Sunday Notes: A Hall of Fame Ballot Explained
I have the honor of casting a Hall of Fame ballot for the first time this year. Jay Jaffe does as well, each of us having joined the BBWAA in 2010 while colleagues at Baseball Prospectus. A decade later — and in Jay’s case, countless words written on the subject at hand — we are the first FanGraphs writers to be granted voting privileges.
I’m sharing my ballot in this column, but before doing so, it’s only appropriate that I tip my hat to my fellow first-time voter. As most everyone reading this knows, Jay’s JAWS system is invaluable when assessing Hall of Fame credentials, as is his must-read Cooperstown Casebook. Given his extensive research and analysis, there may not be a greater authority on the subject.
That being said, the question of what defines a Hall of Famer is inherently subjective. Following Ryan Thibodaux’s Ballot Tracker will tell you as much. With barely over a dozen made public, we’ve already seen ballots with 10 checkmarks, while others have been left blank. As a “Big Hall” guy, I’m clearly not in accord with the latter camp.
Jay and I disagree on at least one player. Barring an earth-shaking surprise, Omar Vizquel won’t get his vote. Conversely, the iconic-yet-polarizing shortstop was a no-brainer for me. The first names I checked on my ballot were Vizquel and Scott Rolen.
Vizquel and Rolen aren’t mutually exclusive when it comes to Hall of Fame worthiness, even though many BBWAA voters seem to feel that way. Last year, 169 ballots included one of their names but not the other, while only 70 included both names. Do their bona fides differ? Absolutely, but not everyone enshrined in Cooperstown fits the same mold. Nor should they. In baseball, as in life, greatness is displayed in many ways.
I won’t go into detail explaining my Vizquel vote — the numbers and reputation are both well-known, and beating dead horses is at best a pointless exercise — but I will offer a snapshot of my thought process:
For me, the Hall of Fame is more than numbers, and that’s especially true when it comes to weighing WAR, and other advanced stats, vis-a-vis overall impact on the game. To some of you that may sound blasphemous, but again, not all inductees — past and present — fit the same mold. Rolen’s 69.9 WAR helped make him an easy choice for me, but so too did Vizquel’s accomplishments over 24 seasons. Playing more games at shortstop, and logging the second-most hits of anyone at the position in history were among them. Moreover, his defensive brilliance was a joy to watch, and he’s an idol to a generation of baseball fans in his native Venezuela. In this voter’s opinion, things like that matter. (On a related note, Cuban icon Minnie Minoso should have a plaque in Cooperstown).
Moving on my other selections, I opted to bite the bullet and allow PED-associated candidates to pass “Go” and collect their proverbial $200. I did so with hesitation, but ultimately decided that what they did on the field should carry the day. Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens would have been first-ballot selections were it not for steroid-era implications, and Manny Ramirez likely would have been as well. Gary Sheffield hit over 500 home runs and had a 141 wRC+. Sammy Sosa hit over 600 home runs, and while his 124 wRC+ did give me some pause, his 1998 season is a huge part of recent baseball history. All five of those players got my vote, despite their alleged transgressions.
Curt Schilling did not get my vote. Call it contradictory if you will, but I couldn’t in good conscience allow myself to hold him to same “what they did on the field” standard that I applied to the PED group. As important as baseball is, there are things far more important than baseball. As Jay stated in our recent FanGraphs Audio conversation, “It goes beyond politics… [Schilling] has documented examples of hate speech.” In my mind, that’s a disqualifier.
Two other players who didn’t get my vote were Todd Helton and Jeff Kent. I deliberated between those two and Sosa for my final checkmark, and ultimately opted for Sosa. As closely as I had them bunched, a future vote for Helton and/or Kent is very much a possibility.
Three more players did get my vote: Bobby Abreu, Andruw Jones, and Billy Wagner. Of them, Wagner was the easiest choice. Relievers tend to get short shrift in Hall voting, and while I understand why, that’s not always fair. On a rate basis, Wagner was as dominant as anyone. Jones was arguably the best defensive centerfielder of our lifetimes, and even with the precipitous decline he hit 400-plus home runs. And then there is Abreu, who is arguably one of the most-underrated players of said lifetimes. Often under the radar, he put up a .395 OBP, a 129 wRC+, and 59.8 WAR — this while logging 921 extra-base hits and stealing 400 bases.
Do all 10 of the players I voted for meet your own criteria, and was I amiss with any of my non-selections? Given the subjectivity of the exercise, I suspect that many of you will disagree on at least a few of my decisions. I’m OK with that. We’re not all going to view the Hall of Fame exactly the same way, and truth be told, it would be kind of boring if we did. The debates are part of the fun.
———
RANDOM HITTER-PITCHER MATCHUPS
Miguel Cabrera went 12 for 15 against Adam Eaton.
Carlos Delgado went 10 for 15 against Mike Hampton.
Nomar Garciaparra went 10 for 19 against Dwight Gooden.
Cesar Cedeno went 9 for 12 against Bill Lee.
Ty Cobb went 9 for 12 against Mellie Wolfgang.
———
As noted above, Vizquel is lionized in Venezuela. This is what Miami Marlins shortstop Miguel Rojas said when I asked about his countryman:
“He’s the idol of this whole generation,” Rojas told me this summer. “If you ask any Venezuelan baseball player playing in the big leagues right now, Omar Vizquel is their idol, because of the way he played the game. We all appreciate what he did, not just for baseball, but to put Venezuela on the map. To me, he has everything it takes to be considered a Hall of Famer. And there wasn’t just his defense, he got almost 2,900 hits.
“I know that he played for a long time, but you have to be really good to do that, especially at a premium position like shortstop. It’s really tough to play this game for as long as he did. At the end he was a mentor to younger players, but before that he was head-to-head with guys like Derek Jeter for the best at his position. And again, he wasn’t just a baseball player: he was an idol for a whole generation of players in Venezuela.”
