Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Friday, November 20, 2020

Why Curt Schilling Has No Place In Cooperstown

For better or worse, the positioning of the Hall of Fame as purely about on-field merit is part of what makes it meaningful. The mythologies of all American sports are premised on the idea that performance on the field is ultimately the great equalizer, no matter your identity.

But it’s both ludicrous and irresponsible to suggest that Schilling’s exclusion would somehow make the Hall of Fame less legitimate, or damage its legacy. Ryan Fagan can make himself feel better by turning and looking away, but it doesn’t change the fact that Schilling will give his speech all the same, and he will forever be on a literal pedestal among players whose very humanity he would throw dirt on.

What makes this cowardice, apparently shared by the majority of the voting BBWAA, particularly gross is that real, tangible harm is caused by the lies, abuse, and invective that Schilling willingly stands for. Words matter. Documented hate crimes are at a modern-day high. People are dying thanks to the violence incited by Schilling and his allies. For the writers to act as if the imagined sanctity of a museum is somehow more important than the damage done to real, human lives is not only callous and cruel, but an active endorsement of the numerous -isms and phobias Schilling promotes.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: November 20, 2020 at 02:20 PM | 219 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. Rally Posted: November 20, 2020 at 02:53 PM (#5990157)
But it’s both ludicrous and irresponsible to suggest that Schilling’s exclusion would somehow make the Hall of Fame less legitimate, or damage its legacy.


I can agree with the writer on this part. If the HOF is going to exclude Bonds, Clemens, and Rose, then excluding Schilling is not a big deal.
   2. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 20, 2020 at 03:26 PM (#5990163)
Expanding the grounds for exclusion to include whatever form of political correctness is in vogue at the time of the selection would be a major change, and quite damaging, for the Hall.
   3. winnipegwhip Posted: November 20, 2020 at 03:48 PM (#5990169)
But Schilling voted for Biden??? 20 times!!!!
   4. Padraic Posted: November 20, 2020 at 03:48 PM (#5990170)
My guess is that the author would not argue that Schilling should be kept out because he has transgressed ephemeral "PC" standards, but because his words and beliefs are counter to enduring and transhistorical values of decency, character, and moral behavior.
   5. The Duke Posted: November 20, 2020 at 03:59 PM (#5990175)
The author should take all those alt-right books, audiotapes, and other memorabilia to Portland and have a great big bonfire and burn down someone’s hard earned business. That’s how real authoritarians do it. Not just some sad on line jihad against an ex-jocks free speech rights. It’s far better to let people like schilling let their freak flag fly than trying to cancel him. Why do people keep writing about this guy - he’s a nothing ?

   6. Jobu is silent on the changeup Posted: November 20, 2020 at 04:02 PM (#5990177)
Yes - it's all so transitory. I remember just last week, I was pining for some hypocritical blowhards to use their public platforms to just make a bunch of #### up while using each other's made-up #### as reinforcement that they weren't just making #### up so that a quarter of our country could run around threatening violence because their made-up #### wasn't being taken seriously enough by... well, anybody with a better than 3rd grade reading level. Now, suddenly that's bad? Who can keep up?
   7. Walt Davis Posted: November 20, 2020 at 04:02 PM (#5990178)
the positioning of the Hall of Fame as purely about on-field merit is part of what makes it meaningful.

Huh? The Baseball HoF has never really been "positioned" as this. The "character clause" is well-known and, even outside the alleged roiders and Rose, is widely believed to have impacted on Dick Allen and likely others. Meanwhile, being a friend of Frisch was key to a VC selection and Politics of Glory came out 26 years ago. One can argue that the character clause has applied only to "behavior within baseball" and maybe that's what the author means.

It's too late in the day for this article to have an impact although I don't know if this is the first time this author has written on this. Good or bad, Schilling is in. I'm fine with it.
   8. Zonk Saw Massive Dumps Posted: November 20, 2020 at 04:08 PM (#5990179)
Setting aside that I find Schilling's political nonsense to actually be utter and damaging nonsense, this is dumb.

The case against Schilling in the Hall starts and stops with whether he's all-time great pitcher. I think it's close, but he's always been on my (fake) ballot and always will be, regardless of whatever additional nonsense he spouts.

By all means, post pics on pinterest flipping his plaque the bird, whatever... but he ought to have a plaque, just like lots of other shitweasels both in and not-yet-in the hall.

The more annoying part is that - as per usual - someone very few people have ever heard of or care about has written something stupid... and now this will become some broader meta stance.... and that's what a lot of usual suspects will huffnpuff against.
   9. ramifications of an exciting 57i66135 Posted: November 20, 2020 at 04:20 PM (#5990182)
he can get in when he's dead.


the hall of fame couldn't get off their asses to put buck o'neil in before he died, so they sure as hell don't owe any kind of platform to a scumbag like schilling.
   10. Zonk Saw Massive Dumps Posted: November 20, 2020 at 04:33 PM (#5990185)
he can get in when he's dead.


That's my view on Pete Rose - but there's a difference...
   11. Mayor Blomberg Posted: November 20, 2020 at 04:38 PM (#5990188)
it's not the "public heel turn," it's the goose-stepping that's followed and continues.
   12. John Northey Posted: November 20, 2020 at 04:38 PM (#5990189)
No rush on Schilling. Was he worthy playing wise? Sure. But so was Lou Whittaker and he isn't in. Others are also waiting (Bonds, Clemens, Rose) who all had playing careers that clearly were HOF level but aren't in for other reasons (the case against Clemens the most flimsy - is there anything beyond one trainer's word against him and some kinda sorta stuff regarding Pettite?)
   13. ramifications of an exciting 57i66135 Posted: November 20, 2020 at 04:42 PM (#5990192)
the case against Clemens the most flimsy - is there anything beyond one trainer's word against him
wasn't he getting shot in the ass when he was in toronto?
   14. Adam Starblind Posted: November 20, 2020 at 04:42 PM (#5990193)
Schilling is a dick. Who cares what happens to him.
   15. Zonk Saw Massive Dumps Posted: November 20, 2020 at 04:48 PM (#5990195)
No rush on Schilling. Was he worthy playing wise? Sure. But so was Lou Whittaker and he isn't in. Others are also waiting (Bonds, Clemens, Rose) who all had playing careers that clearly were HOF level but aren't in for other reasons (the case against Clemens the most flimsy - is there anything beyond one trainer's word against him and some kinda sorta stuff regarding Pettite?)


Oh sure, on my "fake" ballot -- I use a mishmash of forced stack ranking + strategic voting.

Schilling has been in the bottom of my 10 since he became eligible... But - ultimately, he's never really been lower than 8-9, with the 10 spot generally being a matter of "this guy probably isn't, but doesn't deserve a 1 and done".

The toughest guy I struggle with now is probably Jeff Kent... I'm not sure I think he's a Hall of Famer, but I'm not sure he isn't - and he doesn't look like he's going to get there... so do I keep him around until convinced one way or another, or not?

He's probably battle Mark Buerhle this time for the 10 spot...
   16. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 20, 2020 at 04:49 PM (#5990196)
Good or bad, Schilling is in.


Did I miss something?
   17. flournoy Posted: November 20, 2020 at 05:00 PM (#5990200)
What a complete loser the author of this piece is.
   18. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: November 20, 2020 at 05:18 PM (#5990208)
What a complete loser the author of this piece is.

"Hey, Zach! Did you write about X ten years ago?"
"Yeah, so?"
"X is considered a no-go topic now. You're fired!"
"B-but...that's not fair!"
"It was your side that decided to put in the Goalposts-on-Wheels (tm), Zach." (shrug) #zachiscancelled
   19. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: November 20, 2020 at 05:30 PM (#5990213)
If he falls short in the voting, he'll probably just refuse to accept the results.
   20. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: November 20, 2020 at 05:33 PM (#5990216)
Odds that he accepts the results if he falls short in the voting?

He'll take it all the way to the Supreme Court and win...but, in the interest of national unity, will step down and allow Tim Wakefield to be inducted in his place.
   21. Padraic Posted: November 20, 2020 at 05:46 PM (#5990223)
The case against Schilling in the Hall starts and stops with whether he's all-time great pitcher.


Well, that's kind of question begging. The whole debate is whether or not this is true, or whether other factors should matter, so you can't just assert it as evidence. I think it's legitimate to see the Hall of Fame as a place of honor rather than a historical registry of greatness and therefore exclude Schilling. I think it would be outrageous (in an Orwellian and authoritative sense) to take him (or someone convicted of pedophilia, murder, rape, whatever) out of the record books, but I think people can make a fair argument that the Hall is not an objective historical archive but a subjective place where we (or at least baseball writers and the Vet's committee) can choose what we want to honor and celebrate.
   22. Padraic Posted: November 20, 2020 at 05:47 PM (#5990224)
Sorry, double.
   23. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: November 20, 2020 at 06:02 PM (#5990226)
I think people can make a fair argument that the Hall is ... a subjective place where we (or at least baseball writers and the Vet's committee) can choose what we want to honor and celebrate.

Is it then fair game to expunge "known" racists and other violators of contemporary woke thought so as to sanitize the Hall such that it won't trigger our tender collective societal sensitivities?
   24. Ron J Posted: November 20, 2020 at 06:20 PM (#5990230)
#23 The Hockey Hall of Fame faced that a variation of that issue and opted to remove Alan Eagelson and Gil Stein.

Stein was easy. He appointed HOF board members on the condition that they support him. Eagelson though ... Ripped off a bunch of HOFers. Brad Park was the public face of the "him or me" campaign, but Bobby Orr was supposedly very active -- just very much behind the scene. It was pretty clear that the hall would see massive numbers of players quitting if Eagleson wasn't removed.
   25. Adam Starblind Posted: November 20, 2020 at 06:25 PM (#5990231)
Is it then fair game to expunge "known" racists and other violators of contemporary woke thought so as to sanitize the Hall such that it won't trigger our tender collective societal sensitivities?


Maybe. Is there a black person we can consult on this?
   26. Padraic Posted: November 20, 2020 at 06:26 PM (#5990232)
Is it then fair game to expunge "known" racists and other violators of contemporary woke thought so as to sanitize the Hall such that it won't trigger our tender collective societal sensitivities?


I take from the "then" part that you think your question is a logical deduction from my assertion. I don't think it is, but in any case, I don't really understand what you mean by "woke thought," "trigger," or "sanitize." I don't think anyone is saying the hall voters did those things, or are thinking about doing those things, and I'm not sure I even know what it would mean to do those things. I think it's important in a discussion to adopt at least adjacent terms to what the people you're talking to are using, and none of these words have been used in the discussion (maybe the original author used them?).

If you're asking about whether past acts should be historicized, then that's a pretty big question, and one I'm not sure that needs to be answered before determining whether to vote for Schilling.
   27. Zonk Saw Massive Dumps Posted: November 20, 2020 at 06:50 PM (#5990245)
"It was your side that decided to put in the Goalposts-on-Wheels (tm), Zach." (shrug) #zachiscancelled


Cute.

No surprise an old white guy isn't familiar with Anita Hill's life post-October 1991, but pretend the world is now suddenly awash in "cancel culture" and we've never before experienced such a thing.

Like it or not, the plain and simple fact that the slow bend of reality over time is that the allegedly new stuff that suddenly smacks people in the face seemingly out of nowhere is neither new nor sudden. Lots of people are just seeing and feeling it for the first time.

You want to say "Well, the whole concept is bad!"... Great. The case is better made with a bit of reflection and acknowledgement over ignorance or faux naivete.

Or - if we want a baseball parallel.... On accomplishment? Is Dick Allen really that different than Curt Schilling, even with the fact that comparing pitchers to hitters is hard? I think so... and I feel the same way about Allen as I do Schilling - close, but both ought to be in.

Is Allen TRULY AND SOLELY not in the Hall of Fame because his peak was too short? Or because a lot of then-in-charge old white guys didn't like the way he acted?
   28. SoSH U at work Posted: November 20, 2020 at 06:53 PM (#5990247)
I think there are two relevant questions:

Is there any difference between removing a known reprobate (whether it was known at the time of the vote or discovered later) from the Hall rather than inducting a known one?

For those who insist it's only about what happened on the field, is that non-negotiable? Would you vote for the baseball equivalent of O.J. had the murders happened before his induction, or would a guilty verdict have changed that?
   29. SoSH U at work Posted: November 20, 2020 at 06:56 PM (#5990250)
Cute.


It was even dumber than usual. I think there's a legitimate question about "punishing" people for behavior that was not viewed negatively when it happened, but that's certainly not applicable in Schilling's case. He's being held to account for behavior he's engaged in right now.
   30. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: November 20, 2020 at 06:57 PM (#5990251)
I don't really understand what you mean by "woke thought," "trigger," or "sanitize."
It means he's not interested in a serious discussion of the issue.
   31. Zonk Saw Massive Dumps Posted: November 20, 2020 at 07:00 PM (#5990253)
Well, that's kind of question begging. The whole debate is whether or not this is true, or whether other factors should matter, so you can't just assert it as evidence. I think it's legitimate to see the Hall of Fame as a place of honor rather than a historical registry of greatness and therefore exclude Schilling. I think it would be outrageous (in an Orwellian and authoritative sense) to take him (or someone convicted of pedophilia, murder, rape, whatever) out of the record books, but I think people can make a fair argument that the Hall is not an objective historical archive but a subjective place where we (or at least baseball writers and the Vet's committee) can choose what we want to honor and celebrate.


My take on the matter generally - and I'm a Big Hall guy - is that I'm willing to give marginal cases a push over the line (Dizzy Dean is something of example, though I know there's a decent case he's not close enough to marginal) for, lacking a better word, "intangibles"... but I wouldn't penalize a player for the lack thereof (or even negatives).

I don't think the Hall is tarnished by having bad guys in it. Indeed - it's a museum; the best place for such a thing. Of course, that's the thing... is it solely "honor and celebrate"? IDK...

My best parallel is 1998 and it is the foundation of my view on steroids. That was an enormously fun summer for me. Part of it was simply being a ~25 yo living near Wrigley, a lifelong dream of a lifelong Cubs fan, and my life being in a place where I spent a ton of afternoons buying cheap tickets after playball from the scalpers around the place I got to know, who'd generally toss me their best leftover for 5 bucks.

It was a glorious baseball year for me.

Sounds corny, but I do honor and celebrate that summer... and the guys - Sosa and McGwire - that were a big part of it. I'm mellowing enough in old age that I'm OK with some kind of asterisk or whatever (I think it's silly, but OK, whatever)... but it's something I do want enshrined.

I'm not even a fan of any team Schilling played for - but he's got enough performance + moments (even the silly bloody sock!) that I can't see excluding him no matter what dumb crap he says...
   32. SoSH U at work Posted: November 20, 2020 at 07:04 PM (#5990255)
even the silly bloody sock!


How was the bloody sock silly?
   33. Zonk Saw Massive Dumps Posted: November 20, 2020 at 07:06 PM (#5990258)
How was the bloody sock silly?


OK, fair enough... it's not. Pointless glibness on my part.
   34. Zonk Saw Massive Dumps Posted: November 20, 2020 at 07:20 PM (#5990272)
Maybe that's really the great divide - not just here, but on stuff like steroids, and even Rose (note, I'm about to somewhat contradict myself above!)....

Is enshrinement into the Hall of Fame an honor for the player?

