Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, January 22, 2020

Craig Calcaterra’s Imaginary Hall of Fame Ballot

As the title says, he doesn’t have a vote, but I thought the Schilling comments were notable, especially since he used to be a supporter of his HOF case.

I’d guess that Trump support among ballplayers runs markedly higher than in the population at large and even higher than it does among Republicans at large, and my appreciation of a ballplayer’s career has never hinged on that. In light of that, the argument that I or anyone else discount a ballplayer’s career because of “politics” is utter baloney.

My problem with Schilling is not that he’s got bad politics as such. It’s that he has gone out of his way over the past several years to show himself to be a demonstrably awful human being who has used his considerable platform to propagate hatred.

Schilling has spread conspiracy theories that survivors of school massacres were paid crisis actors and has voiced his support of the so-called “QAnon theory” which holds that a cabal of “globalist elites” — transparent antisemitic code —  are engaged in an international child sex trafficking ring and wish to commit a coup d’état in America. He has espoused transphobia, xenophobia, islamophobia, antisemitism, racism, and has promoted the idea that violence against those with whom he disagrees — particularly the media — is at best a laughing matter and, arguably, is a good idea.

 

Perry Posted: January 22, 2020 at 12:41 PM | 83 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: curt schilling, hall of fame

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Moeball Posted: January 23, 2020 at 08:27 PM (#5918858)
Craig then proceeds to list several examples of Curt's horrible behaviour, all of which are specifically related to Curt's political beliefs, thus contradicting Craig's original statement that his invoking the character clause on Schilling had nothing to do with politics.

Look, just be honest. First and foremost, a player's performance will get them into the conversation as a potential HOFer. Beyond that, it often just comes down to whether the writers liked a player or not. I have no doubt that David Ortiz will make the HOF fairly easily or that Barry Bonds may not ever get in at all. If Barry was concerned about this maybe he should have been a more friendly person along the way. The truth is, the writers and most fans are about 25% concerned with whether PEDs are actually bad for the sport or not, and 75% concerned with whether they like the player or not.

But just be honest about what you're doing. If you're not voting for Bonds or Schilling or Clemens because you think they've been despicable human beings, then say so. The HOF is mostly about great performances on the baseball diamond. That is what we celebrate. My personal opinion is that the horse is already out of the barn on character clauses - the Hall is already filled with players who were awful people or even those who tried to cheat at the game on the field. Yet they are still embraced as HOFers.

Is Curt Schilling a lousy person? I think so.

But he was a great pitcher. Put him in.
   2. Rennie's Tenet Posted: January 23, 2020 at 09:15 PM (#5918870)
Entertainers' opinions should carry no weight, and receive no attention.
   3. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: January 23, 2020 at 09:29 PM (#5918876)
It is possible to agree with Craig about Schilling's behavior, and then say that it is not relevant to voting for Schilling for the HOF. Schilling unquestionably belongs in the HOF,based on his on-field performance, and there is no evidence that he cheated on the baseball field. For the purpose of voting for the HOF, that is really all you need to know.
   4. Lassus Posted: January 23, 2020 at 09:36 PM (#5918879)
Entertainers' opinions should carry no weight, and receive no attention.

Not sure why they should receive any less attention than a truck driver's or mail carrier's or soldier's or BTF commenter's.
   5. Lassus Posted: January 23, 2020 at 09:36 PM (#5918880)
Also, Schilling's a terrible human being who'd have my vote for the Hall.
   6. Der-K: at 10% emotional investment Posted: January 23, 2020 at 09:37 PM (#5918881)
Moeball, irrespective of whether I’d agree with Craig here (and I’m not sure my stance wrt this stuff), I do think he’s successfully made a distinction between
political disagreement and, say, what’s listed in the last paragraph of that excerpt. Some of that either goes beyond politics or could be folded into “everything’s political”, which becomes a distinction without meaning at some point.

Alternately, is there no case where you’d not be willing to hold your nose and induct? (Honest question.) Like, if they were a mass murderer or active Nazi or ... (hi Godwin.) If not, okay, you’re consistent. If so, you’ve set a threshold - whether an extreme one or not.
—-
I’d likely vote for him, but I’d have to think about it. Also, how much should post player career actions impact my vote?
   7. Lowry Seasoning Salt Posted: January 23, 2020 at 10:22 PM (#5918895)
Also, how much should post player career actions impact my vote?

Not at all.

