2021 HOF Ballot

[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.]

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.

[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?