FanDuel - WFBC

November 22, 2005

No Name of the Rose: When the 2006 ballot for the Baseball Hall of Fame is released Nov. 29, Pete Rose's name won't be on it, which means he'll strike out on his last chance for ordinary election to the hall. Baseball writers induct players in their fifth to 20th year of retirement, and Rose's record-breaking playing career ended in 1986.

posted by rcade to baseball at 08:07 AM - 75 comments

I guess they could change the name to the Hall of Higher Moral Ground. It's too bad, really. Rose was awesome. I just hope he gets in as a write-in someday. I'm not excusing his actions in any way and he must not be too bright to admit to betting on his own team while he was a manager, but that can't take away what he did on the field as a player.

posted by willthrill72 at 08:49 AM on November 22

The hall makes a distinction between players and managers (and most managers are former players) Mr. Rose would be voted in based his playing ability and that should in no way be effected by his actions as a manager.

posted by HATER 187 at 09:05 AM on November 22

I don't see a problem with keeping him out of the Hall. Drastic action is needed to prevent things that could destroy the integrity of the game. It seems to me that he can sell more books if he stays out of the HOF because it keeps the debate up. Money seems to be what is important to him anyway.

posted by bperk at 09:07 AM on November 22

Drastic action is needed to prevent things that could destroy the integrity of the game The sad thing is, I'm not sure I see a whole lot of integrity in any professional sport these days. No doubt Rose is a kook, but no one can argue with the numbers he put up. C'mon...how do you not let Charlie Hustle in? Is it all about image? Who cares if makes some cake writing about himself. More power to him. I bet it's a very compelling read.

posted by willthrill72 at 09:14 AM on November 22

It is a shame that someone who did more for the game than anyone else has to be continuely chastized for his mistake. I guess that if he would have played in the NFL, such as a Larwence Taylor, he would have made it on the first ballot.

posted by occmech at 09:25 AM on November 22

It is not him being a jerk that it is keeping him out of the HOF. It is the fact that he gambled on games that he was managing. That is a much bigger problem than the other problems that we see in sports today. Fans have to be able to trust that the outcome was legitimate and not manipulated for gambling purposes. He was willing to sacrifice that. Rose can forever serve as an object lesson for any player or manager who ever thinks about gambling on baseball.

posted by bperk at 09:43 AM on November 22

Baseball sure does pick and choose its moral high ground stances, huh? No betting, but let me turn around whilst you stick that needle in your bum. And people wonder why Curling is growing in popularity. 80 days until the Olympics!

posted by timdawg at 09:46 AM on November 22

I've never been able to find out the details of his gambling. Was he betting against his team? Betting on a certain spread? An over/under? Anybody have any idea?

posted by DrJohnEvans at 09:49 AM on November 22

Based on his playing stats, rose should be in the Hall. According to the Rules he hasnt been able to get in. I am sure that Rose will someday be placed into the Hall of Fame. However it will be a while. I feel that it wont happen until Pete goes to the Big Ball park in the Sky!

posted by daddisamm at 09:53 AM on November 22

I'm glad that MLB stuck to their guns about the whole Pete Rose matter. It's one of the few times where Selig has done the right thing for the right reason. Now that he can't get in through the normal voting method, look for some people to nominate him to the Veterans Committee in the future. I'm not sure what MLB will do when that time comes, but I hope they keep him out. Baseball sure does pick and choose its moral high ground stances, huh? No betting, but let me turn around whilst you stick that needle in your bum. Just for the record: gambling and the integrity of the game is far more important than a bunch of players attempting to cheat. Everyone seems to get their back up about steroid users, but no one seems to freak out about corked bats and pitchers altering the baseball. Let's put it this way; the worst thing that ever happened in baseball was the segregation of the sport. The second worst thing that ever happened was the Black Sox scandal. I think you'd have to go pretty far down the list to find "minority of players using steroids" as a problem.

