Bob Feller is a cantankerous old SOB as we all know, but he does have a point. How many actual war wounds have any of us seen on national TV, despite the fact there are over 30,000 wounded American soldiers around the country? So much for the gritty, in-your-face, "embedded" journalists. That concept went down the tubes pretty fast.

As for Schilling, I think he's a prick, but he deserves to be in the HOF at some point.

Here's a question: If Schilling had never pitched for Boston, but his career was strictly based on what he did in Philadelphia and Arizona, would he be a HOF candidate? He had some great seasons with both teams and was dominant in postseason for both. (I was at the Vet in '93 for both his Game 1 in the NLCS and Game 5 in the Series.) Or wouldn't there be enough hype? In other words, I'm saying he was a money pitcher, and was recognized as such, before the bloody sock nonsense.

I am torn on Schilling in the HOF. When he was on the mound and healthy he was a HoF pitcher and one of the best pitchers in this generation. However, his injury issues and a few lackluster years at the peak of his career (like 94-96) hold him back a little bit. I probably end up believing he should be in the hall as he was clearly one of the best pitchers in baseball, but it would have been interesting to see him had he been healthier in his career.

I also forgot that Schilling was a reliever for Baltimore & Houston before going to the Phils and earning a spot in the rotation.

Terp, I think that 3rd 20 win season is very important for his HoF credentials. 2004 is certainly key to his HoF status, bloody sock or not. He is STILL probably not a 'slam dunk" candidate, so obviously the bloody sock, winning that game against the Yankees and that 21 win season are a big part of what help get him over the hump if he gets in.

Here's a question: If Schilling had never pitched for Boston, but his career was strictly based on what he did in Philadelphia and Arizona, would he be a HOF candidate?

Do you mean what if his career ended in 2003? Considering he wouldn't have (a) 200 wins, (b) 3,000 strikeouts, and (c) an additional 46 and 2/3rds innings of very good postseason pitching (6-1, 3.28 ERA), I think the answer is pretty obviously no.

That wouldn't change the valuation of his pre-Boston career, but no amount of hype would've gotten him into the Hall without the numbers he put up for the Red Sox. The exposure and attention he's received while playing there certainly won't harm his candidacy, but to have a shot he needed those numbers a lot more than the hype. Had he not padded his career totals, passed a couple important milestones, and solidified his reputation as a postseason monster, I doubt he'd be getting much support on the ballot.

If you mean what if he played the last 4 seasons in Arizona instead--i.e. exact same numbers for regular and postseason, only minus the Bloody Sock circus--then I think we'd be having essentially the same debate, with plenty of people on both sides of the fence.

If you mean what if he played the last 4 seasons in Arizona instead--i.e. exact same numbers for regular and postseason, except minus the Bloody Sock circus--then I think we'd be having essentially the same debate, with plenty of people on both sides of the fence.

To take it one step further, had he been a (or even the) key player on three Arizona championships in 7 years, his candidacy might be enhanced.

It has nothing to do with the fate of the United States. He’s not a kid going to war.

The h*ll you say. He was going to war for Red Sox Nation. Grrawrr!

So Cris E's post actually made me think of something. If Schilling does get elected--and I still think he will, albeit after waiting a while--what cap does he wear? He had his best seasons in Arizona, but wasn't really there that long. He's been with the Red Sox as the bookends of his career, but only really put up one Hall of Famer caliber season there. I haven't counted, but I'm assuming he was a Phillie for the largest total in sheer IP.

I guess I'd say he goes in a Diamondback, but I'm really not sure.

Curt Schilling 216-146 ERA+ 127 Postseason 11-2 2.33 ERA
Kevin Brown 211-144 ERA+ 127 Postseason 5-5 4.19 ERA

Now, those postseason numbers do make a difference, but even so, I suspect that while Schilling is going to get in eventually and get significant support right from the start, I wouldn't be shocked if Brown falls off the ballot before Schilling gets on it. Personally, I think they're both pretty borderline and that a huge amount of the support Schilling gets is from the fact that he had a couple of brilliant performances in the postseason and specifically one that was both extremely dramatic and instrumental to the Red Sox winning their first championship in 86 years. If it wasn't for that, he'd be in the same boat as Brown, meaning we wouldn't even be discussing his candidacy until he became eligible.

