Photo

2021 HOF Ballot


  • Please log in to reply
122 replies to this topic

#41 BSLJordanKatz

BSLJordanKatz

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,473 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD

Posted 16 December 2020 - 02:24 PM

Lol. But you'll vote for a serial wife beater. Someone commiting real crimes. Whos no where near as worthy as Schilling on merit BTW. Come on dude. Be better.

I wasn't really aware of the Vizquel stuff when I posted my ballot but would definitely take him off the ballot now  



#42 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,428 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 16 December 2020 - 02:26 PM

Not posting about lynching on Twitter is a pretty reasonable criteria imo, everyone else on the ballot passes that test besides Curt


Only because Twitter wasn't around for most of the time period that MLB has existed.

#43 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,612 posts

Posted 16 December 2020 - 02:28 PM

I hadn't heard that about Vizquel either.



#44 BSLJordanKatz

BSLJordanKatz

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,473 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD

Posted 16 December 2020 - 02:31 PM

Only because Twitter wasn't around for most of the time period that MLB has existed.

Yeah I mean I can't do much about Cap Anson, Ty Cobb etc and unless I have a secret BBWAA membership I won't decide Schilling's fate either, we're just arguing on a forum here 



#45 TwentyThirtyFive

TwentyThirtyFive

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,312 posts

Posted 16 December 2020 - 02:36 PM

No real reason to get into a debate with anyone here because you dont have votes. Anyone with a real vote that can't put aside political bias should have their voting privilege revoked. Curt Schilling is a litmus test for that. Hes undoubtedly said and typed some controversial and likely dumb shit like everyone else in this world. That doesn't warrant you(the voter) holding him back from an honor he earned playing the game.

#46 Nigel Tufnel

Nigel Tufnel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,030 posts

Posted 16 December 2020 - 02:39 PM

No real reason to get into a debate with anyone here because you dont have votes. Anyone with a real vote that can't put aside political bias should have their voting privilege revoked. Curt Schilling is a litmus test for that. Hes undoubtedly said and typed some controversial and likely dumb shit like everyone else in this world. That doesn't warrant you(the voter) holding him back from an honor he earned playing the game.

 

Probably a bad strategy to espouse lynching the exact people who you want to vote for you, though.


  • CantonJester and BSLJordanKatz like this

#47 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,428 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 16 December 2020 - 02:39 PM

Yeah I mean I can't do much about Cap Anson, Ty Cobb etc and unless I have a secret BBWAA membership I won't decide Schilling's fate either, we're just arguing on a forum here


Of course.

I completely agree that what Schilling has said (not just this one time) is completely unacceptable. I can also of course understand why some journalists may take that comment personally when it comes time for them to vote.

However, I view the HOF as a performance only achievement. I would really need to be on the fence to consider off the field issues.

#48 TwentyThirtyFive

TwentyThirtyFive

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,312 posts

Posted 16 December 2020 - 02:40 PM

Im not going to do it but come on do I need to go back through the history of all sports to find the HOFers who've typed or been quoted saying homophopic, racist, misogynistic, extremely political things. It would not be a short list.

#49 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,428 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 16 December 2020 - 02:40 PM

No real reason to get into a debate with anyone here because you dont have votes. Anyone with a real vote that can't put aside political bias should have their voting privilege revoked. Curt Schilling is a litmus test for that. Hes undoubtedly said and typed some controversial and likely dumb shit like everyone else in this world. That doesn't warrant you(the voter) holding him back from an honor he earned playing the game.


This very clearly goes beyond the scope of political bias.
  • BSLJordanKatz likes this

#50 Old Man

Old Man

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,579 posts

Posted 16 December 2020 - 02:43 PM

Lol. But you'll vote for a serial wife beater. Someone commiting real crimes. Whos no where near as worthy as Schilling on merit BTW. Come on dude. Be better.

His ex-wife denies this claim.



#51 BSLJordanKatz

BSLJordanKatz

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,473 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD

Posted 16 December 2020 - 02:43 PM

This very clearly goes beyond the scope of political bias.

Yeah I don't care if Curt likes Donald Trump but I feel like there should be pretty easy to distinguish between tweeting "Hillary Clinton sucks and should go to jail" and posting about lynching people 



#52 TwentyThirtyFive

TwentyThirtyFive

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,312 posts

Posted 16 December 2020 - 02:44 PM


Probably a bad strategy to espouse lynching the exact people who you want to vote for you, though.

Absolutley a bad strategy. He certainly doesn't seem to be the sharpest knife in the drawer.

#53 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,612 posts

Posted 16 December 2020 - 02:46 PM

No real reason to get into a debate with anyone here because you dont have votes. Anyone with a real vote that can't put aside political bias should have their voting privilege revoked. Curt Schilling is a litmus test for that. Hes undoubtedly said and typed some controversial and likely dumb shit like everyone else in this world. That doesn't warrant you(the voter) holding him back from an honor he earned playing the game.

 

It does, actually.  Whether stuff he says and does (anything that can be summed up as character) after he's done playing should count against (or for) him is debatable depending on how you read the voting guidelines, but the Hall of Fame does say that voters should consider a player's character as part of the decision.

 

Schilling is undoubtedly a Grade A idiot full of indefensible opinions which he says publicly with regularity, but nothing he's said rises to the level that I think should count against him in terms of his Hall of Fame candidacy.  Every voter makes that judgement for themselves, though.  I think there are some words that could be said which would impact my voting, but it'd need to be worse than everything Schilling has said.  Actions would be more heavily scrutinized.


  • CantonJester likes this

#54 TwentyThirtyFive

TwentyThirtyFive

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,312 posts

Posted 16 December 2020 - 02:53 PM

It does, actually. Whether stuff he says and does (anything that can be summed up as character) after he's done playing should count against (or for) him is debatable depending on how you read the voting guidelines, but the Hall of Fame does say that voters should consider a player's character as part of the decision.

Schilling is undoubtedly a Grade A idiot full of indefensible opinions which he says publicly with regularity, but nothing he's said rises to the level that I think should count against him in terms of his Hall of Fame candidacy. Every voter makes that judgement for themselves, though. I think there are some words that could be said which would impact my voting, but it'd need to be worse than everything Schilling has said. Actions would be more heavily scrutinized.

As I said, if I find out Schilling really supports lynching I reserve the right to take back my BS claim. This isn't about that tweet. This is political and personal bias and anyone who doesn't own that as the reason for not voting for him is being intellectually dishonest.

#55 TwentyThirtyFive

TwentyThirtyFive

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,312 posts

Posted 16 December 2020 - 02:57 PM


I wasn't really aware of the Vizquel stuff when I posted my ballot but would definitely take him off the ballot now

Absolutely fair and understandable you didn't know about Vizquels past.

#56 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,612 posts

Posted 16 December 2020 - 02:59 PM

As I said, if I find out Schilling really supports lynching I reserve the right to take back my BS claim. This isn't about that tweet. This is political and personal bias and anyone who doesn't own that as the reason for not voting for him is being intellectually dishonest.

 

I think there is ample bandwidth for someone to not care about Schilling's politics but also find the things he's done and said to be disqualifying.  Such as publicly calling Adam Jones a liar after Adam said someone threw a bag of peanuts at him at Fenway and he was called the N-word multiple times during the game.

 

I'd still vote for him.  But I don't think someone who disqualifies him for that crap is being intellectually dishonest.


  • BSLJordanKatz likes this

#57 TwentyThirtyFive

TwentyThirtyFive

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,312 posts

Posted 16 December 2020 - 03:06 PM

I think there is ample bandwidth for someone to not care about Schilling's politics but also find the things he's done and said to be disqualifying. Such as publicly calling Adam Jones a liar after Adam said someone threw a bag of peanuts at him at Fenway and he was called the N-word multiple times during the game.

I'd still vote for him. But I don't think someone who disqualifies him for that crap is being intellectually dishonest.

Then publically disclose your voting record and let people comb over every person you did vote for that has made similar type stupid, or uneducated, or racist, or sexist comments. Be consistent or youre a hypocrite.

#58 BSLJordanKatz

BSLJordanKatz

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,473 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD

Posted 16 December 2020 - 03:06 PM

Yeah I don't find "there's definitely worse people than Curt already in the HOF" compelling, I wouldn't have wanted them in the HOF either and I don't think there's a rule that voters have to judge players by the same standards as a human they judged Ty Cobb or whoever 70 years ago 



#59 TwentyThirtyFive

TwentyThirtyFive

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,312 posts

Posted 16 December 2020 - 03:14 PM


Yeah I don't find "there's definitely worse people than Curt already in the HOF" compelling, I wouldn't have wanted them in the HOF either and I don't think there's a rule that voters have to judge players by the same standards as a human they judged Ty Cobb or whoever 70 years ago

Not talking about 70 years ago. From this point forward let me know who you're voting for and we'll see how hard it is to find controversial, stupid, bigoted comments the player has made in their life. Wont be the hard to find dirt. Btw it gets to be so subjective if you can't put aside certain things. Some could choose to not vote for adulterers. If that happened it would likely eliminate 99% of these dudes.

#60 TwentyThirtyFive

TwentyThirtyFive

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,312 posts

Posted 16 December 2020 - 03:16 PM

Btw not trying to pick on you Jordan but am curious. Would you already eliminate Josh Hader from HOF contention for the comments he made as a teen?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=  width=