Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame

[Piz]

I'm aware of that @billchao.  It just struck me, reading one of your previous posts, that we don't think of a lifetime ban as meaning exactly that.  If one is sentenced to life in prison; it isn't implied that you have to be buried there.  By the same token; a lifetime ban ought to expire at the end of one's life.

[onthehunt526]

21 minutes ago, billchao said:

It's not really a lifetime ban as much as it is about being on the MLB permanently ineligible list. Only the commissioner of baseball has the power to reinstate anyone on the list.

Shoeless Joe has been on it for 98 years and counting.

Pete Rose voluntarily accepted being added to the list as part of his settlement. If he's not reinstated, the HoF won't be electing him after he dies.

Giamatti offered Pete a 5 year banishment. But Pete would have had admit openly he bet on baseball, and give names and dates and stuff.

He didn't want to. So he voluntarily added himself to the permanently ineligible list.

[billchao]

36 minutes ago, Piz said:

I'm aware of that @billchao.  It just struck me, reading one of your previous posts, that we don't think of a lifetime ban as meaning exactly that.  If one is sentenced to life in prison; it isn't implied that you have to be buried there.  By the same token; a lifetime ban ought to expire at the end of one's life.

I don't recall ever discussing the "lifetime" nature of his ban. To me, permanently ineligible means just that: forever.

Rose never received a "lifetime" ban AFAIK.

33 minutes ago, onthehunt526 said:

Giamatti offered Pete a 5 year banishment. But Pete would have had admit openly he bet on baseball, and give names and dates and stuff.

He didn't want to. So he voluntarily added himself to the permanently ineligible list.

I can't speak to his motives for that, but IIRC, it's the continued deception and gambling habits that caused Rob Manfred to deny his reinstatement. 

[onthehunt526]

33 minutes ago, billchao said:

I can't speak to his motives for that, but IIRC, it's the continued deception and gambling habits that caused Rob Manfred to deny his reinstatement. 

I think Bart Giamatti, realized that Pete needed help with his gambling addiction, and wanted him to get help... Even though betting on baseball as a player, umpire, manager, etc., is punishable by being declared permanently ineligible. It is at the discretion of the commissioner of whether that player goes on that list. For two reasons, a permanent ineligible employee of baseball can apply for reinstatement annually. The commissioner does not have to lay down a lifetime ban, even if the CBA says he's supposed to.

For instance a third failed test for PEDs carries a permanent ineligibility clause. But is still at the discretion of the commissioner to enforce the ban.

I have some bitching to do about Roger Goddell. But that's another thread for another time.

 

[MuniGrit]

Pete deserves the HOF in my opinion. Now I don't think it would change a thing for him personally, I think he would still be trying to sell autographs on the Vegas strip.

[Buckeyebowman]

I agree. A player's HOF status should depend upon the numbeers they put up in their career. Pete's numbers are unassailable. Consideer some of the guys who are already in the HoF. Ty Cobb was an unabashed racist, and Babe Ruth was a womanizing drunk! His "bad season" of, 1924 or 25 I think it was, was because he was trying to clear up a serious case of the clap! His idea of a "vacation" was a couple of hookers, a case of booze and a hotel room! 

[onthehunt526]

43 minutes ago, MuniGrit said:

Pete deserves the HOF in my opinion. Now I don't think it would change a thing for him personally, I think he would still be trying to sell autographs on the Vegas strip.

4256 hits... Seriously... Jeter had a shot if he would have stayed healthy. Griffey, Jr probably could've gotten close if he stayed healthy. 

4,256 hits in 24 years. 3,215 singles, 3,562 games played, 14,053 at-bats, 15,890 plate appearances. Lifetime .303 hitter, only hit 160 HRs but he should be in the Hall Of Fame.

