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

Thursday, November 22, 2012

Pete Rose getting into the Hall of Fame is still a thorny issue for Johnny Bench

Rose and thorn…spinning, spinning, spinning.

The questioner noted, as many Rose supporters do, that some people who have used performance-enhancing drugs may get into the Hall of Fame while Rose will not.

If the questioner was looking for a sympathetic reply from Bench, he didn’t get one.

Bench said that he has been on three committees that spelled out ways that Rose could be taken off the ineligible list and make himself eligible to be voted into the Hall of Fame and said: “He failed to do it every time.”

He also talked about how if Rose was voted into the Hall of Fame, rules wouldn’t matter, and implied it would be sending the wrong message.

More here

As for his former Big Red Machine teammate Pete Rose, Bench, a two-time MVP and 14-time all-star, is not one of the many who believe it’s an injustice he’s not in the Hall of Fame.

“I’ve been on three committees that have drawn up ways for Pete to get on the nonrestricted list and Pete’s failed to do it every time,” Bench said. “The question always is: Do you believe Pete should be in the Hall of Fame. And I ask ‘Do you have kids?’ [If Rose is in] you can tell them that there are no more rules. We’ve all had to abide by rules.”

Repoz Posted: November 22, 2012 at 08:05 AM | 56 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.

   1. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 22, 2012 at 09:46 AM (#4307973)
The questioner noted, as many Rose supporters do, that some people who have used performance-enhancing drugs may get into the Hall of Fame while Rose will not.


In addition to the gambling, of course, Rose has admitted to using performance-enhancing drugs. But why let the facts get in the way of a bad argument?
   2. Dr. Vaux Posted: November 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM (#4307974)
Those weren't really performance enhancing drugs, because Hank Aaron and Willie Mays used them.
   3. The District Attorney Posted: November 22, 2012 at 10:13 AM (#4307978)
Johnny Bench called.
   4. John Northey Posted: November 22, 2012 at 10:56 AM (#4307989)
From 1920 on it has been very, very clear that if you gamble on your own team in MLB (be it to win or not) that you will be banned for life. The HOF part wasn't there until Rose, but that was because the voters in the past pretty much held to the ban in HOF voting as Shoeless Joe never got in and in fact never cracked 1% in balloting. Rose, on the other hand, despite being off the ballot still got 9.5% from the voters as a write in candidate his first year. Stats vis Baseball-Reference.

Now, as to steroids and other PED's... a lot murkier. Various drugs had been used for decades, detailed in various books and known to be handed out like candy in locker rooms. Then steroids came along and in the late 80's it was fairly well known (or rumoured at least) that Canseco was using while winning an MVP. Other players were showing up with tons of extra muscle mass after offseasons. Then came 1998 and creatine was found in McGwire's locker during the home run chase and the media lashed out...at the person who reported it. MLB ignored it and a loud message was sent to players - use whatever you can until it is banned as we will all ignore it. Then came Barry Bonds, who didn't just break records but was shattering them while being his usual pain-in-the-butt self. Then steroids/HGH/etc. became an issue. Suddenly writers became moral authorities and that was that - no McGwire in the HOF and maybe no Bonds, no Clemens, no anyone who is associated at all with modern PED's. Even guys who never were suspected while playing (Bagwell, Piazza) are now on the PED list it seems.

So, you have gambling, which nearly killed MLB back in the pre-Ruth era and has been banned ever since. Then you have PED's which were openly encouraged for years, then suddenly viewed as evil once an unpopular player was breaking records and a few politicians saw it as a chance to improve their own careers. Rose had every reason to believe he'd be forced out of baseball if caught. McGwire, Bonds, etc. did not. And in truth, they are not banned from MLB but just are put into a HOF holding status it seems. Rose has nothing to complain about. And if what Bench is saying is true, that Rose was given terms to be allowed back in and he never followed those terms then Rose really has nothing to complain about.
   5. RJ in TO Posted: November 22, 2012 at 11:03 AM (#4307992)
Then came 1998 and creatine was found in McGwire's locker during the home run chase and the media lashed out...at the person who reported it.

