2021 HOF Ballot

[mattsey9]

Originally Posted by conor912

There is zero way Papi doesn’t get in. Zero.

Bonds is the greatest hitter of the last 60 years, and the BALCO fiasco is keeping him out. Why would the same group of voters induct Ortiz?

That said, I don't completely disagree with you. Ortiz is far more popular with people than Bonds, and that does matter. I don't see it happening on the first ballot though.

[Mike D.]

Didn’t Manny get suspended TWICE for failed tests. I don’t think anyone is grouping him into an “innocent” category.

And two positive tests post testing is SO much different than the Ortiz situation that it’s comical to compare them.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by conor912

There is zero way Papi doesn’t get in. Zero.

But if Ortiz gets in Bonds and Clemens should get in. You can't say "well these cheaters are okay, but these other cheaters aren't" We can't have it both ways.

[Mike D.]

When Ortiz’s name was leaked as someone who tested positive for something in the pre-test-and-punish days, he was 27, a part-time player, and had 89 career HR to go with a 271/.353/.491 career line.

Post testing (and you know he got tested plenty), he played 12 seasons, hit 452 HR, and hit 290/.387/.569.

Especially since we have no idea what he allegedly tested positive for, and baseball has literally come out and said those results are of little value, I don’t understand why people put him in the same category as people who tested positive once testing was implemented.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

I'm not the first person to put this opinion out there, but with Bud Selig being enshrined in the Hall of Fame, I think anybody who played in that era (before actual testing) should also be enshrined despite the PED connections. It's pretty grand hypocrisy for the Hall to honor a man who oversaw that era, benefiting from the PEDs and turning his eye to their usage, while keeping the players out.
That said, anybody who failed a test, once testing was implemented, should not get that benefit of the doubt. Manny, Rafael, Sosa, etc.
Clemens and Bonds never failed a test and even if you slashed their stats in half they'd still both be Hall of Famers.

This. Selig should not only never have been voted into the Hall, he should have been fired. He had the power to stop the steroid usage before it became a problem and he chose to look the other way. The story of his tenure - never address a problem until it goes public. If he is in the Hall, then the bar has been set and Bonds and Clemens and the others should be right in there with him. Maybe in their own room.

[Mike D.]

Agree on Selig. It’s his fault that we can’t have a decent HOF debate without it quickly degrading into a conversation on steroids....who did what when, who we suspect with no evidence, etc.

Agreeing on who is a hall of fame player is difficult enough without this - but the debate is a lot more fun!

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Seven

But if Ortiz gets in Bonds and Clemens should get in. You can't say "well these cheaters are okay, but these other cheaters aren't" We can't have it both ways.

There’s the “should be” and then there’s the “is”. I realize Papi’s name has swirled in PED rumors for years, but this is a prime example of how likability plays such a huge role. Clemens and Bonds are ornery assholes and always have been. Ortiz is a God in a lot of baseball circles, including for heroics off the field and in the community. I’m not saying he gets first ballot, but he gets in, no doubt. Also, if he wasn’t a lock before Edgar got in, he certainly is now that the DH has been legitimized by the Hall.

I can’t speak to Papi’s PED involvement, but don’t be shocked if we do “get it both ways” and he gets in while Bonds and Clemens don’t. It wouldn’t be the first time a media darling has coasted in while other equally deserving players have had to fight tooth and nail for their plaque. It’s a (wildly) imperfect system.

[G1911]

Selig isn't blameless, but didn't he propose penalties in 1994 that the Player's Union shot down? What was he supposed to do exactly before the changing winds and public pressure forced the players into testing?


I do not understand how one can allege that not only did Gwynn use steroids (which is possible), but that going from 4 to 16 home runs (an 11 home run gap at the low end of the scale which has happened without steroids many times in baseball history) is the same thing as Barry Bonds setting records and is proof he did. Also, Gwynn had a similar homer year before the example used here, in 1986 when he hit 14. Apparently he used steroids in 1986, 1997, 1998 and possibly 1999 but not the rest of his career.


