Quote:
Originally Posted by Balticfox
The ending of the lifetime ban should make no difference whatsoever since the Hall of Fame is ostensibly independent of MLB. But while both Shoeless Joe Jackson and Pete Rose are easily famous enough to merit inclusion in the Baseball Hall of Fame, they nonetheless need to be voted in by the electors and neither Jackson nor Rose have been popular enough with the electors to manage that feat. I don't see that anything has happened to change the situation.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balticfox
But there was no reason for the passage of such a rule had the Hall of Fame acted independently of MLB! There was no reason for the Hall of Fame to care about MLB's ineligible list. If the Hall of Fame was another arm of MLB, I could understand following MLB's edict. But they say it ain't so.
|
These are two entirely different points though. Your first post came across as if the voters didn't think highly enough of Rose and Jackson to vote them in (bolded above), when in truth the voters were simply following the rules that govern the election process. If your issue is with the HOF establishing these rules (in an effort to peacefully co-exist with MLB while still remaining an independently run entity), then fine, I can see the viewpoint that the HOF didn't "need" to establish such a rule. But the writers who actually do the voting didn't
institute the rule and their opinions of Rose and Jackson cannot be inferred by their decision to
follow the rule. Even still, there were apparently enough rogues to write Rose in even though they likely knew that was more of a statement than an actual attempt to get him elected. Now that Rose and Jackson are eligible to officially appear on the ballot, it's hard to imagine a scenario where the two don't garner enough votes to eventually be enshrined.