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

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

I agree that Rose should not be a "lifetime" ban. I might agree that he's been banned long enough. I might agree that contrition is not a necessary condition to lift his ban.

Rose did not commit an offense as serious as the Black Sox and others did; he didn't throw games. That distinction between Rose and the Black Sox cries out for recognition.

I agree Rose is a scumbag, but I also think it's in baseball's interest to find a way to credibly enshrine into the HOF its career hits leader.

[G.Costanza]

I believe in second chances and thought Rose should be in for years,but the way his face looked when he told Peter Jenings(i think)r.i.p,that he was lying made me change my mind,and the way he finally admitted it to sell a book.:ughh

[bigredsfan1]

I just read that the Reds hof is doing a special thing on Pete Rose, honoring his career. If you get a chance, check out the reds.com page and watch the video that auto-launches. It's very cool!

Finally, something good from the Reds this off season!

[Jim Abbott]

I want Rose kept out of the hall forever. Thank god MLB agrees with me.

[milladrive]

I want Rose kept out of the hall forever. Thank god MLB agrees with me.

I'm curious, why do you have such animosity and disdain toward the man?

[Old Sweater]

47 say no, 39 say yes. I find that surprising, glad the governing board has more sence then this.

505 replies, 7,643 views and only 86 votes? Whats up with that?

[Fuzzy Bear]

47 say no, 39 say yes. I find that surprising, glad the governing board has more sence then this.

505 replies, 7,643 views and only 86 votes? Whats up with that?

People are tired of the issue.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Pete should of been in a long time ago. Cobb killed a man, he's in, Rose should be too. The guy did nothing but play his heart out day in and day out. i don't see whats the big deal about gambling to win. throwing games is different....pete didnt do that.
Cobb did not kill a man. There is zero real evidence of that actually happening. It's called embellishment. People who still contend this have never bothered with the facts of the matter. :rolleyes:

[milladrive]

Cobb did not kill a man. There is zero real evidence of that actually happening. It's called embellishment. People who still contend this have never bothered with the facts of the matter. :rolleyes:

Very true. While Cobb was a racist, extremely ill-tempered, and prone to violent outbursts, there's never been evidence of involvement with something as horrific as murder. Wonder how that silly notion got started.

Anyhoo, I do find it quite refreshing to see that those who are voting are pretty well evenly split on the issue of Rose. For a long time, there have been loud vocal assertions on both sides, and the poll is reflecting it. Good to see it's not lopsided.

Lastly, while people may be tired of the issue, it won't go away until the ban is lifted. Until then, we can expect the arguments both for and against his induction to continue.

[jeterMVP]

as a player without a doubt

as a manager...heck no

[catcher24]

throwing games is different....pete didnt do that.

Well, at least Pete SAYS he didn't do that, and we all know at this point how trustworthy Pete's word is!:rolleyes:

[jalbright]

Well, at least Pete SAYS he didn't do that, and we all know at this point how trustworthy Pete's word is!:rolleyes:

I agree Pete's word isn't worth the paper it's recorded on--but where's any evidence, after all these years, that Pete did throw games? With the lowlifes he dealt with, I think it a lock that if one of them had that bombshell to use, they would have sold him out long ago, whether as a get out of jail card or for money. That being the case, it's highly likely that Pete never went further than gambling a set amount each time on the Reds, which is what I believe the evidence we've seen indicates.

Even scum like Pete Rose (or worse) deserve not to be convicted merely because they're scum. Evidence, my lawman friend, evidence!

Jim Albright

[milladrive]

With the lowlifes he dealt with, I think it a lock that if one of them had that bombshell to use, they would have sold him out long ago, whether as a get out of jail card or for money.

Good point.

Edit: Come to think of it, I actually should've quoted the whole post.

[catcher24]

Jim - I don't disagree with what you say. Personally, I don't believe he threw any games either , because of the fire he always had to win. However, that fire to win could have worked against him if he was losing bet after bet and going deeper and deeper into debt. And remember, he still wants to live, as do the scumbags he dealt with. If he actually threw games, perhaps the people he was dealing with made it abundantly clear that if that piece of information ever got out, Pete Rose would become the late Pete Rose. And that went for his associates, too. It does happen, believe me. But there certainly is no evidence that he threw any games.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that the only proof we have either way on whether or not he threw games is his word that he didn't. And as you so accurately describe, his word isn't worth the paper it's written on. Since that does leave the remote possibility that he threw games in order to win a bet (or as manager perhaps "waited a bit too long" to remove a struggling pitcher), we can't state with 100% accuracy that he didn't throw games. Since that remote possibility still exists, he shouldn't be permitted into the hall.

[Sliding Billy]

Jim - I don't disagree with what you say. Personally, I don't believe he threw any games either , because of the fire he always had to win. However, that fire to win could have worked against him if he was losing bet after bet and going deeper and deeper into debt. And remember, he still wants to live, as do the scumbags he dealt with. If he actually threw games, perhaps the people he was dealing with made it abundantly clear that if that piece of information ever got out, Pete Rose would become the late Pete Rose. And that went for his associates, too. It does happen, believe me. But there certainly is no evidence that he threw any games.
Throwing games is worse than not throwing games, granted, but for a manager to bet on his own team is still utterly corrupt.

If he has a bet down, there are so many ways a manager can increase an edge when winning, or clutch at a straw when losing, that will hurt the team tomorrow, when there's nothing riding on the game--except, of course, your teammates' paychecks and fans' hopes.

If I'd been Pete's bookie, I wouldn't have bothered trying to get him to throw games: I'd just keep track of the ones he was betting on--and maybe suggest it would be a good idea to start Perez at first instead of himself.

[brett]

I don't care what Pete did off the field (yes it was wrong) but if Barry Bonds is going to be a Hall of Famer (assuming he doesn't use steroids) why isn't Pete?


1) Bonds was probably about 2.5 to 3 times more valuable above replacement level than Rose.

2) The commissioner basically told Rose: "It is essential for the future of MLB that you tell the truth. If you don't you will be subject to a lifetime ban." And Rose lied to him anyway.

3) There was no penalty for steroids, and even today, its a multiple game ban. Everyone knew that gambling on baseball could carry a lifetime ban.

[Ubiquitous]

1)

2) The commissioner basically told Rose: "It is essential for the future of MLB that you tell the truth. If you don't you will be subject to a lifetime ban." And Rose lied to him anyway.


No actually it didn't matter whether or not Rose told the truth. If he had told the truth he would still be banned from baseball. Rose was banned from baseball in an agreement which explicitly states that Rose acknowledges no wrong doing and in return for accepting this ban Baseball will stop investigating Rose.

Best case scenario for Rose is that he comes clean in early 80's late 70's back when he might very well have not been betting on baseball. At that point he probably would have got a slap on the wrist, at least we would call it that compare to what he ended up getting. Probably a suspension of some sort and that is it. But by the time this all came to a head it was too late for that and telling the truth wasn't going to save Rose's neck from the chopping block.

[catcher24]

and telling the truth wasn't going to save Rose's neck from the chopping block.

Very true. However, telling the truth all along would very likely have maintained , or even increased,support for Rose among the common fans. Obviously, many still support him strongly, but I think that support would've been even stronger had he been honest from the start. I know several fans who supported Rose up to the release of his book, and his admission at that point that he'd been lying all those years. They simply felt used, and had no further commitment to supporting Rose. But IMHO it's always been the $$$ to Pete, so when he found an opportunity to make more dollars by finally coming clean, he made them. As you can tell, I personally have no use for the man, and never have. His nickname was "Charley Hustle" (very appropriate, in retrospect), but to me personally he'll always be "Charley Cheap Shot".

[Old Sweater]

His nickname was "Charley Hustle" (very appropriate, in retrospect), but to me personally he'll always be "Charley Cheap Shot".

There is even controversy over his nickname.


Whitey Ford gave him the derisive nickname "Charlie Hustle" after witnessing Rose sprint to first base after drawing a walk. Despite (or perhaps because of) the manner in which Ford intended it, Rose adopted that nickname as a badge of honor. In Ken Burns' documentary "Baseball," Mickey Mantle claimed that Ford gave him the nickname after Rose, playing in left field, made an effort to climb the fence to try to catch a Mantle home run that everyone could see was headed over everything.

Myself, I believe Mantle.

[Eastvanmungo]

Yes he should be in... but not 'til after he's dead.

[jalbright]

Jim - I don't disagree with what you say. Personally, I don't believe he threw any games either , because of the fire he always had to win. However, that fire to win could have worked against him if he was losing bet after bet and going deeper and deeper into debt. And remember, he still wants to live, as do the scumbags he dealt with. If he actually threw games, perhaps the people he was dealing with made it abundantly clear that if that piece of information ever got out, Pete Rose would become the late Pete Rose. And that went for his associates, too. It does happen, believe me. But there certainly is no evidence that he threw any games.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that the only proof we have either way on whether or not he threw games is his word that he didn't. And as you so accurately describe, his word isn't worth the paper it's written on. Since that does leave the remote possibility that he threw games in order to win a bet (or as manager perhaps "waited a bit too long" to remove a struggling pitcher), we can't state with 100% accuracy that he didn't throw games. Since that remote possibility still exists, he shouldn't be permitted into the hall.
If you want to keep Rose out based on what he did, that's a more than defensible position. But the moment you cross over into withholding the honor based on your (understandable) dislike of the man and what he might have done, you've crossed the line into a witch hunt. That is something I cannot condemn too strongly.

How do we know Babe Ruth wasn't a serial killer? Never mind that there's no evidence of it, but he had a strong dislike for rules and certainly broke more than a few laws. If I was an ardent Temperance Union type (not a chance, BTW), Ruth certainly provided plenty of drunken behavoir to get my dander up. And the serial killer charge against Ruth is based on very little more than the charge Pete threw games. The two charges are similarly (to use your own term above) "remote". Witch hunts are never acceptable in my book.

Jim Albright

[catcher24]

Posted by Jalbright:
Witch hunts are never acceptable in my book.

No, they never are acceptable, and I am as adverse to them as you are. And I take offense that you imply that is my intention. I don't say keep Rose out because he may have thrown games, nor because I don't like him. Obviously, if you kept people out because you don't like them, Ty Cobb would still be on the outside looking in. I say keep Rose out because he broke the number one rule in baseball. A rule that is posted in every clubhouse, majors and minors. A rule that is drilled into every professional players head by managers, coaches and teammates. That is : DON'T BET ON BASEBALL!! Easy to understand, even for an egotistical maniac like Pete Rose. Yet he simply ignored it, figuring he was above that rule and/or hoping he wouldn't get caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Well, he was. So he doesn't go in. Case closed. No witch hunt, just facts. Facts he has finally admitted, by the way.

[yanks0714]

Yes he should be in... but not 'til after he's dead.

Exactly. He should be in, or at least allowed on the ballot, for what he did on the field.

But keep his stinking butt out of organized baseball forever and a day.

Induct after he's dead and gone. That way we don't have to listen or see him give his acceptance speech. I don't want him thinking he 'won'. I want him to continue to wallow in self pity.

BTW, I think I heard that the Reds were going to do something this year to 'honor' Pete Rose. Is MLB going to stand by and allow that to happen?

[jalbright]

No, they never are acceptable, and I am as adverse to them as you are. And I take offense that you imply that is my intention. I don't say keep Rose out because he may have thrown games, nor because I don't like him. Obviously, if you kept people out because you don't like them, Ty Cobb would still be on the outside looking in. I say keep Rose out because he broke the number one rule in baseball. A rule that is posted in every clubhouse, majors and minors. A rule that is drilled into every professional players head by managers, coaches and teammates. That is : DON'T BET ON BASEBALL!! Easy to understand, even for an egotistical maniac like Pete Rose. Yet he simply ignored it, figuring he was above that rule and/or hoping he wouldn't get caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Well, he was. So he doesn't go in. Case closed. No witch hunt, just facts. Facts he has finally admitted, by the way.

That is different from what you wrote previously, as I read it:

Since that does leave the remote possibility that he threw games in order to win a bet (or as manager perhaps "waited a bit too long" to remove a struggling pitcher), we can't state with 100% accuracy that he didn't throw games. Since that remote possibility still exists, he shouldn't be permitted into the hall.

That is what I was reacting to. Forgive me if I interpret that as smacking of a witch hunt. Like I said in my post decrying witch hunts, if you want to punish him for what he did (as you expressed in the first quote above, but later in this thread). that is an entirely different matter. I was reacting to what you expressed in this thread, nothing more and nothing less.

Jim Albright

[Sliding Billy]

Induct after he's dead and gone. That way we don't have to listen or see him give his acceptance speech. I don't want him thinking he 'won'. I want him to continue to wallow in self pity.


I'm sorry, I just cannot understand that line of thinking. It's not about Pete's tender sensibilities, it's about the affront to fans of a clean game, not to mention the memory of those players in the hall who played the game square. What did Jackie Robinson and Edd Roush ever do to deserve to have their plaques next to his?

Honestly, who wants him, and why? I simply do not get it. His records are what they are, whether he's in or not. Pete should be in because of what he did on the field? Well, one of the things he did on the field was manage a team he was betting on. I cannot believe the naivete of those who think that's harmless or venal at worst.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Honestly, who wants him, and why? I simply do not get it. His records are what they are, whether he's in or not. Pete should be in because of what he did on the field? Well, one of the things he did on the field was manage a team he was betting on. I cannot believe the naivete of those who think that's harmless or venal at worst.

I don't particularly like Rose, but this is a bit much.

There is no evidence that Rose threw games. Or conspired to throw games.

As a player, Rose played to win, all the time. He also holds an important record, and if he was selfish in his pursuit of it, the Reds wanted him to get that record; they're part of the selfishness. That's been true of a lot of major records; players selfishly sought them; teams selfishly allowed it because of the publicity it would bring.

