He played in 12 different playoff series over 5 different seasons.
He won a series MVP twice: 1993 NLCS and 2001 WS.
He only had 4 series with an ERA above 2.69. three over 3.51 and 2 over 5.39.
That's pretty darn amazing!
19 starts. 133 IP.
2.23 ERA
0.968 WHIP
To me, he is one of the few players who meet the criteria of doing significantly better than his regular season level (the "rise to the occasion" factor").
His 133 IP might be a large enough sample size for some (or most) people, but I'm not in that group. Certainly, he had many "clutch performances", but I just don't feel we can prove or even come close to proving he consistently "rose to the occasion.
To me, we should see it in his regular season numbers as well, and we don't. This is a much larger sample size, too.
Career over all OPS against: .673 (an amazing number) and 8.6 K/9.
Late & Close (1592 PAs): .702 OPS
High Leverage (2163 PAs): .701 OPS
While these numbers are very good, they do NOT show he "rose to the occasion".
My criteria would be that a player must do significantly better than his career numbers in late & close/high leverage situations as well as playoff opportunities AND have large enough sample sizes. He must also be pretty darn consistently better, and I think we can say Schill was in the playoffs. I think Curt's regular season numbers are pretty close or above a significant sample size designation, and 133 IP in the playoffs are pretty high, but I just don't feel he's proven he's "clutch". I don't think anyone has, and to me, that strengthens my resolve that there is no such thing as a "clutch player" - just clutch moments and performances that happen more with some players than others just like regular non clutch moments and performances show.