JAWS and the 2019 Hall of Fame Ballot: Curt Schilling

The following article is part of Jay Jaffe’s ongoing look at the candidates on the BBWAA 2019 Hall of Fame ballot. Originally written for the 2013 election at SI.com, it has been updated to reflect recent voting results as well as additional research, and was expanded for inclusion in The Cooperstown Casebook, published in 2017 by Thomas Dunne Books. For a detailed introduction to this year’s ballot, and other candidates in the series, use the tool above; an introduction to JAWS can be found here. For a tentative schedule and a chance to fill out a Hall of Fame ballot for our crowdsourcing project, see here. All WAR figures refer to the Baseball-Reference version unless otherwise indicated.

On the field, Curt Schilling was at his best when the spotlight shone the brightest. A top starter on four pennant winners and three World Series champions, he has a strong claim as the best postseason pitcher of his generation. Founded on pinpoint command of his mid-90s fastball and a devastating splitter, his regular season dominance enhances his case for Cooperstown. He’s one of just 16 pitchers to strike out more than 3,000 hitters, and is the owner of the highest strikeout-to-walk ratio in modern major league history.

That said, Schilling never won a Cy Young award and finished with “only” 216 regular-season wins, a problem given that only three starters with fewer than 300 wins have been elected since 1992. Two of those — Pedro Martinez and John Smoltz — came in 2015, suggesting that others could follow in their wake.

Schilling was something of a late bloomer who didn’t click until his age-25 season, after he had been traded three times. He spent much of his peak pitching in the shadows of even more famous (and popular) teammates, which may have helped to explain his outspokenness. Former Phillies manager Jim Fregosi nicknamed him “Red Light Curt” for his desire to be at the center of attention when the cameras were rolling. Whether expounding about politics, performance-enhancing drugs, the QuesTec pitch-tracking system, or a cornerstone of his legend, Schilling wasn’t shy about telling the world what he thought.

For better and worse, that desire eventually extended beyond the mound. Schilling used his platform to raise money for research into amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s disease) and, after a bout of oral cancer, recorded public service announcements on the dangers of smokeless tobacco. In 1996, USA Today named him “Baseball’s Most Caring Athlete.” But in the years since his retirement, his actions and inflammatory rhetoric on social media have turned him from merely a controversial and polarizing figure to one who has continued to create problems for himself. Normally, that wouldn’t be germane to the Hall of Fame discussion, but his promotion of a tweet promoting the lynching of journalists — yes, really — during the tense 2016 presidential campaign seemed to have finally brought his momentum to a screeching halt.

Schilling climbed from 38.8% in 2013 to 52.3% in 2016, even while taking a backseat to a quintet of pitchers — Martinez, Smoltz, Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, and Randy Johnson — whose hardware and milestones led to first-ballot entries. Due in large part to his social media and political battles, he plummeted to 45.0% in 2017, as several previous supporters left him off their ballots even when they had space to spare, either explicitly or implicitly citing the character clause. Yet he regained most of the lost ground last year, even while maintaining his noxious public persona, and the early returns on the 2018 ballot suggest his candidacy is back on track even if he himself has gone off the rails.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.
2019 BBWAA Candidate: Curt Schilling
Pitcher Career WAR Peak WAR JAWS
Curt Schilling 79.6 48.7 64.1
Avg. HOF SP 73.9 50.3 62.1
W-L SO ERA ERA+
216-146 3,116 3.46 127
SOURCE: Baseball-Reference

The son of a career Army man, Schilling was born in Anchorage, Alaska, on November 14, 1966 into a family that bounced around the U.S. before settling in Phoenix. Though he impressed scouts at a tryout camp held by the Reds after his junior year at Shadow Mountain High School, he didn’t make the varsity squad until his senior year, and went undrafted out of school. After enrolling at Yavapai Junior College in Arizona, he pitched in the Junior College World Series, was chosen by the Red Sox in the second round of the now-bygone January draft in 1986, and signed for a $20,000 bonus.

Schilling put himself on the prospect map in 1987 by leading the Class-A South Atlantic League in strikeouts at age 20, but midway through the next year, he was traded to the Orioles along with outfielder Brady Anderson in a deadline deal for pitcher Mike Boddicker. He debuted in the majors on September 7, 1988, with a seven-inning, three-run performance against the Red Sox, but he was torched in his three other starts, finishing with a 9.82 ERA. After being knocked around during a similar cup-of-coffee the following year, he stuck around Baltimore as a reliever for about half of the 1990 season, putting up a 2.54 ERA in 46 innings. Even so, he didn’t exactly impress Orioles manager Frank Robinson, his first big-league skipper, with his personal appearance. Recounted the pitcher in a 1998 Sports Illustrated profile:

“I walk in, I got the earring and half my head shaved, a blue streak dyed in it. He says, ‘Sit down,’ and then just cocks his head and stares at me for a while. Finally, he says, ‘What’s wrong with you, son?’ I just sit there and act dumb and say, ‘Huh? What do you mean?'”

Schilling lost the earring and the blue streak, but his lack of maturity persisted. Summoned from the bullpen in a September 1990 game, he admitted to not having paid attention to the opposing lineup. “The ‘Who’s Up?’ story spread through the organization until it became synonymous with his name. Million-dollar arm. Ten-cent head,” wrote Thomas Boswell of the Washington Post. That winter, the Orioles sent Schilling to the Astros (along with outfielder Steve Finley and pitcher Pete Harnisch) for first baseman Glenn Davis, a deal that’s still reviled in Baltimore, less for the future stardom of those departing than for Davis’ flop with the Orioles.

Schilling was not a big hit in Houston, either. After spending the 1991 season in the bullpen, he was traded to Philadelphia for Jason Grimsley just before Opening Day the following year. Six weeks into the season, he finally got another shot to start and was outstanding, completing 10 of 26 turns with four shutouts. He finished the 1992 season 14–11 with a 2.35 ERA in 226.1 innings; his ERA and 5.9 WAR both ranked fourth in the league.

Schilling’s ERA ballooned to 4.02 (99 ERA+) in 1993 as a full-time member of the rotation, but his 186 strikeouts ranked fourth in the league. More importantly, he helped Philadelphia win its first division title in a decade. He then earned NLCS MVP honors against Atlanta with two strong, eight-inning starts in which he allowed a combined three earned runs and struck out 19, though he received a no-decision in both. Roughed up in the World Series opener against the Blue Jays, Schilling rebounded to throw a 147-pitch, five-hit shutout in Game 5 to stave off elimination, though the Jays won the Series on Joe Carter’s homer in Game 6 nonetheless.

The combination of the 1994–95 players’ strike and a trio of surgeries — for a bone spur in his elbow, torn cartilage in his left knee and, most seriously, a torn labrum and frayed rotator cuff — limited Schilling to just 56 starts from 1994 to 1996, but he returned to action with improved velocity and continued to miss bats. He whiffed 182 hitters in 183.1 innings in 1996, and though he made just 26 starts overall, his eight complete games led the league. Both his 3.19 ERA (134 ERA+) and his 4.9 WAR cracked the top 10.

Despite the fact that the Phillies had suffered three straight losing seasons, including a 95-loss campaign in 1996, Schilling chose to sign a below-market, three-year, $15.45 million extension in April 1997. While the hapless team went 68–94, he went 17–11 with a 2.97 ERA (143 ERA+) in 254.1 innings and a league-leading 319 strikeouts, the highest total in the majors since Nolan Ryan‘s 341 in 1977 and the most in the NL since Sandy Koufax’s 382 in 1965. He made his first All-Star team and placed fourth both in WAR (6.3) and in the Cy Young voting, losing out to Martinez, who struck out 305 with a 1.90 ERA for the Expos.

The next year, Schilling became the first pitcher since J.R. Richard in 1978 and 1979 to notch at least 300 strikeouts in back-to-back seasons. He finished with a league-leading 300, and his 268.2 innings and 15 complete games — still the highest total since 1992 — paced the circuit as well; his 6.2 WAR again ranked fourth. The mileage soon caught up to him. Though Schilling earned All-Star honors for the third straight year in 1999 — starting the game for the NL squad, even — he made just three starts after July 23 due to shoulder inflammation, underwent off-season surgery to tighten his shoulder capsule, and didn’t make another regular-season appearance until April 30, 2000. Though not as dominant as in 1997 and 1998, he pitched reasonably well. With the Phillies en route to a 97-loss season, he agreed to waive his no-trade clause and was sent to Arizona for a four-player package on July 26. The Diamondbacks, tied for first place in the NL West at the time of the trade, ultimately fell short of a playoff spot.

With Schilling and lefty Randy Johnson forming the league’s best one-two punch, Arizona won the division in 2001. Schilling set career highs with 22 wins and 8.8 WAR and struck out 293 hitters in 256.2 innings, walking just 37 for an eye-popping 7.5 strikeout-to-walk ratio. He would have waltzed home with the Cy Young award had Johnson not struck out 372 and won 21 games himself en route to the third of four straight Cy wins; Schilling placed second in the vote.

