Curt Schilling will not be among them. He has been eligible for election since 2013. He has a career won-lost record of 216-146, for a winning percentage of .597. His career ERA is 3.46, and his ERA+ (measured against the other players of his time) is 127. His WHIP is 1.137, he struck out 3,116 batters, and his strikeout-to-walk ratio is 4.38.
So why has he not been elected?
His supporters claim it is because of his politics: He's an archconservative, and the people voting on the Hall are liberal.
Is this a legitimate excuse?
Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame Conservatism for Curt Schilling Not Being Elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame
First, let's look at a couple of reasons that didn't make the cut: The Best of the Rest.
Personality. This should have nothing to do with it. Some rotten guys have gotten in. But, between his braggadocio, his conservatism, and his despicable post-playing business practices, his character has come into question.
The Hall's voting process, as stated on the Hall's website, says:
Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
The Steroid Perception. Schilling played on the 2001 World Champion Arizona Diamondbacks. Teammate Matt Williams was caught using steroids. Another teammate, Luis Gonzalez, has been accused, but not proven -- but he hit 57 home runs that season, and in his other 18 seasons, he averaged 17, topping out at 31. He used. There, I said it. And if he wants to sue me, let me remind him that he will have to go under oath and tell the truth, under the risk of perjury.
Schilling played on the 2004 and 2007 World Champion Boston Red Sox. David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez failed steroid tests. Bronson Arroyo, another pitcher, confessed. Several other players on the Sox seem like users. And if anybody has ever tested the blood on Schilling's famous sock, they aren't saying.
Once, I saw Schilling on Twitter, saying something I found offensive. I replied to him that I wanted the blood on that sock tested. He subsequently became the 1st celebrity ever to block me on any social media platform. I found that funny. But I'm less offended by that than I am by the possibility that he cheated my Yankees out of no worse than a Pennant in 2004.
Did Curt Schilling use performance-enhancing drugs? There's no hard evidence. But the perception that they may have used has meant that other players, such as Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell, waited longer than expected to get in. Maybe Schilling is another. But since it isn't proven, I have to leave this reason as a "perception," and out of the Top 5.
Now, the Top 5:
5. The Voters. No voting member of the Baseball Writers Association of America has ever said that politics, Schilling's or their own, is why he hasn't voted for Schilling. Indeed, no voter has ever said that a player's politics has led him to vote against the player -- or for him, for that matter. Furthermore, aside from pro-civil rights stands taken by black members of the BBWAA, few, if any, of the voters have publicly taken the liberal side of a political issue. It may be completely irrelevant to them. If it is relevant to them, they haven't said so.
Once, I saw Schilling on Twitter, saying something I found offensive. I replied to him that I wanted the blood on that sock tested. He subsequently became the 1st celebrity ever to block me on any social media platform. I found that funny. But I'm less offended by that than I am by the possibility that he cheated my Yankees out of no worse than a Pennant in 2004.
Did Curt Schilling use performance-enhancing drugs? There's no hard evidence. But the perception that they may have used has meant that other players, such as Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell, waited longer than expected to get in. Maybe Schilling is another. But since it isn't proven, I have to leave this reason as a "perception," and out of the Top 5.
Now, the Top 5:
5. The Voters. No voting member of the Baseball Writers Association of America has ever said that politics, Schilling's or their own, is why he hasn't voted for Schilling. Indeed, no voter has ever said that a player's politics has led him to vote against the player -- or for him, for that matter. Furthermore, aside from pro-civil rights stands taken by black members of the BBWAA, few, if any, of the voters have publicly taken the liberal side of a political issue. It may be completely irrelevant to them. If it is relevant to them, they haven't said so.
In other words, maybe they have voted to exclude Schilling on the basis of politics, but, as with the question of whether Schilling used steroids, there's no proof against any of them.
4. Other Conservatives. Jim Bunning was also a pretty good pitcher, also spent a big chunk of his career with the Phillies, and also looked like a borderline case statistically. He was a Republican who served Kentucky in both houses of Congress, and seemed to get increasingly conservative as he got older. Gaylord Perry is a known conservative. Randy Johnson is another, and was also an Arizona teammate of Schilling's.
They all got into the Hall of Fame, although Bunning had to wait until being elected by the Veterans Committee. In fact, that just makes the point more: At that point, unlike during the years when his eligibility was in the hands of the BBWAA, Bunning had a political record of which HOF voters were aware. They took it into consideration, and elected him anyway.
4. Other Conservatives. Jim Bunning was also a pretty good pitcher, also spent a big chunk of his career with the Phillies, and also looked like a borderline case statistically. He was a Republican who served Kentucky in both houses of Congress, and seemed to get increasingly conservative as he got older. Gaylord Perry is a known conservative. Randy Johnson is another, and was also an Arizona teammate of Schilling's.
Jim Bunning
They all got into the Hall of Fame, although Bunning had to wait until being elected by the Veterans Committee. In fact, that just makes the point more: At that point, unlike during the years when his eligibility was in the hands of the BBWAA, Bunning had a political record of which HOF voters were aware. They took it into consideration, and elected him anyway.
Ted Williams was a known conservative. He once said that he could never vote for a Democrat as President, with one exception: His wingman while serving as a pilot in the U.S. Marine Corps during the Korean War, who went on to become an astronaut and a U.S. Senator from Ohio: John Glenn. (Glenn only ran for President once, in 1984, and never got more than 21 percent in any primary.) But Ted got into the Hall on the 1st try.
And some Hall-of-Famers were out-and-out racists. Los Angeles Dodgers owner Walter O'Malley. New York Yankees general manager George Weiss. Possibly Tom Yawkey, Joe Cronin and Eddie Collins, as evidenced by their running the front office of the Boston Red Sox, and making them the last MLB team to racially integrate.
John Glenn and Ted Williams
And some Hall-of-Famers were out-and-out racists. Los Angeles Dodgers owner Walter O'Malley. New York Yankees general manager George Weiss. Possibly Tom Yawkey, Joe Cronin and Eddie Collins, as evidenced by their running the front office of the Boston Red Sox, and making them the last MLB team to racially integrate.
Tris Speaker was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, although he later left it, and returned to the Cleveland Indians to help coach Larry Doby, the American League's 1st black player. And then there's the man often "credited" with inspiring baseball's color bar in the 1880s, Cap Anson. Ty Cobb's level of racism has been debated: Maybe he wasn't especially bad by the standards of his era (he played from 1905 to 1928), but by today's standards, he'd be run out of town.
But these men tended to not make such things public. Schilling has, through both his TV appearances and his use of social media. As a result, the American people have seen what Lee Thomas, the Phillies' general manager at the time, said about him: "One day out of five, he's a horse. The other four, he's a horse's ass."
3. Baseball Markets. It is true that Schilling pitched the last 4 seasons of his career (2004-07) with a glamour team in a big metropolitan area, the Boston Red Sox. But most of his career was spent outside of the spotlight: The Baltimore Orioles (1988-90), the Houston Astros (1991), the Philadelphia Phillies (1992-2000) and the Arizona Diamondbacks (2000-03).
He did pitch for the Phillies in the 1993 postseason, being named Most Valuable Player of the National League Championship Series, and nearly saving them in the World Series with a shutout in Game 5. Other than that one October, he didn't really get noticed until 1997 and 1998, when he had back-to-back seasons of 300 strikeouts -- and, even then, he was just 32-25 with a 3.11 ERA: A very good ERA, and a good but not great record.
It was his performance for Arizona against the Yankees in the 2001 World Series that lifted him into elite status in fans' minds -- and, even then, while he pitched well enough to win in all 3 starts, he only won Game 1. He left with the lead in Game 4, but got no decision, and even stood to lose Game 7 before Mariano's rare meltdown. That one game may end up making the difference: If he gets in, it could be because Mariano didn't get the last 2 outs.
