2017 Hall of Fame class

[Kimmi]

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.

[Youk Of The Nation]

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.

[Bellhorn04]

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.

[Kimmi]

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.

[Youk Of The Nation]

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.

[Northern Star]

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).

[Kimmi]

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?

[Bellhorn04]

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.

[Kimmi]

I don't think Northern Star meant you specifically but the generalized "you" meaning anyone.

OK, then I misinterpreted what he was saying.

[Northern Star]

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.

[Northern Star]

OK, then I misinterpreted what he was saying.

Very easy to do. Even I often don't know what I'm talking about.

[Northern Star]

I don't think Northern Star meant you specifically but the generalized "you" meaning anyone.

You know, the royal we, the editorial.

[User Name?]

Very easy to do. Even I often don't know what I'm talking about.

Yes, we know.