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

[Vicious89x]

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?

I was using postseason and rings as a comparison of two similar players, one with rings one without. Postseason #'s should not be the end all but as everything in a baseball it should be counted as something.

I for one dont' love the "wins over years" argument as it can be skewed by injuries and no decisions. I prefer to see the "average win/l percentage" or something to show how good you were when you were on the hill. The human body is not something you can control, for some reason guys get injured. For the record for Schilling over the course of his career his W/L% was:

.597

While Morris

.577

Both very good.

[Thor99]

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?

No hall for A-Rod.

[JohnnyHector]

Correct. He has 133 appearances as a reliever. (w/ the Orioles, Astros, and first season w/ the Phillies)

And in '05 with the Sox, when he finished 21 games with 9 saves.

[Thor99]

Pedro's '99 and '00 seasons were quite possibly the best two seasons ever by a pitcher. If he had only pitched those two seasons, he would still belong in the HOF.

[Morrissey]

Pedro's '99 and '00 seasons were quite possibly the best two seasons ever by a pitcher. If he had only pitched those two seasons, he would still belong in the HOF.

While I agree with the first part of your post, the second part is just ridiculous, but I'm sure that was a bit of sarcasm.

[JohnnyHector]

While I agree with the first part of your post, the second part is just ridiculous, but I'm sure that was a bit of sarcasm.

It's not far from the truth. Those two seasons make him more Hall-worthy than a compiler like Niekro or a schlep like Mazeroski.

[Morrissey]

[Klecko73isGod]

Sandy Koufax - 165 wins

Pedro Martinez - 214 wins

I knew you were going there. Koufax did that in 12 years. His win percentage is almost 50 points higher than Schilling's. Koufax won three Cy Youngs, Schilling's never finished higher than second in the voting.

Comparing Schilling a Koufax is retarded.

But, using Koufax as your bench mark for guys with fewer than 250 wins, if you're going to be considered for the Hall with that low a number of victories, you better be as dominant as Koufax was over a very short period of time like that.

If you're going to pitch 20 years, you better have significantly more than 216 wins.

If you're hoping to get in the Hall with only 216 wins, you better win a ton of Cy Youngs, you better average close to 200 Ks per year, you better have a win percentage north of .650, you better have an ERA in the 2s and not the 3s, you better be dominant in the postseason (Koufax's postseason ERA was 0.95.)

[Morrissey]

It's not far from the truth. Those two seasons make him more Hall-worthy than a compiler like Niekro or a schlep like Mazeroski.

Well I disagree..

but when it comes to Mazeroski, he's isn't in the Hall of Fame because he's a complier, look at his numbers, they are not great, they aren't even good. He's in a Hall of Fame because he hit a game winning home run in the World Series vs. the Yankees.

[Thor99]

[Klecko73isGod]

No hall for A-Rod.

Arod ain't done yet.

[Morrissey]

Don't change the subject!

[JohnnyHector]

I knew you were going there. Koufax did that in 12 years. His win percentage is almost 50 points higher than Schilling's. Koufax won three Cy Youngs, Schilling's never finished higher than second in the voting.

Comparing Schilling a Koufax is retarded.

But, using Koufax as your bench mark for guys with fewer than 250 wins, if you're going to be considered for the Hall with that low a number of victories, you better be as dominant as Koufax was over a very short period of time like that.

If you're going to pitch 20 years, you better have significantly more than 216 wins.

If you're hoping to get in the Hall with only 216 wins, you better win a ton of Cy Youngs, you better average close to 200 Ks per year, you better have a win percentage north of .650, you better have an ERA in the 2s and not the 3s, you better be dominant in the postseason (Koufax's postseason ERA was 0.95.)

I wasn't comparing Schilling to Koufax. I was offering you evidence in the contrary to your "216 wins don't get you into the HOF" statement.

Stop citing "20 years" as if it has any meaning. Schilling has started 20+ games in 13 seasons for his career. In 436 career starts, he has a winning percentage just short of .600, when he spent exactly half (6 1/2 years) of those 20+ start seasons with a team that played .482 ball during his tenure there.

