JAWS and the 2022 Hall of Fame Ballot: Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Curt Schilling, and Sammy Sosa

The following article is part of Jay Jaffe’s ongoing look at the candidates on the BBWAA 2022 Hall of Fame ballot. 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.

Content warning: This piece, and the original pieces to which it links, contains details about alleged domestic violence and sexual impropriety. The content may be difficult to read and emotionally upsetting.

Ten years ago, one of the most talented classes of first-year Hall of Fame candidates landed on the BBWAA ballot. From a group that included Craig Biggio, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Kenny Lofton, Mike Piazza, Curt Schilling, and Sammy Sosa — not to mention four holdover candidates subsequently elected by the writers, and three chosen by the Era Committees — the writers elected no one, pitching their first shutout in 17 years. Voting hasn’t been the same since. While Biggio and Piazza were eventually elected by the writers, the quartet of Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, and Sosa has not been, and none of the four is likely to reach the magic 75% this year, either. Their continued presence on the ballot, and the rancorous debate that’s surrounded their candidacies, has at times gummed up the process, diverting attention away from other compelling candidates and souring many participants and observers on the entire process. The politics of glory, indeed.

The polarizing public debate surrounding candidates linked to performance-enhancing drugs — a group that at the time included not just Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa but also Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro — led the Hall’s board of directors to change the rules mid-candidacy by reducing players’ windows of eligibility from 15 years to 10. Where Hall president Jeff Idelson said in 2011 with regards to PED-linked candidates, “[W]e’re happy with the diligence of the voters who have participated, and the chips will fall as they fall,” once it became apparent that Bonds and Clemens were trending towards election, the institution put its thumb on the scale via board member Joe Morgan’s open plea for voters not to consider steroid users. Morgan’s letter conveniently sidestepped the likelihood that some steroid users — and numerous known users of another performance-enhancing drug, amphetamines — had already been elected.

Voters who had already given the so-called “character clause” a thorough workout once McGwire and Palmeiro gained eligibility further contorted themselves to rationalize not voting for Bonds or Clemens, players whom they and their peers had previously honored via seven MVP awards (Bonds) and seven Cy Young awards (Clemens) even while they were putting up astronomical numbers. While Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa were linked to PEDs through extensive reporting, none was ever suspended by Major League Baseball, for their infractions took place before any kind of enforcement mechanism was in place; still, some subset of Hall voters decided that a measure of frontier justice was appropriate.

It’s been a wearying decade when it comes to those candidates, and if you think it’s about to end, you’ve probably forgotten that Alex Rodriguez, the first player to earn a full-season suspension for PED use, just began his 10-year run of eligibility. What’s more, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, and Schilling (who has never been linked to PED use but who has discovered unprecedented ways to sabotage his own Hall of Fame candidacy while bringing questions of character to the foreground) will all be eligible for inclusion on next year’s Today’s Game Era Committee ballot.

In an effort to condense our publishing schedule — which was crowded by a double dose of Era Committee profiles — and to minimize the extent to which I relitigate the same arguments I’ve made for a decade, I am dispensing with my annual renewal of these profiles. Instead, I’m using this post as a clearinghouse to link to and excerpt last year’s editions; to update the candidates’ stats as they pertain to the relevant JAWS standards (which shifted slightly with the recent Era Committee voting and my introduction of the experimental, workload-adjusted Starting Pitcher JAWS, or S-JAWS); to update their voting trends in relation to last year’s results; and to round up anything else we’ve learned since the last time I ran these profiles. Note that I’ll be doing something similar for at least two other batches of candidates as well so that all of the major ones get their day in the sun before the December 31 voting deadline.

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. In case you didn't read all that, here's the short version. Membership includes:
✓Ad-free browsing
✓Unlimited FanGraphs & RotoGraphs articles
✓Historical & platoon projections
✓Leaderboard & player-page stat heatmaps
✓One-click data exports
✓Customizable player-page dashboards
✓Dark & Classic site modes
✓Weekly Members-only mailbag
✓FanGraphs Walk-Off, your year in review
✓Optional homepage photo removal
✓Gift articles to non-Members
✓Full postseason coverage

Roger Clemens (61.6% on 2021 ballot)

2022 BBWAA Candidate: Roger Clemens
Pitcher Career WAR Peak WAR Adj. S-JAWS
Roger Clemens 139.2 64.0 101.6
Avg. HOF SP 73.3 40.7 56.8
W-L SO ERA ERA+
354-184 4,672 3.12 143
SOURCE: Baseball-Reference

From the intro:

Roger Clemens has a reasonable claim as the greatest pitcher of all time. Cy Young, Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson, and Grover Cleveland Alexander spent all or most of their careers in the dead-ball era, before the home run was a real threat, and pitched while the color line was still in effect, barring some of the game’s most talented players from participating. Sandy Koufax and Tom Seaver pitched when scoring levels were much lower and pitchers held a greater advantage. Koufax and 2015 inductees Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez didn’t sustain their greatness for nearly as long. Greg Maddux didn’t dominate hitters to nearly the same extent.

Clemens, meanwhile, spent 24 years in the majors and racked up a record seven Cy Young awards, not to mention an MVP award. He won 354 games, led his leagues in the Triple Crown categories (wins, strikeouts, and ERA) a total of 16 times, and helped his teams to six pennants and a pair of world championships.

Alas, whatever claim “The Rocket” may have on such an exalted title is clouded by suspicions that he used performance-enhancing drugs. When those suspicions came to light in the Mitchell Report in 2007, Clemens took the otherwise unprecedented step of challenging the findings during a Congressional hearing, but nearly painted himself into a legal corner; he was subject to a high-profile trial for six counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to Congress. After a mistrial in 2011, he was acquitted on all counts the following year. But despite the verdicts, the specter of PEDs hasn’t left Clemens’ case, even given that in March 2015, he settled the defamation lawsuit filed by former personal trainer Brian McNamee for an unspecified amount.

More here.

Barry Bonds (61.8% on 2021 ballot)

2022 BBWAA Candidate: Barry Bonds
Player Career WAR Peak WAR JAWS
Barry Bonds 162.7 72.7 117.7
Avg. HOF LF 65.2 41.6 53.4
H HR AVG/OBP/SLG OPS+
2,935 762 .298/.444/.607 182
SOURCE: Baseball-Reference

From the intro:

If Roger Clemens has a reasonable claim as the greatest pitcher of all time, then the same goes for Barry Bonds as the greatest position player. Babe Ruth played in a time before integration, and Ted Williams bridged the pre- and post-integration eras, but while both were dominant at the plate, neither was much to write home about on the base paths or in the field. Bonds’ godfather, Willie Mays, was a big plus in both of those areas, but he didn’t dominate opposing pitchers to the same extent. Bonds used his blend of speed, power, and surgical precision in the strike zone to outdo them all. He set the single-season home run record with 73 in 2001 and the all-time home run record with 762, reached base more often than any player this side of Pete Rose, and won a record seven MVP awards along the way.

Despite his claim to greatness, Bonds may have inspired more fear and loathing than any ballplayer in modern history. Fear because opposing pitchers and managers simply refused to engage him at his peak, intentionally walking him a record 688 times — once with the bases loaded — and giving him a free pass a total of 2,558 times, also a record. Loathing because even as a young player, he rubbed teammates and media members the wrong way (occasionally, even his manager) and approached the game with a chip on his shoulder because of the way his father, three-time All-Star Bobby Bonds, had been driven from the game due to alcoholism. The younger Bonds had his own issues off the field, as allegations of physical and verbal abuse of his domestic partners surfaced during his career.

