THE Hall of Fame this year and next:

[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.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

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.

I have read numerous voters saying that they are willing to vote for players like Bonds, Clemens and Sosa because they never failed a test and were playing before baseball had specific rules on the books. However, they won't vote for people that were caught (like ARod and Manny) once testing was implemented. If Bonds and Clemens don't make it in, I find it hard to believe the ones that actually got caught by testing ever will. Their only real chance is that as new voters are added to the BBWAA and older ones stop voting, there may be different feelings about the PED era since they didn't live through it and weren't covering it when it was happening.

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by conor912

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

For sure, but I think at least in theory there is room for an argument that a guy who clearly had a HOF career pre stuff is deserving.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

For sure, but I think at least in theory there is room for an argument that a guy who clearly had a HOF career pre stuff is deserving.

So if Pete Rose didn't bet on games until he passed Ty Cobb, is he deserving?

Personally, I don't buy that argument. But I also can't exclude anyone from the HOF who is on the ballot. That's telling me that MLB and the HOF both believe that they are eligible. As opposed to Pete or Shoeless Joe, who are not on the eligible list. If MLB or the HOF don't want them in the HOF, then suspend them from baseball and take them off the ballot. Stand up and make a decision MLB and HOF. It's the same no-show of leadership that Selig practiced his entire tenure as Commish.