Who's a Hall of Famer?

[Canadouche]

I'm in the minority here but I think it's kinda cool that Jack Morris got in, despite not deserving so based purely on the numbers.

He has roughly the same career bWAR as Carlos Zambrano and he sexually harassed a female reporter and has never once apologized. Fuck him.

Well, time to expel the Yankees of the 1960's (and presumably earlier) who used to look through peepholes in the dugout to see up the skirts of women sitting in the stands.

What an odd response.

It's hard for me to find the line between condemning people for their egregious behaviours and acknowledging that most people think and sometimes say stupid shit, especially older folks who grew up in a different environment than today's. I'd rather talk about his accomplishments on the field, or lack of them, than focus on his off-the-field sexism, mostly because I'm sure that he, and many of our athletic heroes, hold a number of outrageous beliefs that are better left unspoken and not acted upon. And if you are arguing that he doesn't belong in the Hall because he's a piece of shit towards women, then I think we need to scrutinize a lot of other guys who are in there who are, undoubtedly, pieces of shit towards women. Hence the odd response - I feel like it's easier to make a somewhat glib response than say all this shit.

[Saul Goodman]

I'm in the minority here but I think it's kinda cool that Jack Morris got in, despite not deserving so based purely on the numbers.

He has roughly the same career bWAR as Carlos Zambrano and he sexually harassed a female reporter and has never once apologized. Fuck him.

Well, time to expel the Yankees of the 1960's (and presumably earlier) who used to look through peepholes in the dugout to see up the skirts of women sitting in the stands.

What an odd response.

It's hard for me to find the line between condemning people for their egregious behaviours and acknowledging that most people think and sometimes say stupid shit, especially older folks who grew up in a different environment than today's. I'd rather talk about his accomplishments on the field, or lack of them, than focus on his off-the-field sexism, mostly because I'm sure that he, and many of our athletic heroes, hold a number of outrageous beliefs that are better left unspoken and not acted upon. And if you are arguing that he doesn't belong in the Hall because he's a piece of shit towards women, then I think we need to scrutinize a lot of other guys who are in there who are, undoubtedly, pieces of shit towards women. Hence the odd response - I feel like it's easier to make a somewhat glib response than say all this shit.

#NotOwned #NotMad #ActuallyLaughing

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

I'm in the minority here but I think it's kinda cool that Jack Morris got in, despite not deserving so based purely on the numbers.

He has roughly the same career bWAR as Carlos Zambrano and he sexually harassed a female reporter and has never once apologized. Fuck him.

Well, time to expel the Yankees of the 1960's (and presumably earlier) who used to look through peepholes in the dugout to see up the skirts of women sitting in the stands.

What an odd response.

It's hard for me to find the line between condemning people for their egregious behaviours and acknowledging that most people think and sometimes say stupid shit, especially older folks who grew up in a different environment than today's. I'd rather talk about his accomplishments on the field, or lack of them, than focus on his off-the-field sexism, mostly because I'm sure that he, and many of our athletic heroes, hold a number of outrageous beliefs that are better left unspoken and not acted upon. And if you are arguing that he doesn't belong in the Hall because he's a piece of shit towards women, then I think we need to scrutinize a lot of other guys who are in there who are, undoubtedly, pieces of shit towards women. Hence the odd response - I feel like it's easier to make a somewhat glib response than say all this shit.

Maybe it's easier, but it's kind of the point of a messageboard to flesh out ideas you think are worth articulating.  You could have just written what you ended up writing here rather than be glib and have your point lost.  I actually tend to agree that Morris' behavior toward a reporter is irrelevant to the discussion of his qualifications as one of the greatest players to have played the game, if only because I tend to operate under the assumption that a majority of pro athletes are insufferable, entitled assholes to begin with.  Not all of them--I was pleased to see recent signee Brandon Morrow is apparently vocally anti-Trump (though I don't think that merits extra consideration for his Hall of Fame candidacy either)-- but definitely most of them, certainly at least 85% of the white ones.   A player being a dick to a woman reporter?  Throw it on the pile. What really should disqualify Morris is that his career is hardly better than Kevin Appier's and that's probably where the discussion rests.

[flannj]

I'm in the minority here but I think it's kinda cool that Jack Morris got in, despite not deserving so based purely on the numbers.

He has roughly the same career bWAR as Carlos Zambrano and he sexually harassed a female reporter and has never once apologized. Fuck him.

Well, time to expel the Yankees of the 1960's (and presumably earlier) who used to look through peepholes in the dugout to see up the skirts of women sitting in the stands.

What an odd response.

It's hard for me to find the line between condemning people for their egregious behaviours and acknowledging that most people think and sometimes say stupid shit, especially older folks who grew up in a different environment than today's. I'd rather talk about his accomplishments on the field, or lack of them, than focus on his off-the-field sexism, mostly because I'm sure that he, and many of our athletic heroes, hold a number of outrageous beliefs that are better left unspoken and not acted upon. And if you are arguing that he doesn't belong in the Hall because he's a piece of shit towards women, then I think we need to scrutinize a lot of other guys who are in there who are, undoubtedly, pieces of shit towards women. Hence the odd response - I feel like it's easier to make a somewhat glib response than say all this shit.

This part is horse shit.

Okay I'm going to edit not because of my usual typing inaccuracies but because this stupid "our generation is more enlightened view" pisses me off.
I would put up my father and my father in law and many of that generation as some of the best and most considerate people I have ever been lucky enough to learn from.

Bad men have always existed and no more or less than today. Views upon behavior are included in that.
Both of the men that I mentioned above would have punched a guys lights out for inappropriate behavior towards a woman.
As would I.
So I guess once again "Fuck you Kurt".

[Quality Start Machine]

Back to the original point, Jack Morris is tied with Bob Caruthers for 139th all-time among pitchers with a 43.8 WAR.

It took him 17 seasons to hit that number, while Steve Rogers had 45.3 in 13 years.

Jack Morris getting elected to the Hall of Fame is a monumental fuckup.

[Canadouche]

I'm in the minority here but I think it's kinda cool that Jack Morris got in, despite not deserving so based purely on the numbers.

He has roughly the same career bWAR as Carlos Zambrano and he sexually harassed a female reporter and has never once apologized. Fuck him.

Well, time to expel the Yankees of the 1960's (and presumably earlier) who used to look through peepholes in the dugout to see up the skirts of women sitting in the stands.

What an odd response.

It's hard for me to find the line between condemning people for their egregious behaviours and acknowledging that most people think and sometimes say stupid shit, especially older folks who grew up in a different environment than today's. I'd rather talk about his accomplishments on the field, or lack of them, than focus on his off-the-field sexism, mostly because I'm sure that he, and many of our athletic heroes, hold a number of outrageous beliefs that are better left unspoken and not acted upon. And if you are arguing that he doesn't belong in the Hall because he's a piece of shit towards women, then I think we need to scrutinize a lot of other guys who are in there who are, undoubtedly, pieces of shit towards women. Hence the odd response - I feel like it's easier to make a somewhat glib response than say all this shit.

This part is horse shit.

Okay I'm going to edit not because of my usual typing inaccuracies but because this stupid "our generation is more enlightened view" pisses me off.
I would put up my father and my father in law and many of that generation as some of the best and most considerate people I have ever been lucky enough to learn from.

Bad men have always existed and no more or less than today. Views upon behavior are included in that.
Both of the men that I mentioned above would have punched a guys lights out for inappropriate behavior towards a woman.
As would I.
So I guess once again "Fuck you Kurt".

For starters, I said that most people say stupid shit. I never said all people do, so I'm glad that, like a lot of us, you were exposed to strong male role models who knew how to act respectfully toward people, regardless of race or gender.

It would be foolish to assume that every individual alive in the mid 1800's held racist viewpoints towards minorities. If they all felt that way, then there would've been nobody to incite change or progress. It'd be foolish to assume that every German in the 1930's hated Jewish people. So I'm not blanket-stating that all men were sexist or all people were racist or whatever. But I think it's a mistake to hold what anybody said in 1990 to the standards of 2017. Bernie Sanders wrote some crazy shit about women in the 1970's, as well (which, when taken in context isn't quite as crazy, but it's still something from which he'd like to distance himself).

On the other hand, if you want to go after every sexually abusive baseball player, whether they stopped at sexist comments or did something even worse, I'm on board. But at this point, I don't think that's going to happen. I think it's only a matter of time, though, before we start hearing about executives who prevented women from moving up in the hierarchy of their organizations.

[flannj]

I'm in the minority here but I think it's kinda cool that Jack Morris got in, despite not deserving so based purely on the numbers.

He has roughly the same career bWAR as Carlos Zambrano and he sexually harassed a female reporter and has never once apologized. Fuck him.

Well, time to expel the Yankees of the 1960's (and presumably earlier) who used to look through peepholes in the dugout to see up the skirts of women sitting in the stands.

What an odd response.

It's hard for me to find the line between condemning people for their egregious behaviours and acknowledging that most people think and sometimes say stupid shit, especially older folks who grew up in a different environment than today's. I'd rather talk about his accomplishments on the field, or lack of them, than focus on his off-the-field sexism, mostly because I'm sure that he, and many of our athletic heroes, hold a number of outrageous beliefs that are better left unspoken and not acted upon. And if you are arguing that he doesn't belong in the Hall because he's a piece of shit towards women, then I think we need to scrutinize a lot of other guys who are in there who are, undoubtedly, pieces of shit towards women. Hence the odd response - I feel like it's easier to make a somewhat glib response than say all this shit.

This part is horse shit.

Okay I'm going to edit not because of my usual typing inaccuracies but because this stupid "our generation is more enlightened view" pisses me off.
I would put up my father and my father in law and many of that generation as some of the best and most considerate people I have ever been lucky enough to learn from.

Bad men have always existed and no more or less than today. Views upon behavior are included in that.
Both of the men that I mentioned above would have punched a guys lights out for inappropriate behavior towards a woman.
As would I.
So I guess once again "Fuck you Kurt".

For starters, I said that most people say stupid shit. I never said all people do, so I'm glad that, like a lot of us, you were exposed to strong male role models who knew how to act respectfully toward people, regardless of race or gender.

It would be foolish to assume that every individual alive in the mid 1800's held racist viewpoints towards minorities. If they all felt that way, then there would've been nobody to incite change or progress. It'd be foolish to assume that every German in the 1930's hated Jewish people. So I'm not blanket-stating that all men were sexist or all people were racist or whatever. But I think it's a mistake to hold what anybody said in 1990 to the standards of 2017. Bernie Sanders wrote some crazy shit about women in the 1970's, as well (which, when taken in context isn't quite as crazy, but it's still something from which he'd like to distance himself).

On the other hand, if you want to go after every sexually abusive baseball player, whether they stopped at sexist comments or did something even worse, I'm on board. But at this point, I don't think that's going to happen. I think it's only a matter of time, though, before we start hearing about executives who prevented women from moving up in the hierarchy of their organizations.

Most people? Don't give me that mealy mouth crap. You said "especially older folks"

You said "But I think it's a mistake to hold what anybody said in 1990 to the standards of 2017"
Seriously? Standards of 2017?

Fuck you and your displaced generational views.

[Oleg]

I'm in the minority here but I think it's kinda cool that Jack Morris got in, despite not deserving so based purely on the numbers.

He has roughly the same career bWAR as Carlos Zambrano and he sexually harassed a female reporter and has never once apologized. Fuck him.

Well, time to expel the Yankees of the 1960's (and presumably earlier) who used to look through peepholes in the dugout to see up the skirts of women sitting in the stands.

What an odd response.

It's hard for me to find the line between condemning people for their egregious behaviours and acknowledging that most people think and sometimes say stupid shit, especially older folks who grew up in a different environment than today's. I'd rather talk about his accomplishments on the field, or lack of them, than focus on his off-the-field sexism, mostly because I'm sure that he, and many of our athletic heroes, hold a number of outrageous beliefs that are better left unspoken and not acted upon. And if you are arguing that he doesn't belong in the Hall because he's a piece of shit towards women, then I think we need to scrutinize a lot of other guys who are in there who are, undoubtedly, pieces of shit towards women. Hence the odd response - I feel like it's easier to make a somewhat glib response than say all this shit.

This part is horse shit.

Okay I'm going to edit not because of my usual typing inaccuracies but because this stupid "our generation is more enlightened view" pisses me off.
I would put up my father and my father in law and many of that generation as some of the best and most considerate people I have ever been lucky enough to learn from.

Bad men have always existed and no more or less than today. Views upon behavior are included in that.
Both of the men that I mentioned above would have punched a guys lights out for inappropriate behavior towards a woman.
As would I.
So I guess once again "Fuck you Kurt".

For starters, I said that most people say stupid shit. I never said all people do, so I'm glad that, like a lot of us, you were exposed to strong male role models who knew how to act respectfully toward people, regardless of race or gender.

It would be foolish to assume that every individual alive in the mid 1800's held racist viewpoints towards minorities. If they all felt that way, then there would've been nobody to incite change or progress. It'd be foolish to assume that every German in the 1930's hated Jewish people. So I'm not blanket-stating that all men were sexist or all people were racist or whatever. But I think it's a mistake to hold what anybody said in 1990 to the standards of 2017. Bernie Sanders wrote some crazy shit about women in the 1970's, as well (which, when taken in context isn't quite as crazy, but it's still something from which he'd like to distance himself).

On the other hand, if you want to go after every sexually abusive baseball player, whether they stopped at sexist comments or did something even worse, I'm on board. But at this point, I don't think that's going to happen. I think it's only a matter of time, though, before we start hearing about executives who prevented women from moving up in the hierarchy of their organizations.

Well, we've now come to the moment where Kurt grinds my gears.

The shit bolded above is a pet peeve.  The idea being that those oppressed need to be rescued...like some sort of a damsel in distress bullshit.  You do know that there were people like Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglas and a whole bunch of the people who were actually oppressed who helped themselves, right?  Who were not only integral to the movement that freed the slaves but were a voice for others who were oppressed otherwise.  But, yeah, also John Brown, I guess.

I guess it's cool to give Lyndon Johnson credit for the Civil Rights Act but the people who made the difference were those who were actually oppressed.

So, yeah...inciting change?  That's fucking done, throughout history, by those who want the change and that's those who were oppressed in the first place.

I guess I can understand where you're coming from...you're trying to make a very clumsy point.  But knock it off.

[Oleg]

The thing I will say about Morris is that it seems that those who get in via the veteran's committee or whatever they're calling themselves now rarely are seen as the standard by which to judge other candidates.  So, I suppose it's nice for Morris to get in and I suppose we can think that he's not really deserving but he'll also probably not do anything to reset the criteria of admittance.

Having said that, the BBWA sucks too, so, whatever.

[Canadouche]

Well, we've now come to the moment where Kurt grinds my gears.

The shit bolded above is a pet peeve.  The idea being that those oppressed need to be rescued...like some sort of a damsel in distress bullshit.  You do know that there were people like Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglas and a whole bunch of the people who were actually oppressed who helped themselves, right?  Who were not only integral to the movement that freed the slaves but were a voice for others who were oppressed otherwise.  But, yeah, also John Brown, I guess.

I guess it's cool to give Lyndon Johnson credit for the Civil Rights Act but the people who made the difference were those who were actually oppressed.

So, yeah...inciting change?  That's fucking done, throughout history, by those who want the change and that's those who were oppressed in the first place.

I guess I can understand where you're coming from...you're trying to make a very clumsy point.  But knock it off.

Hey, sorry I hit on one of your pet peeves. I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to justify it, except to say, the majority in power literally fought a war to free the slaves. Slaves didn't just stop slaving one day to get their freedom - sympathetic non-slaves had to champion their cause and literally spend human lives to make it happen. It's a little more murky with my second example, because we certainly didn't enter the war to stop the Holocaust, but there were absolutely non-Jewish people who were trying to raise public awareness to enact some kind of response. So, if your point is that the disenfranchised don't need the enfranchised, I have to generally disagree with you - I feel that change only happens when the majority decide it to, albeit through awareness brought on by a necessary vocal minority. But I'm open to what you're saying. I just think we're basically looking at the same thing from opposite ends.

[Canadouche]

I'm in the minority here but I think it's kinda cool that Jack Morris got in, despite not deserving so based purely on the numbers.

He has roughly the same career bWAR as Carlos Zambrano and he sexually harassed a female reporter and has never once apologized. Fuck him.

Well, time to expel the Yankees of the 1960's (and presumably earlier) who used to look through peepholes in the dugout to see up the skirts of women sitting in the stands.

What an odd response.

It's hard for me to find the line between condemning people for their egregious behaviours and acknowledging that most people think and sometimes say stupid shit, especially older folks who grew up in a different environment than today's. I'd rather talk about his accomplishments on the field, or lack of them, than focus on his off-the-field sexism, mostly because I'm sure that he, and many of our athletic heroes, hold a number of outrageous beliefs that are better left unspoken and not acted upon. And if you are arguing that he doesn't belong in the Hall because he's a piece of shit towards women, then I think we need to scrutinize a lot of other guys who are in there who are, undoubtedly, pieces of shit towards women. Hence the odd response - I feel like it's easier to make a somewhat glib response than say all this shit.

This part is horse shit.

Okay I'm going to edit not because of my usual typing inaccuracies but because this stupid "our generation is more enlightened view" pisses me off.
I would put up my father and my father in law and many of that generation as some of the best and most considerate people I have ever been lucky enough to learn from.

Bad men have always existed and no more or less than today. Views upon behavior are included in that.
Both of the men that I mentioned above would have punched a guys lights out for inappropriate behavior towards a woman.
As would I.
So I guess once again "Fuck you Kurt".

For starters, I said that most people say stupid shit. I never said all people do, so I'm glad that, like a lot of us, you were exposed to strong male role models who knew how to act respectfully toward people, regardless of race or gender.

It would be foolish to assume that every individual alive in the mid 1800's held racist viewpoints towards minorities. If they all felt that way, then there would've been nobody to incite change or progress. It'd be foolish to assume that every German in the 1930's hated Jewish people. So I'm not blanket-stating that all men were sexist or all people were racist or whatever. But I think it's a mistake to hold what anybody said in 1990 to the standards of 2017. Bernie Sanders wrote some crazy shit about women in the 1970's, as well (which, when taken in context isn't quite as crazy, but it's still something from which he'd like to distance himself).

On the other hand, if you want to go after every sexually abusive baseball player, whether they stopped at sexist comments or did something even worse, I'm on board. But at this point, I don't think that's going to happen. I think it's only a matter of time, though, before we start hearing about executives who prevented women from moving up in the hierarchy of their organizations.

Most people? Don't give me that mealy mouth crap. You said "especially older folks"

You said "But I think it's a mistake to hold what anybody said in 1990 to the standards of 2017"
Seriously? Standards of 2017?

Fuck you and your displaced generational views.

It really seems like you're looking for a reason to be angry. What exactly is your point? Like, are you arguing that everybody thinks the same now as they did 30 years ago? Are you saying that the idea of acceptable behaviour has been static, and even now isn't any different than it was, say, 100 years ago? Are you arguing that people aren't a product of their environments, but instead are a product of some unwavering standard of human decency and compassion that has always existed as it is now? I'm not being facetious - I don't understand what you're trying to argue here.

[flannj]

Wrong is wrong. 30 years ago or today. The awfulness of being sexist or abusive or to behave indecently hasn't changed. I find it unfortunate that people think there is a new enlightenment. The act of being a decent human being has existed for centuries. Even for older folks.

[Oleg]

Well, we've now come to the moment where Kurt grinds my gears.

The shit bolded above is a pet peeve.  The idea being that those oppressed need to be rescued...like some sort of a damsel in distress bullshit.  You do know that there were people like Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglas and a whole bunch of the people who were actually oppressed who helped themselves, right?  Who were not only integral to the movement that freed the slaves but were a voice for others who were oppressed otherwise.  But, yeah, also John Brown, I guess.

I guess it's cool to give Lyndon Johnson credit for the Civil Rights Act but the people who made the difference were those who were actually oppressed.

So, yeah...inciting change?  That's fucking done, throughout history, by those who want the change and that's those who were oppressed in the first place.

I guess I can understand where you're coming from...you're trying to make a very clumsy point.  But knock it off.

Hey, sorry I hit on one of your pet peeves. I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to justify it, except to say, the majority in power literally fought a war to free the slaves. Slaves didn't just stop slaving one day to get their freedom - sympathetic non-slaves had to champion their cause and literally spend human lives to make it happen. It's a little more murky with my second example, because we certainly didn't enter the war to stop the Holocaust, but there were absolutely non-Jewish people who were trying to raise public awareness to enact some kind of response. So, if your point is that the disenfranchised don't need the enfranchised, I have to generally disagree with you - I feel that change only happens when the majority decide it to, albeit through awareness brought on by a necessary vocal minority. But I'm open to what you're saying. I just think we're basically looking at the same thing from opposite ends.