Wasn't this andro, and not Creatine?
   6. Ron J2 Posted: November 22, 2012 at 11:30 AM (#4307999)
#4 I get the distinction that you are making (actual consequences versus stated rule) but just to get it down, as long as there has been organized leagues (decades before that actually, but there's no practical enforcement mechanism without a league) it's been forbidden to bet (in any way) on your team.

Sometime in the 1890s they stopped enforcing it (dead easy to document Cap Anson's bets. He was quite public about them. And some were pretty high stakes), but Landis didn't create new rules (well there is the bit about guilty knowledge, but I'd argue that's just clarifying existing rules. YMMV) but rather enforced existing ones.


   7. Ron J2 Posted: November 22, 2012 at 11:31 AM (#4308000)
Is Johnny Bench auditioning for the Bob Feller role? Feller was one of the principal voices against any form of compromise on the Rose/HOF front.
   8. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 22, 2012 at 11:53 AM (#4308008)
On this day of giving thanks I would like to extend an olive branch to Pete Rose, but I am not going to, because betting on baseball is vile, he is a horrible human being, and he broke perhaps the most significant rule in baseball. No Hall of Fame for you.
   9. phredbird Posted: November 22, 2012 at 11:53 AM (#4308009)
Is Johnny Bench auditioning for the Bob Feller role?


i hope so.

why gambling and PEDs are discussed as if they are similar is beyond me.
   10. akrasian Posted: November 22, 2012 at 01:40 PM (#4308054)
If somebody nowadays was well documented to have a close relationship with a steroid dealer, and maintained performance until an advanced age (by baseball standards) he would definitely be labelled a near certain steroid user by the msm. There's more evidence of his steroid use than, say, Mike Piazza at this stage.
   11. LooseCannon Posted: November 22, 2012 at 03:03 PM (#4308084)
My standard response to Pete Rose HOF stories is to suggest that a lifetime ban be a literal lifetime ban and allow him to be eligible for induction after he dies.
   12. Rusty Priske Posted: November 22, 2012 at 03:20 PM (#4308094)
I'm okay with that.

I support the MLB ban but not the HoF ban. The first is worrying about the integrity of the game. The second is denying historical fact.
   13. Swedish Chef Posted: November 22, 2012 at 03:30 PM (#4308096)
The second is denying historical fact.

It is just saying that fact B cancels fact A.
   14. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: November 22, 2012 at 03:46 PM (#4308103)
The first is worrying about the integrity of the game. The second is denying historical fact.


I don't think that's quite true. Ross's records and accomplishments remain in the historical record, he simply is being denied the highest honor that can be bestowed upon a MLB player. I think it's a reasonable punishment for what has historical been viewed as the most serious crime a player can commit within the game.
   15. Bhaakon Posted: November 22, 2012 at 03:53 PM (#4308108)
I support the MLB ban but not the HoF ban. The first is worrying about the integrity of the game. The second is denying historical fact.


Well, there are two part of the Hall of Fame. There's the museum, and then there's the hall with the plaques of all the inductees. Excluding him from the former would indeed be denying historical fact*, but the later is an honor, and I have no problem with denying him an honor.

*It's been years since I visited, and I wasn't looking for Pete Rose info, so I don't recall whether his accomplishments are excluded from the museum.
   16. Ron J2 Posted: November 22, 2012 at 04:22 PM (#4308125)
#15 There used to be two Pete Rose FAQ's at the HOF's web site. You might be able to find them with the wayback machine (archive.org)

The urls were:

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/members/rosefaq.html

and

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/members/rosestat.html

Quoting from one (the rosestat IIRC)

Quoting from their old Rose FAQ:

2.If Pete Rose is not in the Hall of Fame, then it is hypocritical to display his memorabilia.

We are the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. It is important to make the distinction between the two. The "Hall of Fame" refers to the one-room gallery housing the 206 bronze plaques of those players, pioneers, executives, managers and umpires who have been elected to the Hall of Fame.

