Forget all the off field hoop-la and focus only on his play. Is he or isn't he going to end up in Cooperstown? Best argument for or against wins the points.
2007-12-04 14:22:33 · 15 answers · asked by The Mick 7 7 in Sports ➔ Baseball
Sorry GCP but Pettitte has 4 world series rings (All Yankees) and has been on 7 pennant winners (6 with Yankees and 1 with Astros).
2007-12-05 00:43:36 · update #1
I mean GPC!
2007-12-05 00:44:36 · update #2
If he retired right now, I just don't think that his career is good enough without watering down the Hall.
Let's not use the "there are worse people" there as an argument for anyone--one mistake would not justify another.
His win totals are very low for the Hall--216 right now (only 22 saves, so it's not like that helps). He was seldom the ace on his own staff; again, that doesn't exclude him, but it doesn't help him. He never really had a moment of being the best pitcher in baseball. He's only #43 in adjusted ERA, 32 in WHIP, his similarity scores are not close to other Hall of Fame pitchers.
Of guys who would be "his generation," I think you have to rank him after Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, Glavine, Pedro, Smoltz. He is in the Mussina/Pettite range.
GPS--if winning is important, what do you do with his career total? It's still extemely low for consideration. And when it's all said and done, he only has four wins in four WS. That's not bad, but it's not enough by itself.
2007-12-04 23:13:46 · answer #1 · answered by Bucky 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Many people argue that Schilling is a Hall of Famer, pointing to his sparkling postseason statistics. But the postseason is small potatoes compared to a player's whole career. A postseason equals less than one-tenth of a regular season, unless you go the distance in every playoff series. Schilling has performed fantastically in the postseason, but that is not enough to warrant enshrinement. Schilling has a pretty low win total. In comparison, Whitey Ford only had 236 wins, but he had an incredible .690 winning percentage and retired with a 2.75 career ERA. Schilling has never been the star of his team for an extended period of time. In Philadelphia, he was good, but not Hall of Fame material. In Arizona, there was Johnson. Schilling does not have the sheer statistics to get in. He had many mediocre seasons. He was a great player, but he is not a Hall of Famer.
2007-12-05 01:08:13 · answer #2 · answered by dude_in_disguise2004 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Curt Schilling is not a future hall of famer but he'll make it anyway because the writers and other voters are stupid. Most of the hall of fame pitchers were mediocre at best. Curt Schilling was never all that dominant. I only remember him making it to the postseason in before 01' in 92' with the Phillies I don't even think he has a Cy Young (which should be the Greg Maddux).The hall of
fame is a joke anyway without Pete Rose.
2007-12-05 09:18:50 · answer #3 · answered by snakeeyes 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think the big Schill will be inducted at Cooperstown.True he'll never get a 300th win, but the guy still has some good numbers.Career ERA of 3.44, not the greatest, but still OK, 3,015 strikeouts in his career.
Post season the guy is the man 8-2 in his post season career w/ a 2.06 ERA.
He'll make it in.Someway, somehow.
2007-12-05 07:58:27 · answer #4 · answered by bostonsportsfan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Winning 3 World Series rings puts him a step ahead of the Mussina's & Pettite's of Baseball elevating him to the level of HOF. Now, I don't think he'll be a 1st ballott HOF'er but he should make it.
Regardless of career stats or anything else, players are judged on winning, Schilling won when it counted 3 times.
***EDIT****
Good point on Pettite, my bad. I still put him in the HOF and my point was that he deserves it more than Mussina because of the ring. Somehow I just forgot that Pettite was on those Yankee teams...oops.
2007-12-05 07:57:21 · answer #5 · answered by GPC 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i personally do not like Shilling,but he is a Hall of Famer i have no doubt about that ..he has been VERY VERY good for 15 yrs he'll have 3-4-5 rings hes gonna finish in the top 10 in K's and over the last 15 yrs he is in the top 5 in wins,Ks Era,walks per 9inns, he has has a VERY VERY good career
2007-12-04 22:37:12 · answer #6 · answered by ralphgoblue 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'd vote for him. He's been rather an icon and his post season work has been outstanding. Besides there never being another 300 game winner, there might not be another 3,000 strike out pitcher either and that IS always something to consider. A 3.46 ERA in the steroids era is pretty sparkling, too.
2007-12-04 23:21:26 · answer #7 · answered by Sarrafzedehkhoee 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I can name worse pitchers in the Hall. The fact is that even though this guy is a dumb jock, you want this guy on the mound in a big game and that means he is hard to hit.
2007-12-05 05:26:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I dont think he is going. He was good early in his career back when he played for Arizona. When he got traded to Boston he was still alright but hes been slowing down on his stats. This season he didnt finish great stats. He still had good stats but not hall of fame.
2007-12-04 22:26:17 · answer #9 · answered by imsmartkid 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
He hasn't dominated his position in any 10 year period in his career. He's been good, but not great. 216-146 3.46 3116 K aren't over-the-top numbers!
2007-12-04 22:35:05 · answer #10 · answered by pricehillsaint 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