Bill. I have to disagree with you on Schilling being a slam dunk HOF'r. His numbers aren't that great and while he did put together a few good seasons and post-seasons, there are far better pitchers not in the Hall. For exampe, Jack Morris, Bert Blyleven, Lee Smith,etc...
I have to admit that my opinion is somewhat influenced by my utter dislike for this guy. He comes across self-serving with his web-site, the whole Thanksgiving day signing with the BoSox and his sensitivity to any criticism. I'm not a huge Gary Thorne fan but loved the whole fake bloody sock story.
Looking at his career objectively(like a sportswriter/voter right?) I wouldn't vote him in on the first ballot.
----------------------------------------------
Terry,
I agree that he would be a long, longshot as a first ballot. And maybe I overstate on how likely his election will be. But I so think he's going to make it ... when you put the World Series rings, the stats and the drama all together. And one more thing, he played for a popular team. Granted, a lot of that is outside the realm of merit but I think it translates to votes.
-- Bill O.

Not a chance he belongs in the Hall of Fame. 66 of his 216 wins came in the three years you highlighted. That is 30 percent of his lifetime wins in 3 seasons. His lifetime record out of those 3 seasons is 150-127. But I want a pitcher who was dominant enshrined as an all time immortal. In my mind Schilling gave an immortal performance with the 'bloody sock' game, but his career is hardly immortal.

If you are going to put a deserving pitcher in the Hall Of Fame who isn't there I would suggest Bert Blyleven long before Schilling. Blyleven's numbers are: 287-250; 3.31 ERA and 3701 K's.

The same amount of World Series wins (2), more wins, more K's and lets call the ERA's a wash due to the steroid era. If Blyleven isn't making the Hall, how can you even suggest that Schilling heading to the Hall??
-------------------------------------------
Pikesville,
Thanks for joining the discussion. Blyleven has become the example as guy who perhaps should be in the HOF and is not. So whenever someone is mentioned, such as Schilling, the reacton is if Blyleven is not in the HOF, how can X be there. On the other hand, there are quite a few pitchers already in the Hall to whom Schilling is quite comparable. Dazzy Vance, Waite Hoyt, Rube Waddell and even Catfish Hunter. Plus, I think Schilling should get high marks in categories such as IP and CG. In so-so W-L seasons in Philly when he was a combined 32-25, he averaged nearly 7 1/2 innings a start for 70 starts. It's a good basdeball discussion.
-- Bill O.

Is Mike Mussina a HOF, in your opinion? Who is more deserving, Mussina or Schilling?
---------------------------------------------
Greg,
Excellent point. I think Mussina is going to get a lot of consideration. The drawback on him is obvious ... the ERA. Right now only one HOF pitcher has a higher ERA than Mussina's 3.71. That's Red Ruffing at 3.80. But it's not all that much higher than Schilling and you have to consider the era. But your question is who is more deserving. Even though he has not had the 20-win season, and this could be it, I give Mussina the edge.
-- Bill O.

Schilling is in no way, shape or form a HOFer. not even close. his numbers are not even close to comparison. his achievements are over-inflated due to overexposure on ESPN (the Red Sox susperstation). he is a self-promoting hack that didn't even get GOOD until he was 30.

he never won a Cy Young. his best career comparables according to his Baseball-Reference.com page (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/schilcu01.shtml) are Kevin Brown and Bob Welch. i don't think either of those guys will have a bronze bust anytime soon.

Schilling gets mentioned for the Hall on two accounts:

1) he's 10-2 in post-season
2) the d@mn bloody sock.

if Bert Blyleven isn't in the Hall of Fame, how does Schilling get in?
-----------------------------------------------
Dave,
Thanks for writing. The Blyleven factor is frequently mentioned. As I mentioned to someone else, look at it from the point of view of guys who are there ... I mentioned Dazzy Vance, Rube Waddell, Waite Hoyt and Catfish Hunter. The numbers are very comparable. As the de facto Schilling advocate here, I'll mention that he had some good years with a bad Phillies team that don't show up as much as they should in W-L, such as 1997 when he was 17-11 with a sub-3.00 ERA on a team that won 68 games. But it's a good discussion.
-- Bill O.

His best performance after 33 years of age during the height of the PED era doesn't raise a red flag with you? Palmero showed finger pointing indignation about steroid use. How many blood and urine samples from Schilling during that time period have been analysed for PEDs? Just because you are not mentioned in the Mitchell report doesn't mean you are clean. The Mitchell report followed only two PED suppliers. What I still want to see is a list of NFL suppliers clients. I'd bet there are a whole lot of MLB players who bought from them.

No, you don't have a vote ... thank god.

The Hall of Fame has enough mediocre players already enshrined and this one would be questioned eternally.

Let's tighten up the requirements now before more slightly above average players get in.

You are such a closet Red Sox fan. Just admit it, B.O.
Also, way to really go out on that limb there with that opinion. Shilling was great. what a revelation. You are too controversial.

What I, and the rest of Maryland wants to know is, what Bill Ordine thinks of those radical shredders hanging out between the stadiums this weekend? Give us your cutting edge anal-ysis, Bilbo.
--------------------------------------------------
JP,
I've been called a lot of things but closet Red Sox fan is not one of them. And if you think the opinion on Schilling has been without controversy, read some of the comments.
-- Bill O.

Schilling is not a HOFer. There are at least five pitchers right now who should be considered above him. Greg Marddux, Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, Randy Johnson, Trevor Hoffman, Pedro Martinez, Tommy John, Mike Mussina, Bert Blyleven, David Cone, Mariano Rivera ... all of these guys have done more in their careers than Schilling. And for me, postseason records shouldn't count. Mussina made only two posteason appearences before he was 33, and was flat-out dominant in the 1997 ALCS. Johan Santana's in a similar spot now. Moose has broken down quite a bit in the last few years, but still will finish his carreer with 3000 Ks (has 2800 now) and ahs 50 more wins than Schilling. And I don't want to hear excuses about Shill starting late in his career - Randy Johnson did the same. The bottom line is - take away the postseason, and all Schilling has left is a very good, but not HOF, career.
--------------------------------------------------
Jason,
There are more than a few pitchers on your list who are going to the HOF, including some guys who may be among the last ever to reach 300 wins. I admit that Schilling is on the lower end of the spectrum compared to a few of them but I think the post-season will help his cause a great deal.
-- Bill O.

I think the old criteria of 300+ wins, is pretty much obsolute. In today's modern era, with quick hooks, 5 man rotations. I dont think you will see another 300 game winner.
------------------------------------------
Capt.,
I agree. The guys who have already made it or are within striking distance will be among the last unless there's some fundamental change in the game.
-- Bill O.

I dont believe you can compare ERA between modern day pitchers and previous generations. The mound is lower, the strike zone smaller, and the hitters are all around better.
----------------------------------------------
That's why I qualified that. There are a lot of variables in that stat. On the other hand, the older era guys didn't get the bullpen help that the modern pitchers so they had to pace themselves more and maybe gave up more late inning runs.
-- Bill O.