2022 HOF Candidates: Ortiz and Papelbon First Time on Ballot

RobertS975

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
130
While this is the first appearance on the ballot for Big Papi and Papelbon, it is the 10th and final time on the ballot for Clemens and Schilling. Schill came within a few percentage points of getting in last year.
Also on the ballot are Jake Peavey and Carl Crawford.

My WAG is that Ortiz gets in a first shot and Schilling squeezes in as well. While Papi was on a 2003 "list", he played and excelled for many years after regular testing was instituted.
 

voidfunkt

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 14, 2006
695
/dev/null
I don't think Schilling makes it. Is there any reason to believe the voters changed enough between last year and this year to potentially meaningfully move the percentage in his favor?
 

CaptainLaddie

dj paul pfieffer
SoSH Member
Sep 6, 2004
31,964
the district
Schilling -- the player -- deserves to be in. I don't think that it's too debatable, considering his postseason heroics and his excellent 30s. Among starters in their 30s, he's 5th in the Divisional Era in ERA+, behind Scherzer (HOF), Kevin Brown, John Tudor (finished at 36), Chris Carpenter (finished at 37). Right behind him are Clemens, Greinke, Cliff Lee, and Verlander.

Schilling -- the person he's turned into since retirement -- won't get in. Call it cancel culture, call it being woke, but he's turned so many people off that they won't vote for him out of spite... and I get it.

I think my politics are pretty well known here, and it really is a shame that Curt couldn't get his own act together long enough for him to get into the HOF. He's absolutely deserving of it, but because he's (pardon my language here) lost his fucking mind, he won't get in. It's a self-inflicted wound more than anything else. If he toned his shit back even 25%, he's likely in.

Here's the list of pitchers with at least an ERA+ of 125 and 300 career decisions who haven't made the HOF:

https://stathead.com/tiny/t7PFU

- Clemens (won't likely get unless the Vets Committee votes him in)
- Al Spalding (finished his career in 1877)
- Verlander (will get in)
- Schilling (yup)
- Kevin Brown (does not have close the postseason resume that Schilling does)
- Tommy Bridges (Hall of Very Good career)
 

CaptainLaddie

dj paul pfieffer
SoSH Member
Sep 6, 2004
31,964
the district
While this is the first appearance on the ballot for Big Papi and Papelbon, it is the 10th and final time on the ballot for Clemens and Schilling. Schill came within a few percentage points of getting in last year.
Also on the ballot are Jake Peavey and Carl Crawford.

My WAG is that Ortiz gets in a first shot and Schilling squeezes in as well. While Papi was on a 2003 "list", he played and excelled for many years after regular testing was instituted.
I'd wager Ortiz doesn't get in on his first ballot, but does on second or third. He's well-liked, he has arguably the greatest postseason highlight reel of all time, and his steroid stuff (as you said) isn't very well founded. Even Manfred vouched for him.

Clemens and Schilling should be in, but I'd be shocked if either made it. If you're telling the story of baseball, you have to talk about Clemens (and Schilling to a lesser degree), which is why he deserves to be in the HOF.
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
8,845
I think Ortiz gets in, he's so well liked by everyone that I think many will overlook that he's not a typical inner circle guy that gets in first ballot. The test that he failed for no one knows what (and was also never retested because MLB didn't really care but admitted there were potentially a bunch of false positives) should be irrelevant to anyone that actually looks into it, which I would hope the writers do.

Hopefully Schilling gets in, he's one of the best pitchers of all time, not even getting into his postseason resume, and I don't think saying terrible things, but not actually committing any crimes, should be a reason not to vote for someone.

Clemens and Bonds (and Arod at least in the short term) have no shot, they're pretty much plateaued in their vote total and there aren't enough new voters to get them in. They'll get in eventually when they come up on a veterans committee down the line.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
8,328
I'd wager Ortiz doesn't get in on his first ballot, but does on second or third. He's well-liked, he has arguably the greatest postseason highlight reel of all time, and his steroid stuff (as you said) isn't very well founded. Even Manfred vouched for him.
This seems right to me. It took Bagwell and Piazza several years to get in and they didn't even have the "his name was on some list" issue, people just thought they seemed like the kinds of guys who might have used. I suppose they didn't have Ortiz's personality or his post season resume, so maybe Ortiz's wait isn't quite as long, but I'll bet there is a wait.
 
