Wendell Scott

Wendell Scott

Post by bob.pax.. » Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:54:35


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.

 
 
 

Wendell Scott

Post by Anna Khond » Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:49:57

Quote:

>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

>*** 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.

Everything you said up until the last paragraph,
is wasted time...
The last one is the only one that really matters.

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.

 
 
 

Wendell Scott

Post by John McCo » Sat, 13 Apr 2013 02:28:19



Quote:
> I know we had this conversation about this time last year
<...>
> 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.

The key point in your post is "last year".  As I understand
it, the NASCAR HoF rules are that, once nominated a candidate
stays on the ballot in succeeding years.  So, having nominated
Scott, rightly or wrongly, last year, he's now on the ballot
and will be for the forseeable future (*).

(* 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

 
 
 

Wendell Scott

Post by Mike Simmon » Sat, 13 Apr 2013 03:06:51



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

 
 
 

Wendell Scott

Post by Anna Khond » Sat, 13 Apr 2013 03:48:38

Quote:

> .....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 still can't get over how horrible the site is now.
Serioiusly.
What were they thining??

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.

 
 
 

Wendell Scott

Post by bob.pax.. » Sat, 13 Apr 2013 06:40:39

Quote:

> The key point in your post is "last year".  As I understand
> it, the NASCAR HoF rules are that, once nominated a candidate
> stays on the ballot in succeeding years.  So, having nominated
> Scott, rightly or wrongly, last year, he's now on the ballot
> and will be for the forseeable future (*).

You may be right, but I haven't heard of any kind of provision that
says a nomination lasts until either you're elected or the nomination
expires several years down the road. I've never heard anything like that
mentioned in any of the print or broadcast media that covers the HOF.

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.

 
 
 

Wendell Scott

Post by Anna Khond » Sat, 13 Apr 2013 16:43:12

Quote:

> 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.

Realistically, until JJ, or JG come along,
few will ever equal that group...

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.

 
 
 

Wendell Scott

Post by bob.pax.. » Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:31:34

Quote:

> Realistically, until JJ, or JG come along,
> few will ever equal that group...>

> 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..

I think there are always going to be drivers who are the cream of
the current crop.  Johnson, Gordon, Stewart are there already today.
Those guys are definite HOF material.  I see Brad K and Kyle Busch
joining that group eventually.

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.

 
 
 

Wendell Scott

Post by John McCo » Sun, 14 Apr 2013 02:59:04



Quote:
> You may be right, but I haven't heard of any kind of provision that
> says a nomination lasts until either you're elected or the nomination
> expires several years down the road. I've never heard anything like
> that mentioned in any of the print or broadcast media that covers the
> HOF.

Pretty sure when the HoF first started they explained how the
process was based on baseball's, and that nominations carry
over to the next year (as Pearson's did).

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

 
 
 

Wendell Scott

Post by Mike Simmon » Mon, 15 Apr 2013 01:52:41




Quote:
> You may be right, but I haven't heard of any kind of provision that
> says a nomination lasts until either you're elected or the nomination
> expires several years down the road. I've never heard anything like
> that mentioned in any of the print or broadcast media that covers the
> HOF.

Pretty sure when the HoF first started they explained how the
process was based on baseball's, and that nominations carry
over to the next year (as Pearson's did).

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