Is enshrinement into the Hall of Fame a treat for the fans?

Is enshrinement into the Hall of Fame an etched in stone recording for baseball?

Obviously, it's all three - but in what proportions? I'm just spitballing (Ha!) percentages here, but I kind of see it something like 15% - 30% - 55%... Even after typing it that, I know it's wrong in regards to individual player inductions (I mean, the HOF certainly has some exhibit on Don Larsen's perfect game but he obviously shouldn't get "inducted").

I'm not big on "punishing" people (hence, contradicting myself on Rose) so in general, if you score high enough elsewhere, I'd just grin and bear it beyond a pretty damn high bar.
   35. reech Posted: November 20, 2020 at 07:36 PM (#5990283)
He talked sh!t about the Sandy Hook murders. I know someone whose kid was murdered.
I hope Schilling never gets in.
He is a monster.
   36. bfan Posted: November 20, 2020 at 08:05 PM (#5990292)
I live, breath and eat politics. Politics is my life. I disagree with your politics, so no soup for you.

Utter, complete nonsense.

The lack of tolerance for opposing view points is depressing.

Argue with him, boo him, don’t buy his products.
But diminish the achievements of his profession, where success is based on physical skills? My goodness, I see where this is headed, and it is not good.

   37. Jeff Francoeur's OPS Posted: November 20, 2020 at 08:06 PM (#5990293)
I know it's cool to hate and despise people who identify as Republican, we are second-class citizens, after all, but if there's now a politics test for the Hall, I vote we just dissolve the whole thing. We can't have someone with Republican preferences in Cooperstown, said the anti-fascists.
   38. SoSH U at work Posted: November 20, 2020 at 08:16 PM (#5990295)
If you guys want to line yourself up with Schilling's brand of Republicanism, knock yourselves out.

John Smoltz sailed into the Hall of Fame, and he's been far more conservative than Schilling over the course of his career. No one really cares about a player's politics.

Curt's problem is he's become a loathsome troll. Blaming his issues with the voters on his status as a Republican is as dumb as saying Sam H got tossed from BTF because of his lefty politics.
   39. ramifications of an exciting 57i66135 Posted: November 20, 2020 at 08:22 PM (#5990299)
If you guys want to line yourself up with Schilling's brand of Republicanism, knock yourselves out.
yeah, it's always weird to see random people throwing themselves onto grenades to save these reprehensible shitbags.


like, you could just not. #sistersouljah
   40. Srul Itza Posted: November 20, 2020 at 08:34 PM (#5990311)
we are second-class citizens


Just so I understand completely, you are saying that Republicanism, by definition, does not believe in evolution, equates Islam with Nazism, supports QAnon conspiracy mongering, and is wholly dedicated to the proposition that the 2020 election was actually won by Trump, but a nationwide conspiracy stole the election?

Okay, just so I know.
   41. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: November 20, 2020 at 08:34 PM (#5990312)
The lack of tolerance for opposing view points is depressing.
Differences of opinion on appropriate tax policies are "opposing viewpoints." Conspiracy theories and intimations of violence are not "opposing viewpoints." Sad that that has to be clarified.


   42. Walt Davis Posted: November 20, 2020 at 08:56 PM (#5990326)
Did Sam H finally stab somebody in the neck?

Somebody mentioned the HoF is a museum. Technically know. The organization is a HoF AND a museum. This distinction is sometimes made as an excuse to keep somebody distasteful out -- e.g. the museum can acknowledge Bonds' accomplishments, that doesn't mean Bonds should receive an honor from the HoF -- and sometimes as an excuse to put someone distasteful in -- e.g. Bonds' accomplishments are enough for the honor while the Museum can have a display on steroids in the game.

Anyway, in either case, the museum bit is the "etched in stone recording of baseball," the Hall of Fame is an honor bestowed. Keep this in mind when it comes time for the Trump stamp. :-)

As to removing folks from the Hall (but not the etched in stone recording of baseball), it's a perfectly reasonable concept. I don't know if there's a Comedians HoF but if there is, surely Bill Cosby was put in and deservedly so ... but I fail to see any harm in saying "we no longer want to honor this person." Obviously such things pushed too far can be somewhere between silly and harmful so don't push them too far. (Slippery slopes are rarely so slippery as they are made out to be.)

So are folks saying that if proof came out that Jim Thome (to pick a non-controversial human being to my knowledge) was paid to help throw the 1995 WS and he then received a lifetime ban from MLB that the HoF should just say "bummer, too late for us to do anything?" Why would it be wrong for the "etched in stone recording of baseball" to record "Jim Thome was elected to the HoF for his accomplishments but was later removed after it came to light that he had conspired to throw the 1995 World Series."

If there ever is a President removed from office, will they be given a stamp just because it's done for all of the others? A stamp is of course not an historical record, it is an honor. Skipping such a president would not be an attempt to rewrite history, it would be an attempt to recognize history. Just like, say, naming military bases after traitors is really weird.
   43. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 20, 2020 at 09:37 PM (#5990340)
John Smoltz sailed into the Hall of Fame, and he's been far more conservative than Schilling over the course of his career. No one really cares about a player's politics.
My brush is broad but accurate: most big leaguers, and most professional athletes in general, vote Republican if they vote at all. Until Schilling, there's never been serious consideration of someone's politics when it comes to Hall of Fame voting. Conservatives should maybe start chewing on the idea that the BBWAA doesn't hate conservatives or Republicans (two different groups these days), but that they hate Curt Schilling because Schilling is uniquely awful.
   44. TJ Posted: November 20, 2020 at 09:45 PM (#5990342)
we are second-class citizens


Yeah, I can’t help but notice all the “Republicans Only” drinking fountains and Republicans riding in the back of busses. We really should do something about those sheriffs using police dogs to keep republicans out of college.

As for Schilling’s HOF case, it’s not the Hall that decides to keep him out or not, it’s the BBWAA. Since that bunch has only once agreed 100% on any candidate (and a reliever at that), why would anyone expect them to agree on the cutoff mark for being a jerk for HOF induction? (I had a much better and more descriptive phrase than “being a jerk” but the censors blocked it out- where’s my freedom of speech, you authoritarian jackbooted censoring thugs!)
   45. Walt Davis Posted: November 21, 2020 at 12:15 AM (#5990394)
Did I miss something?

No, just my way of saying that since Schilling got 70% last year, has no big candidates entering the ballot this year and even has another year on the ballot, the probability that he won't be elected to the HoF is effectively zero. He suffered a moron penalty in 2017, bounced back to where he was in 2018 then two 9-point jumps.

Granted, I pay no attention to Schilling but unless he was involved in the Whitmen assassination plot or has been hoarding toilet paper, it's hard to imagine what he could do at this point to miss the HoF. (OK, no it's not that hard to imagine.) Besides, if he doesn't get in this year then that's just more votes for Vizquel and I believe the consensus around here is that we might as well fire the HoF into the sun if that happens.
   46. sunday silence (again) Posted: November 21, 2020 at 12:58 AM (#5990399)
The "character clause" is well-known and, even outside the alleged roiders and Rose, is widely believed to have impacted on Dick Allen and likely others...


I want to dissect this statement a bit. I do understand your general pt. that there is a character clause and its well known. I dont think anyone would question that part.

But outside of Roiders/Rose, is Dick Allen really your best example of this? And if so, that is the best example you got, then arent you really making the guy's pt? That its really merit (aside from ROids/Rose) alone?

Here's a list of the highest WAR guys not in the Hall. I did this quickly so Im prolly missing a couple. I didnt include 19 cent guys like Jim McCormick, or recent retirees e.g. Jeter, Beltre, Belran, etc.


