Curt Schilling Retires

by Snake Bitten on Mar 23, 2009 9:30 PM EDT

Today Curt Schilling announced his retirement on his blog, saying that he had "zero regrets" about his time in the majors. Schilling pitched for 20 years before calling it quits. While he will always be remembered in Arizona lore for his epic 2001 postseason performances (I attended Game 1 of the Division Series when he pitched a complete game shut-out against the St. Louis Cardinals which the DBacks won 1-0) and for his gutty performances in the World Series against the Yankees, he will most likely be remembered by the rest of the nation for his contributions to the 2004 Boston Red Sox and the infamous "Bloody Sock," which now resides in Cooperstown.

To me, the retirement of Schilling begs two questions:

1. Does Curt Schilling deserve a place in the Hall of Fame? and

2. If yes, which hat will he be wearing when he does so: Philadelphia, Arizona or Boston?

To the first question, my answer would have to be a resounding yes. In an era in which we are letting in fewer starting pitchers, Curt Schilling was considered an ace (or a co-ace) for many years. More to this effect, after turning 30 Schilling was 164-94 to bring his lifetime record to 216-146 and winning percentage to .597. Additionally, Schilling has 3 World Series rings, 3 runner-up finishes in the CY voting and 6 All-Star Appearances. Most impressively though, is Curt Schilling's career ERA+ of 127 which is better than Current Hall of Famers Catfish Hunter, Don Sutton, Jim Palmer and Gaylord Perry. If these things were not enough, take a look at his postseason numbers: 11-2, 2.23 ERA (2.06 in the World Series), 4 Complete Games, 120 Ks to only 25 BBs in 19 Postseason starts. These numbers show Schilling's uncanny ability to come through in the clutch and are some of the best in baseball history.

To the second question, lets take a look at his numbers with each club:

Philadelphia: 1992-2000 271 Games, 112-78 (.589), 1554 Ks, 3.36 ERA, 1 WS Appearance, 3 All-Star Selections

Arizona: 2000-2003 107 Games, 58-28 (.674), 875 Ks, 3.14 ERA, 1 WS Championship, WS (co-)MVP, 2 All-Star Selections

Boston: 2004-2007 98 Games, 53-29 (.646), 754 Ks, 3.95 ERA, 2 WS Championships, 1 All-Star Selection

So really, I guess it comes down to what is most important. If the most important thing is the amount of time spent in one place, the obvious answer is Philadelphia, if its the best performance the answer is Arizona and if its the number of rings, he should wear a BoSox hat.

In my humble opinion, he will enter Cooperstown as a member of the Boston Red Sox. This will be a result of the World Series victories, the amount of publicity he recieved as a member of the Sox (as compared to the Dbacks and Phillies). Its really a shame too, again in my opinion, as he would never have been the pitcher he was in Boston if it hadn't have been for the time and success he enjoyed in Phildelphia and Arizona. Having truly become a fan of baseball when Schilling was pitching for the Diamondbacks, it will sting just a little bit if my predictions prove to be correct.

What do you guys think? Not only about Schilling, but more holistically, what should be the most important things when determining which team to represent in the Hall of Fame?

Tweet Comment 54 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

While he’s kind of a loudmouth jerk off the field, the guy could pitch. I’m always surprised to look back at his numbers, and realize just how good he was, especially in the post-season.

(Plus, the guy’s a gamer, so points to him for having such a nerdy hobby.)

As for the Hall of Fame? If I remember right, he said last year that he didn’t think he was, but I’d have to disagree with him. He’s earned it. I do think he’ll be in a Red Sox cap, though- as momentous as that 2001 World Series was, there’s the Bloody Sock and breaking the curse in Boston, while Schilling is probably third on the list of names that come to mind for the Diamondbacks World Series win. Well, third name that comes to mind in a positive sense- sorry, BK.

"Scott, are you evil, or are you really happy?"

by kishi on Mar 23, 2009 9:52 PM EDT reply actions

He'll go in with a Red Sox cap.

I would prefer him as a Dback, but oh well. I’ve always liked Schill, loudmouth or not.

We are truly in the presense of greatness here…-- unnamedDBacksfan

by DbacksSkins on Mar 23, 2009 10:30 PM EDT reply actions

It'll be an interesting decision...

I don’t think Schilling is perhaps a first-ballot HOFer like Randy, but I think he will make it in eventually. As the current crop of players retire and come into qualification for Cooperstown, there’ll be some tricky decisions ahead, because we’re moving out of the era when a player would spend an entire career with one team, in favor of the free agency era.

