Camden Chat: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: MLB Hot Stove: blogging the rumors, trades, signings Bar-right-arrows

Schilling to have season ending surgery

The Curt Schilling saga may have come to an end. In his weekly interview on WEEI this morning, the Red Sox righthander announced he will have surgery on right shoulder, ending his 2008 season and likely his career.

"There's a pretty decent chance that I've thrown my last pitch forever," the 41-year-old righthander said. "I don't want it to end this way, but if this is the way it has to end, I'm OK with that. If it's over and my last pitch was in the 2007 World Series, I'm OK with that. I just can't stress enough where I am mentally with this. I have not a regret in the world.

Aww, gee. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

Link 5 months ago Oriole1_tiny zknower Comment 100 comments 0 recs |

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Well,

at least he correctly pointed out that Papelbon has a negative IQ.

A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.

by NHZ on Jun 20, 2008 6:05 PM EDT   0 recs

I'm not quoting word-for-word,

but he told someone in the Boston media-gaaack-that Papelbon’s not the sharpest tool in the shed. If you’ve ever heard Papelbon in an interview…you probably know what Curt meant. Grown-up high school jock-types are a little sad.

A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.

by NHZ on Jun 20, 2008 7:12 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Are you telling me...

that an adult who thinks it’s funny to parade around an infield in a speedo & swim goggles while dancing isn’t Mensa material? I scoff at this notion! Pabelbon is a toolbag, but you don’t want to match comedic wits with the creator of that genius!

From the Land of Pleasant Living...

by OEutaw on Jun 21, 2008 12:13 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

If Schilling goes in the HOF

Then Moose should go. And if Moose goes in, does he wear an O’s uniform?

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Jun 20, 2008 7:03 PM EDT   0 recs

Schilling

is borderline (if he hadn’t been injured two of the last four seasons, he’d be over the borderline) but his incredible postseason record puts him over the hump IMO. And it’s not just incredible because of his stats (which are indeed incredible), but between 01 and 04 he pitched some memorable ass games. Mussina essentially had the same career without the postseason heroics. I would put them both in, but Mussina is a tick behind.

I am a firm believer in the “if that’s the worst thing about someone…” rule, and if the worst thing you can say about someone is that he’s a Republican and a blowhard, he’s doing pretty well. Schilling is awesome.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jun 20, 2008 7:17 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Steve Phillips was adamant the answer is NO

on ESPN this afternoon. Buster Olney was making Curt’s case, and Steve was all like “No Cy Youngs, No win leads for a year, no ERA title.” He did point out he did have great years in 2001 and 2004, but he wasn’t even the best pitcher on those two WS teams. 210+ wins in 20 years? That’s 10 wins a year. I know, I know, wins aren’t that important in measuring a pitcher’s success, but averaging 10 a year? Not ONE season where he led a significant statistical category?

But I’m not the best person to ask on this topic. I think WAAAAAY too many players get in.

"I wasn't here for the losing years. But it feels a little like the days with Earl in charge and John Lowenstein smashing birthday cakes in the middle of the clubhouse with a bat." - John "T-Bone" Shelby

by duck on Jun 20, 2008 7:31 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Also

Schilling was a LOT better than Pedro in 2004. Yet another reason why Steve Phillips is a fucking retard.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jun 20, 2008 8:06 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

AND

the 10 wins a year stat is one for the retard annals, since it counts 88-91 where he started a grand total of 5 games.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jun 20, 2008 8:08 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Mussina essentially had the same career without the postseason heroics.

Moose’s post season stats are pretty darn good too.