I think the only shot Pete has to get reinstated is to actually show Rob Manfred that he has truly changed... Absolutely the only chance he's got. He needs to go around the country and tell high school and college student-athletes the dangers of gambling. If he puts his mind to doing this. Manfred might consider reinstatement in about 3 years or so.

[The Hook Meister]

Yes he belongs there. 4,256 hits puts him in. Okay I will conceed to a big ole * by his name.

[1Moputt]

I'm gonna chime in here because I've always been interested in Petes     situation. IMHO, there is no question Pete Rose deserves to be, and should be, in the HOF. I don't care if baseball chooses to put a plaque by his name that states Pete Rose has stained his reputation by betting on baseball and that Pete broke the #1 rule in professional sports by gambling on his own sport. Acknowledge it, condemn him, criticize his actions? Hell, put it in flashing lights. I would understand. All this being said, I believe, and wouldn't have a problem with, their never letting him work "inside baseball" again (never coach again) because of his gambling. HOWEVER, this DOES NOT reflect his accomplishments as a hitter and you can not ignore what he did as a player. We are not talking about election into the Hall of Great People, or in the Hall of Honest Players, or Hall of Rules Followers. Was he or wasn't he one of the greatest hitters of all times? If yes then put him in. FULL DISCLOSURE, I am 65 yrs old and through the years my wife and I have attended 100's of MLB games. We're longtime Astro fans and through the years have been lucky enough to see some outstanding ball players and HOF'ers. Over the years there have been "teams" that we would always make sure we saw when they were in town but I can honestly say there are just a handful of players over the years that I bought a ticket with the sole propose of seeing that player. I never missed an opportunity to watch Pete Rose play baseball. Pete "willed" his teams to win. I've never seen another player like him. Put him in!

[iacas]

Okay, so, Rob Manfred lifted the ban on Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe Jackson, and like 15 others. They're eligible for the HOF in three years.

Should Pete be in? Shoeless Joe?

The Baseball HOF does have a morality clause that I and others use to not vote for Barry Bonds, for example. He cheated, everyone knows it.

Pete did his gambling, AFAIK, after he was done as a player. As a manager. Gambling can be a sickness, an illness, like alcoholism, so I'm inclined to still vote "yes" for Pete. But, what gives me pause is the under-age girl stuff… 

The Pete Rose Legacy Problem Is Sex with a Child, Not Gambling

---

Plus, a Main Line school district plummets in latest rankings.

 

[boogielicious]

I would vote no. He never showed any remorse and no way did he start gambling only after playing. There was never any evidence that Shoeless Joe took any money from what I have heard and his stats for the World Series showed that. Rose on the other hand place bets on the team he was managing. Probably did the same as a player.

[TommyRude]

If the Hall of Fame is about honoring the greatest players based on what they did between the lines, then Pete Rose — the all-time hits leader — belongs in it.

[iacas]

50 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

I would vote no. He never showed any remorse and no way did he start gambling only after playing. There was never any evidence that Shoeless Joe took any money from what I have heard and his stats for the World Series showed that. Rose on the other hand place bets on the team he was managing. Probably did the same as a player.

Addiction is an illness, Scott. How insensitive of you! 🙂 

[Pretzel]

Personally I have no issues with even the steroid-era figures such as Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa being inducted into the hall. My reasoning there is we already have nearly a half-dozen known steroid users in the hall, including those inducted after their steroid usage was already common knowledge.

David Ortiz and Pedro Martinez (as well as Ivan Rodriguez, Adrian Beltre, and Todd Helton) both failed the same wave of anonymous drug tests that saw Sammy Sosa shunned by the nation, and he's in the hall. Piazza admitted to using Andro (the same thing McGwire was juicing with) and amphetamines. Greenies were commonplace in MLB clubhouses and used by countless stars, alongside cocaine, from at least the 60's all the way up until the early 2000's. There are at least a dozen other pros in the hall that have allegations from teammates who claim to have directly witnessed steroid usage. Even Nolan Ryan has stated that he thought steroid usage was a widespread problem in the sport as early as the mid to late 70's.

