St. Francis Prep, CliffsNotes, and MLB's Hall of Fame

Imagine it is 1999 and you are in St. Francis Prep preparing for one of Mr. Goodwin or Mr. Claro’s infamous English exams.

This semester, Claro plans to test you on The Great Gatsby, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, and A Catcher in the Rye.

You have always been a good English student so you prepare for these exams as you normally would: you read each novel thoroughly, take extensive notes, and study your notes before each test. 

As usual, your hard work leads to good grades.  However, you notice that your peers are scoring similar grades to you with far less effort.  Even notoriously poor students have become English experts.

Suddenly, a dummy who struggles to turn on a light is explaining Gatsby’s green light.

You sense something is amiss and one day your suspicions are confirmed.  Yellow books known as CliffsNotes have infiltrated the school, from west top to east bottom, and revolutionized the way your classmates are studying.

Some students are using CliffsNotes in lieu of reading a book, some students are using them in adjunction to reading the book, and some students did not use them at all.

Usage also varied in frequency.

Some students used them with every book, some students used them with some of the books, and some students never used them with any books.

CliffsNotes became part of Prep's culture.

Poor students utilized CliffsNotes to narrow the gap between their superior peers.   Once relieved to avoid summer school, these students were now filling up honors classes.  Their parents were never more proud.

The increased GPA’s of their unintelligent contemporaries forced honors students into moral dilemmas.  “If I know that I am one of the best English student in SFP without CliffsNotes, do I let some Joe Schmo (or Stro? or Fro? #nodiss) take away my spot in an honors class when the entire student body knows that I am the smartest English student here?”

Suddenly, the honors students began using CliffsNotes too.

Elite before using CliffsNotes, by simply leveling the playing field, these students were attaining never-before-seen heights in the English department.  Prep cashed in on the wave of excitement generated by these extraordinary students, raising tuition nearly double in ten years.

Prep never knew for sure which students used CliffsNotes and which students did not.  More importantly, they did not care.

Increased class participation added value to class discussions that may have otherwise not existed.  The improved English grades made Prep look spectacular.

But slowly, the excitement of the “CliffsNotes Era”—as later deemed by future writers of the Seraph— began to die down.

A decade passes and Prep concludes that there is a CliffsNotes problem on its premises.  They enforce definitive rules prohibiting CliffsNotes while imposing penalties against any student who uses them from this point forward.

This would be a noble effort by Prep’s hierarchy; however, its bearing on students who used CliffsNotes prior to this legal language should be nonexistent.

Were the accomplishments of students who learned during the “CliffsNotes Era” legitimate?  Of course! Their grades still count.  Their diplomas are still valid.

Prep’s administration cannot justify erasing an entire era of student accomplishments out of embarrassment that their employees dragged their heels when confronting the issue.  It is disingenuous at best.  It’s not like Mr. Williams is being asked to give back his 1999 salary.

Had Prep’s concerns about CliffsNotes usage been legitimate, they would have made a better effort to rid the school of them as their prevalence increased.

For years, Channel One ignored the ‘CliffsNotes Era’; now, every day, a new reporter hops aboard his or her moral high horse to diminish what SFP’s students once accomplished.

Never mind the fact that Wikipedia estimates that 2/3 of students as early as 1900 were academically cheating in some fashion or another. For Prep to assume that students from these eras would not have used CliffsNotes had they been available at that time is laughable.

As such, the valedictorian of the Class of 2002 needs no asterisk.  He or she should take her rightful place amongst the great graduates in St. Francis Prep history, no questions asked.  Their legacy should remain unquestioned, their greatness undisputed.

Future generations of Terriers deserve as much.


Nick Xouris’s 2014 HOF Ballot:
Jeff Bagwell, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mike Piazza, Curt Schilling,
Tim Raines, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Frank Thomas, Greg Maddux

Is Curt Schilling a Hall of Famer?

Hall of Fame arguments usually annoy me.

Outdated benchmarks, subjective criteria, and baseball writers on moral high horses have turned Cooperstown into a circus. An entire generation of great baseball players—stars like Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, Mike Piazza, and Sammy Sosa—are likely to be denied entrance in spite of their on-field achievements. Apparently, in this strange Hall of Fame universe, their accomplishments never occurred.

So of course, each time that a player of significance retires, the inevitable “Is he a Hall of Famer?” discussion follows. The same was true yesterday, when Curt Schilling announced his retirement from baseball after 20 seasons.

Assuming that Schilling stays true to his word—my gut still tells me that he’ll be pitching in Chicago or Tampa Bay this summer—he will be eligible for the Hall of Fame in 2013. (Schilling’s retirement is retroactive to 2007 because he was injured for all of 2008) 2013 is also the first year of HOF eligibility for Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, and Sosa, each of whom is heavily suspected of steroid use. Baseball writers will undoubtedly have a field day with this class.

So while I usually avoid the “Is he in or is he out?” arguments, Schilling’s case is far too fascinating to ignore.

Schill finished his career with 216 wins, 146 losses, 3116 strikeouts, a 3.46 ERA, and a 1.13 WHIP. He won 20 games three times; in 1997, he won 17 with the worst team in the National League. Among all pitchers with at least 1,500 innings, Schilling has the best strikeout-to-walk ratio. He struck out 300+ batters three times. In 2002, while striking out 316, Schilling walked just 32 hitters.

On the surface level, his career totals may not scream Cooperstown. However, the Hall of Fame criteria that today’s pitchers are evaluated against is nonsensical and outdated.

Writers have long assigned “magic numbers” for players to attain that reward longevity and perseverance, while ignoring dominance. The magic numbers are inherently flawed as they are based on the standards of a previous era—one in which, does not resemble today’s game in the slightest.

For example, baseball’s magic pitching number is 300 wins. A starting pitcher who wins 300 games has always been assured a spot in Cooperstown. This standard may have worked in the 60s and 70s but it is archaic today.

In today’s game, pitchers get hurt far too frequently, do not throw often enough (expansion to 5-man rotations has limited # of games started), and do not throw deep into enough games (pitch counts have limited # of decisions awarded to starters) make 300 wins a Hall of Fame standard, for even the best pitchers.

Take any 300 game winner and compare his innings pitched, games started, and complete games to Schilling. Most, if not all, have roughly 2000 more innings pitched, 250-300 more games started, and 100-200 more complete games. And Schilling was considered a horse of his era! How is he supposed to compare win totals with pitchers who threw the equivalent of ten more 200 inning seasons than him?

More importantly, Schilling’s production occurred during the greatest offensive era in baseball history. His ERA was nearly a full run lower than league average throughout his career. The earned run averages of lesser pitchers in the Hall of Fame like Phil Neikro, Nolan Ryan, Steve Carlton, Don Sutton, and Gaylord Perry each hovered around their league’s averages throughout their careers. Carlton’s 2.99 ERA in 1968, when the league ERA was 2.90 should never be considered as impressive as Schilling’s 3.54 ERA in 1999, when league average was 4.80.

And as critics discredit the batting statistics of today’s juiced up era, shouldn’t the opposite be done for pitchers? Shouldn’t a pitcher like Schilling, a longtime advocate for steroid testing, be given credit for pitching in the greatest offensive era of all time? Wouldn’t this make sense?

And lastly, the most important aspect of Schilling’s inclusion to Cooperstown: His post-season resume. Schilling is arguably the greatest playoff pitcher in baseball history. His 11-2 record and 2.23 ERA are the best among pitchers with 100+ postseason innings. Schill pitched in four World Series, winning three championships. His teams are 10-2 in series that he pitched in.

Take any Hall of Fame starting pitcher from this era. Would you want him on the mound over Schilling in a Game 7? Didn’t think so.

Curt Schilling will be a case study for baseball writers still clinging to prehistoric Hall of Fame standards for modern pitchers. He will be the first great pitcher of the steroid era, unsuspected of steroid use, to receive HoF eligibility with career numbers indicative of a new generation of pitchers. It is up to the voters to be cognizant of this fact.

Schilling deserves his day in Cooperstown as part of the 2013 class. The only question that remains: Will Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens be there to share it with him?

http://thebasebox.blogspot.com/