2021 Hall of Fame

[imref]

Ballot is out

[JCA-CrystalCity]

that's a weak 1st year class.  I'll guess that only Hudson and Hunter make  it to the next year ballot.  MAybe Buehrle.

 this will be the year for roids and Schilling.  Bonds, Clemens, Schilling,

[imref]

On merit, schilling deserves it, but I doubt mlb writers want to deal with his politics

[Mathguy]

So why wouldn't MLB writers just ignore politics and emphasize the baseball accomplishments ?

On merit, schilling deserves it, but I doubt mlb writers want to deal with his politics

[imref]

So why wouldn't MLB writers just ignore politics and emphasize the baseball accomplishments ?

The concern I've heard is with giving Schilling a podium and a microphone during the HoF ceremony, and the negative attention it would bring to MLB.  Besides past issues with his collection of nazi memorabilia and his anti-Muslim statements, he's been all over social media as of late arguing that the election was rigged. 

Again, from a purely baseball accomplishment perspective, I've been arguing he deserves to be in the hall for years, I just don't see it happening.  We'll see.

[UMDNats]

So why wouldn't MLB writers just ignore politics and emphasize the baseball accomplishments ?

MLB writers don't like the guy either.

[Count Walewski]

I don't like the idea of keeping a guy out of the HoF because of his personal politics. I do like the idea of keeping several guys out of the HoF because they were implicated in steroids. I suspect that Schilling will get in simply because of how close he got last time, but we'll see.

Barry Zito sure looked like a sure-thing Hall of Famer at his peak. Mark Buehrle was personally one of my favorite players of the 2000's (I attended his perfect game in 2009) and if he got in he wouldn't be the worst pitcher there, but I don't think he has the stats today's writers are looking for.

[dracnal]

I don't like the idea of keeping a guy out of the HoF because of his personal politics. I do like the idea of keeping several guys out of the HoF because they were implicated in steroids. I suspect that Schilling will get in simply because of how close he got last time, but we'll see.

Barry Zito sure looked like a sure-thing Hall of Famer at his peak. Mark Buehrle was personally one of my favorite players of the 2000's (I attended his perfect game in 2009) and if he got in he wouldn't be the worst pitcher there, but I don't think he has the stats today's writers are looking for.

If they reconsider Pete Rose, I'm willing to listen on others like Schilling. Otherwise, don't spew hate speech is a pretty good reason to deny a guy for character reasons. And don't give me any integrity of the game garbage. Otherwise, an awful lot of Astros will be on the outside looking in at some point in the future.

[OldChelsea]

On merit, schilling deserves it, but I doubt mlb writers want to deal with his politics

Steve Carlton was just as right-wing as Schilling and he got in (first ballot, if I recall aright)...although admittedly nowadays the credentialled sports media are rather more ideological than they were in the days when Carlton was coming up to HOF eligibility.

[Natsinpwc]

Steve Carlton was just as right-wing as Schilling and he got in (first ballot, if I recall aright)...although admittedly nowadays the credentialled sports media are rather more ideological than they were in the days when Carlton was coming up to HOF eligibility.

True but Carlton was a severe introvert.  His views were not widely publicized. Schilling used to his celebrity to post his views all over social media.  I believe he even considered running for office.

Also I don’t think his case to get in is as strong as Carlton. Nevertheless I would vote Schilling in. As well as all the steroid guys.  If anyone should have been banned it was Bud Selig.

EDIT.  This was probably what you were referring to about Carlton. Definitely a whack a doodle. I believe he denied some of the crazier stuff in this article.  Assume he is still in his bunker.

https://thestacks.deadspin.com/thin-air-in-the-mountains-with-steve-carlton-armed-co-478492324/amp

[UMDNats]

Schilling's views aren't even that uncommon for most of MLB players he's just so outspoken about it that it creates an issue for a lot of writers. HOF voters are pretty annoying in general and have a very heavy air of self-importance. They decided Bonds doesn't get to be in the HOF but Jack Morris does because he was a guy a lot of writers liked when they were younger. At this point I expect the HOF voting to get even more and more annoying as we move forward and voters decide their decisions are IMPORTANT and not just meaningless fodder to make rich millionaire ballplayers even more self-centered.

[HalfSmokes]

Schilling's views aren't even that uncommon for most of MLB players he's just so outspoken about it that it creates an issue for a lot of writers. HOF voters are pretty annoying in general and have a very heavy air of self-importance. They decided Bonds doesn't get to be in the HOF but Jack Morris does because he was a guy a lot of writers liked when they were younger. At this point I expect the HOF voting to get even more and more annoying as we move forward and voters decide their decisions are IMPORTANT and not just meaningless fodder to make rich millionaire ballplayers even more self-centered.

once they decided certain players were out based on allegations, the entire process became subjective and a chance for self important writers to preen.

[UMDNats]

once they decided certain players were out based on allegations, the entire process became subjective and a chance for self important writers to preen.

My favorite thing about baseball writers it that they think taking a STAND on guys like Bonds or Schilling makes them anything more than a sportswriter deciding if Barry Bonds gets a grotesque plaque made to hang in a hallway. Like, everyone knows A-Rod and Bonds are some of the greatest hitters of all-time. We all saw it. But the Brewers beat writer for the Green Bay Tribune took a STAND and said ENOUGH.

It's really just a perfect microcosm of baseball culture: a misguided belief that meaningless things are actually extremely important and a hardcore reverence for glory days that actually weren't that glorious.

[HalfSmokes]

My favorite thing about baseball writers it that they think taking a STAND on guys like Bonds or Schilling makes them anything more than a sportswriter deciding if Barry Bonds gets a grotesque plaque made to hang in a hallway. Like, everyone knows A-Rod and Bonds are some of the greatest hitters of all-time. We all saw it. But the Brewers beat writer for the Green Bay Tribune took a STAND and said ENOUGH.

It's really just a perfect microcosm of baseball culture: a misguided belief that meaningless things are actually extremely important and a hardcore reverence for glory days that actually weren't that glorious.

may favorite part is that they decided the best players of my childhood don't exist and then wonder why my generation doesn't care

[UMDNats]

may favorite part is that they decided the best players of my childhood don't exist and then wonder why my generation doesn't care

Yeah, it's pretty great. "Why do millennials not feel connected to the game?"

Maybe because you've villainized an entire generation of players as evil, gross cheaters (except for two players: Jeter and Rivera, who despite faults can do no wrong, ever) and think guys like Bonds don't deserve their place in history.

Barry Bonds was freaking awesome to watch and for all of his off the field personal views, Curt Schilling has a pretty major place in baseball history, too. It's called the Hall of Fame not the Hall of Players With Great Stats Who Also Pass A 45-Year-Old Writer Purity Test.

[HalfSmokes]

The 94 home run chase is when I started caring about baseball. Both the league itself and writers have decided that it's too tainted and needs to be forgotten. Meanwhile, the NFL can't forget PED suspensions fast enough and the NBA is smart enough to pretend all of its players are clean. MLB is the only league I can think of that actively attacks players and then wonders why they aren't marketable

[hohoho]

Steve Carlton was just as right-wing as Schilling and he got in (first ballot, if I recall aright)...although admittedly nowadays the credentialled sports media are rather more ideological than they were in the days when Carlton was coming up to HOF eligibility.

You could certainly argue Schilling belongs, but Carton was much better.
Carlton  W 329- L 244, 3.22 ERA, 4136 Ks
Schilling W 216- L 146, 3.46 ERA, 3116 Ks
Carlton exceeds average HOFer stats, Schilling about average HOFer for a pitcher.

[hohoho]

Yeah, it's pretty great. "Why do millennials not feel connected to the game?"

Maybe because you've villainized an entire generation of players as evil, gross cheaters (except for two players: Jeter and Rivera, who despite faults can do no wrong, ever) and think guys like Bonds don't deserve their place in history.

Barry Bonds was freaking awesome to watch and for all of his off the field personal views, Curt Schilling has a pretty major place in baseball history, too. It's called the Hall of Fame not the Hall of Players With Great Stats Who Also Pass A 45-Year-Old Writer Purity Test.

Bonds might have made it without the drugs.
But while you are at it, why not recognize the Astros keep their series title and let Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame?

[imref]

You could certainly argue Schilling belongs, but Carton was much better.
Carlton  W 329- L 244, 3.22 ERA, 4136 Ks
Schilling W 216- L 146, 3.46 ERA, 3116 Ks
Carlton exceeds average HOFer stats, Schilling about average HOFer for a pitcher.

IIRC, Schilling played on much worse teams.  And Schilling was the better pitcher in the playoffs.

Carlton: 6-6. 3.26 ERA, 1.480 WHIP, 84Ks, 36 BBs, in 99.1 IP. In his 4 trips to the WS he was 2-2, 2.56 ERA, 1.389 WHIP

Schilling: 11-2, 2.23 ERA, 0.968 WHIP, 120Ks, 25BBs in 133 IP. In the four times his teams made the WS (7 starts), he was 4-1, 2.06 ERA, 0.896 WHIP.

That's Bumgarner-level (14 GS, 8–3, 2.11 ERA, 102 IP, 18 BB, 87 SO)

[hohoho]

IIRC, Schilling played on much worse teams.  And Schilling was the better pitcher in the playoffs.

Carlton: 6-6. 3.26 ERA, 1.480 WHIP, 84Ks, 36 BBs, in 99.1 IP. In his 4 trips to the WS he was 2-2, 2.56 ERA, 1.389 WHIP

Schilling: 11-2, 2.23 ERA, 0.968 WHIP, 120Ks, 25BBs in 133 IP. In the four times his teams made the WS (7 starts), he was 4-1, 2.06 ERA, 0.896 WHIP.

If Schilling played on" much worse teams", why did they win the pennant the same number of times while Carlton had the longer career?
And why did Carlton play in 8 post season series (average 1 every 3 years) while Schilling played in 12 (average 6 every 10 years)  while Carlton had the longer career?

[imref]

If Schilling played on" much worse teams", why did they win the pennant the same number of times while Carlton had the longer career?

Looking at their Phillies careers, Schiling's team made the playoffs once (1993 when they won the WS).  Carlton's teams went to the playoffs in 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, and 83, winning the WS once and losing it once, and losing the NLCS 3 times.

Schilling pitched in Philly from 93-99, in that time they won 97, 54, 69, 67. 68, 75, and 77 games

He was the dominant player on a largely terrible team.

[hohoho]

Looking at their Phillies careers, Schiling's team made the playoffs once (1993 when they won the WS).  Carlton's teams went to the playoffs in 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, and 83, winning the WS once and losing it once, and losing the NLCS 3 times.

What do their Phillies careers have to do with it?
Overall, Carlton played in 8 post season series (average 1 every 3 years) while Schilling played in 12 (average 6 every 10 years).
Carlton was the only pitcher to win the Cy Young on a last place team. He set a record in accounting for nearly half (46%) of his team's wins, when he won 27 games for the last-place (59–97) 1972 Phillies.
Hardly evidence of Carlton's "much better teams".

[imref]

What do their Phillies careers have to do with it?
Overall, Carlton played in 8 post season series (average 1 every 3 years) while Schilling played in 12 (average 6 every 10 years).

I'm confusing my points. During their time in Philly, Schilling was a dominant pitcher on a terrible team. Carlton generally had good teams around him.  Schilling was also the better playoff pitcher overall (and one of the best post-season pitchers of all time).

I hate that Schilling has probably talked himself out of the HoF because I can't think of anyone on the ballot this year more deserving of induction.

[hohoho]

I'm confusing my points. During their time in Philly, Schilling was a dominant pitcher on a terrible team. Carlton generally had good teams around him.  Schilling was also the better playoff pitcher overall (and one of the best post-season pitchers of all time).

I hate that Schilling has probably talked himself out of the HoF because I can't think of anyone on the ballot this year more deserving of induction.

My point is that you have to look at all the teams they played for, not just the Phillies.
BTW, Carlton was the only pitcher to win the Cy Young on a last place team, the Phillies. He set a record in accounting for nearly half (46%) of his team's wins, when he won 27 games for the last-place (59–97) Phillies in 1972.
Not saying Schilling doesn't belong, but Carlton was better.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

If Schilling played on" much worse teams", why did they win the pennant the same number of times while Carlton had the longer career?
And why did Carlton play in 8 post season series while Schilling played in 12 while Carlton had the longer career?

maybe in philly, but not once he got to AZ.  even in philly, he went to the ws.

Schilling's case is a rate case case for the regular seasons rather than a counting stats case, and is more advanced stats than pitching triple crown.  Yes, he hit 3000 Ks, but otherwise, you have to look at his ERA adjusted for the era he pitched in and you have to look at things like K v. BB. 

best K:BB ratio of  any pitcher with 3000 Ks. Carlton's ERA was 13% better than league average for his career, while Schilling's was 19%, etc...  I still will not say he's better, but I will say you have to look beyond counting and unadjusted rate stats to assess his case.

Of course, the special sauce is his post-season marks that give him a kick towards the HoF beyond the regular season, but his regular season stats establish he was a great pitcher in an era of juiced balls and players.