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

Tuesday, January 26, 2021

No new Hall electees for first time since 1960

For the first time since 1960—and just the seventh time since the first election in 1936—the National Baseball Hall of Fame will not have a new group of electees in 2021. Yet because the Class of 2020’s induction was pushed back a year by the coronavirus pandemic, there will still be entrants welcomed into the hallowed Hall this summer.

The Baseball Writers’ Association of America announced Tuesday night on MLB Network that none of the 25 players on the 2021 ballot received at least 75 percent of votes—the threshold required for entry. Starting pitcher Curt Schilling came closest at 71.1 percent.

This is the first time since 2013 that the BBWAA did not elect anyone. With the Era Committee elections having been postponed until next winter because of the pandemic, 2021 has pitched a shutout.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 26, 2021 at 06:30 PM | 610 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: 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 4 of 7 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›
   301. Mayor Blomberg Posted: January 28, 2021 at 12:38 PM (#6002442)
present top closer salaries, h/t Google

1 Kenley Jansen LAD $20,000,000
2 Aroldis Chapman NYY $17,200,000
3 Craig Kimbrel CHC $16,000,000
   302. bachslunch Posted: January 28, 2021 at 12:40 PM (#6002443)
Flip.
   303. alilisd Posted: January 28, 2021 at 12:43 PM (#6002446)
If the value of the closer is a fiction, it's one believed by FOs, which are not dependent on writers' opinions.


For example, Wagner topped out at $10.5M with the Mets from 2006-2009, Buehrle was being paid $14M by the Sox from 2009-2011, and pulled in $20M in 2015. Pettitte was being paid about $16M from 2006-2008. Helton was being paid $16.6M from 2006-2009, and pulled in a little over $20M in 2011. Sheffield averaged about $13M from 2004-2009. Generic relievers seem to get quite a bit less, but I didn't look into them with enough depth to find anyone during a similar time period who also would have received a free agent contract reflecting open market rather than arbitration limited salary. Just from this though we can see a closer who is receiving significant support for the HOF, much more than either of the two SP cited, was valued 40-60% less than the starters, and 30-60% less than the position players receiving similar, but still less, support for the HOF.

If the value of the closer is "believed by FOs," it is not the same valuation the writers are putting on it.
   304. Mayor Blomberg Posted: January 28, 2021 at 12:48 PM (#6002447)
So, out of curiosity, what is the salary floor for HOF worthy?
   305. alilisd Posted: January 28, 2021 at 12:51 PM (#6002449)
The guys creating the story are not necessarily the same ones voting on the story 10, 15, or 20+ years later, and even if they are the same people voting, they're not bound to their thoughts from decades ago.


Then how do you explain electing 7 relievers since 1985 compared to 5 or fewer at every other position but LF?
   306. alilisd Posted: January 28, 2021 at 12:53 PM (#6002452)
 304. Mayor Blomberg Posted: January 28, 2021 at 12:48 PM (#6002447)
So, out of curiosity, what is the salary floor for HOF worthy?


I eagerly await your answer as you are the one who contended closers are highly valued by teams the way they are by writers.
   307. alilisd Posted: January 28, 2021 at 12:55 PM (#6002453)
 301. Mayor Blomberg Posted: January 28, 2021 at 12:38 PM (#6002442)
present top closer salaries, h/t Google

1 Kenley Jansen LAD $20,000,000
2 Aroldis Chapman NYY $17,200,000
3 Craig Kimbrel CHC $16,000,000


Top starters and position players are making $30M and up.
   308. DanG Posted: January 28, 2021 at 01:08 PM (#6002454)
This is my hope, that Wagner, if he goes in, does not lead to a great deal more selections of one inning relievers, but it is my fear that he will. The writers have elected more relief pitchers than any other position (except starting pitcher, of course, and no, I don't consider reliever a position, but as SoSH has noted the writers certainly seem to) since 1985 when they elected Wilhelm, and that doesn't include Smith who went in via VC. They created the narrative of the Fireman, which gave us Fingers, Gossage, and Sutter, they created the narrative of THE CLOSER. How can they not then vote their own story when it comes to HOF time? This role, this position, is SO crucial, because we've said it is, that we must believe our own stories and we must vote for still more relievers! Hopefully I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but only time will tell. I am going to continue to try to contact voters and push the case against relievers
The next election should be a good indicator of where the voters are heading on this issue. If neither Nathan nor Papelbon get 5% you can rest easy. If one or both get 10%, we may have an issue. The following year we get Frankie Rodriguez. Those three candidates are the most "similar pitchers" to Billy Wagner.

Most WAR among pitchers with Saves >= 1.5*W

Rk Player           WAR WAR7 SV ERAWPA/LI WHIP
H Dennis Eckersley 62.2 37.8 390 116 25.80 1.161
H Mariano Rivera   56.3 28.7 652 205 33.62 1.000
H Hoyt Wilhelm     49.7 26.7 228 147 26.53 1.125
H Rich Gossage     41.6 31.7 310 126 14.80 1.232
H Lee Smith        29.3 20.8 478 132 12.68 1.256
H Trevor Hoffman   28.1 19.4 601 141 19.33 1.058
  Billy Wagner     27.8 19.8 422 187 17.91 0.998
  Joe Nathan       26.4 21.7 377 151 15.75 1.120
  Kent Tekulve     26.1 19.3 184 132 13.87 1.250
H Rollie Fingers   25.0 18.8 341 120 15.14 1.156
  Dan Quisenberry  24.6 22.5 244 146 12.46 1.175
H Bruce Sutter     24.5 24.3 300 136 11.92 1.140
  Franki Rodriguez 24.1 17.6 437 148 14.70 1.155
  John Franco      23.6 15.3 424 138 10.27 1.333
  Jonatha Papelbon 23.3 19.5 368 177 13.36 1.043
  Tom Henke        23.0 17.5 311 157 13.89 1.092 
   309. Zonk Can Sell Culture Posted: January 28, 2021 at 01:25 PM (#6002457)
It's been a long (long) time, but my recollection is that Quisenberry got kind of screwed...

First, he got a late start because nobody ever thinks a worm-farmer submariner can succeed to begin with.

Second, corollary to the first, the second such pitchers hit a rough patch, they're considered lost causes and given a nice pocketwatch on the way to irrelevancy.

As I recall, Quiz inexplicably lost his command briefly in '86, then lost his closer job and never got a sniff of a chance to get it back, even though he recovered the command.

Glancing at BBREF, I see he did get a lot more hittable -- but even in his heyday, he was a bit more gopher prone than you might expect for such a pitcher (or maybe not, when a sinker baller rolls one - it tends to be a meatball).

Anyway... the difference between him and Sutter in my mind was that when Sutter hit a bit of a rough patch, he was never in any real danger... but Quiz? Thanks for the memories, guy.
   310. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: January 28, 2021 at 01:42 PM (#6002458)
That list in #308 sort of suggests a few things:

1) If the HOF had drawn a line at the top four (Eck, Rivera, Wilhelm, Gossage), there'd be a logical argument for making that a line of delineation. I would also argue that Fingers has a unique place in history, as arguably the first great closer who maintained that role at a high level for many years. He also was an important figure in one of the great franchises of the last 50+ years, the 1970s A's. He also was the record-holder for saves when he retired.

2) If you look at those top four names that are comfortably ahead on WAR and WAR7, one important thing they all have in common is innings - a lot of innings - compared to modern closers:

Eck - 3285
Rivera - 1283
Wilhelm - 2254
Gossage - 1809

It is evidence of Rivera's unique greatness that he got to 56.3 WAR as a closer in an era where a two-inning regular season save was very rare. From 1997-2013, he was the Yankees' closer. In those years, he appeared in 1035 games, finished in 936 of them, and pitched 1109 innings. THe other three guys in this group had to pitch a ton more innings to get where they got.

Hoffman has almost exactly half of Rivera's career WAR. Wagner has less than half of his WAR. And the rest are below them. There is this narrative that Hoffman was sort of the "National League's Mariano" - not as good, but the closest thing to Rivera during this span of time. That is, I guess, literally true - Hoffman is second in saves, and has the 2nd-most WAR of any of the "modern" closers. But the chasm between #1 and #2 is massive - Hoffman is actually a lot more like Wagner, Nathan, KRod, and Papelbon than he is like Rivera. And if Wagner gets in, I just think it gets pretty difficult to explain how Hoffman and Wagner can be in, but Nathan and Papelbon can't even get 5%?

There aren't enough strong candidates coming into the pipeline - and a bunch of votes about to leave the pipeline - to avoid a lot of "eh" candidates (like Buehrle, Hunter, and Hudson this year, Papelbon and Nathan next year) from getting the 5%. And from that group, at least one of them will become a fashionable candidate to grow support.
   311. gef, talking mongoose & suburban housewife Posted: January 28, 2021 at 01:47 PM (#6002460)

woke terrorists. The most dangerous threat in the world.


Just out of curiosity, how many of your nonwoke terrorist f*ckbuddies are under investigation for the 1/6 Capitol invasion? Did you cheer them on while they were marauding, or did you wait outside? How much have you contributed to bail for your pals?
   312. Rally Posted: January 28, 2021 at 01:51 PM (#6002461)
My favorite comparison of closer to starter in terms of salary is Andy Pettitte to Mo Rivera. They were exact contemporaries (1995-2013), and by WAR had about the same value. 60-56, Andy. How were they valued by front offices?

Mo earned more, 169 to 139. But their peak earnings were about the same, 15-16 m per year.
   313. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: January 28, 2021 at 01:54 PM (#6002462)
Just from this though we can see a closer who is receiving significant support for the HOF, much more than either of the two SP cited, was valued 40-60% less than the starters, and 30-60% less than the position players receiving similar, but still less, support for the HOF.


