Sport Today

His accomplishments don't even begin to compare with the likes of Richard Petty
Dale Earnhardt, David Pearson, Cale Yarborough, Bobby Allison, Darrell Waltrip,
etc. etc. etc.

Here are some of his stats as recorded on the Racing Reference web site:

495 starts - 1 win
495 starts - 1 lead lap finish
102,435 laps run - 27 laps led

For comparison:

Bobby Hillin Jr.
334 starts - 1 win
334 starts - 36 lead lap finishes
89,789 laps run - 205 laps led

Derrike Cope
409 starts - 2 wins
409 starts - 47 lead lap finishes
100,607 laps run - 282 laps led

Dick Brooks
358 starts - 1 win
358 starts - 9 lead lap finishes
85,976 laps run - 665 laps led

Brett Bodine
480 starts - 1 win
480 starts - 82 lead lap finishes
135,826 laps run - 1040 laps led

All four of these guys have better numbers.  Anybody want to make the case
that Hillin, Cope, Brooks or Bodine should be in the Hall of Fame?  Didn't
think so.

Face it.  Scott is being nominated for one reason and one reason only--his
skin color.  That may be politically correct, but it ain't right.

Unfortunately, unlike say, Jackie Robinson,
he didn't "really" open the door to other black drivers....
If he did, I guess I'm just not aware of all of the black stars
that followed him..
Whereas in other sports, the black pioneers opened the
doors to what is now, the majority of sport icons.

Seriously.
One lead lap finish? Almost 500 starts?
And even it had controversy.

Going by the same false reasoning, why not Geoff Bodine?
Say what you will, be opened the door to NON southern drivers.
And he was successful...

--

Dan

A *** came home late for dinner one evening.
His wife gave him the cold shoulder.

(* I presume that, similar to baseball, the nomination will
eventually expire if he doesn't get elected.  Baseball takes
15 years.  Like everything else NASCAR on-line, the HoF site
is badly designed, and as best I can tell the complete rules
for nomination are not on the site).

John

I know we had this conversation about this time last year, but I'm sorry.  I
can
not for the life of me understand why anyone in their right mind would think
that Wendell Scott is NASCAR Hall of Fame material.

His accomplishments don't even begin to compare with the likes of Richard
Petty
Dale Earnhardt, David Pearson, Cale Yarborough, Bobby Allison, Darrell
Waltrip,
etc. etc. etc.

Here are some of his stats as recorded on the Racing Reference web site:

495 starts - 1 win
495 starts - 1 lead lap finish
102,435 laps run - 27 laps led

For comparison:

Bobby Hillin Jr.
334 starts - 1 win
334 starts - 36 lead lap finishes
89,789 laps run - 205 laps led

Derrike Cope
409 starts - 2 wins
409 starts - 47 lead lap finishes
100,607 laps run - 282 laps led

Dick Brooks
358 starts - 1 win
358 starts - 9 lead lap finishes
85,976 laps run - 665 laps led

Brett Bodine
480 starts - 1 win
480 starts - 82 lead lap finishes
135,826 laps run - 1040 laps led

All four of these guys have better numbers.  Anybody want to make the case
that Hillin, Cope, Brooks or Bodine should be in the Hall of Fame?  Didn't
think so.

Face it.  Scott is being nominated for one reason and one reason only--his
skin color.  That may be politically correct, but it ain't right.

He's not HOF material.  Simple as that.  The PC crowd thinks that he is
deserving so he gets the nomination.  IMHO, the PC crowd is not doing any
(insert minority of choice) any favors by creating false accolades of
achievement.  Nothing succeeds like success and unless you have succeeded in
any sport, regardless of your skin color, you don't deserve HOF recognition.

<climbing down from soapbox>

Mike

I'm a self taught, computer illiterate hack,
and I think the cheap-o site I made, is easier to navigate
and read, than that POS.

--

Dan

A *** came home late for dinner one evening.
His wife gave him the cold shoulder.

I've always been under the impression that the nominating committee gets
together every year and compiles a fresh list of 25 nominees.  Of course if
it's pretty much the same people compiling the list every year, it's no
surprise that the 20 who don't make it in one year get re-nominated the
following year.

I understand Scott's unique place in the sport and that sometimes it's
more than just the numbers compiled on the track that makes a candidate
worthy of the Hall.  I can see him being nominated by someone who wants to
recognize that unique place.  I just can't see him being worthy of election.

His numbers on the track are just so bad, there's no way that his "trailblazing"
will ever put him in the same league with Petty, Pearson, Earnhardt, Yarborough,
Waltrip, etc.

I don't think Scott needed to be in the same league,
Heck, I don't think Rusty Wallace is...
he just needed to be "good", and it would have
been more realistic..

--

Dan

A *** came home late for dinner one evening.
His wife gave him the cold shoulder.

I just don't think that under normal circumstances, "good" should be
good enough for the HOF.  IMHO, if you're just "good" on the track, there
has to be something else to qualify for HOF.  There are a lot of "good"
baseball players who will never be enshrined in Cooperstown.

If you're not even "good" on the track, then I say no way for the HOF.

Had Scott been more that just a perennial backmarker in rag-tag equipment,
I could see his "trailblazing" as enough to land him in the Hall.  Same thing
for Danica.  It shouldn't take Earnhardt-like numbers for her to make it,
but she at least has to win some races and contend for some championships.

Unfortunately, I still think that if they keep this "five a year" thing
going for much longer, "good" is going to be all it takes to eventually get in.

Baseball's deal is a little bit complicated, a nominee has to
get a certain percentage of votes (small, like 3%) to carry
over.  And, after enough time (15 years) if they haven't made
it in, they lose the nomination permanently.  Baseball folk,
with their love of stats, like to track how the vote changes
for various nominees to guess when they'll get in (40% two
years ago, 48% last year, 52% this year...with that trend
he'll never get to 75% for election).

It's all moot, anyway.  As long as Smokey Yunick isn't in
the hall it can't be considered a legitimate Hall of Fame.

John

Baseball's deal is a little bit complicated, a nominee has to
get a certain percentage of votes (small, like 3%) to carry
over.  And, after enough time (15 years) if they haven't made
it in, they lose the nomination permanently.  Baseball folk,
with their love of stats, like to track how the vote changes
for various nominees to guess when they'll get in (40% two
years ago, 48% last year, 52% this year...with that trend
he'll never get to 75% for election).

It's all moot, anyway.  As long as Smokey Yunick isn't in
the hall it can't be considered a legitimate Hall of Fame.

Amen!

Mike