Pete Rose & Shoeless Joe Jackson HOF ?

[REG1976]

Major League Baseball ends lifetime ban for Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson

[bk400]

I bet (no pun intended) that neither gets elected by the Historical Committee in 2028.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by REG1976

Major League Baseball ends lifetime ban for Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson

Technically, they did not lift the lifetime ban. It just doesn't not apply to dead folk.

I'm okay with Bonds and Clemens becoming eligible on the same time table.


.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Technically, they did not lift the lifetime ban. It just doesn't not apply to dead folk.

I'm okay with Bonds and Clemens becoming eligible on the same time table.


.

Bonds and Clemens never lost their eligibility like Rose did. They just never got enough votes.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Bonds and Clemens never lost their eligibility like Rose did. They just never got enough votes.

But, they are, at least, 'perceived' as 'birds of a feather'.

Personally, I think anyone who broke the rules, be it betting on games or taking performance-enhancing drugs (which were illegal, just not enforced by their employers) do not deserve the honor of being on the same level as Hank Aaron and all those who did it the right way.

...and I am, and always will be, a Bart Giamatti fan...he protected the integrity of the Game.

END OF RANT

[REG1976]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Technically, they did not lift the lifetime ban. It just doesn't not apply to dead folk.

I'm okay with Bonds and Clemens becoming eligible on the same time table.


.

As per Manfred "once an individual has passed away, the purposes of Rule 21 have been served. Obviously, a person no longer with us cannot represent a threat to the integrity of the game. Moreover, it is hard to conceive of a penalty that has more deterrent effect than one that lasts a lifetime with no reprieve.”

[KJA]

I think Jackson gets in before Rose does.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by REG1976

Major League Baseball ends lifetime ban for Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson

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.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

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.

It wasn't a matter of popularity, they were never voted in because they did not appear on the ballot. There is no write-in voting for the HOF. Them now being eligible to appear on the ballot will definitely change the situation.

[John1941]

Joe Jackson actually received votes for the Hall of Fame in 1936 and 1940, just not many - he was named by just 0.9% of ballots in 1936 and 1.0% of ballots in the nominating vote of 1940.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by dgo71

Them now being eligible to appear on the ballot will definitely change the situation.

They were always eligible to appear on the ballot if the Baseball Hall of Fame's claim to be independent of MLB is true. Why they weren't on the ballot previously is the question that the Baseball Hall of Fame needs to answer. I mean were these two players famous or not?

[John1941]

A number of sources say that Rose was never on the HOF ballot, but according to Baseball Reference this is Pete Rose's HOF voting history:

1992, 9.5%
1993, 3.3%
1994, 4.2%

Maybe he was a write-in.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by John1941

A number of sources say that Rose was never on the HOF ballot, but according to Baseball Reference this is Pete Rose's HOF voting history:

1992, 9.5%
1993, 3.3%
1994, 4.2%

Maybe he was a write-in.

Yes, they were write-in votes. The Hall of Fame changed their rules the year Rose would have been first eligible to appear on the writers ballot to make anyone on MLB's ineligible list also ineligible to be on the Hall of Fame ballot.

[KJA]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

They were always eligible to appear on the ballot if the Baseball Hall of Fame's claim to be independent of MLB is true. Why they weren't on the ballot previously is the question that the Baseball Hall of Fame needs to answer. I mean were these two players famous or not?

In 1991 the HOF made the rule "Persons on baseball’s ineligible list cannot be eligible candidates." So that's why Rose was never on the ballot.

In 1946 they put into place some character and integrity rule, not sure how it worked. Also there was a rule about players not being on the ballot 25 years after retirement which would've taken Jackson out.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by jayshum

The Hall of Fame changed their rules the year Rose would have been first eligible to appear on the writers ballot to make anyone on MLB's ineligible list also ineligible to be on the Hall of Fame ballot.

Originally Posted by KJA

In 1991 the HOF made the rule "Persons on baseball’s ineligible list cannot be eligible candidates." So that's why Rose was never on the ballot.

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.

[dgo71]

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.

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.

[KJA]

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.

I mean technically there was something since 1945, they adopted the character clause which specified voters should consider character when voting.

But maybe it was already an unspoken rule since Joe Jackson only got votes in 1936 the first year and then for some nominating vote in 1946.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by dgo71

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.

Okay. Then my issue is specifically the hypocrist of the Baseball Hall of Fame for kowtowing to MLB's policies/directives.