Hall of Fame Trial - Pete Rose

[thebruce44]

What does that have to do at all with his previous post?

 

I would think that it's pretty self-explanatory. I quoted his post and asked him a question in an attempt to find out if he believes that I should be able to get away with a transgression simply because others have gotten away with transgressions, or if he believes only that Pete Rose should get away with his transgressions because others have gotten away with transgressions.

 

I personally find it very black & white. Rules are rules, and violating them deserves consequences. There's no gray area here for me. Obviously, some here feel differently. I'd like to know why, as well as what qualifies someone to be above the rules. Good enough athlete appears to make the list. What else? Good looking enough? Smart enough? Rich enough?

 

No, his point was that what you take away from Rose being left out of the Hall of Fame (a lesson in punishment for all) is flawed because there isn't punishment for all. He isn't saying someone should be able to get away with anything because others did.

 

Conversely, do you think all jaywalkers should be sentenced to life in prison because all murders are too? You break the law, you pay the consequences, right?

 

See the logical flaw?

[Nottso]

See the logical flaw?

 

I see a logical flaw, but it isn't mine. I compared bank robbery (a very serious crime) to gambling (MLB's MOST serious crime) and you didn't care for that comparison. Now you want to compare jaywalking (possibly the LEAST serious crime of all) to gambling (still MLB's MOST serious crime)? Wow. Do you see the logical flaw?

 

I think if Pete Rose jaywalks, Pete Rose should be given the appropriate citation for jaywalking... as opposed to giving him a pass because some others have been given a pass or because he was a tremendous ballplayer in his day. If Pete Rose is convicted of OWI, he should be punished accordingly as opposed to giving him a pass because some others have been given a pass or because he was a tremendous ballplayer in his day.

 

From DocBucky's post #35: As is well known amongst players, coaches, media, management, and even fans alike, the following is posted in every MLB locker room:

 

Rule 21(d):

BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year.

 

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.

 

Pete did what he did, knowing what the consequences would be if he got caught. He did get caught and he was punished accordingly... now some want to give Pete a pass because some others have been given a pass or because he was a tremendous ballplayer in his day.

[splitterpfj]

Nottso, I don't want to "give Pete a pass"...he deserves his ban......I just think eligibility to work in baseball and eligibility for election to the Hall of Fame based on accomplishments as a player are two separate categories, thus, the rule change that was specifically aimed at Pete Rose is a mistake which should be reversed.

 

Those signs that say they'll kick you out of baseball if you bet on the game didn't say anything about Hall of Fame eligibility during Rose's career...because players who were suspended were still eligible to be on the ballot.

 

I think Rose should have remained on the ballot...given all that happened, who's to say he would have even been elected?

 

This is Pete's own fault, and I'm still mad at him - he had been a hero - he no longer is. I get how serious the issue of gambling is, and I think reinstating Pete to baseball would be a horrible decision, I just think he has earned both HOF election, and his lifetime ban from working in the game.

[Nottso]

splitter,

 

The problem there (for me) is that as it stands now Pete Rose is well represented at the hall w/o being enshrined. The fact that he is not enshrined may well be future generations' only clue as to what happened, or perhaps prompt them to ask why he isn't enshrined, which serves my particular purpose very well.

 

If he's allowed to be fully enshrined, a visitor to the hall in the future would likely be under the impression that nothing ever happened, or at the very least, that it was not really a big deal. In effect, Pete will indeed have gotten a pass.

 

I agree that Pete should have been left on the ballot, but he wasn't. He received a harsh punishment for a huge transgression. I just don't see where now undoing what many feel is the lion's share of that punishment sends any other message than "he gets a pass". Honestly, up until not too long ago, I wanted to see him in; then I started thinking about my grandchildren, teaching them fair play and life lessons in general.

 

We have clearly become a society wherein far too many people get away with far too many things simply because they're an athlete, or a celebrity, or a politician, or rich, or beautiful, etc. etc. etc. on and on and on. High school (and even college!) grads that can't read? Or if they can read at all, it's at a 3rd or 4th grade level? Don't know simple multiplication tables? Committing assaults, both physical and sexual? Murders? Running up millions in bills and defaulting? Numerous drug arrests, yet they get what amounts to slaps on the wrist? Let the cops catch me or you with dope as many times as they've caught Lindsey Lohan or Robert Downey Jr and our butts will be in jail for a good long time. It's just... wrong.

 

And of course keeping Rose out of the hall won't fix any of that, but to now turn around and let him in will most assuredly help it to stay broken.

[splitterpfj]

That last part is where you and I disagree, Nottso.

 

Yes, there is a lot of crazy stuff out there, and sometimes people get away with far too much...but Pete was convicted of tax evasion, for which he went to jail, and Pete is banned from baseball. Pete did not walk on this one...they nailed him.

 

I just think tying all of that into the Hall of Fame, and the sentiment that voting him in would somehow help perpetuate society's ills, is reaching way too far.

 

I'm with you all the way on most of what you say, I just think keeping a player off the ballot based on something he did off the field is like tearing up a kid's spelling test because he just flunked math. It's two different things...give him both tests, and both grades.

 

I don't think Pete Rose deserves sympathy - not in the least, I just think they should have let the voters decide.

 

If Pete ever does make it into the Hall, I think his plaque should list career hits, games played, etc, etc...and then say BANNED FOR LIFE FOR BETTING ON BASEBALL - 1989.

 

Pete made his bed, I have a feeling, if he had admitted to betting on baseball from the start, the Hall of Fame would not have changed its rule. I think they knew they had him, and when he kept denying, it made people mad, so they made this move.

[Invader3K]

Pete Rose apparently on Twitter now: @PeteRose_14

[clancyphile]

I would say the best approach is to not enshrine Rose while he is alive. When he is dead, then put him in.

[dlk9s]

Pete Rose apparently on Twitter now: @PeteRose_14

 

Do we have to pay to follow him?

[Dragonbait]

I would say the best approach is to not enshrine Rose while he is alive. When he is dead, then put him in.

 

 

That's my feeling as well... I consider it a lifetime ban... once he's dead, he'll get put in.

[NievesNoNO]

Interesting topic. As long as he's not in it will live on forever. To me a lifetime ban means he's not allowed to be employed by the league. I would let him in and not have a ceremony for him. He's the greatest hitter to have played the game. To have him not in doesn't seem right considering some of the rest that are in. Just because there's a rule doesn't mean that rule should live on forever. Rules are meant to be challenged at some point. I'm not saying you want to allow gambling that can alter games but you need to take into consideration what has gone on in the game and kind of see the big picture. Why is gambling on baseball wrong? It could alter the outcome of a game and brings into question the integrity of the game. To me what Rose did really isn't much different than those who took/take steroids, doctor baseballs, or have played with a corked/illegal bat. Any of those offenses likely altered the outcome of at least 1 game yet offending players are given suspensions that amount to a few missed weeks. Putting him in the Hall doesn't lessen the transgression in my view and won't make him a better person but he was one of the best ever between the lines.

[Fear The Chorizo]

The baseball HOF's eligible candidate requirements list includes the following:

 

"E. Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate."

 

Since Rose is on the inelgible list, he is not able to be enshrined in the Baseball HOF. If people want to gripe about admitted spitballers, steroid cheats, and the like getting enshrined and not Rose, the problem is them NOT being on the ineligible list. In the eyes of the MLB commissioners over the years, PEDs and cheating the rules of the game (spitballing, etc) aren't as bad an offense as gambling on the outcome of the game itself. Whether that's right or wrong in the eyes of the general public doesn't matter - it's how baseball wants to view it.

 

IMO, Rose should never be enshrined into the HOF during his lifetime. I'd argue that putting him in posthumously shouldn't be done, either. His accomplishments are in the hall, as others have stated. I think the argument should turn to preventing other players who cheated the game in other ways (PEDs) being blackballed out of the HOF, not letting a guy who was caught gambling on games while managing in because players benefitting from PEDs were enshrined.