Chicago Fanatics Message Board :: View topic

AARRRRRRGHHHHHH!!!!! :aaargh:

No.

He should get in, but only if he doesn't give a speech. That'll be the deal.

Fuck no! If Blyleven ain't in, Lights ain't in.

Bert Blyleven

287 Wins
3.31 ERA
3,701 K's
5-1 2.47 ERA in postseason

Curt 'Lights' Schilling

216 Wins
3.46 ERA
3,116 K's
11-2 2.23 ERA in postseaon

When you you appear in 692 games and start 685 of them you should at least win 300 games.

Mr. Reason wrote:

No, no, no, fucking no. The only way this cocksucker should get in is to pay, just like the rest of us.

No pitcher, without 300 wins, should get in until Bert Blyleven is in, very simple. Clemens does not count, he was a juiced up douchebag.
I find it hard to believe anyone would think that Shilling would even deserve a sniff of the HOF, the bloody socked douchebag.

Blyleven pitched in about 2000 games and still doesn't have 300 wins. Curt started 249 less games than him and was a key part of 3 World Series wins. Curt's winning percentage is better and he has better key stats (like K's per 9 innings,WHIP and walks to K's ratio). Curt was a better pitcher and a winner. He deserves to be in the HOF.

Nas wrote:

Mr. Reason wrote:

No, Bert's prime was before free agency. It was not his fault he was on lousy teams. He was a better pitcher than Schilling, plain and simple.
Schilling is also on my list of "reasonable suspects". He does not belong in the hall of fame. You cannot convince me otherwise.

if you project his numbers to today's game it wouldn't be very good.

I would think being a big part of 3 WS wins is just as important as winning 300 games.

Really? Pitching 700 games and not winning 300 has nothing to do with stats. Did you read anything I posted Frank? I thought Hooked on Phonics was working. Take your time Frank. I know you can do it. I believe in you.

Author:	RFDC [ Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:19 pm ]
Post subject:	Curt Schilling -- HOF?
Is Schilling a Hall of Famer?

Author:	Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:22 pm ]
Post subject:
AARRRRRRGHHHHHH!!!!! No.

Author:	Colonel Angus [ Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:07 pm ]
Post subject:
The self promoter hall of fame? Of course.

Author:	Sam in Hoffman [ Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:32 pm ]
Post subject:
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: AARRRRRRGHHHHHH!!!!! No. Other than not liking him.. why not? 216 wins in this era. 3000+ strikeouts. 10-2 (I think..) in the postseason with a lower than 2.50 ERA. (currently not sure which side of the fence I stand on this issue. I tend to think he belongs in the hall of really good for a while..)

Author:	Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:33 pm ]
Post subject:
Kevin Brown has as good, if not better, stats. Less Ks but better ERA. He doesn't scream HOFer to me either. Schilling post-season success is nice but I think a starter should have been the best pitcher in his league at least 1 time. 0 Cy Young awards. He was good for while and very good/excellent for about 3 years. I demand more long-term excellence and I demand them not to be the poster child for ESPN. He's borderline and he'll probably get in but I hate the media coverage.

Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

Curt Schilling -- HOF? https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=92&t=22092	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Colonel Angus [ Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:34 pm ]
Post subject:
He should get in, but only if he doesn't give a speech. That'll be the deal.

Author:	FavreFan [ Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:23 pm ]
Post subject:
Im one of the lesser qualified critics here because baseball is admittedly my third favorite sport. I would consider him a HOF'er, but anyone who has followed my posts for each sport knows I put alot of weight into postseason performance. Regular season I dont even know if Curt gets on the ballot, postseason he is a concensus first ballot HOFer. So if I had a vote, I would vote him in.

Author:	lipidquadcab [ Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:24 pm ]
Post subject:
Yes

Author:	RFDC [ Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:42 pm ]
Post subject:
I think he will eventually get in because of his postseason dominance. When he was in his prime there was no one I would have rather had on the mound for a big game in the post-season.

Author:	Frank Coztansa [ Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:44 pm ]
Post subject:
Colonel Angus wrote: He should get in, but only if he doesn't give a speech. That'll be the deal. Second that and make a motion that he doesn't get to attend, OR ESPN can show nothing on him for the entire induction weekend.

Author:	Keyser Soze [ Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:10 pm ]
Post subject:
Fuck no! If Blyleven ain't in, Lights ain't in. Bert Blyleven 287 Wins 3.31 ERA 3,701 K's 5-1 2.47 ERA in postseason Curt 'Lights' Schilling 216 Wins 3.46 ERA 3,116 K's 11-2 2.23 ERA in postseaon

Author:	Colonel Angus [ Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:20 pm ]
Post subject:
Keyser Soze wrote: Fuck no! If Blyleven ain't in, Lights ain't in. Bert Blyleven 287 Wins 3.31 ERA 3,701 K's 5-1 2.47 ERA in postseason Curt 'Lights' Schilling 216 Wins 3.46 ERA 3,116 K's 11-2 2.23 ERA in postseaon You've just made a good argument for why Blyleven should be in.