More importantly, the Diamondbacks won the NL West, and Schilling built on that dominant regular season by sparkling in the playoffs. In the first two rounds against the Cardinals and the Braves, respectively, he threw three complete-game victories and struck out 30, allowing just three runs. In the World Series against a Yankees team seeking its fourth straight championship, he yielded one run in seven innings in a Game 1 win, then duplicated that performance on three days’ rest in Game 4. He was in position to get the win in that game too, until Diamondbacks closer Byung-Hyun Kim allowed a game-tying, two-run homer to Tino Martinez in the ninth, then Derek Jeter’s walk-off solo shot in the 10th.

The Series wound up stretching to seven games, with Schilling again taking the ball on three days’ rest. He held the Yankees scoreless for the first six innings but departed in the eighth, trailing 2–1 after surrendering a homer to Alfonso Soriano. Johnson came out of the bullpen in relief, and Arizona rallied for two runs in the bottom of the ninth inning against Mariano Rivera to win the title. Schilling shared co-MVP honors with Johnson (and soon enough, Sports Illustrated’s Sportsmen of the Year honors as well). For the postseason, he had put up a 1.12 ERA, setting records for innings (48.1 innings, surpassed by Madison Bumgarner in 2014) and strikeouts (56), and walking just six.

Schilling was nearly as outstanding in 2002, with 8.6 WAR, 23 wins, and 316 strikeouts with a 9.6 strikeout-to-walk ratio, the second of five times he’d lead his league in that category from 2001-06. “He’s Picasso with a machine gun,” marveled Blue Jays pitcher Dan Plesac. “The command of his fastball, to all four quadrants of the plate, [is] like no power pitcher in years.” Schilling’s WAR, wins, strikeouts, and Cy Young vote total took a back seat only to Johnson.

After a 2003 season in which he was limited to 24 starts by appendicitis and two fractured metacarpals (courtesy of a pair of comeback shots in the same game), Schilling waived his no-trade clause for a deal to the Red Sox, who were fresh off their agonizing ALCS loss to the Yankees on Aaron Boone’s walkoff homer. As part of the five-player trade, Schilling signed a three-year, $37.5 million extension with a $13 million vesting option contingent on the Red Sox winning the World Series, something that hadn’t happened since 1918 (the clause actually ran afoul of MLB’s contract rules).

Pairing with Martinez as Boston’s co-ace, the 37-year-old Schilling put up another banner season, with 21 wins, a 3.26 ERA (148 ERA+ in hitter-friendly Fenway Park), and 203 strikeouts. He earned All-Star honors for the sixth time, but a torn tendon sheath in his right ankle hampered him as the postseason came around. Following an unexceptional Division Series start against the Angels, he was chased by the Yankees after just three innings in Game 1 of the ALCS. It didn’t appear as though the injury would matter once New York built a 3–0 series lead, but when the Sox clawed their way back, Schilling took the ball for Game 6 in the Bronx.

The day before the start, doctors performed an experimental procedure — first tried on a cadaver — to secure a tendon in place using three stitches; TV shots that night routinely captured the blood in Schilling’s ankle seeping through his sock. Nevertheless, his body held together long enough for him to turn in a seven-inning, one-run performance, helping the Sox force a Game 7, which Boston won handily. He threw six innings of one-run ball against the Cardinals in Game 2 of the World Series, helping Boston to its first world championship in 86 years.

Despite off-season surgery, Schilling’s ankle continued to trouble him well into the following year. Splitting his time between the rotation and closing — something he’d done regularly only in early 1991 — he finished with an ugly 5.69 ERA in just 93.1 innings. He rebounded to throw 204 innings of 3.97 ERA (120 ERA+) ball in 2006, striking out 183 and finishing with a stellar 6.5 strikeout-to-walk ratio, but the Red Sox missed the playoffs. Following a strong start in 2007, his season unraveled after he fell one out shy of no-hitting the A’s on June 7; he lost six weeks to shoulder inflammation. Schilling struggled before mustering some semblance of his old form in the postseason: He threw seven shutout innings in the Division Series clincher against the Angels, rebounded from an ALCS Game 2 pounding by the Indians to yield two runs over seven innings in Game 6 and wobbled through 5.1 innings in Game 2 of the World Series against the Rockies — another sweep, as it turned out.

He never pitched a competitive game again. Schilling signed an incentive-laden one-year, $8 million deal to return to Boston in 2008, but further shoulder problems that winter led to a public battle with the team over his treatment. He didn’t undergo surgery to repair his biceps tendon and labrum until June, and couldn’t rehab in time to rejoin the team. The following spring, he announced his retirement.

Schilling finished with 216 wins, a lower total than all but 16 of the 63 starting pitchers in the Hall of Fame, only three of whom (Koufax, Smoltz, and Don Drysdale) pitched in the majors during the post-1960 expansion era. The BBWAA voters have taken a long time to accept the idea that pitcher wins aren’t the ideal measure of success in a modern era where it’s understood that offensive, defensive, and bullpen support are major factors in the compilation of those precious W’s. After electing Fergie Jenkins (284 career wins and seven 20-win seasons) in 1991, it took until 2011 — when Bert Blylelven (287 wins) was elected — for another starter with fewer than 300 victories to gain entry via the writers. Given that it took the writers 14 years to elect Blyleven, that Jack Morris (254 wins) was nearly elected before falling off the ballot in 2014, and that Smoltz gained entry armed with a Cy Young award and additional credentials as a dominant closer, it’s still not clear whether a majority of voters has let go of win totals, though the early support for the late Roy Halladay (203 wins) on the 2019 ballot is a positive sign.

Schilling was the first among a wave of excellent non-300 win pitchers to hit the ballot, followed by Mike Mussina (270 wins) in 2014, and Martinez (219) and Smoltz (213) in 2015. Pitching in the highest scoring era since the 1930s, those men more than held their own against lineups much deeper than their predecessors faced, working deep into counts to rack up high strikeout totals before yielding to increasingly specialized bullpens. The shape of their accomplishments may be different than the even larger cohort of pitchers from the 1960s and ’70s who helped set that 300-or-bust standard, but they belong alongside them in Cooperstown just the same. Martinez and Smoltz went in without a fuss, which should open the door for Schilling, Mussina, Halladay, and today’s top starters, whose diminishing workloads may preclude runs at the milestone.

Even so, Schilling’s candidacy has far more than his regular season win total going for it. He was 11–2 with a 2.23 ERA in 133.1 postseason innings covering 19 starts, helping his teams to four pennants and three championships; in the World Series alone, he was 4–1 with a 2.06 ERA in seven starts totaling 48 innings. Other pitchers of his era racked up more postseason appearances and wins, but no starter from the post-1960 expansion era with at least 100 postseason innings had as low an ERA. Among post-1960 pitchers with at least 40 innings in the World Series, only Koufax (0.94) and Bob Gibson (1.89) have lower ERAs, albeit from lower-scoring eras, making Schilling’s accomplishments all the more impressive.

Turning back to the regular season: Schilling’s 3,116 strikeouts rank 15th all-time, and his 8.6 strikeout-per-nine rate ranks third among pitchers with at least 3,000 innings, behind only Johnson and Ryan, and just ahead of Roger Clemens. It’s true that Schilling pitched in an era when strikeout rates were almost continually on the rise, but he was still ahead of the curve: his trio of 300-K seasons puts him in the company of Johnson, Ryan, and Koufax as the only pitchers with more than two such seasons during the expansion era, and he finished in his league’s top five in strikeouts eight times. What’s more, he demonstrated impeccable control while doing so, leading the league in strikeout-to-walk ratio five times and placing in the top five another four times; his 4.4 ratio is the highest of any pitcher with at least 3,000 innings since 1893, when the pitching distance was first set at 60’6′.

Schilling never won a Cy Young award, but he placed second three times during the 2001-2004 span. Because he’s all over the leaderboard in key pitching categories, he scores very well by Bill James’ Hall of Fame Monitor metric, which gives credit for awards, league leads, postseason performance and so on; on a scale where 100 indicates “a good possibility” of making the Hall of Fame and 130 indicates “a virtual cinch,” his 171 points clear the bar by a mile.

Schilling’s ability to miss bats and prevent runs led to eight top five finishes in WAR and nine seasons of at least 5.0 WAR; among his contemporaries, only Clemens (14), Johnson (11), Maddux (11) and Mussina (10) had more of the latter, while Martinez had as many. Schilling’s 79.6 career WAR ranks 26th all-time, about six wins above the standard for Hall of Fame starters. His peak score of 48.7 WAR is 1.4 wins below the standard — a couple runs per year, spread out over seven seasons. His overall JAWS, however, is 2.3 ahead of the standard, tied for 27th all-time, ahead of five 300-game winners (Glavine, Ryan, Mickey Welch, Don Sutton, and Early Wynn) as well as 33 other enshrined starters. That’s a Hall of Fame pitcher.

After debuting with 38.8% of the vote in 2013, Schilling lost and then regained around nine points over the next two cycles before climbing to 52.3% in 2016. The 50% threshold is significant. Leaving aside those on the current ballot, only Gil Hodges received that much support from the writers and never gained entry. However, over the next two Hall of Fame election cycles, Schilling’s public persona, which may have already had an impact upon his support, began to overshadow his candidacy.

