"easy hall of famer" based on what, exactly? He had a nice career, but he's not a Hall of Famer.
Just 3 top-2 Cy Young award finishes (no wins) shows he wasn't even a dominant pitcher of his era, let alone all time. Throw in his insanity post-playing career, and he's rightfully only getting into the hall buying a ticket.
18th all time in Adjusted Pitching Runs saved.
17th all tine in Run Expectancy saved
26th all time in Win Probability Added
I could go on but that is all he needs right there. Period.
So now all of a sudden you don't believe in advanced measurements because someone disagrees with your political viewpoints, even if he may promoted them in poorly worded tweets?
Those viewpoints, their level of how they determine character, or who is right/wrong, are all opinions and usually based on extreme bias, so they have no place in HOF voting. Keep it neutral and on topic.
He should have been a first ballot HOFer. Then if you adhere to Jack Morris being a HOFer, then Schilling is even more so because of all the post seasons.
Keep it neutral? Sorry, but when your wackadoo behavior stains the game, you don't get that pass.
When you have to resort to 'well so-and-so is in, this person should be' you have lost any credibility you may have had. Jack Morris should not be in the hall, and making the hall even more dilluted with Schilling is a mistake.
Schilling benefitted from his postseason appearances more than any pitcher in modern day history. Funny, you say he should have been a first ballot guy, but he's now OFF the ballot. Good riddance!
18th all time in Adjusted Pitching Runs saved.
17th all tine in Run Expectancy saved
26th all time in Win Probability Added
First ballot no brainer HOFer to any baseball knowledgeble person and OBJECTIVE analysis.
Those are Schilling's accomplishments and nothing to do with Jack Morris.
Perhaps read again what I said earlier. That Morris stuff was just a bonus if you were someone that heightened a players HOF candidacy with post season performance.
Again, you all of a sudden disagree with advanced measurements because you don't like the person's political views. If you say he shouldn't be in because of what he said, that is your opinion, but when you use your bias to put up a third grade level statistical analysis to hide your bias and show your true side, then you lose all credibility.
He belongs. First ballot no brainer. You don't get that high in all time run prevention by accident, and any margin of error still puts him clearly in as a first ballot. Only personal bias could argue with those objective measures...and in this case it is bias unrelated to his play on the field.
And again, if you feel his words keeps him out in your opnion, that is great, hollar as much as you want...but you also said he didn't belong with on field performance and you are wrong.
@Mistlin said:
Sorry, but anyone who publicly supports the attempted to overthrow American democracy and stood with insurrectionists has NO PLACE in the hall of fame.
Thank all that is holy he won't ever sniff the hall.
Ahhhh, so only those players who agree with your view of politics should be inducted into the HOF.
@Mistlin said:
Sorry, but anyone who publicly supports the attempted to overthrow American democracy and stood with insurrectionists has NO PLACE in the hall of fame.
Thank all that is holy he won't ever sniff the hall.
Ahhhh, so only those players who agree with your view of politics should be inducted into the HOF.
now I understand...
Correct. Mistlin also needs to tell on himself for breaking forum rules by introducing this into the discussion. Of course, as per his tactics he has learned from The View and friends, it is to live by "one set of rules for everyone else, and a completely different set for themselves." Hypocrisy at its finest, which is not surprising all.
@craig44 said:
I would love to hear a statistical argument as to why Schilling should NOT be elected to the HOF.
So far, all I hear is that he has no Cy Young awards and his political views hurt someone's feelings.
Is that the actual standard?
18th all time in pitcher runs saved makes it an easy no brainer. This is the currency of the value of a pitcher. There are no amount of variables or context views that could push that high of an elite all time ranking into some sphere that is outside of the HOF. If there was, then that would disqualify half of the hall of fame pitchers.
In addition to that lofty all time run saving ranking, Schilling's post season performances are on par with Koufax and Gibson. Yes, I have downplayed the use of post season performances in the past...but the HOF voters certainly have not, well until it came to Schilling...because the writers are afflicted with bias and self righteousness. I could go on and on about people they support(in all walks of life roles) that have said and done far worse, but I will follow the forum rules and not introduce all of that.
@craig44 said:
I would love to hear a statistical argument as to why Schilling should NOT be elected to the HOF.
So far, all I hear is that he has no Cy Young awards and his political views hurt someone's feelings.
Is that the actual standard?
No, neither one of those should be the standard. As far as the cy young, it would be similar to an every day player needing to win an mvp to get into the HOF.
But the cy young voting during his career actually favors Curt more than it hurts his HOF credentials.
He finished 2nd place 3 times and 4th place one time.
So yes the stats 48swell posted makes him a sure fire hof’er and also mistlin pointed out he never won a cy young but so what he finished 2nd three times.
Agree with you and 48swell. 👍
"easy hall of famer" based on what, exactly? He had a nice career, but he's not a Hall of Famer.
Just 3 top-2 Cy Young award finishes (no wins) shows he wasn't even a dominant pitcher of his era, let alone all time. Throw in his insanity post-playing career, and he's rightfully only getting into the hall buying a ticket.
Doesn’t this kind of prove mistlin has no credibility? Particularly saying just 3 top 2 cy young finishes shows he wasn’t dominant? What now? 🤔
Yeah almost every pitcher gets at least 3 top 2 finishes. 😂😂😂😂
"easy hall of famer" based on what, exactly? He had a nice career, but he's not a Hall of Famer.
Just 3 top-2 Cy Young award finishes (no wins) shows he wasn't even a dominant pitcher of his era, let alone all time. Throw in his insanity post-playing career, and he's rightfully only getting into the hall buying a ticket.
Doesn’t this kind of prove mistlin has no credibility? Particularly saying just 3 top 2 cy young finishes shows he wasn’t dominant? What now? 🤔
Yeah almost every pitcher gets at least 3 top 2 finishes. 😂😂😂😂
And for two of those second place finishes, Schilling was the 2nd best pitcher in all of MLB and it just happened that his teammate had two all time type seasons to justifiably win the award. It was just bad timing having the Unit in the NL for those two years in terms of Schilling coming in first for his league for the Cy Young.
@craig44 said:
I would love to hear a statistical argument as to why Schilling should NOT be elected to the HOF.
So far, all I hear is that he has no Cy Young awards and his political views hurt someone's feelings.
Is that the actual standard?
I could see Schilling thinking the earth is flat. His political views bother me about as much as anyone wearing a billboard and ringing a cow bell.
what does this have to do with the question?
What do his political views have to do with his hall of fame candidacy. It keeps being brought up. You invoke it repeatedly. Why?
I invoke it? only to say it is meaningless and shouldn't matter one little bit to his HOF candidacy.
I wasn't criticizing you. Just saying that I agree it shouldn't matter for his voting. Distasteful, hurtful, insensitive remarks from the platform he had isn't the best form. His political commentary is his own and that shouldn't have a bearing at all. Calling him an insurrectionist is a total stretch.
He was 5-0 in post-season elimination games. His post-season success along with his career awards and his baseline of statistical performance should make him a lock. I guess the contemporary era committee will have to fix it..
@craig44 said:
I would love to hear a statistical argument as to why Schilling should NOT be elected to the HOF.
So far, all I hear is that he has no Cy Young awards and his political views hurt someone's feelings.
Is that the actual standard?
Theres no statistical argument that can be made. If someone only looked at his regular season stats there was some argument but that went out the window with Mussina getting elected. Combine hi9s regular season stats and being one of the best post season pitchers of all time and hes a no doubt HOFer. Theres just no way to argue against his numbers and the fact that hes significantly better than a lot of the HOF other than basically just saying I dont want him to be in
And again, if you feel his words keeps him out in your opnion, that is great, hollar as much as you want...but you also said he didn't belong with on field performance and you are wrong.
Clear first ballot HOFer.
Well, since he got booted from even the Contemporary Committee, it looks like you're alone in your 'clear first ballot' opinion.
He's NOT a hall of famer, and like you and me, the only way he's ever getting in is by buying a ticket.
@craig44 said:
I would love to hear a statistical argument as to why Schilling should NOT be elected to the HOF.
So far, all I hear is that he has no Cy Young awards and his political views hurt someone's feelings.
Is that the actual standard?
Theres no statistical argument that can be made. If someone only looked at his regular season stats there was some argument but that went out the window with Mussina getting elected. Combine hi9s regular season stats and being one of the best post season pitchers of all time and hes a no doubt HOFer. Theres just no way to argue against his numbers and the fact that hes significantly better than a lot of the HOF other than basically just saying I dont want him to be in
There goes the 'so-and-so is in the hall, this guy should be, too!'
'No doubt HoFer'? Nope. He's no longer eligible. Thank god.
Calling him an insurrectionist is a total stretch.
He was 5-0 in post-season elimination games. His post-season success along with his career awards and his baseline of statistical performance should make him a lock. I guess the contemporary era committee will have to fix it..
Who is going to get in from BBWAA in 2025?
Ichiro
Wagner
Sabathia ?
Anyone from Classic Era in 2025?
When you come out in support of insurrectionists, and claim an election was 'stolen' and you should fight to overthrow said election, sorry, but you're an insurrectionist.
Postseason achievements have no bearing on HoF candidacy. He has no career awards - never won a Cy Young.
Contemporary Era committee has already voted against this insurrectionist from being enshrined back in 2022. He's DONE.
