Hall of Fame Trial - Pete Rose

[cirillo26]

Yes.

 

How can the all time hits leader not be a hall of famer? So the guy made a mistake, he's suffered enough.

 

Some people make it into the hall as a player, some make it as a manager. rose should never be in as a manager, but what he did as a player (before he bet on his team) deserves hall of fame recognition.

[colbyjack]

Once Joe Jackson gets in, then maybe there will be time to look more closely at Rose, not before!

 

It has already been stated a few times within this thread, but Jackson's and Rose's Hall of Fame fate is not connected at all.

[DuWayne Steurer]

So the guy made a mistake, he's suffered enough.

 

 

I guess I don't equate not being in the Hall of Fame as *suffering*

 

As Robert pointed out, his achievements are honored in the Hall of Fame. The only thing he's missing is a plaque. Too bad for him.

[jwaltz]

My favorite player growing up was Pete Rose. I loved him. He was great. He played every game like it was game seven of the World Series and the last day of his life all at once. Unfortunately he also hustled off the field too. He broke the cardinal sin of Major League Baseaball. This is the act deemed so damaging to the game it is prominently posted in every looker room at every ballpark. Most players can probably repeat the rule word for word in their sleep. There is a reason gambling is the cardinal sin of baseball. In 1919 gambling almost destroyed the game. There have been cheaters and bad people in the game but those have never come close to ending MLB like gambling did.

 

I vote NO on Pete Rose. I don't think he should ever be allowed in the Hall of Fame.

[splitterpfj]

As long as Pete is banned, he can't get in. I don't see Bud Selig reinstating him during his tenure, Pete will have to hope for a fresh look from the next commish.

 

If Pete ever gets a shot at the Hall, he'll be in the hands of the Veteran's Committee, which I think would be very interesting.

[cirillo26]

"Suffered" may have been a liitle bit of an extreme word to use. But the guys whole life was based around baseball. Not only is he not allowed into the hall, but his days as a manager were cut short as well (I do agree he should never manage or coach again).

 

Shoeless Joe should be in too. There isn't even any real evidense on him.

[gregmag]

Yes.

 

I hate Pete Rose. Not only is he a lying, pathetic gambler who wiped his butt with the game's reputation, but his oft-praised competitive fire was really just the contemporary equivalent of Ty Cobb's psychotic bullying streak. Even if Rose had never gambled on anything, his style, attitude, and personal qualities would have dragged the sport down a notch. I hate the idea of his ever milking another moment of pleasure from the game, especially a pleasure as profound as getting into the Hall of Fame must be.

 

For all of that -- so what? The Hall of Fame isn't for the people who get in, however much they enjoy it; it's for us, the fans. Beyond that, we need to keep a clear view of what the Hall recognizes. The Hall is replete with guys who went out of their way to keep black players out of the majors, guys who beat, cheated on, and otherwise humiliated their wives, guys who didn't always play their hardest because their talent allowed them to get away with less. There are also some great human beings in the Hall, which makes me happy; but the point is that good character and winning baseball are two absolutely different things.

 

Our culture deceives itself when it pretends that excellence in sports has anything to do with personal virtue. The people who run MLB cheapen our culture when they pretend that the integrity of the sport matters any more than any of the other values against which various great ballplayers have sinned. Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame because he was a great baseball player, and nobody should ever believe for one second that his enshrinement stands for anything more than that.

 

Greg.

[BrewCrewForever]

I guess if Joe Jackson still can't get in and he has been dead for years, how can they ever let Rose in. No doubt he has all the numbers to warrant being a hall of famer. Rose is one of the greatest of all time but he did the one thing you are forbidden to do. And because of that he will never get in and that is unfortunate but you make the bed and you have to lay in it to. Sorry Pete you were great but you bet on baseball and that is your own fault.

[JimH5]

There are several references to Pete Rose in the museum portion of the Hall of Fame and Museum. So it's not as though his contributions have been completely wiped away. You can find Pete Rose in Cooperstown.

 

I said "no" earlier and and stand by that. I jumped back into this argument as I suspect that some just don't understand that gambling is significantly worse than all of the other societal sins when it comes to the Hall of Fame.

 

Steroids, alcoholism, spousal abuse, other drug convictions, racism, cheating--all of those crimes are part of the game and its history. But none of those things are as serious as gambling.

 

You can't have the paying public questioning the legitimacy of one team competing against another team. And that's exactly what happens when gambling is introduced.

[gregmag]

Steroids, alcoholism, spousal abuse, other drug convictions, racism, cheating--all of those crimes are part of the game and its history. But none of those things are as serious as gambling.

 

You can't have the paying public questioning the legitimacy of one team competing against another team. And that's exactly what happens when gambling is introduced.

 

Why?

 

This is a familiar assertion, well-stated. But I don't see a real argument, just an assertion. You're actually making two assertions: a normative assertion ("I think gambling is worse than other offenses") and an empirical assertion ("Other people think gambling is worse than other offenses"). The normative assertion I just think is wrong: to me, betting on baseball simply isn't as bad as committing a crime or mistreating people based on race, even if you're a manager. We'll have to agree to disagree on that level.

 

On the empirical level, you need some kind of objective basis for your claim. Didn't the public come to question whether artificially keeping black players out of the game undermined MLB's claim to be presenting the best players? Even if the public didn't ask that question, shouldn't they have? Did the pervasiveness of racism make baseball's color line okay because, by and large, the fans didn't care? As for gambling, did Rose's gambling really undermine public confidence in "the legitimacy of the game"? I didn't see fewer people buying tickets after the Rose revelations, like we saw after the '95 labor stoppage. Maybe they should have cared more than they did -- but that just brings us back to the normative issue.

 

Greg.

[RobertR]

A couple of thoughts.

 

It's still amazing that a Pete Rose thread, for which both sides are basically arguing over a plaque on the wall, can generate so much attention after so long a time.

 

There's a copy of Shoeless Joe's Grand Jury Testimony at www.blackbetsy.com/jjtestimony1920.pdf . I'll call attention to Page 4 where Shoeless Joe admits accepting $5,000 as part of the fix. I understand the concept that wife beating, drunkeness, cheating, etc. are worse societal sins, but the Black Sox scandal almost killed baseball in 1920. That's precisely why baseball took draconian measures so something like that wouldn't happen again. You can add up all of the other scandals, and none of them had much effect on the game. (FWIW, I'm also willing to accept that what Pete Rose did was nowhere on the same level as the Black Sox. The fact that Rose could apply for reinstatement after a year indicates to me that MLB thought so too. The fact that Rose has bungled his chances for reinstatement is Pete's problem, not MLB's.)

 

I dispute that Pete Rose really loves baseball. He loves the competitive aspect of the game and the fame and wealth attached to MLB baseball, but Pete Rose has never shown a shred of interest in any part of baseball outside of MLB baseball. If he wants to contribute to the game of baseball there is little league baseball, high school baseball, college baseball, independent league baseball, and all sorts of academies and videos. And he's not banned from any of them. To me, his lack of action in these areas makes his claims about having a lot to contribute to the game hollow.

 

Robert

[JimH5]

Greg, first to your point about internal gambling not being a bigger sin than racism or other crimes--from a society standpoint I agree with you, but from a baseball standpoint, I disagree.

 

The most obvious example of a modern day racist would be John Rocker. While his comments and behaviors were deplorable, the one most punished by them were Rocker himself.

 

Wade Boggs was an adulterer. Paul Molitor, Fergie Jenkins and Orlando Cepeda were drug users. Gaylord Perry was a cheater. Kirby Puckett beat his wife. But none of them threw games.

 

Baseball's biggest fear in handling Rose and other gamblers is a recurrence of the backlash that followed the Black Sox.

 

Many people say they don't care whether the sport is clean or not, but all you have to do is look at what has happened to boxing.

 

Once it shared the spotlight with baseball and horse racing in the public eye. As recently as the 1970s, it was considered a major sport. But now, under suspicion that the sport is dirty, it has faded into near obscurity.

 

And Robert, to your point about this being about a plaque on the wall--when that plaque represents the highest honor one can possibly receive, then it's most certainly about more than the bronze.

[RU Rah Rah]

I am not sure that I want him in, but I think he at least deserves to be put on the ballot.

[brettac1]

From the Jackson testimony:

 

Did you make any intentional errors yourself that day?

