>>
>>I wouldn't have a problem with him being in. To me he is a borderline call. Take into account that my view is only the best of the best should be there.
>
>My two cents, Schilling is in the same league as "the best of the best".
>
>Part of the problem is that Schilling was very outspoken as a player. Former Phillies GM Ed Wade once said that Schilling was a work horse on days he pitched, and a horse's a$$ on days he didn't. (Come to think of it, some former employers have said the same about me, ha). He was also very outspoken about some of the rulings of MLB. I look at his low induction vote % numbers and I have to believe that's playing a factor.
>
>Here's what this boils down to - game 7 of the World Series. Schilling would be my first choice. His post-season numbers are very compelling. Maddux and Glavine weren't as reliable in the huge games.
Repeating myself, I would have no problem with Curt Schilling in the HOF. He was unquestionably a great pitcher. Maybe he will make it some day.
I think you may be overstating the case that his outspoken nature was much of a factor. That was something I thought might bite Frank Thomas, who had a reputation of being surly to reporters. It wasn't. IMO the voters did a terrific job of evaluating the bodies of work.
Now here is something that intrigues me, and I will pose the question before researching the answer. How many pitchers in the HOF have fewer lifetime wins than Schilling's 216?
Answer: some but not many. And most of them pitched in the dead ball days. Dizzy Dean, 150 wins, hmmm. A cult of personality for sure. Sandy Koufax was an anomaly. For a 5 year stretch in the 1960s he was the most dominant pitcher ever. His win total of 165 is a reflection of having to retire young due to chronic arm problems.
UPDATE: Now this is interesting. I went on YouTube looking for a snippet of Koufax pitching in the World Series and got way more than I bargained for. Here is the entire TV broadcast of game 7 of the 1965 World Series, Koufax facing the Minnesota Twins. I don't expect you or anyone to sit and watch the entire 2.5 hours (although it would be more interesting than a lot of movies I could think of) but it's fascinating. Nearly half a century later, the things that are different and the things that remain the same.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeKbktNm0Mk
