2021 BBHoF Ballot

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
18,310
Rogers Park
I wonder if Schilling would have faired better if this wasn’t an election year and his antics weren’t so much more in the news.
I respect Laurila’s take, but I think Schilling has to go in if Bonds and Clemens do.

It's not because of the PEDs, which I don't really care about, or that there's any real daylight between his view of Schilling or mine, but because of Bonds' domestic violence and Clemens' unseemly relationship with an underaged girl.

The Hall is in a real bind here. Bonds and Clemens are two of the very greatest players to ever play the game, but both were guilty of serious on-field and off-field ethical lapses — indeed, crimes!

So at that point, you really have to decide what the Hall is and what its membership means.

For me, I would prefer it to become more of a historical museum and less of a Legion of Honor. So Bonds is in because he (well, him or Mays) is the best player of the integration era. The Hall is meaningless without him, or worse, it becomes so defined by his absence that it might be more about him with him excluded than it would be with him enshrined. You need to include him in a way that is responsible, and comments on the good and the bad in his record. I think one would need to do the same with Schilling.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,983
Up to 38 ballots now, and still nobody close. Bonds, Clemens and Schilling all are at 68%.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
15,387
Basically every Schilling HoF piece I have read over the past few weeks is from people who said they were consistent Schilling voters but are now no longer voting for him. Not sure where any of the optimism that he was finally going to get in was coming from.
 
When I started living abroad, it didn't take long for me to realize just how artificial the idea of a sports Hall of Fame is to most of the world. Fans outside of the US still love to debate the relative historical merit of the great players in their sports, but the idea that one "institution" should hold the keys to historical greatness - or that there should be a magical line above which someone is great and below which someone is merely good - is pretty ridiculous when you stop to think about it for any length of time. And when you consider the petty animuses (animus? animi?) and biases of the baseball HoF voters down the years, and the reasons that have been used to vote people in or keep people out, and the number of voters who are no more qualified to do the job for which they have been selected than many of the federal judges recently appointed by the Trump administration are to do theirs, it has become harder and harder for me to take it seriously. And I say that as someone who a) has always respected the tradition of HoF voting, and in particular b) has always loved the intellectual discussions that take place every year in places like SoSH in which the HoF merits of different players are considered.

To the extent that the annual HoF voting ritual encourages the latter discussions to take place, it still serves a worthwhile purpose - we can marvel at the statistical awesomeness of Barry Bonds whether or not he has a plaque in some building in rural New York. And I suppose the HoF will always matter to the extent that the players themselves care that it matters, and they feel rewarded or snubbed by its verdicts...and to the extent that players I liked (or not) or who played for teams I like (or not) are up for consideration, I'd rather see them succeed (or not) in getting elected if their achievements - and character, in some cases like Schilling - warrant it (or not). But whereas I used to care a great deal who got in and who didn't, and I would bemoan the Rizzuto-level and Baines-level mistakes as real miscarriages of justice that should be rectified, I just don't anymore. And frankly, if the HoF elects Schilling and then gives him a platform which allows him to spew conspiracy theories and racist nonsense to a wide audience in his induction speech, that would be more than reason enough to tear the whole thing down.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,983
56 ballots now, Bonds/Clemens/Schilling all have 39 votes which is 69%.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
68,885
Oregon
If somebody refuses to vote for Schilling because of the character clause then it would be hypocritical of them not to leave Clemens off their ballot as well, due to his likely sexual relationship with a 15 year old.
And, less serious than your example, using the character clause excuse should prohibit a voter from including steroid users ... since using banned substances should be considered a red flag on the character scale
 

Gdiguy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,407
San Diego, CA
If somebody refuses to vote for Schilling because of the character clause then it would be hypocritical of them not to leave Clemens off their ballot as well, due to his likely sexual relationship with a 15 year old.
Your link indicates that she confirms a 'relationship', but that they didn't do anything sexual until she turned 18, and while I think most of us might believe that's bullshit I don't think beliefs should be the benchmark here

In fact, I'd argue that this argues the opposite - what I don't believe BBHoF voters should be doing is running mock trials trying to parse evidence into whether someone's character was bad, that's how you get this debate of 'was Ty Cobb really racist or was it a biographer smear?'. With Schilling the debate about his character is literally things he's saying and posting - there's no debate about whether he said them or not.

