Who had the better career, Glavine or Schilling?

Question

The consensus seems like it's a draw. Glavine's got his 300 wins an Cy Young. Schilling's got his 3 World Series Titles.

Answer 1

Both are good, but Glavine has clearly had the better career. He's had 100 more starts and pitched almost 1,000 more innings, cracked the difficult 300-win mark, and has two Cy Young Awards while Schilling has none.

Schilling has slightly better ERA and ERA+ numbers, but I think Glavine's reliability over 20 years more than makes up for that difference. If you look at their career comps, Glavine is the one who matches up pretty well with several HOFers. Schilling has been hurt (no pun intended) by several stints on the DL that have prevented him from padding his numbers.

Answer 2

Glavine because he won more than 300 games and has 2 cy young awards. And Schilling winning 3 world series is as a team you wouldn't say that Joe Giarardi is a great player because he has 3 world series rings so Glavine is clearly the better pitcher and he has 1 world series ring and pitched a 1 hitter in the playoffs.

Answer 3

Glavine. The won-loss record and consistent success speaks for itself. You cannot ignore the fact that there is almost a 100-win difference between their victory totals, despite the fact that they have both pitched for about the same amount of time. Schilling may have been more dominant in the postseason, but Glavine has still had the better career up to this point.

Answer 4

Glavine. He's been a top level pitcher for a longer period of time, has a comparable adjusted ERA over more innings pitched, and he has 2 Cy Young awards to Schilling's 0. Though to be fair, Schilling may have won one or two if not for Randy Johnson.

And yeah, Schilling has a World Series MVP, but so does Glavine.

Answer 5

I think Glavine is a better overall pitcher, but Schilling is a better big game pitcher.

While Schilling has more rings, these guys still contribute only once every 5 days (maybe a little more frequently in the playoffs), so you can't say they won the whole thing for their teams

On that basis, Glavine.

Answer 6

Glavine, clearly, although he probably wouldn't mind another ring or two.
Glavine has an ERA of 2.47 in the WS, so it's not like he sucked there (yes, Schilling's is better here at 2.06). Glavine also has a WS MVP, and he didn't have to share his.
Glavine has more honors of every kind, almost 90 more wins, is a far better hitter, and doesn't come off as a smug know-it-all.

And believe me, I know smug know-it-alls since I am one.

Glavine is a Hall lock--Schilling is one of those "should he make the Hall" kinds of guys.

Answer 7

I think that Tom Glavine has had a Hall of Fame career. But Curt Schilling has 3 rings and might get in.

Answer 8

Both have been great, your points are good. I would say that if Curt could pad his stats a little with a few more wins. He was a reliever but no one feared him coming in the game as the closer on a nightly basis like Smoltz. Schilling has also hurt himself with some of his mouthing off; some voters will remember that he broke from the codes of baseball. I say they both are Hall worthy. At the beginning in Atlanta Glavine played second fiddle to Smoltz though.

Answer 9

Glavine

Answer 10

Obviously Glavine has accumulated more stats, but the bottom line is if you have to win one game-Who would you rather have on the mound, Glavine of Schilling? The answer is a no-brainer, Schilling ofcourse. He is harder to hit then Glavine. But if you are talking carreer then maybe it Glavine but numbers are misleading. Glavine has more wins then Bob Gibson and Sandy Koufax, but that does'nt mean he can hold their jockstraps.