Numerically, in everything except World Series rings, Boston would seem to come a poor third, but the 2004 post-season made an indelible mark on all those who watched it. I can’t see them going any other way but Boston…which may bode ill for the chances of Randy going into the HoF as a Diamondbacks too, especially if he wishes it otherwise, as some of his recent comments have hinted.

'As times goes by, as times goes by, they say "he's washed up", "he's finished" , "he's a loser", "he's all through". You know what? The only one that's going to tell me when I'm through doing my thing is you people here.'

by Jim McLennan on Mar 23, 2009 11:24 PM EDT reply actions

Actually,

I would think that Schilling going in with the Red Sox would serve to strengthen the argument for RJ going in as a Dback.

We are truly in the presense of greatness here…-- unnamedDBacksfan

by DbacksSkins on Mar 23, 2009 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions

Um

I think that’s what Jim was saying.

"Scott, are you evil, or are you really happy?"

by kishi on Mar 24, 2009 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions

I can’t see them going any other way but Boston…which may bode ill for the chances of Randy going into the HoF as a Diamondbacks too, especially if he wishes it otherwise, as some of his recent comments have hinted.

We are truly in the presense of greatness here…-- unnamedDBacksfan

by DbacksSkins on Mar 24, 2009 12:10 AM EDT up reply actions

Hmm.

I definitely read that as “may bode well”…even though there is definitely no W in there.

...Is it Opening Day yet?

It would be poetic if it didn't suck so much (RIP Pushing Daisies...)

by emilylovesthedbacks on Mar 24, 2009 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions

There's also

the “especially if he wishes it otherwise” part.

We are truly in the presense of greatness here…-- unnamedDBacksfan

by DbacksSkins on Mar 24, 2009 12:18 AM EDT up reply actions

Jiiiiiiiim,

explain yourself?

...Is it Opening Day yet?

It would be poetic if it didn't suck so much (RIP Pushing Daisies...)

by emilylovesthedbacks on Mar 24, 2009 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions

Sorry for the confusion

If the HoF opt to ignore the fact that Schilling was at his peak when with the Diamondbacks, then the fact that Johnson was also at his peak when with the Diamondbacks would seem to become less significant.

by Jim McLennan on Mar 24, 2009 2:17 AM EDT up reply actions

Disagree.

If they take Schill’s Red Sox postseason success with more weight than the more individually impressive times he spent with the Phillies and Dbacks, then they have no choice but to recognize that RJ had far and away the greatest postseason success of his career as a Dback. I think you’re taking an overly Dback-centric view and ignoring the grand trends afoot here…

We are truly in the presense of greatness here…-- unnamedDBacksfan

by DbacksSkins on Mar 24, 2009 4:06 AM EDT up reply actions

I think the staph infection went to your brain

because that’s what it seems like Jim was saying. If Schill goes in to the Hall purely based on the postseason with the BoSox, then Randy won’t go in with anyone other than Arizona.

...Is it Opening Day yet?

It would be poetic if it didn't suck so much (RIP Pushing Daisies...)

by emilylovesthedbacks on Mar 24, 2009 12:10 AM EDT up reply actions

It's possible,

but read it again. That’s not what’s written.

We are truly in the presense of greatness here…-- unnamedDBacksfan

by DbacksSkins on Mar 24, 2009 12:11 AM EDT up reply actions

what about the Phillies?…although I would like nothing more for Curt and Randy to go in as Dbacks. Imagine if it were to work out for them to go in during the same year?

by J Up on Mar 24, 2009 12:36 AM EDT reply actions

yeah....

I liked curt when he was in AZ, for some reason (please do tell me if it’s just me) but he seems to have gotten a bigger head when he left for boston. especially with his blog now (and what a way to end your career, a blog). You know; if ‘snakepit is around whenever I’m old enough to retire, I’ll actually make a fanpost for my retirement.

"I always think one step ahead, like a carpenter....the builds stairs"

by sergey606 on Mar 24, 2009 1:36 AM EDT reply actions

btw, HOF

yes on HOF from me

"I always think one step ahead, like a carpenter....the builds stairs"

by sergey606 on Mar 24, 2009 1:36 AM EDT up reply actions

Dude,

Curt Schilling is a WWII history buff. That excuses him for anything, in my mind.