———
A quiz:
Fifty-three natives of Venezuela have been named to an MLB All-Star team. Which has the most All-Star seasons?
The answer can be found below.
———
NEWS NOTES
Bob Miller, who pitched for the Philadelphia Phillies from 1949-1958, died on Friday at age 94. A Detroit native, Miller had his best season in 1950 when he finished second in NL Rookie of the Year voting and made one appearance in the World Series.
Dan Pfister, who pitched for the Kansas City Athletics from 1961-1964, died earlier this month at age 83. A right-hander, Pfister went 6-19 with a 4.87 ERA in 65 big-league games.
Rogers Communications, which owns the Toronto Blue Jays, is discussing demolishing Rogers Centre and building a new stadium (per The Globe and Mail). In tangentially-related news, Mike Wilner won’t be returning to the Blue Jays radio broadcast team next year. A well-known voice on the Toronto sports scene, Wilner had been paired with Ben Wagner.
Longtime Cincinnati Enquirer sports scribe John Fay is retiring. He penned his farewell column yesterday.
———
The answer to the quiz is Miguel Cabrera, with 11 All-Star seasons. Luis Aparicio
made 13 All-Star appearances, although those were spread over 10 seasons. Two All-Star games were played each year from 1959-1962.
———
Left on the cutting room floor from my recent conversation with pitching guru Brian Vikander was his appreciative mention of erstwhile Chicago White Sox and New York Yankees left-hander Eddie Lopat. A renowned junk-baller who pitched from 1944-1955, Lopat befuddled batters with an assortment of offerings that included a heater that was anything but hot.
“Eddie Lopat was somebody that Casey Stengel always bragged about,” Vikander told me. “Casey said that he threw between 71 and 73 [mph]. A lot of guys could probably tear a rotator cuff and still throw 71, and Lopat won 166 games in the major leagues doing that. That’s called pitching. That’s somebody who can keep coming back to the hitter and saying, ‘Do you have the perspicacity, buddy? Do you think you can stay with me on this? I’m going to move this one an inch over here, take a little bit more off, and it will have a little different movement. Let’s see if you can get it.’ Those guys are wonderful. Those are pitchers.”
Lopat finished his career 166-112 with a 3.21 ERA. He went 4-1, 2.60 in seven World Series starts.
———
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
The SoftBank Hawks won their fourth straight Japan Series championship earlier this week. The Fukuoka-based ball club swept the Yomiuri Giants and have now won 12 consecutive Japan Series games. Ryoya Kurihara was named series MVP.
Chunichi Dragons left-hander Yudai Ohno was named as this year’s Sawamura Award winner. The honor goes to Japan’s best pitcher. Ohno went 11-6 with a 1.82 ERA over 20 starts. He had 10 complete games and six shutouts.
Carlos Subero has been named the new manager of the Hanwha Eagles.The former Milwaukee Brewers coach will be the fourth foreign manager in KBO history, joining Trey Hillman, Jerry Royster, and Matt Williams.
The Australian Baseball League’s Melbourne Aces announced that they will be streaming their games live this year. The ABL season kicks off on December 17.
———
If you missed Tuesday’s FanGraphs Audio podcast featuring Torey Lovullo, you probably aren’t aware that he once had an up-close look at Elvis Presley shooting hoops. The Diamondbacks manager shared that story, and much more, in the aforementioned episode that includes Jay Jaffe and me discussing our Hall of Fame ballots, as well as Dan Szymborski talking Toronto Blue Jays baseball with Andrew Stoeten.
———
LINKS YOU’LL LIKE
At The New York Daily News, Bradford Williams Davis wrote about how Charlie Morton might be the guy who finally gets the Atlanta Braves over the hump.
Baseball America’s J.J. Cooper gave us a history of short-season ball, which is disappearing thanks (but no thanks) to the reorganization of the minor leagues.
Nick Castellanos has the most barreled outs in the Statcast era, and Justin Choi wrote about it at justinchoi.medium.com.
Seattle Mariners pitching prospect Sam Carlson is finally back on the mound after missing 31 months with elbow woes. Shannon Drayer detailed the 21-year-old Savage, Minnesota native’s return at My Sports Northwest.
Sports Illustrated’s Emma Baccellieri told us about Turkey Tyson, who got a cup of coffee with the Philadelphia Phillies in 1944.
———
RANDOM FACTS AND STATS
Seven players in history have had at least 30 career plate appearances and a walk rate of 23% or higher. The septet combined for a .148 batting average.
From 1966-1971, Matty Alou batted .325 with a 4.7% walk rate and a 4.9% strikeout rate. Alou averaged 196 hits, 30 walks, and 32 strikeouts over that six-year stretch. Only Roberto Clemente (.333) hit for a higher average.
Gordy Coleman went 42 for 120 (.350) as a pinch hitter.
Ted Kubiak went 14 for 127 (.110) as a pinch hitter.
Johnny Pesky led the American League in hits in his 1942 rookie season, and again in 1946 and 1947. The Red Sox shortstop — Ted Williams affectionally referred to him as “Pecker” — missed the 1943-1945 seasons while serving in the military.
On today’s date in 1971, the Cincinnati Reds traded Tommy Helms, Lee May, and Jimmy Stewart to the Houston Astros in exchange for Ed Armbrister, Jack Billingham, Cesar Geronimo, Dennis Menke, and Joe Morgan.
The New York Yankees signed Reggie Jackson to a free-agent contract on this date in 1976.
The Boston Red Sox signed Carl Yastrzemski to his first professional contract on this date in 1958.
Players born on today’s date include Bill Freehan, who represented the Detroit Tigers in the All-Star Game eleven times, including every year from 1964-1973. A catcher, Freehan won five Gold Gloves and finished his career with 200 home runs and 44.8 WAR.
Frank Skaff and Bill Skiff both played parts of two big-league seasons. Skiff and Skaff each had 11 career RBIs.
Art Sunday had a .419 OBP for the Players League’s Brooklyn Ward’s Wonders in 1890. The club was led by Hall of Fame player/manager John Montgomery Ward.
David Laurila grew up in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and now writes about baseball from his home in Cambridge, Mass. He authored the Prospectus Q&A series at Baseball Prospectus from December 2006-May 2011 before being claimed off waivers by FanGraphs. He can be followed on Twitter @DavidLaurilaQA.
Good for you for not voting for Schilling. I have no idea why any journalist would vote for him when he is on record as supporting the hanging of journalists.
I was a journalist for 35 years before I retired, and I would vote for him. They’re words. Unless he’s actually hanging reporters in the back yard, who cares?
I’m no fan of Schilling’s views, but I have seen FG writers advocate the painful deaths of people they did not agree with. I don’t hold it against them, because I’m sure they weren’t serious. I likewise don’t think Schilling was serious.
Like Schilling, Fangraph writers shouldn’t advocate the painful deaths of anyone whether they’re being serious or not. The rhetoric is dangerous and irresponsible.
Where have you seen thar FG advocated the death of anyone?
Death to Billy the Marlin
Okay, but seriously, WTF is going on with him.
“He said people like me should be murdered but idc, I’d vote for him anyway” is a heck of a take. For a former journalist, you’re sure undervaluing the power of words.
Makes no sense. You vote for players who knowingly cheated but because someone has a different political opinion (yes its about politics) you don’t vote for him? It should be about what they do on the field that matters. Off the field stuff and opinions should not matter. We would find skeletons in every closet, some just keep their door closed but still have them.
You can disagree with the reasoning, but to say it makes no sense when David clearly explained the line between a difference of political opinion and hate speech is willfully obtuse.
Anyone who has followed this year’s election in the U.S. should know that for a great many people, there is no such line.
Joking about hanging journalists (and by “joking” I mean the 4chan bullshit where you couch sincere animosity in putatively ironic language) is not “a different political opinion.” It’s a toxic shadow game that poisons public discourse and potentially endangers lives. I can see arguments for and against induction, but GTFO with that “difference of opinion” crap.
Its amazing when someone has a different opinion, the insults and 5 year old rants begin. I guess its ok to have an opinion as long as it aligns with your opinion.
Were you hit in the head as often as the man in your handle?
Aw, call the wahmbulance. Grow up.
Finally he gets it. Yes, I refuse to live in a world where anybody has an “opinion” different from mine. Welcome to the future.
And yet it’s pretty obvious you only feel that way because you share Schilling’s political opinions. I think Schilling belongs, but people like you aren’t helping his cause.
Most intelligent people find those political opinions toxic. And yes, if you hold them, you’re toxic , too.
I’ll never understand what makes Vizquel a HOFer, but I respect your reasons and your explanation. Also, I would like to thank you for seeing that Andruw Jones belongs in Cooperstown. I watched him almost every day during his Atlanta years. A middle of the order bat who also happens to be far and away the best defender in the league at a premium position doesn’t come along too often.
Being average for 24 years is more impressive than being great for 10 I guess
Yes, there is something to that. I’d vote for a guy on my virtual ballot if their numbers were there due to compelling them. There is something to be said for being playable for a long time. That’s why JAWS looks both at WAR and WAR7. That said, I don’t think his career numbers are enough to overcome his lack of a peak.
I think the qualifiers for the HOF are that a player be great across a long career. That seems right to me.
Honestly, I don’t see why you are willing to vote for domestic abusers. Andruw Jones and Barry Bonds shouldn’t get any votes. What message are we sending to victims?
That said, I’m glad that you recognize that there is a difference between using a platform for hate speech and simply “having a different political opinion”. Thank you for not voting for Schilling.
I’m all in favor of keeping Schilling out, but using a character clause on him and voting for Roger “Had a relationship with a a 15 year old” Clemens is frankly outrageous.
Agree with this and the prior comment; David might want to explore what makes hate speech worse than physical abuse and sexual abuse of a minor. I’m not asking for relativizing different kinds of abuse, but we also might ask “why would anyone want to honor any kind of abuser?”
Those HOF explanations were very, very weird.
Or shooting steroids, for that matter. David seems to have difficulty distinguishing between words and actions.
Words *are* actions.
We also might ask “why would anyone want to honor any kind of abuser?”
There are those, myself included, who believe that the Hall honors an individual’s impact on the sport, rather than honoring the individual themself in the conduct of their personal life. I appreciate that not everyone shares that view – but I believe that’s generally the purpose of a museum.
I’m certain, statistically, that there are Hall of Famers who committed unconscionable personal acts that simply never came to light, especially during eras where sports reporters were more likely to cover up off-field indiscretions than report on them. This is in addition to those existing Hall of Famers who committed unconscionable personal acts that were indeed made public, either before or after their enshrinement. It makes no sense to celebrate the impact on the game of this group while excluding players from a more modern era simply because journalists now place more value on reporting such acts than on their relationship with the players themselves, as many old-time writers did.
Bad take. The museum is objectively a Hall that honors the individual. It isn’t a record book. We have stat pages for that.
Also, the argument that “there might be other guys that are bad that we didn’t realize or didn’t care about and therefore we should ignore guys who we know are bad” is bad. That’s at best trying to get away with “two wrongs make a right” but it’s probably even worse than that, because it’s, “there might be another wrong, so if we add this definite wrong, we get a right”.
And this is why invoking the character clause is troubling… it allows each voter to draw their own independent lines as to whether actions have disqualified a player from consideration based on their actions as a person rather than as a ballplayer. I am of the mindset that the Hall of Fame is a museum of the game rather than a shrine to the people who were involved in it, and that it would not represent baseball history – or human history – if we invoke off-field morality that is not directly related to play between the lines.