@Mistlin said:
Postseason achievements have no bearing on HoF candidacy.
This might be the most uneducated argument ever made about the HOF
They absolutely, without question, not even debatable can/do/have boosted players HOF status when they are a postseason monster. This is especially true for guys like Schilling
When you come out in support of insurrectionists, and claim an election was 'stolen' and you should fight to overthrow said election, sorry, but you're an insurrectionist.
I wouldn't be considering his social wits. Agreeing with someone's views isn't a criteria for enshrinement. He made some remarks about the Jan 6th events, which won't age well. Those remarks might be inflammatory, but after the fact, in regard to all that they weren't illegal. So why are we worrying about this particular guy's views on anything...
Postseason achievements have no bearing on HoF candidacy.
They are not allowed to have any bearing? Seems like it's fine for the voters to consider quite a few parameters which would be impacted by his postseason achievements.
The Player's Record.
The Player's Playing Ability.
The Player's Contributions to the Team.
The Player's Sportsmanship.
He has no career awards - never won a Cy Young.
I think you're narrowing the definition more than I am. Consider the hypothetical pitcher who finishes 2nd in MLB Cy Young voting every year of his 20 year career. This pitcher has won no Cy Young award and the simplicity of the 'no-award argument' there would dismiss what must have been a legendary, albeit unlucky, career.
Schilling has the same Career ERA+ as both Gibson and Seaver.
3x WS
2x 2nd CY (1x 4th)
WS MVP
His 1.137 career WHIP is lower than Maddux.
Contemporary Era committee has already voted against this insurrectionist from being enshrined back in 2022. He's DONE.
Really? Is this a new thing? I thought that they could cast votes for up to 10 players every 3 years whenever that Era came up. In 2025 we have the Classic Era, then in 2026 we have the contemporary Era Players, and then in 2027 I think we have the contemporary era for non-players. So he has more chances as I understand it and I would expect him to get votes next winter. Maybe he won't stir the pot.
@Mistlin said:
Postseason achievements have no bearing on HoF candidacy.
This might be the most uneducated argument ever made about the HOF
They absolutely, without question, not even debatable can/do/have boosted players HOF status when they are a postseason monster. This is especially true for guys like Schilling
Why do you insist on suggesting Schilling is still a candidate?
I’m not sure exactly on how the era committees work. I thought that MLB selects a committee for each era to create a ballot of 8 eligible individuals. Then they select a 16 voter committee to consider that ballot. Any individual who gets 12 or more votes is in. Each voter gets 3 votes I believe. I can’t remember details on whether they can stack votes so any corrections to this are appreciated.
But. I guess my question is whether Schilling would not be eligible in the future for selection onto the ballot. Like is he never getting in because he’s never getting in or because he’s never getting in?
In 19 years we get to consider Angel Hernandez and then I’ll know if Basebal21 really wants the history of baseball represented in the hall. Ha.
Angel can be in the hall of shame. I'm also fine if they want to give him a space of being one of the worst most hated umpires of all time. Theres some others that belong there as well and if the reports that he got sick of being criticized helped lead to his "retirement" then hopefully the baseball social media can do the same for Kulpa and Diaz
Doesnt matter whether or not Schilling ever gets in, the HOF has already lost legitimacy ignoring a generation of players.
The question is should Schilling be in the HOF and the answer is without question yes
@Basebal21 said:
Angel can be in the hall of shame. I'm also fine if they want to give him a space of being one of the worst most hated umpires of all time. Theres some others that belong there as well and if the reports that he got sick of being criticized helped lead to his "retirement" then hopefully the baseball social media can do the same for Kulpa and Diaz
Doesnt matter whether or not Schilling ever gets in, the HOF has already lost legitimacy ignoring a generation of players.
The question is should Schilling be in the HOF and the answer is without question yes
I get all that and I’m just joking about Hernandez. Nothing serious. But I hope there’s a debate about it somewhere.
I’m actually wondering whether Schilling could be on a future contemporary era committee ballot or not.
@Basebal21 said:
Angel can be in the hall of shame. I'm also fine if they want to give him a space of being one of the worst most hated umpires of all time. Theres some others that belong there as well and if the reports that he got sick of being criticized helped lead to his "retirement" then hopefully the baseball social media can do the same for Kulpa and Diaz
Doesnt matter whether or not Schilling ever gets in, the HOF has already lost legitimacy ignoring a generation of players.
The question is should Schilling be in the HOF and the answer is without question yes
I get all that and I’m just joking about Hernandez. Nothing serious. But I hope there’s a debate about it somewhere.
I’m actually wondering whether Schilling could be on a future contemporary era committee ballot or not.
Jokes aside West and Hernandez among others do deserve a spot in the museum for their attitude and bad calls leading to speeding up the implantation of replay which is a huge change for the games history.
As far as Schiling its whatever the HOF wants to do. MLB a couple years ago already said that even players banned for life are not only just banned from working in baseball but their ban ends when they die.
And again, if you feel his words keeps him out in your opnion, that is great, hollar as much as you want...but you also said he didn't belong with on field performance and you are wrong.
Clear first ballot HOFer.
Well, since he got booted from even the Contemporary Committee, it looks like you're alone in your 'clear first ballot' opinion.
He's NOT a hall of famer, and like you and me, the only way he's ever getting in is by buying a ticket.
He isn't one because they suffer from the same affliction.
18th all time in pitcher runs saved makes it an easy no brainer. This is the currency of the value of a pitcher. There are no amount of variables or context views that could push that high of an elite all time ranking into some sphere that is outside of the HOF. If there was, then that would disqualify half of the hall of fame pitchers.
In addition to that lofty all time run saving ranking, Schilling's post season performances are on par with Koufax and Gibson. Yes, I have downplayed the use of post season performances in the past...but the HOF voters certainly have not, well until it came to Schilling...because the writers are afflicted with bias and self righteousness. I could go on and on about people they support(in all walks of life roles) that have said and done far worse, but I will follow the forum rules and not introduce all of that.
It's great the hall voters hold this insurrectionist responsible for his actions - probably the first time in his life he's ever been held accountable.
Schilling is on the record saying he doesn't want in the hall - faint words after the fact the hall voters already rejected him.
At least get the facts right. He said to remove him from the ballot knowing that he wasnt going to get in for reasons that had nothing to do with his performance. It was before his final year on the ballot
@Basebal21 said:
At least get the facts right. He said to remove him from the ballot knowing that he wasnt going to get in for reasons that had nothing to do with his performance. It was before his final year on the ballot
And his request was denied.
His final year of eligibility saw his percentage plummet to 58.6% and denied - rightfully and appears I am not alone in my belief he's not a hall of famer. The people that actually matter (the voters) agree with me and those who do not want someone who sympathize with insurrectionists enshrined in the hall.
The voters arent the important ones, the players are. Whether or not some beat writer voted for a player or not doesnt change what a player did during their career.
Hate to break it to you but Schilling and the others will eventually get in. Theres a sharp divide between how younger voters and the old guard who act l;ike Saint Peter at the Gates of Heaven vote. It might take several decades but it will happen, or the other possibility is that people just think the HOF is such a joke by that point that no one cares about at all
What weve really learned is that there are too many voters who are not basing their vote off of a players career. Omissions only hurt the HOFs legitimacy who a growing number of younger fans are caring less and less about every year.
@Basebal21 said:
The voters arent the important ones, the players are. Whether or not some beat writer voted for a player or not doesnt change what a player did during their career.
Hate to break it to you but Schilling and the others will eventually get in. Theres a sharp divide between how younger voters and the old guard who act l;ike Saint Peter at the Gates of Heaven vote. It might take several decades but it will happen, or the other possibility is that people just think the HOF is such a joke by that point that no one cares about at all
What weve really learned is that there are too many voters who are not basing their vote off of a players career. Omissions only hurt the HOFs legitimacy who a growing number of younger fans are caring less and less about every year.
When it comes to HoF induction, yes, the voters are the important ones.
P.S. younger fans not caring about baseball has nothing to do with the Hall of Fame. Why anyone would think a younger fan would care about a player' (who they likely never saw play) not being inducted to the hall of fame is beyond me. Younger fans consume sports content in a completely different manner-they want instant, on-demand content and watch highlights/compilations on sites like YouTube and TikTok.
Again the players are the important ones. There is no HOF without players.
The voters have shown for years now that enough of the beat writers are not voting based on performance and are holding grudges etc which has taken away their credibility. Its no different than how West and Hernadez severely hurt the credibility of umpires. On e HOF voter is such a joke hes been bragging for years about how hes turning in blank ballots voting for no one.
Younger fans do care about baseball, they just dont care as much about the HOF voting being necessary to say a player is a HOF player. Either the HOF will clean up its voting problem or fans will just increasingly have their own HOF and other than the memorabilia they get will continue to become less relevant
Nobody is disputing that there would be no hall without the players. What apparently is up to dispute is the voters determine who gets into the hall - not the players. I am not sure why this needs to be spelled out, but apparently it does.
You think that grudges by writers are something new? Are you serious? Or just naive?
I never claimed that younger fans do not care about baseball - it was your comment:
" Omissions only hurt the HOFs legitimacy who a growing number of younger fans are caring less and less about every year."
You claimed that the HoF and its members somehow have an effect on younger fans embracing the sport. They're tuning out of games because it is a boring watch - just look at all the pace of play changes imposed recently.
When the hall and its voters turned their backs on the very players which saved the sport and left a glaring hole representing an entire era of baseball, the hall stopped being a complete museum of the sport.
Schilling got over 70% of the vote twice so actually most believe he was worthy. Even after he asked to be dropped off the ballot, most still voted for him 58%.
But how many people agree with you shouldn't be the basis of any sound argument.
The era committees seem to favor backroom type deals and friendships since there are only 16 people on those committees. That is how Harold Baines got in. So bias is the currency at work as usual.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Schilling got over 70% of the vote twice so actually most believe he was worthy. Even after he asked to be dropped off the ballot, most still voted for him 58%.
But how many people agree with you shouldn't be the basis of any sound argument.
The era committees seem to favor backroom type deals and friendships since there are only 16 people on those committees. That is how Harold Baines got in. So bias is the currency at work as usual.
The era committees has a bit of luck involved with whose on it as well. The votes arent public but Morris and Trammel were on the last one who shouldnt even be hall of famers. Would be easy to see Maddux voting no on a pitcher that didnt have 300 wins like he had to have, a number of others its pretty easy to see why he got 7 votes.
Schilling is not a Hall of Famer, no matter how much energy his (obvious political allied) supporters expend arguing to the contrary. He is not on the ballot any longer and his radical views and negative light in which he paints himself is only going to subtract support from those who matter (in this case, the HoF voters), not add to it.
@Mistlin said:
Schilling is not a Hall of Famer, no matter how much energy his (obvious political allied) supporters expend arguing to the contrary. He is not on the ballot any longer and his radical views and negative light in which he paints himself is only going to subtract support from those who matter (in this case, the HoF voters), not add to it.
He's outta here!
Until he gets in via an era committee in the future... then you're prediction won't look so informed. Guesses age like cheese.
@Mistlin said:
Schilling is not a Hall of Famer, no matter how much energy his (obvious political allied) supporters expend arguing to the contrary. He is not on the ballot any longer and his radical views and negative light in which he paints himself is only going to subtract support from those who matter (in this case, the HoF voters), not add to it.
He's outta here!
Until he gets in via an era committee in the future... then you're prediction won't look so informed. Guesses age like cheese.
He's NEVER getting in.
He's cementing his own fate with his radical, insurrectionist-supporting rhetoric. MLB has no desire to ever have to answer why they won't enshrine the best players of a generation (Bonds, McGwire, Clemens) but enshrine someone who publicly supported an attempted overthrow of democracy.
If you can't grasp that....I do not know what to say to help you.
@Mistlin said:
Schilling is not a Hall of Famer, no matter how much energy his (obvious political allied) supporters expend arguing to the contrary. He is not on the ballot any longer and his radical views and negative light in which he paints himself is only going to subtract support from those who matter (in this case, the HoF voters), not add to it.
He's outta here!
Until he gets in via an era committee in the future... then you're prediction won't look so informed. Guesses age like cheese.
He's NEVER getting in.
He's cementing his own fate with his radical, insurrectionist-supporting rhetoric. MLB has no desire to ever have to answer why they won't enshrine the best players of a generation (Bonds, McGwire, Clemens) but enshrine someone who publicly supported an attempted overthrow of democracy.
If you can't grasp that....I do not know what to say to help you.
I do understand that his "antics" prevented his enshrinement.
I do understand that his continued "antics" are hurting his future chances.
I do believe that he will eventually get in and I expect he will get in within the next decade. For a few reasons.
I expect there will be a pause in the political vitriol at some point and his commentary will be sufficiently forgotten.
I expect he will have opportunities within the era committees (Remember these are not BBWAA voters) who looks at his career vs. his mouth after his career.
As guys like Scherzer, Verlander, Grienke, Sabathia are voted in, people are going to compare them to Schilling and be left scratching their heads.
I don't agree with Schillings politics, but I don't have to like everything he says to respect his career.
As for his politics, I don't really know what his beliefs are outside of the handful of sound-bites which have been amplified by the media over the last decade. Had I known, that as a baseball fan, I had to incorporate those things into an assessment of his career I would have paid closer attention.
Next time I'm staring at the ballot, I'll ask myself... "What did Schilling say about this?" because I really respect his opinions on the political ethos. From what I have heard he seems like he's a political scientist, historian, and perhaps philosopher... type of fella... so my bad not following more closely.
Comments
18th all time in Adjusted Pitching Runs saved.
17th all tine in Run Expectancy saved
26th all time in Win Probability Added
First ballot no brainer HOFer to any baseball knowledgeble person and OBJECTIVE analysis.
Those are Schilling's accomplishments and nothing to do with Jack Morris.
