In the three years he has been on the ballot, Schilling has received 38.8% (2013), 29.2% (2014), and 39.2% (2015), far below the necessary 75% for induction.
Putting aside the issue of whether Curt Schilling is a Hall of Fame pitcher, his opinion caught my ear, because I've never thought of mainstream sportswriters as flaming liberals.
Speaking on WEEI, Schilling commented on John Smoltz's strong support:
I think he got in because of [Greg] Maddux and [Tom] Glavine. I think the fact that they won 14 straight pennants. I think his "Swiss army knife versatility," which somebody said yesterday, I think he got a lot of accolades for that, I think he got a lot of recognition for that. He's a Hall of Famer. And I think the other big thing is that I think he's a Democrat and so I know that, as a Republican, that there's some people that really don't like that. ... Listen, when human beings do something, anything, there's bias and prejudice. ... I do know that there are guys who probably won't ever vote for me because of the things that I said or did. That's the way it works.Craig Calcaterra of HardballTalk sets the record straight with something entirely foreign to Schilling - facts:
For the record, Smoltz is not a Democrat. He has been reported to be "an avowed Republican," and has been courted for political office in the past by the Republican party. Here are Smoltz's political contribution records. Note the little "Rs" next to the candidates names. Oh, and Smoltz once compared gay marriage to beastiality, which tends not to be a pinko-liberal stance.And, right on cue, Schilling now says he was only joking, tweeting:
Ok, let me be very clear. If you didn't hear or see any of it, you are relying on some idiots to report a joke as fact. Reliable sources....You can listen to the interview here. He is not making jokes. Schilling is, yet again, full of shit.
4 comments:
He's such a meathead.
To be honest, I don't think Schilling's assertion here is that far-fetched. We know that the people who vote for these things often make their decisions for completely arbitrary reasons.
"I can't vote for this obvious Hall of Famer because Ted Williams wasn't voted in unanimously his first year of eligibility--two wrongs make a right. ... I can't vote in so-and-so because while I think he's a Hall of Famer, I'm going to wait several years--by which time there might not even be room for him on the limited ballot--because I need to indicate he's not as good as certain other Hall of Famers. ... I can't vote Farrell as manager of the year in 2013 because even though his team wasn't expected to do much this year, historically the Red Sox have been American League favorites, and I lack the ability to differentiate between seasons, so I will vote for Joe Maddon again because he wears glasses and drinks wine. ... I won't vote for Pedro because he beat my Indians team a lot, and also because I lost my ballot behind my cubicle desk and never asked for a new one, but mostly because I hate him because he was too good against my Indians."
It would not surprise me in the least to think that certain voters would exclude a player because of they didn't like the way he expressed his political views. In fact, I'd be shocked if such a thing has never happened.
It would not surprise me in the least to think that certain voters would exclude a player because of they didn't like the way he expressed his political views. In fact, I'd be shocked if such a thing has never happened.
I agree with this. But I'd be ten times as shocked if it happened because the player was conservative or pro-war, and not at all surprised if it happened because the player had made statements against a war or was considered liberal.
Also, for a player - for anyone - to whine about not winning an award or receiving honour is pretty low-rent. Talk about entitlement.
"...not at all surprised if it happened because the player had made statements against a war..."
Well this is definitely true as well. While Schilling's personality may have indeed influenced some HOF voters to not judge his numbers fairly--if things had been turned around and he were publicly *against* any of the multiple power grabs, uh, I mean liberation movements we're currently part of, not only would lots of HOF voters be turned off by that, he'd probably be publicly vilified even outside the relatively small sphere of sports fans. He sure as heck would've never gotten a job as an ESPN talking head.
Post a Comment