Schilling’s politics have been a significant part of his public persona going back to when he stumped for George W. Bush on Good Morning America just hours after the Red Sox won the 2004 World Series — an unpopular move in a state that voted heavily for Massachusetts senator John Kerry during that year’s presidential election. But to the point that he surpassed the 50% threshold in voting, his candidacy had withstood numerous controversies and efforts to alienate voters, including but not limited to:

  • His longstanding public feuds with high-profile writers such as ESPN’s Pedro Gomez, Newsday’s Jon Heyman, and the Boston Globe’s Dan Shaughnessy.
  • The demise of his video game company, 38 Studios, which received a $75 million loan from the Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation to relocate from Massachusetts but went bankrupt and laid off its staff of 379 people without notice, violating federal law. The state of Rhode Island filed suit and recouped just $16.9 million in two partial settlements.
  • A fall 2015 suspension from his job as an ESPN analyst for posting a Twitter meme that compared Muslim extremists to German Nazis.
  • His January 2015 claim (later repeated) that his conservative political views were costing him votes.

That last claim was belied by back-to-back double-digit gains on the 2015 and 2016 ballots. Despite his surge, Schilling continued to run afoul of ESPN until being fired in April 2016 for “unacceptable” conduct stemming from his posting of an offensive Facebook meme about transgender bathroom laws, and publicly commenting on the 2016 presidential election. While I can understand the reticence some may have over an employer disciplining an employee over their public expression, employment in such a high-profile job doesn’t come without certain expectations and conditions, and Schilling repeatedly chose to violate conditions with offensive sentiments that obviously crossed the line and rankled ESPN viewers.

Schilling’s rhetoric grew increasingly inflammatory after his firing. On Twitter, days before the 2016 presidential election, he praised a photo showing a pro-Donald Trump t-shirt that advocated lynching; “So much awesome here,” he said of a shirt that read, “Rope. Tree. Journalist. Some assembly required.” While Schilling later claimed his comments were “sarcasm,” by that point, several BBWAA voters proclaimed that they were withdrawing their support of Schilling’s candidacy at least for 2017, citing the same character clause that many voters use to justify not voting for players connected to PED use. Wrote former BBWAA president Susan Slusser, “I’ve voted for him previously. But seems to me like advocating murder goes against character clause.” Wrote another former BBWAA president, Jose de Jesus Ortiz, “[P]roposing lynching pretty much sinks his chance on my ballot on character clause.” Wrote Shaughnessy, “[Schilling] has transitioned from a mere nuisance to an actual menace to society.” Said Heyman in a radio interview, “There is a line there to me and he crossed that line by espousing lynching.”

They weren’t the only voters who shied from Schilling. According to the @NotMrTibbs Ballot Tracker, which collects the published votes of every voter willing to share (71.0% did in 2017, either before or after the election), Schilling was dropped from the ballots of 35 voters who had supported him the previous year. While 18 returning voters and 12 out of 15 new voters added him to their ballots, presumably on the strength of his statistical credentials rather than his offensive rhetoric, he was the only one of 34 candidates to lose significant ground — 7.3 percentage points — relative to 2016. In the 2018 cycle, even as he continued to polarize the electorate, he regained most of that lost support. Via the Tracker, 25 returning voters included him where they hadn’t the previous year, but another 11 dropped him; meanwhile, nine out of 13 newcomers included him as well en route to a 51.2% share.

That happened even while Schilling worked to undermine his own candidacy. In mid-December 2017, by the time many voters had sent off their ballots, Schilling did a podcast interview with Paul Nehlen, a white supremacist Congressional candidate from Wisconsin who was dropped as a contributor from Breitbart News — a far-right website the Southern Poverty Law Center has called a “white ethno-nationalist propaganda mill” — for a string of anti-Semitic messages. The podcast, which featured Schilling endorsing and promoting Nehlen’s campaign and describing himself as “a fan,” was taken down by Breitbart soon afterwards. In June 2018, Schilling called climate change “a hoax” and used his Facebook page to promote the pro-Trump QAnon conspiracy theory. Such views appear to have led the Red Sox to distance themselves from him. During the World Series, the team declined to invite Schilling to join ceremonial first pitch festivities that included 2004 teammates Martinez, Alan Embree, Keith Foulke, Kevin Millar, David Ortiz, Jason Varitek, and Tim Wakefield. “We did not reach out to him, but it is not out of spite,” an unnamed Red Sox executive said. “It was originally just going to be Pedro and David and Wake and Millar, but we heard from a few others and they are included.” Schilling himself confirmed that he had not been invited, but said on Twitter, “No worries though.”

In all, Schilling has refused to temper his views for the benefit of his candidacy. Just before the 2016 voting results were announced, he told Boston radio station WEEI, “I’m not going to change who I am to make people think differently of me … If my mouth keeps me out of the Hall of Fame, then it’s a flawed process.” He made similar comments before the 2017 announcement, calling the voters “some of the worst human beings I’ve ever known… scumbags all across,” and adding, “I promise you if I had said ‘lynch Trump,’ I’d be getting in with about 90 percent.”

While I can’t blame anyone for thinking less of the man given his conduct and his increasingly corrosive public persona, my study of the history of the character clause for The Cooperstown Casebook leads me to conclude that it’s a mistake to connect Schilling’s words to the “integrity, sportsmanship, character” portion of the Hall’s voting instructions. His comments had no bearing on his playing career, and I don’t believe that the clause — which, for starters, was introduced by Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis, who spent his 24-year tenure upholding the game’s color line — is worthy of increased investment by voters. What’s more, if there’s some definition of “integrity, sportsmanship and character” that can be applied in a positive manner to a commissioner — 2017 Today’s Game honoree Bud Selig — who colluded against free agents and turned a blind eye to the proliferation of PEDs, then the clause should be regarded as even flimsier and more meaningless than anyone has previously considered it. This isn’t the time to further imbue it with greater importance.

Having said that, I’m not alone in believing that Schilling’s pro-lynching tweet went beyond the pale as far as public discourse is concerned, in that it moved from his personally held beliefs (however noxious) to a condonation of violence, and his claim of “sarcasm” doesn’t wash given his failure to apologize or repudiate the post. At a time when the type of right-wing rhetoric Schilling has repeatedly trafficked in has fueled the United States’ inclusion among the most dangerous countries for professional journalists, I don’t blame any journalist for eliminating Schilling from consideration. I’m done telling anybody to hold his or her nose and vote for such a candidate just because of stats and a highlight reel. From a baseball prospective, Schilling is as qualified for the Hall of Fame as any candidate on the ballot. He ranks among the all-time greats based on his run prevention skill, his dominance in the game’s most elemental battle of balls and strikes, and his repeated ability to rise to the occasion when the on-field stakes were highest. Nonetheless, a voter is as free to ignore that conclusion as he or she is my conclusions about the baseball achievements of Clemens, Mussina, Larry Walker, Edgar Martinez, and so on.

The early returns at the Tracker suggest that Schilling’s candidacy has regained momentum, as he’s received 76.1% from the 88 published ballots so far (four of which are anonymous); he’s picked up a net of five votes from returning voters and is 4-for-4 from first-timers. That 76.1% is likely to come down, leaving him short of election this year, but with three cycles remaining after that, he could well get to 75% before his eligibility expires. Or he could continue to sabotage his own progress. Would anything he does surprise anybody at this point?





Brooklyn-based Jay Jaffe is a senior writer for FanGraphs, the author of The Cooperstown Casebook (Thomas Dunne Books, 2017) and the creator of the JAWS (Jaffe WAR Score) metric for Hall of Fame analysis. He founded the Futility Infielder website (2001), was a columnist for Baseball Prospectus (2005-2012) and a contributing writer for Sports Illustrated (2012-2018). He has been a recurring guest on MLB Network and a member of the BBWAA since 2011, and a Hall of Fame voter since 2021. Follow him on BlueSky @jayjaffe.bsky.social.

111 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Psychic... Powerless...
7 years ago

Horrible human being who, IMO, deserves induction.

CC AFCMember since 2016
7 years ago

Undoubtedly deserving w/r/t on field production. I’m cool if the electorate decides not to celebrate him, though.

There’s clearly a point at which someone could do enough bad things off the field that the game shouldn’t celebrate them. Whether that point was reached by Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe, Bonds, any number of players who promoted segregation (looking at you, cap anson’s ghost) or whether the point is only reached after something like murder is a matter of personal preference, I suppose. I’m comfortable saying schilling’s bigotry and advocacy of violence against a free press reaches the point that he deserves no celebration.

scooter262
7 years ago

Agree with first part, not second. I can forgive much off-field behavior when it comes to HOF voting. But Shilling continues to keep acting against his own candidacy by the inflammatory things he says publicly.

In a similar fashion to how Pete Rose kept hurting his candidacy—of course the specifics are quite different.

I completely understand any journalist who withholds his vote for a person who thinks journalists should be lynched. Even if that was a bad joke, it’s obvious that Schilling holds a high level of contempt for the very idea of a free press.

While I’m a big believer in the first amendment, I also believe that the right to say whatever you want does come with responsibility for public persons. And that you must take the consequences for your speech when it is as inflammatory has Shilling’s has often been.

Johnston
7 years ago

Being a conservative makes you “horrible”? Biased much?

