So I am reading James' ballot, which if he worked for RunnersWest he might have, as:

Bagwell, Biggio, Clemens, Piazza, Lofton, Schilling, Trammell, Martinez, Raines, and McGriff, with James waiting a year or two to vote for Bonds. I like that he is able to get a full ballot of strong candidates while also finding a way to ding Bonds a little bit.

So I am reading James' ballot, which if he worked for RunnersWest he might have, as:

Bagwell, Biggio, Clemens, Piazza, Lofton, Schilling, Trammell, Martinez, Raines, and McGriff, with James waiting a year or two to vote for Bonds. I like that he is able to get a full ballot of strong candidates while also finding a way to ding Bonds a little bit.

Sosa doesn't seem to have had many discussions about him here (may have missed some): I see a lot of ink spilled on the behalf of another RF, Larry Walker, but Sammy almost seems like an afterthought this election, both here and by the voters. Leaving aside steroid issues (if we can...), what are his red flags? Peak might be a slight edge to Walker:

LW: 9.6, 7.6, 5.8, 5.5, 5.2, 4.9

SS: 10.1, 6.3, 5.5, 5.5, 5.2, 5.1

Walker has more seasons in the 3-5 range (7 seasons to 3), which is why he leads on career WAR 69 to 55. Sosa's WAR for his 98-02 peak (31.9) seems...off, for a RFer who hit 292 home runs during those 5 seasons-his 1999 season only gives him a piddly 4.7-this while he's playing 162 games and hitting 63 homers. Fangraphs likes that season a bit better (5.7), but still something doesn't add up.

1) Offensive context. Sosa's 1000 OPS looks awesome, but he was only 6th in the league in OPS. 150 OPS+ is good, but by comparison Mike Morse got there last year with a 360/550 line. Sosa's peak coincided with peak silly-ball.

2) Sosa was a bad baserunner who didn't yet realize he was a bad baserunner. He attempted 15 steals and got caught eight times. He also made eight more outs on the bases despite a low rate of extra base attempts (just 38% extra bases taken compared to a league average of 43%). Sosa's baserunning costs him a little over half a win.

3) And just as he wasn't a good runner anymore, he was also no longer a good fielder. That's another half a win or so.

Surprisingly, I think Sosa is being hurt by career considerations. And I say surprisingly because I didn't think there were a lot of careerists around here. Sosa has minimal contributions in his first five seasons and in his final three. Actually, That's being kind. Sosa had multiple years below WAR at the beginning and the end. That drags down his career numbers. It's also left a lot of observers with the impression that Sosa's contributions were short lived. In reality, Sosa was a solid contributor from 1993-2003 with a 3.8 WAR at age 24 and a 2.5 at age 34. That's a solid prime of 11 seasons with, as you noted, a noticeable peak. Sosa should be a Hall of Famer.

I think that Sosa is also being overlooked discussion wise because his case is almost entirely overshadowed by Bonds. If you're going to argue about a PED suspect, it might as well be the guy who was arguably the best and not the guy who was reasonably good enough.

Sosa's career WAR numbers and extended prime are dependent on an exceptional rating of his defense. B-Ref has him averaging about 20 runs above average for five years (93-97). Sosa's oWAR in those seasons runs 1.8, 2.0, 2.8, 2.6, 0.6 - minus fielding, that's not going to add anything, really, to a "prime" case. I recall Sosa being a good fielder, but that B-Ref rates him as the equal of a gold glove center fielder, the second or third best outfielder in the entire league, over that period. I think that's unlikely.

Bill James says that he would vote for cheater Clemens? He just lost a lot of my respect.

I assume J.R. is talking about Mindy McCready

Sosa's career WAR numbers and extended prime are dependent on an exceptional rating of his defense. B-Ref has him averaging about 20 runs above average for five years (93-97). Sosa's oWAR in those seasons runs 1.8, 2.0, 2.8, 2.6, 0.6 - minus fielding, that's not going to add anything, really, to a "prime" case. I recall Sosa being a good fielder, but that B-Ref rates him as the equal of a gold glove center fielder, the second or third best outfielder in the entire league, over that period. I think that's unlikely.

For what it's worth, DRA has him with slightly lower rankings in those years, but overall higher defensive rankings (it doesn't see him as quite as bad in his later years). That seems to jive with my memory - I recall him being a good fielder and even passable as he aged; I don't remember him being a -8 fielder, for example.*

*He was also my favorite player growing up, so I'm the furthest thing from an unbiased evaluator.

