Because it was cheating that was a bridge too far.

And it was even illegal and they tried to hide it when it was formally banned - any and all of those reasons.

So, then what about Pete Rose? He didn't "juice". A "bridge too far" is just so non-definitive.
We have always had racists in our Country. Thus there were racists in baseball. Expected.

You couldn't keep people out for their racism (historically) because racists were common amongst ballplayers of those eras.
Thus, by modern standards, some folks got in we wouldn't vote in nowadays.

But I'm actually glad about that. Warts on our heroes is educational.
They shouldn't have kept Ty Cobb (or a # of others) out of the Hall just because he was a _________?
For me, it's the same with Bonds, or even Rose.
They are humans. We learn from our idols. I LOVED Mickey Mantle as a young lad. I LEARNED a LOT from his life, his poor choices, AND his words near the end of his days.

Bonds (and a few others) should be IN the Hall of Fame. Without his/their inclusion the whole concept of Hall of Fame is a huge JOKE!

Schilling should be in or NOT based ONLY on his performance on the field!
I still think he's out/too marginal.

rose didn't juice but he did bet on baseball while he managed the reds

potentially subjecting MLB to another black sox scandal

and schilling seems to be paying a price for his dumbassery not his play

but really the hall needs all ballplayers good or evil

a fame wing and a shame wing if you will

read the plaques

very little space for words like juiced and cheated



stick with the stats

throw in a adjective if you have to

but the greats there ain no space

The Hall's refusal to take a side on the PED issue has caused this mess. In the case of Rose, they decided betting on games was over the line and kicked him off the ballot, taking it out of the voter's hands and keeping Rose's name out of the headlines every January for 10-15 years. Whether you agree with that decision or not, at least they showed some leadership, took a side and largely buried the story.

From what I gather, most of the former players in the Hall don't want the PED guys in, but rather than just booting them off the ballot, they've decided to depend on the writers to keep them out via the character clause. Now every year since 2007 (when McGwire first showed up on the ballot), the majority of the Hall of Fame debate has centered around the morality of PEDs, rather than a debate about on-field performance. And with A-Rod debuting on the ballot next year, it's going to continue for at least another 10 years.

So it's no surprise that so much talk of the character clause and morality has spilled over into non-PED users, where the voters now feel they have to make a judgement on what level of alleged criminal behavior is too far, or how fringe your political beliefs can be before that's too far. And to litigate these debates, we now have to dig up every unsavory thing ever done by anyone already in the Hall of Fame as a basis of comparison.

Just a total failure of leadership. They should have either banned them from the ballot or directed the voters to ignore alleged PED use. But they didn't, and here we are in this mess of the same debate every single year, and it's only going to get worse.

Posted by 06gsp on 1/28/2021 12:52:00 PM (view original):
The Hall's refusal to take a side on the PED issue has caused this mess. In the case of Rose, they decided betting on games was over the line and kicked him off the ballot, taking it out of the voter's hands and keeping Rose's name out of the headlines every January for 10-15 years. Whether you agree with that decision or not, at least they showed some leadership, took a side and largely buried the story.

From what I gather, most of the former players in the Hall don't want the PED guys in, but rather than just booting them off the ballot, they've decided to depend on the writers to keep them out via the character clause. Now every year since 2007 (when McGwire first showed up on the ballot), the majority of the Hall of Fame debate has centered around the morality of PEDs, rather than a debate about on-field performance. And with A-Rod debuting on the ballot next year, it's going to continue for at least another 10 years.

So it's no surprise that so much talk of the character clause and morality has spilled over into non-PED users, where the voters now feel they have to make a judgement on what level of alleged criminal behavior is too far, or how fringe your political beliefs can be before that's too far. And to litigate these debates, we now have to dig up every unsavory thing ever done by anyone already in the Hall of Fame as a basis of comparison.

Just a total failure of leadership. They should have either banned them from the ballot or directed the voters to ignore alleged PED use. But they didn't, and here we are in this mess of the same debate every single year, and it's only going to get worse.

Great summary....when you say they do you mean the Commissioner.

the people who run the hall of fame:

https://baseballhall.org/about-the-hall/staff/board-of-directors

wow she's a looker

Posted by dino27 on 1/27/2021 10:19:00 PM (view original):
Standards have changed for the character issues as society and laws and mores have evolved.

most fraternities exclude for extreme repulsive character issues or crimes. The q’anon and insurrection goes way way beyond “politics”.
when it doesn’t we are all f¥*#£d.

There is a segment of society that think they define what is acceptable. This "evolution" - while some of it has been positive, there are those that take it way over the line and want to cancel you if you don't fit their standard of society. This has gone way too far. Heaven forbid society evolves more and you find yourself on the other side of the new "standard of human decency." I don't know you, but I suspect that you are an upstanding human being that most people would like on their side. What happens when, despite being a solid person, others have decided that they don't like this or that about you or your beliefs, or lack thereof, and have decided that you need to be chastised or outcast in some form? I get there are crazies out there, and I don't know if Schilling is one of them, but all of this shaming and cancelling is aimed at getting everyone to comply. Some might say the goal is unity - but only unifying with the standard set by those in charge. For a country that protects free speech, we really aren't free to speak our unique opinions without being worried about who is coming for us - today, next month, or a few years from now when things have "evolved" more?

There is always right and wrong.
I defended his views on politics that I consider despicable and would have admitted him but if he went around using the n word about Obama let’s say I would say that went over the line and makes him unworthy.
and supporting insurrection where 5 people died. Scores of officers hospitalized and one at least maimed and there was an effort to murder politicians mass murder cannot be excused.
again if that’s considered cancel culture and looked down upon then we are all f~€<£d!

the baseball hall of fame is the hof of the “American pastime “ and I think that there was always a belief that American values should be considered and that the character of the applicant and accomplishments off the field in sports or out could elevate a candidate and similarly detractions could lower the candidacy.

many fraternities have standards. Baseball is not unique.
im sick of right wingster cancel culture victimizing screeching.
maybe just be decent human beings because there is a right and wrong and fetid cheese is not feta cheese.

take the cancel culture debate to the politics forum please, being denied entry to the extremely exclusive hall of fame is not a threat to freedom by any sane definition

Posted by 06gsp on 1/28/2021 3:43:00 PM (view original):
take the cancel culture debate to the politics forum please, being denied entry to the extremely exclusive hall of fame is not a threat to freedom by any sane definition

That is correct sir.

One thing on this subject. Even without his politics schilling was never an 85% guy. Maybe an 80% max.
even this season he was only 20 or so votes under his probable optimum number and maybe he even picked up some votes because of his politics. You would think that was possible too.

Posted by fatguyrd on 1/27/2021 6:36:00 PM (view original):
I think the Hall needs to make some changes.

Suggestions
1. To stay on the ballot raise the % to 20 or 25 %
2. To stay on after that your total has to increase say by 5 % a year.
3. Have a panel of experts, in place of the old timers committee. Include some HOF members, baseball media, managers or GM, scouts, who 5 years after you go off the ballot have a final review.
4. Base only on field performance, get rid of the “character” clause. They ignored it with Ty Cobb ( and I would guess others)

No more Ty Cobb slander. He comes from a long line of abolitionists, was one of the 1st celebrities to endorse Jackie Robinson, regularly attended Negro League games, and donated immense amounts of money into the AA community.

Also he was against the sharpening of spikes and brought the issue to the commissioner.

He wasn’t just some lonely, angry racist with no friends.