Last edited:

RobertS975

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
130
While most of us will always have a fondness for Jake Peavey and his brief stint in Boston, I suspect that he will have a real tough time ever succeeding in getting in to the HOF. Just a numbers game... one, maybe two dominant years in 2004 and 2007, one CYA. At 152 lifetime wins, I think he
 

CarolinaBeerGuy

Don't know him from Adam
SoSH Member
Mar 14, 2006
6,697
Kernersville, NC
While most of us will always have a fondness for Jake Peavey and his brief stint in Boston, I suspect that he will have a real tough time ever succeeding in getting in to the HOF. Just a numbers game... one, maybe two dominant years in 2004 and 2007, one CYA. At 152 lifetime wins, I think he
I don’t think anyone is arguing for Peavey to make the HoF. He was a good pitcher, but has no Hall of Fame credentials.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
14,789
Schilling -- the player -- deserves to be in. I don't think that it's too debatable, considering his postseason heroics and his excellent 30s. Among starters in their 30s, he's 5th in the Divisional Era in ERA+, behind Scherzer (HOF), Kevin Brown, John Tudor (finished at 36), Chris Carpenter (finished at 37). Right behind him are Clemens, Greinke, Cliff Lee, and Verlander.

Schilling -- the person he's turned into since retirement -- won't get in. Call it cancel culture, call it being woke, but he's turned so many people off that they won't vote for him out of spite... and I get it.

I think my politics are pretty well known here, and it really is a shame that Curt couldn't get his own act together long enough for him to get into the HOF. He's absolutely deserving of it, but because he's (pardon my language here) lost his fucking mind, he won't get in. It's a self-inflicted wound more than anything else. If he toned his shit back even 25%, he's likely in.

Here's the list of pitchers with at least an ERA+ of 125 and 300 career decisions who haven't made the HOF:

https://stathead.com/tiny/t7PFU

- Clemens (won't likely get unless the Vets Committee votes him in)
- Al Spalding (finished his career in 1877)
- Verlander (will get in)
- Schilling (yup)
- Kevin Brown (does not have close the postseason resume that Schilling does)
- Tommy Bridges (Hall of Very Good career)
It really puts the question of what is the HOF for into sharp focus, doesn’t it? The steroid guys I get because their on field performance - BASEBALL - was impacted by cheating. Pete Rose I get because he broke the one rule you just cannot break due to integrity of the game issues.

There are other a-holes in the HOF, though, because of their stellar contributions to baseball. On the field or in some managerial role or whatever. Whatever we may think of Schilling - and yeah “lost his mind” is a good (maybe not strong enough) description - the guy was a hall of fame player. And he did nothing that we know of to negatively impact the integrity of the game. He is a hall of fame player who turned into a complete nut job after his career ended.

But why should the “after” (and though he may have shown signs of this as a player we all know it wasn’t like THIS) impact the evaluation of his on field baseball contributions?

These are hard questions, IMO. I totally get the negative views of him. Lots of fuel for that fire. But does that make him unworthy of the BASEBALL hall of fame, when none of this had anything to do with baseball?
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
2,274
Schilling was seen as a borderline candidate before any of that other stuff came up, though. I think he should get in- but compare his #s to Tim Hudson or Andy Pettitte, who I don’t think many consider HOFers at all, and it’s not as clear cut.

Whether you think Schilling is a HOF or not seems to depend on how much weight one gives post-season accomplishments (personally I think a lot- but voters have been inconsistent).

clearly- not being well liked has hurt Curt’s chances.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
13,581
Part of Schilling's problem is that in his first year of eligibility, there was a crowded list due to voters having simply lost their collective minds and snubbing deserving candidates such as Tim Raines and Edgar Martinez and Alan Trammel and Larry Walker for multiple ballots. Meanwhile, you had the overrated Jack Morris and a borderline-at-best Lee Smith taking up a fair share of HoF votes. And you had the first group of PED players in Clemens, Bonds, McGwire, Palmeiro, and Sosa on the ballot, and the "PED whisper" candidates in Biggio, Bagwell, and Piazza. It still shocks me that literally no candidate was elected in the 2013 voting. Maybe it was backlash from the Andre Dawson and Jim Rice selections the prior 2 years, but it was a horrible look for the voters just the same.

