2021 BBWAA HOF Ballot

[JimH5]

There aren't any clear cut first ballot guys on this year's writers ballot.

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2021.shtml

 

The ballot:

 

Curt Schilling

Roger Clemens

Barry Bonds

Omar Vizquel

Scott Rolen

Billy Wagner

Gary Sheffield

Todd Helton

Manny Ramirez

Jeff Kent

Andruw Jones

Sammy Sosa

Andy Pettitte

Bobby Abreu

 

Mark Buehrle

AJ Burnett

Michael Cuddyer

Dan Haren

Latroy Hawkins

Tim Hudson

Torii Hunter

Aramis Ramirez

Nick Swisher

Shane Victorino

Barry Zito

 

According to the HOF website, there will not be any Special Era (Veterans) Committee candidates considered this year. They will resume in December, 2021 with both the Golden Days (1950-69) committee and Early Baseball (prior to 1950) committee scheduled to meet.

 

My ballot for this year would include Schilling, Vizquel, Kent, Wagner and Pettitte.

[PeaveyFury]

Agreed, much harder than in previous years. My ballot is Helton and Rolen.

[LouisEly]

While he's a bit of a nut job, Schilling has some pretty impressive stats. Career bWAR is 26th all-time for pitchers, and has the best career K:BB ratio of any pitcher with at least 3000 K's. His 83 career complete games, including 15 in 1998, is pretty impressive for the post-1990 era.

 

Take away the off-the-field stuff, and Schilling is a shoe-in for the hall.

[owbc]

It's much harder to find 10 than it was a couple of years ago, but I managed to do it.

 

Four easy ones (I'm in the 'let them in' camp except for Sosa)

Bonds

Clemens

Schilling

Rolen

 

Next tier (probably should get in but fine if they don't):

A. Jones

Manny Ramirez

Helton

 

Third tier (probably shouldn't get in but would like to keep on the ballot):

Buehrle

Tim Hudson

Bobby Abreu

[djoctagone]

who are your picks?

[djoctagone]

no candidates meet the 75% threshold to be inducted.

[owbc]

no candidates meet the 75% threshold to be inducted.

 

For the best I think. Having just Schilling inducted would be a bit of a PR nightmare...

[nate82]

no candidates meet the 75% threshold to be inducted.

 

sigh Bonds and Clemens should be in and you can make a strong case for Wagner also.

[Outlander]

For the best I think. Having just Schilling inducted would be a bit of a PR nightmare...

No way, not having Bonds and Clemens in the HOF is just silly. Hopefully the voters punishing them vote them in their final year.

[wntrtxn21]

For the best I think. Having just Schilling inducted would be a bit of a PR nightmare...

No way, not having Bonds and Clemens in the HOF is just silly. Hopefully the voters punishing them vote them in their final year.

 

I think the only way Bonds-Clemens-Schilling get in is through the vets voting way down the road.

[logan82]

It is ridiculous to assume some in the late 90's and early 2000's were on steroids while some were clean and players before or after were not. Everyone is trying to get a competitive advantage and the cheaters are always going to be ahead of the testers. Just vote in the best performers from the time they played and be done. We all know about the steroid era.

[HiAndTight]

It is ridiculous to assume some in the late 90's and early 2000's were on steroids while some were clean and players before or after were not. Everyone is trying to get a competitive advantage and the cheaters are always going to be ahead of the testers. Just vote in the best performers from the time they played and be done. We all know about the steroid era.

 

 

 

Sure, all that, but when you've got one player in Bonds where you can if not pinpoint when he started taking steroids at least make a pretty educated guess, you can look at the type of player he was without them.

 

He had two HOF careers 1986-1999 and then 2000-2007, one in which he was like a god and the other...he won 3 MVPs and some historically great seasons when it's pretty fair to assume he wasn't on steroids.

Same with Clemens, though it's much more difficult to guess when he started, I believe the assumption is when he went to the Blue Jays.

So even if you want to throw out what they did on steroids and ignore that a significant pct of players in that era were juiced, they both did plenty the first half of their careers to get in.

 

 

Also, I can at least understand not voting guys in for 'cheating the game.' It's a hellua lot better than not voting for Jeter because he "wasn't clutch."

[TURBO]

If you let those turds in, then you have to let Pete Rose in as well...

