Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Monday, December 28, 2020

Jay Jaffe: JAWS and the 2021 Hall of Fame Ballot: Curt Schilling

At a time when the type of right-wing rhetoric Schilling has repeatedly trafficked in has fueled the United States’ inclusion among the most dangerous countries for professional journalists, I don’t blame any journalist for eliminating Schilling from consideration. And at a time when Trump and 126 members of Congress have called for the unprecedented overturning of a fair presidential election on the grounds of unfounded claims of voter fraud, I’m not about to give the benefit of the doubt to a single person, let alone a Hall of Fame candidate with strong stats and an impressive highlight reel, amplifying those claims.

Thus, I’m done telling anybody to hold their nose and vote for Schilling, and while I have included him on nearly every one of my virtual ballots since he became eligible, I won’t be including him now that I have an actual ballot. Not this year, and — spoiler alert — not next year either, if he falls short of 75% this time around. At times, I’ve worried that figuring out how to handle his candidacy would be difficult once I got my ballot, but aside from the labor of tracking the above litany, he made my decision far easier than it would have been even a couple of months ago. This isn’t about politics, this is about his using his sizable platform to spread hatred, intolerance, and disinformation. That platform will only grow if and when he’s elected, and I want no part of that. Nope nope nope.

Based upon what I’ve outlined above, Schilling is as qualified for the Hall of Fame as any of this year’s candidates.

 

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 28, 2020 at 12:09 PM | 241 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.

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. Howie Menckel Posted: December 28, 2020 at 03:11 PM (#5996256)
Hard pass.
   2. Rally Posted: December 28, 2020 at 03:26 PM (#5996260)
This isn’t about politics, this is about his using his sizable platform to spread hatred, intolerance, and disinformation. That platform will only grow if and when he’s elected, and I want no part of that.


Got to disagree. Vote him in now and next year nobody even mentions his name at HOF voting time. The way to keep him newsworthy is to have him fall a bit short this year and next, and then keep talking about his views the first year he’s eligible by the vets.
   3. Rough Carrigan Posted: December 28, 2020 at 04:03 PM (#5996270)
He couldn't vote someone into the hall of fame who said an election wasn't run clean? Wow.
   4. Dolf Lucky Posted: December 28, 2020 at 04:09 PM (#5996271)
I can’t think of a better way to discredit the JAWS methodology.
   5. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: December 28, 2020 at 04:28 PM (#5996275)
At a time when the type of right-wing rhetoric Schilling has repeatedly trafficked in

Stopped reading there.
   6. The Duke Posted: December 28, 2020 at 04:29 PM (#5996277)
Why does it even matter? He could have said anything and it wouldn’t have mattered until he tweeted the lynching thing about journalists - then it all started to matter because writers who love to offend people in their jobs have incredibly thin skins.

Let’s take a different situation. Let’s say Ichiro was caught on camera at a protest tearing down a teddy Roosevelt statue along with months of tweets about this injustice or that injustice. How would you feel if a bunch of writers decided that tearing down “history” should keep him out of the Hall? Mind you he had not one blemish to his character during his playing time.

It’s a slippery slope. My point is there isn’t an issue in this world where things don’t split about 50-50. If you start, reviewing people’s non-baseball behavior, you are going to have a lot of unintended consequences for future candidates and it starts to look like the Hall of inoffensive personalities.
   7. LargeBill Posted: December 28, 2020 at 05:17 PM (#5996287)
6. The Duke Posted: December 28, 2020 at 04:29 PM (#5996277)
Why does it even matter? He could have said anything and it wouldn’t have mattered until he tweeted the lynching thing about journalists - then it all started to matter because writers who love to offend people in their jobs have incredibly thin skins.


Exactly! Something is seriously wrong with anyone who took that as a legitimate threat. How many memes have we seen talking about tar and feathers for sale, politicians (like batteries) not included? Those memes are intended to express anger over congressional spending or inaction or whatever. Likewise, no one was planning on lynching journalists, they were mocking them or holding them in disdain.
   8. DL from MN Posted: December 28, 2020 at 06:11 PM (#5996288)
about his using his sizable platform to spread hatred, intolerance, and disinformation


At this point not voting him in despite his on-field qualifications may give him a larger platform by letting him play the victim. I'm with vote him in and then put him on ignore. Athletic prowess doesn't make a person's personal beliefs more or less valid.
   9. AndrewJ Posted: December 28, 2020 at 06:14 PM (#5996290)
I have no use for Schilling's politics (or the 38 Video $75 million loan issue), but yeah, I'd induct him in the HOF.
   10. flournoy Posted: December 28, 2020 at 06:47 PM (#5996295)
So, point taken: Jay Jaffe is a piece of garbage. Understood.
   11. Mayor Blomberg Posted: December 28, 2020 at 07:24 PM (#5996296)
Blizzard of snowflakes, I see.
   12. Jay Seaver Posted: December 28, 2020 at 08:29 PM (#5996300)
At this point not voting him in despite his on-field qualifications may give him a larger platform by letting him play the victim.


It will make him appealing to right-wing outlets, sure, but he's already that, and once he's elected, he's arguably "Hall-of-Famer Curt Shilling" rather than "divisive crank Curt Schilling", and more likely to get interviewed by mainstream outlets, get a broadcasting job, do appearances, etc. There's a fair argument that election rehabilitates him, and given that the entire point of the Hall of Fame vote is to cement a former player's reputation, it seems fair that the writers consider that voting for him will have that result in more areas than they are comfortable with.
   13. bookbook Posted: December 28, 2020 at 09:48 PM (#5996309)
Baseball started as an American game, and the HOF continues to mostly honor participants in the U.S. sport.

Calling for martial law in order to invalidate a clear election and end American democracy is as unAmerican as you can get. Forget about his incitements to violence against reporters, forget about his enthusiastic endorsement of a white supremacist who was even too toxic for Breitbart.

As long as he is actively supporting Trump’s coup attempts, MLB is praying Schilling does not get added to the Hall of Fame,
   14. The Duke Posted: December 28, 2020 at 10:40 PM (#5996316)
13. Oh, please. He’s an ex baseball player with no constituency whatsoever. Giving cranks legitimacy is what you are doing. Twitter and the social media universe gives people who are 6 standard deviations from the mean the same megaphone a renowned scientist has. If you want to be taken in by that, go ahead. He’s just a guy walking into his local pub on Friday night talking b.s.

