Should Pete Rose be reinstated?

Never

 

Considering Rose sells autographed copies of the paperwork banning him from baseball for $500 with the inscription, "I'm sorry i bet on baseball'" I say hell no. He's still making a travesty of the game he claims to love. Pete hasn't learned a thing.

http://m.upi.com/m/story/UPI-37171322686265/

 

Easiest "no" I've typed all day.

 

BTW, I was in a dugout in West Palm Beach in March 1984 when Rose was an Expo and he was wild-eyed, kid-on-Christmas-morning excited over an NCAA basketball tournament pool that day. His zeal for gambling peaked through in a way that made sense when the baseball scandal about him became known.

 

It still is on WLW ... in Cincinnati, that subject has never really died, although it has gone on hiatus a few times when the Reds have made themselves relevant over the last few decades.

That said, I loved Rose as a player, but the game has to have some integrity, and he crossed an uncrossable line.

 

I'm not family (though I might as well be), but there's no question about this.

IF Weaver had padded his stats through the offensively minded 1920s (quite possible) AND he had continued to hit as well as he did after becoming a switch-hitter in 1917 (also quite possible) AND he doesn't get moved back to shortstop again because his teammates kept getting hurt (he was much more comfortable at third), then MAYBE he sneaks in as one of the weaker Veterans Committee choices, a la so many other Deadball Era infielders*, because he was such a likable guy and a hard-nosed player on two (or possibly more) championship teams.

* See: Maranville, Rabbit; Tinker, Joe; Evers, Johnny; Bancroft, Dave; Jackson, Travis; Wallace, Bobby; Sewell, Joe; Lindstrom, Freddie, et al.

But without a few more seasons like he had in 1920, he doesn't even come close right now.

 

Remember also that it wasn't just Pete Rose's gambling, and his betting on his own team, and his lying about it to the commissioner and then for years afterward. It also was his complete and unsufferable arrogance about the whole thing. Rose thought he was above the game and therefore deserved to be above suspicion. His cloak of denial was large and wrapped tight. And his long crusade has been full of bluster and, at the same time, difficult to watch.

What a sad and epic fall, a modern-day morality play in real life, for a man who once was the toast of America. But no wonder he still can't turn the tide.

 

I would have no problem if he never got in the HOF.

I'd also have no problem if they let him in, but didn't even invite him for induction weekend, put on his plaque that he was banned for betting on baseball, and never let him work in baseball.

 

Forgiveness =/= Eliminating consequences.

You can argue that you don't think the consequence should be a lifetime ban, but just "forgiving" him does not mean he escapes punishment. Members of society can forgive a murderer, but he can still justly be imprisoned until he dies.

Punishment can serve multiple purposes. When we forgive, we should no longer punish for the purpose of expressing our outrage or exacting vengeance.

However, even after we forgive, we should continue to exact punishments that are meant to serve as deterrents to future generations.

 

My thoughts on Rose:

He should absolutely be elected to the Hall; it's not a Hall of Fame without the all-time Hit King. But only on two conditions:

1) He's dead.
2) Jackson goes in first. Joe was a much, much, much better player and he's been dead longer.

Once Rose's life is over, baseball's jurisdictional powers should cease to exist ... and it's long overdue that Jackson stop being punished, too. Then, and only then, should Rose be declared eligible and elected to the Hall of Fame. Include the ban prominently on his plaque inscription. But he doesn't get to work in baseball ever again and he doesn't get to enjoy being a Hall of Famer.

 

The Hall of Fame is supposed to honor those who have been baseball's top achievers, the faces of the game. Pete Rose as a player clearly belongs. If O.J. Simpson can be civilly found responsible for two murders and still be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, I think Pete Rose can be inducted as a player despite having admitted to something after his playing career that is far, far, far less heinous than what O.J. was found civilly responsible for. And that's an interesting argument: don't let someone be in the Hall of Fame because they'd enjoy it too much. My thought is that Rose probably has a strong thread of anhedonia, so I don't think it would bring him terribly much joy, but that still is a silly criterion.

 

But ... but ... Rose killed Giamatti! :-X