Had Schilling pitched his entire career in Boston, or had earlier pitched for a different glamour team -- the Los Angeles Dodgers, the Chicago Cubs, the St. Louis Cardinals, or had stuck with the Orioles long enough for Camden Yards and Cal Ripken's streak to make them, as they were for a few years, a glamour team -- he might already be in.
2. Timing. Schilling last played in a major league game in the 2007 season. This meant that he would become eligible for the Hall of Fame in the election whose results would be announced in January 2013. Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Mike Mussina became eligible the next year. John Smoltz, Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez became eligible in 2015. Roy Halladay became eligible in 2019.
Not counting Schilling, that's 7 starting pitchers, all of whom are now in. We can point out that Halladay may have gotten a sympathy vote, due to his death between his retirement and his eligibility: Had he still been alive, it might have taken a few years for him to get in. However, all of these, except Mussina, got in on the 1st try. It took Mussina 6 tries.
Andy Pettitte became eligible this year, and didn't make it. Like Schilling, Roger Clemens became eligible in 2013, and hasn't made it yet. Pettitte and Clemens have the cloud of alleged performance-enhancing drug use hanging over them, fairly or not.
1. The Numbers. Which absolutely should be the Number 1 reason why a player gets in, or doesn't. To borrow the words of Scottish writer Andrew Lang, words often paraphrased by Dodger broadcaster Vin Scully, "An unsophisticated forecaster uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts: For support rather than for illumination."
Let's look at the numbers again. And as we do, let us ignore the ignorant boobs who tell us that wins and winning percentage are not important. These are people who judge players based on WAR: "Wins Above Replacement level." Let us value actual winning ahead of perception of contribution to winning. So put aside "sabermetrics" and "analytics," and look at what really matters. Tangible performance.
Schilling won 216 games. Among starting pitchers in the post-1920 Lively Ball Era, that ranks 58th. In the post-1947 Integration Era, 42nd. In the post-1969 Divisional Play, 10-Inch-High Mound Era, 34th. He is behind such pitchers as Jamie Moyer, Frank Tanana, David Wells, Tim Hudson, Jerry Koosman, Joe Niekro, Jerry Reuss, Kenny Rogers and Charlie Hough. How many people do you see saying that any of those guys should be in the Hall of Fame?
Even if you limit it to guys who pitched all or most of their careers since 1990, he's only 14th. Just righthanders in that period? He's 7th, behind Maddux, Clemens, Mussina, Bartolo Colon, Hudson and Pedro.
He's a member of the 3,000 Strikeout Club, with 3,116. Should that make for automatic induction? Officially, it does not. Nor does any other milestone achievement, or any other particular achievement. The Hall's website states the election criteria, and specifically says:
No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted.
Okay, so that's official. What about unofficially? Before the steroid era, certain milestones were said to be tantamount to election: 3,000 hits, 500 home runs, 300 wins for a pitcher. Does 3,000 strikeouts qualify a player for "unofficial automatic election"?
Apparently, it doesn't: Clemens has 4,672, 3rd all-time behind Nolan Ryan and Randy Johnson, and he's not in, having been eligible 7 times. Bert Blyleven had 3,701 -- 3rd all-time when he retired, behind only Ryan and Steve Carlton -- and it took him 14 tries to get in. Ferguson Jenkins had 3,192, more than Schilling, and it took him 3 tries. And all 3 of those guys had a lot more wins than Schilling: Clemens 354, Blyleven 287, Jenkins 284.
Was Schilling ever even the best pitcher on his own team? In Philadelphia, he was. But not in Arizona, where Randy Johnson was his teammate. Nor in Boston, where Pedro Martinez was his teammate.