Career earnings:

Jim Edmonds $89 million
Billy Wagner $92 million.
   314. Zonk Can Sell Culture Posted: January 28, 2021 at 01:55 PM (#6002463)
1) If the HOF had drawn a line at the top four (Eck, Rivera, Wilhelm, Gossage), there'd be a logical argument for making that a line of delineation. I would also argue that Fingers has a unique place in history, as arguably the first great closer who maintained that role at a high level for many years. He also was an important figure in one of the great franchises of the last 50+ years, the 1970s A's. He also was the record-holder for saves when he retired.


The powers of age-influenced perception... When I think Rollie Fingers, I always think Brewers. Of course, I've long since read and learned enough to know I shouldn't... but still... it remains jarring/more of an "oh yeah" to think of Fingers with Oakland, not Milwaukee.

Of course, I guess think of Eck as an A - despite my baseball coming of age involving him as the guy the Cubs got for Buckner.... and Gossage as a shitty Cub.... so maybe it all evens out somehow.
   315. RJ in TO Posted: January 28, 2021 at 02:06 PM (#6002464)
Just out of curiosity, how many of your nonwoke terrorist f*ckbuddies are under investigation for the 1/6 Capitol invasion? Did you cheer them on while they were marauding, or did you wait outside? How much have you contributed to bail for your pals?
As a reminder, if you think someone is being a shitheel or a troll in a thread, it's okay to drop them on Ignore rather than responding and further dragging things down.
   316. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: January 28, 2021 at 03:15 PM (#6002472)
But live in the new world or die in the old is less a tasty bon mot than it is good advice that transcends social and political issues.

Naah, it's just posturing nonsense. Nobody wants to live in the (deeply cowardly) new world you propose, where anybody can get cancelled for anything.

"But it's OK!" I hear you respond. "It's only bad people who get cancelled!" Well, guess who gets to be the "bad person" tomorrow? Maybe you. Maybe not. (Keep your gunpower dry, champ.)
   317. Zonk Can Sell Culture Posted: January 28, 2021 at 03:22 PM (#6002474)
This is why the curio shopkeep warns people not to get Martin Niemöller wet with your tears.
   318. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 28, 2021 at 03:46 PM (#6002477)
Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: January 26, 2021 at 07:33 PM (#6001949)
Fourteen blank ballots is a disgrace. These "voters" should be removed from the balloting immediately.


Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: January 28, 2021 at 03:15 PM (#6002472)
But live in the new world or die in the old is less a tasty bon mot than it is good advice that transcends social and political issues.

Naah, it's just posturing nonsense. Nobody wants to live in the (deeply cowardly) new world you propose, where anybody can get cancelled for anything.

"But it's OK!" I hear you respond. "It's only bad people who get cancelled!" Well, guess who gets to be the "bad person" tomorrow? Maybe you. Maybe not. (Keep your gunpower dry, champ.)


The level of cognitive dissonance it would take for the same person to make both of these posts is off the charts. Is there any reason at this point to doubt that RMc is a troll?
   319. Buck Coats Posted: January 28, 2021 at 03:50 PM (#6002478)
My favorite comparison of closer to starter in terms of salary is Andy Pettitte to Mo Rivera. They were exact contemporaries (1995-2013), and by WAR had about the same value. 60-56, Andy. How were they valued by front offices?

Mo earned more, 169 to 139. But their peak earnings were about the same, 15-16 m per year.


This is actually the exact argument I make about Rivera, HOF-wise: who had a better career, Pettitte or Rivera? You can draft one player and have their whole career on your team, which would you pick?

For my money, the answer is Pettitte. And I don't think Pettitte is good enough for the HOF. So therefore...
   320. Lassus Posted: January 28, 2021 at 04:01 PM (#6002482)
Everyone rags on the HOF for various things, but the balance between who do you WANT to have in the HOF for your tourists and who do you NEED to have in the HOM for your accuracy is a tightrope that's gonna wobble on occasion. And while Petitte should be there, I'd have a hard time if I was running the place thinking "Rivera? Eh, we really need Petitte for the Yankee fans, not so much Rivera." It's just not how it's going to work.
   321. base ball chick Posted: January 28, 2021 at 04:08 PM (#6002486)
just a few questions for yest and rmc and non-dems -

1 - who do you know of who has been elected to the HOF in the past 20 years that is liberal or democrat? (pls don't tell me the objection to schilloing is that he is not a liberal or democrat)

2 - do you think that ANY action done after retiring from MLB should be considered for the character clause? how about murder? how about getting caught in the act raping a 2 year old? how about twitting that NAMBLA is a great organization and people who protest against it should be sent the pic of the noose? how about twitting that Rabbi X/Preacher X should be assassinated? ANYTHING?
   322. . Posted: January 28, 2021 at 04:21 PM (#6002489)
Naah, it's just posturing nonsense. Nobody wants to live in the (deeply cowardly) new world you propose, where anybody can get cancelled for anything.

"But it's OK!" I hear you respond. "It's only bad people who get cancelled!" Well, guess who gets to be the "bad person" tomorrow? Maybe you. Maybe not. (Keep your gunpower dry, champ.)


McCarthy and his crew had similar justifications for their cancellation stampede BITD. Same thing today. If anything, Communism was more actually dangerous than the fakey and mostly fakey stuff the cancel left has gotten themselves all paranoid over. Pretty much everyone knows of Richard Hofstadter's political classic, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" from the mid-60s. As the book delineates, paranoia is and has always been there under the surface of American life, but Twitter and social media have brought it back in the open with a vengeance. The goblins and bugaboos people can talk themselves into today are a cut above, to be sure. It's really not a pretty sight.
   323. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: January 28, 2021 at 04:23 PM (#6002490)
Re 318: Can you really be this stupid?

Nobody's "cancelling" the non-voters for any political reason, it's because they're refusing to do their jobs. Every ballot has had deserving players on it; yes, even in 2021. If you don't want to vote for the steroid guys or Schilling, there's still, at minimum, Rolen, Helton and Andruw Jones. Refusing to vote is the equivalent of stamping one's little foot and saying, "Here's what I think of your Hall of Fame election, you poopy-heads!"

Now do you get it?

Re 321:

1 - Don't know, don't care.

2 - Oh, please.
   324. alilisd Posted: January 28, 2021 at 04:26 PM (#6002491)
The next election should be a good indicator of where the voters are heading on this issue. If neither Nathan nor Papelbon get 5% you can rest easy. If one or both get 10%, we may have an issue.


Yeah, and I should probably invest in a hatchet and chop up my soapbox regardless :-)
   325. The Duke Posted: January 28, 2021 at 04:31 PM (#6002494)
The character clause was never meant for any of the sorts of things that you envision on point 2. It was intended, if you read the old-timers, to give a boost to those who also had done good things, been exemplary citizens etc

The real question that is causing all the issues is that it’s now being used as a negative element and being used for all manner of off the field behavior. Would TLR get in now after his drunk driving arrests, for instance?. Fifteen years ago, you’d be laughed out of the room for suggesting that. Now it’s a fait accompli that he could never get the votes (not a good example because the writers don’t vote). If you don’t believe me look at the jihad that The Athletic tried to instigate to get TLR fired. Maybe that’s what the Hall and MLB want. If it is, they should clarify the meaning. If it’s really for what it was originally intended they should say that too.

Leaving it open for debate creates all kinds of issues.
   326. RJ in TO Posted: January 28, 2021 at 04:36 PM (#6002496)
Would TLR get in now after his drunk driving arrests, for instance?. Fifteen years ago, you’d be laughed out of the room for suggesting that. Now it’s a fait accompli that he could never get the votes (not a good example because the writers don’t vote)
Todd Helton has two DUIs (in 2013 and 2019), saw his support go from 29% to 44% this year, and seems likely to be inducted in the next few years, so I don't know if this is a great example.
   327. alilisd Posted: January 28, 2021 at 04:36 PM (#6002497)
And if Wagner gets in, I just think it gets pretty difficult to explain how Hoffman and Wagner can be in, but Nathan and Papelbon can't even get 5%?


Luckily the writers never worry about little things like this ;-)
   328. Zonk Can Sell Culture Posted: January 28, 2021 at 04:39 PM (#6002498)
I suppose if one wishes to get precise on lines, it's debatable as to whether a guy who isn't going to go hungry should be barred from managing again at 76 when he gets his second DUI after his first was of the "yeah, he was passed out a stoplight" sort.

I'd be OK with yes.

But if the terrible new world means there's a social stigma attached to your second DUI, I struggle to see how it's so terrible.
   329. Zonk Can Sell Culture Posted: January 28, 2021 at 04:44 PM (#6002500)
Nobody's "cancelling" the non-voters for any political reason, it's because they're refusing to do their jobs. Every ballot has had deserving players on it; yes, even in 2021. If you don't want to vote for the steroid guys or Schilling, there's still, at minimum, Rolen, Helton and Andruw Jones. Refusing to vote is the equivalent of stamping one's little foot and saying, "Here's what I think of your Hall of Fame election, you poopy-heads!"

Now do you get it?


I see.

So.... what you are telling me is that there are evolving minimum standards - hey, I'd do a 10 person ballot too based on the fact that one shouldn't be leaning so heavily on antiquated magic numbers like 300, 500, and 3000, but some apparently disagree - you expect society to hew towards?

Interesting.

   330. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: January 28, 2021 at 04:55 PM (#6002501)
I see.

No, you don't. (I actually have no idea what the hell you're on about in 329, but that's nothing new.)

Look, Rolen, Helton and Andruw Jones are not slam dunks, but they're all legit Hall of Famers. If you want to Make A Statement(tm) about the evils of steroid use (and voting Republican) then you can ignore those awful people and vote for Rolen, Helton and/or Jones. You could also make cases for Vizquel, Wagner or even Kent, even though I wouldn't. (And then there's poor old Bobby Abreu, who after being ignored by the All-Star Game for about eight thousand years, is now being ignored by the Hall, despite his 60 WAR.)

