next page.

From Joe Sheehan's newsletter:

Although Mark McGwire, Jeff Bagwell and Rafael Palmeiro all carry -- fairly or no -- the stigma of performance-enhancing drug use to a voting pool obsessed with the issue, those three are just a warmup for the next 15 years.... From next year until both [Bonds and Clemens] are elected or fall off the ballot, every single Hall cycle will be about their treatment by the voters -- not the players who get elected while they wait.

...Each year [McGwire and Palmeiro] remain on the ballot is an embarrassment not for the players, but for a voting pool that has shown the collective intellectual consistency and curiosity of a Kardashian sister.

...It's worth noting that with Bonds, Clemens, Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza and Sammy Sosa all becoming eligible for the Hall next season, I won't have enough room on my theoretical ballot to vote for all these players should none be elected (of this group, only Larkin will likely go in). This will be a problem for real voters who do not see themselves as arbiters of a fictional morality as well. In 2014, Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux and Frank Thomas become eligible, leaving the very real possibilty that a single ballot could include a dozen clearly-qualified Hall of Famers. The Hall has an enormous problem on its hands, as the longer overqualified players populate the ballot, the harder it will become for anyone to get 75% of the vote in a given year. The only thing that has ever gotten the Hall off its duff is a dearth of electees who bring crowds to Cooperstown, and they may be headed for that before the decade is out.

Thank you Ray.

Ichiro will make it on the first ballot due to the Far East Coast media bias.

That's quite a line by Sheehan:

This will be a problem for real voters who do not see themselves as arbiters of a fictional morality as well.

So let me see, real voters are the ones who share the same non-"fictional morality" as he does. Yet, based on his own morality, he's willing to do the same that he claims what I suppose he would label the nonreal voters do- marginalize those disagreed with. I must have missed the memo about God singling out Sheehan and handing him a diploma of authenticity regarding his infallible claim to moral discernment.

Well, to be honest, I wouldn't have expected any better from Sheehan. It's not like he's ever been able to catch himself in his own hypocrisy before.

EDIT: Sheehan must be getting debating tips from Sarah Palin.

Well, I guess Sheehan would say that Ray James is a morally illiterate bitch who doesn't understand that some real voters are more real than others.

By the time the induction rolls around, that year's voting would have to get a serious boost in status just to reach the level of afterthought. Mark McGwire's inert Hall of Fame campaign is not a bigger story than whatever guy gets the call that year.

But you're ignoring Gonfalon's point that it's half of the generation. Keeping McGwire out by itself is no big deal, but it's going to be McGwire AND Palmeiro AND Bonds AND Clemens AND A-Rod AND Sosa AND Sheffield AND Manny AND Pettitte AND (maybe) Bagwell AND (maybe) Piazza.

The funny thing is that if they were to put in, let's say, Bonds, Clemens and A-Rod, I bet they could get away with shutting the door on the other candidates who would not be as egregious omissions. But since it only takes 25% to keep someone out, chances are they're going to let none of them in. (And in fact, you might see the better players do worse in the voting than the worse ones, on the basis that they "benefited more", "were symbols", etc.) Having zero of these players go in is an extreme result, and therefore is going to cause a backlash. Even admitting that they will be inducting Griffey, Maddux, Glavine, Biggio and some others... I really don't think people are going to stand for it. Even people who think steroids are a big deal. It will just look, and feel, stupid.

No he just means "real" as who has a real vote. He does not

"Real voters" are the ten-year BBWAA members, and it's pretty clear that a subset of those people do not see themselves as arbiters of morality, fictional or otherwise. So I don't think Sheehan would say that ray james is a morally illiterate #####. I think he'd say that ray james doesn't know how to parse a sentence.

But you're ignoring Gonfalon's point that it's half of the generation. Keeping McGwire out by itself is no big deal, but it's going to be McGwire AND Palmeiro AND Bonds AND Clemens AND A-Rod AND Sosa AND Sheffield AND Manny AND Pettitte AND (maybe) Bagwell AND (maybe) Piazza.

I'm ignoring it because I happen agree with that half of his comment. If and when all of these guys are eligible and kept out it will become a much bigger deal, and one the Hall of Fame may very well have to address. Of course, as Walt has noted, letting them in would be a big deal as well. Either way, however, it will be difficult to ignore.

I was merely noting that the answer to question: What's been the story: Dawson's 78%, or McGwire's 23%? is undeniably not McGwire. To suggest otherwise is beyond ridiculous.

I think he'd say that ray james doesn't know how to parse a sentence.

What's that old saying, about the incomplete pass never being the fault of the receiver?

But you're ignoring Gonfalon's point that it's half of the generation. Keeping McGwire out by itself is no big deal, but it's going to be McGwire AND Palmeiro AND Bonds AND Clemens AND A-Rod AND Sosa AND Sheffield AND Manny AND Pettitte AND (maybe) Bagwell AND (maybe) Piazza.

I'm ignoring it because I happen agree with that half of his comment. If and when all of these guys are eligible and kept out it will become a much bigger deal, and one the Hall of Fame may very well have to address. Of course, as Walt has noted, letting them in would be a big deal as well.

And that's the half of the story that the Sheehan pretends doesn't exist. Like all good little ideologues, he's blind to any premise other than his own, though given his history of the sort of rhetoric that's the perfect mirror image of the Chasses and the Lupicas, it's not exactly surprising.

What's that old saying, about the incomplete pass never being the fault of the receiver?

I'll bet you that's not what Hakeem just said to Eli.

the perfect mirror image of the Chasses and the Lupicas

Celebrate diversity.

the perfect mirror image of the Chasses and the Lupicas

Celebrate diversity.

Absolutely, though once in while it'd be nice to see the Chasses and the Sheehans exhibit a trace of awareness of their images in the mirror. Neither of them apparently has the slightest comprehension that anyone with intelligence or honesty could possibly disagree with their respective premises.

Maybe they're vampires.

But you're ignoring Gonfalon's point that it's half of the generation. Keeping McGwire out by itself is no big deal, but it's going to be McGwire AND Palmeiro AND Bonds AND Clemens AND A-Rod AND Sosa AND Sheffield AND Manny AND Pettitte AND (maybe) Bagwell AND (maybe) Piazza.

Yeah, it looks like the list of '90's era snubs may very well be greater than the list of '90's inductees. Surely they've gotta see a problem with that, right?

It's like with Rose; it's a big deal to a lot of people that he's not in the HOF (and again, it would be to a lot of others if he was). But what if MLB had done an investigation in the early 80's and found that Bench, Morgan, Reggie, Seaver, Schmidt, and Carlton were all placing bets on games as well? Would they have kept them all out (probably)? Would it be even worth acknowledging 1970's baseball without them? That's basically what we're looking at with the roid era.



P.S. Sorry about screwing up the thread. I have no idea what happened, but I'm not gonna try posting any more pics until I figure it out.

Booey,

1. Type the text of your post.

2. Open another window and copy your picture's URL

3. Go back to your BTF window, and highlight the words in your text that you want to copy your picture onto.

4. Click on the <a> tab above. You'll see a prompt that says "Enter the hyperlink URL"

5. Paste your chosen URL into that space and click "OK". Your highlighted words will then appear in a new pop-up.

7. Click "OK" again, hit your space bar once, and you're all set. If you don't hit the space bar, it won't take.

I'm ignoring it because I happen agree with that half of his comment. If and when all of these guys are eligible and kept out it will become a much bigger deal, and one the Hall of Fame may very well have to address. Of course, as Walt has noted, letting them in would be a big deal as well.

No. Letting the first one in would be a big deal. (How big would depend on who it is and what the specifics of that person's case are.) But once that happened, it would cease to be a big deal.

I was merely noting that the answer to question: What's been the story: Dawson's 78%, or McGwire's 23%? is undeniably not McGwire. To suggest otherwise is beyond ridiculous.

Dawson getting elected was a big story for about 15 minutes. Now nobody is talking about Dawson -- but they're still talking about McGwire.

I still talk about Jim Rice, but only as an example of how poor the HOF voters are.

Dawson getting elected was a big story for about 15 minutes. Now nobody is talking about Dawson -- but they're still talking about McGwire.

To the extent that this is true, it's only because it's now the HoF voting season. During the induction weekend, the focus is on the inductees. For the other 11 months of the year, the only people interested in the HoF are the people making the trip to Cooperstown and the tiny number of people who like to pretend that the world will come to an end, or the Hall of Fame will be doomed, if their personal opinion on steroids doesn't prevail with the voters. I suspect that there are far fewer people who hold that opinion than our local Chicken Littles might believe, and to the extent that they exist, the pro-juicers faction and the anti-juicers faction pretty much cancel each other out.

No. Letting the first one in would be a big deal. (How big would depend on who it is and what the specifics of that person's case are.) But once that happened, it would cease to be a big deal.

If the Hall chooses one way or the other on the steroid issue, it will alienate one set of hardcores. For how long remains uncertain.

Dawson getting elected was a big story for about 15 minutes. Now nobody is talking about Dawson -- but they're still talking about McGwire.

Not much they're not. Certainly not as much as they're talking about Morris or Larkin.

But under that silly argument, the best thing that can happen to a player is to never get elected, so he could stay part of the discussion. I don't think that's what you're looking for.

The point is that the Hall voting has devolved into a morality play, which is different from what it had virtually always been to this point: an evaluation of a player's performance to determine whether he merited induction.

Are people here denying that leaving a slew of over-qualified candidates on the ballot has the potential to create a logjam problem for the Hall?

Are people here denying that leaving a slew of over-qualified candidates on the ballot has the potential to create a logjam problem for the Hall?

I can only speak for me, but absolutely not. The coming logjam was not discovered by Joe Sheehan.

I will be personally be very surprised if Bonds and Clemens get in the first couple of times. My guess is that each of them gets about 40-50% of the vote.

people who like to pretend that the world will come to an end, or the Hall of Fame will be doomed, if their personal opinion on steroids doesn't prevail with the voters.

Doomed is a bit strong, but if there isn't some sort of resolution in either direction on the steroids issue, we're going to have a stretch where it becomes difficult for anyone to be elected. The people who don't apply any sort of steroid punishment represent more than a quarter of the voters, and if the people who would simply reject any steroid user out of hand are at least as numerous (seems likely) we're looking at a big logjam.

I can imagine a scenario where there are at least 25% of voters who will not give votes to ten players that at least 25% of the voters will prioritize over anyone else. That means there will be enough full ballots of unelectable players to keep everyone else from being elected. We might see the HOF change the rules with a few consecutive years of deadlock.

Will it happen? We won't know for sure until we live it, but it's not an unrealistic scenario. (I'm also not saying that the fix has to come from inducting the steroid players; it could come from agreement on non-induction.)

The point is that the Hall voting has devolved into a morality play, which is different from what it had virtually always been to this point: an evaluation of a player's performance to determine whether he merited induction.

Well, every time that some sabermetric favorite doesn't make it into the HoF, or every time some BTF bete noir makes it over 75%, you can see one morality play after another on BTF that has absolutely nothing to do with steroids, from the endless pinata posts to the virtually unanimous responses that they elicit. The venom that gets directed here against writers who don't happen to share the BTF consensus about Jack Morris's or Jim Rice's HoF qualifications is often every bit as hysterical in tone as any writer's invective against Barry Bonds. You obviously think that you have the only permissible POV about what constitutes a legitimate HoFer, but guess what? You don't.

Are people here denying that leaving a slew of over-qualified candidates on the ballot has the potential to create a logjam problem for the Hall?

It has the potential to create a situation where some people won't like the outcomes. Big ####### deal. You might consider waiting to see how it all plays out over the next few years before pulling off your Chicken Little act. You might even see your boyhood heroes actually getting that 75%, and then you can go back to fulminating about Ichiro and Jim Rice.

The people who don't apply any sort of steroid punishment represent more than a quarter of the voters

How do you figure this? Mark McGwire's peak vote total was 23.7% and his vote total the one year since he admitted to steroid use was 19.8%.

C-Bird,

I fully understand the rationale behind the doomsayers, which you've just outlined, but aren't you operating under the assumption that players like Bagwell and Piazza are going to be treated in the same category as known juicers like Bonds and McGwire? There are two things that we really don't know at this point: What sort of percentage the two superstar juicers are going to get next year; and how the percentages of merely "suspected" juicers like Bagwell are going to play out in the near future.

We often tend to forget that "steroid voters" are divided into at least four distinct camps: The ones who'll never vote for any confirmed juicer, but who demand a credible level of evidence; the ones who'll also never vote for any suspected juicer; the ones who'll vote for juicers if they think that "they would have been HoFers even without the juice"; and the ones who ignore the steroid factor altogether.

And right now, all we know is that the fourth group constitutes about 20% of the BBWAA electorate, as evidenced by McGwire's percentages. We have no idea how the other 80% is distributed among the first three groups, and even after next year, we still won't know (if Bonds and Clemens don't get in) how many of those non-Bonds / non-Clemens voters are merely registering some "one year penalty". It's going to take several years before we'll have any coherent quantitative idea as to what the BBWAA really is trying to "say" about steroids.

we still won't know (if Bonds and Clemens don't get in) how many of those non-Bonds / non-Clemens voters are merely registering some "one year penalty".

I'll be surprised if there's much of this. Mark McGwire's vote total was identical in his 1st, 2nd, and 4th years on the ballot at 128. In other words, his vote total (in terms of votes, not percentage) peaked right away his first year. He lost 13 votes then last year, perhaps due to his steroid admission or perhaps to other reasons (it's a fairly small number of people, it could even be as simple as a few of his supporters just didn't vote at all last year). As you rightly say, there's not a lot to be gleaned from that, but it suggests to me that HOF voters have made their decision on how they're going to treat steroid users and are liable to be consistent in that treatment every year. I guess maybe Palmeiro's vote total this year (he got 64 votes last year) could be some further evidence one way or the other.

The point is that the Hall voting has devolved into a morality play, which is different from what it had virtually always been to this point: an evaluation of a player's performance to determine whether he merited induction.

Why is Rose so unpopular here when this argument is invoked so often without serious dispute except from a very few people?

we still won't know (if Bonds and Clemens don't get in) how many of those non-Bonds / non-Clemens voters are merely registering some "one year penalty".

I'll be surprised if there's much of this. Mark McGwire's vote total was identical in his 1st, 2nd, and 4th years on the ballot at 128. In other words, his vote total (in terms of votes, not percentage) peaked right away his first year. He lost 13 votes then last year, perhaps due to his steroid admission or perhaps to other reasons (it's a fairly small number of people, it could even be as simple as a few of his supporters just didn't vote at all last year). As you rightly say, there's not a lot to be gleaned from that, but it suggests to me that HOF voters have made their decision on how they're going to treat steroid users and are liable to be consistent in that treatment every year. I guess maybe Palmeiro's vote total this year (he got 64 votes last year) could be some further evidence one way or the other.

Kiko, the problem with that is that for a currently unknown number of voters, including some people here on BTF, McGwire is seen as someone who wouldn't have been a HoFer without steroids, whereas Bonds and Clemens would have. Those people will vote for Bonds and Clemens even as they continue not to vote for McGwire, but as of now we simply don't have any idea how great their numbers might be.

-------------------------------

The point is that the Hall voting has devolved into a morality play, which is different from what it had virtually always been to this point: an evaluation of a player's performance to determine whether he merited induction.

Why is Rose so unpopular here when this argument is invoked so often without serious dispute except from a very few people?

Easy: Gambling is seen as an offense against the game that's in an entirely different (and worse) category than steroids. Even as a relative steroid hardliner, I can't say that I'd disagree with that distinction, even though if the HoF were truly a purely statistical shrine (which it isn't), with no character (or "narrative") considerations, it'd be hard to explain just how the all-time hits leader should be barred from admission.

Why is Rose so unpopular here when this argument is invoked so often without serious dispute except from a very few people?

Because more people agree about gambling than about steroids.

Will it happen?

Ten players who have clear HOF careers and are also known or generally thought to have juiced all on the ballot at the same time? Not for a while, and maybe not ever. McGwire's only got ten years left on the ballot, and A-Rod's eleven years away from being eligible if he plays out his contract.

Say Bonds, Clemens and Sosa tie up three spots on a lot of ballots for a lot of years. To get to the doomsday scenario we need seven more. Who are they? Palmeiro didn't come close to 25%. Bagwell? I can't really tell yet if he's a victim of unfounded steroid suspicions or just a victim of stupidity. Piazza? Is there a 25% block of steroid hawks that considers bacne enough "evidence"? Manny? Who else?

Those people will vote for Bonds and Clemens even as they continue not to vote for McGwire, but as of now we simply don't have any idea how great their numbers might be.

I agree. I just think those people will begin to vote for Bonds and Clemens as soon as they appear on the ballot and continue to do so every year thereafter. I was only questioning the idea of giving Bonds and Clemens a "one-year penalty".

I agree. I just think those people will begin to vote for Bonds and Clemens as soon as they appear on the ballot and continue to do so every year thereafter. I was only questioning the idea of giving Bonds and Clemens a "one-year penalty".

Got it, and yeah, I don't think that there'd be too many "one year penalty" voters, though I can see a certain number of "anti" voters changing their views over time, and a certain number of "anti"-voters being gradually replaced by "pro"-voters over the course of the years. That latter scenario is apparently what keeps Bill James from waking up screaming in the middle of the night, sort of like eternal visions of "next year" keep Redskins fans from drowning themselves in the Potomac.

ray james Posted: December 18, 2011 at 11:00 PM (#4019152)

The point is that the Hall voting has devolved into a morality play, which is different from what it had virtually always been to this point: an evaluation of a player's performance to determine whether he merited induction.

Why is Rose so unpopular here when this argument is invoked so often without serious dispute except from a very few people?

- it has zero to do with character or morals, like with the steroid use before it was banned (which some people here are rabid about). it has to do with the fact that he broke rule #1 posted on every clubhouse door about no betting on baseball. we can't know if his betting affected the outcome of games AND we don't know if he bet on baseball when he was a player.

whether or not he should be banned from the HOF (not MLB) is the decision of the people at that museum, far as i'm concerned. they want him in, that's their decision - that is completely different from keeping him the heck away from ballplayers

Bagwell? I can't really tell yet if he's a victim of unfounded steroid suspicions or just a victim of stupidity.

My guess would be stupidity; I never thought Bagwell would make it on the first ballot, because his case is at least somewhat subtle. Of course, we'll have a better idea of what the split is after this year's voting.

We often tend to forget that "steroid voters" are divided into at least four distinct camps: The ones who'll never vote for any confirmed juicer, but who demand a credible level of evidence; the ones who'll also never vote for any suspected juicer; the ones who'll vote for juicers if they think that "they would have been HoFers even without the juice"; and the ones who ignore the steroid factor altogether.

I see a possible 5th camp, and there's another HOF thread going about the ballot of a voter named Chaz Scoggins that appears to be in this camp; those who will vote for players that juiced during MLB's "blind eye period" before testing (McGwire, Bonds), but not those who failed tests after baseball finally cracked down and instituted clear rules and tests against it (Palmeiro, Manny). The voter explained this to justify why he was voting "yes" on Mac but "no" on Viagra boy. And personally, I think this is a very reasonable position. I have a hard time understanding how people could say McGwire was "cheating" when the rules against roids were unclear at best, and the problem was intentionally ignored (and possibly even encouraged). But on the flip side, I don't see how anyone could argue that the likes of Palmeiro or Manny WEREN'T cheating, when they tested positive after MLB finally came up with a testing program and clear punishments for offenders.

Say Bonds, Clemens and Sosa tie up three spots on a lot of ballots for a lot of years. To get to the doomsday scenario we need seven more. Who are they? Palmeiro didn't come close to 25%. Bagwell? I can't really tell yet if he's a victim of unfounded steroid suspicions or just a victim of stupidity. Piazza? Is there a 25% block of steroid hawks that considers bacne enough "evidence"? Manny? Who else?

Sheffield was a BALCO client, so I doubt he stands a chance. Pudge Rodriguez was outed in Canseco's book. Wonder if that will hold any merit to the voters?

The Hall is in a difficult place with this. Keep the steroids users out, and
you run the risk of alienating the Gonfalons of baseball fandom.
But let 'em in, and you turn off the kevins. As much as either
side of the argument wants to pretend their side is the only one
that matters, that just isn't true.

Gonfalons of the world, unite!

Not that I expect anyone to keep an eagle eye on my BTF dossier, but I've shared my opinions about the Hall of Fame balloting many times. In a nutshell, I consider it along the lines of an Academy Awards, or a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, in which the fucked-upness of the process is of far more interest than any particular result, let alone rooting for one. If I needed Bill Madden to validate me, I'd go hang myself.

If anything, I'll be LESS alienated to the next decade of voting because I know it's going to be a glorious mess. Embrace the chaos!

Say Bonds, Clemens and Sosa tie up three spots on a lot of ballots for a lot of years. To get to the doomsday scenario we need seven more.

That would be the case if each voter picked 10 names. But they don't, and they don't come close. In a typical year, there have been fewer than six choices per voter. When Nolan Ryan, George Brett, Robin Yount, Carlton Fisk and Dale Murphy debuted on the same ballot, the average shot up to 6.7. If every single voter were to increase their ballot by 50%-- a big if-- and if Bonds, Clemens and Sosa were to tie up three spots as you hypothesize, that would leave fewer open spots for everybody else than there are right now. The math is nutty.

Still, there's not going to be any "deadlock" where no one gets elected. In 2014-16, Maddux and Pedro and Unit and Griffey will sail in. Guys like Thomas and Glavine and Biggio also have a great shot, and if for whatever reason they don't, they'll fill a podium in 2017 or 2018. The Hall doesn't face any no-show years. The trouble is that these inductees will not get the undivided attention that inductees normally get, because of this huge ballot battle. The non-electees are going to suck a whole lot of air out of the room. Do we really want to hear freshly-elected Pedro Martinez talking about what he thinks about Manny Ramirez's and David Ortiz's chances? We'll have to, though.

If you think the attention paid to Andre Dawson's Hall of Fame trek has outweighed Mark McGwire's brick wall, you're kidding yourself. This impasse is going to be the story of the Hall of Fame for years. It already is, at a time when it features just two guys, one of whom nobody cares that much about. Yes, McGwire's frozen percentage is of decreasing annual interest, and yet the general topic goes on and on and on. How much airtime, and how many column inches, have we already seen on the subject? And that's with the media merely projecting ahead. What attention do you think the real crunch will bring, when it actually begins screwing with the numbers? Do you think they're going to get tired of writing about themselves, and what they're going to do, and what they've just done, and what they plan to do again?

To repeat myself, if it was just one or two prime guys, the Hall could ride the noise out easily, exactly like they did the Pete Rose ban and protests. That isn't the case.

Another upcoming problem is "too big to fail, too foul to honor." Once the steroid guys (or in too many cases, steroid-y guys) suck up 20-50% of the available votes apiece, amid a growing crowd of pickable players, we're likely to see some worthwhile candidate get pushed off the ballot, like a Jeff Kent or a Kenny Lofton. That's a real possibility, even expecting that the average total of names per ballot is going to go up. The probabilities also suggest that "midfield" candidates such as Mussina, Schilling, Smoltz, Edmonds, Hoffman, Wagner, and the current Raines/Edgar/Trammell group will stagnate or lose ground. And to a greater degree than they would have because several new quality candidates showed up, because many of those quality candidates aren't leaving. Again, the math is nutty... and the BBWAA's going to make it nuttier.

Dawson getting elected was a big story for about 15 minutes. Now nobody is talking about Dawson -- but they're still talking about McGwire.

Not much they're not. Certainly not as much as they're talking about Morris or Larkin.

But under that silly argument, the best thing that can happen to a player is to never get elected, so he could stay part of the discussion. I don't think that's what you're looking for.

No, that would be the case only if "staying part of the discussion" were better than getting elected. If that were the case, then the best thing that could happen to a player would indeed be to never get elected, yes.

Why can't the Hall just raise the number of votes per voter from 10 to 12 or 14 or whatever it takes to eliminate any logjam?

We often tend to forget that "steroid voters" are divided into at least four distinct camps: The ones who'll never vote for any confirmed juicer, but who demand a credible level of evidence; the ones who'll also never vote for any suspected juicer; the ones who'll vote for juicers if they think that "they would have been HoFers even without the juice"; and the ones who ignore the steroid factor altogether.

I see a possible 5th camp, and there's another HOF thread going about the ballot of a voter named Chaz Scoggins that appears to be in this camp; those who will vote for players that juiced during MLB's "blind eye period" before testing (McGwire, Bonds), but not those who failed tests after baseball finally cracked down and instituted clear rules and tests against it (Palmeiro, Manny).

Yeah, that's definitely a 5th group that's been around even before Scoggins, and in fact I'm pretty sure that I've seen it represented here. And it wouldn't surprise me if there were others.

------------------------------------

Why can't the Hall just raise the number of votes per voter from 10 to 12 or 14 or whatever it takes to eliminate any logjam?

Not a bad idea, even though the scenario it would help would be limited to writers who ignore the steroids factor, who fill out their ballots in order of statistical merit, who would run out of room for all the non-juicer candidates that they want to list under the current limit of 10 per ballot, and who would rather vote for a candidate with no real chance of being elected** rather than use their ballots for candidates who might. But since there's no real downside to allowing voters to vote for (say) 15 players, I can't see any argument against it, if these prophecies of logjam actually occur.

**Meaning that if after x number of years Bonds & co.'s vote percentage were stagnating below 50%, a ballot that listed them would be tantamount to wasting a vote, for a writer who otherwise would have had room on his ballot for candidates that he also felt were qualified. Raising the limit would solve his problem.

Easy: Gambling is seen as an offense against the game that's in an entirely different (and worse) category than steroids.

That principle was never put to the test of the voters. If Rose had been allowed on the 1991 ballot, he very likely would have received far more votes than McGwire's getting. Indeed, that likelhood precipitated MLB taking the choice away from the writers.

And Rose's exclusion has generally garnered more sympathetic commentary from writers, commentators, and fans than McGwire's.

Nothing about McGwire's treatment by the HOF voters approaches the "morality play" at work against Rose on sites like BBTF -- wherein the patrons bend over backwards to simply concoct a list of "crimes" Rose committed.

No on thinks Rose committed a scare-quote crimes. They know he broke the unforgivable rule #1.

No on thinks Rose committed a scare-quote crimes.

Yes, they do. Plenty of people on this site have concluded that he bet against the Reds, amongst other "crimes."

They know he broke the unforgivable rule #1.


"Unforgivable Rule #1" is throwing games. Rose didn't do that. If you mean "Rule 21," Torii Hunter broke that a few years ago and suffered no sanction, even though the provision he violated calls for a suspension of at least 3 years.

"Unforgivable Rule #1" is throwing games. Rose didn't do that.

You don't know that.

If you mean "Rule 21," Torii Hunter broke that a few years ago and suffered no sanction, even though the provision he violated calls for a suspension of at least 3 years.

You really can't see the difference between a gift of champagne in good fun, and secretly betting with a bookie?

You don't know that.

Exhibit A. Yes, people think Rose committed "scare-quote crimes."

You really can't see the difference between a gift of champagne in good fun, and secretly betting with a bookie?

Hunter wasn't punished for violating Rule 21 even though the rule lays out the penalty he should have received.(**) So stop pretending that the punishment issues forth from the cosmos, rather than human agency.

(**) "Good fun" is your imagination at work, not that the presence or absence of such impacts whether Hunter broke the rule.

"Good fun" is your imagination at work, not that the presence or absence of such impacts whether Hunter broke the rule.

Hunter offered something of minimal value, out in the open. When the team found out, they immediately canceled it, and he took full responsibility.

Exhibit A. Yes, people think Rose committed "scare-quote crimes."

I'm just saying that if Pete Rose told me it was sunny outside, I'd bring my umbrella. We have no idea what evidence MLB might have had as to his betting activities, that wasn't substantial enough to use in an adjudication, but was enough to influence their determination of punishment.

In other words, if they had documentary evidence that he bet on Red games, but only hearsay that he bet against them, they may have kept the latter quiet, but given out a harsher punishment.

In other words, if they had documentary evidence that he bet on Red games, but only hearsay that he bet against them, they may have kept the latter quiet, but given out a harsher punishment.

You're constitutionally unable to accept MLBs report -- that Dowd found "no evidence" that Rose bet against the Reds -- at face value. You're imagining evidence, occurrences, and conspiracies.(**) That renders your opinion on the matter biased and unworthy.

This is the type of moralizing and invention to which the earlier post referred -- the type which surpasses by orders of magnitude the purported "morality play" and "moralizing" purportedly afoot about steroids.

(**) Not you alone, of course.

Easy: Gambling is seen as an offense against the game that's in an entirely different (and worse) category than steroids.

That principle was never put to the test of the voters. If Rose had been allowed on the 1991 ballot, he very likely would have received far more votes than McGwire's getting. Indeed, that likelhood precipitated MLB taking the choice away from the writers.

Beyond the assertion itself, what evidence backs this up?

And Rose's exclusion has generally garnered more sympathetic commentary from writers, commentators, and fans than McGwire's.

Again, what evidence is there for this, beyond the anecdotal?

Nothing about McGwire's treatment by the HOF voters approaches the "morality play" at work against Rose on sites like BBTF -- wherein the patrons bend over backwards to simply concoct a list of "crimes" Rose committed.

Correction: SOME Primates do this, just as SOME writers assume that cap sizes = proof of steroid use, and will lump Bagwell with Bonds. But I doubt if most Primates, or most writers, are basing their opposition to Rose's HoF candidacy on anything other than what is indisputable: That Rose bet ON the Reds. Given Rose's competitive nature, I doubt seriously if he'd ever bet against his own team, but that's not the proper threshold for HoF disqualification. The proper threshold is whether he bet, period.

Once the steroid guys (or in too many cases, steroid-y guys) suck up 20-50% of the available votes apiece, amid a growing crowd of pickable players, we're likely to see some worthwhile candidate get pushed off the ballot, like a Jeff Kent or a Kenny Lofton.

Lofton was probably going to fall off the ballot regardless of the steroid issue. Jim Edmonds could be a problem, though, or possibly Larry Walker.

You're imagining evidence, occurrences, and conspiracies

I'm just saying what's possible.

I don't know that he bet against the Reds, I don't know that he didn't. Neither do you.

We do know he at least bet on the Reds to win, which is sufficient to merit his punishment.

But you're going beyond that to say that that which was proven is the absolute maximum wrong he could have committed. I say that's nonsense.

It's like saying Al Capone never did anything worse than tax-evasion, b/c that's all they could ever prove.

We have no idea what else Rose might be guilty of in regards to betting. If Ty Cobb could be involved in throwing games, why not Rose?

If Ty Cobb could be involved in throwing games, why not Rose?

If Torii Hunter could offer a reward for winning games, how do we know he didn't throw games?

Again, what evidence is there for this, beyond the anecdotal?

Do you really expect an essay length recitation of everything writers and other people have said since 1990? When Rose was first sentenced by Giamatti, it was seen by very few people as being a per se disqualifier for the Hall of Fame. That's why there was the debate around the action that was taken to keep his name off the ballot. If it was understood that he wasn't going in, no one would have bothered keeping him off the ballot.

As to the comparison between him and McGwire, there's really no significant drive to have McGwire elected, and no significant sense that an injustice is being done to him. I see a clear contrast between that, and Rose over the past 20 years. If you don't think that serious and significant factions are troubled by Rose's exclusion, you haven't been paying close enough attention -- indeed, that's why people spent 20 years bending over backwards to find a ritual he could go through that would get him in.(**) The idea that people outside BBTF and a tiny rump of moralizing fanatics think Rose should be out because of "OMG TEH RULE 21!!!!" is batshit insane.

(**) And why events transpired like Jim Gray being heckled down for his moralizing excesses at Fenway Park and in the national press in the summer of 1999. Gray's career essentially never recovered.

It's like saying Al Capone never did anything worse than tax-evasion, b/c that's all they could ever prove.

No one ever said that about Al Capone. John Dowd did say he found no evidence Rose bet against the Reds.

SugarBear - What has Pete Rose done in his life, particularly since the ban, to make you think he is worthy of a single iota of trust or belief? Comparing what he did and what Hunter did is like saying I'm just like Jeffery Dahmer because we both broke the law. Dahmer by killing and eating people and me by driving 37 in a 30 this morning on my way to the office.

that's why people spent 20 years bending over backwards to find a ritual he could go through that would get him in

Who are these "people" of which you speak? I see absolutely no one going out of their way to support Rose for the Hall. Certainly there are people who think he should be in just as there are those who think he McGwire should be in but I don't see any sort of concerted effort to put him in.

Again, what evidence is there for this, beyond the anecdotal?

Do you really expect an essay length recitation of everything writers and other people have said since 1990? When Rose was first sentenced by Giamatti, it was seen by very few people as being a per se disqualifier for the Hall of Fame. That's why there was the debate around the action that was taken to keep his name off the ballot. If it was understood that he wasn't going in, no one would have bothered keeping him off the ballot.

There's a difference between wanting to avoid the embarrassment of having a gambler receive even a small number of HoF votes, and the actual prospect that he would ever get elected.

I'll add my own opinion that I'd have no problem with Rose being put on the ballot, but I'd also have no idea how he'd ever be elected, or how any writer who ponders the character clause could ever consider voting for anyone who bets on games involving his own team. Whereas in spite of my personal view on the subject, I can see many reasons why others might vote for the steroid candidates, character clause aside.

As to the comparison between him and McGwire, there's really no significant drive to have McGwire elected, and no significant sense that an injustice is being done to him. I see a clear contrast between that, and Rose over the past 20 years. If you don't think that serious and significant factions are troubled by Rose's exclusion, you haven't been paying close enough attention

For the past five years there's been a steady ~20% of the writers who obviously by their votes think that McGwire is being done wrong. There is absolutely no evidence that a corresponding percentage of writers feels that way about Rose. Whatever numbers you might think it takes to amount to "serious and significant" could just as easily be applied to McGwire's supporters.

(**) And why events transpired like Jim Gray being heckled down for his moralizing excesses at Fenway Park and in the national press in the summer of 1999. Gray's career essentially never recovered.

The backlash against Gray was largely due to the total inappropriateness of the All-Star game / All-Century team setting, a point conceded by all but the the most fanatical of the "it's the job of journalists to raise questions" adherents. If Gray had posed Rose the same questions a week later, in a studio setting where it didn't seem like a complete ambush, I don't think that the reaction against him would have been nearly as damaging.

The backlash against Gray was largely due to the total inappropriateness of the All-Star game / All-Century team setting, a point conceded by all but the the most fanatical of the "it's the job of journalists to raise questions" adherents.

You left that part out, too. Rose got elected to the All-Century team, 10 years after his "conviction" for the "unspeakable crime." There were 30 guys on that team. He got a standing ovation at Fenway Park at the ceremony announcing the team. Vin Scully emceed the ceremony. In another ceremony a few months later at the 1999 World Series, he got a minute-long standing ovation in Atlanta.

As Steve Kettman described it in Salon, "And when the team was announced, the capacity crowd had plenty to cheer, including such unforgettable sights as Willie Mays and Ken Griffey Jr. working together to help Ted Williams into his seat out on the ad hoc stage set up over second base. But these fans obviously had Rose on their minds, and they were primed to make a statement about his place in the game. Almost before P.A. announcer Vin Scully had gotten the words “Charlie Hustle” out of his mouth, the Atlanta fans were whooping and hollering. They gave Rose an ovation that lasted a full 55 seconds, longer even than what hometown hero Hank Aaron received."

The ovation for Pete Rose in Atlanta in 1999 was longer than the hometown crowd gave to Hank Aaron. The Fenway and Atlanta crowds weren't Pete Rose's workingman crowds either.(**)

It's a tiny rump of opinion that holds Pete Rose's "crimes" irredeemable.

(**) I'll note here, again, the disdain for Rose simply because of his lack of refinement -- paralleling the same in the broader society, a truly odious cultural development of the past 20-30 years. As the same Salon article notes, "But also at stake is a clash between baseball as the genteel diversion of Ivy League types like Giamatti and baseball as a sweaty, unruly, blue-collar struggle. That’s not to say that Giamatti did not love the game deeply, but there’s something different about the devotion of a man like Rose, who gave so many decades of his life to playing baseball."

That principle was never put to the test of the voters. If Rose had been allowed on the 1991 ballot, he very likely would have received far more votes than McGwire's getting. Indeed, that likelhood precipitated MLB taking the choice away from the writers.

Beyond the assertion itself, what evidence backs this up?

Not that I agree with any over-arching point SugarBear is trolling making, but there has been evidence in the form of straw polls taken at the time that Rose would have done fairly well his first time on the ballot had the writers been given the chance (not that he'd have made it in but that he'd have received significant support, or, at least, more support than McGwire has gotten); and based on the outrage many writers expressed following the HOF's decision to take the Rose vote out of their hands, it seems pretty clear that Rose very likely would have gone in the moment the writers subsequently got the chance to vote on him, character be damned, Andy. (*)

If you reply to me by insisting that such straw polls would not be sufficient "evidence," well, I don't know what evidence you'd be looking for to change your view on this. As we all know the writers did not ultimately get the chance to vote on Rose, so if you're requiring that sort of impossible evidence, your question becomes uninteresting to me.

(*) I note that if the voters got a chance to vote on Rose *now*, after all that has happened, I doubt he'd do better than McGwire has. His confession turned most of his supporters in the BBWAA ranks into writers scorned, as they realized he had played them for fools.

Look, SBB, I would have cheered Rose, too, if I'd been in Fenway that night. I don't find it difficult to separate my opinion about Pete Rose, ballplayer, from my opinion about Pete Rose, gambler and HoF candidate.

But as for the comparative groundswells of opinion regarding Pete Rose vs. Mark McGwire, I'd have to see some actual data before jumping to any conclusions.

(**) I'll note here, again, the disdain for Rose simply because of his lack of refinement -- a truly odious cultural development of the past 20-30 years. As the same Salon article notes, "But also at stake is a clash between baseball as the genteel diversion of Ivy League types like Giamatti and baseball as a sweaty, unruly, blue-collar struggle. That’s not to say that Giamatti did not love the game deeply, but there’s something different about the devotion of a man like Rose, who gave so many decades of his life to playing baseball."

It's hard to deny that there's a certain amount of truth to that, but in any high stakes case like this, you're always going to find people who play the class card / the race card / the gender card as a way of ducking the actual substance of the accusation. The fact that some indeterminate number of "Ivy League types" may see Rose as a sort of male version of Tonya Harding doesn't mean that the people raising that issue have thought about the serious implications of what Rose actually did. It may be easier to visualize the concrete damage done by steroids than it is to see the damage done by betting on "your own team", but that doesn't negate what's really at stake.

Not that I agree with any over-arching point SugarBear is trolling making, but there has been evidence in the form of straw polls taken at the time that Rose would have done fairly well his first time on the ballot had the writers been given the chance (not that he'd have made it in but that he'd have received significant support, or, at least, more support than McGwire has gotten); and based on the outrage many writers expressed following the HOF's decision to take the Rose vote out of their hands, it seems pretty clear that Rose very likely would have gone in the moment the writers subsequently got the chance to vote on him, character be damned, Andy. (*)

I highly doubt Rose would have gotten in through the writers without action from the MLPBA lifting his ban. Many writers were disappointed that the Hall took the vote out of their hands with regards to Rose, but that isn't necessarily a declaration they wanted him in, just that, as with Shoeless Joe, they should get the chance to consider his case.

There were at least four different factions surrounding Rose (Hall of Fame regardless of what he did as manager, Hall of Fame after confession, benefit of the doubt and no Hall whatsoever). I doubt there would have been enough to get 75 percent.

It's hard to deny that there's a certain amount of truth to that, but in any high stakes case like this, you're always going to find people who play the class card / the race card / the gender card as a way of ducking the actual substance of the accusation.

What does that mean? The people playing the "class card" are the ones that want to keep Rose out for betting on the Reds -- and for his lack of couth -- without examining the substance and implications of him betting on the Reds. If Rose were an "Ivy League" hypocrite, he'd have feigned remorse, had a lobbying campaign by the powerful organized on his behalf, schmoozed it up, and been in a long time ago. But since there probably isn't a public figure on Planet Earth less inclined and able to put on those kind of airs than Pete Rose, he didn't and isn't.

A rational consideration of the substance of what Rose did helps him (at least with rationalists) -- which is why people invent "crimes" against Rose when they inveigh against him. Without the invented "crimes," the case against Rose doesn't warrant more than 22 years.

I highly doubt Rose would have gotten in through the writers without action from the MLPBA lifting his ban.

The MLPBA? Even assuming you mean the MLBPA, the PA had nothing to do with it, of course; the agreement by Rose to be placed on the list of people who were permanently ineligible was with MLB.

Many writers were disappointed that the Hall took the vote out of their hands with regards to Rose, but that isn't necessarily a declaration they wanted him in, just that, as with Shoeless Joe, they should get the chance to consider his case.

And the retribution exacted by the writers for being denied the power to vote on him was going to be to vote Rose in. That seems fairly clear from the events at the time. (The writers _are_ more important than the Hall of Fame, after all, in their view.)

There were at least four different factions surrounding Rose (Hall of Fame regardless of what he did as manager, Hall of Fame after confession, benefit of the doubt and no Hall whatsoever). I doubt there would have been enough to get 75 percent.

I agree, prior to the HOF taking the decision out of the writers' hands. Joe Jackson shows us that (*). But after that point, had the HOF given the writers the power to vote on him, I think he was sailing in.

(*) Which is why it was kind of silly for the HOF to take the Rose vote away from the writers to begin with. I realize they were just codifying an unwritten rule, but I don't see why they needed to do that. It was unnecessary, and they had to know it was going to spark a temper tantrum from the self-important writers.

Not that I agree with any over-arching point SugarBear is trolling making, but there has been evidence in the form of straw polls taken at the time that Rose would have done fairly well his first time on the ballot had the writers been given the chance (not that he'd have made it in but that he'd have received significant support, or, at least, more support than McGwire has gotten); and based on the outrage many writers expressed following the HOF's decision to take the Rose vote out of their hands, it seems pretty clear that Rose very likely would have gone in the moment the writers subsequently got the chance to vote on him, character be damned, Andy. (*)

So the support for Rose wouldn't have gotten him in UNTIL the vote was denied to them, but as soon as it was denied, this same group of writers would've THEN voted him in. IOW they would've based their votes for Rose out of pure spite.

Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Not even the BBWAA at its worst would ever exhibit such a childish spite mentality.

If you reply to me by insisting that such straw polls would not be sufficient "evidence," well, I don't know what evidence you'd be looking for to change your view on this. As we all know the writers did not ultimately get the chance to vote on Rose, so if you're requiring that sort of impossible evidence, your question becomes uninteresting to me.

I'll accept your "polls", but so far you haven't shown me any "poll" that would back up your opinion that (in your words) "Rose very likely would have gone in the moment the writers subsequently got the chance to vote on him". I doubt if any such "poll" was ever taken, let alone any "poll" that showed results like that.

(*) I note that if the voters got a chance to vote on Rose *now*, after all that has happened, I doubt he'd do better than McGwire has. His confession turned most of his supporters in the BBWAA ranks into writers scorned, as they realized he had played them for fools.

Sort of like many of the writers felt that McGwire did to them with his belated confession, eh?

It's hard to deny that there's a certain amount of truth to that, but in any high stakes case like this, you're always going to find people who play the class card / the race card / the gender card as a way of ducking the actual substance of the accusation.

What does that mean? The people playing the "class card" are the ones that want to keep Rose out for betting on the Reds -- and for his lack of couth -- without examining the substance and implications of him betting on the Reds.

No, SBB, the ones playing the "class card" are the ones who are claiming that Rose was somehow being victimized by those mean old "Ivy League types". But the truth is that those "Ivy League types" were but one group among many who were dealing with the actual substance of the charges against Rose, and the people playing the "class card" were the ones** who were trying to avoid it with their diversionary rhetoric.

**Including the distinctly non-blue collar Salon writer.

So the support for Rose wouldn't have gotten him in UNTIL the vote was denied to them, but as soon as it was denied, this same group of writers would've THEN voted him in. IOW they would've based their votes for Rose out of pure spite.

Yes.

Sorry, but that's just ridiculous.

No.

Not even the BBWAA at its worst would ever exhibit such a childish spite mentality.

And yes, they would.

(*) Which is why it was kind of silly for the HOF to take the Rose vote away from the writers to begin with. I realize they were just codifying an unwritten rule, but I don't see why they needed to do that. It was unnecessary, and they had to know it was going to spark a temper tantrum from the self-important writers.

Now that point I agree with 100%, even if you're completely blowing it out of your butt with your inane and unsupported speculation in #165.

No, SBB, the ones playing the "class card" are the ones who are claiming that Rose was somehow being victimized by those mean old "Ivy League types". But the truth is that those "Ivy League types" were but one group among many who were dealing with the actual substance of the charges against Rose, and the people playing the "class card" were the ones** who were trying to avoid it with their diversionary rhetoric.

You can yell and deconstruct as loud as you like, Andy. I'm not sure who you think the "groups" were who ahve dealt with the "actual substance" of the charges against Rose. The fact that some BBTFers and some others concoct unproven charges against Rose is inarguable.

The MLPBA? Even assuming you mean the MLBPA, the PA had nothing to do with it, of course; the agreement by Rose to be placed on the list of people who were permanently ineligible was with MLB.

Acronymal brainfart. MLB.

And the retribution exacted by the writers for being denied the power to vote on him was going to be to vote Rose in. That seems fairly clear from the events at the time. (The writers _are_ more important than the Hall of Fame, after all, in their view.)

So the only way they would have voted for Rose was if they didn't have a chance to vote for Rose? As Cooperstownian paths go, that one leaves a lot to be desired.

And even if it weren't paradoxical, I highly doubt it anyway.

Pete Rose would have been elected with 91.9% of the vote, but not until 1997, his seventh year on the ballot, after he sacrificed his life in Paris to save Princess Diana's. You know, as long as we're pulling imaginary yet confident predictions out of our asses.

Look, SBB, I would have cheered Rose, too, if I'd been in Fenway that night. I don't find it difficult to separate my opinion about Pete Rose, ballplayer, from my opinion about Pete Rose, gambler and HoF candidate.

And if you were seeing the duality of Rose and rendering a verdict only on one, everyone else in the crowd must have been, too. It just isn't possible that people were judging the man in full.

So the only way they would have voted for Rose was if they didn't have a chance to vote for Rose?

Yes.

As Cooperstownian paths go, that one leaves a lot to be desired.

And even if it weren't paradoxical, I highly doubt it anyway.

Once one understands how many of the writers view themselves -- not as a group of people given the privilege to vote but as a group of people that deserves the power to vote -- the "paradox" is removed.

Hell, the entire steroids issue shows the snafu. Many of the writers have been incapable of examining the issue objectively and unemotionally.

The Chicago Tribune's Jerome Holtzman, one of the top baseball writers in the nation, February 9, 1991 (just after the HOF vote to not allow Rose to appear on the ballot):

"Even with his reputation tarnished by accusations of betting on baseball, by a conviction for income tax evasion and by lifetime suspension from the game, Rose probably would have entered the hall some day, perhaps after a few years when the electors-the nation`s baseball writers-determined that he had had adequate time for repentance."

"Rose`s name will not appear on their ballots. This amounts to a judgment of no-confidence that says the directors did not trust the writers to do the right thing."

"You don`t have to like the idea of Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame, much less like Pete Rose, to understand that he has been denied the basic American principle of fairness."

There are likely many more where that came from (the first page of a simple Google search).

Pete Rose would have been elected with 91.9% of the vote, but not until 1997, his seventh year on the ballot, after he sacrificed his life in Paris to save Princess Diana's. You know, as long as we're pulling imaginary yet confident predictions out of our asses.

On the contrary, Ray has in his hand incontrovertible evidence that Rose would have been elected with 205% of the vote. You know how those writers can be when they get their backs up.

--------------------------------------------------------

You can yell and deconstruct as loud as you like, Andy. I'm not sure who you think the "groups" were who have dealt with the "actual substance" of the charges against Rose.

The "groups" include those who have actually read and thought about the proven charges against him, as laid out in the Dowd report.

The fact that some BBTFers and some others concoct unproven charges against Rose is inarguable.

I've never once argued otherwise, but the operative word there is "some". You can't absolve a crime by merely pointing out the over-the-top fanaticism of some of the criminal's accusers.

The "groups" include those who have actually read and thought about the proven charges against him, as laid out in the Dowd report.

Again, who? Who are the people who have said (or, more importantly, said contemporaneously) that Rose betting on the Reds, by itself, warranted permanent expulsion from Hall of Fame consideration? We know people like Jerome Holtzman didn't think that.

You're making stuff up.

Once one understands how many of the writers view themselves -- not as a group of people given the privilege to vote but as a group of people that deserves the power to vote -- the "paradox" is removed.

I'll give you this. Unlike most of your nonsensical assertions, this one can't be proved wrong. (-:

Bud Selig was one of the people who voted to not let the writers vote, so it makes perfect sense that he'd be the one to decide on Rose's reinstatement.

Dave Anderson, eminent New York Times columnist, Sunday, February 10, 1991:

"[W]ith Rose eligible next year, the Hall of Fame didn't dare risk that the writers' impartiality might, just might, elect him for what he accomplished as a player.

Not to condone Rose's defiance of baseball law, but the problem is that he should never have been suspended for life for betting on baseball, as the late Commissioner Bart Giamatti concluded. One year, maybe two or three, would have been enough.

From all accounts, Rose never bet against the Reds as their manager. Nor did he conspire to fix games. In sentencing him to the same lifetime ban as Joe Jackson and the other Black Sox conspirators in 1919, his punishment didn't fit his crime."

Dave Anderson's opinion;

Not to condone Rose's defiance of baseball law, but the problem is that he should never have been suspended for life for betting on baseball, as the late Commissioner Bart Giamatti concluded. One year, maybe two or three, would have been enough.

From all accounts, Rose never bet against the Reds as their manager. Nor did he conspire to fix games. In sentencing him to the same lifetime ban as Joe Jackson and the other Black Sox conspirators in 1919, his punishment didn't fit his crime."

Major League Baseball Rule 21;

"Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible."

Somehow the actual rule seems more relevant. Whether or not I think smoking marijuana should be legal doesn't change the fact that if I get caught doing so that I will be disciplined according to the law.

Oh, and I enjoyed your selective emphasis on Holtzman's quote, let's try that a different way;

"Even with his reputation tarnished by accusations of betting on baseball, by a conviction for income tax evasion and by lifetime suspension from the game, Rose probably would have entered the hall some day, perhaps after a few years when the electors-the nation`s baseball writers-determined that he had had adequate time for repentance."

This reading suggests that some repentance was necessary. Rose demonstrated nothing even remotely approaching this for nearly 15 years.

This reading suggests that some repentance was necessary. Rose demonstrated nothing even remotely approaching this for nearly 15 years.

Maybe he meant private repentance.

Not that it matters anyway, because it's obvious that people didn't think at the time that Rose's actions warranted a permanent ban and permanent expulsion from the Hall of Fame. Anyone who was paying attention then could see it.

What I didn't remember was that Selig was on the panel that voted to strip the writers of a vote (**). Fay Vincent, who was also on the Hall's board, was in Jamaica but said he wouldn't have voted anyway -- it being an obvious conflict of interest for the Commissioner, the ultimate decision-maker on Rose's fate within baseball, to vote on such a thing.

So, yeah, it's real fair that Selig's been the one to evaluate Rose's reinstatement petitions. Why hasn't he recused himself?

And to stay on point, Andy professed to need "data," so I provided some. It's clear that Rose had a very good chance of being elected to the Hall by the writers. They didn't share his, and others', phony piety on the matter. People like Holtzman predicted that Rose would be voted in and, as importantly, thought nothing untoward about the notion that he would be.

(**) Together with a veritable Who's Who of baseball reactionaries, Bowie Kuhn among them.

And Rose's exclusion has generally garnered more sympathetic commentary from writers, commentators, and fans than McGwire's.

Only when people thought Rose was innocent. Once he confessed, he lost all sympathy from everyone -- probably far more than if he had admitted guilt up front. People felt like they had been played for fools.

There were also a lot of writers who were upset, not because they had sympathy for Rose, but because they felt like the decision to declare him ineligible for the HOF was a personal affront to them, as HOF voters. Partly out of a sense of entitlement -- it's our job to vote for the HOF; how dare anybody take that away from us -- and partly because they felt the HOF was saying to them, "We don't trust you; you're too stupid to vote correctly."

But I doubt if most Primates, or most writers, are basing their opposition to Rose's HoF candidacy on anything other than what is indisputable: That Rose bet ON the Reds. Given Rose's competitive nature, I doubt seriously if he'd ever bet against his own team, but that's not the proper threshold for HoF disqualification. The proper threshold is whether he bet, period.

Put me down for this position, pretty much. I am a bit more open-minded if we're talking about a one-time offense, and lot more open-minded in situations where the value of the bet is particularly small or when the stakes are not money.

For example, I would not endorse a permanent ban for a manager who bet his high school friend a nickel that his team would win, or two friendly managers agreement that the loser of an upcoming contest picks up the check at their next dinner.

The spirit of the rule is to prevent precisely the sort of conduct that Rose was engaged in. That anyone would defend Pete Rose is shocking to me: the man was a serial offender of substance. If a player like Rose doesn't trigger the most strict interpretation of the prohibition of gambling rule, it pretty much doesn't exist.

If Rose had shown remorse and a good faith desire to correct his behavior, I'd still keep his ban, but I'd feel sorry for him. Given his pattern of behavior over the years, he doesn't even earn my sympathy. I don't believe that Rose has an illness that removes the responsibility for his behavior, and I don't believe that the penalty he received is outside the realm of reasonable for his conduct. It's a strong penalty, but one that is justified for the magnitude and frequency of his violation.

And Rose's exclusion has generally garnered more sympathetic commentary from writers, commentators, and fans than McGwire's.

Only when people thought Rose was innocent. Once he confessed, he lost all sympathy from everyone -- probably far more than if he had admitted guilt up front. People felt like they had been played for fools.

There were also a lot of writers who were upset, not because they had sympathy for Rose, but because they felt like the decision to declare him ineligible for the HOF was a personal affront to them, as HOF voters. Partly out of a sense of entitlement -- it's our job to vote for the HOF; how dare anybody take that away from us -- and partly because they felt the HOF was saying to them, "We don't trust you; you're too stupid to vote correctly."

I'll let this spot-on reply by David substitute for a post I was in the middle of writing when I got bogged down in a poster order and the film hijacking of the other Bonds thread. There's little or anything to add to it.

If Rose had shown remorse and a good faith desire to correct his behavior, I'd still keep his ban, but I'd feel sorry for him. Given his pattern of behavior over the years, he doesn't even earn my sympathy. I don't believe that Rose has an illness that removes the responsibility for his behavior, and I don't believe that the penalty he received is outside the realm of reasonable for his conduct. It's a strong penalty, but one that is justified for the magnitude and frequency of his violation.

I'll always remember Rose as a magnificent ballplayer, but that won't stop me from remembering the rest of his story. Two entirely separate realms, two entirely different responses that are required.

A rational consideration of the substance of what Rose did helps him (at least with rationalists) -- which is why people invent "crimes" against Rose when they inveigh against him. Without the invented "crimes," the case against Rose doesn't warrant more than 22 years.

Rose disagreed. He signed a piece of paper saying that there was a factual basis for making him permanently ineligible.

Only when people thought Rose was innocent. Once he confessed, he lost all sympathy from everyone -- probably far more than if he had admitted guilt up front. People felt like they had been played for fools.

There were also a lot of writers who were upset, not because they had sympathy for Rose, but because they felt like the decision to declare him ineligible for the HOF was a personal affront to them, as HOF voters. Partly out of a sense of entitlement -- it's our job to vote for the HOF; how dare anybody take that away from us -- and partly because they felt the HOF was saying to them, "We don't trust you; you're too stupid to vote correctly."

By the way, I agree with this. I just disagree with Ray's next step that they would have therefore voted him in out of spite as a result of that vote getting taken away.

But I doubt if most Primates, or most writers, are basing their opposition to Rose's HoF candidacy on anything other than what is indisputable: That Rose bet ON the Reds. Given Rose's competitive nature, I doubt seriously if he'd ever bet against his own team, but that's not the proper threshold for HoF disqualification. The proper threshold is whether he bet, period.

Put me down for this position, pretty much.

I agree that there's no evidence Rose ever bet against the Reds. Dowd thought he'd be able to prove that if given more time, but Dowd's comment doesn't really help me much.

I will say that I would not be shocked if he bet against the Reds, or even very surprised (*). Gambling and money can make people do plenty of unpredictable things. And we know that Rose put these things ahead of his profession, responsibilities to the Reds, and his reputation to begin with.

(*) Similar to how I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Frank Thomas was a steroids user. Again, he was just too emotionally invested in the issue for me to safely conclude that he never took them.

Again, who? Who are the people who have said (or, more importantly, said contemporaneously) that Rose betting on the Reds, by itself, warranted permanent expulsion from Hall of Fame consideration? We know people like Jerome Holtzman didn't think that.

We know nothing of the kind. You're a really bad reader (as we know from your misreading of statements about Jack Morris in the media archives). Based on what you posted, Holtzman (a) predicted Rose would be elected, and (b) claimed that the procedures used against Rose were unfair.

Neither one of those is remotely a statement that the punishment didn't fit the crime.

In short, to coin a phrase, "You're making stuff up."

I'll let this spot-on reply by David substitute for a post I was in the middle of writing when I got bogged down in a poster order and the film hijacking of the other Bonds thread. There's little or anything to add to it.

Rose did an awful job at "repentence" and PR, no argument here. Moreover, the country has changed in the last 20 years and I've alluded to some of the changes. The baseball world has also changed; the sabermetric revolution has made baseball watchers much more comfortable with pure, reductionist sentiments -- "Rose broke a clear rule, the punishment's right there in the rule, case closed" is but a short step from "Player X has more career WAR than Player Y, therefore he's better."(**) And baseball's changes have dovetailed society's in many ways -- the Moneyball revolution was the triumph of brainpower and distant, white collar rationality over Rose's working class verve.

But we shouldn't confuse 2011 with 1990-91. Dave Anderson assumed, as most people did, that Rose (in Anderson's words) defied baseball law -- yet were still entirely comfortable with a much shorter sanction and eventual HOF induction. No serious person thought that Rose was "innocent" and no one who'd read even the executive summary of Dowd's report could believe such a thing.

So, yeah, it's real fair that Selig's been the one to evaluate Rose's reinstatement petitions. Why hasn't he recused himself?

Uh, because there's no connection between those two, and no basis for recusal? Selig voted to establish a rule (*) for HOF eligibility. There's no conflict between that and deciding, in a different role, whether to reinstate Rose to MLB.

A politician who votes to make X illegal and who is later appointed to the bench does not recuse himself in his role as judge from applying that law to a particular defendant's case. There's no conflict.



(*) I'm taking your word for that, although it's probably a mistake, since when you're in full troll mode like now you make stuff up.

We know nothing of the kind. You're a really bad reader (as we know from your misreading of statements about Jack Morris in the media archives). Based on what you posted, Holtzman (a) predicted Rose would be elected, and (b) claimed that the procedures used against Rose were unfair.

Neither one of those is remotely a statement that the punishment didn't fit the crime.

This was the case of the dog that didn't bark, which appears to be too complicated for some. Holtzman had all the space he needed to weigh in against the "injustice" of what he thought would happen, and didn't.

I used him to counter Andy's nonsense about "data." Holtzman was counting noses and thought Rose would be voted in. Andy, ridiculously, questioned that, even though the distinct possiblity was the reason the Rose vote was taken away from the writers in the first place.

People like Dave Anderson commented about Rose's punishment being excessive.

I'm taking your word for that, although it's probably a mistake, since when you're in full troll mode like now you make stuff up.

Sure.

But we shouldn't confuse 2011 with 1990-91. Dave Anderson assumed, as most people did, that Rose (in Anderson's words) defied baseball law -- yet were still entirely comfortable with a much shorter sanction and eventual HOF induction.

Dave Anderson is one voterwriter (he's not a voter because the NYT doesn't let its reporters vote). He is not "most people."

No serious person thought that Rose was "innocent" and no one who'd read even the executive summary of Dowd's report could believe such a thing.

Many people thought Rose was innocent, and the number of people who read any portion of Dowd's report could be counted on one hand. The arguments for Rose's innocence were varied:

(a) Baseball never proved anything.
(b) Rose's accusers were criminals.
(c) Baseball didn't make any findings.
(d) Maybe Rose bet on baseball, but there's no evidence Rose bet on the Reds.
(e) He deserves to go to the HOF as a player, but he only bet on baseball as a manager, so that shouldn't count. As a player, he's innocent.

Many people thought Rose was innocent, and the number of people who read any portion of Dowd's report could be counted on one hand. The arguments for Rose's innocence were varied:

(a) Baseball never proved anything.
(b) Rose's accusers were criminals.
(c) Baseball didn't make any findings.
(d) Maybe Rose bet on baseball, but there's no evidence Rose bet on the Reds.
(e) He deserves to go to the HOF as a player, but he only bet on baseball as a manager, so that shouldn't count. As a player, he's innocent.

"The number on one hand."

Do you have even the slightest evidence for that? You come on here and regularly call me a liar and other juvenile insults, yet you shovel that #### at people? That's the best you got ... your pulled out of your ass bullshit?

You have absolutely no ####### clue how many people read Dowd's report. None.

Feel free to persist in your fantasies.

I used [one Jerome Holtzman column] to counter Andy's nonsense about "data." Holtzman was counting noses and thought Rose would be voted in. Andy, ridiculously, questioned that, even though the distinct possiblity was the reason the Rose vote was taken away from the writers in the first place.

That's sure a hell of a "data" point you introduced as a way of answering my "nonsense": One writer, one column, and a "prediction" that was hedged by "probably" and "some day", with nothing but Holtzman's own tea leaves to back it up.

"Even with his reputation tarnished by accusations of betting on baseball, by a conviction for income tax evasion and by lifetime suspension from the game, Rose probably would have entered the hall some day, perhaps after a few years when the electors-the nation`s baseball writers-determined that he had had adequate time for repentance."

Again, I don't agree with the idea of using the MLB ineligibles list to foreclose a player's eligibility for the Hall of Fame, if only because such a policy gives fuel to silly arguments like we're seeing here. But once that Dowd Report was released, there wasn't not a snowball's chance in Hell that Pete Rose was going into the Hall of Fame, list or no list.

You have absolutely no ####### clue how many people read Dowd's report. None.

I'll be willing to bet one thing: That the important testimony and findings of the Dowd Report have been read by a lot more people who subsequently didn't (and still don't) want Rose in the Hall of Fame than by people who think that "he's suffered enough" and should be voted in. I'm not talking about the entire report, either, but only what was reported by the MSM outlets that most people have access to.

I used him to counter Andy's nonsense about "data." Holtzman was counting noses and thought Rose would be voted in. Andy, ridiculously, questioned that, even though the distinct possiblity was the reason the Rose vote was taken away from the writers in the first place.

Holtzman wrote, "Rose probably would have entered the hall some day, perhaps after a few years when the electors-the nation`s baseball writers-determined that he had had adequate time for repentance."." This is not "counting noses" and not a statement that "Rose would be voted in." As usual, you twist words. Holtzman's vague impression that Rose "probably" would have been voted in, "perhaps" after something happened, was nothing more than speculation. True, Holtzman knew many of the voters, so perhaps more informed than random speculation by a BBTF poster about what the voters would have done. But there's no evidence he actually talked to any significant number before writing that, let alone a representative selection. It's just his impression.

But once that Dowd Report was released, there wasn't not a snowball's chance in Hell that Pete Rose was going into the Hall of Fame, list or no list.

Yes, there was, via the avenue I've explained.

Andy, do you remember how many columns we read from writers whereby it was clear they hadn't so much as picked up the first page of the Dowd Report?

But once that Dowd Report was released, there wasn't not a snowball's chance in Hell that Pete Rose was going into the Hall of Fame, list or no list.

Boy, the Dowd Report's sure gonna show that Rose fellow!!!

The Dowd Report had been out for a year and a half before Holtzman's prediction. He was commenting on the HOF vote taking the Rose vote away from the writers, which happened in February 1991. All the stuff I quoted was in the wake of that vote.

The Dowd Report had been out for a year and a half before Holtzman's prediction. He was commenting on the HOF vote taking the Rose vote away from the writers, which happened in February 1991. All the stuff I quoted was in the wake of that vote.

And as both David and I have pointed out, that one-person "prediction" was both fudged with qualifications ("probably" and "some day"), and backed up by nothing but Holtzman's solitary opinion. Whatever other opinions he'd solicited weren't cited by him in that column. There is absolutely zero evidence that either you or Ray has produced that would indicate that anywhere remotely near 75% of the writers would have voted for Rose at any point after the release of the Dowd Report.