11/21/24
December 19, 2006
The Better Part of Pete: The Cincinnati Reds Hall of Fame is planning an 11-month, 2000 square foot exhibit celebrating the playing career of Pete Rose. Notoriously banned from consideration by the National Baseball Hall of Fame, he is not a member of the club's Hall either. There is no formal statement regarding Rose's eligibility on their list of inductees page, but it does say that there was no induction from 1989 until 1998, and after that the election process was handed over to the Baseball Writers Association of America. Are the writers executing their own ban of Charlie Hustle?
posted by BullpenPro to baseball at 03:21 PM - 79 comments
I'm betting on MLB to pressure the Reds to cancel the exhibit...
posted by irunfromclones at 03:43 PM on December 19, 2006
I'm betting on MLB to pressure the Reds to cancel the exhibit... I'm betting that they let it happen without making a peep. After all, he's banned from working in baseball, and (it seems) being inducted into the MLB HOF, but since they allowed him to participate in the on-field ceremonies celebrating the greatest players of the past century, I can't see how they'd have any leverage to stop the Reds from honouring him as well.
posted by grum@work at 03:51 PM on December 19, 2006
The Reds asked for and received permission from MLB to have Rose participate in the press conference announcing the exhibit.
posted by BullpenPro at 04:03 PM on December 19, 2006
One thing is for sure, I'll be there to see it. I can understand why other's feel differently about Rose, but I think he should be in the hall. His addiction aside, he played ball the way I think it should be played. I think he did more with less talent than anyone in history, he did it with passion and heart. I honestly believe that if Rose's problems had developed in tday's modern era, It would be little more than a hefty fine and probably a heavy suspension. Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe he broke a major rule. I do think in today's society he would have been treated much differently...offered counseling or whatever. The commishner wanted Rose to be his legacy and that's what he got.
posted by louisville_slugger at 06:16 PM on December 19, 2006
I think he did more with less talent than anyone in history, he did it with passion and heart. I honestly believe that if Rose's problems had developed in tday's modern era, It would be little more than a hefty fine and probably a heavy suspension. Some would suggest he did it with less talent and more greenies, too. It kind of explains the running to first base when drawing a walk and his constant "hustle". And he's gotten a "heavy suspension". Life. I expect that he might even get elected to the HOF, but not while he's alive.
posted by grum@work at 06:33 PM on December 19, 2006
And he's gotten a "heavy suspension". Life. Well no shit. My opinion was that he would have never got punished that severly in this era..but if he did it would probably be lifted within a year. If you disagree with that I'm cool with it and can understand any arguement against it. Just my opinion.
posted by louisville_slugger at 07:36 PM on December 19, 2006
Some would suggest he did it with less talent and more greenies, too. It kind of explains the running to first base when drawing a walk and his constant "hustle". So, Pete was the only one on greenies? Well you know...since he was the only one that constantly "hustled" like that and all. I guess that some may suggest that steroids explain the constant pounding the f-n ball out of the park thing too. But then they're just nuts aren't they?
posted by tselson at 10:25 PM on December 19, 2006
There has NEVER been any accusations of Pete using drugs of ANY kind!So get off it!All the crap people from Ty Cobb on have gotten away with?PUT THE MAN IN THE HALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
posted by mdavidsf at 05:32 AM on December 20, 2006
This is a good time of year to remember the idea of forgiveness. People have been dwelling on Pete Rose's mistakes for far, far too long. If Cooperstown isn't in the cards for the guy, hopefully baseball won't be stupid enough to throw a wrench in what the Reds are trying to do. Rose was one of the best competitors the game has ever seen, and the intangibles he brought on the field were the same ones I tried to emulate when I played baseball. Let the fans who choose to enjoy the display. Rose, as a Red, was a member of one of the most memorable teams ever assembled. That's how I choose to remember him, regardless of his personality or other possible-transgressions.
posted by dyams at 07:22 AM on December 20, 2006
PUT THE MAN IN THE HALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I needed just one more exclamation point to vote him in. Sorry. And really, Rose committed the worst possible crime against his sport, the crime that nearly ended professional baseball, and for which it carries a black eye ever since. If you want forgiveness for Rose, you want for forgiveness for Shoeless Joe Jackson first, and that's not going to happen.
posted by qbert72 at 07:22 AM on December 20, 2006
If you want forgiveness for Rose, you want for forgiveness for Shoeless Joe Jackson first Not just Jackson, who has been painted as a somewhat sympathetic character in that mess. Forgiving Rose means forgiving Chick Gandil, Eddie Cicotte, and everyone else who quite evidently willfully participated in throwing the World Series. It's also forgiving every point shaver in any sport, every boxer who ever took a dive, and every gambler who ever attempted to fix a game. I don't see how you get to just excuse the Hall of Fame quality players. I'm still trying to forgive myself for enjoying Ishtar. Baby steps.
posted by BullpenPro at 08:21 AM on December 20, 2006
Just to clarify, I don't mind personal forgiveness. If you want to forgive Pete Rose, you're welcome to. But baseball as an organized professional sport can't afford forgiveness in this particular case.
posted by qbert72 at 08:30 AM on December 20, 2006
I got that, qbert72. And to clarify my statement, I think it's totally fine, as dyams suggested, to celebrate the spirit with which Rose approached playing the game. Enhanced or not, his passion on the field was not surpassed, and he is surely still the poster child for performing above your talents out of hustle and sheer will. Nothing wrong with acknowledging that, as long as it's kept in context.
posted by BullpenPro at 08:40 AM on December 20, 2006
I just have to give my opinion on the subject of Pete Rose. I understand and respect the fact that he is the all-time hit king with 4,256 hits and he deserves to be acknowledged for that but still, Charlie Hustle betted on baseball. People can agree to disagree all they want about this subject but the fact remains is that.....yup, he betted on baseball. I think that Pete Rose can eventually be inshrined into Cooperstown but it won't be while he's still alive or maybe not even at all. I don't think the suits that 'control' MLB want to give Pete Rose the pleasure of seeing this happen anytime soon and people should remember that this he did agree to this lifetime ban anyways. What he did as a player was truly special and it would take another special player to duplicate or surpass what he did. No one played with more heart and passion or hustled like Pete Rose did but if MLB can keep "Shoeless" Joe Jackson out of the Hall of Fame (even after his death) what makes anyone think that he'll get in. They both betted on baseball and both were banned. Sad but true.
