The Envelope Please: Our 2021 Hall of Fame Crowdsource Ballot Results

The following article is part of Jay Jaffe’s ongoing look at the candidates on the BBWAA 2021 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. All WAR figures refer to the Baseball-Reference version unless otherwise indicated.

It would be only somewhat hyperbolic to say that the 2021 Hall of Fame election cycle was as contentious and polarizing as the presidential election that preceded it nearly three months ago, but let’s face it, this time around has not been a whole lot of fun. When Hall president Tim Mead opens the envelope to announce the results shortly after 6 pm ET on MLB Network on Tuesday evening, there’s a very good chance that the BBWAA voters will produce a shutout, the writers’ first since 2013 — a ballot that not-so-coincidentally is headlined by some of the same candidates who have split the electorate.

There’s no shutout from FanGraphs readers, however. In our third annual Hall of Fame crowdsource ballot, three candidates cleared the 75% bar, down from four last year and seven in 2019. Not surprisingly, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens did so, just as they’ve done in each of the past two years. However, both members of the gruesome twosome took a back seat to the top close-but-no-cigar candidate from our 2020 crowdsource ballot, and no, I don’t mean Curt Schilling.

Before I get to the results, a refresher on the process. As with the past two years, registered readers of our site (and participating staff, this scribe included) were allowed to choose up to 10 candidates while adhering to the same December 31, 2020 deadline as the actual voters, but unlike the writers, our voting was conducted electronically instead of on paper. This year, 1,152 users participated, a drop of exactly 20% from last year’s 1,440 voters, but one that’s understandable in light of our pandemic-related traffic dip as well as an apparent lack of enthusiasm towards a ballot that, quite frankly, is headed by heels, in that the top four returning candidates in terms of voting percentage have significant issues that would give any character-minded voter pause.

Schilling’s lengthy laundry list of transgressions — including Islamophobic and transphobic social media posts that long ago cost him his job as an analyst at ESPN, as well as his sharing a tweet in support of lynching journalists — interrupted his trajectory towards election, though last year, he pulled to the doorstep of Cooperstown with 70% of the vote, a position from which 20 out of 21 candidates who still had eligibility remaining were elected the following year. Apparently determined to test the percentages, he could not resist adding fuel to the fire during the presidential election cycle by spewing election-related conspiracy theories; sharing a call for martial law; and comparing Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, to a Nazi. After the December 31 voting deadline, he also tweeted his support of the insurrectionists who stormed the U.S. Capitol building on January 6. Reportedly, at least one voter (and perhaps multiple ones) have contacted the Hall about the possibility of rescinding their votes for him. No dice.

Bonds and Clemens, of course, were superstars, albeit ones credibly connected to the use of performance-enhancing drugs, though at a time before MLB could test and penalize for them. Both have additional allegations as well, namely accusations of domestic abuse against the former, and an inappropriate relationship with a minor against the latter.

Omar Vizquel, already a polarizing candidate given the gap between the impressions of his fielding prowess and raw statistics versus what the advanced numbers tell us, was accused of domestic abuse by his wife on Instagram Live in October, setting off an investigation by The Athletic’s Katie Strang that revealed multiple incidents of violence.

Fun stuff, right? Per the Hall of Fame Ballot Tracker, all four have shed support from returning voters who published their ballots prior to the election, with Vizquel losing the most (a net of 12 votes) as of 12:01 AM ET on January 26.

Anyhow, here are our crowdsource results:

Hall of Fame Crowdsource: 2021 vs. 2021
Player YoB 2021 Crowdsource 2020 Crowdsource Change
Scott Rolen 4th 84.5% 73.6% 10.9%
Barry Bonds 9th 83.0% 82.1% 0.9%
Roger Clemens 9th 82.0% 80.9% 1.1%
Andruw Jones 4th 67.9% 55.1% 12.8%
Todd Helton 3rd 63.6% 49.0% 14.6%
Gary Sheffield 7th 59.0% 46.7% 12.3%
Curt Schilling 9th 54.9% 67.0% -12.1%
Billy Wagner 6th 53.6% 41.1% 12.5%
Manny Ramirez 5th 53.5% 53.0% 0.5%
Sammy Sosa 9th 40.0% 23.3% 16.7%
Bobby Abreu 2nd 29.9% 20.1% 9.8%
Andy Pettitte 3rd 26.5% 20.1% 6.4%
Jeff Kent 8th 24.7% 18.5% 6.2%
Omar Vizquel 4th 13.7% 11.1% 2.6%
Mark Buehrle 1st 13.5%
Tim Hudson 1st 6.3%
Torii Hunter 1st 4.5%
Aramis Ramirez 1st 1.0%
Dan Haren 1st 0.8%
Barry Zito 1st 0.7%
LaTroy Hawkins 1st 0.5%
A.J. Burnett 1st 0.3%
Shane Victorino 1st 0.3%
Michael Cuddyer 1st 0.2%
Nick Swisher 1st 0.2%

Where Schilling has received the highest share of the vote according to the ballots published in the Tracker (75.3% at this writing, through 172 public ballots and 10 anonymous ones), his share was just the seventh-highest via our crowdsource, and what’s more, he was the only one of the 14 returning candidates to lose ground, doing so by a double-digit percentage. Meanwhile, our voters were overwhelmingly in favor of Rolen, who’s above the JAWS standard at third base and whose arguments, for and against, are simply about his on-field performance rather than his conduct. After Bonds and Clemens, whose support barely budged, our voters also favored Jones, Helton, and Sheffield, all of whose candidacies do have their warts, performance and otherwise, more than Schilling. Two other candidates, Wagner and Manny Ramirez, weren’t far behind. Sosa made the biggest jump of all relative to last year’s crowdsource, and while even the candidates who don’t fare particularly well in JAWS and other advanced metrics gained ground, it’s notable that Vizquel, Kent, and Pettitte posted the fourth- through sixth-lowest gains.

Elsewhere, every candidate received at least two votes from our readers, though only two, Buehrle and Hudson, cleared the 5% bar that would be needed to remain eligible beyond 2021.

As for some general trends, our voters were less generous than in previous years when it came to the average number of candidates per ballot and the percentage of voters using all 10 spots. While we don’t have 2021 BBWAA numbers yet, our voters have been more generous in both departments than the actual voters:

Crowdsource vs. BBWAA Ballot Trends
Ballot Names per ballot % Using 10 slots
2021 Crowd 7.63 36%
2020 Crowd 8.37 51%
2019 Crowd 9.41 78%
2020 BBWAA 6.61 21%
2019 BBWAA 8.01 43%

Five of our voters turned in blank ballots, up from two last year, but where that latter pair presumably wanted to ensure that Derek Jeter wasn’t unanimous in our poll (he got “only” 89.9%), this time around the protest was presumably more general.

Per developer Sean Dolinar, who deserves an annual tip of the cap not only for building our crowdsource ballot but also providing me with the voting data in several shapes and forms that I didn’t even know I wanted, there were 752 different ballot combinations including the blank, down from 861 last year but up from 660 the year before. A honking 584 of the 752 combos appeared just once, while five combos appeared at least 10 times (down from 13 such combos last year). Here are the most frequent combinations:

Most Popular 2021 Crowdsource Ballot Combinations
Players Total Votes Total Ballots
Bonds, Rolen, Clemens, Wagner, Helton, Sosa, Ramirez, Sheffield, Jones, Schilling 10 21
Bonds, Rolen, Abreu, Clemens, Wagner, Helton, Sosa, Ramirez, Sheffield, Jones 10 20
Bonds, Rolen, Pettitte, Clemens, Helton, Sosa, Ramirez, Sheffield, Jones, Schilling 10 15
Bonds, Rolen, Abreu, Clemens, Helton, Sosa, Ramirez, Sheffield, Jones, Schilling 10 10
Bonds, Rolen, Pettitte, Clemens, Wagner, Helton, Sosa, Ramirez, Sheffield, Jones 10 10
Bonds, Rolen, Abreu, Clemens, Wagner, Helton, Ramirez, Sheffield, Jones, Schilling 10 9
Bonds, Rolen, Clemens, Wagner, Helton, Jones, Schilling 7 8
Bonds, Rolen, Clemens, Jones 4 7
Bonds, Rolen, Clemens, Wagner, Sosa, Ramirez, Sheffield, Jones, Schilling 9 7
Kent, Bonds, Rolen, Abreu, Clemens, Wagner, Helton, Sheffield, Jones, Schilling 10 7
Kent, Bonds, Rolen, Clemens, Wagner, Helton, Ramirez, Sheffield, Jones, Schilling 10 7