BBWAA Rules for Election:
Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
   8. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 23, 2020 at 10:56 PM (#5918900)
I don’t see any sources cited by Calcaterra, but the one incident I’m familiar with seems like a significant distortion - suggesting that the infamous t-shirt “promoted violence against those with whom he disagrees”. By that standard, repeating most of the Lawyer Jokes in circulation also promotes violence, while also undermining the legal system. This seems like a hit piece designed to make Calcaterra’s injection of his own political preferences into the HoF voting process appear more reasonable.
   9. cardsfanboy Posted: January 23, 2020 at 11:05 PM (#5918904)
sorry Craig, you are an idiot on this one, in regards to Schilling... I literally do not get any of the hate.. the guy is a despicable human being after his career ended... sure.. I'm fine with that assesment, it has zero to do with his hof worthiness.
   10. Cleveland (need new name) fan Posted: January 23, 2020 at 11:08 PM (#5918907)
He hypothetically voted for 10 people while saying 11 people qualify as players. Does it really matter how he chooses to pick which of the 11 people to leave off his hypothetical ballot? While it might be nice if he wasn't so coy about invoking the character clause, it is as good a way to pick which person to eliminate as any other.
   11. PreservedFish Posted: January 23, 2020 at 11:13 PM (#5918909)
Am I the only one that thinks Schilling's deplorability makes him even more electable? The HOF thrives on goofy characters!
   12. cardsfanboy Posted: January 23, 2020 at 11:23 PM (#5918911)
He hypothetically voted for 10 people while saying 11 people qualify as players. Does it really matter how he chooses to pick which of the 11 people to leave off his hypothetical ballot? While it might be nice if he wasn't so coy about invoking the character clause, it is as good a way to pick which person to eliminate as any other.


I'm fine with that, but I'm getting roasted in another thread for simply arguing that Wagner should be considered, not even arguing that I would put him in... and yet this guy is putting him in ahead of Schilling.
   13. cardsfanboy Posted: January 23, 2020 at 11:27 PM (#5918912)
Mind you his ballot sucks if you are a fan of arguing that a ballot should be ranked by best players... I'm a Rolen fan, but Schilling is much more deserving, same can be said about Jones, Sosa, Sheffield and Manny on his imaginary ballot. There is no world I can conceive of that they were more deserving of the Hall than Schilling... and heck I'm a Walker fan, and I don't see him as more deserving either. Arguably in some debates Jeter is less deserving..
   14. Lassus Posted: January 23, 2020 at 11:34 PM (#5918913)
Alternately, is there no case where you’d not be willing to hold your nose and induct? (Honest question.) Like, if they were a mass murderer or active Nazi or ... (hi Godwin.) If not, okay, you’re consistent. If so, you’ve set a threshold - whether an extreme one or not.

I think this is a valid question.


Am I the only one that thinks Schilling's deplorability makes him even more electable? The HOF thrives on goofy characters!

Yeah, Schilling's not goofy.
   15. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 24, 2020 at 12:00 AM (#5918921)
Am I the only one that thinks Schilling's deplorability makes him even more electable?
If you're not being specific to Schilling, then...
   16. Cleveland (need new name) fan Posted: January 24, 2020 at 12:05 AM (#5918924)
Mind you his ballot sucks if you are a fan of arguing that a ballot should be ranked by best players... I'm a Rolen fan, but Schilling is much more deserving, same can be said about Jones, Sosa, Sheffield and Manny on his imaginary ballot. There is no world I can conceive of that they were more deserving of the Hall than Schilling... and heck I'm a Walker fan, and I don't see him as more deserving either. Arguably in some debates Jeter is less deserving..


I don't argue that a ballot should be ranked by best player. If you think that a player is a HOF, you should vote for them except if you have more than 10 players. At that point, there is no right or wrong way to decide which 10 payers to vote for.

Just for the sake of showing my bias, I think that Shilling is a borderline HOF. I voted for him in the mock HOF vote thread since I didn't have 11 players that I wanted to vote for, but I don't feel bad if someone with an 11 person ballot decided to leave him off. In response to comment 12, Wagner is a hard NO for me because he didn't pitch enough innings to even be considered. So I understand and generally agree with the roasting you are getting in the other thread.
   17. PreservedFish Posted: January 24, 2020 at 12:09 AM (#5918925)
Yeah, Schilling's not goofy.


I think he is.

That people like him have so much political currency is not a goofy situation, however.
   18. rr: calming the thread down with my arms Posted: January 24, 2020 at 05:21 AM (#5918930)
This seems like a hit piece designed to make Calcaterra’s injection of his own political preferences into the HoF voting process appear more reasonable.


Calcaterra made the distinction he is going for clear with his Mariano Rivera example (apparently Rivera is a big Trump guy), and as to "sources" if you are "familiar" with "one incident" not sure what you are getting at--this is just your usual transparent and pathetic schtick. Presumably this is stuff that Schilling Tweeted and/or has said/written on his show/other settings. I seriously doubt that much of it is in any dispute.

That said, Calcaterra's argument is, as noted, really lame. Schilling not only has the stat quals for the Hall, his context/narrative as a player was great--2004 Red Sox, 2001 Diamondbacks, Bloody Sock, fan-friendly, quotable, big on baseball history, showed up on SoSH etc. Schilling should have been in the Hall already.
   19. rr: calming the thread down with my arms Posted: January 24, 2020 at 05:36 AM (#5918931)
if they were a mass murderer or active Nazi or ... (hi Godwin.)


This seemed kind of funny at first, and it still kind of is, (I would probably vote for a Nazi as long as he wasn't an Illinois Nazi) but I also actually thought about it. If a guy up for the HOF were actually an open Nazi, no way he gets in, but would the HOF kick him out if they inducted him, then found out he was a Nazi after the fact? Probably. As to the "mass murderer" thing, I guess the closest to that is OJ Simpson, who is still in Canton.