posted by BornIcon at 09:17 AM on December 20, 2006
Pete Rose may have bet on baseball. First of all, he admitted and apologized for his mistake. Second, several baseball players have done things ten times worse than Rose did. Should Barry Bonds be banned from baseball for life? Third, he always bet on the Reds to win. This would have made him work harder to win. Anyway, Pete Rose was one of the greatest baseball players to play the game and he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.
posted by semmel512 at 09:28 AM on December 20, 2006
Do people not realize that the biggest rule in baseball if your involved in one way or another (as a player, coach, owner, executive, ect.) is to NOT bet on baseball? That rule is posted in every single clubhouse down from the Minors all the way up to the Majors. Why is so hard for people to understand that simple rule? If someone (i.e. Pete Rose or Joe Jackson) breaks that rule and decides to bet on the game and somehow, someway it surfaces, you will be banned from the game altogether. No if's and's or but's about it, your punishment is that you will be banned for life. It's commom knowledge what the outcome will be if that was to happen to any person involved. It may not be fair considering what's going on with the whole steroid cloud hanging over the proverbial head of baseball but rules are the rules and this rule is not made to be broken. If there was a rule that says if caught using steroids, you will be banned, then so be it. Until then, the rule states that if you bet and get caught doing so, you will be banned and apologizing for it like Pete Rose has done (even though he has denied it for over 17 years) will not help.
posted by BornIcon at 11:04 AM on December 20, 2006
Pete Rose may have bet on baseball. First of all, he admitted and apologized for his mistake. Second, several baseball players have done things ten times worse than Rose did. Should Barry Bonds be banned from baseball for life? Third, he always bet on the Reds to win. This would have made him work harder to win. Anyway, Pete Rose was one of the greatest baseball players to play the game and he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. A few problems with what you have written:
- Pete Rose did bet on baseball, not may.
- He only admitted and apologized for his mistake after he'd been caught and punished, and only after he denied it repeatedly for over 15 years.
- What does Barry Bonds have to do with gambling on baseball? Burn your straw man somewhere else.
- We don't know that he only bet on the Reds to win. If a known liar like Rose says he only bet on the Reds to win, why should we believe him after all the other things he's lied about.
- "Working harder to win" shouldn't be predicated on whether you have money riding on the game. It suggests he didn't try when he didn't bet on games he was involved in, which is just as bad.
- Pete Rose was a very good baseball player, but I can probably name 20 players greater than him off the top of my head.
- What he did ON the field would probably be enough to get him into the hall of fame, but what he did OFF the field is definitely enough to keep him out of the hall of fame.
posted by grum@work at 11:23 AM on December 20, 2006
Grum, when I read that post I had exactly the same reaction and formulated a response in my head that was, verbatim, what you said. Numbers and everything. Spot on -- thanks. And, on edit, I think I can make a compelling list that keeps Pete off the top 10 Reds. Definitely not top 3.
posted by BullpenPro at 11:30 AM on December 20, 2006
I wholeheartedly agree with the "No Betting on Baseball" rule. Betting doesn't have a place in any sport, period. But baseball has entered a whole new area now with the good ol' performance enhancing drugs. While they may not have all the concrete evidence they wish to have, they still know what it's all leading to: Cheating on baseball, only in a different manner. These individuals who want Rose out of the Hall (and I can't completely argue with that sentiment) better not be the same ones considering allowing Mark McGwire in. His cheating and added-advantage altered the game on the field. In my book, it's all the same. And I don't care if there's no real, hard, conclusive evidence at this time against McGwire. He had an opportunity to speak out and come clean before Congress, but his silence/unwillingness spoke far more against him anyways. Rose has always, on the other hand, maintained he never betted against his own team. Whether or not he's telling the truth, he was never given the benefit of the doubt. Whether it's gambling or cheating of any kind, baseball (and those who hold it sacred) need to either maintain that hard-line stance against these issues, or realize it will end up being one black-eye after another. I can be fine with Rose not being in Cooperstown, as long as the baseball people who decide on these enshrinements are consistent.
posted by dyams at 11:34 AM on December 20, 2006
I think I can make a compelling list that keeps Pete off the top 10 Reds. I don't know if that would be totally possible, BullpenPro. A list like that, it seems to me, would be up to major debate. Pretty much all the Reds Rose would be up against in such a list probably played with him on those Big Red Machine squads, and saying anyone was more important than he was to their aura and success is tough to do (if people can look at it without letting the "Betting on Baseball" problem cloud their judgment). As for those teams, I'd put Bench and Morgan ahead of him, but Rose is right there. For a singles-hitter to be what amounted to be the face of those tremendous teams really says something. But if all this other baggage attached to Rose never came about, I doubt anyone would ever be able to honestly say he wasn't one of their all-time top three or five or so. And, no, I'm not willing to allow Ken Griffey Jr. onto the top Reds list of all-time, in case anyone wanted to. He'll always be one of the top Mariners of all-time, but not a Red.
posted by dyams at 11:46 AM on December 20, 2006
I think I can find 3 here. Not sure about 10, but probably 5.
posted by yerfatma at 11:56 AM on December 20, 2006
And don't forget Warren Beatty.
posted by yerfatma at 11:56 AM on December 20, 2006
Cheating on baseball, only in a different manner. A completely different manner, actually. Using PEDs is cheating to win. Betting and fixing games attack the integrity of the game itself: that everyone is playing his best, and may the best man/team win. No professional sport can exist if that premise is destroyed. Which is why what Pete Rose did is orders of magnitude worse than any form of performance enhancement.
posted by qbert72 at 12:01 PM on December 20, 2006
Pete was my idol growing up, but in those days media coverage was not nearly as extensive as it is now, and the only times I actually saw or heard Pete was on "NBC's Game of the Week", (Lord, how I loved the team of Gowdy and Kubek, too), or in the post season, or on the covers of SI and The Sporting News. Yeah, he played hard, and played to win (my favorite Rose memory is him bowling over Ray Fosse to win the '70 All Star Game at newly opened Riverfront Stadium.), but in the interim between his last stint as the Red's manager and the present, he has proven to be such a jerk, that I cannot stand to see his face anymore. It is a crying shame, but it is no one's fault but his own, that he will not be inducted into the Hall. Best Redleg of all-time: Frank Robinson, followed by Bench, Morgan, and Perez. Sorry, I will always remeber Seaver as a Met.
