@perkdog said:
The George Brett pine tar incident was an iconic event
Love every second of it 😂😂😂
Just so im clear. You’re referring the pine tar incident as the HR against the Yankees and not the pine tar incident in the hotel lobby? I think that one is humorously referred to as “The Royal Eruption”.
Unfortunately he will not inscribe that with the date but when I asked, tongue-in-cheek, I did get him to laugh.
@Mistlin said:
Any museum without an inclusive history of what it claims to be (in this case, MLB's Hall of Fame being a complete story of the best to ever play the game) is a fraudulent enterprise.
I'm interested in why you think the MLB HOF claims to be what you say they claim to be. 'Cause they make no such claim.
The HOF's mission is "to preserve the sport's history, honor excellence within the game and make a connection between the generations of people who enjoy baseball." To consider the exclusion of Punkinhead from the HOF to be "fraudulent", one must consider what he did to fall under the category of "excellence" worth honoring. Rosie Ruiz is not in the marathon HOF (if such exists) and Punkinhead isn't in the MLB HOF for the same reason. What Rosie and Punkinhead did wasn't "excellence", it was "cheating".
As for the other parts of their mission, that Punkinhead fraudulently wiped away the records of honorable men is preserved in the HOF, and people who enjoy baseball have no interest in Punkinhead beyond his historical infamy, so I think the HOF has done exactly what they set out to do.
Honorable men?
You mean 'honorable' like Cap Anson refusing to take the field with black players, codifying segregation in baseball which took nearly 70 years to undo?
'Honorable' like Ty Cobb, Rogers Hornsby, or Tris Speaker, all of whom were likely KKK members?
'Honorable' like Tom Yawkey, who didn't have a black player for over a decade after Jackie Robinson?
'Honorable' like Bud Selig, who engineered the removal of Fay Vincent (whose 'crime' was publicly announcing owner collusion happened which costs players hundreds of millions of dollars) and then Selig was installed as his direct replacement?
You don't get to claim to 'preserve the sport's history' while covering up what some see as unsavory. The steroid era SAVED baseball, and any suggestion otherwise is pure folly. After the owner-created strike, and resulting postseason cancelation, baseball was in freefall until Sosa and McGwire's home run battle of 1998.
The hall of full of dishonorable men - but are there because they are an important part of history. Ignoring the steroid era, and the best players of that generation because you find it personally unappetizing means the hall is failing at its CORE function - the preservation of the game's history and relating those stories to generations of fans who came after it.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
@Mistlin said:
Any museum without an inclusive history of what it claims to be (in this case, MLB's Hall of Fame being a complete story of the best to ever play the game) is a fraudulent enterprise.
I'm interested in why you think the MLB HOF claims to be what you say they claim to be. 'Cause they make no such claim.
The HOF's mission is "to preserve the sport's history, honor excellence within the game and make a connection between the generations of people who enjoy baseball." To consider the exclusion of Punkinhead from the HOF to be "fraudulent", one must consider what he did to fall under the category of "excellence" worth honoring. Rosie Ruiz is not in the marathon HOF (if such exists) and Punkinhead isn't in the MLB HOF for the same reason. What Rosie and Punkinhead did wasn't "excellence", it was "cheating".
As for the other parts of their mission, that Punkinhead fraudulently wiped away the records of honorable men is preserved in the HOF, and people who enjoy baseball have no interest in Punkinhead beyond his historical infamy, so I think the HOF has done exactly what they set out to do.
Honorable men?
You mean 'honorable' like Cap Anson refusing to take the field with black players, codifying segregation in baseball which took nearly 70 years to undo?
'Honorable' like Ty Cobb, Rogers Hornsby, or Tris Speaker, all of whom were likely KKK members?
'Honorable' like Tom Yawkey, who didn't have a black player for over a decade after Jackie Robinson?
'Honorable' like Bud Selig, who engineered the removal of Fay Vincent (whose 'crime' was publicly announcing owner collusion happened which costs players hundreds of millions of dollars) and then Selig was installed as his direct replacement?
You don't get to claim to 'preserve the sport's history' while covering up what some see as unsavory. The steroid era SAVED baseball, and any suggestion otherwise is pure folly. After the owner-created strike, and resulting postseason cancelation, baseball was in freefall until Sosa and McGwire's home run battle of 1998.
The hall of full of dishonorable men - but are there because they are an important part of history. Ignoring the steroid era, and the best players of that generation because you find it personally unappetizing means the hall is failing at its CORE function - the preservation of the game's history and relating those stories to generations of fans who came after it.
Yes, the excitement of all those home runs being hit was certainly memorable. "Everybody" was talking baseball during that time.
Bottom line: 762 home runs, almost 3k hits, etc. Come on, it's really silly that he's not in the hall. And to my knowledge Bonds didn't murder two people, although that's a different hall of fame.
@Mistlin said:
Any museum without an inclusive history of what it claims to be (in this case, MLB's Hall of Fame being a complete story of the best to ever play the game) is a fraudulent enterprise.
I'm interested in why you think the MLB HOF claims to be what you say they claim to be. 'Cause they make no such claim.
The HOF's mission is "to preserve the sport's history, honor excellence within the game and make a connection between the generations of people who enjoy baseball." To consider the exclusion of Punkinhead from the HOF to be "fraudulent", one must consider what he did to fall under the category of "excellence" worth honoring. Rosie Ruiz is not in the marathon HOF (if such exists) and Punkinhead isn't in the MLB HOF for the same reason. What Rosie and Punkinhead did wasn't "excellence", it was "cheating".
As for the other parts of their mission, that Punkinhead fraudulently wiped away the records of honorable men is preserved in the HOF, and people who enjoy baseball have no interest in Punkinhead beyond his historical infamy, so I think the HOF has done exactly what they set out to do.
Honorable men?
You mean 'honorable' like Cap Anson refusing to take the field with black players, codifying segregation in baseball which took nearly 70 years to undo?
'Honorable' like Ty Cobb, Rogers Hornsby, or Tris Speaker, all of whom were likely KKK members?