The following year you had the Glavine/Maddux/Frank Thomas troika become eligible for the first time. Then the Big Unit, Pedro, and Smoltz were on the ballot, with Biggio finally getting in. Soon after, Schilling went full MAGA/QAnon and that was that. I agree that his horrific political ideology technically shouldn't matter when it comes to acknowledging his on-field contributions, especially when you consider that his worst moments came well after his career ended. But voters are human, and I do think it's easy for voters to tend to forget how good a pitcher he was, and then not exactly feel all that sorry for him when he doesn't get elected.

I've gone back and forth between Schilling being on the "in" side of borderline and simply deserving. Looking at the careers of recent nominees, he certainly wasn't in the same tier as Pedro or Glavine (no matter what bWAR says), did not have the early career success of Bert Blyleven, and did not have the career arc of dominant starter-turned-reliever of Dennis Eckersley or John Smoltz. But he was way better than Jack Morris, for example.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,976
I don't think Schilling makes it. Is there any reason to believe the voters changed enough between last year and this year to potentially meaningfully move the percentage in his favor?
People like to play games with their ballots and sometimes decide "this person should be in, but until it's their last chance". Seems that way anyway. Has it been actually shown that fewer guys get in on their second-to-last chance than their last chance?
 

Mooch

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,416
Schilling was seen as a borderline candidate before any of that other stuff came up, though. I think he should get in- but compare his #s to Tim Hudson or Andy Pettitte, who I don’t think many consider HOFers at all, and it’s not as clear cut.

Whether you think Schilling is a HOF or not seems to depend on how much weight one gives post-season accomplishments (personally I think a lot- but voters have been inconsistent).

clearly- not being well liked has hurt Curt’s chances.
I think there's a difference between your typical "post-season accomplishments" and Schilling's post-season DOMINANCE.

I mean, this line is among the greatest post-season starting pitching resumes of the past 40+ years, right?

11-2, 2.23 ERA, 19 Starts, 4 CGs, 2 Shutouts, 133.1IP, 104H, 25 BB, 120Ks, 0.968 WHIP, 3 rings
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
2,274
Oh, I totally agree. That Mike “O rings” Mussina was first ballot and Schilling hasn’t made it is confusing. That Jack Morris made it because of one game and Schilling hasn’t doesn’t make sense. I think narratives get developed around some of these guys and Schilling’s has always been negative, mostly because he can’t keep quiet for a few minutes.
 

opes

Doctor Tongue
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Schilling should get in just based on numbers alone. But like CaptainLaddie stated, he's lost his fucking mind and has pissed off more people than one should without trying that hard. Ortiz is in, I dont think thats a question. Clemens and Bonds should be in too but wont be because of the large numbers of years they cheated.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
14,789
Mussina vs Schilling (baseball only)

Career
- Mussina: 270-153 (.638), 3.68 era, 123 era+, 1.19 whip, 7.1 k/9, 82.8 bWAR
- Schilling: 216-146 (.597), 3.46 era, 127 era+, 1.14 whip, 8.6 k/9, 80.5 bWAR

Best season
- Mussina: 1992 - 18-5, 2.54 era, 157 era+, 1.08 whip, 4.9 k/9, 8.2 bWAR
- Schilling: 2001 - 22-6, 2.98 era, 157 era+, 1.08 whip, 10.3 k/9, 8.8 bWAR

Postseason
- Mussina: 23 g, 7-8, 3.42 era, 1.10 whip, 9.3 k/9, 0 championships
- Schilling: 19 g, 11-2, 2.23 era, 0.97 whip, 8.1 k/9, 3 championships

Awards/Recognition
- Mussina: 5x all-star, 7x gold glove, 0 CYA, 9x top 10 CYA, 6x top 5 CYA, 0 20-win seasons
- Schilling: 6x all-star, 1x WS MVP, 0 CYA, 4x top 10 CYA, 4x top 5 CYA, 3 20-win seasons

Mussina was very very very very very good for a long period of time. His best season was excellent. He finished 2nd once in the CYA voting (1999). Schilling finished 2nd three times (2001, 2002, 2004). And Schilling's postseason dominance over Mussina is striking. The regular season lines up pretty equitably. Mussina won more, but Schilling put up better stats. Their career bWAR is almost identical.

But that Mussina was a first ballot HOFer and Schilling is still waiting to get in speaks to Schilling's post-career nonsense that is obviously the reason why he's not getting the votes.
 

Trlicek's Whip

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 8, 2009
4,676
New York City
Schilling should get in just based on numbers alone. But like CaptainLaddie stated, he's lost his fucking mind and has pissed off more people than one should without trying that hard.
I wonder if "intangibles" include the optics of giving Schilling a hot mic for his possible HoF speech at Cooperstown. Maybe some voters care, maybe some don't care, maybe some want to buy the ticket and a tub of popcorn to see that. But I think the uncertainty of Schilling speaking at the podium, where his head's at now, is not necessarily something that ESPN wants to carry live.
 

GB5

lurker
Aug 26, 2013
164
I vote yes for Mussina and Schill....but then again my vote doesnt count. I think Schill will still end up short, and probably about less than 10 votes short. I think Papi squeezes in, but that is going to be close. I am most curious about Arod and what % he gets, and how do voters deal with Arod vs Clemens and Bonds.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
14,789
I wonder if "intangibles" include the optics of giving Schilling a hot mic for his possible HoF speech at Cooperstown. Maybe some voters care, maybe some don't care, maybe some want to buy the ticket and a tub of popcorn to see that. But I think the uncertainty of Schilling speaking at the podium, where his head's at now, is not necessarily something that ESPN wants to carry live.
Can you imagine not voting for a guy for the HOF because you're worried what he might say during his induction speech?
 

glennhoffmania

essential somewhere
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,405,166
NY
This seems right to me. It took Bagwell and Piazza several years to get in and they didn't even have the "his name was on some list" issue, people just thought they seemed like the kinds of guys who might have used. I suppose they didn't have Ortiz's personality or his post season resume, so maybe Ortiz's wait isn't quite as long, but I'll bet there is a wait.
Didn't Piazza admit to using PEDs multiple times?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
15,425
Maine
Didn't Piazza admit to using PEDs multiple times?
He admitted to using Androstenedione and amphetamines before they were banned. I believe he also said that he quit using Andro shortly after the controversy over the bottle of it in McGwire's locker, which is still quite a while before it was formally disallowed.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
13,581
Mussina vs Schilling (baseball only)

Career
- Mussina: 270-153 (.638), 3.68 era, 123 era+, 1.19 whip, 7.1 k/9, 82.8 bWAR
- Schilling: 216-146 (.597), 3.46 era, 127 era+, 1.14 whip, 8.6 k/9, 80.5 bWAR

Best season
- Mussina: 1992 - 18-5, 2.54 era, 157 era+, 1.08 whip, 4.9 k/9, 8.2 bWAR
- Schilling: 2001 - 22-6, 2.98 era, 157 era+, 1.08 whip, 10.3 k/9, 8.8 bWAR

Postseason
- Mussina: 23 g, 7-8, 3.42 era, 1.10 whip, 9.3 k/9, 0 championships
- Schilling: 19 g, 11-2, 2.23 era, 0.97 whip, 8.1 k/9, 3 championships

Awards/Recognition
- Mussina: 5x all-star, 7x gold glove, 0 CYA, 9x top 10 CYA, 6x top 5 CYA, 0 20-win seasons
- Schilling: 6x all-star, 1x WS MVP, 0 CYA, 4x top 10 CYA, 4x top 5 CYA, 3 20-win seasons

Mussina was very very very very very good for a long period of time. His best season was excellent. He finished 2nd once in the CYA voting (1999). Schilling finished 2nd three times (2001, 2002, 2004). And Schilling's postseason dominance over Mussina is striking. The regular season lines up pretty equitably. Mussina won more, but Schilling put up better stats. Their career bWAR is almost identical.

But that Mussina was a first ballot HOFer and Schilling is still waiting to get in speaks to Schilling's post-career nonsense that is obviously the reason why he's not getting the votes.
Mussina wasn't first ballot. If you look at Schilling's votes year-by-year:

2013: 39%. HoF voters were assholes that year, voting in nobody, despite their being 9 future honorees on the ballot to go along with Clemens and Bonds. Absurd.

2014: 29%. Mussina got 20% in his first year. Maddux/Glavine/Big Hurt swept the table; voting may have been permanently cancelled had any of them not gotten in.

2015: Back up to 39%. Pedro, Randy Johnson, and Smoltz all rightfully got in their first ballots. Mussina got 25%.

2016: Interestingly, he jumped to 52%, despite being embroiled in the first of his controversies at MLB network. Mussina got 43%. Griffrey Jr (1st) and Piazza (4th) get in.

2017: Schilling goes full MAGA/Q and his share drops to 45%, while Mussina jumps up to 52% and is suddenly on everyone's radar. Bagwell (7th) and Raines (10th) get their overdue recognition to join I-Rod (1st).

2018: Schilling improves to 52%, while Mussina breaks 60% for the first time. Chipper Jones (1st), Vlad Sr (2nd), Thome (1st), and Hoffman (3rd) all get in.

2019: Schilling breaks 60% and Mussina gets in on his 6th ballot to join Mariano (obvious 1st ballot candidate), Edgar Martinez (long overdue), and Roy Halladay (sentimental favorite despite truncated career).

2020: Schilling breaks 70%. Jeter is the obvious first ballot honoree, and Larry Walker joins him on the final ballot.

2021: Schilling gets up to 71.1%. Voters are assholes again.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
3,222
Twin Cities
It's not just that Schilling has gone over the edge, it's how. Among the many other disturbing and offensive things he has said, he has attacked the HOF voting process and the voters. And he's called for journalists to be lynched. That's gonna legitimately cost you a few votes. In fact, one voter/writer - sorry, I'm forgetting who and couldn't find it in a quick Google search - wrote an article a year or so ago specifically about how he was done defending Schilling and would no longer vote for his admission.

As for Big Papi, I'm hoping for a first ballot induction but sort of doubting it. Too many voters like to "send messages" through their voting, sometimes as simple as, "Yeah, you're a HOFer, but not a first ballot HOFer." Some still don't like DHs. Some cast a wide PED net. Those all might add up to more than 25%.
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
8,845
Schilling was seen as a borderline candidate before any of that other stuff came up, though. I think he should get in- but compare his #s to Tim Hudson or Andy Pettitte, who I don’t think many consider HOFers at all, and it’s not as clear cut.

Whether you think Schilling is a HOF or not seems to depend on how much weight one gives post-season accomplishments (personally I think a lot- but voters have been inconsistent).

clearly- not being well liked has hurt Curt’s chances.
He was only seen as borderline to the WINS and CYS crowd.

Tim Hudson 58 war in 3200 innings, Pettitte 60 war in 3300 innings, Schilling 80 war in 3300 innings. Schilling got screwed by being the 2nd best pitcher in baseball for 2 years where the best pitcher in baseball happened to be his teammate. If he wins those 2 cys then he would have been in years. Then he was ridiculously good in 2004 and again happened to finish 2nd to a near historical year.

And that's without even looking at Schilling having one of the best postseason pitching resumes in MLB history. He's a top 30 starting pitcher of all time, and the only guy better than him that is eligible and hasn't been elected to the hall yet is Clemens.
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
312
I’m interested in having holes poked in my understanding of the PED allegations against Ortiz. So, forgive the long post, but, if interested, tell me what I’m missing.

In 2003, MLB conducted limited testing in agreement with the players’ union to determine if there would be mandatory random testing in 2004, which would be mandated if a threshold of 5 percent positive tests was exceeded.
Later, results of the confidential testing were seized by the U.S. government in conjunction with an investigation into the distribution of performance-enhancing drugs to professional athletes.

There were something close to 100 positive tests (the government list of positive tests was longer than the MLB list since some player names were removed from the MLB list due to unreliable or uncertain results). Then in 2009, there was a leak, from the government list, of some names, including Ortiz. Since then, Rob Manfred explained that there were at least 10 or more tests that were likely false positives (those names were removed from the MLB list). However, since the results were supposed to be anonymous, and the total positives was way over 5%, the league didn't take any additional steps to re-test those problematic results. Since then, there have been court orders that prevent anyone from talking about the specific results, and the tests and results have apparently been destroyed.

Notably, I’m only aware of the commissioner of baseball publicly defending one player against those leaks: David Ortiz. And I don’t think there is any dispute that Ortiz did not fail any of the dozens/hundreds(?) of tests at any other point in his career.

The secondary issue that often comes up is that Ortiz’s career took off when he arrived in Boston after years of failure. I hear this a lot, but, it doesn’t match up with Ortiz’s actual performance. Ortiz had great minor league stats and he put up an OPS over .800 for the Twins whenever they actually let him play. He slugged 18 homers in 89 games in 2001 and had a .500 slugging percentage in 2002. Tom Kelly, the Twins manager, wanted a defensive first baseman with limited strike outs. That's why Doug Mientkiewicz played and Ortiz did not. Ortiz even tried to cut down his swing for the Twins, which suppressed his numbers. Eventually, the Twins released Ortiz to avoid a pay raise. The rest is history.

Here are Ortiz's minor league stats:
1995 Rookie Ball: .332 AVG, .941 OPS
1996 A Ball: .322 AVG, 18 HRs, .901 OPS
1997 (3 levels): .317 31 HRs, .940 OPS
1998 (spent primarily in the majors)
1999 AAA: .315 AVG, 30 HRs, 1.002 OPS

Ortiz's Home runs per At Bat:*
Last four years in the minors: 1/19
MIN 2001: 1/17
MIN 2002: 1/20
BOS 2003: 1/15
BOS 2004: 1/16
Career: 1/19

Did Ortiz improve in Boston? Absolutely. Absent any actual proof of PED use, I attribute that improvement to playing time, getting out of the Twin's small ball coaching system, and having that transition happen as he entered his prime years.
*2000 was not a great year for Ortiz in terms of homers (only 10 in 130 games) but he put up pretty good numbers overall.
 
Last edited:

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
3,222
Twin Cities

Monbonthbump

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2005
200
Lincoln,NE
If Schilling is kept out of the HOF because of "losing his mind" over non-baseball behavior, then present HOFers with even more unacceptable behavior should probably be removed as well to maintain the moral purity of the institution. Ty Cobb would be my first nomination and I'm not too sure about the Ruth guy either. And , by the way, does supporting our military and police personnel, sending aid to hurricane victims, and surviving throat cancer and cardiac problems with dignity qualify as "mind loser" behavior?
 

amRadio

lurker
Feb 7, 2019
748
I always felt like the HOF has so many disgusting characters within it already that the "character clause" becomes a complete joke. I'm all for removing the Tris Speaker, Cap Anson and Kennesaw Landis types who were repugnant humans in their life away from the game. Unless you do, I feel like you honor the career and set aside the person or else - to me - it feels a bit hollow. If his induction to the HOF gives us a moment to repudiate the hateful speech of a Curt Schilling in front a younger generation that didn't previously care about him otherwise, well, good. The end of his 15 minutes should be shameful and I don't think a HOF induction puts a new shine on him.

The career deserves induction, the human deserves another good public roasting.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
50,339
If Schilling is kept out of the HOF because of "losing his mind" over non-baseball behavior, then present HOFers with even more unacceptable behavior should probably be removed as well to maintain the moral purity of the institution. Ty Cobb would be my first nomination and I'm not too sure about the Ruth guy either. And , by the way, does supporting our military and police personnel, sending aid to hurricane victims, and surviving throat cancer and cardiac problems with dignity qualify as "mind loser" behavior?
Wasn’t Cobb actually not a bad guy, and what did Ruth do besides smoke and drink?

I don’t know how to touch the rest without being political, but I’d dispute Curt has done anything with dignity since retiring.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,861
Wasn’t Cobb actually not a bad guy, and what did Ruth do besides smoke and drink?
It’s amazing how much of a grip that Al Stump’s work of fiction has on the public mind. It’s like Washington Irving’s Columbus novel that somehow became history.
 

CaptainLaddie

dj paul pfieffer
SoSH Member
Sep 6, 2004
31,964
the district
If Schilling is kept out of the HOF because of "losing his mind" over non-baseball behavior, then present HOFers with even more unacceptable behavior should probably be removed as well to maintain the moral purity of the institution. Ty Cobb would be my first nomination and I'm not too sure about the Ruth guy either. And , by the way, does supporting our military and police personnel, sending aid to hurricane victims, and surviving throat cancer and cardiac problems with dignity qualify as "mind loser" behavior?
Not for nothing, but there's a lot of stuff that Schilling's said that, uh, should be taken into account if you're going to look at him as a whole?

And I'm someone who thinks he should be in the HOF.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
6,864
New York City
It's not just that Schilling has gone over the edge, it's how. Among the many other disturbing and offensive things he has said, he has attacked the HOF voting process and the voters. And he's called for journalists to be lynched. That's gonna legitimately cost you a few votes. In fact, one voter/writer - sorry, I'm forgetting who and couldn't find it in a quick Google search - wrote an article a year or so ago specifically about how he was done defending Schilling and would no longer vote for his admission.

As for Big Papi, I'm hoping for a first ballot induction but sort of doubting it. Too many voters like to "send messages" through their voting, sometimes as simple as, "Yeah, you're a HOFer, but not a first ballot HOFer." Some still don't like DHs. Some cast a wide PED net. Those all might add up to more than 25%.
Hot take - they should get rid of the whole “multiple ballots” thing for precisely this reason. Either someone is a Hall of Famer or he isn’t. It never made sense to me why they need to dead out the process for a literal decade for some people. (Getting rid of the 10-player max would be a part of this change, of course.)
 

Niastri

Member
SoSH Member
Schilling -- the player -- deserves to be in. I don't think that it's too debatable, considering his postseason heroics and his excellent 30s. Among starters in their 30s, he's 5th in the Divisional Era in ERA+, behind Scherzer (HOF), Kevin Brown, John Tudor (finished at 36), Chris Carpenter (finished at 37). Right behind him are Clemens, Greinke, Cliff Lee, and Verlander.

Schilling -- the person he's turned into since retirement -- won't get in. Call it cancel culture, call it being woke, but he's turned so many people off that they won't vote for him out of spite... and I get it.

I think my politics are pretty well known here, and it really is a shame that Curt couldn't get his own act together long enough for him to get into the HOF. He's absolutely deserving of it, but because he's (pardon my language here) lost his fucking mind, he won't get in. It's a self-inflicted wound more than anything else. If he toned his shit back even 25%, he's likely in.

Here's the list of pitchers with at least an ERA+ of 125 and 300 career decisions who haven't made the HOF:

https://stathead.com/tiny/t7PFU

- Clemens (won't likely get unless the Vets Committee votes him in)
- Al Spalding (finished his career in 1877)
- Verlander (will get in)
- Schilling (yup)
- Kevin Brown (does not have close the postseason resume that Schilling does)
- Tommy Bridges (Hall of Very Good career)
Schilling needs to be in for the bloody sock game alone.
Other than that, he led the league in various seasons in wins, win percentage, complete games, innings and strikeouts. He ended with 216 wins and 3116 strike outs, both still important counting stats. His WAR of 89.5 is 26th all time for pitchers, if you prefer modern stats instead.

He was a six time all Star and runner up in Cy Young voting three times.

His playoff performance was even better, resulting in three World Series championships, none of which were won in spite of him.

In short, only because Schilling is a terrible asshole is he not already in the Hall of Fame.
 

Phil Plantier

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 7, 2002
3,119
In fact, one voter/writer - sorry, I'm forgetting who and couldn't find it in a quick Google search - wrote an article a year or so ago specifically about how he was done defending Schilling and would no longer vote for his admission.
You may be thinking of Joe Posnanski (pay link): https://theathletic.com/2250850/2020/12/11/top-mlb-outside-the-hall-of-fame-curt-schilling/

Yes, I do believe Schilling was a great player. But I’m done. This year, for the first time, I will not vote for him. If the Hall of Fame really is an honor and not just an acknowledgment of baseball greatness, well, one thing I feel very sure about is that Curt Schilling doesn’t deserve it.
Hot take - they should get rid of the whole “multiple ballots” thing for precisely this reason. Either someone is a Hall of Famer or he isn’t. It never made sense to me why they need to dead out the process for a literal decade for some people. (Getting rid of the 10-player max would be a part of this change, of course.)
I think the HoF is an interesting voting procedure because multiple ballots allow for extended debates about players. Moreover, the extended time frame allows input from everyone in the community. Not to mention that "snubs" always get more publicity than enshrinees.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
3,222
Twin Cities
Yes, thanks, Posnanski was who I was trying to remember. And I basically agree with him. The HOF IS an honor. And Schilling has tried hard, even intentionally, to forfeit his right to it.

Is that applying a different standard than what was applied to former players? Probably. So what? The world changes. Maybe there's a reason for letting human beings vote on Hall membership instead of a computer program.
 

Monbonthbump

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2005
200
Lincoln,NE
It’s amazing how much of a grip that Al Stump’s work of fiction has on the public mind. It’s like Washington Irving’s Columbus novel that somehow became history.
There are plenty of sources more reliable than Stump documenting Cobb as a true a-hole and racist.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,861
People with that sort of singleminded dedication are generally not warm, fuzzy people. He expected his children to achieve as he had and so naturally had contentious relations with them (I’m assuming that’s what you mean when you call him an asshole. As for the racist part, he might have been by your standards, but by his own time he was pretty progressive on race matters. He built homes in African-American neighborhoods, started an educational trust to help the poor (which included a lot of African-Americans in Jim Crow Georgia), and built desegregated hospital in that same era. If you were as racist as Cobb the world would be a better place.
 

MartyBC

lurker
Jul 22, 2017
40
Funny how so many people who could never hit a Curt Schilling fast ball or even a slow ball decide his HOF credentials.
 

j-man

Member
Dec 19, 2012
2,364
Arkansas
The Veterans' Committee has a great track record...
100% i mean i am sure harold baines is a great guy but not a HOF i am 50-50 on schll his stats says yes but the way he has gone about it couild been better but if jack morris and mussiua is in schil has to be in too
 

RG33

Potty Mouth
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
5,142
CA
I really think it is a shame that David Ortiz has been associated with “steroids” because of the 2003 testing in MLB. To set the record straight:

2003 “anonymous” testing was done by MLB, and included testing for things like ephedra and amphetamines (which, at the time, were found in many OTC supplements)
Ortiz was not mentioned in the Balco scandal
Ortiz was not mentioned in the Mitchell report
Ortiz was not mentioned in the Biogenesis scandal
Ortiz never failed a drug test from 2004-2018
Ortiz’s physical appearance never changed dramatically during his career
Ortiz’s performance remained consistent throughout his career

It really isn’t homerism to me to say that David Ortiz does not belong in the same conversation as the PED crowd just because of the 2003 initial testing rumors.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
I really think it is a shame that David Ortiz has been associated with “steroids” because of the 2003 testing in MLB. To set the record straight:

2003 “anonymous” testing was done by MLB, and included testing for things like ephedra and amphetamines (which, at the time, were found in many OTC supplements)
Ortiz was not mentioned in the Balco scandal
Ortiz was not mentioned in the Mitchell report
Ortiz was not mentioned in the Biogenesis scandal
Ortiz never failed a drug test from 2004-2018
Ortiz’s physical appearance never changed dramatically during his career
Ortiz’s performance remained consistent throughout his career

It really isn’t homerism to me to say that David Ortiz does not belong in the same conversation as the PED crowd just because of the 2003 initial testing rumors.
I'm pretty much with you here, but there's something that I can't help but wonder about. Does Papi's bromance with A-Rod influence any voters who might have doubts? It's no secret that writers withhold votes for any number of personal axes that they feel necessary to grind.
 

Earthbound64

Member
SoSH Member
I really think it is a shame that David Ortiz has been associated with “steroids” because of the 2003 testing in MLB. To set the record straight:
Not to mention, anyone who didn't do it properly or declined to do it was marked as a positive. It was only meant to serve as a justification for the need for testing by providing a baseline percentage of issues, not to identify people specifically.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
16,856
Schilling needs to be in for the bloody sock game alone.
Other than that, he led the league in various seasons in wins, win percentage, complete games, innings and strikeouts. He ended with 216 wins and 3116 strike outs, both still important counting stats. His WAR of 89.5 is 26th all time for pitchers, if you prefer modern stats instead.

He was a six time all Star and runner up in Cy Young voting three times.

His playoff performance was even better, resulting in three World Series championships, none of which were won in spite of him.

In short, only because Schilling is a terrible asshole is he not already in the Hall of Fame.
Schilling's three runner-up seasons for the CYA are really, really great seasons. Would have won the CYA in many other seasons, but he had horrible luck in running into an all-time great Maddux season, and then two hilariously filthy Randy Johnson seasons, in which Schilling wasn't even the best picture on his own team.
 

amRadio

lurker
Feb 7, 2019
748
In '04 when Schilling finished 2nd it was to a pretty absurd season by Johan Santana too. Santana went 13-0 with a 1.21 ERA and 11 k/9 in 15 starts in the 2nd half that year. Absolutely ran away with that one.
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
8,070
Funny how so many people who could never hit a Curt Schilling fast ball or even a slow ball decide his HOF credentials.
So given that you couldn't hit his fast or slow ball, should we care about what you think about Schilling's chances?