The rest of the complex -two buildings and three floors - contain the Museum, showcasing the history of Baseball. Over 6,000 artifacts and photographs are on display here, most of which are not Hall of Famer related.

Here are represented hundreds and hundreds of non-Hall of Famers, who for a career, a season, a game, or even a sole at-bat, have made a significant contribution to Baseball history. Bobby Thomson, Don Larsen, Johnny Vander Meer, Roger Maris, Joe Jackson and Bill Mazeroski, to mention only a few, may not be elected Hall of Famers at this time; but who can deny their niche in our game's history?

For Pete Rose not to be represented here would be an aberration. He, as much or more than anyone, deserves to be recognized for his outstanding accomplishments on the playing field.


At that time there were more exhibits associated with Rose than with any other player. Since they have way more stuff than space to display it, that probably has changed.
   17. John Northey Posted: November 22, 2012 at 05:10 PM (#4308138)
Was it andro? Could be - going from memory isn't always the best idea. Still, in the end, the media attacked the guy who found it and reported it rather than on the fact it showed McGwire used PED and it showed all other players that not doing PED was just writing off money.

Funny how it is working right now though...

McGwire: Allowed to work in MLB but is being kept out of the HOF by voters

Rose: Not allowed to work in MLB or be voted into HOF while many voters feel he should be allowed into the HOF but not into the game itself.

So to voters... Rose: HOF but not MLB, McGwire: No HOF but allowed in MLB.
   18. Walt Davis Posted: November 22, 2012 at 05:37 PM (#4308143)
While I think there's zero chance of this happening, if they put Rose in the HoF but not Bonds, Clemens et al even I might be sufficiently motivated to burn the place down.
   19. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 22, 2012 at 06:17 PM (#4308154)
On this day of giving thanks I would like to extend an olive branch to Pete Rose, but I am not going to, because betting on baseball is vile, he is a horrible human being, and he broke perhaps the most significant rule in baseball.

And then lied about it. Repeatedly. Even after accepting the ban. Yet, at every turn, there were folks willing to believe Rose.
   20. bjhanke Posted: November 23, 2012 at 04:56 AM (#4308228)
It was andro that was in McGwire's locker. Just FYI, I was in an amateur competitive sport at the time, and tried both andro and creatine, and didn't get anything out of either of them. On the other hand, I'm not a major league athlete of any kind, and took light doses. I got mine at the shopping mall health supplement store; they were completely legal at the time. - Brock Hanke
   21. Benji Posted: November 23, 2012 at 05:34 AM (#4308229)
Chalk this up to a 40 year grudge, but my experience with these two men will keep me from ever seeing Johnny Bench as a role model. As a 12 year old nobody Met fan I approached Pete Rose in the Roosevelt Hotel lobby and asked him for an autograph. He said only if I did him a favor and pick The Sporting News up for him. There was a "handsome guy on the cover" (him). I did and he said "keep the change" which made him a hero already. Then he said "let me see those cards" and asked me my name. He signed and said "c'mon pal let's go see some guys". He then took me to Clay Carroll, Wayne Granger, Tony Perez, Joe Morgan and about 10 other guys, saying "give my buddy Big Ben your John Hancock" to them. I was never so thrilled in my life! The bus showed up and Rose said "nice meeting you kid, sorry we're gonna beat your Mets tonight." After he left, Bench came in the lobby carrying a suit. I asked him and he said "got to bring these up, catch you in a minute". When he returned he walked right past us like we didn't exist. So, when he says "do you have kids?" I can only wonder how many other young fans he crapped on when he played.

In summary, when it comes to this baseball fan, I can only say \"#### you, Johnny Bench!".
   22. Darren Posted: November 23, 2012 at 09:07 AM (#4308245)
It seems like Bench is being pretty darn reasonable here. He's not saying Rose messed up so he's out forever. Quite the opposite. From what he's saying, it sounds like he's repeatedly tried to help Rose get back in the game, and is still willing to do so, under the right circumstances.
   23. BDC Posted: November 23, 2012 at 11:04 AM (#4308271)
McGwire: Allowed to work in MLB but is being kept out of the HOF by voters

There's nothing remarkable about McGwire working in the game. Even if he'd tested positive for PEDs at a time when PED use was punished, his return as a coach would be on par with Leo Durocher or Sal Maglie working for clubs after their suspensions. And in fact, part of Durocher's long wait for the HOF was his unsavory reputation, despite his success as a fully rehabilitated professional long after that suspension.