But let’s talk about what he really has DONE in life. He has raised millions of dollars for several different causes (ALS being the big one). As far as I am concerned he can keep TALKING crap in his Twitter bar if he keeps RAISING money for worthwhile things. He’s not my cup of tea politically but he’s done a lot more for society than most of us ever will. It’s almost as if people have different facets in their personality that can’t be boiled down to one thing.

   15. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: December 29, 2020 at 12:36 AM (#5996332)
As far as I am concerned he can keep TALKING crap in his Twitter bar if he keeps RAISING money for worthwhile things.
So, it’s too much to ask for people to do good things for charity and also not endorse a coup to keep the duly elected president from taking office? ‘Cause I know a bunch of people who are like that.
   16. "bothsidesism" word 57i66135 Posted: December 29, 2020 at 02:09 AM (#5996341)
this man "joked" about killing us.
let's give him an award.
   17. "bothsidesism" word 57i66135 Posted: December 29, 2020 at 02:10 AM (#5996342)
btw, just a reminder:

jokes are supposed to be funny.
   18. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: December 29, 2020 at 06:07 AM (#5996345)
As far as I am concerned he can keep TALKING crap in his Twitter bar if he keeps RAISING money for worthwhile things.
Every time someone stops talking crap and actually does crap, people wonder, gosh, how did we get to this point? Well, this is how.
   19. Lassus Posted: December 29, 2020 at 08:37 AM (#5996347)
So, point taken: Jay Jaffe is a piece of garbage. Understood.

Oy.
   20. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: December 29, 2020 at 09:14 AM (#5996348)
the United States’ inclusion among the most dangerous countries for professional journalists,


Other than a scuffle or two at a Trump rally, or getting arrested at a BLM protest, has there been any violence towards journalists in the US? I am sure there's a much higher feeling of discomfort than in years past, but that seems like a pretty exaggerated claim.
   21. Hot Wheeling American Posted: December 29, 2020 at 09:19 AM (#5996350)
   22. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 29, 2020 at 10:15 AM (#5996361)
Wow, looks like BBTF wants to cancel Jay Jaffe now.
   23. reech Posted: December 29, 2020 at 11:26 AM (#5996381)
If Schilling is elected, I highly doubt (he IS a baseball fan, after all) that he would use the ceremony as a venue for espousing hate speech. Especially as he would be booed off the stage.

That being said, anyone who advocates for martial law and the overthrowing of the United States should be in jail, not honored.

Words have consequences.
   24. DL from MN Posted: December 29, 2020 at 11:26 AM (#5996382)
MLB is praying Schilling does not get added to the Hall of Fame


That is probably correct. It is bad marketing for the league to be represented by someone who will keep butts out of the seats.

I think the overall problem is partly caused by MLB and other professional sports. They want to be seen as role models when throwing a ball really hard doesn't make anyone a role model as a human being.

This is actually more embarrassing for MLB

Curt won the following Humanitarian Awards during his 22-year career in baseball: 2001 Roberto Clemente Award. 2001 Branch Rickey Award. 1996 Lou Gehrig Award
   25. reech Posted: December 29, 2020 at 11:28 AM (#5996383)
Curt won the following Humanitarian Awards during his 22-year career in baseball: 2001 Roberto Clemente Award. 2001 Branch Rickey Award. 1996 Lou Gehrig Award


I hear OJ Simpson was kind to animals in the 1970's.
   26. Lassus Posted: December 29, 2020 at 11:37 AM (#5996385)
If Schilling is elected, I highly doubt (he IS a baseball fan, after all) that he would use the ceremony as a venue for espousing hate speech. Especially as he would be booed off the stage.

No, he wouldn't be. On that lawn of baseball fans? In Otsego County? Never. He'll be eviscerated nationally, which is the attention he'd be looking for anyhow.

At this point, I want Schill to be the only 2020 electee. To have him and whatever wackjob speech he gives curb-stomp the induction of the MLB's most revered hero of the modern era would be a show like no other. And unlike many here, I'd feel bad for Jeter, kinda. He probably wouldn't deserve it. But deserve's got nothing to do with it.

(And, honestly, he might give a normal speech. But I wouldn't bet actual money on it.)
   27. SoSH U at work Posted: December 29, 2020 at 11:52 AM (#5996387)
(And, honestly, he might give a normal speech. But I wouldn't bet actual money on it.)


I don't think he'd deliver a nutjob speech. In fact, I'd put my money on a surprisingly good one. It seems like a lifetime ago, but his old 38 blog was actually far more thoughtful than your typical professional athlete's musings.

   28. "bothsidesism" word 57i66135 Posted: December 29, 2020 at 12:00 PM (#5996389)
This is actually more embarrassing for MLB
Curt won the following Humanitarian Awards during his 22-year career in baseball: 2001 Roberto Clemente Award. 2001 Branch Rickey Award. 1996 Lou Gehrig Award

it's not embarrassing at all, imo. curt did legitimately good work during his career, and while his later radicalization diminishes that work, it doesn't (and it shouldn't) erase it.

this is not a chris benoit situation. he doesn't need to be erased from history forever; he just needs to die.
   29. Lassus Posted: December 29, 2020 at 01:18 PM (#5996400)
I don't think he'd deliver a nutjob speech. In fact, I'd put my money on a surprisingly good one. It seems like a lifetime ago, but his old 38 blog was actually far more thoughtful than your typical professional athlete's musings.

I'll easily grant you could be 100% correct here. And he obviously can handle himself speaking in public, or writing.

But again, lately? I just wouldn't make a prediction if pressed is what I'm saying.
   30. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: December 29, 2020 at 01:59 PM (#5996411)
At this point, I want Schill to be the only 2020 electee. To have him and whatever wackjob speech he gives curb-stomp the induction of the MLB's most revered hero of the modern era would be a show like no other.
Sheesh. Did you vote for Trump in 2016 just for the lolz too?
   31. BillWallace Posted: December 29, 2020 at 02:07 PM (#5996412)
I'm with Jaffe 100%.

In 2015-2016 you could be a contrarian and say "I'm against the establishment, I'm against creeping PC/SJW", or even just "I'm a libertarian", and you could have a seat at the table of honest discourse, you could call yourself an American. I didn't agree with you, but we could talk.

But not now. The cards are on the table. If you're pushing that side now you are categorically an enemy of the United States.

