Pete Rose?

[daveedka]

Let me get this straight; some rules are ok to break but not others? What message do we send kids when we make it okay to pick which laws we obey? Rose was in baseball too many years to not know the consequences of his actions, no matter how trivial they seem in hindsight. He knew the rules and broke them willingly. Sending kids the message that actions don't have consequences is what got us where we are right now. I know I'll hear about this so bring it on.

I think there is a serious difference betweening banning him from participation in the game (at any level) and banning him from induction into the hall of fame. The consequences of his actions was that he could not ever participate in baseball again. So no consulting, no caoching, no managing, no influence at all in any way. That is IMO a fair punishment for his actions. Banning him from any possibility of being inducted into the hall of fame is a double standard and is not a fair consequence for his actions. The hall of fame is an award for great baseball players, he was that and deserves the recognition. Morally he had far higher standards than many of the inductees, but their moral character was not taken into account, only thier baseball carreer. Pete Rose should be given the same consideration when it comes to the hall of fame. I agree he was wrong, and I agree he should be held accountable for his actions, I do not agree that it should have any bearing at all on his ability to enter the hall of fame.
Lets also remember that he was banned from even entering a ball park. He had to get special permission from the commissioner of baseball to go to the final game in riverfront stadium. That is the only time he has been in a ball park since his crime was tried. Isn't that enough? I also firmly believe that the fans should be allowed to vote, baseball is entertainment and the fans opinions should be paramount in who gets recognized for awards. Gambling just happens to be baseballs hot button, and that is the button Pete pushed. If it had been drugs, alchohol, rape, physical abuse, or any number of other crimes mentioned or not mentioned he would be in the Hall of fame today. Because no one except Pete has ever been banned from hall of fame nomination based on their character outside of the ball park. He was unfairly singled out in this regard.
Dave

 

[cyberbeer65]

exactly!!!!
there probably aren't three people in the hall pf fame who's moral or ethical conduct was assessed before iduction. I can see not letting him participate in the sport anymore, but he belongs in the hall.
Dave

Exactly!

 

[Lila]

I think there is a serious difference betweening banning him from participation in the game (at any level) and banning him from induction into the hall of fame. ....He was unfairly singled out in this regard.
Dave

That was a heck of a post and well said.

Lila

 

[tomm10]

There is a sign in every major league baseball club house that says betting on games is illegal and is grounds for banning.

I agree that the Baseball Hall of Fame is for great baseball players and not angels. That being said, Pete Rose bet on baseball which is a HUGE no-no because it undermines the integrity of the sport.

Shoeless Joe Jackson is not in the Hall of Fame because of his involvement with the Black Sox scandal and Pete Rose should not be either. It was a choice he made and he has to live with it.

If Rose was merely a gambler I'd have no problem. Hey, its his life and his money. But, when he bet on games he was involved in, he compromised the game. That doesn't make him just a bad guy, it makes him a bad baseball guy. It is not, in my mind, healthy to the game to let him in as it shows that the rules only apply if you're not really, really good.

Don't get me wrong, I would love for him to be in the hall because he was an amazing player. Instead of being mad a MLB for not letting him in, I prefer to be angry at him for screwing things up for himself.

 

[Seasalt]

tomm10, well said.

It wasn't because he was a gambler that he is not in the hall. Its because he bet on baseball and compromised the integrity of the sport. I still don't believe he has shown true remorse for the offense. It would be another story if he is truely contrite and remorseful, but with his book and the circus in the media he encourages, IMHO he has not truly repented. How many years did he deny that he bet on baseball?

how do you expect to be in the hall of fame of baseball when you undermined the integrity of the sport?

if he was just a gambler, he should definitely be in the hall. But he bet on baseball, the game he supposedly love...

also, think about what message this sends to young kids. Will it minimize the integrity of the sport by compromising the message baseball is sending? "Kids you can get into the hall of fame as long as you have the numbers regardless of actions you took detriment to the game."

 

[tomm10]

tomm10, well said.

It wasn't because he was a gambler that he is not in the hall. Its because he bet on baseball and compromised the integrity of the sport. ..

Spot on Seasalt.

I think where MLB goes wrong is in allowing so many other forms of cheating to go on unpunished. For example, there are several pitchers in the HOF who readily admit to having cheated in various ways, most dealing with doctoring the ball, yet we all laugh at it.

Betting on baseball certainly tarnishes the game because folks will always question why a player dropped a routine flyball or why an ace pitcher had such an awful performance in a key game as long as they think there are players who bet on baseball.