I too suspect Ortiz will be inducted as a popular fan favorite regardless of his test. He alone among those for whom there is some significant evidence of use seems to be given a complete free pass by the media and fans for steroids. He should be held to the same standard as the other players who used before the formal penalties like Bonds (whether that's ignore it and let them all in, or punish it and keep them out), but I suspect he will not be held to the same standard.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by G1911

I do not understand how one can allege that not only did Gwynn use steroids (which is possible), but that going from 4 to 16 home runs (an 11 home run gap at the low end of the scale which has happened without steroids many times in baseball history) is the same thing as Barry Bonds setting records and is proof he did. Also, Gwynn had a similar homer year before the example used here, in 1986 when he hit 14. Apparently he used steroids in 1986, 1997, 1998 and possibly 1999 but not the rest of his career.

For those wondering about one-year spike in players hitting home runs, check out 1970 some time. Jim Hickman, Cito Gaston, Bert Campaneris amongst others had a spike. Heck Tommy Harper had a 30/30 season that year and was never year 30 homers again. One year homer sometimes spike. Oh, and Gwynn mentioned he wanted to have more power that year. And check out Ichiro Suzuki in batting practice during his career. He would routinely put balls in the upper decks.

Rich

[Popcorn]

If Larry Walker got in how does Tod Helton not get in also.. numbers are identical.

[Ricky]

Ortiz tested positive once for “something”. .. where is the evidence that he was a PED user?

[todeen]

Originally Posted by conor912

Also, if he wasn’t a lock before Edgar got in, he certainly is now that the DH has been legitimized by the Hall.

My dad is an Edgar fan. He was worried about him getting into the HOF. I told him, "He'll get in because the writers want to legitimize the role of DH before he gets on the ballot." I agree, Ortiz wil get into the Hall. I have assumed that Bonds, Clemens, and ARod would max out their chances on the ballot but would eventually get in. They have to get in to clear the path for more favorable players like Ortiz.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Ricky

Ortiz tested positive once for “something”. .. where is the evidence that he was a PED user?

When he tested positive once for "something".

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Popcorn

If Larry Walker got in how does Tod Helton not get in also.. numbers are identical.

Walker was a defensively excellent outfielder who played a significant number of games with other teams and performed well there (1991 and 1994 especially he was fantastic, and even his final year in St. Louis at 38 posted a 130 OPS+). Helton was a 1B who never played a game for another team. I support Helton, but Walker's case appears stronger.

[Tabe]

To be clear, I said Gwynn fit the profile - didn't say he used.

As for his power spike, it wasn't one year - it was multiple. And he more than quadrupled his output (4x as many in fewer games). His previous high was 14 - in 33 more games. I'm just saying he had a BIG jump in production during his old man years, the hallmark of a steroid user.

[bxb]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

If you really want to keep informed on the voting; this update is a must

http://www.bbhoftracker.com/

Usually for players such as the top 3, you need to be comfortably past 75 percent to get in. As of today, I doubt anyone will be elected from the new player world. If anyone gets in, my instinct says it is Curt Schilling whom is being kept back from getting in because of his extreme political views.

My instinct and personal belief is if he kept slightly quieter about those, he'd already be in the HOF.

Rich

I see Schilling has just topped 75% on the tracker, and is the only one so far.

[Mike D.]

Walker career WAR - 72.7
Helton career WAR - 61.8

I expect a lot of the difference is driven by defense and base running.

I personally think both belong in the HOF.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Tabe

To be clear, I said Gwynn fit the profile - didn't say he used.

As for his power spike, it wasn't one year - it was multiple. And he more than quadrupled his output (4x as many in fewer games). His previous high was 14 - in 33 more games. I'm just saying he had a BIG jump in production during his old man years, the hallmark of a steroid user.

I don't think this premise makes much sense at all. Why would Gwynn start using PEDs at 37 years old? He had nothing left to prove. Every other major PED user DID have something to prove. Whether that be the ridiculous home run chase for Bonds, Sosa, and McGwire or Roger Clemens' refusal to accept he was toast at 30 years old.

But why would Gwynn go his whole HOF career as one of the greatest hitters of all time and then at 37 decide to use steroids to hit 17 home runs?

Isn't it just a little more likely the ball got livelier in 1997, just before the home run chase one year later?

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by bxb

I see Schilling has just topped 75% on the tracker, and is the only one so far.

Looking at the list of SP sorted by career WAR, it’s kind of surprising it’s taken Schilling this long.

He’s 26th all-time (BB-R WAR) and of the 25 pitchers ahead of him, only Clemens isn’t in the HOF.

The average WAR for a HOF SP is 73.3, and that average includes Young and Johnson over 160.