Sosa is perhaps the Robin Roberts of outfielders. It took Roberts four ballots to make the HOF, even though you'd think 286 Wins (8th among 20th-century pitchers when Roberts was first on the HOF ballot) would end the discussion. But so many of those wins came in so few seasons, so close together that some voters might have discounted them – almost the converse of an "accumulator" discount. Yeah, he won 97 games in four years, but what else did he ever do? And so with Sosa's peak.

Was I the only one who read the headline and thought Bill James himself was going to be on the HOF ballot?

Was I the only one who read the headline and thought Bill James himself was going to be on the HOF ballot?

That's definitely how I read it at first as well. Then, after mentally arguing with it for a second "No way! This isn't the time of year they announce the non-playing candidates!", the right interpretation showed up.

Heh, didn't think of that; sorry. At the end, Brian Kenny did tell James that he hopes James will be inducted one day...

Didn't realize that the lightning round run-through of the holdover candidates and the discussion with Bowa were also posted. So I think really the only thing that wasn't posted was a generic steroid discussion.

I recall Sosa being a good fielder, but that B-Ref rates him as the equal of a gold glove center fielder, the second or third best outfielder in the entire league, over that period. I think that's unlikely.

When Sammy Sosa first came up, he had an ungodly amount of raw defensive talent. He never quite but it together, but he was damn impressive. Within a few months of his cracking the Sox lineup some of my Sox fan relatives were comparing his army to Dave Winfield and Jesse Barfield. Could he be the next generation's great arm. And he had plenty of speed, too. Sometimes he played center but the reason he didn't all the time was because of that absolute cannon of an arm.

He could be frustrating, though. He'd through the ball so hard but then let a groundball single go through his legs for a two-base error. And while his arm was strong, it wasn't perfectly accurate. To be fair, Billy Martin always said the same thing about Winfield's arm, but when Sosa was a Cub it was maddening. When I saw the Cubs play at Wrigley in the mid-1990s, it was like Sosa was just throwing the ball in the general direction of the infield. Guys had to jump up or run 10 yards to the side or both or something. It was never on line. Then again, my golly the ball got their quick. It was like an outfield version of Shawn Dunston.

I can believe Sosa scoring surprisingly high on defensive metrics, though I doubt he's one of the best over a decade.

Within a few months of his cracking the Sox lineup some of my Sox fan relatives were comparing his army to Dave Winfield and Jesse Barfield.

Hey, take it to the George McClellan thread.

Bill James says that he would vote for cheater Clemens? He just lost a lot of my respect.

I watched the show. James basically said the only evidence against Clemens was from an untrustworthy source, i.e. a convicted felon, whereas Clemens always denied use. Thus, Clemens was more likely to be the one not lying. It was kind of a burden of proof argument.

I was actually kind of surprised that James gave so much credence to the steroids arguments. I would have expected him to say something like "we can't statistically measure how steroids affected the game, so penalizing for steroids would be ridiculous at this point." Instead he went at it from a dishonesty standpoint. Bonds was "most dishonest," so he got penalized the most (had to wait a few years to get James' vote).

The president of SABR was on Clubhouse Confidential last night (or a few nights ago). He made a kind of interesting point. He said he thinks we're in a "fog" as far as our knowledge of steroids goes. Since each of the steroid-era players gets 15 years on the ballot, that is a good amount of time to continue to iron out the steroids facts before making the final determination as to who's in and who's out.

There was also a casualty- and Bushmills-free encounter with Larry Bowa.

That was a decent clip. Both parties were respectful and Bowa came out looking smarter than expected.

Bill James is a weird dude. I'm surprised he goes on TV. He seems like kind of a recluse.

Bonds was "most dishonest,"

I don't see how this is true. Bonds' line from the beginning has been that he had no knowledge that the drugs were steroids. He claimed that he thought that the supplements provided were legal products. This has never been contradicted.

I don't see how this is true. Bonds' line from the beginning has been that he had no knowledge that the drugs were steroids. He claimed that he thought that the supplements provided were legal products. This has never been contradicted.

Hence my surprise at James' take on the steroids issue. He was closer to the Murray Chass side of things than the Keith Law side of things (I'm sure these are bad representatives for the two sides of the steroids debate; feel free to swap out), which I found surprising.

I watched the show. James basically said the only evidence against Clemens was from an untrustworthy source, i.e. a convicted felon, whereas Clemens always denied use. Thus, Clemens was more likely to be the one not lying. It was kind of a burden of proof argument.