I think cheating does the same thing whether it comes in the form of vaseline, emory cloth, corked bats, or steroids yet MLB treats those things much differently. They are getting better with the steriods thing but the players association doesn't help that very much.

 

[wesleydnunder]

Awesome, Tomm10 and Seasalt. Too bad ya'll aren't on the baseball commission.

Mark

 

[dwayne]

Spot on Seasalt.
I think where MLB goes wrong is in allowing so many other forms of cheating to go on unpunished. For example, there are several pitchers in the HOF who readily admit to having cheated in various ways, most dealing with doctoring the ball, yet we all laugh at it.

Betting on baseball certainly tarnishes the game because folks will always question why a player dropped a routine flyball or why an ace pitcher had such an awful performance in a key game as long as they think there are players who bet on baseball.

I think cheating does the same thing whether it comes in the form of vaseline, emory cloth, corked bats, or steroids yet MLB treats those things much differently. They are getting better with the steriods thing but the players association doesn't help that very much.

Unless the MLB wants to kick out all of those pitchers who admit to scuffing or greasing up their balls (hehehe), Pete Rose should be allowed in the HOF. I do not understand how his betting on baseball undermines the sport... Daryl Strawberry and Dwight Gooden being on the ballot does more to undermine and teach kids that being wrong is OK...

He was illegal for betting w/ a bookie, if he had bet out in Vegas at a casino, he'd be "legal" but still "against MLB rules". Daryl Strawberry and Dwight Gooden were ILLEGAL, criminals, plain and simple!

The HOF "board" is two faced. Daryl Strawberry is good enough to get into the HOF, but Pete Rose isn't? They both up up good numbers, they were both phenomenal players. I bet Pete never missed a practice for being high/hungover. I bet Pete never had to walk off the field or meet a dealer in the parking lot... I could go on and on. A part of me thinks that Strawberry is in the running because of his illness (colon cancer) and his addiction... he was suicidal a few years ago and I think someone (gooden) put in a good word through someone else (steinbrenner) to ensure that Strawberry gets a nomination (or whatever it's called)...

Is Pete an angel? No way. Should he be banned from the HOF? Nope.

 

[tomm10]

Pete Rose bet on baseball while he was a manager for certain. We don't know if he might have done it as a player. How does that affect the integrity of the game? As a manager he has the ability to affect the outcome of a game. While Pete claims he never bet against his team, having money on his own team certainly could have determined how he managed the game.

Lets pose this a different way. Lets say that while he was the manager of the Reds, Pete Rose bet against his own team and in those games, he won his bets and lost the games. Would you say that undermines the game? I think you'd have to.

If the public has a reasonable belief that the games can be rigged from the inside out by managers and players who are betting on them, baseball would become about as real as professional wrestling. It would cease to be a sport. This is why its the cardinal sin of baseball. They frown upon cheating but betting on the game is the unforgiveable evil.

When it comes to betting on games they are pretty consistent in their harshness. Show me a player who has gambled on the game of baseball, while he has played or managed, etc., who is still a part of baseball or in the hall of fame? The big mistake with Rose was leaving the door open for a comeback. They should have slammed it in his face with an unwavering "Get Lost".

Darryl Strawberrry certainly had his problems. So did Dennis Eckersley. Ty Cobb was one of the meanest, most racist, S.O.B.s to ever play the game. Babe Ruth was a womanizer and an alcoholic. None of those guys ever bet on baseball though (as far as anyone knows). What they did was off the field and outside the game. Did it affect their status as role models. Probably. But the HOF doesn't induct people based on the strength of their moral fiber nor does it restrict entry based on a lack thereof.

Pete Rose's bannishment doesn't come from some ivory tower of moral judgement. It comes from the rules of baseball. His misjudgements tarnished his credibility as a baseball man.

 

[tomm10]

The HOF "board" is two faced. Daryl Strawberry is good enough to get into the HOF, but Pete Rose isn't?

On this point, there really isn't a HOF board. These guys aren't hand picked. 5 years after you retire from baseball you become elligible for induction into the HOF. The lists you see of possible candidates is really just the front runners because they're not going to list everyone who is elligible.

Ballots are cast by the Baseball Writers Association. These guys typically aren't too swayed by owner's opinions and they have a much better idea than we do of who these players are personally since they work with them. In fact, some argue that Jim Rice has not been inducted because he was not a friend of the media in his playing days.

Most of those writers focus awfully hard on numbers and a player's impact on the game when deciding who they vote for though. I don't think a player's personal troubles enter into it all that often except on players they view as borderline candidates.