View Full Version : BBF Mock HoF and Pete Rose?
DoubleX
04-11-2007, 10:42 AM
In the BBF Mock HoF project, we're currently at 1991. In 1992, Pete Rose became eligible and received almost 10% of the vote. Should he be included on our 1992 ballot? Should he not be included by a write-in/other option given? Should he not be included? Other thoughts?
vtbub
04-11-2007, 10:50 AM
If we want to emulate the writers, then he should not be on the ballot as he has never appeared on the writers ballot.
Whether Freakshow would place him on the Vets committee ballot is another story.
KCGHOST
04-11-2007, 12:27 PM
Might be interesting to see how many people would vote for him. I will be one of those voting against.
jalbright
04-11-2007, 01:34 PM
If he's part of the listed choices, I will almost surely vote for him. However, I will not write him in. I'm not a great admirer of him, but if he's on the ballot (and thus eligible), I will not deny that he was a great player. I won't lobby for either choice at this point, but if he's on the ballot, it would be a good idea to spell out what the standards are.
Jim Albright
2Chance
04-11-2007, 07:37 PM
I don't believe he was ever legally on the ballot. A lot of writers put his name down anyway as a sort of mini-protest, and some still do.
If he were eligible, he would have been a first ballot lock. It wouldn't happen here, as we've got the benefit of more hindsight and some voters with a definite anti-Pete bias. (Not that there's anything wrong with that...:D)
DoubleX
04-11-2007, 08:31 PM
Barring a compelling argument, I'm leaning pretty heavily towards not including Rose on the ballot.
leecemark
04-11-2007, 10:46 PM
--I'd prefer not to see him on our ballot. His presence would dominante the discussion for "years" until/unless we elected him, to the detriment of discussing other candidate from the actual ballot.
Windy City Fan
04-11-2007, 11:15 PM
Mark brings up a good point. Pete Rose is a contentious issue that we've hashed out several times. No need to go through that ugliness again. Plus, as was said above, Rose was never actually on the ballot and if we're trying to mirror the real process we shouldn't include him.
DoubleX
04-12-2007, 06:28 AM
Mark brings up a good point. Pete Rose is a contentious issue that we've hashed out several times. No need to go through that ugliness again. Plus, as was said above, Rose was never actually on the ballot and if we're trying to mirror the real process we shouldn't include him.
Though the real process allows for write-in votes, right?
vtbub
04-12-2007, 06:38 AM
Though the real process allows for write-in votes, right?
I think you are correct.
Brooklyn
04-12-2007, 06:44 AM
My preference would be to include him. I agree that I'd prefer the conversation not be dominated by him (and you can even include a note to that extent, although I doubt it would be followed), but I'd put him in the Bonds, McGuire, Sosa, Palmeiro category. Let the voters decide how they want to view him. the fact that mlb has banned him and not the other guys (regardless if people think one is worse than the other) is not important to my own personal views on whether or not he belongs.