OT: Schilling a HOF'er yet ?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Schilling pitched this season as a 37-year old, so he probably has a few good seasons left in him.

His career ERA is 3.32

He has 184 wins and 123 losses

He has pitched masterfully and won 3 big postseason "do-or-die" games.

Is he a HOFer yet?

Does he need 200 wins (virtually assured next season)?

Does he need 225 wins (should get them if he plays til he's 40)?

Does he need 250 wins (could be possible if he plays til he's 43)?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I should ask the same question for Mussina?

He is two years younger and has more wins:

Career ERA of 3.59

211 wins and 119 losses.

Tons of postseason wins.

Thoughts on both of these guys??

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

No and No

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike McGrail

Hal,

Me thinks that these 2 hurlers need to add some substantial goods to their records before they even reach the "Possible" stage. I really don't see either of them getting close.

Ciao for now,

Mike

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I guess you guys are right.

Schilling reminds me of Jack Morris (3.90, 254-186)...

and Morris only got 25% of the vote for the HOF last year.

Wow, tough crowd!

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Yes, on both! Lets keep lowering the bar until only Jackson and Rose are out.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

I may have been a little hasty on the Moose. He has a real outside shot at 300 wins which would make him automatic. Otherwise, he should get to 250 really easily which, if his win percentage stayed like it is now, would merit serious consideration.

[Archive]

Posted By: J Levine

No and No...

I can name many pitchers with similar stats who are not in the HOF...

Off the top of my head...

Tommy John, Bert Blyleven, Jerry Koosman are a few that pop up into my mind...

[Archive]

Posted By: Pcelli60

No hall for this tandem...

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Mayer

as of now, no, but moose has a decent shot, if he gets a ring and about 100 more wins haha,,,

so its a poor shot,,,

[Archive]

Posted By: ChuckkieB

No and no.

Both have had very good careers and Schilling has had HUGE games on the biggest stage, but both will end up historically in the tier right below HOF status in my humble opinion.

If I HAD TO choose one, it would be Schilling. He has been a dominant pitcher for at least a portion of his career.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris

I don't know if Schilling will get in or not but in my book he is a HOF'er. What he did last night was one of the most incredible performances I have ever seen. I know the HOF is reserved for people with great career stats (in most cases) but sometimes I think we put too much emphasis on stats. Baseball fans have become stat geeks and I am as guilty as anyone, but sometimes you just have to forget about the stats and I think Schilling is a perfect example of this.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

Chris, I think if he has two more years like he did this year and gets around 220 wins or so, I think he has a legitimate shot for some of the reasoning you mention.. Regardless of whether he gets the hall or not I think he goes down as one of the biggest "money" game pitchers in at least the last decade or two. I started thinking of the legend of Willis Reed seeing him gut those seven innings out last night.

Just to throw something else onto the fire for discussion, I checked out Schills stats on baseball reference at http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/schilcu01.shtml and they have him stastically right there as an HOF candidate. The "viability" of their statistical analysis is a whole separate discussion but, based on their numbers, he's right there on the borderline.

Black Ink: Pitching - 40 (35) (Average HOFer ~ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 192 (43) (Average HOFer ~ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 42.0 (59) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 145.0 (42) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

No and no.
Jim Kaat, Bert Blyleven and Jim Morris get in if these 2 guys do.

[Archive]

Posted By: qualitycards

Then if those guys get in, what about Mickey Lolich?

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter P.

It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Good players. Kirby Puckett should be removed too.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

Please - not that tired group again.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

both very questonable at this time. Morris gets in before either one. Still don't understand how you leave out the dominant pitcher of the 80s. From 1980-1990 there was no better pitcher in baseball. Any pitcher that is the best in the league for a 10 year stretch should be in the HOF.

Jay

I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

[Archive]

Posted By: sagard

Comparing these guys to Blyleven, John, Morris, Kaat, etc... is the wrong comparison. For better or worse most great pitchers may not win 250 anymore.

Compare those two to their peers. Here is how I rank them, completely subjectively, but I'm guessing the statistics would roughly support these rankings.

Clemens
Maddux
Johnson
Glavine
Martinez
Schilling
Mussina

Basically I don't find either of them top five pitchers of their era and I don't think either Mussina or Schilling are currently very close to being HoF material. Not that I wouldn't take either in a heartbeat for my team.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

sag, you are totally correct. A HOFer should be compared to his peers and the best from each era should be in the HOF regardless as to how they compare to player from other eras. This is exactly why Jack Morris should be a HOFer. There was no better pitcher in the 80s. You can't leave out a player who was the best in the game for 10 years.

