Does this controversial player get your HoF vote #1: Pete Rose

[KurtBevacqua]

The first in a rather limited, but open to growing series. I intend to post some famous players whose on the field performance would seem to indicate obvious HoF enshrinement, but whose off the field controversies may have tainted them to the extent they may never get into the Hall. Now is the chance for you to weigh the issues and decide, knowing what you know are presume to know about them, if you were a BPAA voting member how would you cast your vote.

Nominee number one, "Charlie Hustle" Pete Rose.

Why he belongs:
Does anyone here really need to be reminded why he's a Hall of Fame ballplayer? Let's lay it out anyways
All time hits leader (4256)
17-time All Star
1963 ROY
1973 NL MVP
1975 WS MVP
3 World Series rings
2 gold gloves
3-time batting champ
2nd all-time in doubles (746)
6th all-time runs scored (2156)
7th all-time total bases (5752)
1st all-time times on base (5929)
Easily surpasses every numeric standard (Black ink, Gray ink, HOF Monitor, etc) for Hall of Fame batters

Why he shouldn't be in the HoF
He broke baseball rule #1, he gambled on the game
He denied gambling on baseball for years, yet still made a deal with the commissioner to end the investigation
Still denied gambling despite agreeing to the deal, then finally admitted to gambling, very poorly in a book that probably made him lots of money
Went to jail for tax evasion linked to baseball memorabilia sales

Please vote and feel free to argue your point.

[1998 Yankees]

Almost voted no (actually clicked that first), but then voted yes. I've been listening to the people who say he should be in the HoF as a baseball player, period. AFAIK, nothing he did in those years either gained him an unfair advantage or hurt the game itself. It's what he did after he retired that he's being punished for, but the HoF is for players primarily, and he was one of the best of all time.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

AFAIK, nothing he did in those years either gained him an unfair advantage or hurt the game itself.

Dola, and pardon me quoting myself.

This is in contrast to Barry Bonds, who will be a definite no in a future poll of yours.

[MorseMoose]

Because I'm a homer, Blyleven would be my #1 pick. Rose has a reason he isn't there, whether valid or not. Blyleven has no reason he isn't there.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

Because I'm a homer, Blyleven would be my #1 pick. Rose has a reason he isn't there, whether valid or not. Blyleven has no reason he isn't there.

Let me play the devil's advocate .

Pete Rose is being kept out "artificially" - that is, not based on his performance.

Blyleven, on the other hand, as much as he'd deserve to be in based on his performance, is being kept out based on nothing but his performance. Blyleven fails the test - Rose didn't even take the test.

[sporr]

Pete Rose agreed to a lifetime ban. So I vote no.

[CommishJoe]

If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime. He knew the punishment for gambling on baseball. Buh-bye now.

[Recte44]

Rose absolutely deserves to be in the Hall of Fame on the merits of his performance on the field. Of course I also believe his display at the Hall of Fame should double as the lead of a display called "Gambling and Baseball".

[johnnybourbon]

Originally Posted by Recte44

Rose absolutely deserves to be in the Hall of Fame on the merits of his performance on the field. Of course I also believe his display at the Hall of Fame should double as the lead of a display called "Gambling and Baseball".

Cool idea. Not kidding.
Pete Rose was my first favorite player growing up (in chicago i might add), and I still admire all that he did on the field. #14 will always deserve to be in the hall to me. When he broke the hits record I was so excited that I had to tell all of my classmates. They didn't care.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Recte44

Rose absolutely deserves to be in the Hall of Fame on the merits of his performance on the field. Of course I also believe his display at the Hall of Fame should double as the lead of a display called "Gambling and Baseball".

I had similar thoughts but on reflection strongly feel that his performance as a player should stand alone and qualify him for the Hall as is. If Rose is to be kept out of the HoF because he broke a rule, why don't the powers that be explore the background of every inductee? I'm sure they will find several that have flaws in character or have criminal convictions. Why should they be spared?

As for Bonds and Clemens, barring an admission of guilt or incontrovertible proof of steroid use when it was banned by MLB, they should be eligible. Public or private opinion of guilt should not be allowed to interfere, especially in this time of media manipulation. Trial by opinion is an odious practice that should be opposed by anyone who believes in civil society. Just my

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by RchW

If Rose is to be kept out of the HoF because he broke a rule, why don't the powers that be explore the background of every inductee?