I agree that often the outcomes don't match the rhetoric. OTOH, McGwire, at worst, did things that players have come back and played in MLB after being suspended for; they're simply not punished on the same level as gambling. But one can see the thread of logic that says "the game will welcome you back, but the Hall has higher standards." Because of course the Hall has higher standards; that's its mission statement.
   24. Ron J2 Posted: November 23, 2012 at 11:12 AM (#4308273)
#23 Dusty Baker was never suspended, but he was one of a number of players who were subject to on demand drug testing in the wake of the Curtis Strong affair. (22 were named initially, more were added over the next couple of years)

   25. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 23, 2012 at 11:18 AM (#4308276)
I think it's a reasonable punishment for what has historical been viewed as the most serious crime a player can commit within the game.

Umm, no. Betting on your team to win when you manage them has not been historically viewed as the most serious crime a player (*) can commit within the game. Throwing games is. Rose's acts bore at most a superficial resemblance to that most serious crime.

(*) [Sic]. Rose didn't commit any "crimes" as a player.
   26. AndrewJ Posted: November 23, 2012 at 11:28 AM (#4308278)
Betting on your team to win when you manage them has not been historically viewed as the most serious crime a player can commit within the game.

In the 1940s Phillies owner William Cox was caught betting on his team to win, and was thrown out of baseball pretty quickly.
   27. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 23, 2012 at 11:32 AM (#4308280)
I agree that often the outcomes don't match the rhetoric. OTOH, McGwire, at worst, did things that players have come back and played in MLB after being suspended for; they're simply not punished on the same level as gambling. But one can see the thread of logic that says "the game will welcome you back, but the Hall has higher standards." Because of course the Hall has higher standards; that's its mission statement.

We all should recall that baseball took the vote away from the Hall of Fame in the sports equivalent of a Bill of Attainder. Rose very well have been voted in in the pre-moralizing, pre-internet environment of 1990-91.
   28. phredbird Posted: November 23, 2012 at 11:51 AM (#4308290)
Umm, no. Betting on your team to win when you manage them has not been historically viewed as the most serious crime a player (*) can commit within the game.


ridiculous. players and managers are categorically banned from betting on games they are participating in, period. its part and parcel of rule 21. throwing games is mentioned first in rule 21, but gambling is right in there in section d. it's all death penalty infractions.
   29. phredbird Posted: November 23, 2012 at 11:56 AM (#4308292)
Rose very well have been voted in in the pre-moralizing, pre-internet environment of 1990-91.


you mean the selectively moralizing pre-internet environment. much like the selectively moralizing hof-voting environment of today, which sees steroids as the tool of satan while the pill-poppers of yore get a pass because they cavorted on the sun-dappled fields of their youth when baseball was played the right way blah blah blah.
   30. Bug Selig Posted: November 23, 2012 at 01:17 PM (#4308338)
Umm, no. Betting on your team to win when you manage them has not been historically viewed as the most serious crime a player (*) can commit within the game. Throwing games is. Rose's acts bore at most a superficial resemblance to that most serious crime.

(*) [Sic]. Rose didn't commit any "crimes" as a player.


You sure about that?

The betting discussed in the Dowd Report began in 1984. Or is this another SBB-style "fact"? He didn't actually place bets from first base or the batter's box, so it wasn't "as a player?"
   31. Ron J2 Posted: November 23, 2012 at 01:25 PM (#4308343)
#28 I think it's reasonable to say that betting your team to win is

a) not as serious as actually throwing games
b) carries the same penalty

It's also plausible that actually throwing games or betting against your team is unpardonable while betting on your team to win (or some form of guilty knowledge) could be pardonable. Albeit with strings attached.

And it's not like there isn't a precedent. Rube Benton (though it's a very confusing affair, involving Buck Herzog, guilty knowledge of the 1920 World Series fix among other things) -- Landis over-rode the league bans imposed. In part for his help in unraveling the whole Buck Herzog situation.
   32. phredbird Posted: November 23, 2012 at 01:43 PM (#4308353)
a) not as serious as actually throwing games
b) carries the same penalty

It's also plausible that actually throwing games or betting against your team is unpardonable while betting on your team to win (or some form of guilty knowledge) could be pardonable. Albeit with strings attached.


not sure what we're arguing here, but rule 21 defines misconduct in the first part, and goes on to explicitly state that betting on games you are participating in either as management or player is punishable by being permanently ineligible. no distinction about betting to win or whatever -- for very good reasons discussed on this site many times. the bans have to be comprehensive and drawn with bright lines to keep even the appearance of impropriety out of the game.
betting to win is just as bad as any other betting. the gambler has to keep winning for it to be sustainable, and that's not possible. so at some point he has to lay off. when he does he has to let the gamblers he's betting with know this to give them a chance to recoup. its a slippery slope to complete corruption. the bettor eventually plays (or manages) not to win but to satisfy gambling imperatives, which results in the misconduct. one inexorably leads to the other, even if the chain is not completed, so it becomes necessary to ban any gambling to forestall all other.
mlb would not want -- and should not be expected to -- parse this out to determine levels of guilt. its all bad acts.
   33. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 23, 2012 at 01:49 PM (#4308356)
betting to win is just as bad as any other betting. the gambler has to keep winning for it to be sustainable, and that's not possible. so at some point he has to lay off. when he does he has to let the gamblers he's betting with know this to give them a chance to recoup. its a slippery slope to complete corruption. the bettor eventually plays (or manages) not to win but to satisfy gambling imperatives, which results in the misconduct. one inexorably leads to the other, even if the chain is not completed, so it becomes necessary to ban any gambling to forestall all other.


I think the problem is that MLB doesn't want to be in a position of having to determine whether you were actually throwing games or "just" betting to win.

(BTW, may I make a polite request that you use proper punctuation and formatting?)
   34. BDC Posted: November 23, 2012 at 01:53 PM (#4308364)
It's also plausible that actually throwing games or betting against your team is unpardonable while betting on your team to win (or some form of guilty knowledge) could be pardonable

That they're lumped together is an oversimplification based on a warrant that doesn't make as much sense now as it did in the 1920s. The main reason to bet on a game you're playing in used to be that you're also throwing it, or at least conspiring to fix it, which is indistinguishable from throwing it. (That was the situation in the Leonard/Cobb incident, right: that players from two teams got together to fix a result that they could exploit by betting on their own team or not, accordingly.)

That a player or manager might bet on his own team to win because he was both a hard-driven winner and a gambling addict was less on people's minds. And frankly, it's still hard to separate out from game-fixing. If you bet a bundle on your team to win, the temptation to ensure and then split your winnings with an willing opponent is strong. Naturally in the 2010s, when player salaries dwarf potential gambling winnings, this is a less imaginable problem, but there's no overwhelming exigence to revise the rule.
   35. Ron J2 Posted: November 23, 2012 at 02:12 PM (#4308379)
#32 (let me second Ray here. Your post is really hard to read)

Yes. Baseball (going back to the 1850s) has always treated any form of betting as being equal to actually throwing games in terms of the rules. Probably for simplicity.


But in practice at minimum you have Rube Benton. Permanently banned and subsequently reinstated.

There's never been any serious chance that a player somehow involved in a fix would be reinstated. A player betting his own team to win and suspended. Sample size of one (stipulating for the moment that Rose in fact only bet his team to win)

There's also (at minimum) Cap Anson. He clearly broke the same rule that Rose did. And there's at least one bet on the record against his team. Granted only a token amount ($10 with another HOFer, Clark Griffith)

And for that matter, there are cases when the commissioner has opted for less than the maximum penalty allowed. One of Strawberry's suspensions comes to mind. The Commissioner has enormous discretionary power in this area and could choose to treat Rose differently (there are reports that Giamatti offered Rose 7 years for a guilty plea). Not that Selig has shown the slightest inclination. (his statement was -- almost word for word -- he accepted a lifetime ban and hasn't given me any reason to change this)

I doubt the game would sustain damage were Rose to follow the path that Bench alludes to (presumably getting professional help and then staying away from gambling) and was reinstated.

   36. Ron J2 Posted: November 23, 2012 at 02:19 PM (#4308384)
#34 If there's one thing that the recent cricket issues shows, it is that gamblers are willing to put up enough money to tempt somebody.

A smart player might perform a cost/benefit analysis (Bill Russell tells a story about getting some feelers from a gambler and saying, "Forget it, you can't afford it", but not everybody is as smart as Russell), but ...

Of course, it's likely to be more cost effective to go after an ump.
   37. dlf Posted: November 23, 2012 at 02:27 PM (#4308389)
... the path that Bench alludes to (presumably getting professional help and then staying away from gambling) ...


I wonder what that path is and who authored it. Is this something merely advisory or is it binding? What steps are involved? While I recognize that Rose has no one but himself to blame for his predicament, I hate seeing someone so utterly and completely destroyed. It is a shame that no matter how much he clearly and obviously loved baseball, he loved (loves?) gambling even more.
   38. phredbird Posted: November 23, 2012 at 02:31 PM (#4308392)
I think the problem is that MLB doesn't want to be in a position of having to determine whether you were actually throwing games or "just" betting to win.


yes. because it opens up the possibility of too many embarassing questions that only hamper the reputation of the game. i think its still safe to say the spectators want to see a fair and square contest and the owners want the spectators to show up. those who want to have debates about how betting to win could be pardonable aren't thinking about what the actual consequences would be.

(BTW, may I make a polite request that you use proper punctuation and formatting?)


i did use proper punctuation. as for capitalization, if you read my sentences you can see where they end. i've always typed lower case as a habit. there are others here who do the same.

usually i add a return between paragraphs, just forgot this time.

the things that went on before the black sox incident aren't really germaine, since nothing was actually well codified, and i imagine it was harder to scrutinize player behavior in re gambling, lots of shenanigans went on. not much landis could do about it once he was handed plenary powers, but bringing down the hammer the way he did was the right solution not only then but in the long run. it has to be a draconian rule.
   39. Ron J2 Posted: November 23, 2012 at 04:19 PM (#4308439)
#38 It was absolutely codified. Here's the wording for the NA.

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.

When the NL started, the only change they made was to substitute the word league for association. (Yes, you are reading it correctly. The scorer is banned from betting on baseball)

There was lax enforcement to be sure. It's not clear exactly when, but Cap Anson was making (fairly large) public bets in the 1890s and I've never read of anybody taking issue with it.
   40. Ron J2 Posted: November 23, 2012 at 04:25 PM (#4308441)
And since I have it handy, here's the version from 1857.

Rule 30. Gambling/Substitute No person engaged in a match, either as umpire, referee, or player, shall be directly or indirectly interested in any bet upon the game.

The penalty (since there were no leagues) is removal from the game. Which is why it's in the rules on substitutes. (The rule for substitutions was simple. None except for emergencies -- unless the player is tossed for gambling)


   41. phredbird Posted: November 23, 2012 at 05:01 PM (#4308453)
sorry ron, you are right. there were written rules. would it be more accurate to say there was more of a 'honor' system in those days? seems like there wasn't any consistent application of the bans because the game really didn't have a commissioner with powers to do things like banning players, or if there were they didn't seem to be used much. my memory of this part of baseball history is fuzzy, you are obviously more up on it.

people like hal chase acted almost with impunity. that some crooked things went on was pretty common knowledge. the 1919 series was when it came to a head and the owners realized it had to be dealt with in a summary fashion.

anyway, we're off in the weeds as far as i'm concerned. i'm more focused on rose and the silly notion that he's forgivable because he 'only bet to win'. and i'm talking strictly in the baseball sense. i don't care what he does with his miserable life, i just feel very strongly that he should never ever be admitted to the hall of fame, or be allowed to have any employment in organized baseball, and he is getting what he deserves.
   42. Ron J2 Posted: November 23, 2012 at 05:18 PM (#4308459)
#41 How about dishonor system? Rules that are on the books and not enforced are a bad idea.

As for Rose, don't get me wrong. Until he "reconfigures his life" (Joe Morgan's phrase IIRC) I think that it's a lousy idea to let him back in the game. And as long as he's banned by baseball the HOF is going to keep him out. And as long as Selig is Commissioner he's likely to stay banned. There's no ambiguity in Selig's stated position.

I'm fine with thist. I'm also fine with the HOF's stated position on what happens if he is reinstated (same applies to Joe Jackson). He becomes a Veterans Committee candidate. Exactly how that would play out is anybody's guess.
   43. Howie Menckel Posted: November 23, 2012 at 05:57 PM (#4308469)

I really enjoyed Post 21, and others we get like this now and then.

sure, sample size and all that, but you wonder if these athletes ever realized what an impression they can make on a kid - for the next half-century or more!

   44. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 23, 2012 at 08:17 PM (#4308506)
We all should recall that baseball took the vote away from the Hall of Fame in the sports equivalent of a Bill of Attainder. Rose very well have been voted in in the pre-moralizing, pre-internet environment of 1990-91.

The Hall of Fame, not MLB, changed the rules. That doesn't make it anything like a Bill of Attainder - more like the United Way deciding not to give its Humanitarian of the Year Award to Jerry Sandusky after his misdeeds became known.

The HoF rule change only codified what had been the apparent consensus until that time, so it's very doubtful that Rose would have been elected if nominally eligible. There has always been a vocal minority willing to turn a blind eye toward Pete's actions, or even believe his denials for decades despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but nothing like 75% of the BBWAA ever took that stance.
   45. phredbird Posted: November 23, 2012 at 08:55 PM (#4308511)
There has always been a vocal minority willing to turn a blind eye toward Pete's actions, or even believe his denials for decades despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but nothing like 75% of the BBWAA ever took that stance.


maybe, but the idea of rose being eligible for voters makes me nervous based on the way they act these days so i'm glad the HOF took the steps they did.

um, also, someone may have mentioned this in another thread. doesnt the HOF do pretty much what the commissioner wants it to do? so if the hall is making rose permanently ineligible, isn't that at the behest of the commissioner?
   46. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: November 23, 2012 at 09:03 PM (#4308514)
Those weren't really performance enhancing drugs, because Hank Aaron and Willie Mays used them.


I've seen multiple references to the SF Giants using liquid amphetamines. Is there evidence of Aaron using greenies more than the one time that he claimed he did?
   47. Wahoo Sam Posted: November 23, 2012 at 11:56 PM (#4308548)
The acid test for this issue for me, is this: if it was Pete Smith we were talking about, would we want the rules changed or to have Smith re-instated?

The obvious answer is no. Other lesser known players have been suspended for life and no one ever cried foul. The rose supporters exist only because he was Pete Rose, all-time hit king.

This is a case of let's make an exception for the elite. We have enough of that in our society, we don't need more in the sports world.
   48. base ball chick Posted: November 24, 2012 at 01:01 AM (#4308563)
i don't know why so many guys here think that MLB owns/runs the hall of fame. youse guys should know better. the hall of fame MUSEUM, which is private, can make up any rules it wants about who can and who can not become a member.

no, phred is NOT me in drag.

agree that a hardcore, unrepentant gambler should not be allowed anywhere NEAR a baseball field/team. i wouldn't even want to see pete rose interacting with an indy league team. and yeah, it IS too bad, but no matter what his good baseball qualities, his bad gambling thingy overrides it all.

and i can NOT understand why so many of you think that a manager or a player betting on his own team is no problem at all.

   49. Bob Tufts Posted: November 24, 2012 at 01:12 AM (#4308564)
Umm, no. Betting on your team to win when you manage them has not been historically viewed as the most serious crime a player (*) can commit within the game. Throwing games is. Rose's acts bore at most a superficial resemblance to that most serious crime.

(*) [Sic]. Rose didn't commit any "crimes" as a player.


Rose bet on games while he was a player/manager in 1985 and 1986 according to the Dowd Report.



   50. base ball chick Posted: November 24, 2012 at 01:21 AM (#4308567)
would be interesting to take an anonymous survey of ex-MLB players to see if any of them think that rule 21 is silly/no big deal and should be dropped.

i wonder how many ex=MLB players have publicly said that pete rose shouldn't be banned and should be allowed back in the game and into the Hall because what he did is, say, no more serious than throwing a spitball. sure it's against the rules. like, so what.
   51. Bhaakon Posted: November 24, 2012 at 04:08 AM (#4308581)
I don't think players should be the ones setting those rules. The main point of the current rules is avoid both the appearance and the possibility of impropriety, which are more important to the business side of baseball than the on the field play. The players are qualified to play baseball, not run a league.
   52. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 24, 2012 at 11:11 PM (#4308877)
I really enjoyed Post 21, and others we get like this now and then.
sure, sample size and all that, but you wonder if these athletes ever realized what an impression they can make on a kid - for the next half-century or more!


Getting into my childhood time machine... Bob Kane, couldn't have been sweller. Mort Walker, hooray, what a guy. Will Eisner? Kind of a churl. Oh, well.
   53. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: November 24, 2012 at 11:23 PM (#4308887)
Jeez, I read Mort Walker as Mort Cooper and started to wonder how old you were, GB.
   54. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 25, 2012 at 12:13 AM (#4308948)
I can report that it was not the 1941 editions of Bob Kane and Will Eisner that young me met.
   55. phredbird Posted: November 25, 2012 at 12:57 AM (#4309007)
Rose didn't commit any "crimes" as a player.


Rose bet on games while he was a player/manager in 1985 and 1986 according to the Dowd Report.


rose himself also admitted it in his autobiography 'my prison without bars'. it was part of his 'okay i did it now can i get in the hall of fame?' campaign.
   56. phredbird Posted: November 25, 2012 at 01:00 AM (#4309010)
no, phred is NOT me in drag.


i could still be in drag, though.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Backlasher
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(3212 - 1:58am, Sep 19)
Last: Robert in Manhattan Beach

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-18-2014
(148 - 1:47am, Sep 19)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

NewsblogKeri: How Washington Built a World Series Favorite
(15 - 1:29am, Sep 19)
Last: TerpNats

NewsblogRASMUS OPENS UP ABOUT JAYS TENURE, FUTURE, PAST
(12 - 1:27am, Sep 19)
Last: DFA

NewsblogBowman: A year’s worth of struggles leads reason to wonder what changes are in store for the Braves
(54 - 12:33am, Sep 19)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogMcCarthy’s immaculate inning highlights Yankees win
(57 - 12:22am, Sep 19)
Last: pthomas

NewsblogJoe Girardi put Derek Jeter’s farewell tour ahead of the team
(116 - 12:17am, Sep 19)
Last: Srul Itza

NewsblogRon Washington Acknowledges Infidelity, Doesn’t Explain Why He Resigned
(1 - 12:13am, Sep 19)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogUmpire ejects Braves fan for heckling Bryce Harper
(64 - 12:08am, Sep 19)
Last: flournoy

NewsblogDave Kreiger: New Baseball Hall of Fame voting rules
(68 - 11:18pm, Sep 18)
Last: Booey

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(272 - 11:18pm, Sep 18)
Last: kpelton

NewsblogOT: September 2014 College Football thread
(276 - 11:11pm, Sep 18)
Last: spike

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(270 - 10:00pm, Sep 18)
Last: Darkness and the howling fantods

NewsblogThe Jake Peavy-Dee Gordon rivalry seems to be, um, heating up
(8 - 9:47pm, Sep 18)
Last: DCA

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-18-2014
(22 - 9:37pm, Sep 18)
Last: bobm

Page rendered in 0.7464 seconds
52 querie(s) executed