All of the most common ballots included a “Big Four” of Bonds, Clemens, Rolen, and Jones — and for seven voters, that was the entirety of their ballots. Helton, Sheffield, and Wagner were each in nine of the top 11 combos, while Schilling was in eight, Sosa in six, Abreu in four, and Kent in two.

My own ballot, which I cast for real for the first time and replicated via our crowdsource, omitted Schilling while including Abreu, Bonds, Clemens, Helton, Jones, Rolen, Sheffield, Sosa, and Wagner. That exact combination was matched exactly once within our set. I’m not sure whether to congratulate that unidentified voter or recommend they seek help for having their brain untangled.

Anyway, as the election results approach, it’s worth comparing our crowdsource results to the 182 published ballots in the Tracker as of 12:01 AM on Tuesday morning, an estimated 46.0% of the electorate:

HOF Ballot Tracker vs. Crowdsource
Player YoB Tracker Crowdsource Dif
Curt Schilling 9th 75.3% 54.9% -20.4%
Barry Bonds 9th 72.5% 83.0% 10.5%
Roger Clemens 9th 72.0% 82.0% 10.0%
Scott Rolen 4th 62.1% 84.5% 22.4%
Todd Helton 3rd 50.5% 63.6% 13.1%
Gary Sheffield 7th 46.7% 59.0% 12.3%
Billy Wagner 6th 45.6% 53.6% 8.0%
Andruw Jones 4th 40.7% 67.9% 27.2%
Omar Vizquel 4th 40.7% 13.7% -27.0%
Manny Ramirez 5th 33.5% 53.5% 20.0%
Jeff Kent 8th 32.4% 24.7% -7.7%
Sammy Sosa 9th 22.0% 40.0% 18.0%
Andy Pettitte 3rd 15.9% 26.5% 10.6%
Bobby Abreu 2nd 12.1% 29.9% 17.8%
Mark Buehrle 1st 7.7% 13.5% 5.8%
Torii Hunter 1st 4.9% 4.5% -0.4%
Tim Hudson 1st 3.8% 6.3% 2.5%
Aramis Ramirez 1st 0.5% 1.0% 0.5%
LaTroy Hawkins 1st 0.5% 0.5% 0.0%
A.J. Burnett 1st 0.0% 0.3% 0.3%
Barry Zito 1st 0.0% 0.7% 0.7%
Dan Haren 1st 0.0% 0.8% 0.8%
Michael Cuddyer 1st 0.0% 0.2% 0.2%
Nick Swisher 1st 0.0% 0.2% 0.2%
Shane Victorino 1st 0.0% 0.3% 0.3%
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/hof2021
Tracker results based on 172 public ballots + 10 anonymous ballots as of 12:01 am ET on January 26.

Jones, Rolen, Manny Ramirez, and Sosa are all tracking at least 18 points lower than our crowdsource; the first two players have cases built firmly on defensive metrics and the last two have links to PEDs, and while there’s a world of difference with regards to being caught and suspended twice (Manny) than being reported as having failed the survey test (both Manny and Sammy), they’re kind of lumped together in the not-Bonds, not-Clemens PED morass. Abreu, Sheffield, Helton, Pettitte, Bonds and Clemens — a mix of PED guys and stathead favorites — are in the 10-to-18 points lower range. At the other end of the spectrum, Schilling, Vizquel, and to a lesser extent Kent are tracking much better than they fared here.