Author:	FavreFan [ Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:40 pm ]
Post subject:
Nas wrote: When you you appear in 692 games and start 685 of them you should at least win 300 games. Hater in the house!!!!! Drinkin' that Hatorade!!! Boo-Yah!

Author:	Mr. Reason [ Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:33 pm ]
Post subject:
No, no, no, fucking no. The only way this cocksucker should get in is to pay, just like the rest of us. No pitcher, without 300 wins, should get in until Bert Blyleven is in, very simple. Clemens does not count, he was a juiced up douchebag. I find it hard to believe anyone would think that Shilling would even deserve a sniff of the HOF, the bloody socked douchebag.

Author:	Mustang Rob [ Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:21 pm ]
Post subject:
My first reaction is no. He's behind Burt & Jack Morris and in the group with David Cone, David Wells, Mike Mussina, & Kevin Brown. Out of that bunch Moose has the best shot at it if he pitches another 2 seasons and wins 30 games.

Author:	Joe Morgan [ Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:36 pm ]
Post subject:
Well one thing you have to understand is that for all the wins that Curt Schilling had, he did not have them with The Machine, and that hurts his chances, as far as a first ballot hall of famer. I myself, who is a hall of fame voter, and inductee, know that when you look at the whole picture, Curt Schilling does not have some of the key ingredients in being a sure fire hall of famer. If you look at the bloody sock, for instance, you will be under the wrong assumption that blood is painful. Blood, as we all know, is not inherently painful. And because we saw blood, and not an actual injury on that foot, I cannot in good faith to the hall of fame say that he was in any sort of pain that doesn't come with a normal pitcher when it's their day to pitch. Also consider that the 2001 Arizona Diamondbacks, who robbed the Yankees of a championship, were mostly comprised of robots. Now, when you look at what is going on in modern robotics, perhaps one day the league will look more favorably at what a circuitry board can do for a pitcher's arm or a second baseman's will to win. I know two of my four daughters are working on this very technology, and results so far have been very promising. But for now, as it stands, Curt Schilling, while he knows how to write blogs very well, and can speak on his own behalf perhaps better than most athletes, does not mean exactly that he is a hall of famer. If that were the case, well, of course, he would be on the first ballot. Of course, if that were the deciding factor, many players most likely would not be in the hall of fame. Of course for me it wouldn't matter, as my vernacular is as dominating as my player stats. I am one of the few who could go in either way.

Author:	Mr. Reason [ Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:00 pm ]
Post subject:
I missed Blyleven's prime, but I saw enough of his career to know he belongs. I saw all of Schilling's career and he does not belong. Stats be damned. Numbers are like your brother-in-law, they lie. I watch 'em play. Schilling is not a HOF'er. You can quote this and that, but he is not worthy of the HOF.

Author:	Sam in Hoffman [ Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:45 am ]
Post subject:
Can we all agree to include Blyleven in the HOF and leave him out of the discussion regarding the potential induction of Schilling into the HOF? While we may not like it, the baseball gods have deemed Blyleven unworthy for quite a long time. Throwing his name into the discussion here is simply a pointless diversion. Without invoking Sir Bert, tell me how a HOF that includes Jim Bunning shouldn't include Curt Schilling? Bunning : 519 starts : 224-184 W/L : 3.27 ERA : 2855 SO : 1000 BB : 151 CG : 40 SHO : 1.179 WHIP Schillling : 436 starts : 216-146 W/L : 3.46 ERA : 3116 SO : 711 BB : 83 CG : 20 SHO : 1.137 WHIP

Author:	Mr. Reason [ Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:21 pm ]
Post subject:
Nas wrote: Mr. Reason wrote: No, no, no, fucking no. The only way this cocksucker should get in is to pay, just like the rest of us. No pitcher, without 300 wins, should get in until Bert Blyleven is in, very simple. Clemens does not count, he was a juiced up douchebag. I find it hard to believe anyone would think that Shilling would even deserve a sniff of the HOF, the bloody socked douchebag. Blyleven pitched in about 2000 games and still doesn't have 300 wins. Curt started 249 less games than him and was a key part of 3 World Series wins. Curt's winning percentage is better and he has better key stats (like K's per 9 innings,WHIP and walks to K's ratio). Curt was a better pitcher and a winner. He deserves to be in the HOF. No, Bert's prime was before free agency. It was not his fault he was on lousy teams. He was a better pitcher than Schilling, plain and simple. Schilling is also on my list of "reasonable suspects". He does not belong in the hall of fame. You cannot convince me otherwise.

Author:	Frank Coztansa [ Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:24 pm ]
Post subject:
Boy Nas do you make a good point. A guy who pitched on some horseshit Minnesota and Cleveland teams, who had 242 career complete games and 60 shutouts shouldn't be in the HOF because he fell a handful a wins shy of that 300 mark.

