Nadal Stands Alone at the Grand Slam Summit

Rafael Nadal bounced back after trailing two sets to none to defeat Daniil Medvedev in five sets to not only win the Australian Open for the second time, but also become the first man to win 21 Grand Slam singles titles, breaking a tie with Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic. In 2008--at the height of Federer-mania--I deemed it premature to label Federer the greatest tennis player of all-time: "Considering that Nadal is almost five years younger than Federer it is entirely possible that he will eclipse what Federer has done; after all, five years ago Federer had just won his first Grand Slam, while Nadal already owns four Grand Slam titles, beating Federer along the way each time."

As I predicted, Nadal has eclipsed Federer--but Nadal's accomplishment may not silence his critics, who have always been vocal:

1) "Nadal is just a clay court specialist."

Nadal is a great clay court player--he has won a record 13 French Open titles, shattering the mark of six held by Bjorn Borg from 1981 until Nadal captured his seventh Roland Garros crown in 2012--but even if you ignore those 13 championships only seven players have won more total Grand Slams than Nadal's eight "other" Grand Slam titles. Nadal's eight "other" Grand Slam titles match the total career Grand Slam wins posted by Fred Perry, Ken Rosewall, Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl, and Andre Agassi. 

Nadal and Djokovic are the only Open Era players to win the double career Grand Slam (winning each Grand Slam at least twice). The notion that Nadal is strictly a clay court specialist could not be further from the truth. If Nadal had never set foot at the French Open he would still rank among the top 10-12 players of all-time. 

2) "Nadal's hard-charging style will cause his body to break down, so he will have a short career."

In 2020, Nadal dominated Djokovic in straight sets to win the French Open and tie Federer with 20 career Grand Slam singles titles. Nadal also broke Borg's record by winning his fourth Grand Slam title without losing a single set during the tournament, and Nadal became the first Open era player to win six Grand Slam singles titles after the age of 30--keep in mind that Don Budge, Boris Becker, and Stefan Edberg each won six Grand Slam singles titles in their entire careers! Nadal, who will turn 36 in June 2022, is on his way to becoming perhaps the greatest "older" player of all-time.

What can Nadal's critics say now? 

Nadal owns the career Grand Slams record, he maintains a decisive head to head advantage versus Federer (24-16 overall, including 10-4 in Grand Slams, with Nadal beating Federer at least once in three of the four Grand Slam events), and he only trails Djokovic slightly head to head (30-28) while leading Djokovic 10-7 head to head in Grand Slam matches. 

Nadal's Grand Slam winning percentage is .333 (21 titles in 63 appearances), and his Grand Slam match winning percentage is .879. Federer's Grand Slam winning percentage is .247 (20 titles in 81 appearances), and his Grand Slam match winning percentage is .860. Djokovic's Grand Slam winning percentage is .303 (20 titles in 66 appearances), and his Grand Slam match winning percentage is .875. 

In the Open Era, no player has won a single event more often than Nadal has won the French Open. Nadal also owns second place and third place on that list, with 12 Barcelona Open wins, and 11 Monte Carlo Masters wins.

Is Nadal the greatest tennis player of all-time? That is not an easy question to answer, for several reasons. 

First, it is very difficult to compare tennis players from before the Open Era to players from the Open Era because of rules changes, equipment changes, and changes in tennis' organizational structure that impacted which tournaments players could enter/which tournaments were the most lucrative and/or prestigious. The most obvious and significant difference is that before the Open Era began professional players could not participate in the Grand Slam events. Rod Laver won all four Grand Slams in 1962 as an amateur, and then after he turned pro in 1963 he was not eligible to participate in those events until the 1968 French Open, when the Open Era began. Laver dominated the Pro Slam events from 1963-68 with eight wins and six Finals appearances in 15 events, and there is no doubt that he would have won many Grand Slam titles during that period had he been permitted to compete.

Second, even within the Open Era there have been significant changes. To cite just one example, during the 1970s there were non-Grand Slam events that paid more prize money than the Grand Slams. This impacted how the players set their schedules, and how the players trained; it made more sense (not to mention more dollars and cents) to train with a focus on the biggest money events than it did to focus on the Grand Slams. Bjorn Borg won the Pepsi Grand Slam for four straight years (1977-80) when that event featured the world's top players and paid out a bigger prize fund than any of the Grand Slams: Borg's $100,000 first prize in the Pepsi Grand Slam was more than he received in 1976 for winning Wimbledon and the WCT Tour Finals--combined!

That is not to suggest that the Grand Slams were not important, but the near-obsessive focus on Grand Slam titles that exists now did not exist with the same intensity at that time. As proof, consider that Borg only played in one Australian Open, Jimmy Connors played in two Australian Opens, and John McEnroe played in five Australian Opens in a 16 year Grand Slam career.  In contrast, nine of Djokovic's 20 Grand Slam wins are Australian Open wins. Comparing Djokovic's Grand Slam win totals from playing four Grand Slam tournaments per year to the Grand Slam win totals of players who generally played three Grand Slam tournaments per year is not meaningful.

Is Nadal the greatest player of the Open Era? 

Perhaps the best way to frame this conversation/analysis is to note that Borg is the Sandy Koufax of tennis: like Koufax in baseball, Borg was further ahead of his contemporaries than perhaps any other tennis player has ever been. When Borg retired from Grand Slam play at just 25 he owned the career record for both French Open titles and Wimbledon titles. Federer now holds the Wimbledon record and Nadal now holds the French Open record, but during Borg's time he was literally Federer and Nadal in one package!

Think of the difference between NFL running backs Jim Brown and Emmitt Smith. Brown, who played nine seasons consisting of either 12 or 14 games each, held the career rushing yards gained record for over 20 years, but he now ranks 11th on the all-time list. Smith, who played 15 seasons consisting of 16 games each, has held the career rushing yards gained record for almost 20 years--surpassing Walter Payton, who broke Brown's record in 1984--but knowledgeable NFL analysts do not rank Smith as the greatest running back of all-time, because there is a significant difference between productivity and dominance. Brown dominated his era, while Smith was durable enough to be very productive for a long period of time. Borg is the tennis version of Brown, while the subsequent players who have been productive but not as dominant--most notably, Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer--are analogous to Smith.

There is a difference between being the most accomplished player, and being the greatest player. There are many pitchers who won more games than Sandy Koufax, but few--if any--pitchers who I would choose over Koufax to pitch game seven of the World Series. If I needed a great running back to help me win one game, there is no one who I would take ahead of Jim Brown, including the players who have rushed for more career yards than he did. 

In my October 23, 2012 article Fun With Tennis Numbers, I listed some of the records Borg still held (or held jointly) more than 30 years after he played his final Grand Slam tournament:

1. Best career overall match winning percentage (.827)
2. Best career Grand Slam match winning percentage (.898)
3. Best career Wimbledon match winning percentage (.927)
4. Best career match winning percentage against top 10 players (.725)
5. Best career Grand Slam tournament winning percentage (.407)
6. Won at least one Grand Slam singles title for eight straight years
7. Only man to win three Grand Slam singles titles without losing a set
8. Only man to reach four Grand Slam singles finals without losing a set
9. Only man to defeat six previous Grand Slam winners in a Grand Slam final
10. Holds the record for most consecutive Davis Cup singles match wins (33)
11. Holds the record for most singles titles won before his 25th birthday (59)
12. Reached the finals in 11 of 12 Grand Slams entered during a four year stretch

Remarkably, nearly 10 years later Borg still holds (or holds jointly) nine of those records! Nadal now holds the records for overall match winning percentage, for winning one Grand Slam singles title for 10 straight years (2005-14), and for for winning four Grand Slam singles titles without losing a set. Borg not only dominated his peers, but he set some marks that remain unbroken more than 40 years after he played in his last Grand Slam event.

In Federer, Nadal and Djokovic Reconsidered--and Why Borg Still Stands Alone, I wrote: 

Anyone who sees the larger historical perspective is amused by all of the Federer/Nadal/Djokovic talk, because none of those guys measure up to Bjorn Borg, who I described as the "Sandy Koufax of tennis." Borg outdistanced his contemporaries by a greater margin than any player in the Open Era. Consider these statistics:

* Borg was the youngest player to win the Italian Open, the French Open and Wimbledon. Borg's records for the French Open and Wimbledon have been broken but he is the only player who was simultaneously the youngest ever champion of all three events.

* Until the age of 21, Borg never lost to a player younger than he was.

* Borg achieved the French Open/Wimbledon double each year from 1978-80. No player before or since has accomplished this feat in three straight years, or even two straight years.

