The answer to your last question is, yes, he was that good.
There have always been those who thought that Pete belonged in the HoF even while being banned.
The talk of lifting the ban began recently when it was revealed that Rose and Selig had some talks two weeks ago.
As to why it’s important, it’s important because the rules of the HoF state that Rose is ineligible for election while on the permenantly ineligible list.
Zev Steinhardt
Zev Steinhardt
I just wanted to repost the link in case anyone skipped over it. Thanks, Bob.
What astorian said. When he gambled on baseball, it was when he was a manager, no? Provided he publicly admitted wrongdoing (as opposed to his puzzling tactic of being a beligerent pussy about it), I would allow him to be honored as a player. However, I would continue to ban him from participating in MLB in any decision-making capacity. I would also ban him from being considered for any recognition in the HoF for his managerial accomplishments.
And I’d be sure the placque read that he was later banned from baseball for gambling on the sport. As a lesson for the little tykes who visit.
Well, aside from beating his wife and appearing on infomercials, both of which I consider to be bannable offenses…after his acquittal, he was subsequently sued by the Goldmans and the Browns in civil court and was ordered to pay damages to them for the murder of their children.
O.J. Simpson was elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame LONG before any of his run-ins with the law vis-a-vie Nicole et all, so it’s both brainless and pointless to bring them up, as they have no context in the discussion.
MLB agreed 13 years ago that there is no (and will never be a) finding that Rose bet on baseball. Right?
So how can some of you folks say that he did bet on baseball?
Sure Pete gambled on sports, but bet on baseball?..there is no proof. There can’t be…otherwise, MLB would have never agreed that there is no finding that Rose bet on baseball.
On another note:
Someone earlier seemed to be confused as to Rose/corporate sponsorship tie-in… Why do the corporate sponsors care?..because Pete still to this day is marketable. MLB is a business and the main concern of any business is money. Pete Rose and what he meant to fans as a player has a value that can be measured in dollars and cents.
IMHO, there are probably more fans staying away from the game because of the Rose banishment than would turn away if he were to be allowed to return. Bring Pete back and count the butts in the seats.
Well, because
The amount of evidence that Rose bet on baseball is rather overwhelming. To use the O.J. Simpson comparison, the evidence against Simpson is a fraction of what it is against Rose.
You’re misconstruing MLB’s statement. What the agreement said was that MLB would not make a FORMAL finding of Rose’s conduct - but that it “had a factual basis” for the allegations.
It’s pretty obvious, reading the agreement, that it’s pretty much a conditional surrender by Rose.
I really don’t believe any significant number of fans are staying away from baseball just because Rose was punished according to the rules. He can’t play anymore, and he wasn’t a good manager, and it’s unlikely any team would hire him anyway. I do believe some would stay away if he came back.
av8rmike:
Rose was a tremendous player. He holds several records, including most hits in a career. He was a very similar player to Paul Molitor, if you know anything about Molitor. Ichiro Suzuki is sort of like Rose, except Rose was probably a better hitter at his peak, but with less speed. Rose’s career statistics are unlike anyone else in major league history, so he’s hard to compare, but suffice to say that nobody with even remotely similar qualifications has ever been denied Hall of Fame status.
Rose won an MVP Award, a World Series MVP Award, two Gold Gloves, was named to 16 All-Star teams, and was a member of three World Series champions, including the one and only Philadelphia Phillies winner in that team’s sad and dismal history. He was a legitimately excellent player at his peak - a first rate defensive outfielder who was on base constantly and was the smartest baserunner you could ever ask for. He was famous for his unbelievable hustle; he literally ran full speed on the field at all times. Hell, he ran full speed from the dugout to the on-deck circle. If he hadn’t gambled on baseball he’d be an absolute no-brainer pick.
However, he was and is a selfish, self-destructive man. He prolonged his career way beyond his ability to play; in the last 4-5 years of his career he was arguably the worst player in baseball. As player-manager he kept writing his own name into the lineup in his pursuit of the career hits record, despite the fact that he was hurting his team. He gambled away a lot of his money, cheated on his taxes, and ended up in prison. A very sad story.
I think we should all consider the fact that Bart Giamatti was universally respected as a commissioner, a baseball man and a man of honour. When he banned Rose, he did so in the interests of the sanctity of the sport he so dearly loved. He spared Rose the indignity of publishing the 225 page Dowd report.
We can argue all day and night about whether betting on the game is worse than steriod use or violent behaviour, or cocaine addiction. The bottom line is that baseball has a clear and very strict prohibition against gambling which everyone, pro or otherwise, knows about. If you’re caught gambling–if you’re caught within 10 miles of gambling–you’re out. It’s that simple.
Bart did what he believed was right for baseball, then had the misfortune of dying before having the chance to knock heads with Rose on the reinstatement issue. But again, IMHO, Shoeless Joe must be reinstated before any consideration should be given to Rose.
If he was already in the hall of fame before he gambled, would he be removed? If not, his career should demand that he enters the hall of fame. If you want to keep him out because of severely bad character, then remove OJ from the hall as well.
As far as letting him in baseball for employment, I ask this: "why is it taking days and many lawyers to settle on a “deal” that would let him back in. Are they trying to figure out how much he should apologize, to what extent he should apologize. If he really wants back in, he should buy 30 minutes of time on ESPN and make an honest and humble apology.
I’ll bite. He hit .256 in his last 5 seasons Rick. Sure, that’s far less than a Pete in his prime, but hardly close to being the “worst player in baseball”. Sheesh. Can you back up the statement about him hurting is own team? I doubt it. He still hit, he got on base, and even stole some bases.
