Please stop with the Shilling is being done in by the evil liberals. Smoltz was elected in his first year with 83% of the votes in a strong year with 3 other players making the HOF. The "purged" conservative voters did not squeak him over the line. The voters just didn't care about his politics. If you want to actually try to support your argument, cite some voters saying that they didn't vote for him because of his politics. The cites for people not voting for him because he is a jerk are not hard to find.

And schilling was on the same ballot and was not yet penalized publicly for anything not political, it’s easier to hold politics against some who is seen as less of a hall of famer.

Here is an honest liberal
https://www.tampabay.com/sports/baseball/rays/if-curt-schilling-was-a-liberal-he-might-be-in-the-hall-of-fame/2310191/?outputType=amp

Schilling was a well-known conservative Republican and was making strong progress toward election. Then he decided to pull a Milo, intentionally offending people as part of his brand (Muslims = Nazis, insulting transgender people, joking about hanging journalists, inviting a white supremacist onto his radio show, supporting insurrectionists, etc.).

If schilling was a well liberal democrat and was making strong progress toward election. Then he decided to pull a overman, intentionally offending people as part of his brand (police = Nazis, insulting religious people, joking about hanging rush Limbaugh (remember Wanda Sykes), inviting a black supremacist onto his radio show, supporting insurrectionists (BLM riots) etc.). Would he be in the hall of fame. If he would be this is politics

65/82 Is it possible to disapprove of both burning a police station and rioting to stop an election?

If you would vote for people who do one and not the other this is politics, if not this is not referring to you.
Ps most refused to vote for BEFORE those events

Someone who uses this argument, please explain why the later players bear the same level of guilt as the players who started the steroid mess and "forced" the other players to catch up.

1 the non steroids players played honestly the entire time and was disadvantaged.
2. Using that logic only the first person is ever culpable
the key word is more culpable so Eddie cicotte is more culpable then lefty Williams, assuming both had the stats neither belongs in the hof

If schilling was a well liberal democrat and was making strong progress toward election. Then he decided to pull a overman, intentionally offending people as part of his brand (police = Nazis, insulting religious people, joking about hanging rush Limbaugh (remember Wanda Sykes), inviting a black supremacist onto his radio show, supporting insurrectionists (BLM riots) etc.). Would he be in the hall of fame. If he would be this is politics

What the #### is an overman?

Prior to him cheering on the idiots at the capitol, there was an overwhelming consensus here that Schilling belonged in the HOF. Some people just have a weird aversion to batshit conspiracy mongering and the supporting of treason.

He may have gotten in if his online persona was more stiggles and less Tomi Lahren. He'd gain some votes and lose some others. He's so close to the threshold that a small number of votes could make the difference. I don't think it's a given that he'd be in though.

Keith oberman and an auto spellcheck

What the #### is an overman?

It's the Nietzschean version of a certain former sports reporter/MSNBC (was it?) host that the liberal media loves so much they kept canceling him. Logic!

Keith oberman and an auto spellcheck

That's still wrong, but at least now I know who you're referring to.

I don't know about any of those things, other than supporting BLM is not supporting insurrection, so I'm skeptical about the rest of your assessments.

However, sure, if some regular ol' left-leaning ballplayer suddenly begins insulting and demeaning a large percentage of the population for fun or profit and champions violence, it wouldn't bother me if he lost support from folks voting on a permanent honor. That's the risk you take when you make a concerted effort to behave like a dick.

As my friend RR can attest, I was a fan of Schilling during his playing days when he was an outspoken conservative, even though I didn't agree with him on much. I like athletes who are willing to stand up for what they believe in (I admire both Colin Kaepernick and Tim Tebow). But Schilling decided that wasn't good enough, and became a troll. #### him.

This guy’s just been trolling us all along. Another person I can happily ignore and not think twice about it.

I don’t have a problem with voters who take a hard-line view on PEDs. But the logical extension of the anti-PED stance is that the statistical bar for clean players should be lower, because the numbers that they did put up were compiled against a lot of cheating players. Like, if Scott Rolen only faced clean competition, (a) his raw stats would likely have been better, (b) the same raw stats would have translated to better advanced stats, because the “average” and “replacement” baselines would have been lower.

This is about politics sean forman, and jay jaffee openly said he is refusing to vote for Schilling because Schilling is against men in women's bathrooms and did.

Go #### yourself, you despicable piece of ####.

I don't know about any of those things, other than supporting BLM is not supporting insurrection, so I'm skeptical about the rest of your assessments.

I think you meant "the yest of your assessments."

jay jaffee openly said he is refusing to vote for Schilling because Schilling is against men in women's bathrooms and did.

And on this very site on 28 December (emphasis added):

Jay Jaffe: JAWS and the 2021 Hall of Fame Ballot: Curt Schilling
At a time when the type of right-wing rhetoric Schilling has repeatedly trafficked in has fueled the United States’ inclusion among the most dangerous countries for professional journalists, I don’t blame any journalist for eliminating Schilling from consideration. And at a time when Trump and 126 members of Congress have called for the unprecedented overturning of a fair presidential election on the grounds of unfounded claims of voter fraud, I’m not about to give the benefit of the doubt to a single person, let alone a Hall of Fame candidate with strong stats and an impressive highlight reel, amplifying those claims.

Thus, I’m done telling anybody to hold their nose and vote for Schilling, and while I have included him on nearly every one of my virtual ballots since he became eligible, I won’t be including him now that I have an actual ballot. Not this year, and — spoiler alert — not next year either, if he falls short of 75% this time around. At times, I’ve worried that figuring out how to handle his candidacy would be difficult once I got my ballot, but aside from the labor of tracking the above litany, he made my decision far easier than it would have been even a couple of months ago. This isn’t about politics, this is about his using his sizable platform to spread hatred, intolerance, and disinformation. That platform will only grow if and when he’s elected, and I want no part of that. Nope nope nope.

Tucker Carlson, is that you?

Why should anyone care what a virtual ballot looks like, if my virtual ballot includes Shane victirino he still is not going in the hall.


Jaffee is clear he is not voting for schilling because he is a leftist and he is voting based on politics.
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/jay-jaffes-2021-hall-of-fame-ballot/

Be honest and say politics is the only reason schilling is not in the hot, Honesty is not a leftist trait (then again if truth mattered, no one. Would treat a man as a woman and vise versa)

You're either dishonest yourself or very, very stupid.

porque no los dos?

Anybody willingly propagating anti-transgender rhetoric in 2021 is contributing directly to the harassment, abuse and deaths of a great number of lovely people, many of whom I count among my friends, who want more than anything to be left alone in peace to lead their lives. It is utterly despicable.

Half the country agrees with Schilling on this. Anyone who uses this retweet to NOT vote for Schilling is bigot.

No. Maybe a 1/3 does -- you're confusing two different definitions of volume.

Its because of Schillings views more than anything else.

Let's not rewrite history here. Again, Rivera was sailing in as the first unanimous inductee ever while Schilling was inching over 60% in 2019. John Smoltz was elected on his first ballot while Schilling was at 39%.

Curt Schilling isn't Walter freaking Johnson - like most statistically inclined fans, I think his performance on the field merits induction (Yes, his response to this past month would incline me NOT to vote for him anyway).... but if you were to construct an all-era roster of his peers, I'm not even sure he makes the starting rotation.

Maddux, Pedro, and the Big Unit were clearly better than he was. I'd put Halladay and Mussina ahead of him, too.... and that's without even touching Clemens.

He's probably filling out the bullpen with Glavine, Smoltz, and a few others who aren't occurring to me.

He's got an impressive career WAR total and a nice postseason record - while plenty of voters say "Yeah, but just 216-146! Why.... that's Rick Reuschel!".... quite unaware that Reuschel really belongs, too.

He ain't inner circle even for his own era.

If schilling was a well liberal democrat and was making strong progress toward election. Then he decided to pull a overman, intentionally offending people as part of his brand (police = Nazis, insulting religious people, joking about hanging rush Limbaugh (remember Wanda Sykes), inviting a black supremacist onto his radio show, supporting insurrectionists (BLM riots) etc.). Would he be in the hall of fame. If he would be this is politics

I advise you to lay off the booze, this is nearly indecipherable.

I don't know... it's pushed me towards Jeff Kent in the 10 spot on next year's ballot over Wanda Sykes.

Interesting thread on schilling. At the end of the day, a bunch of people who rely on free speech to do their job are eliminating someone from the Hall for exercising his free speech rights. Schilling has actually DONE nothing. The flip side is that free speech comes with consequences for what you say. For me, what he is saying now post-baseball should be irrelevant no matter what he says. Take it a step further. Let’s say player A, who is otherwise a Hall lock, murders someone post playing career. I’d probably still vote him but I can see in that situation why you might not.

If Schilling withdraws next year, or doesn't and fails to get 75%, his candidacy goes to the Today's Game committee. They can't consider him until he has been retired for 15 years, which will be at the end of 2023. (He was under contract for all of 2008, though he did not play due to injury.) The Today's Game committee doesn't vote in 2023; their next vote after that is at the end of 2024.

The HOF Board of Directors appoints people to the Today's Game committee. The committee is made of 16 people: HOF members, executives, and veteran members of the media. Schilling would need 12 of them to approve his candidacy in order to make the HOF.

If they are so inclined, the HOF has plenty of opportunity between now and the end of 2024 to recast the makeup of the committee to include at least 5 people who wouldn't vote for Schilling, or at least 12 people who would. It also gives Schilling plenty of time to start working up a victimhood rationale why "men whose opinions actually matter and who are in a position to actually judge a player" are somehow the opposite of that, in case they reject him.

What the #### is an overman?

Where did all of these dogs come from?

The Today's Game committee doesn't vote in 2023; their next vote after that is at the end of 2024.

No, voting takes place at the end of 2022 for induction in 23. Schilling, along with Bonds and Clemens, will be on that ballot if they're not elected next year.

Your main point is true. The Hall could easily craft a vet's committee that achieves a desired result.

Interesting thread on schilling. At the end of the day, a bunch of people who rely on free speech to do their job are eliminating someone from the Hall for exercising his free speech rights. Schilling has actually DONE nothing. The flip side is that free speech comes with consequences for what you say. For me, what he is saying now post-baseball should be irrelevant no matter what he says. Take it a step further. Let’s say player A, who is otherwise a Hall lock, murders someone post playing career. I’d probably still vote him but I can see in that situation why you might not.

This is a overbid on several levels. He wasn't eliminated from the Hall of Fame - he didn't meet the threshold to be so honored with induction.

Beyond that, though - I go back to the simple fact that this was his 9th year on the ballot. While most statistically inclined fans would certainly say - setting aside his persona - he merits induction, the pure and simple fact is that the people who "cost" him induction are actually more, much more, orders of magnitude more the BBWAA types who still think 300 is a magic number and believe something like WAR is an abomination.

It was clear from his first year on the ballot that winning induction was going to require a Blylevenian lift and there wasn't going to be a whole lot of margin.

His increasing assholedom - again, I reject the idea that it was "political partisanship" simply because Mo, Smoltz, and others had no problem gaining induction whatsoever - it was assholedom might well have cost him a few votes....

But - again, by orders of magnitude - the folks who most cost him induction are the same sort of voters who one-and-doned Kevin Brown.

If there's a lesson to be had - it's probably that if you're on the edge, you need more allies than enemies.... and Schilling decided he would rather make more enemies.

If they are so inclined, the HOF has plenty of opportunity between now and the end of 2024 to recast the makeup of the committee to include at least 5 people who wouldn't vote for Schilling, or at least 12 people who would.

If the HOF does not stack the deck in either direction, but chooses the committee without regard to their stance on Schilling, He'd get 70% of the media. Don't know what the standard makeup of the group is, but if there are 6 media (and 4 Schilling votes) then he needs to get 8/10 from the players/execs. He probably needs someone like Ortiz (assuming he isn't kept out for steroid reasons), Pedro, or Randy Johnson to pull a Reinsdorf/LaRussa for him.

I find one of the most common arguments against steroids is that they "force other players to take them to keep up". People who make this argument never seem to follow it up with the obvious implication that the players who used because other people took them and "forced" them to use are less blameworthy then the original users. We know that players like Bonds and Clemons (if he used) adopted them years after they were widespread in baseball. Really, anyone using after about 1995 and before testing, were, at least partially, using because other players were "forcing" them to use to keep up.

Someone who uses this argument, please explain why the later players bear the same level of guilt as the players who started the steroid mess and "forced" the other players to catch up.

I basically agree with you here. I believe that (a) steroids are/were bad for the game, and (b) steroids are/were much more an institutional problem than an individual one.

Our propensity to individualize blame for a structural problem, and thus never really resolving the problem, is all over much of our public policy. The "a few bad apples" approach to addressing steroids lets the power structures of the game off the hook, which is why it's usually framed that way.

If baseball's authorities had taken a zero-tolerance approach from the beginning, and rooted out the early users before steroids spread all over the game, then it would have been fair to regard it as an individual problem. But there's no evidence they ever did that.

This whole thread is all of the following: predictable, understandable, and discouraging. The rest of this comment is not meant to be critical of anybody on this thread...

There is hardly a word in 123 comments about the merits of the players, the momentum (or lack thereof) of some of the candidates...basically, nothing about on-the-field performance.

The top three candidates on this list are all in their final year of eligibility, and it would seem that none of them have any chance, whatsoever, of getting to 75% next year. In fact, the 5th place finisher (Vizquel) went down this year, due to the allegations of assault. (I believe they are still legally still "allegations", correct?) Unless the charges are dismissed, or he is found not guilty, etc., his candidacy is probably done. He will stay on the ballot for six more years, and will probably float in the 25%-40% range until he drops off.

Of the remaining candidates:

- Sosa is off after next year, and Manny and Sheffield would seem to be capped due to PED-related concerns. In Sheffield's case, he is also running out of time.
- the non-Schilling starting pitchers are Pettitte, Buehrle, and Hudson. While all of them have time, I am presuming none of them are either terribly worthy of the HOF, nor are likely to get a lot of momentum. Pettitte, who probably has the best case of the three, also has some PED-related stuff that may take him out of consideration for many voters, anyway.
- Hunter and Abreu are probably the beneficiaries of the combination of the elimination of the backlog of the last several years, plus the PED penalty of a number of the top candidates. I can't believe Hunter survived this ballot, and it would not surprise me to see all of these guys in the lowest surviving tier to bump along for several years in this range. There simply aren't enough good new candidates coming down the pike to create a lot of 10-person ballots going forward, and after next year, Schilling, BB/RC, and Sosa all fall off. The year after that, Kent falls off (who also doesn't have enough time or momentum to get to 75%, either). That's a lot of ballot slots opening up.
- That's leaves us with the remaining candidates - probably the only holdover candidates worth spending more than 30 seconds on:

Rolen 52.9%, 4th year on the ballot
Wagner 46.4%, 6th
Helton 44.9%, 3rd
Jones 33.9%, 4th

Consider this: 2021 was (I believe) the fewest number of votes to fall off the ballot in the modern history of the HOF voting. Only seven votes from this year will automatically not carry over to 2022 (the three guys who got votes, but did not hit 5%). Nobody got elected, and nobody fell off the ballot through either the 10-year rule or failing to get 5%. That is very, very unusual. Also, there was a decline in the number of 10-person ballots, it appears.

In other words, unless people change their mind for or against a player's candidacy, there are very few voters who wanted to vote for, say, Billy Wagner, who did not. There were about 45 people who revealed their ballot who voted for 10 players. Virtually all of them are, obviously, not "anti-PED candidate". THey generally fall into two categories:
- Voters who voted for the ten best statistical players, forget the PED stuff: (A typical ballot was BB/RC, Schilling, Rolen, Helton, Manny, Sheffield, Jones, and then two of Sosa/Kent/Wagner/Vizquel.
- Voters who voted for the first six ro seven of those names, and then added between one and three of the newcomers, probably either because of local bias, or a beilief that they deserve a fuller treatment in future years (Buehrle, some Hudson and Hunter; also, some Abreu). Honestly, these are the voters who probably were responsible for Hunter and Hudson seeing a second ballot. It does not appear any of these voters voted for the three candidates who did not survive the ballot, but did get a vote (Aramis Ramirez, Hawkins, Zito).

Let's face it: All of these voters (probably 50+ when the anonymous are factored in) are voting for both ARod and Ortiz next year. If you don't care about off-the-field stuff, next year's ballot is actually pretty stacked:

Bonds
Clemens
Rodriguez
Ortiz
Schilling
Rolen
Helton
Ramirez
Sheffield
Jones

That's a fine ballot: A guy who hit 600 home runs can plausibly be left off this ballot. And we're not even talking about Kent, Wagner, etc.

So, Schilling being/not being on the ballot next year will actually make a big difference in the progress of several candidates. The disposition of Vizquel's assault allegation will make a big difference in the ballot. But virtually nobody who discounted the PED candidates used all ten of their slots. Like, literally fewer than five voters - and those folks are not voting for ARod or Ortiz, I presume. So, the real drama to 2022 will be:

1) Does Ortiz get a "pass" on the PED stuff?
2) Will there be a campaign started on behalf of Rolen, Wagner, Helton, and/or Jones to try to get them way up the ladder next year? (I could see a Rolen campaign being very effective, and he could basically be teed up for a 2023 induction.)
3) Will the effect of ARod and Ortiz be that several of the lower-tier guys get bumped off the 5% threshold next year (Abreu, Hunter, Hudson, maybe Buehrle)?

(I could see a Rolen campaign being very effective, and he could basically be teed up for a 2023 induction.)

He won't need a campaign. He'll be in by 2023.

1) Does Ortiz get a "pass" on the PED stuff?

I think Ortiz gets in next year or at least relatively close (over 50%). So I guess that means "yes."

2) Will there be a campaign started on behalf of Rolen, Wagner, Helton, and/or Jones to try to get them way up the ladder next year? (I could see a Rolen campaign being very effective, and he could basically be teed up for a 2023 induction.)

Helton is the one I think most likely to get that campaign. I think a one team guy is best equipped to do it (see Rice) because he's already got a built in support group.

3) Will the effect of ARod and Ortiz be that several of the lower-tier guys get bumped off the 5% threshold next year (Abreu, Hunter, Hudson, maybe Buehrle)?

I don't think so. I don't think the people who voted for those guys are likely to not vote for them. I've skimmed the thread and I didn't see anything about maxed ballots so I don't think A-Rod or Papi will impact that.

He won't need a campaign. He'll be in by 2023.

Hopefully.

I've been to the HoF, but never to an induction and I think I'd go for Rolen's... a college buddy of mine went to HS with Scott and they've remained friends; a handful of us had dinner and drinks with Rolen his rookie year when he made his first pro visit to Chicago... and while he's a better ballplayer than me, I can report I can handle more shots of tequila than he can (indeed, he begged off after just one round... something about a game to play the next day). Really nice guy, very unassuming - and I'm not just saying that because he picked up the tab :-)

Hopefully.

I was saying it before last year's vote, and nothing has changed my mine since. He could go in next year, if the writers are worried about a shutout. It's a lot of ground to make up in a single election, but doable, as Larry Walker had just that kind of gain from Year 9 to election in 10.

We saw the writers respond to the 2013 shutout by filling their ballots like never before the following year. This year's blanking and the potential for a similar (but more costly to Cooperstown) result next year could get them thinking in terms of the institution when they cast votes next year.

Wagner was the most interesting jump to me - despite being a big hall guy, I'm a bit skittish about "closers" being a thing now... but the floodgates have opened of late and I think Wagner belongs if we're going beyond Rivera and a few others.

I think there needs to be a hard stop after Wagner, though... none of the other retired closers belong... and I'm not really seeing any active ones making a case (unless Kimbrel resurrects his career somehow... maybe Jansen?)

Re: Herr Schilling

He didn't get 75% before he opened his big mouth.And he was borderline at best for many voters.

He's going to undoubtedly dig a deeper hole for himself with more asinine proclamations over the next 11 months (and he has started already).

Defending Schilling and his treasonous and moronic comments is like the ACLU defending the Nazi's right to march - It might be legal to use your freedom of speech, but it's disgusting and does have ramifications.

It might not be "right" to keep him out because of his rhetoric, but #### him anyway. Life ain't fair. And the kids that were murdered in Sandy Hook (which Schilling has talked #### about) certainly didn't get a "fair" life.

the kids that were murdered in Sandy Hook (which Schilling has talked #### about)

Do you have a source for this? I don't doubt it but I can't find anything (I do find him espousing conspiracy theories about Stoneman Douglas).

jaffee and forman

I'm crawling out from under my silent rock to point out the absurdity of thinking Jay Jaffe votes based on some radical ideas.

The guy with the highest vote total loves cult45. (And is my favorite player I got to see, much as I hate this fact about him.)

Time to go and block this illiterate troll.

https://www.boston.com/sports/boston-red-sox/2018/02/26/curt-schilling-catches-heat-again-for-a-controversial-tweet

my bad- I meant Stoneman Douglas- #### him anyway.

129, I don't really see Rolen getting in next year. I see him being inducted in 2023.

Helton is on a similar path, but a year behind, so I think he'll be inducted in 2024.

The truth of the matter is that the 2023 ballot is going to have a lot of space on it, without Clemens, Bonds, Schilling and Sammy Sosa off the ballot, and that's even if A-Rod and / or Ortíz don't make it next year (I doubt A-Rod makes it anytime before year 5 or such, and Ortíz will probably get in, but perhaps not in his 1st year).

I don't really know if the Hall will get antsy if nobody makes it next year, but that would mean two years with very reduced ceremonies and ca$hflow stemming from such ceremonies (2020 because of COVID and 2022 if the BBWAA fails to induct anybody, though with a chance of inductions via the Veterans Committee)

though with a chance of inductions via the Veterans Committee

I think there will be 1-3 players elected by the Veterans Committee next year, but I think it's the "Golden Age" and "Super Long Ago" (sorry, forgot the real name) committees. With the untimely passing of Dick Allen (RIP), I'm not sure there are any living candidates from these committees likely to be elected. And I'm not sure how well attended an induction with no living inductees would be.

140, and I doubt Dick Allen was going to bring HUGE crowds to Cooperstown (but that's just me).

This isn’t about politics, this is about his using his sizable platform to spread hatred, intolerance, and disinformation.

Jaffe's second clause here utterly negates his first. Contrary to current thinking and Jaffe's apparent thinking, there is no above-the-fray, independent-of-politics "tolerance" and "truth."

Anybody willingly propagating anti-transgender rhetoric in 2021 is contributing directly to the harassment, abuse and deaths of a great number of lovely people, many of whom I count among my friends, who want more than anything to be left alone in peace to lead their lives. It is utterly despicable.

Putting aside the questionable extended causation there, it isn't really true that transgender people as a whole just want to be left alone and don't want to participate in the political arena. Maybe your friends don't, but taken as a whole, it looks for all the world like transgender people want to be vocal and active in politics. Obviously that's great, but on the other hand if you're going to advocate anything in the political arena and I mean anything, it's unrealistic not to expect some kind of pushback. That's the reality of pluralism. To then turn around and expect to have some kind of exemption from that solely because of your identity is kind of lame, really. Again, there are no "truths" and no "tolerances" independent of the political process. Trying to say there are is simply a self-interested mechanism to negate the pushback from the start. Even the term "anti-transgender" is self-interested and loaded. None of this is of course to say that there aren't some brutally prejudiced people out there because there obviously are.

132. Zonk Opposes Trial by Combat Posted: January 27, 2021 at 09:52 AM (#6002120)
He won't need a campaign. He'll be in by 2023.


Hopefully.

I've been to the HoF, but never to an induction and I think I'd go for Rolen's... a college buddy of mine went to HS with Scott and they've remained friends; a handful of us had dinner and drinks with Rolen his rookie year when he made his first pro visit to Chicago... and while he's a better ballplayer than me, I can report I can handle more shots of tequila than he can (indeed, he begged off after just one round... something about a game to play the next day). Really nice guy, very unassuming - and I'm not just saying that because he picked up the tab :-)

Nice! I hope you and your buddy get to go, and maybe even hand out with Scott again :-)

134. Zonk Opposes Trial by Combat Posted: January 27, 2021 at 10:17 AM (#6002124)
Wagner was the most interesting jump to me - despite being a big hall guy, I'm a bit skittish about "closers" being a thing now... but the floodgates have opened of late and I think Wagner belongs if we're going beyond Rivera and a few others.

I think there needs to be a hard stop

But you can't say there should be a hard stop if you include Wagner, and now Smith is in via VC, and Hoffman is in, because so many one inning closers currently, and in the not too distant past, are largely indistinguishable. If you put Wagner in, you're acknowledging it is not all about the Save, which is why Hoffman is in. So then you look to peripherals and Kimbrel, Jansen, and Chapman are all solid. You look to peripherals and you see how well qualified Nathan, Papelbon, and K-Rod are. You look back and you start to see Quisenberry and Henke were overlooked. And what about Franco and Myers? There are a lot of guys who then become the borderline for the "position" who then could end up on VC ballots.

The horse has left the barn so it's no use barring the door after Wagner gets elected. But I would strongly argue against him and try to make the case now before he gets in. I've written to every writer I could find this year to argue against him. May not do much good, but it's worth a shot.

The main problem with a Wagner induction is it lowers the already-low innings threshold (currently the floor is Sutter's 1,042. Wagner's at 903).

My predictions for the next 6 BBWAA elections (ballot number in parentheses):

2022 - Ortiz (1st)
2023 - Rolen (6th)
2024 - Beltre (1st), Helton (6th)
2025 - Ichiro (1st)
2026 - Sabathia (2nd), Jones (9th)

And that's it for currently retired players. I think Wagner will run out of time, but work his way into a nice position for VC induction. And since we've become a very unforgiving society, I don't see any more one year boycotts for character issues like we saw with say, Alomar and the spitting incident. If more than a quarter of the writers deem you morally insufficient right out of the gate, your chances are over. Barring a complete dismissal of all charges, Vizquel is done. Beltran won't get in via the writers, either, IMO. I suspect Astros involved in the sign stealing scandal will be treated just as harshly as PED users. And due to low counting stats and the slide, I think Utley is 50/50 to even see a 2nd ballot.

The VC elections are going to start becoming a lot more interesting than the BBWAA ones.

Edit: double

But you can't say there should be a hard stop if you include Wagner, and now Smith is in via VC, and Hoffman is in, because so many one inning closers currently, and in the not too distant past, are largely indistinguishable. If you put Wagner in, you're acknowledging it is not all about the Save, which is why Hoffman is in. So then you look to peripherals and Kimbrel, Jansen, and Chapman are all solid. You look to peripherals and you see how well qualified Nathan, Papelbon, and K-Rod are. You look back and you start to see Quisenberry and Henke were overlooked. And what about Franco and Myers? There are a lot of guys who then become the borderline for the "position" who then could end up on VC ballots.

Sure... If X then Y leads one down a rabbit hole, I know. I'm not particularly interested in fluffing Wagner's case by any stretch. More saying he's where I'd probably draw the line where the line is actively opposing any beyond him. He's never made any of my ballots and is unlikely to start.

Though, I'd the say problem is less Hoffman than it is Sutter.... Frankly, Quisenberry has at a least as good a case Sutter I think.

Anyway... I guess my point was really just that I found Wagner's jump to be the most interesting. I never really considered him - previously - someone I might need to have a HoF opinion about because I didn't think he'd ever really get close... but I think that has changed, right or wrong.

My predictions for the next 6 BBWAA elections (ballot number in parentheses):

2022 - Ortiz (1st)
2023 - Rolen (6th)
2024 - Beltre (1st), Helton (6th)
2025 - Ichiro (1st)
2026 - Sabathia (2nd), Jones (9th)

And that's it for currently retired players. I think Wagner will run out of time, but work his way into a nice position for VC induction. And since we've become a very unforgiving society, I don't see any more one year boycotts for character issues like we saw with say, Alomar and the spitting incident. If more than a quarter of the writers deem you morally insufficient right out of the gate, your chances are over. Barring a complete dismissal of all charges, Vizquel is done. Beltran won't get in via the writers, either, IMO. I suspect Astros involved in the sign stealing scandal will be treated just as harshly as PED users. And due to low counting stats and the slide, I think Utley is 50/50 to even see a 2nd ballot.

Pretty good take, though I'd bet against Ortiz going in first ballot* (though I don't really have a good sense how he'll fare). I also don't have a good sense of Beltran.

The one that I think you're off on is Utley. I think he's much more likely to Rolen his way up the ballot to induction six years later than fall off after a single vote.

* I tend to think the writers will be less forgetful about the report of the 2003 test than others here. BTFers said similar things about how Pettitte would get a pass, and he's obviously made no meaningful progress (though who knows how much is just not considering him on the merits vs. his admission).

I hope that's off on Utley, too... but I really fear for players whose cases are largely peak cases while lacking black ink and hardware.

For better or worse - and this is not MY opinion, just what I imagine voters will say; "He didn't even get to 2000 hits!!!"

I don't think there's anyone who needs a concerted "prep effort" as much as Utley.

It is worth reading Schilling's full post. Lots to unpack here.

I want to share with everyone the letter I wrote to the folks at the Hall of Fame yesterday. They’ve been otherworldly kind and gracious in every way possible and I’ll be forever grateful to them and for that.
This was written privately and for their eyes only but I have always been fine with anyone knowing how I feel and what I think.

