Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Curt Schilling weighs in on Hall of Fame ballot

The average weight of a stool is 0.7 pounds…the average weight of a complete pants load is more. Much more.

For Schilling, the decision on those three should be easy.

“I wouldn’t vote for them, ever,” he said in an interview on SportsCenter. “It generally tends to go this way with people that get caught doing stuff. You generally never catch somebody on the first go-round. These guys I think to some degree or another in different cases cheated and in some cases cheated for a lengthy period of time. I think that had an impact on who they are and what they did. I would be someone who wouldn’t vote for anyone that cheated in that manner. ...

“At the end of the day, I just feel like what guys did with performance-enhancing drugs gave them such an immense advantage over the competition.”

As for his own candidacy, Schilling wasn’t making any guesses. He’s considered a borderline candidate by many and said it’s too hard to predict a process Schill called “schizophrenic.”

“I honestly have no idea,” he said. “I haven’t won a game or struck out a hitter in five years. I did what I did. I had a chance and I interacted with a lot of guys over the years in the media that voted for the Hall of Fame and it’s schizophrenic in many ways.

“Unfortunately there are people that take this process as a personal platform to write an article. I know a writer who did not vote for Nolan Ryan to protest Don Sutton not getting in the first time. I know of writers that have intentionally not voted for players they didn’t like.

“Knowing that, that has made it very easy for me to not give this a second thought in the sense that it’s completely out of my hands and it’s completely in the writers’ hands. They’re human. They have different opinions about different people and like me I’m sure they’re going to look at some guys and say ‘character matters for me when I vote for this guy and it doesn’t matter to me when I vote for this guy.’ That’s just the way it is.”

...“That’s why when I look at my numbers I know I did them against guys that were cheating,” he said. “So I’m proud of that.”

Repoz Posted: November 28, 2012 at 08:22 PM | 81 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hof

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 28, 2012 at 09:22 PM (#4311972)
“That’s why when I look at my numbers I know I did them against guys that were cheating,” he said. “So I’m proud of that.”

Good thing Darren Daulton and Lenny Dykstra, Luis Gonzalez and Matt Williams, and David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez had nothing to do with Schilling's 11-2 postseason record.
   2. Bob Tufts Posted: November 28, 2012 at 09:59 PM (#4311986)
$75 million reasons not to vote for Curt - invoke the character clause!
   3. Darren Posted: November 28, 2012 at 10:15 PM (#4311995)
Schilling sure did have a suspiciously good run in his late 30s. I mean, he was better in his 30s than in his 20s! Then you gotta consider the guys who were on his teams. I'm not making any accusations, just saying is all.
   4. valuearbitrageur Posted: November 28, 2012 at 10:35 PM (#4312005)
Schilling sure did have a suspiciously good run in his late 30s. I mean, he was better in his 30s than in his 20s! Then you gotta consider the guys who were on his teams. I'm not making any accusations, just saying is all.


Judging by his physique, he never would have passed the more stringent tests the Sox run today for fried chicken and Beer.

Hes only a top 30 alltime pitcher on career regular season value, so apparently he needs his post season accomplishments bring him up to "borderline".
   5. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 28, 2012 at 10:54 PM (#4312017)
Schilling sure did have a suspiciously good run in his late 30s. I mean, he was better in his 30s than in his 20s! Then you gotta consider the guys who were on his teams. I'm not making any accusations, just saying is all.

Schilling was a .500 pitcher until age 30, when he had that "conversation" with Roger Clemens. Coincidence? Do we really think someone who'd have performance enhancing surgery -- putting a dead man's tissue in his own body -- would have any qualms about taking a few shots for the good of the team? Just asking, you know.
   6. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 28, 2012 at 10:55 PM (#4312018)
I wonder how the gaming business is going for Curt.
   7. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 28, 2012 at 11:00 PM (#4312023)
darren

pretty sorry murray chass impersonation. you can do better
   8. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 28, 2012 at 11:22 PM (#4312040)
Hes only a top 30 alltime pitcher on career regular season value, so apparently he needs his post season accomplishments bring him up to "borderline".