So, will anybody be elected? I really don’t think so. While Schilling, Bonds, and Clemens are all tracking above 70% at this writing, and while there might be another 30 or so ballots added to the Tracker before the results are announced, one need only look at the public/private splits of that trio’s 2020 support to know that there probably aren’t enough voters hiding in the woodwork to put them over the top:

Public vs. Private Splits For Candidates Tracking 70% or Higher
Player 2021 Pre (182) 2020 Pre (219) 2020 Post (115) 2020 Private (63)
Curt Schilling 75.3% 77.3% 66.7% 50.8%
Barry Bonds 72.5% 70.9% 50.9% 42.9%
Roger Clemens 72.0% 70.0% 51.8% 46.0%
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/hof2021
Pre: ballots published prior to the announcement of election results (12:01 am ET January 26 for 2021). Post: ballots published after the announcement of election results. Private: ballots not published.

Yow. While the number of ballots in the post-election and private groups are both smaller than the pre-election one, those are some precipitous drops. Schilling’s support on post-election published ballots last year was 11.6% lower than his pre-election share, and his support on private ballots was 26.5% lower. For Bonds and Clemens, the drops from pre- to post-election published ballots were in the neighborhood of 20%, and from pre- to private 28.0% for Bonds, 24.0% for Clemens.

That’s my back-of-the-envelope analysis. For another view, here’s the projection through 163 published ballots from Jason Sardell, who for the last two years has been the most accurate of the handful of Hall of Fame vote projectionists.

Schilling’s 0.3% chance translates to a 1-in-333 shot. Looking back at our 2020 preseason Playoff Odds page, 0.3% is the same chance we gave the Orioles of winning a Wild Card Seres, and the Marlins of winning the National League Championship Series. Neither of those things happened, of course, but the Marlins came closer than anyone expected, winning a Wild Card Series (the odds of which we estimated at 3.1% at the start of the season) before bowing out in the Division Series.

In other words, the odds of Schilling being elected this year are very long, and in all likelihood, we’ll see a shutout. While that will feel anticlimactic to many observers, true Hallheads will be able to look to the middle of the ballot for more encouraging news, because the tea leaves suggest that Rolen, Helton, Jones, Sheffield, and Wagner are poised to make substantial gains. I’ll be back on Tuesday evening with a closer look at the results.





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. Follow him on Twitter @jay_jaffe.

newest oldest most voted
WriterNeilR
Member

Punishing Schilling for his political beliefs is disgusting and unjust. Players should be voted in based on their play not their opinions. Clemens and Bonds cheated so that’s one thing, but Schilling is being punished for utilizing his freedom of speech.

EonADS
Member
EonADS

Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment. Neither are threats of violence. Schilling has used his platform, such as it is, for hate speech and threats of/advocating for violence towards people he dislikes. The issue is more complicated than that, but the basic premise of your argument is incorrect.

Tim Wiegand
Member
Member
Tim Wiegand

Hate speech is protected by the first amendment. Threats of violence are not. The issue is complicated, but making untrue claims does not add clarity.

Curacao LL
Member
Curacao LL

Hate Speech is most certainly protected by the First Amendment.
See, among others:
Matal vs Tam, 582 US 2017
where SCOTUS said that even a hateful trademark can be registered for commercial purposes.

gvanlue
Member
gvanlue

Why are we even talking about the First Amendment here? Nobody is depriving Schilling of his right to free speech, or to hate speech even, if they choose not to vote for him. There is absolutely nothing they are taking away from him if they don’t vote for him!

Curacao LL
Member
Curacao LL

Agreed in a sense.
I just wanted to correct the ludicrous notion that there’s a Hate Speech exception to 1A.
If somebody posted that Mike Piazza bought a Sumo School in Japan (it was a soccer team in Italy; it didn’t end well), I’d probably point that out too.

jrogers
Member
Member
jrogers

Nah, it’s right here: “Congress shall make no law, nor shall the Baseball Writers’ Association of America punish any Hall of Fame candidate, …”

Hm, this is from the internet, might not be accurate.

rounders
Member
rounders

Your hate speech is protected by cancel culture, Shilling’s is not. Credit to Shilling that he doesn’t care.
There’s a large army of virtue snivelers on Fangraphs, and odds are great that none of them ever hit a fastball.

gvanlue
Member
gvanlue

No one is punishing Schilling. He’s not being deprived of anything that he has a right to.

Curacao LL
Member
Curacao LL

Suppose one of your staffers is up for promotion.
The promotion would raise her public profile.
She’s otherwise qualified, but you think she’s ugly and don’t want her ugliness being a Face of the Company.
Can you deny her a promotion because you think she’s ugly?

gvanlue
Member
gvanlue

Sure you can, if you are not under any obligation to promote anyone,

Jason B
Member
Member
Jason B

Wait, how is this example in any way related?

seattlefan68
Member
Member
seattlefan68

Ah yes, ugliness and threatening to kill political enemies and critics are one and the same.

MikeS
Member
Member
MikeS

Somebody skipped the “false equivalence” chapter in the textbook.

Jason B
Member
Member
Jason B

“Let me say whatever I want with no consequences!” – people who misunderstand the first amendment

(Not saying I would or would not support Schilling’s candidacy, but expressing your less-than-informed views freely, openly, and repeatedly can carry consequences. This has been well established but continues to be misunderstood, probably willfully at this point.)

In other words, you want to say dumb, dumb things, you need to be prepared to accept what comes with it, regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum.

Pirates Hurdles
Member
Member
Pirates Hurdles

I think a better way to put that argument is that many of these guys in the Hall and among the writers have said or written terrible things. Its pretty sanctimonious of the writers to play moral arbiters on a case by case basis. I for one did not buy Jay’s argument against Schilling. At the end of the day its a museum of the games greats flaws and all IMO.

gvanlue
Member
gvanlue

Saying that it’s OK to induct Schilling because there are already a lot of jerks in the Hall is the weakest-sauce of all of the arguments. Instead of learning from mistakes of the past, we should let those mistakes be the excuse to grandfather in future mistakes?

Jason B
Member
Member
Jason B

On one hand, I can kind of see that argument…but if you had a qualified candidate who espoused pedophilia or was an avowed Holocaust denier, or repeatedly called for the outright extermination of their political enemies, would you check that box?

Not at all saying that Schilling did any of the above, but I am perfectly fine with voters deciding their limits for themselves. The voters are adults and as long as they can have some internal consistency with their votes and apply their character considerations equally and fairly, then I’m OK with it.

OddBall Herrera
Member
OddBall Herrera

“as long as they can have some internal consistency with their votes and apply their character considerations equally and fairly, then I’m OK with it.”

Isn’t this the issue though? People will apply their own standards, which will make voting totally arbitrary and the standards for admission inscrutable. And we know there won’t be any internal consistency, there never is. There will be excuses for speech you agree with and condemnation for speech you don’t.

gvanlue
Member
gvanlue

Isn’t any vote arbitrary anyway? If you choose to have people vote on something, whatever it may be, you know in advance they are going to apply their own standards. You know there is always the chance that they will vote for LaTroy Hawkins, or Trump, or Boaty McBoatface. That’s the risk you take in sharing a decision, and expecting internal consistency only leads to bloated columns from voters who feel compelled to justify their ballots.

carter
Member
Member
carter

Good thing no one voting Huff in, then

Alby
Member
Member
Alby

And others, including Hall voters, have a different opinion. Live with it.

sadtrombone
Member
Member
sadtrombone

Oh, this is going to be a fun comments section. I can tell already.

Jason B
Member
Member
Jason B

Cue Michael Jackson eating popcorn 🙂

richwp01
Member
Member
richwp01

Schilling (and Pete Rose), can go in the HOF when they are not longer living in this world. No need to amplify them today. No one is entitled to Hall of Fame enshrinement. He is not being punished; voters just don’t want to amplify his voice by letting him attach “Hall of Fame” to his name.

