Hall of Fame Arguments, Curt Schilling Edition

With Curt Schilling’s season definitely over — and his career also pretty well done — it’s obviously time to revisit a post I did two years ago, arguing that not only is Curt Schilling a Hall of Famer, but it’s not particularly close. What follows is portions of that post, updated for his performance since then. The context was immeditely after Schilling won his 200th game.

There have been more than 16,000 men to ever play the game of baseball professionally. Eighty-one have pitched their way to as many wins as Curt Schilling. It is truly a remarkable accomplishment, particularly in these days of the supercharged offense. Congratulations to Curt, who is a great, great pitcher.

The same year, 2006, that he collected his 200th win, Schilling also struck out his 3,000th batter. But do those feats make him a Hall of Famer? We all know he’s great. But is he one of the greats?

First, here are Curt’s career numbers, with his rank all-time:

G: 569 (207th)
IP: 3,261 (94th)
H: 2,998
BB: 711
K: 3,116 (14th)
W: 216 (t-79th)
L: 146
ERA: 3.46
WHIP: 1.14 (44th)
K/9: 8.60 (13th)
K/BB: 4.38 (2nd)

They’re borderline numbers, as we’ve said. However, every pitcher above Curt Schilling in strikeouts (except Bert Blyleven) is in the Hall of Fame or headed there when they retire. And remember this: Every pitcher with 3,000 strikeouts is in the Hall of Fame, or in the case of Blyleven, should be. The only exceptions: Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez and John Smoltz. Two hundred wins might not be the new 300 wins, but in this high-offense era, it’s clear that 3,000 strikeouts is still a Hall-of-Fame milestone. (And lest you doubt Blyleven’s case for the Hall, click through Baseball Analysts).

Schilling ranks 42nd in career ERA+, at 127 — tied with Tom Seaver and Smoltz, and ahead of Jim Palmer, Lefty Gomez and Juan Marichal. Among those pitchers, only Seaver has more strikeouts than Schilling; only Smoltz is within 500 of him.

Yes, the wins are low, and while wins are not a true indicator of talent, it’s an issue that must be addressed because Hall voters look at them. With 216, Schilling has more wins than Hall of Fame pitchers Stan Coveleski, Chief Bender, Jesse Haines, Don Drysdale, Bob Lemon, Hal Newhouser and Rube Marquard (among others). None of them has even 2,500 strikeouts. Newhouser’s career ERA+: 130; Coveleski’s: 127; Bender: 113; Haines: 108; Drysdale: 121; Lemon: 119; Marquard: 103.

So Schilling has more strikeouts and a similar or better ERA+ than at least 11 Hall of Fame pitchers. He has more wins and a similar or better ERA+ than at least seven Hall of Fame pitchers.

Remembering that this has all been in the steroid era, as well as an era with extreme reliever specialization, Schilling has eight 15-win seasons — three of those 20-win campaigns. He has struck out at least 200 in five years, 300 in three of those. In seasons in which he’s started at least 24 games, Schilling has eight times eclipsed the league-average ERA by at least a third and 11 times by at least 20 percent. He’s a six-time All-Star, has finished second in Cy Young voting three times and twice finished in the Top 10 of MVP voting.

That alone should get him in, even as a borderline candidate, and Bill James seems to agree.

Baseball-Reference uses a Bill James formula to predict Cooperstownability by ascribing points for leading the lead or finishing in the Top 10 in a variety of statistics. In "Black Ink" stats (receiving the bold-faced number meaning you’ve led the league), Schilling receives 40 points, the same as the average Hall-of-Famer gets. In the "HOF Standards" metric, through which points are ascribed for every season with wins over x, ERA below x, etc., Schilling receives below what the average Hall-of-Famer receives. And in the final "HOF Monitor" James metric, players receive points for things that voters typically focus on, such as postseason achievement, etc. In that metric, Schilling blows away the 100-point average Hall of Famer with 151 points.

And that’s before we get to October:

Schilling: 10-2, 2.23 ERA, 133 1/3 IP, 25 BB, 120 K, 3 Rings, 1 Bloody Sock

I’m being flippant about the rings and sock, but those type of things get you remembered for being a great pitcher when it comes down to voting time. How long has Jack Morris been receiving votes because of one great postseason start? Schilling has a World Series and a LCS MVP, not to mention the 2004 starts against NY and St. Louis with the most famous sock in baseball history.

