Will Curt Schilling Join his Bloody Sock in Cooperstown?

Hall of Fame arguments usually annoy me.

Outdated benchmarks, subjective criteria, and baseball writers on moral high horses have turned Cooperstown into a circus. An entire generation of great baseball players—stars like Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, Mike Piazza, and Sammy Sosa—are likely to be denied entrance in spite of their on-field achievements.

Apparently, in this strange Hall of Fame universe, their accomplishments never occurred.

So of course, each time that a player of significance retires, the inevitable “Is he a Hall of Famer?” discussion follows. The same was true yesterday, when Curt Schilling announced his retirement from baseball after 20 seasons.

Assuming that Schilling stays true to his word—my gut still tells me that he’ll be pitching in Chicago or Tampa Bay this summer—he will be eligible for the Hall of Fame in 2013 (Schilling’s retirement is retroactive to 2007 because he was injured for all of 2008).

2013 is also the first year of HOF eligibility for Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, and Sosa, each of whom is heavily suspected of steroid use. Baseball writers will undoubtedly have a field day with this class.

So while I usually avoid the “Is he in or is he out?” arguments, Schilling’s case is far too fascinating to ignore.

Schill finished his career with 216 wins, 146 losses, 3116 strikeouts, a 3.46 ERA, and a 1.13 WHIP. He won 20 games three times; in 1997, he won 17 with the worst team in the National League.

Among all pitchers with at least 1,500 innings, Schilling has the best strikeout-to-walk ratio. He struck out 300+ batters three times. In 2002, while striking out 316, Schilling walked just 32 hitters.

On the surface level, his career totals may not scream Cooperstown. However, the Hall of Fame criteria that today’s pitchers are evaluated against is nonsensical and outdated.

Writers have long assigned “magic numbers” for players to attain that reward longevity and perseverance, while ignoring dominance. The magic numbers are inherently flawed as they are based on the standards of a previous era—one in which, does not resemble today’s game in the slightest.

For example, baseball’s magic pitching number is 300 wins. A starting pitcher who wins 300 games has always been assured a spot in Cooperstown. This standard may have worked in the '60s and '70s but it is archaic today.

In today’s game, pitchers get hurt far too frequently, do not throw often enough (expansion to five-man rotations has limited number of games started), and do not throw deep into enough games (pitch counts have limited number of decisions awarded to starters) make 300 wins a Hall of Fame standard, for even the best pitchers.

Take any 300 game winner and compare his innings pitched, games started, and complete games to Schilling. Most, if not all, have roughly 2000 more innings pitched, 250-300 more games started, and 100-200 more complete games.

And Schilling was considered a horse of his era! How is he supposed to compare win totals with pitchers who threw the equivalent of ten more 200 inning seasons than him?

More importantly, Schilling’s production occurred during the greatest offensive era in baseball history. His ERA was nearly a fu

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?