Former Philadelphia Phillies pitcher Curt Schilling may have been trending upward in this year’s Baseball Hall of Fame voting, but he remains on the waiting list for at least one more year. After missing the cut for a second straight season, Schilling seems to think the vote is all about politics.
“The process isn’t flawed; stupid people do stupid things,” Schilling said in an interview with Boston sports radio station WEEI. “I’ve seen so many in the past, voters making their vote into a news article, protesting this or protesting that, except just voting the player on his playing merits. And that’s normal, I guess, because we’re human, we all have bias, we all have prejudice. When Pedro gets 91 percent, that tells you something’s wrong.”
Schilling is not wrong here. The growing need for voters to pump their chests out in their baseball columns for why they voted for a player or not or why they just didn’t vote at all has become routine, especially in recent years with players from the steroid age of the game starting to go through the voting process. Bob Brookover of The Philadelphia Inquirer announced in full detail why he is boycotting the entire process this year.
The steroid era of baseball has resurfaced to cause plenty of debates, but that is not even the political attitude Schilling is referring to. He is literally talking about politics when asked to explain why he was left out of the Hall of Fame this year and Atlanta Braves pitcher John Smoltz was voted in.
“I think he got in because of [Greg Maddux] and [Tom Glavine]. I think the fact that they won 14 straight pennants. I think his ‘Swiss army knife versatility,’ which somebody said yesterday, I think he got a lot of accolades for that, I think he got a lot of recognition for that. He’s a Hall of Famer,” Schilling said, again during his interview with WEEI. Here’s the kicker.
“And I think the other big thing is that I think he’s a Democrat and so I know that, as a Republican, that there’s some people that really don’t like that.”
Schilling went on to explain that if he had been “more mainstream in his beliefs and less outspoken and controversial” with his opinions, then he would have received more votes, whether that would have been enough to gain entrance to the Hall of Fame or not. In fairness, he might be right about that to a certain extent. Schilling has always been one of the more vocal players out there, and his willingness to talk into a microphone has sometimes been good and bad in terms of public perception, depending on his thoughts.
I will say this about Schilling though. I remember him voluntarily calling up The Morning Show on 610 WIP back during his Phillies days. Schilling always had an opinion, and I respect that about him. Always have. Always will. I may disagree with some of his opinions and beliefs, but I certainly will never hold it against him for thinking and believing and saying what he says. But when the voters for the Hall of Fame are the writers, we know that some are going to hold things against players based on personal bias and opinions. It happens. But Schilling said it best when appearing on MLB Network on Tuesday in saying you’re either a Hall of Famer or you are not.If Schilling is deserving of a spot in Cooperstown, it will not politics that end up keeping him out.
If Schilling is deserving of a spot in Cooperstown, it will not politics that end up keeping him out.
Tip of the cap to Hardball Talk and Awful Announcing.
Add The Sports Daily to your Google News Feed!
