Staff Blog
On Bloody Socks and Towels Covering Eyes
Ever since Curt Schilling announced his retirement via his blog (score one for the good guys) everyone who has ever covered the man has turned their thoughts to one thing: his Hall of Fame chances.
 |
| The Sock is in the Hall of Fame already |
He’s the quintessential borderline case, a guy with strong plusses and strong minuses and people who feel strongly about both. ATJ I’ll break down what some of the heavy hitters are saying and then make the case for and against the man known in Philly for famously putting the 93 Phils on his back during the NLCS and infamously covering his head with a towel and it all came to an end.
From Schill’s retirement post :
3 World Series rings, 3k innings plus later, there’s a chance it’s all over.
To all of the well wishers, thank you. To all of the anti-Schilling people, thank you. Both sets of you were inspiration and motivation to be whatever it is I was for 19 some odd years on a major league mound.
Two cents: he leads with the rings and the fact that he’s a workhorse, his two biggest HOF selling points. He also addresses the fact that he has haters and that they’ve helped him – a not-so-silent nod to some in the press.
From Buster Olney ESPN senior writer:
Curt Schilling was not the best pitcher of his generation; he might not have been among even the 10 best pitchers of his time. But he was undoubtedly among the most celebrated — for his success in the summer game, for his slash-and-burn commentary and mostly for his indelible October moments
[snip]
It is unclear whether Schilling will be elected into the Hall of Fame, but his legacy in baseball is carved into history.
Two Cents: sounds about right. I remember talking with a Pats fan in the midst of their dynasty on whether or not Bruschi was headed to the Pro Football HOF. Our conclusion was no, probably not, but no one would wear his number in Foxboro again. Well, no one may ever wear 38 again on the Phils or the Red Sox, which is a hell of a claim.
Video of Olney talking about his candidacy HERE
Nick Cafardo , Boston Globe Staff:
So now it’s time to ponder: Is Schilling a Hall of Famer?
… The sense here is that he will be lumped with Jack Morris, Bert Blyleven, and other borderline candidates. Voters will discuss and analyze and debate his candidacy for the next five years and likely beyond.
Two Cents: Cafardo polls several voters and they come up pretty split. It’ll be interesting debate.
Jim Salisbury , Inqy columnist
Most of all, Schilling will get a vote here because, from 1992 to 2007, except in the seasons when he battled injuries that have ended many a career, he displayed a quality that is difficult to define but easy to recognize in those who have it.
Greatness.
Whether you liked him or not, whether you thought he was a self-absorbed glory hound or an outspoken jerk, it is difficult to deny that Curt Schilling was a great pitcher and one hell of a competitor.
Two Cents: Salisbury is in the tank for Schill, but read the entire piece for a look at how and why some people really might not be.
So is he in?
THE CASE FOR
- He was a archetypal front-line starter. A power pitcher who mixed a mid-90s fastball with a splitter that broke the best of bats. He always went right at you and for old school writers who value playing the game the right way that means something.
- His 3,116 Ks rank 14th all time – ahead of Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, Tom Glavine, who all should make it and who all came from the same generation.
- He won 20 games three times (2001, ‘02, ‘04).
- He posted three seasons with 300 or more strikeouts
- In 20 seasons, he has 83 complete games and 20 shutouts
- He has been one of the best pitchers on four teams that have gone to the World Series, winning three times
- He is a six-time All-Star and was the co-MVP of the 2001 World Series.
- He has postseason record of 10-2 with an ERA of 2.23.
- The bloody sock game. Schill helped end a 86-year World Series drought by playing through ankle surgery. One could make the case, without hyperbole, the single most impressive postseason pitching performance of all-time. It might not be #1, but its certainly in the discussion.
THE CASE AGAINST
- For a guy whose intangibles play such a big part of his HOF, he was kind of a jerk. He called out other players regularly, he infamously put his towel over his head rather than watch Mitch Williams try to close out his games and he attempted to parlay athletic dominance into partisan political gain.
- He only won 216 games
- He never won an MVP
- He needed one or two more 15-win seasons to make it,” said USA Today baseball columnist Bob Nightengale
- Put bluntly: his regular season doesn’t get him in.
So what?
I think his postseason performance gets him in, plus I remember going to park to see him throw against the other name pitchers of the day and knowing it was special. I feel that Schill and the HOF are about the same thing, but I’m open to argument.
Also, we haven’t even gotten to the issue of the day: if Schill does go into the Hall, is he wearing a Phillies ‘P’ or a BoSox ‘B’ on the cap?
i say no question Schill gets in. to me he’s a first ballot guy. As for the wins, we have to stop looking at 300 wins as a benchmark, just as we’ve stopped looking at 400 homers as one. given pitch counts, specialized bullpens, and the juicing era, 200 wins is the new 300. And Pedro is a good comparison, as a guy who most agree is a surefire HOFer. Schill had more wins, more K’s, and was a MUCH better playoff performer than Pedro. Yes, Pedro was more dominant during his peak years, but taking into account an entire career, under no circumstances should Pedro be considered much of a better candidate than Schill. And as for Jack Morris and Blyleven, come on. Blyleven is more similar to Schill, but he played forever and was never as dominant. Morris had twice as many walks and like 700 less K’s.