wasn't as necessary) in 2007.

Schilling does not seem to stand with the list of great pitchers from his era (Clemens, Maddux, RJ, Pedro), but fits in better with many others who were very good but not great.

Well, noone on that list stands with Pedro in his prime. So you can't use him as a metric, it just isn't fair.

Clemens and RJ are no-doubt HoF'ers (well, unless maybe Clemens gets imprisoned for steroids/perjury, but that's completely separate).

The fact that you don't think Schilling is as good as those two (which he arguably hasn't had as great of a career, granted) doesn't DQ him from the Hall. He's still had a good enough career in his own right.

So neither Brown or Schilling won a Cy Young with Schilling having 4 top 6 finishes and Brown having 5. That's a wash to me.

How much you want to count postseason stats is each individual voters call. To me, half a seasons worth of stats shouldn't have a large say on a player's HOF worthiness. Hershiser had a postseason ERA of 2.59 in the same amount of innings, why isn't that used to get him into the hall? I'd say Boston's historic 2004 team won despite Schilling's performance in the ALCS (6.30 ERA).

The fact that Schilling doesn't compare to the great players of his era, and only to the good ones does DQ him from the Hall. The whole point is to elect the best, and he doesn't seem to match up. Of course Schilling had a good career, no argument there. I'm just not sure 3000 K's should be the only stat needed to make you a HOFer (which it doesn't as Mr. Blyleven can attest).

[JTWood]

No way is he in the Hall. Steroid users should be banned outright.

[thedude]

Schilling's top four seasons:

1997: 17 wins, 254.3 ip, 319 Ks, 2.97 era, 143 era+, 1.046 Whip
2001: 22 wins, 256.7 ip, 293 ks, 2.98 era, 157 era+, 1.075 Whip
2002: 23 wins, 259.3 ip, 316 ks, 3.23 era, 142 era+, 0.968 Whip
2004: 21 wins, 226.7 ip, 203 ks, 3.26 era, 150 era+, 1.063 Whip

That is what his HoF chances ride on in addition to being one of the best postseason pitchers of this era. It is no coincidence that he has three rings.

[Yoda]

It is no coincidence that he has three rings.

What do you mean? He was on some really good teams. So are you saying that Barry Bonds or Alex Rodriguez shouldn't get their due because they don't have a ring?

I really can't stand it when people make a big deal out of WS or post season performance.

[BronXBombers51]

It is no coincidence that he has three rings.

What do you mean? He was on some really good teams. So are you saying that Barry Bonds or Alex Rodriguez shouldn't get their due because they don't have a ring?

I really can't stand it when people make a big deal out of WS or post season performance.

Agreed. The fact that he has three rings is largely luck-based. It doesn't say anything about his personal skill level or what he personally accomplished in his career. And generally four seasons are not good enough to make the HOF.

Tavish had it right. Schilling is not a first class pitcher of this generation. Clemens, RJ, Pedro and Maddux are. Schilling goes in the same class as Glavine, Smoltz and Mussina (to a slightly lesser extent Kevin Brown.) If you put one of them in, you put all of them in. I don't have a problem with someone not wanting any of them in. I can see an argument to let them in. But it's certainly not a "no-doubt, slam dunk, 100%" call as a lot of people in here have made it.

Curt's five most comparable pitchers on BRef are Kevin Brown, Bob Welch, Orel Hershiser, Freddie Fitzsimmons and John Smoltz. None of them are yet in the Hall of Fame.

[StlSluggers]

It is no coincidence that he has three rings.

What do you mean? He was on some really good teams. So are you saying that Barry Bonds or Alex Rodriguez shouldn't get their due because they don't have a ring?

I really can't stand it when people make a big deal out of WS or post season performance.

I agree to a point. If a guy is borderline, then being good/bad when it mattered might sway me, but post-season performance should never be the crux of an argument.

[thedude]

It is no coincidence that he has three rings.

What do you mean? He was on some really good teams. So are you saying that Barry Bonds or Alex Rodriguez shouldn't get their due because they don't have a ring?

I really can't stand it when people make a big deal out of WS or post season performance.

Isn't the point of baseball to win the world series?

He was on some good teams, but he was a major factor in all of those championships. Take 2001 for example he pitched in 3 games with an era of 1.69 in 21.1 innings. His team does not win if he he does not pitch lights out in the postseason that year. Is that not part of his resume? Do you want to pretend it didn't happen?

[thedude]

Agreed. The fact that he has three rings is largely luck-based. It doesn't say anything about his personal skill level or what he personally accomplished in his career. And generally four seasons are not good enough to make the HOF.

That isn't true at all. If he is not on the 2001 Diamondbacks or the 2004 Red Sox the New York Yankees have 28 rings. He wasn't the only reason his teams won, but he was a major factor.

It is no coincidence that he has three rings.

What do you mean? He was on some really good teams. So are you saying that Barry Bonds or Alex Rodriguez shouldn't get their due because they don't have a ring?

I really can't stand it when people make a big deal out of WS or post season performance.

I agree to a point. If a guy is borderline, then being good/bad when it mattered might sway me, but post-season performance should never be the crux of an argument.

It is not the crux of the argument it is simply something to consider.

[AussieDodger]

Isn't he 2nd all-time in K/BB or something like that?

I saw that on the world wide leader, and can't remember exactly because I was dazzled by all their other b.s.
Some douche was saying he will vote for him though, so TAKE THAT all you haters, he's got one vote

(I think Gammo said he was gonna vote for him too, so there's 2!!!!!!!!)

[Yoda]

It is no coincidence that he has three rings.

What do you mean? He was on some really good teams. So are you saying that Barry Bonds or Alex Rodriguez shouldn't get their due because they don't have a ring?

I really can't stand it when people make a big deal out of WS or post season performance.

Isn't the point of baseball to win the world series?

He was on some good teams, but he was a major factor in all of those championships. Take 2001 for example he pitched in 3 games with an era of 1.69 in 21.1 innings. His team does not win if he he does not pitch lights out in the postseason that year. Is that not part of his resume? Do you want to pretend it didn't happen?

So what? You are arguing about 21.1 IP. Besides, he could be perfect for 21.1 IP with 60 Ks but if his team doesn't score any runs then would he have a ring?

Look at the flip side for a second. Had he blown up in those starts, would that make him a bad pitcher and undeserving of getting in the Hall?

I'm not pretending it didn't happen. It's just a weak ass argument for a player. He was lucky to been part of a winning team.