“Hey guys. Couple things. First off I am not sure I can express my level of gratitude and sincere appreciation at the graciousness, kindness and desire on all your parts to help me navigate this process. I can say at this point I am mentally done. I know math and I know trends and I know I will not attain the 75% threshold for induction.
As I’ve stated often over the past years to those I’ve spoken with in my heart I am at peace. Nothing, zero, none of the claims being made by any of the writers hold merit. In my 22 years playing professional baseball in the most culturally diverse locker rooms in sports I’ve never said or acted in any capacity other than being a good teammate.
I’ve certainly been exposed to racism and sexism and homophobia as it’s part of who human beings are. I’ve played with and talked with gay teammates. I’ve played with wife beaters, adulterers, assaulted, drug addicts and alcoholics. I’ve never hit a woman, driven drunk, done drugs, PEDs or otherwise, assaulted anyone or committed any sort of crime.
But I’m now somehow in a conversation with two men who cheated, and instead of being accountable they chose to destroy others lives to protect their lie.
I will always have one thing they will forever chase. A legacy. Whatever mine is as a player it will be the truth, and one I earned for better or worse.
Having said all that the media has created a Curt Schilling that does not and has never existed. It’s one of the things that has allowed me to sleep at night. Not an ounce of that is to absolve myself of sin, Lord knows I’ve committed my share and will do so again. Never malicious, never to willfully or intentionally hurt another person. I was 100% accountable and still am. Even the thought of responding to claims of “nazi” or “racist” or any other term so watered down and rendered meaningless by spineless cowards who have never met me makes me ill. In modern times responding to such drivel somehow validates the claim.
My love of this country has always been worn on my sleeve. My desire to do the right thing and be a good person has driven most of my life choices. I stood at my locker 400+ times after my starts and took every question and answered honestly. Those people who stood there asking the questions KNOW what they are claiming is untrue yet they quote, re-quote and link to one another story after story that began as lies and grew into bigger ones. The game has made it clear it does not want me back and that’s fine, the game owes me exactly nothing. It gave a billion more times than it took and I’ll forever be deeply in debt to it. My desire to work with and teach young men the art of pitching will be tucked away.
But as I watch my wife battle cancer and go through the grueling soul crushing process of chemotherapy and see her hurt every time some idiot writes another hit piece linking to other hit pieces, none rooted in any sort of truth but rather story after story of “what he meant was” and “what he’s saying is” and “that’s a dog whistle for” all the while providing zero actual acts or quotes of the claims being made I can’t help but to go into deep conversation with my father.
“Never live your life trying to impress people you don’t know, or who don’t know you” and what that means in todays world.
Being an aspie has allowed it to flow like water off a ducks back. But to see the hurt I’m causing my wife and to have my children read and hear this stuff and then look at me and try and match a public “image” that in no way aligns with the man their father is , has been something I never considered.
I do not and never will “scoreboard” the cowards but if I’m not mistaken only Jamie Moyer and I “swept” the humanitarian awards players can win. Awards meant to define who the true man is apart from the player. These same writers voted on those awards. Do those awards and 22 years absent of a single validating event to support their claims define me? Or does a “what he meant to say” tweet? Based on the vote and the pike of dung authored by morally decrepit men like Dan Shaughnessy it’s the latter. I cannot and will not say or do anything to possibly soften a weak willed mans opinion of me if it is not something I believe. Just or not. I’ve chosen Arizona as the team I would have represented if I had been inducted and even though I heard someone there is calling for the DBacks front office to “meet” should the induction happen I’ll stand with that decision as I know Mr Kendrick to be an honorable and kind man. Should that change it most certainly would be the Phillies. What Mr Henry and Mr Werner did to my family and I in my final year has been forgiven but will never be forgotten. One thing this text certifies is that I talk way too much but I know I was never a yes/no answer guy. I apologize for the insane length of this but I guess I needed an outlet and I sure as hell don’t want to dump any of this on a woman who just ended her 3rd chemo and provides the reasons I eat sleep and breathe everyday. Why the text? If by some miracle this would happen I have zero interest in taking questions from the very group who lined up to destroy my character with no regard to anyone in my life or being held to account for their lies. I would and will talk with the guys on the MLB network if you want that, but no one else.
I wanted to reiterate this final point. I will not participate in the final year of voting. I am requesting to be removed from the ballot. I’ll defer to the veterans committee and men whose opinions actually matter and who are in a position to actually judge a player. I don’t think I’m a hall of famer as I’ve often stated but if former players think I am then I’ll accept that with honor.
Again, I won’t be able to thank you for your kindness and sincere interest in this process as it pertains to me. I’ll be forever grateful. God Bless you all again and one more time a final thank you for all your efforts to help my family and I.

I hope that's off on Utley, too... but I really fear for players whose cases are largely peak cases while lacking black ink and hardware.

For better or worse - and this is not MY opinion, just what I imagine voters will say; "He didn't even get to 2000 hits!!!"

The performances of Rolen and Abreu make me confident Utley will have no problem seeing a second ballot. Everything (other than the 2,000 hits) could be said about Abreu. He's lacking black ink and has even less hardware than Utley (Utley played in six all-star games to Abreu's two, won four silver sluggers and was on MLB's all-decade team at second)

Moreover, both Abreu and Rolen debuted on much more crowded ballots than Utley will. Chase may languish like Bobby likely will rather than gain the way Rolen has, but I'd be stunned if he's one and done.

I don't have Schilling's perpetually online brain so I have no recollection of what Henry and Werner "did to (his) family." Anyone?

I don't have Schilling's perpetually online brain so I have no recollection of what Henry and Werner "did to (his) family." Anyone?

Tomase explained this. In '08, Schilling wanted to have surgery. Apparently the club thought rest and rehab was the best route and said they'd void the contract if he opted for surgery. Neither method worked, Schilling was done, and he's now forgiven but not forgotten (but, it would seem, hasn't really forgiven either).

Ahh thanks SoSH, I vaguely remember that.

Re: Utley vs Rolen -

I think the biggest difference between Rolen and Utley will be the gold gloves. I suspect that Rolen (and Andruw) are being viewed the same way that the pre-DV allegation Vizquel was being viewed; as an all time great fielder who could also hit. Omar was one of the best ever defenders at SS (11 gold gloves)...and had 2877 hits. Jones was one of the best defensive CF's ever (10 gold gloves)...and had 434 homers. Rolen was one of the best defensive 3B ever (8 gold gloves)...and had very good overall hitting stats; 316 HR (including 10 seasons of 20+), 1287 rbi (5 seasons over 100), 2077 hits, and a .281/.364/.490 line (122 ops+).

With no gold gloves, Utley won't be seen as an all time great defensive 2B, defensive WAR be damned. And his hitting stats are lower than Rolens across the board; 259 HR, 1025 RBI, 1885 hits, and a .275/.358/.464 line (117 ops+). I think he'll be seen as just a good fielder and a good hitter, rather than a great fielder and a very good hitter. I also think since his prime wasn't as long, some voters will see him as just a guy with a good 5 year peak (2005-2009) and not much else.

Also, Rolen never broke anyone's leg on a dirty, bullsh!t play...

Edit: Abreu is probably a decent comp, but remember, Bobby was a hairs width away from being one and done too (5.5%). I think that's pretty much in line with the "50/50 chance of being one and done" that I predicted above.

Regarding Schilling asking that he be struck off from consideration for the 2022 ballot, I partially see his point, and I vehemently DON'T see his point.

WHERE I SEE SCHILLING'S POINT:

Nobody should be obligated to be inducted into a Hall of Fame or organization in which they do not want to be inducted.

WHERE I DO NOT SEE SCHILLING'S POINT:

If you want to resign from being inducted into the Hall of Fame, then do it Sherman-statement like. "If nominated, I will not participate. If elected, I will not accept".

But Schilling wants to have his cake and eat it, too. He wants to be struck off from the BBWAA list for 2022, but then be eligible for the Vets committee election in future years.

And that means that Schilling would be picking & choosing as to where and when he could be elected.

To which my answer is, Nuts!

How much of a connection is explicitly made between the BBWAA voters and the people who run the HOF in Cooperstown? I've been to many HOF Induction Weekends over the years (including the Yaz/Bench/Schoendienst year in 1989; the Yount/Ryan/Brett/Cepeda year in 1999; and the Pedro/Smoltz/Johnson/Biggo year in 2015). Those three were all bananas.

In fact, for the Pedro weekend, I had to go to Syracuse (about a 1:45 drive) to get a hotel, and the rates were increased there for that weekend. In a part of the northeast that has been hit hard by changes in the economy of the past few generations (Central NY), this is a really important weekend for its annual economy. For the really big Induction Weekends, the restaurants, hotels, B&Bs;, gas stations, and antique and collectables shops (Rt. 20 is the "back road" way to get from Central NY to Cooperstown, rather than the NY Thruway, and it also known as "Antique Alley".)

Especially in light of the pandemic, this part of the state needs all the consumer spending it can get from visitors, and it is not clear where we'll be on the pandemic by this summer.

All that said, there is no evidence that the BBWAA is influenced by these factors. It is possible the various veteran's committees may be influenced by these factors, but I don't know what evidence there is on that...

157 - For me the Hall is a museum and meant to honor players. If Schilling doesn't want to attend after being elected next year (which won't be an issue) he is welcome to skip the ceremony. There is no requirement that a player has to attend. But as a former player the Hall has every right to induct who it deems appropriate.

If anyone is interested in merits , Curt Schilling is the greatest pitcher in modern history in preventing unearned run.