He deserves to be in the HOF. He has the numbers and the fame.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  Johnston

I didn’t think anyone would want to claim this guy as one of their own. This ain’t Nolan Ryan we’re talking about here.

manormachine
7 years ago
Reply to  Johnston

Schilling and others like him aren’t conservatives. Conservatives would suppport a free press as laid down in the first amendment. Conservatives would consider character when voting for our commander in chief. Conservatives would distance themselves from anti semites and Nazis, the very ideology so many Americans died to defeat a few generations ago.

Schilling and tbose like him are provocateurs, a type of troll that will say or do anything to strain the boundaries of civility and good taste, then try to walk it back by saying it was a joke, using whataboutism, or blaming those who are outraged. At the same time they have a toxic sense of self entitlement and persecution. They take no responsibility for the results of their words and actions. Every time someone thinks it’s okay to kill a journalist for reporting against their political views, Schilling deserves a tiny portion of the blame.

gtagomoriMember since 2017
7 years ago
Reply to  Johnston

No, being a bigot is the issue. Well not even that. Announcing his bigotry and issuing lynching threats are. Who in his right mind uses that word now? Anyone who does should listen to Billie Holidays rendition of Strange Fruit.

But he does belong in the HoF.

Antonio BananasMember since 2026
7 years ago
Reply to  Johnston

it’s pretty sad that conservatives are defending hatred. How is that a core part of your belief? BLM immediately condemns hateful rhetoric when people use it in their name. why don’t conservatives do the same?

This seems like more “both sides” false equivalency.

Antonio BananasMember since 2026
7 years ago
Reply to  Johnston

another false equivalent. why conservatives seem to generally support any conservative? he’s an extremist. BLM condemns people who say things like wanting dead cops.

is it so hard for conservatives to police hateful conservatives? or are we just at the point where hate is a core conservative principal?

Antonio BananasMember since 2026
7 years ago

mistaken double post. Can we please delete this one.

Psychic... Powerless...
7 years ago
Reply to  Johnston

@Johnston

“Being a conservative makes you ‘horrible’? Biased much?”

You seem to be suggesting the following:
— I said Schilling is a “horrible person,” with no further explanation.
— Schilling is a conservative.
— Therefore, it’s his conservatism that makes me think he’s horrible.

Is it possible I think he’s horrible because he expressed approval for lynching journalists?

rhswanzey
7 years ago
Reply to  Johnston

Conservatives would again be more popular with the wider population if they understood that encouraging violence against our own people is dangerous and unacceptable.

I disagree with looking at Schilling’s entire body of thought/comments and concluding he is a “bad person”. However, he is outspoken and abrasive so often that it becomes more difficult to wave away something especially egregious as an error in judgment. Almost everyone has errors in judgment, and witch hunting from inside glass houses is also dangerous. Schilling knows what he is doing when he injects himself into public political discourse by this point, doesn’t he?

We are in a country where four million children experienced school lockdowns this year – talk about childhood trauma. A republican sent mail bombs to democrat leaders. A democrat targeted and shot republican leaders. A person drove a car into a counterprotest as part of a protest and killed a civilian. Anxiety rises every year and communities are dissolving from virtual living, a drug epidemic, and about twenty other hugely complicated issues. It’s popular to slam PC culture and even cry censorship. But if I’ve learned anything observing society the past few years, it’s that words and conduct really DO matter. We don’t have to agree, or even freakin’ like each other, at all, but everyone deserves to live and pursue their own private Idaho. We have a mental health crisis in the US and a straight irrational health care system that prohibits the most vulnerable from treatment. Yes, words, tone, heart all matter. It shouldn’t be in anyone’s interest for even more random civilians or public servants to be murdered.

Henry
7 years ago
Reply to  rhswanzey

“A person drove a car into a counterprotest as part of a protest and killed a civilian.”

This is a bit disengenuous.

LHPSU
7 years ago
Reply to  Johnston

I wouldn’t label someone advocating for taxpayer funding of private video game companies a ‘conservative’, if I were you. It sort of goes against, you know, the core ideology of conservatism.

Anglin_and_Weev_new_Martin_and_Lewis
7 years ago

On Twitter, days before the 2016 presidential election, he praised a photo showing a pro-Donald Trump t-shirt that advocated lynching; “So much awesome here,” he said of a shirt that read, “Rope. Tree. Journalist. Some assembly required.”

He made similar comments before the 2017 announcement, calling the voters “some of the worst human beings I’ve ever known… scumbags all across,”

—————————————————–

I can understand why baseball writers would be offended by Schilling’s statements and would cite the Character Clause as reason to keep him out.

In 2011 the exceptionally moral baseball writers elected their fellow colleague Bill Conlin to Cooperstown.

In 2007 Bill Conlin publicly said this: Conlin drew the ire of bloggers after quipping in an email that “the only positive thing I can think of about Hitler’s time on earth: I’m sure he would have eliminated all bloggers.”

In 2009 Conlin was reported to the police by an Atlantic City prosecutor for child molestation of her when she was a child. She was a blood relative of Conlin. For some reason this did not make it into the mass media before 2011. I’m sure there was no special favor accorded Conlin here because “reporters” are such a special class of human being that their character is beyond repute.

However, after Conlin’s election to Cooperstown was announced not only did the 2009 report make it into the mass media but three other female relatives came forward with their own molestation stories about Uncle Bill.

Oh BTW, one of Conlin’s last appearances on Philly television was next to Michael Barkann who referred to Conlin as “Uncle Bill”. Conlin had a rubber ducky kids toy in front of him that he periodically squeezed during his TV appearance that made a squeaking duck sound.

As long as we’re talking about character clauses, HOF votes and baseball journalists we might as well get all the facts out on the table.

TKDCMember since 2016
7 years ago

This would be a better point if the article were suggesting that Schilling’s behavior means that no players should be elected to the hall of fame. Or are you suggesting that guilt by association and baseless accusations are totally kosher?

emh1969
7 years ago

Just a nit but Conlin wasn’t elected to the HOF.

From Wikipedia; “Winners are not considered to be members of the Hall. They are not “inducted” or “enshrined”, but are permanently recognized in an exhibit at the Hall’s library.”

manormachine
7 years ago

A classic example of whataboutism.

Pepper Martin
7 years ago

I think it’s safe to say that there are plenty of people who were bad people and who are in the Hall of Fame. That’s not inconsistent with saying that Curt Schilling should not get in to the Hall of Fame because he’s a bad person.

You don’t have to be as good a closer as Mariano Rivera to make it to the Hall of Fame. There are less-good relievers who are still Hall of Fame worthy. And you don’t have to be as bad of a person as Marty Bergen to be kept out of the Hall of Fame* for your character. There are less-bad people than Marty Bergen who are still kept out of the Hall of Fame because of their character.

Schilling’s pretty bad. Curt Schilling is not someone that you would allow into your home. Curt Schilling is not someone who you would allow your kids to speak to long enough to get an autograph from him. I think that if you’ve got somebody who’s a bad enough person that you wouldn’t let your kids speak to him, that person should probably not be in the Hall of Fame.

* – If you’re unfamiliar, Marty Bergen was a catcher who murdered his two children and wife with an ax before beheading himself. He received four total votes for the Hall of Fame between 1937 and 1939 — Jesse Burkett considered him to be the greatest catcher of all time.

VincentGuilds
7 years ago
Reply to  Pepper Martin

From the brief research I’ve done on the subject, it sounds like Bergen was suffering from really serious mental illness at the time he murdered his family. Paranoid hallucinations his wife was trying to poison him, walking backwards so assassins couldn’t shoot him in the back, having a knife fight with an invisible man during a game.

What he did was horrible, but it is difficult for me to assign it to his character or blame someone who is apparently that mentally ill.

Then again, I am not a doctor, and maybe he was faking, I don’t know. But on those facts…

formerly matt wMember since 2025
7 years ago

This character is using his screen name to praise neo-Nazis. There’s no ambiguity about it; weev and Andrew Anglin are full-on Nazis, one with a swastika tattoo and one who’s told his supporters he wants to kill all Jews (he doesn’t call us Jews).

AlbyMember since 2025
7 years ago

“For some reason this did not make it into the mass media before 2011. ”

It didn’t make it into any media before that. Everyone knew Bill Conlin was an ass; we didn’t know he was a child molester. Since you clearly didn’t follow this in real time, your after-the -fact excuse-making is way off target here.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago

So basically what you’re saying is that you don’t believe in the character clause at all? I mean, I don’t agree, but it’s coherent. It would be nice to acknowledge that if you’re throwing out the character clause for players who cheated at the game then we should probably also not apply to people whose indiscretions are non-baseball related (and not involving physical violence, either).

Here’s the messy part of Schilling and the character clause: As a player, he won the Branch Rickey award, the Roberto Clemente award, the Hutch award, and the Lou Gehrig Memorial award. He raised tons of money for ALS research. There was never any concern he was cheating at all, he was a good sport, and except for his hogging the spotlight he got on fine with his teammates (save for the hilarious Mitch Williams incident). He even got along well with Gabe Kapler, whom he (intensely but respectfully) debated politics with. It’s weird to call someone who has won numerous character awards not a good fit based on the character clause.