Perhaps read again what I said earlier. That Morris stuff was just a bonus if you were someone that heightened a players HOF candidacy with post season performance.
Again, you all of a sudden disagree with advanced measurements because you don't like the person's political views. If you say he shouldn't be in because of what he said, that is your opinion, but when you use your bias to put up a third grade level statistical analysis to hide your bias and show your true side, then you lose all credibility.
He belongs. First ballot no brainer. You don't get that high in all time run prevention by accident, and any margin of error still puts him clearly in as a first ballot. Only personal bias could argue with those objective measures...and in this case it is bias unrelated to his play on the field.
And again, if you feel his words keeps him out in your opnion, that is great, hollar as much as you want...but you also said he didn't belong with on field performance and you are wrong.
Clear first ballot HOFer.
Ahhhh, so only those players who agree with your view of politics should be inducted into the HOF.
now I understand...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I would love to hear a statistical argument as to why Schilling should NOT be elected to the HOF.
So far, all I hear is that he has no Cy Young awards and his political views hurt someone's feelings.
Is that the actual standard?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
For some people yes, anyone that doesn't understand that the writers personal.feelings count for something just don't get it.
Again it should be PERFORMANCE based with some variables IE serial killer or gambling on own team type stuff should disqualify a player
Correct. Mistlin also needs to tell on himself for breaking forum rules by introducing this into the discussion. Of course, as per his tactics he has learned from The View and friends, it is to live by "one set of rules for everyone else, and a completely different set for themselves." Hypocrisy at its finest, which is not surprising all.
18th all time in pitcher runs saved makes it an easy no brainer. This is the currency of the value of a pitcher. There are no amount of variables or context views that could push that high of an elite all time ranking into some sphere that is outside of the HOF. If there was, then that would disqualify half of the hall of fame pitchers.
In addition to that lofty all time run saving ranking, Schilling's post season performances are on par with Koufax and Gibson. Yes, I have downplayed the use of post season performances in the past...but the HOF voters certainly have not, well until it came to Schilling...because the writers are afflicted with bias and self righteousness. I could go on and on about people they support(in all walks of life roles) that have said and done far worse, but I will follow the forum rules and not introduce all of that.
I could see Schilling thinking the earth is flat. His political views bother me about as much as anyone wearing a billboard and ringing a cow bell.
what does this have to do with the question?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
What do his political views have to do with his hall of fame candidacy. It keeps being brought up. You invoke it repeatedly. Why?
No, neither one of those should be the standard. As far as the cy young, it would be similar to an every day player needing to win an mvp to get into the HOF.
But the cy young voting during his career actually favors Curt more than it hurts his HOF credentials.
He finished 2nd place 3 times and 4th place one time.
So yes the stats 48swell posted makes him a sure fire hof’er and also mistlin pointed out he never won a cy young but so what he finished 2nd three times.
Agree with you and 48swell. 👍
Doesn’t this kind of prove mistlin has no credibility? Particularly saying just 3 top 2 cy young finishes shows he wasn’t dominant? What now? 🤔
Yeah almost every pitcher gets at least 3 top 2 finishes. 😂😂😂😂
I invoke it? only to say it is meaningless and shouldn't matter one little bit to his HOF candidacy.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
And for two of those second place finishes, Schilling was the 2nd best pitcher in all of MLB and it just happened that his teammate had two all time type seasons to justifiably win the award. It was just bad timing having the Unit in the NL for those two years in terms of Schilling coming in first for his league for the Cy Young.
I wasn't criticizing you. Just saying that I agree it shouldn't matter for his voting. Distasteful, hurtful, insensitive remarks from the platform he had isn't the best form. His political commentary is his own and that shouldn't have a bearing at all. Calling him an insurrectionist is a total stretch.
He was 5-0 in post-season elimination games. His post-season success along with his career awards and his baseline of statistical performance should make him a lock. I guess the contemporary era committee will have to fix it..
Who is going to get in from BBWAA in 2025?
Ichiro
Wagner
Sabathia ?
Anyone from Classic Era in 2025?
Theres no statistical argument that can be made. If someone only looked at his regular season stats there was some argument but that went out the window with Mussina getting elected. Combine hi9s regular season stats and being one of the best post season pitchers of all time and hes a no doubt HOFer. Theres just no way to argue against his numbers and the fact that hes significantly better than a lot of the HOF other than basically just saying I dont want him to be in
Well, since he got booted from even the Contemporary Committee, it looks like you're alone in your 'clear first ballot' opinion.
He's NOT a hall of famer, and like you and me, the only way he's ever getting in is by buying a ticket.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin
There goes the 'so-and-so is in the hall, this guy should be, too!'
'No doubt HoFer'? Nope. He's no longer eligible. Thank god.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin
Calling him an insurrectionist is a total stretch.
When you come out in support of insurrectionists, and claim an election was 'stolen' and you should fight to overthrow said election, sorry, but you're an insurrectionist.
Postseason achievements have no bearing on HoF candidacy. He has no career awards - never won a Cy Young.
Contemporary Era committee has already voted against this insurrectionist from being enshrined back in 2022. He's DONE.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin
This might be the most uneducated argument ever made about the HOF
They absolutely, without question, not even debatable can/do/have boosted players HOF status when they are a postseason monster. This is especially true for guys like Schilling
I wouldn't be considering his social wits. Agreeing with someone's views isn't a criteria for enshrinement. He made some remarks about the Jan 6th events, which won't age well. Those remarks might be inflammatory, but after the fact, in regard to all that they weren't illegal. So why are we worrying about this particular guy's views on anything...
They are not allowed to have any bearing? Seems like it's fine for the voters to consider quite a few parameters which would be impacted by his postseason achievements.
I think you're narrowing the definition more than I am. Consider the hypothetical pitcher who finishes 2nd in MLB Cy Young voting every year of his 20 year career. This pitcher has won no Cy Young award and the simplicity of the 'no-award argument' there would dismiss what must have been a legendary, albeit unlucky, career.
Schilling has the same Career ERA+ as both Gibson and Seaver.
3x WS
2x 2nd CY (1x 4th)
WS MVP
His 1.137 career WHIP is lower than Maddux.
Really? Is this a new thing? I thought that they could cast votes for up to 10 players every 3 years whenever that Era came up. In 2025 we have the Classic Era, then in 2026 we have the contemporary Era Players, and then in 2027 I think we have the contemporary era for non-players. So he has more chances as I understand it and I would expect him to get votes next winter. Maybe he won't stir the pot.
Why do you insist on suggesting Schilling is still a candidate?
He's not getting in. Ever.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin
I’m not sure exactly on how the era committees work. I thought that MLB selects a committee for each era to create a ballot of 8 eligible individuals. Then they select a 16 voter committee to consider that ballot. Any individual who gets 12 or more votes is in. Each voter gets 3 votes I believe. I can’t remember details on whether they can stack votes so any corrections to this are appreciated.
But. I guess my question is whether Schilling would not be eligible in the future for selection onto the ballot. Like is he never getting in because he’s never getting in or because he’s never getting in?
In 19 years we get to consider Angel Hernandez and then I’ll know if Basebal21 really wants the history of baseball represented in the hall. Ha.
Angel can be in the hall of shame. I'm also fine if they want to give him a space of being one of the worst most hated umpires of all time. Theres some others that belong there as well and if the reports that he got sick of being criticized helped lead to his "retirement" then hopefully the baseball social media can do the same for Kulpa and Diaz
Doesnt matter whether or not Schilling ever gets in, the HOF has already lost legitimacy ignoring a generation of players.
The question is should Schilling be in the HOF and the answer is without question yes
I get all that and I’m just joking about Hernandez. Nothing serious. But I hope there’s a debate about it somewhere.
I’m actually wondering whether Schilling could be on a future contemporary era committee ballot or not.
Jokes aside West and Hernandez among others do deserve a spot in the museum for their attitude and bad calls leading to speeding up the implantation of replay which is a huge change for the games history.
As far as Schiling its whatever the HOF wants to do. MLB a couple years ago already said that even players banned for life are not only just banned from working in baseball but their ban ends when they die.
The HOF is its own entity
Schilling not being in the HOF is absolute nonsense.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
He isn't one because they suffer from the same affliction.
18th all time in pitcher runs saved makes it an easy no brainer. This is the currency of the value of a pitcher. There are no amount of variables or context views that could push that high of an elite all time ranking into some sphere that is outside of the HOF. If there was, then that would disqualify half of the hall of fame pitchers.
In addition to that lofty all time run saving ranking, Schilling's post season performances are on par with Koufax and Gibson. Yes, I have downplayed the use of post season performances in the past...but the HOF voters certainly have not, well until it came to Schilling...because the writers are afflicted with bias and self righteousness. I could go on and on about people they support(in all walks of life roles) that have said and done far worse, but I will follow the forum rules and not introduce all of that.
It's great the hall voters hold this insurrectionist responsible for his actions - probably the first time in his life he's ever been held accountable.
Schilling is on the record saying he doesn't want in the hall - faint words after the fact the hall voters already rejected him.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin
At least get the facts right. He said to remove him from the ballot knowing that he wasnt going to get in for reasons that had nothing to do with his performance. It was before his final year on the ballot
And his request was denied.
