January 07, 2004
Changing Minds?
Commenting on the Rose situation a few days ago, I wrote the following:
I don't think Pete Rose's election to the Hall of Fame is a sure thing if he's re-instated. Up until this point, there was no smoking gun that Rose bet on baseball, just a lot of evidence that led some resonable people to believe he bet, and some resonable people to believe he didn't. Now there will be no room for doubt. So the writers will have to decide if they want to let someone into the Hall of Fame who bet on baseball. The problem for Rose, however, is that you need 75% of the voters to name you on your ballot. A small 25% minority can keep you off. So Phil Sheridan and others don't have to convince a lot of people. I bet they win. :-)
It looks like this is happening already.
Peter Gammons has changed his mind, and will not vote for Rose if given the opportunity.
Other writers are taking the "just say no" attitude as well. This well planned mea culpa may have backfired on Rose.
Update: You can add Mark Kreidler to the list of people who won't vote for Rose.
FYI, on Monday, when word first came out about Rose's admission, CNN ran a banner at the bottom of the screen that referred to him as "Hall of Famer Pete Rose." I guess it's too late to stop him!
If he is kept ineligible that will be fine with me. However if he is eligibile and the writers don't vote him in they should lose their voting privledges. As far a charachter goes, we threw out that requirement long ago (see Ty Cobb)
George Will in Today's Washington Post has a piece aptly titled "Sorry Charile." Well worth a read.
Before Rose's admission did these writers seriously believe he hadn't bet on baseball? If so, anyone that gulible shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.
