Schilling May Be Done, Let the HOF Debate Rage

I speak for everyone from Red Sox Nation when I say Schilling’s Hall of Fame odds are “Wicked Good”

Curt Schilling is “clutch”. He is the type of guy who you want on the mound with the game on the line. This combined with his good to great stats should be enough to give him the nod for the Hall of Fame.

Look at the shear number of 7 or 8 win, .500 seasons the guy pitched. He was clutch in the playoffs later in his career, but the full body of work falls way short of HOF quality. More like little bits of greatness, which is fine, financially rewarding and even memorable, but the discussion of Schilling on the edge of the Hall is ridiculous.

I was listening to that interview on WEEI… he sounds Dunn, like Warrick.

He should NOT be in the Hall. But sad to say he will be elected by the baseball writers who are practically on a mission right now to accomplish this, not to mention some of these “loyal” fans the Red Sox have might just turn the Hall into their one of their notorious all star game rosters.

Schilling is not in the very highest ranks of regular season stats as a starting pitcher. He is well into the area of discussion though with 216 wins and 3000 plus strikeouts along with a very good ERA.

What pushes him over the top and in is his stellar 11-2 postseason record with a (correct me if I’m wrong) stellar postseason ERA. His peformance in the 2004 World Series was, for any that observed it,larger than life and adds spice to his reason for being where he ought to be —-The Hall of Fame.

I don’t know that he’ll get in. He’s marginal in a Jack Morris / Joe Carter sort of way, right? But I think the 5 years he’s got to wait will have the greatest impact on his electability. Does he lay low, and continue to be a good citizen who does great charity work with ALS and other causes, or does someone give him a podium and let him talk regularly, and he shoots himself in the foot with a misconstrued quote that makes him come off like a crazy person.

I call this the “Steve Garvey effect”. When he left LA, he was Senator Steve, all American Boy who had lots of those HOF moments, like being written in for an all star start, playoff MVPs, NL MVP’s, 200 hits every year, etc.

But when Cyndy’s book came out, and he was caught fathering 3 kids out of wedlock with 3 different women, all of a sudden the writers begin to notice that he never took a freaking walk, and he never hit for very much power, and maybe put himself before the team. All of a sudden he’s a cartoon version.

If Schilling gives the writers an opportunity to tear him down, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the sentiment shift dramatically.

Anyway you slice it, his HOF resume is totally marginal. Like I said, I personally don’t think he belongs in the Hall, but I agree w/ Buster Olney: He’ll finally get voted in sometimes around 2020.

I agree with kings33. I would put Schilling up with Joe Carter and Jack Morris as players with great careers, and clutch postseason performances but still short of being considered worthy of the HOF.
For years I have been complaining about the lack of support for Bert Blyleven (287 wins, 50 Sho, 3701 K), and Jim Kaat (287 wins, 16 gold gloves, 3.45 ERA).
Now please don’t tell me that 216 wins playing for teams that had good heavy hitters in the lineup are going to take Schilling to the hall before those two guys I mentioned.

     Schilling is 1200+ IP shy of Glavine’s 4400+… Glavine’s 30th all time, very big difference… Schilling should get more IP pitching well as he has been pitching for his entire career… not enough yet to get to HOF.

I hate baseball hall of fame balloting.

The idea that a guy is not worthy to get in on the first ballot but somehow gets more worthy to get in is plain silly.

I think stats are overrated in evaluating a player’s career, especially for pitchers. Wins can be either understated or overstated depending on your role and the team you played on.

The worst about it is how different voters set their own criteria. There ought to be a fairly clear set of criteria, it’s way too freaking subjective. According to the cooperstown website, the voting should be based on the player’s record, playing ability, character, sportsmanship, and contribution(s) to the team on which he played. That said it’s whatever comes out of the mind of sportswriters.