As he aged, media and fans turned against Bonds once evidence — most of it illegally leaked to the press by anonymous sources — mounted that he had used performance-enhancing drugs during the latter part of his career. With his name in the headlines more regarding his legal situation than his on-field exploits, his pursuit and eclipse of Hank Aaron’s 33-year-old home run record turned into a joyless drag, and he disappeared from the majors soon after breaking the record in 2007 despite ranking among the game’s most dangerous hitters even at age 43.

More here.

From an electoral standpoint, this pair has been pretty inseparable since hitting the ballot — only in their debut were they more than a point apart — and so they’re more easily lumped together as the Gruesome Twosome. Their candidacies began to pick up steam starting in 2016, the year that voters more than 10 years removed from active coverage were removed from the Hall of Fame electorate. Those older voters, who were less likely to publish their ballots publicly, tended to have a more hardline stance when it came to PED users, and so their elimination paved the way for significant gains in voting shares. Bonds and Clemens gained further momentum following the 2017 Today’s Game election of commissioner Bud Selig, who presided over the so-called “Steroid Era” and who additionally had sullied his own candidacy by participating in the owners’ mid-1980s collusion scandal. “Senseless to keep steroid guys out when the enablers are in Hall of Fame,” tweeted Susan Slusser, a past BBWAA president then serving as the Oakland A’s beat writer for the San Francisco Chronicle. “I now will hold my nose and vote for players I believe cheated.”

The Morgan letter, published in November 2017, stopped the pair in their tracks; since then, Clemens has gained just 7.5% over four cycles, and Bonds just 8.0%. Here’s a breakdown of the former’s yes and no votes (the latter’s breakdown is virtually identical, and so I’m using just one for illustrative purposes):

Roger Clemens’ Year-by-Year Hall of Fame Voting
Vote 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Yes 206 199 (-7) 239 (+40) 242 (+3) 253 (+11) 242 (-11) 247 (+5)
No 343 245 (-102) 203 (-38) 180 (-23) 172 (-8) 155 (-17) 154 (-1)
% 37.5% 45.2% (+7.7%) 54.1% (+8.9%) 57.3% (+3.2%) 59.5% (+2.2%) 61.0% (+1.5%) 61.6% (+0.6%)
SOURCE: Baseball-Reference

Via Ballot Tracker team member Adam Dore’s flip rate data, Clemens flipped a total of 45 no votes to yes on the 2016 and ’17 ballots that were shared publicly, with just four voters going in the other direction, for a net of 41 flips — the most impactful gains a candidate can make, since every no must be offset by three yes votes. In the four cycles since then, however, Clemens has netted just eight flips. That has mattered far more than the 87.1% share he’s received from among 62 first-time voters starting with the 2017 cycle; those new yes votes aren’t subtracting from the no votes, though sports media’s contraction and the ongoing effect of the 10-year sunset clause has downsized the electorate by nearly 30% relative to its 2014 peak of 571 voters.

As I told Slusser last year, it has become increasingly clear with each passing year that there’s a large enough opposition to run out the clock against Bonds and Clemens. While there may be a few voters out there who have withheld their votes for the first nine years of their candidacies as a means of keeping the pair in purgatory but are now poised to flip to yes, I’m skeptical that it’s a sizable enough number to change the outcome. Based on last year’s vote, Clemens would need to flip a net of 54 voters. Not happening.

Indeed, the opposition is too entrenched, and now the Hall will have two major holes in it without the all-time home run leader and the most successful post-World War II pitcher. Bonds and Clemens will remain on the outside looking in for their roles as the poster children of a complete institutional failure that implicated the commissioner, the owners, the Players Association, and even the media as well as the players themselves.

Sammy Sosa (17.0% on 2021 ballot)

2022 BBWAA Candidate: Sammy Sosa
Player Career WAR Peak WAR JAWS
Sammy Sosa 58.6 43.8 51.2
Avg. HOF RF 71.1 42.4 56.7
H HR AVG/OBP/SLG OPS+
2,408 609 .273/.344/.534 128
SOURCE: Baseball-Reference

From the intro:

Like Mark McGwire, his rival in the great 1998 home run chase, Sammy Sosa was hailed at the height of his popularity as a hero, a Sports Illustrated Sportsman of the Year, and a great international ambassador for baseball. In the same year that McGwire set a new single-season record with 70 home runs, Sosa hit 66 and took home the National League MVP award. Three times in a four-year stretch from 1998 to 2001, he surpassed Roger Maris‘ previously unbreakable mark of 61 homers, and he hit more homers over a five- or 10-year stretch than any player in history. In 2007, he became just the fifth player to reach the 600-home-run milestone after Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, and Barry Bonds.

As with McGwire, the meaning of Sosa’s home runs changed once baseball began to crack down on performance-enhancing drugs, with suspicions mounting about his achievements. He was called to testify before Congress in 2005, along with McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, and several other players. Sosa denied using PEDs, but while he never tested positive once Major League Baseball began instituting penalties for usage, The New York Times reported in 2009 that he was one of more than 100 players who had done so during the supposedly anonymous survey tests six years prior.

More here.

Though Sosa has never officially been connected to PED usage save for the Times‘ 2009 report, his share of the vote is closer to that of Palmeiro, who actually failed a test and was suspended, than to Bonds or even McGwire, who topped 20% in each of his first four years on the ballot and never slipped into single digits. Commissioner Rob Manfred all but exonerated David Ortiz — another player reportedly on the survey test, per the Times — during the Red Sox slugger’s farewell tour, saying, “There were double digits of names, more than 10, which we knew there were legitimate scientific questions about whether or not those truly were positives…. Those issues and ambiguities were never resolved because they didn’t matter. We would have sorted that out if we ever thought those names would become public. At the time, we knew we had enough positives to trigger the testing the following year.”

Notably, Manfred did not extend the same courtesy to Sosa. That Sosa might have used a substance that produced a less ambiguous result should matter much less than the breach of privacy and trust produced by the exposure of the names on the list, which were obtained when overzealous federal agents seized the results as part of the BALCO investigation and then began leaking names while they remained under court seal. As MLB itself said in a statement with regards to the leaked names, “Given the uncertainties inherent in the list, we urge the press and the public to use caution in reaching conclusions based on leaks of names, particularly from sources whose identities are not revealed.” Yet the league and a large share of the votes and the public seems to have reached such a conclusion regarding Sosa, and like Bonds and Clemens, he’ll remain outside the Hall for the foreseeable future.

Curt Schilling (71.1% on 2021 ballot)

2021 BBWAA Candidate: Curt Schilling
Pitcher Career WAR Peak WAR Adj S-JAWS
Curt Schilling 79.5 47.5 63.5
Avg. HOF SP 73.3 40.7 56.8
W-L SO ERA ERA+
216-146 3,116 3.46 127
SOURCE: Baseball-Reference

From the intro:

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 18 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. While only one starter with fewer than 300 wins was elected during the 1992-2014 span (Bert Blyleven), four have been tabbed since then, two in 2015 (Pedro Martinez and John Smoltz) and two in ’19 (Roy Halladay and Mike Mussina), suggesting that’s far less of an obstacle than before.

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, while Phillies general manager Ed Wade said, “Schilling is a horse every fifth day and a horse’s ass the other four.” 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.

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, and particularly over the past half-decade, 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.

More here.

For all of the ups and downs that have marked his candidacy, Schilling received 70% of the vote on the 2020 ballot, and had he not continued to add to the noxious cloud that has befouled his candidacy, he would have been a shoo-in last year. Among candidates who reached at least 70% and had eligibility remaining, 20 out of 22 crossed the 75% threshold the following year, the exception being Jim Bunning (twice). But by the time I published the latest iteration of Schilling’s profile last December 28, the stack of receipts for his behavior had grown to include sharing presidential election-related conspiracy theories; calling for a declaration of martial law; and comparing Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, to a Nazi.