That said, I have to be honest–it would be a lot easier to vote for Schilling if he wasn’t off promoting neo-nazi figures like Nehlen. I’m generally against anyone, for any reason, in all areas, if they’re for neo-nazis (which sadly includes a number of prominent elected officials). I voted for him anyway. His regular season numbers pass the bar, his postseason pitching is astounding,and he was the most pivotal character in the most exciting game in the most exciting playoff series of my lifetime. I literally see no good reason to leave him off except for the (remote) possibility that his election would be a boon to neo-nazis. Which, if you think it would be the case, is an awfully good reason.

emh1969
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

“he got on fine with his teammates”

You might want to check out Randy Miller’s article “Why this ‘scumbag’ (me) will never give Curt Schilling another Hall of Fame vote”.

To wit:

“Once, he objected to an article I had written, and I was sitting in the Phillies dugout at Veterans Stadium during a team stretch, Schilling yelled that I ought to be a movie critic. I gave it right back to him, and afterward, a few of the 2000 Phillies told how much they enjoyed watching me stand up to Schilling’s bullying.

Two years earlier, I had written a story in which former Phillies pitcher Garrett Stephenson told me his time with the team was miserable because his locker had been next to Schilling’s. He felt Schilling had tried to motivate him in insulting and demeaning ways.

Phillies players from their 1993 World Series team have told me they hated TV cameras pick up Schilling in the dugout with a towel over his head while closer Mitch Williams was blowing postseason games.

“Worst teammate I’ve ever had,” said a 1993 Phillie who had a long career.”

Paul-SF
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

The problem is the character clause has been so inconsistently applied over the years that anybody I’d be inclined to leave out has already been elected! The character clause essentially exists as an escape hatch for voters to punish players they don’t like for whatever reason, even if there’s no evidence to support the conclusion that voter has reached (see: Piazza, Mike, and Bagwell, Jeff).

I’d support one in theory, even though I’d have concerns about how to apply it and what standards of evidence we’d use. In practice, this one has already been abused past the point of credibility.

TKDCMember since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

While there was never anything linking Schilling to steroids, I think it is going a bit too far to say there were “never any concerns” that he was cheating. Plenty of people were suspicious of guys in their late-30s throwing hard gas with the stamina usually associated with much younger players. Pure speculation is no reason to leave him out, but it has hurt or slowed the candidacy of other players, too.

As far as good reasons to leave him off, personally I agree with you. But there are some pretty simple ways to differentiate Schilling from the other sub-300 win starters who got in recently, or may get in soon.

1. Pedro Martinez: this one is easy and I don’t really think I need to make this case. Three Cy Youngs and considered one of the most, if not the most, dominant peaks in history.

2. John Smoltz: Cy Young Award, association with Braves Big-3, win total was suppressed by spending 3 seasons as one of best closers in baseball

3. Roy Halladay: Two Cy Youngs, considered best pitcher over the span of a decade.

4. Mike Mussina: Win total is much closer to 300, similar to Jenkins, Blyleven and Morris.

I do think that him being an asshole is probably hurting him and I don’t agree it should (also not losing any sleep over it), but a simple metric of wins and Cy Youngs shows that some of these other guys are much closer to the traditional marks that generally lead to induction.

emh1969
7 years ago
Reply to  TKDC

Obviously we have no evidence that Schilling took steroids and the defense that I often see is that he was so outspoken against them. Which makes no sense to me. If there’s one thing I’ve learned in my 49+ years it’s this: being outspoken against something doesn’t mean you’re not indulging in that thing yourself.

DDD
7 years ago
Reply to  emh1969

Do you (TKDC and emh1969) have anything that might even circumstantially link Schilling to PED use (I mean directly, not “guys in their late 30s…,” which would implicate a lot of HoF pitchers)? From what I have found, there were only two times PEDs were mentioned in association with him. Once was in 2005, when he went to congress, not as an accused, but rather to testify against PED use. And once in 2013 when he himself said that, in 2008, the Red Sox suggested he use PEDs to try to prolong his career – and he refused. Is there something I’ve missed? Showing up to Spring training looking like Hans and Franz after looking normal at the end of the previous season would be sufficient for me to speculate about it (and I do with many players). But, I haven’t seen anything that would give that indication with Schilling (e.g. no drastic increase in muscle mass; no eyewitness accounts of him using creams, powders, pills, or shots; no naughty lists with his name on it, etc.). I cannot find anything to warrant speculation. Both of you have always had insightful comments in the past. But, these comments about PED usage do not appear to have any merit.

emh1969
7 years ago
Reply to  DDD

DDD: My point above has nothing in particular to do with Schilling. I just hate it when I see people say things like: “We know player X didn’t take steroids because they spoke out against them”. People speak out about things all the time. And then get caught indulging in that same thing.

DDD
7 years ago
Reply to  emh1969

emh1969, Thanks for the reply. I get your point. But, your comment came across as if it were specific to Schilling. While it is possible that Schilling used PEDs (as it is for any professional athlete), I found nothing to indicate that he did. And it is very reckless (to say the least) to suggest that he may have done so without any evidence in a forum such as this with HoF consideration at stake. Again, thanks for the reply.

emh1969
7 years ago
Reply to  DDD

DDD; You seem to be suggesting that I’m saying something that i clearly didn’t say. I’ll repeat what I said in the first comment that you responded to: “Obviously we have no evidence that Schilling took steroids”.

But just as we shouldn’t hang people based on circumstantial evidence, we also shouldn’t consider “speaking out” as exculpatory evidence.

isavage
7 years ago
Reply to  DDD

“Do you (TKDC and emh1969) have anything that might even circumstantially link Schilling to PED use” … He played baseball in the 90s and early 00s. I would say every baseball player in MLB in that era is circumstantially linked to PED use.

TKDCMember since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  DDD

DDD, “circumstantial” can range from pretty solid to flimsy. Nothing in my comment suggested anything against Schilling was anything but flimsy. But that goes for many other players who were both as generally hallworthy as Schilling and lacking his “character concerns.” Jeff Bagwell had to wait, and his case is much better. Not sure if steroid concerns were why. Not sure if baseless steroid linkage is affecting Schilling. But really it’s just funny to me who gets lumped into “steroid speculation” and who doesn’t. You can come up with a reason to suspect anyone.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  TKDC

Schilling is, was, and always has been, a schlubby guy.

Bagwell (legally) used andro.

That’s the difference.

TKDCMember since 2016
7 years ago

If you were paying attention when the Mitchell Report came out, the idea of being able to pick out the steroid users by looking for guys that could be on the cover of Body Builder Monthly should have gone out the window. The majority of players listed were not the hulking image stereotypically linked to steroids.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  TKDC

Steroids only enhance your performance if you work out – it’s the same reason everyone’s sure that Andruw and Junior didn’t use steroids.

Maybe he took HGH…but I don’t actually care about players using HGH to recover from injuries, haha.

John Autin
7 years ago
Reply to  TKDC

A tangent on the Halladay comparison — Even when they are deserved, Cy Young Awards and reputations like “the best pitcher over an N-year span” can be as accidental as they are meaningful.

Which of these 9-year totals represents the prime of Curt Schilling (1996-2004), and which the prime of Roy Halladay (2003-11)? Each span contains all the years in which they got Cy Young votes, and all three 20-win seasons by each.
(1) 2,008 IP, 275 GS, 63 CG, 58.6 WAR, 42.6 WAA, 141 ERA+
(2) 1,955 IP, 269 GS, 61 CG, 55.3 WAR, 37.5 WAA, 147 ERA+

Which of these 2-year totals is for Halladay’s 2 Cy Young Awards (2003 & ’10), and which is for Schilling’s first 2 runner-ups (2001-02)?
(1) 45-13 record, 516 IP, 17.4 WAR, 13.4 WAA.
(2) 43-17 record, 517 IP, 16.7 WAR, 12.2 WAA.

In each case, (1) is Schilling, (2) is Halladay. It just happens that Schilling’s prime was matched up with both Pedro (#1 in WAR for that span) and Big Unit (CYA both years Schill was runner-up) — two of the greatest peaks ever. Halladay’s prime just happens not to match up with any other all-time peaks.

I don’t need to convince you that Schilling’s peak was better than Halladay’s, but there’s no objective case that it was worse.

TKDCMember since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

John Autin,

I agree Schilling is worthy. I’m just making a simple case for how traditional voters might differentiate the two.

Johnston
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Sadtrombone, you clearly have no idea what a “Neo-Nazi” actually is, and, no, the alt-Right isn’t made up of “Neo-Nazis”; that’s just a propaganda fabrication. Your comment is just a bogus smear – the flip side equivalent of a conservative calling Hilary Clinton voters Trotskyites or such.

Do better.

formerly matt wMember since 2025
7 years ago
Reply to  Johnston

The guy in question, Paul Nehlen, has an extensive, extensive record of antisemitic comments which you can find using your favorite search engine. You can parse the difference between that sort of rabid antisemite and neo-Nazis, but it’s clearly a lot smaller than the difference between Hillary Clinton voters and Trotskyites.

3cardmontyMember since 2025
7 years ago
Reply to  Johnston

The term “alt right” was coined by self-identified white supremacist Richard Spencer. It is nothing more than a rebranding effort by neo-nazis.