 

I'm fine with not letting guys like Bonds in who so blatantly cheated the game with roids.

 

Should Rose get in based on his playing days only? I say yes, but it seems a bit hypocritical on my part to say that.

 

What about Shoeless Joe Jackson? His career was stellar, HOF worthy without a doubt. Should he get in based on his career before the scandal?

[StearnsFTW]

Rolen

Schilling

 

That's it for me.

 

Edit: Just looked at Schilling's numbers. He's very iffy to me too. I'd probably just vote Rolen.

[pacopete4]

Let them all in and make it known of their "scandals" or shortcomings towards the game. Why sportswriters are the gatekeepers to that HOF is mystifying to me anyway. Curt Schilling is a turd in my personal opinion but not voting him to the HOF because of political feelings is abusrd.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I'm not sure Schilling is the automatic in he seems to think he is. He's not Pedro Martinez. He's not someone I would say "He's in the HOF? No way!" But he's not Clemens to me.

 

The little campaign he has going seems like an attempt to divert attention away from his possibly borderline career and make it seem like that's the ONLY reason he wouldn't get voted in.

 

In addition to that, the HOF does have a character clause, and it's not anything new. We can argue the merits of that (Ty Cobb is in after all) but there is a precedent for this. I'd also add that this is beyond political views and I don't want to go too far down that rabbit hole, but some of things Curt has said steer quite a ways away from politics and into an uglier realm.

 

Bonds and Clemens should be there to me, because Bonds can make a case for being the greatest player ever pre-doping. I am OK if the voters disagree, I don't lose sleep over it.

 

Rose, I am completely indifferent. He has a worse argument than anybody. I am admittedly more receptive to doping than most, but Rose is scum and I don't really care if he's there or not.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Let them all in and make it known of their "scandals" or shortcomings towards the game. Why sportswriters are the gatekeepers to that HOF is mystifying to me anyway. Curt Schilling is a turd in my personal opinion but not voting him to the HOF because of political feelings is abusrd.

 

Is Schilling a HOF pitcher, though? He has 216 wins all time, which ranks 86th, tied with luminaries such as Charlie Hough and Wilber Cooper, who are not in the Hall of Fame. His career ERA of 3.46, while good, is not elite considering the era he played in. Yes, he had some clutch moments in his career ... some transcendent ones even. But is that enough to overcome career numbers that are good, but arguably not great?

[djoctagone]

I'd also add that this is beyond political views and I don't want to go too far down that rabbit hole, but some of things Curt has said steer quite a ways away from politics and into an uglier realm.

they're not political views. they're social (or societal) views. but i prefer social, just as i prefer social correctness over political correctness.

[pacopete4]

Let them all in and make it known of their "scandals" or shortcomings towards the game. Why sportswriters are the gatekeepers to that HOF is mystifying to me anyway. Curt Schilling is a turd in my personal opinion but not voting him to the HOF because of political feelings is abusrd.

 

Is Schilling a HOF pitcher, though? He has 216 wins all time, which ranks 86th, tied with luminaries such as Charlie Hough and Wilber Cooper, who are not in the Hall of Fame. His career ERA of 3.46, while good, is not elite considering the era he played in. Yes, he had some clutch moments in his career ... some transcendent ones even. But is that enough to overcome career numbers that are good, but arguably not great?

 

That is fine if that is the argument. But is it the actual argument?

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Let them all in and make it known of their "scandals" or shortcomings towards the game. Why sportswriters are the gatekeepers to that HOF is mystifying to me anyway. Curt Schilling is a turd in my personal opinion but not voting him to the HOF because of political feelings is abusrd.

 

Is Schilling a HOF pitcher, though? He has 216 wins all time, which ranks 86th, tied with luminaries such as Charlie Hough and Wilber Cooper, who are not in the Hall of Fame. His career ERA of 3.46, while good, is not elite considering the era he played in. Yes, he had some clutch moments in his career ... some transcendent ones even. But is that enough to overcome career numbers that are good, but arguably not great?

 

That is fine if that is the argument. But is it the actual argument?

 

Schilling is trying very hard to make sure it isn't.

[HiAndTight]

I'm not sure Schilling is the automatic in he seems to think he is. He's not Pedro Martinez. He's not someone I would say "He's in the HOF? No way!" But he's not Clemens to me.