Schilling's HoF case is going to be as disproportionately about his postseason accomplishments as just about any candidate we've seen. The sportswriters' approach to Curt is going to make Jack Morris look like he took Game Seven off because there was something good on TV that night.

Leave everything else alone but give Schilling a postseason W-L record of 7-6, or 8-5, or 6-7? I think he gets David Coned in his first and last ballot, especially amid the upcoming tumult.
   9. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 28, 2012 at 11:27 PM (#4312045)
Schilling's HoF case is going to be as disproportionately about his postseason accomplishments as just about any candidate we've seen. The sportswriters' approach to Curt is going to make Jack Morris look like he took Game Seven off because there was something good on TV that night.
Perhaps, but unlike Morris (and Cone), Schilling is a pretty clearly deserving Hall of Famer on the merits.
   10. Darren Posted: November 28, 2012 at 11:34 PM (#4312050)
darren

pretty sorry murray chass impersonation. you can do better


It was a Curt Schilling impression.
   11. J.R. Wolf Posted: November 28, 2012 at 11:50 PM (#4312057)
Schilling is a Hall of Famer on sheer merit, and also a really good guy.
   12. cardsfanboy Posted: November 29, 2012 at 12:13 AM (#4312067)
Perhaps, but unlike Morris (and Cone), Schilling is a pretty clearly deserving Hall of Famer on the merits.


Unlike Morris, Schilling is pretty clearly a viable HOF candidate, definite borderline candidate that deserves a discussion, unlike Morris.
   13. puck Posted: November 29, 2012 at 12:26 AM (#4312074)

I wonder how the gaming business is going for Curt.

Pre-order Lincoln's War and save $20!
   14. Lassus Posted: November 29, 2012 at 12:31 AM (#4312076)
"At the end of the day..."

Please god, won't somebody make it stop.
   15. jingoist Posted: November 29, 2012 at 01:47 AM (#4312107)
At the end of the day I guess I just dont know what to think about Shilling as a person.
As a pitcher he merits close inspection and perhaps HoF membership.

As a commentator/analyst on MLB network many of his comments are couched in a manner as to shine a bright light on himself.
Self-serving might be too strong a statement but something just doesn't ring true for me on this guy.
   16. Bug Selig Posted: November 29, 2012 at 07:53 AM (#4312142)
Self-serving might be too strong a statement


Too strong? Every time he speaks, I want to check that I still have my wallet and take a shower.
   17. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: November 29, 2012 at 09:01 AM (#4312154)
Have they tested the bloody sock for hGH yet?
   18. villageidiom Posted: November 29, 2012 at 09:11 AM (#4312158)
Have they tested the bloody sock for hGH yet?
I mean, I have a bloody sock in a file cabinet over there. I could get it tested in like ten minutes.
   19. tfbg9 Posted: November 29, 2012 at 09:29 AM (#4312162)
If you use RA+, Schilling looks even better. The guy was extremely stingy with the unearned runs, and this is an overlooked pitching skill.

And he's famous!
   20. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 29, 2012 at 09:37 AM (#4312164)
Yup. ERA+ underrates Schilling more than just about any other pitcher in baseball history. His pitching style - pound the zone with fastballs, go for Ks with splitters - produced tons of strikeouts, almost no walks, and a lot of fly balls. With very few baserunners and very few ground balls, Schilling limited opportunities for his fielders to make errors, and because of this he consistently allowed many fewer UER than his teammates.
   21. Danny Posted: November 29, 2012 at 09:51 AM (#4312173)
Did Schilling have a lower ROE rate than one would expect given his BIP profile?
   22. JP Ricciardi Posted: November 29, 2012 at 09:53 AM (#4312178)
Two-thirds of these guys - Clemens and Sosa - stood repeatedly in front of the media and lied through their teeth. The other one, Bonds, lied repeatedly to a grand jury. None of them uttered the truth that PED-fans claim. None of them said "Hey, I thought PED use was permitted. I don't think of it as cheating. Everyone does it. It doesn't alter performance." Only on the internet is that claim made. Every player, at every second, thought of PED-use as cheating. There's nothing at all surprising in what Shilling says. You've got to get pretty far from the field and from the players to not think PED use is cheating and to think crud like Clemens, Bonds and Sosa are going to the HOF.
   23. Dan The Mediocre Posted: November 29, 2012 at 10:03 AM (#4312185)
Two-thirds of these guys - Clemens and Sosa - stood repeatedly in front of the media and lied through their teeth.


What is the evidence on Clemens and Sosa? As far as I can tell, neither has any solid evidence as far as use.
   24. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 29, 2012 at 10:12 AM (#4312194)
Did Schilling have a lower ROE rate than one would expect given his BIP profile?
Interesting question. It would, tragically, require work to answer it. Hopefully someone will do that.
   25. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 29, 2012 at 10:19 AM (#4312200)
Two-thirds of these guys - Clemens and Sosa - stood repeatedly in front of the media and lied through their teeth.


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.
   26. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 29, 2012 at 10:26 AM (#4312206)
Schilling was a .500 pitcher until age 30, when he had that "conversation" with Roger Clemens. Coincidence? Do we really think someone who'd have performance enhancing surgery -- putting a dead man's tissue in his own body -- would have any qualms about taking a few shots for the good of the team? Just asking, you know.


He's also an ex-teammate of Brady Anderson! How deep does the rabbit hole go?
   27. ThisElevatorIsDrivingMeUpTheWall Posted: November 29, 2012 at 10:27 AM (#4312208)
McGwire said he didn't think steroids made him a better player.
   28. bunyon Posted: November 29, 2012 at 10:42 AM (#4312220)
Schilling is a Hall of Famer on sheer merit, and also a really good guy.

I obviously don't know the man but I'd like to see some evidence for his being a good guy.

The whole argument of "good" and "bad" guys with famous people is absurd. We don't know them. Just as we should get more evidence that someone is bad, we should expect evidence that someone is good. Given that we can't really know, it should be ignored. I don't care how good or bad someone is - how much did they do for the game of baseball. If you think PEDs disqualifying, fine. But don't come preaching that some guy you don't know is a good guy so we should accept what he says.
   29. tfbg9 Posted: November 29, 2012 at 12:24 PM (#4312350)
IIRC, Schillings RA+ is better than, or right there with, Randy Johnson's and Seaver's...but I'm probably remembering wrong. These guys blow him away on counting stats,
I realize that, but still, that's getting up there towards truly elite rate stat company.
   30. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: November 29, 2012 at 12:28 PM (#4312360)
Schilling isn't a slam dunk HOFer based on his regular season record, but he's got a very solid case. Clearly above borderline IMO. Adding the postseason record makes him a pretty obvious choice.
   31. robinred Posted: November 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM (#4312387)
I would definitely vote for Schilling, as I have said many times. He is clearly above the line IMO.
   32. Dale Sams Posted: November 29, 2012 at 02:19 PM (#4312504)
31 posts and no mention of: 3,116 KS (15th)*...8.6ks per 9 (18th) SECOND alltime k's/bb ratio.

And thanks to his fat mouth and the obscuring stir the steroid candidates make, he won't get in for some 10 years.


*Everyone above him will be, is or should be in the HOF
   33. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 29, 2012 at 02:42 PM (#4312544)
Two-thirds of these guys - Clemens and Sosa - stood repeatedly in front of the media and lied through their teeth. The other one, Bonds, lied repeatedly to a grand jury. None of them uttered the truth that PED-fans claim. None of them said "Hey, I thought PED use was permitted. I don't think of it as cheating. Everyone does it. It doesn't alter performance." Only on the internet is that claim made. Every player, at every second, thought of PED-use as cheating. There's nothing at all surprising in what Shilling says. You've got to get pretty far from the field and from the players to not think PED use is cheating and to think crud like Clemens, Bonds and Sosa are going to the HOF.

In court in 1981, Pete Rose testified under oath that he didn't know what a greenie was, two years after having done an interview with Playboy where he discussed having taken greenies. Testifying to Congress in 2005, Bud Selig testified that he'd personally taken executive steps to combat steroids in baseball, several years before the date that he'd previously told the press he first learned about steroids in baseball.

Steroid use was a continuation of the baseball culture, not an affront to it. It's terrific that steps have finally been taken to reduce, obstruct and punish PED use, but retroactive moralistic bullshit is exactly that: retroactive moralistic bullshit. Which won't stop heaps and heaps of it from being served up for decades to come.

And if the BBWAA ever experiences twinges of pain or whiplash from suddenly pivoting from gang-attacking Steve Wilstein to gang-attacking Mark McGwire, I hear there are some great synthetic drugs for that.
   34. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 29, 2012 at 03:07 PM (#4312593)
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.


Well, let's be fair. There's evidence against Clemens. His personal trainer testifying against him and providing waste products is certainly evidence. It's just that the evidence is not credible, since the personal trainer has zero credibility.

But Clemens is not Sosa.
   35. Dale Sams Posted: November 29, 2012 at 03:22 PM (#4312608)
I don't care how good or bad someone is - how much did they do for the game of baseball. If you think PEDs disqualifying, fine. But don't come preaching that some guy you don't know is a good guy so we should accept what he says.


Bunyons pitch for ALS just doesn't have the same ring does it?
   36. bunyon Posted: November 29, 2012 at 03:34 PM (#4312615)
Bunyons pitch for ALS just doesn't have the same ring does it?

It isn't hard to do things that make you look like a good guy if you're trying. But history is full of guys who looked to be "good guys" who turned out to be world class scumbags.
   37. Danny Posted: November 29, 2012 at 03:37 PM (#4312619)
31 posts and no mention of: 3,116 KS (15th)*...8.6ks per 9 (18th) SECOND alltime k's/bb ratio.

While playing in the greatest K/9 and K:BB era ever...
   38. bachslunch Posted: November 29, 2012 at 04:00 PM (#4312634)
Every player, at every second, thought of PED-use as cheating.

And if you can conclusively prove that, you've really had a lot of time on your hands the past several years. Not to mention a remarkable sense of clairvoyance.
   39. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 29, 2012 at 04:10 PM (#4312639)
How 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?
   40. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: November 29, 2012 at 04:14 PM (#4312644)
"At the end of the day..."

Please god, won't somebody make it stop


Good luck with that. I've given up on saying anything when idiots needlessly type "going forward" just because they like the way the keyboard strokes evidently make their nether parts tingle (&/or make themselves feel, I suppose, remotely intelligent); "at the end of the day" is just as bad, of course, if not worse, but it's not going away, either.
   41. SoSH U at work Posted: November 29, 2012 at 04:17 PM (#4312648)
How 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.

   42. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: November 29, 2012 at 04:25 PM (#4312659)
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.


Then again this is the same media that always seems shocked in print whenever it is uncovered that a famous athlete has been cheating on their wife, lover etc.
   43. Into the Void Posted: November 29, 2012 at 05:18 PM (#4312722)
Well, let's be fair. There's evidence against Clemens. His personal trainer testifying against him and providing waste products is certainly evidence. It's just that the evidence is not credible, since the personal trainer has zero credibility.

But Clemens is not Sosa.


Even taking PED's/steroids/whatever out of the picture, I always find it funny how little Sosa's corked bat gets mentioned. Yeah, he "just happened to grab a batting practice bat he used to impress the fans with." That's really believable. And I'm sure it just happened that one time. Coincidentally, that one time he happened to get caught...
   44. The District Attorney Posted: November 29, 2012 at 05:32 PM (#4312730)
Curt Schilling weighs in
I see what they did there.
   45. Ron J2 Posted: November 29, 2012 at 05:38 PM (#4312738)
#43 Sure, but corked bats gets us into Gaylord Perry (among others) territory.
   46. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 29, 2012 at 05:58 PM (#4312766)
I've given up on saying anything when idiots needlessly type "going forward"


Says the man who apparently believes in linear time as a real thing, rather than just a perceptual artifact.

