Curt Schilling requests removal from writers' ballot

Omar

Well-known member
You’ll still never convince me that in their primes, you’d rather have Kershaw in G7 of a WS over Bumgarner. Maybe now bc Bumgarner’s decline has been more pronounced, but 5 years ago, it’s not even a question.
 

Omar

Well-known member
He was also on the HOF ballet before he went all in on his beliefs and didn't get in. And as he's been more vocal in his beliefs, he's received more votes.
Bc he was never a first ballot HOFer. And of course he’s gained more votes since his name first appeared, that’s the case for most players. The bottom line is he was a productive regular season Pitcher, but his ‘01 & ‘04 Post Seasons make him a HOF player.
 

Yappi

Go Buckeyes
Then take the human element out and say if you reach certain stats, you're in
I kind of agree with you but it is a Hall of "Fame" not just a Hall of Stats. Leaving it up to writers can lead to problems. They aren't always distant enough to just look at the player on the field. I'm betting a large number of people that watched Curt Schilling play baseball have no idea what he says on Twitter.
 

wolves82

Well-known member
I absolutely agree with this: "a large number of people that watched Curt Schilling play baseball have no idea what he says on Twitter".

However, if it is about "Fame" and not "Stats" why aren't Bo Jackson or Mark Fidrych in the HOF? Because the only way we compare great players across different eras is career statistics. I'm sticking with my stance: Schilling's career performance is right on the bubble - W/L and ERA are pretty good but not great. And his 70% of the vote is also right on the bubble. This does not look like a personal vendetta to me.
 

Gh0st

Well-known member
I absolutely agree with this: "a large number of people that watched Curt Schilling play baseball have no idea what he says on Twitter".

However, if it is about "Fame" and not "Stats" why aren't Bo Jackson or Mark Fidrych in the HOF? Because the only way we compare great players across different eras is career statistics. I'm sticking with my stance: Schilling's career performance is right on the bubble - W/L and ERA are pretty good but not great. And his 70% of the vote is also right on the bubble. This does not look like a personal vendetta to me.
Maybe, maybe not. Whether or not certain writers have an axe to grind with Schilling is "he said, she said" but look at how the steroid era is being treated. There's already been suspected steroid users elected to the HoF while players like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens will likely never get in. Bonds was notoriously adversarial toward the medial throughout his playing career and many writers have openly come out and said they will never vote for him because of how he personally treated them. And this is a player with some of the greatest statistics in the history of the game.

I am not really naive enough to think that baseball writers, who have inside and often personal relationships with MLB players were completely in the dark all throughout the steroid era. anymore that I think any of the players were. Once it became public knowledge they disavowed all knowledge of it and stay arms length away from as many high profile instances as they can. Also speculation, but how many steroid users we may not have heard about did they elect before this was public knowledge?
 

nupanther

Well-known member
Slightly off topic, but writers have grinded axes on many a former ball player. How many slam dunkers Hall of Famers didnt get 100% vote? No offense to Rivera (a deserving 1st balloter) but theres no way Mays, Aaron, Griffey, etc should be left off anyone's ballot. All in the name of " If so and so didn't get 100% why should he"

Also, Albert Belle deserved the MVP over Mo Vaughn that year. No other reason then writers freezing out Joey. But that pales in comparison in Ted Williams triple crown 2nd place finish to DiMaggio.
 

nupanther

Well-known member
Then take the human element out and say if you reach certain stats, you're in
But the value of numbers change as the game changes. Used to be 500 HR was elite. Now it's been watered down due to the steroid era and guys going HR or bust.
I'll be shocked to see another 300 victory pitcher in the foreseeable future
 

wolves82

Well-known member
But the value of numbers change as the game changes. Used to be 500 HR was elite. Now it's been watered down due to the steroid era and guys going HR or bust.
I'll be shocked to see another 300 victory pitcher in the foreseeable future
I agree. For example, Steve Carlton won 27 games for the Phillies one season in the early 70's while the team finished last or next-to-last. The last 3 seasons (really 2.5 seasons) DeGrom won 25 games total and won the CY twice! Think about that.

So the key metrics will need to shift; maybe W/L percentage, ERA, WHIP, etc.
 
.
Top