WL G GS ERA IP W SO

7-9 23 21 3.42 139.2 33 145

No bloody sock or anything, but good enough that if you’re going to point to Schilling’s post season record as a contributing factor, you should also be able to do the same with Moose.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Jun 20, 2008 7:53 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

No

Mussina’s postseason stats are not in the same ballpark.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jun 20, 2008 8:09 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

didn't make that claim

I just said his post season stats are pretty darn good. Schilling clearly has the superior post season record. But is the difference in post-season stats so MASSIVE that you could use it as a push factor to justify Schilling going in but not Moose? I’m skeptical. And then when you consider the huge difference in wins… if Schilling goes in, the case for Moose is very strong.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Jun 20, 2008 8:15 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

come on,

Comparable IPs, both guys had sick SO to W ratio. And when we’re talking about 140s IP, a one run difference in ERA isn’t that MASSIVE. Over a career, 1 run difference in ERA is huge, but we’re talking about a small sample of IPs.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Jun 20, 2008 8:22 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The ERA difference

is huge. So are the three rings. And yes, Luis Gonzalez, Randy Johnson and David Ortiz had a lot to do with that, but so did Schilling. (And Schilling has a LOT to do with Mussina’s lack of rings.) All I’m saying is you can stack up their careers, and they’re about equal. If the postseason is a tiebreaker, it’s not even close. Schilling accomplished way more and pitched better. If Mussina gets into the HOF, it will have zero to do with his postseason performance, and more to do with his long term consistency.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jun 20, 2008 8:32 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

well,

For a small sample, a one run difference isn’t that huge. A small sample can be skewed disproportionately by a few outlier starts, which undermines the reliability of ERA (which is why you shouldn’t put too much stock in post-season performance, I’m not saying you should discount it, but it shouldn’t be a huge deal). And the rings shouldn’t matter that much. It’’s a team stat, not an individual one.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Jun 20, 2008 8:42 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

overall,

I’m just saying if Schilling goes in, Moose better go in as well. I would accept the post season difference argument if Moose’s post season track was horrible, like an ERA 5.50 or something. But instead we’re talking about a ONE run difference, no bloody sock for Mussina, and no ending the curse for a storied franchise.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Jun 20, 2008 8:46 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

if schilling's bloody sock game

happened while pitching for the Pirates. His perceived post season glow dims considerably.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Jun 20, 2008 8:48 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

But it didn't

and that’s also not true anyway.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jun 20, 2008 8:52 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yes

and that’s why nobody remembers Kirk Gibson or Bobby Thomson or Bill Maseroski or Jack Morris and Kirby Puckett or Francisco Cabrera or Bob Gibson. Things that are incredible are incredible whether they are overhyped or not. Schilling pitching, and not only pitching, but pitching great, in those two games was incredible.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jun 20, 2008 9:06 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Right, so...

Mussina is missing all those things. What do you not understand about my points? Mussina’s postseason is nothing special; Schilling’s is among the best of all time. Why is this not clear?

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jun 20, 2008 8:51 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Mussina’s postseason is nothing special; Schilling’s is among the best of all time. Why is this not clear?

Dude, I’ve already said that Schilling’s post season is better… I just haven’t heard anything that convinces that me that the difference justifies pushing Schilling over Moose. Again, ONE RUN DIFFERENCE for a SMALL SAMPLE SIZE doesn’t mean much.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Jun 20, 2008 9:05 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

How could the difference NOT

justify pushing him over?

You agree their careers are relatively equivalent?
You agree Schilling’s postseason is better?

How does that not push Schilling ahead of Mussina? Seems pretty black and white to me. And you don’t think this is going to make a difference to HOF voters who very nearly put Jack fucking Morris, whose postseason numbers ALSO don’t sniff Schilling’s?

And we can say small sample size all we want, but when the sample comes from October it is what it is. Mussina didn’t accomplish what Schilling did and so he’s behind. It matters.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jun 20, 2008 9:10 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Schilling's career is over; Mussina's is not

Mussina is still knocking up his win total; so you can’t really say if their careers are going to be judged equivalent or not.

"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle

by BirdFanInPhilly on Jun 20, 2008 9:11 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

You agree Schilling’s postseason is better?

Yes, it is better, as I already said, I don’t like putting too much stock into numbers with a small sample size, particularly when deciding something as important as the HOF. Okay? Hope I’m being clear here.

And we can say small sample size all we want, but when the sample comes from October it is what it is. Mussina didn’t accomplish what Schilling did and so he’s behind. It matters.

