9 replies to this topic

[Monbonthbump]

With his recent comments on Valentine, business failure, and HOF appearance at Fenway, I thought this might be an appropriate time to give lurkers a chance to voice an opinion on whether Curt will eventually have a plaque at Cooperstown. My personal biased and unscientific opinion is that it will be a travesty if he is not voted in. I don't care about his stats, he gets in for the intangibles, i.e. his approach to the sport, performance in big games, and what he did for this particular franchise. His political views and controversial opinions should not be considered by the voters, although they probably will be. I know that I will always be a fan.

[Rovin Romine]

Performance in big games is a "tangible," and his approach to the sport is measured by other "tangibles," which is to say, his stats. He certainly gets a place in Sox lore and was clearly the sox MVP of 04.

His steriod-era tangibles are good enough for serious HOF consideration, regardless of the laundry.

I take the opposite view though, I think his "intangibles" pretty much stink. He's not an ambassador for the game, so much as he is a publicity hound. He often spoke out as a player about his ideas and beliefs (sort of a fine line there) but most tellingly, he directly parleyed his baseball fame into a spectacular failure at taxpayer expense. He may have taken a personal hit on that, and I don't know how culpable he was, but it raises serious 'character' issues for me. I don't think he's an Albert Belle or anything, but I'm in no hurry to give him "nice guy points" based on interviews or soundbites.

[LostinNJ]

He'll get in, though maybe not on the first ballot. Why? Major contributor to three world championships, great postseason stats (including 11-2 W-L record), two 20-win seasons, three 300-strikeout seasons, and one bloody sock.

[collings94]

Schilling benefiets from the fact that he was a non-steriod user (at least, we think so) during an era when a lot of his HOF rivals were using steroids, so it sort of opens the door as far as the ballot goes. I think he will get in, maybe not on the first few ballots, but eventually, a weak year will come along and people will think back to the bloody sock and they will vote him in.

[JWSpringfield]

My political views are nearly 180 degrees from Shills but I do respect the man. He is not afraid to speak his opinion and can perform under pressure. If only we could put that don't tell me it can't be done combine with doing it the next day in a bottle for this years team. I also heard through the grapevine that the game he was developing was awesome. Hope somone has scooped up that technology so it doesn't go completely to waste.

Edited by JWSpringfield, 04 August 2012 - 11:50 PM.

[alwyn96]

I loved Schilling as a player, but his post-playing days have been pretty ugly. He's defrauded the taxpayers of Rhode Island, mismanaged his company into bankruptcy, and is under investigation by the FBI.

I think he's a pretty borderline HoF candidate, but his post-season heroics and the fact that he allowed a crazy low number of unearned runs over his career push him over the top. That said, his fate is probably tied to the other guys on the ballot with him, and it's going to be an insane couple years for the HoF. Given who he'll share the ballot with (Bonds, Clemens, Maddux, Biggio, Piazza, Sosa, Thomas, Glavine, Mussina) I imagine his election will be more to do with steroids than anyone would have guessed during his playing career. If the scandal around his company has legs (and RI is going after him pretty hard), I could see that maybe effecting his chances, too.

Edited by alwyn96, 06 August 2012 - 01:35 AM.

[Rovin Romine]

To follow up, by "steroids era" I had meant Schill wasn't tainted by alleged use, but he did face players who used them. That might be enough to elevate a borderline candidate.

I didn't know about the FBI investigation, and I'm curious to see what that will bring. As a first reaction, it smells political to me; a bone to throw to the voters who might assume the current RI regime is corrupt if they *don't* investigate. That said, if the company accepted the loan and disclosed everything to the loaner, I don't see what the problem is. (Provided of course, corporate assets weren't gratuitously drained, but I'd be surprised if that were the case. They seemed like spendthrifts who wanted to set up fancy offices before they sold the product. That's stupid, not criminal.)

Illegal or not, I don't think it helps his chances. If it were "completely separate" from his baseball career, it might still be damaging, but he did everything he could to associate his business venture with his career as a player; green monster, 38studios, etc. Businesses succeed or fail - not such a big deal. However, I don't think the HOF wants to send the message of "Hey, excel at baseball, and you too can lean on your fame get a shady loan which would ordinarily benefit mom and pop businesses, piss it away, and *still* get elected to the Hall of Fame!"

***
As an aside, with the steroids taint widening (it just occurred to me that MLB/HOF could still decide from the evidence presented in the failed Bonds/Clemens cases to block them from the HOF), has a HOF candidate ever looked as good as Maddux does? Even if clean or not, bulky guys like Thomas and Piazza are going to be under a quasi-cloud for awhile.

[sox sufferer]

I've loved Schilling as a player. Tough and always up for the big game. A winner. But since his playing days his life and work career has been questionable. It's a shame.

[QuinielaBox]

You mean the Legend of the Bloody Sock does not get him in the Hall of Fame? If the Red Sox never win another playoff series in my lifetime I can always hang my hat on the Legend of the Bloody Sock!

[RedSoxinSeattle]

The question was will he make it into to Cooperstown not should he but I will attempt to answer both.

I don't believe he should because I see Schilling as a really good pitcher not a great pitcher. He was never clearly the best pitcher in baseball although he had 3 really good season where he was dominate and pitched a lot of innings. He was awesome in the post season and one of the seasons he did that allowed the Red Sox to win their first world series in 86 years so I think that will definately help his case. I think he is the same pitcher as Mike Mussina who I also think doesn't belong in the hall. Just for comparison sake here are their numbers

Schilling Mussina

Regular Season Regular Season

W/L 216-146 W/L 270-153
ERA 3.46 ERA 3.68
ERA+ 127 ERA+ 1.23
K/9 8.6 K/9 7.1
BB/9 2.0 BB/9 2.0

Post Season Post Season
W/L 11-2 W/L 7-8
ERA 2.23 ERA 3.42
K/9 8.1 K/9 9.3
BB/9 1.7 BB/9 2.1


Mussina actually has more wins which is probably a product of him being on good teams with the Yankees and Orioles. Otherwise they are very similar. In the Post Season Schilling was better in terms of ERA and always was a lot luckier from a win/loss perspective. I just don't think either of these guys were dominate and hall of fame worthy outside of 2 or 3 seasons. In my mind Schilling and Mussina maybe get in on their last ballot or second to last similar to what happened to Jim Rice but there are so many pitchers from there generation that their numbers don't stack up against such as Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson and Greg Maddux. Randy Johnson has like 1500 more strikeouts and 70 more wins that Schilling. That's not a criticism of Schilling, Randy Johnson has the 2nd most K's of all time.