I Lied, Here's More

Jayson Stark chimed in about Schilling and here is what he had to say:

When we did one of our famous "That's Debatable" chats last winter about Schilling's Hall credentials, people kept bringing this up -- that he "never won a Cy Young."

Well, that's true. But he finished second three times (2001, 2002, 2004). And all three of those years, it took historic seasons by the winner -- Randy Johnson in '01 and '02, Johan Santana in '04 -- to beat him.

Take a look at his insane numbers in those three seasons:

2001: 22-6, 2.98 ERA, 293 strikeouts.
2002: 23-7, 3.23 ERA, 316 strikeouts.
2004: 21-6, 3.26 ERA, 203 strikeouts in 226 2/3 IP, while pitching in the AL East.

So how many pitchers of his generation had three seasons that dominating without winning a Cy Young? That would be none. And ohbytheway, he could have won a fourth Cy Young in 1997 (when he went 17-11, 2.97 ERA, with 319 strikeouts in 254 1/3 innings) if he hadn't been pitching for the worst team in baseball (the Phillies).

I get his point, he's had far better seasons than many pitchers who won Cy Young awards, but he lost out to otherworldly seasons. Schilling was an outstanding pitcher, but in his time he was the last of that first tier of pitchers. Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, and Pedro Martinez were all better pitchers during Curt's time. He didn't lose to a lucky Jack McDowell season or Barry Zito, he lost to pitchers that were better than him.

In 1997 when Schilling could have won a 4th Cy Young but I believe there was a young pitcher named Pedro Martinez that went 17-8, 1.90 ERA, with 305 strikeouts in 241 1/3 innings. That once again helps Stark's point that if not for other pitchers he could have won a few Cy Young awards, but the point remains that even though Schilling is outstanding and certainly deserving of the Hall, there were better pitchers in his time. Also, Tim Lincecum pitched on a pretty lousy team last year, it didn't stop him from winning the Cy Young, and if I recall the 97 Expos weren't too good either.

This is kind of a side point but I really hate when writers (who vote for these awards) talk about how many awards a player has, or should have had. They don't vote for a certain player during his career, then hold it against him when they decide his Hall of Fame candidacy. I once read someone say that when Joe Mauer's career is over people will complain how he didn't win an MVP (unless he wins one in the future). The same voters that snubbed him in 2006 and 2008 (when he should have won both) will snub him in 2025 when Mauer is light on the hardware.