Yesterday, in part one of our Sports Media 101's Hall of Fame vote series, we unveiled two players that, according to our baseball writers, were elected into the Baseball Hall of Fame in Craig Biggio and Mike Piazza. Today in part two, I will unveil the full results of our vote and post some comments by some of the writers, both for and against voting for some of the players who didn't get in.
If you read part one yesterday, then you know one player fell just one vote shy of being elected to the Hall of Fame in our Sports Media 101's baseball writers vote. That player, who probably rides a more impressive postseason resumé than regular season, is Curt Schilling. Schilling posted 216 career wins in 20 seasons with a 3.46 ERA and 3,116 strike outs. As I mentioned before, his postseason performance is what a lot of people feel garner him a spot in the hall as he was 11-2 in 19 postseason starts with a 2.23 ERA. Although he never won a Cy Young award, he did finish second three times. I will not shy away from my ballot, I did not vote for Curt Schilling. I did not not vote for him because I believe used PED's, I didn't vote for him because I do not believe he has Hall of Fame caliber numbers. Did you know there are 70 pitchers in the Hall of Fame and only nine of them have a career ERA over 3.46? It is undeniable that he was a big game pitcher, but I honestly believe that he is not a Hall of Famer.
Here are some other comments on Schilling from our baseball writers:
Schilling is an underrated Hall of Fame candidate who won 216 games in his career with a career 3.46 ERA. Schilling missed out on the chance for some wins by pitching on some bad teams in his early career, but he should receive credit for being one of the most dominant pitchers of his time. Schilling was another brilliant post season pitcher, going 11-2 with a 2.23 career postseason ERA. Schilling won a championship with the Diamondbacks and two with the Red Sox, giving him three rings to go along with six All Star Appearances. Schilling was never implicated of steroid use but his prickly relationship with the media may cost him first ballot status.
Multiple championships, one of the best big game pitchers of our era.
A 3-time World Champion and one of the most clutch postseason pitchers in his era (11-2, 2.23 ERA). He dominated on the mound as one of the best power pitchers of his day (3,116 strike outs). 216 wins and could have had more. There are suspicions, yet no hard evidence or accusations about Schilling.
Of course the two guys that were the most debated of this ballot were Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens and as you can tell, neither got enough votes by our writers to get elected or even beat Schilling. Later you will see just where these guys fell in the final results, but let's take a look at some of the comments on these guys from our writers.
I put Bonds in first ballot based on his career before what many called the "steroid era" that started sometime around 1994-1998. Bonds was already one of the games best players. Did he cheat? Yes. Are his numbers inflated? Yes. Would he have gotten in without cheating? Yes. At the end of the strike shortened season of 1994, Bonds' averaged .286/29 HR/85 RBIs. Push that to before the 1998 season, the year of the McGwire/Sosa chase, and Bonds numbers go to .289/31/91. Before the steroid era he was a 7-time All-Star and 3 time MVP. Steroids or not, he's a Hall of Famer.
Was incredible with the Pirates and became a masher as a San Francisco Giants. Was unpitchable.
Multiple Cy Young's, incredible playoff performances pre old-age, most intimidating pitcher of our time.
I put Clemens in for the same reason I put in Bonds. His numbers were good before the Steroids. It's a shame for both Bonds and Clemens that they felt they needed to cheat to become great, because they already were. I'll look at only his time in Boston, as he has been accused as early as his time with Toronto in 1997. Going into the 1997 season Clemens already had piled up 192 wins and 2,590 strikeouts. he also had 4 Cy Young awards and an MVP. That's just in Boston, where most believe up until that point he was clean. At that point already, he is a Hall of Famer.
As you can see there was some support for these two guys, much more so than Sammy Sosa, who only got one vote, but let's see some comments regarding the hot topic issue of steroids and PED's and they effected some of our voters.
My take on the question of whether suspected PED users should be voted in: definitely not on the first ballot, if at all. For the sake of the future of MLB, send a strong message that PED use could jeopardize one's chances of getting into the HOF.I'm putting in everybody deserves it based on their numbers and numbers alone. Everyone with steroid allegations of any sort should have that detailed on their bust.As a preface for my ballot, I am not electing anyone with steroid ties to the Hall of Fame. I take the tact that steroids is as bad as gambling for baseball. Therefore, it would not be right to elect the steroid guys and leave Pete Rose out. Either they all go in or they all stay out, and in my case they all stay out.
- Craig Biggio – 82%
- Mike Piazza – 82%
- Curt Schilling – 72%
- Jack Morris – 64%
- Barry Bonds – 55%
- Roger Clemens – 55%
- Jeff Bagwell – 55%
- Tim Raines – 55%
- Rafael Palmeiro – 19%
- Edgar Martinez – 19%
- Dale Murphy – 9%
- Don Mattingly – 9%
- Fred McGriff – 9%
- Sandy Alomar – 9%
- Kenny Lofton – 9%
- Mark McGwire – 9%
- Sammy Sosa -9%
- Allan Trammell – 9%
What do you think of our first annual Sports Media 101's baseball writers Hall of Fame vote results? Did we elect anyone not deserving? Should we have elected someone who wasn't? Let your voice be heard by posting a comment.
No related posts.
Short URL: http://sport-ne.ws/opq