Later, Schill
Over the last twenty or so years, the world of major league baseball has seen some of the best starting pitching in its history. The best of the best is generally referred as “the nine” as the group–Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, Tom Glavine, Curt Schilling, Mike Mussina, and Kevin Brown–consists of nine pitchers, all of whom are either locks for Cooperstown or have strong resumes that are overshadowed by fellow members. Schilling, now 42 years old, and who most recently pitched for the Boston Red Sox, missed the entire 2008 season due to injuries, and has decided to call it a career. His 20 seasons saw some remarkable pitching, combining a tremendous ability to miss bats with pinpoint control and strategy derived from some of the most in-depth game preparation ever reported by a player.
Let me be blunt and get this out of the way: this post is going to praise Schilling the pitcher and I do not want to hear anyone say he is not worthy of post-career accolades based solely on his “only” having 216 wins.
After four seasons floundering around the Orioles and Astros organizations, the Philadelphia Phillies turned Schilling into a starting pitcher in 1992, when the swingman logged 226.1 innings with a 2.35 ERA and 2.91 FIP. He made 42 appearances of which 26 were starts and still managed to throw 10 complete games. The next season, despite posting somewhat regressed numbers with a 4.02 ERA and 3.46 FIP, Schill pitched the Phillies into the playoffs and came very close to winning his first world series title. The next several seasons would be spent on Phillies teams that came nowhere near their 1993 success, but Schilling still managed to dominate, increasing his K/9 past 10.0 while hovering around 2.0 with his walk rate.
Tired of the Phillies losing ways and inability to do what it took to win, Schilling demanded a trade and soon found himself a member of the Arizona Diamondbacks. That 2000 season was not one of his best but you have to have a damn good track record for a 3.81 ERA and 3.86 FIP in 210.1 innings to be considered a down year. As we all know, with Randy Johnson already in the fold, likely the best 1-1A punch ever led the DBacks to win the whole thing in 2001. It’s a shame we do not have the win values for the 2001 season here because odds are Schilling would have the highest consecutive total of the decade, if not longer, with his 01-02 numbers. During that storied season, Curt put up a 2.98 ERA and 3.11 FIP in 256.2 innings to go along with a ridiculous 7.51 K/BB ratio.
His 2002 season produced +9.7 wins, thanks to a 3.23 ERA, 2.40 FIP and 9.58 K/BB in 259.1 innings. The injury bug bothered Curt in 2003, limiting his availability to just 24 starts, but his numbers remained so stellar that they produced +5.9 wins. Extrapolated out over the remainder of the season, Schilling would have likely been closer to +7.5 wins. Stilll, +5.9 wins added is nothing to scoff at but he had been so incredibly dominant the previous two seasons that the total looks a bit low.
A change of scenery was in store once again following the 2003 campaign as Schilling joined the Boston Red Sox. In a full season, he produced +7.3 wins in 226 innings and helped lead the team to their first world series since trading Babe Ruth. Schilling would once again suffer from injuries in 2005, even spending some time as the team’s closer, but he pitched so effectively in 69 innings that his win value still surpassed the league average mark of +2.0. 2006 saw a return to form for arguably the best post-season pitcher of all time, as Schilling logged over 200 frames and produced +5.5 wins. And just like his 2005 season, Schilling missed time in 2007 but still managed to look great, falling just shy of +3 wins, and earning another world series ring in the process.
Since 2002, Schilling has +33.4 wins to his name, a number that looks even better on a per-game basis due to the time he missed. He has extremely solid career rates, has been virtually untouchable in the playoffs, has three world series championship rings, and has become a legend thanks to that bloody sock. Curt Schilling did not have a career akin to Maddux, Johnson, or Pedro, but he is a surefire Hall of Fame pitcher in the mind of this writer, and should be congratulated for a great career.
Print This Post
As a player, I don’t think anyone can really doubt Schilling’s HOF status. Then again, Bert Blyeleven is one of the best pitchers ever and isn’t in, so who knows what the morons at the BBWAA are thinking.
That said, and this should have nothing to do with whether he makes the Hall or not, Schilling was an a-hole opportunist who stepped on people to further his career. His rally against steroids doesn’t look so great up against his doctoring of that sock and taking a contract while knowingly injured so severely that he couldn’t pitch.
Adding a little red to a sock doesn’t exactly cancel out rallying against steroids. Anyway most athletes have egos, that holds true from middle school to 50 and over beer leagues.
Yeah, I don’t know how coloring a sock and using steroids could possibly be in the same league. One is using unethical methods to try to gain an advantage at the game, and the other is pure theater. Now, granted, there is a fair debate about how unethical steroid use is if the league didn’t enforce the rules and so forth, and that’s a debate that’s been carried out elsewhere, but the point remains that no one argues adding red to his sock (if he even did do that; I have to claim ignorance about this whole issue) improved him as a player.
And that’s really the larger point. “Schilling was an a-hole opportunist who stepped on people to further his career.” I don’t buy that. If you want to say he did that to further his own notoriety, that’s one thing, but Schilling’s career was based on his being an amazing pitcher. You’ll have to tell me how exactly stepping on people allowed him to strike out as many guys as Bob Gibson while having the highest K:BB ratio of the modern era.
Where is it that you all learned that Schilling faked the blood on his sock? I’ve never heard that before.
Doug Mirabelli told me.
Meh, he only won 216 games. Not enough for me….
JOKE PLEASE DON’T BAN ME
Babe Ruth only won 94 and his in the hall!
He’s a douche, but he is a Hall of Fame douche…(wait, that sounded much better in my head). You know what I mean though. HOF candidacy should be based on dominance during your era of play. Curt Schilling was one of the 10 dominant pitchers of his era and he should get in. Also, as a Blue Jays fan, I want to thank Schilling for winning game 5 in Philly so the series could go back to Toronto for Joe’s homer.
It’s definitely a lot closer than you’re admitting. “Surefire Hall of Famer”? Please. I mean, unless you’re saying that both Smoltz and Kevin Brown are also “Surefire Hall of Famers”. Yeah, Schilling has the 2 more WS championships but, often for starting pitchers, WS wins are more of a reflection of the teams you’re playing on.
All have around 210 wins and 140 losses, an identical career ERA+, and ZERO Cy Youngs (Except for Smoltz, who has 1). This is with a comparable amount of innings pitched, too.
Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens, Pedro Martinez, and Tom Glavine are all (or should be) locks. From there, it gets a little harder to judge. I’d say Smoltz gets in because he also has those seasons as a dominant closer. Mussina and Schilling are around the same level, depending on how you judge them, and I’d put Brown right behind them by a slim margin.
I’m not saying that Schilling wasn’t a great player when he was healthy because he was. However, his inability to stay healthy helps build a case that he shouldn’t be in.
your point about SP riding the coattails to WS championships is usually valid, but think about Curt specifically in the playoffs. Literally one of the best playoff pitchers of all time. Real or not, the Bloody sock game was heroic. As was his entire postseason with RJ and the Dbacks. Curt made a HUGE impact on the playoff teams
“…unless you’re saying that both Smoltz and Kevin Brown are also “Surefire Hall of Famers”
John Smoltz is unquestionably a “Surefire” First Ballot HOFer.
Kevin Brown… a case could be made, but Id put his candidacy just below that of Mussina, Cone and Schilling. Its close.
…and I do agree that Schill is NOT a “Surefire HOFer.” I do think he makes it and I do think he belongs, but he’s not exactly inner circle…
He’s not a surefire Hall of Famer, although you could (and I would) argue he is definitely a Hall of Fame-caliber player. The problem is that many members of the BBWAA won’t look at this this column, and thus not get the memo on ignoring that he “only” has 216 wins. As to him being a douche, well, he probably doesn’t even make the Hall of Fame for douche bags, so I’d say he’s OK there.
How does Mike Mussina measure up in this metric?
he’s not a hall of famer no way no how.,
Wow, such persuasion Gravy Train, I cannot believe I overlooked your point.
Read between the Gravy Train lines, Eric… It’s all right there.
“Read between the Gravy Train lines, Eric… It’s all right there.”
GRAVY
——————–
Yankee Fan
——————–
TRAIN
I’ve seen a lot of smart, statistics-oriented people arguing that Schilling is definitely a Hall of Famer, and one of the main points brought up is his excellent K:BB ratio (which, of course, goes hand-in-hand with a very good WHIP). To me, there is an aspect missing in this assessment – his HR rates. As I understand it, these are the two areas related to run prevention that pitchers can exercise the most control on. Schilling was superb in K:BB, but perhaps because he challenged hitters in the strike zone so much, he was not nearly as good at preventing HRs. In fact, he allowed 347 for his career – 70 more than Smoltz in 150 fewer innings, 139 more than Brown in equal innings, 9 fewer than Glavine in 1150 fewer innings, and 6 fewer than Maddux in 1750 fewer innings.
I think Schilling’s HoF candidacy comes down to whether you’re a big or small Hall guy – I don’t think he makes it in a small Hall of Fame; he does not have a long enough run of dominance, like Pedro, nor the longevity – his IP numbers are a significant amount below every other one of the “nine” except Brown and Pedro. In a big Hall, absolutely he should be in. Looking at those nine, I’d rank him seventh, a smidgeon behind Smoltz (their numbers are very close, but Smoltz has a few more innings and some of his innings are slightly leveraged from closing for four years; both have superb postseason stats). He’s ahead of Brown because of his postseason performance and Mussina on performance over a close enough number of innings. His rate numbers are, of course, better than Glavine’s, but I think the 1150 extra innings Glavine threw more than make up for that. Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, and Pedro are on their own level, of course.
Gah! I accidentally voted minus instead of plus, so I’ll say this to atone: Well-thought-out comment. Interesting way to look at it.
I think it needs to be pointed out that the writers have been voting Small-Hall in recent years, and while I think Schill should be in, and that makes be big hall, the historical president suggests a Big-Hall also. Hank Greenberg, Hack Wilson, Bob Gibson; all failed to meet relevant bench marks. All are in the elite history of our sport, and all are deserving.
I’m not sure the writers have been voting small Hall recently – I can easily come up with 5 players who shouldn’t make a small Hall voted in since 2000 alone – Perez, Puckett, Sutter, Eckersley, and Rice. I’d put Schilling in before any of them, so voting on the current trend, I’d say he’s a Hall of Famer. With that said, I would personally rather see the standards tightened somewhat, which for me puts Schilling back on the bubble.
Minor nitpic.. “As we all know, Randy Johnson soon joined the team and the DBacks won the whole thing in 2001.” Not all of us apparently..Johnson was already there for a year and a half before Schilling.
Schilling’s numbers are HoF caliber. What will likely put him over the top (especially for stat illiterate writers) is the fact that he arguably put two franchises over the hump and into the postseason; and that he overshadowed two no-doubt HoF pitchers in the postseason (Martinez and Johnson). Bloody sock in 2004 etc. etc. And In 2001, Schilling got the call to start three WS games (two on short rest). So choosing between the Cy Young award winner and arguably best LH pitcher of his generation and Schilling, Schilling got the call.
Not that this was necessarily the reason, but I’m sure they knew that whichever went Game 1 would be pitching twice on three days rest, and Schilling had an extra two days of rest before the Series began than Johnson had.
As a side note, a list of all starting pitchers with the bulk of their career after 1925 who pitched fewer than 3500 innings and are in the Hall (and I’ll note that using 3500 is fairly generous to Schilling, given that he’s 250 IP shy of it):
Dizzy Dean (career cut short by injury)
Don Drysdale (3432 IP, retired at 32 and elected [by Veteran's Committee?] 25 years later)
Dennis Eckersley (3285 IP, spent half his career as a reliever)
Whitey Ford (best ERA in live ball era; highest winning percentage of any pitcher)
Jesse Haines (elected by Veteran’s Committee – clearly a bad choice)
Catfish Hunter (3449 IP, questionable decision)
Sandy Koufax
Bob Lemon (fought in WWII, started his career as a 3B)
Hal Newhouser (elected by Veteran’s Committee, only pitcher to win back-to-back MVP awards… even if it was in WWII)
Dazzy Vance (didn’t pitch in majors until he was 30; took 20 years to get elected)
Basically, almost all of those are either questionable decisions who had to wait a long time or there were extenuating circumstances for why they didn’t throw as many innings (or they were really, really good). To me, this is just one more sign that there’s a pretty solid case against Schilling, just as there is a strong one, given here and elsewhere, for him.
Here’s the K totals of the pitchers in you list (in order I hope.)
1163
2486
2401
1956
981
2012
2396
1277
1796
2045
Schill was 3116. In my book, he’s in.
One thing thats interesting with Schilling is that he really got a late start on things. He didn’t register double digits win or losses until he was 26 years of age. I’m not sure what that mean in terms of HOF status but interesting nonetheless.
Hopefully, the criteria will be dominance of his generation. I really don’t think it’s hard to make the case Curt must be in. He’s a HOF in my mind without a doubt.
Has anyone speculated about Curt+roids numbers would be?
Or maybe a more general question, Do steroids improve greatly a pitcher performance?
It just really antagonizes me when you have outspoken voters automatically discounting players from HoF consideration when they do not pass a certain benchmark in their stats or compare player’s stats from today from stats from the stats of the 1930’s. Then they turn around and intentionally leave player’s of ballots completely out of spite. Just how knowledgable are the BBWAA when you get voter’s that actually voted for Edison Volquez for the RoY last season – yet these same voters scrutinize a player’s career to max extent?
I’m not sure if Schilling is a HoFer or not, but it’ worth researching and not totally discounting him because he only had 216 wins.
“Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens, Pedro Martinez, and Tom Glavine are all (or should be) locks. From there, it gets a little harder to judge. I’d say Smoltz gets in because he also has those seasons as a dominant closer. Mussina and Schilling are around the same level, depending on how you judge them, and I’d put Brown right behind them by a slim margin.” –Collin
This is exactly how I’d rank them. Schilling is only clearly ahead of Brown, who is, at best, a weak candidate for the Hall. So, sure, if the Hall is big enough for the 8th greatest starting pitcher of a given era to get it, Curt’s a near-lock. It comes down to one’s conception of the Hall more so than one’s assessment of Curt.
Those who argue that we should disregard Curt’s low win total are guilty of papering over one of the legitimate weaknesses of his HoF resume. Curt’s lack of wins wasn’t primarily due to playing for bad teams (which can make wins a misleading stat), but because he had a lot of years where he just didn’t pitch that much. He played 20 seasons but only had 9 seasons of more than 200 IP and only 10 of making 25+ starts. If you had signed Curt to a 20 year contract in 1988, you would have had a lot of moments of intense glory, but you would also be justified in feeling that you didn’t quite get your money’s worth. Personally, I think that’s a serious factor in evaluating his career. I want my Ace to be an anchor in the rotation from one year to the next.
HOF arguments are as much about perception as performance, and the only perception that actually counts is that of the HOF voters (who of course are notably and in many cases willfully ignorant of modern statistical methods). In that respect, Bill James’ “HOF Monitor” has done a pretty good job of predicting how the voters eventually decide. By that metric (where 100 is usually good enough and 130 is a virtual lock), Schilling at 170 is certain to go in. Regardless of what they rest of us may think (or not).
I think it’s worth pointing out that Kevin Brown was a vastly superior fielder to Curt Schilling. When we’re talking about “slim margins” I’m surprised how quickly this is being forgotten.
And I really think all these negative ratings are a bit unwarranted, why don’t you refute my points instead?
Wally, I think that pitcher’s fielding differences largely are included in their ERA/ERA+anyway – if their own defense is saving them runs, it actually already is built into their statistics. For that reason, I don’t think it’s all that necessary to consider it when comparing them. Granted, if you’re just comparing them on FIP or K totals, that’s a little bit of a different matter. Brown and Schilling’s ERA+ are identical, while Schilling’s FIP is a bit better – it’s possible that Brown’s own defense is one of the factors in that difference (how big a factor I wouldn’t begin to guess).
I think you can argue this one either way. You can point out that he was very good overall and that his playoff performances were downright excellent. Then you can add a dash of extra credit for “narrative” reasons (bloody sock, 2001 WS).
Flipside is a fairly low IP total. That does matter. His stats are good, but not eye popping. Playoff performance certainly boosts his case, but how much?
I think reasonable people can disagree here.
I understand this isn’t the most scientific way of looking at things, and I’m not saying this is the only reason someone should or shouldn’t be voted into the HOF, but Schilling doesn’t pass my own personal “smell test.”