There's no slippery slope, this isn't 'both sides', this isn't joking or 'just saying' or any kind of dissembling from the truth you want. This is absolutely NOT politics. There is explicit sedition against the US and crimes against humanity. There is literally mass-murder by intentional negligence. There is open looting of the government and the people by criminals.

If you are not against this now, you get NOTHING. You go down on the wrong side of history in every respect. If Ted Williams had come out in 1960 and said "you know what? I think Hitler had it about right, I wish the Nazis had won", do you think he'd be in the Hall? Should he? I say no. If he recants later then fine, you can put him in then. We've got guys wearing Nazi flags walking the streets now, and not just a couple. Godwin's law is dead.

The only way this country ever recovers is through accountability. And this is accountability. It doesn't matter if this increases or decreases his platform, it's not about that. It's about right and wrong.
   32. Lassus Posted: December 29, 2020 at 02:22 PM (#5996414)
Sheesh. Did you vote for Trump in 2016 just for the lolz too?

I will grant that "want" places me in a unpleasant position there. It is not a real want. It is more of a mortified fascination of the entertainment of possibly horrifying events. Seems different from the Presidential race; but I can take that criticism to heart.
   33. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: December 29, 2020 at 02:50 PM (#5996419)
Seems different from the Presidential race
On a different scale, sure, but it's all part of the same massive problem.
   34. cardsfanboy Posted: December 29, 2020 at 04:36 PM (#5996452)
As a massive liberal who doesn't like Schilling as a person in any way, I honestly cannot see any reason to keep him out of the hall. The arguments have been he proposed hate speech after he retired.... not a legit reason to keep him out of the hall. The reason that he suggest killing writers who vote on him, not a reason to keep him out of the hall. I dislike everything about Schilling as a person.... and I cannot for a second think of a reason to not vote for him for the hof, other than if I had 10 other names I'm willing to vote for on the ballot.... then at that point in time, since this isn't a ranking system, and I think there are ten names currently worthy, then I can vote for any 10 names I feel like, and then I might have a legit reason to not vote for Schilling...

Any ballot that doesn't have at least ten names, that excludes Schilling, is just a petty person.
   35. bfan Posted: December 29, 2020 at 04:48 PM (#5996454)
Hate speech is merely what you disagree with; stop the sanctimonious blather about it being some higher order offense. People get to disagree.
   36. "bothsidesism" word 57i66135 Posted: December 29, 2020 at 05:20 PM (#5996459)
Hate speech is merely what you disagree with; stop the sanctimonious blather about it being some higher order offense. People get to disagree.
*unless they disagree with my interpretation of who belongs in baseballs hall of fame. if applicable, their opinion must be silenced at all costs. people do not get to disagree about that.
   37. Sweatpants Posted: December 29, 2020 at 05:38 PM (#5996468)
As a massive liberal who doesn't like Schilling as a person in any way, I honestly cannot see any reason to keep him out of the hall. The arguments have been he proposed hate speech after he retired.... not a legit reason to keep him out of the hall. The reason that he suggest killing writers who vote on him, not a reason to keep him out of the hall. I dislike everything about Schilling as a person.... and I cannot for a second think of a reason to not vote for him for the hof, other than if I had 10 other names I'm willing to vote for on the ballot.... then at that point in time, since this isn't a ranking system, and I think there are ten names currently worthy, then I can vote for any 10 names I feel like, and then I might have a legit reason to not vote for Schilling...

Any ballot that doesn't have at least ten names, that excludes Schilling, is just a petty person.
I don't totally disagree with you, but I have to say that even though I think he clearly belongs in the Hall I have very little sympathy for the guy and can't say that I'm really hoping he gets in some day. Politics aside, the guy was trying to be provocative, and it turns out that he did provoke people, actually the very people he intended to provoke.

On the other hand you could easily argue that this is worse than the snubs of Clemens and Bonds, because there at least the writers are making judgments about whether their performance was achieved in a valid way. With Schilling he's being excluded just because they think he's a jerk.
   38. Dolf Lucky Posted: December 29, 2020 at 05:46 PM (#5996471)
If Schilling had tweeted that he wanted the President executed by firing squad, is there any doubt that he doesn't have a plaque by now?
   39. Mayor Blomberg Posted: December 29, 2020 at 05:59 PM (#5996475)
If Schilling is elected, I highly doubt (he IS a baseball fan, after all) that he would use the ceremony as a venue for espousing hate speech. Especially as he would be booed off the stage.

Not if there's a caravan of proud BBTF boys going.
   40. cardsfanboy Posted: December 29, 2020 at 07:54 PM (#5996496)
I have very little sympathy for the guy


I have little sympathy for him, but I don't think emotions should matter in the slightest in this type of discussion, other than acknowledging your own emotions.

On the other hand you could easily argue that this is worse than the snubs of Clemens and Bonds, because there at least the writers are making judgments about whether their performance was achieved in a valid way. With Schilling he's being excluded just because they think he's a jerk.


And I fully agree, at least with Bonds and Clemens they are making pretend judgements about their supposed actions on the diamond, with Schilling it's "he was mean to us" or "He disagrees with me politically"... neither of which matters in the hof rules. (and again... I absolutely hate Schilling's political viewpoints and find his comments about voters to be rather rude.)

I think that if you are given the option to vote, you need to put aside any pettiness you have, and vote for deserving candidates, and there is no way to argue that Schilling is not deserving based upon his record in the field.
   41. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: December 29, 2020 at 08:41 PM (#5996500)
Eh, I don't agree with Jaffe's decision, but last I checked I live in a democracy(Aussie version!) and he's entitled to vote the way he wants. I don't agree with it and that's ok.

As for Schilling, well he's a despicable human who I would still put in the hall. I agree with a few of the posts above in that I reckon he'd give a really good speech and I would be very surprised if you used it as some sort of right wing platform.

   42. cardsfanboy Posted: December 29, 2020 at 08:54 PM (#5996504)
Eh, I don't agree with Jaffe's decision, but last I checked I live in a democracy


It's a democracy, with requirements to make you eligible to votes, and a list of requirements on your opinion of a candidates worthiness... but it's a selective democracy, where you are hopefully choosing the best voters, not just any voter, and you expect them to take the issue seriously and within the rules listed, and I just don't think Jaffe is actually following that standard.

Mind you, I'm not a voter for the hall, I'm a random moron making a comment on a web site.
   43. "bothsidesism" word 57i66135 Posted: December 29, 2020 at 09:38 PM (#5996511)
It's a democracy, with requirements to make you eligible to votes, and a list of requirements on your opinion of a candidates worthiness... but it's a selective democracy, where you are hopefully choosing the best voters, not just any voter, and you expect them to take the issue seriously and within the rules listed, and I just don't think Jaffe is actually following that standard.
... which is why there is a large pool of voters to decide the results of the election, rather than one tony la russa, who would push his own agenda at the expense of the everyone else's legitimacy.

i think it's colossally wrong to say that jaffe is not taking this seriously. if that was the case, he wouldn't bother to write an article justifying his ballot.

i also think it's wrong to argue that jaffe is being petty. the issues that schilling advocates for are not frivolous and they are not without ongoing harm (and make no mistake, it is reasonable to believe he would use the hall of fame's platform to continue advancing his more odious beliefs). schilling's violations may not rise to your definition of disqualifying, but if jaffe feels that it meets his, it's reasonable for him to withhold his support.
   44. gef, talking mongoose & suburban housewife Posted: December 29, 2020 at 09:47 PM (#5996514)
Posnanski had something similar to say a couple of weeks ago after 8 years of voting for Schilling. Probably it's been discussed before, but just in case ...

Yes, I do believe Schilling was a great player. But I’m done. This year, for the first time, I will not vote for him. If the Hall of Fame really is an honor and not just an acknowledgment of baseball greatness, well, one thing I feel very sure about is that Curt Schilling doesn’t deserve it ...

No, of course, it isn’t Schilling’s politics. It’s his nastiness. It’s his intolerance. It’s his compulsion to troll. Curt Schilling pushes anger and fear and hatred. Every day he divides, every day he offends … and all the while, he makes sure to note that those he offends deserve it, and bleep ’em if they can’t take a joke,


Let the pearl-clutching re-commence!
   45. cardsfanboy Posted: December 29, 2020 at 09:57 PM (#5996515)
The difference between Posnanski and Jaffe is Posnanski hasn't decided on his next year vote.

mind you I don't agree with Pos, just pointing out a difference.

I don't agree with either of them, the stats are there, he never potentially hurt the teams he played on... his on field accomplishments is a hofer... nothing else matters.
   46. cardsfanboy Posted: December 29, 2020 at 10:06 PM (#5996517)
The actual words on the ballot.
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.


To imply the character clause applies post playing career seems a bit of a stretch to me.
   47. "bothsidesism" word 57i66135 Posted: December 29, 2020 at 10:23 PM (#5996520)
To imply the character clause applies post playing career seems a bit of a stretch to me.

the integrity clause seems more applicable. both have no cut-off date, as far as i can tell.
   48. Lowry Seasoning Salt Posted: December 29, 2020 at 10:32 PM (#5996521)
The difference between Posnanski and Jaffe is Posnanski hasn't decided on his next year vote.


Probably somewhere around 2005, I remember a Ken Rosenthal interview, either pre-game or in-game, him doing the usual schtick of being useless on the field with a microphone in hand as if it brings viewers closer to the game, and him saying he'd never vote for anyone from the steroid era. My immediate thought was, "Dude, you're gonna vote for Jeter. Pretty much everyone will. Stop."
   49. SoSH U at work Posted: December 29, 2020 at 10:57 PM (#5996524)
The difference between Posnanski and Jaffe is Posnanski hasn't decided on his next year vote.



That's a mighty thin reed. Every voter thinks that how he votes this year is how he's going to vote next year.

Pos gets at what I've been saying. This isn't about Schilling's politics. John Smoltz was probably more conservative than Schilling (and Schilling actually made a pretty good joke about that). No one cared. This is about Schilling becoming a vicious troll. And if he's gone even further this year into the dangerous levels of misinformation Jaffe says, then I don't begrudge anyone withholding a vote.

To imply the character clause applies post playing career seems a bit of a stretch to me.


So if there was a baseball equivalent of O.J. or Rae Carruth, where the offense happened between retirement and the vote, would you feel required to vote for him for the Hall?
   50. Ron J Posted: December 29, 2020 at 11:11 PM (#5996527)
#49 No need to be hypothetical. Take Kirby Puckett. Does he get in with different timing? I doubt it. Hell he might even have been one and done.

But I wonder whether the articles like Jaffe's might not have an unanticipated effect. I can certainly see somebody who was on the fence about Schilling deciding to support him simply because he doesn't want to be associated with Jaffe's stance.
   51. SoSH U at work Posted: December 29, 2020 at 11:33 PM (#5996532)
#49 No need to be hypothetical. Take Kirby Puckett. Does he get in with different timing? I doubt it. Hell he might even have been one and done.


I'm not asking what the BBWAA would do. I'm asking what cardsfanboy would do.
   52. bookbook Posted: December 30, 2020 at 01:11 AM (#5996545)
Schilling should go in the HOF Based on his career accomplishments, but not while he’s alive to enjoy it.

He is a major public figure actively trying to end American democracy by overturning an election through martial law. We are now in a situation where the next Republican to get elected president may actually be able to leverage the lies of people like Schilling and many prominent others to finish the job of ending American democracy that Trump’s administration started. This man deserves to be shunned from society, not lauded with the highest honor of his sport.
   53. Mayor Blomberg Posted: December 30, 2020 at 01:47 AM (#5996550)
The difference between Posnanski and Jaffe is Posnanski hasn't decided on his next year vote.

That's a mighty thin reed.


It's not only a thin reed, it's a poor read. Pos says he's done. Not that he's not voting for him this year but thinking about next year.
So, unless done means something not in any of my dictionaries, ....
   54. cHiEf iMpaCt oFfiCEr JE Posted: December 30, 2020 at 05:32 AM (#5996555)
Blizzard of snowflakes, I see.
Objecting to a writer's refusal to vote in favor of Schilling for reasons that involve neither a single illegal act nor his connections to baseball makes us "snowflakes?"

Yeesh.

But that's alright, I'm guessing that those of you who side with Jaffe also agree that LeBron James, Steve Kerr, and every other NBA player and coach who refuses to speak out on behalf of democracy in Hong Kong and Uighur human rights is undeserving of any present or future individual honor, including entry into the basketball Hall of Fame.

