Jump to content

Anyone hear what that obnoxious, arrogant prick Schilling said yesterday?


Klecko73isGod

Recommended Posts

You also can't punish guys for the era they played in.

I couldn't find it but I'm sure they have a way to adjust for era's. I mean there are era's where pitchers have an advantage (ballparks, mound, type of ball) and where batters have an advantage. The argument that you made is easily applicable to your argument of Kaat, you can't punish Schilling for being on a better team(s).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 211
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Speaking of the HOF.

When the likes of Bonds, Rose, Clemens, and A-Rod don't get in the HOF, it really turns the place into a joke. Without them.. the HOF is tainted

(McGwire and Sosa.. I don't think they where Hall of Famers before they took steroids, which is why I left them off)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee, I wonder why Pettite has almost twice as many postseason starts as Schilling....

Because Schilling played the majority of his career for the Phillies, who had one season above .500 when he was there, while Pettitte was fortunate enough to play for a dynasty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of the HOF.

When the likes of Bonds, Rose, Clemens, and A-Rod don't get in the HOF, it really turns the place into a joke. Without them.. the HOF is tainted

(McGwire and Sosa.. I don't think they where Hall of Famers before they took steroids, which is why I left them off)

How can we know that A-rod wasn't taking steroids with Seattle and is still with the Yankees? There is no way to prove that. With Bonds and Dooshey Clemens, you can kind of quantify when the juicing began.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't find it but I'm sure they have a way to adjust for era's. I mean there are era's where pitchers have an advantage (ballparks, mound, type of ball) and where batters have an advantage. The argument that you made is easily applicable to your argument of Kaat, you can't punish Schilling for being on a better team(s).

It's called ERA+, a statistic I have cited frequently in this thread, and one that shows just how ridiculously dominant Pedro Martinez was during his prime.

But Klecko will stick to his argument that Koufax was better than Pedro. I wonder why that is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's called ERA+, a statistic I have cited frequently in this thread, and one that shows just how ridiculously dominant Pedro Martinez was during his prime.

But Klecko will stick to his argument that Koufax was better than Pedro. I wonder why that is...

Ah is that is? I'm not great with all the adjustment statistics. But I have heard it used before and for me I'm with you. Pedro Martinez is hands down the greatest, most dominant pitcher of all time. Scary good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can we know that A-rod wasn't taking steroids with Seattle and is still with the Yankees? There is no way to prove that. With Bonds and Dooshey Clemens, you can kind of quantify when the juicing began.

and we don't know a lot of things about a lot of players. It's my opinion we should put these guys in, and let people make there judgements. We don't need asterisks, I think people who care about this stuff are smart enough to know.

What we do know about A-Rod is he didn't take steroids in 2006. He was blood tested before the WBC, and he's going to, if not already be blood tested before this years WBC. WBC uses the same testing as Olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of the HOF.

When the likes of Bonds, Rose, Clemens, and A-Rod don't get in the HOF, it really turns the place into a joke. Without them.. the HOF is tainted

(McGwire and Sosa.. I don't think they where Hall of Famers before they took steroids, which is why I left them off)

I have to agree. The issue with Bonds and Clemens is they've broken records, and the "enhancements" helped them get there. I think that's the sticking point in the votes, at least for me as a fan. Especially Bonds, when you break a hallowed record like that should you be allowed to celebrate that achievement considering that the roids helped you get in there? It's so tough... because he was so great prior to that and we all know he would've gone. It's almost like because he did something SO great, while on roids, it makes it harder to swallow and say "you're in".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and we don't know a lot of things about a lot of players. It's my opinion we should put these guys in, and let people make there judgements. We don't need asterisks, I think people who care about this stuff are smart enough to know.

What we do know about A-Rod is he didn't take steroids in 2006. He was blood tested before the WBC, and he's going to, if not already be blood tested before this years WBC. WBC uses the same testing as Olympics.

What precluded A-Rod from using PEDs AFTER the WBC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Andy Pettite has a bit of an argument to make on that one.

I love Andy but he's not in the discussion. For all the great postseason games he had he also had a ton of clunkers.

Clemens outpitched Schilling in game 7. He left the game losing 2-1 after Soriano hit the home run in the eighth. If the Yanks don't blow the game in the ninth he would have been the losing pitcher. Something that everybody seems to forget.

However, you can't argue with his postseason record 11-2, 2.23 ERA. I don't like the guy, but he has been a clutch pitcher.

The guy was pitching his 3rd game in the series and only allowed 2 runs and you are going to slight him on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you have to resort to citing fielding ability when arguing a pitcher's relative worth, you have already failed.

Ok, so in your world, every aspect of the game doesn't count?

Whatever. Jim Leonhard just signed. We've got more important things to discuss in the football forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Kaat won 283 games in a 25 year career, playing primarily on horrible teams. He is also arguably the best fielding pitcher in history.

Kaat started 20+ games for the Twins from '61-'73, during which time they posted a record of 1119-974 (a .535 winning percentage).

Schilling pitched on Phillies teams that posted a .482 winning percentage from 1992 through 2000.

Before you throw in that Schilling pitched for better teams in Arizona and Boston, also consider that Kaat finished his days as a starter pitching for the White Sox and Phillies, who went 447-360 (.553 winning percentage) during his tenure.

Another FAILed argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so in your world, every aspect of the game doesn't count?

When I'm talking about the greatness of a pitchers, no, I don't factor in how well they flashed the leather.

Whatever. Jim Leonhard just signed. We've got more important things to discuss in the football forum.

I'll take this as your concession that your anti-Schilling stance is based in no way on his on-field performance and that he does, in fact, belong in the Hall of Fame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Schilling is debatable.. if he gets in, so should Mike Mussina

That in itself is debatable in the sense that Mussina doesn't have any rings. Do we totally discount rings? I certainly think it helps Schillings argument as he was a major part of the rings he now owns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That in itself is debatable in the sense that Mussina doesn't have any rings. Do we totally discount rings? I certainly think it helps Schillings argument as he was a major part of the rings he now owns.

Obviously winning rings is a team thing, and if you want to argue that, than I can argue Mussina has 54 more wins than Schilling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Schilling is debatable.. if he gets in, so should Mike Mussina

I disagree. While Mussina was a good pitcher, Schilling has had a clearly superior career IMO, considering that I place for more value on dominance than compiling. I, unlike Klecko, also don't give a damn about how many Gold Gloves a pitcher wins.

From a Hall standpoint, Mussina also lacks any signature performances (at least none that come to mind). While he may have been lights-out against Cleveland in '97, his team lost the series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously winning rings is a team thing, and if you want to argue that, than I can argue Mussina has 54 more wins than Schilling.

And Schilling has 303 more SO's. They're close, there is many similarities. Let me say this, I was, and still am a HUGE Moose supporter. I dunno why, I just loved the way the dude pitched. Even though we didn't make the playoffs last year I loved watching Moose pitch last year. I do think he should get in, but in my heart I know they wont' let him in. Being Mr. Almost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, with 54 more wins in two fewer seasons and a win percentage that is 41 points higher, he's another one who belongs in the Hall ahead of Schilling.

And using "two fewer seasons" is a joke, since Mussina has started exactly 100 more games in his career than Schilling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he'll get in the first few years, but actually I see Moose getting in. His number will look better and better.. because no one is going to come close to 300 wins after Randy Johnson gets it this year

His ERA+ was above 100 in 15 of 18 seasons -- and he just missed in 2004 (98) and 2005 (96). This season was the first that won at least 20 games, but it's the sixth season he's won at least 18. And while he's never won a ring, he's put up a 3.42 ERA in 23 playoff appearances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think Mussina will get in.

His ERA+ was above 100 in 15 of 18 seasons -- and he just missed in 2004 (98) and 2005 (96). This season was the first that won at least 20 games, but it's the sixth season he's won at least 18. And while he's never won a ring, he's put up a 3.42 ERA in 23 playoff appearances.

The think I always comeback to is he was a career AL East guy. And the AL East was always beast when he pitched and he was dominant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That in itself is debatable in the sense that Mussina doesn't have any rings. Do we totally discount rings? I certainly think it helps Schillings argument as he was a major part of the rings he now owns.

If your career numbers are borderline, rings can put you over the top.

I don't think 216 wins in 20 seasons even makes Schilling borderline. It makes him not a Hall of Famer. 216 wins is just not Hall of Fame worthy.

Look, there have been plenty of players who had great postseason success but were not Hall of Famers.

Jack Morris is the pitcher whose career most closely resembles Schilling's. He was awesome in the postseason, putting two different teams over the top. He also won 254 games in 18 years. Thats 38 more wins than Schilling in two fewer seasons. I don't hear anybody making an argument for Morris.

By using the logic that postseason numbers are the end all be all, shouldn't we then remove Ernie Banks and Ted Williams from the Hall of Fame?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And using "two fewer seasons" is a joke, since Mussina has started exactly 100 more games in his career than Schilling.

And why is that? Because he was healthier. Longevity and consistency are part of being Hall of Fame worthy. Schilling has the longevity, he does not have the consistency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think Mussina will get in.

His ERA+ was above 100 in 15 of 18 seasons -- and he just missed in 2004 (98) and 2005 (96). This season was the first that won at least 20 games, but it's the sixth season he's won at least 18. And while he's never won a ring, he's put up a 3.42 ERA in 23 playoff appearances.

Again, I think Mussina was a good pitcher, but he has 5 seasons in which he started over 20 games where his ERA+ was under 105. That means he was an average to below average ('07) pitcher in those seasons. He did, however, have 4 seasons where his ERA+ was over 140.

Tough call, but I think he comes up short.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. While Mussina was a good pitcher, Schilling has had a clearly superior career IMO, considering that I place for more value on dominance than compiling. I, unlike Klecko, also don't give a damn about how many Gold Gloves a pitcher wins.

From a Hall standpoint, Mussina also lacks any signature performances (at least none that come to mind). While he may have been lights-out against Cleveland in '97, his team lost the series.

216 wins does NOT get you in the Hall of Fame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why is that? Because he was healthier. Longevity and consistency are part of being Hall of Fame worthy. Schilling has the longevity, he does not have the consistency.

I think Schilling was a reliever for a good portion of his first few years. I could be mistaken though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why is that? Because he was healthier. Longevity and consistency are part of being Hall of Fame worthy. Schilling has the longevity, he does not have the consistency.

Consistency? Schilling had exactly ONE season where he started 20+ games in which his ERA+ was even close to average. Every other season in which he started 20+ games (13 of them), his ERA+ ranged from good to great.

Has he had injuries? Sure. Has his performance been anywhere from good to dominant when he was healthy? Absolutely.

Did longevity count against Koufax, when he only put up 6 seasons of 20+ starts and an ERA+ over 120 (compared to Schilling doing it 13 times)?

Your arguments against him are nothing short of pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...