posted by grum@work at 09:58 AM on November 22

Let me get this right...Gambling is morally reprehensible, yet cheating is o.k. Doesn't cheating affect the outcome of the game just as much as someone's managment decisions if he has money riding on the game? Isn't that the whole point of cheating, to affect the outcome of the game in your favor. You can't condemn a person for gambling on games he managed and give a green light to players scuffing, corking and juicing. How does cheating not adversely affect the integrity of the game?

posted by willthrill72 at 10:10 AM on November 22

I would bet *snicker* that cheating has determined the outcomes to many more games than Rose's gambling issues.

posted by willthrill72 at 10:14 AM on November 22

I agree with you, willthrill. Now we've resorted to deciding which type of cheating is acceptable. Baseball, and pro sports in general, is full of hypocrites. I, personally, don't want to see Rose in the Hall, just because of the major backlash it would cause. His judgement with regards to gambling was stupid, but his play on the field was absolutely incredible. Rose played the game with the type of dedication, determination, and hard-nosed style every father/coach tries to instill in their sons/players. I don't need to see his bust on display in Cooperstown to understand that.

posted by dyams at 10:22 AM on November 22

Let me get this right...Gambling is morally reprehensible, yet cheating is o.k. People cheat to win. Winning at any cost is the (North) American motto. I don't think people have a problem with that. People gamble on the outcomes of games, and sometimes decide that it's easier to make money by having their team lose instead of win. It's easier to manipulate the score by deliberately performing poorly than it is to manipulate the score by playing better than normal. This "throwing" of the game would be affecting the outcome in a way that most people would find reprehensible. Let's put it this way; which is worse?

  • Finding out your favourite pitcher used to scuff the baseball when trying to get a tough batter out.
  • Finding out your favourite pitcher deliberately tipped his pitches and grooved them to the strong hitters because he was trying to do a favour for a shady gambler for whom he owed money.
I would bet *snicker* that cheating has determined the outcomes to many more games than Rose's gambling issues. Do we know that for a fact? The problem with point-shaving/game-throwing is that if the person doing the act was really good, you'd never know there was a problem unless someone told you.

posted by grum@work at 10:22 AM on November 22

Do we know that for a fact? How could we? The idea behind cheating is not to get caught. But, hypothetically, how many game winning HR's did Sosa hit with a corked bat (or using juice)? How many pitchers recorded saves while spitting or using emory boards? It doesn't matter if you cheat to win or cheat to lose...it's still cheating. As far as your scenarios that you posited, honestly they both suck. If my favorite pitcher came in relief in the ninth inning of the WS and scuffed to record the final out, doesn't that deminish what the entire team worked for? How can anyone respect a winner that cheated?

posted by willthrill72 at 10:32 AM on November 22

Drastic action is needed to prevent things that could destroy the integrity of the game Hmm...any integrity the game might have had was pretty much lost when they whored it out to FOX.

posted by JohnSFO at 10:32 AM on November 22

My stance has never changed. I'd have no problem with Rose getting into the Hall if he bet on games that the Reds weren't involved in...but since Rose bet on Reds games, he should never be allowed in the Hall...because he had direct influence over those games. Does he deserve to be in the Hall? Absolutely. But he should never be allowed to take his place because of his gambling...

posted by MeatSaber at 10:40 AM on November 22

The problem here is that you cannot say for sure how many HR's, for example, that McQuire hit while juicing. The same thing can be said for Sosa, Bonds and all of the rest. Steroids were not being tested untill just recently. On the flip side, there has been, for years, clear cut rules about gambling and MLB.

posted by daddisamm at 11:31 AM on November 22

You can't condemn a person for gambling on games The point is Rose was in a position to change the game as a manager who is gambling on the outcome. I understand he only bet his team to win/cover. In any case, with money riding, he might take risks he otherwise would not in order to cover the spread. Therefore, his betting had an impact on results that otherwise would not have existed and I think that's the issue more than the gambling itself.

posted by STLCardinalfan at 11:37 AM on November 22

Cardfan- If you're gonna quote me, at least get it right (you're not a reporter by any chance, are you?) I never said his gambling did not impact the games. My contention is was his gambling as a manager any worse than players cheating in the course of a game? They could both potentially alter the outcome of a game, even a season. Rose is looked upon as a pariah, yet the juicers and corkers are just shrugged off.

posted by willthrill72 at 11:48 AM on November 22

It is a shame that someone who did more for the game than anyone else Explain. The guy was a hell of a hitter who played the game with fire. And he hung around too long just to break Ty Cobb's record. So how did he do more for the game than anyone else? The hall makes a distinction between players and managers (and most managers are former players) Mr. Rose would be voted in based his playing ability and that should in no way be effected by his actions as a manager. Are we trying to set a record for sloppy thinking?

posted by yerfatma at 11:50 AM on November 22

My contention is was his gambling as a manager any worse than players cheating in the course of a game? They could both potentially alter the outcome of a game, even a season. Can you folks seriously not see the difference between cheating to enhance the possibility your team wins versus purposely making sure your team loses so you personally gain financially?

posted by yerfatma at 11:51 AM on November 22

Won't players who cheat benefit financially, as well? Player cheats, pads his numbers, signs huge contract w/signing bonus, team goes to playoffs, gets more money....you can see where I'm going. BTW, I don't believe Rose ever bet his team to lose (supposedly).

posted by willthrill72 at 11:56 AM on November 22

Willthrill72 You're right. My bad. Sorry. Nevertheless, any banned activity that changes or even has the potential to change a game is cheating and should be viewed as a disqualifier for HOF. I am a Big Mac fan but let the chips fall.

posted by STLCardinalfan at 12:09 PM on November 22

As long as Rose didn't bet on his team to lose I'm all good with him. Hell, I think all players should be forced to bet for their teams to win. FACT: money makes people work harder. Contracts suck, signing bonuses suck. Make these guys earn it with future production not an expectation based on previous performance.

posted by timdawg at 12:12 PM on November 22

As long as Rose didn't bet on his team to lose I'm all good with him Do we want managers/players trying to win games or just cover spreads? I don't think we would recognize the sport anymore.

posted by STLCardinalfan at 12:16 PM on November 22

willthrill72 - With no disrespect intended, if you can ask "How can anybody respect a cheater?" I think you probably should give up being a team sports fan. Virtually every single sports contest involves cheating. Corked bats, scuffed balls, running out of the baseline, etc. A baseball game is a constant battle between players who are always trying to break the rules without being caught. And this has always been true, from the 19th century on. Books are written to celebrate the art of baseball cheating. In other team sports, similar things occur - illegal equipment and, of course, lots of players trying to commit penalties without being caught. STLCardinalfan - If you banned cheaters from the Hall of Fame, you would have a completely empty Hall of Fame. You might as well just knock down the building.

posted by spira at 12:22 PM on November 22

What Rose did was against the rules and he knew that. Additionally, the penalty for such violations was already established. So, my question is why should he not be subject to the punishment laid out in the MLB rules to be "declared permanently ineligible"?

posted by bperk at 12:25 PM on November 22

Win games of course. I'd like to see all 25 guys on both teams meet behind the mound and all throw 5k on the ground. Winner takes it, no spread. Mano a mano. In a very...very bare essence gambling is the norm in auto racing. Qualify and practice to set up which driver is favored and by how many positions (points). The driver who finished higher gets paid more. Don't run well don't get paid well...it's simple. I'm not saying what Rose did was good (perhaps and it's a stretch but perhaps it wasn't bad), I just get a kick out of how messed up baseball is. Go Cubs!

posted by timdawg at 12:26 PM on November 22

spira- None taken. And you are right. But I see a difference between pushing the boundaries and blatantly cheating. I don't want to start splitting hairs here. Pushing the boundaries is what sportsmanship is all about. Don't you think a player hitting 70+ HR's with a corked bat or on the juice takes something away from the game? However, an offensive linenman getting whistled for holding would not likely change the outcome of the game. I would like to think someone committing a foul or penalty should not be likened to cheating.

posted by willthrill72 at 12:43 PM on November 22

I've always been against rose being in the hof. Now, I almost want him in just to end the debate. Just make sure everything he did to disgrace the game is included along with everything he did to help the game. That said, I'm ok with him never being in the hall. The rule he broke was well known, the penalty as well. It's the most important rule in baseball. You can thrown your moralizing out the window. It's all in the context of the game. (I think OJ slaughtered two people, but he belongs in the football hall, if he had bet on games, no). And how can you not get the difference between cheating to win and betting on your games? And it doesn't matter if he never bet against his own team. All it would take is for rose to have fallen behind and not been able to pay up. Then it's either lose or your life. Can't let that happen. He could be forced to throw a game. Corking your bat, scuffing the ball, is not the same.

posted by justgary at 12:45 PM on November 22

Spira But where do you draw the line? Why not arm the players so they can shoot their way around the bases?

posted by STLCardinalfan at 12:47 PM on November 22

So, to hell with integrity, as long as we win by any means neccesary?

posted by willthrill72 at 12:55 PM on November 22

I am a Big Mac fan but let the chips fall. I don't think Mark McGwire broke any rules, as there wasn't any steroid policy in effect when he was playing. As long as Rose didn't bet on his team to lose I'm all good with him. Actually, the absence of betting on his own team to win would be an indicator to the gambling folk he dealt with that he didn't think his team could win. As well, if he didn't have money on Game A, then what's to stop him from not using a relief pitcher in that game, and instead "saving him" for Game B the next day? Why would he do that? Because he's planning to bet money on Game B, and wants to make sure he has his best relief pitcher available for that game and increase his chance to win that specific game. But where do you draw the line? Actually, "cheating" occurs in lots of games, and the punishment is meted out almost immediately. A balk? That's cheating because you don't "set" (or you deceive the batter/runner by throwing the ball in a different base than you made a move towards). The punishment is a ball and the baserunner(s) advance one base. A baserunner hit by a batted ball? That's cheating because you interfere with the fielder's attempt to make a play. The punishment is the baserunner is immediately declared out. The rules are there to try and stop the cheating.

posted by grum@work at 12:58 PM on November 22

So, to hell with integrity, as long as we win by any means neccesary? Nope. Different offences, different penalties. Cork your bat, you're punished. Caught scuffing the ball, punished. Betting on games? Possibility of third parties involved, could lead to throwing the game. Also punished, but more serverely. Letting rose come back to manage? Unthinkable.

posted by justgary at 01:02 PM on November 22

I'm okay with Rose not being in - and if he gets in, sure fine. God, I've participated in so many debates about what's worse or not so bad about his activities that I just can't bother anymore. For the record (again) gambling and point-shaving is the worst kind of cheating. Because it's cheating to lose and personally gain. Corked bats, screwballs and spitballs can all be called 'gamesmanship', occassionally. Interestingly enough, ESPN Mag this week had a feature about 'roids and baseball and Pete Rose was allegedly on them as well. Or at least he sold them. Ha!

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 01:04 PM on November 22

He should remain banned. It's not like betting at the track is what got him into hot water. It's not even so much that he bet on baseball in general. As we all know, he bet on games he managed; games he helped control the outcomes of. This crosses a major line. By admitting Rose into the Hall, the message sent is clear: if--and only if-- you are an exceptional talent, you can aid in throwing games for financial gain and still get a pass into the Hall. Does anyone really want to see that Pandora's Box opened up? Where will it end?

posted by qubit at 01:19 PM on November 22

Another point of curiousity which will likely go unfulfilled: is there any evidence of (or argument for) Rose trying to throw a game?

posted by DrJohnEvans at 01:43 PM on November 22

I don't see a problem with allowing Rose an opportunity to get voted in. At least put his name on the ballot and let the sports writers decide. If he gets in fine, if he doesn't fine. I am not saying that he should be reinstated (he should never be allowed to manage, ever), but at least give him the opportunity to be voted in. This decision should be based solely on his playing stats and nothing else. Even if next to his bust something is mentioned about being banned for life for gambling. I think that this would be fair. In the hall for what he did on the field and recognized in the hall for his gambling.

posted by grabofsky74 at 01:50 PM on November 22

I'm not a fan of lifetime bans. Fifteen years of shame serves enough of a punitive purpose. When Rose was allowed on the field during the 1999 World Series for the Mastercard all-century promotion, he was wildly cheered. Fans of my generation deserve a chance to see one of the greatest players we grew up with inducted into the Hall of Fame. It would also put to an end this argument, which otherwise will go on forever.

posted by rcade at 02:12 PM on November 22

Rose deserves to be in the Hall. He's served enough time, literally and figuratively.

posted by slackerman at 02:31 PM on November 22

By admitting Rose into the Hall, the message sent is clear: if--and only if-- you are an exceptional talent, you can aid in throwing games for financial gain and still get a pass into the Hall. Does anyone really want to see that Pandora's Box opened up? Thank you, qubit. That's the point of view I keep forgetting about. It shouldn't make a difference who you are or how great you were when you played: you break the rules, you get punished the same as everyone else. Would we be having this same argument if it was Tony Perez, Dusty Baker or Dave Kingman? (all of them retired the same year as Rose and were on HOF ballots at some point) Should they have let Palmeiro slide on the steroid punishment just because he was a member of the 3000 hit club?

posted by grum@work at 03:06 PM on November 22

Of course it matters who you are, there was no rule that said you couldn't be in the Hall of Fame if you got banned for life before Rose got caught gambling.

posted by bperk at 03:14 PM on November 22

I've always thought that Rose should be on the ballot; I just don't think he should be elected. The Veterans Committee will never vote him in. Of course, under the current setup, the Veterans Committee will never vote anyone in. I don't think anybody thinks Rose consciously threw games. John Dowd has suggested he saw evidence that implied Rose bet against his team, but he didn't write anything about that in his report and I'm far from convinced. However, Rose might've tried harder to win games he bet on than games he didn't. That's impossible to prove, of course; Rose himself might not know whether he did that. I think there is substantial eveidence that Rose bet on baseball games while he was still a player. Personally, I would like to see a Rose exhibit in the Hall, recognizing his achievements and his mistakes. Like him or not, he's an important figure in baseball history. STLCardinalFan - In some ways, the players are armed. Spikes aren't as deadly as guns, but they have been used to inflict severe harm. And of course players have bats, which can be used as weapons, as when Juan Marichal attacked Johnny Roseboro with one. In general, however, I think purposely and directly causing harm to others is an easy line we can establish not to cross. willthrill - I understand what you are saying. But if there are different levels of cheating, you have to establish the levels in the rules. And I think some penalties and fouls are clearly different than others. Some are the result of mistakes; others are the result of behaving quite purposely to rob the other team of a real chance and are sometimes even designed to hurt the other player. The most "classical" form of cheating in baseball is scuffing the ball. I suspect this has influenced the outcome of far more games than steroids has. And its practicioners are celebrated. Gaylord Perry wouldn't have had a career without illegal pitches. Nolan Ryan extended his career by using scuffed balls during his time in Texas (there was a good reason his control got better there). And in terms of morality, I can't for the life of me see the difference between scuffed balls and steroids. Sure, steroids have health risks for the user and using them may set a bad example, but neither of those things have anything to do with steroids as cheating. And the ironic thing is, of course, that steroids, until the last few years, haven't been prohibited by baseball, while scuffing the ball has. (And for anyone who wants to bring up the law, please don't. That would mean that use of performance enhancing drugs was fine before they were illegal and and also in countries in the Carribean where they are perfectly legal. There's a reason why baseball law is very different than society's law, why Rose's gambling is more of a baseball crime than being a coke dealer, even though the latter is far worse for society).

posted by spira at 03:17 PM on November 22

By admitting Rose into the Hall, the message sent is clear: if--and only if-- you are an exceptional talent, you can aid in throwing games for financial gain and still get a pass into the Hall. Does anyone really want to see that Pandora's Box opened up? Wasn't Shoeless Joe Jackson also considered "an exceptional talent"? And bperk, I think that answers your post, as well...

posted by MeatSaber at 03:22 PM on November 22

Shoeless Joe was never inducted in the HOF, but there wasn't an express rule prohibiting it. The writers took it upon themselves to exclude him.

posted by bperk at 03:24 PM on November 22

Kennesaw Mountain Landis, the commissioner of baseball when Shoeless Joe played, banned he and the other Black Sox from baseball for life. The ban included not just donning a uniform and playing the game, but also from being an official ambassador of the game in any context. If the Hall existed in 1917, one could presume the ban would have extended to membership in the shrine as well. I can only speculate on this point, but, given Landis' stern reputation, it would seem a safe bet (no pun intended). To respond to rcade, yes, I suppose letting Rose into the Hall would end this debate, but would certainly start new ones such as this: Which players can and which players cannot violate the game's integrity and still be enshrined for the ages? Grum@work is right. If Dave Kingman or Tony Perez gambled on the game, there wouldn't have been a Hall debate in the first place.

posted by qubit at 03:51 PM on November 22

By admitting Rose into the Hall, the message sent is clear: if--and only if-- you are an exceptional talent, you can aid in throwing games for financial gain and still get a pass into the Hall. The only people who get into the Hall are exceptional talents.

posted by rcade at 04:41 PM on November 22

The only people who get into the Hall are exceptional talents. rcade, I beg to differ.

posted by wfrazerjr at 05:09 PM on November 22

I disagree. Truly great players get into the Hall. What I meant by exceptional are those whose play transcends that of other great players almost to the point of defining their respective eras. Ruth, Williams, Mays, etc. Guys like that. Ryne Sandberg is in the Hall, but I wouldn't say he was an exceptional talent in the way those others mentioned were. His play certainly can't be considered legendary. Rose, on the other hand, had the stuff true legends are made of.

posted by qubit at 05:26 PM on November 22

My response was to rcade, not wfrazerjr, by the way.

posted by qubit at 05:28 PM on November 22

Rose is most certainly not in the category of Ruth, Mays, Aaron, Schmidt, F Robinson, Musial, Cobb, Speaker, Wagner, Mantle , Williams, Gehrig etc. Rose was a singles hitter who lasted for a really long time and who made a name for himself with a very aggressive style. He was a very good hitter, but even his best season (1969, by far) isn't one of the top 250 seasons of all time at the plate. As measured by adjusted on-base plus slugging, he never had one of the top 5 offensive seasons in the league (he finished in the top ten 3 times: 1968, 1969 and 1976) And in the infield, he was terrible defensively. Plus, his recklessness on the basepaths pushed him into tons of extra outs; I believe he has the worst stolen base percentage of all time for people with more than 150 steals (the stat has only been measured since 1920). I'm not saying Rose was a bad player by any means. But lasting forever - way past the point you're any good - and playing aggressively does not make one an all-time great.

posted by spira at 07:49 PM on November 22

Well, it doesn't matter now. Selig decided he wouldn't even open the door a crack under his watch, and no one is against the Rose induction as much as the Veteran's Committee, so in 70 years, when they shoot Field of Dreams II: Electric Boogaloo, it'll be Pete Rose stepping out of the cornfield Kevin Costner IV just built in the parking lot where Crosley Field used to be in downtown Cincinnati and saying, "Is this heaven? No shit, really? Whaddya mean I can't play with you guys?"

posted by chicobangs at 07:58 PM on November 22

Thank you for a great comment.

posted by yerfatma at 07:58 PM on November 22

That was to spira, not you chico. I hate you.

posted by yerfatma at 07:58 PM on November 22

Wait, is the Kevin Costner IV like that Mash vodka IV gag gift my parents and their friends used to exchange as gag gifts back when they were fun?

posted by yerfatma at 07:59 PM on November 22

So, "gag gift". Just wanted to say that again. And dominate the convo.

posted by yerfatma at 08:00 PM on November 22

Awwww, yerfatma, you sweet, hateful SOB. C'mere, gimme kiss.

posted by chicobangs at 08:15 PM on November 22

why does everybody rag on rizzuto? he was a important cog in the system on of the most impressive dynasties ever. and doesn't he have an mvp? Plus i like rooting for the little guy in general. (disclaimer i'm 5' 10'' and weigh a buck fifty five)

posted by Fade222 at 09:14 PM on November 22

(First comment on SpoFi. Bear with me.) My only qualm with Rose not being on the HoF ballot was that they made the rule about banning such players from being on the HoF ballot *after* he committed the crimes. For that reason alone, I think he should at least get one shot on the ballot. Doing so would pretty much defuse a lot of the argument, for the simple reason that he won't get voted in, anyway. For every media apologist he has, there is also a voter who won't forgive him for either his transgressions or for being such a jackass during this whole thing. Personally, I'd have no problem with him being allowed to be a commentator or scout or some other position within a baseball organization. But keep him away from anything where his judgments directly affect baseball games. He's thrown away his chance for that.

posted by TheQatarian at 09:36 PM on November 22

Qatarian, anyone who uses verbs, nouns and punctuation properly is way, way ahead of the game here. Welcome.

posted by chicobangs at 09:58 PM on November 22

Grammar was always my goodest subject.

posted by TheQatarian at 10:14 PM on November 22

You use your tongue prettier'n a twenty dollar whore.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 07:27 AM on November 23

chicobangs: U R ALL GAY. ROSE WERE SUCKS AND HOF IS ONLY FOR THE **REAL** PLAYERZ!!! TheQatarian: I think that's a good point. In the land of criminal law, if you commit murder in a place that has no death penalty, you can't be sentenced to death, even if a death penalty is subsequently enacted. (Even if you're the inspiration for enacting it.) So, if there was no legislated HOF ban before this incident, he should be given a shot at it. (If you reasonably assume he would have otherwise been on the ballot.)

posted by fabulon7 at 08:01 AM on November 23

Hey, now, fabulon7, at least post an appropriate link, eh? (It's totally work-safe, but there is music at the other end of that link.) Selig has never had an original thought in his head. (I think of him as the P. Diddy of Commissioners, with rather less dress sense.) When situations that required a creative solution have crossed his radar, he has consistently crapped out and taken the easy way. So he's picked up the vendetta against Rose left behind by Giamatti and ignored by Fay Vincent, and adopted it as his own. There was no way Selig was going to make a decision that would have let Rose in, and now it's academic. The law doesn't matter. Logic has no place in the discussion. Personally, I would have loved to see him on the ballot and watch the fireworks. (I don't think he would have gotten enough votes, but it would have been a fun fight.)

posted by chicobangs at 08:20 AM on November 23

To me it has always been very simple. The Rose investigation was grinding the game to a halt. Despite some pretty good pennant races all that was being reported was what the investigator had found next - the papers were full of Pete with little interest in what was happening on the field. The investigator had Petey nailed. The Pete agreed to a lifetime ban from baseall if the Commissioner's office would stop the investigation (which was starting to turn up possible criminal activity). Petey took the deal. It is only a lifetime ban - Pete's life - not baseball's. As soon as his Death Certificate is filed with the Commissioner's office the ban should be lifted! The HOF should then put him on the ballot & he should be voted into the HOF (maybe eventually - depending on the writer's opinions at that time). Baseball will have it's greatest hustler (& hits leader) in the Hal, but Pete gave up the opportunity to be at the Induction Ceremony (& embarass himself & the game). He won't be the first posthumous inductee. Maybe Little Petey can give the speech just for a little controversy.