JCCfromDCMember since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

“he got on fine with his teammates.” Heh. In addition to the incidents noted by emh1969, I couldn’t help but remember that his boss in Philadelphia admitted that Schilling was “a horse every fifth day, and a horse’s ass the other four.” Schilling didn’t really change after he retired from baseball.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

After reading the comments through again, I’ve reconsidered. I don’t want Schilling to get in. Not until all this mess has died down. The veterans committee can put him in later.

I wrote earlier that “I literally see no good reason to leave him off except for the (remote) possibility that his election would be a boon to neo-nazis.” It’s become pretty clear that it’s more than just “remote”. I’m gonna uncheck him.

rhswanzey
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

There is now a higher standard for baseball players than actual political leaders. How bout that?

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  rhswanzey

To be fair, I am holding Schilling to a much lower standard than political leaders. I mean, if Schilling was *privately* fascist I wouldn’t care. But since he’s become a cause of hate groups, there’s no way to vote for him.

Mike NMN
7 years ago

This is very well written. Schilling probably belongs in. On WAR, except for PED-tainted players, there’s no real justification for keeping him out. He certainly had a weird career, with odd ups and downs, but the totality of it merits induction. He’s also got absolutely no filter, including griping about what he sees as bias against him, and, at the time his 38 Studios went bust (on largely the taxpayer’s dime) he blamed everyone else. I took a look at his twitter feed this morning, and he’s the same guy. Yet, even if you disagree with his politics, think he grifted off the taxpayer, and is just non-stop nasty, I’m not sure that’s enough justification to exclude him from the Hall of Fame.

Pepper Martin
7 years ago
Reply to  Mike NMN

I wouldn’t want my children talking to Curt Schilling long enough to get an autograph from him on a baseball, out of fear of what kind of vile filth he might spew at them. If somebody’s a bad enough person that you wouldn’t trust them to talk to your kids for ten seconds, they’re probably too bad of a person to be in the Hall of Fame.

wubbie075
7 years ago
Reply to  Pepper Martin

I wouldn’t try to prevent my children from speaking with him. I’d let them hear what he had to say while also listening intently. Afterward, I’d talk to them about what he told them and explain why any reprehensible views he may have expressed are wrong and why. I’d explain that he was a great pitcher, but that does not mean he was a good person. It is possible to appreciate the one while denouncing the other. I believe Wagner is the greatest composer ever and listen to his works often. Doesn’t mean I agree with his anti-semitism.

We don’t fix problems by pretending they don’t exist and isolating ourselves from distasteful opinions. We fix them by teaching and discussing.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago

Also, you should consider writing a Rickey Henderson retrospective to be posted next year on the 25th. More Rickey content=good.

Paul-SF
7 years ago

As I’ve said before, it’s possible to both condemn Schilling’s awful sentiments while also acknowledging his Hall-worthy baseball career. Besides, electing him to the Hall at this point would be a repudiation of at least some his beliefs, which include a martyrdom complex that is not uncommon among the far-right circles in which he traffics. At least he won’t be able to keep falsely claiming that his political views are responsible for his inability to be inducted.

On a more personal note, it’s really a shame. I’m a Red Sox fan, and that bloody-sock game was one of the most memorable baseball experiences I’ve ever witnessed. Further, in my baseball blogging days, he actually stopped by to leave some comments and do a Q&A with us, which was a thrilling experience, even if it was only through the interubes. I’d be inclined to say it’s shocking how Schilling has managed to throw away the indescribable amounts of good will he earned both for his gutsiness in beating the Yankees during the greatest postseason comeback in the sport’s history and for his direct communication to everyday Sox fans online in the subsequent seasons – if it weren’t replicated in numerous small ways, including in my own extended family, all across the country over the past 10 years. Schilling has radicalized himself in an especially public way, but unfortunately he’s not alone, and his slide from outspoken conservatism into noxious extremism reflects a shift all too many have undergone in the post-9/11 era.

TKDCMember since 2016
7 years ago

From a practical standpoint, what would his induction look like? I mean, there is a ceremony and a speech by each inductee. What would he say and how would the crowd respond (also, it’s not hard to imagine there being a lot of negative reaction even if he stays out of the political/culture war lane)? How many people in the crowd would be wearing white polos and carrying Tiki torches? The HOF induction is an awesome event and it is hard to imagine Schilling’s inclusion not screwing it up.

Psychic... Powerless...
7 years ago
Reply to  TKDC

One possible solution would be to tell him–and all inductees for that matter–that if you say something egregiously offensive, off goes the microphone. But your point is quite valid.

CC AFCMember since 2016
7 years ago

Of course, that would then allow him to go on a podcast and tell everyone he’s being censored by the snowflake, pc, globalist elites…of the museum in a village of less than 2000 people in central NY. It’s a big ol’ no win situation

emh1969
7 years ago
Reply to  TKDC

Oh, if Schilling ever gets elected, I’m buying lots and lots and lots of popcorn!!!

isntthisrichMember since 2026
7 years ago
Reply to  TKDC

Yes, this would be the biggest issue for me if I were an actual voter. I mean, if election to the HOF simply meant that you got your plaque hung with the other baseball greats, then I’d see no reason to deny Schilling his well deserve d place, based on his playing career. But the idea that election is a special honor, and that it would give him an opportunity to spew whatever hatred he felt like coming forth with on induction day — yecch, I don’t know if I could cast my vote for him knowing that I’d be making that possible.

Paul-SF
7 years ago

As I’ve said before, it’s possible to both condemn Schilling’s awful sentiments while also acknowledging his Hall-worthy baseball career. Besides, electing him to the Hall at this point would be a repudiation of at least some his beliefs, which include a martyrdom complex that is not uncommon among the far-right circles in which he traffics. At least he won’t be able to keep falsely claiming that his political views are responsible for his inability to be inducted.

On a more personal note, it’s really a shame. I’m a Red Sox fan, and that bloody-sock game was one of the most memorable baseball experiences I’ve ever witnessed. Further, in my baseball blogging days, he actually stopped by to leave some comments and do a Q&A with us, which was a thrilling experience, even if it was only through the intertubes. I’d be inclined to say it’s shocking how Schilling has managed to throw away the indescribable amounts of good will he earned both for his gutsiness in beating the Yankees during the greatest postseason comeback in the sport’s history and for his direct communication to everyday Sox fans online in the subsequent seasons – if it weren’t replicated in numerous small ways, including in my own extended family, all across the country over the past 10 years. Schilling has radicalized himself in an especially public way, but unfortunately he’s not alone, and his slide from outspoken conservatism into noxious extremism reflects a shift all too many have undergone in the post-9/11 era.

Paul-SF
7 years ago
Reply to  Paul-SF

Sorry for the double-post, everyone. Technology. It hard.

Curacao LL
7 years ago

The most revealing line for me in an excellent essay: “…it’s still not clear whether a majority of voters has let go of win totals, though the early support for the late Roy Halladay (203 wins) on the 2019 ballot is a positive sign”

The commentariat here skews Left, so I don’t expect any love for Schilling’s political views post-career.

But I wonder if anyone can legitimately argue “Halladay = yes, Schilling = no”…and Halladay is running 90%+ on revealed ballots. Maybe no to both, maybe yes to both, but I don’t see how you vote for one and not the other.

TKDCMember since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  Curacao LL

Two Cy Young Awards and considered the best pitcher in baseball for a solid decade or so.

I’m a big hall guy and favor Schilling getting in, but you don’t need to get to twisted to find reasons to leave him off. The pitchers with fewer than 300 wins that have gotten in have Cy Young Awards to their names or were very close to 300 wins. The only exception to that is Jack Morris and he should not have been elected anyway, so that is not the best comp. He also did have over 250 wins. Jack Morris is fairly constructive, as from a traditionalist standpoint, his case is fairly similar to Schilling’s case (“big game” pitcher with no Cy Young Awards and well fewer than 300 wins), and the writers never voted him in.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  Curacao LL

Because Schilling is doing radio spots on David Duke’s show and Halladay died tragically young.

Aside from that, no, I can’t come up with a good reason. Schilling’s best years were on part with that of Halladay’s, if not better. Using fWAR his best seasons were 9.3, 8.3, 8.2, 7.2, and 6.5 wins. Halladay’s are 8.3, 7.0, 7.0, 6.8, and 6.8. Halladay’s WAR7 is a shade higher (50.6 to 48.7), but Schilling’s career was notably higher (by about 13-14 wins) using bWAR or fWAR. On top of that, Schilling’s postseason performance was spectacular. So if you’re going to make an argument on the merits, it’s mostly that Halladay’s peak stretched out for an extra year or two compared to Schilling, which seems like a pretty weak reason.

Johnston
7 years ago
Reply to  Curacao LL

“The commentariat here skews Left”

The commentariat here skews EXTREMELY Left. Their comments about Schilling here reflect that.

Schilling’s a man who says what he thinks with no filters, and yes, he can be a total jerk, but he is not even close to what he is portrayed as being in the comments. (Which was, of course, utterly predicatable.) He still deserves a place in the HOF.

olethrosMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  Johnston

The man openly and proudly associates with actual literal avowed Nazis and has publicly advocated the murder of journalists. He’s exactly what he’s portrayed as, because he is the one doing the bulk of the portraying. There’s a long fucking distance between someone like LaRussa who is well known for his conservative politics and Schilling who is consorting with Nazis and encouraging the killing of journalists.

AtomicDumpling
7 years ago
Reply to  olethros

“Encouraging the killing of journalists” is an extreme distortion of Schillings’ views. The guy is a nutcase, but it is dishonest to claim he actually wants journalists murdered. Retweeting a meme is not a look into his soul. All sorts of people retweet or like many stupid things. I think the rush to condemn him for that tweet is just the excuse people use to justify their bias and hatred of people who don’t agree with them politically.

TKDCMember since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  AtomicDumpling

The old conservative motto: “Personal Responsibility, but go wild on Twitter”

Paul-SF
7 years ago
Reply to  Johnston

Never mind.

Antonio BananasMember since 2026
7 years ago
Reply to  Curacao LL

You don’t have to be a liberal to think a guy who interviews Paul Nehlen for Breitbart has unforgivable views. Opinions aren’t equal. Not every opinion deserves respect or platform. “both sides” isn’t an argument for tolerating abject hatred. It’s not like Curt is quoting Milton Friedman and talking about the free market. He’s retweeting and interviewing hateful Nazis.

6er
7 years ago

In a perfect world being a horrible human being would keep you out of a sports HOF. But this is far from a perfect world and sports HOF’s aren’t exactly giving out humanitarian awards!

Knoblaublah
7 years ago

Maybe the HOF should create a separate wing, with a separate admission fee, for “Tarnished Silver.” It could include Bonds, Clemens, Rose, Joe Jackson, Steinbrenner, Sheffield and Schilling, and their plaques could explain why they qualify as all-time greats while having personal issues that require separation from everyone else. You could also move Ty Cobb, Larry MacPhail and Kenesaw Landis over there. That way, visitors bothered by these people could still go to the museum and people who think character is merely something to excuse could still see these memorials. The side Hall could also have special features on players like Hal Chase, Albert Belle and, most appropriately, Milton Bradley. It could also discuss “Today’s Game,” featuring Aroldis Chapman, Alex Osuna and Addison Russell.

Something for everyone.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  Knoblaublah

I would totally love a “true crime”-style wing! It would satisfy my concerns entirely. But it would never happen, because people would lose their mind over moving guys over there, even though Landis definitely deserves to be in there (Cobb probably not; he was a royal pain in the ass like Sheffield, but not a racist).

Knoblaublah
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Just wait until people realize what Richard Russell – of Russell Senate Office Building fame – was most successful at doing when he was in the Senate. Brilliant talent, but . . . After that, then we’ll see discussions of Landis’ history that will make reconsideration of it seem obvious and well past due.

Smiling PolitelyMember since 2018
7 years ago

There are HoF-skilled players who have done bad things (many of them, in fact) and there are HoF-skilled players whose bad things overshadowed their impact on the game.

For me, Schilling has moved himself out of the former into the latter, which is why he wouldn’t have my vote in spite of his obvious dominance and otherwise-worthy credentials. It’s the same argument as the one keeping Rose out (which I realize is still debatable), but when you become more invested and known for the terrible things you do (and continue to do) than for the baseball you played, it’s worth thinking through the cost/benefit of enshrinement that is all about “legacy.”

Smiling PolitelyMember since 2018
7 years ago

(and, as usual, Jaffe laid out the different threads really well. really enjoying th FG offseason writing!)

manormachine
7 years ago

Right wingers advocating political violence need to learn that there is no place for them in polite society. Even though I would vote for him on the basis of the 3000 Ks alone, with the postseason heroics as a bonus, he doesn’t deserve entry. Some things are bigger than baseball.

CCSAGE
7 years ago
Reply to  manormachine

How about ANYONE advocating political violence has no place in our society. Political violence is not the sole providence of ‘right wingers’, and making statements like this stifles debate in much the same way that Schillings comments tend to do.

rounders
7 years ago
Reply to  CCSAGE

The threat of political violence was the centerpiece of the Declaration of Independence, and the second amendment was not a hunters right bill.

Johnston
7 years ago
Reply to  manormachine

“Right wingers advocating political violence”

As opposed to the Left wingers who actually regularly commit political violence? Five bucks says you don’t condemn those horrible Antifa thugs and the extremists who illegally harass conservatives in public.

Next time maybe just condemn “people advocating political violence.” You know, fairness.

AtomicDumpling
7 years ago
Reply to  manormachine

I think it is the left wingers who have been advocating and committing political violence much more so than right-wingers. It isn’t right wingers rioting in the streets. It isn’t right-wingers shooting congressmen on a baseball field. It isn’t right-wingers sending death threats to congressmen. It isn’t right-wingers ambushing senators in elevators.

TKDCMember since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  AtomicDumpling

Sure, if you ignore thing A, thing B, thing C, thing D, thing E, and thing F, this is a totally truthful and helpful comment. If you need any further explanation, please consult google dot com.

manormachine
7 years ago
Reply to  AtomicDumpling

I would condemn anyone advocating political violence. And the left is not entirely without blame. But you are blind if you can’t see that most political violence in America comes from the right. Rightwingers are rioting in the streets (Charlottesville). Rightwingers haven’t shot anyone on a baseball field yet. They do it at campaign rallies (Giffords.) Right wingers don’t just send death threats, they act upon it (pipe bomber.) And if you don’t want to talk to members of the public about your voting record, don’t be a congressman.

I hate Schilling for dragging us into a political discussion on a baseball website, but that’s what his toxic politics do. I would consider voting for steroid users because their sins were confined to baseball and became a part of the game and its history. I would even consider voting for Pete Rose on that basis. But Schilling’s sins go beyond the baseball.

He is taking the politics of hate currently ruining our country and injecting them into the game. That’s what I mean when I say “some things are bigger than baseball.” Until he wises up he doesn’t deserve to be honored.

Jack Automatic
7 years ago
Reply to  AtomicDumpling

Are you serious?

Jeremy Joseph Christian stabs and kills two (wounds another) on a Portland commuter train after loudly ranting about Muslims.

Dylann Roof kills nine and injures one in a pre-meditated attack after becoming enraged about Black Lives Matters.

James Alex Fields drives his car into a crowd after participating in the Charlottesville neo-Nazi rally, killing one and injuring 35.

Robert Bowers kills eleven at a Pittsburgh synagogue in a pre-meditated attack after ranting online about Jews aiding the so-called “immigrant caravan”.

Caesar Sayoc sends sixteen explosive devices to prominent critics of Donald Trump, including several former and current Democratic politicians, supporters, and CNN headquarters.

This is just off the top of my head. Did Fox News just not report any of this?

AJS
7 years ago
Reply to  AtomicDumpling

#Actually it was literally a right winger who just sent 14 pipe bombs to Democratic congressmen and other critics of the president.

Tanned Tom
7 years ago

Schilling falls into the “Too much of an asshole” category. Maybe that’s unfair, but tough shit. And just because there are other assholes in the Hall (Selig might be the worst) is no reason to keep adding to their numbers. He’s done this to himself by his own behavior.

Johnston
7 years ago

Schilling, by the numbers and by his fame, deserves to get in. Trying to keep him out because you don’t care for his politics is just simple bigotry.

CC AFCMember since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  Johnston

Just stop making arguments that draw false equivalencies. Bigotry is opposing equal rights for someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. It’s discriminating against people on the basis of their religion without regard to their actions. It’s using your public platform to advocate for giving political power to a white supremacist who appeared on David Duke’s podcast. These are all things schilling has done.

Bigotry is not stating that you disagree with those actions.

HappyFunBallMember since 2019
7 years ago
Reply to  CC AFC

Actually it is. Intolerance towards someone on the basis of their opinion is the very definition of bigotry. No matter what that opinion might be. You absolutely can be bigoted about a bigot.

That being said, the argument “If you’re so tolerant, why aren’t you tolerant of my intolerance?” is pretty dumb.

TKDCMember since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  HappyFunBall

Bigotry is intolerance of any view that is different than your own. This does not mean if you are intolerant of any one other view you are a bigot. It is a state of being in which a person does not accept any view other than their own. Being intolerant of some specific views that are different does not make you a bigot. If being intolerant of Nazis makes one a bigot, then “bigot” would be a useless word.

rhswanzey
7 years ago
Reply to  Johnston

There are limits on my 4th amendment right – I’m not getting on a plane without getting scanned and maybe patted down, with absolutely no indication I’m a threat to anybody.

Does public safety have no value to you? If there’s no distinction drawn between responsible political discourse and diction that can promote violence in a society with more than a few crazies among us, well, I wanna stop getting touched by strangers to fly. Can’t yell FIRE in the movie theater. We shouldn’t have to have a fucking law about that, but we do, because some people are always going to insist on being assholes just because they can.

libtech333
7 years ago

Jay, on your Twitter account you frequently advocate for politicians with whom you disagree to be “launched into the sun”, yet here you criticize Schilling for posting about lynching journalists. So when it comes to murdering people you don’t like, are you in favor of it or not? Some consistency would be nice!

wubbie075
7 years ago
Reply to  libtech333

“Launching someone into the sun” is such an absurd action that it cannot be taken seriously as an actual threat. No one is going to read that and undertake a plan to launch anyone into the sun. Though I will agree that it is a distasteful comment.