BTW, lovers of old time baseball will know that Jim McCormick is next on the list and also not in the Hall.

[packs]

He didn't win any Cy Youngs, he never led the league in ERA and he was never the best pitcher on any winning team he was on (Randy and Pedro were). Schilling is no more a HOFer than Tim Hudson is. They were both very good but never elite, as evidenced by Schilling's 300 K seasons in which he received no Cy Young votes for one and finished 4th in the other. That should tell you how his contemporaries viewed him as well.

[mainemule]

Originally Posted by packs

He didn't win any Cy Youngs, he never led the league in ERA and he was never the best pitcher on any winning team he was on (Randy and Pedro were). Schilling is no more a HOFer than Tim Hudson is. They were both very good but never elite, as evidenced by Schilling's 300 K seasons in which he received no Cy Young votes for one and finished 4th in the other. That should tell you how his contemporaries viewed him as well.

Hudson got a late ring with SF but how do you discount Schilling's post-season successes? Schilling was the better pitcher then Pedro in 04 and was ace of Phillies in 93. Schilling was elite when it mattered.

[packs]

Originally Posted by mainemule

Hudson got a late ring with SF but how do you discount Schilling's post-season successes? Schilling was the better pitcher then Pedro in 04 and was ace of Phillies in 93. Schilling was elite when it mattered.

Yeah but so are a lot of people that aren't HOFers. Who was more clutch than el Duque?

Schilling's entire case comes down to two three year periods where he was very good but not elite. You don't get into the HOF because you had 6 very good seasons, during which you won zero Cy Young awards.

[todeen]

I personally don't like the argument that player XYZ wasn't the best on the team, or best at pitching position. Why can't two hall of fame players reside on the same team? If two reside on the same team, one will always be considered better than the other. There are different tiers of players. Let's consider truly great teams like the 90s Atlanta Braves who have multiple pitchers in the HOF. It is absurd to think that only one of Glavine, Smoltz, Maddux should be enshrined while the others are left out.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[packs]

Originally Posted by todeen

I personally don't like the argument that player XYZ wasn't the best on the team, or best at pitching position. Why can't two hall of fame players reside on the same team? If two reside on the same team, one will always be considered better than the other. There are different tiers of players. Let's consider truly great teams like the 90s Atlanta Braves who have multiple pitchers in the HOF. It is absurd to think that only one of Glavine, Smoltz, Maddux should be enshrined while the others are left out.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Not really. Glavine won 2 Cy Young Awards. Smoltz won a Cy Young too. So of the three, all of them won Cy Youngs.

Cy Young is not the definition of a HOF career, but if you're at all borderline like Schilling is, you need one.

Schilling's entire case boils down to 2 three year periods and I don't think he was good enough in either one to be considered a HOF pitcher. He was just very good.

[Mike D.]

Does Lou Gehrig get dinged for playing with Babe Ruth?

I don’t buy the argument that things a player can’t control should hurt them.

And it’s hard to argue Schilling wasn’t the Red Sox best pitcher in 2004...Johan Santana was just a little better...not much Schilling could do about that.

[packs]

A player like Schilling has nothing in common with Lou Gehrig, an obvious all time great who, by the way, still managed to win 2 MVP awards.

And Johan wasn't just a little better. Johan received every first place vote in 2004.

[Mike D.]

Schilling did have a non-traditional path to a hall of fame career. He took a while to get established, and then mixed some mediocre or injury-marred seasons between stretches of greatness.

But I consider Tim Hudson a borderline hall of famer. Schilling has 20+ more career WAR than that.

That career strikeout to walk ratio, for a high-k pitcher, is nuts!

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by packs

And Johan wasn't just a little better. Johan received every first place vote in 2004.

Looking at vote totals isn’t really the way to go...look at the stats. Yes, Santana was clearly better and a worthy CY winner...but Schilling was closer to Santana (~1 WAR) by more than double than the #3 SP. Hell, three relievers rounded out the top 5 in the CY voting that year.

I’m not saying Schilling is Gehrig level, but he’s well above the HOF average for his position, and clearly deserving.

[packs]

To each their own and there is a fair argument for Schilling but for me personally you've got to put up stronger numbers over a longer period of time for Schilling to be HOF worthy. His stretches of greatness were not so great that they blew the league out of the water.

His case really comes down to his work from 97-99 and 2001, 2002 and 2004. When I look at the seasons he had, I don't see a guy who put Koufax-like numbers that would have you overlook everything before and after.

[Throttlesteer]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't think this premise makes much sense at all. Why would Gwynn start using PEDs at 37 years old? He had nothing left to prove. Every other major PED user DID have something to prove. Whether that be the ridiculous home run chase for Bonds, Sosa, and McGwire or Roger Clemens' refusal to accept he was toast at 30 years old.

But why would Gwynn go his whole HOF career as one of the greatest hitters of all time and then at 37 decide to use steroids to hit 17 home runs?

Isn't it just a little more likely the ball got livelier in 1997, just before the home run chase one year later?

Agreed. Keep in mind, the Rockies came around in 1993 and the NL West did get to play a fair number of games in that park. It's not a huge lift, but it does warrant some consideration. Gwynn wasn't chasing anything but getting the bat on the ball. As I pointed out, Gwynn entertained a lot of the insights he learned from Ted Williams, including his approach to inside pitches. Hitting 17 HR at age 37 isn't all that eyebrow raising for the average player. A hitter as talented as Gwynn could easily make adjustments to hit a paltry number such as 17.

While it's not impossible, it's highly-improbable Gwynn took PEDs. A similar argument could be made for Cal Ripken's streak of games. In fact, it plays to that scenario more than it would Gwynn's. For the record, I think it's silly to entertain either thought.

[G1911]

If Schilling doesn't belong, we need to rip out most of the pitchers elected the last few years.

WAR isn't everything, but Schilling is almost the same value wise as Mussina and Glavine. The only arguments I can see that are consistent with the statistics for keeping Schilling out is that A) we should rip a bunch of people out because the Hall is too big and stop adding people who were not the very very best at their position, or B) some people are upset about his politics and/or rude comments and want him treated differently from everyone else. If Schilling made rude and nasty comments but did it while espousing the political narrative the writers like, I think he would be in already.

Pitcher WAR
Mussina 82.8
Glavine 80.7
Schilling 79.5
Smoltz 69.0
Halladay 64.2

[todeen]

Originally Posted by packs

To each their own and there is a fair argument for Schilling but for me personally you've got to put up stronger numbers over a longer period of time for Schilling to be HOF worthy. His stretches of greatness were not so great that they blew the league out of the water.

His case really comes down to his work from 97-99 and 2001, 2002 and 2004. When I look at the seasons he had, I don't see a guy who put Koufax-like numbers that would have you overlook everything before and after.

There are plenty of arguments (that I agree with), that it's hard to compare modern players to players of bygone eras. Especially for pitchers, the stats of wins, complete games, shutouts and innings pitched have all become meaningless compared to pitchers from 30+ years ago. Felix Hernandex is a good example of a modern Sandy Koufax. His career burned bright and then burned out. No one is talking about Felix Hernandez entering the Hall of Fame. If he had retired 3 seasons earlier, would he have been considered hall worthy? The argument now is that he just didn't do enough. When Madison Bumgarner pitched three times in the 2014 WS, people were freaking out. But it wasn't that superhuman compared with bygone eras when some pitchers threw both games of a doubleheader! Bumgarner's career has nose-dived as well. Are his WS feats enough to carry him to enshrinement?

Just making a modern comparison, Clayton Kershaw has just 25 complete games. Curt Schilling had 83! We all talk about Kershaw's future enshrinement, but he hasn't even gone the distance of a complete game in 33% of the games that Schilling did. How would these 50+ games affect Kershaw's loss record, his ERA, walks, WHIP, etc. Kershaw has won 20 games twice, while Schilling did it three times. Kershaw has struck out 300+ batters just once. Schilling did it three times.

If Kershaw has another seven seasons of mediocre pitching (to reach Schilling's 20), battling injuries, will we still talk about him as a hall of fame pitcher? If Kershaw's career follows that of Felix Hernandez, and he becomes worse than a league average pitcher will we still talk about Kershaw as a lock for the hall of fame. Personally, I think Hernandez did enough for the teams he was pitching for, and he should be enshrined.

We have to realign what it means to be a hall of fame pitcher in today's MLB. Yesterday's ideals just aren't working anymore. There will not be another Koufax who puts up superhuman numbers in just 12 seasons. Kershaw is comparable to Koufax. But will Koufax hang up his cleats and call it a career? Are 175 wins enough to be voted in? Or would voters be upset that he didn't pitch longer?

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by G1911

When he tested positive once for "something".

Nope. Players have had positive tests for taking cough medicine with the wrong ingredients. There’s no evidence that Ortiz took PEDs. Unless you think his roly-poly body is evidence.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Ricky

Nope. Players have had positive tests for taking cough medicine with the wrong ingredients. There’s no evidence that Ortiz took PEDs. Unless you think his roly-poly body is evidence.

If test results are not evidence, then there is no evidence that anyone used steroids or that there was a steroid era at all. I eagerly await this standard of evidence being applied to anyone but David Ortiz.

[packs]

Good point on Felix. I just don't see a HOFer in Schilling. Johan wasn't a HOFer either but when you sum up his career you get 2 Cy Youngs, 3 ERA titles, 3 strike out titles and the pitching triple crown. Even though Johan isn't a HOFer, his career highlights sound like a player who was. Schilling doesn't have that. Though he did have considerable postseason success, which does typically tip the scale in favor of a player.

[G1911]

Considering how often the voters blow it, and that many years there are multiple pitchers with Cy Young quality seasons and other years there are none and some one wins it by default, I don't see how this is a good metric.

I'll take Schillling, Mussina or Glavine over Lincecum or Santana easily. The Hall is explicit about measuring career achievement, not single season.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by packs

He didn't win any Cy Youngs, he never led the league in ERA and he was never the best pitcher on any winning team he was on (Randy and Pedro were). Schilling is no more a HOFer than Tim Hudson is. They were both very good but never elite, as evidenced by Schilling's 300 K seasons in which he received no Cy Young votes for one and finished 4th in the other. That should tell you how his contemporaries viewed him as well.

As far as the numbers go I feel like you are looking for reasons to exclude Schilling. His HOF metrics are really all there, there has never been a need to be the absolute best at your position to be an eventual HOFer, it is how guys like Tony Perez (who I love) get in.

I have seen a lot of your posts in the past and it is pretty obvious politically where you are (and there is nothing wrong with that and I am mostly in the same category) but it seems like you just kind of hate Schilling, which is understandable.

[packs]

You don't need to analyze me. I've discussed why I don't think Schilling belongs and there's no politics involved. I think he's a compiler and among the best of them. But I don't generally think compilers belong in the HOF. When I think of the comparable borderline guys of his generation who got in, like Mussina and Halladay, I can't help but see them as being in a much higher class of pitchers than Schilling and those guys weren't slam dunks to get in either. They both did get in, but I think their level is the benchmark for others, and I don't think Schilling was as good as they were.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by packs

You don't need to analyze me. I've discussed why I don't think Schilling belongs and there's no politics involved. I think he's a compiler and among the best of them. But I don't generally think compilers belong in the HOF. When I think of the comparable borderline guys of his generation who got in, like Mussina and Halladay, I can't help but see them as being in a much higher class of pitchers than Schilling and those guys weren't slam dunks to get in either. They both did get in, but I think their level is the benchmark for others, and I don't think Schilling was as good as they were.

Relax man nobody is analyzing you, you just aren’t making a great argument other than that he doesn’t “feel” like a HOFer to you.

You are in the minority if you think Schilling and Mussina (you called him borderline) are not HOF caliber. Your metrics just aren’t the metrics for what it actually takes to get into the HOF. FAR lesser pitchers have made the HOF.

On a side note: It is so much more difficult to be a “compiler” of stats than most think so I have never understood why that term is used derisively. If it was so easy then it would have been don’t more, part of being a great player is lasting and not flaming out like so many have.

[triwak]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

On a side note: It is so much more difficult to be a “compiler” of stats than most think so I have never understood why that term is used derisively. If it was so easy then it would have been don’t more, part of being a great player is lasting and not flaming out like so many have.

THIS!! I have never understood how keeping oneself in playing condition, and continuing to PRODUCE well enough to remain on a big league roster, is somehow a bad thing??? It's a results oriented game, and if you can't make the 25-man, you're out. Compilers are success stories.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by packs

Good point on Felix. I just don't see a HOFer in Schilling. Johan wasn't a HOFer either but when you sum up his career you get 2 Cy Youngs, 3 ERA titles, 3 strike out titles and the pitching triple crown. Even though Johan isn't a HOFer, his career highlights sound like a player who was. Schilling doesn't have that. Though he did have considerable postseason success, which does typically tip the scale in favor of a player.