To follow up on what Rick Jay said:
I can say he bet on baseball because he agreed to the maximum punishment allowed. Betting on other sports is not punishable by suspension by MLB. Betting on other bseball games carries a one year suspension. Betting on your own team carries a permanent suspensions.
So, when faced with the prospects of a deal, if Rose didn’t bet on baseball or the Reds, why did he accept the maximum? If he only bet on basketball, then he wouldn’t have even agreed to be suspended. If he only bet on other MLB games, then he wouldn’t have taken the punishment he did.
The proof is in the deal. Read between the lines.
I do think MLB is being very hypocritical in the areas where they let Rose back in for corporate events, but won’t let him participate in things like the closing of Riverfront/Cinergy Field. If Mastercard had sponsored the closing, Rose would have been allowed back.
I’m sending this to Great Debates, with my personal opinion that the Baseball Hall Of Fame should be for humans, not weasels.
**
Well, for starters, while it’s true that had this happened after he was elected he wouldn’t automatically be kicked out, there is nothing stopping the Hall’s Board of Directors from changing that.
As for OJ, please keep in mind that the Baseball HoF and the Football HoF are two compeletely independent organizations. You can’t say that because one did something the other should too.
That’s up to baseball. My personal feeling is that if you break an industry’s cardinal rule, knowing that the penalty for it is permenant expulsion from that industry, then you pay the price. Are you ready to let Mike Milken begin selling stocks and bonds again?
Zev Steinhardt
So, should Winona Ryder be blacklisted from receiving an Oscar nomination because she was found guilty of grand theft? Will Robert Blake be ineligible for a lifetime Emmy Award for his fine work as Baretta because he offed his wife? What if it is discovered one day that Hulk Hogan routinely stole money from the WWF?
It’s a slippery slope when we don’t recognize achievements because of something a person did that was unrelated to that achievement.
But when someone involved in baseball, especially someone who is empowered to make a difference in a game, gambles on baseball, then it IS related to the acheivement.
Rose isn’t being barred because he was a tax cheat. He’s being barred for gambling on baseball games in which he and his team were directly involved.
As in the police officer example used earlier. If a cop, after 20 years, goes corrupt and starts accepting bribes and such, you may not take away the citation he earned for saving lives 10 years ago, but you’re not going to give him the ultimate lifetime achievement award either.
Zev Steinhardt
You are comparing apples to oranges. We are talking about a man committed the one taboo that baseball has not tolerated since 1919. He did it while managing a major league team and probably while playing too. What Winona Ryder and Robert Blake do on their own time has no bearing on their careers, but what Rose did has direct consequences to his career and to those of the people around him.
For those who are interested:
Rob Neyer’s comments at ESPN.com
Derek Zumsteg’s comments at baseballprospectus.com
If I were a therapist who lost my license because of sleeping with patients, I wouldn’t be given back the license just because I finally 'fessed up 13 years later. If I were a cop who admitted to taking bribes, there would be no moral obligation to reinstate me. Confession might be good for the soul, but it should in no way allow Rose back into baseball.
I would make one exception: if Rose admitted not only that he gambled but that he is now in therapy because of a serious problem with addiction, then maybe I would look at it differently.
If he wants to fight the charges and prove that they aren’t enough to keep him out, fine. But he DID sign the report, he DID agree to a permanent ban, and he has NEVER produced any evidence for himself.
BTW, Rose wasn’t as great as some of his supporters–including himself–try to make him out to be. Yes, his playing career rises to HOF level, but is anyone trying to suggest that he was as good as Clemente/Robinson/Aaron? And in his last five years of hitting 256, he went below his already very low power totals. As for being a smart baserunner, he had virtually no steals, which suggest some limitations. He was a very good player for a long time, and he would probably be the utility man on my all-time squad.
But letting him into the Hall, even with a confession, would be like letting in a confessed child molester as a day care teacher. In baseball terms, he committed the worst crime possible, so that is no stretch of comparison.
Running with this because it interest me more than Pete Rose, is the story about McLain’s thumb true? I don’t recall hearing that story, and anyway in 1972 McLain wasn’t helping anyone with his pitching anyway. Baseball-Reference lists him as pitching 5 games for Oakland in 1972, and Oakland won the AL West and pennant that year, but as I recall the A’s pitching was in the capable hands of Catfish Hunter, Ken Holtzman, Vida Blue, Blue Moon Odom and Rollie Fingers, so Denny wasn’t going to have much an impact anyway, thumb or no thumb. For the record, McLain had more than his one good 1968 season. He tied for the 1969 Cy Young award and won 20 games one other time, so he had at least 3 good seasons.
As for Rose, I say keep him banned until he shows genuine contrition, which will never happen. I refer everyone to Tom Boswell’s recent Washington Post column on the subject, (which I would link to if I could get it to work).
Rose was a terrible player. The .256 represented his entire ability; he had no power, no speed, and was a first baseman with no range. Rose was a great player in his heyday but he was bad, bad, bad by then.
In 1982 he hit .271 with no power as a first baseman. He was bad. In 1983 he had one of the worst seasons ANY player has had in the last thirty years, .245 with nothing. He hit about .270 for the next two years, no power, a few walks. In his last year he was atrocious. Overall he was a very, very poor player from 1982-1986, an awful offensive player with little defensive value. I can find exactly two players who were worse hitters than Rose and played at least half as many games; Omar Moreno and Johnnie “LeDisaster” LeMaster, and Moreno could run and LeMaster at least was a shortstop.
It’s utterly disgraceful that Rose continued to write his name into the lineup when it was clear he was a poor player, especially when the Reds at the time has several promising young hitters who were riding the pine to let Rose play.
Rose was a great player because from the mid-sixties to the mid-seventies he was a real force, with gusts of greatness right up to 1981. But after that he was putrid, and continued playing and even benching younger, better players solely so that he could break a record.