I don't know Curt Schilling...

MLB pitcher Curt Schilling announced his retirement earlier in the week. (And don't even get me started on how much time ESPN devoted to this as opposed to how much time they spent on Maddux's retirement).

But anyway...the debate with Schilling is whether he is Hall of Fame worthy.

And to be honest...I've been on the fence (which as I've said before is not a good sign). But after doing some research...I would vote no. And here's one reason why.

Let's do a little exercise here...

Pitcher A...

innings pitched: 3,130
career win-loss: 204-150 (.576 winning %)
career ERA: 3.48

Won one career Cy-Young.

post season innings pitched: 132
post season win-loss: 8-3
post season ERA: 2.59

Won NLCS, World Series & ALCS MVP

Here's pitcher B...

innings pitched: 3,261
career win-loss: 216-146 (.597 winning %)
career ERA: 3.46

Never won a Cy-Young

post season innings pitched: 133
post season win-loss: 11-2
post season ERA: 2.23

Won NLCS & World Series MVP

Now if you looked at these pitchers what would one conclude? That basically pitcher A & B are very similar...almost the same. Interestingly enough pitcher A only survived on the hall of fame ballot for two years...never getting more than 11.2% of the vote.

Who's who...pitcher A is Orel Hershiser and pitcher B is Curt Schilling.

I'm not sure how one reconciles the difference. Granted Schilling did have more good to-great years (roughly 9-5) but the bottom line is that there's not much cumulative difference between them, other than the fact that Schilling played for the Red Sox...and ESPN loves the Red Sox...so in effect we are going to be hearing this debate for years. And don't under estimate playing on the Red Sox. Jim Rice made the cut this year and that was highly questionable.

Because to me...one can only take the post season success so far. Look at David Cone...he won 5 World Series rings...was 8-3 in the post season...plus he won a Cy Young award and had a higher career winning percentage (194 to 126--.606) than Schilling. But what' s the big difference between Cone and Schilling's candidacy...oh yeah...Schilling had the bloody sock game.

I'm not taking anything away from Schilling's post season success...because it's remarkable but I don't think it puts him over the hump in terms of getting in the hall. His body of work...his cumulative numbers during the regular season falls short.

To me Schilling is in that class of pitchers like Cone, Hershiser...and maybe even Dave Stewert, Jack Morris, Dwight Gooden and Kevin Brown. These are pitchers who had solid careers...and some of them even had enormous post season success (like Cone, Gibson and Hershisher)...but that doesn't mean they are hall worthy.

The problem with Schilling is consistency. He just wasn't consistently good to great for an extended amount of time...and that's big for me and determining one's chances for gaining admittance. One just can't have flashes of brilliance...it has to be sustained.