We are truly in the presense of greatness here…-- unnamedDBacksfan

by DbacksSkins on Mar 24, 2009 2:16 AM EDT up reply actions

It's hard to say

what the writers will do with Schilling. On the one hand, he’s not real popular with them – the blog was to remedy what he saw as widespread media bias. On the other, BBWAA writers tend to like big postseasons with multiple WS teams, the big strikeouts, several CYA caliber seasons (altho no awards).

In terms of career credentials, I think the following contemporaries are more deserving:

Maddux
Johnson
Glavine
Rivera
Martinez
Mussina
Smoltz

Hoffman will also get in before Schill

Blyleven wasnt a favorite of the writers either and has been jerked around for more than a decade.

If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09

by Diamondhacks on Mar 24, 2009 2:45 AM EDT reply actions

Blyleven

is a very good counterexample. Hmmm…..

We are truly in the presense of greatness here…-- unnamedDBacksfan

by DbacksSkins on Mar 24, 2009 4:07 AM EDT up reply actions

Schilling was about 7-8%

better, per inning, which is significant over careers of this length, but Blyleven pitched 1700 (50%) more innnings than Curt. That’s a ton. ( For perspective, our current rotation boasts three “thirtyish” workhorses – Davis, Garland and Webby – and none have 1700 innings under their belt).

If you break the candidates down into 1700 IP increments, Schill had two “careers” at 27% above league av ERA – obviously outstanding – but Bert had three “careers” at 18% over. Another way of looking at the same data is to rhetorically ask what Curt’s career ERA+ would have been had he pitched 1700 additional innings, which he’s physically incapable of.

That’s just the dry, high level analytics, but the stuff sergey is talking about – clutchness, studliness, humping up and rising to The Big One (geez, that sounds filthy huh?), all the while defining and defending Our American Values, will play a part in the HOF dance.

Re postseason excellence: Schilling was as good as it gets (11-2 2.23 ERA), but the real distinction there between him and Blyleven (5-1 2.47) isnt performance, clutchness, etc. It’s that Blyleven had the opportunity to start six postseason games in his lengthy career – Schilling nineteen.

If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09

by Diamondhacks on Mar 24, 2009 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions

Blyleven's IP advantage over Schilling

also serves to highlight the pitfalls of comparing pitchers from different eras…

We are truly in the presense of greatness here…-- unnamedDBacksfan

by DbacksSkins on Mar 24, 2009 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions

1700 innings

is a “pitfall”? lol

It’s not like Blyleven pitched underhand from a 50 foot mound

If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09

by Diamondhacks on Mar 24, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions

No

but he’d be even more impressive if he had.

by Azreous on Mar 24, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions

Pitchers, in general, are used differently now.

In 1970, Blyleven’s first season in the majors, starters pitched 71% of all innings. Last year, in 2008, starters pitched only 65. On top of that, in the American League, where Blyleven spent all but 3 years of his career, that went up even further with the advent of the DH in 1973. In 1974, (the 2nd year of the DH — assuming that most managers had the hang of it by now) in the AL, starters pitched 74 of all innings.

On the other hand, Schilling spent 13 of his 20 years in the National League. Last year in the NL, starters pitched only 64% of total innings.

Now obviously, that doesn’t entirely explain why Blyleven pitched 34% more innings during his career, (although he DID pitch 2 seasons longer than Schill, and 267 of those 1700 innings came in his final 2 years) but it shows that there’s a lot more to this comparison than the straight numbers you’re providing. It’s not MacIntoshes vs. Granny Smiths, it’s MacIntoshes vs. tangerines.

We are truly in the presense of greatness here…-- unnamedDBacksfan

by DbacksSkins on Mar 24, 2009 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions

Should have been

a few more percent signs in this post, (65 and 74) but they got lost in the language of the intarwebz.

We are truly in the presense of greatness here…-- unnamedDBacksfan

by DbacksSkins on Mar 24, 2009 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions

My joke

about the 50 foot mound obviously went for naught :-) The two eras are not MacIntosh to MacIntosh, but not MacIntosh to tangerine either.

Your two endpoints (1970 & 2008), almost forty years apart, establish a total annual decline in starter innings of about 10% – about a quarter of one percent ( 3 or 4 total innings across the rotation) per year. It’s true, that when compounded over long careers, those innings add up, to maybe a couple hundred. (Remember Blyleven and Schilling actually shared four common years, altho Curt didnt pitch much in them).

More significantly, Blyleven “enjoyed” a four man rotation for much of his career. Maybe four or five xtra starts for twenty years – not quite that much, but heck, let’s call it 700 innings. You’re still short 800-1000 innings. And why did teams go to the five man? To increase the productivity (ie ERA+, career durability) of the modern starter. Maybe it hasnt worked as planned, but there’s a relationship there, between total innings and effectiveness per inning. It’s fair to ask how effective Schill would’ve been starting 38-40g and conversely, how effective Blyleven could’ve been starting only 33-34.

I dont know the answer, but here’s a hint. By his 29th birthday, Curt Schilling had thrown only two seasons of more than 120 innings in the major leagues (they both were over 200, btw). But two, over a hundred and twenty! That had nothing to do with the five vs four rotation or the inexorable decline of starter innings. By 29, Mike Mussina had six such seasons. By his 29th birthday, Bert Blyleven had ten - (nine of which exceeded 230 IP, but who’s counting). The underlying era/usage differentials were rendered irrelevant over the first half of Curt’s career, by the fact he screwed around five or six years, while guys like Mussina and Blyleven were consistently marvelous – and now all you whippersnappers want to talk about are mystique and aura, the bloody sock, and how voters in all fifty states (incl Guam) support Schilling’s HOF candidacy on their iphones ;-)

If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09

by Diamondhacks on Mar 24, 2009 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions

No, your joke WAS funny;

I went on despite it because I felt there was a serious point to be made about the danger of comparing numbers across eras — it’s much too easy to fall into the trap of being lazy and ignoring the differences in different times. My post was in no way meant to be all-encompassing — I didn’t feel like getting into an analysis of the 4-man vs. 5-man rotation, so I limited it to starter use, and I did allow that Blyleven pitched more innings than Schilling above and beyond what can be explained simply by managerial changes:

Now obviously, that doesn’t entirely explain why Blyleven pitched 34% more innings during his career, (although he DID pitch 2 seasons longer than Schill, and 267 of those 1700 innings came in his final 2 years) but it shows that there’s a lot more to this comparison than the straight numbers you’re providing.

Although pitching more innings before the age of 29 shows, to me, not just the effect of Curt’s infamous screaming-at by Roger Clemens, but also outside factors such as depth chart management. Now, to do your work for you, although you did point out that, “Remember Blyleven and Schilling actually shared four common years, altho Curt didnt pitch much in them”, you might have also noted that, since I was trying to make a point, I specifically used Blyleven’s first year and Schill’s last year to overemphasize the differences. You also never mentioned my point about the DH.

now all you whippersnappers want to talk about are mystique and aura, the bloody sock, and how voters in all fifty states (incl Guam) support Schilling’s HOF candidacy on their iphones ;-)

Didn’t say anything like that, and never mentioned those two exotic dancers, but I’ll give you a courtesy LOL: LOL!

For anyone who’s interested, BP had a good series about the 4-man vs. 5-man rotation a few years ago.

We are truly in the presense of greatness here…-- unnamedDBacksfan

by DbacksSkins on Mar 25, 2009 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions

it’s much too easy to fall into the trap of being lazy and ignoring the differences in different times.

‘Differences’ go both ways. Schill, lauded as one of the all time strikeout greats, pitched in history’s greatest K era. Truth is, he’s fourth or fifth in his own era in that department, way behind Randy and Pedro in terms of k/9. He’s effectively behind Clemens (who pitched 1700 more IP in the same era), and may wind up behind Santana and/or Peavy when they’re done. If Kerry Wood didnt hurt his arm, or if Hideo Nomo arrived a few years earlier from Japan, they’d qualify ahead of Curt as well. So, he’s enjoyed historical context advantages.

Second, while I appreciate the march of usage and philosophies thru baseball history, and insist on making reasonable adjustments for them, at some level, the unavoidable relationship between innings and player value transcends these adjustments. We make this argument with closers all the time. Recent closers pitch fewer innings and are inherently less valuable – it’s just accepted. Big IP starters are inherently more valuable to their teams, regardless of era.

Looking at lower career win standards for HOF consideration makes sense, but lets not get ahead of ourselves. Only a dozen 300 game winners have commenced careers after the end of WWI. Three of them are direct contemporaries of Schilling – Randy would be the fourth. So, the notion that 250 is the new 300, in Curt’s time anyway, seems premature.

You also never mentioned my point about the DH.

The DH helped Bert’s IP (as if he needed that), but hurt his ERA, K/9 etc. As you noted, Schill pitched sparingly in the American League.

The paramount thing, I think, is to honor the best pitchers of each era, and as I said, Curt’s fifth or sixth in my book. It’s funny. There are a dozen HOF starters from the 1960’s, but not a single HOF starter who began their career in the 70’s (Eck being a SP/RP hybrid). They’ve inducted Eck, Sutter, now Gossage – not one damn starter between 1967 (Seaver) and the mid 80’s(Clemens?/Maddux). You could argue Nolan Ryan as a 70’s pitcher, cuz he didnt do much in the 60’s, but Blyleven’s this underappreciated colossus from a disparaged Age. He essentially pitched Ron Guidry’s career. Twice.

Thx for the courtesy lol on the whippersnapper rant. What I’m really trying to say is, there’s a recency effect. We overvalue what’s in front of our noses, what’s drummed into our skulls to an unprecendented degree on ESPN, the internets,etc. – and tend to discount past greatness, whether it’s Bert or Carl Mays before that.

To clarify, it’s not my intention to keep Schilling out of the Hall. I just want his accomplishments evaluated fairly against contemporary and historical candidates. That’s not really happening now. He’s obviously a very serious candidate – I just think there are a number of guys more deserving who dont generate quite the hoopla, and I’d like to see the voting reflect that.

If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09

by Diamondhacks on Mar 25, 2009 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions

I'd agree that Blyleven should be in as well.

I guess the question is this then: If you had a ballot, and we were ignoring the five-year hiatus for Schilling, would you put both of those guys on your ballot for Cooperstown next time around? Or would Blyleven’s snub prompt you to devalue other lesser pitchers who might be deserving, but not as much?

by Azreous on Mar 25, 2009 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions

The main issue

of course, is whether you eventually get in or not, and being the fussy sort that I am, I’d also prefer candidates be inducted in rough chronological order with how deserving they are, relative to peers.

So, no, I would not vote Schilling first go round, and probably not the second or third either, depending on who’s on the ballot. I assume Mussina and Glavine would share that first card, and I’d like to see them, and/or Maddux, have their day, unspoiled by a lesser pitcher and media hog exploiting the spotlight.

For me, it’s not about making someone squirm for fifteen years. It’s just acknowledging there’s some hierarchy to this that needs to be sifted through.

If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09

by Diamondhacks on Mar 26, 2009 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions

The two eras are not MacIntosh to MacIntosh, but not MacIntosh to tangerine either.

Let’s split the difference and say MacIntosh vs. pear.

We are truly in the presense of greatness here…-- unnamedDBacksfan

by DbacksSkins on Mar 25, 2009 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions

oookkkaaayyy

So, maybe Schilling has one of the best K:BB ratios (over career), so maybe he won 3 World Series’, so maybe he is one of the best post-season, clutch pitchers of all time……. yeah. I have no point to prove, he was a stud, made my life happy. Would you rather have Pedro Martinez pitching in the WS or Curt effing Schilling?! Yeah, I said he got a huge head when he got to Boston, but dude, really?! He is a great CLUTCH pitchers, yeah, clutch. If Schilling’s freakin sock can get into the Hall of Fame, I think can too.

I still don’t like the BoSox

"I always think one step ahead, like a carpenter....the builds stairs"

by sergey606 on Mar 24, 2009 4:51 AM EDT up reply actions

Curt Schilling's sock

is also a good counter-counterexample.

We are truly in the presense of greatness here…-- unnamedDBacksfan

by DbacksSkins on Mar 24, 2009 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions

If they were looking for a blood sacrifice

to break their ‘curse’, they still should have gone with the virgin.

If the world was perfect, it wouldn't be.

by unnamedDBacksfan on Mar 24, 2009 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions

Well

If you’re looking for someone on a professional sports team’s roster, the guy that’s a wargamer and a history buff is probably the closest you’ll find…

"Scott, are you evil, or are you really happy?"

by kishi on Mar 24, 2009 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions

Active politically, and conservative, too.

That doesn’t hurt his chances.

Wait, he has a family. Crap.

We are truly in the presense of greatness here…-- unnamedDBacksfan

by DbacksSkins on Mar 24, 2009 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions

a virgin huh?

Lester?

"I always think one step ahead, like a carpenter....the builds stairs"

by sergey606 on Mar 24, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions

I would agree with all of those but one.

Mussina before Schilling?

(Granted, I think it’d be very close, and that Mussina will get undeserved demerits for not having enough in categories typically associated with the Hall of Fame — just one 20-win season, only once in the top three in Cy Young voting, just four all-star appearances, etc.)

Just curious.

by Azreous on Mar 24, 2009 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions

Mussina has one huge benefit:

he played for the Yankees.

We are truly in the presense of greatness here…-- unnamedDBacksfan

by DbacksSkins on Mar 24, 2009 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions

Right now

a word association with Mussina might yield responses like Tommy John or Jim Kaat. Consistent, durable pitchers with just under 300 wins, kind of a borderline HOF guy. But Mussina’s 117 games over . 500 with a 123 ERA+. He was much better than those guys. If people voted today, I agree Schilling would get the nod over Moose, certainly among fans. Schilling’s image is that of the almost mythic competitor while Mike’s seen as the lesser beneficiary of powerful Yankee teams.

But give it five years. Let voters absorb the entirety of the record. Each guy’s career can be easily broken down into two halves: Mussina (BAL & NY), Schilling (PHI and after PHI). Curt was better in the second part, the part we all remember, but Mussina was better early. He was 147-81 for some pretty mediocre BAL squads, while Curt went 105-89 for similarly up and down PHI. In the second halves, Curt went 111-57, Mussina 123-72 for the Yanks. In terms of career ERA+, Curt was 3% better, Mike had 9% more IP. Pretty even.

Schill famously labored a few yrs in Randy’s shadow, a couple more behind Pedro, but Mussina pitched with Clemens, Pettitte, Wang and Wells. Which sets up this next stat rather nicely. Schilling led his team in ERA six times, which is great. Mussina led his team in ERA twelve times. Baltimore basically got nine yrs of “Brandon Webb” before Mike ever set foot in the cacophonous Bronx. People forget that

There’s this rather ponderous image of Schill as THE fierce, intelligent competitor who kept “a book” on hitters and who got the most out of his abilities. Personally, I think it’s 80% garbage, and will fade with time. Schilling was enormously gifted from the start and finally put things together after his famous talk w/ Clemens.

Mussina never had Schill’s talent, but he kept a book on hitters. In his head. Went to Stanford, you know :-) Quiet, serious guy. Didnt wave it around in front of reporters. Took care of his body. Won 270 games – 117 games over 500 (Curt is 60 over).

Give it five years :-)

If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09

by Diamondhacks on Mar 24, 2009 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions

from what i heard

the 300 W’s is a big thing they look at, especially after the years of the 4 man rotation

"I always think one step ahead, like a carpenter....the builds stairs"

by sergey606 on Mar 24, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions

It was, at least.

But who knows how long it’ll be before we see another 300 win pitcher (besides Unit, if/when he gets there), so that metric will have to change. 250 will be the first step, but even that might be out of reach with how pitchers are coddled now.

by Azreous on Mar 24, 2009 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions

yeah

I heard a couple years back, that RJ will probably be the last pitcher to win 300

"I always think one step ahead, like a carpenter....the builds stairs"

by sergey606 on Mar 25, 2009 3:07 AM EDT up reply actions

I agree,

which is a big part of why I desperately wanted him to win 300 in a Dbacks uniform…

We are truly in the presense of greatness here…-- unnamedDBacksfan

by DbacksSkins on Mar 25, 2009 3:23 AM EDT up reply actions

I know this might be bad

however, I want him to get the 300 playing in AZ, don’t give a lump of crap that the ‘Backs lose one game, it will be awesome. My buddy is an M’s fan, and he really wants RJ to get his 300 win vs. the mariners

"I always think one step ahead, like a carpenter....the builds stairs"

by sergey606 on Mar 25, 2009 4:37 AM EDT up reply actions

Maybe, maybe not

He won’t be the last but it might be a little while. Behind RJ, Mike Mussina is retired, and the next would be ageless wonder Jamie Moyer, currently on 246. He’d probably need four more years at least – possible, but not likely. Andy Pettitte on 215 and Pedro (214) are the only other active players under-40 who are more than half-way there.

There’s a clump in the 120-130 win range that I think are probably the best bet for the next man – odds are one of them might have the necessary good health and longevity to make a push. Roy Halliday (131 wins, age 31), Roy Oswalt (129, 30) and CC Sabathia (117, 27) are all possibles. It’s true that pitchers tend to start later, pitch less, and come out of the game earlier so don’t get as many wins as their predecessors, but I certainly wouldn’t bet on Johnson being the last to 300.

by Jim McLennan on Mar 26, 2009 12:31 AM EDT up reply actions