(Could you honestly have a rock and roll hall of fame, as a museum to the art form itself, without Eric Clapton?)
In addition, invoking the character clause in the negative for off-field issues creates situations where the standard set by a particular player is problematic, in retrospect, as perspectives evolve on the relative “disqualification” of off-field activities. Kirby Puckett didn’t tarnish the game, and remains in the Hall despite conduct that, today, would seem to disqualify him in the eyes of some (many?). I’m not sure what message it sends to be more offended by Curt Schilling’s words than by others’ acts of violence against human beings.
Personally, I loved the view that Joe Posnanski put up last week – that the character clause was originally intended partially as a thumb on the scale to *help* borderline cases rather than disqualify problematic human beings that happened to be great ballplayers. It seems much more consistent with history to view it as such, rather than as an exclusionary device.
Bad take. The museum is objectively a Hall that honors the individual. It isn’t a record book. We have stat pages for that.
Also, the argument that “there might be other guys that are bad that we didn’t realize or didn’t care about and therefore we should ignore guys who we know are bad” is bad. That’s at best trying to get away with “two wrongs make a right” but it’s probably even worse than that, because it’s, “there might be another wrong, so if we add this definite wrong, we get a right”.
Also, we don’t have a method to take guys out of the hall. Much of what Kirby Puckett did we only found out about afterwards. Much of what some other players did we only recognize after the fact that it was wrong to have done so. If there was a method to remove players, I’d say we should remove Cap Anson in a second, for example. So talking about the fact that we still have guys in who shouldn’t be isn’t a relevant point.
Also, yes. This is subjective and any voter should be able to draw their own lines. This is no different at all than how we treat the statistical end of this. We don’t have a list of statistical requirements that a player can tick off in order to gain entry. Each voter decides subjectively what they consider a hall of famer. Same thing with the character end. It’s silly to pretend that voters are somehow incapable of reasonably evaluating this. And voters that ignore that part are just shirking their responsibility in order to get out of a tough task. It’s completely something that they can do, and it is in fact their job to do so.
You people are just like hyenas: Clemens didn’t have a relationship with a 15 year old. If you track the story, you get this: McCready’s father, Tim McCready, told the New York Post that his daughter’s relationship with the baseball star didn’t turn physical until years after their first meeting, when Mindy’s engagement to Lois & Clark actor Dean Cain broke off in 1998. He says their affair was an “on again, off again thing” he also describes star pitcher Clemens as a “gentleman”.
We are all free to have our opinions. Schilling was a guy with plenty. He threw his last pitch in 2007, and in 2008 the state of California (arguably the most liberal state in the country), voted to make gay marriage ILLEGAL. Thats a year after he retired! Does this make the majority of Californians who voted this way guilty of hate speech? Do you honestly think he was advocating for the hanging of all journalists? Doesn’t that sound more like sarcasm to you? Society changes, some agree and some don’t, but you can’t hold someone’s opinions against them. There’s a big difference between disagreeing and hating. I think that difference gets lost in today’s society. You can find things on anyone in Cooperstown (DUIs, domestic abuse, tax fraud, cheating on their spouses, failure to pay child support, etc). Voting for PED guys, who actually cheated the game we love so much, but not for Schilling, does not make any sense to me. But, you’re free to your opinion.
Jay Jaffe and many of the Fangraphs Baseball Prospectus writers have in some ways become what they railed against. An echo chamber that resents any dissenting opinion.
Who is Fangraphs Baseball Prospectus?
And do you have examples?
No, just yours.
“Does this make the majority of Californians who voted this way guilty of hate speech?”
This is a jump in logic wider than the Grand Canyon.
He’s explaining why he didn’t vote for him for the Hall of Fame. Stop hammering nails into your own palms long enough and you might notice that, while you’re free to have your opinions, everyone else is free to point out that your opinions stink.
And where did you ever get the notion that you can’t hold someone’s opinions against them? Of course you can.
I am never, ever, going to understand David’s love for Omar Vizquel. I know he has written about it multiple times, but his peak was like borderline all-star territory, and not even on the same planet as recently inducted guys (excepting his bizarro-world counterpart, Harold Baines). His best consecutive 7 year stretch was about 20 fWAR, or less than 3 wins per year. I think it’s fair to make longevity a prerequisite for hall induction but when it’s sufficient for hall induction I’m really not buying it. I’m not so sure he has a better case than someone like Edgar Renteria.
Another cancel culture journalist – lighten up. What he did after his career is completely irrelevant yet you are perfectly fine with people who cheated the game and ruined the statistics by which we judge them all.
“Cancel culture” is a thing said by people who are worried they did something wrong. Worry about yourself.
Nope, not completely irrelevant. Your opinion, on the other hand — that’s completely irrelevant.
This “cancel culture” argument has really got to stop, because it’s obviously a circular one. Are YOU canceling David by making your argument? You can throw allegations of “cancellation” all the way down, much like the turtles in the infinite regress.
There are alleged transgressions that happened when the league (along with the media and fans) was looking the other way.
And then there is getting caught for PED and suspended twice.
I dislike Schilling much more than I do Manny, but voting for Manny but not Schilling requires quite a bit of mental juggling.
Agreed. I’m also puzzled about voting for Bonds, who is by all accounts a horrible, cruel person, and not voting for Schilling – because Schilling is also a universally-disliked cretin. Does character count, or do we just dislike Schilling more?
Wasn’t Bonds merely a rude jerk, while Schilling promotes white supremacy and advocated for killing journalists?
I don’t get why other people just downvoted you instead of answering. For Bonds we are talking domestic violence type stuff and worse. The stuff he did to past partners are absolutely not the type of things that should be overlooked.
“advocated for” is probably not the precise term. He made an offhanded comment that he (probably, hopefully) wishes he could take back and made his point differently. But whether he wants a do-over or not, “advocacy” seems to imply he devoted a lot of time and energy to wiping out journalists (or made similar comments on numerous occasions). For all his flaws, which are numerous, I don’t think he’s done that.
I have no problem with not voting for someone based on the character clause. But I do have a problem with applying it in an inconsistent manner. Schilling is an ass, but cheaters are OK. Don’t see the distinction.
The PED users broke actual laws. Both baseball laws as well as legal ones. And then lied about it until the evidence became insurmountable. Some of them even perjured themselves in front of congress. Schilling didn’t break any laws. He’s allowed to his opinion, just like people are allowed to want socialism, and protest, and do other things that do not make any sense to me. But they’re American, and they have that right.
And David is also allowed his opinion, and his has the advantage of being the only one here that counts in the Hall of Fame voting. His opinion is that Schilling’s hate-filled public existence disqualifies him from the Hall. I’d say that problem there is Schilling’s — if he wants to get into the Hall of Fame in his lifetime, he might should try not being such a dick.
Your broad brush, by the way, needs some repair. There is not insurmountable evidence against either Clemens or Bonds, neither of whom tested positive.
The only reason I’d vote for Clemens, Bonds, etc. is that the radical change in longevity of baseball careers in the drug testing era has convinced me that Canseco was right- everyone was doing it. Those guys were hardly the only players who suddenly bulked up and greatly lengthened their careers in that era and I don’t think its ok to use them as the lightning rods to draw all the steroid punishment.
Not voting Schilling based on non-baseball issues doesn’t really make sense. Plenty of guys in the hall that had a lot more hate in their minds than he does. You really need to explain that decision in more detail because it’s unfair to Schilling to withhold him from the Hall when there’s likely a great number of players who’ve said worse but didn’t have the luxury of posting it on Twitter. He didn’t technically do anything wrong, but ill say this. If he can exercise his right to free speech, then you’re 100% entitled to leaving him off you’re ballot
A HoF voter only has control over who gets in–not on who gets removed.
For the people saying that you shouldn’t not vote for someone (Schilling) based on a “difference of opinion”, do you actually believe that? Understand that there are people who consider Schilling a “Nazi” because of his stated views on members of the LGBT community. Maybe you think that’s outrageous hyperbole, and maybe that’s a discussion worth having. But what if there weren’t any ambiguity? What if he openly marched with white supremacists while waving a swastika flag? Would you still say it’s silly not to vote for him based on a “difference of opinion”?
I doubt it. See, what you’re really saying isn’t that a “difference of opinion” matters, it’s that you don’t think he’s made it clear enough that he identifies as part of a hate group. Whereas to many other people, people who are more sensitive to it, the repeated signals he’s put out on social media don’t leave any doubt.
If you don’t think he’s shown himself to be a hateful bigot, then argue that. But don’t pretend that hateful bigotry is a valid “difference of opinion” that shouldn’t factor into the character clause when considering his candidacy.
So to clarify, I am pretty confident the objection to Schilling is his tendency to hang around with actual white supremacists, his proclivity for Nazi paraphernalia, and to “joke” about murdering journalists. Some people want to make this into his views on trans people which I also find toxic, but Godwin’s law doesn’t exactly apply when the guy seems to actually have affection for Nazis.
I wasn’t against Schilling’s induction until about 2017 or so, because most of this stuff didn’t start up until…2016, I think? Some of this stuff is really dark.
It wasn’t just nazi paraphernalia he had posted about, he had a ton of overall WWII stuff. All of those items are museum worthy items. I don’t understand the focus people have made on a portion of his collection, when it is a WWII collection.
Because his comments and activities indicate he’s an actual white supremacist.
Not sure how that is determined.
With the possible exception of Bonds, I don’t think anyone benefited more from PEDS–was a higher responder, in the jargon–than Sosa. I don’t have a problem with putting dopers in the HOF, but a minimum criterion, it seems to me, should be an estimate that in the absence of chemical help, they still would have put up HOF numbers. Before his memorable 1998 season, Sosa appeared in no way to be on track for the HOF.
That said, I want to thank David for telling us his choices, and I’m particularly grateful that he voted for 10 players. While he might have not voted for someone I would have voted for, I can’t criticize someone who filled his ballot.
For our younger readers, our country use to be a place where people could use their freedom of speech to bring light to topics they felt were important to them that the masses may have disagreed with at the time. I certainly do not agree with the opinions of every individual, but I will fight for their right to say it or else our freedom of speech is simply the freedom to say what we are allowed to say or what those in power agree we can say.
We need to consider the ramifications for censoring people for their beliefs. What would have happened in the 1960’s had we shut down the Civil rights movement because those in power or the majority of people did not like what those athletes like Muhammad Ali or Bill Russell said or did?
What if we start censoring people like Bobby Riggs who at the time made what is now considered sexist statements? Remember…at that time many people would have agreed with him. People like Ty Cobb had deplorable opinions on people of another race, however have we considered that he was raised in the deep South at a time when those racist opinions were the norm? Would we truly expect every individual from that time to be as progressive as some were?
We can always go back and attack the person for their beliefs and many of our younger readers may someday have beliefs or opinions that their children and grandchildren would find abhorrent in 20-40 years, but let us simply judge the baseball player by what they did on the field. If we decide that people no longer have the freedom to express their opinions or beliefs, this ceases to be a country that is free.
Again…we do not have to agree or support what is said, but we should be fighting for everyone’s free speech to be protected. This is a Baseball Hall of Fame vote, not a popularity contest or a political election where we vote according to our political beliefs.
Just to clarify – I don’t know that anyone is “censoring” Schilling. The man earned a fantastic living playing ball for many many years. Not getting a HOF vote, or being elected to the hall, is not censorship. Not wanting to hire or retain him as an announcer or analyst who has given voice to some troublesome views is also not censorship.
I guess it’s not technically censorship. But it can be argued that attaching negative consequences to his right of speech is certainly in that ballpark.
It is not censorship. What you say has consequences and impacts how the world views you. Schilling was given the ability to say what he wanted without fear of legal attacks. Doesnt mean we all cant shun for him for his horrible viewpoints.
Thats just it. Which viewpoints do you think are horrible?
Shunning, fine. Denying him an honor that he clearly earned, nope.
This attempt to extend the concept of “censorship” to other people making their own speech is incoherent, at best. If you criticize David for voting against Schilling then are you doing something like “censoring” him? We need a much better way to talk about this than by making an analogy to censorship because it just doesn’t work.
I should also say that I actually sort of agree with you in principle. I strongly, strongly believed Schilling should be inducted first few years on the ballot, because his statistical case is really strong and I kept thinking back to the cancelled Field of Dreams celebration at the Hall of Fame and how ridiculous that was. But exactly how far does he have to go before you would consider it too far? Let’s take an extreme example: Let’s say he founds a political party that literally advocates for genocide. Is that too far? If so, then walk backwards. Where exactly did it cross the line?
I think the issue is that the line constantly is moving. What was acceptable to the masses 10 years ago is no longer acceptable. I think this was pointed out that California voted down gay marriage in the mid 2000’s. They are the most progressive state in the US so it would seem that the line has shifted significantly in the last 10-15 years.
I realize that censorship may not be the best word, but is believing that we shouldn’t allow gay marriage based on his religious beliefs wrong? There are many religions that do not support that. I certainly do not want to make anything a political issue as I believe everyone should have the right to live their life according to their own values, but there is a current attack on free speech.
Dave Chappelle and other stand up comedians have broached this topic and the fact that our culture goes after individuals tweets or posts from years ago should show that. Free speech and freedom of religious worship should extend to Muslims, Christians, Jews, and just about everything else under the sun. Our constitution is meant to protect these liberties and the discussion that ensues actually is positive. Having the discussion between opposing viewpoints help all of us understand the issue.
Again…we do not have to support the values that Curt Schilling has, but the question we ask ourselves must ask ourselves is should his viewpoint on any issue or him saying something we do not agree with warrant excluding him from the Hall of Fame for his accomplishments on the field?
And for those individuals that believe that way, are you ready to be “cancelled” or lose earned accolades for the things you say or what you believe? Again…the line is constantly moving and unfortunately not everyone is moving at the same speed. Should not we have the same tolerance for those individuals that we would ask them to show our beliefs they disagree with? Is it no longer possible for us to have a discussion to agree to disagree?
By the way…my point is simply that everyone has the right to their own beliefs, but when judging for this Hall of Fame, shouldn’t we use baseball criteria? If he does not meet the baseball criteria for the Hall of Fame then give the reasons. Using “character” is quite a slippery slope depending on the person or people judging. Many have pointed out domestic abuse, abusing a minor, affairs…where is that line? That is why I prefer judging candidates on their baseball playing resume.
So at the risk of repeating myself, I’ll just state that I am pretty confident the objection to Schilling is his tendency to hang around with actual white supremacists, his proclivity for Nazi paraphernalia, and to “joke” about murdering journalists. Some people want to make this into his views on trans people which I also find toxic, but Godwin’s law doesn’t exactly apply when the guy seems to actually have affection for Nazis. Perhaps he was always this way and just felt more comfortable speaking out about it but this is not a case of moving standards as much as a case of Schilling moving himself over the line.
Baloney.
Ty Cobb gets mentioned all the time as a racist but another journalist dug into this and basically his biographer created that angle. There’s plenty of evidence that he may have been more tolerant than most people from that era. We shouldn’t pretend like we know these athletes and can judge their character based on what gets reported.
I think you are right insofar as we don’t really “know” a lot of public figures and how “good” they are (the same goes for coworkers, acquaintances, distant family members, etc). At the same time, it would be willfully obtuse to ignore points of evidence that are provided by a person.
To put it differently (just as an example), I don’t know if Bob in Accounting is a wife-beater. He seems perfectly pleasant but I don’t know much about the guy’s home life. However, if he had been charged with assault twice. then I still don’t “know” inasmuch as I wasn’t there but there’s a much much higher likelihood of him being a garbage person than had he not been charged with anything.
All that to say, Schilling is providing some points of evidence that in some regards he may hold some less-than-stellar views in the eyes of most.
ETA:
*even so* – Curt has ALSO done many things that would fall on the “good” side of the ledger – lots of charity work for several worthy causes as detailed below. I don’t think either one (questionable viewpoints or time/money for charity) totally offsets or overrides the other.
It’s almost like we’re all made up of some noble and also less-virtuous traits. People…people are complicated, man. Reducing anyone to “only their good traits” or “only their bad traits” is reductive and trite.
I wish people would remember what free speech is. Vile opinions are not to be tolerated without criticism–not now, not ever, and they weren’t in the past, either.
There are many things wrong with this ballot and the explanations. But atleast Andruw is on there. That means I can live with the rest.
Maybe David has actually broken this out. I’ll admit I didn’t. But by a quick and dirty analysis, it doesn’t seem possible that Vizquel has the second most hits of any shortstop. He’s 7th on fangraphs’ list, but that includes Yount, Ripken and ARod, who obviously spent quite a bit of their careers at other positions. However, Vizquel also spent 10% of his career at other positions as well, and as far as I can tell the other three guys above him had to have spent at least as much of their time at shortstop. The Vizquel argument just seems like another attempt to find an excuse for the most questionable candidacy I’ve ever found.
Nice job. This would be my exact ballot.
In the spirit of Sunday Notes, two random and unrelated thoughts:
1. Miñoso for HOF!
2. TIL “Adam Eaton” is not just the outfielder.
Yes to Minnie Minoso, one of the most egregious Hall oversights.
I don’t see any logical argument to have Minoso in the Hall. He has 50 career WAR and only a few MVP caliber seasons.
I think the “character clause” in the voting process is just a means to which voters can act self-righteous. I’m sorry, and that’s not a personal dig – but it feels like an excuse to let voters pick and choose with too much weight on what someone did outside of baseball versus what they did on the field.
When it comes to Schilling, I’m about as left on the political spectrum as you get. I don’t like Curt Schilling. Frankly, I hate him. However, people who do not work with these players every single day do not know the true character of every single player on the ballot. Yes, Schilling is about as public as it gets. And I do not feel some anger or resentment towards voters who will not condone hate speech. What I will say is, as someone who has worked around current and former Major League Baseball players every single day, more players are similar to Schilling than dissimilar. Baseball is white-dominated, heavily conservative, and pretty loud about it. I could name ten people I’ve met in just four years of experience who casually dropped hateful rhetoric on a daily basis like it was nothing.
It’s a societal issue at large that we normalize hate speech and misinformation like it’s nothing. Schilling is no doubt a catalyst for that. I’m sure if Aubrey Huff wasn’t a career .278/.342/.464 hitter, we’d be having a similar discussion about him. Thankfully, we’re not. But, as you pointed out, you are making an exception to Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens – who were not exactly likable human beings to journalists or anyone else. There’s lots of grey area for a lot of these players on the ballot. And there’s lots more grey area in the actual Hall of Fame from players from older generations. I’m not saying that we should hold ourselves to the same standard that we do of players of the 30s, but we need to really define what the “character clause” is, and how much weight it should hold. We know what Schilling did – but do we know every player who has beaten his partner, said erroneously racist things, asserted their power over others behind the scenes, or similar issues along those lines? Was Andruw Jones, known domestic abuser, really more or less worthy than Curt Schillng – who spews his Nazi rhetoric on conservative radio? How can we compare that and vote for one and not the other?
For me, it’s all or nothing. If Schilling gets in, so does Bonds. So does Todd Helton (who’s had numerous off-field issues). So does Clemens. If I vote that way, I am stating that the baseball Hall of Fame should celebrate the best players in baseball history, behavior be-damned. And in the opposite scenario, if Schilling is out based on character, so are the rest of them – devoid of severity of offense. And in that scenario, I’d be making a statement that we should not provide bad people a platform to celebrate work accomplishments because they have lost the right to said platform with their actions off-field . I just don’t think it’s up to us as individuals to pick and choose who was better, who was worse, and who deserves or doesn’t deserve celebration based off character.
Do I want Curt Schilling enshrined in a Hall of Fame, making a speech in his MAGA hat as he spews political rhetoric on a platform he was elected as deserving of? Of course not. But, is Curt Schilling as a baseball player a worthy Hall of Fame candidacy? Absolutely. I’m not saying it’s an easy decision – but, we can’t single one person out because he’s especially egregious. More people feel how he feels in baseball than not. That’s the bigger issue, but I’m not sure it’s up to us to decide who’s actions are more or less severe than others.
Look, I’m not standing up for Curt Schilling’s social media conduct, his personal views, whether he’s a white supremacist or a provacateur online, etc.
But – according to Joe Posnanski – Schilling is one of only two players to win the Branch Rickey Award, the Roberto Clemente Award, the Lou Gehrig Award and the Hutch Award during his playing career- four awards based on character and charity. He raised a TON of money for MLS. (Posnanski’s “Baseball 100” write-up on Schilling is must-read, and as fair and balanced a take as I think you can find.)
Whether he’s a complex, imperfect person or a horrible, irredeemable person is a matter of personal opinion. But Curt Schilling’s “character” – whatever that means – is more complicated than pointing out the provocations he makes or the reactions he solicits on social media. I understand that those provocations and associations alone disqualify him in the minds of some. But like most of life, and most of humanity, he’s not “only” that person, and it’s not that simple.
And that’s why, at the end of the day, I agree with you – being honored in the Hall of Fame, our National baseball museum, should be about the individual’s contributions to the game and not about one’s conduct away from the field of play unless that conduct tarnishes the game itself.
D’oh. MLS should have been ALS. Raising money for major league soccer would have been interesting but not necessarily commendable.
That’s another aspect of it. I was born and raised in New England – he is revered for his charity work for MLS. He is a complicated case. The average person who isn’t on social media (which is a lot of people) would be surprised to hear how extreme he is in regards to his views and beliefs. Call it blissful ignorance or privilege (which it is), but the amount of people truly aware to his lunacy isn’t as widespread as people online think. That doesn’t excuse his behavior, and I’ve never excused it. Voters are holding Schilling accountable for his actions. The issue lies in the fact they overlook others who aren’t as blatantly bad.
I just think it should be all or nothing. I don’t understand why David, for instance, has the right to be the judge, jury, and executioner of who is more morally upstanding than others on the ballot. And again, that’s not a shot directly at David – he’s just the voter in this instance for a very broad problem. Schilling is exceedingly antagonistic towards journalists, which makes him a sensitive topic for the voter base. That’s by Schilling’s own doing, but I have expectations that the voters are consistent with their viewpoints on the ballot. If someone doesn’t vote for Schilling, but votes for Jones – you are expressing with your vote that you can look aside domestic abuse, but not extremist rhetoric. I’m sure David doesn’t feel this way, but that’s what his actions represent.
There needs to be precedent. Schilling is a case of blatant, loud-and-proud fascism. I won’t argue *for* him as a person anywhere. But, a voter better justify to me why they decided to look the other way for Jones or Clemens or Bonds and not Curt if that’s how they are making their decisions. Stand for something or don’t. Don’t just pick and choose based on what case impacted you more personally.
