I agree with the standards. Until this year baseball has always had only one rule that kept you out of the HOF. I think Palmiero might have instigated a second unwritten rule.
All Transgressions by any player was forgiven for on field performance except betting on baseball. (In the case of Cobb and Speaker, even this was forgiven).
I understand your point about it not being fair. The Hall has plenty of miscreants.
Jim
IMHO, Rose does not beling in the hall period. Having said that, you can’t have a Hall and ignore his numbers and accomplishments. His name should appear anywhere that numbers are listed for career hits, runs, etc… But no bust, no wall plaque, no picture or image whatsoever.
Any kind of remorse, apology or even acceptance that what he did was wrong would have been really nice at the time, and might have swayed a lot of opinion.
The numbers should be there, with his name. But not the man.
Shoeless Joe wasn’t as innocent as many would like to believe. Buck Weaver on the other hand got labeled by the Commish and lumped with the others for attending some meetings, but never participated.
Try this hypothetical scenario:
Let’s say that he bet on his team to win a game three days from now. Would it be beyond the realm of possibility that he adjusts his linup, possibly even changes his starting rotation to place his #1 pitcher on the mound that night? Maybe he decides not to use his ace reliever or closer in a situation that he otherwise might, so as to be sure they’re rested for the game that he’s got money on. And/or he could bench some of his stars for a night or two, for the same reason.
Yes, he’d win the “money” game, but in effect he’d be throwing the other games he doesn’t bet on.
Or, what if, during a game that he has money on, he decides to put in that ace closer in the 8th inning – even though said closer pitched two hard-fought (high pitch count) innings the night before, and would be risking serious injury by pitching on short/no rest.
I’m not claiming that this ever happened, but I’d say that it’s incorrect to believe that betting on his own team only to win wouldn’t have an effect on how he managed the team.
Read the reports. Joe was guilty but did not live up to the the deal and risked retribution to play hard. Buck was guilty of knowing about it and not reporting it. I feel sorry for the guy but he wasn’t going to the hall anyway.
I can’t find the thread but I posted a link to details of the trial and Judge Landis’s decision as Commish.
Jim
I think if a player wants to gamble, fine. Just do so legally and don’t bet on baseball and then it’s none of my business how you spend your salary. As for betting on baseball, I’d have no problem as long as it wasn’t MLB or the affiliated minor leagues. Want to bet on Japanese baseball? Fine. College baseball? Fine, though there are other ethical question about betting on collegiate sports. I might even give a player a pass as long as the betting was on other teams. But betting on your own team, to win or lose, just won’t fly.
Brilliant - you just explained how betting for his team may compromise a result. But my question was how is that any different from being juiced and maybe hitting that homerun you wouldn’t have, or being drunkand stoned and not bringing you natural talents to the game? All may have an effect on outcome, so why is betting any worse? Saying “because it’s gambling” is like the Spinal Tap guy saying his amplifier is louder because it goes to “11”; meaningless!"
If you’re going to give juicers and drug addicts a pass, you’re a hypocrite to not give that same pass to a gambler. (And I didn’t know there were others allowed in who gambled, so that makes it even more ridiculously unfair.)
Semantics question: Lifetime ban
life•time (līf’tīm’) n.
The period of time during which an individual is alive.
The period of time during which property, an object, a process, or a phenomenon exists or functions
**ban (băn) **
tr.v., banned, ban•ning, bans.
To prohibit, especially by official decree: The city council banned billboards on most streets. See synonyms at forbid.
South African. Under the former system of apartheid, to deprive (a person suspected of illegal activity) of the right of free movement and association with others.
Archaic. To curse
So why not let both Shoeless Joe and Charlie Hustle in after they are dead?
I really think Joe Jackson should go in. He was a HOF, the rule he violated was not the Golden Rule at the time, and he did a terrible job of violating it. (BTW he is dead.)
If you look at the early history of the game, there was a lot of gambling on baseball and thrown games. I already mentioned that Cobb & Speaker got off with double secret probation as it would have damaged the game more to throw them out when it was just recovering because of Ruth.
Jim
Actually, moron, that’s exactly the point. Gambling in and of itself is not and never has been an issue in baseball. Betting on baseball is what gets you a lifetime ban, and had for nearly 9 decades now.
No, Jordan’s gambling is not a parallel because he did not gamble on basketball (that anyone is aware of). Not only that, but I am unaware of any rule in the NBA that says that if someone gambles on basketball they will receive a lifetime ban.
No need for rolleyes. It’s quite evident that you have no idea what you are talking about. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have come up with such idiotic and irrelevent comparisons.