Jim Brice
Member
Member
Jim Brice

Straight from the HoF Policy Doc:

“5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”

TKDC
Member
Member
TKDC

I included Schilling, but your screed is nonsense. Sometimes people disagree with you. Maybe grow up and just deal with it? At this point I refuse to believe that people don’t know that this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. So, really you are just trying to wrap your nonsense in the Constitution to give your screed legitimacy. I’ll give you some free advice. This does not work. You are convincing no one. Your argument is wet garbage.

Jason B
Member
Member
Jason B

Elucidate exactly how this is a “freedom of speech” issue.

(This will be fun!)

OddBall Herrera
Member
OddBall Herrera

People do need to be able to distinguish between Freedom of Speech as a constitutional right, which is protected against government infringement, and Freedom of Speech as a principle we believe has value in society in general. It’s pedantic to treat the question as if it’s only the former, and all too often in arguments like this people hide behind this when, I think we can all agree, the marketplace of ideas and freedom of expression are principles worth valuing even in cases where it’s not strictly a Constitutional question. Otherwise, for the sake of consistency, I’m sure everyone here will agree then that there are no ‘freedom of speech’ issues implicated by blackballing Kaepernick from the NFL for kneeling. I mean, to use some arguments from above – freedom of speech doesn’t protect you from consequences, right? He can speak all he wants but we don’t have to give him a job, right?

Jason B
Member
Member
Jason B

I think that’s fair. And to be consistent, no, no one “owes” Kaepernick a job. He received the consequences of his actions. It’s amusing, though, that this directly worked against some teams self-interest in winning, as he was probably better than a handful of starters when he left the NFL, and was certainly better than about three-quarters of backups (some who were pressed into action over the years, and most with predictably poor results). So the owners also received the consequences of their decisions, too.

And (b) it’s an interesting place to be mentally to equivocate (or even deem superior) calling for martial law and supporting insurrectionists with “hey, maybe don’t shoot so many black guys?” I mean, I guess you can get there but those are some dazzling mental gymnastics…

OddBall Herrera
Member
OddBall Herrera

I agree, there is a huge qualitative gap between what Schilling expresses and what Kaepernick does, though I do have my issues with Kaepernick. Don’t take from my argument that I am equating their messages. And frankly, I do see that on a macro level people speaking and then the crowd reacting is how the whole ‘marketplace of ideas’ thing works in the first place. You don’t treat ideas as equal, the cruddy ones are encouraged to go extinct, and you don’t have to respect idiots.

So I get that. But what I don’t like is the idea that we should be proactively banishing ideas from the marketplace by deplatforming people, introducing speech purity tests where they don’t belong, equating speech with violence (with calls to respond accordingly), banishing people from access to wealth and society, etc. That is, in the analogy of the marketplace, anti-competitive behavior and fundamentally anti-free speech as a *principle*. In short – I get that there’s a difference in content, but from my perspective, content policing is content policing, and you either believe in a society where that’s ok, with all the nastiness that’s guaranteed to come with it, or you don’t.

Alby
Member
Member
Alby

From my perspective, what you think about it really doesn’t matter. Arguing about “principle” when the subject is enriching a person by electing him to the Hall of Fame is absurd.

OddBall Herrera
Member
OddBall Herrera

“Why should we reward a schmuck” is losing the forest for the trees. The principle is involved because it’s about more than Schilling, it’s about what the HoF is about and even broader societal questions about speech. I have stated this before, I am not out to defend Schilling, I am simply raising the red flag that there are consequences to the mindset that every facet of public life should be made into a reward or punishment for conformity.

I don’t know, like I said below, as worked up as I get about these issues I am actually happy it worked out this way. He in my estimate deserves to get in, but we could all use a break from his crowd.

Dave from DC
Member
Member
Dave from DC

Wait, I think TKDC’s point is being misunderstood. Wasn’t his comment meant as a response to WriterNeilR, informing the latter that this is NOT a free speech issue? That’s how I understand TKDC, and he’s certainly right, but other replies are clearly reading him differently.

TKDC
Member
Member
TKDC

You are correct, though I don’t know why people disagree with me. I guess my sentence could have been clearer. This isn’t a freedom of speech issue and after having this explained every single time something like this arises, I don’t believe the crowd arguing that it is a freedom of speech issue is ignorant of this fact. They know it isn’t, they want to defend the indefensible, Schilling’s words, so they wrap their nonsense in a bogus free speech shit sandwich.

OddBall Herrera
Member
OddBall Herrera

You know, I’ve been probably louder out here than anyone about how Schilling’s political beliefs have no place in HoF voting, but after the past few weeks I am at peace with the notion that an induction ceremony featuring only him is not what the country needs at the moment.

sadtrombone
Member
Member
sadtrombone

It’s been interesting watching my own opinions morph from “Schilling is an absolute, no-doubt, slam-dunk Hall of Famer, despite everything” in 2014 to “I see why other people might not want to vote for him” in 2016ish to “it’s no longer possible to divorce his behavior from the context” in 2018 to “I never want to think about him again” in 2020. Some dark stuff going on in the world, and I don’t need anything else to bring me down.

OddBall Herrera
Member
OddBall Herrera

Yeah, I am not inclined to take things that happen on Twitter particularly seriously, nor take people who take things that happen on Twitter particularly seriously particularly seriously. But I think we crossed a line here where it doesn’t serve the hall well to associate their brand to his right now, and it’s just a piss poor time to hand out megaphones to idiots. Give it a year, let people move on from this election (hopefully they will) and then put him in.

sadtrombone
Member
Member
sadtrombone

I said this before, but if I were a voter I would be perfectly fine punting the decision to the Veterans Committee. Just wash my hands of the whole thing.

Smiling Politely
Member
Member
Smiling Politely

There’s a line, and I think it’s ok to say, “Hey, this guy crossed it, and for me, there’s no going back.” If someone else wants to vote for Schilling for the HoF (not, ya know, for office), fine–I hate it, but fine. But I don’t want a redemption narrative for him. I don’t want us to all forget about it. I want him to be the one who reminds us that a line exists, and we need to be honest and clear about where we draw it and why before we end up having this conversation again.

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

They are avoiding giving him a vote because they think he is mean or rude and disagree with his lack of political correctness. Highly unfortunate.

sbf21
Member
sbf21

Saying that Schilling is rude, mean, and non-PC is short of the truth by several orders of magnitude.

He is hateful, a believer and spreader of lies and conspiracy theories, an inciter to violence, and as we see now, anti-American.

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

Those things are more a matter of opinion.

Alby
Member
Member
Alby

Yes, some people have the noxious opinion that everything he says is A-OK. If you’re one of them, you’re noxious, too.

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

I said they were sometimes rude and tactless. Not A-OK. There is a difference.

darkness88
Member
darkness88

They are NOT a matter of opinion, and rude and tactless is a massive understatement.

docgooden85
Member
Member
docgooden85

How about you give me a quick list of all the Hall of Famers who have advocated the violent overtaking of the U.S. government? (bonus if it’s not theoretical but referring to actual attempts)

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

overtaking of the U.S. government? An attempt at that hasn’t occurred in centuries.

a different brad
Member
a different brad

You mean weeks.

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

Those at a rally ended up getting out of control and did something stupid at the capital. Trying to claim that it was an attempt to overtake the government is an insane stretch that has only been stated because it serves the agenda of the left.

a different brad
Member
a different brad

Or because their stated goal on video inside the Capitol was to interrupt the democratic transition of power to Biden and kill Pence and Democratic Congresspeople.

Alby
Member
Member
Alby

You, my friend, don’t have the faintest notion of what they think. You’re projecting.

pntb
Member
pntb

the bloody sock was a false flag! He’s not a playoff hero! I prefer players who don’t fake injuries…

Alby
Member
Member
Alby

No, he’s being punished for how he uses his freedom of speech. Consequences — what are they?

soddingjunkmail
Member
Member
soddingjunkmail
Mario Mendoza
Member
Member
Mario Mendoza

game set match

Shattenjager
Member
Shattenjager

Neither the First nor the Fourteenth Amendment applies to any BBWAA voter’s choices.

drewsylvania
Member
Member
drewsylvania

No, he’s being punished for being a bad person.