Curt Schilling: HOFer?

thekunk07 · Mar 24, 2009

^your point? 2 failed starters=what exactly?

Slopho · Mar 24, 2009

Originally Posted by thekunk07

^your point? 2 failed starters=what exactly?

Uh Smoltz isn't/wasn't a failed starter first of all. He was pressed into a bullpen role to help the team. Dennis Eckersly is considered the best closer of all time. You're nuts kunk.

thekunk07 · Mar 24, 2009

oh yeah, eck was way better than mariano.

Slopho · Mar 24, 2009

Originally Posted by thekunk07

oh yeah, eck was way better than mariano.

Riveria is great. He may go in as the greatest especially playing in this era, but how many 1+ innings saves does he have??

Baron · Mar 24, 2009

Originally Posted by Slopho

Riveria is great. He may go in as the greatest especially playing in this era, but how many 1+ innings saves does he have??

Eck invented the 1 inning save dude. And Smoltz went into the pen because of his elbow, not to help the team. Starters are more valuable and harder to find than closers. Still, he's a HOFer.

Slopho · Mar 24, 2009

Ws do matter and they define a pitcher. Say for example a pitcher has a 1.03 ERA but is only 10-9 on the season with 10 no-decisions. He will be considered a good pitcher but not a money or great pitcher. The quality of the team is normally a reflection of the perception of the pitcher.

Remember when Clemens pitched for the Astros a few years back........he had at least 10 no-decisions in games he was winning. No one remembers your ERA when your wins aren't there.

Slopho · Mar 24, 2009

Originally Posted by Baron

Eck invented the 1 inning save dude. And Smoltz went into the pen because of his elbow, not to help the team. Starters are more valuable and harder to find than closers. Still, he's a HOFer.

Your "facts" will not stop me from making my points!!

Ugh, I actually think a reliable closers are harder to find. That's why there are only 3-5 of them around.

thekunk07 · Mar 24, 2009

not factual, but there seems to be a correlation between a team's confidence in a pitcher and the run support he is given. see doc gooden post 1985.

Originally Posted by Slopho

Ws do matter and they define a pitcher. Say for example a pitcher has a 1.03 ERA but is only 10-9 on the season with 10 no-decisions. He will be considered a good pitcher but not a money or great pitcher. The quality of the team is normally a reflection of the perception of the pitcher.

Remember when Clemens pitched for the Astros a few years back........he had at least 10 no-decisions in games he was winning. No one remembers your ERA when your wins aren't there.

Cordovan · Mar 24, 2009

Yes - but only because of his post-season presence.

needler · Mar 24, 2009

Eh. The biggest drawback for me is the lack of Cy Youngs. There wasn't even one year he was the best pitcher in the league? It's hard to argue that you're HoF material. Postseason performance can be way overweighted due to people magnifying the importance of big games (see Vinatieri, Adam).

The fact that he pitched so well against good competition in the postseason is the only thing that has him in the conversation but for me it doesn't make up for the fact that with his lack of regular season excellence I never thought of him when I thought "who are the truly great pitchers in MLB now".

Baron · Mar 24, 2009

Originally Posted by needler

I never thought of him when I thought "who are the truly great pitchers in MLB now".

This says more about you than about him.

needler · Mar 24, 2009

Originally Posted by Baron

This says more about you than about him.

Yes, well, you said you'd rank Schilling over Tom f-ing Glavine. I think it's safe to say you're not exactly unbiased.

Baron · Mar 24, 2009

Originally Posted by needler

Yes, well, you said you'd rank Schilling over Tom f-ing Glavine. I think it's safe to say you're not exactly unbiased.

I take it that you find my position regarding Shilling and Glavine ridiculous. I do think that Glavine was a HOF level pitcher. It's just that I like to use advanced stats like ERA+ that are adjusted for park and era. Using these numbers you can see that Sandy Koufax's numbers in 1966 Dodger Stadium are much less impressive than Pedro Martinez's numbers in 1999 Fenway park. I say this as a Dodger and Koufax fan. In the same way Schilling's ERA was 27% better than the league in the era that he pitched, while Glavine was 18% better than the league. Glavine was more durable and pitched longer, but I still rate Schilling a little higher.

My original comment was more to you saying that you "didn't think of Schilling" when thinking of the best pitchers in the league. I think most people did think of him this way, and for good reason.

Dakota rube · Mar 24, 2009

Originally Posted by thekunk07

(Schilling): may lose points for being an epic **** though.

I was ready to call Schilling a no-brainer HOF but all this talk about Glavine and Smoltz makes me re-think that. Among the three, I'd put Schilling third. Awesome in the post-season, certainly, but both the others have a better body of work.

Plus the whole **** thing...

thekunk07 · Mar 24, 2009

^gives a lot to charity, presumably to balance the wheel of Fortuna.

i still put him ahead of smoltz. never felt like, "oh ****, smoltz is in. game over."

Curt Schilling: HOFer?

Stylish Dinosaur

Distinguished Member

Stylish Dinosaur

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Stylish Dinosaur

Senior Member

Senior Member

Distinguished Member

Senior Member

Distinguished Member

Stylish Dinosaur

Stylish Dinosaur

FEATURED PRODUCTS

Similar threads

Featured Sponsor

Definitely full canvas only

Half canvas is fine

Really don't care

Depends on fabric

Depends on price

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

FOLLOW STYLEFORUM ON: