do you think pete rose should be in the hall of fame?

[ElHalo]

This is after all "America" where the ability to hit or throw a ball allows a person to rise above the rules, indeed make up their own as they go along. Chop up your wife? cheat on your taxes? drink and drive? gamble illegally? smack a fan around? rape, pillage, and plunder????? Who cares????

Now, wouldn't that be nice? If only I could throw a ball...

[ElHalo]

Pete Rose was one of the top ten players in the history of the game PERIOD

First off, I don't know what menstrual cycles have to do with anything, and I'd rather not hear about them.

Secondly, taking NO discount for any alleged misdoings (I don't do it with Joe Jackson, so I don't do it with Pete Rose), it's very arguable that Pete Rose isn't one of the top 100 players in the history of the game. I rate him somewhere in the 85-95 range. He's UNDOUBTEDLY not top ten. Not even close. At all.

[grey eagle]

Snavecream,

1) Your post really hasn't shed any new light on the Rose situation. Most, if not all, of the posters here have been over this before ad nauseum.

2) I'm not sure if you really understand the dangers of betting on baseball. Whether or not he bet on his own team isn't really the issue. Think about it ... a manager who has bet on his team for tomorrow's game may make decisions that HURT him team in TODAY's game. He might rest a guy or two that he really needs to win the current game, for instance. You cannot bet on your own team's games if you're the manager - for or against. Period.

3) You don't come off as objective when you call Rose a top-10 player. Almost no-one around here agrees with that, I doubt Bud Selig agrees with that, and I doubt many of the Hall voters agree with that. And you know what? I doubt Pete Rose himself agrees with that.

[flash143817]

First off, I don't know what menstrual cycles have to do with anything, and I'd rather not hear about them.

Secondly, taking NO discount for any alleged misdoings (I don't do it with Joe Jackson, so I don't do it with Pete Rose), it's very arguable that Pete Rose isn't one of the top 100 players in the history of the game. I rate him somewhere in the 85-95 range. He's UNDOUBTEDLY not top ten. Not even close. At all.

I'm definitely in agreement there. I see Rose as one of the most overrated players ever due to his high hit total accumulated over 75 seasons of play.

[keving7]

There are alot of nasty people in the HOF. No doubt. Racism, wife abuse, assault and battery....etc. etc......are all morally and ethically wrong, as well as, in many cases illegal. They are not against the rules of baseball.

Betting on sports, if done properly is not illegal. betting on baseball is not illegal as well.

However, if you are a member of a professional baseball team, betting on baseball is the #1 cardinal rule that cannot be broken. It's posted in every lockerroom in every stadium in baseball. From Rookie league, all the way up to the Majors. If you are caught, you must face the consequences.

Pete Rose must face the consequences.

It took 14 years for him to admit to gambling on baseball, "a confession of convenience". His apology, lame as it was, should have been given 14 years ago.

Unless Buck Weaver, and maybe even Joe Jackson are reinstated, then Pete Rose should not be reinstated.

[Fuzzy Bear]

There are none so blind as those who still remain fans of Pete Rose. May as well elect Arnold Rothstein while we are at it.

I wonder how many pages of thread this forum would have if we combined all the "Pete Rose for the HOF" threads. I bet it would be almost 100, if not more.

[Fuzzy Bear]

This topic has been beaten to death on just about every forum that discusses baseball. I've never started a thread on this subject, but I am starting this one in the hope that the discussion on this topic can be rational and truth-seeking.

By rational and truth-seeking, I mean in the context of taking into account at least the following four principles:

(A) What is good for baseball, as an institution.
(B) What is good for baseball's fans (pro and anti-Rose, both)
(C) What is consistent with the principle of fairness
(D) What will preserve enshrinement into the HOF as an honor and not convert it into an entitlement

The discussion of Rose and the HOF is not one of playing credentials. Had there been no gambling issues, Rose would have been a 1st ballot HOFer; he may have been the first unanimous selection to the HOF. While I believe that Pete is somewhat overrated, he was, undoubtedly, a great player, and there can be no question whatsoever that his play meets the standards of the upper echelon of the HOF. (If anybody doubts this, I'm really at a loss for words.)

We all know what Rose has admitted to doing, how that admission came about. (At least I think we do.) We all know what Rose was accused of doing (betting on baseball) and what he was NOT accused of doing (throwing games). We all know WHY Rose is not in the HOF; he's not in because he is under suspension, and the rules of the HOF (changed at the behest of MLB) prohibit enshrinement of a player while he is under suspension.

The current situation is NOT good for baseball, IMO. The current situation is where you have a player, who was an all-time great with millions of fans (still) outside the Hall because he is under suspension. He is not under suspension for actions that undermined the integrity of baseball; he is under suspension for actions that MAY have lead to actions in the future that would have undermined the integrity of baseball.

The situation is not good for baseball because the way it has been handled has, in the eyes of many, lumped Pete Rose in the same boat as the Black Sox (and, specifically, Shoeless Joe Jackson, another all time great player not enshrined). Now I don't condone Rose's gambling activities, but no matter how you look at it, Rose's activities were fundamentally different than the Black Sox's; they were part of his PRIVATE life, and they did not affect the outcome of games. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that they did, and anyone who says otherwise is, quite frankly, misinformed. The way this has been handled has given MLB a bigger black eye than it has deserved.

In 1919, MLB was teeming with gamblers. Throwing games was common. Twenty three players (not just the 8 Black Sox) were banned for life for either throwing games, or conspiring to throw games. Guys were laying down; they weren't playing to win. Pete Rose was NEVER in that state; he played to win, and he managed to win. The only criticism I have for Rose in that area is when he played himself at 1B as player-manager, rather than Nick Esasky, in pursuit of Cobb's record, but I also suspect that Red management was complicit in that.

This situation; this lumping Rose in with the Black Sox, is unfair to Rose, and, in truth, not good for MLB. I also believe that this situation is NOT in the interest of baseball's fans. I believe that there is a consensus among fans that Rose should get his plaque in Cooperstown, but not work in baseball again.

What the fans think is important. That the fans have favorite players (as well as teams) that they follow, and that they want to see enshrined in the HOF is important. There are people, for example, who argue that Ron Santo should not be in the HOF because the HOF was only for the Cobbs, Ruths, etc., but what do you say to fans of Ron Santo when you can point to a number of players in the HOF who Santo absolutely towers over?

That's not really the issue I'm trying to bring out here; we have lots of threads here that cover the HOF gray area. But I think there is a real fans' issue here when you have a player barred from the HOF on the same basis as Joe Jackson whose actions were not the same as Jackson's, were not as severe as Jackson's, and which never undermined the honesty of a single game.

I have been a supporter of the rule change that blocks enshrinement of players currently under suspension, but I have come to believe that this rule, while well-intentioned, is unfair to the fans, not consistent with fairness, and, in fact, not really consistent with the interest of MLB.

I believe that the rule should be changed as follows: I believe that the HOF should change it's rule on this subject to where, at regular intervals, it will empower a Board of Review to re-examine the circumstances that caused a player to be under suspension to determine appropriateness for the HOF. In other words, to determine if the actions of the player were SO severe as to deny him ANY honor at all for his playing career. Induction to the HOF is the ONLY MEANINGFUL WAY that a ballplayer's career is honored; to put Pete Rose in the Cincinnati Red HOF, but not the National Baseball HOF is, in a real sense, a slap, rather than an honor.

In reviewing the circumstances, the following issues could be considered:

1. Did the player's offense(s) result in the dishonest outcome of any game?
2. Did the player's offense(s) consist of conspiring to bring about the dishonest outcome of any game?
3. Did the player's offense(s) involve guilty knowledge of the dishonest outcome of any game which that player knew before the fact, and had the ability to bring to light?
4. Did the player's offense(s) consist of being an accessory after the fact to the dishonest outcome of a game?
5. What were the player's motivations for his actions? Did the player receive money? Was the player being coerced? (I consider this to be relevant in some cases.)
6. Did the player's offense(s) bring into question the integrity of the outcome of any game, even though his actions did not directly influence the outcome? If so, why was that the result?
7. Did the player's offense(s) bring into question the overall integrity of MLB as a sport with honest outcomes of contests, even though the player's actions were not determined to have influence any particular contest?
8. Were the player's offense(s) outside of his involvement with MLB, but rise to the level of heiniousness that the honor of HOF enshrinement is undeserved? (For example, a player who was later convicted of a sex offense, or a henious violent felony, or a serious felony of another sort that had nothing to do with baseball.)

The first four issues are the Black Sox Criteria. I agree that no player should be enshrined in the HOF who is guilty on this account. Issue 5 could be used to give some mitigation; Lefty Williams' wife's life being threatened by a gambler isn't an exonerating factor, but it is a mitigating factor, IMO.

Issue eight is the "O. J." criteria (acknowledging, by the way, that O. J. was acquitted). This applies to Rose in that he is a convicted felon on tax charges. While this is a serious matter, I do not believe that Rose's tax evasion conviction is sufficient to rule him out as a HOFer (unless we're ready to take a crowbar to Snider's and McCovey's plaques.)

It is issues six and seven where Rose's HOF-worthiness is to be debated. Whether or not one would evaluate his actions and decide that his actions did or did not ACTUALLY undermine the integrity of baseball is highly subjective. My personal judgement is that Rose's actions had the POTENTIAL to undermine MLB's integrity, but they did not ACTUALLY do so, and it was NEVER Rose's intent to do so. (Rose played to win at everything; he was the most competitive player I have ever seen. I cannot imagine Rose throwing a game, either as a player or a manager. Rose would steal money to pay off a gambling debt, IMO, before he'd throw a game.)

I believe that such a Board of Review could issue a finding on Rose, honestly, stating the following:

(A) That Rose was guilty of betting on baseball
(B) That Rose's actions were a potential, but not actual danger to baseball
(C) That Rose's entire career in baseball was one where he played to win and managed to win in every single circumstance
(D) That Rose had/has no guilty knowledge of any conspiracies to bring about the dishonest outcome of any contest
(E) That Rose's personal problems may disqualify him from future employment in baseball, but those problems represent only a potential for future actions, and do not, in any way, reflect on his playing and managing career, which was one in which Rose played and managed to win at every opportunity

I don't condone what Rose did, and I do not believe he should be working in baseball as anything other than a batting coach in spring training, or something like that. (I do think that Rose's suspension should be lifted to the point where he participates in Old Timer's Days, etc.; it's ridiculous that he's blocked from that.) But Pete Rose played baseball to win, and he played it honestly. That part of his life deserves honor, and the HOF is about honoring that part of his life. If he threw games, then, no, he would not deserve this honor, but he didn't throw games, AND HE SHOULDN'T BE TREATED LIKE HE DID, just because some people don't like him.

I also don't believe that Rose should be required to come forth with some sort of mea culpa as a quid pro quo for enshrinement, but that, too, is another issue.

Some of you here may apply this criteria and come to an opposite conclusion than myself. I don't agree, but I can understand, somewhat. I do think, however, that changing the HOF's current rules and implementing a Board of Review process can be a way in which the HOF can enshrine a case like Rose, who is under suspension, but who is undeniably great and, while not eligible for rehire in MLB, should not be denied honor for his playing career.

Anyway, that's my solution of what I think should be done that would be in the interest of the fans, the HOF, MLB, and fair to Rose.

[Whitesoxnut]

Gambling on the game, on the games your playing as well, is the one thing that cant be tolerated. A black Sox type scandal would destroy MLB and would be far worse then steroids, beating the old lady, driving drunk, or any other myriad offenses these guys pull. College basketball is the last game I'd ever bet due to the outfit getting to these kids, who have no money of their own, and are easy marks. It didn't help that Rose was an arrogant and ignorant a SOB that ever played the game. Or that he lied, and still lies, so disgustingly.

If anyone wants to feel bad for Pete Rose go take a walk thru a Children's cancer hospital. You'll not only feel better about this pooch but you probably will care less if he ever gets in the HOF.

Exuse me now. My food is coming up and its "blow chunks" time.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Gambling on the game, on the games your playing as well, is the one thing that cant be tolerated. A black Sox type scandal would destroy MLB and would be far worse then steroids, beating the old lady, driving drunk, or any other myriad offenses these guys pull. College basketball is the last game I'd ever bet due to the outfit getting to these kids, who have no money of their own, and are easy marks. It didn't help that Rose was an arrogant and ignorant a SOB that ever played the game. Or that he lied, and still lies, so disgustingly.

If anyone wants to feel bad for Pete Rose go take a walk thru a Children's cancer hospital. You'll not only feel better about this pooch but you probably will care less if he ever gets in the HOF.

Exuse me now. My food is coming up and its "blow chunks" time.

So you make no distinction between gambling and throwing games?

I don't feel bad for Pete Rose. That's not the issue. The issue is what resolution to this issue is in the best interest of the fans, the game, and the HOF, and I don't believe that the current situation is the best, nor the fairest. And by fairest, I include the fans in that.

[Seattle1]

He’s Charlie Hustle for Pete’s sake.
Let him in! Let him in! Let him in!

OK! OK! OK!

:)

[baseballPAP]

I'm with you 100% Fuzzy. Anyone want to think that no other player ever bet on a baseball game? Do you think for a minute that MANY players don't bet on the outcome of the World Series? Pete got caught, and him being a little arrogant (OK...a LOT), he didn't say he was sorry. He didn't even admit to doing it until years later. And?

He never threw a game. He never influenced a game for the purpose of throwing it. He never did anything wrong on the field or from the dugout, except mismanaging his bullpen and inserting himself in the lineup, at # 2 no less. Anyone who would suggest otherwise has no real knowledge of the man.

He has done his time....and I don't suggest letting him back in the game as a manager (hitting coach I wouldn't have a problem with).

[Whitesoxnut]

So you make no distinction between gambling and throwing games?

I don't feel bad for Pete Rose. That's not the issue. The issue is what resolution to this issue is in the best interest of the fans, the game, and the HOF, and I don't believe that the current situation is the best, nor the fairest. And by fairest, I include the fans in that.

No I dont! If one doesn't lead to the other give it time and it will. Its not like MLB can take Rose's word for it that he didn't throw games. Hell, for how many years did he deny even betting? The guy is a psychopathic liar.

I dont feel bad for Rose either. In fact I could care less, nor do I suspect the game can care less. Indeed I cant think of one person I know, fan or no fan, who can care less. Somehow I think the game, and the human race, will survive without Pete Rose in the HOF.

[SABR Matt]

Hhhhwwwwaaaaaaaarrff

Thanks...I was just starting to feel better after my upset stomach yesterdya...now you've ruined it.

[jalbright]

With all due respect, Fuzzy, the problem I have with your approach is that if Pete is to be inducted into the Hall, it should be as the end the story, not a chapter in it. As you rightly point out, Rose does not belong in baseball right now. If he stopped gambling and stayed away from it for a time (at least a year) while getting treatment, I'd be willing to let him in the game. He could be reinstated at that point. In that approach, Pete would have a significant measure of control over his own destiny in the game. Even if he never exercised it, once he got too old to seriously be considered for a post of any importance, I'd be willing to see the Hall say that baseball's ban has now gotten to the point of vindictiveness, and choose not to honor it. That would still be problematic because it would pit the Hall versus the majors, which is not really healthy for either party. Before that, though, induction by the Hall would carry the implicit message Pete deserves to be back in the game--which is flat out wrong as things stand. For that reason, if Pete was given a set of conditions to meet for reinstatement and failed to meet them provided he lived long enough to have the opportunity to do so, I wouldn't be terribly upset if he never got in.

Baseball has never spelled out what it wants from Pete, at least not publicly, though it has in a wishy-washy fashion occasionally hinted it might let him back into its good graces. Baseball should spell out publicly where it stands and give Rose the opportunity to a) accept and meet its conditions for reinstatement or b) reject them and suffer the consequences. If baseball did that, it would no longer be the bad guy, so long as the conditions were reasonably related to ensuring he could safely be allowed in a position of responsibility within the game. It would all be up to Pete Rose.

Unfortunately, once again I've spent time on this unappetizing subject, and once again, I feel queasy. Excuse me while I depart to deal with the sensation (and maybe part with lunch prematurely), Thanks for trying to deal with the subject sanely, though.

Jim Albright

[cavalier1968]

Gambling on the game, on the games your playing as well, is the one thing that cant be tolerated. A black Sox type scandal would destroy MLB and would be far worse then steroids, beating the old lady, driving drunk, or any other myriad offenses these guys pull. College basketball is the last game I'd ever bet due to the outfit getting to these kids, who have no money of their own, and are easy marks. It didn't help that Rose was an arrogant and ignorant a SOB that ever played the game. Or that he lied, and still lies, so disgustingly.

If anyone wants to feel bad for Pete Rose go take a walk thru a Children's cancer hospital. You'll not only feel better about this pooch but you probably will care less if he ever gets in the HOF.

Exuse me now. My food is coming up and its "blow chunks" time.


WOW.....a Indians and WHite SOx fan agree!

CAv

[Taco De Muerte]

Snavecream,

1) Your post really hasn't shed any new light on the Rose situation. Most, if not all, of the posters here have been over this before ad nauseum.

2) I'm not sure if you really understand the dangers of betting on baseball. Whether or not he bet on his own team isn't really the issue. Think about it ... a manager who has bet on his team for tomorrow's game may make decisions that HURT him team in TODAY's game. He might rest a guy or two that he really needs to win the current game, for instance. You cannot bet on your own team's games if you're the manager - for or against. Period.

3) You don't come off as objective when you call Rose a top-10 player. Almost no-one around here agrees with that, I doubt Bud Selig agrees with that, and I doubt many of the Hall voters agree with that. And you know what? I doubt Pete Rose himself agrees with that.

Fantastic post - Couldn't agree more.

I love when Rose supporters bring up the " steroid users" to suit their arguement to try and make that scumbag look better - Even he himself, laughed at the fact that people do that.

These same characters also criticize people who point out the various cheats in the HOF when the Bonds issue comes up - Ironically enough, they are pretty much doing the samething here.

While his numbers may be " legit " ( corked bat and greenies allegations aside), he still bet on baseball, broke the cardinal rule, lied about it, and agreed to a lifetime ban.

I will point out however that IF rose were to EVER get into the HOF - I wouldn't be as upset as I would if Shoeless Joe got in. The thought of someone throwing a worldseries getting into the HOF makes me sick to my stomach. We have no " proof " rose threw games, but then again, we don't have proof that Mark Mcgwire used steroids - And I believe both is pretty likely.

[KCGHOST]

I am firmly in the Pete can just rot in baseball purgatory forever. His conduct has been disgraceful. Lied to us for a 15 years. Showed up at Cooperstown every year to sign autographs for a fee and detract attention that should have been directed toward that years inductees. And let's not forget the timig of the release of his book. It just goes on and on. Everything he does is "me, me, me".

[leecemark]

--Pete Rose is a scumbag. That doesn't rule him out as a Hall of famer though. Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker both bet on at least one game - one they played (and Speaker managed) in - and they both bet on the same team even though they were on opposite ones. That is worse than anything Rose is proven to have done (although Rose is known to have bet far more often).
--I'm not fan of Rose, but I would like to see him in the Hall of Fame - if for no other reason than he would cease to be a topic of conversation for the most part. The hard part of it for me is that he absolutely can NOT be allowed to have any kind of meaningful job in MLB. That means his suspension must stand and some way to amend it (or the Hall's ban on suspended players) would have to be made to get him into Cooperstown. If making him eligible for Cooperstown also made him eligible to work in MLB I'd be opposed.

[flash143817]

Pete Rose bet on baseball. That's against the rules of the game. Steroids, at the time that those players are being accused of using them, were not against the rules and bylaws of baseball and they didn't test for them. Now if someone like Bonds or whoever gets a positive steroid test and is banned from the game from steroid use, then he is on the same level as Rose. Until then, what he did wasn't illegal in MLB when he did it, while Rose's gambling was.

[soberdennis]

One thing is sure, he is not "one of the top ten players in the history of the game PERIOD".
Probably not. But there are few players that I have seen I would rather have on my team. He played the game hard and his enthusiasm was contagious. I like that kind of player.

[soberdennis]

Fantastic post - Couldn't agree more.

I love when Rose supporters bring up the " steroid users" to suit their arguement to try and make that scumbag look better - Even he himself, laughed at the fact that people do that.

These same characters also criticize people who point out the various cheats in the HOF when the Bonds issue comes up - Ironically enough, they are pretty much doing the samething here.

While his numbers may be " legit " ( corked bat and greenies allegations aside), he still bet on baseball, broke the cardinal rule, lied about it, and agreed to a lifetime ban.

I will point out however that IF rose were to EVER get into the HOF - I wouldn't be as upset as I would if Shoeless Joe got in. The thought of someone throwing a worldseries getting into the HOF makes me sick to my stomach. We have no " proof " rose threw games, but then again, we don't have proof that Mark Mcgwire used steroids - And I believe both is pretty likely.
Where is the proof that Jackson threw a WS? He hit .375 in the WS and hit the only homer. Other players have had much worse WS and weren't accused of throwing it. I'd love to see what his stats would have been had he not "thrown " the WS.
They were acquitted in court!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[flash143817]

Where is the proof that Jackson threw a WS? He hit .375 in the WS and hit the only homer. Other players have had much worse WS and weren't accused of throwing it. I'd love to see what his stats would have been had he not "thrown " the WS.
They were acquitted in court!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By my count Jackson was also 5 for 12 with 5 RBI with RISP during the series. I thought I remembered hearing that he went in the tank in the clutch that series and was actually starting to write that in this post before I looked it up and it seemed to show the exact opposite. So whether or not he took the money, he didn't appear to play worse as a result of it.

[soberdennis]

By my count Jackson was also 5 for 12 with 5 RBI with RISP during the series. I thought I remembered hearing that he went in the tank in the clutch that series and was actually starting to write that in this post before I looked it up and it seemed to show the exact opposite. So whether or not he took the money, he didn't appear to play worse as a result of it.
Thank you for supporting my point with more information. That's .417 with RISP. Not too shabby.
How about some league MVP's who tanked in the WS.
Gordon hit .095(1942)
Newcombe had an ERA over 20(1956)
Peckinpaugh made 8 errors.(1925)
It looks like they did more to throw the series than Jackson did. And I don't think anyone really thinks they did
Again, where's the proof?.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I think the problem with the Rose issue is the refusal of so many to differentiate the diference between Rose and the Black Sox.

Rose played to win and managed to win. He broke rules, and he did it knowingly. For that, he should not be workng for hire in baseball agin, because of the potential harm that could come from knowingly allowing a compulsive gambler to work in baseball. But he did not dishonor baseball by throwing games or laying down. If we are going to excoriate Rose for what he has done wrong, it is only fair that it be acknowledged that Rose never threw games. Never, never, never.

I've started another thread on this, but I think it's time to separate, somewhat, the issue of being under suspension and being inducted into the HOF. Rose is justiiably under suspension, but he played and managed to win his entire career, without exception. The HOF needs to formally examine the actual circumstances of his offense, formally differentiate them from what the Black Sox did, and then make their own determination as to whether or not Rose's actions INTENTIONALLY undermined the integrity of baseball itself, or whether they did not.

[bluezebra]

:clapping He’s Charlie Hustle for Pete’s sake.
Let him in! Let him in! Let him in!

Attn: Mr. Bud Selig

Pete Rose was one of the top ten players in the history of the game PERIOD

As a kid (born in 1970) growing up in Southern California I loved baseball. I was hooked by the time I was five. My father often took me to see the Dodgers. My older brother and I played countless hours of catch and over-the-line with our friends. We collected baseball cards from 1975 – 1985. Our father bought a batting cage. My favorite players were Pete Rose “Charlie Hustle”, Ron Cey “The Penguin”, Johnny Bench, George Brett & of course “Mr. Clean” Steve Garvey. These guys were true baseball players. They played hard every day. They ran on and off the field (every inning). They were and still are my idols. In 1976 my family traveled by motorhome to the Baseball Hall of Fame. I will never forget seeing the Big Red Machine on a stairway and Pete Rose’s picture in the Hall.

In case you haven’t checked the record books lately, Pete Rose has the numbers and then some to get him into the Hall of Fame. He played from 1963 – 1986, he put in 23 years of extremely entertaining baseball. He helped turn over a thousand double plays. He would run to first base after a walk, slide head-first into bases (Pete Rose slide). He obviously loved the game and he made me love it too.

Some of Pete Rose’s Career Stats
1st Hits – 4,256
1st Singles – 3,215
5th Runs Scored – 2,165
2nd Doubles – 746
1st Games Played – 3,562
In 1978 Mr. Rose hit safely in 44 straight games.

Pete Rose was banned for life from MLB in 1989 for his alleged gambling on MLB games. He went to jail for false filing of income tax returns soon after. He was accused of betting on major league baseball, Bart Giamatti and Pete Rose agreed to a lifetime ban from baseball. Giamatti dies 8 days later? He is not going to be a politician anytime soon. Although I don’t see why he can’t from the beginning of this paragraph he looks fully qualified. Let’s think rationally. He never bet against his own team. What’s the harm? The man likes to gamble. There are other players already inducted into the Hall that have checked pasts as well. Ty Cobb charged into the stands and beat the crap out of a fan that was heckling him. Cobb helped fix a game as a player in 1919. If that happened in 1989 he would have been banned for life? What is the difference? Ty Cobb was a player in a game. Pete Rose was a coach betting on his own team. Which one of these scenarios is worse? Ty Cobb’s of course. Babe Ruth once swung a bat at an umpire in 1917. There are hundreds of players that took steroids and are creeping up on all-time records. Bonds, Sosa and McGwire were all on the juice. I see this as more of an issue than betting on games. There are so many more have taken steroids as well. Don’t let them in. I don’t think so. Bonds, Sosa and McGwire are shoe-in’s.

The bottom line is Baseball players are not Saints they are ball players. Reward them for what they have achieved on the field without banned substances. Pete Rose is going to get in one day. Mr. Rose is not getting any younger and it would be a shame if he were not alive when he is inducted. So why don’t you be the one that allows the process to move forward and the let the voting to begin.

He’s Charlie Hustle for Pete’s sake.
Let him in! Let him in! Let him in!

Marc Evans
Upland, CA

The smog in Upland must be clouding your brain, Marc. More than"Charle Hustle", he's "Charlie the Hustler".

Bob

[KHenry14]

If we are going to excoriate Rose for what he has done wrong, it is only fair that it be acknowledged that Rose never threw games. Never, never, never.


Frankly, this argument doesn't hold water because it's irrelevant whether he threw games or not. Why? Because the fact that he was associating with people who could potentially blackmail Pete into throwing games. Pete was betting and losing big, and as the Dowd report states, Pete was going to blow off paying back the debt. Had he done that to the wrong people, he could easily have been forced to throw games, and then where are we? That is why the rule doesn't differentiate between betting for or against the team.

So don't feel sorry for him, his massice arrogance put him in this situation. And because this was all his own doing, he doesn't deserve the honor he so desparately wants.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Frankly, this argument doesn't hold water because it's irrelevant whether he threw games or not. Why? Because the fact that he was associating with people who could potentially blackmail Pete into throwing games. Pete was betting and losing big, and as the Dowd report states, Pete was going to blow off paying back the debt. Had he done that to the wrong people, he could easily have been forced to throw games, and then where are we? That is why the rule doesn't differentiate between betting for or against the team.

I can't agree with your premise here at all.

To lump Pete Rose in with the Black Sox and the other 15 players banned for life is not just an injustice to Rose; it's an injustice to history. And my concern in this matter is, in no small part, being fair to the HISTORY of baseball.

The Black Sox knowingly participated in discussions with gamblers and came to an agreement: The Black Sox would throw the Series in return for cash. Six of the Black Sox were active members of the fix. A seventh (McMullin) did not play in the World Series, but essentially extorted "hush money". An eigth (Weaver) may or may not have laid down (Bill James, in his most recent Historical Baseball Abstract cites evidence that Weaver was hardly the innocent he claims to be), but he knew the fix was in and said nothing; he let it go on.

Consider these circumstances, and compare them to what Rose did:
(A) Rose never conspired to throw a game
(B) Rose never committed any act which reflectd an intent to throw a game
(C) Rose never faciltated intoductions of people to other people which facilitated the throwing of games
(D) Rose never laid down, either as a player or a manager.

I might agree that if Rose blew off his debt, he may have been pressured to throw games to pay it off, under certain circumstances. It's also possible that he could have just been made to disappear, one way or the other. Or that those people would have done nothing, believing that they couldn't get away with such a high profile hit. ANY OF THOSE OUTCOMES WERE POSSIBLE! The "he would have thrown games" assertion is merely that; an assertion. Not a fact.

The rule makes no difference between throwing games and associating with gamblers FOR PURPOSES OF EMPLOYMENT WITHIN BASEBALL. I might agree to that; a player or manager wih a gambling problem who bets on baseball is a risk that MLB has a right to remove But we're talking about HOF enshrinement here, not about future employment. Pete Rose DID NOT INTEND to undermine the integrity of baseball, and he DID NOTHING to undermine the integrity of baseball. That is the difference between Rose and the Black Sox, in a nutshell. I might agree with continuing Rose's suspension, but I believe that the circumstances leading to his suspension do not reflect underming the integrity of the game. I don't believe that the suspension should be lifted, but I believe that the rule prohibiting players under suspension from being enshrined in the HOF to take into account whether or not the circumstances leading to the player's suspension reflect an ACTUAL and INTENTIONAL undermining of the integrity of a contest.


So don't feel sorry for him, his massice arrogance put him in this situation. And because this was all his own doing, he doesn't deserve the honor he so desparately wants.

This is beside the point. It's essentially saying that you are taking your position because you don't like Pete Rose.

I don't like Pete Rose a whole lot, either, but I don't think it's a good thing for the all-time hit leader to be outside the HOF when he hasn't thrown any games, nor inended to throw any games. Let the suspension stand, but honor Rose's playing and managing career with induction to the HOF. It was the career of an extremely flawed human being who, nonetheless, played to win and managed to win every time he suited up. That statement cannot be said about Joe Jackson; that's why Jackson should NOT be honored. But that statement IS true about Rose, and that's why he SHOULD be honored. The Bible says to "give honor where honor is due", and this verse often applies to flawed and not nice people. I believe this principle applies here, when it comes to Rose and the HOF.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I also believe that changing the rule, quietly enshrining Rose into the HOF, while letting the suspension stand, while emphasizing that Rose did not throw games is a way to end this ongong controversy that is not in the interest of fans, players, MLB, or history, let alone Rose, himself. I believe my proposal is a way to resolve the controversy by being true to history while protecting baseball.

[flash143817]

If Pete Rose gets in, it should be after his death, so that he can't derive any extra arrogance from knowing he got in.


And of course Rose never admitted to intentionally throwing games, but would you really expect him to? It took him 15 years to admit what everyone else blatantly knew. Why would he admit something that can't be proven either way if he wouldn't even admit the obvious?


And has been shown, Jackson took the money to throw the series, but he hardly carried through his end of the bargain. He was far and away the Black Sox best player in that series.

[KHenry14]

Nice try Fuzzy, but your wrong.

That rule had been in place for over 65 years when Pete was managing the Reds. And he knew darn well what the consequences would be had he bet on baseball, any baseball game. Anyone who's knows Pete knows he's sort of a baseball historian, and certainly knew about the Black Sox. And he didn't care. He was Pete Rose, the Hit King, untouchable. Nobody would dare come after him.

With that as the foundation, he bet, he bet often, and he often bet on the Reds. You say he never did anything to bring games into question, well we really don't know that do we? Did he manage differently when he had a bet on the Reds down? I think it's quite possible, but ulitimately, we just wont know the answer to that, and Pete isn't going to tell. What do we know? He bet often on baseball and that's the only thing that matters. You say that he always played and managed to win, maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But the mere fact that it is somewhat in question is all anyone needs to know.

And no, I don't believe anyone would kill Pete for whelching on a bet. But imagine a phone call he might have got, telling him that Pete Jr. would use a walker for the rest of his life if Pete didn't throw that nights' game. You think Pete would have ignored that? I don't, and that's the position his gambling put him in, and that's why MLB doesn't differentiate on the details of betting.

So it becomes irrelevant that it never got to that point. He knowingly broke the most sacrosanct rule in MLB, he knew what the punishment was, and he didn't care. He took the admiration of the entire baseball world and spit on it.

And no, I'm not taking this position on Pete because I loathe him. I'd take the same position if Willie Mays had done it. And frankly, using the term "honor" and Pete Rose in the same sentence is an oxymoron. He honored the game he so truly loved by breaking the biggest rule on the books. He then continues to honor the game by lying about his involvement for 15 years, gettting all sorts of illplaced sympathy from his fans. Then he admits his involvement in a book that he wants to make money off of. You can argue that all of that is a sign of his bad character and not indicative of what he did on the field. And indeed it is. But any consideration of Pete for the Hall does include character as one of the considerations, and I think that few would argue that he fails completely in that regard.

BTW, I'm not lumping Pete in with the Black Sox, he did that himself.

[Fuzzy Bear]

But the rule I'm advocating modifying is NOT the rule for Crookedness and its Penalties. That's an MLB rule. I'm advocating the HOF rule that prohibits a player from being inducted to the HOF while under suspension. This is a rule the HOF adopted 15 years ago to block a Pete Rose induction on the heels of his suspension and incarceration.

While I'm at it, what I find troubling is the willingness to attach to Rose guilt at fixing games when there is no evidence to even suggest this. What Rose's intentions and actions were are far, far away from what the Black Sox did; the only thing that makes them the same is that both of them fall under the same rule, and the same penalty applies for both actions.

That fact does NOT mean that both actions are the same, or that the rule is correct in its entirety. The cirucumstances of Rose's actions indicate that he played to win, but put himself in a position where scenarios could be imagined to where that might be compromised in the future. This wasn't seeking out gamblers, taking bribes, and fixing the outcome of a Series.

Rose deserves to be evaluated for what he DID do, not what he may have done. I know some people think it would be a better world if we could all lve like the folks in Minority Report[, but I'm glad we're not there yet. Most of us, anyway, on most things.

[KHenry14]

Fact is, I didn't put the cloud over Pete, he did it to himself. And guess what, the HOF isn't in the slightest interested in changing it's policy as you advocate. Why? Because they agree with it. I mean that's the whole point of them enacting the rule was that they didn't want this guy to make an end run into the Hall.

Sure, you can make the argument that Pete played to win, I mean someone got all those hits. But I guess I just don't see why this guy deserves a pass because he supposedly didn't cheat. In actuality the mere fact that Pete has admitted betting does bring into question the quality of the games he managed. That doesn't mean he did anything, but it does raise a cloud of suspicion, whether you agree with it or not.

But the fact of the matter is that this is all moot. Pete isn't getting back into baseball and he's not getting into the Hall. Period. He could have changed that, by admitting his guilt, by showing real remorse, by seeking help, but he chose to spit in the face of MLB and more importantly, all those fans of his. Thus, he is getting what he deserves.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

The gambling did not take place while he was a player. His playing stats are legit, unlike so many other soon to be HOFers from this era. The HOF is supposed to acknowledge a player's accomplishments during his playing career. He wouldn't be elected as a manager, and he shouldn't be allowed back in baseball imo.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

In my opinion, there are three possibilities here. Since we have a morally corrupt power structure in MLB, which has conspired to do everything in its power to cover up Steroid/HGH-Gate, there's no reason to believe they'll do otherwise in this matter. Only when the law is right on their tails have they acted with any show of moral values, and those really aren't "moral values," when you think about it.

Moreover, I don't see Congress's wanting to dive into this one, like they have into the Steroid/HGH quagmire. Thus, I don't think we'll ever learn the truths we need to learn, in order to ensure the Rose mess is correctly resolved. But for me, there are only two relevant questions:

(1) When he was MANAGING the Reds, did Rose ever bet on Reds games; and

(2) If so, did he ever bet on them to lose?

I know plenty of people who say that if he bet on Reds' games, period, he should never whiff the Hall of fame. They point out that his best relievers were abused horribly, having to pitch an absurd number of games, and having to warm up in an absurd number of additional games, because Rose was managing every game like it was Game 7 of the World Series.

OK, that's both fair and accurate. I remember, before the bombshell hit, hearing a lot of criticism and shock over the way a guy as baseball-savvy as Rose was burning up his relievers during the seasons. I doubt it's an accident that only in 1990 did they win it all, as huge underdogs (though that was a bad money line).

BUT:

If that is "all" Rose did, I think almost all of us would agree that, over the course of almost 2 decades now, he's paid the price for having bet on his own team, having compromised their chances over the long haul, and having managed every game like it was Game 7.

Which brings us to The Big One....

Did Pete Rose ever bet money against his own team, in a game which he would manage?

I think I've shared on here that, back in the late 70's, when you had to be pretty good to make a meager living at it, I did exactly that playing poker to get me through my university. Yes, it was a VERY modest living, but I did it, and I did it because I'm a naturally talented poker player. I can only imagine what I could make today, now that every idiot who watches TV thinks he/she can play serious poker. :rolleyes: I've known a ton of guys like Pete Rose: compulsive gamblers no matter what kind of gambling you put in front of them, just like my ex-wife got hooked on speed, downers, booze, pot (yes, it's true), or any other drug some a.h. gave her. He was a great ballplayer, but he's a punk/loser of a gambler.

Guys like that get very desperate when they are "stuck." Of course this is not "evidence," circumstantial or otherwise, and I have seen precisely zero evidence Rose ever bet against his team. Not once. The MLB investigator hinted at it a couple of years ago, drew an angry retort from Rose's lawyer, and immediately s.t.f.u.'ed about it. One can well imagine why.

This is seriously criminal behavior we're talking about here. If Rose did it, my mind is very clear: He should be put in prison and never, ever, ever be allowed in the Hall of Fame.

BUT: While any reasonable quantum of evidence should be enough, coupled with the avalanche of existing circumstantial evidence, to nail Bonds or McGwire or Sosa for their sins, we really have NO evidence on Rose for breaking The Big Rule. Any alleged evidence I've heard of is nothing but conjecture, and that should count for no more here than it does in a courtroom. He didn't suddenly become 3 times as big, and 3 times as good, after his 36th birthday, like you-know-who did.

And the fact he was betting on sports, and Reds games, does not prove that Pete Rose, a man who was as competitive a player as I ever saw, put in patsies so his team would lose. Whether you love him or hate him (I've always voted for "hate him"), you should know that deliberately laying down on the ballfield is the antithesis of his character.

So for me, unless and until there is very substantial evidence to show Rose bet against his own team--or deliberately set them up to lose and tipped off his mobster-debtors to that effect--I have to say the man has more than paid his debt to MLB.

Is he a jerk? Yes. Is he devoid of any sense of right and wrong, and deeply imbued with the belief that He is a special person who can do whatever he pleases. Yes, of course. Did he bet on baseball, and thereby violate a cardinal rule which is posted in every MLB clubhouse? Obviously.

But not until I've heard a LOT more will I believe that Pete Rose, the most competitive, get-more-out-of-less player of my lifetime, did what Tris Speaker, Harry Hooper, Joe Wood and those other 1912 Red Sox players so shamelessly did in Game 6 of the World Series... with Christy Mathewson waiting for them in Game 7, no less. What a shame they beat him in Game 7.

Let MLB put all of its cards on the table N O W. If they don't raise very strong doubts about Rose and whether he did what I'm talking about, they must hold their noses and put him in the Hall. Yeah, he's a sociopath and whatever else you want to call him, but he'll have a ton of company in there.

Baseball History Nut

[Fuzzy Bear]

I agree with Baseball History Nut, word for word.

Establishing a HOF Board of Review to where the HOF can evaluate the circumstances of Rose's actions and clear the way for his enshrinement (if it is determned that the did not throw games, or conspire to throw games) can do three things:

(A) Clarify what Rose did and didn't do, for the sake of history. (I believe that lumping Rose in with the Black Sox is a disservice to history).

(B) Bring about what I believe will prove to be a consensus solution to the Rose problem; puting him in the HOF while controlling/blocking his ability to work in baseball again.

(C) Ratchet down the discussions on this issue; discussions which sway toward how great Rose was (disregarding what he did) and what a scumbag Rose was/is (amplifying and distorting what he did).

I do find Rose discussions tiring. I've put effort into some of the discussions here because I think I have a solution, and because I beleve that lumping Rose in with the Black Sox is NOT something Rose did. It's something OTHERS do, here, on other forums, in the media, etc. It distorts history. And that's never a good thing.

[The Old Ballgame]

I can understand the idea that there is reasonable doubt that Rose bet against the Reds to lose. But there is no reason for the HOF to try and prove that because they don't care and I don't either. He bet on baseball while managing the Reds, he knew the punishment, he knew the rule, and he lied for 15 years. If, after his suspension, he said "I bet on baseball, I was addicted, and I was wrong." perhaps I would support him for the Hall. He denied what we know now to be true for 15 years and he doesn't deserve the honor that the Hall is.

[cavalier1968]

I think the problem with the Rose issue is the refusal of so many to differentiate the diference between Rose and the Black Sox.

Rose played to win and managed to win. He broke rules, and he did it knowingly. For that, he should not be workng for hire in baseball agin, because of the potential harm that could come from knowingly allowing a compulsive gambler to work in baseball. But he did not dishonor baseball by throwing games or laying down. If we are going to excoriate Rose for what he has done wrong, it is only fair that it be acknowledged that Rose never threw games. Never, never, never.

I've started another thread on this, but I think it's time to separate, somewhat, the issue of being under suspension and being inducted into the HOF. Rose is justiiably under suspension, but he played and managed to win his entire career, without exception. The HOF needs to formally examine the actual circumstances of his offense, formally differentiate them from what the Black Sox did, and then make their own determination as to whether or not Rose's actions INTENTIONALLY undermined the integrity of baseball itself, or whether they did not.



When he managed did he leave a pitcher in longer than normal? Thus putting that player at risk.......

Cav

[BaseballHistoryNut]

That is the single best existing argument against his enshrinement, in my opinion. My response is that 20 years is long enough. Obviously, we differ on the matter of "sentencing." ;)

[SABR Matt]

argh

Am I the only one who's really REALLY tired of the Pete Rose debate? LOL

FWIW, excluding him from the hall does not make me weap. He was a great player, but we're not talking top ten or even top 25 great...I have him down in the 30s. And if baseball has gotten along thus far without him...I'm not worried about it corroding in his absence form the HOF.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

argh

Am I the only one who's really REALLY tired of the Pete Rose debate? LOL

FWIW, excluding him from the hall does not make me weap. He was a great player, but we're not talking top ten or even top 25 great...I have him down in the 30s. And if baseball has gotten along thus far without him...I'm not worried about it corroding in his absence form the HOF.

YO! Did I say otherwise? I have him in the #5-#8 range in right field, and not within a mile of the Big 3. I certainly wouldn't rate him higher than #31 overall, and might rate him lower than #39. But that's not what this thread is about.

If you want to know what I think about his playing those last 5 years, as perhaps the worst first baseman ever--with zero power, a laughable slugging average and a mediocre-to-horrible OBP--solely for the purpose of breaking a record, you'll get an entirely different response. My rating of him penalizes him heavily for his having done that.

But is anybody going to quibble over whether the guy's on-field feats warrant his inclusion in the Hall of Fame? I certainly hope not. That's why this thread is about "the other issue"--the real issue. I detest the guy as much as almost anyone does, and I rate his career about as low as anyone does, and I still think he's paid his debt and should be enshrined. When I saw this thread, I decided I should state my case as fully and clearly as I could, given the ridiculous hour of night/morning at which I wrote it.

BHN

[SABR Matt]

I wasn't saying you said anything different...I was just stating my opinion that Rose is not someone we shuold be losing sleep over not making the HOF. If he were a paragon of virtue (or even just a normal human being), he'd be in without a doubt, but he was a piece of crap lowlife who earned his punishment well.

In any event, I think Rose should be admitted into the HOF exactly one day after he dies. I want nothing to do with the day that Rose makes the HOF while still alive because he will capitalize on the potential value of now being a hall of famer and sell more memorabilia and books and whatnot to finance his latest gambling habit, and I don't think he deserves the satisfaction.

Induct Rose to the hall...posthumously.

[flash143817]

as perhaps the worst first baseman ever--with zero power, a laughable slugging average and a mediocre-to-horrible OBP--

Actually that would be Darin Erstad the last few years with the Angels...:D


But as far as Rose goes...I agree with Matt. He just isn't at the level that we should be spending so much debate on him. He was MAYBE a top 50 all time player. On top of that, he was a pompous, arrogant jerk. He knew the consequences and he went ahead with it anyway because he thought he was above the game and everyone would let him get away with it even if he got caught. Just another case of his gigantic, self-centered head boosting himself up more than he should be.

But to those that compare him with Joe Jackson. First of all, even if Jackson took the money, which is difficult to know for certain (unlike the mountain of evidence against Rose), he didn't carry through with his end of the bargain. He was the best hitter in the series and repeatedly came through in clutch situations. On top of just that, Jackson is by far the better player than Rose just rating on playing accomplishments.

And if Jackson has had to wait past death and still not been enshrined (for which I don't know which side to take) then certainly Rose better wait until he's 6 feet under before he even dreams of a HOF plaque.

