THE Hall of Fame this year and next:

[riggs336]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

If nobody gets voted in this years...which looks possible, next years ballot will included:

[B]Schilling, Bonds and Clemens in their 10th and last year on the ballot.



.

Well, as you surmised, no one got in. It will be tough for Bonds and Clemens to pick up over 50 votes next year. Schilling might make it.

[Mike D.]

Of note that Schilling said some pretty unpopular things AFTER voting was over this year...probably doesn’t bode well for next year.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Of note that Schilling said some pretty unpopular things AFTER voting was over this year...probably doesn’t bode well for next year.

Honestly I dont think that should matter, nor should a persons voting record or who the stump for politically. Pragmatism of voters should look past that kind of thing and doesnt fall into the purview of the moral clause as who is to dictate who someone can vote for? Say you replace the "issues" with Schilling over to Mike Trout, if we all agree Trout is a lock HOFer would he then not be one simply based on who he voted for or supported as president? Or some jack-assy things he says after his career is over? I argue it shouldnt and this is an ugly precedent being set by voters and a misuse of the morality clause (in Schilling's case). But that's just my take right now.

PED guys, my issue is I would bet there are multiple PED users already in and Selig who turned a blind eye to it is in, plus was what they did against the rules at the time? I dont like it very much but I dont think it is fair to keep Bonds or Clemens out...but would be fair for Ortiz and Ramirez as their infractions came after the bans.

To be nihilistic about it...I dont see anyone getting elected with 75% from now on save for maybe a Trout or Kershaw...unless they vote for the wrong person and are vocal about it

Feel free to tell me Im wrong., as I hope I am.

[ThomasL]

also Rose knew exactly what he was doing and the consequences of it...fully support his banishment as that was very clear what would happen if you bet on baseball games (doesnt matter if you are manager, player, umpire, owner or bat boy...read up on the rule's history when it was created in 1926-27).

Now when he dies you have a case as I think a lifetime ends when someone dies

[Tyruscobb]

I respect the voters’ decision to make these guys wait. Most were never suspended and went unpunished for their actions. Keeping them out, at least temporarily, is their punishment for knocking other Hall of Farmers down in the record books. Bravo voters.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

I respect the voters’ decision to make these guys wait. Most were never suspended and went unpunished for their actions. Keeping them out, at least temporarily, is their punishment for knocking other Hall of Farmers down in the record books. Bravo voters.

That's an interesting point and I was thinking earlier today about the future waves of players who have taken steroids and received suspensions, like Robinson Cano. Do you think the voters are likely to consider these offenders and having "done their time" for taking PEDs and therefore cast a vote (or not) without considering it again? Or will they continue the practice of prolonging the voting process as additional punishment... or not consider them at all?

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

That's an interesting point and I was thinking earlier today about the future waves of players who have taken steroids and received suspensions, like Robinson Cano. Do you think the voters are likely to consider these offenders and having "done their time" for taking PEDs and therefore cast a vote (or not) without considering it again? Or will they continue the practice of prolonging the voting process as additional punishment... or not consider them at all?

I think all these guys will eventually get in, and their numbers obviously support it. However, I personally like making them wait. How long? That’s up to the voters. Will be interesting to see how the Veterans’ Committee treats them.

I think the younger guys that were caught early in their careers, did their time, apologized and repented, and had solid careers afterwards will be fine. I think the voters will be more forgiving of them, as opposed to the guys that refuse to admit or accept responsibility. Just my two cents. I could be way off base here.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Honestly I dont think that should matter, nor should a persons voting record or who the stump for politically. Pragmatism of voters should look past that kind of thing and doesnt fall into the purview of the moral clause as who is to dictate who someone can vote for? Say you replace the "issues" with Schilling over to Mike Trout, if we all agree Trout is a lock HOFer would he then not be one simply based on who he voted for or supported as president? Or some jack-assy things he says after his career is over? I argue it shouldnt and this is an ugly precedent being set by voters and a misuse of the morality clause (in Schilling's case). But that's just my take right now.

I hear you and don't want to go down the political rabbit hole here, but I think the case against Schilling isn't necessarily his politics.
I posted something to this effect on CooperstownCred earlier today:
I agree about the larger world of politics (blue/red, Dem/Rep) being kept out of the discussion when it comes to the HOF. Although I see the situation differently regarding Schilling, because his comments have denigrated groups of people (Islam, for instance). That’s not politics.
Along these lines, I think that some players have earned something with voters for having endured racial prejudices in society during their career. Hank and Jackie are two obvious ones. Furthermore, I think that in the future, a number of candidates who will be considered during Eras Committees will be discussed with the context of racism and social justice. As examples, Dick Allen, Minnie Minoso and Buck O’Neil are three potential candidates that could be discussed as early as later in 2021. These players all experienced racism, and I expect that experience will be considered when they are up for Era Committee election.
So in the same line of thought, shouldn’t electors also consider when a HOF candidate contributed (and continues to contribute) and promoted racist rhetoric? If some players are honored for their perseverance in the face of societal racism, shouldn’t those players who helped create that same societal racism have repercussions?

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

I hear you and don't want to go down the political rabbit hole here, but I think the case against Schilling isn't necessarily his politics.
I posted something to this effect on CooperstownCred earlier today:
I agree about the larger world of politics (blue/red, Dem/Rep) being kept out of the discussion when it comes to the HOF. Although I see the situation differently regarding Schilling, because his comments have denigrated groups of people (Islam, for instance). That’s not politics.
Along these lines, I think that some players have earned something with voters for having endured racial prejudices in society during their career. Hank and Jackie are two obvious ones. Furthermore, I think that in the future, a number of candidates who will be considered during Eras Committees will be discussed with the context of racism and social justice. As examples, Dick Allen, Minnie Minoso and Buck O’Neil are three potential candidates that could be discussed as early as later in 2021. These players all experienced racism, and I expect that experience will be considered when they are up for Era Committee election.
So in the same line of thought, shouldn’t electors also consider when a HOF candidate contributed (and continues to contribute) and promoted racist rhetoric? If some players are honored for their perseverance in the face of societal racism, shouldn’t those players who helped create that same societal racism have repercussions?

I believe Schilling apologized publicly for those comments I think you're referring to didnt he? If so why cant we accept that and move on (as far as HOF voting goes)

What about his ALS charitable work or does only a persons mistakes, errors and terrible moments count here?

Im not intending to sound like a Schilling schill here but only trying to be pragmatic about his HOF candacy is all

I think he's a HOFer based on his postseason work on the field. Perfect person...far from it...someone worthy of ignoring his baseball career and good deeds based on things he's said (some if not all of which he apologized for) I think is pushing the meaning of the moral clause too far...again just my opinion and I may be wrong and that's fine with me too.

I will also add I love drinking Guinness

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

I believe Schilling apologized publicly for those comments I think you're referring to didnt he? If so why cant we accept that and move on (as far as HOF voting goes)

What about his ALS charitable work or does only a persons mistakes, errors and terrible moments count here?

Im not intending to sound like a Schilling schill here but only trying to be pragmatic about his HOF candacy is all

I think he's a HOFer based on his postseason work on the field. Perfect person...far from it...someone worthy of ignoring his baseball career and good deeds based on things he's said (some if not all of which he apologized for) I think is pushing the meaning of the moral clause too far...again just my opinion and I may be wrong and that's fine with me too.

I will also add I love drinking Guinness

Guinness is just a wonderful beer. It gets partial, yet significant, credit for my username. Also a big fan of Alec Guinness...

Schilling may have apologized for some of his comments, but there has been at least one recent one I would include as racist. But yes, apologies begin the healing process and should be factored in.
His ALS work should totally be factored in, too. In fact, I find it surprising that I never see it mentioned that he won the Roberto Clemente Award in 2001. He's done positive things, for sure. His candidacy is so complicated on so many levels, way beyond the field.
Limited to his performance on the field. I think Schilling is a beyond-a-doubt Hall of Famer, a clearly worthy candidate who should have/would have been in years ago.

Now... let's continue this conversation over a Guinness...

[conor912]

It’s a slippery slope trying to determine who started taking PEDs to stay on top vs get on top.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by riggs336

Well, as you surmised, no one got in. It will be tough for Bonds and Clemens to pick up over 50 votes next year. Schilling might make it.

No on Schilling, unless the Veterans Committee elects him some day. He has asked to be removed from consideration in his final year of eligibility.

As for Bonds and Clemens, it will be interesting. Arod and Ortiz will be on the ballot, and both have an excellent shot. Under normal conditions, I believe Clemens and Bonds would indeed fall short. But it may be tough for voters to justify Ortiz and Arod while shunning Bonds and Clemens... especially on their final ballot.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by perezfan

No on Schilling, unless the Veterans Committee elects him some day. He has asked to be removed from consideration in his final year of eligibility.

I get the PED argument bc that affects performance, but Schill being left out for what mostly boils down to political views is disappointing. I can understand why he'd be fed up with the process.

[riggs336]

Originally Posted by perezfan

No on Schilling, unless the Veterans Committee elects him some day. He has asked to be removed from consideration in his final year of eligibility.

As for Bonds and Clemens, it will be interesting. Arod and Ortiz will be on the ballot, and both have an excellent shot. Under normal conditions, I believe Clemens and Bonds would indeed fall short. But it may be tough for voters to justify Ortiz and Arod while shunning Bonds and Clemens... especially on their final ballot.

Certainly a feasible perspective. We could have an All-PED class next year. On the other hand there were fourteen blank ballots this year; I predict many more blanks next year as a measure of protest.