But these men tended to not make such things public. Schilling has, through both his TV appearances and his use of social media. As a result, the American people have seen what Lee Thomas, the Phillies' general manager at the time, said about him: "One day out of five, he's a horse. The other four, he's a horse's ass."
He did pitch for the Phillies in the 1993 postseason, being named Most Valuable Player of the National League Championship Series, and nearly saving them in the World Series with a shutout in Game 5. Other than that one October, he didn't really get noticed until 1997 and 1998, when he had back-to-back seasons of 300 strikeouts -- and, even then, he was just 32-25 with a 3.11 ERA: A very good ERA, and a good but not great record.
It was his performance for Arizona against the Yankees in the 2001 World Series that lifted him into elite status in fans' minds -- and, even then, while he pitched well enough to win in all 3 starts, he only won Game 1. He left with the lead in Game 4, but got no decision, and even stood to lose Game 7 before Mariano's rare meltdown. That one game may end up making the difference: If he gets in, it could be because Mariano didn't get the last 2 outs.
Had Schilling pitched his entire career in Boston, or had earlier pitched for a different glamour team -- the Los Angeles Dodgers, the Chicago Cubs, the St. Louis Cardinals, or had stuck with the Orioles long enough for Camden Yards and Cal Ripken's streak to make them, as they were for a few years, a glamour team -- he might already be in.
2. Timing. Schilling last played in a major league game in the 2007 season. This meant that he would become eligible for the Hall of Fame in the election whose results would be announced in January 2013. Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Mike Mussina became eligible the next year. John Smoltz, Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez became eligible in 2015. Roy Halladay became eligible in 2019.
Not counting Schilling, that's 7 starting pitchers, all of whom are now in. We can point out that Halladay may have gotten a sympathy vote, due to his death between his retirement and his eligibility: Had he still been alive, it might have taken a few years for him to get in. However, all of these, except Mussina, got in on the 1st try. It took Mussina 6 tries.
Andy Pettitte became eligible this year, and didn't make it. Like Schilling, Roger Clemens became eligible in 2013, and hasn't made it yet. Pettitte and Clemens have the cloud of alleged performance-enhancing drug use hanging over them, fairly or not.
1. The Numbers. Which absolutely should be the Number 1 reason why a player gets in, or doesn't. To borrow the words of Scottish writer Andrew Lang, words often paraphrased by Dodger broadcaster Vin Scully, "An unsophisticated forecaster uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts: For support rather than for illumination."
Let's look at the numbers again. And as we do, let us ignore the ignorant boobs who tell us that wins and winning percentage are not important. These are people who judge players based on WAR: "Wins Above Replacement level." Let us value actual winning ahead of perception of contribution to winning. So put aside "sabermetrics" and "analytics," and look at what really matters. Tangible performance.
Schilling won 216 games. Among starting pitchers in the post-1920 Lively Ball Era, that ranks 58th. In the post-1947 Integration Era, 42nd. In the post-1969 Divisional Play, 10-Inch-High Mound Era, 34th. He is behind such pitchers as Jamie Moyer, Frank Tanana, David Wells, Tim Hudson, Jerry Koosman, Joe Niekro, Jerry Reuss, Kenny Rogers and Charlie Hough. How many people do you see saying that any of those guys should be in the Hall of Fame?
Even if you limit it to guys who pitched all or most of their careers since 1990, he's only 14th. Just righthanders in that period? He's 7th, behind Maddux, Clemens, Mussina, Bartolo Colon, Hudson and Pedro.
He's a member of the 3,000 Strikeout Club, with 3,116. Should that make for automatic induction? Officially, it does not. Nor does any other milestone achievement, or any other particular achievement. The Hall's website states the election criteria, and specifically says:
No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted.
Okay, so that's official. What about unofficially? Before the steroid era, certain milestones were said to be tantamount to election: 3,000 hits, 500 home runs, 300 wins for a pitcher. Does 3,000 strikeouts qualify a player for "unofficial automatic election"?
