2021 Hall of Fame class...

[tpeichel]

Technically, it is correct that there is nothing in the HOF voting guidance that says a players "beliefs" should matter. It is right and proper that the HOF voting guidance doesn't include the word "beliefs", for obvious reasons. But the HOF guidance DOES talk specifically about "integrity" and "character":

"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."

So let's not talk about Schilling's beliefs. Let's talk about character and integrity. Curt Schilling has demonstrated over and over and over again that he is extremely deficient in both of these things. If this is the question:

"What is an example of bad character that would keep Schilling out of the HOF?"

the answer is "Are you kidding me?" Take 5 minutes to google this idiot. Curt Schilling's sordid history is not fake news, and there is very little room to play devil's advocate on this. This man is seriously lacking in character and integrity. He literally tweeted support for the insurrectionists that stormed the capitol on the day it happened.

Curt Schilling still has every right in the world to think, say, and do whatever the hell he wants. This is a free country, and I believe in that.

But when it comes to the HOF, voters have rights too. And their charge from the HOF spells this out. They are instructed to consider a candidate's integrity and character when deciding their votes. So if our HOF voters see a man like Schilling, who has repeatedly shown himself to be morally bankrupt and lacking in character, and integrity (and in my view lacking in intelligence and human decency as well), and they decide that this makes a difference in their voting, they are 100% within their rights to do so. Same thing goes when the Giants tell Aubrey Huff "yeah, we're good without you". And no specious arguments about Ty Cobb, or this cancel culture garbage, changes this fact in any way.

However, as I've said, if I had a vote I would put his dumb ass in the HOF. He earned on the field, and that's what matters most to me, more than a person's behavior off the field. But other HOF voters have other ideas, and they are absolutely allowed to hold those ideas. And come on, nobody is "destroying" his life by not voting for him for the HOF.

Fair enough. The problem is that character and integrity are subjective. In my opinion, womanizers, drunk drivers, philanderers and cheaters do not have character or integrity, but the Hall of Fame is filled with them.

Hank Aaron took amphetamines while Barry Bonds took steroids to enhance his performance. Baseball has known about these drugs since the early 70s and did very little to stop it. Now they want to be morality police?

 

[bstanwood]

Schilling rates pretty high on the Douch-o-meter, no doubt. Then again a large amount of the writers with votes score just as high as Schilling on that scale. By the numbers and contributions to his teams he's likely a hall of famer, but we can't be surprised he's not getting enough support. Mariano Rivera was the first player to ever...EVER get 100% of the vote. That doesn't mean he's the best player of all time, it simply shows these guys are all over the place with their thoughts and "logic".
Put him in, don't put him in I really don't care, but let's not pretend he's the first guy that didn't get votes because of his character. It's not a new thing to do solely with today's culture.