Sportsfrog.com

Curt Schilling: 3,261 IP, 216-146, 3.46 ERA, 127 ERA+ (133.3 IP, 10-2, 2.23 ERA, 3 WS titles)
Mike Mussina: 3,562.7 IP, 270-153, 3.68 ERA, 123 ERA+ (139.7 IP, 7-9, 3.42 ERA, 0 WS titles)
David Cone: 2,898.7 IP, 194-126, 3.46 ERA, 120 ERA+ (111.1 IP, 12-3, 3.80 ERA, 5 WS titles)
Kevin Brown: 3,256.3 IP, 211-144, 3.28 ERA, 127 ERA+ (81.2 IP, 6-2, 4.19 ERA, 1 WS titles)
Andy Pettitte: 2,731.7 IP, 215-127, 3.89 ERA, 117 ERA+ (218.1, 18-7, 3.96 ERA, 4 WS titles)

I really just want some clarity on how this argument works. We’re willing to ignore Mussina’s 50+ win advantage on Schilling because Mussina never won a World Series, right? But what about Cone? He has 5 rings to Schilling’s 3 and a better postseason record. Does that not make up 22 wins? Or what about Kevin Brown? It’s almost impossible to find two pitchers more similar over long careers than Brown and Schilling and yet one will likely get in while the other isn’t given more than passing consideration (and Brown doesn’t even have the Mussina stigma of never winning a ring). Pettitte never seemed to have his name brought up even before a member of the Red Sox board of directors discovered his PED past, but why? More titles, more postseason wins, more regular season wins by this May and the narrative of being the guy who won the must-win games during the Yankee dynasty run … I don’t get it. Does it really all come down to the red sock game and the fact that he’s the only one of the five pitchers above who was brilliant at writing his career narrative as he went along? Really, it’s not even that I’m positive I don’t view Schilling as a Hall of Famer, it’s just that I hate how much different his debate will be than that of similarly credentialed peers.