The Party Has Officially Ended: Curt Schilling Retires as a Hall of Fame Lock
Baseball March 24th. 2009, 10:00am
Curt Schilling was a high-profile pitcher and a high-profile persona. He was brash, he was outspoken and he was arrogant. He could be refreshingly honest. He could be unlikeable enough to make Dan Shaughnessy sympathetic. He will linger on in online screeds and paid pontification, but his true relevance to us will be tested in five years, when he appears on the Hall of Fame ballot. Writers will ask themselves whether Schilling was one of the best. The answer should be yes.
During his reasonably healthy prime from 1996 to 2004, Schilling was among the best pitchers in the game. In those nine seasons, he had an ERA+ above 130 eight times, he had six seasons with a WHIP under 1.100 and he had five seasons with more strikeouts than innings pitched. If you skew traditional, he had three 20-win seasons and three Cy Young runner-up seasons.
His dominance holds up over his career. He has the best SO to BB ratio of any pitcher who has played in MLB since 1884. Of his clean contemporary starters who have played a full career, only Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux and Pedro Martinez have a better adjusted ERA+. Among any contemporary starters, only Pedro and Johan Santana have a better career WHIP.
Schilling compares to the best of his era at striking people out and not allowing walks, hits and runs. He played with Johnson and Martinez and stood every bit their equal. What more do you want a pitcher to do?
He’s 11-2 career in the playoffs with a 2.23 ERA, averaging seven-innings per start. His teams won ten out of twelve playoff series. He has three World Series rings.
More impressive than the post-season numbers for Schilling are the anecdotes. During his time in Boston, I saw him take the mound with his full, devastating arsenal and win. I saw him limp out to the mound with an experimental suture on his ankle and win. In his last start, I saw him stare at the mound in cognizant fear, realizing his arm was dead and win.
We know clutch pitching exists. Â Schilling proved it time and time and time again.
Curt Schilling showed “Mystique and Aura” to be dancers at a night club. Â He made “Curse” a fanciful book premise. Â The great ones don’t look fetching in a suit of armor or have the most statistically precise sword technique. Â They kill dragons.
Calling It Quits (38 Pitches)
79 Responses to “The Party Has Officially Ended: Curt Schilling Retires as a Hall of Fame Lock”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.

March 24th, 2009 at 10:03 AM
The whole story. End of discussion.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Schilling is one of those players that I really couldn’t defend some of the things he did (or said), but I’m just glad he played for my team. Much like Rodney Harrison.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Quite the wordsmith there Ty, Ben Roethlisberger would be proud.
/not starting this, leaving now
March 24th, 2009 at 10:07 AM
ZERO% chance he gets in on first ballot.
He himself said if you have to debate his worthiness he doesn’t belong.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:08 AM
He’ll be the first D-bag in the HOF, right?
March 24th, 2009 at 10:09 AM
Still, if there was one athlete I could punch in the face, it would be him.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Ty Cobb?
ESPN should snatch this guy up. While I rarely agree with him and find his spotlight craving tiresome, he’s infinitely more interesting than any of ESPN’s baseball personalities. They haven’t been the same since Reynolds was let go.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Nope. But, he’ll be on the HOF D-Bag Board of Directors.
I think Schilling’s on the field work is very similar to Jack Morris. Both were bastards that could flat out pitch a great game when it was necessary. If one gets in, so should the other.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Unless his name comes out on the list of postive testers.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Good f’n riddance!
Now if he’d only retire his larynx, the world would be a better place.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Lock for the Mullet Hall of Fame
March 24th, 2009 at 10:13 AM
@ clown
Ty Cobb wasn’t a d-bag?
PS, Schilling did all of this in the Steroid Era.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:13 AM
D-Bags = D-backs
/speaking for clown’d
Curt Schilling is so much better than Morris that it’s not really close at all.
I would put Schilling in.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:15 AM
The great ones don’t look fetching in a suit of armor or have the most statistically precise sword technique. They kill dragons.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:15 AM
While I agree Morris should be in, Schilling was a much better pitcher than Morris (whose career ERA was 3.90).
March 24th, 2009 at 10:17 AM
More than impressive in the post-season, 5-6 really good years as a starter. Assuming he doesn’t put his foot in his mouth after a few years of not making it, I can see him getting in 5-10yrs down the road.