posted by mjkredliner at 12:08 PM on December 20, 2006
All time Reds ahead of Rose? It's not a long list. From the 70's teams, I can't put Morgan ahead of him as far as on-field stuff. Bench, sure. Who else. Mathewson, Brown, Frank Robinson, maybe King Kelly. Anyways, this is all revising history. Think of what Rose meant as a player to the Reds and to the city of Cincinnati. He was Rocky Balboa, he was Mickey Mantle, he was Johnny Appleseed. Part of why his name elicits such a visceral reaction even now is that during his playing days, his character was unassailable. Sure, he was a dick, but he set an example with his work ethic that was the core of that big red machine. I see a lot of people lumping Rose the person in with Rose the player. If I had a vote, I'd vote him into the Hall, although not emphatically, and I certainly understand why he's not there. But it just seems less than right to diminish his achievements as a player because of what he did afterward. It seems kind of like dissing your girlfriend the day after she dumps you. I never liked her anyway. She wasn't really all that. I can think of 20 girls hotter than her. Yeah, the hell with her. I ain't doing her any favors.
posted by chicobangs at 12:10 PM on December 20, 2006
Rose may have the stats to get into the H of F but there is more too the H of F than stats. He is a liar, drug user and cheat and for over 17 years kept saying "I did not bet on baseball or any of the teams I played or managed" come guys, so he said he was sorry. He wants everybody now to feel sorry for him and yet he sits himself down across the street from the Hall and sells his autogragh and other Rose junk. I said before and I will say it again, Pete Rose doesn't deserve to go into the Hall of Fame until they elect Shoeless Joe Jackson. Who didn't bet on baseball and was found innocent of all charges of fixing the 1919 World Series. And if memory serves me batted over .380 during that series. As a batter who put his bat on the ball. Pete Rose was as good as they came. But he destroyed his chances of getting into the Hall of Fame by doing all the things that put him into the position he is today.
posted by ucla512 at 12:14 PM on December 20, 2006
There is an awful lot of misinformation already written above. Pete Rose was not even close to being the only player who hustled consistently. Enos (Country) Slaughter of the Cardinals always ran to first base on a walk or hip but the scribes took it for granted. Pete had a press agent touting him, Enos didn't. Joe Jackson was never accused of betting on baseball; he was banned for not reporting the knowledge that some of his teammates were planing to "throw" the 1919 world series. Joe Jackson was worlds more talented than Rose; many claimed at the time that he was the best natural hitter ever (in the era of Giants like Cobb, Speaker, Sisler, Lajoie, etc.)
posted by rchugh at 12:18 PM on December 20, 2006
Wikipedia contends that Joe Jackson accepted money, and was one of the 8 conspirators. Joe Gedeon is the guy who was banned for not reporting the fix.
posted by qbert72 at 12:33 PM on December 20, 2006
As far as Pete Rose "the player" goes, he is a Hall of Famer no doubt but because of Pete Rose "the person", that just isn't going to happen. The fact remains is that Pete Rose's name is synonymous with betting. They will forever be linked regardless of what he did within the game since what he did outside of it is what's keeping him out. We're not talking about steriods, Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire. We're talking about one guy that lied for a very long time about what he did and has come to the conclusion that no matter what he does to clear his name, it has already been tainted. I do feel sorry for the guy because if it wasn't for him betting on baseball, he clearly would've gone into Cooperstown many years ago.
posted by BornIcon at 12:35 PM on December 20, 2006
Pete Rose was not even close to being the only player who hustled consistently. Of course not. That would be a ridiculous thing to say. But he did play practically every game, on the field, to win. Joe Jackson was worlds more talented than Rose That could very well be. But how many people currently posting on SportsFilter were around to watch him, see him play, and actively follow his career? It's the old problem of comparing players from the early 1900s to those of the more modern era. Chico said it perfectly above. People can't see past Rose, the person, when talking about Rose, the player. In his day, he was huge, especially in Cincinnati (and again, how rare for a singles hitter! It's the type of following generally reserved for the power guys). Using PEDs is cheating to win. So is throwing spitters, having foreign substances on you to doctor the baseball, corking your bat, etc. So you're OK with that? A few guys alter the records (both team and personal) over the years by turning fly balls into home runs, mediocre pitches into balls that move all over the place, and that's OK. Cheat to win and you're excused. Beautiful. Pass the steroid needle!
posted by dyams at 12:49 PM on December 20, 2006
Oh yeah, Chico, I loved your "Dumped Girlfriend" analogy. Very well said.
posted by dyams at 12:50 PM on December 20, 2006
Yeah Chico, that was classic!!
posted by BornIcon at 12:53 PM on December 20, 2006
I can think of 20 girls who are hotter than Pete Rose. And only one of them has a gambling problem.
posted by BullpenPro at 12:56 PM on December 20, 2006
Well, really, that's what it all sounds like to me. Even when Peter Gammons does it. and rchugh, Enos Slaughter is in the Hall of Fame already. He doesn't need a press agent. He made out alright.
posted by chicobangs at 12:59 PM on December 20, 2006
Bullpen, if your criteria for a hot girl is to compare them to Pete Rose in the first place, I'm afraid you're offically beyond help. Actually, though, maybe it's a good idea. That way you're sure not to be disappointed.
posted by dyams at 01:06 PM on December 20, 2006
Imagine a hot girl with that bowl haircut
posted by louisville_slugger at 02:56 PM on December 20, 2006
I can't put Morgan ahead of him as far as on-field stuff. Explanation, please.
posted by yerfatma at 03:09 PM on December 20, 2006
So is throwing spitters, having foreign substances on you to doctor the baseball, corking your bat, etc. So you're OK with that? It doesn't matter whether I am okay with that. The Hall of Fame voters have had no problem inducting cheaters into the hall of fame. Heck, they've even inducted players that used "greenies" or other illegal drugs.
posted by grum@work at 04:55 PM on December 20, 2006
Morgan was a great glove, it's true. All-time great, sure. One of the two or three best second basemen to ever play, yeah why not. But 4256 hits is one hell of a lot of hits. More than that; it's four or five hells of a lot of hits. That's a honkin' big pile of hits, is what I'm saying. Your Mileage, in case it needed to be said, May Vary. If you want to make a case for Joe Morgan being better than Pete Rose, knock yourself out. But Joe didn't mean as much to the city, to the sport, as Pete did. Not in the glory days of the Reds, and not now. If their places were switched, and Joe Morgan had bet on baseball instead of Pete Rose, we wouldn't be having this discussion every single day going on a quarter-century after the fact. It may come up every once in a while, but not like this. Read the posts above, and in previous threads here and elsewhere. There's hurt in those threads. Not "I was a fan of yours and you did something colossally stupid and you got caught, dumbass" hurt. It's "You broke my heart" hurt. "Everything I thought was true is maybe wrong" hurt. No slick-fielding second baseman, no matter how good with the bat, could inflict that kind of lasting pain on an entire sport. Not for this long.
posted by chicobangs at 04:58 PM on December 20, 2006
So is throwing spitters, having foreign substances on you to doctor the baseball, corking your bat, etc. So you're OK with that? Where did I say that? I said it's a lot less worse than betting on games. And I explained the reason why. Which you ignored.
posted by qbert72 at 05:24 PM on December 20, 2006
Using PEDs is cheating to win. It's that comment I thought was a bit ridiculous. I'm not sure why "Cheating to win" is acceptable. Do you honor players that "Cheat to win"? Gambling has no place in baseball, and cheating doesn't, either. Cheating involves breaking established rules. You win by cheating, you have no honor or respectability at all. I didn't ignore why you explained, in your opinion, that gambling is a "Lot less worse." They're both completely wrong, ruin the integrity of the game, and bringing either into sports is inexcusable. For individuals with possible knowlege on performance enhancing drugs to be called to testify in front of Congress, I have to assume I'm not the only one who thinks that sort of thing is bad for the integrity of the game. and may the best man/team win. You won't truly have that when certain individuals believe they are entitled to improve their performance by illegal means.
posted by dyams at 05:47 PM on December 20, 2006
But Joe didn't mean as much to the city, to the sport, as Pete did. Doesn't mean Joe wasn't a better ballplayer. I think the fans' visceral reaction to Rose comes from two very important factors: his status as the ultimate icon of hustle, and his ownership of a very important baseball record. Take Cal Ripken and Barry Larkin, two players that I consider to be pretty similar. Both played for one team throughout their career, and both are identified as shortstops. Talentwise, Larkin was a superior ballplayer. Easily. He has a higher career batting average, a much higher OBP, practically the same slugging percentage (and, obviously, a higher OPS), and substantially more speed. Ban Larkin from baseball? Small outcry from the Ohio region. Ban Ripken from baseball? National outrage. Why? Two things: his status as the ultimate icon of durability, and his mysteriously embraced consecutive games streak. Doesn't make him a better player, but it does give him a larger standing in the baseball community. Heck, Larkin is considered a borderline HOFer by some people. Dyams: on the issue of gambling vs. steroids, I would just add that the slope to steroids, in my opinion, is less steep. Most ballplayers do what they can to stay in peak physical shape, and there are several legal means to enhancing physical conditioning that slopes from vitamins through andro to steroids, and that line moves as positions on the middle range of enhancements change. While steroids are not excusable, I can see where the leap to steroids from whatever else was being used can feel like a small one. There is no small amount of gambling on baseball that is okay. You are either betting on the game or you're not. Yeah, I guess you can cross there from betting on other sports, but it seems to me that the line is a lot harder. If taking steroids can possibly be similar to taking linseed oil and using an arthritis cream, well that line must feel awfully gray.
posted by BullpenPro at 06:08 PM on December 20, 2006
I'm mainly talking about the guys who morph into freaks the size of NFL linebackers after initially, in their careers, looking like NBA point guards. While I understand there is gray area, I just don't think anyone who does what's illegal in order to win should be tolerated. You want to have a game, baseball in this case, that has integrity, then you can't be choosy. Keep Pete Rose out of the Hall of Fame, fine, but don't think it's right to induct people based on who was "Less wrong." Otherwise just open the floodgates for all gamblers, cheaters, etc. There aren't any rules that exist soley to be ignored.
posted by dyams at 06:49 PM on December 20, 2006
They're both completely wrong, ruin the integrity of the game, and bringing either into sports is inexcusable. Oh, baloney. If you really felt that way, you'd be petitioning for almost a third of the members to be tossed from the hall of fame. You don't and you aren't, so stop making "cheating" out to be some sort of horrific plague on our society. For individuals with possible knowlege on performance enhancing drugs to be called to testify in front of Congress, I have to assume I'm not the only one who thinks that sort of thing is bad for the integrity of the game. No, the call by Congress to have those hearings were simply so a few of the Congress-Critters could make some grandiose statements and improve their image, while at the same time distract the public from other issues of greater concern. What exactly was done to improve the public way of life by having those show trials? Rich men were told by other rich men that they shouldn't do things that make even richer men spend more money on them.
posted by grum@work at 06:57 PM on December 20, 2006
stop making "cheating" out to be some sort of horrific plague on our society. Remind me to never golf with you. Man, you'd make one hell of a great youth league coach. I'm really sorry to have threatened the sport so much by even suggesting that cheating is wrong. And since you've thrown out the 1/3 of the Hall of Fame that were "cheaters," I'd like to see the list and explanation for all of them, please. Horrific plague on society. Please. I don't think I sounded that fucking dramatic. Forget it. I stand corrected. Cheating is fine. I think it should be mandatory criteria for all play on the field and also for enshrinement in the Hall of Fame. How stupid of me to even suggest otherwise.
posted by dyams at 07:18 PM on December 20, 2006
I'm not sure why "Cheating to win" is acceptable. Again, where did I say that? You're reading what you want to read. You really want all cheating to be equally bad, but that's just not true. If you cheat to lose, you turn your sport into professionnal wrestling. Can't you see how that is worse than McGwire/Sosa? Even if he only bet in favor of his team, Rose could have indirectly "thrown" the games he didn't bet on, by keeping his best relievers rested for the next game he had a bet on, for example.
posted by qbert72 at 07:49 PM on December 20, 2006
I don't disagree with your policy, dyams, but I think there is some difference between the cases of Pete Rose, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Raffy Palmeiro. Bonds, like Rose, is getting all his stones turned over, and may very well have a Rose-like experience, executed informally by the writers if not formally by the Hall. McGwire and Sosa are not being investigated, but have lost in the court of public opinion. With McGwire, there is no hard evidence of cheating whatsoever, just some suspicious behavior in Congress, and I think without hard evidence he will get in, and should if steroids is the sole determining factor. Sosa actually has hard evidence of cheating (the corked bat) which complicates his position a little. I honestly don't know what will, or really should, happen with Sosa -- I haven't made up my mind. Palmeiro... I would be absolutely stunned if he got in to the Hall. He has stronger evidence against him than anybody else, and I think the writers will respond to that. Definitely. Obviously, it remains to be seen what will happen with these guys, but if McGwire gets in and Rose stays out I think the boundaries of consistent behavior have not been broken. And I will say this: if Pete Rose played in 1998, there is no doubt in my mind that he would have been juiced. No doubt whatsoever. He all but waived off the steroid controversy with his endorsment of McGwire for the Hall. Rose made the case for McGwire by noting that baseball didn't crack down on steroids until after the 2002 season, by which time McGwire had retired. That competitive drive of his just runs roughshod over any good judgment.
posted by BullpenPro at 07:53 PM on December 20, 2006
I'm surprised the line against Rose for the Hall has held this strongly for this long. With time passing and newer scandals I figured all Rose had to do was wait around. No need for him to campaign personally, others will speak out on his behalf. I used to be very much against Rose getting into the Hall; think I got tired of trying to ignore 4,256 hits.
posted by Newbie Walker at 12:46 AM on December 21, 2006
chico, I'll buy Pete as a bigger icon, but if I were picking a team to play for my life, Morgan might be the starting 2B. Rose wouldn't even be in my farm system.
posted by yerfatma at 05:30 AM on December 21, 2006
I guess what it really boils down to for me, whether it be because of gamblers, cheaters, whatever, is the fact that baseball writers are ultimately the ones with the power to decide who goes into the Hall. I really do think Pete Rose's personality (and the way he's handled the entire situation since it came out) has been his biggest downfall. That being said, you can't ever forget many of these writers have the opportunity to act out of spite when deliberating and any former player's Hall fate, and much of that is based on their own personal like or dislike for a specific individual. Pete won't make it to the Hall, and I'm fine with that, but I do wish there was another step in the entire election process which would take the power, to some extent, away from these writers. Some of them seem to think just because their words appear in print they're really something special. They're not. And I didn't mean to come across as to much of an asshole (hopefully), grum, but as someone who does care about baseball, I hate to see the game itself trip up over these never-ending issues. Maybe it's a naive perspective for me to have, but I can't seem to help it.
posted by dyams at 10:15 AM on December 21, 2006
Ok guys, why is everyone talking about McGwire, Bonds, Palmeiro and even Sosa? This is about one man that chose to bet on the game while he was still involved. Everyone knows that betting on baseball will get you banned for life. I for one, do not see the comparisons between gambling and steriods since they're two different things. Sure, there are players in the Hall that cheated, used some sort of performance or even endurance enhancing drugs. There are also players that committed crimes, players that were beyond racist and players, IMO that just plain do not belong in the Hall. Again, we're talking about Pete Rose though. The man was a great, great player in his day but the fact remains that he betted on baseball and was caught. Now if any other player gets caught for any reason that will get them banned, suspended or fined, so be it. I don't condone cheating in any professional sport regardless of the tactics used. People may call McGwire a cheater for looking foolish while in front of Congress but was he ever caught using anything? A journalist peeked into McGwire's locker and saw a bottle of "Andro" but that's pretty much about it. During that magnificent year when Sosa and McGwire were in top form banging out homers like there was no tomorrow, where was all the hoopla? I'm sure some people were a little suspicious but was there an outcry then? From my recollection, not a peep! Pete Rose was banned from the game for betting and that alone makes this a non-issue. He does not belong in the Hall for his actions regardless how many hits he had in his career. Pete Rose flat out lied to his fans and not only did he cheat himself, he cheated the fans and baseball itself. (knocking on the door at Cooperstown) Pete Rose: HELLOOOO!! This is Pete Rose, Charlie Hustle in the flesh. Let me in!! Hall of Fame: Sorry Charlie, you had your chance and you blew it. Pete: But....but...I'm sorry...(sobbing)....and I really mean it too. HOF: Look Pete! You did everything as a player that no other player has done even to this day. The fact remains is that you as a person knew what you were doing was wrong and if caught, you were done from baseball....for life. Pete: (still sobbing)....I know but I figured that I might eventually be forgiven and given a pass after all these years. HOF: What part of "Banned for life" don't you get, Pete? You honestly thought we were kidding with you? Pete: No....but...with the likes of Ty Cobb inside and considering I broke his record, I thought it would blow over. HOF: Don't bet on it!
posted by BornIcon at 10:59 AM on December 21, 2006
I used to be very much against Rose getting into the Hall; think I got tired of trying to ignore 4,256 hits The problem with those 4256 hits is that the last 3 years of his career he was his own manager and kept putting himself into games to specifically break the record, much to the detriment of his own team's performance. He played 1B for the Reds in those years, and put up WELL below average numbers for his position. For example, in 1985 (when he broke Cobb's record), he slugged .319 in 500 plate appearances. Backup middle-infielders with slick gloves and fast feet slug .319, not the power position of 1B. I'm really sorry to have threatened the sport so much by even suggesting that cheating is wrong. And since you've thrown out the 1/3 of the Hall of Fame that were "cheaters," I'd like to see the list and explanation for all of them, please. I never said cheating wasn't wrong. I simply said that it's not as terrible a crime as you make it out to be. As for lists of cheaters, I'll start off with some you might not know about: - Any player from the 1951 Giants (including Willie Mays) used an elaborate system of electronic relays and spies to steal signs from opposing catchers, including during the famous Bobby Thompson home run. As well, there are many documented cases of similar sign-stealing using lights/signals, including (I believe) during the early years of John McGraw. - Babe Ruth used a modified bat at least once in his career. - Any player from before 1910, as the game was much rougher then and included such manuevers as grabbing the belts of opposing runners as the tried to leave a base on a hit and tripping runners as they rounded the bases. There are many HOF players from that era. - The Cleveland Indians organization (in the 1920s) used to modify the baseballs when "slugging" teams (Yankees) would come to town. The entire team knew about the procedure, so that would include Tris Speaker. - Many pitchers, including Whitey Ford, Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton have all used doctored baseballs. I don't have time to research a complete list, but I've given you a pretty good sample of players. This doesn't include the "greenie" usage of almost every player in the 1960s-1970s. Remind me to never golf with you. Oh, please. You make it sound like you've followed every single one of the rules to the letter in the sport of golf. I'm betting you've broken a couple of them (and not assigned penalty strokes) without even knowing it.