[Taco De Muerte]

Where is the proof that Jackson threw a WS? He hit .375 in the WS and hit the only homer. Other players have had much worse WS and weren't accused of throwing it. I'd love to see what his stats would have been had he not "thrown " the WS.
They were acquitted in court!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.businessofbaseball.com/shoelessjoe.htm

I'm sorry, but the man is a fraud and should NEVER EVER get into the HOF - and if he does, I will be sick to my stomach.

Nothing will ever change my mind about Joe.

[KHenry14]

That is the single best existing argument against his enshrinement, in my opinion. My response is that 20 years is long enough. Obviously, we differ on the matter of "sentencing." ;)


You see, the only reason that he's been on the outside this long was because he LIED about his participation. He could be in the Hall today had he admitted it, actually felt remorse, and gotten some help. Heck, had he admitted it, lied about remorse, and faked going through rehab he would have gotten in the Hall in 1990. But he lied for 16 years, so the clock on his 20 year sentence began last year. So when 2025 rolls around we can talk about his sentence again.

[riverfrontier]

I don't know which is worse, the itching or the swelling. I like to 'fun in' on the fact that people feel decieved because Pete Rose lied about his gambling. He LIED to us. Something you or I would never do. It's more a red state/blue state argument anyway, and Americans don't tolerate public figures who lie. At least in baseball.

[KHenry14]

The thing is, our great country loves to forgive people. Heck, if OJ came out and admitted it and said he was sorry we'd probably forgive him! OK, maybe not but you get the idea.

I don't know if Pete had advisors telling him to lie all those years or he decided on his own to do it, but however it happened it was a stupid thing to do.

[2Chance]

Good thread, Fuzzy. Usually if this subject comes up, I don't look at it any more. In some ways we have said everything there is to say, but since you want to look at it rationally:

IMO, the questions you ask, "Did he...?" should begin "Could he...?"
From everything I've heard about his personality, for Pete Rose to bet against himself or his team is ludicrous. He might be the exception to the rule. A lesser mortal, if he was betting on baseball, would bet on whoever the odds were in favor of; or if managing, do something that could cause a loss. So the question is, what if it was somebody a little shadier than Pete? You can't have one rule for him and another for everybody else.

But the issue is bigger than one man. When Judge Landis made his ruling against the Black Sox, it was to send a message that it doesn't matter if you were found guilty or not, there should be no hint of impropriety in the game. Don't mess with the integirty of the game by gambling. Period.

Some years ago a couple of HoFers (Mays and Mantle?) were involved with some stuff in Vegas and placed on the ineligible list. That's how serious they took it.

Do I believe Pete belongs in the Hall of Fame? Absolutely! Too bad he screwed up his chance.

The other thing they can do is remove the rule that ineligible players are ineligible for the Hall of Fame. Good luck getting that done.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

You see, the only reason that he's been on the outside this long was because he LIED about his participation. He could be in the Hall today had he admitted it, actually felt remorse, and gotten some help. Heck, had he admitted it, lied about remorse, and faked going through rehab he would have gotten in the Hall in 1990. But he lied for 16 years, so the clock on his 20 year sentence began last year. So when 2025 rolls around we can talk about his sentence again.

By definition, a sociopath is incapable of feeling remorse.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I'm sorry, but the man is a fraud and should NEVER EVER get into the HOF - and if he does, I will be sick to my stomach.


Funny how that will make you sick to your stomach, but steroids and the subsequent cheapening of the record books don't seem to register. Spare me your typical "amphetamines and corked bat" defensive response.


http://www.businessofbaseball.com/shoelessjoe.htm

And I say "to hell with Shoeless Joe and his apologists, elected and otherwise."


Good to see you're still searching for unbiased pieces.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The other thing they can do is remove the rule that ineligible players are ineligible for the Hall of Fame. Good luck getting that done.

That's what I'm advocating. I believe that a Board of Review established by the HOF to review the specifics of the actual incident(s) that led to suspensions/expulsions can determine intent to harm baseball and actual harm done to baseball by the player's actions.

I agree with all here who find the Rose issue tiring, but, realistically, the way things are now, the issue will never die. And there are two key differences between Joe Jackson and Rose:

(A) Rose never threw games, nor did anything to cause a dishonest outcome of a contest.

(B) Rose holds an EXTREMELY important record; the career hits record. Keeping the career hits leader out of the HOF is a big deal; it leaves a big hole in baseball history that begs explanation.

Technicalities aside, the explanation is simply this: Pete Rose played and managed to the hilt; 100 percent, 24/7, moreso than any other player in history. He developed a gambling problem that spread to the point where he could no longer safely work in baseball, but he never undermined the integrity of baseball by throwing games. It can be recognized what Pete has become; ergo, the suspension. It can also be recognized what Pete was, while in baseball (a competitor nonpareil) and what he was not (not a quitter, not a fixer). On this basis, with these facts established, allowing Pete Rose to enter the HOF is not hypocritical, nor is it based on some sort of fiction; it is a solution that reconciles what could have happened bad, but didn't, with what happened splendidly for many years.

I believe this approach is in the interest of history, and of baseball as a whole. I believe that, in keeping Rose out of the HOF in the way it has, baseball has, without intending to, given itself an unnecessary black eye. I think my approach is reasonable, and I think that, if adopted, it would lead to a quiet closing of this chapter in baseball history.

[2Chance]

IMO Selig would have done well to broach this subject a few years ago when Baseball's popularity had ebbed. To that point, Rose was one of the best ambassadors for the game, despite his personality flaws.

That time has passed, and Baseball has a lot of positive characters and positive attributes today. Of course, the squabbling is over steroids now instead of money, but that is less universal and a more nebulous subject.

[sturg1dj]

i think what Rose did is far worse than what people think. Just look at it this way. The first season in which Pete Rose had no involvement with the Reds they won a world series.

He has said he never bet against the Reds, but there is evidence to show that he bet on them...which could lead to mismanagement of players.



That being said, hall of fame....should be voted on by the fans with an all-star ballot.

reinstatement.....NEVER

[Chaplain14]

To Whom This May Concern:

I'm really sick of hearing excuses for keeping Pete Rose out of the Hall of Fame. Okay, he's beneath dignity, low life, Etc. - The HOF didn't do themselves justice by creating the Pete Rose Ban which was designed to keep Mr. Rose out...period.

Of course, being so "honorable," they stated it was a coincidence of sorts that this vote to keep banned players would come out early the same year that Mr. Rose's name was supposed to be brought up for a vote. Spare me with Baseball's integrity.

I seem to remember that Judge Landis, MLB's First Commissioner, who banned the White Sox players, was a racist who helped keep Black Americans out of the MLB. Only after the man's death did Jackie Robinson get his chance to make it to the Majors.

Yes, Mr. Rose was stupid, and he broke the rules - he has himself to blame. Still, if you're going to keep the man out of MLB, at least allow him the plaque he earned with his hits and his hustle. It's a JOKE that the man with a
.303 lifetime batting average, 4,256 hits, and 17 other records is denied a place alongside his peers...because of a few bitter old ballplayers and a deceitful HOF.

If you don't like the man, support his going into the Hall of Fame, AND keep him out of today's MLB. That should satisfy both parties. Just be done with it!

What do you think???

Regards,

CAREY
U.S. ARMY

[Goooooo]

I agree. compare his sins to cobb's. cobb was racist. he abused fans and even killed someone. cobb was a lowlife scumbag. rose made a few mistakes. big deal. he's a family man and loves the game. should of been in the hof years ago.

[Sliding Billy]

To Whom This May Concern:

I'm really sick of hearing excuses for keeping Pete Rose out of the Hall of Fame. Okay, he's beneath dignity, low life, Etc. - The HOF didn't do themselves justice by creating the Pete Rose Ban which was designed to keep Mr. Rose out...period. If you don't like the man, support his going into the Hall of Fame, AND keep him out of today's MLB. That should satisfy both parties. Just be done with it!

What do you think???

Regards,

CAREY
U.S. ARMY
I don't understand: He's unfit to participate in MLB at all but deserves its highest honor?

[jpenrod]

I agree. compare his sins to cobb's. cobb was racist. he abused fans and even killed someone. cobb was a lowlife scumbag. rose made a few mistakes. big deal. he's a family man and loves the game. should of been in the hof years ago.

Yep cobb was a jerk and was not liked by most if not all players, but he also never broke on of the most basic rules of the game (and please do not give me the spiking is the same as betting on baseball). As for the killing a man, I assume you are referring to the man that cobb said he killed after the man attacked him, but you may want to check the facts of the story. No body was ever found matching the description Cobb gave. Odds ae Cobb was exagerating what happened. Maybe there is another man Cobb killed that I am unaware of.

[cbenson5]

I agree. compare his sins to cobb's. cobb was racist. he abused fans and even killed someone. cobb was a lowlife scumbag. rose made a few mistakes. big deal. he's a family man and loves the game. should of been in the hof years ago.


I'm not sure that everything in Mr. Stump's books is true. Even if he did boast to Stump that he killed a man, I don't think that a drunken comment proves that he was a murderer. All the evidence that I have seen leads me to believe that Cobb fought of the assailants that attempted to rob him and nothing more. Because he played the game so hard, people like the imagine of a madman. Cobb did a lot of good things as well: providing retirement money to former ball players and setteing up scholarships for poor children to attend college are just a couple of examples. Anyway, I support allowing Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame.

[Wade8813]

Problem with the Ty Cobb racist argument is that he was inducted during a time when racism was more or less accepted; they had no reason to keep him out because of that.

That said, according to the rules of the HoF, Cobb shouldn't have made it either.
Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

[Sliding Billy]

How about Joe Jackson? Or how about Eddie Cicotte? He won 28 games one year, 29 another, and 21 in his last year, when his career was cut short by a few mistakes and the racist Judge Landis? Besides, they were just banned for life, so they've done their time and then some.

[baseball junkie]

Eddie Cicotte, Joe Jackson & Pete Rose should never be admitted into the Hall of Fame because they broke the Cardinal Rule of all professional organized sports -- you don't throw or bet on games.

Breaking that rule endangers the intergrity of the sport in a way no other act can.

Frankly the argument at Ty Cobb doesn't deserve to be in the HOF bacause he was a racist is ridiculous. Of course he was a racist! So was just about every other player, contributor and executive inducted into the HOF probably well into the 1960s. Should we throw all of them out too?

Baseball has only one simple rule players need to follow to avoid banishment: don't throw games & don't bet on games. Rose was too stupid to follow the rule and then too stupid to admit his wrongdoing for over two decades.

I'm sure that if Rose had admitted to the accusations back in 1988/1989 and said he had a gambling addiction and that he was sorry and would seek help, he would have got off with a couple year suspension and he'd probably be back in the game on some level and he certainly be in the HOF by now. But his hubris made him think he was bigger than the game and that the rules didn't apply to him.

Well no one is bigger than the game.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I agree that Jackson and Cicotte should remain banned from the Hall. The interesting question there is whether TRIS SPEAKER should be expelled from the Hall--an astonishing question, not least of all coming from me, since I rate him as one of the 10 greatest players in MLB history. But Timothy Gay's outstanding Speaker bio provides a compelling and sickening account of how Speaker, Joe Wood and other 1912 Red Sox immortals threw Game SIX of the 1912 World Series, in order to get back at ownership for the financial screwing of the players regarding a rain-wiped-out tie game earlier in the Series. Shame on the owner and all, but THROWING Game Six of a World Series, and with Christy Mathewson waiting for you in Game Seven??? If anyone should be expelled from the Hall, there he is. (And by the way, his racism ran just as deep as Cobb's, and his bigotries were more diverse, as he hated Catholics more than Cobb did.)

As for PETE ROSE:

I've long felt he should be put in the Hall on the ground he's done his time, UNLESS he bet against his own team. Now, a long time ago, way back before it was a fad, I played poker for a meager living. I knew a lot of punk, loser gamblers like Pete Rose. The guy's disgusting, sociopathic, etc. And NONE of that warrants his being barred from the Hall. If he bet against his team, then I have to believe he managed accordingly and I think he should be barred until the end of time. But I've seen no proof of that, and I don't know anyone else who has. So I've said for quite a lot of years now that he's done his time and should be admitted to the Hall.

HOWEVER, Sabr Matt said something on another thread which appealed to me: "Elect Pete Rose to the Hall of Fame the day after he dies."

Ya gotta admit, that's not entirely unappealing. I think the guy's way overrated as a player, but there's no way he doesn't deserve to be in the Hall, as far as his playing record goes. I think he had one teammate who was hugely better than him (Morgan), and another who was significantly better than him (Bench), but if that criterion barred one from the Hall, Bill Dickey and a lot of other Yankees would be booted out. Clearly, Rose more than belongs, on his merits as a player.

The big majority of people I know agree with me exactly when I say he should get in unless he bet against his team, and if he did that, he should never get in. I would guess most people on this site do, too.

But what about Matt's idea? Elect him the day after he dies!

What do y'all think of that? I think it has some merit.

BHN

[Sliding Billy]

As for PETE ROSE:

I've long felt he should be put in the Hall on the ground he's done his time, UNLESS he bet against his own team. Now, a long time ago, way back before it was a fad, I played poker for a meager living. I knew a lot of punk, loser gamblers like Pete Rose. The guy's disgusting, sociopathic, etc. And NONE of that warrants his being barred from the Hall. If he bet against his team, then I have to believe he managed accordingly and I think he should be barred until the end of time. But I've seen no proof of that, and I don't know anyone else who has. So I've said for quite a lot of years now that he's done his time and should be admitted to the Hall.

HOWEVER, Sabr Matt said something on another thread which appealed to me: "Elect Pete Rose to the Hall of Fame the day after he dies."

Ya gotta admit, that's not entirely unappealing.
BHN
Well, his election would have a silver lining. Otherwise, it is entirely unappealing.

You don't have to manage to lose to pollute the competitive outcome of a game. You can manage to run up the score instead of resting your regulars; you can waste a quality reliever to keep the spread down; you can manipulate your rotation to affect the betting line. You can bet on your team and play a real first baseman instead of your 45-year-old, .219-batting self.

I'm sure if you knew a lot of punk, loser gamblers, you also knew a few who were in debt to and under heavy pressure from some very unpleasant people.

For two years, Rose was willing to subordinate the good of his team to his own obsessive need to put one more base hit on the pile. What would he do to protect his own slow-moving kneecaps?

I have a soft spot for charming rogues and a visceral dislike of incompetent self-constituted authority. Pete was intelligent and amusing at times and the Hall of Fame is often neither. Nevertheless, the idea of putting him in there alongside the likes of George Kelly and Freddie Lindstrom makes me want to vomit.

[KCGHOST]

As far as I am concerned, Pete Rose and his myopic supporters should all be banned from the HoF.

[Chaplain14]

KCGhost...Respectfully, Get Real. Your lack of respect for the player is bleeding into the same for the fans who are "myopic" enough to support him. Let's keep the conversation without finger pointing and name-calling.

Another writer adds: "I don't understand: He's unfit to participate in MLB at all but deserves its highest honor?" Well, the Hall of Fame AND MLB are supposed to be seperate. A HOF official, well-placed, proudly stated that MLB does NOT have say-so or any dictatorial power over the HOF...Right. The Rose Ban was a Conspiracy, plain and simple, and I'm NOT one of those who tend to believe in Conspiracies.

Rose is to blame for his own actions. I'm not saying trust him in the game again. I'm not saying that he should be reinstated...but it's pathetic to keep the all-time hit leader out of the game, unless you're a purist. Oh, yes, let's hear it for them. Someone, however got the hits, runs scored, batting titles, Etc..., and it wasn't the bookies.

Bud Selig is one of those gentlemen who literally blame Mr. Rose for Bart Giamatti's death. I've got the man admitting this in an interview from a few years back. Don't blame the excessive smoking and food consumption, along with a lack of exercise. No...let's blame Pete for murder, too. Mr. Giamatti seemed to be a fine man, but he didn't come out, excuse the expression, smelling like a Rose in all of this either.

Mr. Selig was bent towards reinstating Mr. Rose, but Rose's financial problems came back up. The purists and many old HOFamers whined, and Mr. Selig caved. Yes, Rose lost the trust of being back in the game, but the quality of mercy on the part of the HOF and purists is sadly lacking, to include KCGhost.

So, let's cheer Fergie Jenkins, who has gone out of his way to sit next to Mr. Rose during an autograph show, so Fergie could get more business his way. Fergie who got caught doing drugs, got into some serious trouble, but he's now another HOF Holier-Than-Thou. He says he NEVER wants to see Pete Rose in the HOF. I could go on - No doubt this is a good time for a snappy comeback...

The HOF is not for people who were perfect in life, or necessarily outstanding role models. Pete Rose misses all of the above. The HOF is for the best of the best...on the field. Pete Rose and his career On The Field met that test. The HOF has a great deal of Rose memorabilia, and they don't seem to be too good to have that.

Yes, Mr. Rose was stupid, and proud, and perhaps he did think he was better than the game. I think he has gotten the message that he was, and is WRONG. Unfortunately, the Game has perhaps gotten too big itself, and it's been a long time since it could be called a National Pastime. With lack of mercy and hard attitudes like they've shown in this case, perhaps that's not such a bad thing.

The Reason I call myself a Big Red Machine fan is that my best memories of MLB and the Reds are just that - memories from a distant past. I don't recognize MLB anymore...due to it's lack of compassion and passion. The players don't play as hard as they once did...and many "real fans" are just so negative.

Maybe I'll go see the precious HOF one day...in a few decades or so, after the old bitter fans and former players have passed on, and a player's name and plaque is rightfully added.

Respectfully,

JCC
Proud Soldier and Baseball History Fan

[Chaplain14]

For Sliding Billy:

You stated in a message: "Well, his election would have a silver lining. Otherwise, it is entirely unappealing."

"For two years, Rose was willing to subordinate the good of his team to his own obsessive need to put one more base hit on the pile. What would he do to protect his own slow-moving kneecaps?" Hey, Sliding Billy, many of you guys praise the Astros' Biggio for his quest for 3,000 hits - he hasn't been the player he once was, but "cheers" for Biggio.

Most guys who couldn't stand Rose's playing over his last couple of years to get hits didn't like the man to begin with, but most won't be honest about that. Again, fans either love or hate Rose - rarely do you see someone undecided about that.

I have a soft spot for charming rogues and a visceral dislike of incompetent self-constituted authority - Man, you have it out for the man, don't you? Honestly, though - how did you feel about Pete Rose before 1989?

V/R,

JCC

[Captain Cold Nose]

KCGhost...Respectfully, Get Real. Your lack of respect for the player is bleeding into the same for the fans who are "myopic" enough to support him. Let's keep the conversation without finger pointing and name-calling.

Another writer adds: "I don't understand: He's unfit to participate in MLB at all but deserves its highest honor?" Well, the Hall of Fame AND MLB are supposed to be seperate. A HOF official, well-placed, proudly stated that MLB does NOT have say-so or any dictatorial power over the HOF...Right. The Rose Ban was a Conspiracy, plain and simple, and I'm NOT one of those who tend to believe in Conspiracies.

Rose is to blame for his own actions. I'm not saying trust him in the game again. I'm not saying that he should be reinstated...but it's pathetic to keep the all-time hit leader out of the game, unless you're a purist. Oh, yes, let's hear it for them. Someone, however got the hits, runs scored, batting titles, Etc..., and it wasn't the bookies.

Bud Selig is one of those gentlemen who literally blame Mr. Rose for Bart Giamatti's death. I've got the man admitting this in an interview from a few years back. Don't blame the excessive smoking and food consumption, along with a lack of exercise. No...let's blame Pete for murder, too. Mr. Giamatti seemed to be a fine man, but he didn't come out, excuse the expression, smelling like a Rose in all of this either.

Mr. Selig was bent towards reinstating Mr. Rose, but Rose's financial problems came back up. The purists and many old HOFamers whined, and Mr. Selig caved. Yes, Rose lost the trust of being back in the game, but the quality of mercy on the part of the HOF and purists is sadly lacking, to include KCGhost.

So, let's cheer Fergie Jenkins, who has gone out of his way to sit next to Mr. Rose during an autograph show, so Fergie could get more business his way. Fergie who got caught doing drugs, got into some serious trouble, but he's now another HOF Holier-Than-Thou. He says he NEVER wants to see Pete Rose in the HOF. I could go on - No doubt this is a good time for a snappy comeback...

The HOF is not for people who were perfect in life, or necessarily outstanding role models. Pete Rose misses all of the above. The HOF is for the best of the best...on the field. Pete Rose and his career On The Field met that test. The HOF has a great deal of Rose memorabilia, and they don't seem to be too good to have that.

Yes, Mr. Rose was stupid, and proud, and perhaps he did think he was better than the game. I think he has gotten the message that he was, and is WRONG. Unfortunately, the Game has perhaps gotten too big itself, and it's been a long time since it could be called a National Pastime. With lack of mercy and hard attitudes like they've shown in this case, perhaps that's not such a bad thing.

The Reason I call myself a Big Red Machine fan is that my best memories of MLB and the Reds are just that - memories from a distant past. I don't recognize MLB anymore...due to it's lack of compassion and passion. The players don't play as hard as they once did...and many "real fans" are just so negative.

Maybe I'll go see the precious HOF one day...in a few decades or so, after the old bitter fans and former players have passed on, and a player's name and plaque is rightfully added.

Respectfully,

JCC
Proud Soldier and Baseball History Fan
Do you believe we should let murderers go free if they admit their guilt?
Pointing out Rose broke a rule he was full well aware of is not an excuse. It's reality. I don't care what he accomplished, he is not above the rules of baseball.

[Seattle1]

Ty Cobb killed somebody?

:eek:

[Sliding Billy]

You stated in a message: "Well, his election would have a silver lining. Otherwise, it is entirely unappealing."

"For two years, Rose was willing to subordinate the good of his team to his own obsessive need to put one more base hit on the pile. What would he do to protect his own slow-moving kneecaps?" Hey, Sliding Billy, many of you guys praise the Astros' Biggio for his quest for 3,000 hits - he hasn't been the player he once was, but "cheers" for Biggio.

"You guys?" I didn't even know Biggio was going after 3000 hits. In general, I'd rather players not embarrass themselves in quest of goals based on arbitrary numbers, but I can see how it's hard to let go.

You may have missed my point that Rose as manager put himself into the lineup to add to his lifetime hit total for two years when he was an absolutely horrible player and had better choices available. If his managers felt he could help their teams win in the decline phase of his career at Philadelphia and Montreal, more power to him.

Most guys who couldn't stand Rose's playing over his last couple of years to get hits didn't like the man to begin with, but most won't be honest about that. Again, fans either love or hate Rose - rarely do you see someone undecided about that.

I have a soft spot for charming rogues and a visceral dislike of incompetent self-constituted authority - Man, you have it out for the man, don't you? Honestly, though - how did you feel about Pete Rose before 1989?

Since you can see directly into "most guys'" hearts and get at the truth directly, I'm not really sure why you need to ask. Believe it or not, Rose never loomed large on my screen. In the 70's as a Dodger fan in Cincinatti (i.e. Johnny Bench) territory, I used to gnash my teeth nightly listening to broadcasts ending, ". . . and this one belongs to the Reds." But it was Bench, George Foster, Mario Soto, and Don Gullett that got me steamed, more than Rose. I thought Rose, or rather Roseolatry, was pretty tiresome, but later, when I saw him in interviews, I thought he was quite entertaining. Hence the "charming rogue" comment. I don't see how "visceral dislike for self-constituted authority," directed at the Hall of Fame, relates to Rose at all, except by giving him sociability points over the Hall.

At any rate, my post was in reply to BaseballHistoryNut's opinion that Rose should go in the Hall provided he didn't bet against his own team. I was trying to argue that Rose undermined the game anyway, not just to heap up abuse. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer.

[Williamsburg2599]

Problem with the Ty Cobb racist argument is that he was inducted during a time when racism was more or less accepted; they had no reason to keep him out because of that.

That said, according to the rules of the HoF, Cobb shouldn't have made it either.
However, It says voting should be based on these charistics. A HOF with no Cobb is not a HOF I want to visit.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Ty Cobb killed somebody?

:eek:
It's an unsubstantiated rumor.

[Wade8813]

However, It says voting should be based on these charistics. A HOF with no Cobb is not a HOF I want to visit. Cobb fails MISERABLY on half the criterion. Where do we draw the line?

[bluezebra]

I agree. compare his sins to cobb's. cobb was racist. he abused fans and even killed someone. cobb was a lowlife scumbag. rose made a few mistakes. big deal. he's a family man and loves the game. should of been in the hof years ago.

A FEW mistakes. The guy bet on baseball games, and on game his OWN team was in. And from the clubhouse phone.

Family man? THe slimeball cheated on his first wife, and is alienated from his son.

Bob

[bluezebra]

Cobb fails MISERABLY on half the criterion. Where do we draw the line?


What criteria did Cobb fail?

Bob

[Captain Cold Nose]

Cobb fails MISERABLY on half the criterion. Where do we draw the line?
Where did Cobb fail miserably? The guy went all out, trying to win games at all costs, so sportsmanship is not a problem. I think the character issue was well overstated, considering how many players he seemed to spend time with away from the actual playing field (Ruth, for one, and there's the famous picture with Matthewson.) he was more competitive than anything, which would answer to why there's the perception he was such a fierce opponent. He's hardly the only man guilty of that. In terms of racism, why is he always so singled out when so many are as guilty?

[RedSoxVT92]

Ty Cobb was not that horrible of a person. So he was rasist, that is a product of his time. Im sure many other HoFers of that time were also rasist. Cobb also became much more accepting in his later years. And when rasism is talked about everyone always seems to point the finger to Cobb, but not as much at Cap Anson who essentially built the color barier. Ty fought to raise mlb players salarys too. And Cobb killing a man is a myth. I read that he was jumped by two men and he fought them off. Cobb also played agresivley(or mean) because he had a drive and desire to win. There is nothing wrong with that and ones personality should not keep them out of the HoF. It would be a complete and total farce if possibily the best player to ever play the game is thrown out because of his beliefs and or personality.

[bluezebra]

To Whom This May Concern:

I'm really sick of hearing excuses for keeping Pete Rose out of the Hall of Fame. Okay, he's beneath dignity, low life, Etc. - The HOF didn't do themselves justice by creating the Pete Rose Ban which was designed to keep Mr. Rose out...period.

Of course, being so "honorable," they stated it was a coincidence of sorts that this vote to keep banned players would come out early the same year that Mr. Rose's name was supposed to be brought up for a vote. Spare me with Baseball's integrity.

I seem to remember that Judge Landis, MLB's First Commissioner, who banned the White Sox players, was a racist who helped keep Black Americans out of the MLB. Only after the man's death did Jackie Robinson get his chance to make it to the Majors.

Yes, Mr. Rose was stupid, and he broke the rules - he has himself to blame. Still, if you're going to keep the man out of MLB, at least allow him the plaque he earned with his hits and his hustle. It's a JOKE that the man with a
.303 lifetime batting average, 4,256 hits, and 17 other records is denied a place alongside his peers...because of a few bitter old ballplayers and a deceitful HOF.

If you don't like the man, support his going into the Hall of Fame, AND keep him out of today's MLB. That should satisfy both parties. Just be done with it!

What do you think???

Regards,

CAREY
U.S. ARMY

Stick to soldiering, because you don't know the rules for induction into the HoF.

The HOF didn't do themselves justice by creating the Pete Rose Ban which was designed to keep Mr. Rose out...period.


The Hall didn't create the 'Pete Rose Ban', Rose did.

3. Eligible Candidates — Candidates to be eligible must meet the following requirements:
E..Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.

[bluezebra]

To Whom This May Concern:

I'm really sick of hearing excuses for keeping Pete Rose out of the Hall of Fame. Okay, he's beneath dignity, low life, Etc. - The HOF didn't do themselves justice by creating the Pete Rose Ban which was designed to keep Mr. Rose out...period.

Of course, being so "honorable," they stated it was a coincidence of sorts that this vote to keep banned players would come out early the same year that Mr. Rose's name was supposed to be brought up for a vote. Spare me with Baseball's integrity.

I seem to remember that Judge Landis, MLB's First Commissioner, who banned the White Sox players, was a racist who helped keep Black Americans out of the MLB. Only after the man's death did Jackie Robinson get his chance to make it to the Majors.

Yes, Mr. Rose was stupid, and he broke the rules - he has himself to blame. Still, if you're going to keep the man out of MLB, at least allow him the plaque he earned with his hits and his hustle. It's a JOKE that the man with a
.303 lifetime batting average, 4,256 hits, and 17 other records is denied a place alongside his peers...because of a few bitter old ballplayers and a deceitful HOF.

If you don't like the man, support his going into the Hall of Fame, AND keep him out of today's MLB. That should satisfy both parties. Just be done with it!

What do you think???

Regards,

CAREY
U.S. ARMY

Stick to soldiering, because you don't know the rules for induction into the HoF.

The HOF didn't do themselves justice by creating the Pete Rose Ban which was designed to keep Mr. Rose out...period.


The Hall didn't create the 'Pete Rose Ban', Rose did.

3. Eligible Candidates — Candidates to be eligible must meet the following requirements:
E..Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.


Bob

[Sliding Billy]

Another writer adds: "I don't understand: He's unfit to participate in MLB at all but deserves its highest honor?" Well, the Hall of Fame AND MLB are supposed to be seperate. A HOF official, well-placed, proudly stated that MLB does NOT have say-so or any dictatorial power over the HOF...Right. The Rose Ban was a Conspiracy, plain and simple, and I'm NOT one of those who tend to believe in Conspiracies.

That's me again. Let me rephrase my incomprehension: "I don't understand: he's unfit to participate in MLB at all, but deserves the highest honor accorded to MLB players?" This was a position you suggested for the Rose opposition, so you can't really expect those of us who can't understand it to embrace it.

By and large, I don't care who goes into the Hall of Fame and who doesn't. It doesn't add an inch to the stature of George Kelly that he's in, or subtract one from Ron Santo that he's out. They did what they did. The balloting is an interesting weather vane of BBWA opinion, but that's about it. The only time it makes a difference to me is in a case like Rose or Joe Jackson. They did what they did, too.

He was selling you out while you were pulling for him, Chaplain14, and that's what makes me sick.

[Wade8813]

What criteria did Cobb fail? Integrity, sportsmanship, and character. (BTW - criterion is the right word there according to dictionary.com)


The guy went all out, trying to win games at all costs, so sportsmanship is not a problem.
Sportsmanship - n. Conduct and attitude considered as befitting participants in sports, especially fair play, courtesy, striving spirit, and grace in losing.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Integrity, sportsmanship, and character. (BTW - criterion is the right word there according to dictionary.com)


Sportsmanship - n. Conduct and attitude considered as befitting participants in sports, especially fair play, courtesy, striving spirit, and grace in losing.
So how was Cobb any more unsportsmanlike than anyone else? There were a lot of so-called rowdies. Cobb simply exclled at a far greater rate. If sliding with his spikes up is an unpardonable crime, then, well, sheesh.
How was he a bad loser?
How did he not have a striving spirit?
Again, well overstated and ignoring the times. The 1894 Baltimore Orioles were notorious for their poor conduct. But tso many are in, including John McGraw. Cobb gets a very unfair rap.

[bluezebra]

Problem with the Ty Cobb racist argument is that he was inducted during a time when racism was more or less accepted; they had no reason to keep him out because of that.

That said, according to the rules of the HoF, Cobb shouldn't have made it either.

Follow that rule, and the Hall of Fame would be an almost empty building.

Bob

[bluezebra]

Tell me something, Chaplain Carey, U S Army, how does the United States Army handle soldiers who constantly break the rules, and lie under oath? Present them with the Medal of Honor, because they shot for a high score on the rifle range?

That's what you want for 'Charlie Hustle(r)'.

Bob

[Wade8813]

So how was Cobb any more unsportsmanlike than anyone else? There were a lot of so-called rowdies.
Again, well overstated and ignoring the times. The 1894 Baltimore Orioles were notorious for their poor conduct. But tso many are in, including John McGraw. Cobb gets a very unfair rap.Just because others are bad doesn't make Cobb any better. That's like saying Ted Bundy isn't so bad because Gary Ridgeway killed more people. That's nonsense.



Follow that rule, and the Hall of Fame would be an almost empty building. So, maybe the Hall should change their rules?


Tell me something, Chaplain Carey, U S Army, how does the United States Army handle soldiers who constantly break the rules, and lie under oath? Present them with the Medal of Honor, because they shot for a high score on the rifle range?

That's what you want for 'Charlie Hustle(r)'. Actually, as a paralegal in the Army JAG Corp, I'll answer this. The Army often overlooks people breaking the rules, or gives as light a punishment as possible (although they do have to do something about the lying under oath - that's a little too big, and too public, etc). The reasoning for this includes the fact that the Army is low on the number of soldiers, so they want to keep them in as much as is reasonable, and also it's often more expensive in time, effort, and money to punish the person than it's really worth (in some people's opinion).

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I support inducting Rose into the HOF based on his PLAYING CAREER accomplishments. I do not support him being allowed back into baseball in any way, shape, or form.

The Cobb stuff really needs to stop imo. One non-respected poster brings his name up and all of a sudden Cobb is a topic? You could add up the drive, determination, and heart of all 25 men on a team today and it might equal what Cobb had inside of him, day in and day out, imo. He could dish it very well, but more importantly, he could take it also.

[runningshoes]

Yep cobb was a jerk and was not liked by most if not all players, but he also never broke on of the most basic rules of the game

We dont really know that for sure.

[Skin & Bones]

Ty Cobb was not that horrible of a person. So he was rasist, that is a product of his time. Im sure many other HoFers of that time were also rasist. Cobb also became much more accepting in his later years. And when rasism is talked about everyone always seems to point the finger to Cobb, but not as much at Cap Anson who essentially built the color barier. Ty fought to raise mlb players salarys too. And Cobb killing a man is a myth. I read that he was jumped by two men and he fought them off. Cobb also played agresivley(or mean) because he had a drive and desire to win. There is nothing wrong with that and ones personality should not keep them out of the HoF. It would be a complete and total farce if possibily the best player to ever play the game is thrown out because of his beliefs and or personality.

So he was rasist, that is a product of his time.

This has to absolutely be the worst arguement I've ever seen to defend Cobb. It would be like excusing Bonds behavior because steroid use was rampant among the league too.

[Goooooo]

Yep cobb was a jerk and was not liked by most if not all players, but he also never broke on of the most basic rules of the game (and please do not give me the spiking is the same as betting on baseball). As for the killing a man, I assume you are referring to the man that cobb said he killed after the man attacked him, but you may want to check the facts of the story. No body was ever found matching the description Cobb gave. Odds ae Cobb was exagerating what happened. Maybe there is another man Cobb killed that I am unaware of.

Cobb was scum. there's evidence that he threw games and killed a man. He's a joke, everything about the man was evil. Rose bet on games, who cares, there's no proof he threw games. Rose numbers are remarkable. He also compiled those numbers in a fully intergrated league which even makes his numbers more impressive. Cobb's batting average and hits are questionable, numbers weren't kept good back then. Read the numbers game by alan schrawz, he does good research on this. Rose should be in as a player, im ok with banning him from managing and what not, but his numbers are legit, and he wasn't a bad guy. compared to that miscreant cobb, rose was a saint.

[RedSoxVT92]

So he was rasist, that is a product of his time.

This has to absolutely be the worst arguement I've ever seen to defend Cobb. It would be like excusing Bonds behavior because steroid use was rampant among the league too.

Now dont tell me that he wasnt influenced by his location and the time he lived in. He grew up in the south (Georgia) and everyone had biased views during this time peroid. The Civil War was only around 20 years before he was born and im sure southerners still werent too happy about losing it. I bet young Cobb heard alot of things from his family and the people around him which helped shaped his beliefs. People are formed by when and where they grow up in. If he had been born in a diffrent time peroid he may have had diffrent views. So it is true in most people are product of their time.

[Skin & Bones]

Now dont tell me that he wasnt influenced by his location and the time he lived in. He grew up in the south (Georgia) and everyone had biased views during this time peroid. The Civil War was only around 20 years before he was born and im sure southerners still werent too happy about losing it. I bet young Cobb heard alot of things from his family and the people around him which helped shaped his beliefs. People are formed by when and where they grow up in. If he had been born in a diffrent time peroid he may have had diffrent views. So it is true in most people are product of their time.

Ok, then Barry Bonds is excused because during his time roiders were everywhere. He did no wrong.

Sorry, but I don't buy that. Cobb's indeed a HOF player based on the numbers, but his personality was crappy, that's no way to argue against it.

[RedSoxVT92]

Ok, then Barry Bonds is excused because during his time roiders were everywhere. He did no wrong.

Sorry, but I don't buy that. Cobb's indeed a HOF player based on the numbers, but his personality was crappy, that's no way to argue against it.

Taking steroids and ones beliefs is a completley different thing. Taking steroids is like doing something you know you shouldnt be doing.

Your beliefs is something you think is right (it may be wrong) but its not illegal or something you know you shouldnt be doing.

[Skin & Bones]

Taking steroids and ones beliefs is a completley different thing. Taking steroids is like doing something you know you shouldnt be doing.

Your beliefs is something you think is right (it may be wrong) but its not illegal or something you know you shouldnt be doing.

Uh, I don't think anyone " known " they shouldn't be doing it if MLB didn't test for the crap, hell, I would of been on the stuff too if it was that easy to cheat.

Again, I'm using your logic here, excusing someone's racism because of his " environment " is not something I'm willing to buy.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

The racist views of the time were ignorant and deplorable, however it had nothing to do with the field of play and it didn't give Cobb or anyone else an edge over their peers. Steroids is a choice to gain an edge over your peers to become something you otherwise would not be. No comparison between the two imo. The apologetic steroid attitude is tired. :ughh

[Skin & Bones]

The racist views of the time were ignorant and deplorable, however it had nothing to do with the field of play and it didn't give Cobb or anyone else an edge over their peers. Steroids is a choice to gain an edge over your peers to become something you otherwise would not be. No comparison between the two imo. The apologetic steroid attitude is tired. :ughh

Right, but noone was apologizing for anyone here, well, maybe except for Cobb.

And there is no comparison between the two, racism is far worse. Onfield accomplishments or not.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Right, but noone was apologizing for anyone here, well, maybe except for Cobb.

And there is no comparison between the two, racism is far worse. Onfield accomplishments or not.

Sure seemed like you were trying to draw a parallel, were you not? And in doing that, you're apologizing for it imo.

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone here who agrees with those commonly held views back then. So why judge old-timers by our standards and pretend like we haven't advanced at all. Makes you feel more comfortable and superior...so be it.

This is a baseball discussion, not a society-based racism discussion. Has no place here.

[Chaplain14]

Bob:

"Stick to soldiering, because you don't know the rules for induction into the HoF." Gee, Bob - do you have a problem with Soldiers?

"The Hall didn't create the 'Pete Rose Ban', Rose did." Wrong-o, Bob. Check out the date that the rule was established. Happened in Early 1991.
3. Eligible Candidates — Candidates to be eligible must meet the following requirements:

E..Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate - again, Bob - new rule established in 1991 - Guess who was coming up for a Vote soon? He had his last at-bat in 1986.

I have an answer for this one, too:

Tell me something, Chaplain Carey, U S Army, how does the United States Army handle soldiers who constantly break the rules, and lie under oath? Present them with the Medal of Honor, because they shot for a high score on the rifle range? Got an answer for that one, too. Actually, I know a Soldier who was caught stealing from another Soldier. He's being dishonorably discharged, and he's paid the Soldier back. He's served time in a Military Jail, Etc. He will NOT be allowed back in the Army, but he keeps his medals, to include 2 PURPLE HEARTS he earned from wounds in Iraq. Of course, if our Unit was preparing to go back to Iraq or Afghanistan, that Soldier would have been given another chance to right his wrongs, would have been retained, and, I believe, would still be Soldiering today. I do believe he learned his lesson - guess I'm just the gullible one.

PLEASE Note: I did NOT say put Mr. Rose back in the graces of MLB, or give him a job. I said that Mr. Rose should be in the HOF, who dishonored themselves by creating a Rule to keep him OUT.

There's another gentlemen who mentioned rogues, Etc., who says he was misunderstood. Thank you, Sir. Sorry for responding so quickly, and I understand better now.

Folks, I know Pete Rose has been a LOUSY father and husband in the past. I hope he's learned from past mistakes - idiotic and unfeeling, though they were. I KNOW that Rose did himself and his fans wrong - his fans are cheated of his not being in the HOF, and he's cheated himself out of several millions of dollars - he remains punished. Okay, he deserves that - he was WRONG. I'm not saying "Whitewash" the man, for crying out loud...

At any rate, it's just wrong to not recognize what he did ON the field - I agree with Bob Costas - recognize him, and you can include the wrong doing on his plaque. But DON'T act as if he didn't have a Positive impact on the game as well. Stop paying homage and praise to the Gods of Giamatti and Vincent (let's not forget Dowd), and just recognize Mr. Rose with the plaque, keep him banned, and be DONE with it.

Oh, yes - Mr. Bob Feller was for recognizing and reinstating Shoeless Joe Jackson in MLB, too - no doubt followed by being inducted to the HOF. This was a rallying point for Ted Williams as well. All this kind of went away when the subject of Rose being reinstated started. Yes, of course, Mr. Feller doesn't have any strong feeling against Pete Rose, right?

Don't you find it a little hypocritical that former players, teamates have such strong opinions AGAINST Rose even today, but are such "buddies" towards the man at Autograph sessions? May our Honorable HOF never have to be sullied with the Devil Rose's presence on a plaque, praise Landis' holy name... Forgive my sarcasm, Bob.

V/R,

CAREY


__________________________________________________ ___

JASON D. GEIL/The Cincinnati Post

Tom Hanks, Ron Howard and Dennis Miller held an impromptu press conference at Great American Ball Park during Wednesday night's rain delay.

According to Tom Hanks, he and buddies Ron Howard and Dennis Miller are trying to stay "under the radar" as they barnstorm through a series of major league ballparks this week.

But they weren't about to get out of Cincinnati without offering up an opinion on whether Pete Rose should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

The trio held an impromptu news conference Wednesday night at Great American Ball Park while waiting out a thunderstorm that interrupted the Reds' game against the New York Mets. They're on a tour of ballparks as an extended birthday celebration for Hanks, who turned 50 on July 9, and they took about 20 minutes to address a variety of baseball-related topics.

One of the last questions was about Rose's worthiness for induction, and it brought immediate responses from all three.

"I think Pete Rose should be eligible for the Hall of Fame, I think he should be in the Hall of Fame," said Hanks. "Guess what? He was kind of a jerk for a while, but come on. If you're going to throw jerks out of your individual halls of fame, you could fit all of your Hall of Fame people in one Hall of Fame - hockey, basketball, football."

Howard, who has directed Hanks in movies such as "The Da Vinci Code," "Apollo 13" and "Splash," concurred with the actor.

"I quit going (to the Hall of Fame)," said Howard. "I had been, and at one point it dawned on me that until they at least make him eligible, it's not complete, in my mind."
Hanks recalled Rose's famous declaration that he would "walk through hell in a gasoline suit to play baseball."

"That's a pretty good line," said Hanks.

[hubkittel]

i have a question that i've never heard addressed. how is what rose did substantially different than what paul hourning and alex karras did in the 60's. all three bet on their teams, not against them. they weren't the black soxs. all three knew it was against the rules but did it anyway. all three were banned from the game. but while hourning and karras were reinstated, rose is still banned. now hourning and karras quickly admitted what they did and apologized. it took rose 15 odd years to do the same-but he did it. hourning is now in the football hall of fame (not sure about karras, but i don't think so). i've always seen the rose situation as similiar to hourning's not to joe jackson's. i think if rose had come clean when he first got caught, he'd be in the HoF today. and just to be clear, i don't really care if rose goes in the hall or not-i'm not losing sleep either way.

[Elvis]

i have a question that i've never heard addressed. how is what rose did substantially different than what paul hourning and alex karras did in the 60's. all three bet on their teams, not against them. they weren't the black soxs. all three knew it was against the rules but did it anyway. all three were banned from the game. but while hourning and karras were reinstated, rose is still banned. now hourning and karras quickly admitted what they did and apologized. it took rose 15 odd years to do the same-but he did it. hourning is now in the football hall of fame (not sure about karras, but i don't think so). i've always seen the rose situation as similiar to hourning's not to joe jackson's. i think if rose had come clean when he first got caught, he'd be in the HoF today. and just to be clear, i don't really care if rose goes in the hall or not-i'm not losing sleep either way.

When Rose was betting on baseball he was his teams manager--those other two you mentioned were players. I think it makes a difference. Anyway that's like a kid using the argument, "but Timmy's mom letes HIM stay up late!"

Rose bet on baseball. He knew what he was doing. He knew the consiquences. He got caught. He got the consiquences. End of story. If he was just Joe Blow and was banned I don't think anyone would be starting threads to get Mr. Blow reinstated. Just because someone's talented doesn't mean they should be above the law (rules).

You bet on baseball - you get banned from baseball for life. Rose knew this and took the bet and he crapped out.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

It does make a difference that Rose was a manager, though whether he should remain barred for life after all this time is another question.

But it's known Rose WAY overused his bullpen, bringing in his best relievers far too often, and warming them up far too much in other games--something for which he was criticized at the time. Only when the gambling scandal broke did everyone learn why. He had managed every game like it was Game 7 of the World Series because he had money on those games.

