THE Hall of Fame this year and next:

[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.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by perezfan

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.

How do you know they are cancelling him? Did I miss some sort of press conference??

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by perezfan

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.

How are they cancelling him? He got 70+% of the vote from them. He just didn’t get 75%.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Ricky

How are they cancelling him? He got 70+% of the vote from them. He just didn’t get 75%.

There are many examples, and I don't want to cite them all because this is not a place for politics. To pick just one, I suppose it's worth noting that ESPN fired him for voicing opinions that do not align with their woke agenda. But certainly don't want to debate it here.... feel free to PM me if you want.

As I said previously, Schilling is borderline either way, and his preclusion from the HOF won't cause me one minute of lost sleep. I respect all opinions as well as the fact that this forum is reserved for baseball and not politics.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by Ricky

How are they cancelling him? He got 70+% of the vote from them. He just didn’t get 75%.

So I've already heard on ESPN radio this week that an interviewer had talked to a writer who had voted for Schilling for the first time this season. The writer then said that he would not be voting for Schilling next year because of the remarks he made after the raid on the Capitol on Jan 6. Is that not 'cancelling'?

I know, I don't have the names of the folks, but the writer did go unnamed in the report. So take it as you wish.

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by perezfan

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.

We have become a society where many/most people are constantly asking for tolerance and inclusion yet they fail to practice what they preach.
I, too, don't really care whether Schilling gets in or not. He's definitely not a slam dunk. However, excluding him because of what he has said, although over the top at times, is wrong. He has committed no crime and has broken no law. This would set a horrible precedent. I'm hard pressed to come up with a candidate that has been rejected from induction for similar reasons.

[Touch'EmAll]

Yes, agree Veterans Committee has let players in that should not be in the HOF. Why later after all the years of regular voting can the VC override the regular NO vote? Not good when VC says YES due to the Buddy system/Politics/other. Baines being in is a complete joke, a big ugly blemish on the HOF.

Then we have guys not in the Hall who actually did something significant, maybe actually started a few All-Star games, won an MVP award or two, were truly famous for their on-the-field accomplishments.

Ticks me off to see such things happen to the game I love. But alas, life is not always fair. Learned that long ago.

______________
Steve Parmentier

[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.

[vansaad]

I don't care if it's Frankenstein's monster, a dude that puts up these numbers should not only be in the Hall of Fame, but should be a centerpiece:

WAR Position Players
1987 NL 5.8 (9th)
1988 NL 6.3 (7th)
1989 NL 8.0 (3rd)
1990 NL 9.7 (1st)
1991 NL 8.0 (1st)
1992 NL 9.0 (1st)
1993 NL 9.9 (1st)
1994 NL 6.2 (2nd)
1995 NL 7.5 (1st)
1996 NL 9.7 (1st)
1997 NL 8.2 (4th)
1998 NL 8.1 (1st)
2000 NL 7.7 (3rd)
2001 NL 11.9 (1st)
2002 NL 11.7 (1st)
2003 NL 9.2 (1st)
2004 NL 10.6 (1st)
Career 162.8 (1st)


MVP (rank, share)
1990 NL (1, 99%)
1992 NL (1, 90%)
1993 NL (1, 95%)
2001 NL (1, 98%)
2002 NL (1, 100%)
2003 NL (1, 95%)
2004 NL (1, 91%)
7 MVPs

[BCauley]

Schilling was on the ballot eight other times previously and didn't get in. The first time he was on the ballot he was at 38% or something like that. Why is it suddenly now that people upset about him not getting in the eight other times he was on the ballot?

2013: 38.8%
2014: 29.2%
2015: 39.2%
2016: 52.3%
2017: 45%
2018: 51.2%
2019: 60.9%
2020: 70%
2021: 70%

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by BCauley

Schilling was on the ballot eight other times previously and didn't get in. The first time he was on the ballot he was at 38% or something like that. Why is it suddenly now that people upset about him not getting in the eight other times he was on the ballot?

2013: 38.8%
2014: 29.2%
2015: 39.2%
2016: 52.3%
2017: 45%
2018: 51.2%
2019: 60.9%
2020: 70%
2021: 70%

Why not just give the writers one shot, one time on the ballot? You're either a HOFer or you're not. Nothing changes with a career between 5 and 15 years after a player retires. Not one additional home run, not one more All-Star appearance, not a single strikeout. So why do the judges change their mind?? If you don't get voted in the first year, then on to one of the other committees. And take away the maximum number of players a person can vote for on any given ballot. Vote for all the players who you think are deserving of the HOF every year and be done with the ones who are not.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

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.

There have not been many misses by the writers. Eddie Plank, Arky Vaughan and Johnny Mize come to mind. The vast majority of their picks have been borderline candidates and players who don't belong.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by rats60

There have not been many misses by the writers. Eddie Plank, Arky Vaughan and Johnny Mize come to mind. The vast majority of their picks have been borderline candidates and players who don't belong.

One of the most egregious omissions by the "writers" was not inducting Johnny Mize into the HOF in the late 1950's (or early 1960's).
Johnny waited 23 years to finally be inducted into the HOF by the Veterans Committee in 1981.





I first met Johnny at the Meadowlands, NJ BB card Show in the Fall of 1981. I was set-up at this Show. Johnny was the guest signer.
His table was adjacent to mine. For 2 hours (in between "Big John" autographing), we had some really nice conversations Talkin' BB.
Before he left, he invited me to visit him in Demorest, Georgia, whenever I should be traveling down South.

On our way to Florida in 1987, I side-tracked into Georgia and visited with Johnny at his home. We reminisced for an hour (or more)
about the "good ole days". I recall asking him why he was traded by the Cardinals (1941), and then the Giants (1949) when he was
playing some really great BB. Johnny replied......
" I asked Billy Southworth (Mgr. St. Lo) for a pay increase. Southworth said no. Johnny told him....Pay me, or trade me ! "
This scenario was repeated with Durocher (Giants Mgr). The genius of Casey Stengel acquiring Johnny in 1949 benefited the Yankees
during their 1949 - 1953 "dynasty" years.

OK, having said all that, it's contemptible that the writers did not vote Curt Schilling into the HOF this year. He had 70% of their vote
last year. This year it was 71%. Shows you that a good number of these writers are just a bunch of "political hacks".

How does any one involved in Sports deny a Pitcher who achieved a Post-Season 11 - 2 Won - Lost record from being in the HOF ! ?
Show me another Pitcher in ML BB who comes close to that record.

Furthermore, Schilling has devoted a lot of his time, energy, and $$$$ for the ALS Foundation, and other Charities.


ENOUGH SAID !


TED Z

T206 Reference
.