Actually, McNamee, for all of his warts, is not a convicted felon. He was investigated for rape and according to Rusty Hardin the authorities thought McNamee probably committed the rape, but for various reasons he wasn't charged. He was also dealing drugs - indeed that's how the feds caught him in their cross hairs to begin with which led to him naming Clemens -- but he wasn't actually charged with anything related to that -- probably because he named Clemens.

He could have been charged with perjury stemming from the same Congressional hearing that led to Clemens being charged -- but, alas, he wasn't, because he - not Clemens - was telling the feds what they wanted to hear.

But, no, he's not a convicted felon. That doesn't mean it's not hilarious that the Jon Heymans and Mike Lupicas of the world swallowed his story whole.

Well, not that Chass-like... surely Chass wouldn't vote for Bonds or Clemens ever... but James isn't ignoring PED, yeah. I suppose his statements about it eventually becoming a non-issue were more predictions than endorsements.

Would have been instructive to hear his thoughts on McGwire and Palmeiro.

Hence my surprise at James' take on the steroids issue. He was closer to the Murray Chass side of things than the Keith Law side of things (I'm sure these are bad representatives for the two sides of the steroids debate; feel free to swap out), which I found surprising.

In the 2000 Historical Baseball Abstract, James had an essay in which he went on at length itemizing several factors that in his view were responsible for offense increasing in the 90s.

The word 'steroids' never appeared.

Well, not that Chass-like... surely Chass wouldn't vote for Bonds or Clemens ever... but James isn't ignoring PED, yeah. I suppose his statements about it eventually becoming a non-issue were more predictions than endorsements.

I read a piece from James a couple of years ago in which he believes that in 50 years people will laugh at the steroids issue because healthy people in everyday life will be taking enhancing drugs or steroids type substances or growth hormone to extend their lives or better their appearance, etc.

But, no, he's not a convicted felon.

I think those are the exact words Bill James used, but I don't claim to have a perfect memory.

Within a few months of his cracking the Sox lineup some of my Sox fan relatives were comparing his army to Dave Winfield and Jesse Barfield.

But how does his army compare to Arnie's?

Sosa doesn't seem to have had many discussions about him here (may have missed some): I see a lot of ink spilled on the behalf of another RF, Larry Walker, but Sammy almost seems like an afterthought this election, both here and by the voters.

Well, a lot of the Walker ink is being spilled by one guy. :-)

I'm sure Sosa would be getting a lot more attention (or at least "votes") around here if it wasn't such a crowded ballot. He's 14th on the ballot in WAR with Biggio (who gets a little extra love for being a 2B), Piazza (who gets extra love for being a C) and McGWire (well, if you're gonna vote for a PED candidate) ahead of him. I managed to squeeze him onto my ballot in part because I'm a fanboy but it's not easy.

Also (a) I think we all know he's a lost cause with the current electorate -- we don't really talk much about Palmeiro either; and (b) Andy (and maybe others) on the anti-PED side have always said there's no evidence against Sosa so he's OK.

Sosa's career is a bit like Banks' career -- massive peak, little else. But rather than being pretty awesome from the start then playing out the string as a star, Sammy took a while to get going and then what could have been his big break-out years were interrupted by labor disputes and injury. Guy breaks the HR record and has to play 2nd fiddle. Guy averages the old HR record over 3 seasons and everybody is talking about Bonds.

And he was very good defensively in his youth. He definitely had CF speed which, when playing in RF, almost automatically starts you at +10. And the description above of his arm is a good one -- very strong, not super accurate and the confidence to believe it was never too late to throw. Yes, a lot of the throws were pretty badly offline but a lot of them wouldn't have made any difference if they'd been online and, except when they got away, it rarely cost an extra base.

But let's not go anti-WAR here either. I'm still not sure folks have adapted to what dWAR is doing. Sammy was an excellent RF for a while and very good for his career overall. After positional adjustment, that all add up to -1 dWAR. He has about 4 fewer dWAR than, for example, Reggie Smith. That doesn't seem the least bit outrageous, if anything I'm not sure Sammy was worse than Smith (who was pretty good). He's behind Crawford, Kotsay, Ichiro, Corey Patterson, Jerry Hairston. Even the big numbers of his youth are in line with Jason Heyward (+50 in 3 years). Do we really have good reason to question whether the young Sosa was as good as Jason Heyward in the field? In the end, all WAR is saying is that Sosa was a league average CF stuck in RF for his career. That's pretty much what WAR says about Larry Walker too. I don't fine either of those hard to believe.