"At the end of the day..."

Please god, won't somebody make it stop


Technically, it IS the end of the day. It's dark outside and everything.
   47. squatto Posted: November 29, 2012 at 06:23 PM (#4312796)
Good luck with that. I've given up on saying anything when idiots needlessly type "going forward" just because they like the way the keyboard strokes evidently make their nether parts tingle (&/or make themselves feel, I suppose, remotely intelligent); "at the end of the day" is just as bad, of course, if not worse, but it's not going away, either.


My favorite recent NYer cartoon.

While I don't have the Giclee print, I do have it on my refrigerator.
   48. Swedish Chef Posted: November 29, 2012 at 06:51 PM (#4312819)
My favorite recent NYer cartoon.

Christ, what an #######.

Score another one for that theory.
   49. jingoist Posted: November 29, 2012 at 07:43 PM (#4312853)
If you look at my post it was typed at 1:47 AM EST; it was the end of the day and I couldn't bring myself to type " and in summation your honors"
I'm a long time subscriber to the New Yorker and quite often I identify with idiotman, like the time I convince myself back in 2000 that George W would make a better president than Al Gore.
   50. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 29, 2012 at 09:00 PM (#4312893)

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.
   51. Sunday silence Posted: November 29, 2012 at 09:17 PM (#4312909)
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'?
   52. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 29, 2012 at 10:26 PM (#4312977)

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...
   53. bunyon Posted: November 29, 2012 at 10:35 PM (#4312988)
Would it be cheating to spike the other team's Gatorade with LSD?

Are you saying you WANT to be no-hit?
   54. TDF, situational idiot Posted: November 29, 2012 at 11:00 PM (#4313008)
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).
   55. shoewizard Posted: November 29, 2012 at 11:12 PM (#4313015)
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.
   56. MHS Posted: November 29, 2012 at 11:24 PM (#4313018)
Some buffoons think the post season s an exhibition... Rather than the defining moment of a career.
   57. Srul Itza Posted: November 29, 2012 at 11:34 PM (#4313024)
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"
   58. Bob Tufts Posted: November 30, 2012 at 12:20 AM (#4313052)
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.


   59. Lassus Posted: November 30, 2012 at 01:13 AM (#4313082)
And I prefer "Till The End Of The Day" by the Kinks.

Hell yes.
   60. shoewizard Posted: November 30, 2012 at 02:14 AM (#4313103)
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.


   61. shoewizard Posted: November 30, 2012 at 02:18 AM (#4313104)
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.
   62. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 30, 2012 at 03:41 AM (#4313117)
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.
   63. Swedish Chef Posted: November 30, 2012 at 03:54 AM (#4313118)
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).
   64. shoewizard Posted: November 30, 2012 at 03:58 AM (#4313120)
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.

   65. Srul Itza At Home Posted: November 30, 2012 at 04:00 AM (#4313121)

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.
   66. BeanoCook Posted: November 30, 2012 at 04:30 AM (#4313131)
Assume they all juiced. Let them in.
   67. JP Ricciardi Posted: November 30, 2012 at 08:43 AM (#4313153)
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.
   68. HGM Posted: November 30, 2012 at 09:48 AM (#4313184)
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.
   69. AROM Posted: November 30, 2012 at 10:36 AM (#4313213)
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.
   70. Ron J2 Posted: November 30, 2012 at 10:48 AM (#4313220)
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. "
   71. Danny Posted: November 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM (#4313223)
Schilling is in the next 4, along with Glavine, Smoltz, and Mussina. They should all go in.

