I dont agree using steroids before MLB banned them is/was cheating. If you broke the speed limit in order to get to the ball park on time is that cheating? To me it's one thing to bring society's laws but that's not the same as breaking baseball's rules. So I could equally come up with own, two part, rhetorical question:

What is so hard to understand that breaking society's laws is not the same as breaking baseballs'?

What is so hard to understand that breaking society's laws is not the same as breaking baseballs'?

The speeding example is beyond silly, but even so, there's a difference between breaking the law outside the field of play and breaking it on the field.

Would it be cheating to spike the other team's Gatorade with LSD? I don't think there's a baseball rule against it...

Would it be cheating to spike the other team's Gatorade with LSD?

Are you saying you WANT to be no-hit?

Every player, at every second, thought of PED-use as cheating.

I don't know if I would go quite this far (Jose Canseco, for example, might be the exception that proves the rule), but I don't see how anyone could argue this point. Nobody else openly talked about their steroid usage during their playing career, despite numerous stories every year about what players did to get in the best shape of their lives, etc. Pretty much everyone, when accused of steroid usage, denied it.

Because admitting to steroid use would be admitting to a (likely) felony?

To me there have always been 2 components to the whole arguement:

1. It wasn't "cheating", because it wasn't against the explicit rules, nor was it against the implied way the game was played. Pro athletes will always do as much as they think they can get away with to win, and as long as everyone just gave it a nod and wink, it was OK. However,...
2. It was likely illegal as heck. For this, and for this only, MLB and the MLBPA should be tarnished. I never understood that as a society we allowed this to get so out of hand (and don't fool yourselves; we knew it was going on at the time).

1.) Schilling is 21st all time in pitching WAR with 76, and if you want to make adjustments for this or that, you would be pretty hard pressed to put him any lower than 30th, regardless of what system you use. There has never been a pitcher with over 70 career WAR not put in the HOF, and the only guys with over 60 who are not in are Reuschel, Brown, and Tiant, and none of them are closer than 12 WAR behind Schilling. Linky

2.) How did he rank within his own career. A player needs to be looked at carefully in the context of when he himself played. Thats HIS era. Curt Schilling played from 1988-2007, and during that time he was arguably the 5th best pitcher in the game, and certainly no worse than 8th. Report Link

That list has him looking up but nipping at the heels of the big 4.

3.) How high was his peak ? You need to have multiple truly great seasons in my HOF. Schilling had 3 seasons of 7.5 WAR or more, two over 8. Here is the list of players since 1961 who have had a pitching season of 7.5 WAR or more. While Clemens and RJ are on another level, Schillings 3 such seasons are right behind Maddux and Pedro who had 4, and tied with a bunch of pretty solid HOF guys that had 3. Also, if you look at pitchers that have had seasons of 8 WAR or higher, again he is right in the same zone.

Basically Schilling had three clear cut Cy Young Caliber seasons, and one more would have made him a slam dunk Hall of Famer. Hmmmm, I wonder if there is any way he can make up for that.

4.) Signature moments, Post Season.: Yeah.....I think this is where Schilling can make up that very very small gap between him and the no doubters above him on the lists linked in points 1, 2 & 3. Instead of quoting his career post season WL and ERA, which everyone knows about, lets look at his Game Log. In 19 career post season starts, he allowed 2 earned runs or less in 16 of them and allowed ZERO or ONE earned run in 12 of his 19 career post season starts.

Back to post season ERA & RA/9 though:

Schilling 133 IP, 2.23 ERA, 2.59 RA/9
Clemens 199 IP, 3.75 ERA, 3.93 RA/9
Maddux 198 IP, 3.27 ERA, 4.41 RA/9 (97 Runs vs 72 ER so Post season ERA kinda low !!)
Johnson 121 IP, 3.50 ERA, 3.79 RA/9
Martinez 96 IP, 3.46 ERA, 3.43 RA/9


Really, I can't see ANY reason for any voter NOT to vote for Schilling in the HOF, other than they think he is a ######### or a bad investor. Neither should have any bearing on his HOF case.

Some buffoons think the post season s an exhibition... Rather than the defining moment of a career.

That list has him looking up but nipping at the heels of the big 4.

That should be all you need to know to understand the defects in WAR for pitchers. There is no way he is in the same breath as the big 4.

He would be a Hall of Famer, if he were not a PED abuser, so I vote no. How do I know he was a PED abuser? He admits was going nowhere until he had a conversation in the weight room with Roger Clemens. What more do you need to know?

"At the end of the day..."

you're another day older.
And that's all you can say for the life of the poor.
It's a struggle, it's a war
and there's nothing that anyone's giving,
one more day standing around, what is for?
One day less to be living.


At least, that's what always pops into my mind when I hear "At the end of the day"

Because admitting to steroid use would be admitting to a (likely) felony?

I've heard that the reason McGwire basically took the 5th in March 2005 before the House Government Reform Committee was that he was within the five years covered by the statute of limitaions regarding use of controlled substances. He asked Rep. Tom Davis for immunity, was denied and (legally) appropriately shut up to avoid potential drug felony charges and perjury.

Question for the board: Is there any crime post-career that warrants non-HOF induction? At what point on the sliding scale of murder to multiple traffic tickets would you draw a red line?

It appears that financial shenanigans outside of baseball won't harm Schilling, but why wasn't George Steinbrenner's felony conviction and payments to Howie Spira while an owner enough to keep him off the Executives ballot?


And I prefer "Till The End Of The Day" by the Kinks.

And I prefer "Till The End Of The Day" by the Kinks.

Hell yes.

That should be all you need to know to understand the defects in WAR for pitchers. There is no way he is in the same breath as the big 4.

Weak sauce. You don't like WAR, fine....show me a better metric for measuring overall pitcher value. Where does Schilling fall short ? In which way of analyzing does he NOT qualify as a Hall of Famer ?

He would be a Hall of Famer, if he were not a PED abuser, so I vote no. How do I know he was a PED abuser? He admits was going nowhere until he had a conversation in the weight room with Roger Clemens. What more do you need to know?

Oh... I see...you are going with Onion argument. My bad for not getting your sarcasm.

It appears that financial shenanigans outside of baseball won't harm Schilling, but why wasn't George Steinbrenner's felony conviction and payments to Howie Spira while an owner enough to keep him off the Executives ballot?

1.) Schilling does not have a felony conviction. How the hell can you equate the two ?

2.) Whatever issues there are with Schilling's investments and dealings with the State of Rhode Island, they occurred after his playing career, while Steinbrenners issues occurred WHILE an owner as you point out.

The level of bias in the statements against Schilling is truly stunning sometimes. I mean this is absurd.

H

ow difficult is it to simultaneously accept two concepts: (a) steroid users were definitely cheating (as were amphetamine users before them); and (b) MLB was, as ever, knowledgeable and complicit?


That's always seemed relatively obvious to me. And, of course, it wasn't just MLB that was complicit, but the individual teams, the non-juicing players, the media and the fans.

I blame myself.

The level of bias in the statements against Schilling is truly stunning sometimes. I mean this is absurd.

I thought it was pretty obvious that he used Steinbrenner as a stronger case than Schilling, not some equivalence (which wouldn't have worked because the shenanigans didn't stop Steinbrenner either).

ooops,

Bob, please accept apology for mis read of your post. Rather than edit, I'll leave it stand as is, so the thread isn't confusing.

Thanks Chef.

Oh... I see...you are going with Onion argument. My bad for not getting your sarcasm.

I was not kidding about the Big 4. He is NOT in their class, and if some metric says that he is even close, that metric is flawed.

However, saying someone is not in the class of the Big 4 is a LONG WAY from saying they don't belong in the Hall of Fame. It would be like saying, well, he's no Babe Ruth or Ty Cobb or Hank Aaron or Willie Mays, so he doesn't belong. If the HOF standard was the Big 4, it would be a very small Hall indeed.

So yes, I think he is a qualified HOFer, even without "post-season credit" (which I support; his role in the 2001 and 2004 Post Seasons clearly adds weight to his HOF case) . . . except, of course, for the PEDS problem, which disqualifies him.

Assume they all juiced. Let them in.

What is the evidence on Clemens and Sosa? As far as I can tell, neither has any solid evidence as far as use.

Good question. Maybe JPR can provide us with some of his inside information.

The NYT listed Sosa as one of the 2003 positive tests that led to continued testing. The evidence against Clemens is laid out in the Mitchell report.

I was not kidding about the Big 4. He is NOT in their class, and if some metric says that he is even close, that metric is flawed.

Define "close."

I think Shoewizard greatly overstated when he said that Schilling is "nipping at the heels of the big 4." He's 5 wins behind Pedro Martinez, who is 4th, so I guess that's "nipping at the heals of the big 4", technically, but Pedro is a peak case. It's not surprising to me that Schilling is close to Pedro in overall career value. However, saying that he;s "nipping at the heals of the big 4" because he's a few wins behind the #4 guy really misstates things...because Clemens, Maddux and Johnson are just leagues above. Johnson has a 20 WAR lead over Schilling, with Maddux around 25 wins ahead and Clemens 35. And, of course, that list leaves off a few years from all 3 of their careers.

WAR does not say that Schilling is close to the Big 4. It says he's close to Pedro Martinez and far behind Maddux, Clemens and Johnson.

WAR does not say that Schilling is close to the Big 4. It says he's close to Pedro Martinez and far behind Maddux, Clemens and Johnson.

Those 4 are overqualified for the HOF. Schilling is in the next 4, along with Glavine, Smoltz, and Mussina. They should all go in.

I never understood that as a society we allowed this to get so out of hand

It took a long time to schedule steroids because the medical advice was "don't"(generally that is, no shortage of people who argued for it)

I've quoted Dr. Steve Patterson before:

Quoting now:

"Dick Sidbury wrote:
> Are steroids dangerous? What is the state of objective scientific
> opinion in this area (assuming that objective and opinion make sense
> together in this context). I've heard the claim that roids are not
> particularly dangerous when taken correctly.

I agree with that claim. Steroids have a legimate medical use and with
normal people they are safe when used properly. Some people have
adverse reactions and in general 'roids increase risk of infection,liver
and kidney problems but if used properly they appear to be pretty safe,
particularly for short term use. At least that's the Reader's Digest
version."

(And in a subsequent post discusses therapeutic index -- again quoting)

"For pretty much every substance there's an administration level below
which no effect can be observed.

With drugs there are always undesirable effects that we observe once the
drug reaches a certain concentration in the patient.

In drug development we determine what is called a therapeutic index.
This is the ratio of the concentration where desirable effects are
achieved and the concentration where undesirable (side) effects are
observed. With some medications the therapeutic index is quite low...

Steroids have a very low therapeutic index compared to many drugs...
IIRC the antiinflammatory 'roids are usually at about 150 or less.

Compare that to antibiotics which have TI that is often 100 times that."

And elsewhere in the same thread:

"There are other issues that IMO make use of anabolics/androgenics as
performance enhancers a bad idea, but that isn't what was asked. I've
commented on this before in this group and won't repeat myself. I don't
think it's necessarily immoral for people to do unwise things to their
own bodies, or for people to ingest substances that improve performance.

Having served on many review boards related to the science of drugs I
can assure you that classification of drugs and decisions on how to
handle drugs is often arbitrary and emotional. These aren't moral
directives from God. They're decisions made by people. "

Also addressing the greenies argument, (again quoting from the Braves NG)

"amphetamines decrease reaction times, improve resistance to fatigue and improve performace in quite a few sports related tasks. There is good reason to believe that amphetamines can help people hit a baseball. That is obvious from the medical literature.

see

Tokish, Kocher and Hawkins Am.J.Sp.Med 32:1543 (2004); and references cited therein. "

Schilling is in the next 4, along with Glavine, Smoltz, and Mussina. They should all go in.

And then there's poor Kevin Brown...

Those 4 are overqualified for the HOF. Schilling is in the next 4, along with Glavine, Smoltz, and Mussina. They should all go in.

I agree.

I really think some of you guys missed the forest from the trees by obsessing over the nipping at the heels comment.

Go back and read the ENTIRE post. Starting from point ONE. I laid out several different criteria, and in ONE of them, Schilling was close behind......and if you actually read the ENTIRE point 2, that point is not talking about total career value. Total career value is addressed in point 1.

Thanks

I really think some of you guys missed the forest from the trees by obsessing over the nipping at the heels comment.

Go back and read the ENTIRE post. Starting from point ONE. I laid out several different criteria, and in ONE of them, Schilling was close behind......and if you actually read the ENTIRE point 2, that point is not talking about total career value. Total career value is addressed in point 1.

Thanks

I was just clarifying in order to dispute the comment that WAR is flawed because it puts Schilling close to the Big 4. That's a completely invalid criticism of WAR.

The NYT listed Sosa as one of the 2003 positive tests that led to continued testing.

Oh, you mean the list that contained more names than actually failed a test? And let's not forget that after it was reported, no one took it seriously.

The evidence against Clemens is laid out in the Mitchell report.

All the evidence coming from his trainer, who, let's face it, is nothing near a model of honesty and reliability.

I really think some of you guys missed the forest from the trees by obsessing over the nipping at the heels comment.

Go back and read the ENTIRE post. Starting from point ONE. I laid out several different criteria, and in ONE of them, Schilling was close behind......and if you actually read the ENTIRE point 2, that point is not talking about total career value. Total career value is addressed in point 1.

Thanks

Note: I think Schilling is a hofer, he's more or less exactly equal to Smoltz in my mind, to the point that it's impossible to separate the two and I think Smoltz is a hofer. I do not think either one is a slam dunk type of candidate, but do think both have great chances of being voted in by the writers, but still it's a debate.


Point 1 lists Schilling all time in war, that is what many people have an issue with. War is a crappy stat for pitchers. So we'll ignore that.

Point 2. How is he ranked during his career? Obviously WAY behind Randy, Maddux and Clemens and also clearly behind Pedro. Ignoring your link, since you listed only during the years Schilling played, and that type of selective endpoints is the same silly #### that gets Jack Morris into these discussions. But anyway, going from 1980-2012.. he's still 6th on that list as Mussina slides past him. Halladay might also past him before his career is done. So by a career stat such as War, he's probably top ten during career player but at best number five.Now the argument is, as a career candidate is a top 10 career during a select era, candidate automatically worthy of induction? I don't think so. On the career scale, there is nothing separating Schilling, Brown, Smoltz, Mussina as a career candidate. Then you add Glavine and Rivera to the mix and you have arguments to put Schilling anywhere from 5th to 10th on the list as a career candidate.

Point 3 High peak, I agree with the criteria... Schilling is a little harder to judge this by, as his unearned runs rate makes a quick look at era+, tough way to assess it, but he doesn't have an extremely high peak, by any measure that measure actual events. He does have several Cy Young quality seasons(usually I say 150 era+ or better, top 10 ip, but in Schilling case we'll go to 140 era+) giving him 5 Cy Young quality seasons. Even giving him props though, he doesn't have a "Gibson/Pedro" season, so he's more of a "prime" candidate than peak candidate. Among the people he is competing with, again he's obviously not in the big four discussion, Santana has 4 "Cy Young Seasons" ,Halladay had 5, Brown had five. (all of them had elite seasons, something Schilling never really did, regardless of war talk) Arguably in his era, Schilling had the 8th best peak(at best)

4. Signature moments. Agreed.

Ultimately Schilling is not a great career candidate, is not a great peak candidate, he's the definition of the perfect prime candidate, a guy with years of high level performance where he was consistently one of the best in the game. A guy who had the misfortune to time his career during a time when you had some of the greatest pitchers of all time pitching. I would vote for him, but I would also vote for Brown, Mussina, Glavine, Smoltz, (Halladay when he becomes eligible) Mariano all from what I woul consider Schilling's era. And I think that you could legitimately argue for any of those guys over any one of the other one of those guys. (Santana is currently looking like the guy on the borderline for me---him and Sabathia)

Jack Morris once had a season with 5.6 pitching WAR. Among pitchers who debuted in the past 40 years, who has the most seasons of 5.6+ pitching WAR?

but he doesn't have an extremely high peak, by any measure that measure actual events.

Huh ? Were the 2001, 2002, & 2004 seasons not "actual events" ? What does this even mean. Schilling was a complete stud in each of those seasons, and really was in 2003 as well, but he missed a dozen starts due to appendicitis.

And this was preceeded by a 2 1/2 season peak from 97 through Mid 99 that was pretty damn good too.

Also, you dismiss WAR for pitchers with a hand wave, but it's not really a valid opinion if you don't give us a detailed rebuttal of the system as having any use at all. It's essentially innings, RA, and some leverage right ? How is this not at least somewhat useful ? You give grudging acknowledgement that Schilling is better than his ERA+ numbers due to the extreme low percentage of UER. Well, it's actually really important.

I don't know what your definition of peak is....but I'm here to tell you 2001-2004 was without question a very high peak.

Huh ? Were the 2001, 2002, & 2004 seasons not "actual events" ? What does this even mean. Schilling was a complete stud in each of those seasons, and really was in 2003 as well, but he missed a dozen starts due to appendicitis.

Extreme high peak is 170+ era+ with 230+ or more innings pitched. He's never posted an era+ over 170. Giving him 10 unearned runs in 2001 instead of 1 unearned run puts him at 180 era+, so I'll say he has one season of actual events that was extremely high.

Actual events means runs allowed while he was on the mound, not theoretical runs that should or should not have happened.

Again, I would put him in the hof with nary a thought, but I do understand why he is debatable. He's not a pure anything candidate, he's not a Brown type of peak candidate or a Glavine type of career candidate, he's a hybrid putting up excellent peak years with a solid career length.

Extreme high peak is 170+ era+ with 230+ or more innings pitched

This is setting the bar too high. Pitchers with more than one season meeting those criteria since 1919:

This is setting the bar too high. Pitchers with more than one season meeting those criteria since 1919:

Probably, but of course it really depends on a sliding scale, Pedro gets props for putting up 4 200 era+ seasons even if he doesn't get the innings pitched criteria. If you are talking a pure peak candidate you are talking about Pedro, Brown etc type of guys who put up multiple great years.

Pure peak candidates are rare, you honestly have Koufax and Pedro as the only two people on that list, some also put Dean there(but that is a reach). Schilling is on the Brown, Saberhagen etc side of the equation on peak candidates. If this was his only argument, Schilling wouldn't be a worthy candidate. Fortunately he has a good length career, and standout moments.