Curt Schilling says the haters kept him out of the HOF because he's republican

[rightwinger]

We have two notoroious agenda driven 'doubters' who have not offered any reasonable explanations for why a guy with slightly better numbers and accolades would get 39 percent of the vote in his third year of eligibility while the other guy would get induction with 82 percent of the vote in his first year of eligibility.

So, with regards to your guys's doubts, I'll paraphrase Clark Gable__ Frankly bitches, I don't give a damn!

Because Smoltz was a better pitcher through most of his career

Shilling is comparing his career numbers to a guy who gave up four years as a starter to go to the bullpen. Smoltz was also a great reliever

 

[rightwinger]

I'm not even a Republican, dude. The facts speak for themselves. The media shat upon Schilling. That's not even debatable.

I am still looking for any indication that sports writers are liberals

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yea, that's not an explanation, let alone a reasonable explanation. You got nothing as usual.

You are suffering confirmation bias, which means you are a homer. I do understand. I am that way about the LAD Dodgers since, this summer 56 years ago, I watched Koufax strike out 18 Giants, rookie Willie McCovey hit a home run 450 feet to dead center, and Wally Moon win it with a 3-run home in the bottom of the 9th. I don't agree with you about Schilling or Smoltz, but who cares?

You're deflection about an alleged bias does not substitute for a reason. The numbers don't lie. Schilling and Smoltz are virtually the same player. The only biases you should be discussing is that of the voters. But instead, you'd rather be your phony ole self.

Your bias remains quite clear. The HOF vote is a good one. No they are not the same player. Would much rather have had Smoltz and let you have CS.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Yea, that's not an explanation, let alone a reasonable explanation. You got nothing as usual.

You are suffering confirmation bias, which means you are a homer. I do understand. I am that way about the LAD Dodgers since, this summer 56 years ago, I watched Koufax strike out 18 Giants, rookie Willie McCovey hit a home run 450 feet to dead center, and Wally Moon win it with a 3-run home in the bottom of the 9th. I don't agree with you about Schilling or Smoltz, but who cares?

You're deflection about an alleged bias does not substitute for a reason. The numbers don't lie. Schilling and Smoltz are virtually the same player. The only biases you should be discussing is that of the voters. But instead, you'd rather be your phony ole self.

Your bias remains quite clear. The HOF vote is a good one. No they are not the same player. Would much rather have had Smoltz and let you have CS.

This isn't a fantasy draft. You haven't given a real reason for the discrepancy because there is none. So, stop talking about some alleged bias like a dumbass; and give real reasoning or stfu.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I'm not even a Republican, dude. The facts speak for themselves. The media shat upon Schilling. That's not even debatable.

I am still looking for any indication that sports writers are liberals

I don't know how liberal or conservative sports writers are; and it typically doesn't matter all that much. What they are though is human. And they know that their cohorts and bosses are liberals; and they're going to typically err along the lines of not pissing them off. And why wouldn't they? Why would they want to do anything that would fuck up their cushy gigs?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

We have two notoroious agenda driven 'doubters' who have not offered any reasonable explanations for why a guy with slightly better numbers and accolades would get 39 percent of the vote in his third year of eligibility while the other guy would get induction with 82 percent of the vote in his first year of eligibility.

So, with regards to your guys's doubts, I'll paraphrase Clark Gable__ Frankly bitches, I don't give a damn!

Because Smoltz was a better pitcher through most of his career

Shilling is comparing his career numbers to a guy who gave up four years as a starter to go to the bullpen. Smoltz was also a great reliever

I could break out the numbers and easily refute this; I'm sure you know it's nonsense though. You can compare these pitchers at any point in their career and you won't see Smoltz as ever so the better pitcher. Heck, even when the Braves were at the height of their success, there was always at least three really good to great pitchers (Smoltz, Avery, Glavine, Maddux). Schilling took the Phils to the series as a solo act. And he and Johnson bulldozed the Yanks in a way that Glavine/Smoltz or Smoltz/Maddux could never do.

 

[DGS49]

Unfortunately, it's a popularity contest and Schilling is not very likeable, unlike Smoltz.

Footnotally, I will add that the Braves achieved much of their success through a brilliant strategy of legally cheating. They realized when no one else did that when a catcher catches the ball without moving his glove the umpire will almost always call it a strike. Braves catchers would consistently set up outside the strikezone, where the ball was thrown, and they got thousands of strike calls on outside pitches for a decade or more. Batters were forced to choose between swinging at outside pitches - usually at the knees, or letting them go and having them called strikes. Good teams, but not as good as their record indicates.