   20. Lassus Posted: January 24, 2020 at 07:20 AM (#5918932)
Robin Red returns, really?
   21. Scott Lange Posted: January 24, 2020 at 08:08 AM (#5918936)
Calcaterra:
My problem with Schilling is . . . that he has gone out of his way over the past several years to show himself to be a demonstrably awful human being who has used his considerable platform to propagate hatred.


Moeball:
But just be honest about what you're doing. If you're not voting for Bonds or Schilling or Clemens because you think they've been despicable human beings, then say so.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
   22. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 24, 2020 at 09:33 AM (#5918953)
It’s that he has gone out of his way over the past several years to show himself to be a demonstrably awful human being who has used his considerable platform to propagate hatred.

Did Calcaterra oppose Bobby Cox's election?

Because I think beating your wife, or any innocent person really, is far, far worse than spouting any amount of hatred or nonsense. Words, contra the modern college student schtick, are not actually violence.
   23. . Posted: January 24, 2020 at 09:33 AM (#5918954)
I don’t know what Schilling considers himself to be, politically speaking, but such views are objectively extremist and could properly be considered fascist.


Anyone who writes something like this loses all credibility. It's just internet talk and internet talk is often performative. Such is the case here.

And the "promotes hatred" thing is lazy shorthand. Show of hands of anyone here who hates Jews or gay people or black people or Muslims more because of something Curt Schilling has said.

Thought so.
   24. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 24, 2020 at 09:39 AM (#5918956)

Schilling also made several anti-transgender comments, for which ESPN fired him, while he was a colleague of Christina Kahrl.

I'd vote for him for the HOF, but I can understand people who don't.
   25. PreservedFish Posted: January 24, 2020 at 09:40 AM (#5918957)
Show of hands of anyone here who hates Jews or gay people or black people or Muslims more because of something Curt Schilling has said.

Thought so.


That's like saying that Post Malone doesn't promote shitty music just because nobody at BTF listens to his albums.
   26. Lassus Posted: January 24, 2020 at 09:44 AM (#5918959)
It's just internet talk and internet talk is often performative. Such is the case here.

Thanks, Potter Stewart.
   27. JJ1986 Posted: January 24, 2020 at 09:45 AM (#5918960)
Marvin Harrison killed a guy and then got into the Pro Football HoF. And Ray Lewis might have.
   28. . Posted: January 24, 2020 at 09:47 AM (#5918963)
That's like saying that Post Malone doesn't promote shitty music just because nobody at BTF listens to his albums.


It's not really like saying that, because people at BTF read the things Schilling says. Calcaterra linked to a bunch of them.

We're sort of in the same place we were in the thread where people wanted Barstool burned. I asked Lassus if he thought that his reading Mein Kampf would make him sympathetic to Nazism, or if instead, he'd be able to read it and say to himself, "This is crazy-ass, deranged drivel." He didn't answer, but the point remains. If the people here can read and hear Schilling and not feel enhanced hatred, what makes them think other adults aren't capable of exactly the same thing? So the "promotes hatred" thing is really just lazy shorthand, a cover story to try to justify sanctioning Schilling for his politics. As a committed liberal proceduralist and institutionalist, I prefer a level playing field and neutrality to a stacked one -- and I'm not seeing the same standards applied across the board. Maybe I'm missing it.
   29. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 24, 2020 at 09:48 AM (#5918964)
Marvin Harrison killed a guy and then got into the Pro Football HoF. And Ray Lewis might have.

Yes. They are far worse human beings than Schilling.

Although I think Ray Lewis was more likely an accessory to murder after the fact. Still makes him 10 times worse than Schilling.
   30. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 24, 2020 at 09:55 AM (#5918967)

He didn't answer, but the point remains. If the people here can read and hear Schilling and not feel enhanced hatred, what makes them think other adults aren't capable of exactly the same thing?

Some are, some apparently aren't. Read the comment threads on some of Schilling's posts/articles. It's often not pretty. Fewer prominent voices like Schilling's promoting these type of views, and more voices saying these views are unacceptable, would no doubt be a good thing.
   31. PreservedFish Posted: January 24, 2020 at 09:59 AM (#5918969)
#28 could go into the museum of SBB's inner circle asshattery. Sorry, are we using Hitler's inability to convince all of his listeners as an example of how hateful speech isn't really a big deal?
   32. . Posted: January 24, 2020 at 10:03 AM (#5918971)
Some are, some apparently aren't. Read the comment threads on some of Schilling's posts/articles. It's often not pretty.


No thanks, but to prove this point you'd have to show that those people wouldn't have had the same views without Schilling's comments and that's not really true. Those people brought those attitudes to the discussion; their attitudes were not generated by the discussion.

Fewer prominent voices like Schilling's promoting these type of views, and more voices saying these views are unacceptable, would no doubt be a good thing.-


It would be, but there are a lot of good things that could happen that shouldn't be overly coerced. I don't really see a lot of concern for things like the NY Times comment sections, Democratic Underground, etc -- also places that "promote hatred." (I actually do read those.) Prominent journalists tweeted and commented things like that high-school kid who just settled his defamation case against CNN should be punched and was a racist. Comment sections are almost routinely "hatred promoting" cesspools. Twitter is a hatred-promoting cesspool. The only thing separating Schilling is that Schilling is a dumb-ass rightist, as opposed to being a dumb-ass leftist.
   33. . Posted: January 24, 2020 at 10:04 AM (#5918973)
Sorry, are we using Hitler's inability to convince all of his listeners as an example of how hateful speech isn't really a big deal?