Hanging people to death or shooting them or beating them to death with baseball bats are actions that essentially anyone could do, so advocating those actions must be taken seriously because the threat is legitimate.

wubbie075
7 years ago
Reply to  wubbie075

Can someone who downvoted me please explain why? I’m not trying to get into an argument; I am just legit curious what part of what I said you didn’t like.

gtagomoriMember since 2017
7 years ago

Can’t stand this guy. If elected, fine, he has the stats and he performed in the post season beyond the call of duty. If he isn’t elected, fine, because he’s such an ignorant jerk.

Paul G.Member since 2016
7 years ago

At a time when the type of right-wing rhetoric Schilling has repeatedly trafficked in has fueled the United States’ inclusion among the most dangerous countries for professional journalists, I don’t blame any journalist for eliminating Schilling from consideration.

Did you read anything past the headline?

First of all, the total number of journalists killed in the United States in 2018 was six (6). One is too many but this is still clearly small sample size territory. Second, none of the deaths have anything to do with right-wing rhetoric of any sort. Four (4) of them (plus a staff member) were part of the Capital Gazette massacre which was performed by a mentally unstable and violent man who had a personal vendetta against the paper going back to 2011. The other two (2) died from a falling tree, which I am fairly sure is immune to politics. End of list.

The other name that comes up but is not included in the United States’s count is Jamal Khashoggi, who worked for the Washington Post and was murdered in Istanbul, presumably by the Saudis. Khashoggi was a shady character in many ways. Prior to his death he was a paid operative of Qatar in their continuing cold war power struggle with Saudi Arabia, a very dangerous game that he lost in the most final and shockingly public of fashions. I find it baffling that the Washington Post hired him at all, indicating either a failure of due diligence in investigating the man or a complete ethical failure to not pay people to funnel un-labeled foreign propaganda into a major newspaper.

If you want to know why faith in the news media is very low, look no further than the article you linked. It combines basic incompetence with outward bias to try to distort the truth.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  Paul G.

Well, I see that *someone* has been reading foreign propaganda…

Paul G.Member since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

I’m not sure what that is supposed to mean. But if you want sources:

The cause of death of the journalists is in the press release itself:

https://rsf.org/sites/default/files/worldwilde_round-up.pdf

The Capital Gazette massacre is described in detail on Wikipedia, though there are plenty of other sources out there. The shooter was angry because the paper reported he was put on probation for criminal harassment. He tried to sue the paper for defamation and lost, and made threats to both the paper and many other people involved, which no one did anything about unfortunately:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Gazette_shooting

The Khashoggi-Qatar link is from the Washington Post on December 22. It appears that either the Washington Post figured out they’d been had, or they are trying to spin a major journalistic scandal while they can.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/jamal-khashoggis-final-months-an-exile-in-the-long-shadow-of-saudi-arabia/2018/12/21/d6fc68c2-0476-11e9-b6a9-0aa5c2fcc9e4_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.90c286992a01

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  Paul G.

You made it sound like Khashoggi was an intelligence agent of Qatar, not that he had a relationship with a foreign think tank funded by the Qatari government. There is *miles* of difference between having a relationship with a foreign government and being a “paid operative.” There are probably hundreds of journalists in America who have relationships with foreign political movements, think tanks, and even governments.

The whole smearing of Khashoggi as a Qatari agent is literally foreign propaganda from Saudi Arabia.

Paul G.Member since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

You can take that up with the notorious Saudi Arabian stooge the Washington Post as that is what they are reporting. Khashoggi was on the Qatari payroll, albeit funneled through a “think tank” which makes no difference other than for plausible deniability, being paid to be a conduit of Qatari propaganda. The story even mentions that his handlers sometimes told him what to write. Given that propaganda is an intelligence function, the word “operative” is quite apt. It’s not something Khashoggi would be unfamiliar with as before his falling out he apparently worked for Saudi intelligence.

I’m not saying that Khashoggi’s murder was a good thing, given I do not consider murder to be a good thing in general. That’s not the point. The point is he was not killed because he was a journalist. He was killed because he had actively enlisted in a Middle Eastern power struggle between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Middle Eastern power struggles tend to be ugly things, something he was quite aware having been a player in them himself for decades. The only thing I find shocking is the Saudis (or, much less likely, someone else) had the balls to kill him in such a public fashion.

AtomicDumpling
7 years ago
Reply to  Paul G.

Yes Jay’s inclusion of that snippet was ludicrous and exposed some serious Democratic bias. The USA is an unsafe place for journalists? Ridiculous. FanGraphs needs to stick to baseball and leave out the childish political content. My FG membership is due to be renewed soon. Now leaning toward not paying them any more money. I come here to enjoy baseball, not be exposed to asinine political bloviating and distortion.

TKDCMember since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  AtomicDumpling

I come here to be exposed to good writing that is not censored because it hurts the feelings of snowflakes. I’m leaning towards renewing my membership and paying them more money. I come here for good writing about important issues in baseball, not for idiotic comments from the perpetually offended.

WoundedSprinterMember since 2018
7 years ago

I find myself regretting that he didn’t get that last out in July 2007 for a no-hitter. Curt Schillling is just that sort of guy. You can love him or hate him … but when he shut his mouth and opened out his pitching glove, you just knew that something extremely interesting was going to happen.

He’s in for me, and I despise the man.

bcole2727
7 years ago

I think there’s a lot that believe that Schilling was a PED guy, and I agree. Guys don’t come back from labrum surgery throwing g harder, most don’t come back close to where they were, and he was on the 2003-04 offseason steroid test failed list that was leaked by the NY lawyers. Obviously that list is not perfect evidence, but enough for me to keep him out based on that alone.

Cave Dameron
7 years ago

Don’t care what he’s like as a person. Put him in the Hall.

sabr42Member since 2018
7 years ago

“He would have waltzed home with the Cy Young award had Johnson not struck out 372 and won 21 games himself en route to the second of four straight Cy wins; Schilling placed second in the vote.”

Small error here, Jay. It was Johnson’s third of four straight CY wins, not second. He won it in 1999-2002, and this was referring to 2001.

ItsPoPtime
7 years ago

You had me going until you quoted the southern poverty law center…who are currently paying off several huge lawsuits for labeling ex Muslims who speak out about the inadequacies of shariah law (Maajid Nawaz among others) as “terrorists” and have subsequently been exposed as a tool for mainstream media for labeling things “ist’

rounders
7 years ago

A man is or is not HOF worthy. Writers draw attention to their own unworthiness by playing the moral arbiter. With a few exceptions, they are posers and cowards, like most commenters left on this blog.

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
7 years ago

I voted for Schilling, Bonds and Clemens purely for their greatness on the field. I wouldn’t particularly want to meet any of them, I find advocating lynching a terrible thing to do and I don’t blame writers for not voting for him for that one reason alone. I don’t really care who actually is included in the HOF, except that the players believe it a great honor that means a lot to them. Being or not being in the HOF means nothing to my personal view of a player’s accomplishments. So if Schilling, Bonds and Clemens don’t get the joy of induction, I wouldn’t care very much.

3cardmontyMember since 2025
7 years ago

Nice of the deplorables to join the civilized readership for this one, glad they could find the time in their busy holiday schedules of lonely-but-vigorous shitposting about dropping liberals out of helicopters.

It’s a crowded ballot, and I sure as hell couldn’t find room for Schilling on my fake one. I only care about the Hall of Fame to the extent that I am irritated by the endless, comical ineptitude of the voters when it comes to evaluating players’ careers. Schilling is obviously worthy by the numbers. But since his candidacy has become about so much more than numbers, it’s not one I especially care about anymore. If he’s kept out, that’s fine by me, because he’s a disgusting human being and shouldn’t be celebrated. If he’s let in, okay fine, whatever. Another bad joke of a human being for an institution that already includes a pile of them. In neither case will it be clear that the voters did the right or wrong thing. And since I only care about the Hall of Fame when the voters are actively stomping on their own dicks (which is most of the time), this candidacy is no longer one that interests me much.

TKDCMember since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  3cardmonty

I think this article must have been linked to on Brietbart.

GeneralKnarf
7 years ago

Just picture what his induction speech will be if/when he gets in.

HoratioSky
7 years ago

If the character of Hank Aaron (speed, admitted to in his own book in order to enhance his performance) is good enough to get in the hall, I don’t see where there is a character argument in here. I am pretty sure Schilling never called for anyone to be lynched. I will eat my words if someone can find the quote from him. I DO know that he commonly says things that the group think media does not approve of. I hope he cares little about the already saturated with bigot HOF.

Llewdor
7 years ago

As long as Ty Cobb is in the HoF, I don’t see a problem with admitting Curt Schilling.

brannigan73
7 years ago

Some of you are really insufferable and purposely obtuse. You know full well that Curt Schilling wanted no one lynched. Im not going to debate his so called crimes because I think they are mostly ridiculous but how about the good things he has done? He has won a bunch of good sportsmanship awards and has raised millions for ALS? He had done more good things then 99% of the people having fainting spells here. It is your liberal politics it’s ok to admit it. But Curt Schilling easily deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. The character clause is not there to keep guys who made distateful jokes or have political beliefs you find off putting out of the Hall. Get off your goddamn high horses. Is it Keith Law mass upvoting the anti Schilling posts so many times? Keith get back on your meds buddy!