[FrankWakefield]

I think Pete Rose was a great hitter. And I'm certain he shouldn't get into the Hall except for when he's purchased an admission ticket. Read The Fix Is In, by Daniel Ginsburg. After reading that, you can still be a Rose fan, but your brain will understand why Pete can't get in, even if your heart wants him in.

Some, a few, of the peds guys were using stuff before there were rules prohibiting use of some of the substances. I don't like the use of that stuff at all, but I see a difference in using something illegal, and in using something that hasn't been ruled on at the time.

I'm a bit biased about McGwire. I think he should one day get in, and definitely Bonds and Sosa. I think A-Rod should get in. Baseball already got their vengeance on him by banning him for a year.

I don't think Clemons should get in. And I think Schilling falls a bit short of my opinion of what a HOFer should be. He was a great pitcher, and great big game pitcher. A smart, thinking pitcher. But short of HOF caliber.

There's a dozen or more folks I'd unvote, if I were the Grand Poobah of the Hall. Kirby Puckett would be the first one out. Baines would be out. There are more who'd go. But fortunately for baseball fans I'm not the Grand Poobah.

Back to Rose... I saw him play in 1964. And I saw him get the hit to pass Ty Cobb's career hits record (I went to the game before that, no hits, and in the parking structure this guy was melting down about no hits, having to work the next night, and he had 4 tickets for the next night. My friends and I bought those tickets, I think $30 each, and saw history). I saw Pete lots. But gambling is what stymied the development of professional baseball at its inception, and only the strict prohibitions about gambling allowed the game to thrive. Pete knew this. He knew not to gamble on the games. BS on telling anyone he only bet for the Reds to win, what the hell is the bookie to think when Pete placed some bet but didn't want to bet on the outcome of the Reds' game??? Pete deserves his hit record, he was a hustling, hitting, pitcher studying machine. But he doesn't deserve the Hall. And hopefully the Hall doesn't go so far downhill that it deserves Pete.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

I think Pete Rose was a great hitter. And I'm certain he shouldn't get into the Hall except for when he's purchased an admission ticket. Read The Fix Is In, by Daniel Ginsburg. After reading that, you can still be a Rose fan, but your brain will understand why Pete can't get in, even if your heart wants him in.

Some, a few, of the peds guys were using stuff before there were rules prohibiting use of some of the substances. I don't like the use of that stuff at all, but I see a difference in using something illegal, and in using something that hasn't been ruled on at the time.

I'm a bit biased about McGwire. I think he should one day get in, and definitely Bonds and Sosa. I think A-Rod should get in. Baseball already got their vengeance on him by banning him for a year.

I don't think Clemons should get in. And I think Schilling falls a bit short of my opinion of what a HOFer should be. He was a great pitcher, and great big game pitcher. A smart, thinking pitcher. But short of HOF caliber.

There's a dozen or more folks I'd unvote, if I were the Grand Poobah of the Hall. Kirby Puckett would be the first one out. Baines would be out. There are more who'd go. But fortunately for baseball fans I'm not the Grand Poobah.

Back to Rose... I saw him play in 1964. And I saw him get the hit to pass Ty Cobb's career hits record (I went to the game before that, no hits, and in the parking structure this guy was melting down about no hits, having to work the next night, and he had 4 tickets for the next night. My friends and I bought those tickets, I think $30 each, and saw history). I saw Pete lots. But gambling is what stymied the development of professional baseball at its inception, and only the strict prohibitions about gambling allowed the game to thrive. Pete knew this. He knew not to gamble on the games. BS on telling anyone he only bet for the Reds to win, what the hell is the bookie to think when Pete placed some bet but didn't want to bet on the outcome of the Reds' game??? Pete deserves his hit record, he was a hustling, hitting, pitcher studying machine. But he doesn't deserve the Hall. And hopefully the Hall doesn't go so far downhill that it deserves Pete.

Frank, curious as to why you think bonds and Sosa should definitely get in but not Clemens?

[FrankWakefield]

At a point in time when the rules were clear, he continued using, and lied about using.

Imagine a count of all the Clemens fans back then... subtract out everyone under 13 and over 25, then subtract out those guys and gals not playing baseball or softball... what's left are a bunch of possible imitator kids who were good candidates for trying peds because they wanted to do better at high school or college ball.

I admit I'm biased against Clemons. I think he was a HOF caliber pitcher who persisted in fooling with peds way too long. It was bad for him, bad for baseball, bad for baseball fans, and bad for a bunch of kids.

And I think I'm in the minority and there's a bunch of Clemons fans and supporters. I understand we live in a democracy of sorts. I'm ok with going along with what the majority votes. But that doesn't mean the majority is right... sometimes they are, and sometimes in some instances a majority can be mistaken or wrong.