Right? Or nah?
   55. cardsfanboy Posted: December 30, 2020 at 05:41 AM (#5996556)

So if there was a baseball equivalent of O.J. or Rae Carruth, where the offense happened between retirement and the vote, would you feel required to vote for him for the Hall?


Yes. The rules read to me as if the character clause only applies to how it matters during playing time.
   56. cHiEf iMpaCt oFfiCEr JE Posted: December 30, 2020 at 05:57 AM (#5996557)
Over the years, as sportswriters brought up the character clause as their reason to deny Clemens, Bonds, Bagwell, and other suspected PED users their HoF votes, many of us objected, pointing out that the clause was meant to be viewed as one of many factors in deciding whether someone was worthy of membership, not as all or nothing.

So, even if you strenuously object to Schilling's social media commentary, why not here as well?
   57. Scott Lange Posted: December 30, 2020 at 07:50 AM (#5996559)
Yes. The rules read to me as if the character clause only applies to how it matters during playing time.


Huh?

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.


Textually, I'm not sure "to the team(s) on which the player played" even is a time limitation. You can be a community ambassador, broadcaster, scout, coach, etc, all after playing for a team, and that should qualify textually. But even if it were, "contributions to the teams" makes grammatical sense. "Character to the teams" or "integrity to the teams" really doesn't. So textually, even if that last phrase limits the time we're looking at, it's only with regard to the "contributions" and not to integrity or character.
   58. Lassus Posted: December 30, 2020 at 08:39 AM (#5996564)
With Schilling he's being excluded just because they think he's a jerk.

Seems like there'd be a bit of an argument there.

On the baseball side, wasn't Schilling always considered one of the "new pitcher" borderline candidates? I mean, people certainly always argued about his worthiness prior to his pathetic assholishness becoming so pronounced. Although that's since sucked a lot of air out of the debate, his horrrorshow of a personality doesn't mean that debate wasn't occurring.
   59. bookbook Posted: December 30, 2020 at 09:00 AM (#5996565)
You’re right, #58, but it was a weak debate. Like Messina, Schilling’s career accomplishments on the diamond would put him well over the line.

#54, you really can’t tell the difference between a failure to condemn (certainly a mistake) and an active choice to undermine? sports figures aren’t required to be political activists. Also, like it or not, the United States is more important to all of us, and more influenced by These folks’ words and deeds.

   60. Lassus Posted: December 30, 2020 at 09:07 AM (#5996566)
You’re right, #58, but it was a weak debate. Like Messina, Schilling’s career accomplishments on the diamond would put him well over the line.

Well, that is kind of the point. I haven't even looked, for a candidate who took ten years, is his progression that far off?
   61. Baldrick Posted: December 30, 2020 at 09:24 AM (#5996570)
The thing I'm interested in here is that Jaffe has been supporting Schilling for years and years, but decides not to vote for him once he has an actual ballot. I wish he had spent more time talking about that shift. Was it something about 2020 and Schilling's actions this year (the fact that Posnanski is also giving up on Schilling suggests there could be something to that)? If so, what specifically was the tipping point? From what I can tell, he spends one sentence of a VERY long article making the case that this specific moment was the tipping point:
at a time when Trump and 126 members of Congress have called for the unprecedented overturning of a fair presidential election on the grounds of unfounded claims of voter fraud, I’m not about to give the benefit of the doubt

I mean, I guess. It's certainly bad, but I don't see how it's the line in the sand.

An alternative is that Jaffe felt comfortable voting for Schilling as a theoretical exercise, but felt the weight of the choice more heavily once it was real. That also seems plausible. I'd like to hear more!

I get that Jaffe's whole thing is to write excruciatingly detailed discussions of every in-and-out of a player's resume. And in Schilling's case, that makes for a strange post. But it still feels like a weird exercise to spend this much time talking about the reasons not to vote for the guy without digging more into why you yourself had spent the last five years stumping for him.
   62. TomH Posted: December 30, 2020 at 09:33 AM (#5996572)
Empathy, people. Empathy.

First, Schilling obviously has mainly himself to blame if he falls short on the Hall.

But for Jaffe's ballot and reasoning... can't we agree that the Hall's criteria have made this a fuzzy line where people can reach different conclusions, without writing diatribes about them? I disagree with Jaffe's logic, but I can see where a reasonable person would get to where he is. Just like I understand how people could vote for Trump (or Biden, or a 3rd party, or stayed home) even though I believe him to be a horrible choice for President. Thinking humans can reach conclusions on Barry Bonds and socialism and religion different than mine without being idiots (even though I firmly think my conclusions are correct).

Empathy.
   63. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: December 30, 2020 at 10:19 AM (#5996584)
Objecting to a writer's refusal to vote in favor of Schilling for reasons that involve neither a single illegal act nor his connections to baseball makes us "snowflakes?"

Yeesh.

But that's alright, I'm guessing that those of you who side with Jaffe also agree that LeBron James, Steve Kerr, and every other NBA player and coach who refuses to speak out on behalf of democracy in Hong Kong and Uighur human rights is undeserving of any present or future individual honor, including entry into the basketball Hall of Fame.

Right? Or nah?
Well, you made it through one paragraph before the whatabout - two if you count “yeesh.” I don’t know whether to congratulate you or worry that you’re slipping. Maybe both?
   64. DanG Posted: December 30, 2020 at 10:36 AM (#5996585)
the Hall's criteria have made this a fuzzy line where people can reach different conclusions
Bingo! I have been calling on the the HOF for years to clarify the rules. As things are, we don't even know what a hall of famer is supposed to be because of the fuzzy rules. Among the electorate there are 415 different interpretations of the rules. The discussion always declines into a cacophonous morass over what the rules mean, rather than focusing on an objective analysis of players' credentials.

The simplest solution is for the HOF to handle the character issues themselves, on the front end, rather than passing the mess on to the voters. Change the rules to say something like: "Voters should not consider players' integrity, sportsmanship, and character. All candidates appearing on the ballot have been deemed to possess a level of comportment in alignment with hall of fame standards."

Unfortunately, the Hall will never do this because it means they would have to take a stand. Either they would need to keep a formal blacklist of Bad People; or they would have to let Schilling and the "cheaters" in, pi$$ing off a lot of fans. The HOF would rather let the voters take all the heat. Meanwhile the Hall continues their shadow campaign against problematic players, utilizing agents like Joe Morgan to poison the waters against them.
   65. SoSH U at work Posted: December 30, 2020 at 10:49 AM (#5996592)

Unfortunately, the Hall will never do this because it means they would have to take a stand.