 

The little campaign he has going seems like an attempt to divert attention away from his possibly borderline career and make it seem like that's the ONLY reason he wouldn't get voted in.

 

In addition to that, the HOF does have a character clause, and it's not anything new. We can argue the merits of that (Ty Cobb is in after all) but there is a precedent for this. I'd also add that this is beyond political views and I don't want to go too far down that rabbit hole, but some of things Curt has said steer quite a ways away from politics and into an uglier realm.

 

Bonds and Clemens should be there to me, because Bonds can make a case for being the greatest player ever pre-doping. I am OK if the voters disagree, I don't lose sleep over it.

 

Rose, I am completely indifferent. He has a worse argument than anybody. I am admittedly more receptive to doping than most, but Rose is scum and I don't really care if he's there or not.

 

I'm sure this has made the rounds before, but I hate how one drunk wrote a book of fiction and made Cobb "THE bad guy" in Baseball.

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/43506-ty-cobb-was-not-a-racist

 

I'm not sure what the whole story is...but I think it's fair to say he's not the crazy racist who was MORE racist than the average big leaguer in the early 20th century.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Let them all in and make it known of their "scandals" or shortcomings towards the game. Why sportswriters are the gatekeepers to that HOF is mystifying to me anyway. Curt Schilling is a turd in my personal opinion but not voting him to the HOF because of political feelings is abusrd.

 

Is Schilling a HOF pitcher, though? He has 216 wins all time, which ranks 86th, tied with luminaries such as Charlie Hough and Wilber Cooper, who are not in the Hall of Fame. His career ERA of 3.46, while good, is not elite considering the era he played in. Yes, he had some clutch moments in his career ... some transcendent ones even. But is that enough to overcome career numbers that are good, but arguably not great?

 

That is fine if that is the argument. But is it the actual argument?

 

Yeah, I think it is. I don't remember much about Schilling being a dirtball during his career. The off-the-wall character stuff seemingly didn't show up until long after he retired (I could be wrong there, though ... not going down the Schilling character rabbit hole). I don't really think these guys should be judged so much for how they conduct themselves following the end of their playing careers. I'm not even really sure how much they should be judged on the character they displayed during their careers.

 

Schilling was a fine pitcher during his career, and the fact that he stuck around for 20 years as an MLB pitcher is admirable. His numbers just don't jump off the page, though, at least to me.

[HiAndTight]

Schilling is trying very hard to make sure it isn't.

 

 

Schilling being Schilling.

 

If you can separate the pitcher from ALL the things he's said or done, I think he probably should get in on the strength of his post-season success, but...hey, if he wants to be a clown and ask that he be removed, don't disappoint him.

 

To be clear...that's not political. He's said and done plenty of obnoxious things that I don't even need to consider his political views.

[TURBO]

I'm not sure Schilling is the automatic in he seems to think he is. He's not Pedro Martinez. He's not someone I would say "He's in the HOF? No way!" But he's not Clemens to me.

 

The little campaign he has going seems like an attempt to divert attention away from his possibly borderline career and make it seem like that's the ONLY reason he wouldn't get voted in.

 

In addition to that, the HOF does have a character clause, and it's not anything new. We can argue the merits of that (Ty Cobb is in after all) but there is a precedent for this. I'd also add that this is beyond political views and I don't want to go too far down that rabbit hole, but some of things Curt has said steer quite a ways away from politics and into an uglier realm.

 

Bonds and Clemens should be there to me, because Bonds can make a case for being the greatest player ever pre-doping. I am OK if the voters disagree, I don't lose sleep over it.

 

Rose, I am completely indifferent. He has a worse argument than anybody. I am admittedly more receptive to doping than most, but Rose is scum and I don't really care if he's there or not.

 

I'm sure this has made the rounds before, but I hate how one drunk wrote a book of fiction and made Cobb "THE bad guy" in Baseball.

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/43506-ty-cobb-was-not-a-racist

 

I'm not sure what the whole story is...but I think it's fair to say he's not the crazy racist who was MORE racist than the average big leaguer in the early 20th century.

 

I've seen this before and it is pretty irritating that he got that rep unwarranted.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I've also read the Cobb bio, my point was that he got in despite that reputation. It's safe say when he was elected for the Hall most voters had that view of him and put him in anyway.