Baseball Hall of Fame voting

[Sour Masher]

You can make it up to them by drafting them 1, 2, 3 in the nfbc league.

Un=cancelled!

I obviously disagree.

It's pretty simple. Asking people to do the right thing (don't cheat), tell the truth (don't lie) and to be a decent person (don't be a dick) isn't cancel culture.. It's building a better society.


I'm just here for the moral outrage.

I find it a frightening turn of events that my typically good memory is failing me here--I do not recall Schilling being caught up in a cheating scandal. Was he a roider? If so, that is an easy thing to keep him out for, as much better players than him are out for cheating. Regarding being a decent person, I think Schilling is a total racist scumbag (his contrasts supporting the terrorists at the capital with "those people" who just on welfare and don't care about anything except stealing sneakers and tvs is vomit inducing) and a massive hypocrite given the millions he has bilked tax payers and others out of with his failed gaming business, but if we are going to hold character against someone, a lot of all time greats would be booted from the Hall. To me, the HOF is a history of the game and what is done on the field, and while I find Schilling as appealing as a a swift kick to the nuts, I think his resume warrants entry in the HOF....unless he cheated. Worse players than Schilling are in the Hall (his career WAR is higher than Glavine's), and he was clutch when it counted.

[Hornsby]

I find it a frightening turn of events that my typically good memory is failing me here--I do not recall Schilling being caught up in a cheating scandal. Was he a roider? If so, that is an easy thing to keep him out for, as much better players than him are out for cheating. Regarding being a decent person, I think Schilling is a total racist scumbag (his contrasts supporting the terrorists at the capital with "those people" who just on welfare and don't care about anything except stealing sneakers and tvs is vomit inducing) and a massive hypocrite given the millions he has bilked tax payers and others out of with his failed gaming business, but if we are going to hold character against someone, a lot of all time greats would be booted from the Hall. To me, the HOF is a history of the game and what is done on the field, and while I find Schilling as appealing as a a swift kick to the nuts, I think his resume warrants entry in the HOF....unless he cheated. Worse players than Schilling are in the Hall (his career WAR is higher than Glavine's), and he was clutch when it counted.

Taking his awful personality out of things, I don't agree that his stats are HOF worthy. Hall of Very Good, surely, but a tick over 200 wins, a mid 3s ERA don't scream out automatic in to me. He also never had that peak where he was unquestionably the dominant player in the game, never won a Cy either. A big nope for me...

[joncarlos]

Taking his awful personality out of things, I don't agree that his stats are HOF worthy. Hall of Very Good, surely, but a tick over 200 wins, a mid 3s ERA don't scream out automatic in to me. He also never had that peak where he was unquestionably the dominant player in the game, never won a Cy either. A big nope for me...

One of the best post-season records of anyone, ever.

Still a no for me, though.

[Sour Masher]

Taking his awful personality out of things, I don't agree that his stats are HOF worthy. Hall of Very Good, surely, but a tick over 200 wins, a mid 3s ERA don't scream out automatic in to me. He also never had that peak where he was unquestionably the dominant player in the game, never won a Cy either. A big nope for me...

I had the misconception that the recent entries in the HOF marked a decline in standards for awhile, but looking at it historically, I discovered it is not true. The HOF has always had an inner circle of true elite and an out of circle of guys that are Hall of Very Good. Schilling's resume fits well with that second batch. He would not be the new low bar for a pitching in the Hall by any means. Even tossing out the guys from 100 years ago, Schiiling had a MUCH better career than Catfish Hunter, especially when adjusting for era--Schilling was in the roided up era for hitters, and his career WAR nearly doubles that of Catfish. Add to that one of the best post-season resumes of all time, and I don't see an argument against him based on his on the field performance. Not wanting a 300 lb sack of crap in there is a different matter, of course.

[Pauly]

One of the best post-season records of anyone, ever.

Still a no for me, though.

This might make for a fun topic. It made me think of my personal favorite postseason pitcher, Josh Beckett, who was laughed off the Hall of Fame ballot last year, but could give Schilling a run for his $$ stat wise. This is just a homer post by me of course.

Schilling: 19 starts, 11-2 - 2.23 ERA - 0.97 WHIP - 8.1 K/9; 3 World Series rings (2001 D-Backs, 2004 and 2007 Red Sox); MVP of the 1993 NLCS and co-MVP of the 2001 World Series with Randy Johnson.

Beckett: 13 starts, 7-3 - 3.07 ERA - 0.94 WHIP - 9.5 K/9; 2 WS rings (2003 Marlins, 2007 Red Sox); MVP of the 2003 World Series and MVP of the 2007 ALCS....and the dude just crushed the Yankees in Game 6 2003 to win it all.

[Bene Futuis]

I'm not surprised this year. Cancel culture being what it is, even if a writer thought about voting for Schilling, Clemens, and/or Bonds, they know they'd have to deal with the outrage crowd, and so would their employers. A number of others just wouldn't vote for any of those three anyway, and no one down ballot, IMO, is worth voting for. I suspect a number of writers will follow Passan's lead and give up their voting rights after this year.

Wait, is cancel culture simply calling out horrific bigots? Or is it boycotting Harley Davidson? Or burning your Nikes? Or canceling Goodyear Tires because they won't allow shitty red hats in their dress code? It's all so confusing, this hypocritical projection.


Anyways, my vote would include Clemens, Bonds, Sheffield, Manny, and Scott Rolen. I think I'd give serious consideration to Schilling (despite aforementioned horrific bigot-ness) and Billy Wagner and Sammy Sosa. Frankly, I don't know what to do with the character clause so I'd be inclined to just ignore it, I guess. I also don't really feel any impetus to penalize for steroids, rumored or otherwise.

[Bene Futuis]

Kevin Brown is a really close comp for Curt Schilling, imo. Brown was one and done on the HoF ballot.

[chancellor]

Wait, is cancel culture simply calling out horrific bigots? Or is it boycotting Harley Davidson? Or burning your Nikes? Or canceling Goodyear Tires because they won't allow shitty red hats in their dress code? It's all so confusing, this hypocritical projection.

No, my issue is going after the writers that would vote for a Schilling, Bonds or Clemens. As you and SM noted, there's perfectly good cases for voting for some, all, or none of them. The problem I was pointing out isn't whether any of them should be voted for; it's the abuse/cancel risk writers face by voting for the "wrong" candidate.

[GwynnInTheHall]

No, my issue is going after the writers that would vote for a Schilling, Bonds or Clemens. As you and SM noted, there's perfectly good cases for voting for some, all, or none of them. The problem I was pointing out isn't whether any of them should be voted for; it's the abuse/cancel risk writers face by voting for the "wrong" candidate.

They need to grow some balls, you can't cancel balls, only sit on them the wrong way occasionally.

[Sour Masher]

No, my issue is going after the writers that would vote for a Schilling, Bonds or Clemens. As you and SM noted, there's perfectly good cases for voting for some, all, or none of them. The problem I was pointing out isn't whether any of them should be voted for; it's the abuse/cancel risk writers face by voting for the "wrong" candidate.

The idea of cancel culture is a tricky one for me, because to an extent I think it represents long overdue accountability and a reckoning in some cases, but I also agree with you that it can veer into groupthink bullying and silencing, which is dangerous and needs to be pushed back on. And the way to do that is what GITH says--those who have a vote should have the courage to make it the way they see fit. If they lack that courage, they probably should not have a vote. And I say that knowing the backlash and risk they face, but we will never find the right equilibrium unless everyone stands up for what they think is right and legit discussion ensues.

On this issue, I really do not know what I'd do with the known cheaters. They represent some of the very best players to ever play the game, but clearly they inflated their performances. But so did others, I am sure, that made the HOF and did not get caught. I don't know what to do there. But on Curt Schilling, unless the community decided to revise its standards to account for a person's beliefs and attitudes, under the current rubric, I would vote him in, despite my personal feelings on him. Unless there is a cheating scandal I cannot recall. GITH mentioned he was a cheater, but I do not remember any evidence to that effect.

[GwynnInTheHall]

The idea of cancel culture is a tricky one for me, because to an extent I think it represents long overdue accountability and a reckoning in some cases, but I also agree with you that it can veer into groupthink bullying and silencing, which is dangerous and needs to be pushed back on. And the way to do that is what GITH says--those who have a vote should have the courage to make it the way they see fit. If they lack that courage, they probably should not have a vote. And I say that knowing the backlash and risk they face, but we will never find the right equilibrium unless everyone stands up for what they think is right and legit discussion ensues.

On this issue, I really do not know what I'd do with the known cheaters. They represent some of the very best players to ever play the game, but clearly they inflated their performances. But so did others, I am sure, that made the HOF and did not get caught. I don't know what to do there. But on Curt Schilling, unless the community decided to revise its standards to account for a person's beliefs and attitudes, under the current rubric, I would vote him in, despite my personal feelings on him. Unless there is a cheating scandal I cannot recall. GITH mentioned he was a cheater, but I do not remember any evidence to that effect.

He claimed the Red Sox encouraged him to use and he said no, I don't quite believe him. I might be alone in that sentiment.

[The Feral Slasher]

They need to grow some balls, you can't cancel balls, only sit on them the wrong way occasionally.

I disagree

[Bene Futuis]

The idea of cancel culture is a tricky one for me, because to an extent I think it represents long overdue accountability and a reckoning in some cases, but I also agree with you that it can veer into groupthink bullying and silencing, which is dangerous and needs to be pushed back on. And the way to do that is what GITH says--those who have a vote should have the courage to make it the way they see fit. If they lack that courage, they probably should not have a vote. And I say that knowing the backlash and risk they face, but we will never find the right equilibrium unless everyone stands up for what they think is right and legit discussion ensues.

On this issue, I really do not know what I'd do with the known cheaters. They represent some of the very best players to ever play the game, but clearly they inflated their performances. But so did others, I am sure, that made the HOF and did not get caught. I don't know what to do there. But on Curt Schilling, unless the community decided to revise its standards to account for a person's beliefs and attitudes, under the current rubric, I would vote him in, despite my personal feelings on him. Unless there is a cheating scandal I cannot recall. GITH mentioned he was a cheater, but I do not remember any evidence to that effect.

The verbiage is: “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.”

The middle part, "integrity, sportsmanship, character", is what's now commonly referred to as the character clause portion for HoF voters. It's very vague, obviously, but does not appear to be limited to actual or known cheating.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I disagree

I'm pretty sure the Charmin bear's balls have been canceled.

[The Feral Slasher]

I'm pretty sure the Charmin bear's balls have been canceled.

But not his heinie ! It's clean...yeah it's Charmin clean