Pete Rose sycophants

[HomerOne]

It seems like every few years the Pete Rose sycophants come out of the woodwork and begin lamenting the fact that he's not in the Baseball Hall of Fame. A couple of weeks ago when Bud Selig left office, almost immediately the sycophants came out of the woodwork again, practically begging and pleading with new MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred to put Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame. In the first place, that's not going to happen. The current leadership of the Hall of Fame, most of them, dislike Pete Rose and they are a very conservative group that has already made up their minds that he's not going in. In the second place, the Commissioner doesn't have the authority to put a guy into Cooperstown. All he could do is allow Rose to be voted on for the Hall of Fame which, again, will NOT happen. Even if Manfred were to do that, the Hall of Fame voters, most of them, will turn around and say "There's no way we're voting him in." Period.

I understand the love and appreciation that many baseball fans have for Pete Rose. Growing up, I looked up to him as well although my favorite player was Mike Schmidt. I emulated Pete with his crouch and his headfirst slides and I appreciated his love of the game and his work ethic. And, if there's anything good that I can say about Pete Rose, it is that he helped make his teams better. There's no way IMHO that the 1980 Phillies win a World Series without Rose. However, with the good came the bad and Rose bet on baseball as a player AND a manager which is something you just don't do if you claim to be baseball's best ambassador. If you're baseball's best ambassador, you would know that there's a huge sign in every MLB clubhouse that says gambling isn't allowed. If you're a person who respects the history of the game and the men who have played before you, then you don't break the #1 Cardinal Rule of baseball.

Now, some of you may be thinking that enough time has gone by and Pete has paid the price for his sin. I'm able to forgive and I know that Pete finally admitted what most of us suspected back in 2004. However I personally don't believe that he told the whole truth and, moreover, I can forgive but cannot forget that Pete went 15 years telling lies and smearing the names of good people like John Dowd and others who had mountains of evidence against him. I also can forgive and forget how MLB lost a great man in A. Bartlett Giamatti whose death was largely having little to do with the banishment of Pete Rose, but there's no question that he must have been under incredible stress during that time in his life. And, sadly, I think had Giamatti lived that we would have had one of the greatest MLB Commissioners of all-time. I don't think baseball would have had a strike in 1994 had Giamatti been alive nor do I think the steroids scandal would have escalated to the point that it did had he still been Commissioner. Bart genuinely and sincerely loved the game and I really believe that with all of my heart. I also genuinely and sincerely believe that he agonized over banning Pete Rose and felt terrible about doing so, but he did what was right. And if Pete had the sense back then to come clean and tell the truth, he probably would have been reinstated within 5 years. Of course, that didn't happen and Pete and his reputation still largely suffers from the ramifications of that decision.

Some people have said things like "Well, it isn't like Pete murdered someone! People have done a lot worse." My response to that is, yes, that is true. Murder is one of the worst crimes one could ever commit, but it's not the only crime. If you know that something you're going to say or do is going to hurt someone or anyone, that's not a mistake. That's a wrong. And what Pete did over a number of years was wrong.

[The Game]

If the Commish lifts the ban on him I have no doubt that he will get in...eventually. As he says he did not bet as a player just as a MGR, so should he be punished for what he did as a MGR vs a player? if he gets his ban lifted then i want to see Sholess Joe Jacksons ban lifted also.

[Jason Moyer]

If they're going to lift Joe Jackson's ban, they might as well start allowing players to throw games.

Also, whenever people say Rose/Jackson should be in there but not Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Palmeiro, and anyone else the media suspects was involved with PEDs, I can't help but wonder if they aren't mentally retarded. I'm talking actual sub-whatever IQ here.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by The Game

As he says he did not bet as a player just as a MGR, so should he be punished for what he did as a MGR vs a player?

Yes, he should, because the rules regarding betting on baseball are crystal clear:

Originally Posted by Major League Rule 21(d)

(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES.

(1) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform, shall be declared ineligible for one year.

(2) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible.

The rule explicitly makes no distinction between actions as a player or a manager when it comes to betting on baseball. Rose, as manager, was a club official and employee, and he bet on baseball games.

He knew the rules and he foolishly broke them.

[Orcin]

To the OP:

I believe that Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. This opinion does not make me a sycophant, and I resent your implication that I don't have a mind of my own but rather fall in lock-step with what others tell me to do. I make up my own mind. I didn't come out of the woodwork on this issue but, since YOU brought it up, I will state my case again.

Pete Rose is the all-time leader in hits. Case closed.

Your case against Rose is really weak and full of fallacy. You run the gamut from accusing him of murdering Giamatti to holding him responsible for the steroid era. If we are going to keep people out of the Hall of Fame for doing something wrong, then let's clear the deck of people like Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, and Mickey Mantle first. Geez, it's not like Pete Rose let the air out of some footballs.

On the other hand, we might consider what Rose did ON the field as a player. You cannot logically argue that his record as a player was not worthy of the Hall. Look at his record... top-10 MVP voting 10 times, 17 all-star appearances, etc. Rose is a Hall of Fame player by any strict definition.

The rule quoted above by LGO does not prohibit Pete Rose from being inducted into the Hall of Fame. That was done by people, not rules.

It's the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of People We Like. Put the all-time hit leader in it, followed by the all-time home run leader and the all-time leader in Cy Young awards. Let's stop all this foolishness.

[RchW]

Very well said. I too resent the sycophant allegation. Rose belongs in the HoF warts and all. The story should be there for everyone to see.

[TribeFanInNC]

Originally Posted by Orcin

It's the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of People We Like. Put the all-time hit leader in it, followed by the all-time home run leader and the all-time leader in Cy Young awards. Let's stop all this foolishness.

Yeah, this is the stance I've kinda come to as well. They were part of the history of baseball, for better or worse. The HoF should be a museum of the history for ALL of baseball, not just 93% of it. It should not be sugar coated. Rose and Bonds and Clemens should be in. It should also tell that Rose was banned for life, Bonds and Clemens and Palmeiro lied, etc...

[CommishJoe]

Originally Posted by Orcin

The rule quoted above by LGO does not prohibit Pete Rose from being inducted into the Hall of Fame. That was done by people, not rules.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the logic behind this statement. The rule clearly states:

(2) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible.

After thinking about this more, you could be right. Since Rose chose to bet on games he was managing, he willfully violated rule #2 making himself ineligible for the HoF. So, I suppose "people" did keep him out, but it wasn't really people, it was person ... himself. You can try to point fingers at whoever else you want, but if he didn't choose to bet on his team in clear violation of rules with a clear penalty, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Pete Rose is directly responsible for keeping Pete Rose out of the HoF.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by CommishJoe

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the logic behind this statement. The rule clearly states:

(2) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible.

After thinking about this more, you could be right. Since Rose chose to bet on games he was managing, he willfully violated rule #2 making himself ineligible for the HoF. So, I suppose "people" did keep him out, but it wasn't really people, it was person ... himself. You can try to point fingers at whoever else you want, but if he didn't choose to bet on his team in clear violation of rules with a clear penalty, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Pete Rose is directly responsible for keeping Pete Rose out of the HoF.

I think you're missing the point. No one is pointing fingers elsewhere, we are saying that the in in infamous is just a prefix and that the HoF is not a hall of statistics. The Hall of Fame should tell the story of famous players who played Baseball, including the cheats, the wife beaters, the racists and the idiots. Nothing bad can ever come from telling the truth.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by CommishJoe

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the logic behind this statement. The rule clearly states:

(2) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible.

MLB rule 21(d) does not apply to the Hall of Fame. Pete Rose is ineligible for the Hall of Fame because the HOF board voted in 1991 to exclude anyone who receives a lifetime ban. Those PEOPLE could easily reverse their position.

[HomerOne]

Originally Posted by Orcin

To the OP:

I believe that Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. This opinion does not make me a sycophant, and I resent your implication that I don't have a mind of my own but rather fall in lock-step with what others tell me to do. I make up my own mind. I didn't come out of the woodwork on this issue but, since YOU brought it up, I will state my case again.

Pete Rose is the all-time leader in hits. Case closed.

Your case against Rose is really weak and full of fallacy. You run the gamut from accusing him of murdering Giamatti to holding him responsible for the steroid era. If we are going to keep people out of the Hall of Fame for doing something wrong, then let's clear the deck of people like Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, and Mickey Mantle first. Geez, it's not like Pete Rose let the air out of some footballs.

On the other hand, we might consider what Rose did ON the field as a player. You cannot logically argue that his record as a player was not worthy of the Hall. Look at his record... top-10 MVP voting 10 times, 17 all-star appearances, etc. Rose is a Hall of Fame player by any strict definition.

The rule quoted above by LGO does not prohibit Pete Rose from being inducted into the Hall of Fame. That was done by people, not rules.

It's the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of People We Like. Put the all-time hit leader in it, followed by the all-time home run leader and the all-time leader in Cy Young awards. Let's stop all this foolishness.

Orcin, that was a very reasonable, well-thought out and intelligent rebuttal. Thank you. And, incidentally, I DO consider Rose to be a Hall of Famer. No question. I myself would not have a problem with allowing him to be voted on for the Hall of Fame, but as I said earlier in this post, it's simply not going to happen. The Baseball Hall of Fame has already made its mind up that he's not going in.

I respect Pete Rose for his accomplishments as a baseball player and I grew up idolizing him. He wasn't my favorite player, though. That honor belonged to Mike Schmidt. However, Schmidt would never have been the MVP in 1980 were it not for Rose. He helped elevate Mike's game and there's no question that Rose was THE main reason why the Phillies won the World Series in 1980. Of course, they got a break with JR Richard being out of the NLCS. Had that happened, I still think the Astros would have made it to the World Series.

That being said, I apologize if I offended you or anyone else with my post. You and everyone else in here are true fans of the game and I respect you guys immensely. I just disagree with some fans who every year have to whine about Rose not being in Cooperstown. With all due respect, I would put "Shoeless Joe" Jackson in before I ever put Rose.

[CONN CHRIS]

Originally Posted by HomerOne

With all due respect, I would put "Shoeless Joe" Jackson in before I ever put Rose.

?!? Based on body of work, Rose is unquestionably a hall of famer. With only 11 seasons (great seasons for sure) and the balance of what might have been unfortunately unknowable, Jackson is quite obviously somewhere further down the HOF certainty scale.

[Izz]

Originally Posted by HomerOne

And, incidentally, I DO consider Rose to be a Hall of Famer. No question. I myself would not have a problem with allowing him to be voted on for the Hall of Fame

...

With all due respect, I would put "Shoeless Joe" Jackson in before I ever put Rose.

Your contradictions are contradictory...

[RchW]

Originally Posted by CONN CHRIS

?!? Based on body of work, Rose is unquestionably a hall of famer. With only 11 seasons (great seasons for sure) and the balance of what might have been unfortunately unknowable, Jackson is quite obviously somewhere further down the HOF certainty scale.

I agree but if Jackson had been injured instead of banned the HoF would be a slam dunk. He is 5th to 18th depending on the measurement at either RF or LF despite playing the least amount of games by a large margin. For some strange reason BR has him ranked as a RF yet his playing record has him playing mostly LF. One of the inconsistencies of the HoF is how some short career players were voted in and others not. Usually related to what city they played in.

Interestingly Rose is a compiler; a player who hung on for 8 years while below league average. If you take off the compiling years he finishes with 3372 hits. That's why a lot of people don't like numbers like 3000 hits and 300 wins because they often get used without context.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by RchW

Interestingly Rose is a compiler; a player who hung on for 8 years while below league average. If you take off the compiling years he finishes with 3372 hits. That's why a lot of people don't like numbers like 3000 hits and 300 wins because they often get used without context.

It's not like he was batting .175, either, and somewhere, somebody put him in the lineup not because there was a revered icon, let's play him, maybe people will come and buy ice cream and beer while he strikes out four times.

You got to admit (if not admire) that a 44-year old could go out there and still hit .264/.395/.319 in 405 AB. If that's compiling, I would like to have him compile on my team right now. Since when is longevity a bad thing? There are 34-year olds unable to bat .200 and not killing themselves in the field. Should they retire right away and get voted to the Hall because "oh well, he knew he was done and didn't want to compile"?


I think I'll call this the Dan Uggla Conundrum, and no, I am not for Dan Uggla in the Hall of Fame except for emptying trash cans when everybody's gone.

But say, someone's 34, has 2,480 hits and 396 HR, and he's batting .170 with two dingers in June. Nobody would vote for him just because he retired before it became really ugly.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by RchW

Interestingly Rose is a compiler; a player who hung on for 8 years while below league average. If you take off the compiling years he finishes with 3372 hits. That's why a lot of people don't like numbers like 3000 hits and 300 wins because they often get used without context.

He was a compiler?

First of all, people don't discount 3000 hits. Second of all, people don't discount the first 3000 hits out of 4000!

At age 40, Rose finished 10th in MVP voting. He had an OPS+ of 118 - clearly above average. At age 41, he made the all-star team with an OPS+ of 90 - still not bad. He only picked up 387 hits after that. You are calling a guy that got 3869 hits a compiler - that's bull. He would still be #2 all-time if he retired in his final all-star year.

[RchW]

I think you guys are over emotional about the term compiler. It's not an insult it is a fact. Pete Rose and the Reds were my favorite team in the early 1970's and I support his inclusion in the HoF

Ichiro is becoming a compiler too. It doesn't change my thoughts about his HoF credentials.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by Orcin

He was a compiler?

First of all, people don't discount 3000 hits. Second of all, people don't discount the first 3000 hits out of 4000!

At age 40, Rose finished 10th in MVP voting. He had an OPS+ of 118 - clearly above average. At age 41, he made the all-star team with an OPS+ of 90 - still not bad. He only picked up 387 hits after that. You are calling a guy that got 3869 hits a compiler - that's bull. He would still be #2 all-time if he retired in his final all-star year.

Orcin, I have to agree with RchW. I think the word compiler needs defusing though. All that's meant by it is that his case for the Hall is more defined more by his longevity than his peak. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. His numbers are plenty good enough for the HoF, and I don't see where anyone is disputing that.

[Jason Moyer]

Ichiro's HoF case should rest on his defense and baserunning. As I believe someone may have mentioned before on this very forum, as a hitter he wasn't even as good as Bobby Abreu. As a compiler he's not really noteworthy since he was in a minor league until his late 20's.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

Orcin, I have to agree with RchW. I think the word compiler needs defusing though. All that's meant by it is that his case for the Hall is more defined more by his longevity than his peak. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. His numbers are plenty good enough for the HoF, and I don't see where anyone is disputing that.

Thanks for the support. Of course I meant no insult. I'll quibble with your definition though. Rose could have retired after the 1979 season and been a first ballot HoFer. I don't think his case is defined by his longevity, instead his longevity did nothing for his case. Ichiro is heading in that direction too.