The News-Gazette.com Weblog

Sports of All Sorts

The Hall of Fame, Winter Meetings and change

Posted by: Tony Bleill

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 12:08 AM

The Hall of Fame veterans committee voting results were released on Monday and it came as little surprise that Ron Santo did not get in -- again. The veterans committee voting format has been changed twice since 2001, when charges of cronyism accompanied the election of Bill Mazeroski. Nowadays, the 64 living Hall of Famers are charged with the duty of evaluating the group of players who are eligible for election through the veterans committee. None of those post-World War II players have been elected since the 2001 changes were made.

I don't have a particularly strong feeling one way or the other about Santo's candidacy. I can see why he's not in; and I can see why he should be in. But the committee's exclusion of all candidates does not surprise me. If you think about it, the composition of the voters makes it difficult for anyone to get elected. The living Hall of Famers are going to be very judicious about adding members to their little fraternity. The more exclusive the club, the better they look themselves. So why would they add members if they don't have to? The living Famers will be happy to add Ryne Sandberg or Greg Maddux or other no-brainers like them. But folks like Sandberg and Maddux will be elected by the baseball writers during the regular voting process. The veterans committee never will be called upon to make decisions about those guys. That committee is only looking at the players who were overlooked by the baseball writers, and I think anyone in that pool is in for a long, long wait.

--The baseball winter meetings are taking place at the Bellagio Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. Does anyone find this a bit odd? Throughout its history, baseball has been so insanely obsessed with gambling that it's hard to believe Bud Selig and Co. would agree to place its winter spotlight on a town that's built on gambling. The Bellagio's sports book, like just about every other in the state, lists odds on each team's chances to win the World Series.

Hypocrisy be thy name.

Given baseball's treatment of Pete Rose, it's hard to justify this decision. Or perhaps I'm looking at it all wrong. Maybe baseball is turning over a new leaf. Maybe it has finally realized that there are far more egregious transgressions -- moral or otherwise -- within the game than betting on your own team to win. By the way, has anyone seen Roger Clemens lately?