* Borg tied the all-time record by winning three Grand Slam titles without losing a set (1976 Wimbledon, 1978 French Open and 1980 French Open).

* Borg simultaneously held the record for most career French Open singles titles (six) and most career Wimbledon titles (five). While both records have since been broken, no other player in the Open Era has simultaneously held both marks. For half a decade, Borg was the best grass court player in the world and the best clay court player in the world. In other words, he was Nadal and Federer rolled into one, while competing against at least two players who should still be listed among the 10 greatest of all-time (Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe).

* Borg won five straight Wimbledon titles from 1976-80, a feat that had not been accomplished since the 1880s, when the defending champion was automatically seeded into the next year's Finals.

* When Borg retired from Grand Slam competition at the age of 25 he ranked second all-time with 11 Grand Slam singles titles, trailing only Roy Emerson. Emerson won 12 Grand Slam singles titles, but six of his were in his native Australian Open; until the 1980s, non-Australian players regularly skipped the Australian Open, and Borg only played the event once, as a teenager.

* Borg remains the youngest player to ever win 11 Grand Slam singles titles (25 years old).

* Borg still holds the highest career Grand Slam tournament winning percentage (.407; 11/27).

* Borg still holds the highest career Grand Slam match winning percentage (.898; 141-16).

* Borg still holds the highest career Grand Slam five set match winning percentage (.889; 24-3).

* Borg remains the only player who posted five straight years with a Grand Slam match winning percentage above .900 (1977-81).

* Borg still holds the highest career Wimbledon match winning percentage (.927; 51-4).

* Borg still holds the record for consecutive Wimbledon matches won (41).

The main knocks against Borg are his lack of longevity and the fact that he never won the U.S. Open. The funny thing about Borg's longevity is that he won at least one Grand Slam title in eight straight years (1974-81), a record that stood alone until Sampras matched it in 2000. Federer achieved the feat from 2003-10, and Nadal now holds the record with 10 (2005-14). In terms of Grand Slam dominance--as opposed to mere Grand Slam participation--Borg enjoyed enviable and nearly unmatched longevity. Regarding the U.S. Open, Borg reached the Finals four times in nine appearances, and his Finals losses all came at the hands of Connors or McEnroe, two of the most decorated U.S. Open champions ever. The lack of at least one U.S. Open title is the only legitimate mark against Borg, and in terms of ranking the greatest players of all-time that one negative mark does not outweigh all of the positive marks listed above.

Borg remained solidly in second place with 11 Grand Slam singles titles from 1981 until 1998, when Sampras tied him. Sampras passed him in 1999 and retired in 2002 as the all-time leader with 14 Grand Slam singles titles. Sampras won 14 of the 52 Grand Slam singles events that he entered (.269). He never made it to the French Open Finals, and he only made it to the French Open semifinals once in 13 tries. Sampras was not nearly as dominant as Borg. While Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have each subsequently passed both Borg and Sampras in terms of total Grand Slam event wins, no one has approached Borg's .407 Grand Slam event winning percentage or his astonishing 16 Finals trips in 27 appearances (.593). Borg on his best day could beat anyone from any era on grass or clay. That is clearly not true of Sampras, Federer or Djokovic, particularly regarding clay. Borg versus Nadal on clay would be an incredible spectacle but Nadal at his best is not beating Borg at his best on grass.  

You may ask, "What would Nadal--or any player--have to do to surpass Borg?" The answer is simple--but not easy to do: to surpass Borg, a player would have to dominate his peer group from a young age and continue to do so for an extended period of time in the most important events on a variety of surfaces. As noted above, Borg's simultaneous dominance of Wimbledon and the French Open has yet to be matched; it took two different players--Federer and Nadal--plus the passage of more than 20 years to break just some of the records Borg set. 

Therefore, I would say that Borg is the greatest Open Era player, while Nadal is the most accomplished Open Era player.

Former MLB Player Doug Glanville Explains Why Barry Bonds and the Other PED Cheaters Should Never be Elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame

I recently articulated my position regarding why PED cheaters should not be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. I rarely provide links to ESPN.com, for reasons that should be obvious, but once in a while the site provides a gem. Former MLB player Doug Glanville offered a passionate and well-reasoned argument about why he is OK with Barry Bonds not being elected to the Hall of Fame.

Glanville makes a great point while refuting the notion that not electing Barry Bonds and the other PED cheaters is wrong because the Baseball Hall of Fame is a history museum: the story of PED cheating can be thoroughly told without electing Bonds and the other cheaters, because there is a difference between telling history and honoring people who behaved poorly. Of course the history of the PED era should be told: instead of inducting Commissioner Bud Selig--perhaps the worst commissioner in major North American sports in the past several decades--he should have towered over the PED exhibit as the poster boy of ineffective leadership that permitted the cheaters to damage the game and destroy baseball's record book, which should now only be shelved in the fiction section of libraries and bookstores.

The whole article is worth reading (just mute the speakers on your device to spare yourself the agony of hearing "Screamin' A" Smith yelling that Barry Bonds should be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame--to find one "diamond" on ESPN.com you must traverse a lot of "rough"), but here are some excerpts to whet your appetite:

The most common argument for the inclusion of PED users in the Hall is that we can't ignore the past, and trust me--I hold no rose-colored glasses to the idealism of this game's origins. Throughout my playing career, I was always acutely aware that players who looked like me once could not even participate in that history. And yes, there are likely players who are in the Hall now who took PEDs and got away with it. Yes, there are players in the Hall who took amphetamines, whose behavior would not have lived up to the policies today. But why should any of that stop us from being better now?

We all accept that the Hall of Fame is a museum, tasked with telling the full story. But it is also a shrine. There should be a difference between being recognized in the Hall of Fame and being honored by it. I am represented in the Baseball Hall of Fame--or at least, my senior thesis from college is. Does that mean that I am a Hall of Famer? I doubt my .277 batting average and 59 home runs would have gotten me in. And I am fine with that.

I don't see why this distinction cannot be made who took PEDs and also had a record-setting impact. If we want to recognize PED users in the Hall, we can build them an exhibit, or even their own wing. We should acknowledge all of our history, both glorious and ugly. Like I am, with my paper, they can be in the Hall--as a fixture and as a recognition of their accomplishments. But I don't see why they need a plaque.

What we celebrate--what we enshrine--should have a different set of criteria. We cannot treat induction into the Hall as simply an act of historical graduation--automatic entry into the Hall because the numbers are in record books--especially when the inductees did not stand on the shoulders of their predecessors so much as trample them into the ground with glee...

With some of these players, their proponents make the argument that they would have been Hall of Famers whether or not they used. I have always been skeptical that anyone could know for sure when or if a player started taking PEDs. But more importantly, when you make a choice that artificially manipulates your performance and your future, it colors your past. Fairly or not.

We simply can't say what these enhanced players would do or be without the stuff. I was drafted in 1991, one pick in front of Manny Ramirez, a player some call the "greatest right-handed hitter of all time." Maybe he was; maybe he deserved to be drafted ahead of me. But I did not fail two tests and miss 150 games because of it. I do not know what kind of hitter he would have been without what he took. No one does. So talking about picking me over Ramirez is like comparing apples to oranges. We weren't even playing the same sport in the end. Good for him--he made his money, he won world championships. But does he need to be enshrined as an example of the best of our sport? The answer to that question is really up to us...

Nearly a decade ago, I worked on a task force with the United States Anti-Doping Agency. I was helping to evaluate a report on youth sports to understand what gives young people the fullest, healthiest and most enjoyable experience when participating in sport. Also in the group was an ethicist by the name of Tom Murray, and he said something that stuck with me: "You reward what you value."

If we are to reward players with induction into the Hall, it should be based on our values. We are the ones who need to decide the difference between being great and being consequential.

Baseball Hall of Fame Voters Correctly Shut the Door on Bonds and Clemens, but Give a Pass to Ortiz

In Hall of Fame balloting conducted among members of the Baseball Writers Association of America, David Ortiz received 77.9 percent of the votes, surpassing the 75 percent threshold for induction. Although Ortiz is the only player selected by the media, he will not be the only inductee this summer. He will be joined by six players who were selected by various Hall of Fame committees: Gil Hodges, Tony Oliva, Minnie Minoso, Jim Kaat, Bud Fowler, and Buck O'Neil. Kaat, Oliva, and Ortiz are the only 2022 inductees who are alive.

Ortiz ranks 17th on MLB's regular season home run list, his teams won three World Series championships (2004, 2007, 2013), and he won the 2013 World Series MVP. He is a first ballot inductee, but barely. Why did he not receive more votes? One reason is that he spent most of his career as a designated hitter, and Hall of Fame voters have typically passed on players who spent most of their careers as a designated hitter (with a few notable exceptions, including--most recently--Edgar Martinez, inducted in 2019). 

The other reason is that it is likely, but not definitively proven, that Ortiz used performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) during his career.

In a recent article, Sports Illustrated's Tom Verducci noted that prior to 1996 there had never been an MLB season in which 12 players each hit at least 40 home runs. Then, at least 12 players each hit 40 home runs for six straight years. Verducci's 2002 SI story about rampant steroid use in MLB shamed Congress into action, and led to MLB taking the first tentative steps to test players and assess the problem. Ever since MLB began testing, there has never been another season in which at least 12 players each hit 40 or more home runs; the bloated home run numbers are tainted and, as I wrote in 2009, MLB's record book should be shelved in the fiction section.

Here are a couple player quotes from Verducci's 2002 article:

Pitcher Matt Herges declared, "I know what steroids did for me. It made me superhuman. It made me an android, basically. Your body shuts down and the stuff takes over."

Pitcher Dan Naulty said, "I was a full blown cheater and I knew it. You didn't need a written rule. I was violating clear principles that were laid down within the rules."

PEDs are called "performance-enhancing" because they enhance performance: they help pitchers throw faster and harder, and they help batters swing faster and harder. "Stat gurus" have trouble grasping this basic concept, but anyone with common sense understands why the players cheated, and anyone whose moral compass is functioning understands why the cheaters should not be inducted in the Baseball Hall of Fame. In 2012 Mark McGwire--who spent a long time evading the topic but eventually admitted that he used steroids--said, "It's a mistake that I have to live with for the rest of my life. I have to deal with never, ever getting into the Hall of Fame. I totally understand and totally respect their opinion and I will never, ever push it."

Ortiz tested positive for PEDs in 2003, though those test results did not become public knowledge until 2009. Ortiz was not productive during the early portion of his career, but he turned things around after he was released by the Minnesota Twins in 2002. At that time, he was 26 years old, and he had never hit more than 20 home runs in a season, nor had he ever slugged more than 75 RBI in a season. In 2003, the year that Ortiz tested positive, he had 31 home runs and 101 RBI in his first season with the Boston Red Sox. In 2004, Ortiz had 41 home runs and 139 RBI, followed by 47/148 and 54/137 in 2005 and 2006. MLB's PED testing program began during the 2006 season (the 2003 tests were "survey" tests to assess the extent of the problem, with the results not publicized, and with no players being disciplined even though steroids were and are illegal without a prescription). A player who stopped taking PEDs that season would be able to pass drug tests but still likely benefit from the residual effects and the muscle mass already built. Ortiz was just 30 years old, and he played 10 more years until he was 40, but he never hit more than 40 home runs in a season, though he was very productive even at age 40 (38 home runs, 127 RBI). It must be emphasized that Ortiz' production after PED testing was implemented does not prove that he was clean: it may be possible to cycle usage in a way to avoid detection, and--even more to the point--research has shown that even brief PED use can confer long-term strength gains.

So, the facts that we know are that Ortiz was a mediocre player at best until he was 26, he suddenly became good around the same time that he tested positive for PEDs, PEDs can provide a long-term advantage even after usage is discontinued, and neither Ortiz nor anyone else has provided a public explanation for Ortiz' positive test. It is not surprising that MLB, not wanting to have yet another star tainted, has stood behind Ortiz, because the evidence against him is easier to sweep under the rug than the massive evidence against Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, Rafael Palmeiro, and many other players. It is worth mentioning that Ramirez and Ortiz were teammates on two World Series championship teams. Like Ortiz, Ramirez tested positive in 2003; Ramirez also tested positive a second time after MLB instituted penalties for positive tests, and he was suspended for 50 games during the 2009 season. MLB loves to publicize how the Red Sox overcame the "curse" to win three World Series, but the fact that the team's two best sluggers both tested positive for PEDs is brushed under the carpet (Ramirez played for the 2004 and 2007 championship teams, while Ortiz played for all three championship teams).

Verducci, who is a Hall of Fame voter, voted for Ortiz, as he does not believe that one failed test whose results were not supposed to be publicly released should disqualify Ortiz. I respect Verducci--one of the best baseball writers of all-time--but I respectfully disagree. You can be convicted in court based on circumstantial evidence, and I think that the circumstantial evidence cited above is sufficient to keep Ortiz out of the Hall of Fame, or to at least delay voting for him unless/until he is more forthcoming about his positive test.

Bonds and Clemens finished second and third in the 2022 voting. This was the final year on the ballot for both of them. Alex Rodriguez finished 10th in the 2022 voting. MLB suspended Rodriguez for the entire 2014 regular season and the entire 2014 postseason not only for using PEDs but for actively obstructing MLB's investigation of his illegal conduct. He should have been banned from the sport for life, not invited back to become a highly paid MLB analyst. Manny Ramirez finished 12th in the 2022 voting, while Sosa finished 14th.

Curt Schilling not only was not tainted by PED use, but while the PED usage was at its highest he was an outspoken critic of players who cheated by using illegal drugs. Schilling did more than enough to earn induction, but many media members do not like him because of various opinions that he has expressed, and thus Schilling only finished fifth in the balloting in his final year of eligibility. In case you forgot, never knew, or are too young to remember, Schilling posted an 11-2 postseason record, including 5-0 in elimination games. His .846 postseason winning percentage is the all-time record for pitchers with at least 10 postseason decisions. He played for three World Series champions (2001, 2004, 2007), and he won the 2001 World Series MVP. Four pitchers in MLB history have struck out 300 or more batters in a season at least three times: Sandy Koufax, Nolan Ryan, and Randy Johnson. Schilling is the only one of the four who has not been inducted in the Hall of Fame. Schilling won 216 regular season games, with a .597 winning percentage. He is one of 19 members of the 3000 strikeout club, and he has the best strikeout to walk ratio in that elite club. 

Let me be perfectly clear: I did not root for Schilling or his teams, and I disagree with some things that he has said and done. Whether you like a person or agree with a person has nothing to do with that person's qualifications to be a Hall of Famer; I understand that, but many biased media members who have been given the privilege of filling out a Hall of Fame ballot fail to understand that.

It must be noted that the PED cheaters not only caused damage during their own era, but the artificially inflated home run numbers of Bonds, McGwire, and others made it even more difficult for clean sluggers from previous eras to be inducted. Dale Murphy should have made the Hall of Fame a long time ago, but his career numbers--including 398 home runs--now look pedestrian alongside the counterfeit numbers posted by the cheaters. Murphy won back to back National League MVPs (1982-83) while leading the league in RBI during both of those seasons, and then he led the NL in home runs in 1984 and 1985 while earning two more top 10 MVP finishes. He smashed a career-high 44 home runs in 1987 during a run of nine straight seasons during which he hit at least 20 home runs (he had 36 or more home runs in five of those seasons). A 20 home run season may not seem impressive after the fake pyrotechnics of McGwire-Sosa-Bonds and the other cheaters, but Murphy finished in the NL's top four in home runs seven times, including six top three finishes. Murphy not only won four Silver Slugger awards but he also earned five Gold Gloves. He was a complete player who did things the right way, and he has been unjustly forgotten by history and by the Hall of Fame voters.

Players who fail to be elected after 10 years on the ballot can still become Hall of Famers if they are selected by a committee comprised of executives, players, and media members. As mentioned above regarding the 2022 inductees, often that recognition does not happen until after the player has died.

Bonds came within 10 percent of the vote of receiving Hall of Fame induction this year. Pete Rose, the all-time hit king who played for three World Series championship teams, never appeared on the ballot, and it does not seem likely that his candidacy will receive serious consideration during his lifetime. After Rose accepted a lifetime ban from MLB because of his gambling, the Baseball Hall of Fame created a rule making Rose ineligible to appear on the ballot, and later the Hall created a rule making him ineligible for consideration by the Veterans Committee.

All of the major sports leagues--including MLB--now reap major profits from partnerships with gambling entities, but Rose is still stuck in permanent pariah status. 

It is ridiculous that Bud Selig--perhaps the worst commissioner of a major sports league in my lifetime, if not longer--has been inducted in the Baseball Hall of Fame while Rose, Murphy, and Schilling have not been inducted. 

I hope that Rose, Murphy, and Schilling are elected as soon as possible, and I just as fervently hope that the Baseball Hall of Fame never opens its hallowed doors to the PED cheaters who permanently stained the sport.