Pete Rose in the HOF? Yes or no?

Wellll ... the powers that decide such things can keep Pete Rose out of the Hall until the cows come home. Nobody ever said I had to take the Hall of Fame seriously. And I won't until it has the game's best all-time players in it.

There's the "moot point" issue taken out to its logical end.

 

Speaking of scandals involving good old John Dowd, here's another:

http://oldamericancentury.org/bb/index.php?showtopic=14083

We've learned that the Akin Gump temptress worked for someone even more senior at the firm — and even more powerful. We have confirmed, with knowledgeable sources, what was previously rumored in reader comments. The Akin Gump Escort worked for John M. Dowd, the high-powered head of the firm's criminal litigation group.

Please excuse the momentary threadjack.

 

Why are the Sportswriters who vote for the HOF obligated to follow the dictates of the Baseball Commissioner.

Does MLB own the HOF in Cooperstown?

 

Exactly. We're having a discussion about whether we think he belongs, not whether it will happen anytime soon. Personally, I won't even visit the HOF again until Marvin Miller gets in.

 

Good question. It's a private museum, not owned by MLB, yet the BBWAA somehow gets its voting privileges through MLB. I've never really understood how exactly that works.

 

The Hall of Fame is its own separate entity. It is not controlled or governed by Major League Baseball. Obviously, baseball and Cooperstown are very much in bed with each other, which is to be expected. But officially, they are run separately from each other.

The BBWAA is its own separate organization, too. I don't think it's affiliated with MLB. Someone who's a member -- casty? -- would know more about that than me. I think you have to be covering baseball for 10(?) years and actually be recommended/referred by a current member to get into the organization.

In 1991, the HOF board ruled that any player on baseball's permanently ineligible list would not be eligible for induction. This was a direct result of the Pete Rose situation. That is a Hall of Fame rule, not an MLB rule.

But, yes, it does ensure that rogue writers didn't cast a vote for Pete Rose that year, the first he was eligible. It also disallows any votes for Shoeless Joe, who actually got two votes in 1936 -- infuriating Landis beyond belief -- and two more in 1946, after Landis died.)

 

For the record, I'd be in favor of Jackson's induction, as well.

 

Buck, the BBWAA isn't affiliated with MLB but in this case, MLB and the HOF make the rules. Rose is not eligible. Period. There are still people who write his name on their ballots every year, but that number is getting lower all the time.

(And to satisfy the nosy among you, I did write his name on my ballot the first year but, when I saw that it was wasteful effort and when I began reading and learning more about Rose's lying, I didn't write it in anymore.)

 

And I may follow you lead Casty. I know you've paid the dues as I have to speak out on Rose.

 

Make that three. A travesty.

 

I understand your point that he's not eligible, casty, but we're just having a friendly discussion here. It doesn't matter that it's a moot point.

But as far as yourself or other scribes writing him in ... the HOF threw all those votes out, which they did not do with Jackson's four votes a half-century ago. That goes back to the 1991 rule. (There are no Rose votes listed in the <a href="http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/hof_voting/year/1991.htm">1991</a> voting, or <a href="http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/hof_voting/year/1992.htm">1992</a>, or <a href="http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/hof_voting/year/1999.htm">1999</a>, or <a href="http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/hof_voting/year/2006.htm">2006</a>, his last year.) So you're right that it was a wasteful effort.

 

Buck, if I'm not mistaken, even though the Rose votes don't count, Jack O'Connell, BBWAA secretary, will announce the number of write-ins he gets if asked.