'Honorable' like Tom Yawkey, who didn't have a black player for over a decade after Jackie Robinson?
'Honorable' like Bud Selig, who engineered the removal of Fay Vincent (whose 'crime' was publicly announcing owner collusion happened which costs players hundreds of millions of dollars) and then Selig was installed as his direct replacement?
You don't get to claim to 'preserve the sport's history' while covering up what some see as unsavory. The steroid era SAVED baseball, and any suggestion otherwise is pure folly. After the owner-created strike, and resulting postseason cancelation, baseball was in freefall until Sosa and McGwire's home run battle of 1998.
The hall of full of dishonorable men - but are there because they are an important part of history. Ignoring the steroid era, and the best players of that generation because you find it personally unappetizing means the hall is failing at its CORE function - the preservation of the game's history and relating those stories to generations of fans who came after it.
@Estil said:
CLICKBAIT!!! Barry was not inducted into the real HOF. Now if there was a Hall of SHAME for swollen head Me Bear dickwads OTOH...
I’m not debating because you are already set in your opinion. But someone showed me the delta size between Griffey Jr. and Bonds from their rookie year to their last season. Guess who won?
@Estil said:
CLICKBAIT!!! Barry was not inducted into the real HOF. Now if there was a Hall of SHAME for swollen head Me Bear dickwads OTOH...
I’m not debating because you are already set in your opinion. But someone showed me the delta size between Griffey Jr. and Bonds from their rookie year to their last season. Guess who won?
can you define delta size for me? I dont think i have ever encountered that term before.
@Estil said:
CLICKBAIT!!! Barry was not inducted into the real HOF. Now if there was a Hall of SHAME for swollen head Me Bear dickwads OTOH...
I’m not debating because you are already set in your opinion. But someone showed me the delta size between Griffey Jr. and Bonds from their rookie year to their last season. Guess who won?
can you define delta size for me? I dont think i have ever encountered that term before.
The change in size between one point or state and another. The delta refers to the amount measured.
I’m not actually making any claim in either respect. Only taking a poke at a flawed variable. The guys with Griffey on the Mariners were all using Primobian (or however that steroid is spelled) which isn’t supposed to have that weird bulking issue. In fact it’s not really a thing with anabolic either that the head gets bigger - it’s not conclusive. It’s generally associated with HGH, which is really, terribly, misunderstood.
I’m really curious why the PED thing is such a polarizing debate. I have not encountered anyone who is fully against PED players being recognized for their accomplishments who can make a rational argument. I’m sure there are many because I’ve considered as many as I could conjure, but I’ve not had that experience. It’s always — or so it seems — emotionally charged.
@Estil said:
CLICKBAIT!!! Barry was not inducted into the real HOF. Now if there was a Hall of SHAME for swollen head Me Bear dickwads OTOH...
I’m not debating because you are already set in your opinion. But someone showed me the delta size between Griffey Jr. and Bonds from their rookie year to their last season. Guess who won?
can you define delta size for me? I dont think i have ever encountered that term before.
The change in size between one point or state and another. The delta refers to the amount measured.
I’m not actually making any claim in either respect. Only taking a poke at a flawed variable. The guys with Griffey on the Mariners were all using Primobian (or however that steroid is spelled) which isn’t supposed to have that weird bulking issue. In fact it’s not really a thing with anabolic either that the head gets bigger - it’s not conclusive. It’s generally associated with HGH, which is really, terribly, misunderstood.
I’m really curious why the PED thing is such a polarizing debate. I have not encountered anyone who is fully against PED players being recognized for their accomplishments who can make a rational argument. I’m sure there are many because I’ve considered as many as I could conjure, but I’ve not had that experience. It’s always — or so it seems — emotionally charged.
got you, thanks for the explaination. I have long wondered about Griffey, and you bring up a good point about the Primobolan. It is a steroid that increases strength and speed, but does not make the user retain water so their muscles dont look gigantic. and there were a whole bunch of Griffeys Seattle teammates who admitted use: "Griffey, Jr.'s teammates in Seattle included Alex Rodriguez, David Segui, Shane Monahan, Glenallen Hill, Ryan Franklin, and Todd Williams—all admitted steroid users. " that came from bleacher report.
remember, most people consider Canseco a bastion of truth when it comes to steroid use. He figured 75% of players in the 90s were using. Those same people who consider him to be the steroid guru conveniently leave that little part out...
@Estil said:
CLICKBAIT!!! Barry was not inducted into the real HOF. Now if there was a Hall of SHAME for swollen head Me Bear dickwads OTOH...
The Pittsburgh Pirates' Team Hall of Fame is a 'real' Hall of Fame.
You seem to be a baseball purist, and any member who brings 'shame' to the sport does not belong in the Hall of Fame. With that being said, I would presume you are in favor of removing racists like Tom Yawkey and cheaters like Gaylord Perry from MLB's Hall of Fame?
One could argue that an executive who refused to integrate his team 10 years after Jackie Robinson took the field brings a lot more shame to baseball than an individual player who, like a majority of players, took substances to gain an advantage.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
@Estil said:
CLICKBAIT!!! Barry was not inducted into the real HOF. Now if there was a Hall of SHAME for swollen head Me Bear dickwads OTOH...
I’m not debating because you are already set in your opinion. But someone showed me the delta size between Griffey Jr. and Bonds from their rookie year to their last season. Guess who won?
can you define delta size for me? I dont think i have ever encountered that term before.
The change in size between one point or state and another. The delta refers to the amount measured.
I’m not actually making any claim in either respect. Only taking a poke at a flawed variable. The guys with Griffey on the Mariners were all using Primobian (or however that steroid is spelled) which isn’t supposed to have that weird bulking issue. In fact it’s not really a thing with anabolic either that the head gets bigger - it’s not conclusive. It’s generally associated with HGH, which is really, terribly, misunderstood.
