HOF---PEDRO or SCHLLING more worthy??

[Fishhead]

?

[Willie Bee]

I'd rank Pedro above Schilling.

[KingRevolver]

Schilling is a piece of shit. Pedro deserves to get in just for throwing Zimmer to the ground.

[TodaysAction]

The Hall was for the best of the best, although it's constant lowering the bar to get more in, to me, those two are not worthy of first ballot selection.

[jjgold]

Pedro had much more impact on baseball

Schilling is white trash

[TheIntegrityKid]

Both will get in... Pedro is more deserving because he was more dominant

[Willie Bee]

The Hall was for the best of the best, although it's constant lowering the bar to get more in, to me, those two are not worthy of first ballot selection.

TA, that's one thing I don't understand, the 'first ballot' argument. There isn't a first ballot wing of the Hall of Fame and I fail to understand how much better a player gets between BBWAA ballots. If they don't deserve your vote the first year they are eligible, what makes them deserving the second year or the third year or the fourth year?

[pavyracer]

I think it's harder nowdays to not get in the HOF than getting in it. Anyone with average numbers is an easy pick to enter the HOF. The HOF should only have one person elected each year otherwise it loses it's purpose. With the current rates they are entering in it will take 12 hours to tour the HOF in year 2234.

[Casperwaits]

As a Red Sox fan, I am sure both will get in. I will go with Schilling being more deserving because of his length of time dominating in big situations. Pedro had the best single season pitching any of us has ever seen, but I still give the nod to the Schillmeister.

[CashMoney]

Pedro yes. Schilling was never, ever considered to be the most dominant pitcher in baseball, not even for a year. He was a good pitcher, not great. A great post season pitcher but a fringe Hall of Famer. If he gets in then Mussina is a

[TodaysAction]

TA, that's one thing I don't understand, the 'first ballot' argument. There isn't a first ballot wing of the Hall of Fame and I fail to understand how much better a player gets between BBWAA ballots. If they don't deserve your vote the first year they are eligible, what makes them deserving the second year or the third year or the fourth year?

Willie Bee, you're right they don't have a "first ballot wing". The standards used, as I understand them, are not consistent year in and year out as there is 'interpretation' of the guidelines used to elect those involved with the game. Think back when starting pitchers use to go 7+ innings regularly and as such had more opportunities to gain a win should their club get the victory which in turn gave them more chances to reach that '300' mark. In today's game, the starters are on pitch counts and when they reach their limit no matter the inning, they are done for the day. If that happens before the fourth inning, they have less chances to get a victory; snowballing that to less career wins causing voter/people to then think anybody with 200 wins is now an 'automatic' in.

[Willie Bee]

Yeah TA, I just either think of a player as a Hall of Famer or not a Hall of Famer. And what you were talking about regarding the change in the way pitchers are employed, that's the main reason I think it's unfair to compare someone like Pedro Martinez to someone like Bob Gibson or Walter Johnson. I simply look at where a player ranked among their own contemporaries, and if I think of them as being in the Top 10% of their era, then they are a Hall of Famer in my book.

I've also never liked wins being used to judge a pitcher. There was the longstanding argument against Nolan Ryan with some of his detractors citing, "He was just a .500 pitcher." My comeback was always the same: Ernie Banks was a .487 infielder.

[lakerboy]

Schilling is more worthy. He won titles with 2 teams. He was the guy red sox wanted to bring home the title. His bloody sock theatrics will get him in alone. Schilling was a born winner while Pedro was a born complainer.

[TodaysAction]

Yeah TA, I just either think of a player as a Hall of Famer or not a Hall of Famer. And what you were talking about regarding the change in the way pitchers are employed, that's the main reason I think it's unfair to compare someone like Pedro Martinez to someone like Bob Gibson or Walter Johnson. I simply look at where a player ranked among their own contemporaries, and if I think of them as being in the Top 10% of their era, then they are a Hall of Famer in my book.

I've also never liked wins being used to judge a pitcher. There was the longstanding argument against Nolan Ryan with some of his detractors citing, "He was just a .500 pitcher." My comeback was always the same: Ernie Banks was a .487 infielder.

Willie Bee, not an issue as I, generally, don't look at things like the majority. Trying to compare players from different eras is not worth pursuing because while the game itself is the same, it's inner components have changed. Interesting way to look at players, never thought of it that way.

Getting "300" wins does not mean the pitcher was excellent all the time - it could be a pitcher "hung around" long enough to reach that milestone. Just like when Hank's record fell - longevity helped those players.

[nosniboR11]

neither, both used roids

[tacomax]

Schilling is more worthy. He won titles with 2 teams. He was the guy red sox wanted to bring home the title. His bloody sock theatrics will get him in alone. Schilling was a born winner while Pedro was a born complainer.

On that basis, Ken Griffey Jr won't get in since he's never been to a World Series (apart from watching his dad play).

[Willie Bee]

neither, both used roids

How do you know this? Is it the he-man, muscled-up physiques that both Pedro and Curt had?

On that basis, Ken Griffey Jr won't get in since he's never been to a World Series (apart from watching his dad play).

On that basis the Hall of Fame would be one empty place. Here's a list of Hall of Famers who never won a World Series; it doesn't include the pre-1900 players when there wasn't a Series nor does it include those elected for their play in Negro Leagues:

Luke Appling
Richie Ashburn
Earl Averill
Ernie Banks
Jim Bunning
Rod Carew
Ty Cobb
Sam Crawford
Bobby Doerr
Rick Ferrell
Elmer Flick
Nellie Fox
Tony Gwynn
Gabby Hartnett
Harry Heilman
Billy Herman
Ferguson Jenkins
Addie Joss
George Kell
Harmon Killebrew
Ralph Kiner
Chuck Klein
Nap Lajoie
Freddie Lindstrom
Ted Lyons
Heinie Manush
Juan Marichal
Rube Marquard
Phil Niekro
Gaylord Perry
Eppa Rixey
Robin Roberts
Ryne Sandberg
George Sisler
Don Sutton
Arky Vaughan
Rube Waddell
Bobby Wallace
Paul Waner
Lloyd Waner
Zack Wheat
Billy Williams
Ted Williams
Hack Wilson
Early Wynn
Carl Yastrzemski
Robin Yount

[Fischnasty]

I think it's harder nowdays to not get in the HOF than getting in it.

Yeah good point. Its too bad you were forced to go do special operations in the gulf war right at the acme of your music/athletic career. otherwise, you would have been an easy first ballot hall of famer.