THE Hall of Fame this year and next:

[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.

[Ricky]

MLB and the HOF aren’t keeping Schilling out. Writers aren’t voting for him. Which is their right. Nobody has “cancelled” Schilling. He very possibly will get in through one of theVeterans Committees.

And no, doesn’t matter when Rose bet on baseball. Stupid on his part.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Ricky

MLB and the HOF aren’t keeping Schilling out. Writers aren’t voting for him. Which is their right. Nobody has “cancelled” Schilling. He very possibly will get in through one of theVeterans Committees.

And no, doesn’t matter when Rose bet on baseball. Stupid on his part.

Writers are part of the media, and yes it is the media that is canceling and censoring voices that don't match their agenda. Any way you slice it, Schilling is a borderline candidate that could go either way. His clashes with the media were probably just enough to tip the scales against him.

I personally don't care whether he gets in, but do wish it was based solely on his performance as a player.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

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.

Joe Jackson was on the ballot originally and got 2 votes. The writers can exclude anyone they want for any reason.

[earlywynnfan]

Is it possible that over 25% of writers actually think he wasn't HOF material? It's not like he was Greg Maddux. I don't think the Hall is watered down in any way if he isn't in there.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by rats60

The writers can exclude anyone they want for any reason.

And that is why there is a Veteran's Committee, to offset the 'any reason' part of the vote and have folks who played the game weigh in.