Hall Bound?
With the announcement that Curt Schilling is done for the year and possibly his career (although his recent surgery went well and it is being said he can start throwing in October), the question of whether he is or is not Hall worth has come up. While it’s not certain he is done and it is probably disrespectful to assume he is, let’s do just that and assume he’s pitched his last pitch for sake of this argument.
If ever there was a borderline candidate, Schilling is it. His main negative is that he has only 216 wins. Aside from that, Schilling compares nicely to other Hall of Famers. He is 14th all time in strikeouts and 9th all time in K/9. Baseball Reference has his HOF monitoring tools looking like he is at least an average HOF member.
At the end of the day though, what drives his candidacy more than anything is his post-season record.
19 Games, 19 GS, 11-2, 2.23 ERA, 0.97 WHIP, 133.1 IP, 104 H, 24 BB, 120 K
When it mattered most, Schilling dominated, but just what does 133.1 IP mean to a player’s over contribution to the game? Well those 133.1 IP were far more important than any of the innings he pitched in regular season games. I don’t know of any way to rate him against his peers in post-season performance, but I’d be willing to guess he fairs nicely.
To look at only wins is crazy, especially since much of what drives a pitcher’s win/loss record is the offense behind him. The same goes for a batter. Tony Gwynn’s teams made the playoffs only 3 times in his 20 year career. Was that all his fault? No, at least not entirely.
My vote, if I had one, would be yes. What's your vote?
Of more immediate concern is the condition of the Red Sox rotation with Schilling done for the year. Bartolo is down with, presumably, a pulled love handle. Daisuke is back. What is most amazing about this rotation now is that Jon Lester and Justin Masterson are pitching like the 1-2 with Josh Beckett just behind them. Even Tim Wakefield is keeping them in games for the most part (although his walk rate is crazy high…as is Daisuke’s).
So despite not having Schilling and missing Colon, the Red Sox seem to be in good shape. But once again, the axiom that you can never have enough starting pitching is proving true and more and more pitching is being made available on the trade market with C.C. Sabathia and now Erik Bedard on the block.
As for the Red Sox offense, it is actually scoring more runs per game since David Ortiz’s injury than prior (courtesy of ESPN) and that can mostly be attributed to J.D. Drew. Yes, I said J.D. Drew. ESPN’s Jerry Crasnick has a good look at Drew and perhaps why he is hitting the cover off the ball.
Of course if Ortiz doesn't bounce back, there are rumors about an offensive replacement as well. Mark Teixeira and Josh Willingham have been mentioned.
Follow-up to my May 17th post on Micah Owings. Basically, Owings has pooped the bed offensively. He's gone 2-19 (.105/.190/.105) . Sorry to jinx you Micah and let's put this to rest, you are not the next Babe Ruth.
Comments
so after a long layoff Andy you come out on one sensitive topic (and one I was gonna write about on my blog too).
One think I noticed looking at Schilling's career numbers is his 216 wins over 20 years is really over 14.5 years. Between the first couple of callups, being a long reliever for a couple of years and injuries in '94, '95, and '05, it is unfair to let someone do the math with 20 as the denominator.
Did he wear a mlb uniform for 20 years, certainly. Did he have years where he had statistically significant data in 20 seasons, no way.
So, 216 wins divided by 20=10.8 per year
216 wins divided by 14.5=14.9 wins per year
Neither blow you away but they certainly are significantly different. I think a lot of people talking about him are doing the math with the 20 years.
His ERA for his career is almost a full run better than the league's, that is good.
Postseason he can be mentioned in the same sentence with Smoltz and Morris in the modern era. That is very good.
Overall, he could get in, not in the first few years in my opinion.
He was a good pitcher that thrived in big postseason games. That is his legacy.
Not in your first try or two or three Curt, sorry.
Posted by: blmeanie![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://yankeesredsox.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 25, 2008 08:02 PM
|
I think Curt had some bad luck in terms of the era he pitched in, but I don't think he is HOF worthy. Yes, the wins are low, but then again Pedro Martinez has fewer and he would be in the HOF in my mind. To me for a player who is a "tweener" like Schilling and Pedro it comes down to things like was he the best pitcher in the league at some point? With Pedro, yes he obviously was. Schilling, I don't think so and he also never won a Cy Young. Mike Mussina has 260 wins and I wouldn't put him in there because I don't think of him as the dominant pitcher in the AL at any point in his career.
Posted by: Peter![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://yankeesredsox.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 25, 2008 08:40 PM
|
If not for his post-season brilliance, it would be hard to make the case for Schilling. But it is impossible to overlook the fact that in the post-season, he has consistently been money. And his role in the Red Sox historic 2004 season and LCS is going to carry significant weight, as it should (much as I hate to reflect back on it . . .). Simply put, without Schilling, IMO the 2004 Red Sox don't make the playoffs, much less win the LCS. Acquiring Schilling was the key. Theo's "experiment", as he called it, was a success. Combining all this with his '97-'01-'02-'04 campaigns and his 3 second-place Cy Young votes makes his a compelling case. I think will get in (not on the first ballot, of course) and more importantly, that he should get in. He built a legend for himself. I personally can't stand him, but I acknowledge his moments of pitching greatness. I can see him as a Senator some day (and I'll leave it to you to interpret that last throw-away observation as you see fit . . .).
Posted by: Greg | June 26, 2008 09:16 AM |
blmeanie, interesting analysis. The one concern is that many wonder why he didn't pitch more during those early years. One sign people use to gauge HOF worthiness is durability or longevity. I am thinking that issue could go either way for him. On the one hand his detractors will say he got injured too much and/or was ineffective early in his career while his supporters will say in the years he was healthy, he made a signnificant impact.
Posted by: andy![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://yankeesredsox.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 26, 2008 11:10 AM
|
Peter, couldn't you say he was the best player in the league during his era at least for post-season? I guess Mo Rivera would get recogniztion there too, but you get the idea.
Posted by: Andy | June 26, 2008 12:53 PM |
Greg, I think we all know which party he'd align himself with.
I do admit Schilling candicy is not a done deal, but I think the win totals will disuade many people before they even take a look.
Local scribe and "Curly Haired Boyfriend," to quote Carl Everett, Dan Shaughnessy was on tv the other day and said Schilling is not deserving of the Hall and then proceeded to misquote many of his stats. Why? B/c he dismissed the idea and never researched the issue.
That's what'll hurt Schilling more than anything.
Posted by: andy![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://yankeesredsox.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 26, 2008 01:07 PM
|
Andy- I don't think he was even that. Rivera is a different conversation since he is a reliever, but what about Smoltz or El Duque? Beckett has obviously arrived later in his career, but he is better.
I just don't see it for him and I think the biggest thing that will hurt him is his mouth more than his win totals.
Posted by: Peter![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://yankeesredsox.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 26, 2008 02:29 PM
|