Jay

I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

I agree that these above-average players should be in the HOF - the Minnesota Twins HOF.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

1) Don Sutton is in
2) Billy Williams is in
3) Bill Mazeroski is in

They weren't among the best at their positions in their era. Maz had a better than average glove but got in because of his 60 WS homer. Williams and Sutton got in simply because of longevity.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian H (misunderestimated)

I don't think either Schilling or Moose Mussina are there yet.
There are 2 ways to make it in my book (1) as a career Pitcher who may never have been the best but was good so long that there numbers (relative to their peers and history in general) compell HOF induction (egs. Phil Niekro, Eddie Plank and Fergie Jenkins), ; and/or (2) pitchers who were dominant --- either the very best or near the very best in their league for a few years and had enough of a career that their dominance wasn't a fluke (for instance Dizzy Dean, Ed Walsh, Amos Russie, Sandy Koufax and Pedro Martinez all qualify for this group while Jack Chesbro, Orel Hershiser and Smokey Joe Wood fall short). Obviosuly there are also the no-brainers who are HOF worhty no matter how you look at it (for example: Lefty Grove, Walter Johnson, Kid Nichols, Steve Carlton and Rogers Clemens).
Neither Schilling or Mussina have the career numbers (yet) to fall into group one. Schilling probably never will ... Mussina might depending on his durability.
As to group 2 Mussina really hasn't had any seasons that qualify him for group 2 yet. Schilling has (despite no Cy Youngs to date) but he stills rates near Doc Gooden and Orel Hershiser in my mind and is not up to the Koufax/Dean standard for short term dominance.
By the way I think Jack Morris should be in -- he falls into my first category and the post-season heroics seal his case.
Of the contemporary (starting) Pitchers I think that Clemens, Maddux, Johnson and Pedro are already there. Glavine is probably in already too but a few more Wins would seal it for him. Because they throw so few innings the Relievers are a tough call although I can't imagine Rivera not being a HOFer and I think that Smoltz will probably be a worthy hybred candidate by the time he retires.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

tbob, I know you watched baseball in the 50s adn 60s, but talk to anybody that played then and they will tell you that Maz was, and probably still is the best glove man every to play 2B. If players can get into the HOF based soley on hitting while still costing their teams defensively, then why shouldn't the greatest defensive players be allowed in the HOF too?

Jay

I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

...because great hitter/mediocre glove is more appealing to most fans than great glove/no bat?

Other than Manny Ramirez, most ML'ers are at least required to know which hand their gloves go on.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris

It is called the Hall of Fame. Not the Hall of great stats. Just something to think about. Seems like more and more each year we put more and more meaning on stats. Although it is one way to measure how great someone was, it is not the only way. I have always thought other contributions to baseball are just as important. Unfortynately I seem to be in minority. Morris was a very good pitcher and his game 7 performance against the Braves is one I will always remember. I also feel Morris should be in. Just my 2 cents.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Maz was a good glove but to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, "I knew Brooks Robinson and Maz was no Brooks Robinson." (If we are talking about great fielders).

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

The Hall of Fame has become terribly devalued in my opinion, and probably was a long time ago by the selection of some less than all time great players from the 30s like Eppa Rixey, Chick Hafey, Burleigh Grimes, etc. In this man's opinion, it should be reserved for true all time greats, who either were one of the truly few elite players/pitchers of their era for a sustained number of years (e.g. Mays, Aaron, Banks, Gibson, etc.), or whose career statistics are just so remarkable that they get in for that reason (like a Yaz or a Nolan Ryan for example). On these criteria, in my opinion, Schilling Mussina Glavine etc. do not even come close at least not yet. Clemens and Maddux yes, they are the two best pitchers of their generation, noone else is even close except maybe Randy Johnson. And to illustrate my own views, I do not believe any of these players (examples) are true HOF material, stars though they were, and 300 wins or 3000 hits notwithstanding: Sutton, Niekro, Mazeroski, Fox, Carter, Yount, Molitor, Perez, Cepeda, Schoendienst, and I am sure I could go on if I had a list in front of me. Are people who feel otherwise really going to approve when Rafael Palmeiro (who will have 500 HR and 3000 hits by the time he hangs them up) makes the Hall? Would people have approved of HAROLD BAINES if he had stayed around to collect 60 more hits?

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Schilling is in. Guy is/was a centerpiece to three staffs, a winner with a ring, and dominates.

How about if they're winners in the big games? Banks never got to the NLCS, even with Santo, B. Williams, Fergie and other decent pitchers (Holtzman, Hands, Pappas, Regan,etc.). Look at the AS game infields towards the end of Banks's career. Cubbie Cubbie Cubbie - Loser team Loser team Loser team

I think Banks is in. I think Fergie is in. And I'm glad a lot of other players are in with lower standards or not. Fan interest is high, the Hall is that much more interesting, and Upstate NY needs all the tourism it gets!

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Nevermind. I think Ron Santo should be in the Hall. I do not care how average anyone else thinks he was. His broadcasting should be worth somehting, too. You guys are too critical.

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

Yount and Molitor were of course stars, but were they superstars? Among the top few players in the game? I think not. Surely I do not have to defend the stature of Ernie Banks, whether or not he played for miserable teams (Fergie Jenkins was just one pitcher, remember). Schilling had the talent to have a HOF career, but at best he was one of the game's best pitchers for a few years. How many Cy Youngs? He isn't even in the same class as Clemens or Maddux. Now if he has a late life renaissance like Clemens and goes on to win 3 Cy Youngs after the age of 38 maybe I would have a different view.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

or praying to his necklace (easily explained if he happens to be a Catholic), but calmed down and cheered up when two runs were scored in the following half inning, with him standing on the top step of the dougout cheering his teammates on.

You sure can't say he doesn't care, that's for sure...