Short of proof that he threw games or conspired to do so, I cannot support a lifetime ban for Rose.

[Sliding Billy]

I don't particularly like Rose, but this is a bit much.

There is no evidence that Rose threw games. Or conspired to throw games.


So far as I can tell, no one has suggested that he did. He bet on baseball and was banned for it, like the rule says. Why should he get a break? What are the compelling circumstances that make him an exceptional case? Because he's Charley Hustle he should get a pass? Are great players, granting for the sake of argument that he was, a law unto themselves?

[yanks0714]

I'm sorry, I just cannot understand that line of thinking. It's not about Pete's tender sensibilities, it's about the affront to fans of a clean game, not to mention the memory of those players in the hall who played the game square. What did Jackie Robinson and Edd Roush ever do to deserve to have their plaques next to his?

I couldn't care less about Pete's sensibilities. Quite honestly, there are a good many 'fans' who don't understand that Pete agreed to lifetime ban from baseball. Pretty much an admission of guilt.
As for your question about Jackie and Roush, I don't understand what you're getting at.

Honestly, who wants him, and why? I simply do not get it. His records are what they are, whether he's in or not. Pete should be in because of what he did on the field? Well, one of the things he did on the field was manage a team he was betting on. I cannot believe the naivete of those who think that's harmless or venal at worst.

On the field as a player, not as a manager. You seem to be missing what I said...put him in the HOF or on the ballot at least for what he did on the field {as a player} but keep him banned from any MLB activities / participation. And don't put him in until he's gone so as to not besmirch the HOF induction ceremony where we would have to see and listen to him.

Remember, the HOF is not affiliated nor controlled by MLB. It is a privately owned entity.

[Sliding Billy]

On the field as a player, not as a manager. You seem to be missing what I said...put him in the HOF or on the ballot at least for what he did on the field {as a player} but keep him banned from any MLB activities / participation. And don't put him in until he's gone so as to not besmirch the HOF induction ceremony where we would have to see and listen to him.

Remember, the HOF is not affiliated nor controlled by MLB. It is a privately owned entity.
I understand: The MLB ban on Rose does not apply to the HOF. Oscar Charleston is in the HOF although he was banned from MLB. Nevertheless, the HOF is the highest honor awarded to MLB players, the HOF is sensitive to MLB principles, and the electors are well-connected with MLB, as I think they should be.

For me, the issue is not Rose-the-player vs. Rose-the-manager: The issue is Rose-the-human-being. There is a character clause in the HOF selection principles. That's the only basis for excluding Rose, and would be so even if he were found to have bet against his own team a couple of times, or even to have thrown an inconsequential game or two (neither of which I believe to be the case), since those actions, considered strictly in the light of his value as a player, would not reduce that value to less than HOF standards.

That's what I meant when I said his induction would be an affront to fans and to the memory of honest players like Robinson and Roush, who would flank Rose in the alphabetical HOF rolls.

I also understand that some members of the HOF are less than paragons of virtue and that some are suspected of actually throwing games. However, least-common-denominator arguments for inclusion are pretty well discredited: Hardly anyone says, "If George Kelly is in, then Bob Watson has to go in too." Similarly, if incontrovertible evidence turned up that some HOFers had been involved in throwing games, that wouldn't provide any reason at all to welcome, say, Eddie Cicotte.

So as I understand it--and please let me know if I've got it wrong--your argument for Rose's inclusion is that what he did was not so egregious that he flunks the character test. If he had bet against his team, or if he had thrown games, that would be beyond the pale. However, he probably bet on the Reds to win, and consequently was trying his best to win the games he bet on, just like everyone else on the field. Is that correct, or am I confounding your and Fuzzy Bear's position?

If so, then our positions are irreconcilable. In my view, betting on games, to win or lose, corrupts the game, insults the fans, and betrays the players. For what Rose did, for what he admitted he did, he's beyond consideration as far as I am concerned. I'm not open to tortuous arguments for putting Rose in the HOF while keeping him out of baseball per se, because his selection would disgust me. He's out; he's not going in; and I find it encouraging that once in a while MLB and the HOF get something right.

[yanks0714]

I understand: The MLB ban on Rose does not apply to the HOF. Oscar Charleston is in the HOF although he was banned from MLB. Nevertheless, the HOF is the highest honor awarded to MLB players, the HOF is sensitive to MLB principles, and the electors are well-connected with MLB, as I think they should be.

For me, the issue is not Rose-the-player vs. Rose-the-manager: The issue is Rose-the-human-being. There is a character clause in the HOF selection principles. That's the only basis for excluding Rose, and would be so even if he were found to have bet against his own team a couple of times, or even to have thrown an inconsequential game or two (neither of which I believe to be the case), since those actions, considered strictly in the light of his value as a player, would not reduce that value to less than HOF standards.

That's what I meant when I said his induction would be an affront to fans and to the memory of honest players like Robinson and Roush, who would flank Rose in the alphabetical HOF rolls.

I also understand that some members of the HOF are less than paragons of virtue and that some are suspected of actually throwing games. However, least-common-denominator arguments for inclusion are pretty well discredited: Hardly anyone says, "If George Kelly is in, then Bob Watson has to go in too." Similarly, if incontrovertible evidence turned up that some HOFers had been involved in throwing games, that wouldn't provide any reason at all to welcome, say, Eddie Cicotte.

So as I understand it--and please let me know if I've got it wrong--your argument for Rose's inclusion is that what he did was not so egregious that he flunks the character test. If he had bet against his team, or if he had thrown games, that would be beyond the pale. However, he probably bet on the Reds to win, and consequently was trying his best to win the games he bet on, just like everyone else on the field. Is that correct, or am I confounding your and Fuzzy Bear's position?

If so, then our positions are irreconcilable. In my view, betting on games, to win or lose, corrupts the game, insults the fans, and betrays the players. For what Rose did, for what he admitted he did, he's beyond consideration as far as I am concerned. I'm not open to tortuous arguments for putting Rose in the HOF while keeping him out of baseball per se, because his selection would disgust me. He's out; he's not going in; and I find it encouraging that once in a while MLB and the HOF get something right.

Even by betting on his team he could do irreparable harm that hurt his teams chances to win games down the road.

Betting on games is baseball's #1 no-no. I am differentiating Rose as a player from being a manager. As a player, I have seen no evidence that he bet on his team. Therefore, I feel he should be allowed on the HOF ballot strictly as a player.

If I had to absolutely choose whether he goes in or not....I would choose not.

[Sliding Billy]

Even by betting on his team he could do irreparable harm that hurt his teams chances to win games down the road.

Betting on games is baseball's #1 no-no. I am differentiating Rose as a player from being a manager. As a player, I have seen no evidence that he bet on his team. Therefore, I feel he should be allowed on the HOF ballot strictly as a player.

If I had to absolutely choose whether he goes in or not....I would choose not.
I'm sorry I misunderstood. Short of some Ted-Williams-like posthumous arrangement, :eek: though, I don't see how the logistics could be worked out.

[yanks0714]

I'm sorry I misunderstood. Short of some Ted-Williams-like posthumous arrangement, :eek: though, I don't see how the logistics could be worked out.

Actually it's easy. Keep the curent lockout of Rose that he's persona non grata in baseball as it is. After he kicks the bucket, put him on the HOF ballot or induct him postumously. Viola, we don't have to see him or listen to him.

[Eastvanmungo]

<snip>

I also understand that some members of the HOF are less than paragons of virtue and that some are suspected of actually throwing games. However, least-common-denominator arguments for inclusion are pretty well discredited: Hardly anyone says, "If George Kelly is in, then Bob Watson has to go in too." Similarly, if incontrovertible evidence turned up that some HOFers had been involved in throwing games, that wouldn't provide any reason at all to welcome, say, Eddie Cicotte.

</snip>


Its not the Hall of Good Guys. If you bring morals or ethics into the equation, the Hall would lose a lot of great baseball players. Based upon what Pete Rose accomplished as a player, I think he deserves to be in the Hall. Out of respect to his lifetime ban, and also because I think he's a sanctimonious ass... he shouldn't go in until after he's dead.

But if you want to get rid of people who are in the Hall that did actual damage to baseball, amongst the first you should chuck out is Cap Anson. What wrong did Jackie Robinson do to have to have his plaque in the same Hall as Anson's?

[Sliding Billy]

Its not the Hall of Good Guys. If you bring morals or ethics into the equation, the Hall would lose a lot of great baseball players. Based upon what Pete Rose accomplished as a player, I think he deserves to be in the Hall. Out of respect to his lifetime ban, and also because I think he's a sanctimonious ass... he shouldn't go in until after he's dead.

But if you want to get rid of people who are in the Hall that did actual damage to baseball, amongst the first you should chuck out is Cap Anson. What wrong did Jackie Robinson do to have to have his plaque in the same Hall as Anson's?
Well, that's an excellent question. It doesn't relate to Rose's case, though.

When Anson was voted in, it was under the racist regime that he helped create, so obviously its minions attached no moral opprobrium to his role. If his case were coming up now, I expect he'd have a tougher time. If you want to argue that, like many other American institutions--the Constitution, for example-- MLB and the HOF are so tainted by their racist origins and history that inducting Arnold Rothstein as a contributor would be trivial in comparison, I don't know that I'd feel like putting up much of an argument. That baseball is--to some extent, and with full panoply of self-congratulation--progressing beyond its racist past is encouraging to me.


But to trot out the weary analogy again, just because Jesse Haines is in the HOF, that's no reason Milt Pappas ought to go in. Rose's case depends on its own merits, not on previous miscarriages. Unless, of course, your point is that the HOF is already so degenerate that we should welcome candidates like Rose, so that the public will eventually become disgusted and get interested in a Hall of Good Guys, or at least a Hall of Guys You Could Shake Hands With Without Wanting to Take a Bath Afterwards.

Now if you want to purge the Hall of sanctimonious asses, you do have a job ahead of you. Another thing I don't understand about the posthumous induction viewpoint is why Pete Rose's personality is such an issue. The guy's a felon who broke baseball's cardinal rule, and you think he should wait till he's dead because he's sanctimonious? You feel the crux of this controversy is not giving Pete Rose satisfaction? I don't get it.

[Sliding Billy]

Actually it's easy. Keep the curent lockout of Rose that he's persona non grata in baseball as it is. After he kicks the bucket, put him on the HOF ballot or induct him postumously. Viola, we don't have to see him or listen to him.
Or how about this: Keep the current lockout until after he's dead, and don't let him in then, either. I don't have any problem seeing or listening to Pete Rose--in short doses. I have a problem with according him baseball's highest honor.

[W_Marone]

I agree with those who say wait till' he's dead. Then let the low life in.

What difference does it make if he's dead or alive? Either way he should or shouldnt get in? Why wait until he's dead? Deprive him of the privledge to see his induction? He ruined his second chance to be reinstated....it's on him now.

[yanks0714]

What difference does it make if he's dead or alive? Either way he should or shouldnt get in? Why wait until he's dead? Deprive him of the privledge to see his induction? He ruined his second chance to be reinstated....it's on him now.

Sure it does. I don't wanna go watch/listen to Pete Rose stand at the podium and tell us all how he has been treated unfairly and so forth. I don't want to read in the newspapaers or online his acceptance speech. I don't want to see/listen to him gloat about how he 'won' his battle with MLB and that an injustice has been rectified.
I don't want those marginal baseball fans that don't realize what he did cheer him on the stage. I don't want to see the HOF'ers sitting on the stage be 'forced' to shake his hand.
Because that is pretty much what he will actually say and I bet. ;)

[catcher24]

But if you want to get rid of people who are in the Hall that did actual damage to baseball, amongst the first you should chuck out is Cap Anson. What wrong did Jackie Robinson do to have to have his plaque in the same Hall as Anson's?

I'm not an apologist for Cap Anson, nor do I believe in racism, a cardinal sin if ever there was one. However, please remember that Anson was a product of the time he was raised. The guy started playing baseball six years after the Civil War had ended. His refusal to play with black ballplayers was, in my opinion, a result of his upbringing and the general opinion of the times. So, although Anson was certainly a racist, he was simply doing what the majority of the white population at the time felt was right. He felt what he was doing was right, and was supported widely for doing it. Rose, on the other hand, knew what he had done was a violation of the basic rule of baseball. So although in retrospect what Anson did was much more abhorrent than what Rose did, put into it's time/social context it was acceptable to the people of that generation. What Rose did was completely unacceptable.

[Eastvanmungo]

Sure it does. I don't wanna go watch/listen to Pete Rose stand at the podium and tell us all how he has been treated unfairly and so forth. I don't want to read in the newspapaers or online his acceptance speech. I don't want to see/listen to him gloat about how he 'won' his battle with MLB and that an injustice has been rectified.
I don't want those marginal baseball fans that don't realize what he did cheer him on the stage. I don't want to see the HOF'ers sitting on the stage be 'forced' to shake his hand.
Because that is pretty much what he will actually say and I bet. ;)

I think yanks0714 states the case for posthumously inducting Rose pretty much perfectly here (at least to my taste).

As for the Anson being a product of his time arguement. While I understand it, it doesn't really fly with me. It just that it takes a brave man to go against the flow. Cap Anson was not a brave man. In fact, not only was he "going along with the flow", he was active (even instrumental) in in creating "the flow", inasmuch as baseball was concerned, anyway. Should he be in the Hall? Grudgingly, I'd say yes. His acomplishments as a player were HOF-worthy.

The Holy Hall (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=55659) is a whole other matter.

[milladrive]

Forgive me for mixing baseball and politics, but this debate lately has me seeing a parallel between the the two.

If Americans can give the highest honor in the land to corrupt lawbreaking people who knowingly and without remorse get away with committing multiple "no-no's" against the Constitution, then why is it so hard for us to see our way to giving Rose baseball's highest accolade? I won't mention any names, but certainly Pete Rose broke fewer rules than some political not-so-greats.

...And he put up better numbers.

[Sliding Billy]

I think yanks0714 states the case for posthumously inducting Rose pretty much perfectly here (at least to my taste).

I still do not understand what dead Pete Rose has going for him that live Pete Rose does not, aside from taciturnity. (I do understand that you don't want to him to have the satisfaction and you don't want to have to listen to him, and I empathize. If he doesn't go in after he dies, you still won't have to listen to him, though.)

Let's do a hypothetical: Suppose Pete is going to throw out the first ball on Opening Day in Cincinnatti and make a 2-hour speech in which he is scheduled to thank the Reds for inducting him into their Hall of Fame, insinuate that this is just a warm-up for the big one, and say "Neener-neener-neener."

yanks014 finds out about this and decides, "Well, enough is enough," so he goes over to Pete's house and dispatches him with a Louisville Slugger.

The next day, I say, "Well, Pete's dead, but he goes in or not depending on what he did when he was alive, which, among other things, was break baseball's cardinal rule, so too bad."

And you say, "Up until yesterday, I would have agreed with you, but today, Pete's dead and everything is different because . . . . "

How would you finish that sentence?

[Eastvanmungo]

...now we will not be honouring Pete the man, but Pete, the ballplayer.

[Sliding Billy]

...now we will not be honouring Pete the man, but Pete, the ballplayer.
Woah! Good one! (and I thought I was glib ;) )

[The_Leff_Fielder]

I have always been in the minority here, but I say no. Rose should not be allowed in the Hall. Baseball has always tried (not always succeeded) to avoid falling into the glorified "gangsta" image of other sports, specifically football and basketball. Using steroids is one thing - steroid users cheat the game. Rose not only broke the rules of baseball, but he broke the law of the land. MLB sends a good message by saying this is intolerable.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I have always been in the minority here, but I say no. Rose should not be allowed in the Hall. Baseball has always tried (not always succeeded) to avoid falling into the glorified "gangsta" image of other sports, specifically football and basketball. Using steroids is one thing - steroid users cheat the game. Rose not only broke the rules of baseball, but he broke the law of the land. MLB sends a good message by saying this is intolerable.

Trust me, you are far from the minority, especially here.

[sturg1dj]

I have always been in the minority here, but I say no. Rose should not be allowed in the Hall. Baseball has always tried (not always succeeded) to avoid falling into the glorified "gangsta" image of other sports, specifically football and basketball. Using steroids is one thing - steroid users cheat the game. Rose not only broke the rules of baseball, but he broke the law of the land. MLB sends a good message by saying this is intolerable.

baseball is doing other things to avoid falling into the glorified "gangsta" image that middle america hates and does not understand. They are doing their best to keep black people out of baseball

but back to Rose, I've never been to the hall so I am not sure how many references to him there are in it but to me the Hall should be the ultimate baseball museum and regardless of what a player does there should be an exhibit about the best players. I used this before, but if I go to a presidential museum and Nixon or Clinton are missing I am going to be pissed, they may have made some mistakes but you still cannot erase them from the history. They did that in the Soviet Union, not in the United States.

[runningshoes]

baseball is doing other things to avoid falling into the glorified "gangsta" image that middle america hates and does not understand. They are doing their best to keep black people out of baseball

but back to Rose, I've never been to the hall so I am not sure how many references to him there are in it but to me the Hall should be the ultimate baseball museum and regardless of what a player does there should be an exhibit about the best players. I used this before, but if I go to a presidential museum and Nixon or Clinton are missing I am going to be pissed, they may have made some mistakes but you still cannot erase them from the history. They did that in the Soviet Union, not in the United States.

So we should just allow players to run amok with no consequences for actions that hurt the game?

[fenrir]

i voted no. i just dont like the guy personally.

[Captain Cold Nose]

i voted no. i just dont like the guy personally.

You've never tried his seasoned fries.

[sturg1dj]

So we should just allow players to run amok with no consequences for actions that hurt the game?

his consequences are that he cannot be a part of major league baseball......as a manager, hitting coach or any other coach or front office person.


sure, he wants to be in the hall of fame, and sure if he does we will see that little smirk of his, but in my opinion leaving him out is hurting the fan more than him. I don't want any gaping holes in my history, and leaving the likes of Rose or Joe Jackson out leave holes in the history, and being that it is a museum I would think that would be a bad thing.


now let me say I have seen him in Vegas and I hate the fact that he is there. I hate what he did, and I think he should never be involved in baseball again. That being said, when it comes to the hall of fame it no longer is about him it is about us and the history of the game of baseball.

sometimes it may seem like its easier and better to just erase someone from the records....but it doesn't make it right. So I will say it about Rose, Jackson, Palmeiro, McGwire, Sosa and Bonds.

[Captain Cold Nose]

his consequences are that he cannot be a part of major league baseball......as a manager, hitting coach or any other coach or front office person.


sure, he wants to be in the hall of fame, and sure if he does we will see that little smirk of his, but in my opinion leaving him out is hurting the fan more than him. I don't want any gaping holes in my history, and leaving the likes of Rose or Joe Jackson out leave holes in the history, and being that it is a museum I would think that would be a bad thing.

Maybe, but betting against baseball, compromising the integrity of the sport as it stands, is not exactly of a healing nature. You can say what you will about the integrity of the sport (I think you did in post #546.) but they can't turn a blind eye because Rose or Jackson were successful.

[Ubiquitous]

The hall of fame is not a musuem. It is an award and honor. You are confusing two different things. The hall of fame is a section of a musuem, one could say it is a hall, Pete Rose is in the musuem. But the hall has chosen not reward Rose with an honor. Keeping him out of the hall isn't erasing him from the records.

[sturg1dj]

The hall of fame is not a musuem. It is an award and honor. You are confusing two different things. The hall of fame is a section of a musuem, one could say it is a hall, Pete Rose is in the musuem. But the hall has chosen not reward Rose with an honor. Keeping him out of the hall isn't erasing him from the records.

well there you go then, earlier I said that 1) I had never been to the hall and 2) I am not sure if he is there or not

i am not confusing anything, I actually had no idea


so as long as the above is the case, then I am ok with it.

On the other hand, the way you write about it seems to show that maybe some of us have have the HOF on a pretty high pedestal.

[catcher24]

No question that Rose, Joe Jackson, Hal Chase and their ilk are in the museum. For example, I believe that either the bat or ball from his record setting hit are on display, and he is certainly mentioned in other exhibits, as is Joe Jackson. However, although the official title indicates one entity (National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc.), I believe Ubiquitous is correct in stating that the two are treated as separate entities for the purpose of induction/inclusion. Every pitcher who threw a no hitter is mentioned and most have some type of item on display, but of course not nearly that number are enshrined in the Hall itself.

They are doing their best to keep black people out of baseball

This doesn't even deserve comment, so I'll pass.

[hairmetalfreek]

2)It is against the rules (in Cooperstown) for the writers to vote for someone who is banned from baseball.

A rule that was not instituted until after Rose accepted the agreement of a lifetime ban and before his name appeared on a ballot.

[BlueBlood]

No. Once a liar/rulebreaker in Narnia, always a liar/rulebreaker in Narnia. Or something to that extent.

[catcher24]

A rule that was not instituted until after Rose accepted the agreement of a lifetime ban and before his name appeared on a ballot.

I don't believe that is accurate. I think that has been in the rules since the beginning, or if not almost since the beginning. Otherwise I have to believe that Joe Jackson would've been elected long ago. I think the rule may have been instituted back in the mid 1930s, when some writers did in fact vote for Joe Jackson. So unless you have definitive evidence to the contrary, I'll continue to believe that this rule has been in place for several decades.

[Ubiquitous]

No, the rule for the ineligble list was put in place after Rose was put on the ineligible list.

By the time the Hall was created Jackson had been banned for 15 years or so and everybody thought he was guilty. There was no real reason to create a rule that says you cannot vote for banned players. Nobody was really even considering it except for one person I think. Then along came Rose and a lot of writers and fans thought he got a raw job. A lot of people thought he was innocent at the time of his banning. The hall and baseball were afraid that Rose could get inducted even though he was banned so they put the rule in to prevent that.

[Brian McKenna]

I don't believe that is accurate. .

It is...and why would they put in Jackson, a guy who pocketed money for aiding in the throwing of a World Series?

[catcher24]

No, the rule for the ineligble list was put in place after Rose was put on the ineligible list.

By the time the Hall was created Jackson had been banned for 15 years or so and everybody thought he was guilty. There was no real reason to create a rule that says you cannot vote for banned players. Nobody was really even considering it except for one person I think. Then along came Rose and a lot of writers and fans thought he got a raw job. A lot of people thought he was innocent at the time of his banning. The hall and baseball were afraid that Rose could get inducted even though he was banned so they put the rule in to prevent that.

OK, thank you for correcting me on that. I know that you are well informed and I value your opinions and comments, so I am certainly mistaken. I was probably thinking of the Character part of the criteria to be considered when voting on potential members.

[catcher24]

It is...and why would they put in Jackson, a guy who pocketed money for aiding in the throwing of a World Series?

Your guess is as good as mine,:confused: but there were many who didn't believe Jackson was guilty. Just as there are still many, many individuals who think Jackson should be admitted. Check out some of the Hall of Fame threads here at BBF!