I agree with you on Rose, but I do have some caveats. Rose did what he did as a ballplayer and nobody can take that away. His betting doesn't really seem to have been a factor in his play, so I say, sure. Let him in. Having said that though, there are some others that personally, I'd bar the gate. Mark McGwire comes to mind. Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa etc. etc. I would keep them out on the grounds that we have no idea whether they have the credentials had they played honestly. Unlike Rose, their actions did affect their play and as such, for my money, they do not get into the HOF.
Now quite frankly, I'm not an evangelist on the idea that roids
should be illegal, but the bottom line is that they are. And if they are, then using them is tantamount to peeking at the other guy's cards and should result in disqualification. If you can't play by the rules, tough. You don't have to like the rules, but you have to comply with them. Yes, yes, I know. Rose broke the rules too, but not in a way that affected his play.
Oh, yes. One other thing. Happy New Year to you too.
>Hey, Alan. Happy new year. I hope all is well with you and yours. We really do have to take in a game together at Miller Park. Let's just give it a few years until things are even better than they already are now for the Brewers ;-) In the meantime, a little voice is whispering in my ear "Comerica."
>
>In my opinion personal life shouldn't have much to do with admission. Unless you kill your wife (hello, OJ) it should be based on the body of work, period. Pete Rose is the perfect example IMO. Because he bet on sports -- not on his own team -- he is banned from the baseball hall of fame. He just happens to have had 4256 base hits. If you want to look that up on the all time list, start at the top and you don't have to look past the first entry. It's crazy. The all time hits leader excluded because he bet on some games. (I'm glad no one else does that). He was a jerk and I was never a fan but banning him from the HOF is a travesty that would make even a politician blush.
>
>The HOF is already well represented by bigots, drunkards, wife beaters, and other reprobates. If you want to find a guy you would never want to be on a desert island with, just look up Ty Cobb. The god himself, Babe Ruth, was not someone you would readily leave your child with for an afternoon. Compared to Ty at least the Babe was likeable, and your child would have been well entertained. T
>
>
>
>>I would have no problem with Schilling making the HOF. I honestly don't know anything about his personal life, but if he was such a jerk, how did he win both a Sportsman of the year and a Roberto Clemente award?
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I wouldn't have a problem with him being in. To me he is a borderline call. Take into account that my view is only the best of the best should be there.
>>>>
>>>>My two cents, Schilling is in the same league as "the best of the best".
>>>>
>>>>Part of the problem is that Schilling was very outspoken as a player. Former Phillies GM Ed Wade once said that Schilling was a work horse on days he pitched, and a horse's a$$ on days he didn't. (Come to think of it, some former employers have said the same about me, ha). He was also very outspoken about some of the rulings of MLB. I look at his low induction vote % numbers and I have to believe that's playing a factor.
>>>>
>>>>Here's what this boils down to - game 7 of the World Series. Schilling would be my first choice. His post-season numbers are very compelling. Maddux and Glavine weren't as reliable in the huge games.
>>>
>>>Repeating myself, I would have no problem with Curt Schilling in the HOF. He was unquestionably a great pitcher. Maybe he will make it some day.
>>>
>>>I think you may be overstating the case that his outspoken nature was much of a factor. That was something I thought might bite Frank Thomas, who had a reputation of being surly to reporters. It wasn't. IMO the voters did a terrific job of evaluating the bodies of work.
>>>
>>>Now here is something that intrigues me, and I will pose the question before researching the answer. How many pitchers in the HOF have fewer lifetime wins than Schilling's 216?
>>>
>>>Answer: some but not many. And most of them pitched in the dead ball days. Dizzy Dean, 150 wins, hmmm. A cult of personality for sure. Sandy Koufax was an anomaly. For a 5 year stretch in the 1960s he was the most dominant pitcher ever. His win total of 165 is a reflection of having to retire young due to chronic arm problems.
>>>
>>>UPDATE: Now this is interesting. I went on YouTube looking for a snippet of Koufax pitching in the World Series and got way more than I bargained for. Here is the entire TV broadcast of game 7 of the 1965 World Series, Koufax facing the Minnesota Twins. I don't expect you or anyone to sit and watch the entire 2.5 hours (although it would be more interesting than a lot of movies I could think of) but it's fascinating. Nearly half a century later, the things that are different and the things that remain the same.
>>>
>>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeKbktNm0Mk