Turning in a blank ballot is basically thumbing your nose at the whole process. If you're going to do that, why the hell should you have a vote in the first place?
   331. Zonk Can Sell Culture Posted: January 28, 2021 at 05:19 PM (#6002505)
No, I get it.

There are some evolving standards and judgments you want antique trogs to get with the program, some uncodified newer rules you wish some other people to respect and abide by, and if they don’t - you would like a private entity to get rid of them or at least, cancel some of their privilege.

I get it fine.
   332. alilisd Posted: January 28, 2021 at 05:22 PM (#6002506)
313. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: Just from this though we can see a closer who is receiving significant support for the HOF, much more than either of the two SP cited, was valued 40-60% less than the starters, and 30-60% less than the position players receiving similar, but still less, support for the HOF.


Career earnings:

Jim Edmonds $89 million
Billy Wagner $92 million.


I guess this is a sliver of a response. Edmonds let the Angels buy out a year of his free agency for a bargain amount, then signed an extension with the Cards rather than becoming a free agent. Those two signings are why his career earnings are lower, whereas Wagner did hit the free agent market to get that contract with the Mets. Almost certainly Edmonds out earns him had he gone to the open market. But how are Edmonds career earnings relevant to the discussion? Edmonds was one and done. Wagner is on the ballot now, and outpolling everyone I mentioned on the present ballot, all of whom were compensated much more highly than him.
   333. Mayor Blomberg Posted: January 28, 2021 at 05:23 PM (#6002507)
Todd Helton has two DUIs (in 2013 and 2019), saw his support go from 29% to 44% this year, and seems likely to be inducted in the next few years, so I don't know if this is a great example.

It's a profoundly stupid example that shows an inability to imagine different gradations of offense that seems to be popular in American grievance politics, concurrent with self-blindness.
   334. Esoteric Posted: January 28, 2021 at 05:24 PM (#6002508)

I know a lot of people here have SBB on mute but he's been writing a lot of thoughtful comments in this thread that deserve to be read.
I actually kind of late-posted on this one in the other HOF thread and it goes right to my thesis, which I now think is entirely accurate. Schilling isn't entirely right -- the Curt Schilling we now see actually does exist, and it's not a pretty picture. However, the Curt Schilling now publicly perceived is almost entirely a product of the internet and the way that it pushed him, as it pushes many, to create an internet persona. That internet persona is not in fact, the Curt Schilling that existed when he was winning all the community service and citizenship awards. The internet literally created a new Curt Schilling and it's perfectly understandable that the Curt Schilling that wrote yesterday would interpret that pre-Twitter, pre-cesspool person as the "real" Curt Schilling. Again, it isn't -- it's too late for that and the internet is in its way a real thing and people can't just run away from their internet personas. But the internet is very ephemeral and very strange and Schilling is absolutely getting at something true with his intuition that there is something not really "real" about it. It drove the dark side of Curt Schilling out and pushed the better angels of Curt Schilling -- the ones that led him to win a bunch of citizenship awards BITD -- back in. There is really no purpose other than malign in the way the people getting rich off it are causing people to reveal their deeper selves and take on the persona of their deeper selves, the selves that used to be modulated and kept in check by culture, community, real friendship and real bonds and real relationships.

It's truly a malign force, just a terrible development.
   335. Mayor Blomberg Posted: January 28, 2021 at 05:34 PM (#6002512)
It's an interesting hypothesis, but I think it gives too much credit to the technology. He's right, of course, that the tech made it easier, but he talked himself out of legacy media jobs (ESPN) for the same kind of behavior, which suggests a larger problem with his filter/self-awareness. Remember, too, that he's doing this as an already public person on a verified account.

Airballing it, as I know him not, I wonder what cravings and resentments tmight have been stirred, after the red light went off on Curt Shilling, Ace Pitcher, and the subsequent and very public crash of his gaming company, and if these performances were a self-destructive way of scratching that itch.
   336. reech Posted: January 28, 2021 at 06:00 PM (#6002515)
In the "going too far but what the heck dept"...

You cannot as a voter support Jeff Kent if you don't support Barry Bonds.

Kent made his bones playing with and benefitting from Bonds in the line-up.
His MVP and other 3 top ten finishes all occurred during this six year period.

Soooooo.... Kent's viability as an HOF'r is due to 'roids even though he never did them.

On the other hand, Bonds never did either ;-)

   337. yest Posted: January 28, 2021 at 06:03 PM (#6002517)
History is, mostly, going in the right way, yes, but in fits and starts. (Welcome to the latest fit.)


Dumb jews (rosa Luxembourg for example) in Germany thought modern society was to advanced for anti semitism.

When hitler came to power he was a little bump in the advancement of man kind.

The 1400s were way more moral then 1900s.
Hitler, lenin, stalin, pol pot, Mao etc.


The reason dumb people think we are more advanced is because most people want to think higher of themselves.

The advances of one generation were considered by subsequent generations as big steps in the wrong direction.

Communisim was supposed to be the biggest advancement in history, but boy did people wish the czar was back after a few years.

5he woke crowds promises are likely to end worse for the people then the communists.

99% of the woke crowd fits the psycological make up of the useful idiots, who were the hand on perpetrators of the worst crimes in human history
   338. Ron J Posted: January 28, 2021 at 06:07 PM (#6002519)
#318 I don't think he's a troll. He does however choose to indulge in trolling.
   339. yest Posted: January 28, 2021 at 06:14 PM (#6002520)
Just out of curiosity, how many of your nonwoke terrorist f*ckbuddies are under investigation for the 1/6 Capitol invasion? Did you cheer them on while they were marauding, or did you wait outside? How much have you contributed to bail for your pals?

1. Strawman I despise trump
2. BLM is way more dangerous, and long term
   340. Zonk Can Sell Culture Posted: January 28, 2021 at 06:18 PM (#6002521)
Is yest actually tina?

I have a sudden urge to badmouth Colin Farrell.
   341. yest Posted: January 28, 2021 at 06:41 PM (#6002525)
just a few questions for yest and rmc and non-dems -

1 - who do you know of who has been elected to the HOF in the past 20 years that is liberal or democrat? (pls don't tell me the objection to schilloing is that he is not a liberal or democrat)

2 - do you think that ANY action done after retiring from MLB should be considered for the character clause? how about murder? how about getting caught in the act raping a 2 year old? how about twitting that NAMBLA is a great organization and people who protest against it should be sent the pic of the noose? how about twitting that Rabbi X/Preacher X should be assassinated? ANYTHING?

1. Schilling is being kept out because he is voicing opinions, that the left doesn't like. If instead of the lynching joke with journalists he would have done the same thing with let's say "conservative talk radio", and would do similarly trolling tactics on the left would he loose the same number of votes. Based on those who wrote detailed reasons they say it it not politics but write reasons that are 100% politics

My issue is with those who would not have voted against leftist curt Schilling. I'm 100% scum like forman and jaffee would not have voted for librael Schilling. Ps joe torre for one

2. My issue is not them using the character clause for off field behavior, it's their using it because they dont like his views. I never complained about omar vizquel (and wouldn't even if I supported his candidacy).
   342. JJ1986 Posted: January 28, 2021 at 07:48 PM (#6002532)
I don't think calling Sean Forman 'scum' is a winning argument.
   343. Robbo Posted: January 28, 2021 at 07:58 PM (#6002533)
Schilling is being kept out because he is voicing opinions, that the left doesn't like.


Again, "this child is lying about a school shooter killing his classmates" is not an opinion. It's a fabrication.
   344. Howie Menckel Posted: January 28, 2021 at 08:48 PM (#6002536)
thank you to the repost that is in 334, to 334 itself, and to 335.

perhaps it is possible to try to understand what the hell happened to Schilling without getting painted into the "how can you defend this monster?" box. the world is more complicated than that.

I asked more than 100 posts ago (in this, or in another thread) whether most of his Twitter offenses were original, or retweets.

ultimately, we have collectively decided that it doesn't matter. and that's fine.

but make Schilling an Aspie for a moment (and I have this diagnosis in my close family and have seen it firsthand).

while he has figured out IRL how to conform to behavior patterns that he would not have created himself, he winds up in a virtual world where anything seemingly goes.

it's notable that one BBTF poster claimed - falsely, from what I can find so far - that he harassed the Sandy Hook victim families.

what DID he do?

for one, he retweeted a completely false claim that one of the Florida school shooting survivors was a "plant" - adding his own "Anyone?" before the tweet.