After the December 31 voting deadline, Schilling doubled down by tweeting his support of the insurrectionists who stormed the U.S. Capitol building on January 6, a move that was a bridge too far for some voters who had otherwise continued to support him. Reportedly, at least one (and perhaps multiple ones) contacted the Hall of Fame about the possibility of rescinding their votes for him. According to Hall of Fame Ballot Tracker team member Anthony Calamis, by the end of January 2021, 22 voters had publicly indicated that they would either withdraw their support from Schilling on the 2022 ballot, or at least consider doing so.

When the dust settled and the 2021 ballots were counted, Schilling gained just 1.1%, and the BBWAA voters pitched their first shutout since 2013. Realizing that his electoral goose was cooked, Schilling took the unprecedented step of requesting to be removed from the ballot so as to avoid any accountability for his actions, and he called the voters “a group of morally bankrupt frauds” to boot. The BBWAA responded by calling Schilling’s request a violation of the election rules, and the Hall’s board of directors concurred. So he’s back for year 10.

Last year, my first as a voter, I included Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa on my ballot, because I draw a distinction between PED infractions that took place during the game’s “Wild West Era” before testing and penalties were in place and those that came afterwards. At the same time, I left Schilling off, not because I put any stock in the character clause — I have not excluded any candidates on the basis of domestic violence allegations (such as those against Bonds and Sosa) or sexual improprieties (Clemens) — but because I have no interest in giving the man a more prestigious platform from which to share his unhinged and increasingly dangerous views. I anticipate a repeat of that split this year, but I’ll explain my own thought process at greater length when I introduce the rest of my ballot later this month.





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.

114 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
sadtromboneMember since 2020
4 years ago

Schilling’s lost 3 votes out of 23 returning voters, so yeah, he’s not getting in.

My take on this is that for Bonds / Clemens / Schilling, it’s the veteran’s committee turn. They’ve been busy electing guys like Harold Baines, so clearly they have enough time on their hands to think through whether they want Bonds and Clemens and Schilling in their club. This is actually one of the few times when guys actually in the Hall of Fame have better insight into whether candidates “deserve” to get in than the rest of us.

I can’t say I’m thrilled to debate A-Rod’s candidacy for the next 10 years but it’s got to be better than this discourse.

JustinPBGMember since 2018
4 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

A-Rod never hurt anyone besides notions of integrity and so on. It’s fair to hold that against him, but he’s never been dangerous to anyone, far as we know. And so I agree, the discourse will be less unpleasant.

hughduffy
4 years ago
Reply to  JustinPBG

There were those death threats to Anthony Bosch when he was cooperating with MLB. A-Rod has always been his own worst enemy.

sbf21
4 years ago
Reply to  JustinPBG

A-Rod hurt lots of people. He threw family and teammates under the bus when linked to Biogenesis. He slandered and sued the Yankees team doctor. He lied like a HOFer. He was, in short, a complete and total douchebag.

Adam Weisberger
4 years ago
Reply to  JustinPBG

A-Rod sued the Yankees’ team doctor in his individual capacity. Hurtful, and unforgivable.

OddBall Herrera
4 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Agreed, It’s all over for Schilling except the crying. Losing those votes when he needed to be gaining is a sign of how this are going to go.

There is no A-Rod debate if Bonds and Clemens aren’t in so I think his candidacy becomes remarkably straightforward – apparently it is agreed at this point that it is a no go on the PED superstars and he is a (if not The) prime offender, so what more is there to say?

averagejoe15Member since 2018
4 years ago

That the make up of the voters is going to change enough in 10 years that ARod probably gets in by year 10.

Jeff in JerseyMember since 2020
4 years ago

I think Schilling should go in, but I don’t think there’s anything crazy about Jay’s logic here.

RobM
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeff in Jersey

What makes me uncomfortable is the insertion of the mortality clause for the first time in Hall voting. The clauses have been there, but this seems to be the first generation of writers who have decided to interpret it in a certain way to deny access to the Hall. Then we have another group of writers who have decided they will determine who took steroids, then determine what impact they had, and which players will then get their vote. Insanity. They’ve already voted in players suspected of taking steroids. Mike Piazza, Jeff Bagwell and Ivan Rodriguez, to name three. I’m not saying these players did or didn’t take steroids, but the heavy belief was they did, but yet they were still voted in. Now we’re about to have David Ortiz voted in, whose name leaked out as failing the original test study. The Commissioner has tried giving him a pass, although he never did that when A-Rod also failed and his name was leaked from that same study. What’s going on here?

No records have been removed from the books, no games invalidated. MLB has allowed Bonds and Clemens to be on the ballot, when in the past they have removed players such as Joe Jackson and Pete Rose from Hall consideration.

To me it’s clear. They should be voted into Hall of Fame. MLB has sanctioned them. They even cleared the path for the election of the steroid commissioner, Bud Selig.

trywerlt
4 years ago
Reply to  RobM

On the other hand, the Hall of Fame itself (as opposed to MLB) genuinely weighed in on these matters via Morgan’s open letter from a few years ago.

It’s hypocritical for them to elect Selig & co. while also making this claim, but they made a public statement about not electing them.

I think Rose should have been treated the way Bonds & Clemens have been treated (or at the very least there should be a third way where the voters chose to remove the player from the ballot.

trywerlt
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeff in Jersey

yeah, but this is the Trevor Bauer problem. There are genuinely legitimate moral arguments one can raise against them, but it’s historically demonstrable that wasn’t when and why people turned against the person. The January 6th stuff (or even the delayed backing away from Paul Nehlen) just wasn’t the stuff that caused people to leave Schilling. I can respect those sort of “you crossed a defensible red line” arguments a lot more than arguments stemming from people on twitter being fed up with seeing Schilling’s angry political takes and memes. Calling Fauci a Nazi because you disagree with his policy advocacy is the sort of normal political stuff older posts by Jay claimed should have no impact on Schilling’s HoF candidacy.

The problem is that Schilling’s really not wrong when he says “I promise you if I had said ‘lynch Trump,’ I’d be getting in with about 90 percent.” It would be wrong to gaslight people into claiming Kathy Griffin’s 2016 “lynch trump” image was a call to violence as opposed to an image saying something like (____ is a piece of s***). Some people made that claim, but anyone whose claiming Schilling was calling for murdering journalists will rightly argue the conservative “Griffin inciting violence” case was made in bad faith.

Barry
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeff in Jersey

Jeff – the crazy part of Jay’s analysis is that Schilling having unpopular political opinions – he didn’t break any laws, he didn’t violate any baseball policies, he remains a good citizen, etc. – should cloud his candidacy (and that it does, is a scandal). Sure people on the Left don’t like him, but we on the Right (approx. 50% of this country) do like him. Making outlandish political statements is now commonplace and a matter of opinion as to how extreme those opinions are, so we need to focus on his accomplishments. To consider cheating is debatable and a fair argument either way, but to consider a law abiding and rule following citizen’s opinions is not a fair argument.

Jason BMember since 2017
4 years ago
Reply to  Barry

“he remains a good citizen”

ehhhhh…….

TKDCMember since 2016🏆 MVP
4 years ago

It’s really hard to believe Sosa would have had a Hall-worthy career without PED. He would literally cheat his way into the Hall if elected.

Yes, there was a lot of looking the other way and enabling going on and there is so much guilt to spread around, but I don’t think you need to be a prude to disfavor electing someone who would have zero chance of making the Hall if he didn’t cheat. And sure, I don’t know that for a fact. I’ll admit that. But I’m pretty damn sure.

I’d much rather vote for a player who was suspended for steroids but that seems like they would have been a HOFer regardless, like Arod (I also think it is fair to wonder or even conclude that Arod was basically a product of PED his whole career and exclude him; I don’t believe this, but I understand that some do).

I agree with Jay that cheating after it was defined and tested and suspensions were in place is worse, but pretending like Sosa and other PED users were completely innocent and didn’t know they were doing anything wrong is belied by their stealth. If they didn’t know what they were doing was wrong, they wouldn’t have hidden it.

Schilling has always been tough for me in the past but I generally supported his inclusion while detesting him as a person. After January 6, it is clear that there is a current existential threat to our Country that is literally ongoing. If we ever get past this or maybe when he dies, then fine, but I’d just as soon elect a member of ISIS (though to my knowledge no members of ISIS have ever been known to be great, or even average, baseball players) as him right now.

Bigperm8645Member since 2016
4 years ago
Reply to  TKDC

Why didn’t all the other PED users put up better numbers than Sosa then? He had an HoF career, and it was not just because he used PEDs. Palmeiro, McGwire, Bonds and Sosa. ARod and Ortiz, are of a unique group of elite hitters, who all deserve to be in the HoF. Why you singled out Sosa, and then your argument is, “I don’t think Sosa was that good without PEDs” makes absolutely no sense, period

TKDCMember since 2016🏆 MVP
4 years ago
Reply to  Bigperm8645

I singled Sosa out because he’s one of the subjects of this article. If you’re curious, I also don’t believe Palmeiro and McGwire should be in, and I’m not sure about Ortiz. But those guys weren’t the subject of this article.

As far as singling Sosa out, his career was pretty well defined in 1997 as a very good player. To me, it is clear as day that he used steroids to become the 60+ homer behemoth that he was. If that doesn’t make sense to you, I don’t know what to tell you. You’re entitled to your opinion, but I’d question if you were alive and paying attention in 1998 and the years after, because it was pretty obvious to me and to a lot of people, which may be why he has never even come close to induction.

JaySap
4 years ago
Reply to  TKDC

I feel exactly the same way as you on every single point.

TKDCMember since 2016🏆 MVP
4 years ago

Cheated at baseball – yes
Supports the overthrow of democracy – no

TRad
4 years ago
Reply to  TKDC

Yes, only politically correct players in HoF. Makes sense.

You have probably no idea, but this is Sovietlike thinking.

Adam Weisberger
4 years ago
Reply to  TRad

While I find Schilling’s views repugnant, I don’t think he should be excluded from the HOF because he doesn’t think the same way I do. So I agree with you, even though it’s hard to deny that Schilling can be an asshole.

Barry
4 years ago

Generally agree, but what do you find repugnant about Schilling’s views?

AlbyMember since 2017
4 years ago
Reply to  TRad

You probably have no idea, but this thinking was not invented in the 20th century, or even the 19th.

apiratefan
4 years ago

Congrats Jay – this is the last time you’ll have to write this piece for the BBWAA ballot. Next year will be unforgiving with the Today’s Game ballot, but hey – at least you survived this 10 year stretch.

uptheirons
4 years ago

Randy Johnson didn’t sustain his dominance for long? He has 5 Cy Young Awards, 101.1 WAR, 303 W, 4135 IP, second all time with 4875 Ks. He led the league in a triple crown category 14 times. He had his first 3 WAR season at 27, and his last at age 44. He led the league in GS, Ks, ERA+, FIP, WHIP at age 40.

jgrub7
4 years ago
Reply to  uptheirons

“Koufax and 2015 inductees Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez didn’t sustain their greatness for nearly as long.”

The key word in the sentence is “AS”. Jay is not saying Johnson didn’t sustain dominance for a long time, just not AS long as Clemens.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  jgrub7

No one sustained excellence nearly as long as Clemens. Huh, who would have thought. Wonder why that was.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  jgrub7

I will say that this argument depends a bit on how you define greatness in terms of what defines the threshold for an dominant or excellent or top-notch season, whatever that is. Using fWAR here are the number of seasons they had in a particular bucket (so, for example, 10 wins is 10-10.999). I’ll do Clemens, Johnson, and then for fun I’ll throw in Maddux and Seaver too.
10 wins: Clemens (1), Johnson (1), Maddux (0)
9 wins: Clemens (1), Johnson (4), Maddux (0)
8 wins: Clemens (4), Johnson (1), Maddux (1)
7 wins: Clemens (2), Johnson (3), Maddux (7)
6 wins: Clemens (2), Johnson (0), Maddux (1)
5 wins: Clemens (3), Johnson (1), Maddux (3)

So whether they sustained the greatness for “nearly” as long depends quite a bit on how you define “greatness”. If you want to define it down to something like seven wins, it’s Johnson probably beats out Clemens by a nose. Down to 5, it’s probably Clemens or Maddux. (FWIW, other outstanding pitchers with a claim to being an all-time great, like Bob Gibson, Tom Searver, and Steve Carlton don’t fare so well by this measure. Gaylord Perry, however, had 12 seasons with 5 wins or above, and the overall distribution resembles Maddux).

uptheirons
4 years ago

No mention of Mindy McReady in the Clemens writeup. Sexually abusing a 15 year old girl is more damning than peds.

mdgwsu89
4 years ago
Reply to  uptheirons

The Clemens write up is an excerpt from a longer article on his candidacy. See where Jay says “More here.”? If you click that, it takes you to the full article, where he does mention it:

“In the midst of the Mitchell/McNamee mess, in May 2008 the New York Daily News reported that Clemens had carried out “a long-term affair” with country singer Mindy McCready that dated back to when the pitcher was 28 years old and the singer just 15.”

jdtTX
4 years ago

Until they let loose of those pearls surrounding Bonds and Clemens, I’ll gladly advocate for keeping a tool like Schilling out. They should all be in, though.

MorlandMember since 2020
4 years ago

I expect the way that the Veterans Committee, in whatever form it takes in the future, will deal with Schilling will be to wait until he dies, then elect him.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  Morland

It’s really sad that they’ve been doing it that way, but in this case I think it’s fair.

LeschiLarryMember since 2024
4 years ago

Schilling was not worth the waste of your space. He is threat to Democracy.

AlbyMember since 2017
4 years ago
Reply to  LeschiLarry

As tribal stupidity does in yours.

Mike NMN
4 years ago

In a nutshell, here’s part of the problem: “As MLB itself said in a statement with regards to the leaked names, “Given the uncertainties inherent in the list, we urge the press and the public to use caution in reaching conclusions based on leaks of names, particularly from sources whose identities are not revealed.” Great, what does that actually mean? That MLB does have granular knowledge of all the circumstances surrounding each player (with regard to this survey) and can’t/won’t disclose? Or, and specific to Sosa and Ortiz, is Manfred just making special rules for special people? And, to that point, hasn’t MLB had a history of selective attention to the problem when the affected players were drawing crowds and media attention (as in, Jay’s “Wild West Era”). We all have to make our decisions as to what’s important and what’s not. I don’t buy the arguments about “well, he’s a part of history, so he belongs in.” But that’s my idiosyncratic point of view, and doesn’t have to be shared by anyone else. For me, right now the hard-no for a user feels the most consistent. Every player who used did so for a physical advantage over someone who chose to obey the rules, and I don’t feel I’d want to honor that behavior.
There are two candidates that fascinate me…Sosa and Schilling. But for the juice, and applying older standards, Sosa would be a legitimate candidate. But he doesn’t feel like it because few people think he would have put up those numbers without a needle. As for Schilling, on the numbers, he belongs and should be in. The personal stuff drives home a point that is inescapable: A lot of voters are turned off by how extreme and how deliberately provocative he is. It’s a vote, it’s a choice, it’s not something where the voters are required to use a particular rubric, and, just as they can play favorites, they can go in the opposite direction. No player is “entitled” to the HOF

manormachine
4 years ago

If Bonds, Clemens or Sosa get in, we will be talking about Selig, records and the Steroid Era, which is still fundamentally a baseball discussion.

If Schilling gets in we will be talking about MAGA, Twitter, and what a dick he is, which is decidedly not a baseball discussion. I agree wholeheartedly with Jay here.

bluerum29
4 years ago
Reply to  manormachine

Then focus on Schilllings baseball career, not the other stuff that some people agree with and some disagree with. You are basically saying you want to keep him out of the baseball hall of fame because of things that are not related to baseball……

AlbyMember since 2017
4 years ago
Reply to  bluerum29

Yes, that’s exactly what they’re saying. Deal with it.

tuna411
4 years ago
Reply to  Alby

@alby…thanks for the contribution comrade

Joe WilkeyMember since 2016
4 years ago

Guys who did something that wasn’t against the rules – yes.
Guy who posted death threats on social media – no.

Are we going to keep out all the players that used amphetamines in the 1970s?

Shirtless George Brett
4 years ago
Reply to  Joe Wilkey

Are we going to keep out all the players that used amphetamines in the 1970s?

I dont care one way or the other who gets in (the cottage industry built around arguing about the hall of fame has largely sucked any joy out of it for me) but it amazes me that people still bring up this disingenuous argument.

Throwing down a random amount of amphetamines’ before a game is not even in the same universe as taking a strict regiment of drugs specifically and effectively designed to enhance your physical attributes.

Its like comparing a parking ticket to first degree murder.

TKDCMember since 2016🏆 MVP
4 years ago

To further this point:
To my knowledge, players took “greenies” openly. Nobody considered it cheating. Yes, there was plenty of “looking the other way” in the 90s and into the 00s on steroids, but absolutely no one was admitting to doing it. They were all hiding it (they were also technically against the rules starting in 1991). We can talk about degree, but the consensus was absolutely that it was “wrong.” Steroid use in the pre-testing is a thousand times closer to steroid use now than it is to any drugs that were used in the 70s or earlier. People just throw nuance and reason out the window in order to reach the conclusion they want. Hence Ortiz’ election while others toil.

sbf21
4 years ago
Reply to  TKDC

Also pertinent is the fact that steroids, it not specifically against MLB’s rules, were illegal without a prescription.

Hank G.Member since 2016
4 years ago
Reply to  sbf21

So were amphetamines.

NickMember since 2020
4 years ago

You lay this take out very well, but I think it’s completely wrong. “Throwing down a random amount of amphetamines” before playing sports or working out heavy will enhance your physical attributes too. Maybe a lot. It is also probably a lot less safe if you self-medicate “greenies” rather than taking steroids with the oversight of your doctor, trainer, nutritionist etc. Parking ticket vs. murder is completely off.

Shirtless George Brett
4 years ago
Reply to  Nick

“Throwing down a random amount of amphetamines” before playing sports or working out heavy will enhance your physical attributes too. Maybe a lot.

Except they dont.

Amphetamines’ stimulate the central nervous system. They may help with things like alertness and reaction time (although even that isnt 100% proven. Its entirely possible they just make you feel that way while not actually improving anything and even potentially making you worse) . They dont help you get stronger, faster, bigger. IE: physical attributes.

And in order to get positive benefits of amphetamines’ they have to be taken in a specific dosage. Which is not at all what players were doing in the 70’s.

Amphetamines may provide some minor, short-term benefits. Taking 10 to 30 milligrams of methamphetamine may improve reaction time and cognitive function and increase the feelings of alertness and euphoria while decreasing a sense of fatigue.2 But with these effects also comes a tendency to make more high-risk choices.

No offence, but I dont think you are very well versed on the topic.

MikeD
4 years ago

Greenies, btw, really is a catch-all term for many stimulants players used, a number of which weren’t all necessarily legal. I never heard of players taking greenies growing up, so I’m not sure it was all out in the open as the OP suggests, although it certainly was among the players, just like Mark McGwire and many other players used androstenedione out in the open. That was banned by other sports but it was used out in the open (meaning within the club house) in MLB. That is until it was banned, as were greenies and other amphetamines.

As I’m sure many here have read, players have said loss of access to greenies and other stimulants has had a more profound impact over the grind of 162-game season.

Amphetamines and steroids are both pharmaceutical substances that athletes use to enhance performance. Players in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s got tremendous benefits from amphetamines. Not all players who dabbled in steroids got some great benefit. Just look at many of the names that were leaked. We only focus on the great players, not the 98% of the rest who didn’t seem to gain much at all.

Regardless, both groups (and there’s a cross over too) were trying to gain performance enhancements. This is not a parking ticket vs. a first-degree murder comparison. That comparison is disingenuous. Aren’t you really comparing the different style of murderers to achieve their horrific results? I don’t view either as the equivalent of murderers, btw. Maybe one is the equivalent of pocketing chewing gum and the other pocketing a candy bar.

TKDCMember since 2016🏆 MVP
4 years ago
Reply to  MikeD

You never heard about greenies because it was such a nonissue and a nonstory at the time that nobody even thought to mention it. Taking greenies was routine. It’s like saying you never heard about stretching. Have you ever even heard a story about someone denying the use of greenies and then getting caught using them?

And yes, McGwire famously was interviewed on TV with Andro in his locker. Wasn’t hiding that. Now, the needles he was poking into his ass: I’m pretty sure the reporters never saw that.

The shoplifting v. murder analogy may be a little extreme, but it is very clear that one activity was a normal, out-in-the-open part of baseball and one wasn’t. Trying to get cute and muddy the waters with stories about Andro just shows a desire to do mental gymnastics to somehow avoid a genuine, nuanced view of what happened.

Shirtless George Brett
4 years ago
Reply to  MikeD

This is just a longer version of the original argument. To which my answer is the same;

Amphetamines’ and PED’s are not even remotely the same thing. One has a small, short term impact (if that) on your central nervous system and the other is incredibly powerful substances that works to augment your physical attributes. It makes you bigger, faster, stronger, leaner, have more endurance etc etc……..essentially whatever you need a PED can help you do it. And it 100% works, 100% of the time.

Conflating the two like the OP did is incredibly disingenuous. Its like saying a parking ticket and first degree murder are the same thing because they are both crimes.

Hank G.Member since 2016
4 years ago

Amphetamines’ and PED’s are not even remotely the same thing. One has a small, short term impact (if that) on your central nervous system and the other is incredibly powerful substances that works to augment your physical attributes. It makes you bigger, faster, stronger, leaner, have more endurance etc etc……..essentially whatever you need a PED can help you do it. And it 100% works, 100% of the time.

That is unmitigated BS. If PEDs works 100%, 100% of time, why weren’t other many other players hitting 70+ homers in a season? The fact is, steroids don’t do jack if you don’t do physical training along with it. Steroids allow you to train harder and recover faster, but if you don’t do that, you don’t get a benefit.

Amphetamines, on the other hand, do give you whatever benefit they give simply by swallowing them.

TRad
4 years ago
Reply to  Joe Wilkey

Using steroids was against the rules.

Barry
4 years ago
Reply to  Joe Wilkey

…and Schilling did not post any death threats

JamesD84
4 years ago

I haven’t been to the Hall in several decades, so this may already be in place, but is there any reason it can’t have a display on the steroid era that would, among other things, describe the great careers of players like Bonds and Clemens without giving them the honor of induction? I don’t agree with the supporters of induction, but I do think that an institution that showcases the history of the game shouldn’t just ignore those players or that era.

HM70Member since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  JamesD84

In the One for the Books exhibit, there is a sign discussing PED usage and its effect on the record books. There is no such sign that I remember being in the plaque gallery.
There may be other things in the updated exhibit with videos from different eras of play but I don’t remember.

deb81162
4 years ago

Clemens had elbow issues with Boston in 1994-96. It is known that Brian McNamee injected him in 1998 and the Mitchell report mentioned Clemens 82 times. Both Jason Grimsley and Andy Pettitte both said that Clemens used PED’s. The biggest questions I have is, would Clemens had been out of MLB or not been anything close to where he finished if it wasn’t for PED’s? How would that arm injury effect his career without PED’s? Would he lasted in MLB as long as he did without PED’s? Add in his cough cough relationship with a 15 year old, Mindy McCready.

DBRunsMember since 2023
4 years ago

Here’s where I draw the line (if I had a ballot):

1. If you do something to violate the integrity of the sport (betting on baseball, PEDs, etc.), then I would not cast a vote in your favor, regardless of hall of fame credentials
2. If you have character flaws yet still boast hall of fame credentials, then I would be willing to cast a vote in your favor

My point isn’t to evaluate your merits as a human (that’s not only impossible but irresponsible), but rather your impact on the game, with the caveat being that compromising the integrity of the sport is a disqualifying factor.

I recognize and respect that others may have different opinions.

bluerum29
4 years ago
Reply to  DBRuns

This is basically what I was going to say. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like who the person is outside of the game. We all are allowed different opinions of people and their personal lives, that doesn’t change the effect they had on the sport.

Randy HEatonMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  DBRuns

So integrity of game violation, does that include scuffing baseballs (Perry) or taking amphetamines (many players in the 70’s)? How about stealing signs (Astros)?

I sort of agree on character flaws, for me it is not the HoF of morals (and I know there is a character clause so maybe some view it as a HoF of morals+baseball).

Bonds, Palmeiro, Clemens, Bagwell, Piaza, McGwire, ARod all should be in, Sosa is more questionable as he was one dimensional and all PEDs it seems. Schilling gets in now that Mussin, Kaat, Morris, etc… are in Schilling is right there with them or better than them. But with Schilling does that mean Greinke, Orel Hershiser, and a few others are also deserving? Greinke is really close to schilling now in regular season stats.

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
4 years ago
Reply to  Randy HEaton

Greinke is easily in for me. Hershiser is borderline and would make the Top 10 sometimes probably

trywerlt
4 years ago
Reply to  Randy HEaton

Figuring out how to classify “integrity of the game” violations is a genuinely tricky question. It would be a lot more interesting and rewarding if the HoF discourse around these players involved more rigorously interrogating these topics through a historical lens. We’ve gotten some of that but there’s a lot of unpicked fruit.

ScottyBMember since 2017
4 years ago
Reply to  DBRuns

I disagree, but this is a rational, defensible decision I can respect.

20longyearsMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  DBRuns

I like your comment quite a bit, DBRuns, but I do think that character flaws could potentially be severe enough to compromise the “integrity of the sport,” which I think goes beyond the play on the field in that a player’s character could stain the game itself. Felipe Vazquez is an interesting hypothetical: he racked up 2+ WAR/year as a lefty reliever who could throw 100 and his best season by rates was his last, so he might have gotten yet better. He’s now in jail for sexually assaulting a 13-year-old, but let’s pretend he’s a more clever criminal and avoids the long arm of the law. Relievers usually break down, of course, but let’s also suppose Vazquez wouldn’t; he would have left the Pirates for a huge contract in a couple years and gone to, say, the Yankees or the Astros, some team where he can amass Post-Season Legend numbers and narrative for the rest of his career–which then ends with a prison sentence for sexually assaulting a minor after 15 years of pitching, rather than 5. Should such a player be voted into the Hall? My personal answer would be “no”: even if such a man were hailed as the second coming of Rivera, I think the stain on the sport outweighs the gifted athletic performance. A pedophilic sex offender is an extreme example, of course, but if I accept that there is one case in which moral character should prevent induction, I can’t simply ignore it. It becomes a question of where one draws the line.

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
4 years ago
Reply to  20longyears

Roger Clemens might fit your hypothetical

bluerum29
4 years ago
Reply to  20longyears

In that situation I would say that if the persons play on the field was enough to get them in to the Hall, then put them in. If when the election came they just happen to be in jail, well, then they have nothing to do with the ceremony, but they still get in to the Hall.

Fredchuckdave
4 years ago

Easy 100% Veteran’s Committee votes aside from Sammy Sosa, who probably also eventually gets in; good that this farce continues for another 9 years with A-Rod though (Large Papi of course gets in due to his likability).

Johnnie TMember since 2024
4 years ago

I look forward to after the election in committee next year so we do not have to debate these individuals every year. It will be nice to be able to focus on baseball performance again when considering HOF membership rather than, well, this other stuff. It continues to irk me that the HOF was damaged by being placed in a damned if you do and damned situation by the entire PEDs thing.

(Yeah, I know ARod will still be around but his PED sins are so egregious that he won’t get very serious consideration and will have relatively few advocates…)

sbf21
4 years ago

I’ve mellowed in PED users over the last couple of years. But as I noted in another thread, I can’t (yet) forgive Bonds and Clemens for possibly becoming the best at what they did by using steroids. I can’t, I won’t, see Ruth, Williams, Mays, Aaron, Johnson, etc. surpassed by these two.

sbf21
4 years ago
Reply to  sbf21

There’s an article on ESPN that uses ZiPS projections for Bonds and Clemens careers supposing no PED use. It’s interesting.

Randy HEatonMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  sbf21

The ESPN article is interesting and sheds a sort of light on Papi too in that the article basically says there is/was almost 0 probability that Bonds and Clemens put up decent numbers in their 38-42 year old years…. Yet Papi did put up GREAT numbers and Papi is connected to steroids. I tend to think that Bonds kept his body in such great shape and was a workout machine that he would have aged ok and better than someone like Papi or the average MLer. BUt still Bonds records would not be possible without his incredible pED years.

FrancoeursteinMember since 2020
4 years ago

To be fair, I totally get why Jay doesn’t like Schilling. The guy said he wanted to lynch the media. If he said he wanted to lynch physical therapists, I probably wouldn’t be too fond of the guy either.

ScottyBMember since 2017
4 years ago

TRad- As long as what you write doesn’t cross a line of appropriateness, have your say, and you won’t be censored. Probably downvoted because most disagree with you, but not censored or cancelled. That’s called free speech and it goes both ways.

averagejoe15Member since 2018
4 years ago
Reply to  ScottyB

Free speech only applies to government censorship, a private institution like FanGraphs can censor you for a whole host of things.

FillmoreMember since 2018
4 years ago
Reply to  averagejoe15

No, the First Amendment only applies to government censorship. Free speech is a concept that can be practiced/encouraged, or not, by any organization or institution.

TRad
4 years ago
Reply to  ScottyB

Right of free speech do not apply to private enterprises. FG has fill right to censor whatever they like.

MikeD
4 years ago

Bonds — Yes
Clemens — Yes
Schilling — Yes
Sosa — No (but, sure, you can convince me)

Now, as I said, I could be convinced on Sosa, and I wouldn’t have an issue if he was elected based on his five-year peak, but I fall into that camp where I believe enough of his greatness did come from PEDs and perhaps some other general quirkiness with the ball those years, while Bonds and Clemens were HOF talents prior. We all have our lines we draw here, and that’s where mine falls. Sosa’s career rWAR is below HOF standards, as is his JAWs, with only his peak WAR suggesting he’s a HOFer and only just barely. Add in the loosey-goosey period he played (hat tip to A-Rod since that term is once again appropriate as he now enters the ballot), and I wouldn’t check the ballot for him ahead of some others.

Schilling is pretty easy for me. He was a HOF pitcher who frankly should have been elected long before his social media comments and political leanings became a thing. I’ve seen more than a few reporters say that they’re not withholding a vote for Schilling because of his politics, noting that they voted for Mariano Rivera, a friend of Trump. The fact they even say that basically confirms it’s about politics. Rivera has known Trump through his days as a Yankee in New York long before he ran he became president. They have a friendly relationship, and those who have met Rivera say he’s a caring and compassionate man. He certainly projects that image. They don’t extend that to Schilling because his relationship with Trump is quite different. He wasn’t a friend, he was a supporter. His language now is inflammatory. Even Jay’s words that he has “no interest in giving the man a more prestigious platform” says politics to me. If he says hateful things (and I doubt he will), then that’s a teaching moment. The best teaching moments come not from words and people being silenced, but from letting the good, the bad and the ugly hang out in public to be discussed.

I don’t like Schilling because he’s always been that self-centered,righteous, media-seeking player, but fortunately for all of us, his career occurred before Twitter took off. Let’s not lose fact that he’s a man who is likely bi-polar. That’s a sickness. He could be dealing with his own emotional baggage based on his business and personal failures post his playing career. Let’s not throw additional fuel on that flame. As bad as he’s been, the response to him has been equally bad.

He was a HOF-caliber pitcher, he was never suspended, he has teammates who stood up for him as a player, and he was also recognized for charitable work as a player. He’s not in prison, none of his stats and achievements have been removed from the record books. While his post playing career has been highlighted by business failures and ignorant comments, they should not play into his HOF voting. Ignorance should not be a reason for not voting for a truly great pitcher, and one of the best post-season performers ever.

trywerlt
4 years ago
Reply to  MikeD

“who frankly should have been elected long before his social media comments and political leanings became a thing.”

This is the most frustrating part of Schilling’s decision to become a political jerk. His actual hall of fame case is a fun example of how less sabrmetrically inclined smart baseball people can still strongly disagree on someone who looks to me like an obvious hall of famer. It just sucks that instead of having an incredibly fun discussion about Schilling’s career (including for all fans who were local kids when Arizona/Boston won a WS), it’s become a toxic slog.

We can debate what % of blame goes to various parties but everyone’s lost due to both Schilling’s actions and how “media’s social media ecosystem” reacts to it.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  trywerlt

He should have been elected on the first or second ballot and then we wouldn’t have to do this conversation over and over again. He got overshadowed because he pitched with Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez (although he was actually better than Pedro when they pitched together) but his peak stacks up favorably compared to nearly any other hall of fame pitcher since integration, and he was a dominant postseason performer.

It would be a lot easier to elect him back when his controversies were related to the bankruptcy of his gaming company, arguing vociferously for the idea that the world was created in 7 days, and making blah statements about how Martha Coakley would be a bad senator. But no, 215 wins wasn’t enough for some people, so now we’ve got this.

TKDCMember since 2016🏆 MVP
4 years ago
Reply to  MikeD

If you think Schilling lacks support because he is a “Trump supporter,” you must just be beyond reason. You can call it political if you want, but Hall voters have not had a problem electing other outwardly conservative players. So there is something different here than just “Trump supporter.” Pretending there isn’t is just a weird take.

Also, would you extend your free speech trope to someone who outwardly supported child molestation? Is there a line for where we shouldn’t hear someone out? I don’t think supporters of ending democracy deserve a platform. He can save his speeches for the next 3 percenters meeting.

Vic Romano
4 years ago

“Sexual improprieties” is a very polite way to say “Had an affair with a 15 year old while married”.

I don’t know why you give him that courtesy.

MikeD
4 years ago
Reply to  Vic Romano

My guess is because it’s known, and he said he’ll have a longer-form piece coming. Not every word makes it in the compilation article, but in fairness to Jay he did fit it in. It was almost certainly not a courtesy.

Vic Romano
4 years ago
Reply to  MikeD

Domestic violence is called what it is when referring to Bonds and Sosa. No sugarcoating there, and nor should there be.

I remain unclear as to why terms like “sexual assault” or “statutory rape” weren’t used for Clemens. It is very much a courtesy to gloss over such things as improprieties.

OddBall Herrera
4 years ago
Reply to  Vic Romano

I may have missed something but don’t both Clemens and McCready claim that their relationship only became sexual much later? That may or may not be plausible, but I am confused by why everyone here treats the statutory rape claim as if if is established. From what I understand no one disputes adultery but if we are going to keep people out for that we are in for some pretty thin years at the HoF

RobM
4 years ago

I believe if statutory rape was established, Clemens would have been brought to trial and jailed for years. So in that sense you are correct.

OddBall Herrera
4 years ago

Schilling’s goose was cooked the minute he didn’t go into arse kissing mode for his final year, and went all the way in the opposite direction. He might have had a chance if he had done a Jack Morris style media blitz but he clearly lacks the interpersonal skills or the self awareness required to pull that off. I actually don’t blame him for wanting his name off the ballot though – if the ballot has turned into a commentary on him personally, which it clearly has, then why play along?

Frankly I am over the Schilling issue – you are either on the “I care deeply about what happens on Twitter” ride or not, and that’s pretty much where his the conversation about his candidacy starts and ends these days. He deserves to be in on the baseball merits (see Morris, Jack), ergo if he is out it’s not on the baseball merits. It will be interesting to see if this is a one off or sets a precedent – I suspect probably a little or both, there will always be some who feel there is hay to be made on protest votes and won’t see much of a difference between what happened to Schilling and what should happen to someone, say, who is “improperly outspoken” on transgender rights or racial justice, and there will always be reasons to convince yourself that a HoF vote is tantamount to complicity or normalization, but I suspect there won’t often be enough momentum to keep someone otherwise deserving out of the hall. I don’t like the precedent but Schilling is a pretty cruddy hill to die on, and the baseball arguments are more interesting anyway.

brock20
4 years ago

You’re ignoring the fake blood on the sock…

Jason BMember since 2017
4 years ago

“He deserves to be in on the baseball merits (see Morris, Jack)”

No. We do not compare HOF cases to the weakest (or one of the weakest) possible inductees, unless you want to enlarge the hall about three times over. We can make a plenty credible case comparing to the median HOFer.

OddBall Herrera
4 years ago
Reply to  Jason B

Actually this was my argument against Morris in the first place and has spawned what I call the Jack Morris HoF Test: if the player is going to become the guy everyone cites to argue that so-and-so is better than him so deserves to get in, they should not be in.

3cardmontyMember since 2020
4 years ago

Very curious to see how the pro-Ortiz+anti-Sosa voters justify themselves. I expect there will be heaps of them but there is absolutely no case to be made that Ortiz had the superior career, and the evidence of PED use is identical (and I would argue too flimsy to support a no vote by itself). Of all the remaining candidates linked to PEDs, Sosa may have been done the dirtiest by the voters as there is at least a chance he never even used.

tarvisMember since 2019
4 years ago
Reply to  3cardmonty

I believe, like (many) others before him, Ortiz benefits from his historical post-season performances, which, of course, Sosa does not. That, really, might be the difference.

Baltimore, MurraylandMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  tarvis

And when the bulk of their careers took place.

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
4 years ago
Reply to  tarvis

Sosa had a much better regular season career. The postseason might get Ortiz even if one weighs it heavily as I would. Sosa is about even with Sheffield for me.

JimmieFoxxalorianMember since 2020
4 years ago

I’d vote for Schilling. I don’t agree with his views, he’s clearly a disgusting human being, but if we are to attempt being consistent with who is already enshrined in the HOF, there are plenty of horrible racists and deplorable individuals in the HOF, who are in the HOF because they did impressive feats on a baseball field. Its a baseball HOF, not a character or morality HOF.