They should do a reasonable check to verify those potential inductees didn't break the one rule that's posted, with a lifetime ban listed as punishment, on the wall of every clubhouse in Major League Baseball.

[His Own Bad Self]

I don't see why someone who admitted to breaking baseball's most important rule should, after that, be awarded with its highest honor. His performance on the field definitely is Hall-of-Fame worthy, his actions off of it, most certainly not.

[boilermaker]

Well then keep him out of the HoF as a manager (where he broke the rules) but put him in as a player (where he didn't and deserves the HoF).

Problem solved.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by jdawgsenior

I don't see why someone who admitted to breaking baseball's most important rule should, after that, be awarded with its highest honor. His performance on the field definitely is Hall-of-Fame worthy, his actions off of it, most certainly not.

Then get rid of the wife beaters, racists, and drug takers of the past too. If your behavior matters then it should matter equally across the board.

[dsvitak]

I have come full circle on Pete Rose. I used to be strongly in favor of his induction.

As an 9 year old, I was told that I played just like him...and this was a huge compliment from my little league coach. This was in 1965...and I followed his career closely for a hell of a long time after that.

Yes, he gambled, yes he broke the rules, yes, he PROBABLY even bet on the Reds when he was their manager.

I may be the only person I know that has read the ENTIRE Dowd Report, cover to cover. He is guilty, with overwhelming evidence.

I have read that he will be placed into the HOF after his death. It may happen.

I went to Cooperstown several years ago, and spent the entire day at the museum. About three doors down from the museum is a store owned by Pete Rose, where you can buy his memorabilia. Expensive stuff.

I think that this, for me, was the final straw...to thumb his nose at the Hall of Fame, by having his own STORE within an infield hit's distance away. Not a good thing, and terribly disrespectful to the players that are there.

[texasmame]

Pete should be in for what he did on the diamond - always gave his all and was a helluva player.

Still, it should end there. He can never be allowed to have anything to directly do with the operations aspect of any professional baseball team, at any level, as long as he's alive due to the gambling and potential for problems that presents.

[jazzrack]

yes he should be in, but i am good with waiting untill he passes.

[His Own Bad Self]

Originally Posted by RchW

Then get rid of the wife beaters, racists, and drug takers of the past too. If your behavior matters then it should matter equally across the board.

This has nothing to do with "behavior". To borrow from James, the problem wasn't that Rose was a bad person. The problem was that Rose broke the rules that baseball has against gambling.

Being a wife beater has no impact on the integrity of an athletic contest. Neither does being a racist. Being a cocaine user has very little, except that it obviously is to the player's detriment. An athlete gambling on a game does, for obvious reasons.

All the major sports leagues owe the paying fans clean, fair games to whatever extent possible. Any participant who undermines that by gambling on games deserves whatever punishment the league chooses to enforce.

The NBA suffers from a gigantic image problem, in part because the league refuses to address concerns that it actually manipulates games (through the officials) and encourages certain results (and the evidence, though circumstantial, is fairly lengthy). Why give a pass to MLBers who we actually have hard evidence against?

[Hurkman]

My opinion on this sways back and forth from time to time. I'm willing to listen to arguments now about why he should be in, but in my mind, I'm not convinced.

Was he a great player? Yes. Should he be in based on the merits of his playing career? Hell yes. However, As far as everything says, he bet on baseball, and that is subject to a lifetime ban if you are caught. It doesn't say you are banned if you are racist, or beat your spouse, or anything along those lines. However, if you bet on the game, and are caught, you are banned. Pete was banned for betting, and at least through the laws of baseball, is banned for life.

After he dies, could he be inducted? Maybe, but in my mind, I need to see Joe Jackson inducted before Rose gets in. I mean, Jackson was found innocent by a jury when it came to throwing the 1919 series, and if he did throw it, he did a pretty bad job at doing it. I don't know if he had contact with gamblers about it, but batting around .375 in the World Series is certainly not trying to throw it. If Jackson somehow, someway finds a way in, I'm all in favor of Pete Rose getting in. Until then, he can be the guy that got embarassed at three straight Wrestlemanias for all I care.

[Left-handed Badger]

If he goes in. Joe Jackson has to (and maybe Cicotte). I dont want them in.