First of all, anyone who has ever read anything he’s written knows that Dan Shaughnessy is a) a terrible writer and b) a dummy. His take on Curt Schilling confirms both of my above points. He said he isn’t voting for Curt Schilling for the Hall of Fame. Here’s the excerpt from his column in the Globe:
“I have held my nose and voted for the Big Blowhard in recent years (11-2 in postseason, ridiculous walk/strikeout ratio), and he was up to 52.3 percent (75 percent required) last year, but I shall invoke the “character” clause this year. Schill has transitioned from a mere nuisance to an actual menace to society. His tweet supporting the lynching of journalists was the last straw for this voter. Curt later claimed he was joking. Swell”


Riiiiiiiiiiight. He can’t honestly think that Schilling wanted someone lynched can he? Is he that PC that he needs a safe space because Curt Schilling said a mean thing on twitter? Grow up Dan. I mean honestly. You want to invoke the “character” clause? Well when he was playing he won a Roberto Clemente award. So obviously his character was up to par then.
Beyond that, his numbers make him a Hall of Famer. Schilling was very good in the regular season. He was 216-146 with a 3.46 ERA and 3,116 strikeouts. Those numbers don’t make him a lock, but definitely put him the conversation. The kicker for his case? October. When the lights were brightest, he was at his best.
In 19 postseason starts, Schilling went 11-2 with a 2.23 ERA. He also came home with three World Series rings. Is that good? He was a very good pitcher for his whole career, but he was in a league of his own when it came to the postseason.
If Dan Shaughnessy thinks that a couple of tweets trump a Hall of Fame career, he shouldn’t be allowed to vote for the Hall of Fame. You can’t vote and not vote for people baised on whether you like them or dislike them. You have to vote for the best, and Curt was one of the best. Period. End of discussion.

–Prent

Advertisements