Curt Schilling - 79.5
Lou Whitaker - 75.1
Bill Dahlen - 75.4
Scott Rolen - 70.2
Larry Walker - 72.7,
Grich 71.1
Rick Reuschel - 69.5
Kenny Lofton - 68.3,
Graig Nettle 68
Kevin Brown - 67.8
Dwight Evans - 67.1
Buddy Bell 66.3
David Cone - 66.2
Luis Tiant - 66.0,
Todd Helton - 61.2

Who on this list is being excluded because of Character? I guess Keven Brown is something of a dick. SO maybe K Brown. Also Keith Hernandez maybe? Also Sheffield maybe? Nettles was kind of a dick, I didnt realize he was that high on this WAR list.

As for DIck Allen. His biggest drawback seems to be longevity. Followed by not playing an entire season. Also perhaps fielding. His character issues amount to: Divisiveness and Attitude. I think thats a bit lower than being say busted for Cocaine, and probably lower than saying horrible racist/sexist/non PC stuff ala Schilling or say ALbert Belle.

SO who is your poster boy for Not In the HOF for Character Reasons? Sheffield? Allen? I think you're actually making the guy's point.
   47. sunday silence (again) Posted: November 21, 2020 at 01:03 AM (#5990403)
My brush is broad but accurate: most big leaguers, and most professional athletes in general, vote Republican if they vote at all.


I think this is somewhat off the mark in the case of the NBA and NFL. I do think MLB is probably more GOP than dem, but I hesitate to jump to any conclusions with out much evidence. Do you have a reference for any of this?
   48. sunday silence (again) Posted: November 21, 2020 at 01:07 AM (#5990405)

No rush on Schilling. Was he worthy playing wise? Sure. But so was Lou Whittaker and he isn't in.


JN: Even this isn't much of an argument is it? If Whitaker is the best case you can do, he's 4.5 WAR behind Schilling. Surely that's enuf WAR to make some difference in career value? And surely Schilling's narrative is better. And his peak too? I dont see Whitaker as being more worthy than Schilling and so I dont see your pt here.
   49. sunday silence (again) Posted: November 21, 2020 at 02:34 AM (#5990412)

Is Allen TRULY AND SOLELY not in the Hall of Fame because his peak was too short? Or because a lot of then-in-charge old white guys didn't like the way he acted?


Theres about 25 or 26 guys, in the last 120 years who are ahead of Allen by WAR and not in the HoF. To my list above you'd add; Sherry Magee, Willie Davis, Ken BOyer, Rick Reuschel, Vic Willis, etc. That's not a small number of guys when the HoF numbers what 250? But its not a huge number either so I can sort of see an argument here. Lets examine that:

But what about 3b men in particular? Theres a long jam here no? Bell, Bando, Boyer, Nettles,

Boyer got a late start not getting to the bigs until age 24, but he is averaging 6 WAR for 9 seasons. at his 3 year peak he's about 7.5 WAR, a short peak but a 6 WAR player is outstanding. He doesnt have much value after that. And his narrative is not alot but contributed alot to the '64 world champions. He's very comparable to Allen in terms of prime, and overall career length, and kind of short narrative/contributed to pennant drives or whatever.

Im also sure that Boyer was VG defensively and using the crappy outmoded TZ ratings for this era is probably detracting. He gets 11 to 17 runs saved at his peak but I could well imagine giving him an extra 0.5 WAR for defense based on stuff they dont even measure. His reputation at 3b is very good.

Bando, also didnt start till age 24, is about 5.5 WAR for 10 seasons at his prime. He was good defensively for about half that, prior to age 30, so maybe give him a few more runs that arent being picked up by TZ . He had one 8 War season but his peak is more like 6. only one other above avg season. He was a huge contributor to arguably the best dynasty of the 60s/70s.

Bell has about 6 seasons of 6 WAR prime/peak, but at least 12 or 13 good seasons. He was a gold glover for 10 seasons and even the crappy TZ metrics show him as outstanding, would have no problem bumping him another 0.5 WAR/season just because I dont see it fully capturing the value here. I dont recall him being apart of any pennant contender most teams were pretty bad.

Nettles, not a regular till age 25, about 9 seasons of just below 6 WAR say 5.9. Outstanding fielder, much like Bell I can see boosting his underappreciated defense. 5 more seasons of better than avg. Very good/excellent narrative playing for 3 pennant winners with NYY and some famous plays in the WS.

Allen: has two peak years 8 years apart, so lets give him a 2 year peak of 8.7. If his prime includes both seasons then he's about 6 WAR for 9 seasons. 2 other above avg seasons aside from that. His defense was famously crappy but Im not about to dock him more than what TZ is giving him because Ive looked a little bit at this and I dont think he's like throwing the ball away with men on base a lot which is where a lot of negative value adds up. ANd if Im going to give more credit to these other guys than what showing then maybe this is fair. He features prominently in 2 pennant chases and just a little for the mid 70s Phils.

So who do you pick?

On peak: probably Allen, beause those seasons are so far apart it really asks: what might have been?
On prime: Boyer or Nettles, Nettles maybe a bit better on def/ Boyer on off.
effective seasons: Nettles or Bell, both outstanding fielders. Even Bando is just a bit below.
Narrative: Bando or Nettles, at least if we look at this as playing for pennants.

Overall: Nettles, I guess even though going into this exercise I wouldnt have thought.

But the point is there's a long jam at 3b right now. There's several reasons to not pick Allen, aside from racisism. There's career longevity, there's narrative and Allen's is not always positive, and there's prime value and there's defense. So ..
   50. Ron J Posted: November 21, 2020 at 03:32 AM (#5990414)
#46 Maybe Bill Dahlen? Likely the reason he got no serious consideration is that in the days of poor record keeping he lacked a simple narrative hook.

But still, to the extent he was know it wasn't a positive rep that came through. The stories that came down (which were crucial to the HOF cases for players active when he was) are mostly "Bad Bill" stories.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, the clearest example of the character clause in action is Hal Chase. Looks weird to our eyes, but it's clear that he was regarded as a truly great player by the people around the game when he was active (I mean Ruth picked him over Gehrig for his all time team and Ruth wasn't alone in this) and the people doing the voting in the early days (when the cases were basically narrative) generally judged him as worthy on merit as a played, but ...
   51. sunday silence (again) Posted: November 21, 2020 at 06:12 AM (#5990416)
Right, I guess Chase would be the one. Bill James expounded on this quite a bit in re: to people thinking he was a great. One pt. is that its hard to see his case today based on how we evaluate players so its hard to fit him into this.

but OK lets say Chase was a borderline HoF. I can still make my argument by looking at various categories of "character" issues. To wit:

1. Crimes against people. I dunno this might be like Albert Belle, or Frank Thomas 1.0 who hit Allen with a bat. Stuff like that. I dont know of any borderline guys who committed other crimes. But probably many of us/most of us would give serious pause to taking a guy like that into the HoF. I guess OJ or Rae Carruth or someone would be the best example of this. Of course Cobb killed someone but I guess it was more like he was defending his house. he also beat up a crippled guy but I guess that guy said some really bad things.

2. Crimes against Baseball. This of course includes Rose and Joe Jackson and I guess Denny McLain. But we can also put Hal Chase in here. So his case fits in neatly with that of Rose and Jackson. Obviously no one's lobbying for Hal Chase at this point so its probably academic but nonetheless I dont see Chase as some sort of great example that makes your point. Its probably also fair to point out there were any number of other MLBers that were also implicated in the great cheating scandal including Tris Speaker and I think Cobb as well. So I guess its not a real clear cut demarcation here. Durocher would be another one who consorted with gamblers. And he's in so...?

Then the roiders. Who I guess we have to put them in here as well since that relates to competitive balance. And then we have guys like Whitey Ford or Gaylord Perry using doctored balls not to mention amphetamine guys probably everybody from 1960 and on. So I guess its a slippery slope how far you want to go on this one.