We're using it as an example of how people here assume other adults can't engage in the same type of mental activity and discernment they can.
   34. Lassus Posted: January 24, 2020 at 10:05 AM (#5918974)
I asked Lassus if he thought that his reading Mein Kampf would make him sympathetic to Nazism, or if instead, he'd be able to read it and say to himself, "This is crazy-ass, deranged drivel." He didn't answer, but the point remains.

Mercifully, I don't remember this at all. What point? That if someone can read a Fascist manifesto and not become a Fascist, it ceases to become a Fascist manifesto and no one at all should care about it?

edit: (Diet) Coke to PF
   35. . Posted: January 24, 2020 at 10:08 AM (#5918975)
That if someone can read a Fascist manifesto and not become a Fascist, it ceases to become a Fascist manifesto and no one at all should care about it?


The point that you assume a bunch of people are being swayed to "hatred" by people like Schilling when you yourself are not.

Is opposition to gay marriage "hateful"? If so, it means Hillary Clinton was a hater less than a decade ago, as was virtually the entirety of the Democratic party. That can't be right, which demonstrates pretty convincingly that the term "hateful" and "hate" is being misused. I disfavor slack, false language. Schilling's views on bathrooms may be misguided, it may be silly, it may be backward -- but it's not "hate." It's being misclassified as hate because the misclassifiers want him to be sanctioned for it.

   36. gef, talking mongoose & vexatious litigant Posted: January 24, 2020 at 10:09 AM (#5918977)
I'm fine with that, but I'm getting roasted in another thread for simply arguing that Wagner should be considered,


Hitler's favorite composer.
   37. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 24, 2020 at 10:12 AM (#5918978)
Hitler is pretty much a textbook case study that words have persuasive power, and leaders can convince otherwise ordinary adults to adopt horrible views and commit evil acts.
   38. PreservedFish Posted: January 24, 2020 at 10:15 AM (#5918980)
I think this is some kind of daring meta reverse-Godwin performance in which Hitler is immediately invoked, not to escalate the argument but to do the opposite. SBB is like the Banksy of trolls.
   39. . Posted: January 24, 2020 at 10:16 AM (#5918981)
Hitler is pretty much a textbook case study that words have persuasive power, and leaders can convince otherwise ordinary adults to adopt horrible views and commit evil acts.


Unless he just took "advantage" of attitudes that were already there -- far more likely.
   40. gef, talking mongoose & vexatious litigant Posted: January 24, 2020 at 10:19 AM (#5918982)
SBB is like the Banksy of trolls.


Banksy probably did better in Fake Law School.
   41. Lassus Posted: January 24, 2020 at 10:24 AM (#5918985)
The point that you assume a bunch of people are being swayed to "hatred" by people like Schilling when you yourself are not.

Um. Yes? I mean, "bunch" isn't particularly specific, but do you actually think no one is ever convinced or swayed by anyone else's words or writings?


Hitler is pretty much a textbook case study that words have persuasive power, and leaders can convince otherwise ordinary adults to adopt horrible views and commit evil acts.

Unless he just took "advantage" of attitudes that were already there -- far more likely.
Definition of convince
transitive verb

1: to bring (as by argument) to belief, consent, or a course of action : PERSUADE
   42. PreservedFish Posted: January 24, 2020 at 10:31 AM (#5918988)
For those of you with SBB on ignore, I think you might enjoy this. Today's argument is more or less the following:

"Curt Schilling may be a blowhard, but it doesn't matter, because adults are capable of judgment and discernment and are never swayed by blowhards and hateful speech. If you'd like an example of how this is true, just look at Nazi Germany."
   43. . Posted: January 24, 2020 at 10:33 AM (#5918989)
Um. Yes? I mean, "bunch" isn't particularly specific, but do you actually think no one is ever convinced or swayed by anyone else's words or writings?


Have you ever been convinced or swayed to hate another person or group (obviously other than something like Ted Bundy) by anyone else's words or writings? Do you in fact hate any groups in the political sense in which it's being used here? Do you, for example, disfavor the political application of straight, white malehood -- such as it is? As a result, do you "hate" straight, white males?

1: to bring (as by argument) to belief, consent, or a course of action : PERSUADE


Yes, Hitler did do those things -- by taking advantage of attitudes that were already there. It's obviously far more complicated than that and deserves a far wider treatment which unfortunately can't really happen because of time and space limitations. I'm simply singularly unconvinced by this "hate" idea; indeed, not everyone, or even close to everyone, who took adverse action against Jews in Nazi Germany was motivated by "hate." People go to war and shoot and kill the soldiers of other countries -- wide swaths of them aren't motivated by "hate." It's a glib term, badly misused, badly misapplied. My default assumption in these circumstances is that it's not really being used in its English sense, but in its Internet Performative sense and that's likely the case here. If it's not clear by now, I much prefer English to Internet Performative.
   44. Ziggy is done with Dominican discotheques Posted: January 24, 2020 at 10:44 AM (#5918994)
PF: there's a reason we have him on ignore. Summarizing what he said isn't doing us any favors.