It may or may not be, but the rules state that gambling on baseball gets you a lifetime ban and juicing/being stoned does not. It was not a new rule, it was not a rule that Rose was unaware of, yet he chose to break it anyway and now doesn’t have the balls to live with what he knew would be the consequences of his actions. Rose is nothing more than a self-promoting coward who broke the rules and needs to shut up and accept the consequences of his actions: namely, a lifetime ban.
If you want to argue that juicing, et al, deserves a lifetime ban as well, that’s another argument and something I’m not necessarily opposed to.
Different crimes or rules infractions in all parts of life get different sentences. For example, at my place of work, if you start lying, you’ll be fired. If you start doing drugs, you’ll be given a second chance.
But it’s even easier than that. He knew the penalty for his actions. He did it anyway. Cry me a river.
A lifetime ban is in place for drugs, too. And yet that waste of human chemicals Darryl Strawberry was still working for the Yankees after his third drug bust.
Cite please, I really don’t think this is correct.
IIRC: There is no lifetime ban in Baseball for 1st time offenders on drugs or even third time. Heck Steve Howe had 7 failures. I don’t say I agree with the policy, I just don’t think there was a lifetime ban was Darryl and others were continually messing up.
Jim
No it isn’t, as far as I know. Can you show me?
The new steroid agreement will include some sort of “lifetime ban” for, I believe, a third infraction, though I don’t know if the wording will be precisely that. I also don’t know the wording of the Hall’s determination that people who have been banned are ineligible for the Hall. The Hall is a separate (though obviously related) entity, and can make its own rules for inclusion in its honors.
No, there’s not. You may be mis-remembering the Steve Howe situation. Faye Vincent suspended Steve Howe several times for substance abuse, including the entire 1984 season. Finally, in 1992, Vincent had enough and banned him for life. However, the ban was challenged by Howe and arbitrator agreed with Howe and MLB was forced to re-instate him.
Sorry it took a bit, this was the article I was thinking about.
Which I misinterpreted, obviously, and I will now go bash myself several times about the head and shoulders for not double checking my cite before posting.
I’m really torn on this issue. When I was growing up, Pete Rose was my favourite player. I adored him. I spent hours staring at my 1976 Cincinnati Reds baseball cards. I love his spirit and his accomplishments.
But since growing up, I’ve gained some perspective on Pete Rose the man. He’s an ignorant moron. Possibly his only positive trait is his apparent lack of racial prejudice. Otherwise, he’s vile. He’s stupid. He’s egotistical. Mentally, he’s a backward child. Ethically and morally, he’s a retard. He took uppers (and who knows what else) as a player. His friends are lowlife scum. He’s a bad husband and a bad father. He hasn’t once shown that he understands his transgression. He hasn’t shown true remorse. He let me down and tens of thousands of Cincinnati Reds fans down. And it wasn’t something unavoidable; he did it out of pure personal stupidity. Every time he opens his mouth, he loses some more sympathy from me.
Well thankfully all 3 of us were at least polite about questioning it.
I would still like to know why people feel a lifetime ban needs to be enforced after the player dies.
Jim
Oh, definitely. That was embarrassment at my shooting my mouth off without checking first, not snark at you guys for pointing it out. 
It’s probably way too late in the discussion to post this, but Rose’s lifetime ban from MLB isn’t doing anything to keep him out of the Hall, so while I’d ordinarily take any opportunity to jump over Selig it wouldn’t be appropriate in this case.
The Hall of Fame is an organization independent from Major League Baseball.
They’re independent organizations, but they’re inextricably linked on this particular issue. The HOF rules state that nobody on MLB’s permanently ineligible list can be inducted. Rose is on that list.
In the past, other all-time greats have been on that list and had their names removed, including Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle for taking publicity jobs with casinos. Coming down hard on any association between the sports’ athletes and the world of baseball gambling is one of the few things that the sport is doing right.
Oh, and the “lifetime ban” is essentially a shorthand terminology. The actual term that MLB uses is “permanently ineligible,” which isn’t limited by the player’s death.
I apologize for misinterpreting your question. As for what I think about that question, I agree with others who have already responded, saying that it’s a separate issue. Right now, there’s a rule that says “Do not bet on baseball,” and the penalty is the lifetime ban. You want to argue that “juiced” players also deserve a lifetime ban (and I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with that point), that’s a whole 'nother discussion.
Exgineer: What about the fact that the Hall of Fame created a rule stating that players under a lifetime ban are not eligible to be inducted?