As someone who once played a huge amount of poker (a long time ago), I've seen a lot of Pete Rose-types. They always lose at the end of the month, almost always at the end of the week, and frankly don't often win at the end of the night. They're hopelessly addicted and have punk attitudes. And yeah, such a gambler WOULD manage each of those games like Game 7.

Which is terrible for a baseball manager, obviously--wearing down his pitchers in mid-season. While I despise the concept of Dead Ball pitchers' "pacing" their way through games, it can't be denied that managers must pace their way through a 162-game season. Pete Rose did just the opposite, and it was directly attributable to his gambling on his own team.

THAT makes his doing it as a manager very different from somone's doing it as a player.

So.... What about SABR Matt's idea: Elect Rose the day after he dies?

BHN

[Elvis]

So.... What about SABR Matt's idea: Elect Rose the day after he dies?

BHN

Joe Jackson died a long time ago and still isn't in. Maybe Pete should die and then wait another 80 years or so...just to be fair.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

As far as we know, that's not a valid parallel. And IF Rose ever took part in throwing games--e.g., by putting a weak team out there so bookies could win on a night when they really needed the Reds to lose--then hell should freeze over before Rose gets in. But I don't know anyone who's ever heard a stitch of evidence to that effect.

[bluezebra]

Just because others are bad doesn't make Cobb any better. That's like saying Ted Bundy isn't so bad because Gary Ridgeway killed more people. That's nonsense.

So, maybe the Hall should change their rules?

Actually, as a paralegal in the Army JAG Corp, I'll answer this. The Army often overlooks people breaking the rules, or gives as light a punishment as possible (although they do have to do something about the lying under oath - that's a little too big, and too public, etc). The reasoning for this includes the fact that the Army is low on the number of soldiers, so they want to keep them in as much as is reasonable, and also it's often more expensive in time, effort, and money to punish the person than it's really worth (in some people's opinion).

What a shame that a once-proud Army has sunk so low. Makes me even more thankful I was a Marine (and still am in my heart). I hope the rest of the Armed Forces don't have this problem.

Semper Fi

Bob

[bluezebra]

i have a question that i've never heard addressed. how is what rose did substantially different than what paul hourning and alex karras did in the 60's. all three bet on their teams, not against them. they weren't the black soxs. all three knew it was against the rules but did it anyway. all three were banned from the game. but while hourning and karras were reinstated, rose is still banned. now hourning and karras quickly admitted what they did and apologized. it took rose 15 odd years to do the same-but he did it. hourning is now in the football hall of fame (not sure about karras, but i don't think so). i've always seen the rose situation as similiar to hourning's not to joe jackson's. i think if rose had come clean when he first got caught, he'd be in the HoF today. and just to be clear, i don't really care if rose goes in the hall or not-i'm not losing sleep either way.

It's HORNUNG. You hit the nail on the head. Hornung and Karras admitted their mistake immediately, and apologized. Rose never admitted anything for 15 years, and not until he realized he wouldn't have his eligibilty reinstated unless he did.

By the way, Jackson was not banned for being part of the 'fix', but for not reporting what he knew. Also, the players were found not guilty in court, but Landis banned them after he took office.

Bob

[Wade8813]

What a shame that a once-proud Army has sunk so low. Makes me even more thankful I was a Marine (and still am in my heart). I hope the rest of the Armed Forces don't have this problem. I may have miscommunicated what I meant to some extent. Yes, there are instances that are problematic (which is the case any time a large number of people are involved). However, often what the soldier did is fairly minor, the soldier admits to it and is repentant, and the soldier is taking steps to ensure it doesn't happen again.

And it's always the case, when dealing with the law, that a crime can be committed that isn't worth punishing to the fullest extent possible. Give them something relatively minor, like an Article 15, instead of a discharge.

[Elvis]

As far as we know, that's not a valid parallel.

Fair enough. Although Jackson simply kept quiet while Rose actively pursued his bookies day and night. But how hard is it to accept the simple rule AND CONSEQUENCES that if you bet on baseball while you're involved with a ML team you're barred from the game? Unless it comes out that Rose was under alien mind control I say he should be kept out for good.

[Skin & Bones]

Pete Rose (along with the other confirmed betters) is the last baseball player who should be elected to the Hall of Fame. As far as I'm concerned, Ricky Prady (minor leaguer who last appeared in Rookie ball) should be elected before him.

[plask_stirlac]

Accepting Rose would be a change for the HOF.

The HOF is an accolade, not a definitive collection of baseball's best.

You're telling me Brett gets more than 95% of votes, but Jim Rice can't get two thirds? Look at their careers together in the AL, both dominating. Rice in 1978 had 406 TB, nobody else had 300. If they had been traded for each other in 1975, Kansas City's GM Joe Burke wouldn't have received a black mark. But some guys just aren't thought of as HOFers.

Look at those criteria... integrity, et cetera... basically things outside of playing with the bat, glove, and ball. Of course Rose and Jackson are remarkable players, but the HOF is like a pat on the back and highlights the good things rather than just production.

[Fuzzy Bear]

For two years, Rose was willing to subordinate the good of his team to his own obsessive need to put one more base hit on the pile. What would he do to protect his own slow-moving kneecaps?

True. But does ANYONE here think that Red management was not complicit in Rose's unholy chase for Cobb's record? Hello! :waving :waving :waving

[Chaplain14]

I'm so glad that most of you guys are in one mind and accord with MLB. Whew! I thought MLB was in trouble. Thanks for restoring my faith in something other than fans of the so-called great National Pastime. I believe that is now simply...PAST.

Rose had an unholy chase of Cobb, huh? As I said, there are many out there who hated the man before 1989. Now they're reaping rewards of his stupidity. Hope you guys are as judgmental of yourselves when you've done wrong.

Enjoy your HOF-Minus...

JCC

[Elvis]

My company has a policy that if you steal something you get fired and barred from ever working for the company again. If I was stupid enough to steal from the company, I would expect them to fire me and ban me from their company forever. I am a damn-good barista and coffee and tea expert. I would not expect that to influence their decision to ban me. I also would not think that anyone who agrees with said ban was "holier than thou". I would call them rational and consistant.

And although I am a Dodger fan, I always liked Rose and still do for his play between the lines--none of which is diminished by his exclusion from the Hall.

[rwolfe09]

Just wait till Pete Rose dies and we get a new MLB commish, they'll put him after he dies.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I've already posted this in another thread, but since we're going to have endless Rose threads, this is my proposed solution to the matter:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This topic has been beaten to death on just about every forum that discusses baseball. I've never started a thread on this subject, but I am starting this one in the hope that the discussion on this topic can be rational and truth-seeking.

By rational and truth-seeking, I mean in the context of taking into account at least the following four principles:

(A) What is good for baseball, as an institution.
(B) What is good for baseball's fans (pro and anti-Rose, both)
(C) What is consistent with the principle of fairness
(D) What will preserve enshrinement into the HOF as an honor and not convert it into an entitlement

The discussion of Rose and the HOF is not one of playing credentials. Had there been no gambling issues, Rose would have been a 1st ballot HOFer; he may have been the first unanimous selection to the HOF. While I believe that Pete is somewhat overrated, he was, undoubtedly, a great player, and there can be no question whatsoever that his play meets the standards of the upper echelon of the HOF. (If anybody doubts this, I'm really at a loss for words.)

We all know what Rose has admitted to doing, how that admission came about. (At least I think we do.) We all know what Rose was accused of doing (betting on baseball) and what he was NOT accused of doing (throwing games). We all know WHY Rose is not in the HOF; he's not in because he is under suspension, and the rules of the HOF (changed at the behest of MLB) prohibit enshrinement of a player while he is under suspension.

The current situation is NOT good for baseball, IMO. The current situation is where you have a player, who was an all-time great with millions of fans (still) outside the Hall because he is under suspension. He is not under suspension for actions that undermined the integrity of baseball; he is under suspension for actions that MAY have lead to actions in the future that would have undermined the integrity of baseball.

The situation is not good for baseball because the way it has been handled has, in the eyes of many, lumped Pete Rose in the same boat as the Black Sox (and, specifically, Shoeless Joe Jackson, another all time great player not enshrined). Now I don't condone Rose's gambling activities, but no matter how you look at it, Rose's activities were fundamentally different than the Black Sox's; they were part of his PRIVATE life, and they did not affect the outcome of games. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that they did, and anyone who says otherwise is, quite frankly, misinformed. The way this has been handled has given MLB a bigger black eye than it has deserved.

In 1919, MLB was teeming with gamblers. Throwing games was common. Twenty three players (not just the 8 Black Sox) were banned for life for either throwing games, or conspiring to throw games. Guys were laying down; they weren't playing to win. Pete Rose was NEVER in that state; he played to win, and he managed to win. The only criticism I have for Rose in that area is when he played himself at 1B as player-manager, rather than Nick Esasky, in pursuit of Cobb's record, but I also suspect that Red management was complicit in that.

This situation; this lumping Rose in with the Black Sox, is unfair to Rose, and, in truth, not good for MLB. I also believe that this situation is NOT in the interest of baseball's fans. I believe that there is a consensus among fans that Rose should get his plaque in Cooperstown, but not work in baseball again.

What the fans think is important. That the fans have favorite players (as well as teams) that they follow, and that they want to see enshrined in the HOF is important. There are people, for example, who argue that Ron Santo should not be in the HOF because the HOF was only for the Cobbs, Ruths, etc., but what do you say to fans of Ron Santo when you can point to a number of players in the HOF who Santo absolutely towers over?

That's not really the issue I'm trying to bring out here; we have lots of threads here that cover the HOF gray area. But I think there is a real fans' issue here when you have a player barred from the HOF on the same basis as Joe Jackson whose actions were not the same as Jackson's, were not as severe as Jackson's, and which never undermined the honesty of a single game.

I have been a supporter of the rule change that blocks enshrinement of players currently under suspension, but I have come to believe that this rule, while well-intentioned, is unfair to the fans, not consistent with fairness, and, in fact, not really consistent with the interest of MLB.

I believe that the rule should be changed as follows: I believe that the HOF should change it's rule on this subject to where, at regular intervals, it will empower a Board of Review to re-examine the circumstances that caused a player to be under suspension to determine appropriateness for the HOF. In other words, to determine if the actions of the player were SO severe as to deny him ANY honor at all for his playing career. Induction to the HOF is the ONLY MEANINGFUL WAY that a ballplayer's career is honored; to put Pete Rose in the Cincinnati Red HOF, but not the National Baseball HOF is, in a real sense, a slap, rather than an honor.

In reviewing the circumstances, the following issues could be considered:

1. Did the player's offense(s) result in the dishonest outcome of any game?
2. Did the player's offense(s) consist of conspiring to bring about the dishonest outcome of any game?
3. Did the player's offense(s) involve guilty knowledge of the dishonest outcome of any game which that player knew before the fact, and had the ability to bring to light?
4. Did the player's offense(s) consist of being an accessory after the fact to the dishonest outcome of a game?
5. What were the player's motivations for his actions? Did the player receive money? Was the player being coerced? (I consider this to be relevant in some cases.)
6. Did the player's offense(s) bring into question the integrity of the outcome of any game, even though his actions did not directly influence the outcome? If so, why was that the result?
7. Did the player's offense(s) bring into question the overall integrity of MLB as a sport with honest outcomes of contests, even though the player's actions were not determined to have influence any particular contest?
8. Were the player's offense(s) outside of his involvement with MLB, but rise to the level of heiniousness that the honor of HOF enshrinement is undeserved? (For example, a player who was later convicted of a sex offense, or a henious violent felony, or a serious felony of another sort that had nothing to do with baseball.)

The first four issues are the Black Sox Criteria. I agree that no player should be enshrined in the HOF who is guilty on this account. Issue 5 could be used to give some mitigation; Lefty Williams' wife's life being threatened by a gambler isn't an exonerating factor, but it is a mitigating factor, IMO.

Issue eight is the "O. J." criteria (acknowledging, by the way, that O. J. was acquitted). This applies to Rose in that he is a convicted felon on tax charges. While this is a serious matter, I do not believe that Rose's tax evasion conviction is sufficient to rule him out as a HOFer (unless we're ready to take a crowbar to Snider's and McCovey's plaques.)

It is issues six and seven where Rose's HOF-worthiness is to be debated. Whether or not one would evaluate his actions and decide that his actions did or did not ACTUALLY undermine the integrity of baseball is highly subjective. My personal judgement is that Rose's actions had the POTENTIAL to undermine MLB's integrity, but they did not ACTUALLY do so, and it was NEVER Rose's intent to do so. (Rose played to win at everything; he was the most competitive player I have ever seen. I cannot imagine Rose throwing a game, either as a player or a manager. Rose would steal money to pay off a gambling debt, IMO, before he'd throw a game.)

I believe that such a Board of Review could issue a finding on Rose, honestly, stating the following:

(A) That Rose was guilty of betting on baseball
(B) That Rose's actions were a potential, but not actual danger to baseball
(C) That Rose's entire career in baseball was one where he played to win and managed to win in every single circumstance
(D) That Rose had/has no guilty knowledge of any conspiracies to bring about the dishonest outcome of any contest
(E) That Rose's personal problems may disqualify him from future employment in baseball, but those problems represent only a potential for future actions, and do not, in any way, reflect on his playing and managing career, which was one in which Rose played and managed to win at every opportunity

I don't condone what Rose did, and I do not believe he should be working in baseball as anything other than a batting coach in spring training, or something like that. (I do think that Rose's suspension should be lifted to the point where he participates in Old Timer's Days, etc.; it's ridiculous that he's blocked from that.) But Pete Rose played baseball to win, and he played it honestly. That part of his life deserves honor, and the HOF is about honoring that part of his life. If he threw games, then, no, he would not deserve this honor, but he didn't throw games, AND HE SHOULDN'T BE TREATED LIKE HE DID, just because some people don't like him.

I also don't believe that Rose should be required to come forth with some sort of mea culpa as a quid pro quo for enshrinement, but that, too, is another issue.

Some of you here may apply this criteria and come to an opposite conclusion than myself. I don't agree, but I can understand, somewhat. I do think, however, that changing the HOF's current rules and implementing a Board of Review process can be a way in which the HOF can enshrine a case like Rose, who is under suspension, but who is undeniably great and, while not eligible for rehire in MLB, should not be denied honor for his playing career.

Anyway, that's my solution of what I think should be done that would be in the interest of the fans, the HOF, MLB, and fair to Rose.

[CTaka]

Just wait till Pete Rose dies and we get a new MLB commish, they'll put him after he dies.

Jackson has been dead for over 50 years and isn't in. Rose may have to be six feet under for a very long time before he gets in.

[west coast orange and black]

rule 21
(d) betting on ball games. any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who 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.


for those who believe that rose ought to be eligible because he did not wager against his own team, work toward changing the rule.

as far as the notion that rose has "done his time": the man agreed to a permanant ban; the man signed his name on the dotted line. that oughtta count toward something.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

WC,

Doesn't matter to you that he signed with the stipulation that he would receive a future meeting to discuss reinstatement? Doesn't matter that Vincent would never return his calls and left him hung out to dry?

He never bet as a player and thats what he'd be going into the Hall for. Not for managing. And he wouldn't be allowed back in baseball. If you say, well it doesn't matter when the gambling occured, once the act is committed, his fate is sealed..what about all those who say "well Bonds was a sure-fire HOFer before 2000."

[KHenry14]

WC,

Doesn't matter to you that he signed with the stipulation that he would receive a future meeting to discuss reinstatement? Doesn't matter that Vincent would never return his calls and left him hung out to dry?

He never bet as a player and thats what he'd be going into the Hall for. Not for managing. And he wouldn't be allowed back in baseball. If you say, well it doesn't matter when the gambling occured, once the act is committed, his fate is sealed..what about all those who say "well Bonds was a sure-fire HOFer before 2000."

Vincent wasn't about to let an unrepentant Rose back into the game. Had Pete held a Jimmy Swaggart style Mea-Culpa confession as soon as a year after he left the game Vincent would have had no choice but to reinstate him. But Pete chose a different path, and only after he found out he couldn't put enough pressure on Fay or Bud did he admit his guilt. That tells you a lot about Pete. So trying to blame Vincent for this just wont fly.

And as you so like to say Sultan, apples and oranges. Pete broke the longest standing rule in Baseball and Barry didn't break any baseball rule at the time. You might have an ethical issue with Barry, but he didn't violate a rule like Pete did.

[Sliding Billy]

True. But does ANYONE here think that Red management was not complicit in Rose's unholy chase for Cobb's record? Hello! :waving :waving :waving
The management, the media, and the fans. If anyone puts Marge Schott up for the HOF, they won't get any help from me, by golly.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Barry didn't break any baseball rule at the time. You might have an ethical issue with Barry, but he didn't violate a rule like Pete did.

Ok, well since you went there...was the 1991 memo meant as back-up toilet paper or what. Did the typed words mean nothing. Oh thats right. They couldn't enforce the RULE because of the CBA, so it all didn't matter. What a system!

Baseball is played in the US and steroids are illegal in the US.

ps. Apples and oranges :D

[sturg1dj]

he did admit to betting on baseball, and never betting AGAINST the Reds


you know, if I had the time and means I would like to review all of the games that he managed and a list of games where he bet on the Reds (not sure if there is any way to get that info) and see if he mismanaged his teams at all. The idea is if he didn't always bet on his team it meant some games to him were more important than others so he may manage certain games like the world series.

Anyways, all we know is the year after he was banned the Reds won the series

[Imapotato]

big difference between what the Black Sox did, and what Pete Rose did

Gambling is NOT a big hinderance in baseball, nor a shock to its integrity and has not been since players were getting paid more and more

Pete Rose should be in as a player

[Whitesoxnut]

he did admit to betting on baseball, and never betting AGAINST the Reds

After first lieing about it for years. Or, maybe the original version was the truth. Who knows? How do you believe a Rose or a Bonds?

[Sliding Billy]

Gambling is NOT a big hinderance in baseball, nor a shock to its integrity and has not been since players were getting paid more and more

Dang! I wish I knew how people find out these things.

I'm still worried, though, because gamblers are getting paid more and more, too.

[KHenry14]

Ok, well since you went there...was the 1991 memo meant as back-up toilet paper or what. Did the typed words mean nothing. Oh thats right. They couldn't enforce the RULE because of the CBA, so it all didn't matter. What a system!

Baseball is played in the US and steroids are illegal in the US.

ps. Apples and oranges :D

Mind you Sultan, i'm not saying it was right that the memo got ignored or that the Union is without blame here, but it's a fact that Barry broke never rule of the CBA. Maybe broke a law, but since when did MLB care about that?

But getting back on topic, Pete broke the rule as stated, and now he's paying the price for his arrogance. WCOB is correct, should people want to give players who only bet on their team a lesser penalty, insterad of betting against their team, then they need to work to change the rule. But of all people in the game, Pete Rose knew darn well what could happen to him had he got caught betting on any game, and he didn't care. Too bad, so sad, Pete, you've made your bed, now sleep in it.

[MyDogSparty]

He never bet as a player and thats what he'd be going into the Hall for.

I don't believe that's a true statement. The record shows that Pete Rose bet on baseball during the 1985, 1986 & 1987 seasons. In the years 1985 & 1986 Pete was not only the manager of the Cincinnati Reds but he was also a PLAYER on the roster who played in 191 games over the course of those two seasons. So to say he was only a manager and wasn't a player when he's been accused of gambling is NOT correct.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

rule 21
(d) betting on ball games. any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who 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.


for those who believe that rose ought to be eligible because he did not wager against his own team, work toward changing the rule.

as far as the notion that rose has "done his time": the man agreed to a permanant ban; the man signed his name on the dotted line. that oughtta count toward something.

Yes, and although it's just a tiny piece of circumstantial evidence, the fact he signed an agreement to a permanent ban is the only thing I know of which suggests the s.o.b. MAY have bet against his team. Why would he have agreed to a permanent ban if he didn't have a much more grotesque skeleton to hide?

I just wish we all knew for sure, one way or the other. I think 80% of those who care would have their feelings permanently resolved if they knew the answer to that question.

[Brannu]

I think that what Pete Rose has done for the game of baseball is above and beyond the betting mistakes that he made. Hell, if the salaries then were what they were now, he probably wouldn't have been betting. :)

But, in all honesty, as a kid growing up in NE Ohio, Pete Rose WAS baseball. He was probably my greatest inspiration as a kid to really come into loving the game of baseball. Charlie Hustle ... we all wanted to BE Pete Rose, like this generation of youth wanted to "Be Like Mike." He played the game with the heart and soul of what it means to be a baseball player. When you talk about people who revolutionized the game by the way that they played, he would definitely be one of the names that comes to mind.

Our society is schizophrenic. We'll keep Pete Rose out of the hall of fame, but let George W. get away with political crimes never committed by another president. We'll condemn Pete Rose for betting on baseball, while there are still politicians in office that have laundered money, basically stealing from the people, continue to smile and run for and win their offices. :crazy

Why is it that we forgive certain individuals and their crimes, and not forgive others?

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Don't accuse me of letting two-time vote-fraud "winner" Bush get away with his crimes. I guarantee you that you're no more furious about it than I am. But that's a subject for a different website and has nothing to do with my views about Rose.

IF he bet against his own time, while managing, he clearly doesn't belong. No manager who did that, and managed accordingly, should be allowed to whiff the Hall of Fame. But if he didn't, I'm of the view he's served his time and should go in. As you can see on this thread, MANY others are less forgiving than I am.

[538280]

I think that what Pete Rose has done for the game of baseball is above and beyond the betting mistakes that he made. Hell, if the salaries then were what they were now, he probably wouldn't have been betting. :)

But, in all honesty, as a kid growing up in NE Ohio, Pete Rose WAS baseball. He was probably my greatest inspiration as a kid to really come into loving the game of baseball. Charlie Hustle ... we all wanted to BE Pete Rose, like this generation of youth wanted to "Be Like Mike." He played the game with the heart and soul of what it means to be a baseball player. When you talk about people who revolutionized the game by the way that they played, he would definitely be one of the names that comes to mind.

This is interesting to me. I want to know exactly how did Pete Rose revolutionize the way the game was played? Pete was a great player, and I think his greatness in that regard can be underrated around here, but what exactly in the game did he change? I am not aware of Pete Rose changing the way people looked at the game or anything within the game. I'm just interested as to what you mean by that.


Our society is schizophrenic. We'll keep Pete Rose out of the hall of fame, but let George W. get away with political crimes never committed by another president. We'll condemn Pete Rose for betting on baseball, while there are still politicians in office that have laundered money, basically stealing from the people, continue to smile and run for and win their offices. :crazy

I'm sure history will (hopefully, hopefully, hopefully) look at Mr. President in as negative a manner as possible (and I have no qualms with saying this either). But like BHN says that's for another forum. There is not HOF for Bush to go in, and if he was in line to I certainly wouldn't put him there. But there are certain rules about integrity for the HOF, and Pete Rose did not follow them. His disgrace is well known, and I personally would not be happy with him gong in, but I'm just probalby less forgiving than others. I can see how you could want him in. Certainly I would be less opposed to him getting in than Joe Jackson.

[wamby]

This is interesting to me. I want to know exactly how did Pete Rose revolutionize the way the game was played? Pete was a great player, and I think his greatness in that regard can be underrated around here, but what exactly in the game did he change? I am not aware of Pete Rose changing the way people looked at the game or anything within the game. I'm just interested as to what you mean by that.



I'm sure history will (hopefully, hopefully, hopefully) look at Mr. President in as negative a manner as possible (and I have no qualms with saying this either). But like BHN says that's for another forum. There is not HOF for Bush to go in, and if he was in line to I certainly wouldn't put him there. But there are certain rules about integrity for the HOF, and Pete Rose did not follow them. His disgrace is well known, and I personally would not be happy with him gong in, but I'm just probalby less forgiving than others. I can see how you could want him in. Certainly I would be less opposed to him getting in than Joe Jackson.

If the HOF is going to put someone like Effa Manley in, I don't see why Bush would be inducted someday as some kind of progressive owner.

[538280]

If the HOF is going to put someone like Effa Manley in, I don't see why Bush would be inducted someday as some kind of progressive owner.

He would never go in, of course. I wasn't being serious with him in the baseball HOF. I would never vote for Bush for anything, a horrible president. But let's not talk about that here.

[wamby]

He would never go in, of course. I wasn't being serious with him in the baseball HOF. I would never vote for Bush for anything, a horrible president. But let's not talk about that here.

He might get the nod, if only for publicity, or some arm twisting by some people to burnish his legacy. Who knows? Maybe he'll get tapped as a future commissioner too.

[jalbright]

OK, guys, I'm new to the moderator business, and I haven't been involved in this thread, because frankly I'm tired of chewing over the sad tale of Pete Rose and don't have the heart to go over it again. However, this thread is for baseball. The next post in this thread I see which discusses what one thinks of the current President or his Administration, any other politician in a non-baseball role, or gets into commentary on the condition of the Army or any other branch of the Armed Services will be deleted. It does not matter to me which side you take on these items, as they 1) have nothing to do with baseball, and 2) nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Anybody who violates this rule more than once can expect even more serious consequences from me.

Look, I know from experience Pete Rose is a topic which generates strong feelings on all sides, as do the Black Sox and steroids, among other things. One can convey those feelings without personal attacks or venturing into topics far better suited to forums dedicated to current events and/or politics. I'm dedicated to free speech, but it still must be appropriate, and politics and personal attacks are inappropriate for BBF. We don't come here for that, and none of us need to experience it here.

Thanks for listening, and more importantly, for respecting the rules of BBF. For those of you with a desire to return to the topic of whether or not Pete Rose belongs in the HOF and/or under what terms, please feel free to continue doing so provided the conversation remains on baseball.

Jim Albright

[west coast orange and black]

sultan: Doesn't matter to you that he signed with the stipulation that he would receive a future meeting to discuss reinstatement?
when in the future? is the future still happening? is rose presently alive? if yes, if rose were to receive a face to discuss reinstatement would that not complete the stipulation?

Doesn't matter that Vincent would never return his calls and left him hung out to dry?
matter to whom? i don't give a sweet fig about it.

He never bet as a player...
please read rule 21. it extends far beyond just the players.

[west coast orange and black]

in december 1994, before taking office as the governor of texas, bush resigned as co-general partner of the rangers but kept his ownership stake in the team.

at the time, his share was 1.8% equity interest.

(bush later received a 10% bonus because the team was sold and the original investors got back their original investment plus interest; the most that bush ever owned at any given time was 1.8% of the texas rangers.)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

sultan: Doesn't matter to you that he signed with the stipulation that he would receive a future meeting to discuss reinstatement?
when in the future? is the future still happening? is rose presently alive? if yes, if rose were to receive a face to discuss reinstatement would that not complete the stipulation?


Without getting all cutsie tootsie about it, lets use some common sense here. It was an agreement for a future meeting. But after Bart died, Rose continously tried to set up meeting after meeting, with no response. Calls weren't even returned. It was clear then, and its still clear now what is going on.



please read rule 21. it extends far beyond just the players.
[/quote]

Fact of the matter is he never bet as a player. He would be going into the HOF based on his playing accomplishments which are legit (unlike many players in this era who people would support for the HOF).

[MyDogSparty]

Fact of the matter is he never bet as a player.

You're wrong on that point. Read post #71 of this thread. Pete Rose WAS indeed a player when he gambled.

[Paulmcall]

Rose is more famous and richer because of this controversy. I wouldn't let him into the Hall of Fame just like I wouldn't let a drunk driver get his license back if he hasn't reformed.
He knew the rules and broke them anyway. He's an arrogant jerk. Believe it or not, he is displayed at Cooperstown but he never will be where the plaques are.
:lookitup

[CaliforniaCajun]

To Whom This May Concern:

I'm really sick of hearing excuses for keeping Pete Rose out of the Hall of Fame. Okay, he's beneath dignity, low life, Etc. - The HOF didn't do themselves justice by creating the Pete Rose Ban which was designed to keep Mr. Rose out...period.

Of course, being so "honorable," they stated it was a coincidence of sorts that this vote to keep banned players would come out early the same year that Mr. Rose's name was supposed to be brought up for a vote. Spare me with Baseball's integrity.

I seem to remember that Judge Landis, MLB's First Commissioner, who banned the White Sox players, was a racist who helped keep Black Americans out of the MLB. Only after the man's death did Jackie Robinson get his chance to make it to the Majors.

Yes, Mr. Rose was stupid, and he broke the rules - he has himself to blame. Still, if you're going to keep the man out of MLB, at least allow him the plaque he earned with his hits and his hustle. It's a JOKE that the man with a
.303 lifetime batting average, 4,256 hits, and 17 other records is denied a place alongside his peers...because of a few bitter old ballplayers and a deceitful HOF.

If you don't like the man, support his going into the Hall of Fame, AND keep him out of today's MLB. That should satisfy both parties. Just be done with it!

What do you think???

Regards,

CAREY
U.S. ARMY

Bingo. This issue will linger until Bud Selig rules on Rose's application for reinstatement.

Of course, the reason Selig won't rule is because Hall of Famers like Bob Feller have threatened to disassociate themselves from baseball if Rose is elected.

Rose screwed up and put Selig between a rock and a hard place. But Selig screwed up, too, by telling him that a confession would allow for reinstatement. The repercussions will come when the steroid users won't confess because they know how good MLB's word is, and what their HOF chances are if they do.

Rose is not accused of betting on baseball as a player. He admitted doing this as a manager. For betting on baseball as a manager, he's at the mercy of the court as far as being reinstated is concerned.

Fay Vincent created the problem by getting the owners to agree that a suspended player can not be eligible for Hall of Fame consideration.

Rose is a Hall of Fame player. It would appear to me that a good compromise would be to let him in on his merits as a player and uphold his lifetime suspension for what he did as a manager. :atthepc

[Sultan_1895-1948]

You're wrong on that point. Read post #71 of this thread. Pete Rose WAS indeed a player when he gambled.

Yeah, technically, you're right. His numbers are still legit in the sense that they weren't enhanced by anything though.

[jalbright]

Guys,

I told you to keep the politics out of this discussion, and I mean it. The two posts (the initial one and the reaction to it) have been deleted. Please don't test me further on this point. This is thread is about Pete Rose and his status in baseball.

Jim Albright

[CaliforniaCajun]

This is interesting to me. I want to know exactly how did Pete Rose revolutionize the way the game was played? Pete was a great player, and I think his greatness in that regard can be underrated around here, but what exactly in the game did he change? I am not aware of Pete Rose changing the way people looked at the game or anything within the game. I'm just interested as to what you mean by that.



I'm sure history will (hopefully, hopefully, hopefully) look at Mr. President in as negative a manner as possible (and I have no qualms with saying this either). But like BHN says that's for another forum. There is not HOF for Bush to go in, and if he was in line to I certainly wouldn't put him there. But there are certain rules about integrity for the HOF, and Pete Rose did not follow them. His disgrace is well known, and I personally would not be happy with him gong in, but I'm just probalby less forgiving than others. I can see how you could want him in. Certainly I would be less opposed to him getting in than Joe Jackson.

Rose was the first $100,000 singles hitter. Unlike Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, and Hank Aaron, the player who best personified the Reds was not a slugger. He also switched positions several times (2b, 3b, outfield). He did this despite the fact he wasn't a five-tool player. He was a switch hitter. He's baseball's all-time hits leader.

[CaliforniaCajun]

I don't believe that's a true statement. The record shows that Pete Rose bet on baseball during the 1985, 1986 & 1987 seasons. In the years 1985 & 1986 Pete was not only the manager of the Cincinnati Reds but he was also a PLAYER on the roster who played in 191 games over the course of those two seasons. So to say he was only a manager and wasn't a player when he's been accused of gambling is NOT correct.

The opinions I have expressed in previous posts were based on the belief that Rose retired in 1986 and bet on baseball in 1987. But I still think it's time to bring closure to the matter.

Baseball is my favorite sport, but I think football has overtaken it as the national pastime because fans have lost patience with baseball and the speed in which they address problems. I don't know if Paul Hornung did the same thing as Rose with gambling, but he served a one year suspension and was reinstated. Weren't there lingering trust issues when he came back? Baseball has essentially decided not to deal with this, so it just hangs there and fans would like this thing to be addressed so it can go away. That is a reasonable request. If reinstatement is denied, it would at least mean the matter was addressed. But they won't make a decision.

Rose has been suspended for 17 years, and the message of what you can expect for violating baseball's gambling policy has been delivered. Isn't 17 years disincentive enough to discourage betting on baseball? It is nothing but vindictive to carry this thing any further, and baseball fans want the game to deal with it.

His reputation is destroyed. But he has paid the fiddler more than the fiddler would get if he had Scott Boras as his agent. He had a Hall of Fame playing career. And he'll never be employed in baseball again. Enough is enough.

I read a post in this thread complaining about the wealth and popularity Pete Rose has enjoyed since his suspension. That will be diminished when MLB quits beating on a dead horse. The longer action is delayed, the more gas is thrown on the fire.

[MyDogSparty]

The opinions I have expressed in previous posts were based on the belief that Rose retired in 1986 and bet on baseball in 1987.

Are you still of that belief? If so, perhaps you could explain what makes you think he only bet on baseball in 1987.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

The opinions I have expressed in previous posts were based on the belief that Rose retired in 1986 and bet on baseball in 1987. But I still think it's time to bring closure to the matter.

Baseball is my favorite sport, but I think football has overtaken it as the national pastime because fans have lost patience with baseball and the speed in which they address problems. I don't know if Paul Hornung did the same thing as Rose with gambling, but he served a one year suspension and was reinstated. Weren't there lingering trust issues when he came back? Baseball has essentially decided not to deal with this, so it just hangs there and fans would like this thing to be addressed so it can go away. That is a reasonable request. If reinstatement is denied, it would at least mean the matter was addressed. But they won't make a decision.

Rose has been suspended for 17 years, and the message of what you can expect for violating baseball's gambling policy has been delivered. Isn't 17 years disincentive enough to discourage betting on baseball? It is nothing but vindictive to carry this thing any further, and baseball fans want the game to deal with it.

His reputation is destroyed. But he has paid the fiddler more than the fiddler would get if he had Scott Boras as his agent. He had a Hall of Fame playing career. And he'll never be employed in baseball again. Enough is enough.

I read a post in this thread complaining about the wealth and popularity Pete Rose has enjoyed since his suspension. That will be diminished when MLB quits beating on a dead horse. The longer action is delayed, the more gas is thrown on the fire.

What Pete Rose did was clearly worse than what Hornung did, because he was also managing the team from late 1984 on, and it compromised the integrity of his managing, causing him to overuse his two star relievers AND have them warm up a preposterous amount of the time in other games, managing every game as though it were Game 7 of the World Series. This was commented on at the time, before the bombshell hit. As someone who, long long ago, made a very modest living off of poker suckers, I know compulsive gamblers and can tell you that's EXACTLY how Rose would have felt about every game where he had the Reds to win.

But AGAIN, as long as he didn't bet AGAINST his own team--and we have seen exactly zero evidence to show he committed that cardinal sin--the dude has served his sentence. I get a gut pleasure out of SABR Matt's idea of admitting Rose 1 day after he dies, but really, 20 years does seem like long enough, doesn't it? He's a total puke, but he'll have loads of company in Cooperstown in that regard, including a good many living members.

So, Major League Baseball, do you have evidence that the guy bet against his own team? If so, lay it out there and virtually everyone will agree he should never get in. If not, let's put this thing to rest.

BHN

[west coast orange and black]

sultan: ...lets use some common sense here.
not the first time (will most likely not be the last) where you elevate yourself to *voice of reason* status. :ughh

Calls weren't even returned.
according to whom? oh shoot. rose, of course. :crazy

It was clear then, and its still clear now what is going on.
"yes, mr. oliver stone, please.'

...he matter is he never bet as a player.
many people that he did. the facts demonstrate as such.
but, no matter: rule 21 is extended to everyone under k with mlb... which includes managers.

[west coast orange and black]

californiacajun: He's baseball's all-time hits leader.
not only that: he is the game's "hit king", as annointed by none other than rose himself.

[CaliforniaCajun]

Are you still of that belief? If so, perhaps you could explain what makes you think he only bet on baseball in 1987.

I don't remember. I don't remember what the Dowd report said, I don't remember if a date was attached to his betting on baseball in his book, and I don't remember if any dates were attached to his betting on baseball in that ESPN movie. The reason why I want this matter addressed is because I'm sick and tired of hearing about it.

[CandlestickBum]

No and he's done nothing since the beginning of this whole thing but to enforce my original opinion.

Ask me again *after* he dies. I surely don't want him to enjoy the honor alive.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

not the first time (will most likely not be the last) where you elevate yourself to *voice of reason* status. :ughh


lol, hello black pot :waving

You're the authority on everything WC, so please tell me when an effort was made on baseball's part to meet with Rose. That was the agreement. Or maybe he just never called after Bart died, huh. Not like baseball meant much to him.

[west coast orange and black]

"But after Bart died, Rose continously tried to set up meeting after meeting, with no response";
"Calls weren't even returned";
"It was clear then, and its still clear now what is going on";
"Fact of the matter is he never bet as a player"

you made these claims before i replied, so i will reply to your *evidence* that your above four matter-of-fact assertions are true.

[Wade8813]

Baseball is my favorite sport, but I think football has overtaken it as the national pastime because fans have lost patience with baseball and the speed in which they address problems. I don't know if Paul Hornung did the same thing as Rose with gambling, but he served a one year suspension and was reinstated. Weren't there lingering trust issues when he came back? Baseball has essentially decided not to deal with this, so it just hangs there and fans would like this thing to be addressed so it can go away. That is a reasonable request. If reinstatement is denied, it would at least mean the matter was addressed. But they won't make a decision. No, if football has overtaken baseball, it's because people like the violent hits in football, and because for whatever reason, most high schools and colleges decided to focus on their football teams. 'The Homecoming game' always refers to football, and it's a big event. Even schools that are perenially horrible at football pay more attention to it than any other sport.

The Pete Rose issue is something that fans want taken care of, but I don't think very many people would stop following baseball over something like that.


Rose has been suspended for 17 years, and the message of what you can expect for violating baseball's gambling policy has been delivered. Isn't 17 years disincentive enough to discourage betting on baseball? It is nothing but vindictive to carry this thing any further, and baseball fans want the game to deal with it. I don't think so. I think the only reason it's been punishment so far is that he's had to live with the uncertainty if he'll ever be reinstated. If we allow him in, we're basically saying we don't really care what he did; he just has to wait to get what he wants.

If Bob is a lock to making the HoF, but is considering gambling, the fact that he'd have to wait is a deterrent, but it seems fairly minor to me. Yes, 17 years is a long time, but it's a long time of not much of a punishment.


His reputation is destroyed. But he has paid the fiddler more than the fiddler would get if he had Scott Boras as his agent. He had a Hall of Fame playing career. And he'll never be employed in baseball again. Enough is enough. RoFL. :laugh :D :p

[hellborn]

I agree. compare his sins to cobb's. cobb was racist. he abused fans and even killed someone. cobb was a lowlife scumbag. rose made a few mistakes. big deal. he's a family man and loves the game. should of been in the hof years ago.
I think that Rose is one of the worst family men in the world...he's famous for ignoring his family!

[Captain Cold Nose]

I think that Rose is one of the worst family men in the world...he's famous for ignoring his family!
It's funny you mentioned that, but I was visiting my parents this past weekend, and my father and I were discussing baseball, and that's what my mother always brings up, no mater what we're discussing. How much of a family man Rose is. She disliked him long, long before the whole gambling scandal went down.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

californiacajun: He's baseball's all-time hits leader.
not only that: he is the game's "hit king", as annointed by none other than rose himself.

Well, as far as that goes, it's pretty clear Joe Jackson was a better player than Rose. IF he should have been disqualified permanently from the Hall--a complex question, in and of itself, but let's say "yes," for the sake of argument, then I say Rose should remain barred for eternity... IF he bet against his team, even once. Why won't Selig show some honor, for once in his dismal tenure as commissioner, and let us know all available info re Rose's gambling on Red games while managing?]

Again, we're stuck with the limited and, I think, carefully screened evidence MLB has publicized. The best thing I know of is that Bill James, like me, always thought Pete Rose was a self-centered, occasionally team-damaging--especially in his years as player-manager, when he was an offensive joke at 1B, yet held on as a regular for years, to his teams' great detriment, solely to break the record.

But James, after reviewing everything he could get his hands on, said there wasn't all that much evidence against Rose for betting on Reds games... and he said not one word about the Big One: Evidence of Rose's even once betting against his own team, while managing.

Bill James does not always show intellectual integrity in the way he ranks his players (see his scores on his four criteria for Brett and Mathews, then note that Brett somehow came out ahead, anyway), but I'd trust my life with him, when it comes to his intellectual integrity in rankings of players on his all-time total players' list.

That leads me to believe Rose didn't violate the most cardinal of all baseball rules: Thou shalt not engage in conduct--e.g., benching good players, starting scrubs, using awful relievers, etc.--to help your team LOSE. And as I've said--probably ad nauseam, by now, for those of you who make a point of reading this garrulous soul's posts--Rose has done his time and should enter the Hall now... unless he bet AGAINST the Reds while managing them, in which case he should never get in, including post-humously.

His personality is repugnant, nauseating, flagitious, textbook-sociopathic, and however many other 50-cent words any of my fellow sesquipedalian site members want to toss onto it. But this is NOT Eddie Cicotte or Joe Jackson. Yeah, he's overrated as a player and I always felt that way, but he's for sure a 1st-round HOF'er, without his sins. He did NOT violate the cardinal rule-----which Tris Speaker DID in Game 6 of the 1912 World Series, making his team have to face Mathewson in Game 7. What a miracle they came back from a one-run deficit in the bottom of the 10th inning of game 7, still against Mathewson, to beat that legendary pitcher. Otherwise, Speaker might not be in the Hall, and might be remembered in the same breath as Shoeless Joe and Cicotte--two other corruptible great players who since were never forgiven.

Yes, Speaker was the best player of the three. I'm a lifelong adorer of Speaker's talents, and thus admittedly not neutral on this subject. Until I learned about that game from Timothy Gay's extremely respectful-of-Tris bio, I'd put him about 25 spots ahead of Mathewson and about 20 ahead of Jackson--deep into my Top 10. But really, WHY is he rated so enormously farther head of Jackson?

For two reasons: (1) Because he was a more talented player; and (2) because he got away with it, despite the fact his guilt is now clearly shown. Not a very satisfactory answer, from where I sit.

BUT....

The man was arguably the greatest defensive CF of all time, TO THIS DATE--and was inarguably the greatest defensive CF of the first half of the past century. Read Gee's bio--which will destroy Speaker's rep because it conclusively details his involvement in the throwing of Game SIX in 1912, and because it shows him for the frothing-at-the-mouth racist, xenophobe and religious bigot he was at the time this country was a real melting pot of white people. He hated Catholics with a vengeance. He hated several nationalities. He was proud of his Southern roots (which is a fine thing), and of his membership in groups celebrating all of the worst traits of the South (which is not). He lacked Cobb's education and innate intelligence, but he was at least as bigoted as Cobb with none of Cobb's redeeming traits, and he had a real divisive effect on Boston, including in the Sox' locker room.

Now, before anyone climbs on me for disgracing a national monument, I'll make it clear my all-time MLB-only list of players starts like this (with Bonds limited to counting only thru 1999, the last season before his PED use started to show with a vengeance... and I'll ask y'all to defer to me, a Northern California resident and lifelong Giants fan who saw all of those games, as to when Bonds' cheating became obvious):

1. Babe Ruth

(HUGE GAP)

2. Willie Mays
(Very narrow gap, and I could flip-flop him and #3 at any time now)

3. Ty Cobb

4. Ted Williams

5. Mickey Mantle

6. Tris Speaker (obviously not punishing him for 1912; if I counted that, he'd be off the list, but I don't think that's right)

7. Stan Musial (he was NOT helped as much by Sportsman's Park as many naturally think)

8. Lou Gehrig

9. Honus Wagner

10. Lefty Grove

11. Hank Aaron (I could be persuaded to move him ahead of Grove, and perhaps Wagner as well, but that's his glass ceiling; no way he goes above Gehrig.)

12. Joe DiMaggio (n.b.: 5 CF's in my top 12, and that's omitting Charleston, who otherwise would go ahead of at least Joe D.)

13. Joe Morgan

14. Barry Bonds, thru 1999 only (NOTES: (i) no matter what you've heard about his taking steroids after 1998, the results didn't show until about the 1/3 mark of the 2000 season, and didn't metastasize until 2001--I should know, since I watched him regularly and am a lifelong NorCal resident and a lifelong Giants fan; (ii) IF I am forced to give him reasonable projections for 2000-2004, based on the notion--with which I agree--that steroids don't buy longevity, and that he obviously had great natural longevity and would have put up at least pretty good numbers without cheating (and with enormously more AB's), I HAVE seen projections of those numbers, and I find them credible. With those numbers, I would put Bonds somewhere between #5 and #9. But while I feel there's no way his career should be "erased," nor that he--unlike McGwire, Sosa and some other frauds, should be barred from the H.O.F., I refuse to recognize the phony stats he put up at retirement ages in the first 5 years of this millenium, while hitting balls vastly farther than he'd ever hit any before... and having heart fibrillations, acne, etc., as consequences of his Faustian deal.

15. Frank Robinson: One of the most underrated players, he only won one HR title because of whom he had to compete against annually. But he won MVP's in both leagues, hit 586 HR's (which was good for 4th ever, pre-Steroid Ball), won a Triple Crown, carried teams annually, and was baseball's ultimate overachiever. He was a very fine RF, but he was born in the same 3-year span as Kaline, Aaron and Clemente, so good luck getting any credit for it. In the first 7 years of the '60's, he was a MORE feared hitter than Aaron, and IMO, deservedly so. A brilliant, fierce, brooding, tremendous, pugnacious, seek-no-quarter-and-given-none player. A position player's equivalent of Roger Clemens. People who rate him behind Clemente are not merely statistically blind, but also have no conception of the game and the things that really matter..

16. Mike Schmidt. Low BA, but so what? Got on base a lot; was much faster than people thought; was a tremendous 3Bman, who played the position at its historical Periclean Age of defense, and thus got not nearly his due--until after retirement, when he got more than his due; had a significantly better OBP than Brett (as well as a better fielding percentage); and won more HR titles than any player--yes, PLAYER, not just third baseman--in MLB history except Babe Ruth. There's no 3Bman, let alone an MLB catcher, I'd put up with the big boys, but Schmidt's my clear choice for #1 at his spot, and now that we're all coming to understand his era in its proper perspective, and giving its players a lot more respect, it's evident he was a tremendous power hitter, with no peer in that regard except the 90+% Mr. Hyde, and 7% Dr. Jekyll--Dave Kingman--who was a slightly better HR hitter when he felt like playing, and a worse-than-zero in every other respect.

17. Rogers Hornsby. The only MLB player ever whom I feel sufficiently educated, and supported by overwhelming circumstantial evidence, to penalize (more than a little, too) for having been a clubhouse cancer. With all the others, I take the perspective that I wasn't in the clubhouse, so what do I know? In Hornsby's case, it's just too clear. And I do NOT buy the idea he was the greatest RH-hitter ever. B U T . . . . With all of that said, this guy was a decent fielder and an absolute MONSTER hitter, joined only by Ted Williams as a two-time winner of Triple Crowns. He arguably had the second-greatest offensive decade ever in the 1920's, but it was drowned out by the fact baseball's greatest player blew him away with baseball's greatest offensive decade ever in the 1920's.

It was no fluke Hornsby did these things. He was THAT good a hitter, and a ton of stats verify it. Basically, he was Ty Cobb minus a few things, PLUS a right-handed version of the great Goose Goslin (except minus Goslin's horrendous home-park dimensions)... rolled into one.

18. Roger Clemens. Other than pointing out his SEVEN e.r.a. titles--second only to Grove, and 2 ahead of all others--I doubt I need say much about this phenomenal pitcher. Yeah, Walter Johnson and Greg Maddux might be better, and if I'm still at this site, in 6 to 12 months--very unlikely, b.t.w., even though I've met a ton of people here whom I like--I may be persuaded one or both of them was/were Clemens' superior. But that mountain of wins and those 7 e.r.a. titles are a ton to overcome.

19. Eddie Collins. When I was a kid (early 60's), he was the runaway choice as the game's greatest 2Bman. Since then, Hornsby's gaudy hitting stats have gotten him moved ahead of Collins, though both were effectively gone at the end of 1930. What happened, of course, is that all the people who saw Collins in action, and remembered his incredible greatness in every single facet of the game except HR-hitting, died. And that left the people who stared at Hornsby's stats and said, "How the hell could Collins have been better, even assuming he was a MUCH better defensive 2Bman (which he was)?"

20. Ken Griffey, Jr., narrowly over Bagwell and Maddux.

Yeah, I know, he hasn't been a star for years. He's like Mathews or Foxx. His peak and all his serious years came early, so he'll be remembered as a "disappointment"... which is tragic, because if you look at his career totals, there's no way that's what he's been. He was a TREMENDOUS player for a great many years. I believe that in 40 years, when those of us who were over-hyped by the media about how Junior would shatter all of Aaron's career records have either died or mellowed out on the subject, he'll be seen in a whole new light. The light of one of the historically very great players.

OK. Sultan and others have asked for my list. If you asked for it in 2 weeks, and IF--a very big if--I'm still here in two weeks, and haven't instead said sad goodbyes to Myankee, BaseballPAP, RugbyFreak (a real favorite of mine), NotAboutEgo, Randy, Bill, ChrisJr. and a huge number of others--my list might be different, but not too much so.

That's it for this ridiculous hour of the "night" (it's now SIX a.m.!!!). Time for bed. Well, way past time.

I await constructive criticism. I will say up front that I realize I don't have many post-1960 players on here, but:

(i) I've got more than most BBF members in the History section would;

(ii) I believe that with Baseball History, as with European History (my university major) or American History, it's best to let the dust settle on real recent history before passing definitive judgments, unless they're clearly right;

and

(iii) Guys like McGwire, who otherwise might have made it (in his case, because nearly 1 HR every 10 AB's plus the sky-high OPS is enough per se, IMO), are excluded for an obvious reason.

BHN

[Paulmcall]

Pete broke the original sin of baseball. He's like the great husband and father who swindled people out of their money. He deserves the life time ban no matter
how many records he holds.
He knew what the rules were yet was so arrogant he thought he could get away with it. He still does.

[catcher24]

NO WAY, in my opinion.

[chrispw1]

I was wondering what would have happened if Pete Rose had already been inducted when he got thrown out. His first year of ekigibility would have been 1992, what if he had been booted in 1993 or 1994 or retired after 1981 0r 1982, would they have then removed him from the hall of fame?

[Captain Cold Nose]

I was wondering what would have happened if Pete Rose had already been inducted when he got thrown out. His first year of ekigibility would have been 1992, what if he had been booted in 1993 or 1994 or retired after 1981 0r 1982, would they have then removed him from the hall of fame?
The closest precedent to that would be the Hockey Hall of Fame removing Alan Eagleson for pension inpropriety, as well as Gil Stein, who was pretty much elected during his tenure as NHL President because he wanted to be a member of the NHL HOF.
I'd say it's likely, as Rose broke baseball's cardinal rule and was well aware of the rule.

[Mike D.]

I can't imagine he'd be removed. To my knowledge, nobody has ever been removed from Baseball's Hall of Fame, for any reason. A couple HOFers have gotten in trouble for working for casinos (Mantle and Mays, I believe), but they certainly weren't removed from the HOF.

[KCGHOST]

The Mays - Mantle thing was anything like Rose's deal. Bowie Kuhn banned them because they took jobs in Atlantic City with casinos. There wasn't even a hint of an impropriety other than Kuhn didn't like major baseball figures to be associated with legalized gambling. Rose was banned for betting on baseball.

Had Rose gotten into the HoF prior to this coming to light it would have been up to the HoF, not MLB, as to how to proceed. I suspect it would have come down to how badly the embarassment Rose caused baseball irritated the HoF trustees.

[Mike D.]

The Mays - Mantle thing was anything like Rose's deal. Bowie Kuhn banned them because they took jobs in Atlantic City with casinos. There wasn't even a hint of an impropriety other than Kuhn didn't like major baseball figures to be associated with legalized gambling. Rose was banned for betting on baseball.

Had Rose gotten into the HoF prior to this coming to light it would have been up to the HoF, not MLB, as to how to proceed. I suspect it would have come down to how badly the embarassment Rose caused baseball irritated the HoF trustees.

Right, wasn't suggesting that the Mays/Mantle thing was anything like what Rose did...simply stating that there was no president for removing someone from the HOF, for any reason.

Yes, it'd be up to the HOF, and I can't imagine them removing anyone, but who knows?

[bluezebra]

...simply stating that there was no president for removing someone from the HOF, for any reason.


Or precedent for that matter.

Bob

[Mike D.]

...simply stating that there was no president for removing someone from the HOF, for any reason.


Or precedent for that matter.

Bob

It was late. It was a long day. I was already into happy hour. The sun was in my eyes. My team just suffered a 5-game sweep.

Umm...also, I'm a lousy speller. Sorry.

Good too see we still have "spelling cops" on the internet though..carry on, osifer! :)

[chrispw1]

I think the difference with the hockey guys is that what they were punished for diminished the legitimacy of what they were inducted for wherePete's gambling as bad as it was didn't diminish the legitimacy of his 4200 plus hits. Also guys like OJ and Jim Brown weren't taken out of the football hall of fame after their off the field troubles even though it probbaly would have kept them out if not already in.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I think the difference with the hockey guys is that what they were punished for diminished the legitimacy of what they were inducted for wherePete's gambling as bad as it was didn't diminish the legitimacy of his 4200 plus hits. Also guys like OJ and Jim Brown weren't taken out of the football hall of fame after their off the field troubles even though it probbaly would have kept them out if not already in.
Lawrence Taylor had issues, but he got in. Michael Irvin will get in eventually, but there are plenty of good candidates out there so his induction is on hold. We're not talking Jerry Rice here. But none of those issues involved the actual rules of the sport they were participating in.
Rose legitimately belongs, as does Eagleson in the Hockey HOF, but they're out for different reasons outside of committing crimes against their sport. Rose continual flaunting of the rules, and many say he was gambling for years and years, but the evidence was withheld because Rose took a quick out before the story could be revealed, does not make him above those rules, 4, 256 or not. Gambling on baseball has always been punishable by banishment. Rose probably would have set another precedent if everything went down after he had been elected.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The closest precedent to that would be the Hockey Hall of Fame removing Alan Eagleson for pension inpropriety, as well as Gil Stein, who was pretty much elected during his tenure as NHL President because he wanted to be a member of the NHL HOF.
I'd say it's likely, as Rose broke baseball's cardinal rule and was well aware of the rule.
It's not that simple:

1) The Baseball Hall of Fame is an independent museum not controlled by MLB. MLB has no say in it's by-laws or how it is run.

2) The current rule that ineligible players are not eligible for HoF induction was a result of the Rose scandal. Before Pete Rose there was no formal rule that barred ineligible players from being inducted. A rule wasn't needed becaude it was self evident that the voters would never elect such players. But the Rose case was very different from the Black Sox scandal and there was concern that Rose might be elected.

3) The rule was created because the HoF didn't want to anger MLB and the Commisioner. The Baseball writers that have HoF voting priviliges got really pissed off at this but they couldn't do anything about it.

[Captain Cold Nose]

It's not that simple:

1) The Baseball Hall of Fame is an independent museum not controlled by MLB. MLB has no say in it's by-laws or how it is run.

2) The current rule that ineligible players are not eligible for HoF induction was a result of the Rose scandal. Before Pete Rose there was no formal rule that barred ineligible players from being inducted. A rule wasn't needed becaude it was self evident that the voters would never elect such players. But the Rose case was very different from the Black Sox scandal and there was concern that Rose might be elected.

3) The rule was created because the HoF didn't want to anger MLB and the Commisioner. The Baseball writers that have HoF voting priviliges got really pissed off at this but they couldn't do anything about it.
I'm well aware of what the HOF is and what the rule is, I've read Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame, as well. However, I do believe that whenever Rose's issues became a HOF issue, even after he had bene elected, the rule would have been enacted. There is no reason for the HOF to go against the wishes of the what they're honoring, as the relationship they have is extremely beneficial for the HOF. Independent or not, they're going to follow their best interests.

[SABR Matt]

Why does this site have a fixation with Pete Rose?

I find the whole subject of Rose frustrating and boring.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Why does this site have a fixation with Pete Rose?

I find the whole subject of Rose frustrating and boring.
We feel like it.

[2Chance]

Normally when his name comes up in this forum, I ignore it. This time I was curious what there was to be said that hasn't been said already!

The 'fixation' probably comes because there is a line drawn, and people think they have to take one side or the other. Anymore the former player's name (how do you like my impression of Bill Parcells?) usually comes up, from someone who is fairly new to this site and often, like this time, is looking for information. And to give a little credit, this is a new question.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Normally when his name comes up in this forum, I ignore it. This time I was curious what there was to be said that hasn't been said already!

The 'fixation' probably comes because there is a line drawn, and people think they have to take one side or the other. Anymore the former player's name (how do you like my impression of Bill Parcells?) usually comes up, from someone who is fairly new to this site and often, like this time, is looking for information. And to give a little credit, this is a new question.
Very true, 2Chance, which is how it caught my eye as well.
I wouldn't say Rose is top five or even ten in terms of players with threads devoted to them on this site. So he is hardly a fixation here.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Why does this site have a fixation with Pete Rose?

I find the whole subject of Rose frustrating and boring.
Well, Pete Rose was a very famous baseball player and this is a baseball forum, right? :D

[jalbright]

HWR,

Yes, it is a baseball forum and Pete Rose is famous (or infamous, if you choose), and therefore appropriate grist for our mill. However, I can sympathize with Matt's sentiments. I rarely participate in these threads, because a) the topic is depressing to begin with, b) there is a strong tendency of these threads to rehash the same arguments time and again, with no movement toward any greater understanding or agreement and c) these discussions far too often get angry and/or personal. Pete Rose is not the only such topic, but it is definitely within my top five meeting the three criteria I set out above, and thus are ones I prefer to avoid, except as a moderator dedicated to keeping the peace in the forum I am assigned to.

Jim Albright

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm well aware of what the HOF is and what the rule is, I've read Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame, as well. However, I do believe that whenever Rose's issues became a HOF issue, even after he had bene elected, the rule would have been enacted. There is no reason for the HOF to go against the wishes of the what they're honoring, as the relationship they have is extremely beneficial for the HOF. Independent or not, they're going to follow their best interests.

I don't believe Rose would have been removed from the HOF. That would not have been in the interest of baseball; MLB would have sought a solution short of that. The specter of the HOF disenshrining a HOFer (is disenshrining even a word?) seems so traumatic that I can't imagine MLB just pushing for that, willy nilly.

And, make no mistake, the HOF would have done what MLB wanted in this. They are independent, but they want to accomodate MLB whenever they can.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why does this site have a fixation with Pete Rose?

I find the whole subject of Rose frustrating and boring.

It's not just this site; it's most baseball forums.

[Captain Cold Nose]

And, make no mistake, the HOF would have done what MLB wanted in this. They are independent, but they want to accommodate MLB whenever they can.
That is the best interest I was referring to.
As I've said before, there are players who are discussed far more than Rose. As an open and free site, people should be able to talk about whom they want without fear of reprisal. Don't like the topic? Don't read it. The last thing this site needs to do is restrict certain topics because certain posters feel it beneath them. This site is for everybody, even us mere mortals.

[Mike D.]

I avoid most Rose threads, but I saw this one as more of a general question about how the HOF would react to a situation, with Rose as a specific example. I may not like Rose, but I love reading and talking about the politics and history behind the HOF...so here I am. :waving

[Appling]

I don't believe Rose would have been removed from the HOF.
I agree. Once enshrined, I can't imagine how any player would later be removed. Where would it stop? Would we evict Ty Cobb or Cap Anson because they were not politically correct by today's standards?

I don't think the NFL Hall of Fame would have evicted O.J. Simpson even if he had been convicted of murder -- and executed for the crime! But if OJ were convicted prior to enshrinement he would not be voted in.

Cooperstown is no different.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I agree. Once enshrined, I can't imagine how any player would later be removed. Where would it stop? Would we evict Ty Cobb or Cap Anson because they were not politically correct by today's standards?

I don't think the NFL Hall of Fame would have evicted O.J. Simpson even if he had been convicted of murder -- and executed for the crime! But if OJ were convicted prior to enshrinement he would not be voted in.

Cooperstown is no different.
But the actions against Rose were not out of political correctness, they were done due to his breaking of what baseball has deemed the most serious of offenses against the sport itself. That is the difference between Rose and Simpson, crimes against the sport, and Rose and Cobb, in that he involved undesirable outside interests, and not just a bet with another player.
As sports' own society in this sense, what Rose did was worse than what Simpson. Does it make Rose worse than a convicted murderer as a human being? No, but that's not the issue here as I see it.

[overhandgas53]

Since all these players on ROIDS are going into the HOF should Pete Rose?

[Skin & Bones]

I'm always amazed when I see stuff like this. What does any steroid users situation have to do with Pete Rose's situation exactly ?

[wamby]

At this point, who cares?

[Mariano_Rivera]

Since all these players on ROIDS are going into the HOF should Pete Rose?
I don`t think many "juicers" are going in anyway. Pete Rose got a raw deal and should not be banned from baseball as a player. That said my question is Does he have the numbers ? He is an the short list for most overrated player of all time. He had nothing but longevity. He is borderline IMIO (see the "Pete Rose Overrated" thread in the history forum) but he probably does deserve to be in because he had SUCH great longevity but he is borderline.

[Mariano_Rivera]

I'm always amazed when I see stuff like this. What does any steroid users situation have to do with Pete Rose's situation exactly ?
"Juicers" have broken the rules and so has Pete Rose. That's the similarity and it ends their

[538280]

"Juicers" have broken the rules and so has Pete Rose. That's the similarity and it ends their

Actually the juicers did not break a baseball rule, with the exception of Palmerio who tested positive. What they did break was a federal law, but there was no baseball rule against performance enhancing drugs until the beginning of last year (2005).

[Mariano_Rivera]

Actually the juicers did not break a baseball rule, with the exception of Palmerio who tested positive. What they did break was a federal law, but there was no baseball rule against performance enhancing drugs until the beginning of last year (2005).
This is a wide misconception. Before 2005 their was a rule against steroids but it wasn`t enforced.

[538280]

This is a wide misconception. Before 2005 their was a rule against steroids but it wasn`t enforced.

No, there was no baseball rule against steroids. You can check for yourself. There was a federal law, and that is it.

[jalbright]

This is a wide misconception. Before 2005 their was a rule against steroids but it wasn`t enforced.

Rickey,

You're right in only the most technical sense. The commissioner's office issued a piece of paper saying steroid use was against the rules, but it a) provided no specific penalties nor enforcement procedures, and b) if they had chosen to try and enforce that "rule" against any player under that unilaterally promulgated pronouncement, they wouldn't have had time to get their seats warm before an arbitrator appointed under the collective bargaining agreement shot them down. In short, that piece of paper was a waste of a tree except in PR terms. No wonder they didn't try to enforce it.

Jim Albright

[KCGHOST]

At this point, who cares?


No kidding. It seems like the Rose apologists never run out of non sequiturs to "support" Rose's case.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Is there a way to combine all the Rose threads and posts into one super thread? It's all the same garbage anyway.

I have an opinion on this, but it seems that Rose threads pop up every time some do-boy for Charlie Hustle discovers this website and decides to put in his two cents by starting a thread.

[jalbright]

Only if one of the moderators wants to make a career of combining the threads. As one of that group, I can tell you I won't be volunteering for that duty ;)

Jim Albright

[Skin & Bones]

"Juicers" have broken the rules and so has Pete Rose. That's the similarity and it ends their

Baseball's 1991 memo says that a player on steroids should seek out treatment from that team's physician. That's the only punishment discussed in the 1991 memo. As I said before, the two situations are not comparable.

[UTforever22]

I don`t think many "juicers" are going in anyway. Pete Rose got a raw deal and should not be banned from baseball as a player. That said my question is Does he have the numbers ? He is an the short list for most overrated player of all time. He had nothing but longevity. He is borderline IMIO (see the "Pete Rose Overrated" thread in the history forum) but he probably does deserve to be in because he had SUCH great longevity but he is borderline.


borderline? your joking right? apart from being the all-time hits leader, pete had 10 seasons of 200 hits or more, 10 seasons of batting .310 or higher, never struck out more than 76 times in a year, 4 years of 40+ doubles, 4 seasons of batting .330+, 5 seasons of 210+ hits. Pete Rose was alot of things. a Gambler, yes, an *******, yes, but one thing he never will be is borderline

[Goooooo]

Charles Comiskey covered up a World Series fix. Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker were involved in fixing games. Ty killed a man. If these guy's are in, Rose should be in too.

[SABR Matt]

Kills self

[brett]

"Juicers" have broken the rules and so has Pete Rose. That's the similarity and it ends their


Well, I always got the impression that Rose finally got the ban because he lied to the commissioner about his betting until he couldn't deny it anymore.

Anyway, there was no rule against PEDs, but there is, I believe a clause in all players contracts which allow them to be suspended for breaking the law. Still, many of the substances were not even illegal when they were supposed to have been used. The law was too specifically written, and certain substances were illegal, but slightly modified forms of the same drugs were not, I believe until a court ruling generalized the law. Whatever Mark McGwire took may in fact have not been strictly illegal at the time-or defined as illegal prior to the court ruling.

[brett]

I wouldn't say borderline. I'd say solidly bottom tier of the hall. I have him at +67 offensive game equivalents, and he was about -2 for his last 5 seasons (which means that for a first baseman, he simply should not have been playing at all, not to mention the fact that he picked out which pitchers he wanted to play against.) If he had retired just after '82, I'd put him right on par with Craig Biggio who should be a solid last tier HOFer as well. Give Rose some credit for fame, for versatility-he led the league in fielding percentage at 5 different positions. Then again, Biggio was probably a better fielder-he moved back to 2B and has continued to hit very well for a second baseman, and he did play for what 4 division champs.


borderline? your joking right? apart from being the all-time hits leader, pete had 10 seasons of 200 hits or more, 10 seasons of batting .310 or higher, never struck out more than 76 times in a year, 4 years of 40+ doubles, 4 seasons of batting .330+, 5 seasons of 210+ hits. Pete Rose was alot of things. a Gambler, yes, an *******, yes, but one thing he never will be is borderline

[runningshoes]

That said my question is Does he have the numbers ? He is an the short list for most overrated player of all time. He had nothing but longevity. He is borderline IMIO (see the "Pete Rose Overrated" thread in the history forum) but he probably does deserve to be in because he had SUCH great longevity but he is borderline.

:laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

[milladrive]

Charles Comiskey covered up a World Series fix. Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker were involved in fixing games. Ty killed a man. If these guy's are in, Rose should be in too.

Thank you.

[runningshoes]

Charles Comiskey covered up a World Series fix. Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker were involved in fixing games. Ty killed a man. If these guy's are in, Rose should be in too.

That was then. This is now.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm visualizing myself falling on my samurai sword! :D

[candy curveball cummings]

Charles Comiskey covered up a World Series fix. Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker were involved in fixing games. Ty killed a man. If these guy's are in, Rose should be in too.

You're right. Remove them from the Hall of Fame immediately.

[milladrive]

"That was then. This is now."

What kind of reasoning is this? Given that reasoning, Rose should be in the Hall simply because "that was then, this is now."

"You're right. Remove them from the Hall of Fame immediately."

