Curt Schilling announces retirement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

He did more then "Pretty Well" in Philly. And yes, I obviously would love if he retired as a Red Sox. And he might want to as well. But because of the stupid rules he may not have a choice at all...

---

Well, remember, we're talking about from the HOF's perspective, not form what you or I think "should" happen.

He was a great pitcher for the Phillies, but what is his legacy there? What did he win?? What is the story there?? There is none.

With the BoSox, he is a legend forever. He's the guy who came and ended "the curse." That's all you have to say, every casual fan of baseball knows what that's about.. The legend is huge and will grow and grow as time goes by. That is what the HOF wants.

I think he'll go in as a Red Sox, with a chance as a Diamondback (where the best of his postseason work came, contrary to popular belief)....I personally would put him in with a Phillies cap, but that's because I'd make my choices based on what team he provided the most value to.

The stupid rules are there to prevent greedy players from taking compensation from stupid teams in return for said stupid team's logo being immortalized for all time. That situation is even stupider than having people other than the player decide what logo should go on the player's cap - kind of the lesser of two evils. It's a sad statement that it has to be there, but there it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I think he'll go in as a Red Sox, with a chance as a Diamondback (where the best of his postseason work came, contrary to popular belief)....I personally would put him in with a Phillies cap, but that's because I'd make my choices based on what team he provided the most value to.

---

I'd put him in as a Diamondback if it was up to me, but I think it's most likely he'll go in as a Red Sox. I'm not as sure as other people here that he's a lock, though.

I would rather see him go in as a Diamondback, but I can see why he would go in as a Phillie or Red Sock.

He spent a long time with Philadelphia, but he wasn't GREAT. He won 2 World Series with Boston, but he was really good in his Arizona years, even though he didn't have a lot of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yamiviet

im not shock schilling retired he knew he was done but was trying to see if get a little more money

---

Yami, I want more of your opinion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

Yami, I want more of your opinion

---

As do I.

This is basically how I see things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe12Pack

This is basically how I see things.

---

Accolades were not even around for Pud galvin, so you can't rate him by that. And They are stupid to use in rating a player anyways................:mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

Accolades were not even around for Pud galvin, so you can't rate him by that. And They are stupid to use in rating a player anyways................:mad:

---

Note that I also said "YBY performance." Check out Pud's YBY... not overly impressive. He just was around for a long time, and racked up numbers in an era where pitchers could easily rack up all the numbers they wanted if they stayed healthy and at least average in terms of effectiveness.

And accolades are NOT a stupid measurement. I consider Cy Young and MVP voting placement to be nearly as valuable as winning a Cy Young or MVP. All Star selections, Gold Gloves, Silver Sluggers... also valuable ways for assessing players quickly in comparison to their peers, especially in ages that we know little about (example: seriously, how well do you or I really know the 70s?).

The point of accolades is that a player was the premier guy doing what he does at a given time. That's worth a LOT. It's what makes Babe Ruth so special... he was the premier player of his time. Most of the time, the Cy Young and MVP winner is accurate, and most of the time, the voting placement includes all the players who were top tier in a given season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe12Pack

Note that I also said "YBY stats." Check out Pud's YBY... not overly impressive. He just was around for a long time, and racked up numbers in an era where pitchers could easily rack up all the numbers they wanted if they stayed healthy and at least average in terms of effectiveness.

And accolades are NOT a stupid measurement. I consider Cy Young and MVP voting placement to be nearly as valuable as winning a Cy Young or MVP. All Star selections, Gold Gloves, Silver Sluggers... also valuable ways for assessing players quickly in comparison to their peers, especially in ages that we know little about (seriously, how well do you or I really know the 70s?).

The point of accolades is that a player was the premier guy doing what he does at a given time. That's worth a LOT. It's what makes Babe Ruth so special... he was the premier player of his time. Most of the time, the Cy Young and MVP winner is accurate, and most of the time, the voting placement includes all the players who were top tier in a given season.

---

Well, considering how stupid writers are, how much statistical analysis has changed, and the fact that players sometimes played in leagues full of other greats, yes they are stupid. and the Gold Glove is a joke, Look at Rafeal Palmeiro, David Wright, and more...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

Well, considering how stupid writers are, how much statistical analysis has changed, and the fact that players sometimes played in leagues full of other greats, yes they are stupid. and the Gold Glove is a joke, Look at Rafeal Palmeiro, David Wright, and more...

---

First of all, writers can only be "stupid" to an extent, and the cream always rises to the very top, whether or not the general consensus observing and commenting is the SABR types or the Joe Blow with his beer and his brat. Ask either of those guys who the best player in baseball is, and you'll probably hear an acceptable answer.

Second, the backlash on "stupid writers" is overblown. Sure, plenty of writers didn't vote for Pujols for the 2008 NL MVP. But the "stupid writers" somehow got it right, didn't they?

"Stupid writers" might be more old school than we BM types would like, but there's a reason they have those jobs and you and I don't.

Gold Gloves may have been a poor example by itself, but try building a case against MVP/CY Young selection for the past 10 years, and I bet you won't find many cases (if any) where you can argue beyond all shadows of doubt against who the winner was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe12Pack

First of all, writers can only be "stupid" to an extent, and the cream always rises to the very top, whether or not the general consensus is being looked at by SABR types or by Joe Blow with his beer and his brat. Ask either of those guys who the best player in baseball is, and you'll probably hear an acceptable answer.

Second, the backlash on "stupid writers" is overblown. Sure, plenty of writers didn't vote for Pujols for the 2008 NL MVP. But the "stupid writers" somehow got it right, didn't they?

"Stupid writers" might be more old school than we BM types would like, but there's a reason they have those jobs and you and I don't.

Gold Gloves may have been a poor example by itself, but try building a case against MVP/CY Young selection for the past 10 years, and I bet you won't find many cases (if any) where you can argue beyond all shadows of doubt against who the winner was.

---

Bartolo Colon. Case settled by just that one player. And also, they have the jobs they have because people like to hear their nonsense. They don't want to hear about numbers. But numbers are what makes the game...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe12Pack

Gold Gloves may have been a poor example by itself, but try building a case against MVP/CY Young selection for the past 10 years, and I bet you won't find many cases (if any) where you can argue beyond all shadows of doubt against who the winner was.

---

Let's see...2005 AL and NL Cy Young, 2002 AL MVP, 2001 AL MVP, 2001 AL Cy Young, 1998 AL and NL MVP.