I’m really curious why the PED thing is such a polarizing debate. I have not encountered anyone who is fully against PED players being recognized for their accomplishments who can make a rational argument. I’m sure there are many because I’ve considered as many as I could conjure, but I’ve not had that experience. It’s always — or so it seems — emotionally charged.
got you, thanks for the explaination. I have long wondered about Griffey, and you bring up a good point about the Primobolan. It is a steroid that increases strength and speed, but does not make the user retain water so their muscles dont look gigantic. and there were a whole bunch of Griffeys Seattle teammates who admitted use: "Griffey, Jr.'s teammates in Seattle included Alex Rodriguez, David Segui, Shane Monahan, Glenallen Hill, Ryan Franklin, and Todd Williams—all admitted steroid users. " that came from bleacher report.
remember, most people consider Canseco a bastion of truth when it comes to steroid use. He figured 75% of players in the 90s were using. Those same people who consider him to be the steroid guru conveniently leave that little part out...
What's even more convenient is the logical gymnastics these anti-PED players will twist themselves into, feigning outrage about alleged PED use by players of the 1990s (without any first-hand knowledge or proof) but will disavow any allegations of the widespread amphetamine use of earlier players as 'here say'.
The facts of the matter are MLB's Hall of Fame is not owned or operated by MLB. Any rules broken (or allegedly broken) by players have no bearing on their induction to the hall. The museum's core function is to represent the history of the game and that we continue to allow an entire generation of the sport to be missing from the hall is egregious.
As I said in my earlier post - the hall of is full of unsavory players but are there because they are important to telling a complete history of the sport. Without any representation of the steroid era, the MLB Hall of Fame has failed in its core function.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
@Estil said:
CLICKBAIT!!! Barry was not inducted into the real HOF. Now if there was a Hall of SHAME for swollen head Me Bear dickwads OTOH...
The Pittsburgh Pirates' Team Hall of Fame is a 'real' Hall of Fame.
You seem to be a baseball purist, and any member who brings 'shame' to the sport does not belong in the Hall of Fame. With that being said, I would presume you are in favor of removing racists like Tom Yawkey and cheaters like Gaylord Perry from MLB's Hall of Fame?
One could argue that an executive who refused to integrate his team 10 years after Jackie Robinson took the field brings a lot more shame to baseball than an individual player who, like a majority of players, took substances to gain an advantage.
No way, removing players from the HOF (yes even OJ Simpson) would be way too dangerous of a slippery slope. You're in, you're in.
@Estil said:
CLICKBAIT!!! Barry was not inducted into the real HOF. Now if there was a Hall of SHAME for swollen head Me Bear dickwads OTOH...
Yes it's real.
Definition of Hall of Fame - A room or building set aside to honor outstanding individuals.
I mean it's not THE Hall of Fame. For example recently retired Joel Utley (radio voice of the Kentucky Wesleyan Panthers from 1962-2023) is in a bunch of other Halls of Fame but should be in THE Basketball Hall of Fame in Springfield. See, unlike the baseball Hall of Fame, radio/TV commentators like Chick Hearn or Dick Vitale can be inducted into the for real basketball Hall of Fame and not that stupid wing off to the side that doesn't count as being a HOF inductee crap :P
@Estil said:
CLICKBAIT!!! Barry was not inducted into the real HOF. Now if there was a Hall of SHAME for swollen head Me Bear dickwads OTOH...
The Pittsburgh Pirates' Team Hall of Fame is a 'real' Hall of Fame.
You seem to be a baseball purist, and any member who brings 'shame' to the sport does not belong in the Hall of Fame. With that being said, I would presume you are in favor of removing racists like Tom Yawkey and cheaters like Gaylord Perry from MLB's Hall of Fame?
One could argue that an executive who refused to integrate his team 10 years after Jackie Robinson took the field brings a lot more shame to baseball than an individual player who, like a majority of players, took substances to gain an advantage.
No way, removing players from the HOF (yes even OJ Simpson) would be way too dangerous of a slippery slope. You're in, you're in.
It is interesting you think OJ Simpson (a double-murderer) is more deserving of being in the Hall than Barry Bonds.
Did I say 'interesting'? I meant out-and-out outrageous. Egregious. Absolutely mind-blowing this is where you stand.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
From these two posts, you believe that OJ is more deserving of being in the hall than Barry Bonds. I read your posts correctly.
I said nothing of the sort at all. I was saying I strongly oppose any sort of idea of removing players from the Halls of Fame (yes even removing OJ; remember he was inducted YEARS before the murders) as that would be way too dangerous of a slippery slope. As for Barry...well you can't remove a player without the player being inducted first!
From these two posts, you believe that OJ is more deserving of being in the hall than Barry Bonds. I read your posts correctly.
I said nothing of the sort at all. I was saying I strongly oppose any sort of idea of removing players from the Halls of Fame (yes even removing OJ; remember he was inducted YEARS before the murders) as that would be way too dangerous of a slippery slope. As for Barry...well you can't remove a player without the player being inducted first!
What would be next?
So MLB says "You cannot be in the HOF if you have been caught cheating in MLB".
So any players not in, who were caught cheating, are now ineligible AND any players who were caught cheating who are in the HOF are out.
What is the next stop on the slippery slope?
I'm fine with a uniform distinction. I just don't like that some players are in who have cheated and some are not in who might have cheated.
Being in the HOF and being represented in the HOF museum are also two distinct things for me.
For clarity, I am not advocating for anyone to be removed.
What I have always been an advocate for is for baseball's history museum to paint a complete history of the game - the good, the bad, and the ugly. For a handful of old fogeys to sit in judgement and attempt to subvert the history of the game is bad form. Worse, it is an attempt to bleach the record of what actually happened.
The steroid era happened, people. It had the simultaneous effects of both saving baseball and later making some people uncomfortable with the results. However, those people were sure quiet when their sport was being saved by the same people who would be later crucified for their roles.
Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and Mark McGwire are three of the most important players in the modern era, and their exclusion from the Hall makes the hall an incomplete history of the game. Yes, they used performance enhancing drugs. So did nearly every player in the era. Amphetamine use was rampant until the 1980s. It is widely known that baseball players have looked for every conceivable advantage for as long as the sport has existed.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
Curt Schilling is by far the worst omission as they are only doing so for stupid difference of political opinion reasons. The man is the Mr. October of pitchers!
Hopefully. Joe West being a voter could be an issue > @Estil said:
Curt Schilling is by far the worst omission as they are only doing so for stupid difference of political opinion reasons. The man is the Mr. October of pitchers!
Bonds and Clemens are the biggest omissions by far. But yea Schilling should definitely be in and once Mussina was elected any argument about Schillings on field performance went completely out the window. Anyone that voted for Mussina and not Schilling should lose their vote
@Basebal21 said:
Hopefully. Joe West being a voter could be an issue > @Estil said:
Curt Schilling is by far the worst omission as they are only doing so for stupid difference of political opinion reasons. The man is the Mr. October of pitchers!
Bonds and Clemens are the biggest omissions by far. But yea Schilling should definitely be in and once Mussina was elected any argument about Schillings on field performance went completely out the window. Anyone that voted for Mussina and not Schilling should lose their vote
Name five voters who are not voting for Schilling for non-political reasons.
@Basebal21 said:
Hopefully. Joe West being a voter could be an issue > @Estil said:
Curt Schilling is by far the worst omission as they are only doing so for stupid difference of political opinion reasons. The man is the Mr. October of pitchers!
Bonds and Clemens are the biggest omissions by far. But yea Schilling should definitely be in and once Mussina was elected any argument about Schillings on field performance went completely out the window. Anyone that voted for Mussina and not Schilling should lose their vote
Name five voters who are not voting for Schilling for non-political reasons.
@Estil said:
Curt Schilling is by far the worst omission as they are only doing so for stupid difference of political opinion reasons. The man is the Mr. October of pitchers!
You want to include Mr. Bloody Sock but omit Bonds, and you dare to criticize Hall voters for being politically biased?
Schilling is widely known to have been a prolific PED abuser. Even without that, the hall is very specific about character being an important facet of a hall candidate, and Schilling's off-the-rails behavior automatically disqualified him. Even without his obvious character flaws, he wasn't hall worthy.
The hall can show his bloody sock, but that's as close as the man gets to being HoF worthy.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
@Basebal21 said:
Hopefully. Joe West being a voter could be an issue > @Estil said:
Curt Schilling is by far the worst omission as they are only doing so for stupid difference of political opinion reasons. The man is the Mr. October of pitchers!
Bonds and Clemens are the biggest omissions by far. But yea Schilling should definitely be in and once Mussina was elected any argument about Schillings on field performance went completely out the window. Anyone that voted for Mussina and not Schilling should lose their vote
Name five voters who are not voting for Schilling for non-political reasons.
“Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”
Schilling's insane antics off the field make him fail the integrity portion of the hall's requirements.
He's off the ballot and good riddance to this rubbish.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
I don’t know about Schilling. He seems to have a compulsion to repost inappropriate stuff, then realize what it actually is, and delete it. He’s tone def but I think he’s more of an idiot than a bigot. I think he should get in. The voters shouldn’t let their personal feelings dictate their selections. It’s becoming too much of a popularity contest.
@Estil said:
Curt Schilling is by far the worst omission as they are only doing so for stupid difference of political opinion reasons. The man is the Mr. October of pitchers!
And this proves getting in the hall is none other than a popularity contest. He was a HOF player and is a great human being.
@Basebal21 said:
Hopefully. Joe West being a voter could be an issue > @Estil said:
Curt Schilling is by far the worst omission as they are only doing so for stupid difference of political opinion reasons. The man is the Mr. October of pitchers!
Bonds and Clemens are the biggest omissions by far. But yea Schilling should definitely be in and once Mussina was elected any argument about Schillings on field performance went completely out the window. Anyone that voted for Mussina and not Schilling should lose their vote
Name five voters who are not voting for Schilling for non-political reasons.
“Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”
Schilling's insane antics off the field make him fail the integrity portion of the hall's requirements.
He's off the ballot and good riddance to this rubbish.
If "integrity, sportsmanship and character" were things voters actually valued, it would be a very very small hall.
Mickey Mantle sure did exemplify those qualities now didn't he? how about admitted cheaters Rogers Hornsby, Hank Greenberg and Gaylord Perry.
The "Integrity. Sportsmanship and Character" should be related to playing the game itself.
It's literally impossible to define a players Character and integrity off the field especially before the age of social media, cameras and "The way things used to be"
Decades ago racism. Hitting a woman were basically accepted behaviors and I am pretty confident that back in the old days many a HOF player was racist or slapped their wife across the face for not cooking a proper dinner.
Tough to disect it all in my opinion, HOF credentials should be based on the field of play.
Obviously there are some variables but overall that is my stance
@perkdog said:
The "Integrity. Sportsmanship and Character" should be related to playing the game itself.
It's literally impossible to define a players Character and integrity off the field especially before the age of social media, cameras and "The way things used to be"
Decades ago racism. Hitting a woman were basically accepted behaviors and I am pretty confident that back in the old days many a HOF player was racist or slapped their wife across the face for not cooking a proper dinner.
Tough to disect it all in my opinion, HOF credentials should be based on the field of play.
Obviously there are some variables but overall that is my stance
So true. Some of the most "popular" scenes in old movies were when men slapped their wife or girlfriend. Yes movies are fiction, but this event depicted real life in a number of households.
"easy hall of famer" based on what, exactly? He had a nice career, but he's not a Hall of Famer.
Just 3 top-2 Cy Young award finishes (no wins) shows he wasn't even a dominant pitcher of his era, let alone all time. Throw in his insanity post-playing career, and he's rightfully only getting into the hall buying a ticket.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
"easy hall of famer" based on what, exactly? He had a nice career, but he's not a Hall of Famer.
Just 3 top-2 Cy Young award finishes (no wins) shows he wasn't even a dominant pitcher of his era, let alone all time. Throw in his insanity post-playing career, and he's rightfully only getting into the hall buying a ticket.
18th all time in Adjusted Pitching Runs saved.
17th all tine in Run Expectancy saved
26th all time in Win Probability Added
I could go on but that is all he needs right there. Period.
So now all of a sudden you don't believe in advanced measurements because someone disagrees with your political viewpoints, even if he may promoted them in poorly worded tweets?
Those viewpoints, their level of how they determine character, or who is right/wrong, are all opinions and usually based on extreme bias, so they have no place in HOF voting. Keep it neutral and on topic.
He should have been a first ballot HOFer. Then if you adhere to Jack Morris being a HOFer, then Schilling is even more so because of all the post seasons.
On Jack Morris - I am slowing coming around to him being a Hall of Fame pitcher.
I don't understand the issue with Schilling from a baseball perspective. The guy was a MLB pitcher. I don't think that qualifies him to be a resource for Scientific or Political thought. I suspect reposting [m]any of Schillings hot-takes here would result in a ban, so there's probably something to be said about their appropriateness. But, again, he's a former baseball player. He could be the next Paul Dirac, but generally, you're going to get something which he just saw, barely understands, and blew his mind -- and now he wants to share it with everyone. Forget grader-notes... I want HOF-Voter-notes.
"easy hall of famer" based on what, exactly? He had a nice career, but he's not a Hall of Famer.
Just 3 top-2 Cy Young award finishes (no wins) shows he wasn't even a dominant pitcher of his era, let alone all time. Throw in his insanity post-playing career, and he's rightfully only getting into the hall buying a ticket.
18th all time in Adjusted Pitching Runs saved.
17th all tine in Run Expectancy saved
26th all time in Win Probability Added
I could go on but that is all he needs right there. Period.
So now all of a sudden you don't believe in advanced measurements because someone disagrees with your political viewpoints, even if he may promoted them in poorly worded tweets?
Those viewpoints, their level of how they determine character, or who is right/wrong, are all opinions and usually based on extreme bias, so they have no place in HOF voting. Keep it neutral and on topic.
He should have been a first ballot HOFer. Then if you adhere to Jack Morris being a HOFer, then Schilling is even more so because of all the post seasons.
Keep it neutral? Sorry, but when your wackadoo behavior stains the game, you don't get that pass.
When you have to resort to 'well so-and-so is in, this person should be' you have lost any credibility you may have had. Jack Morris should not be in the hall, and making the hall even more dilluted with Schilling is a mistake.
Schilling benefitted from his postseason appearances more than any pitcher in modern day history. Funny, you say he should have been a first ballot guy, but he's now OFF the ballot. Good riddance!
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
Why would an argument lose credibility if you use examples to produce a frame of reference? I think this is taught in a few of the accepted argumentative methods. I'm not so sure enshrining Schilling would dilute the HoF.
@bgr said:
Why would an argument lose credibility if you use examples to produce a frame of reference? I think this is taught in a few of the accepted argumentative methods. I'm not so sure enshrining Schilling would dilute the HoF.
Because it's not about using a frame of reference, it's about using a bad induction to justify another bad induction.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
@Basebal21 said:
Hopefully. Joe West being a voter could be an issue > @Estil said:
Curt Schilling is by far the worst omission as they are only doing so for stupid difference of political opinion reasons. The man is the Mr. October of pitchers!
Bonds and Clemens are the biggest omissions by far. But yea Schilling should definitely be in and once Mussina was elected any argument about Schillings on field performance went completely out the window. Anyone that voted for Mussina and not Schilling should lose their vote
Name five voters who are not voting for Schilling for non-political reasons.
“Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”
Schilling's insane antics off the field make him fail the integrity portion of the hall's requirements.
He's off the ballot and good riddance to this rubbish.
If "integrity, sportsmanship and character" were things voters actually valued, it would be a very very small hall.
Mickey Mantle sure did exemplify those qualities now didn't he? how about admitted cheaters Rogers Hornsby, Hank Greenberg and Gaylord Perry.
You could fit the HOF in a shipping container if that was actually a real thing. Its just the catch all excuse rule voters can use instead of just saying I dont like this person so I wont vote for them.
@bgr said:
Why would an argument lose credibility if you use examples to produce a frame of reference? I think this is taught in a few of the accepted argumentative methods. I'm not so sure enshrining Schilling would dilute the HoF.
Because it's not about using a frame of reference, it's about using a bad induction to justify another bad induction.
Whether or not Morris or any other example is invalid or not is up to you but he is a good point of reference given that he is enshrined. And overall he stacks up well in my opinion.
He had a dominant stretch in his career. His consistency over a decade in ERA+ and WHIP is impressive compared to others. He could sit with Tom Seaver and not look out of place. I don’t agree with all of his politics or social views but he hasn’t crossed any line for me that I think should keep him out of the baseball hall of fame.
@Basebal21 said:
Hopefully. Joe West being a voter could be an issue > @Estil said:
Curt Schilling is by far the worst omission as they are only doing so for stupid difference of political opinion reasons. The man is the Mr. October of pitchers!
Bonds and Clemens are the biggest omissions by far. But yea Schilling should definitely be in and once Mussina was elected any argument about Schillings on field performance went completely out the window. Anyone that voted for Mussina and not Schilling should lose their vote
Name five voters who are not voting for Schilling for non-political reasons.
“Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”
Schilling's insane antics off the field make him fail the integrity portion of the hall's requirements.
He's off the ballot and good riddance to this rubbish.
If "integrity, sportsmanship and character" were things voters actually valued, it would be a very very small hall.
Mickey Mantle sure did exemplify those qualities now didn't he? how about admitted cheaters Rogers Hornsby, Hank Greenberg and Gaylord Perry.
You could fit the HOF in a shipping container if that was actually a real thing. Its just the catch all excuse rule voters can use instead of just saying I dont like this person so I wont vote for them.
I’ve seen you make this shipping container comment as an example for the size of the hall of fame a few times. And I am kind of curious about it. Referring to the enshrined members like if we were stacking the bodies? Shipping containers are not small so I just thought the metaphor or whatever this would be was confusing. The relation to the quantity of members to the number of those members you could fit in the container. I’ve been thinking about how many bodies could fit.
Intermodal containers are 40 feet by 8 feet by 9.6 feet in dimension. So. What option do I have for the bodies? As they are or can I exhume and cremate? That’s ridiculous. That would be a huge legal challenge if even possible. Perhaps just can you provide the physical dimensions per member and anything about the volume of the dimensions are malleable.
You could put the plaques on the wall in a single row spaced out if "integrity, sportsmanship and character" is the standard. Its a preposterous standard that you could count the players on your fingers that you wouldnt be able to find a reason to disqualify. Most of the shipping container would have to be memorabilia. Its just an excuse not to vote for someone
"easy hall of famer" based on what, exactly? He had a nice career, but he's not a Hall of Famer.
Just 3 top-2 Cy Young award finishes (no wins) shows he wasn't even a dominant pitcher of his era, let alone all time. Throw in his insanity post-playing career, and he's rightfully only getting into the hall buying a ticket.
18th all time in Adjusted Pitching Runs saved.
17th all tine in Run Expectancy saved
26th all time in Win Probability Added
I could go on but that is all he needs right there. Period.
So now all of a sudden you don't believe in advanced measurements because someone disagrees with your political viewpoints, even if he may promoted them in poorly worded tweets?
Those viewpoints, their level of how they determine character, or who is right/wrong, are all opinions and usually based on extreme bias, so they have no place in HOF voting. Keep it neutral and on topic.
He should have been a first ballot HOFer. Then if you adhere to Jack Morris being a HOFer, then Schilling is even more so because of all the post seasons.
Keep it neutral? Sorry, but when your wackadoo behavior stains the game, you don't get that pass.
When you have to resort to 'well so-and-so is in, this person should be' you have lost any credibility you may have had. Jack Morris should not be in the hall, and making the hall even more dilluted with Schilling is a mistake.
Schilling benefitted from his postseason appearances more than any pitcher in modern day history. Funny, you say he should have been a first ballot guy, but he's now OFF the ballot. Good riddance!
18th all time in Adjusted Pitching Runs saved.
17th all tine in Run Expectancy saved
26th all time in Win Probability Added
First ballot no brainer HOFer to any baseball knowledgeble person and OBJECTIVE analysis.
Those are Schilling's accomplishments and nothing to do with Jack Morris.
Perhaps read again what I said earlier. That Morris stuff was just a bonus if you were someone that heightened a players HOF candidacy with post season performance.
Again, you all of a sudden disagree with advanced measurements because you don't like the person's political views. If you say he shouldn't be in because of what he said, that is your opinion, but when you use your bias to put up a third grade level statistical analysis to hide your bias and show your true side, then you lose all credibility.
He belongs. First ballot no brainer. You don't get that high in all time run prevention by accident, and any margin of error still puts him clearly in as a first ballot. Only personal bias could argue with those objective measures...and in this case it is bias unrelated to his play on the field.
And again, if you feel his words keeps him out in your opnion, that is great, hollar as much as you want...but you also said he didn't belong with on field performance and you are wrong.
Comments
Yes Pine Tar HR in NY incident
Honorable men?
You mean 'honorable' like Cap Anson refusing to take the field with black players, codifying segregation in baseball which took nearly 70 years to undo?
'Honorable' like Ty Cobb, Rogers Hornsby, or Tris Speaker, all of whom were likely KKK members?
'Honorable' like Tom Yawkey, who didn't have a black player for over a decade after Jackie Robinson?
'Honorable' like Bud Selig, who engineered the removal of Fay Vincent (whose 'crime' was publicly announcing owner collusion happened which costs players hundreds of millions of dollars) and then Selig was installed as his direct replacement?
You don't get to claim to 'preserve the sport's history' while covering up what some see as unsavory. The steroid era SAVED baseball, and any suggestion otherwise is pure folly. After the owner-created strike, and resulting postseason cancelation, baseball was in freefall until Sosa and McGwire's home run battle of 1998.
The hall of full of dishonorable men - but are there because they are an important part of history. Ignoring the steroid era, and the best players of that generation because you find it personally unappetizing means the hall is failing at its CORE function - the preservation of the game's history and relating those stories to generations of fans who came after it.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
Now that’s ^^^ a well-articulated argument.
Yes, the excitement of all those home runs being hit was certainly memorable. "Everybody" was talking baseball during that time.
Bottom line: 762 home runs, almost 3k hits, etc. Come on, it's really silly that he's not in the hall. And to my knowledge Bonds didn't murder two people, although that's a different hall of fame.
@Mistlin
^^^^^^^this guy gets it.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Quoted because this was so well written
CLICKBAIT!!! Barry was not inducted into the real HOF. Now if there was a Hall of SHAME for swollen head Me Bear dickwads OTOH...
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
I’m not debating because you are already set in your opinion. But someone showed me the delta size between Griffey Jr. and Bonds from their rookie year to their last season. Guess who won?
If you had read the 1st post you would have known Pittsburgh Pirates HOF
Yes it's real.
Definition of Hall of Fame - A room or building set aside to honor outstanding individuals.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
can you define delta size for me? I dont think i have ever encountered that term before.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
The change in size between one point or state and another. The delta refers to the amount measured.
I’m not actually making any claim in either respect. Only taking a poke at a flawed variable. The guys with Griffey on the Mariners were all using Primobian (or however that steroid is spelled) which isn’t supposed to have that weird bulking issue. In fact it’s not really a thing with anabolic either that the head gets bigger - it’s not conclusive. It’s generally associated with HGH, which is really, terribly, misunderstood.
I’m really curious why the PED thing is such a polarizing debate. I have not encountered anyone who is fully against PED players being recognized for their accomplishments who can make a rational argument. I’m sure there are many because I’ve considered as many as I could conjure, but I’ve not had that experience. It’s always — or so it seems — emotionally charged.
got you, thanks for the explaination. I have long wondered about Griffey, and you bring up a good point about the Primobolan. It is a steroid that increases strength and speed, but does not make the user retain water so their muscles dont look gigantic. and there were a whole bunch of Griffeys Seattle teammates who admitted use: "Griffey, Jr.'s teammates in Seattle included Alex Rodriguez, David Segui, Shane Monahan, Glenallen Hill, Ryan Franklin, and Todd Williams—all admitted steroid users. " that came from bleacher report.
remember, most people consider Canseco a bastion of truth when it comes to steroid use. He figured 75% of players in the 90s were using. Those same people who consider him to be the steroid guru conveniently leave that little part out...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
The Pittsburgh Pirates' Team Hall of Fame is a 'real' Hall of Fame.
You seem to be a baseball purist, and any member who brings 'shame' to the sport does not belong in the Hall of Fame. With that being said, I would presume you are in favor of removing racists like Tom Yawkey and cheaters like Gaylord Perry from MLB's Hall of Fame?
One could argue that an executive who refused to integrate his team 10 years after Jackie Robinson took the field brings a lot more shame to baseball than an individual player who, like a majority of players, took substances to gain an advantage.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
What's even more convenient is the logical gymnastics these anti-PED players will twist themselves into, feigning outrage about alleged PED use by players of the 1990s (without any first-hand knowledge or proof) but will disavow any allegations of the widespread amphetamine use of earlier players as 'here say'.
The facts of the matter are MLB's Hall of Fame is not owned or operated by MLB. Any rules broken (or allegedly broken) by players have no bearing on their induction to the hall. The museum's core function is to represent the history of the game and that we continue to allow an entire generation of the sport to be missing from the hall is egregious.
As I said in my earlier post - the hall of is full of unsavory players but are there because they are important to telling a complete history of the sport. Without any representation of the steroid era, the MLB Hall of Fame has failed in its core function.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
Then the topic should've read "Pirates Hall of Fame"
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
No way, removing players from the HOF (yes even OJ Simpson) would be way too dangerous of a slippery slope. You're in, you're in.
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
I mean it's not THE Hall of Fame. For example recently retired Joel Utley (radio voice of the Kentucky Wesleyan Panthers from 1962-2023) is in a bunch of other Halls of Fame but should be in THE Basketball Hall of Fame in Springfield. See, unlike the baseball Hall of Fame, radio/TV commentators like Chick Hearn or Dick Vitale can be inducted into the for real basketball Hall of Fame and not that stupid wing off to the side that doesn't count as being a HOF inductee crap :P
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
I am looking forward to this forum in 2025 when Bonds is elected...
wouldn't it be something!!! I am hoping.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
It is interesting you think OJ Simpson (a double-murderer) is more deserving of being in the Hall than Barry Bonds.
Did I say 'interesting'? I meant out-and-out outrageous. Egregious. Absolutely mind-blowing this is where you stand.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
OJ was inducted into the HOF in 1985, nine years before the murderers. I didn't say anything like this at all. Please learn to read posts correctly.
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
I read what you said:
"No way, removing players from the HOF (yes even OJ Simpson) would be way too dangerous of a slippery slope. You're in, you're in."
You said:
"CLICKBAIT!!! Barry was not inducted into the real HOF. Now if there was a Hall of SHAME for swollen head Me Bear d***wads OTOH..."
From these two posts, you believe that OJ is more deserving of being in the hall than Barry Bonds. I read your posts correctly.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
I said nothing of the sort at all. I was saying I strongly oppose any sort of idea of removing players from the Halls of Fame (yes even removing OJ; remember he was inducted YEARS before the murders) as that would be way too dangerous of a slippery slope. As for Barry...well you can't remove a player without the player being inducted first!
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
What would be next?
So MLB says "You cannot be in the HOF if you have been caught cheating in MLB".
So any players not in, who were caught cheating, are now ineligible AND any players who were caught cheating who are in the HOF are out.
What is the next stop on the slippery slope?
I'm fine with a uniform distinction. I just don't like that some players are in who have cheated and some are not in who might have cheated.
Being in the HOF and being represented in the HOF museum are also two distinct things for me.
For clarity, I am not advocating for anyone to be removed.
What I have always been an advocate for is for baseball's history museum to paint a complete history of the game - the good, the bad, and the ugly. For a handful of old fogeys to sit in judgement and attempt to subvert the history of the game is bad form. Worse, it is an attempt to bleach the record of what actually happened.
The steroid era happened, people. It had the simultaneous effects of both saving baseball and later making some people uncomfortable with the results. However, those people were sure quiet when their sport was being saved by the same people who would be later crucified for their roles.
Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and Mark McGwire are three of the most important players in the modern era, and their exclusion from the Hall makes the hall an incomplete history of the game. Yes, they used performance enhancing drugs. So did nearly every player in the era. Amphetamine use was rampant until the 1980s. It is widely known that baseball players have looked for every conceivable advantage for as long as the sport has existed.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
Curt Schilling is by far the worst omission as they are only doing so for stupid difference of political opinion reasons. The man is the Mr. October of pitchers!
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
Hopefully. Joe West being a voter could be an issue > @Estil said:
Bonds and Clemens are the biggest omissions by far. But yea Schilling should definitely be in and once Mussina was elected any argument about Schillings on field performance went completely out the window. Anyone that voted for Mussina and not Schilling should lose their vote
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Name five voters who are not voting for Schilling for non-political reasons.
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
Might want to reread my post there
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
You want to include Mr. Bloody Sock but omit Bonds, and you dare to criticize Hall voters for being politically biased?
Schilling is widely known to have been a prolific PED abuser. Even without that, the hall is very specific about character being an important facet of a hall candidate, and Schilling's off-the-rails behavior automatically disqualified him. Even without his obvious character flaws, he wasn't hall worthy.
The hall can show his bloody sock, but that's as close as the man gets to being HoF worthy.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
“Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”
Schilling's insane antics off the field make him fail the integrity portion of the hall's requirements.
He's off the ballot and good riddance to this rubbish.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
I don’t know about Schilling. He seems to have a compulsion to repost inappropriate stuff, then realize what it actually is, and delete it. He’s tone def but I think he’s more of an idiot than a bigot. I think he should get in. The voters shouldn’t let their personal feelings dictate their selections. It’s becoming too much of a popularity contest.
And this proves getting in the hall is none other than a popularity contest. He was a HOF player and is a great human being.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
If "integrity, sportsmanship and character" were things voters actually valued, it would be a very very small hall.
Mickey Mantle sure did exemplify those qualities now didn't he? how about admitted cheaters Rogers Hornsby, Hank Greenberg and Gaylord Perry.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
The "Integrity. Sportsmanship and Character" should be related to playing the game itself.
It's literally impossible to define a players Character and integrity off the field especially before the age of social media, cameras and "The way things used to be"
Decades ago racism. Hitting a woman were basically accepted behaviors and I am pretty confident that back in the old days many a HOF player was racist or slapped their wife across the face for not cooking a proper dinner.
Tough to disect it all in my opinion, HOF credentials should be based on the field of play.
Obviously there are some variables but overall that is my stance
Schilling is an easy Hall of Famer. Yes no doubt.
So true. Some of the most "popular" scenes in old movies were when men slapped their wife or girlfriend. Yes movies are fiction, but this event depicted real life in a number of households.
I'll check with my wife. Funeral arrangements for me can be sent to...
"easy hall of famer" based on what, exactly? He had a nice career, but he's not a Hall of Famer.
Just 3 top-2 Cy Young award finishes (no wins) shows he wasn't even a dominant pitcher of his era, let alone all time. Throw in his insanity post-playing career, and he's rightfully only getting into the hall buying a ticket.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
18th all time in Adjusted Pitching Runs saved.
17th all tine in Run Expectancy saved
26th all time in Win Probability Added
I could go on but that is all he needs right there. Period.
So now all of a sudden you don't believe in advanced measurements because someone disagrees with your political viewpoints, even if he may promoted them in poorly worded tweets?
Those viewpoints, their level of how they determine character, or who is right/wrong, are all opinions and usually based on extreme bias, so they have no place in HOF voting. Keep it neutral and on topic.
He should have been a first ballot HOFer. Then if you adhere to Jack Morris being a HOFer, then Schilling is even more so because of all the post seasons.
On Jack Morris - I am slowing coming around to him being a Hall of Fame pitcher.
I don't understand the issue with Schilling from a baseball perspective. The guy was a MLB pitcher. I don't think that qualifies him to be a resource for Scientific or Political thought. I suspect reposting [m]any of Schillings hot-takes here would result in a ban, so there's probably something to be said about their appropriateness. But, again, he's a former baseball player. He could be the next Paul Dirac, but generally, you're going to get something which he just saw, barely understands, and blew his mind -- and now he wants to share it with everyone. Forget grader-notes... I want HOF-Voter-notes.
Keep it neutral? Sorry, but when your wackadoo behavior stains the game, you don't get that pass.
When you have to resort to 'well so-and-so is in, this person should be' you have lost any credibility you may have had. Jack Morris should not be in the hall, and making the hall even more dilluted with Schilling is a mistake.
Schilling benefitted from his postseason appearances more than any pitcher in modern day history. Funny, you say he should have been a first ballot guy, but he's now OFF the ballot. Good riddance!
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
Why would an argument lose credibility if you use examples to produce a frame of reference? I think this is taught in a few of the accepted argumentative methods. I'm not so sure enshrining Schilling would dilute the HoF.
Because it's not about using a frame of reference, it's about using a bad induction to justify another bad induction.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
You could fit the HOF in a shipping container if that was actually a real thing. Its just the catch all excuse rule voters can use instead of just saying I dont like this person so I wont vote for them.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Whether or not Morris or any other example is invalid or not is up to you but he is a good point of reference given that he is enshrined. And overall he stacks up well in my opinion.
He had a dominant stretch in his career. His consistency over a decade in ERA+ and WHIP is impressive compared to others. He could sit with Tom Seaver and not look out of place. I don’t agree with all of his politics or social views but he hasn’t crossed any line for me that I think should keep him out of the baseball hall of fame.
I’ve seen you make this shipping container comment as an example for the size of the hall of fame a few times. And I am kind of curious about it. Referring to the enshrined members like if we were stacking the bodies? Shipping containers are not small so I just thought the metaphor or whatever this would be was confusing. The relation to the quantity of members to the number of those members you could fit in the container. I’ve been thinking about how many bodies could fit.
Intermodal containers are 40 feet by 8 feet by 9.6 feet in dimension. So. What option do I have for the bodies? As they are or can I exhume and cremate? That’s ridiculous. That would be a huge legal challenge if even possible. Perhaps just can you provide the physical dimensions per member and anything about the volume of the dimensions are malleable.
You could put the plaques on the wall in a single row spaced out if "integrity, sportsmanship and character" is the standard. Its a preposterous standard that you could count the players on your fingers that you wouldnt be able to find a reason to disqualify. Most of the shipping container would have to be memorabilia. Its just an excuse not to vote for someone
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
18th all time in Adjusted Pitching Runs saved.
17th all tine in Run Expectancy saved
26th all time in Win Probability Added
First ballot no brainer HOFer to any baseball knowledgeble person and OBJECTIVE analysis.
Those are Schilling's accomplishments and nothing to do with Jack Morris.
Perhaps read again what I said earlier. That Morris stuff was just a bonus if you were someone that heightened a players HOF candidacy with post season performance.
Again, you all of a sudden disagree with advanced measurements because you don't like the person's political views. If you say he shouldn't be in because of what he said, that is your opinion, but when you use your bias to put up a third grade level statistical analysis to hide your bias and show your true side, then you lose all credibility.
He belongs. First ballot no brainer. You don't get that high in all time run prevention by accident, and any margin of error still puts him clearly in as a first ballot. Only personal bias could argue with those objective measures...and in this case it is bias unrelated to his play on the field.
And again, if you feel his words keeps him out in your opnion, that is great, hollar as much as you want...but you also said he didn't belong with on field performance and you are wrong.
Clear first ballot HOFer.