It is what is, and what is is isn’t a big difference. In fact, it’s a ONE run difference. You don’t think small sample matters because it’s the post season, fine, I just disagree dude.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Jun 20, 2008 9:18 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Fair enough

but I think ignoring the postseason is a mistake, since it’s, like, the whole point. Making huge contributions to memorable postseasons seems like something that should matter when trying to portray an accurate picture of baseball history.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jun 20, 2008 9:22 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I wouldn't saying I would ignore it

I’m just saying it’s a small factor thus I just leary about using it as justification to push one pitcher into the HOF and to keep another comparable pitcher out. If there was something like 3-4 run difference in their post-season ERAs, then I could at least think about this issue more, but 1 run just doesn’t it for me.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Jun 20, 2008 9:25 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Mussina was MONEY in the postseason with the O's

His 18 K game didn’t have Eric Gregg’s fat ass helping him out. It;s when he went to the MFY the postseason numbers started leveling out….

"I wasn't here for the losing years. But it feels a little like the days with Earl in charge and John Lowenstein smashing birthday cakes in the middle of the clubhouse with a bat." - John "T-Bone" Shelby

by duck on Jun 20, 2008 11:47 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

this kinda sounds to me

like it could be a longevity issue… Schilling has been as good or better longer. And that’s my two cents.

"Chickens are hard to catch." Jennifer Scott (Luuuuuuuke's Mom)

by dayzd toe on Jun 23, 2008 10:46 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

At this point, probably a push between Schilling and Mussina

Schilling has been much better during the postseason; Mussina has been somewhat better during the regular season. Seeing that 95%+ of your innings are going to be during the regular season; that has to carry far more weight.

Mussina has two major advantages when it comes to the HOF, first his Win total is far, far better. Voters care about that sort of thing (although it’s really a terrible stat). Second is his career is by no means over. He’s 39; and he’s still the same pitcher he has been for the last 4 years (with the exception of the blip in 2006); he’s a league average starter. He hasn’t shown much reason why he can’t stick with the Yankees and pickup his 10 to 15 wins a year.

He’s still got a shot (albeit long shot) to hit 300 wins.

"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle

by BirdFanInPhilly on Jun 20, 2008 9:07 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Mussina has not been somewhat better

in the regular season. In fact, he has not been better at all. He’s just pitched more. 200 whole innings.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jun 20, 2008 9:11 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Pitching 200 whole innings more when you are a littlle over 2 years younger

....isn’t completely irrelevant.

"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle

by BirdFanInPhilly on Jun 20, 2008 9:13 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

And yet

it doesn’t make him any better.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jun 20, 2008 9:13 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

So your longevity and total production are irrelevant????

I guess that’s one opinion; but I don’t think it’s a very widely held one. A lot of guys are in the HOF because they pitched more; had more hits, etc.

"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle

by BirdFanInPhilly on Jun 20, 2008 9:16 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree

but it does not make him BETTER. As I said, I would put Mussina in the HOF. As of today, their careers are equivalent. Now if Mussina continues to pitch another year or two like he has for the last two months, it will push him ahead. If it turns out this is a blip in his decline, well maybe not so much.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jun 20, 2008 9:20 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

But even if he just puts up league average numbers the next couple years (95 OPS+); then that will be to Mussina’s credit. I mean, that’s got to give him an advantage over another guy with similar rate stats but fewer innings.

Career wise, their about equal if they both never pitched again. Voter wise, still think Mussina has a lead because of Wins. And if Mussina makes it to 300 (or even 290); he’s far ahead of Schilling.

"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle

by BirdFanInPhilly on Jun 20, 2008 9:23 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Career wise, their about equal if they both never pitched again. Voter wise, still think Mussina has a lead because of Wins. And if Mussina makes it to 300 (or even 290); he’s far ahead of Schilling.

Yup, and it is worth noting that Moose is having a good season. And since he plays for the Yanks, he doesn’t need to be great to rack up a lot of wins. I’m guessing he’ll up around 280 wins IF he stays with the Yanks or a team with a great offense.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Jun 20, 2008 9:28 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

career numbers - Moose's ERA+ 122, Schilling's ERA+ 127

Seriously guys, can’t we just conclude that these pithcher are extremely close in terms of regular season production.

I don’t have Win Shares in front of me, but I imagine their numbers are very close using that benchmark as well.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Jun 20, 2008 9:22 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I would say they are very close, but for...

...the fact that Schilling wasn’t near as durable as Mussina. Mu$$ina has 200 more IP in 2 fewer seasons. He has double-digit wins in every season of his career but his rookie year whereas Schilling only notched double-digits 50% of the time. Mussina’s career ERA is only .25 higher.

So, frankly, if you’re picking one to anchor your rotation you go with the guy who can give you a near-identical performance but will do it on a much more consistent basis. Which is why, IMO, Mussina has actually had the better career.

Think about it: would you rather hit 20+ wins three times if it meant that 10 times you wouldn’t even hit double digits? Or would you rather never hit 20 wins (maybe this year?) but average 17W per year for 18 years running?

From the Land of Pleasant Living...

by OEutaw on Jun 21, 2008 12:44 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

...the fact that Schilling wasn’t near as durable as Mussina. Mu$$ina has 200 more IP in 2 fewer seasons.

I generally try to avoid looking at wins, but yeah, I should have mentioned the IPs. In any case, Moose and Schilling are very comparable pitchers. If Schilling goes in, and Moose doesn’t, I think that’s a damn shame.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Jun 21, 2008 5:12 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Schilling is better

Career ERA is .30 lower. 400 more strikeouts and 50 fewer walks in roughly the same number of IP (they’re about 1 season apart in IP).

I guess they should both be in, but I kind of agree with duck and think neither of them should be.

“Memorable ass games”, while memorable, should not be a HOF factor, IMHO.

by zknower on Jun 20, 2008 7:53 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Moose has 260 wins versus 216 for Schilling

Not that wins are a good indicator of performance but we know that HOF writers care about this unreliable stat.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Jun 20, 2008 8:03 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

"Memorable ass games", while memorable, should not be a HOF factor, IMHO.

Why? If a player is on the borderline, why not consider something like that?

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jun 20, 2008 8:05 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

This, this is why people HATE

PHN and MFY fans.

They’re “memorable” because ESPN et. al. shoves them down our damn throat every fall. I could make the Marlins two WS wins “memorable” if I was president of ESPN.

"I wasn't here for the losing years. But it feels a little like the days with Earl in charge and John Lowenstein smashing birthday cakes in the middle of the clubhouse with a bat." - John "T-Bone" Shelby

by duck on Jun 20, 2008 11:49 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

No

They’re memorable because they’re fucking World Series games, you whiny ass motherfucker. The Marlins two wins ARE memorable—Josh Beckett, nobody remembers what he did!

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jun 21, 2008 7:35 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Wow, you DO bring the personal pretty quick

Is it even possible in your world that someone else can hold a differing opinion without you thinking of them as inferior to you? I’m sure there are some good therapists in NoVa who can help you with that…

"I wasn't here for the losing years. But it feels a little like the days with Earl in charge and John Lowenstein smashing birthday cakes in the middle of the clubhouse with a bat." - John "T-Bone" Shelby

by duck on Jun 21, 2008 10:30 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yours

is a particularly retarded opinion. Are you saying the 01 WS and 04 ALCS were not, in fact, memorable?

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jun 21, 2008 12:31 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

'04?

It was a four game sweep! Not exactly a lot of drama. It’s kind of like the Colts leaving Baltimore – WE cared a lot, no one else noticed.

You have an inflated sense of just how much the Boston Red Sox matter to non-Boston fans. We. Don’t. Give. A. Shit. About. Your. Team. And we’re sick of having it crammed down our throats by ESPN, Bill Simmons, and every other damn “national” baseball writer.

So now I’m retarded? Quite the vocab you got for yourself there…

"I wasn't here for the losing years. But it feels a little like the days with Earl in charge and John Lowenstein smashing birthday cakes in the middle of the clubhouse with a bat." - John "T-Bone" Shelby

by duck on Jun 21, 2008 1:32 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The 04 ALCS

was a four game sweep?

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jun 21, 2008 3:02 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

What part of WS

did you interpret to mean ALCS?

Stay with me here, will you?

"I wasn't here for the losing years. But it feels a little like the days with Earl in charge and John Lowenstein smashing birthday cakes in the middle of the clubhouse with a bat." - John "T-Bone" Shelby

by duck on Jun 21, 2008 3:22 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Wow

Scroll up a little, will ya, retard?

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jun 21, 2008 3:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I'm all for spirited debate

but if you persist in personal attacks and name-calling, you might just be getting a notice in your e-mail box informing you of your new status on Camden Chat.

You want to argue stats, logic or even just from passion for your team? Sure. Call people derogatory names? I’d suggest maybe you need to take stock in why you have so much anger in your life that you feel the need to belittle people you’ve never met, with whom you disagree over a past time, in terms that belittle entire segments of our population.

And I’d be posting this whether it was me of JonnyPops as the recipient of your misplaced outrage.

And yes, I did misread your ‘04 reference. Fine. It was the ALCS. Great comeback. Congrats. Happy?

"I wasn't here for the losing years. But it feels a little like the days with Earl in charge and John Lowenstein smashing birthday cakes in the middle of the clubhouse with a bat." - John "T-Bone" Shelby

by duck on Jun 21, 2008 4:13 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Alright pal

you want to explain to me how the 01 WS and 04 ALCS aren’t actually memorable? Once you do that I will stop writing off your complaints as anything but bitter whining by the fan of a losing franchise.

But I will take heed of your advice and maintain the polite tone of this blog where it is evidently acceptable to wish people get run over by buses and express a desire to punch them in the face.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jun 21, 2008 4:20 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

You aren't much on facts, are you?

1) I admitted I misread your ‘04 reference. What more do you want? Ceremonial cutting with a live webcam feed?

2) If you wish to report personal attacks or threats of physical violence, there are 5 e-mail addresses on the bottom of every page. Use them.

"I wasn't here for the losing years. But it feels a little like the days with Earl in charge and John Lowenstein smashing birthday cakes in the middle of the clubhouse with a bat." - John "T-Bone" Shelby

by duck on Jun 21, 2008 4:30 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

You said

They’re "memorable" because ESPN et. al. shoves them down our damn throat every fall.

All I’m asking is that you explain how these games were not actually memorable. Is that so hard? It is, obviously, because it’s totally and completely misguided and wrong.

And next time you misread something, try not to use the smarmy ass tone. Stay with me here, will you?

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jun 21, 2008 4:35 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

MY main point is

they are not the ONLY memorable games, yet ESPN et.al. treats them as if they are. Seen any highlights of the STL Series win a few years ago? Count the references to the Marlins this fall, or the Angels. All of these teams won within the last 6 years, yet FOX, ESPN et.al. will pretend it never happened so I can see another shot of Wade Boggs and that damn horse and Curt Schilling lifting his cap.

"I wasn't here for the losing years. But it feels a little like the days with Earl in charge and John Lowenstein smashing birthday cakes in the middle of the clubhouse with a bat." - John "T-Bone" Shelby

by duck on Jun 21, 2008 5:23 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

And yet

they are still memorable, despite whatever grudge you have against ESPN.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jun 21, 2008 5:26 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

But I will take heed of your advice and maintain the polite tone of this blog where it is evidently acceptable to wish people get run over by buses and express a desire to punch them in the face.

And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Jun 21, 2008 4:47 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

NESPN.

Or YESPN, depending on which team is winning at the moment.

You have the Schilling-hype ratcheted up as soon as he put on the Boston uniform. If he had performed those 4 seasons like he did in Arizona or in Philly, this would be a different story, I think. But, despite his sainthood in Massachussetts, his career in Boston hasn’t been all that special. 53 wins in 4 years? Two of those years on the WS champion roster? 13W per year is good, but it’s not fantastic. 3.95ERA isn’t phenomenal.

2004 was a great season. But, like Pedro, Boston rode him hard & put him away wet. His best days were already behind him. He was never as dominant as Randy Johnson. He was never as dominant as Pedro Martinez.

Schilling = very good, not great.

From the Land of Pleasant Living...

by OEutaw on Jun 21, 2008 12:37 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I'm sorry

but who the f said his regular seasons in Boston, aside from the first one, were great? This is not the issue. It’s his postseason record, which according to duck is apparently the creation of ESPN. While obviously ESPN hypes the Sox and Yankees to a sickening degree, this isn’t like the A-Rod waffling last fall. This is a case where something is ACTUALLY amazing, and then gets overhyped. But as I said before, it’s still fucking amazing.

If people think Schilling doesn’t belong in the HOF, I have no problem with that really. Maybe he’s on the wrong side of the borderline to you. But I don’t think anybody should ever forget how great his postseason career was.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jun 21, 2008 12:43 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I'm looking at those, because...

...frankly I don’t see his career as being hall-worthy. His post-season performance was fantastic. But, IMO, his regular season drags him down.

Then again, given the smaller sample size of post-season play, I’m not all that big on determining a player’s eternal worth based on what they do in October anyway.

From the Land of Pleasant Living...

by OEutaw on Jun 21, 2008 12:47 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

And that's fine

though I disagree about the postseason. There’s no reason why it shouldn’t be taken into consideration.

In any event, my issue is with duck suggesting Schilling’s postseason career is a product of ESPN hype, which is simply ludicrous.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jun 21, 2008 12:52 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

In any event, my issue is with duck suggesting Schilling’s postseason career is a product of ESPN hype, which is simply ludicrous.

Let first say that Schilling has been a great post season pitcher. I am in no way contesting that fact. But I can see where Duck is coming from because, as I said earlier, everything that happens in Boston gets magnified. By that I mean that Schilling’s game becomes etched in the collective memory of baseball more visibly because it happened in Boston. Fans remember the bloody sock game because it happened in Boston, because it ended the curse, because, as Duck pointed out, it is replayed on ESPN classic more than other playoff games. If that game happened in PIT, that bloody sock is forgotten by baseball fans the next day, and it doesn’t get nearly as much replay on ESPN classic. If you ask the casual fan about a memorable playoff game, he or she could probably cite the bloody sock game. But if that game happened in PIT, I bet its infamy, if you will, is greatly reduced.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Jun 21, 2008 5:04 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Ask Bill Mazeroski

about what it means to be a WS series hero and NOT play for NYY or BOS.

"I wasn't here for the losing years. But it feels a little like the days with Earl in charge and John Lowenstein smashing birthday cakes in the middle of the clubhouse with a bat." - John "T-Bone" Shelby

by duck on Jun 21, 2008 5:13 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yeah

it gets you to the HOF. Jesus Christ.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jun 21, 2008 5:24 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

But not to ESPN

‘Cause we gotta make room for Wade Bogg’s horse and Curt’s sock.

"I wasn't here for the losing years. But it feels a little like the days with Earl in charge and John Lowenstein smashing birthday cakes in the middle of the clubhouse with a bat." - John "T-Bone" Shelby

by duck on Jun 21, 2008 5:26 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Did I not concede

that ESPN is grossly tilted? How this effects anything is beyond me. If Curt Schilling pitches with his tendon sutured to the skin for the Pittsburgh Pirates, guess what, it’s still a memorable event. As hyped? No. But still memorable. But I guess Kirk Gibson must’ve hit that HR for the Yankees, right?

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jun 21, 2008 5:29 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I'm not saying his postseason career is

a product of hype. I’m saying this overblown media-borne certainty about Curt’s automatic placement as a first-ballot Hall of Famer is a product of hype.

His numbers are his numbers. He’s one of the best post-season pitchers of the last 50 years, and had a good, not great, not spectacular, regular season career. Thankfully, voters will have five years to calm down before a rational discussion will finally take place.

My point is, if Curt Schilling had had the exact same levels of success in BAL or PHI or MIL (yes, I include HELPING to win two WS with one other dominant pitcher in the rotation in each case), we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

“210 wins? Who the hell gets in the Hall with just 210 wins, no Cy Youngs and no years at all leading even one stats category? Get outta here!”

"I wasn't here for the losing years. But it feels a little like the days with Earl in charge and John Lowenstein smashing birthday cakes in the middle of the clubhouse with a bat." - John "T-Bone" Shelby

by duck on Jun 21, 2008 5:18 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I’m saying this overblown media-borne certainty about Curt’s automatic placement as a first-ballot Hall of Famer is a product of hype.

Actually that is clearly NOT what you said.