(quick conflict of interest disclosure: I contributed an essay to a book called Win it For, for which Schilling wrote the forward. My aunt has had fairly modest business dealings with Curt Schilling and his wife Shonda. Finally, I am both a Red Sox fan and a fan of Schilling's. I have sought to be even-handed in the analysis below.)
Schilling, a gifted player of what is perhaps our most American of games, announced his retirement yesterday in an uncommonly eloquent and moving essay on his blog:
"Turn out the lights, the party’s over.”
I used to wait with bated breath for Don Meredith to start singing that on Monday night football. Normally it was sweet music if the Steelers were playing.
If I could get him to sing it again I would. This party has officially ended. After being blessed to experience 23 years of playing professional baseball in front of the world's best fans in so many different places, it is with zero regrets that I am making my retirement official.
To say I've been blessed would be like calling Refrigerator Perry 'a bit overweight'. The things I was allowed to experience, the people I was able to call friends, teammates, mentors, coaches and opponents, the travel, all of it, are far more than anything I ever thought possible in my lifetime.
Four World Series, three World Championships. That there are men with plaques in Cooperstown who never experienced one, and I was able to be on three teams over seven years that won it all is another 'beyond my wildest dreams' set of memories I'll be allowed to take with me.
On the day that Curt Schilling turned 30, he had a 52-52 career record. His most similar pitchers from ages 27-29 were Ken Forsch (114 career wins), Ron Robinson (48), and Marty Pattin (114). He was mediocre and on the road to nowhere.
Since turning 30? 164 wins, 94 losses. Plus some of the most dramatic moments in baseball history (see below).
Schilling has often said the pivotal moment in his career came when Roger Clemens read him the riot act during a chance meeting at the Astrodome in the early 1990s. (Query: what sort of advice might Clemens have offered Schilling had they met a half-dozen years later?)
Esteemed baseball writer Rob Neyer offered his views on whether Schilling is a Hall of Famer? His answer:
Of course he is.
It's not his 216 career wins. It's not his .597 career winning percentage. It's not his 11-2 record in postseason games, or his 2.23 ERA. It's not even the bloody sock.
It's all of those things.
[snip]
Two years I was lukewarm about Schilling's Hall of Fame candidacy. I wasn't against it, exactly. But neither was I for it. But during those two years, Schilling helped pitch the Red Sox to another championship and I got just a little bit smarter. Today I can't imagine a Hall of Fame without him.
Here at A List of Things Thrown Together Five Minutes Ago, we do not need to rely solely upon the opinions of sportswriters for we have become experienced at using a tool known as the Keltner list.
The Keltner list is a systematic method created by famed baseball analyst Bill James to consider whether a baseball player deserves to be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. The Keltner list is not designed to yield an binary answer about a player's worthiness, but is instead intended to shed some light on how strong a showing a player can make in 15 areas. As James wrote, "you can't total up the score and say that everybody who is at eight or above should be in, or anything like that." The list originally appeared in James' 1985 Baseball Abstract together with the anecdote of how he developed the Keltner list.
With no further ado, here is my take on how Schilling fares on the Keltner list:
1. Was Schilling ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?
The answer is no, but it is perhaps a little closer than you might expect. Unusually for a pitcher, he finished in the top 14 in the MVP voting 4 times.
2. Was he the best player on his team?
A close call. He may well have been the best player on the 1992 Phillies, although Darren Daulton and John Kruk would be strong contenders as well. He appears to have been the best player on the 1997 Phillies, although that team was not especially strong. He was the second best player on the 2002 Diamondbacks, although the top player on that team was Randy Johnson, who had an extraordinarily good season that year. On the World Champion 2004 Red Sox, Schilling and Manny Ramirez were of roughly equal value, although Ramirez fared better in the MVP voting.
3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
Again a close call, but I think you would have to say no to both questions. He finished second three times in the Cy Young voting. In two of those cases, he lost to a pitcher having an extraordinary season (Johnson in 2002, Santana in 2004). He also finished 4th in the Cy Young voting once.
4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
Emphatically yes! Let me toss out four numbers: 1993, 2002, 2004, and 2007. I could fill ten pages on this subject.
5. Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?
Yes. At age 37, he finished second in the Cy Young award balloting and was the best or second best player on a World Series Champion. At age 39, he had an ERA+ of 122 (10th best in the AL). At age 40, he had an ERA+ of 120 (just outside the top ten). He was the 7th oldest player in MLB that year.
6. Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
No. There must be 5 or more players ahead of him.
7. Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?
Possibly the most interesting question among the 15. There are a lot of ways to go about answering this.