Regarding the steroid users, its is impossible to retroactively assess with any accuracy, precisely how much PEDs improved performance vs. not doing PEDs, especially in an era of hitters and pitchers using PEDs. This clouds evaluation of how unfair the advantage was for these players. There is no perfect solution to this, so I say vote them all in if their numbers warrant it, and have a large video display panel in the HOF that acknowledges the PED use of the era, and that MLB did not have a rule against PED use before 2003.

Post 2003, it’s a bit more clear via the testing and who failed tests, and that there is an official rule against PEDs.

AlbyMember since 2017
4 years ago

I don’t agree that he’s a disgusting human being. I met him back when he played in Philly and lived in a suburb near mine, and knew people who knew him better. These were the years when he was starting his ALS work. He can be charming and personable. His political views are odious; that doesn’t mean the person is, and if you think that’s wrong I think you’re vastly underestimating how complicated humans are.

People tend to overemphasize political disagreements these days. Someone earlier noted that this stuff is mostly a social media phenomenon, and as someone who stays off social media I tend to agree. I’m friends with a good number of people whose political opinions I dislike. So though I find Schilling’s political views odious I would vote him in because IMO he was good enough.

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
4 years ago
Reply to  Alby

I’m not opining on Schilling’s odiousness or lack thereof but for many people he advocates the violent overthrow of the US government and supports the prior attempt to achieve it. That can be viewed as terrorism not merely politics. I’m not saying whether I agree or disagree with that viewpoint. Whether that violates the “character clause” is a matter of interpretation.

Barry
4 years ago
Reply to  Ivan_Grushenko

No one sensible support the violent overthrow of the US govt. but neither does Schilling!!! And I defy you to demonstrate to me that he does.

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
4 years ago
Reply to  Barry

Barry, if you’re asking me this question, I’m not saying that he does or doesn’t support it. I’m saying that the range of opinions on Schilling isn’t just a matter of politics. In the opinion of some he’s a supporter of terrorism and/or the violent government overthrow. In the opinion of others he’s a true patriot. It’s more serious than tax policy or even abortion/fetus rights for those people. Those who believe that it is just politics are underestimating the width and depth of opinions on him.

Barry
4 years ago
Reply to  Ivan_Grushenko

Ivan, fair point except that the opinion that Schilling supports terrorism is absurd and at some point journalists who believe he does should be accountable for that opinion.

Barry
4 years ago

Why is Schilling disgusting?

bored
4 years ago

A Baseball Hall of Fame without Barry Bonds is effectively irrelevant.

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
4 years ago
Reply to  bored

For me the only relevance is the chance to discuss great players. Who actually gets in or not isn’t really my business

trywerlt
4 years ago

Again, it’s just weird to define accountability as “writers need the HoF ballot as an excuse to publish an article in January about how much they hate Schilling.”

If you think fangraphs needs to hold Schilling accountable, nothing’s stopping you from publishing an op-ed tomorrow. The problem is that it wouldn’t be relevant content without the HoF ballot.

JJ17Chi
4 years ago

They either cheated the game via steroids, had domestic violence allegations, sexual improprieties allegations, or made bigoted and hateful comments. These are not great people.

But they are some of the greatest baseball players of all time. This is what the hall of fame is all about.

History, Truth and Transparency are ill served by denying them entrance. This is basically an attempt to wipe them from baseball history for non-baseball character issues.

They all deserve the be in the hall, where both their accomplishments should be displayed and their faults discussed.

Lastly, it is odd that you place a moral difference between Schiling’s words and Bonds/Sosa/Clemens actions (the physical and sexual allegations). I despise Schilling as a person, but you worrying about his
‘increasingly dangerous views’ is embarrassingly snowflake.

Jason BMember since 2017
4 years ago
Reply to  JJ17Chi

Once the term “snowflake” comes out you can dismiss pretty much all of it, it’s textbook arguing in bad faith…

JJ17Chi
4 years ago
Reply to  Jason B

Agreed, snowflake was over the top. But the intention is still correct… worrying about his increasingly dangerous views is just way too out there for most baseball fans. Let’s bad mad at him for his future speak.

TKDCMember since 2016🏆 MVP
4 years ago
Reply to  JJ17Chi

If Schilling were a Muslim talking about how great bin Ladin was, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Pretending this is just run-of-the-mill politics doesn’t make it so.

Blastings! Thrilledge
4 years ago

If I had a vote, and an otherwise deserving player had dangerous and crazy opinions like “the 2020 U.S. Presidential election was fair and fraud-free,” “what happened on January 6 was an insurrection,” or “vaccines are safe and effective and should be mandated,” I wouldn’t hold it against him. Lots of people hold silly opinions. It’s a Baseball HOF, not a Political Opinion HOF.

The real question here is if Schilling were in the place of Clemens, whether Jaffe would feel the same. That is, if Schilling had had Clemens’ career, but went on to have the same Bad and Wrong Opinions (Unclean! Unclean! muh democracy!) as Schilling, would Jaffe still not vote for Schilling? Obviously Bonds and Clemens were much better players than Schilling. As long as the HOF continues without Bonds & Clemens, it’s illegitimate and everyone knows it. Schilling is a clear HOF, but he’s still borderline enough that his exclusion is just a footnote.

Jason BMember since 2017
4 years ago

I think you hit the MAGA tripe bingo. Feel free to offer up your proof of the election being “unfair” or rife with fraud. “The guy I worship lost” doesn’t count…

Too, funny how vaccines were totally accepted by almost 100% of the population as they eradicated real, serious dangers to life and health like polio, measles, etc. How soon we forget…

And you’re right of course, those folks there on Jan. 6 were just tourists. They knew exactly what they were trying to do, egged on by a reality-show huckster, a two-bit grifter who offers nothing (not one thing!) but unmitigated self-interest and “owning the libs”.

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
4 years ago

I would call Schilling’s career easily HOF worthy, not borderline.

TKDCMember since 2016🏆 MVP
4 years ago

The real question is whether you’d hold the same views if Schilling were a child rapist? Or an Islamic terrorist? Do you legitimately not care, or is Schilling just not that bad to you?

woundedphoenix
4 years ago

Unbelievable. I read this entire article only to learn the author is morally bankrupt on drug use and domestic problems while being a political hack as well.
Jay makes it clear that what happens off the field does not figure into his thought process unless a player happens to be an outspoken Republican.
Jay should be removed as a voter.

Barry
4 years ago

Your analysis of Schilling is so biased that it is weird. You may disagree with his politics…fine…but nothing he has said warrants exclusion from the HOF and if it does to some voter, that criteria being used is what should be condemned. He compared Fauci to Hitler? So what? How many respected members of our nation have stopped to that asinine comparison? Quite a few and no doubt some HOF candidates and HOFers. So stop your Left-leaning biased analysis and focus on your strong-suit…terrific baseball analysis.

TKDCMember since 2016🏆 MVP
4 years ago
Reply to  Barry

Weird to dislike terrorists? Or terrorist sympathizers? Would you be A-okay with someone giving a speech extolling the greatness of Osama bin Ladin? It’s just politics, right?

Barry
4 years ago
Reply to  TKDC

TKDC: My point is Schilling did not say he supports the rioters or tertrorists (something, btw, our Vice President did literally- support he rioters of 2020 with a donation ). What did Schilling say that offends you?

cwood41
4 years ago

Man putting Bonds/Clemens in but leaving Schilling out is such a hypocritical take. All bad people, but Bonds and Clemens also did bad things in the game of baseball. I really hope they don’t get in.