I’m not saying they SHOULD necessarily get in, just that they have a better case than Shoeless Joe or Classless Pete.
Eh, I guess I don’t see it as much of a difference.
I guess this comment will fall under screw the lot of 'em.
Did you see the movie, Field of Dreams? I didn’t. And I don’t plan to. To me, the movie, at best, glosses over the scandal. Yeah, I’ve heard and read that the scandal is addressed. So what? There’s no reason to create an alternative universe here and now in which a group of professional athletes tanked a contest for money is glorified in any way whatsoever. The permanent ban isn’t unfair.
Do you want to talk about an unfair ban? Muhammed Ali was unfairly banned from boxing for taking a principled stand and he was right.
Rose, Jackson, and the rest of this lot aren’t heroes.
Not condoning it - and Rose did use that as an excuse - yet what is the main problem with doing this? Would Rose give extra rest to his starting pitcher? Exhaust the bullpen without regard to the next game? That kind of activity could be charted and would clearly be bad.
Or is it just the rule blanketed betting on baseball, he did, so out he goes?
MLB and the Hall of Fame - they’re separate organizations - are, after all, entertainment businesses, and there is a point at which honoring someone would not be good for their reputations.
I do think there is a strong case to be made that Rose should have bene inducted into the Hall even while he was banned from MLB, and that actually would likely have happened had the Hall not changed their own rules to prohibit his induction, a rule change they only made AFTER he was banned form MLB. Prior to that there had never been a rule against it.
ESPN - May 15, 2018
Major League Baseball was the first pro sports organization to jump into pro sports betting once SCOTUS overturned the law.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/sports/mlb-gambling-mgm-resorts.html
NY Times - November 27, 2018
So let’s say the NL West-leading Braves are coming into town for a 3-game series against the Reds, and Pete-the-manager likes his teams chances to make up ground on their rival. He’s got two of his best starters going, one on Friday night and another on Sunday afternoon. The Saturday night pitcher will be a rookie, called up after a good streak of pitching in the minors; Pete-the-manager saw him in spring training, and he likes his stuff but worries about how erratic he seemed to be.
So Pete-the-gambler gets on the phone to the guy who places his bets, and puts $100 each on the Friday and Sunday games. He’s a little less confident about Saturday, and puts $20 on that one. (The bookies modify their lines accordingly…)
Friday’s starter cruises through five, but walks the leadoff batter of the sixth. After giving up an RBI double, the Reds’ best middle reliever starts warming up. After an out, a homer, and another walk, middle reliever comes in, induces a groundout, and pitches through the eighth. Pete brings in his closer, who gives up a single, but the Reds get the win 5-3.
On Saturday, the rookie starts and he’s got his best stuff early. The Reds explode for six runs in the 3rd frame, and look to have a shot at a series sweep. But the Braves claw their way back into it, and it stands 6-4 after the bottom of the seventh. Pete sends the rookie out to try to get one more inning, but he gives up a first-pitch single and then, while the bullpen gets warming up, a walk to put the tying run on base.
So what does Pete-the-manager want to do here, and what does Pete-the-gambler want to do?
Pete-the-manager probably wants to lock down the series win, with a chance for the sweep on Sunday. So he’s thinking it’s time to bring in his good relievers, even though they won’t be available Sunday after two nights of work and short rest. Pete-the-gambler, on the other hand, would feel a lot better about his $100 tomorrow if he had the best part of his bullpen available, and if he loses tonight, he’s only out $20. And since he’s a bit behind this year, that’s kinda weighing on his mind.
Which Pete wins the internal argument?
It could be charted, if you knew how much Pete bet on every game, and hence the degree to which Pete-the-gambler was influencing the decisions of Pete-the-manager.
But that information will in practice be incomplete. Hence, the blanket rule. No arguing that he would have done it the same way whether betting on it or not. The presence of a conflict of interest, created by betting, is sufficient to bring the thought process of the bettor under suspicion, and that’s more than enough to put the integrity of the game on trial.
Exactly. It’s generous to say that Rose had a bit of a credibility problem on the topic of his betting. His story changed and changed over time.
If he did bet against his team – even once – I suspect that he realized that admitting such would have been the kiss of death to his hopes for reinstatement, and admission to the Hall.
It’s clear that Rose not only enjoyed gambling, but that he had a gambling problem – various sources indicate that he was betting between $2000 and $10,000 a day on baseball at that time – and that’s the kind of situation which can lead a gambling addict to make foolish decisions in order to try to chase gambling wins.
I don’t care about Pete Rose, but Jackson obviously gets my vote. 
I asked AI to give me the list of other former players who were on the permanently ineligible list. I didn’t recognize any names, but Copilot helpfully informed me that most of them were for gambling, although one was for auto theft (later acquitted) and another for making disparaging remarks about baseball and violating his contract.
Which led me to wonder:
Current player XYZ is a lock for the HOF. But 2 years after he retires, he gets behind the wheel after a night of drinking, and hits and kills a pedestrian. He is convicted of vehicular manslaughter. Would he then be placed on the ineligible list?
I actually posted the full list, and some notes on each of them, back in post #5 of this thread.
And that’s what I get for not researching the Dope first! Thanks.
It would not surprise me. AIUI, suspensions and ineligibility are largely at the discretion of the Commissioner (see Marge Schott’s suspensions for racist statements), though some things (like the current rules on suspensions for PED usage) are written into the CBA.
Who cares?
MLB doesn’t have a problem with gambling. They have a problem with their employees gambling on games they are participating in.
This is how conflict of interest rules work. MLB’s rule here is basically the same as any other business; if you get into a conflict of interest you aren’t open about, you’re fired.
I knew a guy at a large corporation who authorized purchases from his son’s company. He did not declare this conflict of interest. He was a nice guy. There was no reason to think the son’s company didn’t provide adequate service. They fired him. It was a conflict of interest, and it poisons trust.
And just two weeks ago a client told me they fired one of their purchasers. They had engaged in a substantial effort to remind everyone not to accept gifts from suppliers that could color their decisions. Then one weekend he appeared on TV in a very expensive VIP box at a Formula 1 race. He’d taken those tickets from a supplier. Nice guy. They fired him.
Not that I’d necessarily vote for either, but Eddie Cicotte was just about a good a player as Shoeless Joe (59.0 bWAR vs 62.2). None of the other banned players are anywhere close to that.
Yes, and…
The current MLB rules prohibit players (as well as team employees, league employees, and umpires) from gambling on any baseball game – even minor league games or amateur games.
The distinction is that gambling on a baseball game in which the player isn’t directly involved results in a one-year suspension, while gambling on one’s own game leads to a lifetime ban.
Which doesn’t mean jack squat when it comes to Pete Rose who consciously and continually violated a rule which is consciously and continuously drilled into the heads of both MLB players and management.
Any player, umpire or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible.
This falls into the category of “What part of ‘NO’ don’t you understand.”
Baseball has almost as much integrity as the WWE.
You mention a precedent of someone being made ineligible just for being indicted for a crime, but I’m guessing that was a long time ago. Just off the top of my head, Lenny Dykstra has been involved in all sorts of criminal shit, and Orlando Cepeda did time for dope smuggling.
Of course, it’s possible that such a player wouldn’t be formally labeled as ineligible, but still never would be voted in. It really depends on who’s running the HoF at the time.
1921, in fact. Giants outfielder Benny Kauff was accused of taking part in an auto theft. Kauff was suspended while the case was pending; despite being acquitted, Commissioner Landis refused to reinstate him. As per Wikipedia:
Probably worth noting that this was on the heels of the Black Sox scandal, and Landis was probably being a hard-ass on the case in an effort to clean baseball up from any hint of criminal elements. As per his own Wikipedia entry: