Quote:
Originally Posted by Heltonfan
Is there any player in the history of the game who accomplished enough that you would vote for them in spite of a Rose-like offense? If not, what level of on-field greatness would a player have to achieve in order to pull that off?
|
Rule #5 is subject to some interpretation. The integrity and character clause means different things to different voters. To me, it is a prerequisite, not just one aspect of an entire "body of work". To answer your question, there is no player, no matter how great, that I would vote into the HOF if found to have commited the one cardinal sin in baseball, betting on his sport, and to have lied about it publicly for an extended period of time. That, to me, is a deal-breaker for anyone up for HOF consideration, even if he's in the top 1-percentile.
Every clubhouse has a sign plainly visible saying that no baseball betting is allowed. Ever since the Black Sox scandal, it is the one taboo that is traditionally off limits to everyone on the team, including players, coaches, and managers. That Pete Rose did it, was found to have gambled incesisntly on sports, and yet denied that he bet on baseball until later in life is a disqualifying flaw of integrity and character. If he had been the all-time leader in hits AND homeruns, I would have thought the same thing.
Having said all that, at some point he should be ELIGIBLE to be on the ballot. Maybe that time should be now. But, in no way do I think he should be voted in by the BBWAA even if on the ballot.