Ultimately, I think it all depends on how many people from that generation are going to get in. Looking at the starting pitchers who have careers centered roughly around the same time as Schilling, he's clearly not in the first tier. That's Clemens (ignoring other issues with him), Maddux, Glavine, Johnson, and Pedro. Schilling belongs in the second tier with Mussina, Brown and Smoltz (all of whom show up on his BB-Ref comp list). My guess is that Schilling and Smoltz get in fairly easily, Mussina struggles but eventually gets in and Brown gets left outside. Personally, I'd probably end up voting for all of them.

Oh, and just to complete the table above:
John Smoltz 210-147 ERA+ 127 (154 Saves) Postseason 15-4 2.65
Mike Mussina 260-149 ERA+ 121 Postseason 7-8 3.42

I guess I'd say he goes in a Diamondback, but I'm really not sure.

There's a legit argument for any of the three, and I'm sure the Hall would allow him to choose.

Schilling's an obvious Hall of Famer at this point, in my view. Three-time 20-win guy, legit playoff and World Series hero. Over 3,100 strikeouts and only slightly over 700 walks! (move on over Fergie Jenkins). Nearly a .600 win pct. and more wins than Drysdale and that ilk. He looks like a slam dunk to me.

I also forgot that Schilling was a reliever for Baltimore

I can think of a few million Orioles fans who won't forget that trade of Schilling, Steve Finley and Pete Harnisch for Glenn F. (Retired at 32 with a 22 OPS+) Davis. Probably the worst trade in that franchise's history.

There's a legit argument for any of the three, and I'm sure the Hall would allow him to choose.

I agree. Philly is where he threw the bulk of his innings. Arizona is where he had his peak. Boston is where he put his stamp on the history of the game.

If I had to pick for him, I'd vote for Philly at first blush. If I had to guess what will happen, I think he'll choose Boston if it's up to him.

So Cris E's post actually made me think of something. If Schilling does get elected--and I still think he will, albeit after waiting a while--what cap does he wear? He had his best seasons in Arizona, but wasn't really there that long. He's been with the Red Sox as the bookends of his career, but only really put up one Hall of Famer caliber season there. I haven't counted, but I'm assuming he was a Phillie for the largest total in sheer IP.

I guess I'd say he goes in a Diamondback, but I'm really not sure.

If he has an ounce's worth of brains, he'll dip his Boston cap in blood and wave it to the crowd all during his induction speech. He could then auction that cap for about five million bucks.

Probably the worst trade in that franchise's history.

It's gotta be in the Top 10 worst trades of all time, I'd think.

Probably the worst trade in that franchise's history.

It's gotta be in the Top 10 worst trades of all time, I'd think.

Maybe so, and for the Orioles it really stood out, since they made some of the biggest heists ever in the 60's and the 70's. Think of the Frank Robinson trade, or the one in which they got Singleton and Torrez for Rich Coggins and Dave McNally, or the one where they got MacGregor, Dempsey, Tippy Martinez and Rudy May for nobody who ever did the Yankees a day's worth of good, and then turned around the next year and dumped May for Gary Roenicke and Stan The Man Unusual. Those three trades were the cornerstone of the Orioles' mini-dynasty, and they were the main reason that they could compete with the Yankees and the Red Sox in spite of losing Reggie Jackson, Don Baylor, and Bobby Grich all within the same year.

During one of the Yankee-Met games, one of the announcers stated that apparently any pitcher who has, at any point in their career, reached 100 games over .500, has made the HOF. I thought that was interesting.

Yeah, while talking about Pettite as a HOF. Ick.

During one of the Yankee-Met games, one of the announcers stated that apparently any pitcher who has, at any point in their career, reached 100 games over .500, has made the HOF. I thought that was interesting.

Not true.

At any rate, who is included? Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, and some 300+ win guys. Not that interesting.

Re: Kevin Brown vs. Curt Schilling, as others have pointed out, you really need to take unearned runs into account when comparing the two of them. Schilling has given up 68 unearned runs in his career; Brown gave up 172. That makes a huge difference, and to my mind makes Schilling clearly a better candidate even outside the postseason record.

If Schilling's UER were as high a percentage of his runs allowed as Brown's, Schilling's ERA would have been 3.17 instead of 3.46, and his ERA+ would have been far better.

During one of the Yankee-Met games, one of the announcers stated that apparently any pitcher who has, at any point in their career, reached 100 games over .500, has made the HOF. I thought that was interesting.

