Got a text from a friend of mine Tuesday night, shortly after the announcement that David Ortiz was elected to the Hall of Fame while Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Curt Schilling, Sammy Sosa, and all the rest were not.
I love baseball....always have. Been to Cooperstown during the hall of fame induction. Got Yogi Berra's autograph talked baseball with people (that is why i loved Joe's top 100 list) you could talk BASEBALL. I agee that most definitely players cheated i guess you can call in that even though baseball and the writers were celebrating these players and fans were watching and being brought back to the game. I think that players tested positive after mlb banned substances they most definitely cheated and should be excluded. But other than that there should be a mention on there hof plaque. And we move on
But Joe you contributed to this, you do realize it, right? You may think you have good reasons to stop supporting Curt Schilling but you are no different than the people that dislike what Kaepernick did, the difference is the insult: but both guys insulted the other side and we all decided that one was OK while the other one was very very wrong according to our emotional biases.
In this case you decided that Curt's insults are intolerable and thus contributed to the reduction of the fun you claim to miss.
Curt asked to be taken off the ballot. As Joe's said many times, induction into the Hall is an honor; if someone doesn't want to receive it through the writer's vote, I don't see any reason to ignore their wishes.
Leaving that aside, however, the comparison between Schilling and Kaepernick is so laughable that I don't even know where to start. Kaepernick's crime that outraged conservative America was kneeling during the anthem in protest of police brutality, while Schilling... well, we could be here all day if we went through all the hijinks he's gotten up to since retirement, but it all culminates in his gleeful endorsement of the idea that journalists he dislikes should get lynched. Even if you hold that neither man should lose professional opportunities because of their views or the ways they express those views, I don't think what they did was equivalent at all.
Adding onto that, Schilling's punishment was delayed induction to the Hall. He'll almost certainly get in soon, perhaps even later this year. Kaepernick was blacklisted from the sport for his protest, despite the fact that all the analytics and footage we have available show him to be at LEAST an above-average player at his position. If you want to compare Kaepernick to anyone named Curt in baseball history, you're probably better off comparing him to Curt Flood.
And you think that if Schilling had not asked to be removed Joe and others would've voted for him? I think you are rationalizing not voting for him, nobody withheld a vote for him because he asked it.
As for the comparison, it feels like you are saying that I am right: conservatives got offended by Kaepernick, liberals got offended by Schilling, this is very clear and as I said, the only difference between the two sides is which insult offends you and which one doesn't; in your case it appears obvious that Kaepernick's didn't offend you, fine, I'm not trying to say who is right and who isn't, my point is that Joe participated in eliminating the "fun" because Curt's insult offended him, that was all.
And your last point that he'll get in. Joe himself mentions that if it happens with Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, etc., it won't fix it, we spend years going through this and an eventual induction doesn't erase it, again, he said this, so go and make your own post disagreeing with him about it.
"False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges."
Sorry, I don't see how you can equate Kaepernick's or Schilling's actions in either quantity or degree, and Kaepernick paid a much higher price in both career and earnings. It would be like weighing the bulk of every President's erroneous statements and equating them all as equal liars.
In regards to fun, there was a social media post from a friend of mine who isn't an NFL fan. He watched the Bills/Chiefs game and came away with a negative comment about the overtime rule & how dumb the game was. NFL fans, however, were aghast that he didn't appreciate the greatness of the game. So what if the OT rule is dumb (and it is). In fact, there's already talk of changing the rule, at least for the playoffs. The vast majority of NFL fans appreciate the good things about the game & recognize, but largely discount the stupid things. MLB fans, including me, spend a lot of time dissecting all the terrible, stupid and downright damaging things that MLB does. The rules, length of games, the 4 hour 1 am playoff games, pitching changes, on and on. I honestly do think that's on MLB and how slow they are to make changes that make the game better. I mean, Bud Selig and the Union (and people need to point quite a bit of ire at the player's union, not just Bud) really weren't interested in fixing the steroid problems until players were called before Congress. That would NEVER happen in the NFL. Baseball invites negative scrutiny because they're so slow to adjust & fix problems. Unfortunately.
I cannot and will not ever get over the cheating. Never. I feel the same way about the Astros World Series team. It sickens me Bonds passed Aaron in HRs.
To me, this has more to do with the Hall of Fame being cowards than anything. If they had just said, up front, that you can't get into the hall if you did x, y, or z, then we wouldn't have to go back and forth with all this. It would be understood in the way Shoeless Joe being out is understood. But they didn't and so we have had to go through this ritual year after year. Btw, I grew up in the 90s watching all these guys and honestly, I'm ok with Bonds, Clemens, McGwire being out. Besides, just because they don't have a plaque doesn't mean there aren't exhibits about them in the museum itself.