As a business decision, this makes total sense.
   66. yest Posted: December 30, 2020 at 11:52 AM (#5996599)
Empathy, people. Empathy.

First, Schilling obviously has mainly himself to blame if he falls short on the Hall.

But for Jaffe's ballot and reasoning... can't we agree that the Hall's criteria have made this a fuzzy line where people can reach different conclusions, without writing diatribes about them? I disagree with Jaffe's logic, but I can see where a reasonable person would get to where he is. Just like I understand how people could vote for Trump (or Biden, or a 3rd party, or stayed home) even though I believe him to be a horrible choice for President. Thinking humans can reach conclusions on Barry Bonds and socialism and religion different than mine without being idiots (even though I firmly think my conclusions are correct).

Empathy.

Does that empathy also extend to curt Schilling?

If not it's worse than nothing.

Would you also have empathy for someone who boycotts a player who is the leftist version of curt Schilling?

Approximately half the country would fall into this category


It would be the understatement of the century, at least in the realm of Hall of Fame voting, to say that Schilling has continually refused to temper his noxious and obnoxious views for the benefit of his candidacy. He continued to run afoul of ESPN until being fired in April 2016 for “unacceptable” conduct stemming from his posting of an offensive Facebook meme about transgender bathroom laws, and publicly commenting on the 2016 presidential election. While nobody loves the idea of an employer disciplining an employee over their public expression, employment in such a high-profile job doesn’t come without certain expectations and conditions. Schilling repeatedly chose to violate those conditions with offensive sentiments that obviously crossed the line and rankled ESPN viewers, as well as its higher-ups.


If I would follow the standard of jaffee, dale Murphy (not sure if I would vote for him basebally) just lost any chance of my vote this year. He has taken positions on Twitter and his blog that make me think he is more evil than jaffee thinks Schilling is.

I used to be against the old writers voting, but scum like sean forman and jay jaffee made me see that they were much better humans at least.

Ps I never voted for trump, and am somewhat happy he lost.
   67. "bothsidesism" word 57i66135 Posted: December 30, 2020 at 11:59 AM (#5996602)
the paradox of tolerance:
If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

   68. SoSH U at work Posted: December 30, 2020 at 12:02 PM (#5996604)
scum like sean forman


What the hell did Forman do?
   69. Dog on the sidewalk has an ugly bracelet Posted: December 30, 2020 at 12:06 PM (#5996605)
I'm also curious what Dale Murphy did.
   70. "bothsidesism" word 57i66135 Posted: December 30, 2020 at 12:15 PM (#5996608)
I'm also curious what Dale Murphy did

if it's actually worse than what curt schilling did, he may have bombed a trump rally.

if it's "republican" worse, then he probably posted a picture of himself smiling at a gay wedding.
   71. Ron J Posted: December 30, 2020 at 12:17 PM (#5996609)
Updated Tibbs tracker. Everybody above 5% and known movement from last year.

Doesn't look like there's been a substantial change for Schilling. But he's in the every vote counts stage, so losing two and gaining one hurts his chances a fair amount.


Public Ballots: 78
Anonymous/Unverifiable Ballots: 6
% of Ballots Known: 21.2%
"Last Updated:
12/30/2020 at 08:30 PST"
Curt Schilling 73.8% (-1)
Barry Bonds 71.4% (0)
Roger Clemens 71.4% (-1)
Scott Rolen 61.9% (+14)
Todd Helton 52.4% (+16)
Gary Sheffield 50.0% (+8)
Billy Wagner 44.0% (+11)
Omar Vizquel 42.9% (0)
Manny Ramirez 40.5% (+3)
Andruw Jones 41.7% (+11)
Sammy Sosa 25.0% (+2)
Jeff Kent 21.4% (0)
Andy Pettitte 16.7% (+4)
Bobby Abreu 16.7% (+5)
Mark Buehrle 11.9% (N/A
   72. DanG Posted: December 30, 2020 at 12:42 PM (#5996614)
As a business decision, this makes total sense.
And if the Hall of Fame was generally regarded as just another business, this would make total sense.

However, the Hall has placed itself as an arbiter of morality. They reserve a place of honor only to those who pass some nebulous standard of character. Rather than be up front and deal with this reality themselves, they attempt to externalize the responsibility.

It's only a good business decision until fans of the HOF realize what's going on.
   73. SoSH U at work Posted: December 30, 2020 at 12:49 PM (#5996616)
It's only a good business decision until fans of the HOF realize what's going on.


Don't hold your breath.

If the Hall did what you said, in either direction, it would alienate a sizable portion of its potential visitor base. By leaving that to the writers, they do a better job insulating themselves from the ramifications of that.
   74. Lassus Posted: December 30, 2020 at 01:07 PM (#5996620)
He has taken positions on Twitter and his blog that make me think he is more evil than jaffee thinks Schilling is.

Beaten to it, but, such as?
   75. Lassus Posted: December 30, 2020 at 01:09 PM (#5996621)
In other news, I am legitimately (and maybe wrongly) surprised at how far Clemens and Bonds have come.
   76. cHiEf iMpaCt oFfiCEr JE Posted: December 30, 2020 at 01:17 PM (#5996622)
Well, you made it through one paragraph before the whatabout
In other words, were it not for double standards, you would have no standards? Understood, thanks.
   77. Todd Coffeys Enlarged Waistline Posted: December 30, 2020 at 01:27 PM (#5996624)
I'd just get rid of the whole character requirement. Baseball writers have clear expertise on baseball matters (well, most of them...) but have no special insight into character issues. Make the entire Hall based on baseball record, ability, contribution or whatever and make clear that the Hall is not designed to reflect anything to do with character and if people want to reflect on that they can look into it themselves...
   78. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: December 30, 2020 at 01:29 PM (#5996626)
I'm also curious what Dale Murphy did.
I believe he publicly supported Black Lives Matter. Which, yeah, that's way worse than publicly supporting overturning an election to install a dictator. Both sides.
   79. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: December 30, 2020 at 01:31 PM (#5996627)
In other words, were it not for double standards, you would have no standards? Understood, thanks.
Sigh. Do you really still think your constant whatabouting is a "gotcha," or is it just something you're compelled to do by your Republican masters?
   80. cHiEf iMpaCt oFfiCEr JE Posted: December 30, 2020 at 01:36 PM (#5996629)
Sigh. Do you really still think your constant whatabouting is a "gotcha," or is it just something you're compelled to do by your ideology?
LMAO, on the day you figure out whataboutism then maybe feel free to lecture others? Those who bleat such #### simply possess one standard for those who question elections where they approve of the result and another for those who question elections where they disapprove of the result.
   81. Lassus Posted: December 30, 2020 at 01:38 PM (#5996630)
I'd just get rid of the whole character requirement.

I don't think I see any massive problem with this. I'm sure there are plenty of unknown horror shows in the Hall at the moment. Modernity has rendered this possibility of the unknown impossible now, however, so.
   82. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: December 30, 2020 at 01:43 PM (#5996632)
Those who bleat such #### simply possess one standard for those who question elections where they approve of the result and another for those who question elections where they disapprove of the result.
You're better than this, and I think you know it somewhere in there. It genuinely saddens me what the Republicans have become in the last five years, and what people will make themselves believe to rationalize and excuse it. My party right or wrong. Anyway, I'll leave it at that. Don't want to derail the thread.
   83. cHiEf iMpaCt oFfiCEr JE Posted: December 30, 2020 at 01:46 PM (#5996633)
I'd just get rid of the whole character requirement.
Or again, emphasize that the character clause should only be used as a tiebreaker in deciding the most borderline of candidates.
   84. Lassus Posted: December 30, 2020 at 01:47 PM (#5996634)
Was there anyone in the early days of the Hall who could have been seen to have been left out due to the character clause? Say, anyone from 1936 to 1961, the first 25 years?

(Man, it's funny that we're still 15 years away from the Hall's centenary.)
   85. Mayor Blomberg Posted: December 30, 2020 at 01:52 PM (#5996636)
Does that empathy also extend to curt Schilling?

Possibly if I knew more about what ###### him up so. But it still wouldn't get him my vote. If you think that empathy = overlooking or refusing to judge behavior, you're mistaken.

Was there anyone in the early days of the Hall who could have been seen to have been left out due to the character clause? Say, anyone from 1936 to 1961
Given that color was character...
   86. Lassus Posted: December 30, 2020 at 02:21 PM (#5996641)
Well, I know THAT; but come on, that's not what I mean.
   87. Rally Posted: December 30, 2020 at 02:27 PM (#5996643)
Was there anyone in the early days of the Hall who could have been seen to have been left out due to the character clause? Say, anyone from 1936 to 1961


Do you mean players who played between 1936-61? Or guys who would have been voted on in that time period, so careers potentially back to 1871?

If the latter, guys who are still on the outside the hall now? Or those who might have been left off in their time and inducted long after they were dead by the vets?
   88. Lassus Posted: December 30, 2020 at 02:27 PM (#5996644)
Or again, emphasize that the character clause should only be used as a tiebreaker in deciding the most borderline of candidates.

But that's what Schilling has been. The many non-frivolous arguments over a number of years about his worthiness did actually happen.
   89. Lassus Posted: December 30, 2020 at 02:31 PM (#5996645)
Do you mean players who played between 1936-61?

Guys eligible for regular election during that time period? Imagining Schilling as a standard election possibility, so as a parallel, just regular folks eligible. Or go forward 10 years from 1946 to 1971, if that works better. I was simply asking about the standard, regular eligible electees, less so 19th-century or Jazz-age players.
   90. Lowry Seasoning Salt Posted: December 30, 2020 at 02:33 PM (#5996646)
You're better than this, and I think you know it somewhere in there.


Doubtful. At a certain point the person becomes their gimmick.
   91. TomH Posted: December 30, 2020 at 02:44 PM (#5996649)
yest, I may not understand your 66 post: Does that empathy also extend to curt Schilling? If not it's worse than nothing.
-- I empathize with Jaffe's position on a ballot to mark a yes or no, a responsibility he has as a voter, and then he feels responsible to explain his thinking. Schilling is a different matter; he has gone out of his way to say {insert negative adjective of choice here} stuff. If I were a HoF Voter, I would make Yes by his name, and write him a note that says sir, I voted for you, but as one guy to another who calls himself a Christian, ya oughta stop draggin my Jesus' name thru the mud with your rhetoric.

Would you also have empathy for someone who boycotts a player who is the leftist version of curt Schilling?
-- well sure. Same thing.
   92. JJ1986 Posted: December 30, 2020 at 02:46 PM (#5996650)
LeBron really bugs certain people.
   93. "bothsidesism" word 57i66135 Posted: December 30, 2020 at 02:53 PM (#5996651)
LeBron really bugs certain mediocre white people.
ftfy
   94. Rally Posted: December 30, 2020 at 02:53 PM (#5996652)
I looked at players born in 1920 or before. The only position players who are above the borderline and are not in are Bill Dahlen and Joe Jackson. Dahlen is before the time you are asking about. Jackson was never eligible, though if he were and not elected, his years on the ballot would have stretched past 1936. Jackson's case is sort of a character issue, but one where the HOF (along with MLB) took a stand and said he wasn't going in, they did not leave it to the whims of voters.

Pitching-wise, nobody stands out. Tops in WAR are guys who pitched in the early days but fell short of 300 wins. They were not the best pitchers of their times, but the second tier stars, and just racked up counting stats because pitchers could throw every day back then.

Maybe there's someone who was not elected in part due to character issues, and later got in by the vets. I don't know. But it seems like damn near everybody who was born before 1920 and has a strong case is, one way or another, already in the hall.

"Bad Bill" Dahlen was a bit of a gambler, don't know if it was alleged that he might have bet on games and that's part of why he's not in. I suspect it's more just a case of him being forgotten by the time the HOF became a thing and people could vote for him. That, and his numbers need a bit of analysis to show how good he was. He's got only 2 years that are obviously great years, but a ton of years as an above league average hitter while playing good D at shortstop, many of those in low offense environments.
   95. Lassus Posted: December 30, 2020 at 02:59 PM (#5996654)
But it seems like damn near everybody who was born before 1920 and has a strong case is, one way or another, already in the hall.

Rally - thank you for doing work I am too lazy to do. It's the true meaning of the internet!

I suppose the inevitable follow-up question is, who - if anyone - has been (possibly, arguably) kept out primarily (secondarily?) by the character clause? Without dealing with steroids or race.
   96. "bothsidesism" word 57i66135 Posted: December 30, 2020 at 03:00 PM (#5996655)
Possibly if I knew more about what ###### him up so. But it still wouldn't get him my vote. If you think that empathy = overlooking or refusing to judge behavior, you're mistaken.

he played baseball for 20 years.
then he founded a game company, which was his dream job.
then that company went bankrupt after making a single game, creating legal and financial obligations that buried schilling in morass for half a decade.
but his company failing couldn't possibly have been due his own mismanagement, and therefore, it must have been someone else's fault.


most turns towards fascism are less grandiose than schilling's, but his story is not too far off of the more common ones.
   97. Rally Posted: December 30, 2020 at 03:30 PM (#5996662)
I vow to never vote for Curt Schilling on a mock ballot for the video game HOF.

I suppose the inevitable follow-up question is, who - if anyone - has been (possibly, arguably) kept out primarily (secondarily?) by the character clause? Without dealing with steroids or race.


Dick Allen?
   98. caspian88 Posted: December 30, 2020 at 03:35 PM (#5996663)
Rogers Hornsby wasn't elected until 1942, which may have had something to do with his being still active in the major leagues until July 1937 (and then in the minor leagues for some years).

That being said, in the 1936 ballot, Ruth was of course elected after less than a year of retirement, Gehrig received 22% of the vote despite being an active superstar (he batted .329 with 30 home runs and 120 RBI the season before the election), and Mickey Cochrane received 35% of the vote and was also still an active superstar (he batted .319 in 1935 and managed the Tigers to a championship). Hornsby finished just ahead of Cochrane, with 46.5% of the vote - he hadn't played in 100 games in four years and was now clearly a manager who occasionally pinch-hit. Clearly the rules of eligibility were nebulous and Hornsby performed the best out of the active players. The same story pretty much applies for the 1937 ballot as well.

By the 1938 ballot, Hornsby had been out of the major leagues for six months, and in 1939 he received 64% of the vote as a clearly retired player. No vote was held until 1942, where Hornsby was finally elected with 78% of the vote.

Hornsby might be the best case for the character clause keeping an obviously qualified player out, but the eligibility rules were confusing enough that it's hard to say Hornsby was forced to wait because of his character rather than because many voters weren't sure they could vote for him. Cochrane and Frisch were forced to wait after 1942 (they also retired in 1937).

Hal Chase also received some very early support and then disappeared entirely after the 1937 ballot (where he received 9%). Did the Hall of Fame, or the BBWAA, move to strike his name from future ballots? It seems that going from 18 votes to zero in a year would be unusual, and Chase was clearly highly regarded as a player at the time. The character clause probably prevented Chase from performing even better and lasting longer on the ballot.

Those are the two best cases I can make.
   99. Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens Posted: December 30, 2020 at 03:42 PM (#5996668)
But that's what Schilling has been. The many non-frivolous arguments over a number of years about his worthiness did actually happen.
I think Mussina's acceleration past Schilling -- yes a shinier win total, but 0 rings vs 3 -- undercuts that argument more than a little.

To be clear, I am no fan of Schilling the post-career person, and he has only himself to blame for his predicament (I think even with literally everything else he's in by now absent the journalist lynching retweet), but neither he nor Mussina is to my mind in any way "borderline," they are both obviously qualified HoFers by baseball merit, and pretty close in value as well.
   100. Lassus Posted: December 30, 2020 at 03:56 PM (#5996672)
but neither he nor Mussina is to my mind in any way "borderline,"

I'm sure it's parsing, but this again highlights whatever idiot point I'm trying to make.

There weren't a lot of arguments that Gary Carter was borderline, that John Smoltz was borderline, Reggie Jackson, Ivan Rodriguez, Frank Thomas. I'm only trying to highlight the fact that I don't think Schilling was ever seen as a given, and that as there were plenty who felt that he wasn't first-ballot, or 2nd ballot, or 4th ballot, or 7th ballot. This by (my, I guess) definition simply makes him borderline, no matter what individuals think or whatever your personal lack of doubt is.
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Kiko Sakata
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogLast-place New York Yankees off to worst 15-game start since 1997
(3 - 1:23am, Apr 19)
Last: The importance of being Ernest Riles

NewsblogEmpty Stadium Sports Will Be Really Weird
(12737 - 1:21am, Apr 19)
Last: Srul Itza At Home

NewsblogYahoo Sports Braves' Sean Kazmar Jr. makes it back to MLB after 12 years in minor league
(1 - 12:21am, Apr 19)
Last: Cooper Nielson

NewsblogNew York Yankees' Jay Bruce to retire after Sunday's game against the Tampa Bay Rays
(17 - 12:17am, Apr 19)
Last: Perry

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for the weekend of April 17-18, 2021
(54 - 10:16pm, Apr 18)
Last: Brian C

NewsblogPete Rose to sell picks for baseball, other sports through website
(43 - 9:50pm, Apr 18)
Last: Greg Pope

NewsblogMinnesota Twins, Timberwolves postpone games in wake of police shooting of Daunte Wright
(264 - 9:08pm, Apr 18)
Last: "bothsidesism" word 57i66135

NewsblogBlindsided Joe Girardi mum on player's sudden decision to take leave from team
(8 - 8:07pm, Apr 18)
Last: vortex of dissipation

NewsblogOT - Soccer Thread - Spring is in the Air
(152 - 7:48pm, Apr 18)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale

NewsblogHow Fernando drew thousands of extra fans
(22 - 7:35pm, Apr 18)
Last: AndrewJ

NewsblogMLB salary down 4.8% in 2 years; top 100 earn half
(16 - 5:01pm, Apr 18)
Last: John Northey

NewsblogWhy the Cubs' awful offense could trigger full rebuild if downward trend continues this summer
(23 - 1:12pm, Apr 18)
Last: Brian C

NewsblogNBA 2020 Season kick-off thread
(2692 - 11:14pm, Apr 17)
Last: "bothsidesism" word 57i66135

NewsblogThe Athletic: Communication failures, poor decisions and messy breakups: How it all went wrong for the Colorado Rockies [$]
(79 - 11:03pm, Apr 17)
Last: Lowry Seasoning Salt

NewsblogIn the minors, a major change as the Atlantic League plans to move the mound back a foot
(84 - 10:23pm, Apr 17)
Last: Lowry Seasoning Salt

Page rendered in 0.7215 seconds
48 querie(s) executed