Scott Rolen….wow I won’t keep looking to Fangraphs for “expert” opinion. He never lead the league in any catagory.
“Two other players who didn’t get my vote were Todd Helton and Jeff Kent. I deliberated between those two and Sosa for my final checkmark, and ultimately opted for Sosa. As closely as I had them bunched, a future vote for Helton and/or Kent is very much a possibility.
Three more players did get my vote: Bobby Abreu, Andruw Jones, and Billy Wagner. Of them, Wagner was the easiest choice. Relievers tend to get short shrift in Hall voting, and while I understand why, that’s not always fair. On a rate basis, Wagner was as dominant as anyone.”
It’s admittedly still a fairly full ballot, depending on one’s views as it is a subjective exercise, which you mentioned. However, I would like to discuss two players here in particular. Todd Helton should be a fairly easy selection on this ballot. While it is a subjective exercise, I would hope nearly everyone would agree that a player must have a significant peak, where they are one of the best players in the game for a period of time, the length of the period will likely vary quite a bit from person to person. This, incidentally, is where Vizquel falls short, but clearly a LOT of voters are justigying career length as outweighing quality, or peak play if you will. Returning to Helton, his peak matches up with all of the Big Three 1B already elected from his era: Bagwell, Thomas, and Thome. I’m using peak as best 5 seasons from their careers, not consecutive seasons necessarily. I’m also using WAR, but you can use WAA as well if you like. I also look at prime over 10 best seasons to ensure the player has sufficient career length at a high level. From 2000-2004 Helton had and OPS+ of 160, which is a HOF peak if you care to look through the Hall’s hitters. It’s not Inner Circle, but it’s clearly HOF level. Thomas is inner circle, and Bagwell not far behind him, if you’re only looking at hitting, or OPS+. But we’re talking baseball, so even though we’re looking at 1B, defense still counts.
Moving over to WAR then we’ll see Helton with a peak 5 of 37.6 and prime 10 of 56.1, round it off however you like, or keep the decimal if you prefer. Bagwell, who is as inner circle as they come for modern 1B, is at 37.1 and 64.4. Clearly superior over the prime, but Helton is right there with him on peak. Thomas is 33.9 and 58.6, a tick behind on peak and a tick ahead on prime. Thome is 31.9 and 54.4, Helton solidly better on peak and a tick better on prime. Now all of these players have better career WAR, but Helton has plenty. In fact, his career WAR is comparable to McCovey and Killebrew, while he edges McCovey on peak and prime, and is solidly better than Killebrew on both. He also blows away Murray on both peak and prime, and while Murray clearly had the much longer career, if you look at Murray through a comparable number of plate appearances to Helton, Murray has 63.5 WAR to Helton’s career number of 61.2.
Another way to look at it is by determining the average HOF, and comparing a player, such as Helton, to the average. I separate HOF by position, of course, and use 1950 as a cutoff to look at different eras in a broad sense. Post 1950 integration is underway, followed relatively shortly by expansion, and to me it seems a logical place to draw the line. Given this we have eight 1B in the HOF (I include Killebrew and Cepeda although both played a good bit in other positions, but have Carew as a 2B). So the average career WAR for a post 1950 HOF 1B is 65.6, and Helton has 93% of that with a 61.2, and as mentioned he’s quite similar to McCovey and Killebrew who I don’t think anyone is saying are poor HOF selections, and not much behind Murray. On peak 5, however, he has 119%! And prime 10 he has 106%. He had a HOF bat, for a long enough period of peak and prime, even after adjusting for park, and he had a great glove on defense. To not vote for him on this ballot is perplexing, particularly when giving votes to Abreu, who is quite low on career WAR, as well as below average on peak and prime for a RF, and Wagner.
Relievers do not get short shrift on HOF voting. In fact, they are ridiculously over represented, and have been given far more recognition than they deserve. Hoyt Wilhelm was the first reliver elected in 1985. Why? Because until the 1960’s relievers were simply not a significant part of the game. The role began to evolve though, and Wilhelm was recognized as having been a great reliever, and a great pitcher, for a significant enough periof to be elected. The writers were recognizing the changing role of relievers. Fair enough, but it is still an extremely limited role. You note “on a rate basis” for Wagner. Why? Because he only pitched about 60 games and 65 innings per season in his prime, and only 903 for his entire career. Of course he was dominant on a rate basis, he only had to throw one inning at a time. There was no need for him to pace himself, to try to set up a batter for the third time he would be facing him in a game. All he had to do was throw his best stuff at his highest intensity, and he could call it a night. It’s vastly easier to be “dominant” one inning at a time than it is to sustain that over 6 or more innings. Sure, Wagner was a great one inning reliver, but 10 seasons in your entire career where you threw at leat 60 innings, and more than 80 only once, you just haven’t done enough to qualify for the HOF.
Returning to the idea that relievers have received short shrift, since Wilhelm was elected in 1985 the writers have put in more relievers than any other position player! And the VC elected to include Lee Smith. That’s 7 relievers by the writers plus 1 by the VC, while only electing 6 LF, and 5 at 1B, C, and RF. That’s absurd! Wagner is nowhere near as deserving a HOF vote as Helton, and most any other player on the ballot. Helton played more innings on defense in nearly every season of his career than Wagner pitched in his entire career! Wagner’s career WAR is only 74% of what Helton’s peak 5 seasons were! And for those who fixate on the Save, and how crucial the Closer is, Wagner only finished about 82% of the games he pitched in, so those 903 IP become even less important as he was not closing every game. His career Saves are less than 50% of his career games, 422 out of 853, so how can a guy who only fulfilled the role in about 50% of his games possibly be worth a HOF vote? I really hope next year you’ll reevaluate Helton and Wagner, and if you are still voting for 10 that Helton will take a slot away from Wagner. He’s clearly, IMO, more worthy of the vote.