@ArtVandelay said:
I'm not sure why people think Curt Schilling is so automatic. Here are some pitchers not in the hall as compared to Schilling.
Curt Schilling
216 wins -146 losses - 3.46 era - 20 shutouts -3116 strike outs top 4 cy young 4x) World Series Champion
Luis Tiant
229 wins - 172 losses - 3.30 era - 49 shutouts - 2416 strike outs (top 6 cy young 4x)
Orel Hershiser
204 wins - 150 losses - 3.48 era - 25 shutouts - 2014 strike outs (Cy Young 1988, 4x top 4 cy young finishes, 59 consecutive shutout innings (record), World Series champion
Kevin Brown
211 wins - 144 losses - 3.28 era - 17 shutouts - 2397 strike outs (5x top 6 cy young finishes, world series champ.
Bob Welch
211 wins - 146 losses - 3.47 era - 28 shutouts - 1969 strikeouts (1990 Cy Young, World Series Champ)
Vida Blue
209 wins - 161 losses - 3.27 era - 37 shutouts - 2175 strikeouts (1971 Cy Young+Most Valuable Player, World Series Champ, 5x top 7 cy young finishes
Tim Hudson
222 wins - 133 losses - 3.49 era - 13 shutouts - 2080 strike outs (4x top 6 cy young, World Series Champ)
Simple. Because he is 11-2 with a 2.23 era and 120 strike outs in the playoffs to go along with 3 world series championships all of which he was an integral part of his team making and winning. Nobody else on your list can claim to have made that type of impact to that many world series winning teams, and after all, the ultimate goal in the sport is to win the world series.
Well said. Its not subject for debate. He belongs in the Hall of Fame.
Not to mention 1993 NLCS MVP and, if not for David West coming in and blowing game one, his game 5 shutout would have made him the favorite for MVP in the alternate reality where the Phillies won the series.
Lenny Dykstra’s poor angle on Devon White’s fly ball triple lost game 4 and the 1993 series for the Phillies.
Do not mention the "Voldemort" game of Phillies' history.
And I’ll also say there’s a nice compromise available here: a nice, well dimly lit cheaters wing in Cooperstown. A dank little room for Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose and Barry Bonds, Palmiero, Clemens and McGwire to get together and talk about how they fooled us all for the rest of time...
All of that analytical post makes sense to me, except the Joe Jackson part. It is difficult to grasp all of the truth on what happened considering how long ago it was and how many perspectives have romanticized the infamous World Series. My understanding is that Jackson played to win during that series, and that the argument is not that he took a dive and threw the series but rather that his crime is not pursuing the moral/ethical duty of reporting what he knew in advance or during the events (by a stretch, I suppose it could be considered similar to a Joe Paterno vs. Jerry Sandusky situation in a way). Reading articles about the 1919 team recently, I noticed this bit that someone wrote that seems like a halfway decent point:
If Jackson goes to Gleason or Comiskey....what does he tell them, who does he tell them is IN on the fix. None of those men were convinced of any of the other men going through with it. Jackson was seen as an uneducated bumpkin from South Carolina....would he even have been believed, I argue that he wouldn't have been believed. The National Commission didn't believe Charles Comiskey when he went to them the night after the first game, so why would anyone in their right mind think they would have believed the uneducated bumpkin from South Carolina in the form of Joe Jackson....they wouldn't have. You are correct, morally those men should have said something, but what do they say, they really had no clue who was going to go through with it and there was no hard proof. If they said Gandil was going to tank or Risberg....those men would have denied it, there was NO proof and then Weaver and Jackson are laughed (or kicked) out of baseball, neither was willing to risk that over hearsay. Before the Series, it was simply that....hearsay. Very easy to judge those men from 2020, but a bit different prior to the start of the Series IN 1919.
I wonder if there is enough validity to that? I don't think it changes much, since Jackson should have reported what he knew regardless of whether or not anyone either believed him or went on to do anything about it; but, I found it to be an interesting take anyway.
And I’ll also say there’s a nice compromise available here: a nice, well dimly lit cheaters wing in Cooperstown. A dank little room for Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose and Barry Bonds, Palmiero, Clemens and McGwire to get together and talk about how they fooled us all for the rest of time...
All of that analytical post makes sense to me, except the Joe Jackson part. It is difficult to grasp all of the truth on what happened considering how long ago it was and how many perspectives have romanticized the infamous World Series. My understanding is that Jackson played to win during that series, and that the argument is not that he took a dive and threw the series but rather that his crime is not pursuing the moral/ethical duty of reporting what he knew in advance or during the events (by a stretch, I suppose it could be considered similar to a Joe Paterno vs. Jerry Sandusky situation in a way). Reading articles about the 1919 team recently, I noticed this bit that someone wrote that seems like a halfway decent point:
If Jackson goes to Gleason or Comiskey....what does he tell them, who does he tell them is IN on the fix. None of those men were convinced of any of the other men going through with it. Jackson was seen as an uneducated bumpkin from South Carolina....would he even have been believed, I argue that he wouldn't have been believed. The National Commission didn't believe Charles Comiskey when he went to them the night after the first game, so why would anyone in their right mind think they would have believed the uneducated bumpkin from South Carolina in the form of Joe Jackson....they wouldn't have. You are correct, morally those men should have said something, but what do they say, they really had no clue who was going to go through with it and there was no hard proof. If they said Gandil was going to tank or Risberg....those men would have denied it, there was NO proof and then Weaver and Jackson are laughed (or kicked) out of baseball, neither was willing to risk that over hearsay. Before the Series, it was simply that....hearsay. Very easy to judge those men from 2020, but a bit different prior to the start of the Series IN 1919.
I wonder if there is enough validity to that? I don't think it changes much, since Jackson should have reported what he knew regardless of whether or not anyone either believed him or went on to do anything about it; but, I found it to be an interesting take anyway.
The problem I have is not so much with Joe Jackson; he sort of carried on and kept playing - according to legend - albeit not in the major leagues. To be honest, he was great but I think there’s a decent chance he’d have been forgotten. Now? He’s still a topic of discussion 100 years later. Many people don’t know who Joe Medwick is - a HOF, MVP and the last NL triple crown winner - BUT everybody knows Shoeless Joe.
The ban was good for Joe Jackson, in a way, and has helped keep him relevant. And served as a lasting reminder that you can’t fix games or you soon have no sport.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@BriantheTaxGuy said:
Baseball turned its back on its greatest players of an entire generation and in return, America has turned its back on baseball.
Talk about digging your own grave.
The baseball hall of fame omitting Clemens, Bonds and Rose is the same as the Louvre without the Mona Lisa.
I am done with this discussion. The people cheering on the exclusion of all-time great players to prove some opaque "morality" while attempting to argue for marginal players are proof they have truly lost their way.
For the record, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH you that the Hall of Fame is too watered down at this point. There’s several easy fixes with that.
It’s actually not some opaque morality. That’s a bunch of nonsense. Gambling was illegal at the time and location everywhere Pete Rose placed a bet outside riverboats, Atlantic City and Las Vegas. That’s a crime.
Anabolic steroids, HGH and many other supplements were illegal drugs in the United States unless prescribed by a doctor and to the best of my knowledge I still can’t go to Walgreens and pick some up on any of them.
So I don’t want to hear they weren’t testing and it wasn’t illegal. Yes, in fact, it was illegal. I don’t think the MLB should need to adjust the league charter to cover murder statutes, either, you know? We have, you know, laws.
And I’ll also say there’s a nice compromise available here: a nice, well dimly lit cheaters wing in Cooperstown. A dank little room for Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose and Barry Bonds, Palmiero, Clemens and McGwire to get together and talk about how they fooled us all for the rest of time...
...and in front of the entrance, blocking it, let’s also have monuments to Roger Maris, Ty Cobb and Hank Aaron. So you’d have to walk past them to go check out the cheaters.
And I have less vitriol for the steroid boys than I do for Pete Rose, who can go do something that is anatomically impossible for most men for all eternity.
you are lumping Clemens in with steroid users. There is no proof he ever used. just one disgruntled former employee with some 5 year old syringes stored inside an empty beer can.
@BriantheTaxGuy said:
Baseball turned its back on its greatest players of an entire generation and in return, America has turned its back on baseball.
Talk about digging your own grave.
The baseball hall of fame omitting Clemens, Bonds and Rose is the same as the Louvre without the Mona Lisa.
