Should Pete Rose be reinstated?

[Stoney]

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.

Agreed. At this point the question of wholesale "reinstatement" is essentially moot, obviously nobody's offering Rose a meaningful job in baseball again.

The real question is whether he should be in the HOF, and, IMO, the answer is absolutely yes. And so should Jackson. Why? Because their playing record undisputably warrants it. PERIOD. Our HOFs are already chock full of scumbags, cheaters, drug addicts, racists and, in at least one case, a flat out murderer. Adding a couple degenerate gamblers ain't gonna bring the walls crumbling down. Add a bold faced disclaimer on their plaque detailing their sins if you like like, but the idea of a a group of writers judging whether a player is morally worthy just seems silly to me at this point.

 

[LongTimeListener]

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.

If they did that, he would set up an autograph stand 500 feet away.

 

[buckweaver]

but the idea of a a group of writers judging whether a player is morally worthy just seems silly to me at this point.

Actually, the BBWAA was strongly opposed to the Hall of Fame panel's 1991 vote to bar "ineligible players" from being elected.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/11/sports/hall-of-fame-panel-moves-to-keep-pete-rose-out.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

The vote was 7-3 (2 absent) in favor of removing Rose from the ballot.

The 7 in favor: Lee MacPhail (ex-AL prez), Chub Feeney (NL prez), Dr. Bobby Brown (AL prez), Robin Roberts (HOF pitcher), Charles Segar (ex-MLB exec), John McHale (exec), Buck O'Neil(!)

The 3 opposed: Phil Pepe (past BBWAA president), Jack Lang (BBWAA secretary-treasurer), Edward Stack (HOF president).

The 2 absent: Bill White, Whitey Ford.

Kit Stier of The Oakland Tribune, the president of the writers' association, said that he was "strongly disturbed" by the committee's action.

"In the coming weeks I will contact the individual chapters and determine how they feel about this ruling today," Mr. Stier said by telephone from Oakland. "I hope to have a formal plan by our next meeting in July." He said the group's actions could range from doing nothing to disassociating itself from voting.

 

[kingcreole]

Put Rose in the HOF, with his plaque leading with his banishment from the game before getting into other achievements. Keep his whiny, lying ass away from baseball.

 

[BTExpress]

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?

 

[Chef2]

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.

+1

 

[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.

 

[Starman]

Rose should never, ever be reinstated.


The assumption he never bet against his team is moronic.

 

[BTExpress]

The assumption he never bet against his team is moronic.

You got hundreds and hundreds of pages of investigations and betting slips and so on.

Come up with something other than, "Well, we just know . . . " if that is the main criteria for keeping him out.

"We just knew" that J.R. Richard was a malingerer, too. We are idiots. We don't know shirt.

 

[BB Bobcat]

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.

If they did that, he would set up an autograph stand 500 feet away.

Doesn't he do that anyway?

 

[dooley_womack1]

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.

 

[Starman]

The assumption he never bet against his team is moronic.

You got hundreds and hundreds of pages of investigations and betting slips and so on.

Come up with something other than, "Well, we just know . . . " if that is the main criteria for keeping him out.

"We just knew" that J.R. Richard was a malingerer, too. We are idiots. We don't know shirt.

1) Betting on baseball, AT ALL, is specifically spelled out as grounds for automatic lifetime expulsion.

2) In effect Rose bet against his own team in every game he did not bet FOR them.

3) The only evidence we have that Rose never bet against his own team is his own word. His word is worthless. He has lied on absolutely every other aspect of this situation from beginning to end. His pattern has been utterly consistent:

1) Deny;

2) After strong evidence comes out, partially admit with explanation/rationalization/excuse;

3) Fully admit after incontrovertible proof comes out and try to profit off it.



Why would he suddenly start telling the truth on this one?



Anyone who gives Rose the benefit of any doubt in any regard in this whole situation is mentally challenged.