posted by knuckleballer at 11:14 AM on November 23

knuckleballer- I like the way you think!

posted by willthrill72 at 12:19 PM on November 23

His judgement with regards to gambling was stupid, but his play on the field was absolutely incredible. Rose played the game with the type of dedication, determination, and hard-nosed style every father/coach tries to instill in their sons/players. I don't need to see his bust on display in Cooperstown to understand that. Perfect assessment

posted by hump9n at 01:19 PM on November 23

Rose played the game with the type of dedication, determination, and hard-nosed style every father/coach tries to instill in their sons/players. Pete Rose Jr. pleads guilty to selling GBL to his minor-league teammates. Mission accomplished!

posted by wfrazerjr at 02:54 PM on November 23

Cheating is still cheating. Yes some get away with and that's not fair to those who get caught and some of the cheaters make it to the Hall of Fame. But I couldn't disagree more with those who say the Hall would be empty if you didn't allow any cheaters. What about players like Al Kaline? The man was so clean he squeaked. If you knowingly allow cheaters into the Hall, you lower the status of players like Kaline and that's too unfair to those of his type who did the right way.

posted by commander cody at 11:41 PM on November 23

Okay, the Hall wouldn't be empty. There'd be Kaline, Jackie Robinson, Roberto Clemente maybe, perhaps a couple of others, and then a huge cafeteria and a bowling alley where the main corridor used to be. And that'd be it. So, what, 95% empty? 5% full? Whichever. As people, we celebrate flawed people all the time. Crack a newspaper or a history book, go see a Shakespeare play, check who's the latest E: True Hollywood Story, and you'll see that people's mistakes and flaws are often (usually? pretty much always?) what makes them compelling and worth learning from. Why should Cooperstown be exempt from that? It certainly hasn't been up to now.

posted by chicobangs at 01:35 AM on November 24

Well we could have seperate wings. One for players like Kaline, Robinson, etc. and another (hopefully smaller one) called the astrisk wing for players who's membership is somewhat suspect for various reasons (gambling, cheating, steroids, racism, etc). In return for being admited to this probationary wing all of the suspect players would be required to maintain that bowling alley or wait tables in the cafeteria until they die as penence. Works for me, of course I have been drinking....so......

posted by commander cody at 01:56 AM on November 24

E: True Hollywood Story Jeezus, chico, you don't actually watch those, do you? I will admit to one and only one -- I am drawn to Anna Nicole Smith news like a moth to a ditzy flame.

posted by wfrazerjr at 10:06 AM on November 24

I'm not sure how we know Al Kaline was clean. For all we know, he was popping amphetamines daily. I'm not saying he definitely was, but given the fact that 90% of ballplayers of his time did take them, and all you had to do was drink the coffee in the player's clubhouse to take the amphetamines, it's highly likely that he did. Back to Pete Rose for a sec. According to wire reports, an auction house that is selling one of Pete Rose's old bats - the bat that is reported to have hit Rose's next-to-last major league home run - is reporting that the bat is corked. While Rose certainly did have some positive qualities - his genuine enthusiasm and love for baseball, his (for the time) unusual lack of racism and prejudice - I would not want any one to use Rose as a model of "dedication, determination, and hard-nosed style." Those traits are what sent Rose to prison and ruined his life. And while they sometimes helped him on the ballfield, because he didn't use his aggressiveness intelligently a lot of the time, they also hurt him on the ballfield as well. When it doesn't come with good judgement, a style like Rose's is likely to lead to disaster. He serves as a model of how not to behave. As I suggested earlier, I really do believe there should be a Rose exhibit in the Hall, recognizing his acheivements and his downfall. His successes and failures are great lessons for everybody else.

posted by spira at 03:42 PM on November 24

The rule is the rule, we make an exception, we change the rule. Talent and circumstances have nothing to do with anything. Joe Jackson had more talent and class in his little finger than Crybaby Rose. We're all responsible for what we do.

posted by INOALOSER at 03:57 PM on November 26

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.