Personally, I don’t think he should get inducted. But that’s only because his career wasn’t great for an extended period of time. Too many injuries limited his career numbers. I can’t just put him in on post season stats alone and won’t contribute to the continuous decline in MLB HOF standards.
/doesn’t have a vote
March 24th, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Whoa whoa whoa, tyduffy. I get this is a tribute to Schilling, so you’re being a bit hyperbolic…but what?
If I have 10,000 quarters that I flip 100 times each and 1 of them is heads everytime, is that a clutch quarter?
March 24th, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Morris: 3824 IP, 254-186, 3.90 ERA
Schilling: 3261 IP, 216-146 3.46 ERA
Both have 3 championships. In what way is Schilling better?
March 24th, 2009 at 10:22 AM
216 wins isn’t 300 but its not too shabby either. He also had 83 career complete games during a time where that is less and less of an occurrence.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:22 AM
The same way we “know” aliens exist? How exactly did he prove this?
March 24th, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Jayson Stark was on d-bag and d-bag this morning and used David Cone as an example vs. Schilling. I just checked them out, and they are almost identical in stats (Cone has 20 less wins and 20 less losses in 3 less years, ERA’s are identical (3.46). Cone was 12-3 in the postseason, Schilling was 10-2.
Stark said Cone got like 4% of the vote and is one and done on the ballot, yet Schilling is a lock? He didn’t think he’d get in.
PS, Schilling did all of this in the Steroid Era.
Interesting stat. he was a .500 pitcher UNTIL the Steroid Era began, then did incredibly in his 30’s (Golic brought this up). Stark said he didn’t think Schilling took them, he just matured and became a better pitcher.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Schilling pitched 20 seasons, Morris 18.
So, Morris had more innings & more wins in 2 fewer seasons. Yes, his ERA is higher but he led 3 different teams to championships as a top-line starter. He was also postseason clutch and he pitched a no hitter.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:27 AM
While there are some exceptions (Mazeroski), I don’t think the HOF standards have declined at all.
Bunning 224-184 3.27 ERA 2855K’s 1000 BB’s
Drysdale 209-166 2.95 ERA 2486 K’s 855 BB’s
Schilling 216-146 3.49 ERA 3116K’s 711 BB’s
And Schilling did this during the greatest offensive era in MLB history.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Cone was 8-3 in the postseason (with a 3.80 ERA).
March 24th, 2009 at 10:34 AM
If Schilling gets into the HOF, do you think his hat will have a picture of himself instead of a team logo?
March 24th, 2009 at 10:34 AM
In 1992 he was 14-11 with a 2.35 ERA and a .990 WHIP and 10 CG’s. The following year he was 16 and 7. He then battled injuries for 2+ years and played for some absolutely horrible Phillies teams. In 1997 he went 17-11 while his team went 68-94.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:35 AM
You have to look at things in context. Morris pitched in the low-offense 80s. A 3.90 ERA is pretty damn ordinary.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:39 AM
NSR – do you think closers should get in? Gossage/Eck?
March 24th, 2009 at 10:41 AM
I always thought of it as the other way around.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:42 AM
This is going to be a classic case of screw the stats. 3 world series for two different teams and a 93 world series where he was pretty much untouchable. He would probably have a couple more wins if he was a starter from day one. If it weren’t for the injuries, he would be a lock and have an even more bolstered playoff record. Who, knows, he might have been the difference in Boston taking care of business last year. Every baseball writer who saw the big games that this guy pitched in and isn’t a two year old holding a grudge because he miffed them in sort of way should vote him in. End of discussion.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:43 AM
im not really sure why his candidacy is up for debate…the numbers may look a little fuzzy, but the performances when everyone was watching was not.
im all for statistical analysis during the season, but the indelible images produced during the postseason matter a lot. and there was a good 6 year stretch when schilling was on the VERY short list of best pitchers in MLB. i’d say he’s in.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Schilling’s not first ballot, he should get in thought.
