I just threw him in there because he has more wins and will probably pitch until he's 60 and wind up with 350 wins and a 6.00 eraOriginally Posted by Bigdog13
|
|
|
|
|
I just threw him in there because he has more wins and will probably pitch until he's 60 and wind up with 350 wins and a 6.00 era
Big Dog has to be on my side, being a Boys fan. Did anyone have more of a barely better than average regular season stats and have 3 SB rings than Aikman?
I just don't see Schilling getting in because he's so far down on a list of pitchers in his own era, I'll include reason's why they're better than Schilling for those that need it:
Roger Clemens
Greg Maddux
Randy Johnson
Mariano Rivera
Tom Glavine
John Smoltz -Only player in MLB history with 200 wins, 200 saves
Mike Mussina - 260 wins, AL record for consecutive 10 win seasons
David Wells - 240 wins, 4.13 era, didn't start until he was 30, perfect game
Andy Pettitte - 4 championships, 207 wins, 3.85 era
Trevor Hoffman - 500 saves
Billy Wagner - 300 saves
Troy Percival - 300 saves
I think all those players go in before Schilling, and I also don't think Wells, Pettitte, Percival and maybe Wagner are Hall of Famers.
Schilling is comparable to David Cone (194-126, 3.46 era, 2700 k's, 5-time All-Star, 5 World Series Championships, 1 Cy Young, perfect game). Cone most likely will not get into the Hall of Fame.
Roger Clemens??? You think?? We shall see but I think he blew that shot. At least Pettitte in your list told the truth and didn't make an arse of himself on National TV. Right??
I'll have to agree with you, TT. I think Roger and Pettitte (regardless of his honesty) have tarnished themselves. You know what they say. If a person is willing to admit to a little, there's a chance there's more that they don't want you to know about. Plus, I just don't like Clemens.
Roger Clemens - w/o drugs, first ballot HOF
Greg Maddux - best control pitcher of this generation
Tom Glavine - as much of an Atlanta fan as I am.... no Schilling, no Glavine. These are comparable to me.
John Smoltz - Absolutly in.
Mike Mussina - pfft.... yea right. no chance
Randy Johnson - maybe the most dominant lefty we've seen
David Wells - he's only famous cause he's fat and a decent pitcher. He's not in the same ballpark as your list
Andy Pettitte - piggy backed Clemons for most his career and hasn't been all that great except for a few post season appearences
Jamie Moyer - umm.... who?? :icon_wink:
I will give Mussina his due, but Pettitte has always been a distant number 2 his whole career for the most part. Yes, Schilling was a number two for the D'backs, but he was behind the best pitcher in the league. He was Boston's number one in 2004 (even if Pedro was in spirit). I just know what the man did when he finally got on a decent team (3 20 win seasons in 4 years). Hell, he went 17-11 for a terrible Phillies team. Mussina did much the same. I would say Moose and Schilling are in the same boat. Moose will probably get the nod because HOF voters have a hard on about regular season wins.
Glavine only has one thing on Schilling, longevity. Outside of that, Schilling beats him in every category. Oh yeh, and Glavine knocked down two Cy Youngs, but he has had some bad years.
No Schilling, No Glavine????? What are you smoking? Glavine has a Cy Young and over 300 wins! He's way ahead of Schilling.
And with Clemens I didn't include the steroid talk, just career's if clean. Schilling could just as easily be in the steroid talk before everythings said and done.
Tulsa, I respect your baseball knowledge but you completely overrate the importance of wins. Unfortunately so do many of the HOF voters. Wins mean virtually nothing when evaluating the quality of a pitcher.
Also when you compare pitchers of this generation you need to take the relief pitchers out of the comparison. It's like a different position.
I am 50/50 on whether he should be in or not. He also did a great job during an era that had juiced balls and steroids. I think that is worth noting.
I think he has a good shot at getting in. His numbers are not the greatest, and he did not reach the magic 240 win mark. BUT...
-- He has better numbers than some good pitchers who are already in the Hall of Fame.
-- He was money in the playoffs.
-- Tulsa Pup listed some great pitchers, but they are all still pitching, with the exception of Clemens, so Schilling will be eligible before any of them, unless a few of them retire at the end of this season, in which case they will come up at the same time.
-- Just as Clemens will have the "elephant in the living room" of steroids following him around, Schilling will not and that will help him. Voters will subconciously link Clemens to the whole HGH thing (remember this is only a few years away, and they have long memories). But, Schilling has always been thought of as clean, and voters will know that he pitched very well during the "steroid era" without using steroids himself. That will help his numbers and his chances with voters.
I don't think wins are the end all to an argument, but 300+ and having barely over 200 is a big difference. Afterall, winning is what you play the game for - I would bet if Schilling had zero Championships he wouldn't even be considered, similar to Mike Mussina who has comparable numbers to Schilling but zero championships. I listed David Cone earlier, he had a better career than some HOF pitchers in terms of All-Star games, Championships, Cy Youngs, no-hitters, etc. But, he has less than 200 wins and that is going to keep him out.
Schilling really is the ultimate borderline player, he has numbers that support either side. My opinion is that because he was never his leagues best pitcher in any season, and he's (arguably) not in the top 10 of pitchers in his era, he would need impressive numbers like 300 wins or an era under 3.00 to get in. His strongest argument is his post seasons and even then he was just once an NLCS MVP and a Co-MVP of the World Series. I think the fact that in Arizona he would not have won without Johnson (and vice versa) hurts him. Throughout his career he was the second tier of starting pitchers, and second tier players rarely get into the Hall.
Off topic, but I've never been a fan of comparing numbers of other HOF'ers when talking about whether someone deserves to be in the Hall. Maybe the biggest reason is because they always bring up Ryne Sandberg when talking about a hitter. Ryne isn't in it because he had great numbers. Ryne is in it because he had magic when it mattered.
A HOF career should be like love, you just know. The fact that so many people I hear talking about this are on the fence makes me side with the "no."
Terry Bradshaw?
Winning the whole game is what you play for, not necessarily fulfilling the requirements of getting a "win" as a pitcher.
Baseball tends to even out. Look at Chipper Jones this year, until June he was getting every break, every squib was falling and every line drive found a gap. Now a few more of those squibs are caught, and a few more of those line drives are right at someone; his average will be down closer to his career average than to .400 before the seasons over (I say he finishes at .355 and wins the batting title).
Same thing for pitchers, one start they may throw 8 shutout innings and get a ND or give up one run and get a loss, the next they could give up 7 runs in 5 innings and win. The great pitchers will end up with great numbers.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
