Curt Schilling claims he lost Hall of Fame votes because he's a Republican

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sanjuro said:
He did steroids. Fell asleep in the clubhouse.
Click to expand...

UScsPZs.gif
 
So how did Tony LaRussa get in despite his participation in Tea Party rallies

It's almost as if Curt thinks he was better than he actually was *shocker*
 
The voters for the BBHOF are almost all old, curmudgeon and white.

There is no group of people in America where being a Republican would help you gain acceptance more.
 
Schilling plays the victim card way too much. At this point he just needs to shut up and back away from the spotlight. He's only digging a bigger hole for himself. This guy is embarrassing himself with almost every word out of his mouth these days.
 
Parmadillo Marshmallow said:
Schilling plays the victim card way too much. At this point he just needs to shut up and back away from the spotlight. He's only digging a bigger hole for himself. This guy is embarrassing himself with almost every word out of his mouth these days.
Click to expand...

If he didn't open his mouth, then he wouldn't be Curt Schilling. I appreciate every moment we had him. Pure entertainment gold.
 
BPoole said:
It wouldn't surprise me seeing how Republicans get talked about on here
Click to expand...

Well, when they do things worth talking about (or mocking), they get talked about. These days, that's pretty damn often.

This is just another case of the conservative persecution complex at work. If he's talented enough, political affiliation won't make a bit of difference whether he gets the votes or not.
 
Schilling is an idiot, but was a hell of a pitcher. I'd probably vote him in, and I don't think he was left off for his political views. Also, it's not that people don't like that he's Republican, it's that people don't like that he's a young earth creationist and dismisses any scientific evidence to the contrary. And he screwed a lot of people out of jobs and money by running a company extremely poorly. People don't like that you are an unethical idiot, Curt. And that's your own damn fault.
 
The baseball hall of fame IS a political mess. They dont care which way you lean, but they care when you say stupid shit like "we still have monkeys" and constantly belittle the media(even as a media member now). The voters are a bunch of pretentious assholes like Mike Wilbon who couldn't make a little league team if their dad was the coach.

Schilling isn't a HOFer to me without the bloody sock, and even i think that was dreased up. Until the steroid guys like Bonds and Clemens gets in, he shouldn't be in. I didn't think Biggio deserved it, but he got in by proxy.
 
He's not good enough to be a first ballot HOFer and I think the juicing he did probably had a lot more impact on the voting than his political views. Baseball writers aren't especially fond of those known to have juiced.
 
andycapps said:
He's not good enough to be a first ballot HOFer and I think the juicing he did probably had a lot more impact on the voting than his political views. Baseball writers aren't especially fond of those known to have juiced.
Click to expand...

He is a HoFer and finished pretty much exactly where I expected him to for his first ballot...even with the blockage.
 
I've had personal dealings with the man and I've let it be known what kind of person he is (an asshole). That said he will be in the hall of fame in short order and he deserves it. One hell of a big game pitcher
 
Ninja Scooter said:
Piazza lost votes because one time someone saw pimples on his back. When it comes to having a gripe over voters being stupid, get in line Curt.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing people saying that he is gay probably also cost him some votes. The Hall of Fame voters are a bunch of old white guys. Some voters haven't covered the game full-time in years.

Character/Integrity leaves a lot of wiggle room for men who aren't even required to provide an explanation for their votes. They don't have to disclose either. It wouldn't surprise me if voters didn't vote someone in because they didn't like someone for racist reasons. I'm sure that also extends to religious and political reasons too. Schilling made stupid comments to Twitter, he's been publicly shamed for stealing public money in Rhode Island, and was a noted jerk to all those who know baseball.

I think Schilling loses votes for being a jerk more than he does for being Christian or Republican.

He was a great pitcher though. Baseball writers also get a kick out of holding guys out. They're punishing Bonds and Clemens right now. Bagwell is getting punished too. Piazza had pimples on his back according to some middle-aged baseball scribe, so he's juicing.

Schilling is a jerk, but he's not too far from the truth. Baseball writers will use any petty reasoning to hold someone out of the Hall of Fame. It makes them feel powerful.
 
Why do some republicans love to act as victim, usually in the same breath after complaining about the PC society and minorities playing the race card?
 
Schilling didn't get in because he's not yet good enough to get in.

I'm sure he will though, if for no other reason than he's got rings (at least two of which were franchise-legend tier) on top of his very good, almost HOF-level (at least in his generation) stats. Mike Mussina theoretically has a better case than him for the Hall, but he doesn't have the rings like Schilling does.
 
dave is ok said:
Schilling
Win–loss record 216–146
Earned run average 3.46
Strikeouts 3,116

Pedro
Win–loss record 219–100
Earned run average 2.93
Strikeouts 3,154
Click to expand...

well obviously three stats alone are not enough, but even if you are going over only three stats, Pedro had a better Win-Loss record, a MUCH better ERA and more strikeouts. You just made the point that Pedro deserved it more that Shilling.
 
Ninja Scooter said:
Pedro's peak years were monstrous though. He was the Sandy Koufax of this generation in that regard.
Click to expand...

To counter that, Schilling is one of the best postseason pitchers of all time. 11-2 record with a 2.2 ERA and 5-1 in elimination games. On the biggest stage against the highest level of competition. That puts Schilling over the top for me, even if his regular season numbers are slightly below normal HOF levels. He didn't, say, get hot in two postseason runs during his peak, but demonstrated sustained excellence and dominance in the postseason throughout a long career. 01 World Series MVP, the bloody sock game, game 7 against Cleveland; c'mon.

Pedro: better peak. Schilling: better in the postseason. Both belong in the Hall.
 
captmcblack said:
Schilling didn't get in because he's not yet good enough to get in.

I'm sure he will though, if for no other reason than he's got rings (at least two of which were franchise-legend tier) on top of his very good, almost HOF-level (at least in his generation) stats. Mike Mussina theoretically has a better case than him for the Hall, but he doesn't have the rings like Schilling does.
Click to expand...

Depends on your standard. Personally I think a real HoF should be reserved for the absolute best of the best. The handful of players that were the pinnacle of their generation. By that description I don't think Schilling makes it. But When you guys like Jim Rice, Jon Smoltz and Biggio are making it, what you are creating is a Hall of Very Good, in which case i don't understand how Schilling doesn't belong.
 
Stupid thing for him to say, but Curt Schilling is absolutely a hall of famer in my book.

He'll get there
 
JinjoUnchained said:
To counter that, Schilling is one of the best postseason pitchers of all time. 11-2 record with a 2.2 ERA and 5-1 in elimination games. On the biggest stage against the highest level of competition. That puts Schilling over the top for me, even if his regular season numbers are slightly below normal HOF levels. He didn't, say, get hot in two postseason runs during his peak, but demonstrated sustained excellence and dominance in the postseason throughout a long career. 01 World Series MVP, the bloody sock game, game 7 against Cleveland; c'mon.

Pedro: better peak. Schilling: better in the postseason. Both belong in the Hall.
Click to expand...

He definitely deserves credit for that but it's also at the end of the day a small sample size. To me that wouldn't put him on the level of someone who has had an entire HoF worthy career. I mean, would you argue that to this point Madison Bumgarner has had as good of a career as Clayton Kershaw?
 
Bombasador said:
Smoltzy's a pretty conservative guy and it wasnt an issue for him. Maybe it's because he swindled RI and ruined a perfectly good pair of socks.
Click to expand...

Based on what i've seen Smoltz say over the years, I'm willing to bet he's actually TWICE as conservative as Schilling is, and is also probably a massive dickhead to boot. And he got in just fine.

Maybe it's not his politics that annoy people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Grimes calls out Elon Musk on Twitter because he's ignoring his child's medical crisis
2
70
6K
Days like these... replied
What is a skill you had but lost?
2
54
1K
BennyBlanco replied
Amazing remake of Raiders of the Lost Ark in the early 80’s
4
1K
Evil Calvin replied
Netflix previews new UI changes (and AI, because of course, everything needs AI)
12
793
Bojji replied
30 years ago we lost Selena.
11
1K
squallheart replied
Top Bottom