His final year of eligibility saw his percentage plummet to 58.6% and denied - rightfully and appears I am not alone in my belief he's not a hall of famer. The people that actually matter (the voters) agree with me and those who do not want someone who sympathize with insurrectionists enshrined in the hall.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin
The voters arent the important ones, the players are. Whether or not some beat writer voted for a player or not doesnt change what a player did during their career.
Hate to break it to you but Schilling and the others will eventually get in. Theres a sharp divide between how younger voters and the old guard who act l;ike Saint Peter at the Gates of Heaven vote. It might take several decades but it will happen, or the other possibility is that people just think the HOF is such a joke by that point that no one cares about at all
What weve really learned is that there are too many voters who are not basing their vote off of a players career. Omissions only hurt the HOFs legitimacy who a growing number of younger fans are caring less and less about every year.
When it comes to HoF induction, yes, the voters are the important ones.
P.S. younger fans not caring about baseball has nothing to do with the Hall of Fame. Why anyone would think a younger fan would care about a player' (who they likely never saw play) not being inducted to the hall of fame is beyond me. Younger fans consume sports content in a completely different manner-they want instant, on-demand content and watch highlights/compilations on sites like YouTube and TikTok.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin
Again the players are the important ones. There is no HOF without players.
The voters have shown for years now that enough of the beat writers are not voting based on performance and are holding grudges etc which has taken away their credibility. Its no different than how West and Hernadez severely hurt the credibility of umpires. On e HOF voter is such a joke hes been bragging for years about how hes turning in blank ballots voting for no one.
Younger fans do care about baseball, they just dont care as much about the HOF voting being necessary to say a player is a HOF player. Either the HOF will clean up its voting problem or fans will just increasingly have their own HOF and other than the memorabilia they get will continue to become less relevant
Nobody is disputing that there would be no hall without the players. What apparently is up to dispute is the voters determine who gets into the hall - not the players. I am not sure why this needs to be spelled out, but apparently it does.
You think that grudges by writers are something new? Are you serious? Or just naive?
I never claimed that younger fans do not care about baseball - it was your comment:
" Omissions only hurt the HOFs legitimacy who a growing number of younger fans are caring less and less about every year."
You claimed that the HoF and its members somehow have an effect on younger fans embracing the sport. They're tuning out of games because it is a boring watch - just look at all the pace of play changes imposed recently.
When the hall and its voters turned their backs on the very players which saved the sport and left a glaring hole representing an entire era of baseball, the hall stopped being a complete museum of the sport.
P.S. insurrectionists have no place in the hall.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin
The era voters are different than the bbwaa voters also. So you may find different perspectives.
I think now after the 50th time I finally understand your opinion on this matter. But I’m not sure.
Schilling got over 70% of the vote twice so actually most believe he was worthy. Even after he asked to be dropped off the ballot, most still voted for him 58%.
But how many people agree with you shouldn't be the basis of any sound argument.
The era committees seem to favor backroom type deals and friendships since there are only 16 people on those committees. That is how Harold Baines got in. So bias is the currency at work as usual.
The era committees has a bit of luck involved with whose on it as well. The votes arent public but Morris and Trammel were on the last one who shouldnt even be hall of famers. Would be easy to see Maddux voting no on a pitcher that didnt have 300 wins like he had to have, a number of others its pretty easy to see why he got 7 votes.
Schilling is not a Hall of Famer, no matter how much energy his (obvious political allied) supporters expend arguing to the contrary. He is not on the ballot any longer and his radical views and negative light in which he paints himself is only going to subtract support from those who matter (in this case, the HoF voters), not add to it.
He's outta here!
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin
Until he gets in via an era committee in the future... then you're prediction won't look so informed. Guesses age like cheese.
He's NEVER getting in.
He's cementing his own fate with his radical, insurrectionist-supporting rhetoric. MLB has no desire to ever have to answer why they won't enshrine the best players of a generation (Bonds, McGwire, Clemens) but enshrine someone who publicly supported an attempted overthrow of democracy.
If you can't grasp that....I do not know what to say to help you.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin
I do understand that his "antics" prevented his enshrinement.
I do understand that his continued "antics" are hurting his future chances.
I do believe that he will eventually get in and I expect he will get in within the next decade. For a few reasons.
I don't agree with Schillings politics, but I don't have to like everything he says to respect his career.
As for his politics, I don't really know what his beliefs are outside of the handful of sound-bites which have been amplified by the media over the last decade. Had I known, that as a baseball fan, I had to incorporate those things into an assessment of his career I would have paid closer attention.
Next time I'm staring at the ballot, I'll ask myself... "What did Schilling say about this?" because I really respect his opinions on the political ethos. From what I have heard he seems like he's a political scientist, historian, and perhaps philosopher... type of fella... so my bad not following more closely.
Anyways. We can settle up when he is enshrined.