In 2006, I agreed that Schilling was a borderline HOF-er. Now, another World Series ring later, I don’t think it’s even close anymore. With 200+ wins, 3,000+ strikeouts, 2 postseason MVPs and the Bloody Sock, he’ll be in. And he’ll deserve it.

31 comments… add one
  • If Jim Bunning is your standard for a HOF pitcher, then yeah Schilling belongs. He’s got the same politics too. Too bad both could start on the Hall of Very Good team.

    A YF June 20, 2008, 4:23 pm
  • As I said in the previous thread, Blyleven is also a fine superficial comp. Again, not a Hall of Famer.

    A YF June 20, 2008, 4:25 pm
  • You have yet to explain with any kind of statistical backing this position, except to degrade your credibility by arguing against Blyleven’s induction and complaining about the division Schilling played in. Strange how, despite feasting on such inferior opponents, Schilling before his career-altering ankle injury managed to be just as dominating when he faced the Yankees in the playoffs and when he moved to the AL East.

    Paul SF June 20, 2008, 4:29 pm
  • You have yet to explain why Blyleven isn’t in the HOF, esp. relative to your assurance Schilling will make it.
    As for why Schilling doesn’t belong, for me it’s some combination of wins and CY. Was he ever the best pitcher on a good team? Was he ever the best pitcher in his league?
    Meanwhile, this certainly looks like “dominance” to me!:
    Career vs. NYY: 7-8, 130 IP, 4.71 ERA
    2004: 1-1, 10 IP, 6.30 ERA
    2001 is the exception not the rule.

    A YF June 20, 2008, 4:51 pm
  • Blyleven absolutely deserves to be in the HOF. Bad run support is the only thing that kept him from 300 wins and a no-brainer election. He even has 2 rings a terrific postseason ERA. His continued exclusions is one of the HOF’s biggest mysteries.
    Schilling is no Blyleven, but that’s not saying Schilling doesn’t deserve the HOF. He’s had three dominant seasons where he was the CY runner-up and was certainly one of the best pitchers in baseball. The question is whether his dominant and well-above-average seasons outweigh his significant number of mediocre seasons. He’s on the cusp and will need a few years to get inducted, if it happens.

    Jeremy June 20, 2008, 5:20 pm
  • well, I was on the fence until Steve Phillips just opined on this issue. He says Schilling isn’t a Hall-of-Famer.
    Therefore, Schilling is a Hall-of-Famer.
    Case closed.

    Nick-YF June 20, 2008, 5:45 pm
  • You have yet to explain why Blyleven isn’t in the HOF, esp. relative to your assurance Schilling will make it.
    I imagine it’s because he played for crappy teams in small markets, leaving many sportswriters largely unaware of his accomplishments and forced to rely on unreliable statistics that indicate more about the teams he played with than his actual dominance. (Like, for example, wins and Cy Young award wins).
    I’ve already directed you to the site for any info regarding Blyleven. I defy to read any of the articles Rich Lederer has written on Blyleven at Baseball Analysts and not come away convinced of his Hallworthiness.
    Using wins and awards as the criteria is an incredibly simplistic method, and it cherry-picks possibly the least indicative measures by which to judge a pitcher’s career. As Lederer notes, wins determine Cy Youngs because that’s what writers (wrongly) look at, so if you play for bad teams and don’t get 20 wins, you won’t win Cy Youngs, then BOTH deficiencies are held against you come Hall voting. It’s ridiculous.
    So, while I agree Schilling will have to overcome those to be elected, his success on baseball’s biggest stage is so legendary at this point, I think that will more than help him do so.

    Paul SF June 20, 2008, 6:44 pm
  • “I imagine it’s because he played for crappy teams in small markets, leaving many sportswriters largely unaware of his accomplishments and forced to rely on unreliable statistics that indicate more about the teams he played with than his actual dominance. (Like, for example, wins and Cy Young award wins).”
    Umm, he won two world championships. That should be enough – except he was pretty pedestrian. My hope is that the writers are getting smarter. The Hall has too many “pretty good” players already. But that isn’t a reason to induct more. I like Brad’s comp to Mattingly. He doesn’t belong either.
    “So, while I agree Schilling will have to overcome those to be elected, his success on baseball’s biggest stage is so legendary at this point, I think that will more than help him do so.”
    I actually don’t disagree with you here. But that leaves aside the question of whether he should be. He shouldn’t and certainly not on that standard.
    Actually, Kevin Brown is a very good comparison for Schilling. Almost same number of wins (216 vs. 211), same number of innings, ERA+ is identical, pitched in both leagues. Brown pitched one less season.
    Can anyone say with a straight face that Kevin Brown is a Hall of Famer? Is he even close?
    So if you’re going to put Schilling in the Hall because of the post-season, you might as well open the doors for Joe Carter and Kirk Gibson too.

    A YF June 20, 2008, 6:59 pm
  • The argument will be framed on one side by his career totals, more specifially wins, vs. his big-game success and post-season success.
    The career numbers argument is specious. That 300-win plateau is artificial and convenient. Schill was a late-bloomer and his won-loss record was reflective of a lot of bad teams.
    When Schilling came into his own, he was one of the best in baseball for more than a decade. Six All-Star appearances, but no Cy Youngs.
    In the big late-season games, he was money.
    His post-season numbers are incomperable: 10-2, 2.29 ERA. In Boston, he was incredible in the post-season. Three WS championships. Are there any active pitchers with more? He is one of the most successful postseason pitchers of the last 15 years. And even weasels like A YF can’t legitimately dispute that.
    Schill won’t be elected the first few years he’s eligible, but I think that he’s a guy who gets more attention as time goes on.
    Those post-season numbers — five times in post-season — will carry a lot of weight.
    It’ll be close.

    I'mBillMcNeal June 20, 2008, 8:14 pm
  • I’ll say with a straight face that Kevin Brown had a hall of fame calibre career, although he won’t get in because of steroid rumours and poor late career performance/general douchebaggery.
    Not only is Bert Blyleven one of the most egregious hall of fame omissions, I think he was better than the guy who the fans thought was the best pitcher of the twentieth century!

    Blackadder June 20, 2008, 8:32 pm
  • I certainly don’t think it is a sure thing or that it is “not close”, even with your extensive advocacy Paul. The low win total is a problem regardless of the fact that it is not a great indicator of pitcher effectiveness.
    I would avoid, in making the argument for any pitcher, the phrase “Remembering that this has all been in the steroid era”. If that is supposed to boost the case for a pitcher by casting all hitters in the era under a cloud of suspicion, it is at least as effective in boosting the case for hitters vis-a-vis that pitcher, and this is especially so for power pitchers like Schilling. Either everyone in the era is under a cloud or no one (other than the few who have been “proved” to be) is.
    But yeah, there are some good arguments for him.

    IronHorse (yf) June 20, 2008, 8:33 pm
  • Kevin Brown? Hall of Very Good. But if anything his case is stronger. His career peak dwarfs Schilling (216 ERA+ vs. 156 ERA+) and not only that but that season is one of *four* from Brown that tops Schilling’s best.
    Bottomline: If Schilling is a HOFer, Kevin Brown is certainly a HOFer. Problem is, neither is. And *if* Schilling gets in, you better believe you’ll become very familiar with Brown’s case. But this is a discussion best reserved for the Hall of Very Good.

    A YF June 20, 2008, 9:49 pm
  • Schilling:
    Black Ink: Pitching – 42 (33) (Average HOFer ≈ 40)
    Gray Ink: Pitching – 205 (34) (Average HOFer ≈ 185)
    HOF Standards: Pitching – 46.0 (48) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
    HOF Monitor: Pitching – 171.0 (33) (Likely HOFer > 100)
    Black Ink: Pitching – 19 (101) (Average HOFer ≈ 40)
    Gray Ink: Pitching – 166 (75) (Average HOFer ≈ 185)
    HOF Standards: Pitching – 41.0 (66) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
    HOF Monitor: Pitching – 93.0 (107) (Likely HOFer > 100)
    Black Ink: Pitching – 16 (133) (Average HOFer ≈ 40)
    Gray Ink: Pitching – 237 (24) (Average HOFer ≈ 185)
    HOF Standards: Pitching – 50.0 (38) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
    HOF Monitor: Pitching – 120.5 (68) (Likely HOFer > 100)
    The verdict: Blyleven in easily, Schilling in not as easily, Brown not in.

    Paul SF June 20, 2008, 10:49 pm
  • An objective comparison to Schilling is Catfish Hunter.
    Hunter: 224-166, 3.26 ERA, 3,449 IP, 2,012K, 954BB; postseason 10-2, 3.26 ERA.
    Schill: 216-146, 3.46 ERA, 3,261 IP, 3,116K, 711BB; postseason 10-2, 2.23 ERA.
    Hunter was elected to the Hall in 1987.
    Brown has many comparable stats, but he was mediocre in the postseason. His postseason ERA tops 4 and his WS ERA tops 6.
    Schilling was money in the bank in the postseason.
    To compare Brown to Schilling is idiotic.

    I'mBillMcNeal June 20, 2008, 11:04 pm
  • Brown and Schilling are pretty comparable in terms of their regular season careers (I don’t like looking at grey ink/black ink). Schilling was probably a little better over his career, but Brown arguably had the better peak. Of course, Schilling’s postseason performance is much better; how close they seem to you depends on how much you want to weight that.
    Both, however, are a lot better than Hunter, who I don’t think should be in the hall of fame.

    Blackadder June 21, 2008, 6:43 am
  • How convenient, Paul, ignore ERA+ when it doesn’t support your argument. Brown topped 160 ERA+ *four* times in his career. Schilling never managed to pull that off once. Not. Once. Brown could have been a HOFer if he extended that peak. Schilling was just a very good pitcher at his peak and nothing more.
    “To compare Brown to Schilling is idiotic.”
    Identical career ERA+ and almost identical number of innings = perfect contemporary comparison.
    But to rely on post-season heroics is moronic. Open the doors for Joe Carter and Kirk Gibson! And it’s asinine to compare a guy who’s career essentially ended at age 30 to one who pitched until he was 40. But yeah, Hunter doesn’t belong either.
    Those HOF “standards” are biased to strikeout pitchers (look at the formula behind them). Cause it certainly ain’t wins that are helping Schilling there. Nor is it post-season performance. They’re good guidelines, but you still have to examine the numbers. And the numbers say Blyleven is closest of the three, but they all belong in the Hall of Very Good.

    A YF June 21, 2008, 8:58 am
  • Another decent comparison: Orel Hershiser.
    He suffers from extended mediocrity later in his career. But at his peak, he was just as good, if not better. 204 wins. Iconic post-season performance. Four top four finishes in the CY – but he won one.
    Orel Hershiser = Hall of Very Good.
    And wouldn’t you know: Schilling’s top three comparisons?
    1. Kevin Brown
    2. Bob Welch
    3. Orel Hershiser
    4. Mike Mussina
    All = Hall of Very Good. But of them, Moose seems to have time on his side.

    A YF June 21, 2008, 9:11 am
  • Let’s go one more: David Cone
    192 Wins. Career 120 ERA+. Four top four CY finishes with one win. In World Series play: 2-0, 29 IP, 2.12 ERA. Five rings.
    David Cone = Hall of Very Good.

    A YF June 21, 2008, 9:19 am
  • “But to rely on post-season heroics is moronic.”
    Really? I think it should be a factor. It doesn’t mean that players like Gibson or Jeff Weaver should get in, but if you’ve put together a hall-of-fame type of career, I think it should be something that adds to your case. Certainly when we look back at Mariano’s career, one of the things that makes him so special is how special he was in the postseason.

    Nick-YF June 21, 2008, 9:24 am
  • Sure, Nick, but then the same applies to David Cone and Orel Hershiser. If it doesn’t put them over the top, then why should it put Schilling over the top? Because he helped break a mythical “curse”? Or because he sprayed ketchup on his sock? ;)

    A YF June 21, 2008, 9:48 am
  • Because he helped break a mythical “curse”?
    Yeah, well, maybe. I am not advocating for Schilling, I have no stake in the affair, but people get in the Hall of Fame for lots of reasons, many of which have tangential relationships to statistical greatness. Why shouldn’t postseason greatness enhance a player’s reputation? Why shouldn’t doing something absolutely famous be a factor?

    SF June 21, 2008, 2:19 pm
  • “But to rely on post-season heroics is moronic.”
    Oh, really? Let’s see what some actual Hall of Fame voters have to say on the subject rather than some pissy little rationalizing snot-nose:
    “My gut says yes,” said San Francisco Chronicle baseball writer Henry Schulman, “with his performances in the 2001 and 2004 postseasons weighing in his favor.”
    “Yes, first ballot,” said Houston Chronicle columnist Richard Justice. “He was at his best when the games meant the most. Besides that, he’ll give one hell of a speech in Cooperstown. I’m tearing up just thinking about it.”
    “I can see Schilling becoming a latter-day Blyleven, a guy with several compelling arguments but perhaps not enough to sway 75 percent of the electorate,” said St. Louis Post-Dispatch baseball writer Joe Strauss. “Does Mike Mussina go in with more wins? Obviously, Schilling’s postseason heroics will have weight, but it’s difficult to recall pitchers who have gained induction based largely on the postseason.”
    Said Kansas City Star baseball columnist Bob Dutton, president of the Baseball Writers Association of America, “Schilling? Boy, that’s tough. It seems I usually draw the circle tighter than most people. And Schilling’s regular-season stuff, while good, doesn’t really meet my standards. But you add his ability to elevate his game in the postseason, and, yeah, I think I vote for him. Now that’s a snap judgment. I might change my mind upon further study and reflection. But off the top of my head? Yeah, I’d vote for Schilling.”
    “My original gut feeling was that his career was short of Hall of Fame standards, but a .597 winning percentage, 3.46 ERA, and 11-2 postseason record puts him over the top in my book,” said Beaver County (Pa.) Register baseball writer John Perotto.”
    These were excerpted from Nick Cafardo’s column in today’s Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2008/06/21/is_he_a_hall_of_famer/?page=2
    Few if any of these comments is what I would call a ringing endorsement, and these are those quoted in the column that I didn’t cite who said “no.”
    But the point is that there are plenty of sportswriters who have actual votes who say that, yes, Schilling’s postseason numbers, combined with his above average regular-season numbers, make him Hall worthy.
    And those are opinions that carry weight.

    I'mBillMcNeal June 21, 2008, 2:27 pm
  • Sorry. Third to last graf should read, “… and there are those …”

    I'mBillMcNeal June 21, 2008, 2:29 pm
  • IBM:
    Quit the name-calling. I’ve just about had it, ok?

    SF June 21, 2008, 2:59 pm
  • “Yeah, well, maybe. I am not advocating for Schilling, I have no stake in the affair, but people get in the Hall of Fame for lots of reasons, many of which have tangential relationships to statistical greatness.”
    Again, I don’t really disagree with what will happen. But the open question is: Should it? I’ve named a bunch of counter-examples already (Brown, Hershiser, Cone) and none seems to rise to the HOF level. All meet some of the same standards – better regular seasons (Brown), iconic season and post-season (Orel), and high level of success (Cone with five rings). If we’re not going to say they’re good enough (and they’re not), then the case for Schilling become obvious. If you let him in, then you might as well open the doors for all four. Blyleven is a separate case (era and results).

    A YF June 21, 2008, 4:02 pm
  • Is it really that hard to discuss these points without resorting to insults and ad hominems?

    Blackadder June 21, 2008, 4:20 pm
  • One more thing – we’ve already looked at the top four, but let’s complete the list of Schilling’s top comps:
    1. Kevin Brown (920)
    2. Bob Welch (900)
    3. Orel Hershiser (889)
    4. Mike Mussina (888)
    5. Freddie Fitzsimmons (884)
    6. John Smoltz (880)
    7. Milt Pappas (880)
    8. Don Drysdale (875) *
    9. Dazzy Vance (873) *
    10. Jim Perry (871)
    Is that really a group of HOF pitchers? Sure, there are two (*) on that list, but do they really belong? Drysdale has the fame, but the results don’t really cut it. He got in after 15 years of lobbying. And Smoltz, no doubt he was really good, but more in the Brown/Mussina category than with Maddux. Smoltz seems much closer though, especially since injuries forced three relief years, otherwise he’d be looking at about 275 wins now.

    A YF June 21, 2008, 4:50 pm
  • There are all sorts of problems with B-R’s top comps, not least of which is the overreliance on counting stats and inability to accurately compare across eras.
    Brown did have the better peak than Schilling, but it was shorter. You seem unable, A, to acknowledge that Schilling may be borderline, but that his tremendous postseason performances push him over the top. Instead you resort to overly reductive arguments about Carter and Gibson, whose careers were not as good as Schilling’s — or you look at comparable pitchers with worse postseason careers.
    None of these pitchers has Schillings great career combined with his tremendous postseason performance. It’s the combination that will — and should — get him in.
    Also, why do you continue to discount strikeouts, when they are one of the best measures of dominance for a pitcher? For example, yes, Brown has comparable stats — except his strikeouts are well below Schilling’s. So, what’s the deal? Other than the fact that Schilling’s (and Blyleven’s) strikeouts don’t support your case, I mean…
    Finally, have you actually read arguments for Blyleven yet — the ones I’ve pointed you towards? You continue to recite your mantra (“Hall of Very Good!”) for Schilling and Blyleven, but have yet to refute the case Lederer has made for Blyleven or respond to the meat of the argument I made for Schilling (ERA+, wins and strikeouts in some combination above more than 11 Hall of Fame pitchers, before considering the postseason heroics, which ARE a part of his career).

    Paul SF June 21, 2008, 10:36 pm
  • Blyleven I’d like to leave aside for now. I need more time to think about him. And I’ve come to realize that his case, from a different era and with different results, is not a very good comparison for Schilling. He’s just an example that voters don’t judge Ks like you do.
    Ks are a fine predictor of very good pitching. But they’re not a be all, end all. No one would say Nolan Ryan was one of the best pitchers of all time, for instance. Without the length in his career, I don’t see how he was a HOFer (career ERA+ = 111; only two seasons above 140 ERA+).
    Between Brown, Hershiser, and Cone we have three very good comparisons for Schilling and for slightly different reasons I’ve laid out above but most especially because they’re from roughly the same era. Unless you want to say all four are Hall of Famers, then I’d say none are.
    “Brown did have the better peak than Schilling, but it was shorter.”
    Actually, Brown had a five year peak (1996 – 2000) where his ERA+ topped 140 and of those five years, four were at 150 or above and one year was 216 ERA+ (in 233 IP). By contrast, Schilling’s peak was *four* years (2001-04) at that same threshold with three years at 150 or above (high water mark = 159 ERA+ in 168 IP). Brown had one other season where he topped 140 ERA+ (2003) whereas Schilling had two (1992 & 1997).
    If anything, Brown and Schilling are excellent comps for each other (even as they were different pitchers)- just as BR says. For instance, Schilling had more Ks but also gave up significantly more homeruns. Brown was much more dominant overall, but Schilling had the better post=season numbers. Still, it’s so close that I can’t see how one is a HOFer and the other isn’t. So I say neither.
    Care to make the case as forcefully for Kevin Brown? At least then you’d be consistent. But drawing a line between them would take a creative bit of gerrymandering. And to me, Kevin Brown is no HOFer.
    “ERA+, wins and strikeouts in some combination above more than 11 Hall of Fame pitchers”
    Just cause mistakes have been made before doesn’t mean they should continue to be made. Each case needs to be determined on it’s own merits. Schilling was pretty consistent, but not for long enough and not at a high enough level to warrant inclusion.

    A YF June 21, 2008, 11:28 pm
  • Wow, great post and discussion. I’d like to chime in.
    As a starter, Curt Schilling has 4 seasons of ERA+ in the 150’s, 2 in the 140’s, and 3 more in the 130’s. In seasons with at least 90 IP, he’s had just 1 season under 100- 99 in ’93- and just one other under 120.
    Blyleven recorded 6 seasons of ERA+ over 130 (158, 151, 144, 142, 140, 134), but 7 seasons under 110.
    Schilling’s best was better than Blyleven’s, and longer, and Schilling was never mediocre, unlike Blyleven.
    Hershiser, though dominant from ’84-’89, had only 2 seasons of ERA+ over 107 after that (121, 116 in ’95, ’96). By this measure, he doesn’t compare to Schilling either.
    (and in case you’re interested, and I apologize if this is rude, but I wrote about this topic in greater length at my blog, http://soxlosophy.blogspot.com/2008/07/two-caveats-before-we-begin.html )

    Soxlosophy July 10, 2008, 7:56 pm
  • “No one would say Nolan Ryan was one of the best pitchers of all time, for instance.”
    Correction: No one outside of Texas.

    A YF July 10, 2008, 8:45 pm

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Next post:

Previous post: