Part of

« Game chat: Park makes another pitch for rotation | Main | Wednesday: Lidge conspicuous by his absences »

Tuesday, March 24, 2009


I thought the press would like Schilling, he talked to them and gave them lots of material. Would they rather have Steve Carlton?

I haven't posted for a while, so I thought I'd offer up a question. What is the point of having two absolute redundancies on the bench? Stairs and Jenkins offer more or less the same skill set, and given that getting a decent amount of at bats for even one of them with this lefty loaded lineup will be difficult, why carry both? This is especially odd given that Dobbs will be the primary lefty off the bench and can play any position Jenkins/Stairs can play at at least an equal level. Too add to this mess by carrying Eric Bruntlett and either Cairo or possibly adding a guy like Jeff Baker is insane? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for adding Jeff Baker at the right price, but then why keep Bruntlett. Perhaps they won't in that scenario. Either way, its quite unnecessary to carry 6 bench players, especially considering that not one can competently back up CF (though I suppose Werth could always slide over to spell Vic on occasion). I would hope the Phillies make a choice between Stairs and Jenkins (its hard not to root for Stairs in that scenario) and Bruntlett and another utility type. Though I'd much prefer another RH utility man (not Cairo) to supplement Bruntlett to carrying both Stairs and Jenkins, assuming we carry only 5 bench players.

However long it takes Bert Blyleven to get into the hall, it should take Shilling twice as long.

Might as well induct Charlie Hough while we're at it. After all, he has 216 wins.

Lekh: couldn't have said it better myself.

Mac Tonight: agreed that Blyleven's omission is one of the great errors in HoF voting, but it's tough to punish Schilling for the voters' stupidity on the Blyleven front. Schill should get in, just not as a first ballot guy.

Schilling will make it in eventually. His playoff record should push him over the top.

Schilling was better than Blyleven. Its not all about win totals.

Oh, sorry. I mean "What is Everquest?"

Wins are a pretty terrible way to judge a pitcher.


Yup. Win % is a little better but is still dependent on one's team/run support.

Look at Curt's K/BB ratio and get back to me. He was a power pitcher with fantastic control...quite the rare combination. He was over 4/1 for his career when it comes to K to BB.

Career #

K - 3,116
BB - 711

4.38 K/BB (2nd all time)

WHIP - 1.137 (45th all time WHIP ahead of guys like Maddux, Clemens, R. Johnson, Smoltz)

I believe the more accurate name of the game is "EverCrack"...not "Everquest".

There should only be ONE CRITERIA for getting into the HOF.

Were you one of the best at your position in the time you played, regardless of where your alltime stats compare for all time...

and the answer is....

Schilling: Yes
Blyleven: No

Schilling has the ultimate misfortunate of playing his prime on a horrible team (the late 90's Phillies) and then being in the same league and in the same rotation of probably the 2nd best LH pitcher in MLB history in R. Johnson. If Johnson wasn't around then Schilling is a 2 time Cy Young winner and we're not having this debate. His other runner up year was in 2004 to Santana and Santana had a spectacular season that year. Schilling just had poor timing for that.

"What is Everquest" Alex er Weitzel

I would still love to see a picture of Schilling from spring training in '97 wearing the infamous "Show Me the Money" t-shirt. No picture is more emblematic of Schilling.

Curt's postseason record substantially helps him. 11-2, 2.23 in the postseason with three World Series titles. Win total was hurt by poor teams, injuries and 3 seasons spent as a reliever. He was one of the best starting pitchers in baseball for 15 years and had four Cy Young caliber seasons. I think the Red Sox affiliation will push him over the top like it did with Jim Rice, although he is a better candidate than Rice.

ThatDude: Wait, let me get this straight. A guy can be the best player at his position but have stats worse than other players at the position? Or do you just mean worse stats than players of other eras? If the latter, that's obvious. If the former, I don't get it.

ThatDude: Of course, there are many criteria for HOF, longevity and career totals being one of them.

I'm also curious why you don't think Blyleven was one of the best at his position. He was top 5 in ERA 7 times (and 6th once), and top 4 in Cy Young voting 3 times. And he played for way worse teams than Schill did. Frankly, I'd vote for both of them.

The bloody sock puts him in.

Clout: I mean worse stats compared to players in other eras. And the inverse is true to....Rafael Palmiero has over 500 hrs and there is no way he was in the top 5 1B of his era (forget the steroids completely)

Curt Shilling is maybe the only athlete I hate for reasons other than what he did on the field. I hope he does'nt get in for selfish reasons... That being said, he should get in for his accomlishments on the field. His stats are as good as Catfish Hunters'. And he was better than Don Sutton.

If we judge based on being "best at your position in the time you played, regardless of where your alltime stats compare for all time", Shilling definitely isn't a Hall Of Famer.

If that is the criteria, how can the award go to a man who, in a 20 year career, has never been recognized as the best pitcher in his league? That argument goes both ways, you know. Because there were far better pitchers in his era, he was at no time the best at his position at the time he played.

Therefore, if he was dwarfed in his era by the likes of Johnson, Martinez, Maddux, Glavine, Clemens, etc... and if many of his career numbers pale in comparison to Hall Of Fame pitchers, what is the argument that Shilling deserves to be in the Hall? last point: Shilling may have played for a few dog teams in Philly during the late 90s, but the man pitched for not one, not two, but THREE World Champions. Considering the quality of teams he pitched for, I don't see how 216 wins should even grant him consideration. You may say that wins are a poor indication of talent. I say that wins are their job. No team signs an ace hoping that he goes 2-15 with an impressive WHIP.

Blyleven won 287 games (including a no-hitter) pitching for the Twins and Rangers for most of the 1970s and the Indians for much of the 80s. He closed out his career with the god awful Angels going into the 90s. Granted, he played for a few good ballclubs in Pittsburg and (of course) the '87 Twins, but most of his career was spent on the mound for some pretty sub-standard ballclubs.

In every measurable way, Blyleven > Shilling.

Shilling gets in because he pitched for Boston.
Blyleven is shut out because he did not pitch for Boston, New York or LA. If he had, he would have been in long ago.

--Rafael Palmiero has over 500 hrs and there is no way he was in the top 5 1B of his era (forget the steroids completely)--

How did Willie Stargell ever get in? Other than being a feared power hitter, Palmiero was the better all-around player.

This Schilling debate is going to last for years to come, because I think he'll eventually get into the Hall, but not on his first, second, or possibly third try.

Schilling gets in because he WON with Boston and put 2 separate teams over the top with WS runs...not because he simply was on Boston. He was a winner and a gamestopper...that's why he gets in.

My guess is that he'll get in in something like his 11th or 12th year of eligibility.

"If that is the criteria, how can the award go to a man who, in a 20 year career, has never been recognized as the best pitcher in his league?"

I'm sure that some HofFamers didn't win Cy Youngs...Don Sutton? Goose Gossage? Juan Marichal? Phil Niekro? Jim Bunning?

So many people say the bloody sock gets him in. What about his 2-0, almost 150 pitch, complete game shut out against the powerful Toronto Blue Jays to hold off elimination?

Ricky Otero? How about Ricky Bottalico? That guy personally cost Schilling at least one 20-win season. In his defense, Battalico did the best he could with what he had. IMO, he was never really a big-league closer. He'd follow Schilling, who was still throwing 94 mph well into his 120th hurl, and the ball must of looked like a grapefuit to batters with Bo coming in a few MPH short and and not-so-great command.

I'm still a believer in the bloody sock conspiracy-a Curt Schilling attention prop. "Great" pitcher, but for some reason, I never really liked him (after he left the Phils).

Yo, new thread

"Schilling gets in because he WON with Boston"

Does that mean that Wakefield gets in too?

Mac tonight, there isn't a soul who thinks that Nola Ryan shouldn't be in the Hall, yet, his average yearly record for wins and losses is 13-12. Hardly Hallesque; by your standard. Well, if longevity is a major criterion, then he certainly fits the bill; hence his 324 wins (to go with 292 losses). The guy had only 32 more wins than losses in his entire career but is clearly a HOFer.


Rafael Palmiero has over 500 hrs and there is no way he was in the top 5 1B of his era (forget the steroids completely)--

How did Willie Stargell ever get in? Other than being a feared power hitter, Palmiero was the better all-around player.

Uh, Willie was a 8 time all star, NL MVP and two time post season MVP and finished in the top 3 for MVP 3 othr times. I think you also forget in his first 10 years a played a pretty nifty LF

Schill vs Blyelen

Cy Young: CS:0 BB: 0
2nd in CY Voting: CS:3 BB:0
All Star: CS: 7 BB: 2
Post Season MVP: CS: 2 BB: 0
Most K's season: CS: 2 BB: 0

Post Season
CS: 11-2 2.23 era
BB: 5-1 2.47era

Blyleven was not a top 5-7 pitcher in his era. Schilling was. Case Closed

Let's be real here and give Curt the name he's earned: The Great Curt Schilling!

Schill's borderline. Took him a long time to get going, and those win totals have to be balanced against the good teams he pitched for later in his career.

But if I had a vote, I'd go yes. He was good enough, for long enough, in the critical #'s-IP, K's, adj ERA, etc., that he qualifies.

Bert Blyleven? Right. JR Richard was a better hurler. It's a hall of FAME. Loose and hard to swallow. Right. So Curt Schilling is certainly as qualified to have a Hall of Fame prefix as George Kell, RIP, as is Pete Rose. Curt #1 Yankee killer at turning of American century, baseball's century, Yankee's century. NO. 1. It's not your brain, it's just the flame, fame.

Otherwise known as, "DivorceQuest"

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories


Rotoworld News

Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel