Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Allen Barra: Should Pete Rose Be in the Hall of Fame? Let the Voters Decide

And let’s just forget Denny McLain’s “fantastic” 1965 season while we’re at it!

Denny McLain had two fantastic seasons as a Major League Baseball pitcher. In 1968, with the Detroit Tigers, he won 31 games (the last pitcher in MLB to win at least 30) and lost six; the next season, also with Detroit, he went 24-9. In 1968 he was voted Most Valuable Player for the American League, and in both years he won the Cy Young Award as the best pitcher in the league. McLain’s other eight seasons with various clubs could be described, precisely, as mediocre: He was 76-76.

Off the field, though, McLain’s performance was somewhat less than mediocre: His criminal record includes convictions for racketeering, embezzling people out of their retirement funds, money laundering, and selling cocaine. He did two stints in prison; a judge at a bond hearing called him “a professional criminal.” The least of his transgressions was gambling—he took part in setting up a bookmaking operation to take bets on horse racing, football, and basketball. Then-Commissioner of Baseball Bowie Kuhn suspended him for the first three months of the 1970 season.

Denny McLain is eligible for Baseball’s Hall of Fame.

The last batter McLain pitched to, however, was Pete Rose. Rose played for 24 years, appearing in more games and accumulating more hits than any player in baseball history. In 1990, four years after he retired as a player, Rose served a five-month sentence in a medium-security prison for having failed to report income from autograph and memorabilia shows.

But MLB cares nothing about Rose’s problems with the IRS. Nor do they care particularly about Rose’s admission to have betted on horse racing, football, and basketball. What baseball cares about is that Pete Rose bet on baseball games, and as a result, Rose is banned for life from the Hall of Fame. In Kostya Kennedy’s new book, Pete Rose: An American Dilemma, McLain is quoted as saying, “The big difference between me and Pete when it comes to gambling is that he bet on baseball and I did not.”

...A sensible solution would be for the players union to issue a formal request that MLB state that 25 years is a fair punishment and leave it to the HOF voters to decide on whether or Rose gets his plaque.

In other words, baseball should simply get out of the way and allow HOF voters to do what they do with every other player. After all, if they can vote for the largely mediocre Denny McLain for the HOF, they ought to be able to vote for the legendary Pete Rose.

 

Repoz Posted: March 11, 2014 at 09:06 AM | 120 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: history, hof

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. villageidiom Posted: March 11, 2014 at 09:44 AM (#4669409)
Rose, if reinstated, would be eligible for the Veterans Committee. Sorry, Barra.
   2. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: March 11, 2014 at 10:03 AM (#4669422)
In other words, baseball should simply get out of the way and allow HOF voters to do what they do with every other player. After all, if they can vote for the largely mediocre Denny McLain for the HOF, they ought to be able to vote for the legendary Pete Rose.


Nope. Next!
   3. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 11, 2014 at 10:09 AM (#4669423)
MLB bait-and-switched him out of letting the voters rule 20+ years ago, so obviously the voters should be allowed to vote.

Unfortunately, the last 20+ years have likely poisoned the well against him.
   4. Hang down your head, Tom Foley Posted: March 11, 2014 at 10:09 AM (#4669424)
A lot of players who didn't even have two fantastic seasons are eligible for the Hall too.
   5. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 11, 2014 at 10:09 AM (#4669425)
, “The big difference between me and Pete when it comes to gambling is that he bet on baseball and I did not.”


That's a pretty big difference. Like "the only difference between Pete Rose and Jeffrey Dahmer, is Jeffrey Dahmer ate people, and Pete did not."
   6. if nature called, ladodger34 would listen Posted: March 11, 2014 at 10:17 AM (#4669430)
MLB bait-and-switched him out of letting the voters rule 20+ years ago, so obviously the voters should be allowed to vote.

Unfortunately, the last 20+ years have likely poisoned the well against him.


Vincent has said several times that there was never a path to reinstatement for Pete. It's been his contention that Pete's lawyers gave him some bad advice. It's hard to know which story is the most true, but we do know that Pete bet on the game and deserved his ban.
   7. JE (Jason) Posted: March 11, 2014 at 10:18 AM (#4669431)
Like "the only difference between Pete Rose and Jeffrey Dahmer, is Jeffrey Dahmer ate people, and Pete did not."

Did Dahmer have two fantastic seasons?
   8. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM (#4669435)
Vincent has said several times that there was never a path to reinstatement for Pete.

Maybe, but that's a different issue. Even after the punishment was announced, everybody, including a bunch of writers, assumed that they'd be voting on Rose when his time came. But then the vote was taken out of their hands.
   9. if nature called, ladodger34 would listen Posted: March 11, 2014 at 10:32 AM (#4669444)
Maybe, but that's a different issue. Even after the punishment was announced, everybody, including a bunch of writers, assumed that they'd be voting on Rose when his time came. But then the vote was taken out of their hands.


That's a HOF issue. They decided to not allow folks to vote for players on the permanently ineligible list in '91. Those writers can take it up with the HOF.
   10. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 11, 2014 at 10:43 AM (#4669451)
I like and subscribe to the Atlantic, but this makes me question how good their other articles are now. My understanding is the HOF is a different entity than MLB, and thus MLB does not decide who is and who is not eligible for the HOF. I also fail to see why the MLBPA should put up a "united front" to help Pete Rose. The McClain thing is a stupid comparison. This is a terrible argument for Rose, and I say that as someone who thinks he should be in Cooperstown.

   11. Hang down your head, Tom Foley Posted: March 11, 2014 at 10:53 AM (#4669460)
The only difference between Greg Maddux and Adolf Hitler, is Hitler was good in the beginning and Maddux was not.
   12. Tom Nawrocki Posted: March 11, 2014 at 11:00 AM (#4669468)
Those writers can take it up with the HOF.


Exactly. The HOF decided the writers should be the ones voting on members, and they have every right to make the rules regarding the process. If the writers don't like the HOF's rules, they don't have to participate.
   13. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: March 11, 2014 at 11:02 AM (#4669471)
Like "the only difference between Pete Rose and Jeffrey Dahmer, is Jeffrey Dahmer ate people, and Pete did not."


Well, as far as we know, anyway. I wouldn't put it past him to admit to cannibalism 20 years from now if he's got another book to sell.
   14. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: March 11, 2014 at 11:03 AM (#4669472)
If the writers don't like the HOF's rules, they don't have to participate.


They can start their own Hall of Fame... with blackjack... and hookers.
   15. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: March 11, 2014 at 11:05 AM (#4669475)
Did Dahmer have two fantastic seasons?

His record is mixed. No one, not even Leo Mazzone, saved more arms. But he was a butcher in the field, and was known to chew out his own teammates.
   16. Hang down your head, Tom Foley Posted: March 11, 2014 at 11:08 AM (#4669478)
His record is mixed. No one, not even Leo Mazzone, saved more arms. But he was a butcher in the field, and was known to chew out his own teammates.
He did have a lot of heart.
   17. Tom Nawrocki Posted: March 11, 2014 at 11:25 AM (#4669494)
And smart! He had the brains of ten men.
   18. Publius Publicola Posted: March 11, 2014 at 11:30 AM (#4669500)
And it's not like he didn't face the best competition and rise to th occasion either. Most of the people he ate for breakfast had icewater in their veins.
   19. JRVJ Posted: March 11, 2014 at 11:58 AM (#4669515)
I'd like to point out that Barra is asking that the much beloved members of the BBWAA be the ones that vote on Rose's HoF changes.

He's not asking that there be a referendum of baseball fans or of eminence grisés within the sport.

Not exactly democratic.
   20. Ron J2 Posted: March 11, 2014 at 12:01 PM (#4669516)
#10 This is very old ground.

What most people don't understand is that the HOF's official position is that Rose is barred not for gambling ( not a secret that Cap Anson for instance frequently bet on games his team was involved in ) but rather for being on MLB's ineligible list.

So in a sense MLB does control the first set of gates. As things stand no veterans committee will get a chance to vote on him.

Could things change? Sure. Joe Morgan and Robin Roberts tried to organize a compromise a few years back, but ran into opposition headed by Bob Feller and Eddie Mathews. They're no longer around, but they aren't the only people with strong feelings on the matter. I remember seeing an interview with Jane Forbes Clark (who could if she so chose have the rules changed) who cited Tom Seaver as convincing her of the importance of the current set of rules.

Would he make it in if a veterans committee got to vote on him? No way of knowing, but I suspect not as long as Selig is in power. He has pretty strong feelings on the matter and MLB has enough votes to keep him out if they vote as a block (but then it wouldn't get to a veterans committee in the first place in the face of a united front by MLB)
   21. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 11, 2014 at 12:04 PM (#4669519)
but rather for being on MLB's ineligible list.

So in a sense MLB does control the first set of gates.


Yea, you're right. But I want Pete to remain banned, and for him to be in Cooperstown. I think not having ineligible players in the HOF is silly.
   22. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: March 11, 2014 at 12:11 PM (#4669528)
What most people don't understand is that the HOF's official position is that Rose is barred not for gambling ( not a secret that Cap Anson for instance frequently bet on games his team was involved in ) but rather for being on MLB's ineligible list.

True, but this was pretty much a rule instated solely to keep Rose out. The rule with respect to BBWAA voting was implemented after Rose agreed to the permanent ban from baseball. My sense is that MLB had some influence on the rule change, but not sure where I'm getting that from. Not clear whether Rose would have been elected without such a rule (Joe Jackson never got any real HOF support, but he didn't have the career that Rose did).

A similar rule for the VC was implemented in 2008 (a year after Rose would have been eligible for election by the VC).

   23. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: March 11, 2014 at 12:23 PM (#4669536)
But that also means that there are two avenues for getting Rose eligible. You can try to convince MLB to take Rose off the ineligible list, or you can try to convince the HOF to allow players on the ineligible list. Either one will accomplish your goal.
   24. cardsfanboy Posted: March 11, 2014 at 12:51 PM (#4669555)
I know Pete Rose is a grade A P.O.S....but that doesn't matter to me, if I had any say he would be eligible and in. Outside of Shoeless Joe, I don't think there is a ballplayer who has committed a crime to keep them out of being considered for the hof. Yes Pete violated a known rule, with (mostly)known penalties, but ultimately he didn't actively throw a game, and that is the line a person needs to cross for me ban them from hof eligibility. (I understand the arguments that he passively threw a game or that he affected the integrity of the game etc...and I'm fine with those arguments, which is why I'm fine with him never stepping foot on the diamond in any capacity to influence a team)
   25. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: March 11, 2014 at 12:52 PM (#4669556)
True, but this was pretty much a rule instated solely to keep Rose out.


Yes, because up until then the Hall assumed that the writers were smart enough to understand that people who were banned from the game shouldn't be awarded its highest honor.

As it turned out, they were giving the writers too much credit.
   26. John Northey Posted: March 11, 2014 at 12:59 PM (#4669564)
Sheesh this is irritating. Rose broke the one most obvious rule in MLB - the one that players are told every last spring not to break or else. The one that ended the careers of a batch of players including one of the best pitchers of his day in Eddie Cicotte plus of course one of the best hitters in Shoeless Joe Jackson. There is NO excuse for not knowing enough to avoid it. None.

PED's, on the other hand, were pretty much declared 'A-OK' after the home run race between McGwire and Sosa as everyone ignored the elephant in the room, from the media (outside of one reporter) to the commissioner and fans who packed parks to see the freak show. The retroactive rage shown towards McGwire, Sosa, Clemens and Bonds (none of whom ever tested positive) vs the media apologists for Rose just blows my mind. You have players who followed the common practice of the day (in an effort to be the best and help their teams win) who are demonized, while the guy who broke the unbreakable rule (the one rule that breaking it could change baseball from a sporting contest to one that is a joke ala wrestling with results decided before the game is played) is forgiven since he had so many hits.

Rant, rant, rant. In the end I'm glad Rose wasn't on the ballot as it would've been a lot like the steroid mess but involving just one player and would've overshadowed all votes for 15 years due to Rose being an elephant in the room and would still be a factor now that he'd be on the vet committee list. Instead he tends to be a footnote mentioned by a few writers now and then which is how it should be.
   27. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: March 11, 2014 at 01:00 PM (#4669568)
Yes Pete violated a known rule, with (mostly)known penalties, but ultimately he didn't actively throw a game


As far as we know - in large part because Rose agreed to become permanently ineligible rather than allow MLB to continue its investigation.

Rose owed a very large amount of money to the Mafia, and was receiving threats to have his legs broken. This is all a matter of public record. When people are in that position, they sometimes do desperate things...

Pete has said that he never bet against his team or threw games, but if you go back ten years he was saying that he never took PEDs or bet on baseball. His word isn't worth much.
   28. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: March 11, 2014 at 01:01 PM (#4669569)
As it turned out, they were giving the writers too much credit.


He would not have been elected to the Hall by the writers. He would have had his vocal minority of supporters, but he would not have gotten anywhere near 75 percent.
   29. Morty Causa Posted: March 11, 2014 at 01:04 PM (#4669572)
24:

First, we don't know if he threw a game: he copped a plea, and the investigation and the adjudicatory process was put on hold.

Second, it shouldn't be a matter of personal preference. That's why there is a rule with a prescribed penalty, so we don't revert to personal preferences.

There's also a method of reinstatement, which Rose also acceded to.
   30. cardsfanboy Posted: March 11, 2014 at 01:19 PM (#4669584)
I understand that my personal preference isn't what the hof is going for. I'm just pointing out the way I looked at it. I think it's a silly over regulated rule, that is beyond arbitrary. And before people pull the "he knew the rule he should live with it and accept the consequences" ...that doesn't matter. If there is a rule that jaywalking gets the death penalty, doesn't mean I should blindly accept the death penalty for jay walking.

If it's a stupid rule, there is nothing wrong with pointing out it's a stupid rule. I'm absolutely fine with him being banned from participating in baseball, that rule matches up with expectations. I just don't look at the hof as anything other than a way to honor the best PLAYERS for their performance on the field.

Pete Rose not in the hof, is just as ridiculous as Jim Rice in the hof or Barry Bonds not in the hof.
   31. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: March 11, 2014 at 01:34 PM (#4669598)
Second, it shouldn't be a matter of personal preference. That's why there is a rule with a prescribed penalty, so we don't revert to personal preferences.

Like I said, the rule (about the HOF) was instated after Rose committed the acts in question and after he agreed to the ban from baseball. Not saying he should be in -- at this point, it doesn't really matter -- but worth recognizing the facts of the situation.
   32. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 11, 2014 at 01:50 PM (#4669607)
It was a bill of attainder against Rose, the type of thing greatly frowned upon by civilized societies for centuries. See, e.g., the US constitution.

Cheering that kind of thing on is a rather cretinous avocation.
   33. if nature called, ladodger34 would listen Posted: March 11, 2014 at 03:09 PM (#4669660)
It was a bill of attainder against Rose, the type of thing greatly frowned upon by civilized societies for centuries. See, e.g., the US constitution.

Cheering that kind of thing on is a rather cretinous avocation.


SB, you've posited scores of idiotic beliefs, but this one might take the cake.

What the #### does the constitution have to do with a ####### idiot like Rose not being able to abstain from gambling? You wrote a lot of extraneous words that don't mean a god damned thing.
   34. cardsfanboy Posted: March 11, 2014 at 03:21 PM (#4669672)
I hate being on the side of SBB, but.. his point is that the rules were changed after the fact.

Series of events.

1. Black Sox Scandal, baseball enacts a rule saying anyone who gambles on baseball will be permanently banned
2. Hof allows voters to vote for people permanently banned (yet Joe Jackson doesn't make it)
3. Pete Rose is banned, based upon those rules.
4. Hof changes those rules, not allowing voters to vote for a banned player.

That is SBB's point, we as a society frown upon "expo facto" laws. It's why every law/rule put in place almost always has a grandfather clause.
   35. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: March 11, 2014 at 03:28 PM (#4669680)
1. Black Sox Scandal, baseball enacts a rule saying anyone who gambles on baseball will be permanently banned
2. Hof allows voters to vote for people permanently banned (yet Joe Jackson doesn't make it)
3. Pete Rose is banned, based upon those rules.
4. Hof changes those rules, not allowing voters to vote for a banned player.

That is SBB's point, we as a society frown upon "expo facto" laws. It's why every law/rule put in place almost always has a grandfather clause.


Yeah, but the Hall's decision only codified what was an understood fact. If you bet on baseball, you don't make the Hall of Fame. Pete knew that betting on baseball = permanently ineligible list and permanently ineligible list = no Hall of Fame. As did everyone else associated with baseball.
   36. Morty Causa Posted: March 11, 2014 at 03:29 PM (#4669682)
Actually, SBB should know better. Expo facto laws are not frowned upon in the civil matters (not to mention it being a complete inapplicability when it comes to private affairs that don't even reach the level of a civil case). Not at all. You can make a case that it is unfair to change the rules after the fact, but a case does have to be made: it isn't a rule that goes without saying.
   37. cardsfanboy Posted: March 11, 2014 at 03:34 PM (#4669692)
Yeah, but the Hall's decision only codified what was an understood fact. If you bet on baseball, you don't make the Hall of Fame. Pete knew that betting on baseball = permanently ineligible list and permanently ineligible list = no Hall of Fame. As did everyone else associated with baseball.


Not really sure it was an understood fact. Joe Jackson didn't bet on baseball, he tanked a world series. Joe Jackson wasn't being kept out because he was banned, he was being kept out because he tanked a world series.

I understand some people consider betting to be the equivalent of tanking, and it's very possible that more than 25% of the writers also do, but he wasn't given a chance to see it play out.
   38. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 11, 2014 at 03:34 PM (#4669693)
Yeah, but the Hall's decision only codified what was an understood fact. If you bet on baseball, you don't make the Hall of Fame. Pete knew that betting on baseball = permanently ineligible list and permanently ineligible list = no Hall of Fame. As did everyone else associated with baseball.

As a matter of practice, ineligible people weren't voted into the HOF. That doesn't make it a rule that they can't be.

Anyone who lived through it and paid attention can remember the debates about whether Rose would be voted into the HOF in the wake of his ban. Those debates presupposed that he was eligible and would get in if he got enough votes. No one really thought past practice was definitive -- because it wasn't.

It's not just an ex post facto rule; it was a bill of attainder -- aimed only at Rose. Yes, by its language, it covers all ineligible players, but only a dupe would suggest it wasn't aimed squarely at Rose.
   39. Morty Causa Posted: March 11, 2014 at 03:37 PM (#4669700)
Oh, and there are instances when jaywalking warrants a severe penalty.

People who defend Rose do so despite the fact that he has no case under baseball law and he is entirely undeserving in view of his personal behavior before and after he was found out. Rose is lucky he wasn't pronged with a pitchfork and summarily thrown into a pit of vipers.
   40. dlf Posted: March 11, 2014 at 03:38 PM (#4669701)
Series of events.

1. Black Sox Scandal, baseball enacts a rule saying anyone who gambles on baseball will be permanently banned


You have the order backwards. The rule against gambling pre-dates the formation of the National Association - let alone the National League -- and has existed largely unchanged since the 1860s. RonJ will be along any moment to post the precise language
   41. Morty Causa Posted: March 11, 2014 at 03:42 PM (#4669707)
Not really sure it was an understood fact. Joe Jackson didn't bet on baseball, he tanked a world series. Joe Jackson wasn't being kept out because he was banned, he was being kept out because he tanked a world series.

I don't believe those are the reasons given for Jackson expulsion and ineligibility.
   42. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: March 11, 2014 at 03:50 PM (#4669716)

Anyone who lived through it and paid attention can remember the debates about whether Rose would be voted into the HOF in the wake of his ban. Those debates presupposed that he was eligible and would get in if he got enough votes. No one really thought past practice was definitive -- because it wasn't.


I was there. No one thought he would be elected to the Hall, except perhaps a handful of dumbasses who thought their own view of Pete was universal (a different set of dumbasses than the ones who said "hey pete, jsut come clean and we'll vote for you"). Because he wouldn't have.

The biggest gripe from most of the writers I read about the Hall's action was not that they couldn't vote for Pete, but that the Hall was taking away the chance to reject him.

   43. Ron J2 Posted: March 11, 2014 at 03:59 PM (#4669727)
#22 Again old ground. The HOF's position was essentially that there was an unwritten rule from day one that players on the ineligible list were barred and that they were merely formalizing it. (I've posted a link to their old FAQ before. All they do is acknowledge that they'd never put it in writing before)

And as I've pointed out before, you can see some evidence in the respective vote totals of Hal Chase and Joe Jackson. Nobody disputes that Jackson was the better player, but Chase got substantially more support from the voters (Jackson got 2 votes twice which is basically consistent with not being allowed to vote for somebody on the ineligible list). The primary difference being that Jackson was formally banned while Chase was merely blackballed (by MLB that is. Within a year of being blackballed by MLB he was formally banned by the PCL -- denied access to every park in fact). In fairness, James Withrow once raised an alternate theory -- that the key difference was that Chase merely profited from knowledge of the WS (and fixed countless other regular season games) fix while Jackson took money to fix the WS. I can't prove he's wrong.

And #34 not so. What Landis did was enforce the existing rules. Well he did tack on guilty knowledge (and apply it retroactively to Weaver -- SBB is right on this specific point). Permanent bans for betting on games your team played in date back to the NA and penalties for betting on games you have an involvement with predate organized leagues. (Of course without organized leagues, penalties become problematic. The 1857 rules required that the player be kicked out of the game)

Here's the language from 1874

Any player who shall, in any way, be interested in any bet or wager on the game in which he takes part, either as umpire, player, or scorer, or who purchases or has purchased for him any "pool", or chance, sold or given away, or the game in which he takes part, he shall be dishonorably expelled from both his club and the association.

Umpires, players and scorers who have wagers on any other association game shall be suspended for the season.

And when the NL started, the only change they made was to substitute the word league for association.

EDIT: Does dlf get a coke for knowing me that well?





   44. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 11, 2014 at 04:01 PM (#4669729)
Rose is lucky he wasn't pronged with a pitchfork and summarily thrown into a pit of vipers.


You should write a sports column about the evils of PEDs in baseball!
   45. Ron J2 Posted: March 11, 2014 at 04:06 PM (#4669732)
#42 I talked to a BBWAA member at that time and he'd taken his own straw poll of other members. He didn't think Rose would have gotten in, though he would have received plenty of support. Been literally decades, but as I recall it somewhere around 50-60% of the members he'd talked to planned to vote for Rose.

Thing is that there were a lot of "I'm going to vote for Rose" columns out there at the time and the HOF board seems to have been spooked.
   46. if nature called, ladodger34 would listen Posted: March 11, 2014 at 04:07 PM (#4669735)
It's not just an ex post facto rule; it was a bill of attainder -- aimed only at Rose. Yes, by its language, it covers all ineligible players, but only a dupe would suggest it wasn't aimed squarely at Rose.


Just for funsies SB, how many fellas on the permanently ineligible list have made the HOF before or after Rose?
   47. cardsfanboy Posted: March 11, 2014 at 04:10 PM (#4669739)
I don't believe those are the reasons given for Jackson expulsion and ineligibility.


And what does his explusion have to do with the voting? People act like the voters were not voting for Joe Jackson because he was expulsed, and I'm arguing they didn't vote for him because he tanked a world series. And the hof putting up the new rule, obviously side with my interpretation of the events, because they were afraid the writers would vote for Rose.



   48. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 11, 2014 at 04:11 PM (#4669741)
I was there. No one thought he would be elected to the Hall, except perhaps a handful of dumbasses who thought their own view of Pete was universal (a different set of dumbasses than the ones who said "hey pete, jsut come clean and we'll vote for you"). Because he wouldn't have.


But they thought he would probably be on the ballot, which I think is the point being made.

From the Sporting News, Sept 4, 1989:

"What's ahead for Pete Rose? Is he in trouble with the Internal Revenue Service? Will he be heading for Japan? Does he have the votes to make it into the Hall of Fame?"


A couple of the writers suggest they'll vote for him when his name is on the ballot in 1992. Bob Feller is against Pete going into Cooperstown vowing if he is admitted, Feller will never visit again. Ted Williams supports Pete.

But from the contemporaneous accounts from TSN, it seems like people were under the impression Rose would at least be on the ballot, what was less clear was whether the BBWAA would vote him in.
   49. dlf Posted: March 11, 2014 at 04:12 PM (#4669742)
EDIT: Does dlf get a coke for knowing me that well?


... either that or I get arrested for stalking.
   50. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: March 11, 2014 at 04:12 PM (#4669744)
People who defend Rose do so despite the fact that he has no case under baseball law and he is entirely undeserving in view of his personal behavior before and after he was found out. Rose is lucky he wasn't pronged with a pitchfork and summarily thrown into a pit of vipers.

I am not defending Rose but posts like this force me to sound like I am. He has "no case under baseball law" for arguing with his lifetime ban from participating in MLB. That much is true. He has "no case under baseball law" for arguing with his ban from the HOF because the law was explicitly re-written to keep him out. Otherwise it would have been left up to the preferences of the voters, and one could have made a case that he was a sufficiently valuable player to outweigh the character concerns.
   51. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: March 11, 2014 at 04:13 PM (#4669745)
#42 I talked to a BBWAA member at that time and he'd taken his own straw poll of other members. He didn't think Rose would have gotten in, though he would have received plenty of support. Been literally decades, but as I recall it somewhere around 50-60% of the members he'd talked to planned to vote for Rose.


That's not consistent with anything I remember from that time period, and frankly it doesn't pass any kind of smell test (other than with Sugar's sniffer). Most writers I saw were of the same belief as expressed in the first paragraph in 43.


   52. cardsfanboy Posted: March 11, 2014 at 04:15 PM (#4669747)
That's not consistent with anything I remember from that time period, and frankly it doesn't pass any kind of smell test (other than with Sugar's sniffer). Most writers I saw were of the same belief as expressed in the first paragraph in 43.


Not sure where most writers were at, but there definitely was a significant number who were going to vote for Rose. Mind you, I'm from a NL city, and that were very much exposed to the Reds and Rose was probably well liked around here.
   53. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 11, 2014 at 04:18 PM (#4669749)
That's not consistent with anything I remember from that time period, and frankly it doesn't pass any kind of smell test (other than with Sugar's sniffer). Most writers I saw were of the same belief as expressed in the first paragraph in 43.

Go back and read the contemporaneous commentary. RR's cited some; I'm sure there's a lot more of a similar nature. Everyone thought Rose would be on the ballot and could be voted in (meaning "was eligible to be voted in if he got the requisite 75% of the vote"). Some people argued he shouldn't be voted in, some people argued he wouldn't be voted in -- but those are different questions. Everyone assumed there would be a vote and whatever happened, happened.

Under no circumstances is it accurate to suggest that the bill of attainder simply codified what everyone believed to be the case anyway. That's not even close to the truth.
   54. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 11, 2014 at 04:20 PM (#4669752)
he has no case under baseball law


U.S. jurisprudence > Law of the Sea > the "rules of conduct" at Chuck E. Cheese > baseball law > Alabama state law
   55. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: March 11, 2014 at 04:20 PM (#4669754)
Everyone thought Rose would be on the ballot and could be voted in (meaning "was eligible to be voted in if he got the requisite 75% of the vote"). Some people argued he shouldn't be voted in, some people argued he wouldn't be voted in -- but those are different questions. Everyone assumed there would be a vote and whatever happened, happened.


I agree that they thought he would be on the ballot. I disagree with the idea that he would have ever been close to election as long as he remained on the permanently ineligible list.

Not sure where most writers were at, but there definitely was a significant number who were going to vote for Rose.


There have always been a vocal number of pro-Pete loudmouths. They never made up the majority (as evidenced by his rather puny write-in totals). If there was really this majority of hardcore Pete supporters, there's no reason to think that his unofficial write-in votes wouldn't have been much larger than they were.

   56. Morty Causa Posted: March 11, 2014 at 04:21 PM (#4669756)
50:

No, I don't agree with that. The HOF was perfectly within its rights (unless you can show me a higher law that has supervened) to make what was implicit explicit. There is no rule, legal or otherwise, against the HOF doing that. This happens all the time in regular business matters.
   57. John Northey Posted: March 11, 2014 at 04:23 PM (#4669758)
Ideally the HOF would've put in that rule pre-Rose being caught just to make sure it was obvious. Writers are funny - on a crusade against PED's but A-OK with gambling as long as you looked like you were doing your best out there (few showed effort like Rose did).

As to what they would've done...I also was around then, cheered on Rose to set the hit record and was impressed with him as a manager and caught off-guard by the gambling mess. I never bought he'd only bet in favor of winning though, as that seemed a bit hard to buy and even if he did it would've affected his decisions and the gamblers he bet with (Rose doesn't bet on a game, thus that is the one gamblers would know to bet against the Reds on). It would be interesting to do a full analysis of his moves in wins vs losses those years to see if any pattern emerges (certain players used, others left in thus changing odds of winning). Did I believe writers would vote him in? Yes, given a chance there was a real shot at it. The hit record was so big when it happened I just couldn't imagine 26% of writers saying 'no' even with the gambling thing, especially since Rose immediately started fighting it thus giving writers the out they wanted (he said he didn't, so we believe him type of thing).
   58. if nature called, ladodger34 would listen Posted: March 11, 2014 at 04:25 PM (#4669761)
Go back and read the contemporaneous commentary. RR's cited some; I'm sure there's a lot more of a similar nature. Everyone thought Rose would be on the ballot and could be voted in (meaning "was eligible to be voted in if he got the requisite 75% of the vote"). Some people argued he shouldn't be voted in, some people argued he wouldn't be voted in -- but those are different questions. Everyone assumed there would be a vote and whatever happened, happened.

Under no circumstances is it accurate to suggest that the bill of attainder simply codified what everyone believed to be the case anyway. That's not even close to the truth.


Everyone except the fellow that actually wrote document seems to believe it. You're still writing a bunch of irrelevant words that have jack and shiat to do with this discussion.
   59. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 11, 2014 at 04:25 PM (#4669763)
He had a shot to get in. Obviously, he was going to lose a bunch of votes because of the gambling.

He probably would have got more votes than Bonds/Clemens.
   60. Morty Causa Posted: March 11, 2014 at 04:29 PM (#4669768)
You should write a sports column about the evils of PEDs in baseball!

What makes you think I don't?
   61. cardsfanboy Posted: March 11, 2014 at 04:30 PM (#4669769)
There have always been a vocal number of pro-Pete loudmouths. They never made up the majority (as evidenced by his rather puny write-in totals). If there was really this majority of hardcore Pete supporters, there's no reason to think that his unofficial write-in votes wouldn't have been much larger than they were.


I'm sorry, I know what you are trying to say, but it still makes no sense. It assumes way too much that can't be verified. People who would have voted for him aren't necessarily going to write him in, why would they? Only if the issue is important to them are they going to bother to write him in. Many people aren't going to care either way, it's not a big deal to them, but if he's on the ballot they would vote for him.

There were more articles of support for Pete Rose than he ever got in write in votes.
   62. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 11, 2014 at 04:30 PM (#4669770)
August 25, 1989, AP

Despite Rose 's lifetime ban from baseball, he will be eligible for election to the Hall in 1992


August 25, 1989, Chicago Tribune:

Of all the penalties Pete Rose might endure, the worst for him would be if his suspension kept him out of the Hall of Fame . It appears it might.

Rose , baseball's all-time hit leader, said he hopes to clear up his case before he becomes eligible for the Hall in 1992.

"I did my part to get into the Hall of Fame ," Rose said Thursday. "It's up to you (sportswriters) who do the voting. I can't worry about something that's not under my control. It works against me because I was never able to tell my side of the story. But I will tell my side of the story before you're ready to vote for the Hall of Fame ."

If and when Rose does, several sportswriters still won't be easily persuaded to vote for him. Players are elected into the Hall of Fame by more than 400 members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America. Rose 's name would have to be cast on 75 percent of the ballots to gain entrance to Cooperstown, meaning a "no" vote from more than one of every four writers would keep him out.


Just from reading around its clear to me, that (a) nobody thought Pete was not going to be on the ballot; (b) there was severe doubt to whether he would get voted in; (c) Pete accepted his punishment thinking he would still get into the HOF; and (d) Pete thought he would be reinstated within a year, which MLB denied adamantly at the time they announced the punishment.
   63. Morty Causa Posted: March 11, 2014 at 04:33 PM (#4669773)
I have to ask: however qualified wrt the onfield merits a player is, can there be something about a player's character or actions off the field that supervenes those bona fides and disqualifies him out of hand? If so, why wouldn't the one capital offense in MLB be it?
   64. Walt Davis Posted: March 11, 2014 at 04:49 PM (#4669785)
Many in the BBWAA are whining that the HoF won't give them guidance on how to handle PED players.

Many in the BBWAA are whining that the HoF gave them strict guidance on how to handle permanently ineligible players.

I suspect the intersection is not null.
   65. cardsfanboy Posted: March 11, 2014 at 04:53 PM (#4669787)
I have to ask: however qualified wrt the onfield merits a player is, can there be something about a player's character or actions off the field that supervenes those bona fides and disqualifies him out of hand? If so, why wouldn't the one capital offense in MLB be it?


To each their own, I just don't think that betting on your own team to win should be a capital offense. I think active tanking is the capital offense(Shoeless Joe booting a couple of triples) . I think potentially passive tanking (which is what I would call Pete Rose confirmed actions to be) is worthy of getting you kicked out of the sport as a player/manager.

And I'm only partially comfortable with keeping Shoeless Joe out of the hall.

I can't think of many off field contributions that would make me keep someone out, or bar them from being considered in the discussion. I think child rape/murder might do it, but even then I think you should remain on the ballot and let the masses decide.
   66. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 11, 2014 at 04:55 PM (#4669788)
From selected papers from Aug-Sept 1989:

The commissioner of baseball, A. Bartlett Giamatti, when asked about Rose 's eligibility for the Hall , said it was up to the baseball writers.


According to Hall of Fame President Ed Stack, there is nothing to keep Rose 's name off the ballot. ''Under the rules as presently constituted, he's eligible,'' said Stack. '' Rose 's name will be submitted unless there's a change in the rules. And I don't anticipate any change.''


Here is a very small sampling of opinion columns on whether Pete should be in the HOF. I have no idea if these are BBWAA members or even sportswriters. They're just the ones I could find in my library's database.

Steve Rose, Akron Beacon Journal – YES
Bob Broeg, St. Louis Post-Dispatch – NO
Phil O’Neill, Worcester Telegram & Gazette – YES
Nick Canepa, Evening Tribune (San Diego, CA) – YES
Ron Rapaport, Daily News of Los Angeles – YES
Frank Dolson, Knight-Ridder Newspapers –YES
Dan Shaugnessy, Boston Globe - NO
Bernie Miklasz, St. Louis Post-Dispatch – YES
John Packett, Richmond Times-Dispatch – NO
George Vescey, New York Times – YES
Fran Blinebury, Houston Chronicle – YES
Nick Peters, Sacramento Bee – YES
Murray Chass, NY Times – Let me wait five years.

The “ultimate irony” award goes to:
“This Pete Rose is pond scum.There appears to be a black hole in his morality…”

-Bill Conlin
   67. attaboy Posted: March 11, 2014 at 04:56 PM (#4669791)
If Rose thought his lifetime ban would be overturned in one year, that is on him. I clearly remember the communication and it was clear to me that they had the goods on him and he had no leg to stand on and accepted his punishment. He immediately denied everything which just lead everyone to ask why would he accept the stiff punishment if he didn't bet on BB. Not so soon thereafter, lots came out about his gambling on his games and he finally, after years of denial admitted the truth (or more likely, part of the truth). I am not sure how Lifetime Ban is mis-communicated but that is on Rose and/or his lawyers and/or his advisers. If he could finagle a reinstatement fine but he hasn't. It is a shame that what drove him to be so successful on the field is also what drove him to believe he could win at things he couldn't control.
   68. Morty Causa Posted: March 11, 2014 at 05:06 PM (#4669796)
65:

Yes, to each his own. Until a rule is codified. Then it becomes, does the rule mean anything, should it be validated. If not, if it always just comes down to those state of the art sensibilities that are never objectified....

Had any of the Sandusky stuff come out years ago, do you think Joe Paterno would have ever gotten any of those awards he got? Hell, would he have had a job--anywhere? No matter how great his performance on the field.

Same in my other areas of human endeavor. That great young teacher who is going to get teacher of the year commendation--will he if it comes out he dates the senior girls in his class (note: it doesn't have to be underage senior girls,either, or even having sex with them). There is a character clause in all we do, and we it is codified, that means it's to be taken seriously. If there are to be exceptions, it behooves he who wants to be excepted to make his case--and it should be a good one. What's Rose's?
   69. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 11, 2014 at 05:14 PM (#4669800)
Just from reading around its clear to me, that (a) nobody thought Pete was not going to be on the ballot; (b) there was severe doubt to whether he would get voted in; (c) Pete accepted his punishment thinking he would still get into the HOF; and (d) Pete thought he would be reinstated within a year, which MLB denied adamantly at the time they announced the punishment.

And that's a succinct and accurate depiction of the various understandings. All the rest is revisionism.

EDIT: The roughly 75% support in the small sample in 66 is a decent estimate of sentiment at the time. There were still a couple years before the vote, but the mainstream understanding was that Rose had a very legitimate shot to be voted in. His support, even right after the ban, was significantly higher than the support has ever been for 'roiders.
   70. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 11, 2014 at 05:27 PM (#4669804)
Rose took the deal rather than have a public hearing where the evidence of his misdeeds would have been brought forth. Then Rose lied for more than a decade, despite overwhelming evidence that he was lying. Poor Pete. He deserves his fate. He shouldn't be allowed within 50 miles of Cooperstown unless it is for a public flogging.

Since he's mentioned in the article, not that the comparison is valid or that Denny McLain was a Hall of Famer, but he is easily as despicable as Pete Rose. How can anyone give him a job? And why are people tuning in to his radio show?
   71. Sunday silence Posted: March 11, 2014 at 05:44 PM (#4669812)

Sheesh this is irritating. Rose broke the one most obvious rule in MLB - the one that players are told every last spring not to break or else. The one that ended the careers of a batch of players including one of the best pitchers of his day in Eddie Cicotte plus of course one of the best hitters in Shoeless Joe Jackson. There is NO excuse for not knowing enough to avoid it. None.


Once again, how does betting on baseball equate with throwing games? It doesnt. If there's an ultimate crime in baseball it's throwing games and/or killing injuring people. I'd like to see the reasoning how betting on baseball is equal to that.

Cicottee and Jackson threw games, did you not understand that ? I dont what they're doing in your analogy.
   72. Downtown Bookie Posted: March 11, 2014 at 05:59 PM (#4669818)
They can start their own Hall of Fame... with blackjack... and hookers.


I'd go.

DB
   73. cardsfanboy Posted: March 11, 2014 at 06:03 PM (#4669820)
Once again, how does betting on baseball equate with throwing games? It doesnt. If there's an ultimate crime in baseball it's throwing games and/or killing injuring people. I'd like to see the reasoning how betting on baseball is equal to that.

Cicottee and Jackson threw games, did you not understand that ? I dont what they're doing in your analogy.


Note: I do not subscribe to the following.


Betting on baseball undermines the integrity of the game, regardless of whether you throw a game or do anything else besides bet on the game, the fact is that you can be put into a position in which someone can question the honest outcome of the game. In Pete Rose's case, the days he didn't bet, signaled to the bookies, that he was not going to go all out to win the game, and could be taken as a way to play the odds in their favor. On days in which Pete Rose did bet, he could decide that winning this game at all cost is more important than the rest of the season, so he brings his ace reliever into the game in the 7th inning and rides him out for the rest of the game, possibly damaging his arm in the process. (not to mention to the possibility of falling behind enough to bookies, that they can blackmail outcomes to you...since the act of betting on baseball is a ban for life, if you do it even once, and someone keeps a record of it, you can be potentially under someones thumb)


The mere act of betting leads to too many "likely" future crimes that it has to be stopped at it's source.
   74. dlf Posted: March 11, 2014 at 06:31 PM (#4669831)
Rose took the deal rather than have a public hearing where the evidence of his misdeeds would have been brought forth.


Not quite. He took the deal rather than have a private hearing before Bart Giamatti (who had already signed an affidavit applauding the truthfulness of, IIRC, Paul Janzsen, one of the key prosecution witnesses). There was no opportunity for a public hearing. He actually went to court to try to get the matter heard by a neutral party, but the court said that since he was no longer a player, the disciplinary provisions of the CBA, and the right to a hearing before a neutral arbitrator did not apply.

He deserves his fate.


While I have very little good to say about how the Commissioner handled the matter, I agree with this part wholeheartedly.
   75. Walt Davis Posted: March 11, 2014 at 07:35 PM (#4669850)
I support the permanent ban from Organized Baseball. I don't care if the HoF wants to put him in or make him eligible. They're a private organization, they are not employers or even potential employers of Pete Rose, they are simply deciding whether they want to (potentially) honor him. I might even toss him one of my imaginary votes. (To the extent that Rose has an advantage over Jackson, it is that Rose's actions -- as far as we know -- came after he was a player.)

I am not a fan of the character/sportsmanship/integrity clause in the HoF criteria. I recognize the need for some form of a "this is too much" criterion but the character clause is much too fuzzy and means that narratives (mostly apocryphal) may weight too heavily in assessing the case. So something specific -- e.g. permanent ineligible in MLB means no HoF; lifetime PED suspension means no HoF; conviction for a (major) felony; whatever -- seems the better way. Let the HoF decide if somebody is too much of a scoundrel to be enshrined then let the voters decide whether their baseball career was good enough.

Not that I think such a shift would make that big of a difference. Humans will let their perception of a player's character affect their voting anyway -- i.e. if OJ murders somebody before he comes up for the HoF vote, I don't think he was gonna make it. But it might at least get rid of any "this guy was a jerk" non-votes (which, like Rosenthal, I think are not that numerous).

   76. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: March 11, 2014 at 07:35 PM (#4669851)
Under no circumstances is it accurate to suggest that the bill of attainder simply codified what everyone believed to be the case anyway.


But it absolutely is accurate to say that the "bill of attainder" simply codified what the directors of the hall of fame believed to be the case anyway, which is all that matters.
   77. Walt Davis Posted: March 11, 2014 at 07:56 PM (#4669868)
The Rose decision was not expo facto -- it was changed before the Expos left Montreal. :-)
   78. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 11, 2014 at 08:35 PM (#4669886)

But it absolutely is accurate to say that the "bill of attainder" simply codified what the directors of the hall of fame believed to be the case anyway, which is all that matters.



According to Hall of Fame President Ed Stack, there is nothing to keep Rose 's name off the ballot. ''Under the rules as presently constituted, he's eligible,'' said Stack. '' Rose 's name will be submitted unless there's a change in the rules. And I don't anticipate any change.''

-August, 1989


"I guess our statement on this right now will be brief," said Bill Guilfoile, the Hall of Fame's associate director, when reached by phone at his Cooperstown, N.Y., office. "As far as the Hall of Fame is concerned, Pete Rose is still eligible for election in 1992."

-Boston Globe, Aug 25, 1989


"Rose would still be eligible for election in 1992 unless our board of directors decides differently," said Bill Guilfoile, associate director of the Hall of Fame.

-Miami Herald, Aug 25, 1989


Three things seem inevitable in this life. Death, taxes and the plain truth that Pete Rose will never join baseball's elite in the Hall of Fame at Cooperstown, N.Y.

There seemed little doubt of the latter yesterday after a resounding 12-0 vote by the Hall's board of directors to adopt a rule excluding players on the permanently ineligible list. Rose, the all-time hits leader, is the only living person on that list. He was kicked out of baseball for gambling.

In theory, Rose's name could appear on the ballot if he is reinstated by the commissioner. But don't count on it. Rose has never had the support of commissioner Fay Vincent, a member of the 16-member board. Vincent didn't even bother to attend yesterday's history-making meeting in New York, citing possible conflict of interest. He was reported to be on vacation in Jamaica.

Even without Vincent and the three other absent voting members, the majority spoke clearly. By its action, that majority has taken the decision on Rose out of the hands of the 445 voting members of the Baseball Writers Association of America. Rose's name otherwise would have appeared on the 1992 ballot.

-Boston Globe, February 4, 1991
   79. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 11, 2014 at 09:06 PM (#4669903)

Not really sure it was an understood fact. Joe Jackson didn't bet on baseball, he tanked a world series. Joe Jackson wasn't being kept out because he was banned, he was being kept out because he tanked a world series.

I understand some people consider betting to be the equivalent of tanking, and it's very possible that more than 25% of the writers also do, but he wasn't given a chance to see it play out.


And Joe Jackson wasn't kept out, by my understanding, because he was ineligible to be voted on. He was kept out because the writers refused to vote for him, much like many writers have invalidated Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds (or maybe a better example would be less of a slam dunk like Sammy Sosa or Rafael Palmeiro). At least that is my understanding, but I am willing to be wrong. FWIW, Wikipedia says Jackson was eligible, but he did not receive more than a few votes, but there is no source cited, so who knows.
   80. Sunday silence Posted: March 11, 2014 at 09:41 PM (#4669912)
Betting on baseball undermines the integrity of the game, regardless of whether you throw a game or do anything else besides bet on the game, the fact is that you can be put into a position in which someone can question the honest outcome of the game. In Pete Rose's case, the days he didn't bet, signaled to the bookies, that he was not going to go all out to win the game, and could be taken as a way to play the odds in their favor. On days in which Pete Rose did bet, he could decide that winning this game at all cost is more important than the rest of the season, so he brings his ace reliever into the game in the 7th inning and rides him out for the rest of the game, possibly damaging his arm in the process.


well OK. I can see that pt (even if CFB does not quite). BUt then everything, or at least a lot of things undermine the integrity of baseball.

Micky getting hammered the night before. That undermines the integrity of baseball
Some manager leaving his pitcher out on the mound to get hammered. That undermines it.
Whitey throwing a meatball to BIlly Martin so he could get a hit, that undermines it.
Elston Howard scuffing the ball.
Casey or JOhn McGraw or Earl Weaver or anyone blowing out pitchers arms.
THe NY Giants stealing signs, etc.

If that was the standard it might be hard to find like all american types to fit the HoF. BUt really all I'm saying is that betting on baseball does not equal throwing games. I think CFB gets that.

Wouldnt a more prorgressive attitude be thus:

Rose has a gambling problem. Many experts think gambling is an addiction; even if not everyone does there's enuf doubt there and clearly Rose was out of control. That doesnt excuse him and we dont want him near a dugout or near ownership or have anything to do with the current game. But the HoF is just a tribute it doesnt carry any real responsibilities; hell most of the people in it are dead.

THis really just amounts to a portion of the baseball community refusing to honor him for what he did on the field.

ALso people are a million shades of grey, or at least 50 shades. Rose isnt Hitler; he isnt even Joe Jackson. I think he's a lot more of a human being than say Cap ANson or ton of other lunatics already in the hall. That is if that sort of thing matters at all.
   81. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: March 11, 2014 at 09:58 PM (#4669919)
I'm all for Pete Rose being eligible for the Hall of Fame ... the day after he's dead and buried.
   82. cardsfanboy Posted: March 11, 2014 at 10:06 PM (#4669922)
the day after he's dead and buried.


In that order? :)
   83. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: March 11, 2014 at 10:35 PM (#4669934)
he has no case under baseball law


Too bad he never played for the Cardinals or Orioles, because he might have a case under Bird Law
   84. Morty Causa Posted: March 11, 2014 at 11:11 PM (#4669945)
Pete Rose broke an official expressed written MLB rule that mandates being placed on the permanent ineligible list. The HOF says that if you are ineligible to have anything to do with MLB you are not eligible for the HOF. What's mystifying about that?

Is there a MLB rule that's posted in every team's clubhouse that says if Mickey gets hammered he's officially persona non grata? If not, is that a fundamental difference? Why or why not (show your work, please)?
   85. Sunday silence Posted: March 12, 2014 at 01:16 AM (#4669984)
MOrty: OK, but I asked a question first: how does breaking a gambling rule equate with throwing games?

On the MIckey thing: I am just saying that there are plenty of things ball players do all the time that can be said to demean the game or whatever term CFB used. If there was rule that rendered him persona non grata, I would say it's very similar to the Rose situation. I dont consider getting hammered to be a serious offense worthy of banishment.

As for your first question. I am not mystyfied but I dont think its fair that he didnt violate some ultimate rule worthy of banishment. I think fairness is a point that can be raised in any sort of proceeding or punishment. As CFB said: there can be all sorts of laws for stuff that specify harsh punishment. That doesnt mean it's fair.

Just cause you post something prominently, or something is "officially expressed" does not make a punishment fair.

Do you wish to respond to that?
   86. Rennie's Tenet Posted: March 12, 2014 at 01:19 AM (#4669985)
The morals clause should be eliminated. Instead, new inductees should spend the Saturday of induction weekend confined in the stocks* in the Cooperstown town square. People can make the trip to throw garbage at them.

*Not sure what to do with Bonds's gargantuan head.
   87. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: March 12, 2014 at 01:41 AM (#4669991)
they can start their own Hall of Fame... with blackjack... and hookers.

I'd go.


Best bas relief plaques EVER.
   88. bjhanke Posted: March 12, 2014 at 02:13 AM (#4669997)
I've spent a lot of time thinking about Rose, Jackson and the Hall, so I'll TRY to keep this as short as possible. 1) Joe Jackson I would not object to at all, or even Eddie Cicotte, although he's probably short on playing credentials, at least partially because he didn't have a full decline phase. 2) The big issue surrounding Jackson is the labor wars in the U.S. at the time. Bill James mentions this, saying "Why not throw Comiskey out?" Charlie Comiskey, owner of the White Sox, took every advantage he could of the collapse of the Federal League, leading to a huge schism on his team between the guys who knew how to negotiate a contract, and those who did not. The second group, in general the less educated guys, was the one which threw the Series. But, IMO, Comiskey is just as much to blame as Jackson. As long as Comiskey is in the Hall, I'd say yes to Joe. 3) Rose is completely different. Any money pressure he was under was his own fault. IMO, to hell with him.

4) The harder question, by far, was whether I thought that anyone, including Comiskey, should ever be thrown out of the Hall of Fame, unless something suddenly arises AFTER their induction that was not known at the time - for example, if Frank Frisch or somebody was suddenly documented as having committed serial rape or something like that, yeah, he's out. But, aside from that, I'm NOT in favor of throwing anyone out. Not George Kelly, not Lloyd Waner, not Comiskey, not nobody. The person who convinced me of this was Enos Slaughter. Enos was a borderline Hall player who obsessed for decades over whether he'd get in. He whined, he justified, he begged. And he finally got in. But what if the Hall got in the habit of throwing the weakest guy or two out every decade or so? What happens to Enos Slaughter then? What happens is he spends the rest of his life in the same hell he was in until he did get elected. He will be always saying, "Please, not me. Don't throw me out. This means the world to me." I don't think the Hall should be in the business of making its inductees feel insecure and vulnerable to expulsion. I think baseball fans would in general agree with me on that. Who wants to go see a convention of old ballplayers only to listen to Enos Slaughter whine that he's afraid they're going to throw him out? This is baseball fan fun? I don't think so.

5) A side issue has to do with how much of your own reputation is vested in the Hall of Fame. I have no investment at all. I've never done anything with a MLB team, and certainly could never have played there. If the Hall does something REALLY stupid, it hurts not me nor my professional reputation as anything. But there is someone whose reputation is seriously linked to the Hall who DID say that he thought Joe Jackson should go in. Ted Williams. Williams' entire reputation is as a Inner Circle left fielder. Joe Jackson was an Inner Circle left fielder. If letting Joe Jackson in is going to make people think less of anyone, then it would be Williams. When Ted said yes, I lost all objection. So, that's the short version of my opinion, for what it's worth. Jackson, OK. Rose, no. - Brock Hanke
   89. Morty Causa Posted: March 12, 2014 at 02:23 AM (#4670000)
MOrty: OK, but I asked a question first: how does breaking a gambling rule equate with throwing games?

It doesn't have to equate to be bad enough. Aggravated rape and murder don't equate either, but both are sufficiently reprehensible to warrant severe punishment.

Betting on baseball, on games in which your team, the one your managing, is playing in, goes to the heart of the issue of compromising the integrity of the game. And that's terrible. There one or two things are worse (and who knows, Rose may have done those, too) doesn't mean that what Rose did isn't bad enough.

See my above comments and examples. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with a young teacher dating one of his 18-year old students. It looks like ####, though. It brings all sorts of compromising issues into question, and although the guy shouldn't go to jail of course, it certainly understandable why he ain't gonna be chosen teacher of the year, isn't it, no matter how good a teacher he is? You have a problem understand why this is so?

Demeaning the game is not the same as breaking a expressed cardinal rule, a violation that calls into question the honesty of the competition. Why must the wheel be reinvented here? This should be obvious. There is a difference in kind, not just in degree.

What's unfair about Rose being made persona non grata for what he did? And for not being otherwise honored? Do you know anything about the history of baseball as it relates to gambling? This is not the nose of the camel. Gambling and sports are not six degrees of separation. This has proven time and time again. And even if it weren't, the perception here as it relates to gambling is simply overwhelming. Rose knew, or should have know. Rose has always acted as if he were entitled to special consideration. He's always wanted a pass, and he's never been reticent or modest about his sense of self-entitlement. #### him. I bet since this has happened to him, it has served as a wake up call to other players. They know better than to attempt to palter with the rules. As it should.
   90. Morty Causa Posted: March 12, 2014 at 02:32 AM (#4670003)
Look, the historical record, as to Rose or Joe Jackson, is as it is. You can't change that. This is strictly about being honored. Some things that go to the heart of your profession should count, and they should could more than outside foibles. Greater sins, like murder, rape, etc., will be taken into account, should be taken into account, but that which cuts at the heart of the game is different, and should be treated differently.

And Joe Jackson was repentant, sincerely so, and for many years. And he's dead. And...but I still don't see why he should be honored. I wouldn't really object very passionately, but, really, why is it so important that he be honored? What's at work here with people who want to ram Rose and Jackson into the HOF? What's really driving them?
   91. Sunday silence Posted: March 12, 2014 at 02:46 AM (#4670007)
you sound like you have a good grasp of the issues, then you go back to arguing against Joe Jackson.

NO ONE IS ARGUING FOR JOE JACKSON, MARTY!

EDIT: Ok I guess BJ is voting for JOe Jackson. I think he's in the minority there.
   92. bjhanke Posted: March 12, 2014 at 06:27 AM (#4670014)
Sunday, you pretty much had it right the first time. I'm not campaigning for Joe Jackson. I'd be reasonably happy if he went in, but it's not going to mess me up if he doesn't. What I WAS trying to do was campaign against Charlie Comiskey and then go through the rationale for not throwing Comiskey out. I was also trying to point out that America, at the time of the Black Sox, was going through a class war; a class war where, in 1920, all the power was in the hands of management. I was trying to say that, if you want to consider Jackson or Comiskey at all, you need to take that into account, if you're dealing with "character clauses." My strongest opinion is that I am against Pete Rose. - Brock
   93. Jeltzandini Posted: March 12, 2014 at 07:55 AM (#4670022)
To the extent that Rose has an advantage over Jackson, it is that Rose's actions -- as far as we know -- came after he was a player.


I don't think that's right. The very specifically documented bets on baseball were indeed in 1987, his first year as manager-only. But there was testimony in the Dowd report about general baseball and Reds betting from 1984-1986, when he was a player-manager. Rose himself, in the very many versions of his story over the years, has never AFAIK stated that he started when he retired as a player.

   94. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 12, 2014 at 08:12 AM (#4670028)
Pete Rose is scum.
Pete Rose was a great baseball player.
Pete Rose broke The Rule of MLB by gambling.
MLB/HoF changed the rules just to make sure Pete Rose did not go into the HoF.

Basically there are no heroes in this little play. Pete Rose is still scum. MLB/HoF did change things us (and they are well and truly linked, no matter how distinct they technically are) in a scummy fashion to avoid the possibility of Pete getting into the HoF, which is basically unfair.

Both sides in the argument typically spend their time pointing out how awful the other side is, and both sides are somewhat correct.

In net I am OK with Pete not being in the Hall, because I think on some level gambling really is that bad for baseball in a way that steroids or crimes outside of baseball (murder or whatever) are not. But I admit what MLB/HoF did is kind of scummy, even if it was done for reasons.
   95. Bug Selig Posted: March 12, 2014 at 08:47 AM (#4670034)
Nothing was taken from Pete Rose. Being awarded the highest honor in the game is not a right. It is a private club that can include or exclude anyone it wants for whatever reason it wants.

What is sad is that the HoF took the step of saying "We don't trust the BBWAA to get this right" but didn't make it all the way to the obvious conclusion of that statement.
   96. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 12, 2014 at 09:11 AM (#4670041)
Nothing was taken from Pete Rose. Being awarded the highest honor in the game is not a right.


Perhaps, but I think most processes should follow a general doctrine of fairness. And changing the rules like they did, aimed specifically at one player after the fact is by any reckoning unfair.

Is it legal? Sure. Is the good of the action outweighed by the harm? Maybe, but I think it important to acknowledge the unfairness of the actions.
   97. Morty Causa Posted: March 12, 2014 at 09:36 AM (#4670051)
I don't think it's unfair one bit. Moreover, one thing that declaring Rose ineligible did was that it removed him and the subject he has come to monomaniacally represent as the dominating perennial topic of conversation and controversy at HOF every election. Right now, there is no discussion when the Veteran's Committee meets, either at the meetings or in the media, about Rose. That would change if he were declared eligible. Rose would be the sole, obsessive topic year after year.
   98. GregD Posted: March 12, 2014 at 09:55 AM (#4670070)
I get the argument against ex post facto rules, but I also think it's important not to let the standard in court cases become the standard for every other part of our life. No ex post facto legislation so you don't take someone's property or freedom. That needs a high standard! But here what is being "taken" is something Rose never had in the first place. I don't think an institution has to be trapped by its own inability to predict every single future problem before it happens. There should be some leeway in non-judicial issues for institutions to say we would have done this if we imagined that there was a danger of a banned player being voted in. Otherwise you get nothing but Costanza Costanza Costanza as the defense for every transgression.
   99. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: March 12, 2014 at 10:47 AM (#4670117)
I am not defending Rose but posts like this force me to sound like I am. He has "no case under baseball law" for arguing with his lifetime ban from participating in MLB. That much is true. He has "no case under baseball law" for arguing with his ban from the HOF because the law was explicitly re-written to keep him out. Otherwise it would have been left up to the preferences of the voters, and one could have made a case that he was a sufficiently valuable player to outweigh the character concerns.

No, I don't agree with that. The HOF was perfectly within its rights (unless you can show me a higher law that has supervened) to make what was implicit explicit. There is no rule, legal or otherwise, against the HOF doing that. This happens all the time in regular business matters.


I am not sure what part of my post #50 you're disagreeing with. The HOF obviously can do whatever it wants to. I never said they couldn't. If, as you said, they were just making what was implicit explicit then that's a bit of a shame -- the debate could have been put to rest when Rose failed to get elected.

I suspect that it was probably closer than you want to believe. The unanimity of the HOF board's decision implies that they were united in their decision, but the contemporary views posted in this thread imply that Rose would have had a fair amount of support among the writers. Probably not enough to get elected, especially after the 5-year cooling off period, but enough to be part of the discussion year after year (this is one of the reasons that I doubt Rose would have been elected. The more he talks, the less appealing he becomes).
   100. Ron J2 Posted: March 12, 2014 at 12:10 PM (#4670219)
#85 As far back as the 1850s baseball has taken the point of view that there's no meaningful distinction between betting on a game that your team is involved in and game throwing.

I've long believed it's simple pragmatism. Baseball doesn't want to be in the position where it has to prove damage (proving the betting in the first place is tricky enough) and it has nothing to gain by allowing players to bet on baseball.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Traderdave
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogRule change means more players to choose from for postseason roster
(6 - 3:33pm, Sep 02)
Last: Davo Dozier

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-2-2014
(34 - 3:33pm, Sep 02)
Last: The Robby Hammock District (Dan Lee)

NewsblogTrevor Hoffman's Hall of Fame induction seems inevitable
(62 - 3:32pm, Sep 02)
Last: flournoy

NewsblogThe indisputable selfishness of Derek Jeter
(6 - 3:31pm, Sep 02)
Last: AROM

NewsblogFG (Zimmerman): Alex Gordon, UZR, and Bad Left Field Defense
(47 - 3:25pm, Sep 02)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogBPP: Why do people still think Jack Morris pitched to the score?
(24 - 3:21pm, Sep 02)
Last: JL

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(1002 - 3:20pm, Sep 02)
Last: Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(213 - 3:19pm, Sep 02)
Last: CrosbyBird

NewsblogBrewers prospect plays every position, all in one game
(10 - 3:17pm, Sep 02)
Last: zonk

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(103 - 3:16pm, Sep 02)
Last: Good cripple hitter

NewsblogPhoto of the day: Bill Murray, indy league ticket-taker
(119 - 3:15pm, Sep 02)
Last: GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella

NewsblogExtreme Moneyball: The Houston Astros Go All In on Data Analysis
(8 - 2:58pm, Sep 02)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogAthletics Acquire Adam Dunn
(44 - 2:55pm, Sep 02)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(11 - 2:54pm, Sep 02)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogNewsweek: Can Baseball Get More Interesting to Watch With Big Data?
(4 - 2:54pm, Sep 02)
Last: Bitter Mouse

Page rendered in 1.1518 seconds
52 querie(s) executed