More terrific reasoning. This isn't about removing the bad guys. It's about inducting the not-nearly-so-bad guys.

So what that Cobb could slur, brawl with, lynch, and murder people. It was people like him that kept black men out of the MLB for 100 years, but who cares? As long as we have Negro League voters all over the place in the 21st Century, all those "coloreds" are getting their just desserts, right?

This is one of the reasons the Hall is a joke. Comiskey could fix games, but Joe Jackson couldn't? Rose couldn't place a bet that his team would win? C'mon, how many games do ya think Papa Bell fixed? We'll never know. Just like we'll never know how many homers Gibson hit. Geez, we've got players now being elected who were great, but were merely too old to play in the Negro Leagues! Wonder how many have been overlooked. ...or overrated. ...or how many fixed games they were never in.

Gimme a break. The MLBHOF will continue to be a joke until the numbers are allowed to speak for themselves wholly, not selectively. And... since those numbers will never be completely known, the Hall will continue to be a joke. Induct Rose and it's still a joke, but at least it'd be a justified joke.

[runningshoes]

"That was then. This is now."

What kind of reasoning is this? Given that reasoning, Rose should be in the Hall simply because "that was then, this is now."

"You're right. Remove them from the Hall of Fame immediately."

More terrific reasoning. This isn't about removing the bad guys. It's about inducting the not-nearly-so-bad guys.

So what that Cobb could slur, brawl with, lynch, and murder people. It was people like him that kept black men out of the MLB for 100 years, but who cares? As long as we have Negro League voters all over the place in the 21st Century, all those "coloreds" are getting their just desserts, right?

This is one of the reasons the Hall is a joke. Comiskey could fix games, but Joe Jackson couldn't? Rose couldn't place a bet that his team would win? C'mon, how many games do ya think Papa Bell fixed? We'll never know. Just like we'll never know how many homers Gibson hit. Geez, we've got players now being elected who were great, but were merely too old to play in the Negro Leagues! Wonder how many have been overlooked. ...or overrated. ...or how many fixed games they were never in.

Gimme a break. The MLBHOF will continue to be a joke until the numbers are allowed to speak for themselves wholly, not selectively. And... since those numbers will never be completely known, the Hall will continue to be a joke. Induct Rose and it's still a joke, but at least it'd be a justified joke.

Rose doesn't and shouldn't get a pass simply because Cobb and his like did, but, on the other hand, a HOF full of reprobate seems much more appropriate and representative, doesn't it?

[starkeeper]

No!! Drop it!! Forget it!! Get over it!!

He is a lying cheater!!!

[milladrive]

Oh, stop it, starkeeper.


Rose doesn't and shouldn't get a pass simply because Cobb and his like did, but, on the other hand, a HOF full of reprobate seems much more appropriate and representative, doesn't it?

You're right, in a way. ...I think. heh

There shouldn't be a comparison to other players' pasts and their ill-deeds. The numbers, as best as we know them, should speak for themselves.

I have nothing against people like ___ and ___ being in the Hall. Or even ___.

But no one puts up Rose's numbers by cheating. ...unlike future HOFer Bonds, Jr.

[Skin & Bones]

Oh, stop it, starkeeper.



You're right, in a way. ...I think. heh

There shouldn't be a comparison to other players' pasts and their ill-deeds. The numbers, as best as we know them, should speak for themselves.

I have nothing against people like ___ and ___ being in the Hall. Or even ___.

But no one puts up Rose's numbers by cheating. ...unlike future HOFer Bonds, Jr.

Actually, Rose did cheat.

[runningshoes]

But no one puts up Rose's numbers by cheating. ...unlike future HOFer Bonds, Jr.

You got a good point there.

[Goooooo]

That was then. This is now.

1) Do you support Kenesaw Mountain Landis for the HOF?
2) Do you support Cap Anson for the HOF?
3) Do you support Charles Comiskey for the HOF?
4) Do you support Tris Speaker for the HOF?
5) Do you support Ty Cobb for the HOF?
The first two are largely responsible for shutting blacks out of the game. Helll we could maybe even throw Ban Johnson and all those other racist executives in the pile with anson and Landis. I don't know people can call me crazy, but I'd say shutting out entire races of people in your sport for over a half century is a way worse crime than gambling. If these losers are in, rose belongs too.

[runningshoes]

1) Do you support Kenesaw Mountain Landis for the HOF?
2) Do you support Cap Anson for the HOF?
3) Do you support Charles Comiskey for the HOF?
4) Do you support Tris Speaker for the HOF?
5) Do you support Ty Cobb for the HOF?
The first two are largely responsible for shutting blacks out of the game. Helll we could maybe even throw Ban Johnson and all those other racist executives in the pile with anson and Landis. I don't know people can call me crazy, but I'd say shutting out entire races of people in your sport for over a half century is a way worse crime than gambling. If these losers are in, rose belongs too.

That's stuff is all over, and i'm not quite sure if you're aware, but that was a long time ago.

But hey, if you feel you can walk in there and start pulling plaques off the wall, knock yourself out.

[honus14]

Should Rose go in the Hall?
No.
Hell no.
F**k no.
Over my dead body.
No.

[milladrive]

Actually, Rose did cheat.

In what way? I'm just curious. Did he shorten the distance between Home and First for his at-bats? Did he pay off the opposing team's fielders so that he could "hit'em where they ain't"? I'm just wondering how he cheated in order to become a great player.



Should Rose go in the Hall?
No.
Hell no.
F**k no.
Over my dead body.
No.


And you feel this way becausssse...?

[Skin & Bones]

[QUOTE=milladrive]In what way? I'm just curious. Did he shorten the distance between Home and First for his at-bats? Did he pay off the opposing team's fielders so that he could "hit'em where they ain't"? I'm just wondering how he cheated in order to become a great player.[QUOTE]

Well, outside of Gambling on the game, which is cheating ( the second worst way, after throwing games), he allegedly corked his bat, and used amphetamines. His son also was a dealer of anabolic steroids, but that doesn't prove anything other than he's a criminal like his father.

[honus14]

And you feel this way becausssse...?

I've been spending the last day or so trying to come up with a short answer to this, and I've failed, so here's the long one. Actually, three answers.

THE FLIPPANT BUT NONETHELESS TRUE ANSWER

He's banned from baseball. It would be ridiculous to accord baseball's highest honor to someone who is banned from the game.

THE MORE LENGTHY RATIONAL ANSWER

Peter Edward Rose violated a rule of the game, a rule for which the punishment is banishment. Not only was that the potential punishment, it was the punishment he himself accepted and agreed to. He then turns around and says, in effect, "oh, when I agreed to a lifetime ban, I thought you meant Giamatti's lifetime." Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If he wanted a hearing, he could have had one. And he still would have been banned for life.

The comparison to Cobb, Anson, and all the others don't have anything to do with it. They were not banned from the game. Cobb was acquitted. Anson reflected the prevailing values of his time. None of them was ever found to have violated a rule, the punishment for which is a lifetime ban.

As Bill James wrote, it's like going to jail. Is John Mark Karr a bad guy? A pervert? A royal schmuck? Sure. But Colorado doesn't get to lock him up for that; they only get to lock him up if he committed a crime there. So he gets to go free. Same thing with Anson. Was he a butthole? A racist? A guy who liked to dress in costumes on the field? Sure. But you don't get to ban him for that. You only get to ban him if he broke a rule, the punishment for which is a lifetime ban.

THE IRRATIONAL BUT FUNDAMENTAL TO THE WAY I RESPONDED ANSWER

Milladrive, I don't know how old you are, but I'm 45 (will be in a couple of weeks, anyway). I grew up watching Rose play ball. This ugly little guy, obviously not blessed with size or speed, walked onto the field like he owned it, slammed his helmet onto his head, ran to first after a walk, and somehow built himself, apparently through sheer force of will, into somebody who could hit .330. Many of us imitated his barrel-chested walk. Some of us even still incorporate his uniform number into screen names on message boards, although we usually claim it's in honor of Ernie Banks. :laugh

And then, he trashed it all. He played himself, as a manager, long beyond any reasonable effectiveness, to chase the all-time hit record. His self-aggrandizement went beyond self-parody into the land of the pathetic. He changed uniforms several times during games so he could sell "the" shirt he wore in one record-breaking game or another. He started signing his autograph with "ATHL" after his name -- All Time Hit Leader, like it was part of his damned name.

And then, of course, we all discovered that he was associating with gamblers, that he bet, that he bet heavily, that he bet on baseball.

Now, of course, he assures us that he never bet against the Reds.

I wouldn't believe him if he told me the sky was blue.

He sold us out. He sold ME out. He can use the "I'm not a role model" line if he wants, but he WAS one. That's what athletes are about: "Job description: Hero." And he was the guy, the one guy, who played the game like all of us thought we would have played, if we weren't fat, if we'd had better coaches, if, if, if . . .

But it turns out it was all about the money, after all.

And that's my emotional reason, and why my response was so strong.

(And yes, I know this applies to many of the others as well. If there was a good reason to ban Anson, Hornsby, or Cobb, I'd be on them just as much.)

Thanks for the opportunity to vent. Where should I send the $200/hour psychotherapy fee? :hp

[Chisox]

borderline? your joking right? apart from being the all-time hits leader, pete had 10 seasons of 200 hits or more, 10 seasons of batting .310 or higher, never struck out more than 76 times in a year, 4 years of 40+ doubles, 4 seasons of batting .330+, 5 seasons of 210+ hits. Pete Rose was alot of things. a Gambler, yes, an *******, yes, but one thing he never will be is borderline

Depends on what your looking at. Percentage wise he is very borderline for someone who spent over 1000 games at first base and the corner outfields combined, respectively, so his over 1,000 between 2B and 3B combined gets kind of lessened. He doesn't rank in the top 100 in any % I can find, and usually mid-pack or near it.

Now, his totals are some of the very best of all-time, even if they are not in some categories. He's still one of the 15 highest all-time in all-around bases.

I had him somewhere between 10-15 usually (and I take totals, true seasonal, and %s equally without giving any thought to peak), but I'm thinking that I wasn't giving him enough credit for his era and infield play, so in very preliminary ranks, I've moved him up to 5th or 6th (I don't have them with me.)

[64Cards]

Read this today in the local fishwrap, for $299, you can get get a baseball autographed by Rose that says, "I'm sorry I bet on baseball. Pete Rose" For an extra 50 bucks, he will also personalize it, by putting a first name on it.

I'm not making this up.:noidea

[Fuzzy Bear]

Read this today in the local fishwrap, for $299, you can get get a baseball autographed by Rose that says, "I'm sorry I bet on baseball. Pete Rose" For an extra 50 bucks, he will also personalize it, by putting a first name on it.

I'm not making this up.:noidea

Are Visa and MasterCard accepted? :eek:

[Captain Cold Nose]

Are Visa and MasterCard accepted? :eek:
Cheaper than what the auction houses are expecting.

[jalbright]

Are Visa and MasterCard accepted? :eek:

If not, he'd probably accept chips from any big casino..... ;)

Jim Albright

[ChrisLDuncan]

Does Pete Rose deserve the hall?

P.S. I am pretty sure this has been discussed multiple times so if it has just delete the thread.

[STLCards2]

P.S. I am pretty sure this has been discussed multiple times so if it has just delete the thread.

Just a few times.:D

[ChrisLDuncan]

Just a few times.:D

So what was the consensus????


BTW as long as he didn't gamble against himself I'm fine with it, and as far as I know he didn't bet against himself so it's all good.

[Seattle1]

So what was the consensus????

Everybody wants him to be accepted into the Hall of Fame.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Does Pete Rose deserve the hall?

P.S. I am pretty sure this has been discussed multiple times so if it has just delete the thread.
Just a suggestion, Chris, if you're not sure if a subject has been discussed in the past, use the search function of the site. There have been several threads on Rose and his HOF candidacy in the very recent past. The same goes for Derek Jeter, who has yet another thread asking if he is a viable candidate, which, of course, would be the case, as despite having a loaded lineup with the highest payroll in baseball, Jeter is the only player on the Yankees responsible for their success, thus all the credit is his. As well, he is the sole player in all of sports history to display any leadership qualities whatsoever, whatever those are, skills others players simply don't have.

[KCGHOST]

It has been discussed ad nauseam and the answer depends on how you view it. Those that say "Yes" are rabid and will not listen to any objections to his candidacy and a vociferous in his defense. They whine long and loud about him not being in the HoF. Those of us opposed to him are not as rabid and are tired of arguing with stone walls. We tend to just say "No" and move on. My guess is the groups are split 50-50, maybe 60-40 Pro-Rose. In no case has Rose ever gotten 75% to agree he should be in. I think that pretty well reflects what would happen if Rose ever got on a BBWAA ballot. The VC wouldn't elect Babe Ruth, so he's toast there, too.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Just a suggestion, Chris, if you're not sure if a subject has been discussed in the past, use the search function of the site. There have been several threads on Rose and his HOF candidacy in the very recent past. The same goes for Derek Jeter, who has yet another thread asking if he is a viable candidate, which, of course, would be the case, as despite having a loaded lineup with the highest payroll in baseball, Jeter is the only player on the Yankees responsible for their success, thus all the credit is his. As well, he is the sole player in all of sports history to display any leadership qualities whatsoever, whatever those are, skills others players simply don't have.

Umm, yeah I didn't start the Jeter thread. Yeah you can turn off the sarcasm, like I said Jeter's a leader in the same way that Joe Montana was. I'm starting to wonder if some people here actually watch baseball.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Umm, yeah I didn't start the Jeter thread. Yeah you can turn off the sarcasm, like I said Jeter's a leader in the same way that Joe Montana was. I'm starting to wonder if some people here actually watch baseball.
The Jeter comment wasn't geared toward you, specifically. it's the same stuff we've been hearing long before you got here. Thanks.
I'm also wondering is some people here actually watch baseball, because there are 32 teams playing, and treating a single player like he's the only one with inangibles is kind of myopic. Jeter is great, and i fully endorse his HOF candidacy, but one reason other players regard him as overrated is he gets so much credit for things other players do, but they don't have x amount of all stars as teammates, so they don't see the postseason every year.

Sorry for hijacking the thread, but consider this a call to use the search function of the site without much tact.

[The Kid]

C'mon! the hall of fame is about what you did on the field, not off the field. And he wasn't shaving off pionts from the game, so I'd put him in. He may be an idiot, but he was a great player. :grouchy

[brihev]

Paul Hornung got the yellow jacket and went to Canton after sitting out one NFL season for gambling. Works for me that Pete should be in.





C'mon! the hall of fame is about what you did on the field, not off the field. And he wasn't shaving off pionts from the game, so I'd put him in. He may be an idiot, but he was a great player. :grouchy

[Colorado Express]

Based on statistics and performance on the field, yes he should get in, but he broke a written rule that denies him that priviledge, so he should not be in!!!

[JimAbbott]

Rose is a lying useless scumball who should never be enshrined

[RuthMayBond]

Rose is a lying useless scumball who should never be enshrinedDon't hold back, tell us how you REALLY feel :laugh

[Captain Cold Nose]

Rose is a lying useless scumball who should never be enshrined
Useless?
We're still talking about him, aren't we?
How many records do you hold?
Why do people take things like this so personal? There are thousands of people in society worse than Rose, worse than T.O., worse than the Miami player who used his helmet, yet people act like these people they don't know from Adam attacked their sister and kicked their dog.

[JimAbbott]

I met the man in 1986 while he was engaged in the stuff for which he got banned. Trust me he is a scumball

[Captain Cold Nose]

I met the man in 1986 while he was engaged in the stuff for which he got banned. Trust me he is a scumball
I've met plenty of gamblers. I've met Rose. Yeah, there are some shady folk who get caught up in that world. Scumlike, maybe, but I've met far worse types.

[LostWorld]

Yes, Pete Rose belongs in the Hall.

There is no evidence Rose did anything as manager or player that was detrimental to the Reds' long term or short term interests. Speculate away. There is a difference between betting on your team to WIN versus betting on your team to LOSE. Rose only bet on his team to win. Yes, it's still against the rules, but not that big a deal.

[SABR Matt]

Yes actually it is. If you bet on your team to win, you're going to make different managerial choices than you would normally...say your ace is on the hill. He's pitched a lot lately and his arm is feeling a little tired, but he's battled his way through 7 strong innings. Your team leads 3-2 as you get to the 8th inning. Do you pull your tired ace for a set-up man you trust less for any one game? If you're just playing for the best interests of your team, you pull your ace and protect his arm. If you're Pete Rose and you've got 50 grand on the game...might you stay with your safer bet? What if he then misses a month due to tendenitis all because you left him out there too long a few times in a row to win bets?

[JimAbbott]

Yes actually it is. If you bet on your team to win, you're going to make different managerial choices than you would normally...say your ace is on the hill. He's pitched a lot lately and his arm is feeling a little tired, but he's battled his way through 7 strong innings. Your team leads 3-2 as you get to the 8th inning. Do you pull your tired ace for a set-up man you trust less for any one game? If you're just playing for the best interests of your team, you pull your ace and protect his arm. If you're Pete Rose and you've got 50 grand on the game...might you stay with your safer bet? What if he then misses a month due to tendenitis all because you left him out there too long a few times in a row to win bets?


Well said Matt

[Captain Cold Nose]

Yes actually it is. If you bet on your team to win, you're going to make different managerial choices than you would normally...say your ace is on the hill. He's pitched a lot lately and his arm is feeling a little tired, but he's battled his way through 7 strong innings. Your team leads 3-2 as you get to the 8th inning. Do you pull your tired ace for a set-up man you trust less for any one game? If you're just playing for the best interests of your team, you pull your ace and protect his arm. If you're Pete Rose and you've got 50 grand on the game...might you stay with your safer bet? What if he then misses a month due to tendenitis all because you left him out there too long a few times in a row to win bets?
Do you suppose Rose did that with Soto, who many feel Rose ruined?
Don't get me wrong based on my last comments to Jim, I am not condoning Rose's actions at all, I'm just putting what he did in perspective in the grand scheme of things. I have zero problems with his baseball punishment.
I honestly don't think Rose intentionally did anything to sabotage his team chances so he could cover a bet. But the fact he so easily could have compromised things justifies the penalties. He was so ego driven he did what he thought would give him the best result. And that included playing himself when other players were better. To him, that was the best option available. He was just a bad manager and a bad gambler.

[jalbright]

The only thing I will say is I was under the impression that Rose's bets on his own team were uniform in amount, on his team to win, and on every game. Those things don't erase the dynamic Matt outlined, but with that betting pattern, it should greatly reduce it, as he'd have the same issues to face in the next game. It's an issue a manager is always dealing with--what's good in the short term versus what's good in the longer term of a season. If my understanding of Pete's betting pattern is correct, I seriously doubt his bets had any effect on his managerial decisions.

Jim Albright

[KHenry14]

Paul Hornung got the yellow jacket and went to Canton after sitting out one NFL season for gambling. Works for me that Pete should be in.


Sorry this parallel doesn't quite work. Hornung, unlike Rose, fully admitted what he did, showed remorse, did his time, and ended up in the HOF. Had Rose done the same thing, he would also be in his HOF. But instead, he chose to lie for 15 years, making his supporters appear to be fools all that time, then when he sees that wont get him into the HOF, he admits his guilt in a book.

Rose's isn't remorseful and only admitted his guilt so he could make money. That's is completely different from Hornung's case. Rose's arrogance is keeping him out of the Hall. In other words, he has no shame.

[cubsfan1073]

Should Pete Rose be in the Hall of Fame?

[the flatbrush rep]

a long time ago. he's the all time hits leader. there's racists and drunks in the hof, those are worse sins then gambling. and if mark "andro" mcgwire gets in, rose should definetly get in.

[cubsfan1073]

I say he definitely should

All-time hits leader
All-time at bats leader
Career .375 OBP

I don't care that he bet on baseball. The Hall should be a place for the best players, regardless of what they have done. Players have done worse, Ty Cobb was a huge racist and once went into the stands and beat a black fan. Juan Marichal once beat a player with a bat and sent him to the hospital. To me, those are worse than betting on baseball.

[the flatbrush rep]

I say he definitely should

All-time hits leader
All-time at bats leader
Career .375 OBP

I don't care that he bet on baseball. The Hall should be a place for the best players, regardless of what they have done. Players have done worse, Ty Cobb was a huge racist and once went into the stands and beat a black fan. Juan Marichal once beat a player with a bat and sent him to the hospital. To me, those are worse than betting on baseball.

damn skippy. don't forget perry who threw spitballs. atleast rose numbers are legit.

[cubsfan1073]

damn skippy. don't forget perry who threw spitballs. atleast rose numbers are legit.
You're right I forgot about him.

[The Kid]

I've said it once and I'll say it again: It's outragous that Rose isn't in the hall. This guy is the all time hit leader. This guy may have been an idiot, but he was a great ballplayer. I also think Eddie Cicotte and Joe Jackson should be in the hall.

[Jim Abbott]

Just say no to Rose

[milladrive]

I've said it once and I'll say it again: It's outragous that Rose isn't in the hall. This guy is the all time hit leader. This guy may have been an idiot, but he was a great ballplayer. I also think Eddie Cicotte and Joe Jackson should be in the hall.

I second that emotion.

And, just for the record, if being a scumball meant ineligibility, Cobb (and his ilk) wouldn't be there.

Should we also go over again the underhandedness of people like Ban Johnson, John McGraw, Charlie Comiskey, et al? This discussion is old, and it merely goes round in circles.

Just say yes to Rose.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I've said it once and I'll say it again: It's outragous that Rose isn't in the hall. This guy is the all time hit leader. This guy may have been an idiot, but he was a great ballplayer. I also think Eddie Cicotte and Joe Jackson should be in the hall.
He might be an idiot or a genius, but he blatantly broke baseball's one unbreakable rule. It has nothing to do with what kind of person he was. It's more outrageous to show leniency because he played well on the field. One rule. That's all they're asked not to break. He couldn't do it and he got caught. Too bad. Sorry, but your seasoned fries are good.

[catcher24]

Absolutely not. I agree 100% with CNN and KHenry14 a few posts up. Every baseball player from the minors to the majors know, from day one, that there is only one thing that will get thme banned from baseball. Rose knew the rule; hell, he was the manager and had to bring up to his players every year. And then he lied about until it was to his financial advantage to finally admit the truth. And if you're even thinking about letting someone like Jackson or Cicotte in, you might as well turn the game over to the gamblers, because you have no way to control it at that point. The legitimacy of games would be in constant question. And as far as McGwire is concerned, please remember that the substance he was taking was, at that time, NOT illegal, and he freely admitted using it. There's a vast difference between doing something people might not like, but is legal under the rules, and breaking the cardinal rule of the game. But then again, that's the main problem with our society today. No one is held responsible for their actions.