I really never thought about Schilling as a steroid user. It is coincidental that his later years were his better years. Who knows?

Fine analysis as always, Joe. But I suspect some might argue that the seventh game of the 2001 World Series deserves consideration as a defining moment in 21st century baseball.

Very interesting point made at the end there. Goes to show how much of the "steroid issue" is just a witch hunt plain and simple.

"Schilling is also one of the approved "clean" players of his era. The process for gaining this label is largely inscrutable, but factors include quotability, skin tone, and affability."

How is skin tone a factor in being considered a "clean" player? Wouldn't guys like Frank Thomas, Jr. Griffey and Tony Gwynn all be considered "clean" players also? While guys like McGwire and Giambi certainly wouldn't. Not sure just how big a factor "skin tone" really is.

I know the media hammered Bonds far more than they should have and to some extent race certainly played into that. But when it comes to the hall for most its pretty simple. If you tested positive for steroids or were linked to them, at the current time you will have a tough go of getting into the hall. Atleast for the HOF, I don't think race plays into it.

Joe: why no link to Jay's article from "about a year ago"? By providing some of the information from the article but not a link to the article itself, it leads me to believe that Jay's conclusions differed from your own. While there's nothing wrong with that, if this is the case than at the very least it seems somewhat disingenous to use information he presented without providing the whole picture.

Here is the link for Jay's article:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7451

He shows Schilling above the benchmark per JAWS.

Joe: Do you think Schilling is a HOFer if he never throws a postseason inning? He's above the JAWS line for an average HOF starter on both peak and career.

"If narrative means anything - and it absolutely should mean something..." If Schilling does make the Hall, I really hope it's not the bloody sock that puts him over the top. Take away any of three factors - the rivalry, the comeback, or the sock - and it's no longer a HOF narrative. Let him get in on the merits of his career performance, not a story that grandpa tells the kids years from now. They might as well induct J.T. Snow for saving Dusty Baker's son from being run over. Voting by anecdote is something that BP usually fights against (such as Jack Morris' 10-inning shutout). I believe Schilling deserves to make it, but not for that.

Re: the narrative issue. How is the bloody sock game or game 7 of 2001 any more significant than Jack Morris's 10-inning CG in the 1991 WS?

wow, klipzskim stole my comment about one minute before i posted mine!

Well, narrative always counts. But pitching right after surgery is a little different than shutting out practically the worst offensive team in WS history. And truth be told, neither Schilling or Morris should be in.

Phillies fans will never forget his first classic post-season performance--shutting out the Blue Jays in Game 5 of the 1993 World Series, a night after the Phils blew a 14-9 lead in the 8th inning and were considered "finished" by most.

Of course, Schilling also revealed himself to be less than a "good guy" with the towel over his head while Mitch Williams worked the ninth the next night.

Joe, good article.

I'm glad that you explicitly raise the point regarding steroid use, rather than dancing around it. Certainly many have pointed to, say, Roger Clemens as an example of a pitcher whose late renaissance suggested use of steroids. One could make similar assertions regarding Schilling. Let's compare the two of them.

Roger Clemens had his best season at age 34, with a staggering 12.8 WARP3. He had four other seasons above 10.4 WARP3, three of them between ages 23 and 27 and one at age 42. Perhaps his health was better in his mid-twenties, because that's when he had his best stretch of consecutive strong seasons. His peak, however, was clearly his age 34 season, where he posted a WARP3 1.9 wins higher than he did at any other point in his career. That's a late peak for a starting pitcher.

Curt Schilling had his best season at age 25, his first full season as an MLB starting pitcher, with an 8.5 WARP3. He struggled with injuries during his twenties, possibly because his average Pitcher Abuse Point (PAP) score at ages 25 and 26 was higher than that of any MLB pitcher in 2008, and his second-best season was his age 30 season, 8.1 WARP3. That year he finished fifth in PAP; the next year he posted a 7.1 WARP3 and finished fourth in PAP. The next two years he was less effective...still very good, averaging 5.6 WARP3 per year, but less effective. The next four years with Arizona and Boston he earned fewer PAP and no CAT 5 starts, and he remained healthy enough to put up his best four-year stretch from ages 34-37. None of those four years, though, were as good as his seasons at either age 25 or age 30. Schilling clearly had his peak at age 25 or age 30. He had his best-managed and healthiest years in his middle thirties.

I don't see Schilling's stats as indicative of steroid use, regardless of his "quotability, skin tone, and affability." Others' mileage may vary.

He's deserving, but less so than Moose, who will likely be watching Schilling's induction speech from his couch.

I wholeheartedly believe Schilling belongs in the Hall. My only question is, does he go as a Philly, Diamondback, or Red Sock? I would guess Philly, but his most memorable and best seasons came with the latter two teams.

"Schilling was something of a polarizing figure at times, outspoken in a way we're not always comfortable with when it comes to athletes, and perhaps particularly baseball players."

I dunno, I think if you compare the relative lack of an uproar over Schilling -- er -- shilling for Bush in 2004 and the caterwauling about Carlos Delgado's reticence at being a good little soldier with respect to the National Anthem, and it doesn't seem like he was really that polarizing.

He ought to be polarizing, with his seemingly limitless ability to proudly flaunt his ignorance: More recently with his public dislike of Manny Ramirez' work ethic, despite Manny's countless hours in the batting cage, but most egregiously with his unquestioning support of our invasion of Iraq despite his constant claims to being a war history buff!

No, Schilling's type of "outspokenness" is more than welcome by most of the public. Contrast this with the "playing the race card" reaction to Gary Sheffield's remarks about how Latinos are preferred by management over African-Americans, which Carlos Guillen completely corroborated. "Truth to power", Schlling ain't.

The "outspokenness" that baseball people in general are comfortable with, and is Schilling's specialty, is calling out other people for noncomformity. And, if we're honest, especially calling out noncomformity of non-whites. Doesn't Carlton Fisk seem a little ridiculous in hindsight for yelling at Deion Sanders for not running out a foul popup?

Just wanted to chime in on the notion of a late-career surge as evidence of steroid use:

I believe that the point here wasn't to demonstrate that Schilling used steroids (however they may be defined - Andro? Ephedra? HGH?....they change the definition by the week!), the point, I believe, was to illustrate the silliness of trying to find proof of PED use via stats. It's only fair that if the vast majority of the media is applying this to every other player, then they damn well ought to apply it to Schilling as well.

This isn't to say that Schilling used steroids, it's to say that the statistical method of proving use is demonstrably worthless. But that doesn't stop the media and the (Viagra-popping) fans from stumbling over each other in a rush to wag their finger at this guy or that guy because he had a good year at age 36. Bill James wrote a great article about how John Feinstein egregiously cherry-picked stats to make Clemens look like a user: http://www.billjamesonline.net/ArticleContent.aspx?AID=599&Code=James01090

If Feinstein can do that to Clemens (and many other media members can do it to Bonds, ARod, and most other non-white players), then it's only fair to apply it to Schilling. Again, the point isn't to prove PED use, the point is to dis-prove the validity of the method.

Also, I agree wholeheartedly that there IS indeed racism involved in this manic witch-hunt, at least insofar as the people I hear on sports radio go. Just from casual listening, I'd say that 90% of the guys that they look to harp on are Latin and/or black (McGwire and Clemens being the token whities). They don't care about Brian Roberts (they're to busy chanting "USA!" while he bats in the WBC) or the countless other white players who've been cited in the Mitchell Report, they just want to try and pretend that their crappy white player was actually better than Barry Bonds, were it not for that Victor Conte! (As if.)

(And if you guys want to REALLY be alarmed at a white player with suspicious ties to steroids, I suggest you read Mr. Calcaterra's article in the 2009 'Hardball Times' book.... But don't ever expect to hear loser, Viagra-popping fans to talk about it on sports talk radio. They're too busy talking about how ARod "Should never be allowed on a baseball field again 'cuz he disgraced the purity of the game!" Real quote there.)