No, sir, not during the whole series.

 

Did you bat to win?

Yes.

 

And run the bases to win?

Yes, sir.

 

And fielded the balls at the outfield to win?

I did.

[Beer Barrel Man]

Quote:

---

Doesn't betting on games when you are a player/manager count as on-the-field action?

---

 

Yes, it does.

 

We're not talking about truly off-the-field actions like his tax evasion. If that was all he did, he'd be in the Hall already.

 

But he didn't. He bet on baseball games as a manager. He was in a position to change the outcome of those games, and that compromises the integrity of the sport.

 

The rule is clearly known. It's posted in every clubhouse. He knew it, he broke it, and now he has to pay the price.

[RobertR]

Perhaps Shoeless Joe did actually play to win. Perhaps not. It's impossible to know what was in his mind. Especially in the age before polygraphs.

 

That said, it's possible that if Shoeless Joe said, "I'm not going to take a dime of your money and me and Buck Weaver are going to do everything in our power to win", the whole conspiracy may have fallen apart. Certainly, Shoeless Joe was complicit in the plot forming in the first place and accepted money as a result. He certainly wasn't an innocent bystander who didn't profit.

 

But, this is another topic, isn't it?

 

Robert

[brettac1]

Yes, it is. His case irks me much more than Rose, and I think he's more deserving of being in the Hall.

 

Okay, that's all.

[splitterpfj]

Yes, RobertR, it is another topic, I'll do an article on Jackson if you'd like.

[plowjockey]

Hollywood stories aside, it breaks my heart to say no to both Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose. Great, great players who knowingly made unforgivable mistakes, fully aware of what the ramifications would be.

[NYBrewer]

Of course Pete Rose shold be in the Hall of Fame. Without Rose in it, the Hall means @#%$. Pete Rose was a great baseball player...he had passion for the game...he gave his life to the game. The way he played the game plus his stats is a no brainer. PUT pete in the Hall or close the doors...

 

Betting on baseball is cool too!!!!!!!!

 

Hey Todd

[splitterpfj]

Hello NY, thanks for your input.

 

I still say no.

[NYBrewer]

How can you say no. The Hall of Fame is measured on a players statistics. Rose can never be involved in the greatest game in the world and the thing he loves the most in his life..besides money of course. He suffered enough. His accomplishments should not go unnoticed. If no Rose..then the Hall should be boycotted like Lions games....

 

I think Rose is great...from his playing days to his gambling days...

 

Vote yes for Rose and Guilliani in '08

[NYBrewer]

edited for content...RACISM IS NOT ALLOWED

[splitterpfj]

Of course Pete Rose shold be in the Hall of Fame. Without Rose in it, the Hall means @#%$. Pete Rose was a great baseball player...he had passion for the game...he gave his life to the game. The way he played the game plus his stats is a no brainer. PUT pete in the Hall or close the doors...

 

A fair point, but the answer is easy for me, Pete broke a rule which he knew would bring him permanent ineligibility, the Hall does not allow players who are ineligible on the ballot.

 

Convince the Board of Directors at the Hall of Fame to change that rule and maybe you've got a shot, that would send Pete before the Veteran's Committee, which may actually be the best way to resolve this one way or the other.

 

I'd love to see that in a way, I have no idea who would be on the committee when and if Pete got there, but those players seem to be as split on Rose as the public is. Bob Feller hates the man, Johnny Bench isn't far behind, while Mike Schmidt and Joe Morgan are big supporters.

[RedbirdRay]

I find undertow's post interesting, and have wondered about doing the same. I think an exhibit focused on the dark side of our game would be a good addition to the Hall.

 

Hardly anyone can remember the batting champion from 1919. Almost everyone (who's a baseball fan) can tell you what the White Sox did, though.

 

Some things that weren't nice in baseball very much shaped our history. I don't think we should ignore them. I don't think we should honor them, either. Maybe a display chronicling those banned from the game? or cheating?

 

Years later, we are still debating Pete Rose. His actions were legendary and controversial. I cannot think of a larger life when measured by era in baseball. Pete's place in history should be formally remembered.

 

Pete, however, should never have a plaque nor oppurtunity to speak at Cooperstown. I forgot to mention in my last post, I voted NO.