Hard to argue against the guy when the better pitchers in his league were Randy Johnson and Johan Santana (the years he finished 2nd in Cy voting)
Schilling and Blyleven will get in eventually, just a matter of time.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:45 AM
illformula – absolutely. But I don’t think we can use Saves as the barometer. Lee Smith shouldn’t get in, but Eckersley should. Look at Eck from 1988 to 1992.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:47 AM
ugh…blyleven. hey, who wants to stick around long enough to make a cool looking resume? BERT DOES!!!
the only HoF he belongs in is the “i love farts” t-shirt hall of fame.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:50 AM
wow…4 years. THAT’S INCREDIBLE.
i don’t disagree necessarily, but four years does not a hall of famer make. if that was the case, jim rice would’ve been in years ago and albert belle would be a lock, amongst many others.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:51 AM
illformula – I should add that Hoffman and Rivera are probably the only other closers to make it in right now.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:51 AM
NSR – I agree on Eck, but don’t think Gossage was deserving.
I agreed that Shilling will get in eventually. I just don’t think I’d vote for him.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:54 AM
I have this guy in two separate Halls of Fame. Baseball and Douchebag.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Actually, it’s five years.
And no, he doesn’t get in just because of these five years alone, but a peak to one’s career certainly helps. Especially if it’s like the one Eck had.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Schilling was good and probably should get in. As mentioned above, Cone was pretty good too.
Also how is an “experimental suture on his ankle” not a performance enhancer?
March 24th, 2009 at 10:58 AM
The Yankee cap certainly helped. I think he was borderline at best. I can understand arguments for and against.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:59 AM
NSR…i was just being an asshole for asshole’s sake. i agree, he was the prototype for the modern closer and prototypes (rickey as a leadoff guy, etc.) should always get in when they’re that good.
i wouldn’t say that was…but all the pain meds he was on? how are THOSE not performance enhancers? would he have been able to perform without them? doubtful.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Yeah, no other baseball player has ever had to take painkillers to play. That’s true.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:01 AM
You mean the red Poweraid he poured on his sock?
/conspiracy theorist’d
March 24th, 2009 at 11:01 AM
spence says – im all for statistical analysis during the season, but the indelible images produced during the postseason matter a lot. and there was a good 6 year stretch when schilling was on the VERY short list of best pitchers in MLB. i’d say he’s in.
and yet you argue that Roethlisberger sucks to the every end. just saying.
/i’m with coop, not trying to start this either.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:04 AM
NSR: I’m not going to get into a pising contest w/ you over stats, but here are Cone’s postseason (from Baseball Reference)
15 Postseason Ser 12-3 21 18 3.80
As for Schilling’s “steroids era” stats (w/l):
1988-1986: 52-52
1997-2007 164-94
I am a huge Red Sox fan, and my son has a Schilling 2004 World Series jersey, so this is not Red Sox hate. Just saying I don’t see the clear-cut “he’s in” argument. I hope he does, but I think it will take a while
March 24th, 2009 at 11:09 AM
there’s a big difference between football and baseball. a pitcher who sucks will get yanked, QB’s don’t have to deal with that.
and when have i disparaged big ben’s late game heroics? i never have, they’re fantastic. what i am saying re: fat ben is that he is a below average QB for 75-85% of the game. with baseball, you can look at players individually and break it down a lot more than you can in football…but big ben wouldn’t be a starter if he didn’t have a defense to keep him in games like the steelers have. baseball players are independent, football players are not.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:10 AM
jpq1999, am I looking at the wrong place? This says 8-3.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/coneda01.shtml
March 24th, 2009 at 11:10 AM
um…does that mean it isn’t a PED? what are you arguing here?
March 24th, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Ah, now I see. The first stat is his team’s record in those series. So in 15 postseason series, his team won 12 and 3. But his W-L record is 8-3, look a little to the right.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:14 AM
A couple points brief due to iPhone
Schilling would have even better postseason numbers if he hadn’t tried to pitch first start 2004 alcs
Pitchers dictate action batters react easier to see clutch in pitchers schilling got better when it counted
March 24th, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Pitchers dictate action batters react easier to see clutch in pitchers schilling got better when it counted
Wordsmith is right.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:18 AM
1988-1986: 52-52, Team record: 639-801
1997-2007 164-94, Team record: not doing the math, but 3 World Series winners in there and like 3 other playoff teams, so I’d guess pretty damn good.
/context is key
March 24th, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Possibly the greatest postseason pitcher ever who always demanded the ball in big games………if you had one game for your life, tell me he’s not on the short list of starters?
That’s hall of fame right there……..