I'm of the opinion that once that genie is out of the bottle, and it most certainly has been for decades now, it's a bit silly to pretend those already inducted are somehow morally superior for being not quite as astronomically and suspiciously good at baseball when using steroids. Hitters were using steroids, pitchers were using steroids (funny how we saw the number of complete games fall off a cliff at the same time that steroid enforcement was being ramped up), it's an even playing field as far as I'm concerned. To quote The Incredibles, "When everyone is super, no one will be". 

As for Pete Rose it would appear that by all accounts he never bet as a player and only ever bet on his own team while managing. It's understandable to prohibit any involvement in the sport after it was discovered, but it's not something that gave him any advantage in reaching his level of achievement in the sport. 

As for Joe Jackson, I personally don't think he should have been banned in the first place. He actively refused the bribe, tried to report the plot to the owner of the White Sox, and his alleged confession only occurred after the White Sox's team attorney got him roaring drunk immediately prior to the grand jury testimony. Every confessed conspirator also stated that he never attending any of their meetings or discussed plans with them. Not to mention the fact that if he WAS trying to fix the series he did an absolutely terrible job of it considering he was the best performing player on either team by far setting a World Series record that stood until 1964 and went error-free while gunning down at least one runner at home plate. 

[ChetlovesMer]

15 hours ago, boogielicious said:

I would vote no. He never showed any remorse and no way did he start gambling only after playing. There was never any evidence that Shoeless Joe took any money from what I have heard and his stats for the World Series showed that. Rose on the other hand place bets on the team he was managing. Probably did the same as a player.

I would vote no also. The way I heard the story is that Pete most definitely did gamble on baseball as a player. He gambled so much that he got himself in deep with the mob. Then as a manager he'd tip off certain people to whom he owned money each day as to how the pitcher looked warming up, if there was some stiffness in the elbow that wasn't reported. Or if certain hitters were out late, had the flu, or what ever. That was his way of paying off his debts to the mob. 

There are supposedly phone call records which were made from the managers desk when he was the manager of the Reds, and/or the Expose and where ever he was in the visiting team locker room. This is supposedly some of the evidence against Pete. 

On a side note. I think Pete missed a real opportunity. It was always my thought that he handled everything totally wrong. I think he should have come out right away and said "I did it." ... "I made huge mistakes and it ruined my life. Both financially and in terms of the stress it put on me." I think he could have been booked on speaking tours telling the world about the perils of addiction in general and gambling addiction specifically. I think he'd of been cast in much more sympathetic light. Possibly even turned into a hero again. America loves a redemption story. Instead he tried to deny everything and spend money on lawyers to keep information from coming out. I thought at the time and still think now that he played the cards he had terribly. Perhaps that was part of the reason he owned so much money gambling. 🤷‍♂️

[phan52]

I have always been conflicted about this. When Pete came to Philly he changed the culture, and it led to a WS win. He wasn't the best player at that point of his career, but he was the catalyst. I liked and admired the grit and intensity he brought to the game. But what an awful human being. They do have a morals clause,

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.

Hence, conflicted.

[mcanadiens]

54 minutes ago, phan52 said:

Hence, conflicted.

Always summed up my feelings about the man. 

I'm a life-long Reds fan (took me till 12 to discover hockey). Even though I was pretty young, I remember the excitement when Rose came back to Cincinnati from Montreal and broke Cobb's record.  My parents weren't big TV people, so the night he got that hit off Eric Show, I was messing with an ancient black and white we had in the basement. Got it to work just well enough with the rabbit ears to get a half decent picture. It was an exciting moment for sure. 

Unfortunately, it all went downhill from there.

I suppose it is always tough on kids when their team's major stars show their warts. All those years of denial plus the occasional indication that he may have been an out-right pedophile, makes it hard for me to feel much one way or another. After all, the man is dead.