I am done with this discussion. The people cheering on the exclusion of all-time great players to prove some opaque "morality" while attempting to argue for marginal players are proof they have truly lost their way.
For the record, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH you that the Hall of Fame is too watered down at this point. There’s several easy fixes with that.
It’s actually not some opaque morality. That’s a bunch of nonsense. Gambling was illegal at the time and location everywhere Pete Rose placed a bet outside riverboats, Atlantic City and Las Vegas. That’s a crime.
Anabolic steroids, HGH and many other supplements were illegal drugs in the United States unless prescribed by a doctor and to the best of my knowledge I still can’t go to Walgreens and pick some up on any of them.
So I don’t want to hear they weren’t testing and it wasn’t illegal. Yes, in fact, it was illegal. I don’t think the MLB should need to adjust the league charter to cover murder statutes, either, you know? We have, you know, laws.
And I’ll also say there’s a nice compromise available here: a nice, well dimly lit cheaters wing in Cooperstown. A dank little room for Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose and Barry Bonds, Palmiero, Clemens and McGwire to get together and talk about how they fooled us all for the rest of time...
...and in front of the entrance, blocking it, let’s also have monuments to Roger Maris, Ty Cobb and Hank Aaron. So you’d have to walk past them to go check out the cheaters.
And I have less vitriol for the steroid boys than I do for Pete Rose, who can go do something that is anatomically impossible for most men for all eternity.
you are lumping Clemens in with steroid users. There is no proof he ever used. just one disgruntled former employee with some 5 year old syringes stored inside an empty beer can.
Are you a Clemens fan?
If so, I’m not going to go there.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@BriantheTaxGuy said:
Baseball turned its back on its greatest players of an entire generation and in return, America has turned its back on baseball.
Talk about digging your own grave.
The baseball hall of fame omitting Clemens, Bonds and Rose is the same as the Louvre without the Mona Lisa.
I am done with this discussion. The people cheering on the exclusion of all-time great players to prove some opaque "morality" while attempting to argue for marginal players are proof they have truly lost their way.
For the record, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH you that the Hall of Fame is too watered down at this point. There’s several easy fixes with that.
It’s actually not some opaque morality. That’s a bunch of nonsense. Gambling was illegal at the time and location everywhere Pete Rose placed a bet outside riverboats, Atlantic City and Las Vegas. That’s a crime.
Anabolic steroids, HGH and many other supplements were illegal drugs in the United States unless prescribed by a doctor and to the best of my knowledge I still can’t go to Walgreens and pick some up on any of them.
So I don’t want to hear they weren’t testing and it wasn’t illegal. Yes, in fact, it was illegal. I don’t think the MLB should need to adjust the league charter to cover murder statutes, either, you know? We have, you know, laws.
And I’ll also say there’s a nice compromise available here: a nice, well dimly lit cheaters wing in Cooperstown. A dank little room for Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose and Barry Bonds, Palmiero, Clemens and McGwire to get together and talk about how they fooled us all for the rest of time...
...and in front of the entrance, blocking it, let’s also have monuments to Roger Maris, Ty Cobb and Hank Aaron. So you’d have to walk past them to go check out the cheaters.
And I have less vitriol for the steroid boys than I do for Pete Rose, who can go do something that is anatomically impossible for most men for all eternity.
you are lumping Clemens in with steroid users. There is no proof he ever used. just one disgruntled former employee with some 5 year old syringes stored inside an empty beer can.
Are you a Clemens fan?
If so, I’m not going to go there.
makes no difference. I don't know as much about other players, ie. bonds, mcgwire, sosa etc, but I very closely followed the Clemens trials. there was no evidence and it should have been tossed before it ever made it to court.
@BriantheTaxGuy said:
50 games doesn't make a hall of fame career either LOL
He lost his chance at the hall when he compared Muslims to nazis, mocked the trans community, cheering on insurrectionists and journalists.
Let's also not forget his swindling Rhode island out of 75 million for his video game "company."
His accomplishments on the field made him a marginal hall of famer. His conduct off it make him permanently ineligible.
I'd agree with you if he only played 50 games. Come on man. His resume is bigger than that and you know it. Those are the highlights and what sets him apart from the others that were mentioned by Art. I get it. You hate Schilling because he's not a nice guy, didn't play for the team you root for, or offends you because you don't have thick skin. Regardless of what you think about Schilling (I'm a Rockies fan and could care less one way or the other about him) the guy performed on the absolute biggest stage like very few have ever done. That is the key ingredient that puts him in. It seems pretty hypocritical that Clayton Kershaw gets blasted for his post season problems, but on the flip side Schilling doesn't get additional recognition for his incredible success in the post season.
I cannot hit curveball. Straightball I hit it very much. Curveball, bats are afraid. Collecting: post world war II HOF rookie 76 topps gem mint 10 commons 9 stars Arenado purple refractors(Rockies) Red (Cardinals) successful deals with Keevan, Grote15, 1954, mbogoman
@coolstanley said:
Some people elected into the Rock hall of fame told the rock hall to stick it where the sun don't shine. Sounds like Schilling did the same thing to the baseball hall
Come on, let's be honest. If he truly felt this way, he wouldn't have waited until his 9th year of eligibility to pull this move. He knew he wasn't getting in next year and this way he gets to pull the whole "you're not breaking up with me, I'm breaking up with YOU!"
Where was this bravado prior to the announced results? If he truly felt this way, why wait until after the vote tallies to make this announcement.
I hope they leave him on the ballot so he has to suffer the ignominy of being booted off the ballot.
I don’t like Schilling as a human, but I also don’t think that should have anything to do with his worthiness. 3000 Ks is an automatic “in” in my book, plus the playoff resume others have mentioned.
@BriantheTaxGuy said:
Baseball turned its back on its greatest players of an entire generation and in return, America has turned its back on baseball.
Talk about digging your own grave.
The baseball hall of fame omitting Clemens, Bonds and Rose is the same as the Louvre without the Mona Lisa.
I am done with this discussion. The people cheering on the exclusion of all-time great players to prove some opaque "morality" while attempting to argue for marginal players are proof they have truly lost their way.
For the record, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH you that the Hall of Fame is too watered down at this point. There’s several easy fixes with that.
It’s actually not some opaque morality. That’s a bunch of nonsense. Gambling was illegal at the time and location everywhere Pete Rose placed a bet outside riverboats, Atlantic City and Las Vegas. That’s a crime.
Anabolic steroids, HGH and many other supplements were illegal drugs in the United States unless prescribed by a doctor and to the best of my knowledge I still can’t go to Walgreens and pick some up on any of them.
So I don’t want to hear they weren’t testing and it wasn’t illegal. Yes, in fact, it was illegal. I don’t think the MLB should need to adjust the league charter to cover murder statutes, either, you know? We have, you know, laws.
And I’ll also say there’s a nice compromise available here: a nice, well dimly lit cheaters wing in Cooperstown. A dank little room for Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose and Barry Bonds, Palmiero, Clemens and McGwire to get together and talk about how they fooled us all for the rest of time...
...and in front of the entrance, blocking it, let’s also have monuments to Roger Maris, Ty Cobb and Hank Aaron. So you’d have to walk past them to go check out the cheaters.
And I have less vitriol for the steroid boys than I do for Pete Rose, who can go do something that is anatomically impossible for most men for all eternity.
you are lumping Clemens in with steroid users. There is no proof he ever used. just one disgruntled former employee with some 5 year old syringes stored inside an empty beer can.
Are you a Clemens fan?
If so, I’m not going to go there.
makes no difference. I don't know as much about other players, ie. bonds, mcgwire, sosa etc, but I very closely followed the Clemens trials. there was no evidence and it should have been tossed before it ever made it to court.
Certainly lots of circumstantial evidence. He threw harder in the 2000 World Series against the Mets than he did 14 years earlier!
@BriantheTaxGuy said:
When we are stuck arguing semantics of why peripheral players why Jim Kaat should be in the hall while turning our backs on Bonds, Clemens, and Rose, then the museum is no longer relevant but to an ever-shrinking segment of the population who wants to wag their fingers and claim to be morally outraged.
Baseball is dying and has been for years. This discussion is a perfect distillation of why.
edit: the all-time hits leader, all-time and single-season HR leader are not HoF inductees. It's a fact the hall is incomplete without their inclusion.
Pete Rose dug his own grave. He was offered a hand, he was offered second chances and he was offered a lifetime to show anything resembling remorse. Every time, he instead used his shovel to dig himself in deeper.
