The 100 Greatest in 100 Days: #51 Curt Schilling

Up next at #51 is starting pitcher Curt Schilling. The two most important traits a pitcher can have are limiting contact and avoiding walks. Schilling’s arsenal might have featured the best mix of both the league has ever seen. Schilling is the only pitcher since 1920 to pitch at least 3,000 innings with a K/BB ratio of at least 4.38. He’s the only pitcher in history with 3,000 strikeouts and fewer than 715 walks. Schilling and Juan Marichal are the only two pitchers since 1920 with at least 215 career wins and fewer than 715 walks. What makes Schilling’s power/control mix so remarkable is that he was able to maintain it while also being one of the preeminent workhorses in Major League Baseball. He’s the last pitcher to throw back-to-back seasons of 250 innings, and he led the league in complete games four times. Since 1988, only Randy Johnson and Greg Maddux have more complete games. Schilling’s regular-season numbers are Hall of Fame-worthy on their own. He’s the last pitcher to have three seasons of at least 21 wins and he led the league in strikeout to walk ratio five times, but it’s the success he had in the postseason that makes him one of the most unique pitchers baseball has ever seen. Over 133 and 1/3 career postseason innings, Schilling went 11-2 with a 2.23 ERA and .97 WHIP while winning four World Series titles in four appearances. He was named the 1993 NLCS MVP and 2001 World Series MVP. He holds the record for most innings pitched in a single postseason without a loss (48 and 1/3 in 2001). He holds the record for most strikeouts in a single postseason (56 in 2001). He holds the record for Win Probability added in a single postseason (2.1 in 2001), and he has the highest postseason winning percentage in history among starting pitchers with at least 55 postseason innings.

Leave a Reply

Hi (hopefully) awesome reader! I welcome your comments. However, please be aware that I make all of my arguments using facts, statistics, and logic. Unfortunately, the average comment on a top-100 list goes something like this:

"UR StooPid. (Insert player) is trash. I've watched (pick a sport) for (pick a number of years) and (pick a player) is better than everyone. UR DUMB. HAHA6969."

–Some Jabroni

As cognitively stimulating as this species of comment is, it ends up being a missed opportunity to share a nuanced perspective. I reply to all comments that show even the most basic levels of thought and humility. The people who make the comments like the example above are under the assumption that the three seconds of thought that popped into their brains after reading the list is more than the 1000s of hours that I put into creating and maintaining the lists. I would be happy to defend any placement, or make an adjustment if one is warranted. If you are a jabroni, like the one above, then your comment will die in the lonely void of the unpublished comments section.

For everyone else, I look forward to your comments!

P.S. The theme of this site and the top-100 lists is that athletes from previous generations have historically been grossly overrated by sports publications in a way that is statistically improbable. Click on the "About" dropdown menu to see just how badly the average top-100 list disproportionately favors athletes from older generations when leagues were smaller, race quotas existed, and globalization wasn't a thing. Also, please consider reading "The History" section of the sport you are commenting on.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *