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.RAmst23 wrote: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).