The moment you allow for players, coaches and managers to bet on the games they participate in, the MLB becomes the WWF.
Pete Rose was all three and according to people who aren’t Pete Rose, he almost certainly began betting on baseball prior to the times he was actually caught doing so.
And you can’t go by what Pete Rose has to say because he has about as much credibility as Enron, Lehman Brothers and Arthur Anderson if they were one company run by Bernie Madoff.
As for the steroid boys? They all had a great chance to do the right thing and save their legacies when subpoenaed by Congress to tell the truth. Those that showed up (with the exception of Curt Schilling) made fools of themselves that day or later on trying to twist the truth in the face of direct questions.
Mark McGwire said he wasn’t here to talk about the past then cried when asked why.
Rafael Palmiero lied, wagged his finger and failed a test the next spring then retired.
Sammy Sosa, who was part of a national ad campaign for Pepsi and spoke in innumerable post game interviews suddenly didn’t have a good enough grasp of the language.
Who else did I miss? These all time greats you speak of are chemically enhanced pretenders who played lots of baseball games between them, helped the game recover from the strike (they’re also half responsible for that, particularly these guys who were the best ones who wanted more money, right?) reaped enormous financial rewards, kept every dime and destroyed the statistical legacy of the game, took away opportunities from guys who didn’t cheat and as a result weren’t able to make it to the majors and then when asked to own up to it for the good of the game and the nation to do nothing more than answer questions honestly, that was too much to ask? Guys like Will Clark, Monte Irvin, Don Mattingly, etc - the borderline guys of all eras? These steroid guys ruined their chances too. The ripple effect of harm is immense.
I always think back to that day on Capital Hill as conclusive proof of steroids in baseball: with all those major leaguers up there, Curt Schilling was the only man up there with the balls to tell the truth...
...and I don’t like Curt Schilling one bit, either.
But I’ll give the man his due for that day and the great performance against my beloved Yankees.
That guy belongs in the Hall.
i'm on the other side of the fence (today at least), however it's hard to argue any of your points either. great post!
@BriantheTaxGuy said:
Baseball turned its back on its greatest players of an entire generation and in return, America has turned its back on baseball.
Talk about digging your own grave.
The baseball hall of fame omitting Clemens, Bonds and Rose is the same as the Louvre without the Mona Lisa.
I am done with this discussion. The people cheering on the exclusion of all-time great players to prove some opaque "morality" while attempting to argue for marginal players are proof they have truly lost their way.
For the record, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH you that the Hall of Fame is too watered down at this point. There’s several easy fixes with that.
It’s actually not some opaque morality. That’s a bunch of nonsense. Gambling was illegal at the time and location everywhere Pete Rose placed a bet outside riverboats, Atlantic City and Las Vegas. That’s a crime.
Anabolic steroids, HGH and many other supplements were illegal drugs in the United States unless prescribed by a doctor and to the best of my knowledge I still can’t go to Walgreens and pick some up on any of them.
So I don’t want to hear they weren’t testing and it wasn’t illegal. Yes, in fact, it was illegal. I don’t think the MLB should need to adjust the league charter to cover murder statutes, either, you know? We have, you know, laws.
And I’ll also say there’s a nice compromise available here: a nice, well dimly lit cheaters wing in Cooperstown. A dank little room for Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose and Barry Bonds, Palmiero, Clemens and McGwire to get together and talk about how they fooled us all for the rest of time...
...and in front of the entrance, blocking it, let’s also have monuments to Roger Maris, Ty Cobb and Hank Aaron. So you’d have to walk past them to go check out the cheaters.
And I have less vitriol for the steroid boys than I do for Pete Rose, who can go do something that is anatomically impossible for most men for all eternity.
you are lumping Clemens in with steroid users. There is no proof he ever used. just one disgruntled former employee with some 5 year old syringes stored inside an empty beer can.
Are you a Clemens fan?
If so, I’m not going to go there.
makes no difference. I don't know as much about other players, ie. bonds, mcgwire, sosa etc, but I very closely followed the Clemens trials. there was no evidence and it should have been tossed before it ever made it to court.
Certainly lots of circumstantial evidence. He threw harder in the 2000 World Series against the Mets than he did 14 years earlier!
fairly common knowledge that the older radar guns read the balls speed as it neared the plate, modern guns read about 8 feet from the pitchers hand.
they clocked Randy Johnson at 100 MPH at 40 years old. I highly doubt he was actually was.
do you care to share all of the other "lots" of circumstantial evidence?
@ArtVandelay said:
I'm not sure why people think Curt Schilling is so automatic. Here are some pitchers not in the hall as compared to Schilling.
Curt Schilling 486 runs better than average
216 wins -146 losses - 3.46 era - 20 shutouts -3116 strike outs top 4 cy young 4x) World Series Champion
Luis Tiant 269 runs better than average
229 wins - 172 losses - 3.30 era - 49 shutouts - 2416 strike outs (top 6 cy young 4x)
Orel Hershiser 206 runs better than average
204 wins - 150 losses - 3.48 era - 25 shutouts - 2014 strike outs (Cy Young 1988, 4x top 4 cy young finishes, 59 consecutive shutout innings (record), World Series champion
Kevin Brown 367 runs better than average
211 wins - 144 losses - 3.28 era - 17 shutouts - 2397 strike outs (5x top 6 cy young finishes, world series champ.
Bob Welch 127 runs better than average
211 wins - 146 losses - 3.47 era - 28 shutouts - 1969 strikeouts (1990 Cy Young, World Series Champ)
Vida Blue 112 runs better than average
209 wins - 161 losses - 3.27 era - 37 shutouts - 2175 strikeouts (1971 Cy Young+Most Valuable Player, World Series Champ, 5x top 7 cy young finishes
Tim Hudson 281 runs better than average
222 wins - 133 losses - 3.49 era - 13 shutouts - 2080 strike outs (4x top 6 cy young, World Series Champ)
If you were serious, I have cleared up your confusion. There is no pitcher who is not in the HOF, besides Clemens, in the same area code as Schilling in this, or any, stat that measures pitching skill over an entire career. I think Kevin Brown is a legitimate HOFer, and he was nowhere close to as good as Schilling. I'd vote for Tiant for the HOF, and we wasn't as good as Brown.
Schilling is not in the HOF because a large enough minority of sportswriters disagree with his politics and for absolutely no other reason. If anyone has any doubt about that, you can stop now.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@ArtVandelay said:
I'm not sure why people think Curt Schilling is so automatic. Here are some pitchers not in the hall as compared to Schilling.
Curt Schilling 486 runs better than average
216 wins -146 losses - 3.46 era - 20 shutouts -3116 strike outs top 4 cy young 4x) World Series Champion
Luis Tiant 269 runs better than average
229 wins - 172 losses - 3.30 era - 49 shutouts - 2416 strike outs (top 6 cy young 4x)
Orel Hershiser 206 runs better than average
204 wins - 150 losses - 3.48 era - 25 shutouts - 2014 strike outs (Cy Young 1988, 4x top 4 cy young finishes, 59 consecutive shutout innings (record), World Series champion
Kevin Brown 367 runs better than average
211 wins - 144 losses - 3.28 era - 17 shutouts - 2397 strike outs (5x top 6 cy young finishes, world series champ.
Bob Welch 127 runs better than average
211 wins - 146 losses - 3.47 era - 28 shutouts - 1969 strikeouts (1990 Cy Young, World Series Champ)
Vida Blue 112 runs better than average
209 wins - 161 losses - 3.27 era - 37 shutouts - 2175 strikeouts (1971 Cy Young+Most Valuable Player, World Series Champ, 5x top 7 cy young finishes
Tim Hudson 281 runs better than average
222 wins - 133 losses - 3.49 era - 13 shutouts - 2080 strike outs (4x top 6 cy young, World Series Champ)
If you were serious, I have cleared up your confusion. There is no pitcher who is not in the HOF, besides Clemens, in the same area code as Schilling in this, or any, stat that measures pitching skill over an entire career. I think Kevin Brown is a legitimate HOFer, and he was nowhere close to as good as Schilling. I'd vote for Tiant for the HOF, and we wasn't as good as Brown.
Schilling is not in the HOF because a large enough minority of sportswriters disagree with his politics and for absolutely no other reason. If anyone has any doubt about that, you can stop now.
I'm not arguing with this, but can't find the data. Can you do Jim McCormick, Tommy Bond, and Charlie Buffington? Or does the system not work for (early) 19th century pitchers? Not arguing for any of them to be in the HoF but curious as to how they compare in this one stat to Schilling.
@BriantheTaxGuy said:
Baseball turned its back on its greatest players of an entire generation and in return, America has turned its back on baseball.
Talk about digging your own grave.
The baseball hall of fame omitting Clemens, Bonds and Rose is the same as the Louvre without the Mona Lisa.
I am done with this discussion. The people cheering on the exclusion of all-time great players to prove some opaque "morality" while attempting to argue for marginal players are proof they have truly lost their way.
For the record, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH you that the Hall of Fame is too watered down at this point. There’s several easy fixes with that.
It’s actually not some opaque morality. That’s a bunch of nonsense. Gambling was illegal at the time and location everywhere Pete Rose placed a bet outside riverboats, Atlantic City and Las Vegas. That’s a crime.
Anabolic steroids, HGH and many other supplements were illegal drugs in the United States unless prescribed by a doctor and to the best of my knowledge I still can’t go to Walgreens and pick some up on any of them.
So I don’t want to hear they weren’t testing and it wasn’t illegal. Yes, in fact, it was illegal. I don’t think the MLB should need to adjust the league charter to cover murder statutes, either, you know? We have, you know, laws.
And I’ll also say there’s a nice compromise available here: a nice, well dimly lit cheaters wing in Cooperstown. A dank little room for Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose and Barry Bonds, Palmiero, Clemens and McGwire to get together and talk about how they fooled us all for the rest of time...
...and in front of the entrance, blocking it, let’s also have monuments to Roger Maris, Ty Cobb and Hank Aaron. So you’d have to walk past them to go check out the cheaters.
And I have less vitriol for the steroid boys than I do for Pete Rose, who can go do something that is anatomically impossible for most men for all eternity.
you are lumping Clemens in with steroid users. There is no proof he ever used. just one disgruntled former employee with some 5 year old syringes stored inside an empty beer can.
Are you a Clemens fan?
If so, I’m not going to go there.
makes no difference. I don't know as much about other players, ie. bonds, mcgwire, sosa etc, but I very closely followed the Clemens trials. there was no evidence and it should have been tossed before it ever made it to court.
Certainly lots of circumstantial evidence. He threw harder in the 2000 World Series against the Mets than he did 14 years earlier!
fairly common knowledge that the older radar guns read the balls speed as it neared the plate, modern guns read about 8 feet from the pitchers hand.
they clocked Randy Johnson at 100 MPH at 40 years old. I highly doubt he was actually was.
do you care to share all of the other "lots" of circumstantial evidence?
Its honestly not all that interesting to me at this point but I seem to recall his good buddy Andy Petitte testifying that the Rocket admitted to him that he used HGH. In addition, his last two years with the Sox showed a pitcher on the decline with less than great numbers only to find it at the age of 35 and more than double his CY Young total from then. Doesn't pass the smell test. What makes you think that Randy Johnson was definitely clean?
I'm not arguing with this, but can't find the data. Can you do Jim McCormick, Tommy Bond, and Charlie Buffington? Or does the system not work for (early) 19th century pitchers? Not arguing for any of them to be in the HoF but curious as to how they compare in this one stat to Schilling.
It's "RAA" on bb-ref in the Player Value - Pitching section. McCormick, Bond, and Buffinton are 428, 311, and 340. Those are HOF numbers for a modern pitcher, but take them with a grain of salt for pitchers in the 1870's and 1880's. They pitched tons of innings, not because they were great, but because that's what pitchers did, and the average pitcher was pretty bad. Being 300 runs better than an average pitcher today is very different than being 300 runs better than a pitcher during the Rutherford B. Hayes administration. That said, these three were all very good pitchers.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Every superstar from that era used. Schilling included. I guess it's just coincidence that in the mid 90s he goes from average to striking out over 300 guys a year?
@ArtVandelay said:
I'm not sure why people think Curt Schilling is so automatic. Here are some pitchers not in the hall as compared to Schilling.
Curt Schilling 486 runs better than average
216 wins -146 losses - 3.46 era - 20 shutouts -3116 strike outs top 4 cy young 4x) World Series Champion
Luis Tiant 269 runs better than average
229 wins - 172 losses - 3.30 era - 49 shutouts - 2416 strike outs (top 6 cy young 4x)
Orel Hershiser 206 runs better than average
204 wins - 150 losses - 3.48 era - 25 shutouts - 2014 strike outs (Cy Young 1988, 4x top 4 cy young finishes, 59 consecutive shutout innings (record), World Series champion
Kevin Brown 367 runs better than average
211 wins - 144 losses - 3.28 era - 17 shutouts - 2397 strike outs (5x top 6 cy young finishes, world series champ.
Bob Welch 127 runs better than average
211 wins - 146 losses - 3.47 era - 28 shutouts - 1969 strikeouts (1990 Cy Young, World Series Champ)
Vida Blue 112 runs better than average
209 wins - 161 losses - 3.27 era - 37 shutouts - 2175 strikeouts (1971 Cy Young+Most Valuable Player, World Series Champ, 5x top 7 cy young finishes
Tim Hudson 281 runs better than average
222 wins - 133 losses - 3.49 era - 13 shutouts - 2080 strike outs (4x top 6 cy young, World Series Champ)
If you were serious, I have cleared up your confusion. There is no pitcher who is not in the HOF, besides Clemens, in the same area code as Schilling in this, or any, stat that measures pitching skill over an entire career. I think Kevin Brown is a legitimate HOFer, and he was nowhere close to as good as Schilling. I'd vote for Tiant for the HOF, and we wasn't as good as Brown.
Schilling is not in the HOF because a large enough minority of sportswriters disagree with his politics and for absolutely no other reason. If anyone has any doubt about that, you can stop now.
Schilling is not in the Hall of Fame because he is a borderline player. It’s the fact that he’s a jerk, not that he’s a Republican, that works against him. That’s a false narrative people spread. There’s plenty of Republicans that do not have diarrhea of the mouth like Curt.
And David Cone is not in the Hall of Fame, either, and I would take David Cone over Curt Schilling in a heart beat.
A heart beat.
And he’s also borderline.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Both David Cone and Kevin Brown have to be looked over again. They had their moments of dominance, memorable highlights in the season and post-season, and tons of accolades except for winning 300 games.
Schilling will eventually get in.
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
Schilling is not in the HOF because a large enough minority of sportswriters disagree with his politics and for absolutely no other reason. If anyone has any doubt about that, you can stop now.
Do you have any data backing this up? Because at this point all you are saying is an opinion without any evidence to back it up.
@BriantheTaxGuy said:
Baseball turned its back on its greatest players of an entire generation and in return, America has turned its back on baseball.
Talk about digging your own grave.
The baseball hall of fame omitting Clemens, Bonds and Rose is the same as the Louvre without the Mona Lisa.
I am done with this discussion. The people cheering on the exclusion of all-time great players to prove some opaque "morality" while attempting to argue for marginal players are proof they have truly lost their way.
For the record, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH you that the Hall of Fame is too watered down at this point. There’s several easy fixes with that.
It’s actually not some opaque morality. That’s a bunch of nonsense. Gambling was illegal at the time and location everywhere Pete Rose placed a bet outside riverboats, Atlantic City and Las Vegas. That’s a crime.
Anabolic steroids, HGH and many other supplements were illegal drugs in the United States unless prescribed by a doctor and to the best of my knowledge I still can’t go to Walgreens and pick some up on any of them.
So I don’t want to hear they weren’t testing and it wasn’t illegal. Yes, in fact, it was illegal. I don’t think the MLB should need to adjust the league charter to cover murder statutes, either, you know? We have, you know, laws.
And I’ll also say there’s a nice compromise available here: a nice, well dimly lit cheaters wing in Cooperstown. A dank little room for Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose and Barry Bonds, Palmiero, Clemens and McGwire to get together and talk about how they fooled us all for the rest of time...
...and in front of the entrance, blocking it, let’s also have monuments to Roger Maris, Ty Cobb and Hank Aaron. So you’d have to walk past them to go check out the cheaters.
And I have less vitriol for the steroid boys than I do for Pete Rose, who can go do something that is anatomically impossible for most men for all eternity.
you are lumping Clemens in with steroid users. There is no proof he ever used. just one disgruntled former employee with some 5 year old syringes stored inside an empty beer can.
Are you a Clemens fan?
If so, I’m not going to go there.
makes no difference. I don't know as much about other players, ie. bonds, mcgwire, sosa etc, but I very closely followed the Clemens trials. there was no evidence and it should have been tossed before it ever made it to court.
Certainly lots of circumstantial evidence. He threw harder in the 2000 World Series against the Mets than he did 14 years earlier!
fairly common knowledge that the older radar guns read the balls speed as it neared the plate, modern guns read about 8 feet from the pitchers hand.
they clocked Randy Johnson at 100 MPH at 40 years old. I highly doubt he was actually was.
do you care to share all of the other "lots" of circumstantial evidence?
Its honestly not all that interesting to me at this point but I seem to recall his good buddy Andy Petitte testifying that the Rocket admitted to him that he used HGH. In addition, his last two years with the Sox showed a pitcher on the decline with less than great numbers only to find it at the age of 35 and more than double his CY Young total from then. Doesn't pass the smell test. What makes you think that Randy Johnson was definitely clean?
pettitte ended up a terrible witness for the prosecution as he admitted under oath that he did not remember the conversation.
as far as using statistical evidence as evidence of PED use, you are heading down a very slippery slope. there are many, many, many examples of players careers dipping and spiking. as for clemens, the 4 year decline so often spoken about was not in actuality a decline. 1993 was a down year after 7 years straight of averaging 260 innings and 12 CG per season. arm was dead. 1994 was a fantastic season. very well could have won cy young. 1995 was a down year for Clemens, but still well above average. 117 ERA+ and 1996 was a great season except for W/L which was what most looked at then. He lead the league in Ks and had 7.7 WAR.
The narrative that he was "in the twilight" was a false one.
Schilling is not in the HOF because a large enough minority of sportswriters disagree with his politics and for absolutely no other reason. If anyone has any doubt about that, you can stop now.
Do you have any data backing this up? Because at this point all you are saying is an opinion without any evidence to back it up.
He doesn't have any evidence, only selective amnesia.
Schilling has been unrepentant in his caustic behavior and his exclusion from the hall has less to do with his "politics" and everything to do with how he relishes in conflict and being nothing less than a real-world troll. Any other interpretation is incorrect.
@DeutscherGeist said:
Both David Cone and Kevin Brown have to be looked over again. They had their moments of dominance, memorable highlights in the season and post-season, and tons of accolades except for winning 300 games.
Schilling will eventually get in.
Sorry, but the postseason argument is ridiculous, and not just in the cases of these two. Suggesting a player get extra credit for being fortunate enough to be on a team that made the postseason(s) penalizes those who were not.
Schilling is not in the Hall of Fame because he is a borderline player. It’s the fact that he’s a jerk, not that he’s a Republican, that works against him. That’s a false narrative people spread. There’s plenty of Republicans that do not have diarrhea of the mouth like Curt.
False, Schilling is not a borderline player, his stats (the meaningful ones, not crap like W/L record) put him near the top of HOF pitchers and the only non-HOF pitcher above him is Clemens who also obviously has HOF stats.
There are plenty of Republicans who do not have diarrhea of the mouth who are in the HOF, this is true. But lots of athletes have diarrhea of the mouth and get celebrated as "activists" and Nike shoe contracts; it is only Republican diarrhea that gets a player cancelled.
Suggesting Schilling has been excluded from the hall because of his far-right beliefs conveniently ignores the fact that he's not been voted in far longer than he hitched his wagon to the crazy-train of conspiracy theories and cheering on insurrectionists.
He's been on the ballot for 9 years my man, all of the votes which pre-date his heavy involvement in conservative social media which, if anything, only raised his profile and votes not hindered it. You may want to think him a victim; the opposite is actually the case.
Maybe it’s me but I don’t see Scott Rolen as HOF worthy. Very high quality player, bat and glove, super Cardinal, probably an awesome guy - just don’t see it.
I feel same way about Jeff Kent - great numbers for 2B, but except for 2-3 period in later 90’s he wasn’t an all time great.
There are plenty of Republicans who do not have diarrhea of the mouth who are in the HOF, this is true. But lots of athletes have diarrhea of the mouth and get celebrated as "activists" and Nike shoe contracts; it is only Republican diarrhea that gets a player cancelled.
You do the Republican party a great disservice when you refer to bigotry, outlandish conspiracy theories and insurrection as Republican viewpoints. Most Republicans I know are better than that.
@BriantheTaxGuy said:
Baseball turned its back on its greatest players of an entire generation and in return, America has turned its back on baseball.
Talk about digging your own grave.
The baseball hall of fame omitting Clemens, Bonds and Rose is the same as the Louvre without the Mona Lisa.
I am done with this discussion. The people cheering on the exclusion of all-time great players to prove some opaque "morality" while attempting to argue for marginal players are proof they have truly lost their way.
For the record, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH you that the Hall of Fame is too watered down at this point. There’s several easy fixes with that.
It’s actually not some opaque morality. That’s a bunch of nonsense. Gambling was illegal at the time and location everywhere Pete Rose placed a bet outside riverboats, Atlantic City and Las Vegas. That’s a crime.
Anabolic steroids, HGH and many other supplements were illegal drugs in the United States unless prescribed by a doctor and to the best of my knowledge I still can’t go to Walgreens and pick some up on any of them.
So I don’t want to hear they weren’t testing and it wasn’t illegal. Yes, in fact, it was illegal. I don’t think the MLB should need to adjust the league charter to cover murder statutes, either, you know? We have, you know, laws.
And I’ll also say there’s a nice compromise available here: a nice, well dimly lit cheaters wing in Cooperstown. A dank little room for Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose and Barry Bonds, Palmiero, Clemens and McGwire to get together and talk about how they fooled us all for the rest of time...
...and in front of the entrance, blocking it, let’s also have monuments to Roger Maris, Ty Cobb and Hank Aaron. So you’d have to walk past them to go check out the cheaters.
And I have less vitriol for the steroid boys than I do for Pete Rose, who can go do something that is anatomically impossible for most men for all eternity.
you are lumping Clemens in with steroid users. There is no proof he ever used. just one disgruntled former employee with some 5 year old syringes stored inside an empty beer can.
Are you a Clemens fan?
If so, I’m not going to go there.
makes no difference. I don't know as much about other players, ie. bonds, mcgwire, sosa etc, but I very closely followed the Clemens trials. there was no evidence and it should have been tossed before it ever made it to court.
Certainly lots of circumstantial evidence. He threw harder in the 2000 World Series against the Mets than he did 14 years earlier!
fairly common knowledge that the older radar guns read the balls speed as it neared the plate, modern guns read about 8 feet from the pitchers hand.
they clocked Randy Johnson at 100 MPH at 40 years old. I highly doubt he was actually was.
do you care to share all of the other "lots" of circumstantial evidence?
Its honestly not all that interesting to me at this point but I seem to recall his good buddy Andy Petitte testifying that the Rocket admitted to him that he used HGH. In addition, his last two years with the Sox showed a pitcher on the decline with less than great numbers only to find it at the age of 35 and more than double his CY Young total from then. Doesn't pass the smell test. What makes you think that Randy Johnson was definitely clean?
pettitte ended up a terrible witness for the prosecution as he admitted under oath that he did not remember the conversation.
as far as using statistical evidence as evidence of PED use, you are heading down a very slippery slope. there are many, many, many examples of players careers dipping and spiking. as for clemens, the 4 year decline so often spoken about was not in actuality a decline. 1993 was a down year after 7 years straight of averaging 260 innings and 12 CG per season. arm was dead. 1994 was a fantastic season. very well could have won cy young. 1995 was a down year for Clemens, but still well above average. 117 ERA+ and 1996 was a great season except for W/L which was what most looked at then. He lead the league in Ks and had 7.7 WAR.
The narrative that he was "in the twilight" was a false one.
I would guess it was a little friendly witness tampering by the Rocket and his team. I didn't say twilight but he was trending away from being a dominant CY Young pitcher. Lets face it a lot of these late 30s early 40s phenoms of the late 90s/early 2000s have disappeared. There is one logical explanation for that. I would bet my life on it that he used Peds just like I believe Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell did as well. I would guess there were some clean players. My guess would be that players like Ken Griffey Jr. and Chipper Jones were clean but who knows.
@BriantheTaxGuy said:
Baseball turned its back on its greatest players of an entire generation and in return, America has turned its back on baseball.
Talk about digging your own grave.
The baseball hall of fame omitting Clemens, Bonds and Rose is the same as the Louvre without the Mona Lisa.
I am done with this discussion. The people cheering on the exclusion of all-time great players to prove some opaque "morality" while attempting to argue for marginal players are proof they have truly lost their way.
For the record, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH you that the Hall of Fame is too watered down at this point. There’s several easy fixes with that.
It’s actually not some opaque morality. That’s a bunch of nonsense. Gambling was illegal at the time and location everywhere Pete Rose placed a bet outside riverboats, Atlantic City and Las Vegas. That’s a crime.
Anabolic steroids, HGH and many other supplements were illegal drugs in the United States unless prescribed by a doctor and to the best of my knowledge I still can’t go to Walgreens and pick some up on any of them.
So I don’t want to hear they weren’t testing and it wasn’t illegal. Yes, in fact, it was illegal. I don’t think the MLB should need to adjust the league charter to cover murder statutes, either, you know? We have, you know, laws.
And I’ll also say there’s a nice compromise available here: a nice, well dimly lit cheaters wing in Cooperstown. A dank little room for Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose and Barry Bonds, Palmiero, Clemens and McGwire to get together and talk about how they fooled us all for the rest of time...
...and in front of the entrance, blocking it, let’s also have monuments to Roger Maris, Ty Cobb and Hank Aaron. So you’d have to walk past them to go check out the cheaters.
And I have less vitriol for the steroid boys than I do for Pete Rose, who can go do something that is anatomically impossible for most men for all eternity.
you are lumping Clemens in with steroid users. There is no proof he ever used. just one disgruntled former employee with some 5 year old syringes stored inside an empty beer can.
Are you a Clemens fan?
If so, I’m not going to go there.
makes no difference. I don't know as much about other players, ie. bonds, mcgwire, sosa etc, but I very closely followed the Clemens trials. there was no evidence and it should have been tossed before it ever made it to court.
Certainly lots of circumstantial evidence. He threw harder in the 2000 World Series against the Mets than he did 14 years earlier!
fairly common knowledge that the older radar guns read the balls speed as it neared the plate, modern guns read about 8 feet from the pitchers hand.
they clocked Randy Johnson at 100 MPH at 40 years old. I highly doubt he was actually was.
do you care to share all of the other "lots" of circumstantial evidence?
Its honestly not all that interesting to me at this point but I seem to recall his good buddy Andy Petitte testifying that the Rocket admitted to him that he used HGH. In addition, his last two years with the Sox showed a pitcher on the decline with less than great numbers only to find it at the age of 35 and more than double his CY Young total from then. Doesn't pass the smell test. What makes you think that Randy Johnson was definitely clean?
pettitte ended up a terrible witness for the prosecution as he admitted under oath that he did not remember the conversation.
as far as using statistical evidence as evidence of PED use, you are heading down a very slippery slope. there are many, many, many examples of players careers dipping and spiking. as for clemens, the 4 year decline so often spoken about was not in actuality a decline. 1993 was a down year after 7 years straight of averaging 260 innings and 12 CG per season. arm was dead. 1994 was a fantastic season. very well could have won cy young. 1995 was a down year for Clemens, but still well above average. 117 ERA+ and 1996 was a great season except for W/L which was what most looked at then. He lead the league in Ks and had 7.7 WAR.
The narrative that he was "in the twilight" was a false one.
I would guess it was a little friendly witness tampering by the Rocket and his team. I didn't say twilight but he was trending away from being a dominant CY Young pitcher. Lets face it a lot of these late 30s early 40s phenoms of the late 90s/early 2000s have disappeared. There is one logical explanation for that. I would bet my life on it that he used Peds just like I believe Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell did as well. I would guess there were some clean players. My guess would be that players like Ken Griffey Jr. and Chipper Jones were clean but who knows.
One Further thing, its interesting when you look at the game logs of Clemens in 96 - his walk year into free agency - you can almost pinpoint where he started to use. In August of that year, he was 4-11 with a 4.36 ERA. From that point on, he was lights out including a 20 strikeout shutout performance.
You can pinpoint when Schilling started to use as well, though not as clearly.
In 1996, as a 29-year-old pitcher with about 1000 innings thrown, he was topping out at 8.9 K/9 without even an all-star appearance to his name. We're supposed to believe at the height of the steroid era, a 30-year old pitcher is naturally going to jump up to 11.3 K/9?
@balco758 said:
Maybe it’s me but I don’t see Scott Rolen as HOF worthy. Very high quality player, bat and glove, super Cardinal, probably an awesome guy - just don’t see it.
I feel same way about Jeff Kent - great numbers for 2B, but except for 2-3 period in later 90’s he wasn’t an all time great.
I guess it depends where you draw the line for a HoFer. Is George Brett worthy? Kirby Puckett? Harold Baines? I think Rolen belongs unless you're willing to unequivocally state that Puckett's election was a huge mistake. If you're one of those people who thinks that the HoF should belong to the likes of Ruth, Mantle, and Mays, then yes, Rolen isn't worthy.
Thinking more about Omar Vizquel's candidacy, I think his career should be looked at like Jamie Moyer's. Both hung around forever, not being great ever, or even very good except occasionally. Moyer received Cy Young votes three times. Vizquel got MVP consideration exactly once. That year he was the fourth best SHORTSTOP. I know he has a following, but he doesn't come close to being borderline.
@balco758 said:
Maybe it’s me but I don’t see Scott Rolen as HOF worthy. Very high quality player, bat and glove, super Cardinal, probably an awesome guy - just don’t see it.
I feel same way about Jeff Kent - great numbers for 2B, but except for 2-3 period in later 90’s he wasn’t an all time great.
I guess it depends where you draw the line for a HoFer. Is George Brett worthy? Kirby Puckett? Harold Baines? I think Rolen belongs unless you're willing to unequivocally state that Puckett's election was a huge mistake. If you're one of those people who thinks that the HoF should belong to the likes of Ruth, Mantle, and Mays, then yes, Rolen isn't worthy.
I am of the belief that repeating mistakes (like Puckett, Baines, et al) only further waters down the hall.
You do the Republican party a great disservice when you refer to bigotry, outlandish conspiracy theories and insurrection as Republican viewpoints. Most Republicans I know are better than that.
It was shorthand, but point taken. I should have said that diarrhea of the mouth from the lunatic fringe on the left gets applauded and financially rewarded, while diarrhea of the mouth from the lunatic fringe on the right gets you cancelled.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Puckett was a HOF player. Although he only played 12 years they were a great 12 years.
10X AS, 6 GG, 6 SS, 2 WS Titles, Batting Champ and led the league in hits 4 times. Also had some huge moments in the World Series.
It's "RAA" on bb-ref in the Player Value - Pitching section. McCormick, Bond, and Buffinton are 428, 311, and 340. Those are HOF numbers for a modern pitcher, but take them with a grain of salt for pitchers in the 1870's and 1880's. They pitched tons of innings, not because they were great, but because that's what pitchers did, and the average pitcher was pretty bad. Being 300 runs better than an average pitcher today is very different than being 300 runs better than a pitcher during the Rutherford B. Hayes administration. That said, these three were all very good pitchers.
I see. Just for fun I looked up Baines. 4. I don't even know how to quantify that.
You do the Republican party a great disservice when you refer to bigotry, outlandish conspiracy theories and insurrection as Republican viewpoints. Most Republicans I know are better than that.
It was shorthand, but point taken. I should have said that diarrhea of the mouth from the lunatic fringe on the left gets applauded and financially rewarded, while diarrhea of the mouth from the lunatic fringe on the right gets you cancelled.
Your bias is showing.
When the "lunatic fringe on the left" is kneeling simply not to be killed by LEO while the radical right wants to overthrow the government and ferment insurrection because they hate losing, and you wonder why those on the right are being held accountable?
@balco758 said:
Maybe it’s me but I don’t see Scott Rolen as HOF worthy. Very high quality player, bat and glove, super Cardinal, probably an awesome guy - just don’t see it.
I feel same way about Jeff Kent - great numbers for 2B, but except for 2-3 period in later 90’s he wasn’t an all time great.
I guess it depends where you draw the line for a HoFer. Is George Brett worthy? Kirby Puckett? Harold Baines? I think Rolen belongs unless you're willing to unequivocally state that Puckett's election was a huge mistake. If you're one of those people who thinks that the HoF should belong to the likes of Ruth, Mantle, and Mays, then yes, Rolen isn't worthy.
I am of the belief that repeating mistakes (like Puckett, Baines, et al) only further waters down the hall.
I completely agree. I just think everyone has different ideas where the "mistake" line is drawn. It's not absurd, IMO, to say that George Brett doesn't belong in the HoF, if you are OK with also saying that Schmidt should be in and maybe Eddie Mathews, but certainly not Brooks Robinson or Molitor, and that the HoF should have 15 or 20 people with a new induction every five or ten years. I object to people saying that Puckett belongs in while clearly superior players (Rolen, Andruw Jones) don't. FWIW, I think Puckett is just on the inside of borderline if we consider the HoF to be about the right size now, but of course there are deserving players out and gaffes inside. To have a HoF that includes Baines, it would need to be 1000-1500 members. That's fine, too, but you have to realize what you're saying when you say Baines, or Puckett, or Brett is not a mistake.
You do the Republican party a great disservice when you refer to bigotry, outlandish conspiracy theories and insurrection as Republican viewpoints. Most Republicans I know are better than that.
It was shorthand, but point taken. I should have said that diarrhea of the mouth from the lunatic fringe on the left gets applauded and financially rewarded, while diarrhea of the mouth from the lunatic fringe on the right gets you cancelled.
Your bias is showing.
When the "lunatic fringe on the left" is kneeling simply not to be killed by LEO while the radical right wants to overthrow the government and ferment insurrection because they hate losing, and you wonder why those on the right are being held accountable?
@balco758 said:
Maybe it’s me but I don’t see Scott Rolen as HOF worthy. Very high quality player, bat and glove, super Cardinal, probably an awesome guy - just don’t see it.
I feel same way about Jeff Kent - great numbers for 2B, but except for 2-3 period in later 90’s he wasn’t an all time great.
I guess it depends where you draw the line for a HoFer. Is George Brett worthy? Kirby Puckett? Harold Baines? I think Rolen belongs unless you're willing to unequivocally state that Puckett's election was a huge mistake. If you're one of those people who thinks that the HoF should belong to the likes of Ruth, Mantle, and Mays, then yes, Rolen isn't worthy.
I am of the belief that repeating mistakes (like Puckett, Baines, et al) only further waters down the hall.
I completely agree. I just think everyone has different ideas where the "mistake" line is drawn. It's not absurd, IMO, to say that George Brett doesn't belong in the HoF, if you are OK with also saying that Schmidt should be in and maybe Eddie Mathews, but certainly not Brooks Robinson or Molitor, and that the HoF should have 15 or 20 people with a new induction every five or ten years. I object to people saying that Puckett belongs in while clearly superior players (Rolen, Andruw Jones) don't. FWIW, I think Puckett is just on the inside of borderline if we consider the HoF to be about the right size now, but of course there are deserving players out and gaffes inside. To have a HoF that includes Baines, it would need to be 1000-1500 members. That's fine, too, but you have to realize what you're saying when you say Baines, or Puckett, or Brett is not a mistake.
George Brett? The man should have won 3 MVPs. No brainer.
Comments
Do not mention the "Voldemort" game of Phillies' history.
Now I've mentioned "it".
Now I've mentioned "it" again. Aaaaggghhh!
Ni!
@georgebailey2
The game that must not be named?
😂😂😂
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
All of that analytical post makes sense to me, except the Joe Jackson part. It is difficult to grasp all of the truth on what happened considering how long ago it was and how many perspectives have romanticized the infamous World Series. My understanding is that Jackson played to win during that series, and that the argument is not that he took a dive and threw the series but rather that his crime is not pursuing the moral/ethical duty of reporting what he knew in advance or during the events (by a stretch, I suppose it could be considered similar to a Joe Paterno vs. Jerry Sandusky situation in a way). Reading articles about the 1919 team recently, I noticed this bit that someone wrote that seems like a halfway decent point:
If Jackson goes to Gleason or Comiskey....what does he tell them, who does he tell them is IN on the fix. None of those men were convinced of any of the other men going through with it. Jackson was seen as an uneducated bumpkin from South Carolina....would he even have been believed, I argue that he wouldn't have been believed. The National Commission didn't believe Charles Comiskey when he went to them the night after the first game, so why would anyone in their right mind think they would have believed the uneducated bumpkin from South Carolina in the form of Joe Jackson....they wouldn't have. You are correct, morally those men should have said something, but what do they say, they really had no clue who was going to go through with it and there was no hard proof. If they said Gandil was going to tank or Risberg....those men would have denied it, there was NO proof and then Weaver and Jackson are laughed (or kicked) out of baseball, neither was willing to risk that over hearsay. Before the Series, it was simply that....hearsay. Very easy to judge those men from 2020, but a bit different prior to the start of the Series IN 1919.
I wonder if there is enough validity to that? I don't think it changes much, since Jackson should have reported what he knew regardless of whether or not anyone either believed him or went on to do anything about it; but, I found it to be an interesting take anyway.
The problem I have is not so much with Joe Jackson; he sort of carried on and kept playing - according to legend - albeit not in the major leagues. To be honest, he was great but I think there’s a decent chance he’d have been forgotten. Now? He’s still a topic of discussion 100 years later. Many people don’t know who Joe Medwick is - a HOF, MVP and the last NL triple crown winner - BUT everybody knows Shoeless Joe.
The ban was good for Joe Jackson, in a way, and has helped keep him relevant. And served as a lasting reminder that you can’t fix games or you soon have no sport.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I may be in the minority here but I am glad no one got voted in this year.
you are lumping Clemens in with steroid users. There is no proof he ever used. just one disgruntled former employee with some 5 year old syringes stored inside an empty beer can.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Are you a Clemens fan?
If so, I’m not going to go there.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
makes no difference. I don't know as much about other players, ie. bonds, mcgwire, sosa etc, but I very closely followed the Clemens trials. there was no evidence and it should have been tossed before it ever made it to court.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I'd agree with you if he only played 50 games. Come on man. His resume is bigger than that and you know it. Those are the highlights and what sets him apart from the others that were mentioned by Art. I get it. You hate Schilling because he's not a nice guy, didn't play for the team you root for, or offends you because you don't have thick skin. Regardless of what you think about Schilling (I'm a Rockies fan and could care less one way or the other about him) the guy performed on the absolute biggest stage like very few have ever done. That is the key ingredient that puts him in. It seems pretty hypocritical that Clayton Kershaw gets blasted for his post season problems, but on the flip side Schilling doesn't get additional recognition for his incredible success in the post season.
Collecting:
post world war II HOF rookie
76 topps gem mint 10 commons 9 stars
Arenado purple refractors(Rockies) Red (Cardinals)
successful deals with Keevan, Grote15, 1954, mbogoman
Come on, let's be honest. If he truly felt this way, he wouldn't have waited until his 9th year of eligibility to pull this move. He knew he wasn't getting in next year and this way he gets to pull the whole "you're not breaking up with me, I'm breaking up with YOU!"
Where was this bravado prior to the announced results? If he truly felt this way, why wait until after the vote tallies to make this announcement.
I hope they leave him on the ballot so he has to suffer the ignominy of being booted off the ballot.
I don’t like Schilling as a human, but I also don’t think that should have anything to do with his worthiness. 3000 Ks is an automatic “in” in my book, plus the playoff resume others have mentioned.
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, Dwight Evans, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
Certainly lots of circumstantial evidence. He threw harder in the 2000 World Series against the Mets than he did 14 years earlier!
i'm on the other side of the fence (today at least), however it's hard to argue any of your points either. great post!
Can't wait to read this thread next year when Ortiz and Arod hit the ballot!
fairly common knowledge that the older radar guns read the balls speed as it neared the plate, modern guns read about 8 feet from the pitchers hand.
they clocked Randy Johnson at 100 MPH at 40 years old. I highly doubt he was actually was.
do you care to share all of the other "lots" of circumstantial evidence?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
If you were serious, I have cleared up your confusion. There is no pitcher who is not in the HOF, besides Clemens, in the same area code as Schilling in this, or any, stat that measures pitching skill over an entire career. I think Kevin Brown is a legitimate HOFer, and he was nowhere close to as good as Schilling. I'd vote for Tiant for the HOF, and we wasn't as good as Brown.
Schilling is not in the HOF because a large enough minority of sportswriters disagree with his politics and for absolutely no other reason. If anyone has any doubt about that, you can stop now.
I had no idea Ventura hit 294 HRs...I would have guessed 150 or so...
Thanks for mentioning Brown, I always thought he was good!