Author:	Mr. Reason [ Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:30 pm ]
Post subject:
Schilling does not belong in the HOF, for Christ's Sake. Nas, I hate to pull this on you, but did you see Blyleven pitch? As Franklin pointed out, stats aren't everything. Blyleven was twice the pitcher Schilling ever thought of being.

Author:	Mustang Rob [ Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:36 pm ]
Post subject:
Mr. Reason wrote: Nas wrote: Mr. Reason wrote: No, no, no, fucking no. The only way this cocksucker should get in is to pay, just like the rest of us. No pitcher, without 300 wins, should get in until Bert Blyleven is in, very simple. Clemens does not count, he was a juiced up douchebag. I find it hard to believe anyone would think that Shilling would even deserve a sniff of the HOF, the bloody socked douchebag. Blyleven pitched in about 2000 games and still doesn't have 300 wins. Curt started 249 less games than him and was a key part of 3 World Series wins. Curt's winning percentage is better and he has better key stats (like K's per 9 innings,WHIP and walks to K's ratio). Curt was a better pitcher and a winner. He deserves to be in the HOF. No, Bert's prime was before free agency. It was not his fault he was on lousy teams. He was a better pitcher than Schilling, plain and simple. Schilling is also on my list of "reasonable suspects". He does not belong in the hall of fame. You cannot convince me otherwise. In his prime (in Arizona) Curt was a better pitcher than pretty much anyone else in baseball, and better than Burt ever was. But as a late bloomer, Curt bounced around for the first 7 years of his career with a 50-50 record. if he was 65-35 in those first 100 decisions, there would be little debate. BTW, The fact that Blylevyn is not in the HOF is by far the biggest travesty of all the dumb ass MLB goofs. If he pitched his career on the Yankees or the Dodgers he would have 350+ wins.

Author:	Frank Coztansa [ Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:02 pm ]
Post subject:
Nas wrote: if you project his numbers to today's game it wouldn't be very good. And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass on the ground when he hopped. So now he has that working against him, along with not able to be a free agent? Your 2 arguments against Bert have nothing to do with his stats.

Author:	Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:42 am ]
Post subject:
Nas wrote: I would think being a big part of 3 WS wins is just as important as winning 300 games. Blyleven won 2 WS and was 5-1 with a 2.47 ERA in postseason play when he wasn't on a team that sucked. Also, he was injured in his late 20s and missed a couple prime years of wins.

Author:	WestmontMike [ Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:33 am ]
Post subject:
Why not David Cone? ...how about Brett Saberhagen? Why don't Mike & Mike spend a couple weeks discussing the merits of these guys. Why? Maybe because they don't deserve it. But if they don't deserve it, neither does Schilling....at least Cone has a Cy Young award, Saberhagen has 2!! Nice career Curt, now please retire and go away.

Author:	Frank Coztansa [ Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:43 am ]
Post subject:
Nas wrote: Really? Pitching 700 games and not winning 300 has nothing to do with stats. Did you read anything I posted Frank? I thought Hooked on Phonics was working. Take your time Frank. I know you can do it. I believe in you. Pitching in 700 games with a career ERA just above 3 shows you that he was on lousy offensive teams and did not get much run support. So we should punish him for that? And reward Schilling because he landed on a couple of winners in the twilight of his career? That Arizona team was all free agent stadouts, for the most part. Something Blyleven never had. Same can be said to a lesser extent with Boston's first title. I just find it very very hard to deny a guy who has 240some complete games and 287 wins, but say yes to Curt fucking Schilling.

Author:	Keyser Soze [ Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:51 am ]
Post subject:
If you go to baseball-reference.com they have a cool feature at the bottom of a players page that will tell you the 10 players whose stats they most matchup with in baseball history. Burt Blyleven- Don Sutton (914) * Gaylord Perry (909) * Fergie Jenkins (890) * Tommy John (889) Robin Roberts (876) * Tom Seaver (864) * Jim Kaat (854) Early Wynn (844) * Phil Niekro (844) * Steve Carlton (840) * Curt Schilling- Kevin Brown (920) Bob Welch (900) Orel Hershiser (889) Mike Mussina (888) Freddie Fitzsimmons (884) John Smoltz (880) Milt Pappas (880) Don Drysdale (875) * Dazzy Vance (873) * Jim Perry (871) * - Signifies Hall of Famer

Author:	Regular Reader [ Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:45 pm ]
Post subject:
No. A career with only five great years, at least that many poor years and the question about his 'training' regimen doesn't scream HOF to me. Hall of Good, yes, just like K. Brown, Mussina and Bob Welch.

Author:	SHARK [ Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:12 pm ]
Post subject:
If the Kiefer Sutherland-looking Curt Schilling gets into the Hall of Fame, they'll definitely look at his dominating postseason resume first. Other than that, Bert Blyleven, complete with a Twins' cap, should get into Cooperstown ahead of Schilling. When Curt gets in, the HOF will have him sport a Red Sox cap for sure.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/