And then there's poor Kevin Brown...
   72. HGM Posted: November 30, 2012 at 10:58 AM (#4313231)
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.
   73. shoewizard Posted: November 30, 2012 at 11:32 AM (#4313266)
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
   74. HGM Posted: November 30, 2012 at 11:39 AM (#4313283)
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.
   75. Dan The Mediocre Posted: November 30, 2012 at 05:50 PM (#4313724)
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.
   76. cardsfanboy Posted: December 01, 2012 at 01:57 AM (#4313928)
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)
   77. DanG Posted: December 01, 2012 at 04:02 AM (#4313944)
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?

Rk                  Yrs From   To   Age
1     Roger Clemens  11 1986 2005 23
-42
2     Randy Johnson   8 1993 2004 29
-40
3    Pedro Martinez   7 1997 2005 25
-33
4    Curt Schilling   7 1992 2004 25
-37
5       Greg Maddux   7 1992 2000 26
-34
6      Roy Halladay   6 2002 2011 25
-34
7        Roy Oswalt   5 2002 2010 24
-32
8       Kevin Brown   5 1996 2000 31
-35
9        Dave Stieb   5 1982 1990 24
-32
10      CC Sabathia   4 2007 2011 26
-30
11    Johan Santana   4 2004 2008 25
-29
12       David Cone   4 1993 1997 30
-34
13     Mike Mussina   4 1992 2003 23
-34
14      Frank Viola   4 1987 1992 27
-32
15    Mark Langston   4 1987 1993 26
-32
16   Orel Hershiser   4 1985 1989 26
-30 
   78. shoewizard Posted: December 01, 2012 at 09:45 AM (#4313973)
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.
   79. cardsfanboy Posted: December 01, 2012 at 11:13 AM (#4313999)
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.
   80. DanG Posted: December 01, 2012 at 11:27 AM (#4314001)
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:

Rk                  Yrs From   To   Age
1     Randy Johnson   5 1999 2004 35
-40
2       Lefty Grove   4 1930 1936 30
-36
3       Greg Maddux   3 1993 1998 27
-32
4     Roger Clemens   3 1992 1998 29
-35
5       Dazzy Vance   3 1924 1930 33
-39
6   Felix Hernandez   2 2009 2010 23
-24
7        Tom Seaver   2 1971 1973 26
-28
8     Hal Newhouser   2 1945 1946 24
-25
9       Lefty Gomez   2 1934 1937 25
-28 
   81. cardsfanboy Posted: December 01, 2012 at 11:49 AM (#4314006)
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.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
aleskel
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(969 - 5:19pm, Sep 01)
Last: The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB)

NewsblogAstros Fire Bo Porter
(12 - 5:13pm, Sep 01)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

NewsblogPhoto of the day: Bill Murray, indy league ticket-taker
(62 - 5:13pm, Sep 01)
Last: zonk

NewsblogTigers' Miguel Cabrera appears to re-injure ankle, leaves game
(12 - 5:11pm, Sep 01)
Last: Srul Itza

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-1-2014
(37 - 5:09pm, Sep 01)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - August 2014
(383 - 5:09pm, Sep 01)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogNo-hitter! Four Phillies pitchers combine to blank the Braves
(3 - 5:02pm, Sep 01)
Last: AndrewJ

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(6351 - 5:02pm, Sep 01)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogNitkowski: Wanted: Major League manager...sort of.
(2 - 5:01pm, Sep 01)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

NewsblogBob Melvin calls Athletics 'pathetic' after Angels sweep four-game set
(21 - 4:45pm, Sep 01)
Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)

NewsblogAthletics Acquire Adam Dunn
(35 - 4:42pm, Sep 01)
Last: Batman

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(2 - 4:42pm, Sep 01)
Last: mcauliffe

NewsblogBackman named PCL’s top manager
(20 - 4:40pm, Sep 01)
Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)

NewsblogOT:  2014 College Football pre-season thread
(93 - 4:10pm, Sep 01)
Last: spike

NewsblogHigh School Baseball Game In Japan Takes 50 Innings, Four Days
(7 - 3:59pm, Sep 01)
Last: John Northey

Page rendered in 0.8077 seconds
52 querie(s) executed