3. Non violent crimes, victimless crimes. Im thinking here like Ferguson Jenkins. He was caught with cocaine/marijuana and suspended by BOwie Kuhn indefinitely. But that was overturned very soon after. And he case was eventually thrown out. Also Stargell was implicated in the Pirate Cocaine Fiasco thing in the early 80s. Im sure there are others. None of that seems to be keeping anyone out.

4. Saying stoopid #### having to do with racism/pedophilia/sexual orientation. I would put those three topics up there that are generally offensive enuf to warrant some consideration but I like to believe in free speech and you should be able to say stoopid things. What's exactly the worst thing Schilling's said? I confess I really have followed much of what he says. Most notable in this category might be Ty Cobb but even then this is kind of problematical as we find that book written about him in the 60s wasnt exactly the most thoroughly researched.

This also calls to mind Bob Feller, of whom I get the feeling was some sort of old school, closeted racist. He made some odd remarks when he was quite old but even back in the day I seem to recall Larry Doby saying that when he joined the Indians only Ray Boone and JOe Gordon shook his hand. But Boone only joined CLE in '48 and Doby was there in '47 so I dunno. ANyhow Feller was on that team so hmm...

So I guess my point is that other than: Crimes Against Baseball (including Roids) the character clause is little invoked and hard to actually find it in use.
   52. MuttsIdolCochrane Posted: November 21, 2020 at 06:17 AM (#5990417)
#9
he can get in when he's dead.


the hall of fame couldn't get off their asses to put buck o'neil in before he died, so they sure as hell don't owe any kind of platform to a scumbag like schilling.

Yup (sics aside)
   53. Rally Posted: November 21, 2020 at 09:07 AM (#5990419)
Nettles was kind of a dick, I didnt realize he was that high on this WAR list.


I don’t know if Nettles was a dick or not, but that’s not why he isn’t in. If you keep his value the same but give him 10-15 more hits per year but also 10-15 more hits going past his glove in the field, he’s in.
   54. bachslunch Posted: November 21, 2020 at 09:53 AM (#5990427)
Hard to say which stupid thing Curt Schilling has said is the worst, as there are so many possible examples. No question one of the worst is his vocal support for the idea of shooting journalists — and it’s especially dumb given that the HoF voters are, y’know, journalists.

I’m fine with the idea of this being a Character Clause issue that affects his Hall fitness.
   55. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 21, 2020 at 10:09 AM (#5990430)

Is there any difference between removing a known reprobate (whether it was known at the time of the vote or discovered later) from the Hall rather than inducting a known one?


There is no procedure or precedent for removing a player from the Hall of Fame. Which is why one should be cautious about who one inducts.
   56. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: November 21, 2020 at 10:23 AM (#5990433)
I don't know of any borderline guys who committed other crimes.


Didn’t Kirby Puckett commit sexual assault? That may have only happened after he was inducted, though.
   57. SoSH U at work Posted: November 21, 2020 at 10:28 AM (#5990435)
There is no procedure or precedent for removing a player from the Hall of Fame.


Obviously. But I'm interested in what people think should be the case, rather than what is. Walt makes the case for being able to remove people from the Hall. Do others agree? And if you believe in removal, would you have a different threshold for choosing not to induct than you would for removal of the already inducted?
   58. BDC Posted: November 21, 2020 at 10:43 AM (#5990437)
Nixon was on a postage stamp (1995, after his death ... it used to be a sacrosanct rule that living people couldn't appear on US stamps, but now that you can print stamps with your grandchildren on them, this makes little sense anymore ... now that nobody uses stamps anymore, either).

I guess my criterion for removal would be Walt's Jim Thome line. If an inductee was later found to have been egregiously unsportsmanlike – not just sign-stealing or spitballing, but on the level of Rose/Joe-Jackson disgrace – there should be a mechanism for removal from the Hall.

I don't know of any unsportsmanlike behavior by Schilling. He seems to have been a great competitor. It's a Hall to celebrate what people did while playing a game.
   59. Howie Menckel Posted: November 21, 2020 at 10:48 AM (#5990439)
No question one of the worst is his vocal support for the idea of shooting journalists

would love to see a cite for this.

Schilling did Tweet his support for a crude, sarcastic, offensive tweet that read "Rope. Tree. Journalist. Some assembly required."

if signaling support for a crude, sarcastic, offensive tweet is disqualifying - well, are you sure you want to go down that road?

hint: you may not like where that road takes you, and those you support.
   60. SoSH U at work Posted: November 21, 2020 at 10:54 AM (#5990441)
I don't know of any unsportsmanlike behavior by Schilling. He seems to have been a great competitor. It's a Hall to celebrate what people did while playing a game.


OK, is there any type of off-field transgression that would keep you from voting someone in (or, more accurately, supporting the election of that individual)? A murder conviction? Rape?

   61. BDC Posted: November 21, 2020 at 11:19 AM (#5990443)
OK, is there any type of off-field transgression that would keep you from voting someone in (or, more accurately, supporting the election of that individual)? A murder conviction? Rape?


That's an excellent question, because a very hard one. I should be able to separate it from practical scenarios, but that too is hard. Basically you'd have to have a well-qualified candidate whose life fell apart so quickly after retirement that he committed a shocking crime before eligibility.

I guess OJ Simpson is the perfect example, as noted above. He is in both College and Pro Football Halls of Fame, and neither bothers me at all. His personal evil or sickness or both are well separate from how he played football.

But then there might be the case of some 19th-century player named Gritty Bill Pindick or whatever who we now see as a saber-favorite but simultaneously learn took part in lynchings. This does get complicated.
   62. Astroenteritis Posted: November 21, 2020 at 12:14 PM (#5990454)
Ignorance should not disqualify one from HOF consideration. It may not be pleasant to witness, but it doesn't seem to be that unusual. I'll admit that Schilling may have advocated for actions that are criminal, but I'm just not aware of it.
   63. Jobu is silent on the changeup Posted: November 21, 2020 at 12:39 PM (#5990463)
I know it's cool to hate and despise people who identify as Republican, we are second-class citizens, after all, but if there's now a politics test for the Hall, I vote we just dissolve the whole thing. We can't have someone with Republican preferences in Cooperstown, said the anti-fascists.
I'm having trouble telling whether this is wildly disingenuous or just stupid.

There's a huge difference between being a Republican and aggressively exhibiting every negative trait of the Trump Cult, exactly as there's a huge difference between being a Democrat and being an Antifa flag-waving advocate of violence against cops.
   64. Mike Webber Posted: November 21, 2020 at 12:55 PM (#5990474)
@ 51
This also calls to mind Bob Feller


To be fair... In 1962 the year Bob Feller was elected to the Hall of Fame, he "wrote" an article for a national magazine endorsing Satchel Paige for the HOF. Ted Williams used his HOF speech to endorse Negro Leaguers, but Feller was on record that they needed to be included also.

Feller was complex, though a lot of his words/actions are tied to money. He and Paige made money barnstorming together, on that tour Feller got into it with Jackie Robinson when Jackie wanted a bigger cut of the gate in California. Feller and Jackie were both inducted in 1962, and Feller said some snippy things about Robinson.

   65. michaelplank has knowledgeable eyes Posted: November 21, 2020 at 01:10 PM (#5990480)
Of course Cobb killed someone but I guess it was more like he was defending his house.


You might be mixing up a few stories here. Cobb's mother shot and killed his father, possibly because she thought he was an intruder. I don't think there's any record of Ty Cobb killing anyone.
   66. bachslunch Posted: November 21, 2020 at 02:23 PM (#5990516)
@59:

No question one of the worst is his vocal support for the idea of hanging journalists.

Happy now? (I suspect the answer will be no).
   67. The Duke Posted: November 21, 2020 at 02:26 PM (#5990521)
25. It’s young white women you need to consult. Please see Bill Burrs hysterical SNL monologue for confirmation “you need to sit down here next to me and take your talking to!”
   68. Srul Itza Posted: November 21, 2020 at 02:39 PM (#5990532)
Here's a list of the highest WAR guys not in the Hall. . . .


...
Larry Walker - 72.7,



?? I mean, he hasn't been formally inducted yet, but . . .
   69. Srul Itza Posted: November 21, 2020 at 02:40 PM (#5990533)
There's a huge difference between being a Republican and aggressively exhibiting every negative trait of the Trump Cult


There used to be.

Now, not so much.
   70. Howie Menckel Posted: November 21, 2020 at 03:57 PM (#5990551)
No question one of the worst is his vocal support for the idea of hanging journalists.

just setting the rules of engagement, that retweeting something like that means you sincerely want it to happen.

I hope you are one of those "small Hall" guys - because that's what you're going to be stuck with in this era of social media.
   71. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: November 21, 2020 at 05:37 PM (#5990578)
...annnnd the thread slides into partisan political BS, just like...well, pretty much every other thread on BBTF, because this site is filled with people who. Just. Won't. Let. Things. Go.

(We) live, breath and eat politics. Politics is (our lives). (We) disagree with your politics, so no soup for you.

This should be placed in flashing red block letters at the top of the BBTF homepage.

EDIT: May as well call it now: Trump largely proves his case for election cheating, but the Supremes rule against him, because they don't really want to tear everything up, root and branch, to benefit Donald Effing Trump. (I mean, we're not talking Ronald Reagan here.)
   72. TJ Posted: November 21, 2020 at 10:25 PM (#5990603)
Ryan Spaeder (theaceofspaeder.com) has a thing going where MLB alums can post their HOF votes. Some do it anonymously, others identify themselves. Some leave comments. There are 34 ballots posted, and Schilling is at 60% (19 of 33, since one of the 34 ballots is Schilling’s own and he didn’t vote for himself)...

Only Bonds and Clemens are over 75% right now. There is one blank ballot (the MLB alum said there was no one they would vote for this year) and one Vizquel-only ballot, showing that former players can be just as silly as BBWAA voters...

See Thibs got his first official ballot from Steven Marcus, who sent in a blank ballot and said it wasn’t a protest vote. Instead, Marcus felt no one was deserving of induction this year and giving us an early start on the annual “should a voter submit a blank ballot as a vote against everyone or just not submit one at all” debate...
   73. Ron J Posted: November 21, 2020 at 10:31 PM (#5990604)
#71 Don't they actually have to present evidence to prove their case? Seriously, read what the judge in the Pennsylvania case had to say.

It doesn't read, "Why did you waste my ####### time with this BS?" because judges relatively rarely use ####### in their rulings.
   74. Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens Posted: November 21, 2020 at 10:36 PM (#5990605)
people who. Just. Won't. Let. Things. Go.

May as well call it now: Trump largely proves his case for election cheating,

Speaking of not being able to let things go...
   75. Jaack Posted: November 21, 2020 at 10:37 PM (#5990606)
Ryan Spaeder (theaceofspaeder.com) has a thing going where MLB alums can post their HOF votes. Some do it anonymously, others identify themselves. Some leave comments. There are 34 ballots posted, and Schilling is at 60% (19 of 33, since one of the 34 ballots is Schilling’s own and he didn’t vote for himself)...


Carlton Fisk thinks that Aramis Ramirez was a Hall of Famer but Scott Rolen wasn't. Oh my.

Wait. Josh Fogg thinks that LaTroy Hawkins was a Hall of Famer.
   76. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: November 21, 2020 at 10:59 PM (#5990607)
Carlton Fisk thinks that Aramis Ramirez was a Hall of Famer but Scott Rolen wasn't. Oh my.
Well, Fisk also thinks a cornfield is a fine place to take a nap in your car with an open bottle of vodka.
   77. Ron J Posted: November 21, 2020 at 11:12 PM (#5990609)
#75 Some very good baseball players have made some very strange picks.

Bill James' Historical Abstract lists the All-time teams of Walter Johnson, Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb and Rogers Hornsby
Here's the voting

(Obviously there are ties)

Catcher
Bill Dickey (Cobb, Hornsby, Johnson)
Ray Schalk 1 (Ruth)
Mickey Cochrane (Cobb, Hornsby)
Johnny Kling (Johnson)
Gabby Harnett (Hornsby)

1B George Sisler (Cobb, Hornsby)
Hal Chase (Ruth, Johnson)

Note. No Gehrig. No Foxx. And as you can see from the catcher voting they were taking players from the 20s and 30s.

2B
Eddie Collins (Cobb, Hornsby, Johnson)
Nap Lajoie (Ruth, Johnson)

SS
Wagner 4

3B
Jimmie Collins 3
Buck Weaver 1 (Cobb) (Cobb did pick Traynor on a later team)

OF
Tris Speaker 4
Ty Cobb 3 (of 3)
Babe Ruth 3 (of 3)
Joe Jackson 1 (Cobb)
X 1 (Ruth)

Ruth was voting for himself. So it is 4 of 4 for Ruth.


P (Johnson only picked one starter)
Walter Johnson 3 (of 3)
Pete Alexander 4
Ed Walsh 1 (Cobb)
Eddie Plank 1 (Cobb)
Mathewson 1 (Ruth)
Herb Pennock 1 (Ruth)
Lefty Grove 1 (Hornsby)
Carl Hubbell 1 (Hornsby)

Some odd picks (Schalk, Kling, Chase, Weaver, Pennock, Walsh, Collins) No votes for Gehrig. 1 for Mathewson.

And incredibly all blackballed Barry Bonds!
   78. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: November 21, 2020 at 11:30 PM (#5990610)
Frankie Frisch was also a great player, who actually had a hand in getting people into the hall of fame. And he... did not cover himself in glory with his picks.
   79. Walt Davis Posted: November 21, 2020 at 11:47 PM (#5990611)
Right so other than Allen, Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa (who violated no rules), Palmeiro, Manny (who violated rules but did their time), possibly Brown, possibly Sheffield, Rose, Jackson, Chase ... plus some folks who got in on "good character" (Puckett, Dean, Friends of Frisch) ... plus I don't know how many other early ball guys (because I don't know, not because they are too numerous to count) ... and hard to tell cases like Santo who was not liked when a player.

C'mon Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are eligible for induction and haven't been inducted. What clearer exercise of the character clause could you possibly ask for? One of the reasons the HoM exists is to have a merit-only hall.

As you seem to agree, baseball, relative to all of the other sportts, is WELL known for its character clause which is a direct contradiction to the author's statement (emphasis added): the positioning of the Hall of Fame as PURELY about on-field merit. It has never been positioned in that way, it is not currently positioned in that way. If what the author wants to say is that personal transgressions have not played a role then there might be an argument to be had.

As to the removal argument -- I obviously chose game-fixing and banishment from MLB as my example because that is an area where the HoF has clearly said that if you are banished from MLB then you are not eligible for the HoF. It seems silly to me to suggest there's some sort of double jeopardy in play such that if a disqualifying act were to come to light (and be "proven" to some standard) it's too late because the hall "jury" already made their decision. Of course I obviously chose some violation that occurred during the career.

Hopefully no player will ever be convicted of murder within 5 years of retirement but do you think the HoF would declare them eligible? A child rapist? How low will folks go in the "on the field only" purity pony competition?

Now I'm not aware of Schilling doing anything so vile as to be declared ineligible ... and he's clearly eligible this year since there he is on the ballot. Whether his off-field idiocy constitutes a sufficient violation of the character clause to overcome his accomplishments is currently up to the writers.

As to the clause itself, my understanding is that its main original intent was to AWARD players for good acts (e.g. being a war hero), pretty much regardless of their on-field accomplishments. It's not clear that it has ever been used in this way (certainly no dud on the field has ever been selected as a player) but that intent makes it clear it was intended to cover off-field behavior as well.
   80. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: November 22, 2020 at 12:05 AM (#5990613)
May as well call it now: Trump largely proves his case for election cheating,

Speaking of not being able to let things go...


Speaking of poor reading comprehension...

This thing will go to the Supreme Court, and afterwards, regardless of how they rule, tens of millions of people will be p!ssed, convinced that an American presidential election was stolen. What a mess.

Oh, and Schilling should be in the Hall of Fame, eventually.
   81. ramifications of an exciting 57i66135 Posted: November 22, 2020 at 12:33 AM (#5990614)
Sosa (who violated no rules)
uhhh....

and, urrrrmmmm
   82. sunday silence (again) Posted: November 22, 2020 at 03:21 AM (#5990619)
Right so other than Allen, Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa (who violated no rules), Palmeiro, Manny (who violated rules but did their time), possibly Brown, possibly Sheffield, Rose, Jackson, Chase ... plus some folks who got in on "good character" (Puckett, Dean, Friends of Frisch) ... plus I don't know how many other early ball guys (because I don't know, not because they are too numerous to count) ... and hard to tell cases like Santo who was not liked when a player.


You have a really strange way of making yourself understood.

YOu started the discussion in post no. 7 by specifically excluding Rose and Roiders:

The "character clause" is well-known and, even outside the alleged roiders and Rose, is widely believed to have impacted on Dick Allen and likely others.


NOw you want to bring them back into the discussion? I dont get.
   83. rr: calming the thread down with my arms Posted: November 22, 2020 at 03:48 AM (#5990620)
annnnd the thread slides into partisan political BS,


And your posts are one of the main reasons, as usual.

May as well call it now: Trump largely proves his case for election cheating


You need to spend less time watching FOX news and OAN. Your critical thinking skills already suck--no need to do stuff to make them worse.

As to the article, the premise is silly and it is clickbait. Schilling is a third or fourth-tier Trumpian Righty internet yap and says some pretty awful stuff. But as I have said several times, I think he is a clear HOFer.



   84. TomH Posted: November 22, 2020 at 10:08 AM (#5990627)
If the article's author also called for removing Cobb and many others FROM the Hall for the character clause, I could give a nod that he was being consistent. I mean, Babe Ruth also was a horrible example to the country of young boys who idolized him; sure, get married and live like a wild bachelor, treat your woman like dog meat.

If you despise Schilling, go to his induction and boo him mercilessly.
   85. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: November 22, 2020 at 10:38 AM (#5990631)
You need to spend less time watching FOX news and OAN.

Don't watch either one, ever. (Actually, what the hell is OAN? The masturbation network?)

Remember the old "one screen, two movies" bit? Forget it; we're now operating on divergent timelines/universes. One side is only vaguely aware that the other side even exists, because they spend all of their time in their own bubbles, absolutely convinced of their own correctness and righteousness. Each side believes the other is the evil, mirror universe, where people are bad and wear crappy beards, like Spock in "Mirror, Mirror". Maybe Trump and Biden should wear crappy beards, just for fun? (Morgan Freeman voice: "No. No, they should not.")

I finally caught up with Guiliani's press conference, and I don't know what to think of it. Some of it seems silly, some of it pretty damning, but my opinion's not worth very much because (1) I ain't a lawyer and (2) I'm not exactly inclined to give the Dems much slack here, after their referring to Trump and his supporters (of which I am not one!) as Nazis for four years. And none of this stuff is proof, really; I'm guessing they're saving the more compelling stuff for the court battle(s), assuming there is more compelling stuff. YMMV, etc.

Still, voter fraud, to this extent, as this level? Well, I don't believe Dems are more or less evil than Repubs are, but it's a matter of (1) motive, (2) opportunity and (3) belief that you won't get caught, or punished if you do get caught. So, sure, it's possible. Likely? Who knows?

My guess is that Trump will make a reasonably good fraud case to the Supreme Court; of course, if Biden came on TV and said, "I TOTALLY STOLE THE ELECTION LOL MY BAD", there would still be millions of people (including 90% of BBTF) who wouldn't believe a word of it. And, if he loses, Trump (and millions of others) will undoubtedly go to their graves convinced that it was stolen. Hell, there are still people who think JFK stole the election 60 years ago. (As it happens, on this November 22, I'm listening to a real-time recording of WLW radio in Cincinnati of today in 1963. It's harrowing stuff: it was just another day in the Midwest, until it suddenly, horrifyingly, wasn't. Check it out at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J75BAx4W3Zo&list=PL0O5WNzrZqINoVDIEsnoZvorXVcc8MRSF .) I don't think he wins, though: as I said before, the Supremes won't rip the country apart just to benefit Donald Trump. Nope, nope, NOPE.

Look, I get it. You don't want this jerk in the Oval Office for another four years; neither do I. But letting a fraudulent election (if, in fact, that's what it is) stand is something a whole lot worse than that. We can survive a Donald Trump (an egomaniacal @sshole), a Joe Biden (an addled, corrupt creep) or even a Kamala Harris (who Lady Macbeth would counsel, "Girlfriend, dial back the ambition, mmkay?"). But we can't survive phony presidential elections. If that happens, we ain't livin' in America no more, just some cheap charade.

So, who loses, Biden or Trump? Actually, we all do. Sigh.
   86. TJ Posted: November 22, 2020 at 10:52 AM (#5990633)
I was considering rebutting you about Trump being able to make a good case to the SC about election fraud, but I never argue with someone who can work the Spock “Mirror, Mirror” Star Trek episode into everyday conversation...
   87. Ron J Posted: November 22, 2020 at 11:10 AM (#5990635)
#85 What's damning? I mean he's getting laughed out of court. The dismissals are often not gentle either. That "why are you wasting my time" dismissal -- Pennsylvania -- includes language like “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations” (And bear in mind that this judge is a registered Republican and a member of the Federalist society.)

   88. Dog on the sidewalk has an ugly bracelet Posted: November 22, 2020 at 11:13 AM (#5990636)
85: What the #### are you babbling about? There is no evidence of any widespread fraud. When Trump's lawyers go to court, where they can't just scream and make things up, they don't even try to argue there was widespread fraud.

All this is is Trump acting like a vengeful, destructuve jackass, because dolts like you will eat it up (regardless of whether or not you "support" him, or whether or not the claims even make sense). They have nothing. You talk about what happens when it gets to the Supreme Court. Well, we probably won't get to find out, because they keep getting laughed out of the lower Courts. The GOP election officials from the "contested" states have almost all said they've seen no evidence of anything significant. There is never going to be a perfectly clean vote of 145,000,000,
If that's the standard for believing in the results, we shouldn't even try.

Trump claimed the 2016 vote was rigged until he won (and then still claimed the popular vote was rigged, with no evidence). He claimed this election was rigged beforehand, too. How prescient!

Please just shut up. You're making a fool of yourself. I've avoided speaking politics on here for years, but this most recent string of idiocy broke me.

And Schilling should be in the HOF.
   89. BaseballObscura Posted: November 22, 2020 at 11:30 AM (#5990639)
Not Baseball Hall of Fame related, but two examples of Hall of Fame calibre athletes being excluded based on horrific acts would be Jim Tyrer, a 9x Pro bowler and 6x all pro for the Chiefs, who murdered his wife and then killed himself in 1980. He had a very strong case for the Pro Football Hall of Fame, but obviously no one wants to address the horrific end to his life, so he is essentially persona non grata.

Similarly, Chris Benoit, an all-time great professional wrestler, who murdered his wife and child in 2007 before killing himself, would be a shoo-in for the WWE Hall of Fame (home to a weird mix of honorees including all-time greats Ric Flair, Bruno Sammartino etc and publicity stunts like Pete Rose, Donald Trump and Drew Carey), but again why would a publicly traded company (WWE) want to draw negative attention to themselves in order to honor someone who was an all-time great performer, but whose awful final act is basically unfathomable/unforgivable.

Personally, Schilling is a hall of fame player and just strikes me an awful person (like not necessarily immoral, crime-committing), but just deeply unpleasant like suck the oxygen out of the room kind of person. Can't imagine spending five minutes in his presence really.
   90. reech Posted: November 22, 2020 at 11:35 AM (#5990642)
#85:
if Biden came on TV and said, "I TOTALLY STOLE THE ELECTION LOL MY BAD", there would still be millions of people (including 90% of BBTF)who wouldn't believe a word of it.


What in the actual f#ck are you talking about?

   91. BaseballObscura Posted: November 22, 2020 at 11:40 AM (#5990644)
If Dems stole the election, why wouldn't the also have stolen the senate elections?
   92. Dog on the sidewalk has an ugly bracelet Posted: November 22, 2020 at 11:41 AM (#5990646)
Plausible deniability.
   93. pikepredator Posted: November 22, 2020 at 11:49 AM (#5990647)
I love what Hugo Chavez said in #31. Intangibles push someone over for me, but I don't believe in keeping bigots and hateful people out. There are too many hateful bigots in the HOF to begin with.

And yeah, just because we look back differently on the baseball of my particular youth (late 80's'90's) doesn't mean it wasn't as magical to me as the 20's or 50's (just to pick two decades) were to people back then. Sure, we know now how many insufferable racists there were in the 20's and 50's (and Schilling is proving there are still plenty of terrible people playing sports), but we still have the greats from those decades in the HOF because it's the *Baseball* HOF. So put the steroid guys in, because they were the heart of baseball 30 years ago.

Schilling was a remarkable pitcher, and his stats + story are truly HOF-worthy. Outside of that, I'd love it if nobody paid attention to him but unfortunately his "brand" of radical Republicanism - sickening as it is to my parents, who were lifelong Republicans until Trump because the face of the party - is becoming more and more popular. Hell, the Governor of Vermont is a Republican, but he has no qualms pointing out the damage the President has done to the party and the country.
   94. BDC Posted: November 22, 2020 at 12:03 PM (#5990650)
Football historian (and former Chiefs teammate) Michael Oriard has written quite a bit about Jim Tyrer, concluding that his murder/suicide and likely mental illness were inextricable from CTE incurred during his long football career. Tyrer's exclusion from the Hall of Fame may thus also represent reluctance to acknowledge how the sport can harm its players. That's one reason why I was thinking of some sort of violent crime as essentially a matter of a life disintegrating, not of a character flaw. Tyrer was certainly responsible for killing his wife, but it's not like the crime reflects badly on his professionalism or skill as a ballplayer – if anything the other way around; showing up to play for a couple of decades, and being good enough to play that long, may have cost him his mental health. A recent documentary examines the issues in detail.
   95. Booey Posted: November 22, 2020 at 12:04 PM (#5990651)
Kobe Bryant, Jason Kidd (wife beater), and Karl Malone (impregnated a 13 y.o. girl when he was 20) sailed into the basketball HOF on their 1st attempt. Bernard King is in the b-ball HOF despite multiple sexual assault charges (and at least one conviction). Ray Lewis flew into the NFL HOF, and Ben Roethlisberger very likely will too. Mike Tyson is in the boxing HOF. Kirby Puckett wasn't removed from the MLB HOF when his misdeeds came to light. All of these guys did much worse things than Schilling did. There appears to be a very high bar to exclude worthy athletes for non gambling or PED reasons (and almost no precedent in most sports for removing someone once they've been inducted), and nothing Schilling said or did comes within miles of those established standards for rejection.
   96. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 22, 2020 at 12:13 PM (#5990654)
I know it's cool to hate and despise people who identify as Republican, we are second-class citizens, after all, but if there's now a politics test for the Hall, I vote we just dissolve the whole thing. We can't have someone with Republican preferences in Cooperstown, said the anti-fascists.
I'm having trouble telling whether this is wildly disingenuous or just stupid.
Either way, goes on my Ignore list.
   97. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: November 22, 2020 at 12:36 PM (#5990661)
All this is is Trump acting like a vengeful, destructuve [sp] jackass, because dolts like you will eat it up

Please just shut up. You're making a fool of yourself.


See? There's no way to discuss this rationally with partisans. I say, "I don't like Trump, but he might have a case with election fraud; a moot point, since the Supremes will shut him down", and you read, "I am Ivanka's love slave and all Dems totally suxxors." Different worlds, different realities.

It's impossible to talk to you people. Impossible.
   98. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: November 22, 2020 at 12:49 PM (#5990662)
See? There's no way to discuss this rationally with partisans. I say, "I don't like Trump, but he might have a case with election fraud
You’re not trying to discuss it rationally, as indicated by the last clause of the quote. A rational discussion can’t be premised upon a blatant conspiracy lie.
   99. Dog on the sidewalk has an ugly bracelet Posted: November 22, 2020 at 12:55 PM (#5990663)
I'm not a partisan. I've spent countless hours in the OTP threads annoying the resident lefties, and prior to Trump, I was about as likely to vote for a Rep. as I was for a Dem. Just calling out inane drivel for what is.
   100. Howie Menckel Posted: November 22, 2020 at 01:02 PM (#5990664)
I'm willing to listen to evidence - but at some point, you have to, you know, present it.

haven't seen it yet. and the clock is ticking.

if I may add a rational response, one former U.S. Attorney with a long track record of winning fraud/corruption cases had this to say today:

"Quite frankly, the conduct of the President's legal team has been a national embarrassment," said @GovChristie on ABC. “They allege fraud outside the courtroom, but when they go inside the courtroom, they don't plead fraud and they don't argue fraud.”

not sure this is a hill you want to die on.
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
Randy Jones
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogIs the Hall leaving out too many players?
(86 - 7:54pm, Dec 02)
Last: EddieA

NewsblogEmpty Stadium Sports Will Be Really Weird
(10691 - 7:53pm, Dec 02)
Last: Srul Itza

NewsblogA push to recognize the statistics of Black players from baseball’s era of apartheid
(50 - 7:24pm, Dec 02)
Last: SoSH U at work

NewsblogIchiro to coach high school baseball team
(7 - 7:19pm, Dec 02)
Last: Ron J

NewsblogNBA Post-Bubble offseason thread
(1998 - 7:09pm, Dec 02)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogMLB non-tender deadline tracker: Yankees will keep Gary Sanchez; White Sox, Twins, Cubs make notable cuts
(1 - 6:40pm, Dec 02)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogSources: Isiah Kiner-Falefa to replace mainstay Elvis Andrus as starting Rangers shortstop next season
(19 - 5:48pm, Dec 02)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogLet’s Fix MLB’s Salary Arbitration System: The Arbitrators
(17 - 5:41pm, Dec 02)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogTwins place Eddie Rosario on outright waivers
(9 - 5:34pm, Dec 02)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT - Soccer Thread - Winter Is Here
(226 - 5:00pm, Dec 02)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-2-2020
(2 - 3:48pm, Dec 02)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogMets To Sign Trevor May
(1 - 1:45pm, Dec 02)
Last: JJ1986

NewsblogBill James: The Biggest Problem With WAR
(108 - 1:41pm, Dec 02)
Last: Rally

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2020 Ballot
(6 - 1:31pm, Dec 02)
Last: Michael J. Binkley's anxiety closet

NewsblogSt. Paul Saints to become Twins' top minor-league team; Class AA in Wichita
(8 - 12:42pm, Dec 02)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

Page rendered in 0.9093 seconds
48 querie(s) executed