Schilling put up seasons in 2001 and 2002 that would win the Cy Young in just about any other season, but unfortunately for him, Randy Johnson was also dominant those seasons:

2001 - 22-6, 2.98 ERA, 1.075 WHIP, 293 K's

2002 - 23-7, 3.23 ERA, 0.968 WHIP, 313 K's

How many pitchers have won 45 games and K'd 600 batters over the course of two seasons in the last 40 years? Both Johnson and Schilling did it between '01 and '02.

[Klecko73isGod]

I wasn't comparing Schilling to Koufax. I was offering you evidence in the contrary to your "216 wins don't get you into the HOF" statement.

Stop citing "20 years" as if it has any meaning. Schilling has started 20+ games in 13 seasons for his career. In 436 career starts, he has a winning percentage just short of .600, when he spent exactly half (6 1/2 years) of those 20+ start seasons with a team that played .482 ball during his tenure there.

Schilling put up seasons in 2001 and 2002 that would win the Cy Young in just about any other season, but unfortunately for him, Randy Johnson was also dominant those seasons:

2001 - 22-6, 2.98 ERA, 1.075 WHIP, 293 K's

2002 - 23-7, 3.23 ERA, 0.968 WHIP, 313 K's

How many pitchers have won 45 games and K'd 600 batters over the course of two seasons in the last 40 years? Both Johnson and Schilling did it between '01 and '02.

216 wins in 20 years does not get you in the Hall of Fame. Two great years does not get you in the Hall of Fame.

Sorry, it just doesn't.

Go look at the Hall of Fame pitchers. Is there a guy in there who pitched as many seasons as Schilling and only won 216 games?

[uart]

He should go back to the Phillies and make nice.

[Vicious89x]

It doesn't change the fact that during the course of those 20 seasons his W/L % is higher then that of your chosen pitcher Morris.

Does overall wins plus time pitched the only factor in your book? I dunno, seems like a sticking point that you're clinging on to. The point of the matter is that yea he did it for 20 years and at .597 clip.

And to counter your wins argument, even though Schilling pitched 2 more years then Morris he had less losses then Morris. 40 less.

Isn't it a pitchers job to win games? You can't ignore that type of stuff, when he was on the mound, he won, at a higher percentage then Morris. Considering lgERA and each pitchers ERA, Schilling was almost a full run underneath lgERA while Morris .18 below lgERA.

[JohnnyHector]

216 wins in 20 years does not get you in the Hall of Fame. Two great years does not get you in the Hall of Fame.

Sorry, it just doesn't.

Go look at the Hall of Fame pitchers. Is there a guy in there who pitched as many seasons as Schilling and only won 216 games?

Curt Schilling - 20 yrs (sort of), 436 GS, 216-146 (.597 pct), 3.46 ERA, 127 ERA+, 3116 K's

Jim Bunning - 17 yrs, 519 GS, 224-184 (.549 pct), 3.27 ERA, 114 ERA+, 2855 K's

Catfish Hunter - 15 yrs, 476 GS, 224-156 (.574 pct), 3.26 ERA, 104 ERA+, 2012 K's

[Klecko73isGod]

It doesn't change the fact that during the course of those 20 seasons his W/L % is higher then that of your chosen pitcher Morris.

Does overall wins plus time pitched the only factor in your book? I dunno, seems like a sticking point that you're clinging on to. The point of the matter is that yea he did it for 20 years and at .597 clip.

And to counter your wins argument, even though Schilling pitched 2 more years then Morris he had less losses then Morris. 40 less.

Isn't it a pitchers job to win games? You can't ignore that type of stuff, when he was on the mound, he won, at a higher percentage then Morris. Considering lgERA and each pitchers ERA, Schilling was almost a full run underneath lgERA while Morris .18 below lgERA.

What is the single biggest benchmark for pitching greatness?

300 wins, 300 wins and you are a lock for the Hall of Fame. If you are under that number, you better have multiple factors that make you a compelling case.

[Klecko73isGod]

216 wins in 20 years does not get you in the Hall of Fame. Two great years does not get you in the Hall of Fame.

Sorry, it just doesn't.

Go look at the Hall of Fame pitchers. Is there a guy in there who pitched as many seasons as Schilling and only won 216 games?

Curt Schilling - 20 yrs (sort of), 436 GS, 216-146 (.597 pct), 3.46 ERA, 127 ERA+, 3116 K's

Jim Bunning - 17 yrs, 519 GS, 224-184 (.549 pct), 3.27 ERA, 114 ERA+, 2855 K's

Catfish Hunter - 15 yrs, 476 GS, 224-156 (.574 pct), 3.26 ERA, 104 ERA+, 2012 K's

So the answer is no.

[Bergen Jet]

So the answer is no.

Dude... he was a reliever for what amounts to 4+ seasons of those 20 years... He had 5 starts total in his first 4 seasons and the Red Sox later used him in the pen...

[Vicious89x]

What is the single biggest benchmark for pitching greatness?

300 wins, 300 wins and you are a lock for the Hall of Fame. If you are under that number, you better have multiple factors that make you a compelling case.

Then Morris ain't getting in either. Plain and simple.

And it's 300 wins cause baseball writers are curmudgeons who prefer to keep the "old school mentality". These silly numbers of lgERA and WHIP are poppy**** to them.

[JohnnyHector]

So the answer is no.

So 224 wins gets you in the HOF with a .574 or .549 winning percentage, but 216 wins with a .597 winning percentage is a non-starter?

Gee, I guess you win then.

[Vicious89x]

I also petition to have the thread renamed

Anyone hear what that obnoxious, arrogant prick KLECKO73ISGOD said yesterday?

[Klecko73isGod]

Dude... he was a reliever for what amounts to 4+ seasons of those 20 years... He had 5 starts total in his first 4 seasons and the Red Sox later used him in the pen...

Curt Schilling 216 wins, 22 saves in 20 years. Used as a reliever early in his career because his team didn't see him as a starter.

John Smoltz 210 wins, 154 save in 20 years. Spent four years as a closer at the tail end of his prime, returned to starting and won 44 games over the next three years.

Smoltz is the Hall of Famer in this conversation, not Schilling.

[Klecko73isGod]

So 224 wins gets you in the HOF with a .574 or .549 winning percentage, but 216 wins with a .597 winning percentage is a non-starter?

Gee, I guess you win then.

You're talking about a difference of three years in one case and five in the other.

Both Hunter and Bunning had seasons early in their careers where they were spot starters or were being sent up and down and couldn't compile numbers, and they both wound up with more wins in fewer years than Schilling.

Not to mention that I don't think Bunning deserves to be in the Hall and Hunter is borderline at best.

[Otter]

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.

Two games stand out in my mind that help Mussina's case. Game 3 2001 ALDS against the A's down 2 games to none, he shuts out the A's to spark the Yankee comeback in that series. Game 7 2003 ALCS, he shuts down the Red Sox after relieving Clemens. The Yanks don't win that game without Mussina.

He's borderline for the HoF, I think he might get in because voters will take into account that he pitched during the entire steroid era and had a career record of almost 120 games over .500.

[Bergen Jet]

Curt Schilling 216 wins, 22 saves in 20 years. Used as a reliever early in his career because his team didn't see him as a starter.

John Smoltz 210 wins, 154 save in 20 years. Spent four years as a closer at the tail end of his prime, returned to starting and won 44 games over the next three years.

Smoltz is the Hall of Famer in this conversation, not Schilling.

Smoltz is a first ballot HOF'r no questions asked. Smoltz deserves it more than Schilling.

Schilling to me is on the fence but there is no denying that when he was dominant he was as good as there was in the game. His post season numbers are mind boggling and he has ridiculous control for a power pitcher. On the flip side he has had 4 great years and another 5 or so good to very good years. At the end of the day he is a borderline HOF'r at best in my eyes and the post season performances probably put him in.

That said in his era there were atleast 10 pitchers I'd take before him...

[Klecko73isGod]

Two games stand out in my mind that help Mussina's case. Game 3 2001 ALDS against the A's down 2 games to none, he shuts out the A's to spark the Yankee comeback in that series. Game 7 2003 ALCS, he shuts down the Red Sox after relieving Clemens. The Yanks don't win that game without Mussina.

He's borderline for the HoF, I think he might get in because voters will take into account that he pitched during the entire steroid era and had a career record of almost 120 games over .500.

If we're gonna use the "well the other guys were on steroids" argument, I'm making my case for Bernie Williams right now.

[JohnnyHector]

You're talking about a difference of three years in one case and five in the other.

Both Hunter and Bunning had seasons early in their careers where they were spot starters or were being sent up and down and couldn't compile numbers, and they both wound up with more wins in fewer years than Schilling.

Not to mention that I don't think Bunning deserves to be in the Hall and Hunter is borderline at best.

Who gives a flying **** how many "seasons" a guy was on an active MLB roster for when discussing Win totals? Schilling started less games than the other two and won only 8 less, with a higher winning percentage.

I really don't care what your opinion on Bunning and Hunter are either... you asked for a precedent being set for HOF induction at a win total of 216 (with a considerable number of games started) and I gave you two examples in that ballpark, neither of which are as deserving as Schilling IMO.

[Klecko73isGod]

Who gives a flying **** how many "seasons" a guy was on an active MLB roster for when discussing Win totals? Schilling started less games than the other two and won only 8 less, with a higher winning percentage.

I really don't care what your opinion on Bunning and Hunter are either... you asked for a precedent being set for HOF induction at a win total of 216 (with a considerable number of games started) and I gave you two examples in that ballpark, neither of which are as deserving as Schilling IMO.

No, my question was how many guys are in the Hall of Fame who pitched as many seasons as Schilling (20) with as few wins (216) and you came back by naming two guys who both won more games in fewer seasons.

I mean, this ain't quantum physics.

You can't name one and you want to know why? Because guys with so few wins in so many seasons don't get in the Hall of Fame!

[Otter]

when it comes to Mazeroski, he's isn't in the Hall of Fame because he's a complier, look at his numbers, they are not great, they aren't even good. He's in a Hall of Fame because he hit a game winning home run in the World Series vs. the Yankees.

I think the major reason why Mazeroski was voted in was because of his .983 career fielding percentage. That home run didn't hurt either.

[JohnnyHector]

Two games stand out in my mind that help Mussina's case. Game 3 2001 ALDS against the A's down 2 games to none, he shuts out the A's to spark the Yankee comeback in that series. Game 7 2003 ALCS, he shuts down the Red Sox after relieving Clemens. The Yanks don't win that game without Mussina.

I don't know how much historical value the 2001 ALDS has for anyone other than a Yankees fan.

He had a nice performance by stopping the bleeding in Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS, but I think Rivera turned in a better performance that game. Mussina also lost the 2 games he started that series, even though he didn't pitch poorly.

[Klecko73isGod]

I don't know how much historical value the 2001 ALDS has for anyone other than a Yankees fan.

He had a nice performance by stopping the bleeding in Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS, but I think Rivera turned in a better performance that game. Mussina also lost the 2 games he started that series, even though he didn't pitch poorly.

Now you're pointing to single games to determine a players Hall of Fame worthiness?

Oh, and if you want to know who is truly the most dominant postseason pitcher of the last 20 years, it's Mariano Rivera.

[Morrissey]

I think the major reason why Mazeroski was voted in was because of his .983 career fielding percentage. That home run didn't hurt either.

That's not good enough in my opinion. I think you should at least be a good hitter along with your defense to get in the hall of fame. The guy doesn't even have a .300 OBP.

[Klecko73isGod]

That's not good enough in my opinion. I think you should at least be a good hitter to get in the hall of fame.

There are tons of guys in the Hall for their gloves.

What's weird is how the offensive explosion in recent years is gonna have a longterm effect on the Hall of Fame prospects of guys who play traditionally weak offensive positions like 2B.