I don't find it impossible to believe that in his mind, "just putting it out there" was well, just that. someone confirms it, or someone debunks it.

this, obviously, demonstrates an appalling lack of empathy - a common symptom, btw, if not fully addressed. no civilized person should "put out there" such an utterly deadly serious charge (made somehow even worse by it being utter nonsense, and easily found to be so, with even a token effort). there is an exponential moral difference between this and relatively trivial issues where someone might think they are adding to the public discourse. or something.

now, Schilling is a very intelligent person and he has plenty of loved ones, I assume. so someone had to have explained this to him. that, to me, would be where the stubbornness would have to come in - he doesn't understand why he is being 'attacked,' gets defensive, and keeps digging a deeper and deeper hole for himself.

at this point, he seems stuck in a very dumb freefall. once he got there, he seemed to start to think that all kinds of nonsense that he saw getting properly slammed in his Twitter feed might well be just the actions of a bunch of closed-minded people who aren't as willing to "see the big picture" as he is.

and so we wind up here. as noted, he's a grown man and someone should have been able to get through to him.

but to take one example, he knows - and here, for once, he's right - that posting a stupid photo of one of those "rope. journalist. tree. assembly required" t-shirts is not literally calling for the execution of journalists (and it's bizarre how many here claim it is, given the hyperbole spouted by so many on the left in the past 5 years. that gets properly recognized as hyperbole, for some reason.)

and likewise "this child is lying about a school shooter killing his classmates."

did he write that anywhere? not that I can find so far.

but is that the spirit that many would take away from his actions? obviously.

so this, then, is why he is so convinced he is being persecuted for RTing some absolutely vile claims and "jokes" - and later, for buying into preposterous claims himself. he is living in an Aspie fever dream where anything can be "thrown out there" and it's all good.

he's wrong about that - and I don't know if there's any path back for him now.

let the bloodletting begin.
   345. gef, talking mongoose & suburban housewife Posted: January 28, 2021 at 08:52 PM (#6002538)
He could try STFU. Just, you know, for the novelty of it.
   346. rr: cosmopolitan elite Posted: January 28, 2021 at 09:44 PM (#6002543)
As Clapper might frame it, "Interesting" that we have righties and anti-PC cops like SBB, who has been taking dumps on "modern liberals" around here for like ten years (Menckel has always had a solid righty bias, although he has no ability to own it) telling us that Schilling, (Who in spite of his recent peccadilloes and more serious mistakes, still lives at/near the top of American society. Missing out on Cooperstown if he does is not some epic hardship.) needs compassion and empathy, is a product of his times with technology run amok etc. I commented to a buddy of mine that one thing I have observed in the wake of 1/6 is lefties (me included to an extent) loudly talking about accountability and rooting hard for the massive Federal Law Enforcement apparatus to nail both the livestreaming clowns and the hardcores who stormed our Capitol; while we have Righties, including US Senators, talking about unity, and letting bygones be bygones, along with ofc the "wuddabout BLM" crowd, which goes from high-profile Repubs in the federal government on down to an internet rando like yest.

Stepping back as much as I can from my own partisanship, I agree with SBB on the bigger issue that a national conversation on social media is needed, and perhaps legislation as well. But I am not sure what my position would be or what I think might do some actual good.

As to Schilling, I have thought it over, and I still think I would vote for him. But, echoing SoSH and others, I reject the notion that it is "just his politics" that has created this situation with Schilling.

On another note, I am not much into HOF convos, but this one has spurred my interest in what happens to Ortiz when he hits the ballot.

   347. Howie Menckel Posted: January 28, 2021 at 09:46 PM (#6002544)
"He could try STFU. Just, you know, for the novelty of it."

excessive talking and with it, an inability to "STFU," is one of the main symptoms, as it happens.

so is an inability to grasp what, for most, are obvious social cues.

this is not true of all Aspies, clearly, but some:

"The Aspie brain has limited neurological mechanisms in place to understand or empathize with the [neurotypical brain]. A way to understand the Aspie’s lack of empathy from a neurological perspective is “out of brain – out of mind.”

No matter how much we explain or teach or train the Aspie mind, certain neurological circuits don’t work as they do in the NT brain."

for many, this can be taught very effectively. for others, not as much.
   348. The Duke Posted: January 28, 2021 at 10:34 PM (#6002550)
Thibs has a couple tweets up that are interesting

One has a group of 30 HOF watchers/voters who peg Ortiz at 65% next year on average.

He also had a tweet up where someone did a nice table of public vs private differentials and as expected all
The PED guys have high splits. 23% for bonds/Clemens, 16 % Sheffield and 13% for Ramirez. I think everyone believes they are all HOF absent PEDs.

Assuming Ortiz has a PED issue similar to Sheffield, that’s roughly 15% gap you would expect to see, so he’s going to need 85-90% of the public votes to get in. Rough order of magnitude. Seems like a tough hill in year 1

It also highlights why I think Helton has a much better chance than Rolen. The private/public voters are more in line on Helton and Rolen has a huge negative gap. I’m betting as a general rule that the private voters don’t “evolve” that much as is evidenced by bonds/Clemens over the years.
   349. yest Posted: January 28, 2021 at 10:50 PM (#6002551)
Again, "this child is lying about a school shooter killing his classmates" is not an opinion. It's a fabrication.

the public boycott against him was before that, it happened in 18, and the 1st political boycotts started in the 17 election.

It's likely that be persecuted (being fired by espn, hall of fame boycott etc.) by lefts gestapo drove him into more conspiratorial stuff anyways.
   350. DanG Posted: January 28, 2021 at 11:11 PM (#6002553)
Nobody's "cancelling" the non-voters for any political reason, it's because they're refusing to do their jobs. Every ballot has had deserving players on it; yes, even in 2021. If you don't want to vote for the steroid guys or Schilling, there's still, at minimum, Rolen, Helton and Andruw Jones. Refusing to vote is the equivalent of stamping one's little foot and saying, "Here's what I think of your Hall of Fame election, you poopy-heads!"
Yes, absolutely. Casting a blank ballot this election is the equivalent of Bill James' infamous "pass" comment, which is still ridiculed twenty years later.

How many players on the 2021 ballot are of HOF quality? At least eleven, if the Hall of Merit is any indication. They've elected nine players: Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, Sheffield, Ramirez, Rolen, Jones, Helton, and Kent. And Abreu and Sosa (and maybe Pettitte) are in line for election in the next year or two.

A ranking project I'm currently heading up agrees with this. Here's where we ranked those 12:

3. Barry Bonds
10. Roger Clemens
81. Manny Ramirez
85. Curt Schilling
156. Scott Rolen
158. Gary Sheffield
177. Andruw Jones
231. Todd Helton
236. Sammy Sosa
241. Jeff Kent
262. Bobby Abreu
274. Andy Pettitte
   351. SoSH U at work Posted: January 28, 2021 at 11:25 PM (#6002555)
It also highlights why I think Helton has a much better chance than Rolen. The private/public voters are more in line on Helton and Rolen has a huge negative gap. I’m betting as a general rule that the private voters don’t “evolve” that much as is evidenced by bonds/Clemens over the years.


You're wrong. Private votes absolutely "evolve." And quickly.

Larry Walker had a 31.7 percentage point gap between the public vote and private vote in 2019 (earning just 27.9 percent of the private vote). The following year, the gap was just 15.5 percentage points, and his percentage among the private vote was 63.5 percent.

Edgar Martinez got just 51 percent of the private vote in 2018, with a 24.5 percentage point gap between those voters and the public. The following year, when he was elected, the gap was just 14 percentage points and his performance with the private voters was up to 73.5 percent.

Scott Rolen is already polling better with the private voters than Larry Walker did in any year on the ballot except his last. He jumped from 11 percent on the private ballots in 2020 to 42 percent this year. And, no it wasn't just people suddenly having room for him. Only about 20 percent of the voters used all 10 slots in 2020, and many of them already had Rolen on the ballot.

Also, Clemens and Bonds should never be used as an example of anything. Voters attitudes may soften on roids, for a variety of reasons (such as Bud Selig and TLR getting elected), but it's not as if any of these voters are suddenly being persuaded about Roger and Barry's on-field merits.

   352. Lowry Seasoning Salt Posted: January 29, 2021 at 12:15 AM (#6002561)
Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: January 28, 2021 at 04:23 PM (#6002490)
Re 318: Can you really be this stupid?

Nobody's "cancelling" the non-voters for any political reason, it's because they're refusing to do their jobs.


Sounds like you were as livid as I was at the lack of hearings for Merrick Garland. I feel you, brother. I join you in support of removing any senators who remain in office to this day for failing to even hold hearings. Operation Shutdown should never be tolerated.
   353. RJ in TO Posted: January 29, 2021 at 01:13 AM (#6002562)
How many players on the 2021 ballot are of HOF quality? At least eleven, if the Hall of Merit is any indication. They've elected nine players: Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, Sheffield, Ramirez, Rolen, Jones, Helton, and Kent. And Abreu and Sosa (and maybe Pettitte) are in line for election in the next year or two.


How many of those are players that wouldn't have been elected if the HoM was holding to the size selected by the BBWAA? The BBWAA have elected 134 people, so Jones, Helton, Kent, Sheffield, Rolen, Sosa, and Abreu would likely all be out, And of the remaining four guys you've got three PED cases, and Curt Schilling. If a guy is anti-PED and thinks Schilling is too much of an #######, an empty ballot is a reasonable position, albeit one I wouldn't agree with.
   354. baxter Posted: January 29, 2021 at 02:30 AM (#6002563)
337 Very curious about point #2, why you think BLM is "more dangerous?" This is not a preface to an ad hominem. I do disagree with your statement, but I am curious as to why you think it (not that you have to say, but I have found some thought provoking ideas in what you have said).
thanks in advance
   355. gef, talking mongoose & suburban housewife Posted: January 29, 2021 at 08:15 AM (#6002568)
Judging from one of JE's FB friends a few weeks back, BLM was responsible for half country going up in flames, I think during the summer. And/or maybe it was antifa.

Oddly, I never smelled a single whiff of smoke. The conflagrations must've been further north.

Hope no one hear lost any loved ones, friends, property, etc.
   356. gef, talking mongoose & suburban housewife Posted: January 29, 2021 at 08:16 AM (#6002569)
1. Strawman I despise trump


Bad for your brand, eh? And/or too liberal for you?
   357. Zonk Can Sell Culture Posted: January 29, 2021 at 08:51 AM (#6002570)
As Clapper might frame it, "Interesting" that we have righties and anti-PC cops like SBB, who has been taking dumps on "modern liberals" around here for like ten years (Menckel has always had a solid righty bias, although he has no ability to own it) telling us that Schilling, (Who in spite of his recent peccadilloes and more serious mistakes, still lives at/near the top of American society. Missing out on Cooperstown if he does is not some epic hardship.) needs compassion and empathy, is a product of his times with technology run amok etc. I commented to a buddy of mine that one thing I have observed in the wake of 1/6 is lefties (me included to an extent) loudly talking about accountability and rooting hard for the massive Federal Law Enforcement apparatus to nail both the livestreaming clowns and the hardcores who stormed our Capitol; while we have Righties, including US Senators, talking about unity, and letting bygones be bygones, along with ofc the "wuddabout BLM" crowd, which goes from high-profile Repubs in the federal government on down to an internet rando like yest.


I hear you, RR... Look, the numbers are pretty jarring - the last count I saw from the insurrection riot was 170 arrests/people charged. That's about a tenth of the number of arrests that occurred in Chicago during the late May/June BLM protests. 95% of those charges were for "failure to obey a lawful order" - not violence, not vandalism, not destruction of anything. At least per the Capitol police (yeah...) - 140 officers were injured... again, the proportion is about a tenth of the reported CPD injuries during the compared event. No one died in Chicago - though 1 police officer was assassinated by a boogaloo in Oakland, 2 more people were murdered by 17 yo dropout larper in Wisconsin who should have been home in Illinois studying for his GED, and yes - 1 guy was murdered in Portland by an antifa/anarchist/radical/call him what you will (he later being killed by federal marshals).

The disparities are obvious.

But - as a principle, I still believe police are overly militarized and treat crowds of folks differently based on their demographic composition. My solution is NOT that they should remain overly militarized but treat every protesting crowd with the same abuse of force. However, clearly, the Capitol response was lacking in the other direction.

As a principle, I also believe arrests for BS shouldn't be a thing... so - 13 arrested on 1/6 might be too low, but I don't know that it should have been 1300, either.

I also detest the use of bail as a punishment. It's horrifically abused in our country... so, I also push back on folks who decry some of the Capitol riot perps being granted bail. I'm not saying there aren't cases where bail should be denied, but the ones I've seen with the evidence I've read presented don't rise to that level.

I still - and have for nearly 20 now - believe that law enforcement should be limited to what they can gather from people's phones, their e-mail, et al... although, in the Capitol case, if you're proudly, publicly sharing selfies and livestreaming yourself breaking the law... well... it's not an intrusion to use that in your prosecution.

I don't think the answers are easy - we cannot have people smashing windows, breaking into buildings, and beating police officers. We cannot have mass arrests, trumped up charges, and extraordinary punishments applied.

I guess I'm just saying that the last thing I want is to see 1/6 used as a reason to set aside such principles and fall victim to the worst of the whattabout; the goal shouldn't be to see bad practices, bad law, bad law enforcement, and intrusive overreach applied more universally and agnostically.
   358. . Posted: January 29, 2021 at 09:28 AM (#6002574)
anti-PC cops like SBB, who has been taking dumps on "modern liberals" around here for like ten years


Putting aside the scatological metaphor, that's a fair criticism. But here's what I haven't done in all that time: (1) ever made any of it personal or ever suggest that a person's politics reflected on their character; or (2) other than the two people we all know about for their violent death threats and wishes, ever suggested even an internet sanction for any "modern liberal," much less any "real life" sanction.

No, my political comments have always been, in Godfather terms, business not personal. In broad sketch, here's what I think happened over the past 10-ish years, accelerating in the last 5 with the election of Orange Clownshoes. The back and forth of real political debate isn't for everyone. My early adulthood intellect was spent almost entirely in two enterprises: (1) going to fake law school and then becoming a licensed fake lawyer; and (2) devouring political philosophy from all points on the political spectrum. So what happens then? What happens then is that the back and forth of rigorous political debate -- in terms of both engagement and consumption -- comes as naturally to me as breathing. But during this time, pre-net, the "debaters" were all either professionals -- writers for major publications, published authors, etc. -- or people who accepted and sought out debate. Once you decide to do that, you've sort of voluntarily exposed yourself to rigorous pushback and more importantly, you've adapted to hearing it and can deal with it, psychologically and otherwise.

Post-net, that's not the case. We now have amateurs -- sometimes very intelligent amateurs (*), but amateurs nonetheless -- who have taken to the net unprepared for the notion that if they were going to start opining about politics and political things, they might get rigorous pushback.(**) (Thus the ignore function, the "you're a racist/homophobe/Islamophobe" yadda, yadda.) And so what they've done is insisted that the rules be adapted to them, when they should have adapted to the rules. There's a whole bunch of nomenclature and stances that have been created for this new world which I won't bother cataloging here since time is short (and I've already hit on some of it above), but one of which is the rather fatuous notion that the BTF "left" isn't really political and doesn't really post politics, the idea being, I guess, that some of mainstream "modern liberalism" is somehow "beyond politics," thus exempting it from the rigorous pushback rule. The quintessential example would be the soccer thread in the women's world cup becoming a bunch of posters talking about equal pay for women soccer players and then pretending that somehow wasn't political.

(*) The post-net complaint about pre-net "gatekeepers" -- that they blocked very intelligent people from an audience -- certainly has some truth to it. But that's a different issue. Even the blocked people in the gatekeeper era accepted the underlying rules of engagement.

(**) But of course what's really happening here is that the amateurs aren't presenting political ideas qua political ideas; they're instead presenting themselves as holders of these political ideas. That's a very different thing, and a big reason what I'm describing has unfolded. And of course this is a big reason this big amateur contingent has a very difficult time separating the personal and the political, and separating political viewpoint and personal character.
   359. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 29, 2021 at 09:30 AM (#6002575)

now, Schilling is a very intelligent person and he has plenty of loved ones, I assume. so someone had to have explained this to him. that, to me, would be where the stubbornness would have to come in - he doesn't understand why he is being 'attacked,' gets defensive, and keeps digging a deeper and deeper hole for himself.

Howie, there was some of this in Schilling’s transgender comments as well. He reposted some terrible meme about the transgender bathroom debate, and got a bunch of criticism for it. He subsequently spoke with a transgender colleague and a gay colleague at ESPN. I think the purpose was so he could apologize / they could explain why such memes are hurtful to the LGBT community.

But Schilling basically dug his heels in afterwards:


“Regardless of how much I want to say ‘You shouldn’t have been offended,’ I can’t tell someone what to be offended and what not to be offended by,” Schilling told Silverman. “The only thing I could tell them was ‘There was no intent.’...

"Offending is subjective. What you get offended by doesn't offend me."

   360. yest Posted: January 29, 2021 at 09:33 AM (#6002576)
337 Very curious about point #2, why you think BLM is "more dangerous?" This is not a preface to an ad hominem. I do disagree with your statement, but I am curious as to why you think it (not that you have to say, but I have found some thought provoking ideas in what you have said).


assuming you meant my comment in 339
There are tons of reasons this, I have so many reasons I'll stop here
making This is list hard for 2 reasons
1. it is like asking me to name every baseball player with 2,000 hits without knowing the exact number, I can make the list numerous times and continuously forget 1 person and add another
2. this is infinitely harder because it's ideas that can be divided into multiple half points, or combined into major points

1. There are way more BLM rioters
1A. there are also way more BLM rioters, plus silent supporters
2. BLM rallies were in every major city, this was a gathering in in DC of all the countries biggest trumpites. (even if they has all the same numbers in DC this is less of a danger to me)
3. there was a much higher percentage who agreed with the message of the capitol stormers cause who condemned them, then the same on the BLM side
4. this group had a specific goal in mind with storming the capitol, (to prevent an election they believed was fraudulent), BLM had general goals that unleashed terror on the masses and is much more likely to repeat itself.
5. Most BLM rioters and definitively the supporters believe Corona is dangerous, yet they had humongous rallies, showing that from they're own perspective they take they're issue over the lives of others. Fact is a strong percentage of capitol stormers disagree with this, so from they're perspective they are not creating a health risk (the reality of the health risk is not the point, but the willingness to do so, shows lives don't matter for the sake on an ideology, this type of thinking has lead to millions being killed in other places)
6. the amount of people killed at blm events by blm was more than the one person killed at this capitol event by the stormers (one was shot by the police and the others were not killed)
7. BLM was about intimating the masses, and the police, the capitol stormers were about intimating politicians for a specific political event.
8. the blm crowd did more physical damage (look at pictures of the damage from blm)
9. victims of BLM today are still suffering from the actions of BLM, outside of the murdered police officer and his family and friends, no one is really hurting from the protesters (even though this was much more recent) (and I'm not negating the pain of the murdered police officer, go back to number 6)
10. the media, and social media providers almost universally supported BLM, the media, and social media providers almost universally opposed the capitol stormers (different from number 3 because the media converts people)
11. as far as I can tell not one of the people in the capitol protests had molotov cocktails.
12. the only thing that united the capitol stormers was love of Trump, which means this is unlike to be repeated. BLM is much more uniform in thought
13. evil ideology is more dangerous than blind loyalty to an evil person, the BLM is a ideology, that will outlive anyone, and feeds off itself, and most of all has and demands absolute uniformity in they're agenda.
13A. Trump was stoking the seeds for this (without that it never would have happened), BLM was masses choosing to do worse actions, and can go off again and worse this time.
14. (I'm using this with number 12)
if the leadership of both groups got everything ALL theyre universal goals (what all the main people pushing for completely agreed on) , the BLM crowd would do way more damage. Imagine if I made a new constitution and pick the 100 leading capitol stormers to run the country, but the only bill that passes is if all 100 stormers voted unanimously (and no vote swapping either) now do the same thing with BLM. Even if I would have much more liberal views, I would still prefer to live under the Trumpites (who have almost no universal goals but Trump is the greatest) The leadership of BLM has goals I despise with everything I stand for(and I think much of America strongly disagrees with parts of it), and they are held by all the leadership. But even If I would take one of the stormer nuts at random and make him king of America, I doubt that I would not still prefer that to a BLM dictatorship. (I would be sent to a gulag or worse under the later, and even if they allow for dissenters (who can have no positions of power unless i bend to they're dictates (including a doctor, lawyer, store owner etc.) or influence), I would be severely suffer under they're evil ideology)
   361. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: January 29, 2021 at 09:33 AM (#6002577)
Nobody's "cancelling" the non-voters for any political reason, it's because they're refusing to do their jobs. Every ballot has had deserving players on it; yes, even in 2021. If you don't want to vote for the steroid guys or Schilling, there's still, at minimum, Rolen, Helton and Andruw Jones. Refusing to vote is the equivalent of stamping one's little foot and saying, "Here's what I think of your Hall of Fame election, you poopy-heads!"
Yes, absolutely. Casting a blank ballot this election is the equivalent of Bill James' infamous "pass" comment, which is still ridiculed twenty years later.