Sammy is one of the few players for whom I consider "psychological" arguments. He seemed so desperate to please. His horrible 1997 season seemed an over-reaction to signing a huge contract -- as if he was required to put up a 30/30 season (I'd swear he ran every time he made it to 1st in Sept). In 1998, he'd charge into a tie with Mac and, seemingly as soon as he got there, he'd turn back into old Sammy trying to hit everything for a HR and fall behind again. Once behind, he'd rediscover the approach that was working so well and come charging back again. And, inevitably, when the talent started to go, all that crowd-pleasing behavior became annoying.

Guy breaks the HR record and has to play 2nd fiddle.

Huh? Sosa won the MVP over McGwire that year. It was a rather silly choice.

Guy averages the old HR record over 3 seasons and everybody is talking about Bonds.

I remember plenty of people talking about Sosa for years after 1998; indeed, it wasn't until 2001 that Bonds appears on the home run stage. And McGwire left that stage in 2000.

The idea that Sosa wasn't talked about is rather bizarre. *Now* he's gotten lost in the wave of candidates, but that's because it doesn't make any sense to talk about how Sosa might be treated by the writers until the dust settles from Bonds and Clemens. We saw what happened with McGwire and Palmeiro, and now Bonds and Clemens are the next stop on this idiotic steroids train everyone's been forced by the writers to ride.

Side topic but what is the evidence that Bonds and Clemens will see a jump in their vote totals next year as a result of some writers applying a "one year penalty"? McGwire and Palmeiro didn't see their vote totals go up at all; to the contrary, actually, IIRC.

Sosa won the MVP over McGwire that year.

Yes, the consolation prize that year. McGwire was the star, everybody knew it.

<i>The idea that Sosa wasn't talked about is rather bizarre.<i>

I didn't say he wasn't talked about, I said he was never the #1 guy, which he never was.

The man hit 66, 63 and 64 HR ... and didn't lead the league in a single one of those seasons. The year he hit 63, he finished 9th in MVP voting. The next year (2000) he led the league in HR, had 138 RBI, hit 320 even -- 9th in MVP voting. In 2001, he had the greatest season of his career -- 64 HR, led the league in R, RBI and TB, 203 OPS+ -- and was overshadowed by Bonds.

Sosa won the MVP over McGwire that year.

Yes, the consolation prize that year. McGwire was the star, everybody knew it.

That makes no sense.

(And they were both "stars." There doesn't have to be only one, and indeed, there wasn't only one.)

The idea that Sosa wasn't talked about is rather bizarre.

I didn't say he wasn't talked about, I said he was never the #1 guy, which he never was.

But he was right up there with the most exciting players of the time period and was treated as such.

The man hit 66, 63 and 64 HR ... and didn't lead the league in a single one of those seasons. The year he hit 63, he finished 9th in MVP voting. The next year (2000) he led the league in HR, had 138 RBI, hit 320 even -- 9th in MVP voting. In 2001, he had the greatest season of his career -- 64 HR, led the league in R, RBI and TB, 203 OPS+ -- and was overshadowed by Bonds.

I don't understand. When I pointed out that he won the MVP in 1998 you brushed it off, but now you're talking about him not winning the MVP as being relevant. Which is it?

Which is it?

I said the 98 MVP was his consolation prize for not winning the HR chase. I didn't say he wasn't popular.

I was pointing out that if MVP finishes were indicative of Sosa's superstar status that he didn't do well in the following two years and finished behind Bonds in the third. That he was overshadowed during his peak.

You're the one trying to have it both ways Ray.

Sosa was overshadowed by McGwire and Bonds during his peak -- undeniable.
Sosa had 3 of the top 6 HR single season totals in history -- and didn't win the HR title in any of those years.
Sosa even had a big national Pepsi commercial -- that he shared with Ken Griffey.
Sosa had the bad luck to retire the same year as Bonds "retired" (and others) so doesn't get the HoF spotlight to himself.

That's all I'm saying. Sosa was never THE guy. Sosa was never a legend despite a seemingly legendary achievement. In 1998, Sosa battled for the hearts of baseball fans everywhere (see the Verducci thread) ... and he came in second. So it goes.

Side topic but what is the evidence that Bonds and Clemens will see a jump in their vote totals next year as a result of some writers applying a "one year penalty"? McGwire and Palmeiro didn't see their vote totals go up at all; to the contrary, actually, IIRC.

