Originally Posted by
TulsaPup
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.