Is Schilling a Hall of Famer Right Now?
Yes. He is.
I was tempted to end this entry with those three words because one of my pet newspaper peeves deals with questions in headlines. You will see questions posed in every newspaper in America – “Will George W. Attack Iran Next?” or “Is There Life on Mars After All?” or "Will Harry Potter Survive Book 7?" Then you scour the article and realize there’s no answer inside. That’s false advertising. There will be no false advertising in this blog.
Is Curt Schilling a Hall of Famer if he retires tomorrow? I say yes.
But I think there's a more interesting question here, one that doesn't have a yes or no answer (for a good discussion of Schilling’s Hall of Fame credentials, check out this article by the terrific Gordon Edes).
The question: When considering the Hall of Fame, how much should you weigh a player's postseason performance?
Obviously this relates directly to Schilling. He’s 8-2 with a 2.06 ERA in the postseason, which is amazing enough. And even that is skewed by one bad, injury-hindered performance against the Yankees in the 2004 ALCS. Take away that one game, and Schilling is 8-1 with a 1.61 ERA in the playoffs and World Series (I see now that Gordon had this statistic too, which makes me wonder why I did the math on it myself). Schilling has also had several of the more memorable performances in recent postseason memory – the duel with Juan Guzman in the 1993 World Series, the three-hit "This one's for Dad" game to start the 2001 World Series, the Rivera-finally-blows-one Game 7 in Arizona, the "No way he can pitch" game against the Yankees in the 2004 ALCS, the bloody sock game. When considering all-time pitchers you would start to win your soul back, Schilling would be in the discussion.
How much should his postseason brilliance add to his Hall of Fame case? It seems logical to me that it should add a lot. Consider the Football Hall of Fame. This is not a fair comparison because nobody understands how the football Hall of Fame works, but there are players in the Pro Football Hall of Fame almost ENTIRELY for what they did in the postseason (see: Swann, Lynn). And there is some logic behind that: Halls of Fame are around to celebrate the best players. And aren't the best players the ones who perform in the biggest moments?
I realize that baseball is a different game that football -- it's not necessarily a game where players (hitters in particular) can just lift their level of play when it counts most. And I'm not saying Dr. Bobby Brown should go into the Hall of Fame entirely because of his .439 batting average in the World Series.
But I am suggesting that postseason performance in baseball is not given enough weight by Hall of Fame voters - and I'm including myself here. Frankly, we don't talk about the playoffs and World Series much. I had an email exchange about this with my friend Bill James (wait until the next entry; apparently I've finally helped convince Bill to officially endorse a certain favorite player for the Hall of Fame. It wasn't easy. Bill only endorses three players).
Anyway, Bill disagreed with my premise - he usually does - and he came up with several players who are in the Hall of Fame largely because of what they did in the World Series. There is Bill Mazeroski, whose brilliant defensive career is virtually identical to Frank White's (White received just 18 Hall of Fame votes his one year on the ballot). It’s fair to surmise that Maz is in the Hall of Fame in large part because of one pretty special Game 7 home run (and one friendly veteran’s committee).
There are others. Lefty Gomez does not appear to have a great Hall of Fame case without his 6-0 World Series record. Stan Coveleski’s case was certainly bolstered by his three wins in the 1920 World Series. Jesse Haines is often thrown into the “least deserving Hall of Famer” discussion, but he was 3-1 with a 1.67 ERA in the World Series. Home Run Baker hit .363 in his six World Series appearances. And so on.
These players are all in the Hall of fame, which suggests that postseason play is considered. But I pointed this out to Bill: None of them was voted in by sportswriters. They were all voted in by the Veteran’s Committee – and every one of those choices has been questioned (or mocked) by sportswriters through the years. The writers did vote in the very questionable Waite Hoyt (whose only impressive Hall of Fame qualification was his 1.83 ERA in seven World Series), but I suspect that was at least in part because of the great Babe Ruth stories he told.
I just don’t think that sportswriters as a whole have put all that much stock in postseason numbers. I certainly don't hear us talking about it. We always say that Tommy John won 288 games – had he won just 12 more he might be in the Hall of Fame now. But John was a terrific postseason pitcher (he went 6-3 with a 2.65 ERA). Aren’t each of those wins worth at least two regular season victories? What about Bert Blyleven – 287 total victories, sure, but he was 5-1 with a 2.57 ERA in the playoffs and World Series. Isn’t that worth something extra?
The only time I ever hear the postseason argument these days is with Jack Morris, who of course pitched one of the greatest games in baseball history, a 10-inning shutout victory in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series. I’m not a Morris Hall of Fame supporter – I think he was a good pitcher who gave up an awful lot of runs (his career ERA of 3.90 would be the highest in the Hall of Fame – and it wasn’t that much better than league average). Plus, he was spotty in the postseason (the very next year, while pitching for Toronto, he was utterly demolished in the World Series, going 0-2 with an 8.44 ERA).
But I will concede: That one magical postseason performance should be worth a lot when considering Jack Morris’ career. I could not argue with someone who suggested that victory is worth five regular wins or 10 or even 20. And I think these days, with the wild card and the three tiers of postseason, postseason performance is even more important to consider because we have much larger sample sizes to work with.
In the case of Curt Schilling, you could make a fairly strong argument for him as a Hall of Famer today based entirely on his regular season work. He does have 3,000 strikeouts (every eligible 3,000-K man except the tragically ignored Blyleven is in), and he has had dominant peak years (he won 20 three times) and all that. But I think the big point is this: He's the greatest postseason starter of his generation. Throw that in and Schilling is a first-ballot, no doubt Hall of Famer right now.
5 comments:
I think you make a pretty strong case for Schilling. I don't think post-season heroics are all that important, but for a borderline case like Schilling, I think they can push him over the edge.
What about other borderline cases with good post-season stats? Bernie Williams? Tom Glavine?
Oh, and Frank White was a great player, but he couldn't hold a candle to Maz defensively!
Sadly, I also wonder about Andy Pettite (SP?). Obviously he was/is a Yankee, and by definition I hate him, but he too has middling regular season stats (I guess...no time to look these up right now) with an exceptional and clutch post-season record. Seems that he may be, in possibly only my own mind, lacking a defining post-season performance.
With regards to Schilling, would it also be fair to say his...self-aggrandizing behavior could work against him (rumors of fake blood on the sock persist, though I personally don't believe them)?
Just my random thoughts. Enjoying the read and comments. Thanks!
I think Schilling is an almost at this point. I don't think postseason games should be ignored by Hall of Fame voters, but I can't see valuing them all that much more than in-season games. Some great players, after all, never get to the postseason, and since it's totally not their fault we shouldn't hold it against him. I'd say that someone like Mariano Rivera is an exception and should get lots of postseason bonus points because so much of his career has been spent there, but he doesn't really need those bonus points; he probably ranks as the greatest reliever ever without taking the postseason into account.
(Speaking of relievers, I assume your next post will focus on Quisenberry)
I'm not convinced those players you mention are in the Hall because of their postseasons - after all, there are lots of inferior players in the Hall without great postseasons
If you really wouldn't argue that Morris' great Game Seven isn't worth twenty wins, I hope you'd at least point out that his pathetic postseason starts the next year would therefore each be worth 20 losses.
I agree with your comments about Curt . . . he may not exactly have Hall of Fame numbers but he has the persona and make-up of a Hall of Famer.
Reading your post made me think back to when Curt pitched in Philadelphia and one game in particular. It's one of those games that just stays with you and you think back and say "Wow -- this is baseball at its best."
It was 1997 and the Yankees were in town for an afternoon Labor Day game at the Vet. While the Yanks were just starting their great runs the Phils had Billy McMillon starting in left field with Tony Barron in right field on the way to a 94 loss season (it can be hard being a Phillies fan). Yet the combination of the Yankees and a holiday made for a packed house at the Vet with just over 50,000 present. It was Schilling vs. Irabu but the opposing pitcher or who was playing behind him in the field didn't matter -- this was the Yankees and the Vet was full of screaming fans. What did Curt Schilling do that day in a "meaningless" game? Check out his line:
8IP 7H 1R 1ER 16K 0BB
Oh and Curt struck out Jeter 4 times. He was unstoppable and pitching like it was a playoff game. You knew he was up for the game when Jeter came up in the first and he just reared back and threw the ball as if to say "Go ahead, try to hit me."
I remember listening to the game on the radio with Harry the K and Whitey (Rich Ashburn) and they were going nuts as Schilling was lights out (as an aside this is one of the last games which Whitey called as he died just over a week later in New York). You could hear the fans going nuts in the background and it was like Schilling just fed off of this atmosphere. Had you listened or been there you would have thought it was a playoff game but it wasn't.
This is Curt Schilling at his best and why I think Cooperstown is not a stretch.
I'd say Schilling is more in than out, but not a lock. He's clearly behind Maddux, Clemens, the Unit, and Martinez; I'm not sure where he stacks up against Glavine and Smoltz; and I think he's clearly ahead of Mussina and Pettite (did I miss anybody?). I think playoff performance should be considered, but not overemphasized. As one poster noted, if you're going to add extra weight to playoff success, you should do the same for postseason failure. I'm not sure I would want to deny HOF entry to someone because he had one or two bad four-game stretches.
On another topic, I'm looking for to the Bill James entry. I recently picked up this year's handbook and I love some of the new (to me) stats, especially the baserunning numbers.
Post a Comment