Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson gain posthumous Hall of Fame eligibility.

Will Curt Schilling continue to be blackballed?

Now that major league baseball has lifted its ban on Hall of Fame consideration not just for Pete Rose but also for players who conspired to throw, and in some cases did throw, the 1919 World Series, maybe it’s time to stop excluding players from the Hall of Fame on account of their political views.

I was never sympathetic to Rose, but he probably belongs in the Hall of Fame. Shoeless Joe Jackson does not. At a minimum, he took money in exchange for agreeing to blow the World Series. That should permanently disqualify him

Curt Schilling never agreed to blow a World Series. He was a World Series hero, one of the all-time great performers in the Fall Classic. As far as we know, Schilling never bet on baseball. Nor is there any evidence that he used performance enhancing substances or abused women.

Yet, despite credentials that undoubtedly warrant Hall of Fame admission, sportswriters blackballed Schilling because of his politically incorrect views. In effect, they cancelled him.

There’s no other plausible explanation for Schilling’s exclusion other than opinions he expressed, including shots at the media. Nor have writers tried to hide the fact that their strong dislike of his statements about political matters explain their vote to exclude him.

Joe Posnanski, a prominent voter, candidly admitted that this was the basis for his refusal to vote for Schilling. So did Mark Faller, sports editor of the Arizona Republic, who wrote, presumptuously, “Curt Schilling needs to know, or be reminded, there are consequences to what he says.”

I have little doubt that the writers like Posnanski and Faller are raging against Donald Trump for being, as they see it, anti-free speech. And I assume they oppose any form of ostracism for athletes who express their hatred towards police officers and/or contempt for America. But somehow, it’s okay to punish athletes who express extreme right-wing opinions.

I understand the distinctions between the cases of Rose and Shoeless Joe on the one hand and Schilling on the other. Rose and Jackson aren’t being admitted to the Hall of Fame, they have only been made eligible for the honor. (Rose is almost certain to be admitted, but the odds are against Jackson, I think.) Schilling, unlike Rose and Jackson, has always been eligible for the Hall of Fame. And Schilling, unlike Rose and Jackson, is alive (MLB made it clear that the transgressions of Rose and Jackson have been washed away for Hall of Fame voting purposes only because they are dead.)

But in my view, these distinctions do not mitigate the unfairness of allowing the possibility of Hall of Fame admission for Jackson, whose corrupt violation of baseball’s most fundamental rule dealt a major blow to game, while permitting voters to blackball a player for his political views.

Baseball gives voters that power through the list of factors they are told to consider in voting on whether to admit players into the Hall of Fame. These factors are a player’s record, ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and team contributions.

Writers use the “character” criterion to justify their vote against Schilling. In doing so, they equate the expression of political views they despise with poor character. To me, that’s more than just unfair. It’s disgusting.

Baseball should eliminate “character” from its list of criteria. Why should we care if a great player was a louse? And why should sportswriters be entrusted with judging players’ character?

The inclusion of “integrity” and “sportsmanship” would be sufficient to exclude Shoeless Joe, as well as players who used performance enhancing drugs, if that’s what voters want to do. But selectors would no longer be in the business of judging character, a highly subjective assessment that invites mischief, especially when the exercise is carried out by virtue-signaling left-liberal sportswriters.

As for Schilling, the window for Hall of Fame induction via the vote of sportswriters has closed. Fortunately, he remains eligible and can be voted in by a committee that meets every few years to consider players who have fallen off the sportswriters’ ballot. But the committee’s criteria are the same as those the writers consider, so Schilling can still be denied admission for his political views.

Schilling might continue to be blackballed even if the Hall of Fame were to eliminate the “character” criterion. But eliminating it would send a clear message that political views have no place in Hall of Fame voting. That message might make the difference for Schilling.

Finally, I should note that in his last year of eligibility for admission via the writers’ vote, Schilling asked that his name be removed from the ballot. The Hall of Fame denied that request.

I don’t blame Schilling for his request. In fact, I think it was a good way to protest the absurdity of his exclusion for nine years by left-liberal sportswriters and, indeed, to thumb his nose at them. (They, of course, thumbed theirs right back at him. His share of votes declined markedly, which almost never happens in a player’s final appearance on the writer’s ballot.)

It’s likely that Schilling would be happy to be voted into the Hall of Fame by a jury of his peers (so to speak), as opposed to sportswriters. In any case, that jury should vote him in. In the unlikely event that Schilling declines the honor, so be it. At least the Hall of Fame will have done its best to rectify the injustice that liberal sportswriter inflicted.

And I will once again be able to take the Hall of Fame seriously.