What's the over/under on the number of write-in votes Rose receives next year?
Something to keep in mind - the objective argument against Rose is not that he is an awful person. Had a saint (1) bet on a baseball game where he had a duty to perform, (2) publicly denied it, (3) made a spectacle of his punishment for 14 years, (4) then reversed himself in spectacular fashion, the saint would also be sitting on the outside.
There are, perhaps, worse people in the hall of fame. I must admit that arguments like Tom F's amuse me; why do we assume that Rose is not all of these other things in addition to the charges leveled. But we can accept the claim that he isn't. However, the standard is wrong.
Though there be worse people in the hall of fame, there are none there that treated baseball as badly as Rose has done. [Possible exception of Cap Anson, I suppose.]
January 9, 2004 1:20 PM
| TrackBack