Charlie Manuel frequently makes poor strategic decisions. The 11-million dollar scoreboard in left field would probably do a similar job. We guarantee a post analyzing Manuel's decisions for every Phillies game. Please click on our aliases below to email us.

Blog Archive

95% Phillies, 4% Eagles/Flyers/Sixers/Big Five, 1% Nonsense .... Contact us: Scott Graham ~ Andy Musser

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

If Curt Schilling isn't a Hall of Famer, this world is going DIRECTLY to hell

Curt Schilling retired the other day. Good for him. The media likes to say he's a bad guy, but I like to believe he didn't care what the media thought of him. Regardless, over the next couple days or weeks, you will hear and read various arguments as to why Curt Schilling should or should not be a Hall of Famer. The answer is simple. He should be a lock; in fact, he should be a lock irrespective of his postseason numbers. If he pitched in zero postseason games but amassed the same exact regular season stats, he would still be a Hall of Famer.

Schilling has a career WHIP of 1.137 and a 127 ERA+. This means over the course of his entire career, his ERA was 27 percent better than his league's average. Schilling's WHIP is the key - the man never allowed baserunners. For comparison's sake, Tom Glavine (who, for some reason, will get into the HOF more easily than Schilling) has a career 1.314 WHIP and a 118 ERA+. The backbreaker, however, comes when you compare Schilling's numbers to those of Greg Maddux, a sure first-ballot Hall of Famer. Maddux had a career 1.143 WHIP, and a 132 ERA+. Their ERAs are nearly identical, with a slight edge to Maddux. However, despite pitching 4 years in the AL (to Maddux's zero), Schilling allowed fewer baserunners, which, after all, is the main goal of all pitchers. I have already shown you, without using postseason stats, that Schilling not only should be a Hall of Famer, but he is one.

The clowns who say he should not be a Hall of Famer have only two possible reasons: either they have a very poor understanding of how to judge the value of MLB pitchers, or Schilling embarrassed them one day during a press conference. The only possible problem could be Schilling's "low" total of 216 wins. However, even a second-grader can understand that no matter how good a pitcher you are, you can only win so many games for the lineups that the Phillies trotted out in the 90s.


Scott Graham said...

It's only been a few hours, and I've heard 3 callers on WIP in the last week (all today). The first caller I heard emphatically tell Eskin that Schilling won't even be close because he has 216 W in 23 years. "What is that? Like 9 a season? NOT EVEN CLOSE". At least Eskin had some sense that he should be close and probably in. However, Eskin ended the call by saying, "I value your (caller Rob's) opinion."

Villanova Joe said...


Why such a Shilling lover? 9 wins a year aren't good enough - period! Why is the baseball hall of fame constantly filled with players who don't warrant "Hall of Fame" next to their name.

I did pass the second grade - perhaps you did not. Steve Carlton won 27 games with a Phillies team that couldn't beat most minor league squads but he got it done with dominating pitching. It is up to the the pitcher to earn it himself not for the offense to do it for him. Sorry - I disagree with you.

Craig Mactavish said...

Good pitching does not put runs on the board Joe

Andy Musser said...

How is it up to the pitcher to win games? His ONLY job is to keep runs off the board (127 ERA+ is more than enough for HOF) and keep runners off the bases (1.137 WHIP better than Greg Maddux (1.14), Steve Carlton (1.24), Nolan Ryan (1.24), Bob Gibson (1.18)).

Maddux had a 132 ERA+, Carlton 115, Ryan 111, Gibson 127. Schilling had a 127 ERA+.

You can't use wins to measure a pitcher. Otherwise, Jamie Moyer had a better year in 2008 than Cole Hamels. Also, Carlton lost 10 games in 1972 as well. If Schilling pitched long enough to get 37 decisions in 1992, he would have easily won 20 games. But, he pitched in an era where managers control the rotation so much more carefully.

Schill's in, no question. It's not his fault he asked for a trade in 2000 instead of 1996. He actually stuck around and pitched for poor teams. If you remember Rex Hudler and Alex Arias, you can't blame Schilling for his low win total before he was traded.

Villanova Joe said...

I guess you also believe that was blood on his sock and not kethup.

Just Shill being Shill.

Scott Graham said...

Yo Joe. If pitcher A pitches an average of 7 innings per game in 34 appearances in a season (238 IP). If this pitcher allows 34 ER in this season, his ERA is 1.29. That is absolutely ridiculous. I'm too lazy to look it up, but that is probably one of the best ERAs of all time for pitchers throwing at least 150 innings in a season. If his team scores 0 or 1 run each time he is in the game, he gets 0 wins. Yes they can score the next inning if they are the home team and he could get a win, but let's ignore that. Is this person not worthy of CY Young ,and if repeated over numerous seasons, Hall of Fame? Yes this is an extreme example, but things close to this can happen. For example, Moyer had more wins than Hamels in 2008, and Kendrick had 11 wins. Just 3 shy of Hamels. Kendrick's ERA was mid 5s. THAT IS GOD-AWFUL. If for one second you could tell me that you would rather have Moyer or Kendrick on the mound than Hamels then you're nuts.

In Schilling's case, of the 20 seasons he pitched, only 16 were as a starter. Of those 16, 2 of which he appeared in 13 and 17 games respectively. HALL OF FAMER

Villanova Joe said...

How many Cy Young awards did he win???????

Scott Graham said...

you do realize that's kind of irrelevant. Right? I mean he came in 2nd three years. That's pretty good. I forgot to mention this the other day. If you take away Schilling's first 4 seasons (bullpen) and 4 wins in those seasons, he has 212 in 16 seasons. This comes out to over 13 wins a year. Much better than 9. You must be biased for some reason. He was a PHENOMENAL pitcher from 95-04 with 0 seasons over a 4 ERA. His highest WHIP over that period was 1.18. If wins are your only argument, then Mr. Musser and I have already disproved you. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

if wins are the only standard used to qualify a pitcher for the hof then how are there relievers in? also i like kyle kendricks chances as a first balloter