The HOF didn't say Bonds & Clemens couldn't be in. They were on the ballot. So they were completely OK with them being voted in, or not. This is on the writers. Blaming this result on the HOF is just plain ignorant. The HOF doesn't vote at all & they had nothing to do with whether Bonds & Clemens were voted in, or not.
You know, no-one forces us to look at baseball history through the prism of a family-run museum in New York state.
Any writer is free to write about, say, "Let's rank the best pitchers of the last 40 years", or even "Let's describe the best pitchers of the last 40 years". Writers don't have to make every piece of writing into "Should he be in the Hall of Fame: yes or no?"
Also, writers are free to write as much about Griffey as they do about Bonds, even though Griffey has been "elected".
BRAVO! I've often asked why people even bother being fans of sports, of teams, of players, when it seems to make them miserable and pissed off so much of the time. I thought sports were supposed to be FUN...
I'm a Braves fan, so obviously this past year has been wonderful! But so many of the things written were about how the Braves didn't deserve to be champions, how the division they played in was bad, and how they just got lucky. They completely missed the magic of the last two months of the season & the playoff run. Not completely, of course, but they couldn't help but delve into the negative stuff. My favorite articles were from the Houston press. I think they actually captured it right. Houston should have won, but they didn't play well, and the Braves lived up to the moment & came through in the key situations.
I've never been to the Baseball Hall of Fame, but I live close enough that I could drive and make a fun weekend out of it. Baseball is a game I loved to play growing up, and I am amazed at the players that exceled far beyond the talent that I had. I have listened and read so many different things about why certain players should be elected or not elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Right or wrong, liked or disliked, as a fan, I want to see the athletes that played at the highest level on the field that brought joy (or tears) to fans. In the end, I just want to have an experience as I see the tributes for my favorite players, learn things about players I never knew existed, and honor the people who have helped move along the evolution of baseball.
I'm a child of the 70's but no baseball scholar. Still, it seemed like the men of the golden age would have measured up to the stars of the day. Baseball was still the country's pastime. We'd still listen to games on the radio. Baseball didn't change. It didn't need to change and we didn't want it to change. But the players started bulking up in the 80's, and the computers came in with the millennium, and the game changed. And we changed, just not *with* baseball but rather parallel to it. And there's some changing yet to do. But during all that time the HoF stayed the same. Maybe if we can figure out what we want from the HoF, we will have a better idea of what we want from modern baseball.
Love Joe, but not convinced. The "life goes on" argument to support them going in as jerks and cheats also applies to them being rejected. One thing that Joe misses is that one aspect of the magic of the HOF is that there is a sizable group of people who love the inductee and almost no one who strongly dislikes him. Would not be true for Bonds or Clemons.
Ironically (or maybe not at all), the Veteran's Committee vote was in and out of the news almost immediately, much like the NFL HOF announcement every year. It's the constant grousing about the Hall that makes fans care so much more.
Thank you (and your friend) for slapping me happy. I have been getting sick of the Hall of Fame selection, which I grew up feeling was as important as sainthood is to devout Catholics. Maybe you're right: let in the best from a generation of baseball leadership that looked the other way, if not encouraged, steroid use. Then we could get back to arguing the merits of how players affected the game.
The first story by Joe P. that I read was about Rulon Gardner the Olympic wrestler. I can think of only a few sports I care less about than wrestling. But I was swept away by Joe's writing and the joy with which he weaves a story and I've been a fan ever since.
Baseball has always brought me the same joy. Memories of games I've attended and watched on TV and the fascination with the statistics and with the intricacies of the game have made baseball my favorite sport, even as the game has devolved into overly long slugfests.
Long ago I gave up on the issue of PEDs as a deciding issue on the eligibility to the Hall of Fame, as ownership's blind eye to the use of illegal drugs to drive up profits was the underlying driving force behind the foolishness. And ownership's lack of responsibility, leaving the players to take the wrap, was the true sin. Joe's view on Bonds and Clemens is convincing on this issue to my mind.
Joe's point that the arguments for and against inclusion of the PED users in the Hall ignores the joy of the game is on point. Like everything else in society today one must take a side and argue endlessly in absolutist terms. There is no longer any middle ground, no mild opinions, no willingness to enjoy the exchange of views. And when there is no middle ground, when raw ability is dismissed because of over-riding absolutist views, the joy of the game is diminished.
I love baseball....always have. Been to Cooperstown during the hall of fame induction. Got Yogi Berra's autograph talked baseball with people (that is why i loved Joe's top 100 list) you could talk BASEBALL. I agee that most definitely players cheated i guess you can call in that even though baseball and the writers were celebrating these players and fans were watching and being brought back to the game. I think that players tested positive after mlb banned substances they most definitely cheated and should be excluded. But other than that there should be a mention on there hof plaque. And we move on
But Joe you contributed to this, you do realize it, right? You may think you have good reasons to stop supporting Curt Schilling but you are no different than the people that dislike what Kaepernick did, the difference is the insult: but both guys insulted the other side and we all decided that one was OK while the other one was very very wrong according to our emotional biases.
In this case you decided that Curt's insults are intolerable and thus contributed to the reduction of the fun you claim to miss.
Curt asked to be taken off the ballot. As Joe's said many times, induction into the Hall is an honor; if someone doesn't want to receive it through the writer's vote, I don't see any reason to ignore their wishes.
Leaving that aside, however, the comparison between Schilling and Kaepernick is so laughable that I don't even know where to start. Kaepernick's crime that outraged conservative America was kneeling during the anthem in protest of police brutality, while Schilling... well, we could be here all day if we went through all the hijinks he's gotten up to since retirement, but it all culminates in his gleeful endorsement of the idea that journalists he dislikes should get lynched. Even if you hold that neither man should lose professional opportunities because of their views or the ways they express those views, I don't think what they did was equivalent at all.
Adding onto that, Schilling's punishment was delayed induction to the Hall. He'll almost certainly get in soon, perhaps even later this year. Kaepernick was blacklisted from the sport for his protest, despite the fact that all the analytics and footage we have available show him to be at LEAST an above-average player at his position. If you want to compare Kaepernick to anyone named Curt in baseball history, you're probably better off comparing him to Curt Flood.
And you think that if Schilling had not asked to be removed Joe and others would've voted for him? I think you are rationalizing not voting for him, nobody withheld a vote for him because he asked it.
As for the comparison, it feels like you are saying that I am right: conservatives got offended by Kaepernick, liberals got offended by Schilling, this is very clear and as I said, the only difference between the two sides is which insult offends you and which one doesn't; in your case it appears obvious that Kaepernick's didn't offend you, fine, I'm not trying to say who is right and who isn't, my point is that Joe participated in eliminating the "fun" because Curt's insult offended him, that was all.
And your last point that he'll get in. Joe himself mentions that if it happens with Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, etc., it won't fix it, we spend years going through this and an eventual induction doesn't erase it, again, he said this, so go and make your own post disagreeing with him about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
"False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges."
Sorry, I don't see how you can equate Kaepernick's or Schilling's actions in either quantity or degree, and Kaepernick paid a much higher price in both career and earnings. It would be like weighing the bulk of every President's erroneous statements and equating them all as equal liars.
All of this. All.Of.This. Thank you
In regards to fun, there was a social media post from a friend of mine who isn't an NFL fan. He watched the Bills/Chiefs game and came away with a negative comment about the overtime rule & how dumb the game was. NFL fans, however, were aghast that he didn't appreciate the greatness of the game. So what if the OT rule is dumb (and it is). In fact, there's already talk of changing the rule, at least for the playoffs. The vast majority of NFL fans appreciate the good things about the game & recognize, but largely discount the stupid things. MLB fans, including me, spend a lot of time dissecting all the terrible, stupid and downright damaging things that MLB does. The rules, length of games, the 4 hour 1 am playoff games, pitching changes, on and on. I honestly do think that's on MLB and how slow they are to make changes that make the game better. I mean, Bud Selig and the Union (and people need to point quite a bit of ire at the player's union, not just Bud) really weren't interested in fixing the steroid problems until players were called before Congress. That would NEVER happen in the NFL. Baseball invites negative scrutiny because they're so slow to adjust & fix problems. Unfortunately.
I cannot and will not ever get over the cheating. Never. I feel the same way about the Astros World Series team. It sickens me Bonds passed Aaron in HRs.
To me, this has more to do with the Hall of Fame being cowards than anything. If they had just said, up front, that you can't get into the hall if you did x, y, or z, then we wouldn't have to go back and forth with all this. It would be understood in the way Shoeless Joe being out is understood. But they didn't and so we have had to go through this ritual year after year. Btw, I grew up in the 90s watching all these guys and honestly, I'm ok with Bonds, Clemens, McGwire being out. Besides, just because they don't have a plaque doesn't mean there aren't exhibits about them in the museum itself.
The HOF didn't say Bonds & Clemens couldn't be in. They were on the ballot. So they were completely OK with them being voted in, or not. This is on the writers. Blaming this result on the HOF is just plain ignorant. The HOF doesn't vote at all & they had nothing to do with whether Bonds & Clemens were voted in, or not.
Great writing.
You know, no-one forces us to look at baseball history through the prism of a family-run museum in New York state.
Any writer is free to write about, say, "Let's rank the best pitchers of the last 40 years", or even "Let's describe the best pitchers of the last 40 years". Writers don't have to make every piece of writing into "Should he be in the Hall of Fame: yes or no?"
Also, writers are free to write as much about Griffey as they do about Bonds, even though Griffey has been "elected".
BRAVO! I've often asked why people even bother being fans of sports, of teams, of players, when it seems to make them miserable and pissed off so much of the time. I thought sports were supposed to be FUN...
I'm a Braves fan, so obviously this past year has been wonderful! But so many of the things written were about how the Braves didn't deserve to be champions, how the division they played in was bad, and how they just got lucky. They completely missed the magic of the last two months of the season & the playoff run. Not completely, of course, but they couldn't help but delve into the negative stuff. My favorite articles were from the Houston press. I think they actually captured it right. Houston should have won, but they didn't play well, and the Braves lived up to the moment & came through in the key situations.
I've never been to the Baseball Hall of Fame, but I live close enough that I could drive and make a fun weekend out of it. Baseball is a game I loved to play growing up, and I am amazed at the players that exceled far beyond the talent that I had. I have listened and read so many different things about why certain players should be elected or not elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Right or wrong, liked or disliked, as a fan, I want to see the athletes that played at the highest level on the field that brought joy (or tears) to fans. In the end, I just want to have an experience as I see the tributes for my favorite players, learn things about players I never knew existed, and honor the people who have helped move along the evolution of baseball.
Hear! Hear!
Well done, Joe!
Finally, someone was able to put into words what we have been feeling in our hearts for years, but were unable to adequately express in words.
Thanks, Joe, and well done!
I'm a child of the 70's but no baseball scholar. Still, it seemed like the men of the golden age would have measured up to the stars of the day. Baseball was still the country's pastime. We'd still listen to games on the radio. Baseball didn't change. It didn't need to change and we didn't want it to change. But the players started bulking up in the 80's, and the computers came in with the millennium, and the game changed. And we changed, just not *with* baseball but rather parallel to it. And there's some changing yet to do. But during all that time the HoF stayed the same. Maybe if we can figure out what we want from the HoF, we will have a better idea of what we want from modern baseball.
Well said. Put the greatest players in the hall and their stories on the plaques. All of it.
Love Joe, but not convinced. The "life goes on" argument to support them going in as jerks and cheats also applies to them being rejected. One thing that Joe misses is that one aspect of the magic of the HOF is that there is a sizable group of people who love the inductee and almost no one who strongly dislikes him. Would not be true for Bonds or Clemons.
Ironically (or maybe not at all), the Veteran's Committee vote was in and out of the news almost immediately, much like the NFL HOF announcement every year. It's the constant grousing about the Hall that makes fans care so much more.
Thank you (and your friend) for slapping me happy. I have been getting sick of the Hall of Fame selection, which I grew up feeling was as important as sainthood is to devout Catholics. Maybe you're right: let in the best from a generation of baseball leadership that looked the other way, if not encouraged, steroid use. Then we could get back to arguing the merits of how players affected the game.
The first story by Joe P. that I read was about Rulon Gardner the Olympic wrestler. I can think of only a few sports I care less about than wrestling. But I was swept away by Joe's writing and the joy with which he weaves a story and I've been a fan ever since.
Baseball has always brought me the same joy. Memories of games I've attended and watched on TV and the fascination with the statistics and with the intricacies of the game have made baseball my favorite sport, even as the game has devolved into overly long slugfests.
Long ago I gave up on the issue of PEDs as a deciding issue on the eligibility to the Hall of Fame, as ownership's blind eye to the use of illegal drugs to drive up profits was the underlying driving force behind the foolishness. And ownership's lack of responsibility, leaving the players to take the wrap, was the true sin. Joe's view on Bonds and Clemens is convincing on this issue to my mind.
Joe's point that the arguments for and against inclusion of the PED users in the Hall ignores the joy of the game is on point. Like everything else in society today one must take a side and argue endlessly in absolutist terms. There is no longer any middle ground, no mild opinions, no willingness to enjoy the exchange of views. And when there is no middle ground, when raw ability is dismissed because of over-riding absolutist views, the joy of the game is diminished.