How many players on the 2021 ballot are of HOF quality? At least eleven, if the Hall of Merit is any indication. They've elected nine players: Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, Sheffield, Ramirez, Rolen, Jones, Helton, and Kent. And Abreu and Sosa (and maybe Pettitte) are in line for election in the next year or two.

A ranking project I'm currently heading up agrees with this. Here's where we ranked those 12:

3. Barry Bonds
10. Roger Clemens
81. Manny Ramirez
85. Curt Schilling
156. Scott Rolen
158. Gary Sheffield
177. Andruw Jones
231. Todd Helton
236. Sammy Sosa
241. Jeff Kent
262. Bobby Abreu
274. Andy Pettitte


I think there were a number of players to vote for on this ballot (I'd vote for BB/RC, Schilling, Rolen, Sheffield, probably Helton, maybe Jones and Sosa) and when I see a blank ballot it makes me upset...but I'm actually going to say that there is an argument for casting a blank ballot this year, and I'll use the list above to illustrate it:

- If you are hard-core anti-PED candidates, the list above (I'll add Wagner to it) is knocked down significantly - no BB, RC, Sheffield, Manny, or Sosa.
- If you think Schilling behavior is beyond the pale, then he's off the ballot (same with Vizquel)
- At the bottom of the ballot, it is a reasonable position that a lot of guys there are simply not good enough (Hunter, Hudson, Buehrle, Pettitte, Abreu). That's a reasonable position.
- Wagner simply didn't pitch enough innings for many voters (including me, if I was voting)

So now we're down to Rolen, Jones, Helton and Kent. I don't think Kent or Jones are slam-dunk candidates, at all. If you are a "Small Hall" person, you wouldn't vote for either of them.

Now we're down to Rolen and Helton. Helton could be dismissed as a product of Coors Field, though I'd probably vote for himself.

That leaves Rolen. I think he is toughest person to leave off the ballot, and it looks like he'll be in within a few years, at this rate.

To have a blank ballot, IMO, you have to think Rolen was very good, but the counting stats weren't good enough, or he "just didn't seem like a HOFer when he was playing", etc. Some of the headline stats don't blow you away: seven All-Star games (including an odd selection in 2011, when he was toast) is good, but not "all time"; 316 HRs is good for a 3B, but doesn't jump off the page; 2,077 hits is good, but not crazy; the only one of his Top 10 Comps in the HOF is Ron Santo, who also took forever to get into the HOF...the 8 Gold Gloves may be the best hook for getting a non-saber-friendly voter on board, and 3Bs definitely have a HOF bias against them...if you don't think Scott Rolen is a Hall of Famer, then I can definitely see how some voters could get to a blank ballot.

But it still pisses me off. I just don't think you can tell somebody, "You cannot vote for zero candidates, even if you don't think there is a worthy candidate on this ballot". But, because they have that right, they should also have the right to vote for more than 10 if they think there are more than 10 worthy candidates. That's what I would change.
   362. yest Posted: January 29, 2021 at 09:40 AM (#6002579)
Oddly, I never smelled a single whiff of smoke. The conflagrations must've been further north.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/george-floyd-protests-minneapolis-body-pawnshop-fire-a9630356.html
https://nypost.com/2020/06/02/video-shows-aftermath-of-looting-chaos-in-the-bronx/
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-looters-midtown-protests-20200602-uw6jispwiffmpfpiiakhj36d7m-story.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bcuuIHHatA
https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/seattle/seattle-protest-death-of-george-floyd/281-bba2f836-c4a2-48e1-b5df-189527e08a7d
   363. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 29, 2021 at 09:46 AM (#6002580)
Anyway, I have some issues with the character clause. I have little doubt that people who abuse their spouses are worse, more dangerous people than those who retweet bad memes. And we simply don’t know what most of these guys are like in their personal lives.

I also think it’s interesting that Vizquel lost support due to DV allegations in the same year that Andruw Jones saw a big jump in support, despite credible accusations of DV back in 2012. Maybe it was discrete groups of voters who dropped Omar and added Andruw, or maybe folks are just waiting to see if the charges against Omar get dropped (as those against Jones ultimately were) before voting for him again. But still, it was interesting. As I’ve noted, the voters are only consistent in their inconsistency.

————————

One thing to note about Schilling is that he’s obviously qualified on the baseball merits. And yet a large number of voters apparently don’t think he is — this group is almost certainly larger than the group that is leaving him off the ballot due to character issues. Anyone who really felt strongly about his candidacy would probably do better convincing those voters that Schilling was a deserving player than trying to convince Forman/Jaffe/etc. that he is a deserving person.

The problem is, Curt has alienated a lot of the people who might have been willing to mount that kind of campaign for him. And even if he hadn’t, he’s shown such blatant lack of regard for whether he gets voted into the Hall or not, it would be hard to justify that kind of effort even if one were otherwise inclined to make it. I mean, why should I spend a bunch of time trying to convince people that Curt belongs if, tomorrow, he might retweet some crazy meme that alienates as many voters as I just persuaded?
   364. Lassus Posted: January 29, 2021 at 09:50 AM (#6002582)
However, the Curt Schilling now publicly perceived is almost entirely a product of the internet and the way that it pushed him, as it pushes many, to create an internet persona.
The internet is not responsible for this in the same way that newspapers did not make Babe Ruth an alcoholic who ate too much and slept around. I have met a number of people from this very website who are in fact the same people online as in person. This is in fact the case for the majority bell curve of humans. The people who are not were not created by the internet, or the media, but by the people themselves.
The internet literally created a new Curt Schilling
No, it did not. Curt Schilling did this, and is solely responsible for who he is.
   365. Zonk Can Sell Culture Posted: January 29, 2021 at 09:55 AM (#6002584)
One thing I've learned as a Chicagoan who was born and raised in a small, rural Indiana town -- and subsequently confirmed by friends in Seattle, NYC, Portland and elsewhere...

The real experts on what is happening in our homes are the people who live far away from them.
   366. yest Posted: January 29, 2021 at 10:01 AM (#6002586)
Bad for your brand, eh? And/or too liberal for you?

both and more,

you and (?X?almost?X?) everyone on here with think this is nuts, I think Trump is more liberal than Hilary, and certainly Biden. I know you would not understand this, but you probably also think the right is getting more "conservative"

I very easily would have voted for someone like a Manny Cellar, or Scoop Jackson (if they were alive today these 2 would never make it in either party today (If they were in America today they would be on some issues more right wing then any of the current crop of Republicans , but they would be destroyed and vilified if they would run as republicans for being extreme liberals at the same time. At the same time if they ran in the Democrat even though they would be more to the left than most democrats on some issues, they would be attacked, destroyed, vilified or worse if they ran in today's "woke" democrat party; They would be treated much worse than even if Trump decided to switch party's and run for president in the democratic primary.
   367. . Posted: January 29, 2021 at 10:02 AM (#6002587)
The internet is not responsible for this in the same way that newspapers did not make Babe Ruth an alcoholic who ate too much and slept around.


Not the people on the internet; the existence of the internet in and of itself. The internet as a communications vehicle.
   368. Lassus Posted: January 29, 2021 at 10:08 AM (#6002589)
I did not say "the people on the internet".

If the existence of the internet creates new people, why are an overwhelming majority of the people actually unchanged? NOT created?
   369. . Posted: January 29, 2021 at 10:15 AM (#6002591)
"Overwhelming majority." Assuming that's the right breakdown, that still leaves a whole lot of new people.
   370. Lassus Posted: January 29, 2021 at 10:21 AM (#6002592)
they would be attacked, destroyed, vilified or worse if they ran in today's "woke" democrat party

Josh Gottheimer was re-elected soundly in NJ-5 in 2020. He has defended Trump's foreign policy, called for fixing Obama's "flawed" ACA, and has been noted as making anti-gay remarks before his 2016 election.

That's just one example of the most dangerous political force in American history doing... nothing.
   371. Cleveland TBD fan Posted: January 29, 2021 at 10:23 AM (#6002594)
To have a blank ballot, IMO, you have to think Rolen was very good, but the counting stats weren't good enough, or he "just didn't seem like a HOFer when he was playing", etc. Some of the headline stats don't blow you away: seven All-Star games (including an odd selection in 2011, when he was toast) is good, but not "all time"; 316 HRs is good for a 3B, but doesn't jump off the page; 2,077 hits is good, but not crazy; the only one of his Top 10 Comps in the HOF is Ron Santo, who also took forever to get into the HOF...the 8 Gold Gloves may be the best hook for getting a non-saber-friendly voter on board, and 3Bs definitely have a HOF bias against them...if you don't think Scott Rolen is a Hall of Famer, then I can definitely see how some voters could get to a blank ballot.


This may be pedantic, but you have to believe the negative arguments against all the potential candidates to have a blank ballet. Yea, its possible, but seems like a stretch. It comes off much more as a statement. Should they lose their future ballots? Probably not, but the HoF should refuse to process any future blank ballots. Make statements on your own time, the HoF doesn't have to give you a platform for them.
   372. Lassus Posted: January 29, 2021 at 10:23 AM (#6002595)
that still leaves a whole lot of new people.

None of whom were created by the internet.

People who started traveling for work, saw they could easily cheat and therefore started cheated were not "literally created" by their traveling job. They were already those people.
   373. Ron J Posted: January 29, 2021 at 10:27 AM (#6002596)
#364 And yet, had twitter been around in the early part of the 20th century I have zero doubt Cap Anson would have been the worst kind of twitter troll.

Not that today's voters would need new reasons for rejecting Anson.

   374. Cleveland TBD fan Posted: January 29, 2021 at 10:29 AM (#6002598)
Here is a hypothetical question for anyone thinking that Shilling is being punished for his political views. What would happen if Colin Kaepernick was magically transformed into a baseball player? He is the anti-Shilling. Black, liberal activist, objectively unqualified for the HoF, and due any and all positive character credit (if it exists) for being blackballed for what even the NFL now says is acceptable social protest over an important topic.
   375. Howie Menckel Posted: January 29, 2021 at 10:41 AM (#6002602)
I have little doubt that people who abuse their spouses are worse, more dangerous people than those who retweet bad memes.


is this the broad consensus at BBTF?
   376. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 29, 2021 at 10:46 AM (#6002604)
I think it’s ok to acknowledge that the media doesn’t just reflect the society around it; it affects and changes it. Fox News radicalized a generation of middle aged/old people, the Internet is having unforeseen and still not fully understood effects. It doesn’t absolve individuals from responsibility for their actions, but it does raise questions about what can be done about it. That’s kind of beyond the scope of this thread.

I will say that I am grateful that I found this site when I was a young 20-something. It certainly has its share of bad moments and shrill opinions, but it is a bastion of relative sanity and balance on the Internet. I know I have an itch for these kind of discussions, and being able to scratch it here, rather than on Twitter or in the comments section of some political site, has probably kept me saner, less extreme, and better informed, than I might have otherwise become.
   377. Lassus Posted: January 29, 2021 at 11:00 AM (#6002609)
I think it’s ok to acknowledge that the media doesn’t just reflect the society around it; it affects and changes it.

I can agree with this for SOCIETY, in a psycho-historical sense. I simply feel that deeming it as discretely responsible for creating personal behavior - especially in people who existed as full adults prior to its overwhelming adoption - is just not correct.

I mean, anyone in the city would know, Twitter did not CREATE Trump. Trump was already the same Trump for decades before Twitter existed.
   378. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 29, 2021 at 11:03 AM (#6002611)
is this the broad consensus at BBTF?

I should say, I believe that within reason and as it applies to the types of memes Schilling was retweeting.
   379. yest Posted: January 29, 2021 at 11:07 AM (#6002612)
Josh Gottheimer was re-elected soundly in NJ-5 in 2020. He has defended Trump's foreign policy, called for fixing Obama's "flawed" ACA, and has been noted as making anti-gay remarks before his 2016 election.

That's just one example of the most dangerous political force in American history doing... nothing.

In regards to his foreign policy He also has in his district the most Zionistic areas in the country, If he would support Obamas foreign policy, Scott Garrett could easily run against him and win


forget the small details (of Obamacare that might make him vote against the whole bill), but are you arguing that Scoop Jackson would oppose the concept of Obamacare no matter how it was changed.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/joshua-muravchik/scoop-jackson-at-one-hundred/
Jackson embraced each of these causes and was a leader in most. Organized labor powered the fight for the panoply of benefits for the common man—Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, minimum wage, workmen’s compensation, and the like—and Jackson posted the most perfect voting record in the U.S. Senate by the lights of the AFL-CIO’s Committee on Political Education.



what are you talking about? he ran against Garret who was attacked by the woke crowd,
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/nyregion/new-jersey-house-race.html
Mr. Gottheimer made Mr. Garrett’s far-right views and votes a key part of his campaign, focusing at times on his opposition to same-sex marriage and reports that he had objected to the Republican Party’s backing for gay candidates to Congress — reports that Mr. Garrett has denied.


ps this is seems like a pro lgbt person to me
https://gottheimer.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1332


   380. Lassus Posted: January 29, 2021 at 11:11 AM (#6002613)
I have little doubt that people who abuse their spouses are worse, more dangerous people than those who retweet bad memes.
is this the broad consensus at BBTF?
I should say, I believe that within reason and as it applies to the types of memes Schilling was retweeting.
I agree with this, and I agree with Dave.

I would also say it's comparing apples to leeks, and not really an accurate description of Schilling's behavior.
   381. Booey Posted: January 29, 2021 at 11:11 AM (#6002614)
Should they lose their future ballots? Probably not, but the HoF should refuse to process any future blank ballots. Make statements on your own time, the HoF doesn't have to give you a platform for them.


I think this is mostly my POV. I wouldn't take away voting rights from writers who submitted blank ballots...but I wouldn't count blank ballots, either. If you don't think anyone on the ballot is deserving, just do the process a favor and refrain from voting.

Also, this isn't any more unfair to small hall voters than having a 10 player ballot cap is to large hall voters. What happens if someone submits a ballot with more than 10 selections? Isn't it thrown out too?

   382. Zonk Can Sell Culture Posted: January 29, 2021 at 11:12 AM (#6002615)
I think one of the most corrosive elements of modern discourse, especially in the political/cultural/social commentary realm is the need to whattabout/boil it down to comparisons.

It has only limited - though obviously, some, and some valid - value with actions. It has virtually zero value with a person or people grouped.

It's a rabbit hole that makes us worse, not better.

   383. Lassus Posted: January 29, 2021 at 11:18 AM (#6002616)
re: #379, I have made no comments about Scoop Jackson nor did I have any idea you didn't mean the basketball writer. So I'll leave him out.

Your assertion was regarding the "woke democrat party" (Really? "democrat party"? JFC.) vilifying and destroying those not in lockstep. Gotttheimer is far from being in lockstep and was not destroyed, vilified, or even successfully primaried. I find your premise of vilification and destruction by woke Democrats not compelling.
   384. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 29, 2021 at 11:21 AM (#6002617)
I wasn’t trying to whatabout certain behavior. It was more a comment about how the character clause can only be applied to aspects of character we know about, and we only know a small part of a player’s character. It creates a weird organization where Kirby Puckett is a member and other guys who arguably committed lesser offenses are kept out because they were known prior to the ballot. This isn’t a unique or profound observation, and I don’t have a great solution given the HOF instructs voters to consider character.
   385. Zonk Can Sell Culture Posted: January 29, 2021 at 11:30 AM (#6002619)
I wasn’t trying to whatabout certain behavior. It was more a comment about how the character clause can only be applied to aspects of character we know about, and we only know a small part of a player’s character. This isn’t a unique or profound observation, and I don’t have a great solution given the HOF instructs voters to consider character.


I know.

I'm just saying that I really dislike it as a mechanism to achieve (for lack of a better word) standards... or maybe there is a better word; principle.... and yes, I have zero doubt I have no shortages of falling back on it myself. It's easy to do.

The allure of tribalism is a siren song (again, one I'll admit I often fall victim to) - and principle-through-comparison is probably the catchiest tune to get there.
   386. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 29, 2021 at 11:58 AM (#6002625)
Oddly, I never smelled a single whiff of smoke. The conflagrations must've been further north.


Right down the road from me (literally). It was a big deal (duh), but also so ridiculously overplayed as to be a silly caricature. A few buildings burned down (including a great used bookstore - Boo!). A pharmacy was looted and burned down the road from me. During the height of the matter they closed the Arby's my son worked at, because the crowds were not far away and coming this way.

None of that is great. But still, you have to know where to look to find any evidence of anything at this point. The pharmacy rebuilding is coming along fine, and anyway they moved to a temporary location while it is going on.

The whole thing has had large social and hopefully societal repercussions, but ground zero ain't a wasteland.
   387. Mayor Blomberg Posted: January 29, 2021 at 12:27 PM (#6002636)
What Dave quotes in 359 should have been the MLB reply to Schilling's letter.
   388. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: January 29, 2021 at 12:52 PM (#6002638)
One thing to note about Schilling is that he’s obviously qualified on the baseball merits. And yet a large number of voters apparently don’t think he is — this group is almost certainly larger than the group that is leaving him off the ballot due to character issues. Anyone who really felt strongly about his candidacy would probably do better convincing those voters that Schilling was a deserving player than trying to convince Forman/Jaffe/etc. that he is a deserving person.


I know this thread has, for now, turned into more of a political conversation, but there is a baseball part to this Hall of Fame discussion, as well.

The quote above gets at an important point about Schilling's candidacy: He did get 71.1% of the vote, and 285 votes. That *was* an increase on both counts (70.0% and 278 votes in 2020). I mean, Schilling keeps hitting himself in the face...and he still got more support. Now, the votes were due before the January 6th insurrection, and I have to think some people who supported him in 2021 will peel off in 2022.

But he needed 16 votes to get elected this year. Even with his controversial statements, he got seven more votes this year, If I saw it correctly, 8 of the 11 new voters who are currently public voted for him. Eight returning voters dropped their support for him this year. I mean, if all he did was...nothing...for the last year, I don't know if he gets to 75%, but he clearly closes that 16-vote gap by at least 10 votes, and probably more. It is pretty obvious that of the three new voters who did not vote for Schilling, at least two of them would have if Schilling hadn't gone further off the rails recently. He quite possible gets to 75% this year just on the margins, on stuff like this.

But all that said, it is not like he entered the voting nine years ago at 70%. The majority of voters did not think he was a Hall of Famer - even pretty much absent disqualifying baggage - when he started the process. I agree with the above quote, that there is a strong baseball case to be made on behalf of Schilling...but do you want to be the sportswriter trying to convince somebody to vote for Schilling? We are literally talking about a handful of people who needed to be convinced. Shoot, just the new voters next year could have been enough. But he has made it impossible to advocate for him on the baseball merits. It is such self-destructive behavior, and I can't tell if Schilling a) genuinely cannot see how self-destructive his behavior is, or b) if he does sort of see it, and feels there is nothing he can do but double-down on it and just say "it is what it is, the damage is done, no matter what I do now". I mean, if he wants to build a career as a sports jock talk radio guy on a conservative network or something, there is a market for it. Is that where this is going?
   389. SoSH U at work Posted: January 29, 2021 at 01:24 PM (#6002643)
I mean, if he wants to build a career as a sports jock talk radio guy on a conservative network or something, there is a market for it. Is that where this is going?


I think it's very possible he's determined that playing the victim is good for his brand and his career, particularly if he's counting on the Vets Committee to put him in.
   390. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 29, 2021 at 02:04 PM (#6002650)
FWIW, Schilling was the HOM equivalent of a first-ballot HOF selection (he wasn't a first-ballot HOMer because he debuted with four other great players and came in 5th in the voting. The next year he finished fourth, behind three first-ballot guys. He went in on his third try but never finished behind someone who wasn't a first-ballot HOMer, if that makes sense. On a 10-person ballot where you only need 75%, he would have sailed in on his first try.)

Yet he debuted on the HOF ballot at 38.8%. That put him in a good position to be elected eventually, but it's still ridiculous that a guy with Schilling's career and postseason track record wasn't easily elected in his first few years, especially when Smoltz went in on the first ballot. (Mussina, who debuted at 20.3% in Schilling's second year, is a good case study for what Schilling's trajectory would have been if he hadn't put his foot in his mouth so many times. But there's no reason that Moose should have had to wait 6 years, either.)

The bizarre baseball logic that voters use to keep qualified players out is a bigger issue, in my opinion, than the arbitrary use of the character clause. YMMV depending on how you feel about PEDs.
   391. Zonk Can Sell Culture Posted: January 29, 2021 at 02:14 PM (#6002651)
The bizarre baseball logic that voters use to keep qualified players out is a bigger issue, in my opinion, than the use of the character clause.


I agree, obviously -- but I'm no longer quite as sure as I used to be on precisely what the logic is.

I.e., as noted - I'm a big hall guy. My ballot would be 10 deep ever since I gained baseball sentience. Others here are smaller hall guys -- but I still HIGHLY suspect that the average BBTF voter is still a MUCH "bigger hall" voter than the average BBWAA voter.

The other day, I was just looking at truly ancient ballots... and I guess, that's the thing. For the longest time, I always though the BBWAA consensus (as measured by hall voting results) was just using antiquated measuring sticks and stubbornly refusing to acknowledge new and better data as better than the old counting stat milestones.

However, that actually doesn't seem to be the case. I'm increasingly thinking that as a body, throughout history -- the BBWAA collective has just always been a REALLY "small hall" bunch.

No doubt, they've made some gloriously dumb selections that defy that logic, too... though, to be fair - the mistake rate is far higher with the various VC iterations.

I'm just saying that frankly, I wonder if we've all collectively misunderstand the logic... that it was more BBWAA being a lot more "small hall" than "we" are, rather than the oft-proposed "buncha dinosaurs too hung up on 3000/500/300/etc".

Not saying it's binary/either or... sure, plenty of both. But at least in my mind? I'm really starting to wonder if we've misdiagnosed the problem?
   392. SoSH U at work Posted: January 29, 2021 at 02:23 PM (#6002654)
The BBWAA is definitely a smaller Hall body than we are*. And I disagree with Dave's argument that there is no consistency in their voting. Their collective judgment isn't always good, for a variety of reasons, but in most cases I find their voting patterns pretty consistent and predictable (we know what they like and what they tend to overlook). That it took Mussina (and Schilling) time to build a case was exactly what most of us expected.

* To an extent, they should be. The Veterans Committee has put a significant number of players in. In some ways it exists to clean up mistakes, which it has, but it's greater effect is to lower the bottom. But I think most of us look at the entire pool, rather than just those put in by the BBWAA, when we consider what a Hall of Famer is.

   393. gef, talking mongoose & suburban housewife Posted: January 29, 2021 at 02:26 PM (#6002656)
Who's "chaz"?


Keith Olbermann.
   394. Zonk Can Sell Culture Posted: January 29, 2021 at 02:27 PM (#6002657)
To wit above, just take the 1951 ballot -

Jimmie Foxx needed seven ballots to hit 79% and get in. Mel Ott went in on his 3rd - that same year (1951). Gabby Hartnett was on his 8th year - mired at 25%. Big Poison - the deserving Waner - was in his 5th year, getting to 71%. Al Simmons... Hank Greenberg... Red Ruffing was at 4% in his 4th year.

That's an awful lot of obvious choices -- and a couple inner circle guys...

I know voting protocols and election criteria, ballot eligibility, et al were different...

But I'm just saying -- the BBWAA collectively seems looks like they've always been awfully stingy, awfully small hall twits.

FWIW, I picked 1951 at random - I just vaguely remembered that Foxx took a while and went to his election year.... but browsing backwards/forwards? That's the story of the BBWAA ballots.

EDIT/ADD: Good lord... looking at those old ballots (did they have a limit of 10? IDK)... If we'd all have been around yammering on the internet, I think I'd have gone crazy trying to list 10. You'd have like 15-20 guys who were obvious. How do you pick 10?
   395. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 29, 2021 at 02:28 PM (#6002658)
#391 there's definitely some truth there, but 30+% of the electorate voted for Jack Morris over Schilling. No matter the size of your hall, it's really hard to justify that. Maybe a few of them were strategic votes on 10-person ballots, but I doubt that was very many.
   396. SoSH U at work Posted: January 29, 2021 at 02:33 PM (#6002660)
#391 there's definitely some truth there, but 30+% of the electorate voted for Jack Morris over Schilling. No matter the size of your hall, it's really hard to justify that.


I'd say it's impossible to justify, but it was also consistent with how the body works. If someone thought, well, there's no way a voter can turn in a ballot with Morris but not Schilling, he simply hadn't been paying attention.
   397. Zonk Can Sell Culture Posted: January 29, 2021 at 02:34 PM (#6002661)
I wonder if any of those old ballots listed Jolly Cholly Grimm but not Foxx...
   398. gef, talking mongoose & suburban housewife Posted: January 29, 2021 at 02:35 PM (#6002662)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/george-floyd-protests-minneapolis-body-pawnshop-fire-a9630356.html
https://nypost.com/2020/06/02/video-shows-aftermath-of-looting-chaos-in-the-bronx/
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-looters-midtown-protests-20200602-uw6jispwiffmpfpiiakhj36d7m-story.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bcuuIHHatA
https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/seattle/seattle-protest-death-of-george-floyd/281-bba2f836-c4a2-48e1-b5df-189527e08a7d


That's all well & good, or probably I should say unwell & bad, but no matter how hard I squint -- which I have to do anyway because I'm still getting over eye dilation this morning at the optometrist's office -- I can't see half the ####### country in flames. That's literally what JE's delusional, hysterical, pathologically lying buddy asserted, which is what I was commenting on.

Being a useful idiot is a bad look. Being a useless idiot probably isn't any better.
   399. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 29, 2021 at 02:35 PM (#6002664)

It's impossible to justify, but it was also consistent with how the body works. If someone thought, well, there's no way a voter can turn in a ballot with Morris but not Schilling, he simply hadn't been paying attention.


Yes, it was predictable, but it's still bizarre baseball logic and a bigger problem IMO than a few people exercising the character clause on non-PED issues.
   400. gef, talking mongoose & suburban housewife Posted: January 29, 2021 at 02:41 PM (#6002667)
Your assertion was regarding the "woke democrat party" (Really? "democrat party"? JFC.)


The usage really is code for "I'm a pathetically shameless hack, & you can stop reading now." I mean, what? If you say "Democratic" Newt Gingrich will come over & rape your wife or gf?

Though I've noted before that a political scientist friend of mine who's a Democrat to the basic building blocks of her DNA uses it, or at least did till I chastised her a few years back. Might be a consequence of growing up in godforsaken New Jersey.
Page 4 of 7 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
tshipman
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for the weekend of April 17-18, 2021
(39 - 8:42pm, Apr 17)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOT - Soccer Thread - Spring is in the Air
(136 - 8:08pm, Apr 17)
Last: Pirate Joe

NewsblogCardinals' Yadier Molina becomes first MLB player to catch 2,000 games with one team
(46 - 7:17pm, Apr 17)
Last: Hank Gillette

NewsblogWhy the Cubs' awful offense could trigger full rebuild if downward trend continues this summer
(21 - 6:59pm, Apr 17)
Last: gef, talking mongoose & suburban housewife

NewsblogNBA 2020 Season kick-off thread
(2690 - 6:21pm, Apr 17)
Last: Fourth True Outcome

NewsblogPete Rose to sell picks for baseball, other sports through website
(35 - 6:19pm, Apr 17)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogMLB salary down 4.8% in 2 years; top 100 earn half
(14 - 5:41pm, Apr 17)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogWhite Sox lefty Carlos Rodon throws no-hitter against Cleveland after losing perfect game in ninth inning
(77 - 5:15pm, Apr 17)
Last: SoSH U at work

NewsblogIn the minors, a major change as the Atlantic League plans to move the mound back a foot
(82 - 4:55pm, Apr 17)
Last: Hank Gillette

NewsblogMinnesota Twins, Timberwolves postpone games in wake of police shooting of Daunte Wright
(227 - 4:19pm, Apr 17)
Last: Mayor Blomberg

NewsblogEmpty Stadium Sports Will Be Really Weird
(12714 - 3:59pm, Apr 17)
Last: Eudoxus

NewsblogWaiter, there's OMNICHATTER! in my soup!, for April 16, 2021
(40 - 1:58pm, Apr 17)
Last: salvomania

Sox TherapyJust How We Drew It Up
(37 - 1:48pm, Apr 17)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogBlindsided Joe Girardi mum on player's sudden decision to take leave from team
(5 - 9:09am, Apr 17)
Last: jingoist

NewsblogHow Fernando drew thousands of extra fans
(18 - 10:07pm, Apr 16)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

Page rendered in 0.9381 seconds
48 querie(s) executed