I actually think that Santana makes it at some point, or at least gets serious consideration. Someone mentioned a “reconsideration” of what a HOF starting pitcher is in the current/recent era...there’s a good chance that when that happens, Santana may be one of the best of his era despite a short career.

[Throttlesteer]

Originally Posted by triwak

THIS!! I have never understood how keeping oneself in playing condition, and continuing to PRODUCE well enough to remain on a big league roster, is somehow a bad thing??? It's a results oriented game, and if you can't make the 25-man, you're out. Compilers are success stories.

Most all-time records are a result of "compilers". Sure, some hold other records as well. But it takes compiling numbers to be the "All-time xxxxx leader".

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Throttlesteer

Most all-time records are a result of "compilers". Sure, some hold other records as well. But it takes compiling numbers to be the "All-time xxxxx leader".

And it’s really hard to be a compiler if you’re not very good.

Besides, 20 years of 120 hits and a .240 BA doesn’t a HOFer make!

[packs]

I think it's possible to be a compiler and not be all that great. Jamie Moyer is a good example. He has 269 wins and a 4.25 career ERA and gave up the most home runs in major league history while pitching for 25 seasons. But he's still number 35 all time on the win list.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

I think it's possible to be a compiler and not be all that great. Jamie Moyer is a good example. He has 269 wins and a 4.25 career ERA and gave up the most home runs in major league history while pitching for 25 seasons.

Nobody is trying to put Moyer in the Hall, but being 3% better than the league's ERA for 25 years and 4,000 innings in a low-inning era is a marvelous achievement.

[packs]

I'm not saying he's a HOFer. I'm just pointing out there are guys who hang around and put up some big numbers in the end.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by packs

I'm not saying he's a HOFer. I'm just pointing out there are guys who hang around and put up some big numbers in the end.

Guys like that are rare, but sure make baseball fandom more fun.

Interestingly, BB-R has Moyer at 49.8 WAR in over 4,000 IP. Santana at 51.7 in roughly half the innings total.

[G1911]

I remain unclear how a 127 ERA+ and the 2nd best among all retired pitchers in K/W ration is a compiler. Schilling's IP is on the lower end of the HOF scale. If he is a compiler, one cannot come up with more than maybe 20-25 pitchers with good careers that are not compilers.

[packs]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Relax man nobody is analyzing you, you just aren’t making a great argument other than that he doesn’t “feel” like a HOFer to you.

What's wrong with "feel"? Isn't feel a big reason players like Edgar Martinez and Vlad get in? If you look at B-R, none of Vlad's HOF WAR or JAWS figures measure up to averages but if you saw Vlad play, he felt like a HOFer, at least to me. I always felt like I was watching one. Larry Walker too.

Re: Schilling and compiling. The number I'm referring to is the 3,000 K's. It's a magic number for pitchers (except Clemens; CC and Verlander not yet eligible for voting). I understand all the reasons for him and the 3,000 K's I think is a big one for him, along with his postseason performance. I just didn't think he was a HOFer. It's fine with me if he does get in.

[Misunderestimated]

To me Schilling is a HOFer based on his Peak and his Post-season performance. His wins are low even for the era. He is one of the great post-season pitchers 11-2 - ERA 2.23 -- 4-1 World Series ERA 2.06 in 7 starts.... Great numbers given when he pitched. All and all he's probably better on the merits than most of inducted Starting Pitchers

He's not getting in because of the "character clause." He courted the problem with outspoken statements against the writers (electors)... According to Jay Jaffe's marvelous Cooperstown CasebookSchilling has long public feuds with big times sportswriters dating back to his career... when he didn't get votes he immediately claimed he was not getting in because he was an outspoken conservative.....Before the 2016 election he retweeted something that advocated lynching journalists (he later claimed it was "sarcasm")... Before he offered his "sarcasm" explanation/excuse some journalists belonging to the BBWAA (i.e. voter) had written that this had jettisoned Schilling's candidacy under the character clause. Schilling's vote dropped in 2017...

I wrote above that I would vote for him on the "merits" of his career. Still, I see why writers who like to use the "character clause" to keep players in or out for other things, like presumed PED use.