Bonds and Clemens have the benefit of being considered HOF players without steroids. Whether that's enough for their vote totals to increase significantly is unknown.

I appreciate Lofton, but it seems weird to call Schilling a "probably". He's the third best guy on the ballot after the two obvious ones for me.

The president of SABR was on Clubhouse Confidential last night (or a few nights ago). He made a kind of interesting point. He said he thinks we're in a "fog" as far as our knowledge of steroids goes. Since each of the steroid-era players gets 15 years on the ballot, that is a good amount of time to continue to iron out the steroids facts before making the final determination as to who's in and who's out.

That's amazingly logical and sensible. Of course it will never happen, but it makes perfect logical sense.

As to proving Clemens's guilt or innocence, does anyone remember what Keith Olbermann wrote about Clemens?

"Ask Shoeless Joe Jackson how that acquittal stuff worked out."

#33 - On no planet or in any universe is Schilling ahead of Piazza on this ballot.

Agree. Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Biggio, Bagwell are head and shoulders ahead of Schilling on this ballot; in fact for me Schilling is pretty much in the group of guys on the 10-ballot bubble this year.

I appreciate Lofton, but it seems weird to call Schilling a "probably". He's the third best guy on the ballot after the two obvious ones for me.

I guess since Kevin Brown isn't on the ballot....

Schilling, IMO, is not a "slam-dunk" HOFer. He's a *maybe*.

Note to cmd600: I am not quoting anyone on the slam-dunk.

Since each of the steroid-era players gets 15 years on the ballot, that is a good amount of time to continue to iron out the steroids facts before making the final determination as to who's in and who's out.

1) You only get 15 years if people vote for you.
2) What steroids facts need to be ironed out?

Schilling, IMO, is not a "slam-dunk" HOFer. He's a *maybe*.

What is this based off of? Schilling is top 30 bWAR among pitchers and top 20 fWAR. He also has some of the best postseason numbers ever.

What's the rational for Schilling not being a slam dunk (that's not W-L record)?

2) What steroids facts need to be ironed out?

A reasonable estimate of their effectiveness in aiding baseball performance. The current scientific information is lacking, not baseball-related, and somewhat contradictory. I don't think this will be known in the next 15 years, or probably ever, barring widespread and currently-unethical human experimentation, but who knows.

#33 - On no planet or in any universe is Schilling ahead of Piazza on this ballot.

Piazza is top 5 catcher. If you eschew WAR and just use positional rankings that makes Piazza a top 40 position player. Schilling by bWAR is a top 30 pitcher. I'm just not sure what your logic is here. When you look at postseason numbers (Piazza is at .242/.301/.458 in 133 PA, Schilling 2.33 ERA with 525 batters faced), Schilling clearly has a strong case over Piazza.

A reasonable estimate of their effectiveness in aiding baseball performance. The current scientific information is lacking, not baseball-related, and somewhat contradictory. I don't think this will be known in the next 15 years, or probably ever, barring widespread and currently-unethical human experimentation, but who knows.

Yes, I agree with your last sentence, which sort of undermines the underlying argument. Assuming one cares about how effective PEDs are in formulating one's vote, that's something one might want to wait for in order to cast one's ballot... if that were going to happen. I guess I should have phrased it as "What steroids facts need to be ironed out that will be?"

Schilling at 76 bWAR. The closest pitches to him are Tom Glavine, Nolan Ryan, Mike Mussina, Fergie Jenkins, Robin Roberts and Pedro Martinez. Jenkins, Robert and Ryan are in the hall and Glavine and Martinez certainly will be. Mike Mussina I could see getting a similar shaft to Curt.

That's amazingly logical and sensible. Of course it will never happen, but it makes perfect logical sense.

David and Bhaakon have already weighed in. I'll add also that Bonds and Clemens were the subject of intensive federal investigations that turned up no reliable evidence that wasn't known about for years ... and, if anything, at trial that evidence looked weaker than it did going in.

There's some chance that Greg Anderson could write a tell-all book claiming that Bonds knowingly did steroids. But I'm not sure there are many people on the knowing/unknowing fence and, again, the Feds couldn't prove knowing use so, if that's a voter's standard, they should be voting Bonds already.

I suppose another roids dealer or two could get into trouble with the Feds and spill even more names. You could see more players confess but, for those on the ballot, McGwire would seem to suggest there's no benefit to that. A ton not on the ballot could confess and give us even more evidence of roids' widespread use or an HoFer could confess which, I suspect, would make little/no difference at all.