posted by grum@work at 11:53 AM on December 21, 2006
You make it sound like you've followed every single one of the rules to the letter in the sport of golf. I definitely try to follow the set-rules. Nothing is more embarrassing and makes you not be invited to play in a group again than when you ignore rules of play. If there's a certain rule that's difficult to understand, maybe it will be missed (even though you can always ask your playing partner for help with any ruling). But as for guys who cheat, and sometimes win, by moving their ball, miscounting strokes, or not counting penalty strokes, those types of things ruin sports (in this example, golf). I've played with guys who do this type of thing, often against me in match-play leagues, and it's the most uncomfortable thing in the world, having to call them on a stroke they didn't count or something. Since there's no big money involved, I'll often let it go, but the cheater themselves leave a bad, bad taste in my mouth, one that I will remember always. I think baseball, or any other sport, needs to really hold firm against people caught trying to break rules in an attempt to gain an unfair advantage. No, I don't think Gaylord Perry should have been put in the Hall. He made a mockery out of things on the mound with all his gyrations, going all over his body with his hands prior to throwing a pitch. Plus, he was ejected from games, too. It sucks when you have to pay all this attention to guys so they won't cheat, and just because they don't always get caught doesn't make it right. I'll always remember Sosa for two things: Going from a skinny, marginal player to a hulk, and his bat shattering that time and finding it was loaded. Cheater. Plain and simple. It makes other competitors have to ultimately decide whether they, too, should try to break rules in order to play better or continue to do things the right way. But, the more I think about it, this type of thing probably starts with certain guys when they're little kids, and as they get older, their methods of cheating only become more sophisticated.
posted by dyams at 02:03 PM on December 21, 2006
I agree with everything u said dyams, well put.
posted by BornIcon at 02:58 PM on December 21, 2006
Grum even without the numbers Rose put up when trying to break the record, he still has the numbers to be in the Hall of Fame.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 04:50 PM on December 21, 2006
No, I don't think Gaylord Perry should have been put in the Hall. What about Tris Speaker? Willie Mays? Don Sutton? Whitey Ford? John McGraw? Babe Ruth? George Brett? Gonna toss them out of the HOF as well? Or only Gaylord Perry because that's the one player of the bunch you don't like? You can't be selective if your going to be righteous about cheating (since you did say "I just don't think anyone who does what's illegal in order to win should be tolerated. You want to have a game, baseball in this case, that has integrity, then you can't be choosy.").
posted by grum@work at 10:23 PM on December 21, 2006
I did not actually watch any of the games (only highlights) during the era featuring Tris Speaker, Willie Mays, Don Sutton, Whitey Ford, Babe Ruth or even George Brett so for me, I can't really comment on what was going on during those days. Like I'm a big fan or Roberto Clemente (not only because he was a great player but an even better human being and Puerto Rican) but I never had the privilege to actually see any of his games while he played for the Pittsburg Pirates. The only thing I can say is that in every era, there will be some kind of "controversy" that causes a frenzy in the baseball community. When Roger Maris was reaching Babe Ruth's homerun record, even the home crowd was booing him since they wanted Mickey Mantle to be the one to break Ruth's record. When Hank Aaron was about to break Babe Ruth's career homerun record, he like Maris was receiving death threats. I mean, in every sporting era the game was played different than today. Take for instance football: When players like Dick Butkus played, they were able to literally clothesline an opposing player and that was considered a tackle. The same can be said about hockey since back then, they didn't even wear face gaurds so I'm sure that the older players' look at today's players and are saying, " You fucking pussies!!" Cheating or "bending the rules" have been part of the game for a very long time and even though I personally never agree with cheating in sports or anything for that matter, it still was and is part of the game. It has become a lot more hidden but it's still out there, we as fans just need to enjoy the game and let the higher ups deal with what needs to be done in order to clean up their respective sports.
posted by BornIcon at 06:51 AM on December 22, 2006
Where did I say I didn't like Gaylord Perry? Point out that portion of anything I wrote? I actually met Perry one time and found him to be a really nice guy. There are rules, though, that state you are not allowed to put foreign substances on the baseball. It's widely known Perry did this his entire career. Winning games by blatantly breaking established rules. Batters would swing and miss at his pitches due to the substances he put on the baseball. Doesn't that impact the game, won/loss records, pitching stats, whatever, just as injecting a needle has aided certain hitters? If Perry did the same thing today, and ended up getting thrown out of games due to this, can you imagine the uproar? Just look at the shit brought up because Kenny Rogers had a foreign substance on his hand during a game. With Perry, back in the day, there weren't cameras every two feet, replay shows every other channel, news being sent over every cell phone, etc. People hardly ever even knew if he'd been caught doctoring the baseball or tossed from a game. Today it would be huge news. Especially for a guy adding to a possible Hall of Fame resume. As for Willie Mays or whoever "stealing" signs, figuring those out is a part of baseball. You have bench coaches who are great at picking up signs from opposing third base coaches, and you also have baserunners who will tip off hitters when they can tell what signs the catcher is flashing to the pitcher. That's a part of the game, especially since these signs are being flashed on the field itself. If those signs are being stolen and relayed by cameras in center field, then yes, that's a problem. I don't think it's necessarily a Willie Mays problem, but if that was found out today, it would be dealt with. Somewhere along the line major league baseball was successful in convincing people gambling on sports was a no-no. Evidentally most fans think it's a practically a badge of honor to break rules specifically stated in the rule books, just as long as they don't get caught, or people have trouble catching them. And, in the meantime, people who have the audacity to think rules should be followed are laughed at for having a "righteous," bullshit way of looking at things. I hope you feel the same way when the guy sitting next to you, cheating at poker, takes all your cash. Fuck the rules if you're too stupid to be a better cheater yourself and take advantage in order to win.
posted by dyams at 07:56 AM on December 22, 2006
Dyams, I think you are getting yourself into trouble when you try categorizing "acceptable" cheating (sign stealing) with "unacceptable" cheating (sign stealing using cameras). The line can get pretty gray. The '51 Giants were accused of stealing signs from the center field scoreboard using binoculars, then sending signals to the bullpen that were relayed to the Giants batters, letting them know what pitch was coming. The article states that the Dodgers had a tough argument, since Preacher Roe admitted to throwing a spitter. Your argument, though, has brought to my mind this conclusion: cheating on the field always has a counter-balance. Batters cork, pitchers doctor. Batters juice, pitchers juice. None of it is okay, but it is human nature to look for an edge and cheating is going to happen in sports just like it happens, in different degrees, in many other realms. And everyone has their own threshold for what level of cheating is "acceptable," just as you conditionally accept sign stealing. The big problem with gambling is that it doesn't really have a counter-balance. Even if both managers are betting, it doesn't counter the unbalanced way they handle their lineups and pitching staffs through the season. Whatever your threshold for cheating, I think the only way you can green light gambling is if you care more about gambling than about baseball. That was the statement Rose made, and that's why he deserves bannination more than Perry or Bonds et al., in my opinion.
posted by BullpenPro at 08:24 AM on December 22, 2006
I did not actually watch any of the games (only highlights) during the era featuring Tris Speaker This channel, I would like to subscribe to it.
posted by yerfatma at 08:46 AM on December 22, 2006
Yeah... footage of Speaker does exist, but I wouldn't call it "highlight" footage. It's pretty much just him standing in front of the camera. Maybe taking BP, but that's about it.
posted by BullpenPro at 08:53 AM on December 22, 2006
Bullpen, I try to think about that when categorizing "cheaters", so what I generally fall back on is either the rule book itself, or whether or not something is flat-out illegal in society. Stealing signs is only illegal (by rule book definition) if it's done by electronically or from the scoreboard, cameras, etc. "He should be in the Hall of Fame with a tube of KY Jelly attached to his plaque." Gene Mauch on Gaylord Perry. There was a time, through the 1920s, when the spitball (etc.) was legal in baseball. When it was specifically outlawed, it seems a pitcher who routinely threw them would not be routinely honored. Plus, a player doing this type of thing in the year 2006 wouldn't get away with it. Each and every game has too much coverage and attention. These guys would get nabbed before they won 20-some games. That's one reason I believe you don't see new pitchers coming onto the scene being able to throw these pitches. Why learn to get away with it when you'll probably end up getting caught and thrown out? At the same time, I'm sure some of they guys who have been around awhile are getting away with these things. But again, I generally defer to the rule book.
posted by dyams at 08:57 AM on December 22, 2006
I didn't mean literal "highlights", what I meant was "footage" of the players from the past but I'm sure some people kind of knew that.
posted by BornIcon at 09:28 AM on December 22, 2006
No, I don't know what you meant by discussing Tris Speaker in re: Pete Rose.
posted by yerfatma at 10:39 AM on December 22, 2006
I guess this story says what I'm trying to point out a bit better than maybe I have.
posted by dyams at 11:15 AM on December 22, 2006
I hope you feel the same way when the guy sitting next to you, cheating at poker, takes all your cash. Git a rope, boys.
posted by mjkredliner at 12:16 PM on December 22, 2006
Where did I say I didn't like Gaylord Perry? Point out that portion of anything I wrote? I just assumed that since you picked Perry out of that list of "cheaters" to state he doesn't deserve to be in the HOF. I hope you feel the same way when the guy sitting next to you, cheating at poker, takes all your cash. Fuck the rules if you're too stupid to be a better cheater yourself and take advantage in order to win. Because backroom poker games are equivalent to professional sports...
posted by grum@work at 12:19 PM on December 22, 2006
Because backroom poker games are equivalent to professional sports... No, it's not professional sports. But cheaters cheat. I've got a pretty good idea Gaylord Perry probably cheated the rules in most everything he competed in, whether he was getting paid or not, whether it was an organized sport or whatever. He learned rules were only put in place to be broken, then looked to take advantage in every situation he could. And yes, you're right, I don't have any proof of this. But I've known enough cheaters in my life to realize they can't be trusted. You want your sacred game of baseball to continue rewarding players who may not be good enough to get by without cheating, then go ahead, enjoy. The link I provided above explains it very well, and how baseball has let it go, practically unchallenged. Go ahead, keep deluding yourself into thinking baseball runs a clean, tight ship because they have managed to keep Pete Rose away. You belong in the Commisioner's office, because turning a blind eye to everything else that goes on in the game is a prerequisite.
posted by dyams at 12:54 PM on December 22, 2006
Go ahead, keep deluding yourself into thinking baseball runs a clean, tight ship because they have managed to keep Pete Rose away. You belong in the Commisioner's office, because turning a blind eye to everything else that goes on in the game is a prerequisite. What, in [insert deity here]'s name, are you talking about? I've never said they've run a "clean, tight ship" because of what they've done regarding Pete Rose's betting on baseball. In fact, I've provided proof that "cheating" has occurred in baseball for over 100 years. I'm at least a little bit pragmatic in realizing that there are different levels of cheating. You, however, seem to deem all cheating as an abomination (the point of the article to which you linked). Then you seem to decide that one or two types of cheating (Perry, Bonds) are completely dishonourable, but just skirt by all the other types of "cheating" I referenced. I've got a pretty good idea Gaylord Perry probably cheated the rules in most everything he competed in, whether he was getting paid or not, whether it was an organized sport or whatever. He learned rules were only put in place to be broken, then looked to take advantage in every situation he could. And yes, you're right, I don't have any proof of this. That is probably one of the most outlandish things I've read on this site, and I've seen people attempt to explain the 2006 AL MVP vote result as being correct. I get the feeling that you've been seriously wronged in your life by someone you perceive to be a "cheater". Obviously, it scarred you pretty badly and this SpoFi discussion has triggered some terrible memories of that incident and caused you to go completely off the rails. Of course, I don't have any proof of this...
posted by grum@work at 03:08 PM on December 22, 2006
Forgive me for only naming a few players and not going back to the early 1900s and bringing up every person who broke rules. And yes, you're right, I don't have any proof of this. That was the sentence that followed the one that just shook your SpoFi world. I'll mail out my apologies to the Perry family. As for my saying, in your critique of what I apparently said, that all cheating is the same, I said that I go by the rule book. Is that OK? The rules are specific about stealing signs, doctoring baseballs, etc. and what constitutes those types of things. Players who do it anyways, hoping they don't get caught, are the ones I don't feel the need to accept. As for my comment about "deluding yourself into thinking baseball runs a tight ship," that comment was meant for anyone, not just you, grum. I get the feeling that you've been seriously wronged in your life by someone you perceive to be a "cheater". Obviously, it scarred you pretty badly and this SpoFi discussion has triggered some terrible memories of that incident and caused you to go completely off the rails. No, nothing that serious, but thanks for the concern. I just don't like cheaters who ignore written, established rules. They usually can't win any other way. Maybe that's the category you fit into. I'm done with this. It seems you feel cheating is a treasured part of baseball's history and it's future. To each their own.
