Baseball writers who vote on the Hall of Fame is the biggest group of faggot in the world. Those pecker heads are stuck on themselves like no other group. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry:
Baseball writers who vote on the Hall of Fame is the biggest group of bundle of sticks in the world. Those pecker heads are stuck on themselves like no other group.
Originally Posted by jd1020:
Bonds and Clemens have never been banned.
Originally Posted by Pasta Little Brioni:
You know what I meant...JFC
Okay - but it's not really a distinction without a difference.
You can't blame "Baseball" writ large because the BBWAA decided not to vote any of those guys in. They have remained eligible and the HoF voters haven't selected them.
And as Frazod noted, nor have they selected Curt Schilling for petty personal reasons.
I'll never have a positive word to say about the BBWAA, but I don't think you can castigate 'baseball' as an entity because of their actions. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jd1020:
Well, you say a lot of stupid shit, so when you connect Rose to Bonds and Clemens as if they are remotely similar situations, it's not easy to determine if you are just being stupid... again.
Players get 10 years on the ballot, provided they meet the minimum number of votes to return in following years. The people who decide who gets in during those 10 years are sports writers, not MLB. Bonds received 66% of votes in his final year, Clemens received 65%. 75% is required to make it into the HoF. Thus, neither one is in the HoF. However, there is still a chance that they will end up in the HoF by being voted in by the Veterans Committee.
Rose has never been on a ballot because he agreed to be banned from the sport for breaking the #1 rule that is written in every fucking locker room.
Right.
'Baseball' is the reason Rose never got in. Honestly, I think the BBWAA would've put him in had he actually been on the ballot (because the hero worship among men of a particular age for Pete Rose simply knows no bounds; it's positively Bruce Springsteen-esque).
But the BBWAA decided not to put those other guys in on their own. And many of them DID vote for them and suffered no negative repercussions for it, so it's not as though Bud Selig was back there threatening to pull their credentials or anything.
'Baseball' isn't why those guys didn't make it. Baseball writers are. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
Curt schilling is probably a bubble hall of famer. So there could be a merit argument here. But a lot of his case seems personal which is dumb
But if there was ever a true snub this is probably it because he is probably being blackballed for his opinions versus conduct.
There's nothing 'bubble' about Schilling's case.
It's as good or better than Verlanders and he'll get in first ballot. He has more WAR than any pitcher eligible for the Hall who isn't in by a LOT. Kevin Brown is in 2nd and has 68 to Schilling's 80 (and Brown was also an asshole).
That's a massive gap. Meanwhile Jim Palmer, Smoltz, Glavine, Kaat, Morris and a slew of others are in and those guys had nowhere near the career of Schilling. At least Brown's 68 is below the average HoFer's 73, but Schilling's sure as hell isn't. And we're not talking about Schilling vs. the worst HoFer - that's the AVERAGE. He's clearly better than the middle of the pack HoFer -- by any definition that's not a bubble guy.
Oh, and he was a MONSTER in the post-season. 10-1 with an ERA of 2.23 and the 2001 World Series MVP (1993 NLCS MVP as well).
He's above the average HoFer in black ink and gray ink standards and WRECKS the HoF monitor (a 171 w/ a 'likely' HoFer set at 100). He has the peak, the duration and the post-season accolades to stand up to anyone short of maybe the 10-15 best pitchers to ever live.
No, there's nothing borderline or bubble about Schilling's HoF candidacy. He's a guy that probably should've gone in 1st ballot and definitely by the 3-5 range.
The BBWAA didn't let him in because they're petty bitches. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
There's nothing 'bubble' about Schilling's case.
It's as good or better than Verlanders and he'll get in first ballot. He has more WAR than any pitcher eligible for the Hall who isn't in by a LOT. Kevin Brown is in 2nd and has 68 to Schilling's 80 (and Brown was also an asshole).
That's a massive gap. Meanwhile Jim Palmer, Smoltz, Glavine, Kaat, Morris and a slew of others are in and those guys had nowhere near the career of Schilling. At least Brown's 68 is below the average HoFer's 73, but Schilling's sure as hell isn't. And we're not talking about Schilling vs. the worst HoFer - that's the AVERAGE. He's clearly better than the middle of the pack HoFer -- by any definition that's not a bubble guy.
Oh, and he was a MONSTER in the post-season. 10-1 with an ERA of 2.23 and the 2001 World Series MVP (1993 NLCS MVP as well).
He's above the average HoFer in black ink and gray ink standards and WRECKS the HoF monitor (a 171 w/ a 'likely' HoFer set at 100). He has the peak, the duration and the post-season accolades to stand up to anyone short of maybe the 10-15 best pitchers to ever live.
No, there's nothing borderline or bubble about Schilling's HoF candidacy. He's a guy that probably should've gone in 1st ballot and definitely by the 3-5 range.
The BBWAA didn't let him in because they're petty bitches.
I don’t disagree with you but fair or not, wins and ERA are the shiny object lots of people attach themselves to. But yes I agree he absolutely belongs and unlike drugs or gambling, schilling is being blackballed simply because there are sportswriters who don’t like him which is a horseshit reason [Reply]
'Baseball' is the reason Rose never got in. Honestly, I think the BBWAA would've put him in had he actually been on the ballot (because the hero worship among men of a particular age for Pete Rose simply knows no bounds; it's positively Bruce Springsteen-esque).
But the BBWAA decided not to put those other guys in on their own. And many of them DID vote for them and suffered no negative repercussions for it, so it's not as though Bud Selig was back there threatening to pull their credentials or anything.
'Baseball' isn't why those guys didn't make it. Baseball writers are.
No baseball player is in Springsteen's league. In fact, Springsteen should be in the baseball hall of fame on pure principle. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
No baseball player is in Springsteen's league. In fact, Springsteen should be in the baseball hall of fame on pure principle.
Springsteen is more overrated than Pete Rose.
I'll never forgive him for trying to pass a kidney stone during "We Are the World"
And...well...pretty much every other song he ever 'sang' for that matter.
Somehow he reached deity status when John Cougar Mellencamp is better in every possible way. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RedinTexas:
Frankly, I think they both suck.
Y'know what? I'll allow it.
I can't agree, but I can understand the thought.
I just cannot wrap my head around the idea that Bruce Springsteen is amazing in any way.
Born to Run - good song. Born in the USA - banger; make it the National Anthem for all I care.
The rest is junk. Why I am supposed to be amazed by Thunder Road? Badlands? Dude just sounds like lounge singer with a guitar in that song. In fact, in most of his songs he sounds like he's ripping off Elvis.
And frankly it just goes downhill from there. Racing in the Street? "Hey, what if I took a Jackson Browne song and made it worse in every way?" The River is just Bob Dylan if he had a stroke (though in fairness, Bob Dylan kinda sounds like he had a stroke anyway).