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:
| 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:
| 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:
| 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:
| 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% |
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:
| 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% |
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.
Baseball Hall of Fame results will be announced two days from now, but here are the current "unskewed" trends based on 163 ballots in @NotMrTibbs's Tracker. Still looks like we're going to see a shutout. pic.twitter.com/H9TvpzSY0U
— Jason Sardell (@sarsdell) January 24, 2021
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, and a Hall of Fame voter since 2021. Follow him on BlueSky @jayjaffe.bsky.social.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
No one is punishing Schilling. He’s not being deprived of anything that he has a right to.
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?
Sure you can, if you are not under any obligation to promote anyone,
Wait, how is this example in any way related?
Ah yes, ugliness and threatening to kill political enemies and critics are one and the same.
Somebody skipped the “false equivalence” chapter in the textbook.
“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.
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.
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?
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.
“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.
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.
Good thing no one voting Huff in, then
And others, including Hall voters, have a different opinion. Live with it.
Oh, this is going to be a fun comments section. I can tell already.
Cue Michael Jackson eating popcorn 🙂
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.
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.”
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.
Elucidate exactly how this is a “freedom of speech” issue.
(This will be fun!)
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?
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…
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Those things are more a matter of opinion.
Yes, some people have the noxious opinion that everything he says is A-OK. If you’re one of them, you’re noxious, too.
I said they were sometimes rude and tactless. Not A-OK. There is a difference.
They are NOT a matter of opinion, and rude and tactless is a massive understatement.
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)
overtaking of the U.S. government? An attempt at that hasn’t occurred in centuries.
You mean weeks.
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.
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.
You, my friend, don’t have the faintest notion of what they think. You’re projecting.
the bloody sock was a false flag! He’s not a playoff hero! I prefer players who don’t fake injuries…
No, he’s being punished for how he uses his freedom of speech. Consequences — what are they?
obligatory:
https://xkcd.com/1357/
game set match
Neither the First nor the Fourteenth Amendment applies to any BBWAA voter’s choices.
No, he’s being punished for being a bad person.
I’m always a bit surprised by how little support Gary Sheffield gets. To my eyes, he’s an all time great bat, and the PED allegations against him are weak at best.
Yeah being friends with Barry is his link right, one report about the cream or clear. The counting stats are there and his WAR takes a big hit by defense, which is weird to apply if you ding him, but won;t give credit to Rolen/Andruw as many of the voters apparently feel. He isnt inner circle, but he certainly is above Jim Rice level.
There is an interesting comparison to Fred McGriff that I’ve made before. Now, Sheffield was slightly better overall on offense (141 to 134 wRC+, yes that is “slightly” better). I’m not sure Sheffield is getting any more credit for being considered something of a liability at tougher positions compared to McGriff being your prototypical first baseman. Both played for a bunch of teams and a casual fan could very well not name close to all of them, never winning MVPs. Sheffield actually did pass the arbitrary milestone with 509 HR to McGriff’s 493, but McGriff had zero steroid speculation and was always considered a great guy by everyone in baseball. He also does have the connection to the 90s Braves. Still, he never got close to 75 percent. So, sure, I will believe that Sheffield would be doing better without the questionable ties to steroids, but there is also reason to believe he would struggle to make it regardless.
Sheffield admitted he took the clear and the cream (thinking it is legal) in front of the grand jury.
We can debate about whether that is enough to disqualify him, how much credit we should give him for coming clean or the likelihood of his version of the story being accurate, but classifying it as “weak at best PED allegations” is misleading at best.
Sheffield also consistently said that he had no idea whatsoever that what he was using were steroids (and really, did anyone think there was a topical ointment for administering anabolic steroids in 1999), and when he learned what it was he immediately cut all ties with Bonds & BALCO and came fully and completely clean about his use without being shamed into doing so. Rafael Palmeiro’s laughable “vitamin B injection” nonsense this ain’t. If any player from any era post-1955 or so deserves the benefit of the doubt where steroid use is concerned, it’s Sheffield.
Your comment is filled with inaccurate falsehoods.
1. Sheffield also took oral pills called “red beans” which were steroid pills so your argument about ‘hard to imagine topical ointments were steroids back then’ doesn’t really work.
2. Sheffield did not cut ties with BALCO because he learned they were steroids. He cut ties because of a minor personal beef with Bonds (because he had to take a cab to workout).
3. Sheffield did not come clean out of nowhere. He came clean in front of the federal grand jury because he was a witness in BALCO investigation.
Look, I don’t want to judge Sheffield too harshly.
I do believe that BALCO guys never told him ‘we are giving you steroids.’
It seems plausible that Sheffield was genuinely tricked.
But I also think it is possible that Sheffield didn’t do due diligence on what he was putting in his body (possibly in order to maintain plausible deniability) and then got ahead of the story.
https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/SHEFFIELD-S-SIDE-Slugger-testified-Bonds-told-2667408.php
“He cut ties because of a minor personal beef with Bonds (because he had to take a cab to workout).”
This is the most Gary Sheffield thing ever. The only real character clause thing to ding him on is you don’t buy his story on steroids, because the rest of the “character clause” issues are truly petty stuff like this. Gary Sheffield’s other transgressions are like the passive-aggressive neighbor who leaves notes on your door about the fact you haven’t mowed your lawn.
LaTroy Hawkins has a vote in the ballot tracker!
*scrolls down*
Ah, it’s Bob Nightengale.
*googles Bob Nightengale*
“Opinion: Why I voted for LaTroy Hawkins on my Baseball Hall of Fame ballot.”
Glad he has some self-awareness.
To me, the question is when the voters get bored of not putting anyone in. Scott Rolen will probably get in eventually, although whether it is before or after Beltre (the only candidate everyone’s going to be excited for since Jeter) I wouldn’t be able to say.
I assume that once Bonds, Clemens, and Schilling leave the ballot after 2022 (whether as a result of being voted in or surpassing the 10th year of eligibility) we will see several campaigns to elect guys like Rolen and Helton. Presumably, these campaigns will be boosted both by Big-Hall voters who hadn’t voted for those candidates in the past and suddenly have three free votes, as well as the natural passage of time which seems to grow potential inductees’ vote shares naturally.
…and that people will have something to argue about that isn’t PEDs or public jackassery
There is beauty in a knee-buckling curveball, a towering home run, and most especially in Omar Vizquel’s glove. I don’t think anyone can honestly stand here and say that they believe the metrics over what they saw that guy do on the field. Stats can’t be everything (especially defensive metrics).
I’m a bit of an anomaly in the world of baseball statistics in that I believe you should be judged more heavily on the thing you spend 98% of each game doing: playing defense. And I never saw anyone who played defense better than Omar Vizquel.
Obviously, Omar’s offensive production is lacking, but he was as much a product of the generation as any player. The Indians batted him second behind Lofton and asked him to bunt, slap, hit to the right side, and beat out double plays. I don’t know if he had more power in him but it wasn’t like Cleveland was going to try to find out.
So, as I mentioned above, there are certain parts of sport that transcend numbers – a pitcher’s repertoire, a runningback’s grace, a captain’s leadership – and the glove of Omar Vizquel.
Hard sell on stats website.
my mistake – I thought this was a baseball website.
Yeah, it is, but it doesn’t cater to people who ignore statistics and watch a lot of Sports Center.
well I guess it’s a good thing I haven’t watched sportscenter since like 1997.
My open question to all on this website is always “do you even enjoy watching baseball, or are you just calculating standard deviations with every pitch?”
dan I am totally with you. If I presented the argument shortstop with over 2800 hits, 11 gold gloves and the highest fielding percentage of all time you’d think automatic hall of famer, unless you’re on fan graphs. Everyone loves Rolen and an argument can be made for him, I’d just like to hear it without using WAR or JAWS. Tell me what he actually did.
I know this might seem like a crazy arguement, but why should the Hall of Fame be solely about stats? Sure, 90% of the hall of fame discussion is going to, and should be, stats based. But I don’t see why other factors can’t be part of the discussion .
A few examples: Ichiro has the stats, but even if they fell a little short, he had a huge cultural impact and was in many ways the first Asian player to become a start. Also, I always believed that Curt Flood should get HOF consideration for the impact he had.
Not sure if Vizquel fits this description (I wouldn’t vote for him), but I can see someone being swayed by outlier players.
Great defense. Mediocre player
i’d take 2800 career hits and 400 career steals in a 20-year career any day.
If that’s what you consider mediocre, you’ve got some ridiculously high standards.
42.5 career WAR is mediocre?!
Mediocre means average. He averaged 2 WAR a year, that’s an average player.
Ahhh, of course. So his overall career must have been average, then? Your argument is laughable–there is no meaningful sense in which Vizquel’s career was mediocre.
Edit: Vizquel appears on the 10th page of the career WAR leaderboard for batters. There are 126 pages after that.
He played in the majors for 24 seasons (1989-2012) so his overall WAR should be higher than most. You could argue that his tenure is the one non-mediocre aspect of his career vs. his overall performance. .688 career OPS? ouch.
I’m aware he did it with longevity, though it should be noted that he peaked as a 6-win player, so it’s not like he was a 2-win metronome, and his final five seasons actually contributed -1.3 WAR. Even if you ding him for hanging around, it doesn’t move him from top 7.5% of MLB hitters to middle of the pack. That longevity is a skill, too.
Also, it’s clear that tenure wasn’t the ONLY non-mediocre element of his career–I hear talk he was pretty good with a glove (and on many occasions, his bare hands).
You’re right about his bare hands. Just ask his wife.
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/30530591/ex-all-star-omar-vizquel-accused-domestic-violence
That’s horrible, and I’m fully in favor of keeping guys out of the Hall for failures of character. In this context, I’m talking strictly about measuring his success on the field, which isn’t worthy of the Hall, but also isn’t mediocre.
The stats say very good, not great.
I don’t think OV was a mediocre player, just nowhere near good enough with his defense (which, BTW, was great) to offset his poor offense. You have to be stuck in the Stone Age to talk about the hits.
I sure hope you have this level of passion for Barry Zito, too.
The fearsomeness of Jim Rice in the batters box in the late 70’s transcends numbers too. Obviously, his footspeed in his later years was lacking, but he was as much a product of the generation as anyone. I don’t know if he had more good years left in his knees but it’s not like the Red Sox trainers at the time were going to find out (spray on some ethyl chloride to numb the pain, then tough it out 🙂 )
There was beauty in those lousy kneecaps that revolved around the house, especially in Omar Viskele’s gloves. I don’t think anyone can honestly stand here and say they believe in the numbers they see this guy making money on the field. Statistics cannot be everything (especially defense statistics).
I’m a bit unusual in the world of afternoon baseball statistics and I believe you should be judged more on what you spend 98% of every game: playing in defense. And I’ve never seen anyone play more defensively than Omar Visquelea.
It is obvious that Omar’s attacking product is flawed, but he is a product of a generation no less and no more than any other player. The Indians hit him second behind Lofton and asked him to rebel, slap, hit right and win the double game I don’t know if he has a mansion, but it’s not like Cleveland would try to find out.
So, as I said above, there are some parts of the sport that go beyond numbers – the terrain, the grace of the back wing, the captain’s lead – and Omar Wiskele’s gloves.
If nothing else, he should get in for having his name misspelled three different ways.
Solid.
I genuinely thought this was satire
“Eckstein’s hustle made him an HOFer in my opinion.”
Well that would be a crappy take. But you’re entitled to your opinion, I guess, regardless of how much he hustled.
0.3% is a 1 in 333 shot.
The first table shows Change as a percent; it should be percentage points.
“Schilling’s 0.3% chance translates to a 1-in-33 shot.”
Wouldn’t that translate into a 1-in-333 shot?
This is not a site for math, nerd.
LOLL!
Actual question: How do you justify Rolen as a cakewalk without Andruw Jones in there, too? Jones had 140 more homers and 35 more steals than Rolen, and while Rolen had a definitive batting average advantage, their other counting stats are remarkably close.
But if you look at those defensive value metrics, it’s incredibly tilted toward Jones. Where are they separated?
So I’m really asking here: why does Rolen has such a clear advantage over Jones, according to the balloters?
Jones is dinged for his early-age rapid decline and that many see it as his own fault. There are also ridiculous and likely racist “whispers” about steroids.
I’ve never perceived “whispers” of steroid-use as being race-connected in any way, and my anecdotal observation is that those whispers are certainly not restricted to any one race, nor do they seem disproportionately directed toward any one race. Do you have an opinion otherwise? What data suggests that players of any one race are more likely to suffer rumors of steroid use than another?
Hispanic players. If you don’t know about this, I’m sorry, but it is well-known that there is a bias towards believing Hispanic players use steroids. Also, Jones’ smooth playing style led to a feeling among many that he was lazy despite the fact he regularly played ~160 games each season. Then, it’s a short road from “lazy” to “cheater.” This has fed suspicions that he used steroids. I’ve commonly heard them in regular conversations.
Didn’t Bagwell and Piazza get targeted with those whispers too? In my memory that played a large part in their not being first ballot guys. Heck,there were even a few whispers about Thome and he is Mr Whitebread
It is true that whispers have happened to other players. They affect Latin players more. I also don’t remember anything on Thome, but maybe I missed that.
Thome basically got the “you hit home runs during the steriod era…QED” treatment from some outlets. There was never any claim of evidence, it was just guilt by association.
Personally, I think what makes one speculate about Andruw Jones is that he did the Bonds/Manny/McGuire (and there are more) thing in the sense that you had guys who came into the league as these wirey athletic types – seriously, go look at their rookie cards – and then they suddenly got huge and started hitting homers like crazy. That’s not fair at all, but it’s enough to make the public go ‘huh…’
Oddball, I still clearly remember getting bug-eyed when I saw Sammy Sosa transform from lean and muscular in the fall of 1997 to puffed up body builder in a Spring Training interview in 1998. I had the same bug-eyed look of disbelief with Adrian Beltre during a 2004 ST interview.
The DV incident might be off-putting for some, but the more likely reason is that he was pretty bad for the last 5 years of his career. People’s last memories of him are not him aging gracefully into an elder statesman role, it’s him being awful and answering questions about whether he is out of shape. And instead of getting on the ballot five or six years after his great career, he’s getting on the ballot ten or eleven, and the memories of his greatness are even more distant. If he had retired after leaving the Braves, I fully believe he would be in right now.
That long, ugly decline where the media/fans turned on him for being out of shape. People remember what you do last.
How Bonds and Clemens don’t have identical % always puzzles me. You can’t vote for one and not the other
Agreed
Aside from the PED thing, I wonder if there are different levels of awareness and tolerance for their off-field issues- McCready for Clemens, DV for Bonds, etc.
There’s probably a very-small-but-not-quite-zero number of voters who are willing to look past steroids, but won’t vote for Clemens based on his relationship with Mindy McCready.
This. Bonds was a jerk and cheated, but Clemens added statutory rape allegations.
You’ve never interviewed them. Or, in the case of Bonds, tried to. Many of the voters have.
It cracks me up how much you hate Schilling. Baseball writers as the moral gatekeepers of our country has been a funny and ridiculous development. This is the baseball hall of fame not the church choir. Who cares. The man is one of the greatest pitchers of all time. He deserves to be in the hall. Heck, write on his plaque, “He was a piece of crap as a person, but he sure could pitch” haha. When you start down the road of how good or bad people are it gets tricky. Chipper Jones cheated on his wife with a Hooters waitress and had a child with her. I think that makes him a piece of crap person. That bothers me more than some dude typing dumb stuff on a free app on his phone while sitting on his couch, but that’s just me. Thanks for your hall of fame insight, like always.
Ya know what, I would be totally on board with Schilling going in if he had a forever plaque that stated he was a “piece of crap person.” I think you have just inadvertently found some common ground here.
I’m all about finding common ground haha. We can all agree that Schilling is a piece of crap AND an all time great baseball player. It’s just up to each person how much they weigh those things in terms of the hall of fame. I have my opinion and everyone else is entitled to theirs.
Schilling lacks tact and political correctness and Chipper did something personal. No need to make a big deal out of either of those things.
I said my piece on the Schilling/Character Clause kerfuffle on the post for Jay’s ballot (TLDR; I haven’t seen anyone be logically consistent with their Character Clause application who excluded Schilling and I think it’s hard to defend) so I won’t fully rehash it here.
I would like to point out that the actual journalists who are actually willing to put their names on their ballots are faaaaaar more favorable to Schilling than anonymous (and statistically “progressive”) Fangraphs readers.
I think that should say an awful lot, frankly.
A largely different demographic has a different take. Shocking, I know! Maybe you’d spell out a point you’re trying to make because it is not apparent. I don’t see why anonymity matters because frankly I’m unsure which position would be harmed or helped by anonymity.
But hall of fame voting is inherently subjective and while I don’t believe you’ve actually put in the legwork to analyze each voters rationale and voting history, I’d suggest that would be a waste of time. Character is subjective. You don’t get -10 points for this crime and -20 points for this crime. Just as easily as a writer could explain his or her vote against Schilling, you could come up with some reason that you think that vote is inconsistent. But that goes nowhere and at the end of the day is meaningless because both the character clause and the voting as a whole are subjective processes.
The actual “victims” of Schilling’s “crime” aren’t holding his odious views of journalists against him as much as anonymous internet voters.
I wonder if there’s any correlation to the fact that the electorate- the people who have ballots that they are able to publish- trends towards older (or at least middle-aged) white dudes? I think there are probably a ton of other writers who are not yet (or never managed to become) eligible who would happily publish Schilling-free ballots, given the opportunity.
I do find it a bit ironic that the more progressive / stats-based contingent who mercilessly mocked BBWAA writers for YEARS for voting based on their personal opinion of individual players and what/who they were outside the chalked lines are now doing the exact same thing.
We are looking at a possible 3 year run of nobody being elected. Schilling/Bonds/Clemens have one more year after this and maybe they squeak across the line but next year is A-Rod and Papi – I’m assuming A-Rod gets the same treatment as Bonds/Clemens and Papi is not a sure thing. 2023 is Beltran and he has his warts too with not hitting any of the big milestones and the cheating scandal. It’s not until you get to 2024 and Adrian Beltre that you have what I would consider a lock (you also have Utley and Mauer who I don’t think will be 1st ballot guys)
Best bet for the next 3 years has to be Papi and Rolen – Papi I can see (his BA/HR/R/RBI are remarkably similar to Frank Thomas’) but Rolen barely nudged over 2,000 hits and 1,200 RBI and R and only had 316 HR. You have to love his defense to vote him in and there hasn’t been a guy voted in for his defense since Ozzie Smith and before that. . . .Brooks Robinson or Luis Aparicio in the early 80’s maybe?
(It’s also worth noting that there are zero pitchers who might have a shot until you get to Sabathia in 2025)
Maybe I’m being too pessimistic, but this is a very real possibility unless there are some serious changes in opinion on some of these guys
I am really looking forward to watching people militate for Ortiz while on the very same ballot there are 4-5 players who have better cases, but who will likely not get in, and also 4-5 players who have better cases but, like Ortiz, PED issues, and will never get in.
Me too, Papi is going to get in over the other much better players and he actually failed a test. The rationalizations are going to be a thing of beauty.
Would be Papi gets dinged some for the steroids allegations. Not that it’s right, but it seemed like Bagwell and Piazza took a while because of suspicions that were even more tenuous than Papi’s connection. I think he’ll get in eventually like those two.
ARod will be interesting. He’s done a lot to rehab his image post-career, which will help him. Should be quite interesting.
If by rehab, you mean getting himself lots of media exposure and pulling strings to get an TV analyst job. Just because he has decided he wants to rehab his image doesn’t mean any of the fans or voters are remotely enthusiastic about him. I would bet most fans just want him to go away.
Yes. A-Rod had one of the most brutal steroid sagas of any Hall of Fame candidate. If you’re only going to pick one guy to draw a line in the sand over, it’s him.
I think A-Rod should be grateful he is no longer the center of everyone’s hatred, settle down with J-Lo, and have a nice rest of his life.
I think voters might get bored and eventually vote Rolen in. Perhaps in 2023, after the three-headed beast is off the ballot and the year before Beltre comes on? Beltre is the only one I’m sure about, though.
Haha, that Schilling vote is pretty telling about the political makeup of Fangraphs’ readership, for any who hadn’t noticed it already.
I remember the good ole days when Fangraphs was “Your home for advanced baseball analysis and stats.” haha
Maybe that’s because being interested in the world around you and critical thinking go hand in hand? If the GOP hadn’t shunned all rational thought around things obvious like climate change, “trickle down” economics, etc, you might see a more evenlyl distributed political spectrum here. As it stands, the current GOP is among the most right-leaning political parties in the entire developed world.
Yet you’re not a member.
Shocking to see that baseball fans who are interested in a more thoughtful take than you get from the Post aren’t the same people who believe in trickle down economics.
The best statistical defensive outfielder ever and easily one of the best to the untrained eye should get in easily. Even if he only had mediocre hitting numbers, the other worldly defense should carry to the hall.
One of the best things about JAWS is its balance between career value and peak value. Peak Andruw Jones played at a first-ballot HOF level.
You sure do like Andruw Jones. Noted!
I’m not bias or anything. He wasn’t my favorite baseball player ever or anything. His offense was nice, but I loved watching his defense. It was a thing of beauty. Pitching and defense are why I watch baseball. His defense helped that pitching and together they were hall of fame.
I hear ya man… He was a sight to see patrolling CF in his prime.
And still the only signed baseball I have is from him as well. I just want to see defense get more respect for the hall.
And the bump in value that ball would get doesn’t enter your thinking at all, I’m sure.
Value for the ball? You think I’d want to sell it just because he made the hall. Not a chance.
Whatever happened to Lou Whitaker and his 75.1 WAR, seventh all-time among second basemen? Has his eligibility passed? I’m not a Tiger’s fan. Just curious.
Yes, he fell off the ballot in 1 year in 2001 (2.9%). Its pretty ridiculous and he is in the Kevin Brown, Kenny Lofton bucket waiting for an Era’s committee.
I’ve always been curious about the small but consistent difference in votes garnered by Bonds and Clemens. How is it possible? It clearly can’t be the PED issue. Can someone seriously think that Bonds is a HOFer but Clemens isn’t?
Had the same question about the Georgia senate runoff elections. One Democrat got 30 thousand more votes than the other. What went on in the heads of those voters? Like Clemens and Bonds – if you’re in on one, you have to be in on the other.🤔
I’m a little bit of a politics junkie, so I’m going to take a shot at the Georgia runoff (and the different results). Obviously, Warnock and Ossoff were different people. To the extent that race or religion played any role whatsoever, there are a lot more African-American voters in Georgia than Jewish ones. Warnock, in my opinion, faced a weaker opponent in Kelly Loeffler, who had more ethical issues and a problem with the WBA Atlanta Dream players (she’s a part owner of the team) after some critical remarks she made after BLM protests. She was also appointed, not elected. Ossoff opposed an elected incumbent, David Perdue, who had fewer issues/was a more conventional candidate. 30K votes more for Perdue, but not enough to win. Interesting election.