Not true. (Bob Caruthers)

I'd be willing to bet that if Bob Caruthers had been born late enough to appear in 24 postseason series in front of a national TV audience, there would be more than one announcer mentioning his 218-99 total, not to mention his two 40-win seasons. And if he'd been born late enough to know that there was going to be a Hall of Fame, he might have also chosen to hang on for that tenth season in order to become eligible for it.

Good grief, only war wounds should get media play? I think that's setting the bar rather high. I'm no big Curt Schilling fan, but he put his livelihood, and his ability to walk without a limp (at the least) on the line in a must-win game that helped bring Boston it's first championship since 1918. No, he doesn't deserve the Medal of Honor, or even the Medal of Freedom, but in a baseball context that was the clutchiest clutch that ever clutched, and he deserved every bit of media attention for it.

OK, found a few more. Juan Marichal, Jim Palmer, possibly Carl Hubbell (finished his career 99 games over, and was 4-4 his final season.), Bob Feller.

I'd be willing to bet that if Bob Caruthers had been born late enough to appear in 24 postseason series in front of a national TV audience, there would be more than one announcer mentioning his 218-99 total, not to mention his two 40-win seasons. And if he'd been born late enough to know that there was going to be a Hall of Fame, he might have also chosen to hang on for that tenth season in order to become eligible for it.

I'd be willing to bet that if Bob Caruthers had been born late enough to play in 24 post-seasons series, he wouldn't have won 30 games in a season, let alone 40.

At any rate, who is included? Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, and some 300+ win guys. Not that interesting.

Don't shoot the messenger. I thought it was interesting because during the discussion they seemed to arrive at the conclusion that hey, Mike Mussina might be a HOF. As a big Mike Mussina fan, I thought it was/is funny that he doesn't get more attention for his career W total especially at the moment when Schilling is being bandied about as a potential HOF.

Good grief, only war wounds should get media play? I think that's setting the bar rather high. I'm no big Curt Schilling fan, but he put his livelihood, and his ability to walk without a limp (at the least) on the line in a must-win game that helped bring Boston it's first championship since 1918. No, he doesn't deserve the Medal of Honor, or even the Medal of Freedom, but in a baseball context that was the clutchiest clutch that ever clutched, and he deserved every bit of media attention for it.

That addresses Feller's point, but it doesn't negate the fact that the real pressure in that Bloody Sock game was far more on the team that was seeing its previous 3-0 lead in games disintegrate before its eyes. In many ways, courageous and dramatic as his performance was, he was playing with house money.

I'd be willing to bet that if Bob Caruthers had been born late enough to play in 24 post-seasons series, he wouldn't have won 30 games in a season, let alone 40.

Obviously, but I thought that was implicit in what I wrote. Of course we're not disagreeing on the central point.

If Caruthers had played 100 years later in a DH league his hitting would have received even more attention than his pitching -- pitch every 5 days and provide All-Star quality hitting the other 4. Presumably less booze and better medical treatment would have extended his career into his mid-30s, so my guess is he'd have been first-ballot material.

During one of the Yankee-Met games, one of the announcers stated that apparently any pitcher who has, at any point in their career, reached 100 games over .500, has made the HOF.

I heard that as applying to those who finished their careers 100 games over .500, which led to speculation that Andy Pettitte (92 wins over .500) might reach that level shortly. Schilling has 216 wins, a .597 winning %, and is 70 games over .500, probably leaving him short of HoF status for voters who focus on wins for starting pitchers, which seems to be most of the writers. If Schilling makes it, those with more wins and a higher winning percentage will probably also get in, and maybe you have to take another look at some candidates with short careers.

Rather than get in a big argument, can't someone shoot Bob Feller in the ankle and then check his opinion?

TYC, that makes more sense, thanks for the correction.

Not true. (Bob Caruthers)

It was since 1900 (which is when baseball began)

His HOF Monitor is 173. He will make the Hall. The question is whether he'll make it by the writers or by VC.

I think the bloody sock and general postseason fame pushes him in through the BBWAA.

Bob,

Curt Schilling 216-146 ERA+ 127 Postseason 11-2 2.33 ERA
Kevin Brown 211-144 ERA+ 127 Postseason 5-5 4.19 ERA

I think Kevin Brown is a perfect comparison to Schilling and there are a few key reasons why Curt is a better player than just his stats give you and why he probably belongs in the Hall.

1. You mentioned the big Post Season disparity which is certainly significant. But there is also a 800+ K difference between the two and Schilling won 5 more games than Brown in almost identical innings pitched in more than 40 less games started than Brown. Schilling went longer into games and was more of a factor in his team's outcome than Brown on a consistent basis. Yes Schilling has about 100 IP as a reliever, but that doesn't account for all of the difference between the two.

2. Schilling has a "star" power that Brown never had. Let's face it, even before the Red Sox and 2004, most people knew who Curt Schilling was, love him or hate him, he is one of the "faces" of baseball over this period (and one of the few that doesn't seem to be even a bit associated with performance drugs) and that is a big difference in his favor.

3. To me there is also a difference in the injury history between the two, call it the "Sandy Kofax" exception. Schilling was clearly better than Brown in his career and he clearly lost some of what should have been his BEST years in baseball missing a significant portion of 3 strait years when he was 27, 28 and 29 is a significant hit. The "what if" factor is a plus in his favor. Especially considering how durable he has been in years when he was healthy in the other years. I also think the rebound year 2006 is a very big plus to his resume to the HoF.

Overall, I think Curt is still a borderline candidate when it is all said and done. To me Schilling passes my most important test he just "feels" like a HoF, and that does go a long way for me. There are a lot of memorable performances from Schilling from Philly, Arizona and Boston that gives Schilling a lot of the intangibles that makes him much easier for me to put in the hall then a lot of other guys who get in on the basis of stats.

I can certainly live with him out of the hall, but my gut tells me he probably belongs there as one of the best pitchers of this generation. He simply belongs with names like Martinez, Johnson, Maddux and Smoltz as the best pitchers of this generation.

He may clearly belong with Smoltz, but not with those other three names.

Caruthers is just ridiculous. Leading the league in ERA+ one year, OPS+ the next. Even Ruth never did that. But he did play his best years in the American Association which wasn't the same quality.

Ignore the post season results, the bloody sock, the post season "heroics" and Schilling is still an easy hall of famer.

I've pointed out before that Schillings RA+ about the same as Greg Maddux's, so really Schilling is probably top 20 all time in RA+ with a minimum of 3,000 innings. Of course Doggie pitched almost another 2,000 innings which makes Doggie inner circle and Schilling just an easy, slam dunk HOF.

What makes Schilling interesting is his ERA+ from age 37. Compare him to Doggie

Age Maddux Schilling
37 108 150
38 109 80 (injured)
39 104 120
40 109 122

Now realize that Doggie gave up 41 unearned runs during those 4 years. Curt gave up only 5! Add almost a half a run to Doggie's ERA during that period to compare it fairly to Curt's (actually even more given Curt pitched in higher run scoring environments).

Maddux had a huge peak that clearly established his HOF bonafides. After age 36 he became just a solid starter and innings eater, but that doesn't hurt the image he already established, in fact adding to his quality innings pitched just builds his legacy.

Schilling started very slow, given spot starts for two years, then relegated to the bullpen for two years. When he finally became a starter at age 25 he threw up a 150 ERA+ over 226 innings. On an awful team that was good for only 14 wins. Then he stank for two years. And only when he was 28 did he start an uninterrupted run of great seasons that continued almost uninterrupted till his career ended. People under-rate him for several reasons, the late start, the wins, which were held down by lousy teams, his late start, and injuries. And they under-rate him because of the silly use of the biased statistic of ERA, when RA is a much more reasonable way to measure a pitcher.

Stat nerds under-rate him because his peak was nowhere near as impressive as Pedros, Doggies or The Big Units, even when adjusted for the unearned run discrepancy. He's not a top 10 all time starter. But he has good claim to be a top 30 all time starter based on career value alone. That's a hall of famer.

Add in post season heroics and I think he should go in first ballot.

In almost the same amount of innings, Mussina gave up 100 unearned runs, Schilling gave up 65. That makes the difference between Schilling's career 127 ERA+ and Mussina's 121 even larger. And Mussina was a very good pitcher and very good at preventing unearned runs. I think he is a borderline hall of famer.

But was he as good as Jack Morris? :)

The HOF monitor and other tools for career value for Brown vs Schilling are interesting. Method with number 'needed' for HOF status in brackets.

HOF Monitor... (100)
Brown: 93 Schilling: 171

HOF Standards... (50)
Brown: 41 Schilling: 46

Black Ink... (40)
Brown: 19 Schilling: 42

Grey Ink... (185)
Brown: 166 Schilling: 205

So, despite similar basic numbers (ERA+, W/L) schilling comes out above HOF standards in all but one category while Brown is below in all 4. Shows the value of career shape vs overall talent.