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.