It is simply impossible to provide evidence of non-use. It has been 5 years since they retired, 9 years since Balco, 7 years since the Congressional circus, 5 years since the Mitchell report and 3.5 years since the NY Times threw Sosa under a bus. Nothing is going to come out at this point other than another unreliable person thinking back 15 years and saying Clemens used. People "waiting for evidence" aren't waiting for evidence, they're waiting for rumors.

The "fog" exists and it makes the decision more challenging but the fog isn't going to clear. Sure, a voter can wait, certainly B/C aren't going anywhere for a while although I don't expect McGwire, Sosa and Palmeiro to survive the onslaught and certainly not at a level at which they could be elected. But just make up your mind based on the best available evidence -- which seems to be what the vast majority of the voters are doing.

The closest pitches to him are Tom Glavine, Nolan Ryan, Mike Mussina, Fergie Jenkins, Robin Roberts and Pedro Martinez. Jenkins, Robert and Ryan are in the hall and Glavine and Martinez certainly will be.

I suppose I'm never sure what folks mean by "slam dunk." Roberts and Jenkins took a few years to get voted in; I'm not confident Glavine is getting in 1st ballot; and we tend to think that Ryan is kinda overrated (but still HoF worthy).

If you wanna talk about "fog", how about the difficulty of comparing pitchers across eras? Jenkins has 1250 more innings and 158 more starts than Schilling. He has one CYA, 2 seconds and a third compared to Schilling's 3 seconds and a fourth. They gave up hits, HRs and BBs at "exactly" the same rate (1st decimal). You have to start getting into the weeds a bit to figure out how Schilling produced as much value in 1250 fewer innings -- peak vs. prime, unearned runs, postseasons, a higher-scoring era, etc.

Now we're lucky that hard-working folks have done the hard work for us to figure that out but if you have to get into finer points to explain why he was as good or better than a guy who had to wait a couple of years, I'm not sure he's "slam dunk." That's maybe particularly true when there were 4 guys putting up numbers that would have looked great in just about any post-deadball era ... and there are another 4-5 pitchers who look a lot like Schilling.

But if by "slam dunk" we mean something like "should pretty easily make it in 5 years or so" then he's slam dunk. Well, I'm pretty confident Schilling will go in although the crowded ballot will slow him down a lot so I'm not betting on 5 years. But he is the ... I was going to say Perry, Jenkins, Roberts of his generation but those guys are all in largely for their durability. He's the Drysdale and Marichal (but not Koufax) of his generation. Or, to relate it back, he's kinda the Sosa of pitchers -- never the #1 guy, never alone in the spotlight except for the bloody sock game.

Here's an interesting game. Schilling added a ton of WAR late in his career -- e.g. 39 WAR after 33. Here are some current pitchers who will pass Schilling's WAR if they can do what he did:

Halladay
Santana
Buehrle (!!)
Sabathia

Obviously not likely. But Buehrle has 49 WAR through age 33 so a "mere" 27 WAR in 7 years brings him even with Schilling. Santana's unlikely although Schilling had similar injury problems earlier in his career. (Technically Oswalt qualifies but that was taking things too far). Halladay and CC are pretty good bets to pass him. Cliff Lee comes up a bit short ... and Carlos Zambrano is still alive!

Somewhat lost in all those HR was that the sillyball era was a silly era for great pitchers too. Sort of the bizarro 60s/70s. That was an era when everybody looked like a great pitcher but you still had this large group of historic sluggers (some of whom also aged amazingly well). But beneath those historic sluggers there was almost no offense of note. In sillyball, everybody looked like a great hitter but you had this large group of elite pitchers ... then a big gap. In all, 8 sillyball starters will probably make the HoF, maybe Pettitte and Brown probably should have.

Now, if they can just find their way to sending 8 sillyball era hitters ... :-)

I agree with Lassus that Piazza goes on my ballot before Schilling.

I'd slot Schilling below Bonds, CLemens and Piazza, but in a group with Bags and Biggio. But he's a hell of a lot closer to a slam dunk than a maybe.

Yeah, a maybe on Schilling is odd.

I think Schilling's easily in within five years. He was too good a pitcher - and has too many outstanding metrics to prove it - and he has too good a playoff record (11-2!) to not be in the HOF. The man was awesome when it was all on the line.

If he doesn't make the HOF it will because he got jobbed.

The Hall of Stats has Schilling as the fifteenth best pitcher of all time: http://www.hallofstats.com/position/p