1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Schilling announces his retirement

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by hockeybeat, Mar 23, 2009.

  1. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    Do you measure succes by Games? To me:

    Mussina
    Blyleven
    _________________________
    Schilling
    Cone
    Morris
    John
     
  2. Batman

    Batman Well-Known Member

    Schilling was a reliever his first four seasons. Once he became a starter in '92, he started at least 24 games in 13 of the next 16 seasons. The guys you mentioned (except maybe Morris) played large chunks of their careers before five-man rotations became the norm.
     
  3. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    Those Pitchers(above) who did it in the 4 man rotation ought to get weighted consdieration for their longevity and durability. Schilling, oft injured and a late 20 game winner, is suspect along with Mr. Clemens.
     
  4. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Schilling has more career strikeouts, a better career ERA and a much better post-season history. He won over 20 games three times. Mussina reached 20 once.

    I say this with respect because you know your baseball, Guy. If you want to argue for Mussina, fine. The large edge in victories certainly helps his case. But to say it isn't even close is just silly.
     
  5. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Translation: You don't like Schilling, so you are going to rely on weak arguments and accusations I can't back up to tear down his case.

    I don't really like the guy much, either, but 4-man rotations cut both ways (limiting opportunities to pitch each year), so that argument is shaky at best.

    There is much more reason to question Clemens regarding steroid use than Schilling, so lumping them together is ridiculous.
     
  6. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    It's not close because Schilling has a blog. Or something.
     
  7. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    Making 24 starts is not good. Not good at all. That's missing about 9-10 starts a season, for a regular starting pitcher in this era. Or, to put it another way, missing about two months a season.

    So let's up that standard to 30 starts (which is still missing about 3-4 starts a season for a top starter, but I digress): Schilling made 30 starts in seven of his 16 seasons as a starter -- less than half.

    Dude was very, very good when he stayed on the field -- but he couldn't stay on the field for long. And he wasn't great enough (except for that stretch from 2001-04) when he was on the field to warrant being in the Hall of Fame, IMO. As was said earlier, too many inexplicably average years for too long (and that's even taking into account the bad teams he played for in Philly).
     
  8. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    If there was a Postseason Hall, Schilling is unanimously inducted on the first ballot.
    As we see, for the real Hall, it's a subject of dispute.
    Baseball, to my regret actually, is gradually moving towards other sports in giving more emphasis to postseason accomplishment in evaluating players and their place in history. Without that Game 7, NOBODY would call Morris a Hall of Fame candidate.
    That trend is likely to continue for the next five years. I don't see Bud SHORTENING the playoffs anytime soon. As the endless postseason takes a larger part of baseball's collective consciousness, Schilling's October heroics will come to seem more important to more baseball people than his lousy late '90s at the Vet.
    So I predict he will be elected into the Hall, and in less time than many of you believe.
     
  9. Walter_Sobchak

    Walter_Sobchak Active Member

    Agreed. And anyone who thinks Morris is even close to a HOF candidate doesn't have any idea what they're talking about. They generally point to his postseason "clutchness." He was horrible in the playoffs as often as he was good.

    Poz has written extensively about this subject as well, and sums it up better than I can.
    http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2007/12/29/best-pitcher-of-the-1980s/
    http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/07/02/yeah-schilling/
    http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2007/12/31/the-hall-of-something-or-other/
     
  10. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    Bill James' Hall of Fame Monitor puts Morris' career at 122.5 with a likely HOFer being anyone 100+.

    He led the league in wins twice, strikeouts once. He had 254 wins. He's in the top 50 all-time in innings, wins, strikeouts and starts.

    Is he a sure candidate? No. If you are one of those people who like to be curmudgeonly and keep the HOF as tiny as possible, then he doesn't make it.

    But to say that "anyone who thinks Morris is even close to a HOF candidate doesn't have any idea what they're talking about" is pure, unabashed stupidity fueled by a desire to prove how baseball-old-school we can be by hating on anyone who played after 1930.
     
  11. Walter_Sobchak

    Walter_Sobchak Active Member

    Clearly you didn't read any of what I linked to. And I'm glad you think know about my desire to keep things old-school. What's funny is that most of the campaigning for Morris comes from the "I don't need stats, my eyes tell me what I need to see" mentality that is pervaded by curmudgeons like Murray Chass. Which is exactly the opposite of how I feel. When it comes to matching up with his contemporaries, Morris doesn't hold up. Even though he led the league in wins twice. And if that's your best argument, I stand by my previous statement.
     
  12. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    The point of the three links:

    1) That Morris wasn't the best pitcher of the 80s
    2) People use bad arguments to support Morris
    3) Curt Schilling was way better than Jack Morris

    All of those arguments are true, and none of them prove he doesn't belong in the HOF, let alone that "anyone who thinks he does doesn't know anything about baseball." It's pure overreact. It's taking an overrated player and going to the extreme other end to dislike him.

    250+ wins, top 50 in strikeouts and the Game 7 are a good enough case for me. Some might disagree, but to act like there's no debate at all is silly.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page