Let me start with the big picture. Baseball-reference.com sets forth 4 HOF tests that are designed to evaluate if a player belongs in the HOF. Each test is calculated slightly differently. Under the "Black Ink" test, Schilling scores 42 (34th best among all pitchers). The average HOFer scores about 40 on this test.
Under the "Gray Ink" test, Schilling scores 205, again 34th best among all pitchers (Average HOFer ≈ 185). Using the "HOF Standards" test Schilling scores 46.0 (48th best) (Average HOFer ≈ 50). Applying the "HOF Monitor" test, Schilling scores 171.0, 33rd best among all pitchers (Likely HOFer > 100). Thus, on 3 of the 4 most commonly accepted tests, Schilling exceeds the HOF standard and on the 4th test he is fairly close to the score for the average HOF member. I think on the basis of these "big picture" tests, you would have to say yes with respect to question 7.
Schilling has many other impressive statistics and a few that are not so impressive. He finished in the top ten in ERA 9 times, a very impressive showing. He led the league in strikeouts twice and finished among the top ten in the league a total of 9 times, another impressive feat. With 3,116 career strikeouts, he ranks 16th all-time, a very impressive accomplishment (every eligible pitcher with 3,000 or more strikeouts is in the HOF, except, inexplicably, Bert Blyleven).
On the other hand, Schilling won "only" 216 games, which is quite low for HOF pitchers. As noted here, there are two main reasons why Schilling did not accumulate a larger number of wins, and the second should be seen as a point in his favor.
First, he found success relatively late, in part due to injury, but also because of a somewhat reckless youth.
Second, common sense suggests he cost himself at least one season of his career, and perhaps more, by pitching through his gruesome injury during the 2004 postseason. Curt sacrificed some of his career statistics to help the Red Sox win the team's first World Series in 86 years. Let's just say that I am happy he did what he did.
8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
See #7. I would give Schilling a yes vote on #8, but reasonable minds could differ.
9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
Yes, in Schilling's favor. His postseason record is equal to or better than that of any pitcher in MLB history. Curt won 11 of 19 playoff starts while losing just two. His ERA was 2.23, and his WHIP an amazing 0.97. He struck out 120 batters in 133.1 innings, while allowing just 104 hits. He walked just 25. When you faced Schilling in a crucial game, you went into it with a pretty good idea that you weren't going to defeat him, and he sure as hell wasn't going to defeat himself.
If you don't put arguably the most accomplished postseason pitcher of any era in Cooperstown, then what's the point of even having the place?
Anyone who has read this far probably knows the story about Curt's bloody sock.
As Bill Simmons put it:
The Schilling Game takes its place alongside the Willis Reed Game, MJ's Flu Game, Bird banging his head against the Pacers and everything else in the Sheer Guts Pantheon.
10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?
No. I am going to ignore the word "eligible" in the foregoing question because Schilling himself is not yet eligible. Among the pitchers who are eligible or who have had quite substantial careers already, Schilling ranks behind several, including Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, and Pedro Martinez.
11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
Schilling was never really a serious MVP candidate. As noted above, he finished second three times in the Cy Young voting. In two of those cases, he lost to a pitcher having an extraordinary season (Johnson in 2002, Santana in 2004). He also finished 4th in the Cy Young voting once.
12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?
Schilling was on the All-Star team 6 times, although he did not play in all of the games for which he was selected. I do not know how this compares to other HOF pitchers.
The phrase "All-Star-type seasons" is a little vague. He had ten seasons with an ERA+ over 133. In most years, that would rank between 5th best and 10th best in a league, which seems like a reasonable approximation of what it means to have an All-Star-type season.
13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?
Not sure how to answer this one. On the one hand, this was arguably the case in 2004, when Schilling was a contender for the best player on the Red Sox and the Red Sox won the WS. That being said, I am having trouble with the phrase "would it be likely that the team could win the pennant." I think a typical peak Curt Schilling season could lead a team to win the pennant, but I think he would need a solid supporting cast to make that better than a 50/50 proposition.
14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?
I don't think the clever use of orthopedic devices really amounts to all that much.
15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?
Emphatically yes. Schilling is a very strong supporter of care for ALS sufferers. His organization, Curt's Pitch for ALS, allows fans and organizations to sponsor him, donating to the ALS Association for every strikeout he throws.
I think the bloody sock speaks volumes about character and sportsmanship as well.
* * * * * * * *
Schilling is not a slam dunk for the HOF. I think he deserves a positive answer on many of the Keltner questions, but by no means on all of them. For what I think is a balanced but somewhat skeptical view on the subject see Tony Massarotti's story.
I suspect that Schilling will be enshrined, but not in his first year of eligibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment