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.

That goes on all the time. A great many writers offered that Rose would have gotten in if he just confessed and apologized, though that ignored the number of writers who a) wouldn't have voted for him under any circumstances, b) believed his denials about betting on baseball, and c) were giving him the benefit of the doubt. The former group wasn't budging and the latter groups may well have flipped on Pete if he fessed up.

Those writers may have been speaking for themselves (though Mac's stagnant vote totals suggest not holding them to the promise) and their vote, but it was a mistake (or hubris) to think the entire electorate held the same viewpoint.

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 ########?

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

Yeah, I do: it wasn't available to the general public until Sean Lahman posted it on his website, several years after the events. (You can tell it was several years after the events because there were no websites in 1989.)

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.

The story's 20 years old and no one's going to do a survey of every reporter that was around then.

Look, you tried to make a blanket claim that Rose has always been deemed unworthy of the Hall of Fame because of betting on the Reds thinking you wouldn't get called on it. And you got called on it. You know Holtzman is a centrist guy and you know Dave Anderson's a mainstream guy and they both -- Anderson directly, Holtzman indirectly, notwithstanding your nitpicks -- completely contradicted that theory. You also know, or should know, that they spoke what others in their circles were saying or thinking, as that's what writers and columnists of their type do.(**) In the face of that, you've resorted to Mitt Romneyish, "I'll bet yous" and the like which have nothing supporting them.

(**) Even though, yes, sigh, they're really only two people.

Yeah, I do: it wasn't available to the general public until Sean Lahman posted it on his website, several years after the events. (You can tell it was several years after the events because there were no websites in 1989.)

It was publicly released and reported on even before Rose settled with Giamatti. I'm not sure what the Internet has to do with that or, really, what the concept of the "general public" has to do with that. We aren't talking about the general public. (And paper-shuffling professions such as big-city law and big-city newspapering were able to function pre-Net.)

SI, the week after the Rose/Giamatti settlement, main story:

In the six months since the commissioner's office began its investigation into Rose's gambling activities, many fans have asked, "What's so bad about betting on your own team?" Or its companion question, "What's so bad about it if he didn't try to fix games?"

There was no confusion over what Rose did and what he was alleged to have done.

SI also had the Dowd Report:

His cocksure denials that he had wagered on his sport were scant defense against the 225-page report prepared by baseball's special counsel John Dowd. That report named nine people who implicated Rose in baseball betting.

... and reported Giamatti's immediate post-settlement remarks:

Giamatti took pains to point out that Rose had not been guaranteed reinstatement at any point in the future. When asked what Rose would have to do to prove himself worthy of reinstatement, Giamatti said he expected Rose to "show a redirected, reconfigured or rehabilitated life."

In other words, Bart Giamatti did not believe the charges and Rose's acts themselves warranted permanent expulsion from either baseball or, its consumed subset, the Hall of Fame (though failing to adequately "redirect, reconfigure, or rehabilitate" did.) I think we can fairly assume that Bart Giamatti read the Dowd Report. No, I haven't asked him.

On Aug. 18, Katz called deputy baseball commissioner Fay Vincent and expressed a renewed interest in settling. The two sides traded phone calls for several days, and as a final gesture of good faith, Giamatti called Katz to assure him that he would consider with an open mind any reinstatement application from Rose. Moments later Rose signed.

And it's fair to say baseball has not "considered with an open mind" any such reinstatement application.

Look, you tried to make a blanket claim that Rose has always been deemed unworthy of the Hall of Fame because of betting on the Reds thinking you wouldn't get called on it. And you got called on it.

I've never made any "blanket claim" that everyone agreed with Rose's unworthiness. I've said only that the idea that anything approaching 75% of the BBWAA would have voted for Rose in light of the Dowd Report is one of the more comical assertions I've ever seen on BTF, and that's saying a lot. To counter that mockery, you've cited exactly two writers, with no substantiation for any others---not that I'm saying that those are the only two (emphasis added as a distortion preventer), but there's a big gap between one HoF voter** and 75% of his colleagues.

You know Holtzman is a centrist guy and you know Dave Anderson's a mainstream guy and they both -- Anderson directly, Holtzman indirectly, notwithstanding your nitpicks -- completely contradicted that theory.

Mr. Froggy, no matter how hard you try to inflate the opinion of two writers into a chestful of other voters, it's still just a chestful of hot air. All you're going on is a lot of opinionated extrapolation, with no actual data points beyond Holtzman and Anderson to back it up.

You also know, or should know, that they spoke what others in their circles were saying or thinking, as that's what writers and columnists of their type do.**

Yes, I'm sure that Holtzman called all kinds of other writers before writing that Take It To The Bank "probably...some day" column. Let's just take your word on this, because this is what all writers do before writing an opinion column 3 or 4 days a week.

(**) Even though, yes, sigh, they're really only two people.

And only one of them (Holtzman) actually ever voted in any HoF election, since it's the policy of the Times to disenfranchise their employees from any awards or honors voting.

And only one of them (Holtzman) actually ever voted in any HoF election, since it's the policy of the Times to disenfranchise their employees from any awards or honors voting.

Right, and the one who did have a ballot didn't actually state that he himself would vote for Rose.

There was no confusion over what Rose did and what he was alleged to have done.

There was plenty of confusion over both what he did and what he was alleged to do, as evidenced by the fact that people still claim he didn't bet as a player.

In other words, Bart Giamatti did not believe the charges and Rose's acts themselves warranted permanent expulsion from either baseball or, its consumed subset, the Hall of Fame (though failing to adequately "redirect, reconfigure, or rehabilitate" did.) I think we can fairly assume that Bart Giamatti read the Dowd Report. No, I haven't asked him.

Those are, indeed, "other words," because that's not what he said. "This murderer will never get parole without showing remorse" does not mean the same thing as "If he shows remorse, he's entitled to parole."

On Aug. 18, Katz called deputy baseball commissioner Fay Vincent and expressed a renewed interest in settling. The two sides traded phone calls for several days, and as a final gesture of good faith, Giamatti called Katz to assure him that he would consider with an open mind any reinstatement application from Rose. Moments later Rose signed.

And it's fair to say baseball has not "considered with an open mind" any such reinstatement application.

It's not, in fact, fair to say that. It is fair to say that the only person who could have described this call would have been Reuven Katz himself, and Katz had an incentive to minimize his own incompetence by pretending that there were unwritten promises in the agreement despite an integration clause.

And it's fair to say baseball has not "considered with an open mind" any such reinstatement application.

Just because they haven't granted reinstatement doesn't mean they didn't consider it.

I've said only that the idea that anything approaching 75% of the BBWAA would have voted for Rose in light of the Dowd Report is one of the more comical assertions I've ever seen on BTF, and that's saying a lot.

I think you can put a pleasant entry in your daily calorie counter, because that's quite a strenuous battle you must have had.

Take another look in the mirror, though -- looks like there's one last piece of straw caught in your teeth.

Those are, indeed, "other words," because that's not what he said. "This murderer will never get parole without showing remorse" does not mean the same thing as "If he shows remorse, he's entitled to parole."

Hey, look ... David can distinguish two things!!!!

Hey, look ... David can distinguish two things!!!!

Yes. Like the World Trade Center and a Burlington Coat Factory, or Jack Morris and a clutch pitcher. Try it sometime.