Unutterably Silly Snap poll: Should Pete Rose be in the Hall of Fame?

[issybird]

Charlie Hustle's now eligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame. Whether or not he deserves to be there is another issue entirely. Discuss at will, or not.

[alaskazimm]

He should be mentioned in some form in the HoF, with a big ole astrick - 4000 hits is really remarkable. But he shouldn't be inducted or have his own area because of his gambling. I don't see how one could legitimately separate his player and managerial career for him to be inducted into the Hall.

[DiapDealer]

I'm voting yes. It's just based on my gut and nothing more. I understand the "lifetime" ban, but now that lifetime is over. He had a huge impact on the game of baseball, regardless of good/bad.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm voting yes. It's just based on my gut and nothing more. I understand the "lifetime" ban, but now that lifetime is over. He had a huge impact on the game of baseball, regardless of good/bad.

Technically speaking, it was a "permanent" ban, not a "lifetime" ban, a critical difference.

I don't see an injustice to Rose (or to his ghost) as he agreed to the penalty and I think as far as baseball goes, there's more value in having a permanent ban for what was an egregious violation than admitting him to the HoF. That's sufficient for me, but I'll add that in terms of mitigating factors, there aren't any. It's not as if he went on to a life of good works in atonement; he didn't even acknowledge what everyone knew was the truth of the matter until he saw a way to capitalize on it.

[DNSB]

Perhaps we could also ask if Shoeless Joe Jackson should have been made eligible for the HoF. After all, Pete Rose always bet on his team to win whereas Shoeless Joe was involved in a scheme to throw the 1919 World Series. He admitted to having taken a $5,000 bribe though he denied having taken any on-field actions to earn that bribe. His statistics during the 1919 World Series seems to support that statement.

[BetterRed]

In 1919 $5,000 would have been top-dollar for a bride

[DiapDealer]

I'm not trying to defend the man in any way. I just believe we tend to overthink "fame" sometimes. And it's the Baseball Hall of Fame. Not the Baseball Hall of Heroes. **shrug**

[pdurrant]

Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me.
-- Julius Caeser, as depicted in Carry On, Cleo.


(The best I can do in a thread about baseball.)

[rcentros]

Yes, he definitely should be in the Hall of Fame. It should have happened before he died. He may not have been a nice guy, but neither was Ty Cobb, whom he overtook in most hits ever. What he did on the baseball field should be the determining factor.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by alaskazimm

He should be mentioned in some form in the HoF, with a big ole astrick - 4000 hits is really remarkable. But he shouldn't be inducted or have his own area because of his gambling. I don't see how one could legitimately separate his player and managerial career for him to be inducted into the Hall.

Only way his gambling habit should keep him out is if he bet against his own team. And I can't see someone as competitive as Pete Rose ever doing that.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm not trying to defend the man in any way. I just believe we tend to overthink "fame" sometimes. And it's the Baseball Hall of Fame. Not the Baseball Hall of Heroes. **shrug**

Agreed. What next, removing players from the Hall of Fame, like Ty Cobb, who wasn't a nice guy either.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Only way his gambling habit should keep him out is if he bet against his own team. And I can't see someone as competitive as Pete Rose ever doing that.

There are a lot of reasons why even betting for his own team is sufficient to disqualify him, so I’ll focus on the main one.

Belaboring the obvious, in baseball you play almost every day and even the best team is going to lose a lot of games. Which means that a manager always has to be looking ahead and planning for the next day and the day after that. So, imagine a scenario where the manager has bet a boatload of money on the game in progress which he’s losing badly, but nothing on tomorrow’s game. At some point in a lopsided loss, a manager should focus on getting out of the current game and conserving resources for the next day. If he’s about to lose his shirt, that won’t necessarily be the case; he may be willing to throw everything he’s got into trying to turn around the game. Using up pitchers, making risky plays and so forth. In short, unless it’s the seventh game of the World Series, you can’t be sure that a manager who bets on some games and not others won’t make decisions not in the team’s best interest.

[Catlady]

I'm really late to this, and the poll is closed, but I would have voted a resounding NO. Pete Rose's stats aren't being expunged from baseball history, but the Hall of Fame is about more than stats. Sure, other players in the Hall have not been perfect little gentlemen, and I know that there are more serious offenses than gambling in the real world, but in the baseball world, gambling is the cardinal sin because it strikes at the heart of the game.

Every baseball player knows that gambling is not allowed. It's not some gray area open to interpretation. There's no exception for betting on your own team to win. Rose knew this and did it anyway. He was banned, he accepted the ban, and as far as I know, he never showed any remorse. He thought he was above the rules, and his arrogance should not be rewarded with enshrinement in the Hall of Fame.

He was also a pretty despicable human being, including on the field. Imagine being such a lunatic that in a meaningless All-Star game, he barreled into catcher Ray Fosse at home plate, injuring him and permanently damaging his career. THAT is the kind of out-of-control "hustle" that Rose is generally praised for? It was despicable, as was Pete Rose.

[jackm8]

I'm possibly not the one to do judgement. I never saw him play as a player or as a manager. I know the sport, I occasionally watch the sport. I even like the sport, with some reservations, but I certainly don't know enough about it. It's my offhand opinion that he should certainly be in HOF. Ten, thirty, years ago. He is numerically one of the best there ever was. Is that not the main criteria for HOF? I've always been of opinion that sportsman achievements should stand by themselves, we simply don't know how good or bad some people are in their private lives. Possibly the biggest philanthropist is a bad person, and the most outspoken hater, does have a good heart hidden inside. I suspend my verdict on all public persons because of this. I don't idolise anyone, and I try not to condemn anyone as well.

Regarding Pete Rose. Wasn't his playing career near flawless? One of the best hitters ever, he hit extremely well in an era that was pitcher friendly. His biggest detraction is that he was a bad manager, that he did wrong as a manager. But he would not get into HOF as a manager, that's a different criteria. His main player drawback is often cited that All Star game, where he injured an opposing catcher. As I understand it, It wasn't a meaningless game, it wasn't a meaningless play. It was a play that decided that All Star game. Yes, he injured a player, that player had playing consequences, but he really didn't end his career. He ended being a game commentator. Would he get that job if he wasn't known as a player that Pete Rose injured in an All Star game? Who knows. Another thing, here I'm probably at a loss regarding baseball rules. As I understand them, it was Pete Rose that was in the right at that play. Catcher could then block the plate, if he did, runner had the right to crash into him. It's a nonsensical rule to me, and I believe that it was changed lately, but per rules, Pete Rose did nothing wrong, he just played the game as it was allowed.

Again, I may be very wrong on that one. Despite that, even if he did bad on that play, he should still be in HOF. Put an asterisk next to his name, mention his bad behaviour as a manager, but just put him in there.