The stat focus on ERA or ERA+ covers up Schilling’s greatest strength. His ERA+ is good, but his UERA+ is second to none.

he non steroids players played honestly the entire time and was disadvantaged.
2. Using that logic only the first person is ever culpable
the key word is more culpable so Eddie cicotte is more culpable then lefty Williams, assuming both had the stats neither belongs in the hof

Lets examine this a little closer. The original users created an unfair playing environment by taking steroids (or greenies back in the late 50s). The later players tried to even the playing environment by copying what the original "cheaters" did. So according to you, these later players, who where disadvantaged by the "cheaters" were just as culpable because they didn't want to be disadvantaged. Once the first players started to use, the playing environment was hopelessly compromised and the later users didn't cause it to be any more unfair since the damage was already done. So again, why are these later players as morally culpable as the original users?

159, Far from me from being a supporter of Schilling, but in the abstract, it seems nuts to me that the HoF could choose somebody over that person's express desire.

Let me run a hypothetical by you: let's say that Mike Trout has these very strong religious beliefs that prevent him from accepting awards and/or be inducted into the HoF (don't really know if there's a religion like that, but work with me here). And let's say that Trout's career remains inner, inner, inner circle HoF.

Suppose that Trout, upon retirement, says "I have not accepted any of the awards were I have been named, and I will not accept induction into the HoF. Thus, I ask the HoF not to include me on their ballot. If the HoF DOES include me on their ballot, I ask BBWAA not to elect me. And if BBWAA goes against my wishes and elects me, I will not be at the election ceremony, no member of my family will attend the election ceremony and I will ask anybody involved with the Angels at that time not to attend or comment on this election, which I will not accept".

What happens then? It seems absolutely foolish for BBWAA to elect somebody who takes that position, and makes it abundantly clear.

Having said all that the media has created a Curt Schilling that does not and has never existed.

I actually kind of late-posted on this one in the other HOF thread and it goes right to my thesis, which I now think is entirely accurate. Schilling isn't entirely right -- the Curt Schilling we now see actually does exist, and it's not a pretty picture. However, the Curt Schilling now publicly perceived is almost entirely a product of the internet and the way that it pushed him, as it pushes many, to create an internet persona. That internet persona is not in fact, the Curt Schilling that existed when he was winning all the community service and citizenship awards. The internet literally created a new Curt Schilling and it's perfectly understandable that the Curt Schilling that wrote yesterday would interpret that pre-Twitter, pre-cesspool person as the "real" Curt Schilling. Again, it isn't -- it's too late for that and the internet is in its way a real thing and people can't just run away from their internet personas. But the internet is very ephemeral and very strange and Schilling is absolutely getting at something true with his intuition that there is something not really "real" about it. It drove the dark side of Curt Schilling out and pushed the better angels of Curt Schilling -- the ones that led him to win a bunch of citizenship awards BITD -- back in. There is really no purpose other than malign in the way the people getting rich off it are causing people to reveal their deeper selves and take on the persona of their deeper selves, the selves that used to be modulated and kept in check by culture, community, real friendship and real bonds and real relationships.

It's truly a malign force, just a terrible development.

Edit: Abreu is probably a decent comp, but remember, Bobby was a hairs width away from being one and done too (5.5%). I think that's pretty much in line with the "50/50 chance of being one and done" that I predicted above.

Utley's a better candidate, joining a weaker ballot. Again, I'll be stunned if he fails to get 5 percent, and I'm not usually stunned by Hall voting.

All that said, there is no evidence that the BBWAA is influenced by these factors.

The BBWAA's response to the 2013 shutout (and many years after) suggests, for the first time, they were aware of the importance of electing people.

If anyone is interested in merits , Curt Schilling is the greatest pitcher in modern history in preventing unearned run.

Yep, sure is. Welcome Philly.

My predictions for the next 6 BBWAA elections (ballot number in parentheses):

2022 - Ortiz (1st)
2023 - Rolen (6th)
2024 - Beltre (1st), Helton (6th)
2025 - Ichiro (1st)
2026 - Sabathia (2nd), Jones (9th)

And that's it for currently retired players. I think Wagner will run out of time, but work his way into a nice position for VC induction.

SoSH already made the Ortiz comment I was going to make, but I'd also add that Wagner made a huge step up this year, passing Helton. Unless something odd happens, and much as I hate to say it, I think he's going in via the writers.

What happens then? It seems absolutely foolish for BBWAA to elect somebody who takes that position, and makes it abundantly clear.

I think Jose's approach is clearly the sensible one. Does a president get to inform the National Museum of American History that he doesn't want to be included in an exhibit on the presidents?

Andruw Jones' voting is interesting to me, especially since Lofton and Edmonds dropped off so quickly. He has gone 7% > 7% > 19% > 33%. His first two years he was around the 19th-highest vote-getter.

We are increasingly intolerant of any faults in our public figures, and incapable of forgiveness.

70% of the journalists voting in this election looked past Schilling's advocacy of their lynching. That seems like a remarkably high level of forgiveness to me.

Let me run a hypothetical by you: let's say that Mike Trout has these very strong religious beliefs that prevent him from accepting awards and/or be inducted into the HoF (don't really know if there's a religion like that, but work with me here). And let's say that Trout's career remains inner, inner, inner circle HoF.

Suppose that Trout, upon retirement, says "I have not accepted any of the awards were I have been named, and I will not accept induction into the HoF. Thus, I ask the HoF not to include me on their ballot. If the HoF DOES include me on their ballot, I ask BBWAA not to elect me. And if BBWAA goes against my wishes and elects me, I will not be at the election ceremony, no member of my family will attend the election ceremony and I will ask anybody involved with the Angels at that time not to attend or comment on this election, which I will not accept".

What happens then? It seems absolutely foolish for BBWAA to elect somebody who takes that position, and makes it abundantly clear.

Take it a step back. Should the BBWAA not choose Mike Trout as the American League MVP in a given year because Mike Trout doesn't want the trophy? The award is made to identify the league's best player, and choosing someone other than the league's best player as the league's best player seems even more foolish to me.

The Hall and awards don't necessarily exist to honor players, but to ID those who were the best. If some institutions want to respect these wishes, I guess that's OK. But they are by no means obligated to.

166, Schilling is already surely in the Museum part of the HoF (bloody sock, et. al.).

We are increasingly intolerant of any faults in our public figures, and incapable of forgiveness.

One of the things the internet surely does is give awful people an outlet and a template to pretend they're virtuous people and a ready audience in the similarly-situated gathered there. That isn't a good thing, either.

Sure... If X then Y leads one down a rabbit hole, I know. I'm not particularly interested in fluffing Wagner's case by any stretch. More saying he's where I'd probably draw the line where the line is actively opposing any beyond him. He's never made any of my ballots and is unlikely to start.

Though, I'd the say problem is less Hoffman than it is Sutter....

And that is how HOF voting leads, although admittedly my rabbit hole was overly deep in going back to previously overlooked relievers possibly going in via the VC (though that's not beyond the realm). The problem is most definitely Hoffman. Sutter is long forgotten in terms of who voters are considering as they cast their votes now, and he was more of a Fireman crossing to Closer, like Smith, anyway. Hoffman is the issue because voters are looking at him and saying, "Well, Wagner is a better pitcher in many respects, even though he doesn't have 600 Saves, and Hoffman is in so I'm voting for Wagner." They're not saying Wagner is better or as good as Sutter and voting for him, it's Hoffman, whom Wagner blows away on things like ERA+, FIP, K/9, and who shows up right ABOVE Hoffman when you go to look at something like JAWS on B-R.

Being an aspie has allowed it to flow like water off a ducks back.

Oh, and so unless he's lying, Schilling has a disability -- one that directly controls and muffles and confuses social behavior and cues. Which makes 163 even more spot on.

"Hey, everybody, let's all go mock and stand in puritanical judgment of the disabled guy!!!! What swell fun!!!!"

145. SoSH U at work Posted: January 27, 2021 at 11:50 AM (#6002155)
The main problem with a Wagner induction is it lowers the already-low innings threshold (currently the floor is Sutter's 1,042. Wagner's at 903).

There are lots of problems with a potential Wagner induction, but I think you're right that the IP is probably the biggest.

No, voting takes place at the end of 2022 for induction in 23.

Schilling will not have been retired for 15 years by the end of 2022. He is ineligible for consideration in that ballot.

Never malicious, never to willfully or intentionally hurt another person.

see her hurt every time some idiot writes another hit piece linking to other hit pieces,

First, that is reasonably well-written. Which isn't a total surprise - he can be thoughtful, when he's not being openly hateful/riling people up to get lulz. The internal contradiction is stunning.

It's fascinating that he's openly said so many hateful things about so many groups of marginalized people - people who are all hurting in their own lives, struggling in various ways, and don't need some famous jock encouraging more hatred against them - yet also, he clearly acknowledges words can hurt - his wife, anyway.

Is his hatred for muslims/LGBTQ+/etc so overwhelming that he is unable to see them as human beings? It's amazing to think he's calling people out for being mean to his wife while she fights for her life, while apparently being totally unable to recognize how much vitriol he has spread to people he's never met (and clearly doesn't understand)- many of whom are also fighting for their lives, in a wide variety of ways.

I think he is a HOFer. He may be the first HOFer who wrecked his own chances by being excessively hateful, and I'm fine with him being the line in the sand. Free speech does not mean speech free of consequence.

Schilling will not have been retired for 15 years by the end of 2022. He is ineligible for consideration in that ballot.

Not unless they've changed the rules.

Mark McGwire's last game was in 2001. He appeared on the 2016 Today's Game ballot, for possible induction in the Class of 2017. That's 16 years between last game and earliest induction date by the Vets.

Curt Schilling's last game was in 2007. He will appear on the 2022 ballot, for induction with the Class of 2023. That would be 16 years between last game and earliest induction date by the Vets.

The Hall doesn't care if you were under contract, just when you played your last game, which is why he's in the same class as Bonds and Clemens.

Meh... There are very, very, very few players whose inductions I've actively opposed (for whatever tiny bit yammering here is worth! Probably less than tiny bit!)

I opposed Rice, Morris, and on/off - Lee Smith (honestly, I'm still torn on him). I'd have opposed Sutter, too - but his election took me by surprise.

As a general rule, I'm a big hall guy... so my opposition tends to be more of the sour grapes sort (i.e., Morris but not Stieb or Saberhagen?!?!) anyway.

I'm amenable to being convinced I should focus some opposition on Wagner (again, for whatever approaching nothing it is worth!)... like I said, these results are the first time I ever really thought about Wagner.

If the writers induct Wagner, it becomes measurably more difficult to draw a line between a handful of the greatest relief pitchers, and a much larger number of very good ones.

Perhaps somebody can easily quantify this: I get that talent is not distributed like a bell curve - it is a pyramid. And I get that this is the case for players on every part of the diamond.

However, my sense is that the shape of the pyramid is much "squattier", if that makes sense, for relief pitchers than for other positions in baseball. There are a handful of closers who have been truly elite, for a very long time - that stand out in history.

Rivera is the best one, I think there is unanimity on that.

Who are the next two or three best of all time? Well, the HOF voting suggests Hoffman, Fingers, Gossage, Eckersley, Smith, Wilhelm, Sutter are in that group. I personally think what Gossage did was harder to do than what Hoffman did, but it is hard to compare, so OK.

But if we can generally agree on who the 2nd-through-5th- best closers in history were (and I think that is not easy to do), then try getting consensus on who the 6th-through-10th best closers in history are.

Is Joe Nathan one of them? Is Billy Wagner? Quisenberry? K-Rod is 4th in saves all-time. John Franco is 5th all-time. Shoot, Troy Percival is 11th, right behind...Jeff Reardon. Papelbon is right behind Nathan...I mean, the pyramid below the top couple of closers is much wider than, say, the top 10 third basemen of all-time.

167. My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto Posted: January 27, 2021 at 01:40 PM (#6002190)
Andruw Jones' voting is interesting to me, especially since Lofton and Edmonds dropped off so quickly. He has gone 7% > 7% > 19% > 33%. His first two years he was around the 19th-highest vote-getter.

HOF voting is impacted, sometimes strongly, by timing. Who did you come onto the ballot with? Who was already on the ballot when you hit it? Who comes onto the ballot after you to disrupt your momentum? Kenny Lofton came on the ballot in 2013 along with Biggio, Piazza, Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, and Sosa, plus another four guys already on the ballot who the writers would put in, and three the VC have already put in. He never stood a chance to get 5%. Edmonds came on in 2016 with Jr., always bad to debut with a highly superior player from the same position, and Hoffman (and Wagner), with still three of the guys from 2013 who would eventually go in via the writers, Piazza went in with Griffey, and both Mussina and Kent had come on in the interim. It was a horribly crowded ballot, and Edmonds had an unusually short career for a HOF in terms of playing time (unless you're a 1 inning closer). Jones has about a full seasons more PA's than Edmonds even though he was done as a full time player at 30, and he also had the good fortune to squeak past 5% on a very crowded ballot and hold on while the ballot cleared out, 10 players in 3 years half of whom were holdovers, plus McGriff falling off due to loss of eligibility. Now there's more room for him on ballots which were previously full up with 10 votes, and there aren't a lot of obviously superior, and/or unflawed, candidates.

Oh, and so unless he's lying, Schilling has a disability -- one that directly controls and muffles and confuses social behavior and cues. Which makes 163 even more spot on.

The way it's written, yes it appears he's claiming he has Aspergers. But I'm pretty sure it's his son who he's referring to. His son was diagnosed at the age of 6. If Curt's also an Aspie, his diagnosis came much later.

It's fascinating that he's openly said so many hateful things about so many groups of marginalized people - people who are all hurting in their own lives, struggling in various ways, and don't need some famous jock encouraging more hatred against them - yet also, he clearly acknowledges words can hurt - his wife, anyway.

I won't opine on any particulars but, "We can say and think personally hateful things about identified people because they don't think transgendered men generally should be able to participate in women's sports and therefore he hates transgendered people and has caused their deaths" isn't a workable template.

If Curt's also an Aspie, his diagnosis came much later.

People should maybe know this one way or another before they get all internet virtuous. (And while I don't know one way or another, there wouldn't seem to be any reason to assume that if Schilling was diagnosed at some point in his life, the diagnosis came later in his life. He could have been diagnosed at 10 for all we know.)

People should maybe know this one way or another before they get all internet virtuous.

The nearest I can find is an interview with Esquire in 2017.

He tells me he's always believed he's on the Asperger's scale (though he was never formally diagnosed) because of his obsessive tendencies toward those hobbies.

159, Far from me from being a supporter of Schilling, but in the abstract, it seems nuts to me that the HoF could choose somebody over that person's express desire.

Let me run a hypothetical by you: let's say that Mike Trout has these very strong religious beliefs that prevent him from accepting awards and/or be inducted into the HoF (don't really know if there's a religion like that, but work with me here). And let's say that Trout's career remains inner, inner, inner circle HoF.

Suppose that Trout, upon retirement, says "I have not accepted any of the awards were I have been named, and I will not accept induction into the HoF. Thus, I ask the HoF not to include me on their ballot. If the HoF DOES include me on their ballot, I ask BBWAA not to elect me. And if BBWAA goes against my wishes and elects me, I will not be at the election ceremony, no member of my family will attend the election ceremony and I will ask anybody involved with the Angels at that time not to attend or comment on this election, which I will not accept".

What happens then? It seems absolutely foolish for BBWAA to elect somebody who takes that position, and makes it abundantly clear.

Generally what happens then is there is a ceremony and the career of Mike Trout is celebrated in his absence. Noting the history of his career and accomplishments doesn't require his acceptance. They happened.

Now having said that I would argue there are major differences between your hypothetical and Schilling. I think a religious dispute or perhaps more realistically someone wishing not to be enshrined with pre-integration players is different from someone saying "I don't want this group to vote for me but then when this other group votes I deem them worthy of saluting and honoring my magnificence." But ultimately I think the museum has every right to honor who it deems worthy whether in your hypothetical or in Schilling's real case.

Keith oberman and an auto spellcheck

Olbermann, you imbecile. You spell as well as you think & write. I suppose there's something to be said for consistency.

I think a religious dispute or perhaps more realistically someone wishing not to be enshrined with pre-integration players is different from someone saying "I don't want this group to vote for me but then when this other group votes I deem them worthy of saluting and honoring my magnificence."

This isn't quite that. It's I don't want this group to vote for me, but if they do, it's a Dbacks cap unless the rumor I've heard -- I thought it important to broadcast that element of my ongoing crucifixion to you in a personal letter that I will release to the general public -- in which case it will be the Phillies because of what John Henry did to me that I won't mention but feel free to ask because it was another injustice.

Red-light Curt indeed.

the ones that led him to win a bunch of citizenship awards BITD -- back in.

Like I said, Pete Rose also got all of those except the Branch Rickey Award, which did not start until he was out of baseball. Awards, even those supposedly given for character, are not necessarily probative of character.

As to 151, whatever else he is, one thing that really tells me is that Schilling is a professional social media diva. He likes attention; he likes complaining, and he likes controversy. Being that way is the proverbial sword that cuts both ways. Whatever their politics, Smoltz and Rivera are basically guys who fit the old-school image of "class act" that a lot of the BBWAA still wants to see in public behavior from jocks.

I started this latest sequence by saying that I would vote for Schilling, and have been saying that for years. Also, in the past, I pointed out Schilling's fan engagement side, like the time he posted on Sons of Sam Horn, and have complimented him for it. And if I had a vote now, I would probably still vote for him. But given his on-line behavior and the size of his megaphone (not huge, but big enough to matter some) juxtaposed against the current conditions in the USA,I can see why people wouldn't.

He tells me he's always believed he's on the Asperger's scale (though he was never formally diagnosed) because of his obsessive tendencies toward those hobbies.

Which, as I've speculated before (not in regard to Schilling), would put probably at least 50% of us on the scale, & maybe a lot more than that. Me very much included.

But if we can generally agree on who the 2nd-through-5th- best closers in history were (and I think that is not easy to do), then try getting consensus on who the 6th-through-10th best closers in history are.

Is Joe Nathan one of them? Is Billy Wagner? Quisenberry? K-Rod is 4th in saves all-time. John Franco is 5th all-time. Shoot, Troy Percival is 11th, right behind...Jeff Reardon. Papelbon is right behind Nathan...I mean, the pyramid below the top couple of closers is much wider than, say, the top 10 third basemen of all-time.

Yes, this is very well put. Once you say Hoffman is a HOF, it becomes very hard to differentiate him from a bunch of closers unless you're solely relying on Saves. And if you then include Wagner, you're opening it up to an even larger group because it's then very clearly not all about 500 or 600 Saves. And if you're going to look at guys who have a reasonable number of Saves, plus some good ERA+ numbers, or K numbers, etc., then the group of possible candidates becomes unreasonably large in a hurry. K-Rod has over 400 saves, a better ERA+ than Hoffman, basically the same Save % as Wagner, how is he not going in? Papelbon has 368 Saves, a much better ERA+ than Hoffman, better FIP than Hoffman, and basically the same Save % as Hoffman, how is he not going in? Joe Nathan 377 Saves, better ERA+ than Hoffman and the same Save %, plus more IP than Wagner, in. Well, gee, Percival has 358 Saves, similar ERA+ as Hoffman and Save % as Wagner, why not? Kimbrel already has 348 Saves, looks like Wagner on ERA+ and K's, plus better Save % than Rivera and Hoffman, so a few more garbage seasons won't matter he's gotta be in. Jansen and Chapman only need a couple more good seasons to move into this picture. It's just ridiculous to try to start parsing these guys with so few IP and so little impact on the game given not even all of their IP are high leverage and they already have so few IP to begin with.

#185 The Hockey Hall of Fame faced a somewhat related issue years ago. Alan Eagleson. Basically hockey's Marvin Miller but actually more influential. Super agent, set up and ran the PA. Involved in setting up major events like the Canada - USSR match.

Oh and as was later discovered, he embezzled from his clients (pretty much every HOFer from the late 60s and 70s) in a fairly major way.

So when he was convicted he lost his Order of Canada but the Hockey Hall of Fame said basically, he's in for his accomplishments and had no intention of removing him.

Then Brad Park made a very public, "him or me" statement (backed up behind the scene by Bobby Orr among others).

Now the Hall could absolutely have ignored Park, but they didn't want Park (and the players backing him) to stop showing up at their events. So Eagleson was removed.

Gil Stein was easier to remove. He appointed people to the HOF Board of Directors on the condition that they votes for him.

Well, gee, Percival has 358 Saves, similar ERA+ as Hoffman and Save % as Wagner, why not?

Should have left Troy out as he's already been passed over.

I find it interesting that so many people think Ortiz will be inducted next year. If you were predicting how writers on this blog would vote you would be right. I highly, highly doubt 75% of the BBWA are voting for Ortiz. He might get in over time if everyone decides to ignore the PEDs. But even without that he’s a borderline candidate. I suspect he will wallow around the Gary Sheffield area.

Should have left Troy out as he's already been passed over.

He'll be eligible for the VC.

I would bet on Ortiz getting in pretty fast--maybe not first ballot, but pretty fast. The Hall is in part about narratives, stories, impact on the game's history--and to some extent, popularity. Ortiz was an unique figure in those areas, and he was and is very popular. If/when he gets in and assuming/hoping that we are past COVID, a huge # of Boston fans will show up for the induction. Sheffield, while he was a great hitter, was seen as a grouchy malcontent who bounced around.

David Ortiz is pretty much only similar to Gary Sheffield on Baseball Reference and in suspicion of steroid use. In terms of HOF narratives, they're not even vaguely alike. I'll be surprised if Ortiz isn't in after two ballots.

He tells me he's always believed he's on the Asperger's scale (though he was never formally diagnosed) because of his obsessive tendencies toward those hobbies.

Which, as I've speculated before (not in regard to Schilling), would put probably at least 50% of us on the scale, & maybe a lot more than that. Me very much included.

Yeah, I mean hell... I've got some scary-high playtime numbers in my Steam library generally and those don't even include a not insignificant amount of poor man's modding.

####, Discorders alone could probably diagnose me based on the bazillion transaction oracle posts and documenting every game of hypothetical 2020 OOTP replay!

I use the excuse of Covid, but well.... I'll admit that by the time I got the fake ASB and didn't stop, I started to wonder about myself... myself!

The decision of the writers to start broadly applying the character clause for any reason they see fit is becoming a real problem, IMO.

Yeah, it's getting to where the Hall of Fame vote is becoming less of a way to honor players and more of a way to single out HOF worthy players for exclusion.

I for one would be happier with letting Barry Bonds and Pete Rose into the Hall of Fame than leaving Curt Schilling out because of some Twitter beef.

People should maybe know this one way or another before they get all internet virtuous. (And while I don't know one way or another, there wouldn't seem to be any reason to assume that if Schilling was diagnosed at some point in his life, the diagnosis came later in his life. He could have been diagnosed at 10 for all we know.)

Unless Schilling was a test case for Asperger's there's no way he was diagnosed when he was 10. He was born in 1966, first use of term wasn't until 1981, normalized use of the term wasn't until the mid-late 90's. Realistically, his early 30's is the earliest Schilling would have been formally diagnosed with Asperger's. Sounds more like he self-diagnosed himself after becoming familiar with it in the late 90's/early 00's.

Which, as I've speculated before (not in regard to Schilling), would put probably at least 50% of us on the scale,

Some of us suspect we're only OCD