He’s probably my favorite player, so I’m biased. But I’d like to hear other opinions.
As I write this, it’s 4-1 late in Game 2. I will assume the Sox win this game and the series, with Schilling pitching well in game 5.
The negatives:
He’ll only have about 200-220 wins upon retirement.
He’s never won a Cy Young.
The positives:
200 wins is still a helluva lot.
He’ll have been an integral part of two championship teams.
The bloody sock factor: he has been consistiently huge in the postseason.
I am surprised to see Bill James’s system has him with over 150 points (100 usually being enough for admission). Does anyone think he shouldn’t go in?
Most certainly Hall of Fame, barring a complete collapse next season.
The only reason he doesn’t have any Cy Youngs is because of some truly brilliant performances by Randy Johnson at the same time of his peak.
He’s had 10 straight seasons with an ERA+ of at least 120, and only two of those seasons were below 130. (Higher is better with ERA+). Neither Bob Gibson or Don Drysdale - two guys off the top of my head - did that. His career ERA+ is 131 -higher than Tom Seaver’s.
His win total is a bit low, but his record is .599 and he’ll most likely reach 3,000 Ks. He’s also got two postseason MVPs. And at least one World Series ring.
And he has the ALCS Game 6 building a rep for guttiness, which HOF voters love.
If the Sox win the World Series this year, he could retire and be a shoo-in. If they don’t, he might have to have another good season or two.
He had absolutely abysmal run support during his years with the Phillies. Who knows how many wins that cost him. (It seems like every game was a 1-0 loss in 10 innings with 10-15 strikeouts).
By the way, I doubt he’ll pitch in game 5, because he would have to bat. I don’t think they want him to run the bases with that ankle, so the soonest we’ll see him again will be game 6, if needed.
Somewhat to my surprise, I’d have to say he’s a decent candidate. Not a shoo-in, but on balance I think he deserves it. His career length and ERA, in context, are as impressive as Sandy Koufax, Hal Newhouser, Whitey Ford, and any number of other Hall of Famers. He’s pitched wonderfully in the postseason - he’s really only had two bad starts in the postseason, one where he was injured and one eleven years ago when he got lit up by a team that he shut out four days later. He’s been an extraordinary pitcher for the last 5, 6 years, really unlike any other pitcher, striking out seven to nine guys for every walk. I think he might actually have the best K-W ratio of any pitcher in the history of baseball.
An intresting exercise is to look at his best comparisons by Comparison Score:
Jimmy Key 914
David Cone 912
John Candelaria 910
Dave McNally 904
Bret Saberhagen 903
Mike Cuellar 902
Mike Mussina 902
Dazzy Vance 899
There are more but below 900 you start to lose similarity. I don’t imagine any of those surprise anybody, except Key, who despite having very similar numbers was a very different kind of pitcher. But they’re all guys who pitched around 3000 innings and were very good and didn’t walk many people.
What’s interesting about them is that none of them have Schilling’s ERA+. In other words, none of the pitchers statistically similar to Curt Schilling were actually as effective as he was. Mussina is the closest. None were as effective as Schilling in the postseason, either, although Cone did go 8-3.
I’d say he is a good candidate, and since everybody that gets in the HOF lately seems to be a first ballot choice, he probably will too. But enough about his bloody ankle. Everybody acts like he’s the first guy ever to play hurt.
I can’t stand the guy, but I’d say he’s pretty close to a lock to get into the Hall of Fame. In the modern era, a pitcher with 220 career wins is pretty comparable to a guy with 300 wins a generation ago.
And even though I think he’s a jerk, sportswriters adore him, because he’s always providing pithy quotes. Yeah, I’d say he’s in. I’d probably hold my nose and vote for him too, if I had a ballot.
On the basis of what Schilling’s done so far, he’s a borderline candidate at best. However, if he doesn’t get old too quickly and remains an effective pitcher for about three or four more years so that he ends up with 230 or more wins, I think he’ll go in.
I’d have to agree with “a few years to go” side. Looking at his history his inconsistent and injury-prone years stand about equal in terms of length with the consistent Cy Young award level years. You have the Sandy Koufax precendent, but I don’t think Schilling was nearly as dominant a force, even with two Series rings.
I think the magic number is three more great years. Then he a shoo-in first balloteer. Two more and you get lots of hand-wringing and a very close vote and definitely a plaque after a year or two. He retires with the ankle injury this year and I think the voters will find the excuse to not check his name, “close, but not quite…”.
Interesting, he’d be the first Alaskan-born player in the HoF…
Dean is in the same category as Koufax in that he had several incredible years before his career ended prematurely. Also, Dean was a colorful figure so his election into the HOF had as much to do with his personality as his pitching achievements.
You should join the rest of us in the 21st century and stop focusing on wins as a measure of a pitcher’s ability.
Dean was also pitching in an era when pitchers were allowed to throw enough innings to win 30 games.
Dean wasn’t as dominant as you might think.
Dean’s top five seasons by ERA+: 211, 159, 148, 135, 124.
Schilling’s top five seasons by ERA+: 159, 154, 150, 150, 149.
Schilling never had a season like Dean’s 1938 season, but if comparing best season to best season, second best to second best, etc., Dean only had two years where he was more dominant than Schilling.
Plus Schilling has two rings, a World Series MVP, an NLCS MVP, and the ALCS Game 6 on his resume.