Schilling should be in, he is entitled to his political views.
I'm not arguing with this, but can't find the data. Can you do Jim McCormick, Tommy Bond, and Charlie Buffington? Or does the system not work for (early) 19th century pitchers? Not arguing for any of them to be in the HoF but curious as to how they compare in this one stat to Schilling.
Its honestly not all that interesting to me at this point but I seem to recall his good buddy Andy Petitte testifying that the Rocket admitted to him that he used HGH. In addition, his last two years with the Sox showed a pitcher on the decline with less than great numbers only to find it at the age of 35 and more than double his CY Young total from then. Doesn't pass the smell test. What makes you think that Randy Johnson was definitely clean?
It's "RAA" on bb-ref in the Player Value - Pitching section. McCormick, Bond, and Buffinton are 428, 311, and 340. Those are HOF numbers for a modern pitcher, but take them with a grain of salt for pitchers in the 1870's and 1880's. They pitched tons of innings, not because they were great, but because that's what pitchers did, and the average pitcher was pretty bad. Being 300 runs better than an average pitcher today is very different than being 300 runs better than a pitcher during the Rutherford B. Hayes administration. That said, these three were all very good pitchers.
Every superstar from that era used. Schilling included. I guess it's just coincidence that in the mid 90s he goes from average to striking out over 300 guys a year?
Give me a break.
Schilling is not in the Hall of Fame because he is a borderline player. It’s the fact that he’s a jerk, not that he’s a Republican, that works against him. That’s a false narrative people spread. There’s plenty of Republicans that do not have diarrhea of the mouth like Curt.
And David Cone is not in the Hall of Fame, either, and I would take David Cone over Curt Schilling in a heart beat.
A heart beat.
And he’s also borderline.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Both David Cone and Kevin Brown have to be looked over again. They had their moments of dominance, memorable highlights in the season and post-season, and tons of accolades except for winning 300 games.
Schilling will eventually get in.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
Do you have any data backing this up? Because at this point all you are saying is an opinion without any evidence to back it up.
pettitte ended up a terrible witness for the prosecution as he admitted under oath that he did not remember the conversation.
as far as using statistical evidence as evidence of PED use, you are heading down a very slippery slope. there are many, many, many examples of players careers dipping and spiking. as for clemens, the 4 year decline so often spoken about was not in actuality a decline. 1993 was a down year after 7 years straight of averaging 260 innings and 12 CG per season. arm was dead. 1994 was a fantastic season. very well could have won cy young. 1995 was a down year for Clemens, but still well above average. 117 ERA+ and 1996 was a great season except for W/L which was what most looked at then. He lead the league in Ks and had 7.7 WAR.
The narrative that he was "in the twilight" was a false one.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
He doesn't have any evidence, only selective amnesia.
Schilling has been unrepentant in his caustic behavior and his exclusion from the hall has less to do with his "politics" and everything to do with how he relishes in conflict and being nothing less than a real-world troll. Any other interpretation is incorrect.
Sorry, but the postseason argument is ridiculous, and not just in the cases of these two. Suggesting a player get extra credit for being fortunate enough to be on a team that made the postseason(s) penalizes those who were not.
False, Schilling is not a borderline player, his stats (the meaningful ones, not crap like W/L record) put him near the top of HOF pitchers and the only non-HOF pitcher above him is Clemens who also obviously has HOF stats.
There are plenty of Republicans who do not have diarrhea of the mouth who are in the HOF, this is true. But lots of athletes have diarrhea of the mouth and get celebrated as "activists" and Nike shoe contracts; it is only Republican diarrhea that gets a player cancelled.
No, I make do with common sense and the brains God gave fleas. In this case, those are more than sufficient.
Suggesting Schilling has been excluded from the hall because of his far-right beliefs conveniently ignores the fact that he's not been voted in far longer than he hitched his wagon to the crazy-train of conspiracy theories and cheering on insurrectionists.
He's been on the ballot for 9 years my man, all of the votes which pre-date his heavy involvement in conservative social media which, if anything, only raised his profile and votes not hindered it. You may want to think him a victim; the opposite is actually the case.
Maybe it’s me but I don’t see Scott Rolen as HOF worthy. Very high quality player, bat and glove, super Cardinal, probably an awesome guy - just don’t see it.
I feel same way about Jeff Kent - great numbers for 2B, but except for 2-3 period in later 90’s he wasn’t an all time great.
I agree wholeheartedly. Solid player, definitely far above average. But HoF worthy? No, thank you.
You do the Republican party a great disservice when you refer to bigotry, outlandish conspiracy theories and insurrection as Republican viewpoints. Most Republicans I know are better than that.
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, Dwight Evans, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
I would guess it was a little friendly witness tampering by the Rocket and his team. I didn't say twilight but he was trending away from being a dominant CY Young pitcher. Lets face it a lot of these late 30s early 40s phenoms of the late 90s/early 2000s have disappeared. There is one logical explanation for that. I would bet my life on it that he used Peds just like I believe Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell did as well. I would guess there were some clean players. My guess would be that players like Ken Griffey Jr. and Chipper Jones were clean but who knows.
Agreed. The other question to ask is if you're playing against him, does his presence drastically alter your game plan?
One Further thing, its interesting when you look at the game logs of Clemens in 96 - his walk year into free agency - you can almost pinpoint where he started to use. In August of that year, he was 4-11 with a 4.36 ERA. From that point on, he was lights out including a 20 strikeout shutout performance.
You can pinpoint when Schilling started to use as well, though not as clearly.
In 1996, as a 29-year-old pitcher with about 1000 innings thrown, he was topping out at 8.9 K/9 without even an all-star appearance to his name. We're supposed to believe at the height of the steroid era, a 30-year old pitcher is naturally going to jump up to 11.3 K/9?
Curt Schilling was clearly a PED user.
I guess it depends where you draw the line for a HoFer. Is George Brett worthy? Kirby Puckett? Harold Baines? I think Rolen belongs unless you're willing to unequivocally state that Puckett's election was a huge mistake. If you're one of those people who thinks that the HoF should belong to the likes of Ruth, Mantle, and Mays, then yes, Rolen isn't worthy.
Thinking more about Omar Vizquel's candidacy, I think his career should be looked at like Jamie Moyer's. Both hung around forever, not being great ever, or even very good except occasionally. Moyer received Cy Young votes three times. Vizquel got MVP consideration exactly once. That year he was the fourth best SHORTSTOP. I know he has a following, but he doesn't come close to being borderline.
I am of the belief that repeating mistakes (like Puckett, Baines, et al) only further waters down the hall.
My views:
Puckett - yes
Baines - no
Rolen - no
Kent - no
Bonds / Clemens - yes
Schilling and Pettite - ye
It was shorthand, but point taken. I should have said that diarrhea of the mouth from the lunatic fringe on the left gets applauded and financially rewarded, while diarrhea of the mouth from the lunatic fringe on the right gets you cancelled.
Puckett was a HOF player. Although he only played 12 years they were a great 12 years.
10X AS, 6 GG, 6 SS, 2 WS Titles, Batting Champ and led the league in hits 4 times. Also had some huge moments in the World Series.
I see. Just for fun I looked up Baines. 4. I don't even know how to quantify that.
Your bias is showing.
When the "lunatic fringe on the left" is kneeling simply not to be killed by LEO while the radical right wants to overthrow the government and ferment insurrection because they hate losing, and you wonder why those on the right are being held accountable?
Then you're a big part of the problem.
I completely agree. I just think everyone has different ideas where the "mistake" line is drawn. It's not absurd, IMO, to say that George Brett doesn't belong in the HoF, if you are OK with also saying that Schmidt should be in and maybe Eddie Mathews, but certainly not Brooks Robinson or Molitor, and that the HoF should have 15 or 20 people with a new induction every five or ten years. I object to people saying that Puckett belongs in while clearly superior players (Rolen, Andruw Jones) don't. FWIW, I think Puckett is just on the inside of borderline if we consider the HoF to be about the right size now, but of course there are deserving players out and gaffes inside. To have a HoF that includes Baines, it would need to be 1000-1500 members. That's fine, too, but you have to realize what you're saying when you say Baines, or Puckett, or Brett is not a mistake.
Hey, look, someone else's bias is showing!
For politics I could tune into CNN, MSNBC, FOX or ESPN, thanks
Emar you're right and I apologize.
Back on topic: no way Schilling should be admitted to the hall.
George Brett? The man should have won 3 MVPs. No brainer.