Apparently, it doesn't: Clemens has 4,672, 3rd all-time behind Nolan Ryan and Randy Johnson, and he's not in, having been eligible 7 times. Bert Blyleven had 3,701 -- 3rd all-time when he retired, behind only Ryan and Steve Carlton -- and it took him 14 tries to get in. Ferguson Jenkins had 3,192, more than Schilling, and it took him 3 tries. And all 3 of those guys had a lot more wins than Schilling: Clemens 354, Blyleven 287, Jenkins 284.
Was Schilling ever even the best pitcher on his own team? In Philadelphia, he was. But not in Arizona, where Randy Johnson was his teammate. Nor in Boston, where Pedro Martinez was his teammate.
Then there's the "dominance" argument: Schilling put up many dominating performances, but he never had a season that was dominant enough to get people to call him "the best pitcher in baseball (at least, this season)." On 3 occasions, he finished 2nd in his League's voting for the Cy Young Award: 2001 and '02 in the National, 2004 in the American. But he never won the award. Did he deserve it in any of those seasons? Maybe. But he didn't get it.
But it's fair to ask: How many pitchers can match or surpass Schilling in all of these career categories: Wins, winning percentage, ERA, ERA+, WHIP, strikeouts, and K/BB ratio? The answer is none. Zero. That is an eye-opener.
In fact, there's only 4 pitchers who surpass Schilling in K/BB ratio. And 3 of them are active pitchers, all with fewer than 10 seasons in the major leagues, whose ratios could drop significantly: Chris Sale, Corey Kluber and Stephen Strasburg. The other is Tommy Bond, who pitched his last game in 1884, the year overhand pitching was legalized. In other words, what he was doing, however well he did it, was not "pitching" as we now understand that term.
But, again, all of that could drop Schilling into the category of "He hung around for a long time and amassed a lot of stats." This is the argument that was used against Perry, Jenkins, Blyleven, Phil Niekro and Don Sutton. Unsuccessfully. And against Wells, Jim Kaat, Joe Niekro, Tommy John, and (for some people) Pettitte -- thus far, successfully. (UPDATE: Kaat has since been elected.)
Put it all together -- the arguments for, and the arguments against -- and ask: Does Curt Schilling deserve to be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame? It's hard to make a credible case that he doesn't, based solely on performance, numerical and otherwise. Hard -- but possible, and maybe even plausible.
Whatever your decision is, politics should have nothing to do with it. Nor should his personality.
But is politics the reason he's been kept out? The evidence on that is flimsy. Maybe it's true, but it's nowhere near proven.
VERDICT: Not Guilty.
In fact, there's only 4 pitchers who surpass Schilling in K/BB ratio. And 3 of them are active pitchers, all with fewer than 10 seasons in the major leagues, whose ratios could drop significantly: Chris Sale, Corey Kluber and Stephen Strasburg. The other is Tommy Bond, who pitched his last game in 1884, the year overhand pitching was legalized. In other words, what he was doing, however well he did it, was not "pitching" as we now understand that term.
But, again, all of that could drop Schilling into the category of "He hung around for a long time and amassed a lot of stats." This is the argument that was used against Perry, Jenkins, Blyleven, Phil Niekro and Don Sutton. Unsuccessfully. And against Wells, Jim Kaat, Joe Niekro, Tommy John, and (for some people) Pettitte -- thus far, successfully. (UPDATE: Kaat has since been elected.)
Put it all together -- the arguments for, and the arguments against -- and ask: Does Curt Schilling deserve to be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame? It's hard to make a credible case that he doesn't, based solely on performance, numerical and otherwise. Hard -- but possible, and maybe even plausible.
Whatever your decision is, politics should have nothing to do with it. Nor should his personality.
But is politics the reason he's been kept out? The evidence on that is flimsy. Maybe it's true, but it's nowhere near proven.
VERDICT: Not Guilty.
No comments:
Post a Comment