Register now to remove this ad

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 28 of 28

Thread: 2017 Hall of Fame class

  1. #16
    Congrats to Pudge, Bagwell, and Raines for getting in.

    IMO, someone needs to take a serious look at the HOF voting process. This is not meant to defend anything that Schilling has said, but the fact that he lost 31 votes is rather disconcerting. Last year, 31 voters thought that he was worthy of being in the HOF, and now they don't? Did his stats change from last year to this year? Sorry, but that's just not right.

  2. #17
    Unfortunately, HOF voting is done by people, and people will not vote impartially. I may not agree with most of what Schilling says outside of baseball-related topics, but I still believe he belongs in the HOF. Other people are unable to separate their disagreements with someone's political or social views and their performance as a player. It sucks, but that's what happens. It's also ridiculous. Given the eras some people played in, the HOF is chock full of virulent racists, drunks, misogynists, homophobes, and probably some outright criminals. (As some of you may recall, Monte Irvin once beat up my great-grandfather. I still think he belongs in the HOF, though!) Schilling has every right as a person to express whatever opinions he wants, and HOF voters should not take that into account. In a perfect world, they wouldn't. However, this is the real world, so they did.


  3. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Kimmi View Post
    Congrats to Pudge, Bagwell, and Raines for getting in.

    IMO, someone needs to take a serious look at the HOF voting process. This is not meant to defend anything that Schilling has said, but the fact that he lost 31 votes is rather disconcerting. Last year, 31 voters thought that he was worthy of being in the HOF, and now they don't? Did his stats change from last year to this year? Sorry, but that's just not right.
    I agree totally.

  4. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Youk Of The Nation View Post
    Unfortunately, HOF voting is done by people, and people will not vote impartially. I may not agree with most of what Schilling says outside of baseball-related topics, but I still believe he belongs in the HOF. Other people are unable to separate their disagreements with someone's political or social views and their performance as a player. It sucks, but that's what happens. It's also ridiculous. Given the eras some people played in, the HOF is chock full of virulent racists, drunks, misogynists, homophobes, and probably some outright criminals. (As some of you may recall, Monte Irvin once beat up my great-grandfather. I still think he belongs in the HOF, though!) Schilling has every right as a person to express whatever opinions he wants, and HOF voters should not take that into account. In a perfect world, they wouldn't. However, this is the real world, so they did.
    Exactly. Voting should not be a matter of whether you agree with or like what Schilling has to say.

  5. #20
    If going into the HOF for any sport was based on not being a douchebag in any way, all of the Halls of Fame would be basically empty. The Hockey Hall of Fame wouldn't even exist.


  6. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Kimmi View Post
    Congrats to Pudge, Bagwell, and Raines for getting in.

    IMO, someone needs to take a serious look at the HOF voting process. This is not meant to defend anything that Schilling has said, but the fact that he lost 31 votes is rather disconcerting. Last year, 31 voters thought that he was worthy of being in the HOF, and now they don't? Did his stats change from last year to this year? Sorry, but that's just not right.
    The difference is mainly because he made a tweet applauding a T-shirt that said journalists should be lynched. Nothing to do with his stats. (And I think you can make a valid argument that his stats aren't good enough, but that's a different matter).
    Priorities:
    1. Yankees lose
    2. Red Sox win

    Fui sobre agua edificada, mis muros de fuego son

    Quote Originally Posted by joeycaps View Post
    So shut up because you have no idea on what you say on anything as evidence of some of your ridiculous posts.

  7. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Star View Post
    The difference is mainly because he made a tweet applauding a T-shirt that said journalists should be lynched. Nothing to do with his stats. (And I think you can make a valid argument that his stats aren't good enough, but that's a different matter).
    That's my point. It's not right that all those voters changed their minds because they didn't like something that Schilling said.

    Did I say that his stats weren't good enough?

  8. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Kimmi View Post
    That's my point. It's not right that all those voters changed their minds because they didn't like something that Schilling said.

    Did I say that his stats weren't good enough?
    I don't think Northern Star meant you specifically but the generalized "you" meaning anyone.

  9. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    I don't think Northern Star meant you specifically but the generalized "you" meaning anyone.
    OK, then I misinterpreted what he was saying.

  10. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Kimmi View Post
    That's my point. It's not right that all those voters changed their minds because they didn't like something that Schilling said.

    Did I say that his stats weren't good enough?
    No you pointed out the difference from 1 year to the next and asked rhetorically if his stats had changed. I'm saying of course they didn't, but the difference isn't about his stats, it's about his recent tweet. Right or wrong, sports journalists don't care for his politics or demeanor and some stopped voting for him. As I pointed out, whether his stats are good enough is a secondary argument.
    Priorities:
    1. Yankees lose
    2. Red Sox win

    Fui sobre agua edificada, mis muros de fuego son

    Quote Originally Posted by joeycaps View Post
    So shut up because you have no idea on what you say on anything as evidence of some of your ridiculous posts.

  11. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Kimmi View Post
    OK, then I misinterpreted what he was saying.
    Very easy to do. Even I often don't know what I'm talking about.
    Priorities:
    1. Yankees lose
    2. Red Sox win

    Fui sobre agua edificada, mis muros de fuego son

    Quote Originally Posted by joeycaps View Post
    So shut up because you have no idea on what you say on anything as evidence of some of your ridiculous posts.

  12. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    I don't think Northern Star meant you specifically but the generalized "you" meaning anyone.
    You know, the royal we, the editorial.
    Priorities:
    1. Yankees lose
    2. Red Sox win

    Fui sobre agua edificada, mis muros de fuego son

    Quote Originally Posted by joeycaps View Post
    So shut up because you have no idea on what you say on anything as evidence of some of your ridiculous posts.

  13. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Star View Post
    Very easy to do. Even I often don't know what I'm talking about.
    Yes, we know.
    We miss you Mike.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •