"Impact, not stats."

I had this debate with my friend, a die-hard Cardinals man, and it was very very fun to actually think about HOF criteria. I think that the ultimate criteria is that they must DOMINATE baseball throughout their career. Schilling did not do this. Smoltz, who some people think isnt even a lock, dominated saving and starting, with a great post season career. Schilling had some memorable moments, but certainly not a dynasty-esque run, definitely not dominant his entire career, and didnt even have such a great career ERA.

I think Schilling was an amazing pitcher in modern baseball. HOFer? I dont think so. Maybe 5th, 6th ballot, if we find out that that sock was actually bloody, and not painted. J/k. But i dont think if Smoltz isnt a lock, that Schilling could even be considered.

HOF selection is still a subjective process. Whether Schilling is worthy or not, I think he’ll have a harder time getting in than Smoltz will, even more so if Smoltz, Maddux, and Glavine all call it quits at the end of this season, making them all simultaneously eligible in 2014. The novelty of having the three of them enter together is too great for the panelists to not let happen, I think.

But back to Schilling, if he did make it, who’s hat would he wear? He’s won a title with Arizona, where he probably achieved his best notoriety. But then he won two titles with Boston, where he made history. Team swapping is something that HOF panelists claim to not like, but Maddux has done his fair share – but it would be hard to deny someone with 350 wins, no matter what.

I can’t say that I’ve given much thought to HOF credentials/criteria until I posed this question. Clearly, Cooperstown has its integrity to hold onto, and they don’t want to let just anyone in – Schilling’s stats are good, but not great – only looking at the bottom line, one might see numbers that a good pitcher should have after a career as long as he did, but might not see that he’s had several 20+ win seasons, and several other injury-plagued ones. Stats alone, I’d be reluctant to say that Schilling is worthy – impact-wise, Schilling has pitched some big games, and left his markings all over October. Hard for me to say…

...well, I had a long response all typed out and the page refreshed somehow and lost it all. First, I love how Smoltz was considered a borderline HOF pitcher up until basically this season…but when the first hint of Schilling’s retirement hits the air he’s a lock. He’ll probably get in, but in no way should it be first-ballot.

I hate the bloody sock bullshit, and can’t stand when people get entry into the hall because of a famous moment in baseball history. My boys over at FireJoeMorgan.com feel the same way, and I’ve linked a couple writeups from them on the same subject. The first two are breakdowns of Heyman’s HOF list this past December.

Jack and Bert and a Hallway Where Famous People Go
Ugh
The Hall of Oh Buh-rother
This is Going to be Annoying

Those should keep you busy, Roy.

I’m not going to look at any stats to provide my opinion, since that is sort of the point here. Based on my fuzzy and somewhat fragmented memory, Schilling has been a big name pitcher that was decent and then a bloody sock later and he’s a legend. So, does 200 wins + 3,000 Ks and pitching in some big games for some pretty good teams make you a hall of famer? It is a good question. I think he is not a HoFer. I don’t know if the analysts agree or not.

I think that it isn’t fair to compare Smoltz to Schilling, because Smoltz has a Cy Young, has 150+ SVs and 200+ Ws (never done before) 3,000+Ks and a boat-load of post-season wins (still the most, I can’t remember?). And that is just the main things off the top of my head. Not only that, find somebody that doesn’t like John Smoltz as a teammate or a man. How far does that go? I say it has weight. But Smoltz, in my opinion, has to be a lock.

Also, Maddux goes in wearing an A on his hat? There is no question, right?

First off what is the deal with not being a first ballot (im not trying to call one out here its just i problem i’ve always had with the HOF), i understand why we give guys more than one chance because its impossible to not compare classes and thus a guy who may be a HOF when compared to a class with 3 or 4 great players can get left off. but i have never heard anyone say “he’s in the HOF yeah, but it was on his 4th ballot.” once your in it doesn’t matter, you a hall of famer. so whats the point of keeping someone from getting in on their first ballot if you think they are a HOFer.

Second, I think we should distinguish something, because i feel a lot of people may feel the same way as i do. I think there should almost be two halls. A HOF and then like VIP HOF or something (we can work on the name later). I think the Hall should be reserved for the best of the best. and this is not true of the hall in its current state. Im not saying we should set standards but, the Hall should include 3000 hit guys, 500 HR guys, pitchers with 300 wins (of course we would have to alter some of these stats due to the current status of the game). But guys like LUis Aparicio and Bruce Sutter are not guys that jump out to me as a Hall of Famer. Under the conditions i set forth i would even find it hard to let Smoltz in, because 50 years from now will we be talking about Smoltz, like we talk about Bob Gibson or Walter Johnson. Of course we can’t have this Hall because the hall is already established.

Now to the question is Shilling a Hall of Famer? Do i think he will be? no doubt whatsoever. Moments can get you into the hall of fame, ask bill mazorowski (this statement was plagiarized from ESPN, i believe). Forget the bloody, sock the next time they show highlights form the 2001 WS, Shilling was nearly unhittable and the only reason he had only one win was because of the lack of run support. If i was in charge of the Hall, Id be kicking people out and not letting SHilling in. but alas its not up to me and the Hall is full of guys with a lower talent level then id like. Not to say these guys are bums , they are all very good players, even great but when I think of the Hall i think it should be a select few, for example should Billy Williams’ plaque really be next to the best hitter of all-time Ted Williams. I sure dont think so.