Also re: the earlier discussion, you probably want to distinguish between being a bad person and having done bad things. We've all got some probability that we're going to do something bad. And even people for whom that probability is very low will sometimes act on it. (This is not intended as a comment on any particular individual named earlier in the thread.) So that someone did something that's worse than anything that Schilling has ever done doesn't imply that he's a worse person than Schilling is (although it is some evidence that that is true).
   45. . Posted: January 24, 2020 at 10:51 AM (#5918998)
PF: there's a reason we have him on ignore. Summarizing what he said isn't doing us any favors.


Don't worry -- the summary was nothing close to anything I've said.
   46. Flynn Posted: January 24, 2020 at 10:51 AM (#5918999)
I find Schilling impossible to take seriously, so I can't really imagine anybody else does either. There's some evidence that's true: his podcast failed out loud (the same 20 Trump hangers-on like Gorka and David Clarke until Breitbart stopped paying for it). Download figures are tough to find but he had 29 followers on PodBean. Chapo Trap House has 2900. Rachel Maddow has 15,000. He has 250,000 followers on Twitter, which sounds like a lot, but Ben Shapiro has 2.5 million. Gorka, who is a complete idiot, has 922,000.

He ain't Hitler. He ain't even Hitler in 1921. He's just a D-list celebrity in the Trumposphere.

   47. jmurph Posted: January 24, 2020 at 10:57 AM (#5919001)
I'm extremely sympathetic to Calcaterras's argument and feel the same way about Schilling the person. But I just don't see any reading of the Hall voting rules to justify this kind of approach to the voting process.
   48. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 24, 2020 at 11:02 AM (#5919004)
Also re: the earlier discussion, you probably want to distinguish between being a bad person and having done bad things. We've all got some probability that we're going to do something bad. And even people for whom that probability is very low will sometimes act on it. (This is not intended as a comment on any particular individual named earlier in the thread.) So that someone did something that's worse than anything that Schilling has ever done doesn't imply that he's a worse person than Schilling is (although it is some evidence that that is true).

Yeah, I'll still go with actions speak louder than words.
   49. Lassus Posted: January 24, 2020 at 11:11 AM (#5919009)
Have you ever been convinced or swayed to hate another person or group (obviously other than something like Ted Bundy) by anyone else's words or writings? Do you in fact hate any groups in the political sense in which it's being used here? Do you, for example, disfavor the political application of straight, white malehood -- such as it is? As a result, do you "hate" straight, white males?

Answering one question with four other questions instead of an actual answer is not convincing or compelling.


Yeah, I'll still go with actions speak louder than words.

I mean, I get this, and maybe it's a higher philosophical debate, but words ARE also actions.
   50. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 24, 2020 at 11:18 AM (#5919011)
I mean, I get this, and maybe it's a higher philosophical debate, but words ARE also actions.

Words don't actually hurt anyone unless they incite real action. And even if they incite action I would still say that if you say "You should punch your wife if she gets out of line" and I actually punch my wife, I'm a much worse person.
   51. . Posted: January 24, 2020 at 11:50 AM (#5919022)
Answering one question with four other questions instead of an actual answer is not convincing or compelling.


I'm interested in your answer to the questions, as I'm interested in how "hate" is actually being defined. Do you hate straight, white males? Do you hate Christians? It's a pretty simple question. You seem to have no issue with rhetorical fusillades aimed at them, or even overt advocation of doing things you perceive to be detrimental to their political and cultural interests. If that doesn't add up to "hating" them, how does saying people still sporting twig-and-berries should use men's bathrooms add up to "hate"? (*)

I mean, I get this, and maybe it's a higher philosophical debate, but words ARE also actions.


Only in the pedantic sense that speaking them or writing them is an act. That observation doesn't really seem to help us move the ball forward.

(*) Note there that I'm offering no opinion one way or the other on the issue, but merely exploring the word "hate." Nor am I expressing any pushback against your political ideas, but merely saying that if they don't add up to "hate," neither do Schilling's. Nor am I saying in the least that Schilling's opinions are more worthy than yours.
   52. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 24, 2020 at 12:27 PM (#5919030)
Have you ever been convinced or swayed to hate another person or group (obviously other than something like Ted Bundy) by anyone else's words or writings? Do you in fact hate any groups in the political sense in which it's being used here? Do you, for example, disfavor the political application of straight, white malehood -- such as it is? As a result, do you "hate" straight, white males?


Where are you imagining the hate originated? People are born as mostly blank slates. Not just in the touchy-feely "Babies are pure and love everyone; hate has to be taught". But I mean, literally EVERYTHING has to be taught and, hence, has a source.

I can speak English mostly because my parents and older sister spoke English around me. I can do algebra because Ms. Rohrer taught it to me in 8th grade. I love baseball because my Dad loved baseball and shared that with me.

Nobody is born believing that there's an international cabal of Jews who secretly run the world or that everybody in Mexico is a drug dealer and a rapist or that the Earth is warming at an unsustainable rate such that human life will be extinct within 30 years (to pick an extreme view from the other side for some balance). Those are learned somewhere from someone.
   53. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 24, 2020 at 12:31 PM (#5919033)
SBB is like the Banksy of trolls.


That statement is an insult to Banksy.
   54. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 24, 2020 at 12:35 PM (#5919034)
Also, why are we acting like QAnon conspiracies are a political position, equivalent to tax rates and whatnot?
   55. rr: calming the thread down with my arms Posted: January 24, 2020 at 12:50 PM (#5919037)
20-
Hitler, Schilling,Trump, SBB and Clapper were too much to pass up.
   56. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 24, 2020 at 12:57 PM (#5919041)
That statement is an insult to Banksy.

Eh, Banksy's a hack.
   57. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 24, 2020 at 01:00 PM (#5919045)
Eh, Banksy's a hack.


I can understand why someone might not like his graffiti, but Exit Through the Gift Shop is an excellent film.
   58. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 24, 2020 at 01:05 PM (#5919048)
I can understand why someone might not like his graffiti, but Exit Through the Gift Shop is an excellent film.

I've only been exposed to his street art. It's not terrible, but nothing special.
   59. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 24, 2020 at 01:10 PM (#5919052)
I've only been exposed to his street art. It's not terrible, but nothing special.


If you've ever seen Orson Welles's F for Fake, Exit Through the Gift Shop has very similar energy. It's well-made and a whole lot of fun, and not being all that enamored of Banksy's street art would probably only increase your enjoyment of the film.
   60. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 24, 2020 at 01:28 PM (#5919064)
Calcaterra made the distinction he is going for clear with his Mariano Rivera example (apparently Rivera is a big Trump guy) . . .
That’s like trying to prove your objectivity by saying you cast a Hall of Fame vote for an inner-circle player despite his twice voting for Obama. Rivera’s political views are so obscure that they would be news to most baseball fans, even those who follow the Yankees closely, which perhaps explains the insertion of the “apparently” modifier above. Rivera was awarded the Medal of Freedom by Trump, but I’m not aware of him being all that politically active.
   61. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 24, 2020 at 01:36 PM (#5919069)
Alternately, is there no case where you’d not be willing to hold your nose and induct? (Honest question.) Like, if they were a mass murderer or active Nazi or ... (hi Godwin.) If not, okay, you’re consistent. If so, you’ve set a threshold - whether an extreme one or not.
If they can let Yankees into the Hall, they can let Nazis in.
   62. . Posted: January 24, 2020 at 01:43 PM (#5919074)
Where are you imagining the hate originated?


Kiko, if you look back at the language you quoted, I'm questioning whether there's hate involved in the first instance.

But I mean, literally EVERYTHING has to be taught and, hence, has a source.


I get where you're going with this, but it's not really true. We're born with brains that are the product of millenia of evolution and they're at the very least hot-wired with default settings that will lead to certain places in the absence of any teaching. Kids very early on have an understanding of fairness and injustice, for example. If another kid takes their ball away at 2 year old preschool, they cry and lash out at the injustice of it. Moreover, pre-political humankind showed certain default characteristics such as sociability; Fukuyama has like a 900-page book on all this. We're likely all born with a default moral sensibility and a propensity toward moral considerations. Etc.

Moreover, kids from a very early age affirmatively reject much of the teaching they receive. We simply aren't this weak, vulnerable species that is prone to change our views on a dime because Curt ####### Schilling vomited out something or the other on bathrooms. Nor do the people that think that think of themselves that way, which means it's really just partisan political paranoia on their part.
   63. Srul Itza Posted: January 24, 2020 at 01:58 PM (#5919077)
I don’t see any sources cited by Calcaterra


Really? He has links to all of them, including him spreading some of the most vile conspiracy theory nonsense imaginable.
   64. Omineca Greg Posted: January 24, 2020 at 02:06 PM (#5919082)
The street artist that's caught my eye recently is Invader. The idea is so simple, in fact the technique is simple too, yet I find his work thought provoking. And visually arresting all out of proportion to the level of craftsmanship needed to pull it off.

I'll just link to an image search and you can see what's he's all about. If you just think he's shallow garbage, I would ask you to mull it over a little bit before drawing a conclusion like that. You still might think he's trash in the end, that's OK, different strokes for different folks, and so on and so on, and scooby dooby dooby**. But 8-bit computer imagery, pointillism, Rubik's cubes...well, I enjoy it. I won't get into why, because things like that always start to sound hopelessly banal when articulated plainly, but give it a try.

Invader

**But you have to like Sly Stone. That's not negotiable. I'm sure it won't come up because I can't imagine what kind of sad sack doesn't like Sly Stone (I mean, besides the repetition of some of his production ideas).

Which reminds me, There's a Riot Goin' On Sly Stone has been identified by some of the more astute posters here as one of the voices in which SBBs posts take on a more stimulating tenor. I think it's that the bleary eyed, drugged up, sense of despair in Sly's voice knocks the pompousness out of SBB's verbiage, like adding melted butter to whipped egg whites (if you haven't done that you should, great fun). Here's a reminder of what Sly sounded like...

(You Caught Me) Smilin'
   65. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 24, 2020 at 03:08 PM (#5919105)
The street artist that's caught my eye recently is Invader.


Coincidentally, Invader is also featured in Exit Through the Gift Shop.
   66. rr: calming the thread down with my arms Posted: January 24, 2020 at 03:19 PM (#5919109)
60
I never said that CC was "objective", just that he established a difference between Schilling and more typical righty Trump-backing ballplayers that CC would vote for. That does not justify not voting for Schilling IMO as I noted, but there is a difference.
   67. SoSH U at work Posted: January 24, 2020 at 03:47 PM (#5919126)
I never said that CC was "objective", just that he established a difference between Schilling and more typical righty Trump-backing ballplayers that CC would vote for. That does not justify not voting for Schilling IMO as I noted, but there is a difference.


There absolutely is a difference, and I've long pointed out that it's not Curt's "politics" that derailed his march. Smoltz, who is very comparable to Schilling as a pitcher, has been quite outspoken and is more doctrinaire conservative than Schilling (in fact, Schilling made a pretty good joke about that upon Smoltz's induction). But no one used his right-leaning ways as an argument against voting for him. Hell, it wasn't being used against Schilling. It was his decision to become a conspiracy-minded troll going out of his way to piss people off.

And like you, I wouldn't hold Schilling's trollery against him when it came time to vote. But if I had 10 others I felt were worthy; then I might use it as a tiebreaker.
   68. Lassus Posted: January 24, 2020 at 03:51 PM (#5919128)
Moreover, kids from a very early age affirmatively reject much of the teaching they receive.

Some of his best friends and family members are kids. I'm convinced.


I've only been exposed to his street art. It's not terrible, but nothing special.

Ray is turning over in his expatriot grave. All y'all get THIS teed up in my absence and not ONE of you hits it 350 yards? I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your souls.
   69. jmurph Posted: January 24, 2020 at 04:00 PM (#5919131)
Ray is turning over in his expatriot grave. All y'all get THIS teed up in my absence and not ONE of you hits it 350 yards? I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your souls.

I couldn't find the original quote in order to adapt it, but I thought of it, I promise!
   70. Der-K: at 10% emotional investment Posted: January 24, 2020 at 04:09 PM (#5919134)
60 - I'm not sure how obscure Rivera's are. They're probably obscure (I sincerely don't know), but I immediately thought of him as a counter to Schilling prior to reading TFA -- and I generally would rather not know too, too much about the political stances of these guys (given that I generally disagree with them).
   71. ww0b Posted: January 24, 2020 at 04:48 PM (#5919148)
dang - imagine the controversy if he actually DID have a vote.
   72. Fancy Crazy Handle on Altuve's Buzzer Posted: January 24, 2020 at 09:49 PM (#5919198)
That said, Calcaterra's argument is, as noted, really lame. Schilling not only has the stat quals for the Hall, his context/narrative as a player was great--2004 Red Sox, 2001 Diamondbacks, Bloody Sock, fan-friendly, quotable, big on baseball history, showed up on SoSH etc. Schilling should have been in the Hall already.

Schilling has a significantly better HoF case than Jeter. But 99% of the outrage is directed at the one guy who didn't vote for Jeter once, instead of the 100ish guys who haven't voted for Schilling 8 times.
   73. gef, talking mongoose & vexatious litigant Posted: January 24, 2020 at 09:52 PM (#5919199)
Schilling has a significantly better HoF case than Jeter.


Wait ... what? I'm not even remotely a fan of Jeter's, but that's nuts.
   74. Fancy Crazy Handle on Altuve's Buzzer Posted: January 24, 2020 at 09:58 PM (#5919200)
Ray is turning over in his expatriot grave. All y'all get THIS teed up in my absence and not ONE of you hits it 350 yards? I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your souls.

I couldn't find the original quote in order to adapt it, but I thought of it, I promise!


Here:
Looks like a good throw to me. Not a great one. Virtually every 3B in the league could have made it. And would have, had they managed to boot the ball in the clumsy manner that he did and then happened to find the handle again in the gift of the year.

His momentum was carrying him away from 1B, which I guess is why people were fooled into thinking this was a special throw. I see nothing remarkable about it.
   75. Fancy Crazy Handle on Altuve's Buzzer Posted: January 24, 2020 at 10:07 PM (#5919201)
Schilling has a significantly better HoF case than Jeter.

Wait ... what? I'm not even remotely a fan of Jeter's, but that's nuts.

Uhm, no it isn't?
Jeter / Schilling:
WAR: 72.4 / 80.5
WAA: 31.0 / 53.9!!!
Best seasons: 8.0, 7.5, 6.6, 5.6, 5.2, 5.0 / 8.8, 8.6, 7.8, 6.3, 6.2, 6.0, 5.9, 5.5


Schilling has him beat handily in career and in peak. He has a 2.23 postseason ERA. He has the lowest unearned run rate of any pitcher of all time. He has over 3000 strikeouts. He has more black ink, and more grey ink than Jeter.

Jeter has basically 'I played for the Yankees, so gfy.'
   76. bachslunch Posted: January 26, 2020 at 08:20 AM (#5919324)
@27: the Pro Football Hall has no character clause and explicitly says that in its election criteria. Only what the candidate did on the field (or by extension the clubhouse or sidelines) is to be considered.

That being said, the rule is inconsistently applied. HoFers Ray Lewis and Marvin Harrison’s issues are off-field ones, yet guys like Darren Sharper and Jim Tyrer can’t get in. And several owners inducted have significant issues, specifically:

-Tim Mara. Earned his living as a (legal) bookmaker.
-George Preston Marshall. Was so racist that he purposely tanked his teams rather than have Blacks on his squads, was forced to integrate by the NFL.
-Pat Bowlen, Eddie De Bartolo. Oversaw franchises that flouted the salary cap.
-Art Rooney. Heavy gambler who reportedly shorted his franchise’s finances when his luck ran bad.
-Charles Bidwill. Heavy gambler, race track owner, close buddies with Prohibition era mobsters.

The NFL has also had significant issues with gambling on NFL games in its history. HoFers Paul Hornung, Alex Karras, and Joe Schmidt would have gotten Pete Rose style bans if they were baseball players. There are also questions about point shaving and related issues tied to HoF players like Ken Stabler and Bobby Layne. These of course are “on field” issues but have been ignored by that HoF.
   77. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 26, 2020 at 02:15 PM (#5919359)
George Preston Marshall. Was so racist that he purposely tanked his teams rather than have Blacks on his squads, was forced to integrate by the NFL.
Every report I’ve seen credits the Federal Government, specifically Secretary of Interior Stewart Udall, with requiring the Redskins to integrate in order to continue using newly-opened D.C. Stadium (later RFK Stadium).
   78. bachslunch Posted: January 26, 2020 at 02:59 PM (#5919372)
@77: You’re correct. That’s my brain cramp, and I’ll own up to it.

Given that this did not come from the NFL itself of course puts that organization in a less flattering light.
   79. Joe Bivens, Elderly Northeastern Jew Posted: January 26, 2020 at 08:42 PM (#5919444)
Rivera was awarded the Medal of Freedom by Trump, but I’m not aware of him being all that politically active.


No, he probably isn't that politically active, but he has admitted to being friends with him, I guess because they have their Christianity in common.
   80. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 27, 2020 at 08:03 AM (#5919486)
George Preston Marshall. Was so racist that he purposely tanked his teams rather than have Blacks on his squads, was forced to integrate by the NFL.


Every report I’ve seen credits the Federal Government, specifically Secretary of Interior Stewart Udall, with requiring the Redskins to integrate in order to continue using newly-opened D.C. Stadium (later RFK Stadium).

Clapper's 100% correct on that. Two entire books have been written on that subject.
   81. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 27, 2020 at 08:04 AM (#5919487)
Schilling unquestionably belongs in the HOF,based on his on-field performance, and there is no evidence that he cheated on the baseball field. For the purpose of voting for the HOF, that is really all you need to know.

Bingo.
   82. bachslunch Posted: January 27, 2020 at 08:31 AM (#5919491)
@80: I've already admitted my error and acknowledged Clapper for pointing it out in post #78. I had hoped that would be sufficient.
   83. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 27, 2020 at 09:01 AM (#5919496)
Sorry, I was scrolling from the bottom and Clapper's was the first comment I saw on that subject.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
1k5v3L
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogRosenthal: Carlos Correa rips Bellinger, passionately defends Altuve and says the Astros deserve their 2017 title – The Athletic
(52 - 12:28am, Feb 17)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread 2020
(1360 - 12:17am, Feb 17)
Last: Eric L

NewsblogJoe Palumbo and his 4,000 calorie shake
(1 - 11:11pm, Feb 16)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogAstros’ Dusty Baker begs MLB to protect players from cheating retaliation
(6 - 11:06pm, Feb 16)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogThe Ringer: The Myths Behind Boston’s Mookie Betts Trade Justification
(22 - 10:11pm, Feb 16)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogBlue Jays legend Fernandez dies at 57
(17 - 9:59pm, Feb 16)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogAgainst the Astros and their reputation, suspicious Nationals felt they had to assume the worst
(1 - 9:51pm, Feb 16)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogCubs 3B Bryant: No hard feelings on losing grievance
(5 - 9:43pm, Feb 16)
Last: WKRP in Cincinnatus

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (February 2020)
(87 - 8:50pm, Feb 16)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogBen Zobrist Reportedly Not Planning To Play In 2020
(31 - 8:33pm, Feb 16)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogSparse crowds, slow ticket sales, no buzz -- Red Sox facing an enthusiasm deficit
(21 - 8:13pm, Feb 16)
Last: gef, talking mongoose & vexatious litigant

NewsblogOT - Soccer Thread - January, 2020
(551 - 7:59pm, Feb 16)
Last: frannyzoo

NewsblogPhillies’ Zack Wheeler puts end to insult-slinging with Mets GM Brodie Van Wagenen
(10 - 7:17pm, Feb 16)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogThis was the time for the Astros to own their cheating. Maybe they missed the sign.
(7 - 6:22pm, Feb 16)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogBay Bridge spanned: A’s, Giants make 1st trade since 1990
(7 - 3:25pm, Feb 16)
Last: A triple short of the cycle

Page rendered in 0.6968 seconds
46 querie(s) executed