.
Arne sez,
.
Raines probably got dinged a bit in the MVP voting because of him using cocaine; similarly, Dave Parker did not do well in the HOF voting. It's part of the interesting question of how much players should be penalized for using illegal performance non-enhancing drugs, and other criminal actions.
.
Well, the writers LIKED Tim Raines.
Sometimes it is difficult to make a truly fair judgment when comparing one criminal action vs. another. In the 1960's and 1970's, "speed" was eaten like candy according to several of the autobiographies of the era. How do you WEIGHT your "moral outrage" at speed vs steroids vs cocaine vs alcoholism vs adultery vs Babe Ruth's top 20 vices?
Here in our Konspiracy Korners we assume that the Gentle Denizens are interested in fairness rather than hypocrisy, in judging our friends by the same standards we would judge our foes. By the time you put Babe Ruth into the Hall of Fame, haven't you pretty well established that you're going to smile politely, nod, and look the other way on personal vices? -or- failing that, we could compile a Top 10 Outrages in the NFL, NBA, and MLB Halls of Fame...
"Dinged a bit for cocaine." True. Is that your own response to your daughter's use of cocaine, that it dings her reputation a bit? Like, what, 8%? Good questions all...
...
Curt Schilling claims that he'd have gotten a 90% vote if he'd published a "Lynch Trump" meme and no others. The sportswriters hate Schilling's guts on two counts: (1) he is defiantly and openly conservative, and (2) he defiantly and openly hates the press. Steve Carlton, who has the same career WAR as Schilling, was guilty of only the second of these; he feuded with the media much more than Schilling ever did. Lefty was elected to the HOF with 95.6% of the vote. I flunked logic in college, as you have surmised :- ) but I'll take a wild guess that count (1) weighs heavily against Schilling.
Here is an article from this week, "Curt Schilling pitched his way into the Hall of Fame and TALKED his way out of it." Not, committed crimes and felonies to get out of it. Not, shaved points to get out of it. Not, was caught with underage girls to get out of it. Rather, TALKED his way out of it.
I know nobody asked me, but if anybody did, I am completely opposed to punishing people for what they say. USA Today makes the issue very clear. It's a single issue. Schilling deserves the HOF, but his privileges are revoked because beat writers don't like him. That's all there is to the matter, and writers cheerfully attest to that.
What integrity on the writers' part! :- )
I don't think that this is advanced ethics. I think that it is Ethics 101. If Mike Piazza had been a communist and if he had campaigned to make Christianity illegal, you can bet your last nickel that Jeff Clarke would have voted him into Baseball's Hall of Fame. And then written op-ed's arguing with Piazza.
One reason? Because it would be a simple LIE on my part to declare that Mike Piazza was not a baseball legend. If a person is truly reprehensible, in politics or baseball or blogging, you don't have to lie to prove him a fool. There will be other ways, legitimate ways, to prove him a fool.
When detractors of public figures use dubious means to attack their targets, it proves on the face of it that the actual arguments are weak. Else, the attackers wouldn't be "reaching" the way they do. Every single time the rhetoric (or punishments) against a public target become disproportionate, it counts one point in the target's favor.
Each time that an enemy attacked Barack Obama over his "closet Islamism" or over his birth certificate, it was a form of concession - it underlined that President Obama was not actually as bad as his enemies imagined him to be. Else, why not just calmly point to the facts of your case? Similarly, for the sportswriters to attack Schilling's HOF designation, speaks badly of them. Not of him.
...
The movement toward censorship and suppression in this country is gaining ever-more momentum. Many Americans are proud of suppressing their fellow citizens' speech.
But even for those disagree with that, even if they approve of censorship-in-spirit, in those cases where they are offended by the words in question ...
... I'm guessing they would still prefer the BBWAA to represent the interests of 100,000,000 baseball fans rather than their own interests.
It is simply appalling to watch beat writers preen about the fact that they can keep our Hall of Famers out of the Hall, if the HOF'er didn't treat the writers well. It is outrageous for them to brag about the fact that WE FANS don't get Curt Schilling's HOF ceremony if the WRITERS didn't like him.
Regards,
Jeff
At some point, someone will need to address the actual voters for the HOF, and where they are "distributed" around the country.
Per the show "High Heat" on the mlb network, there are 13 HOF voters that work for the NY Post alone, and over 50 in the state of New York.... and some people question if there is east coast bias.
According to the official rules:
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.
When you add 'integrity' and 'character' into the mix, things get a little muddy, don't they? I understand a theory that says, in this case, "bad character" could be equated by some to "conservative", or "politically incorrect", or something similar. But Schilling's case is a littel broader than that, isn't it?
In fact, he took $75m from the state of Rhode Island to fund his video game startup...which then collapsed. 100+ employees were simultaneously fired via email...the state guy who authorized the loan resigned...company execs bolted...the SEC found fault with both the state authority and Wells Fargo...Schilling and others were sued and settled...and the state taxpayers were left holding the bag.
So it's not just what he says...but what he did.
But that speaks to the larger point of what the Hall voters are trying to do. In my mind, this rather murky clause comes down to three types of consideration:
1) did the player act in a way that illegally improved his performance? (this is difficult because things change over time. Uppers were once OK; PEDs now are not; there are Hall members who got there by doctoring the ball or corking their bats in ways that are not now allowed)
2) did the player act in a way that was illegal or immoral but not related to baseball? (everything from smacking the girlfriend to smoking marijuana. Again, times change. Remember when the Jail Blazers were arrested for smoking pot...in a state where that act is now legal?)
3) did the player say or do something that's legal...but maybe objectionable? (Would Cobb get in now were he to demonstate the same racist statements he did back then? Should he?) Anyway, here's where I think Doc is making his point on Schilling's behalf.
But I would contend, in Schilling's case, there are also aspects of #2 above that are more relevant.
Or not.
And if BBWAA voters, as a bloc, applied the consistent principles you listed Diderot I think we'd be better off.
My observation, starting with Raines but extending to about 40% of the players in the Hall, is that the writers play shufflecups with (1) the "morals clause" and (2) their own feelings about who they like and dislike. Commit crimes but gladhand with the press, they're just as liable to look the other way. Be *obnoxious* off the field, and OFFEND the press, and they will not look the other way.
Your point (2) "Immoral but not related to baseball" is telling. Nobody who has a domestic abuse cloud hanging over them is going into the Hall of Fame. Ben Roethlisberger's crimes might be forgiveable; the accusations against Aroldis Chapman are not.
I entirely agree that sportswriters play favorites--in Hall of Fame voting, but also in what they write and broadcast every day on the basis of their feelings walking out of an NBA or NFL clubhouse.
I accept the character of cranks or glad-handers to influence how they're perceived via the media.
On the other hand, I've always felt sorry for humans on sports teams who are legitimatly shy...and because of that, come off in the press as 'sullen' or 'distant'.
Given the current makeup of MLB teams, wouldn't you want a reporter who was also fluent in Spanish (or Japanese?) to get through to the actual nature and beliefs of the players you were 'covering'?
I wonder how much the voters were aware of the cocaine issue when considering whether to vote for him. It happened 35 years ago. Whereas Schilling throws stuff in your face just about every day on Twitter and his Breitbart show, and seems to be proud of offending people. He's part of the problem of declining civility and attacking everyone you disagree with.
Two positive narrative items in Raines' favor is his recovery from lupus to play a few more seasons in the 2000s, and him taking the field with his son with the Orioles in '01. It probably helped that a lot of people consider him the greatest Expo-sure there was Carter and Dawson, and others, but I'd say Raines is the best player you remember as an Expo first.