posted by dyams at 03:45 PM on December 22, 2006
No, nothing that serious, but thanks for the concern. I just don't like cheaters who ignore written, established rules. They usually can't win any other way. Maybe that's the category you fit into. I'm done with this. It seems you feel cheating is a treasured part of baseball's history and it's future. To each their own. If you believe every single one of Perry's, Ford's or Sutton's wins was achieved through cheating, then I don't know how to help you. I'm sorry you have to leave. I guess you didn't mind throwing around disparaging remarks about other people (Perry, myself), but when someone lays a little lumber to your logic, it's time to skedaddle. That's fine. When you finally realize that understanding cheating and supporting cheating are two different things, maybe we'll be able to have a more meaningful conversation. But I'm not holding my breath.
posted by grum@work at 08:53 PM on December 22, 2006
No, I don't know what you meant by discussing Tris Speaker in re: Pete Rose I wasn't talking just about Tris Speaker per se. Like I wrote, I was talking about watching footage of players such as: Tris Speaker, Willie Mays, Don Sutton, Whitey Ford, Babe Ruth and George Brett and if you didn't know what I meant then read it again.
posted by BornIcon at 05:35 AM on December 23, 2006
OK. You dragged me back in. Here's a "little lumber to (my) logic" so you at least understand it's not just me who feels as I do. Also, if you do actually read this link you'll notice it supports both our views. In 1964, Perry was considered a disappointment. Nearing his 26th birthday, he was consigned to long relief, which was reserved for the worst pitchers on the roster. He was probably two years away from being out of baseball. Then, teammate Bob Shaw taught him how to throw a spit-ball, a pitch which had been outlawed since 1920. This other story also points out the same thing both you and I are arguing about. But baseball writers will abide a drug user. Paul Molitor had used cocaine, but they voted him into the Hall of Fame in 2004. They'll abide an alcoholic. Dennis Eckersley was a recovering alcoholic, but they voted for him in 2004. And they'll abide a philanderer. Until Bill Clinton blew past, Wade Boggs was the most famous womanizer in the world. Baseball writers voted for him in 2005. Do Molitor, Eckersley and Boggs belong in the Hall of Fame? Of course they do. But baseball writers, after voting in those sinners, will tell McGwire to go to hell. They're doing what they do best: protect the game. McGwire cheated, so voters will keep him and his unfairly gained advantage out of Cooperstown. Which is interesting, considering that baseball-doctoring Gaylord Perry wrote a book called Me and the Spitter in 1974, while still throwing the illegal pitch that helped him win 314 games, and then was voted into the Hall of Fame in 1991. Apparently baseball writers abhor a cheater, but only if the cheater embarrassed, well, them. And that's what McGwire did. So did Sosa, Bonds and anyone else who inflated his body overnight. Baseball writers didn't see it -- didn't want to see it -- and now they feel used. One Hall of Fame voter, Lynn Henning of the Detroit News, explained in a recent column why he won't vote for McGwire. Cheating sucks, but scores of ballplayers have been busted, most of them pitchers. McGwire homered off more than one pitcher with needle tracks in his own butt. Now baseball writers are getting religion? Too late, hypocrites. You sold your soul years ago. I do understand where you're coming from on this. My choice is to not condone blatant disregard for actual written rules. The idea so many players of the past obviously did this, I understand. As an earlier link I posted points out, baseball also has more umpires on the field in today's game, making many things harder to hide and/or get away with. But baseball writers acting as gatekeepers of the Hall of Fame, which includes all these individuals who flaunted rules, threw games, etc., then thinking they can continue to pick and choose, is unacceptable (in my opinion). Speaker in, Rose, no. Perry and Sutton in, McGwire and Bonds, no. I guess maybe someone, somewhere along the line needs to explain exactly which rules are only worth ink and paper, and which ones actually carry weight and will be enforced. In closing, I can agree with where you're coming from. I'd hope you can at least accept my differing views based on my obvious feelings all blatant rule-violators only succeed in ensuring many rules will continue to be rendered basically meaningless.
posted by dyams at 08:24 AM on December 23, 2006
McGwire and Bonds, no Says who? That's a false dilemma until both have run out their eligibility. I guess maybe someone, somewhere along the line needs to explain exactly which rules are only worth ink and paper, and which ones actually carry weight and will be enforced. All written rules are enforced. Use steroids? Get a suspension. Bet on baseball? Get banned from baseball. Banned from baseball? Can't get into the Hall. Rose is not getting in the Hall, precisely because written rules are being applied.
posted by qbert72 at 10:19 AM on December 23, 2006
Nice links and well said Dyams. Opposing views are what makes forums like this interesting. If everyone felt the same on every subject it would just be one big hooray for us blog, and that would be pretty boring. For what it's worth, your arguements hit the nail on the head for me.
posted by louisville_slugger at 10:23 AM on December 23, 2006
As a lifelong Cincy fan, I took it very personally when Pete confessed after lying for so many years. So personally that until very recently I've agreed with his lifelong ban from the sport. But now, with Bonds, McGwire, etc. to consider, I've decided to just let it be about the numbers on the field. If a player is not found to be using performance enhancing drugs, cheating in any form, betting on baseball, whatever while he is playing the game, let his numbers do the talking. Put them all in the HOF. We can debate their worthiness after the fact. Let Shoeless Joe in, let Pete in, let Barry and Mark in. Hell, place an asterisk after their names but let them in. The Hall of Fame should only be concerned with what the players did on the field, not their morals. I still hate Rose for lying to me, but damn it he deserves to be in the Hall.
posted by carolinared at 06:57 PM on December 23, 2006
In closing, I can agree with where you're coming from. I'd hope you can at least accept my differing views based on my obvious feelings all blatant rule-violators only succeed in ensuring many rules will continue to be rendered basically meaningless Yup. I've got no problem with that.
posted by grum@work at 10:01 AM on December 24, 2006
Because one player cheats, lies, uses drugs etc etc..that all are in the same situation. Regardless of his stats by all the rules and regulations of baseball Pete Rose doesnot deserve to enter the MLHofF. They are scores of players that played the game as hard as Rose and some of them aren't in the Hall. Rule number 1 states that anyone betting gambling on baseball shall be banned from the sport and from any of its other activities.
posted by ucla512 at 11:34 AM on December 25, 2006
Since 1989, Rose has been banned from working in baseball. Official celebrations of his career have been limited, and the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y., is considered off-limits. Doesn't say the Reds' Hall of Fame is off-limits. The article dances around that issue pretty well. It leaves one to wonder if the Reds feel obligated to MLB to leave Pete out, or if his failure to get elected is a statement from the writers. It's also annoying that the writer feels obliged to use the term "alleged" when talking about Rose's betting. He signed one confession, wrote a book with another, and is signing baseballs with an apology for it. I think we can drop "alleged."