Should Pete Rose be reinstated?

[heyabbott]

If Barry Bonds gets in, so should Pete. And Pete would already be in if he were white.

 

[gravehunter]

For HOF, yes, back on the field, no.

Agreed.

 

[Captain_Kirk]

Don't really get the "Let Jackson in first" arguments.

IMO if you are in as a player, only your deeds (or misdeeds) while a player should count.

Jackson was a conspirator (albeit a silent, reluctant one) to throwing a World Series as a player.

Rose bet on his team to win as a manager.

The differences here are immense, I believe.


If Joe offers one "heck, no!" and acts like a man, the fix dies the the Sox win the Series.

Did the Reds ever lose a game because of any wager Rose made?

I seriously doubt that presuming Joe Jackson had not gone along with the fix would have prevented it from occurring.

 

[Starman]

On Joe Jackson:

1) He signed a confession.

2) There is some evidence he dogged it in the field (i.e. slow-jogging after fly balls, throwing to wrong base, etc) allowing Cincinnati to score several key runs

3) There is also evidence that his hitting mainly occurred when the games were out of hand (either way)

4) The main defenses for Jackson seem to fall into two categories, a: he was too stupid to even understand what the gamblers were proposing, or b: he agreed to the fix at first and then when he didn't get all the money he was promised, decided to try to fork the gamblers over instead.

 

[Joe Williams]

Come to think of it, this idea of letting Jackson and Rose into the Hall after they're dead is an insult to someone like Ron Santo, who waited till he was dead without ever gambling on baseball.

 

[Double J]

We are supposed to be forgiving people.

We are.

For murderers and rapists and drug abusers and wife-beaters.

Just not for someone who bet on his team to win. Because that rule is POSTED ON WALLS (never mind those posted speed limits on highways, though; we just ignore those silly, you know, laws).

Gotta keep things in perspective, ya know.


The human mind's ability to rationalize Bad Behavior A while at the same time being so rigid against Bad Behavior B is a wonder.

This. Holy fork.

 

[dooley_womack1]

Come to think of it, this idea of letting Jackson and Rose into the Hall after they're dead is an insult to someone like Ron Santo, who waited till he was dead without ever gambling on baseball.

And without having stats that screamed out "Hall of Fame."

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Don't really get the "Let Jackson in first" arguments.

IMO if you are in as a player, only your deeds (or misdeeds) while a player should count.

Jackson was a conspirator (albeit a silent, reluctant one) to throwing a World Series as a player.

Rose bet on his team to win as a manager.

The differences here are immense, I believe.


If Joe offers one "heck, no!" and acts like a man, the fix dies the the Sox win the Series.

Did the Reds ever lose a game because of any wager Rose made?

I seriously doubt that presuming Joe Jackson had not gone along with the fix would have prevented it from occurring.

Pitchers hold the power, and with Cicotte and Williams, the gamblers held the aces.

 

[BTExpress]

Pitchers hold the power, and with Cicotte and Williams, the gamblers held the aces.

Both pitchers were reluctant participants. And much of it was just following along. "Well, if Eddie's in, then I guess I am. What? You got Jackson? . . . "

The pitchers were also told they would get help and would not have to look bad. Take away that help from the hitters and fielders, and they likely buckle.

And if Jackson simply tells the Gleason, "You gotta stop this!" Cicotte never touches the ball.

 

[BB Bobcat]

Can't believe I have to explain this people...

Let's say you run a restaurant and have to hire one of two people as a chef. The first guy is a pedophile. The second guy refuses to wash his hands (or wear gloves)..

Obviously, from a society standpoint, being a pedophile is much worse. But from the restaurant's point of view, it doesn't really impact their product (the food). It's a PR hit for sure, but that's all. The second guy is actually compromising the food, which compromises the entire business. If you had to eat a meal prepared by the pedophile or by the guy who doesn't wash his hands, which would you eat?

You say Pete didn't compromise the game by only betting on his own team, but what if he saves a reliever one day because he didn't bet on this game, and he's betting on tomorrows? What if he loses so much that he puts himself in a hole and the gamblers offer him a quick way to erase his debt?

The rule is clear and it's there for a reason. The penalty is clear and Pete is paying the price.

(EDIT: I will admit that betting on your team is not as bad as betting against your team, and that it's possible that Pete never actually did any of the things that actually compromised the game, which is why he perhaps could have gotten himself reinstated if he'd just confessed in the first place and why I wouldn't object to the conditional HOF scenario I mentioned. My analogy was just to explain why betting on baseball requires special punishment that other off-field issues do not.)

 

[dooley_womack1]

That restaurant serves kids, right?

 

[Gehrig]

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.

I'm not sure that the OJ was elected into the NFL HOF and then years later did what he did is really much of an argument on Rose's behalf.

Reflects the lameness of rending garments over something not done as a player in Rose's case.

If you believe Rose did not pick up his serious gambling habit until he was done as a player you probably have believed him all along. Not electing Rose because he would enjoy it too much is not an argument anyone with a grasp of the situation would bother with.