An equally logical answer is misogyny.
Not if you’ve met them and tried to interview them. One of them is a jerk, the other is an enormous gaping orifice of jerk.
Separate and apart from all the political stuff that envelops anything and everything these days, I’m pleased to see the progress being made by some of the mid-ballot folks – Rolen, Jones, and Wagner especially. Don’t know if it will be enough to get them over the hurdle in a 10-year ballot life, but it is encouraging.
On the merits, Schilling is qualified. Not an inner circle guy, but certainly not one of those “what were they thinking?” admission. I’d previously posted that I would hold my nose and vote for him. I’ll stick to that, but he just doesn’t make it at all easy. I don’t believe the writers are under any obligation to vote for a player whose conduct they find reprehensible, and they are entitled to their own reasons. The drop-off for Schilling, Bonds, and Clemens among the more private voters is interesting–I suspect they just don’t want to be yelled at by partisans. If we are going to defend the right of Schilling to express his opinions (and I will) I think we also need to defend the right of the writer/voters to decide what their criteria are.
lol wow, welcome to 2021 in USA. Home of the easily offended….where people would rather let in known cheaters than someone who did everything right and played the right way but has bad politics they don’t agree with. Can’t make this up. Please turn in your Man Card at the door.
“Man card” *snicker*
You seem to be awfully………..offended? There.
Good thing you’re not offended. Because that would be pretty funny, eh?
Real men aren’t bothered by support for violent anti-democratic sedition because they’re white and won’t suffer the effects, sure guy.
Wow this comment section went very off the rails very quickly lol. I guess this will get lost here, but just wanted to say these crowdsourcing projects are always a blast and Jay’s analysis on all things HOF and HOF-adjacent is the best!
If a voter wants to exclude Curt Schilling from their ballot because of the way he conducts himself, and if a voter believes that conduct on social media is indeed a proxy for a person’s true character, then that is obviously the voter’s prerogative. I may not agree, but I understand it.
But I still can’t understand being more outraged by someone’s words than by physical violence against another human being (and a spouse no less), or alleged statutory rape in the context of an admitted decade-long relationship outside of marriage with a troubled young lady who ultimately took her own life.
Relative morality is a complete morass, but I just can’t fathom how words count more than actual actions here. I don’t think writers are excluding Curt Schilling because of his “politics” rather than his general conduct, but I do understand why some people think that the decision must be politically-biased when writers are willing to overlook certain bad behavior but still desire to hold Schilling accountable for his off-field actions.
Your inability to fathom it speaks to you abilities or lack thereof, nothing more.
fathom: understand (a difficult problem or an enigmatic person) after much thought.
I find relative morality – and the way people respond to it – to be a very difficult problem that is still not understandable after much thought. If you don’t, then I applaud you for your enlightenment. Even Aristotle, Socrates and Plato struggled with it, so you are truly in exalted company to have such a confident grasp of the topic.
The two arguments for not considering Schilling’s hateful & harmful rhetoric rest on two points:
1) “First Amendment!!!” 1A prohibits the federal government from restricting speech. This has no bearing on how the Hall of Fame, Twitter, etc conduct their business.
2) “There are plenty of terrible people in the HoF!!!” Pointing to the past, or some version of “we’ve always done it that way” are never reason enough alone to stay the same, and often when they stand as the only reason to continue a given behavior, is a strong indication that that behavior should change. Medicine has advanced beyond the use of leeches, women have the right to vote, and we can stop voting for awful humans to the HoF!
3) Not really hateful comments. Mostly ones people just have a difference of opinion on or somewhat rude at times.
Your moral compass is broken, friend.
I don’t see how. Many of the reasons people got mad at him were twisted to be way worse than what they actually were.
Its a dang baseball museum. If you think you can tell the story of 2000’s MLB without Schilling you are nuts. Cancel culture is just stupid.
But not as stupid as the people who turn snowflake over it.
The HoF has exhibits on World Series winners, so Schilling’s exploits as part of those winning teams are already in the Hall. They can (and if fact, already do) tell the story of the 2000s postseasons without specifically celebrating him.
HoF voters; they’re just (not) like us!
Is there any reason the Hall can’t just refuse to allow Schilling to speak if he does make it? (Thankfully it seems to be a moot issue.)
As much as I loathe the man and his politics, and am a Yankee fan, I can’t deny his career merits inclusion. But the man does not deserve the platform for his views.
And it’d be fun to see all the freeze peach people go nuts.
Of course there is a way, but all the writers live in NY and cancel you if they don’t like you. Thats all this is now a days is its a likeability contest and has very little to do with cheating or performance. Millenial voters and voters who don’t follow baseball at all have entered the bbwa voter pool.
feelings down vote Schilling. facts don’t care about your feelings
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, career wise Schilling is the same as Mickey Lolich. Their numbers are almost identical and if you took all the pitchers from Schilling’s era and placed him and all the pitchers from Lolich’s era and placed him they both rank about the same in their respective era’s. Not saying either aren’t hall of famers, not saying they are, just saying they’re the same pitchers.
Since everything gets political these days, I’d just add that the writers are just doing their jobs the way they see fit, and, by virtue of their qualifications under the rules, they have a right to do it. If they don’t like a player, and they can’t get over a particular behavior and just vote for the SOB/domestic abuser/PED user/cheat/gambler etc. it’s still their right. Too many people are saying that their votes should be taken away–because those writers won’t vote for the commenter’s favorites. That’s not the point, and a refusal to vote for a player is not cancel culture. Maybe it’s as simple as you just don’t like the guy, or don’t think his accomplishments were fairly earned. No one is entitled to get into the HOF. Hank Aaron wasn’t on 9 ballots. Willie Mays 23.
People are troubled by many arguing for Schilling to not be in. I’m not; set the bar at the level you believe it belongs. I’m much, MUCH more troubled that there are folks who would vote in the likes of Abreu, Jones, Sheffield, and Wagner(!) while leaving Schilling out. That clearly does not follow a sensible baseball-only line of thinking, especially when you factor in the playoffs (but even if you don’t), and the gap is large enough that one cannot help but conclude that Schilling is being OVERLY penalized by whatever he is being penalized for…whether it is fair to penalize for “that” or not, it’s too much. Leave him out, but leave those others out too, gee golly.
A note on Sosa and his “world of difference” between his PED situation and that of Ramirez: Sosa didn’t have an official positive test, but that doesn’t amount to a difference of note when factoring in that the player didn’t really have a chance to test positive. Sosa’s performance experienced a rapid dropoff akin to what one would expect from a guy letting go of years of PED use when testing started, and then his career was over. Between that and Sosa’s suspicious mid-career mega-spike in performance AND visual inspection of the development of his body over the years, Sosa exhibits about as stark a major PED-user profile as one would expect to find. Just because he apparently chose to stop using when testing began and thus of course could not test positive (or perform as he had) doesn’t make him less-clearly guilty of PED use as Ramirez. The fact is that both most definitely used while playing, and so the performance of each merits scrutiny – no real difference at all.
I find that there is a level of hipocrisy for excluding Schilling but including Bonds & Clemens. The latter two have credible allegations of actually harming another person via the widely acknowledged domestic abuse and statutory rape allegations. Sure, Schilling’s transgressions are right there for the world to see, without any doubt, but I think there is some doubt to what extent his words have actually caused anybody harm. I know this becomes murky where many players surely are POS off the field that we just may never hear about, but I would love for the hall of fame to celebrate people acknowledged as great people on and off the field but I know that’s really hard to assess off the field. Voting for Bonds & Clemens seems to send the message that a certain amount of greatness at hitting or throwing a ball overcomes hitting or abusing other people.