I'm fine with @E5 Yaz 's argument - if you believe that using steroids is a severe enough character issue that you can't vote for them, that's fine (though again, I believe that should be true for people that were actually caught and proven to use, not 'oh some reporter leaked that Ortiz showed up on a list' or 'I heard that Mike Piazza used something'). I just disagree that in the scheme of issues with MLB players, that it rises to that level.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,983
76 ballots now, Schilling has 55 votes which is over 70% but unlikely to be enough in the end. Bonds and Clemens have 53.
 

Ale Xander

Lacks black ink
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
38,466
Peter Gammons ballot:

Bonds
Clemens
Kent
Rolen
Schilling
Sheffield
Vizquel
Wagner
Sheffield but no Manny?

For a guy that grew up a Red Sox fan?

GS: 60.5 WAR .292/.393/.514, 140 OPS+. 509 HR, 6 top-10 MVP finishes, 1 ring
MR: 69.3 WAR, .312/.411/.585, 154 OPS+, 555 HR, 9 top-10 MVP finishes, 2 rings
 

ledsox

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 14, 2005
330
On MLB, Gammons said it was about the suspensions (Manny’s) and that the Dbacks firing 30 people after the Dodgers beat them really bothered him.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
7,945
Sheffield but no Manny?

For a guy that grew up a Red Sox fan?

GS: 60.5 WAR .292/.393/.514, 140 OPS+. 509 HR, 6 top-10 MVP finishes, 1 ring
MR: 69.3 WAR, .312/.411/.585, 154 OPS+, 555 HR, 9 top-10 MVP finishes, 2 rings
He never liked Manny. I remember seeing him on ESPN the night the Sox signed him and he was flabbergasted that the Sox had wasted so much money on an "overpriced DH."
 
Last edited:

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
4,829
Boston, MA
And it was one of the few blockbuster free agent deals that totally panned out.
This is probably better as a main board discussion, but who was the best ever Red Sox free agent signing? Manny was a huge contract, but ultimately worth the money. He produced in the regular season and the postseason. Foulke and SSchilling both put them over the top to win a World Series, but fell apart before the end of their deals. Damon was good throughout his deal. Pedro was initially a trade and doesn't count.

If Ortiz counts, it's him, although since he was a non-tender he had the advantage of being much younger than your average free agent.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,439
Hingham, MA
This is probably better as a main board discussion, but who was the best ever Red Sox free agent signing? Manny was a huge contract, but ultimately worth the money. He produced in the regular season and the postseason. Foulke and SSchilling both put them over the top to win a World Series, but fell apart before the end of their deals. Damon was good throughout his deal. Pedro was initially a trade and doesn't count.

If Ortiz counts, it's him, although since he was a non-tender he had the advantage of being much younger than your average free agent.
Schilling was also a trade.

Papi was the best signing ever, with Manny as #2
 

brandonchristensen

mad photochops
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
29,121
This is probably better as a main board discussion, but who was the best ever Red Sox free agent signing? Manny was a huge contract, but ultimately worth the money. He produced in the regular season and the postseason. Foulke and SSchilling both put them over the top to win a World Series, but fell apart before the end of their deals. Damon was good throughout his deal. Pedro was initially a trade and doesn't count.

If Ortiz counts, it's him, although since he was a non-tender he had the advantage of being much younger than your average free agent.
JD Drew was overall solid, but nothing like Manny. If JD Martinez can start using the replay to cheat again, he could be a good one.

But I feel like free agents are mostly busts.
 

Leskanic's Thread

lost underscore
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
1,377
Los Angeles
On MLB, Gammons said it was about the suspensions (Manny’s) and that the Dbacks firing 30 people after the Dodgers beat them really bothered him.
I'm confused about what the second part means. Is that actually a reason he gave to not vote for Manny? Because he was on the Dodger team whose winning led to another team firing people? Or am I misremembering the story?

This is probably better as a main board discussion, but who was the best ever Red Sox free agent signing? Manny was a huge contract, but ultimately worth the money. He produced in the regular season and the postseason. Foulke and SSchilling both put them over the top to win a World Series, but fell apart before the end of their deals. Damon was good throughout his deal. Pedro was initially a trade and doesn't count.

If Ortiz counts, it's him, although since he was a non-tender he had the advantage of being much younger than your average free agent.
I'll tell you who wasn't the best free agent signing: Jay Payton.
 

ledsox

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 14, 2005
330
I'm confused about what the second part means. Is that actually a reason he gave to not vote for Manny? Because he was on the Dodger team whose winning led to another team firing people? Or am I misremembering the story?
Yes, pretty sure that’s what he meant. Manny’s cheating while being otherworldly led to a house cleaning in Az. Gammo connecting dots as only he does.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,983
123 ballots now, Bonds has 91 which is two votes short. Clemens has 90 and Schilling has 89. Still very unlikely.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,983
140 ballots now, Schilling has 104 which would be one short. Bonds has 102 and Clemens 101.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,831
Twin Cities
Koji has to be in the best FA signing discussion!

Geez, looking at Gammons’ list... Could you randomly generate a more unlikeable crew? Wagner probably wants off that boat.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,983
Kinda OT but there was no ceremony last year for last years inductees (including Jeter), not even a virtual one or anything similar. They will be a part of the ceremony this year.

Good call if they did that possibly anticipating nobody getting voted in this year.
 

edoug

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
3,897
They should have it in his hometown of Anchorage if that's the case
Or some other frozen over place? As in, I really am interested in what Schilling has to say. Yeah, (blank) must have frozen over.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
68,885
Oregon
Scott Rolen quietly up to 66% of the ballot in the latest count.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
15,387
View: https://twitter.com/mattspiegel670/status/1352387286118313986?s=21


Source: Numerous National Baseball HOF voters have reached out to the Hall hoping to amend their ballots, removing their votes for Curt Schilling after he supported the seditious acts in Washington D.C. 2 weeks ago. HOF officials are concerned about the precedent this could set.
If those voters chose Schilling they should have to own. Schilling siding with the sedetionists was the most predictable thing in the world. When you check that box you do so knowing that the guy is going to continue to embarrass himself and be on the wrong side of pretty much every social issue.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
68,885
Oregon
Cross-posting from the V&N thread

If they're so concerned about this ... they should put their names out there and write a commentary about why they voted for Schilling and how they came to change their minds.

The "please keep my vote anonymous, but take him off my ballot" approach is bullshit. You want to stand for integrity ... show some.

And if anyone has already written such a piece ... good for them for doing so.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
27,124
It's beyond stupid that Gary Sheffield has 50% more votes than Manny.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,983
Going to be nail-biting close for Schilling. He's at 74.7 percent with 44 percent of ballots in.
The odds are not great even with it being that close with the public vote. Private vote tends to vote for less people in general, especially players like Schilling and the Steroid duo.
 

Jim Ed Rice in HOF

Red-headed Skrub child
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
5,175
Seacoast NH
Going to be nail-biting close for Schilling. He's at 74.7 percent with 44 percent of ballots in.
The odds are not great even with it being that close with the public vote. Private vote tends to vote for less people in general, especially players like Schilling and the Steroid duo.
It's not going to be close. Looking at the BBHOF tracker it shows Schilling dropped 7% from pre announced ballots to the final voting (77 down to 70). He's net -1 vs. last year on voters that can be tracked, the only other guy net negative on returning voters is Vizquel.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
68,885
Oregon
It's not going to be close. Looking at the BBHOF tracker it shows Schilling dropped 7% from pre announced ballots to the final voting (77 down to 70). He's net -1 vs. last year on voters that can be tracked, the only other guy net negative on returning voters is Vizquel.
That is, if the remaining voters fill things out as they did last year.

Either way, it's safe to say that Schilling won't get the traditional "last time bounce" that we've seen in the past if he has to wait another year
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
48,259
Rotten Apple
Schilling is trending on Twitter as it looks like he will not get in. And here's Gerry doing his classic bit:
View: https://twitter.com/GerryCallahan/status/1353908153944039425

Hate to break it to you, but rhetoric can't keep anyone out of the Hall. Only voters can do that. Unfortunately, it looks like enough spiteful baseball writers are gonna do that to Schilling, the best postseason pitcher ever. Curt has no chance on the new purity test

Notice how he positions himself as the one guy who is cutting though the groupthink with 'hate to break it to you.'
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
20,923
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
I think that Bonds and Clemens get in next year. I think the voters wanted to make them sweat but will ultimately vote them in. And I think they still leave Schilling out.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,763
NH
Makes sense Callahan would think that way as he's every bit Schilling's equal