If he played for good teams (IE not Boston or Philly) he would have more wins and this wouldn’t even be a discussion. If he had 250 career wins we wouldn’t even be debating this.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Also schilling kills cone on more pitcher dependent stats – era+ whip so to bb ratio
March 24th, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Mazeroski was also the best defensive 2B of all-time. Defense counts too.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:23 AM
I meant bad teams like BALTIMORE and philly, not boston
/botched, now fixed
March 24th, 2009 at 11:28 AM
painkillers arent performance enhancers if you’re actually in pain they just let you perform they you would normally if you werent hurt.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Ah, now I see. The first stat is his team’s record in those series. So in 15 postseason series, his team won 12 and 3. But his W-L record is 8-3, look a little to the right.
NSR: Maybe it’s me, but I think you’re missing the 5-0 in World Series, making it 12-3. I could be wrong, though
Also schilling kills cone on more pitcher dependent stats – era+ whip so to bb ratio
I’m sure Maury Allen, Dan Shaughnessy, Bill Conlin and Jerome Holtzman gather around the bar and debate the merits of those stats when voting-lol. They probably drink, say “he’s a HOF’er, but he was a dick”, and don’t vote for him
/reality’d
March 24th, 2009 at 11:32 AM
If you’re actually weak, roids just let you perform like you would normally if you were strong.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Not to belabor the point, but your misreading. His team was 5-0 in World Series appearances. He personally went 2-0, look a few columns to the right, on the other side of ERA. That’s his own personal W-L record.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:37 AM
so what you’re saying is, if you’re hurt, painkillers enhance…your performance?
glad to see we got that straightened out.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:38 AM
sorry, I see it now.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:44 AM
no they make you normal. your hurt but you just cant feel it. and they affect you in shorter time span. and also they are not illegal! they were legally prescribed and administered by a doctor…not your fave weightlifting buddy. the painkiller ~ steroid argumet is stupid and barkley and cooley were right cleveland sucks …suck it up
March 24th, 2009 at 11:49 AM
first off…you’re a douchebag and that was a shot that had nothing to do with the argument.
they make you normal…WHEN YOU’RE CLEARLY NOT NORMAL. performance enhanced. you injure yourself NATURALLY and then someone gives you something, something that your body doesn’t produce, to make you better.
im not questioning it’s legality or ethical nature, im questioning the fact that it’s still enhancing your performance. if bonds would have no business breaking hank’s HR record, then schilling had no business pitching game 6 in the ALCS. my logic is sound, as is yours. there’s a grey area here.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Having no argument, so you insult a person’s city? Sound technique.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:56 AM
i know but i just wanted to be a dick its my b-day i have an excuse.for more conversation like this go here….its a less formal version of this blog.
/plug’d like a mofo
but spence when you’re on painkillers your not gonna throw 100mph instead of 92 mph. your still going to throw 92. so by your logic if a baseball player has a headache that makes it hard for him to concentrate and he takes tylenol then thats a ped?
March 24th, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Haha yes, painkillers are performance enhancers. So are vitamins, caffeine, any type of surgery, lifting weights, and getting enough sleep.
This argument = lame.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Also, how is Tommy John surgery not talked at all in this?
March 24th, 2009 at 12:00 PM
yep.
there are varying degrees of PED’s.
and happy bday.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:01 PM
nuhuh you are..
March 24th, 2009 at 12:01 PM
thanks spence.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:03 PM
i know but i just wanted to be a dick its my b-day i have an excuse.for more conversation like this go here….its a less formal version of this blog.
/plug’d like a mofo
spencer: at least Roman will be happy w/ all the ringing endorsements
March 24th, 2009 at 12:09 PM
mrejr: Happy b’day. Sorry I bailed last night on my “webfight” you were looking forward to. Had stuff to do w/ my daughter. After honing my skills against spencer and maggs over the last year, he wouldn’t have stood a chance-lol
March 24th, 2009 at 12:14 PM
you need to straighten out your priorities.
1. our entertainment on this blog
and a distant second
2 . you’re daughter
/you gotta make sacrifices
March 24th, 2009 at 12:14 PM
thanks btw
March 24th, 2009 at 3:39 PM
so what was steve calton’s excuse for an impressive win/loss record with shitty teasm???
March 24th, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Carlton played on only 7 teams with losing records in 24 years.
329-244 (57% win) in career; his teams were 2009-1823 (52%) over that span
He was on three 100 win teams and six more 90+ win teams.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:55 PM
If we are bringing painkillers into the mix, should we not include raw talent. I mean someone hopped up on raw talent has an unfair advantage right?