When I think of Curt Schilling, I go through a 3 step mental progression.
1.) Wow, that guy was a rambling a-hole.
2.) He WAS a very good pitcher, though. I wonder if he has the numbers to make the Hall Of Fame?
3.) Hmm. Upon further inspection, he has pretty good numbers. Wait, people aren’t really going to vote this rambling a-hole into the Hall Of Fame, are they?
Again, not exactly the most intelligent or adult way of evaluating his career, but I doubt I’m the only one who goes through that progression of thoughts. If the baseball writers are as petty as I am, he’ll never make it.
Please, raging a-hole is very narrow-minded. His generosity, not just for his ALS research funding, but all of the work and money he has donated to help others I think separates himself enough to not be a ‘raging a hole’. He is unarguably a right wing narcissist, who likes to hear himself talk, but the more I think of the good he’s done, the more willing to ignore the crap that spills from his outspoken mouth at times.
The argument of innings pitched is ridiculous. Who cares if he pitched for 3 decades. Glavine has racked up crazy stats, but I wouldn’t have wanted him on my team for the last 10 years (except for 2002). Schilling, however, I’d take right now if he wanted to come back. He’s a big game pitcher who keeps a good era and strikes out a lot of dudes. Who else would you want leading your pitching staff to the playoffs? i think career totals are nice. it means you got to start early and avoid the injury bug, but greatness can come in shorter stints. I keep thinking to Gale Sayers in football. Pedro doesn’t even have 3000 IP, and I don’t hear anyone wanting to keep him out. I guess for me it comes down to his elite performances in big playoff games. That defines greatness for me.
I’ve never posted here before but I have to respond to this.
A) “The argument of innings pitched is ridiculous” This is simply asinine. The ability to pitch innings is in fact the single most important thing a pitcher can do. After adjusting for era and league IP is actually the most important standard statistic for evaluating a pitcher.
B) “Glavine has racked up crazy stats, but I wouldn’t have wanted him on my team for the last 10 years (except for 2002).” Then you really must hate your team. One of the most difficult things to find in pro sports is a pitcher who can give you 34 starts at replacement level, let alone 15% above average which is what Glavine would have given your team from 1999-2007. He did pitch like crap last year, but that also coincided with his first trip to the DL in his career.
C) “I guess for me it comes down to his elite performances in big playoff games.” Glavine’s stats for 10 career LCS: 3.31 ERA in 103.1 IP. Schillings stats for 4 career LCS : 3.47 ERA in 46.2 IP. Glavine’s stats for 5 career WS: 2.47 ERA in 58.1 IP. Schillings stats for 4 career WS: 2.06 in 48 IP.
D) “Pedro doesn’t even have 3000 IP, and I don’t hear anyone wanting to keep him out.” True, Pedro does not have hall worthy IP totals but he is also the most dominant pitcher in the history of the game when healthy. He has the best WHIP of any pitcher born since 1910, the third best K/9 rate in history, the the third best SO/BB rate in history, the 8th best H/9 rate and, most importantly, the best ERA+ in the games history. In fact the difference between Pedro and the #2 pitcher is the same as the difference between #2 and #11. And considering that of the 35 seasons that a pitcher has accumulated an ERA+ of 200 or more, Pedro has 5 of them.
I don’t mean to seem like a jerk and I think Schillings belongs in the Hall, but it seems to me you are undervaluing the importance of IP and have selective memory when it comes to “big games”. Guys like Gale Sayers are the exception not the standard.
I agree w/ Eric’s conclusion re Schilling’s worthiness for the HOF. As interesting a question as whether he should be in the Hall is which team he should he represent.
I’ve made the case that he ought to wear an Arizona cap on his plaque in Cooperstown: http://www.diamondbacksnation.com/Feature/46-Curt-Schilling-Should-Enter-HOF-as-a-Diamondback/
I’m not a neutral, but I think his career arc supports my position. In brief, I see it this way –
PHI = mostly very good, sometimes great; injury riddled and w/o team success.
ARI = at height of his powers as a pitcher for a sustained period; w/ brilliant regular & post-seasons, established himself as HOF-caliber performer.
BOS = still big on biggest stage, but no longer dominant force; skills in rapid decline.
DiamondbacksNation.com / Twitter.com/DBackNation