Kapler: Rose Should Not Be In Hall Of Fame

[PepperJack]

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/k...of-fame-010614

Pete Rose inspired my style of play, but should not be in the Hall of Fame.

I idolized Rose. He was not just the guy with the mountainous pile of hits; he transcended the sport of baseball through his desperate affinity for dirt and gambling. He was a romantic -- and in many ways still is -- about baseball. Folks were able relate to Rose, an imperfect character who maximized his natural gifts through all-out grit.

Rose’s baseball card entitles him to a plaque in Cooperstown, NY; nobody can fairly dispute that. But he broke baseball law with full understanding that if caught, the consequences would be severe.

I still admire Rose’s style of play and what he accomplished between the lines with every iota of my soul. I also have patience and understanding for him as a human being. We all have rooms in our homes that could benefit from a good spring-cleaning.

So Rose lies where he should; in an uncomfortable bed that he hastily made - outside of the Hall.

[RollyInRaleigh]

Maybe they should do some housecleaning at the Hall, Gabe.

[goreds2]

I posted this in another thread. I recently purchased this at cafepress.com. It is proudly in my dining room.

[icehole3]

If Rose is out then all the junkies should stay out

[dougdirt]

If Rose is out then all the junkies should stay out

One guy broke a rule that he knew would get him banned from the game if he was caught. Other guys broke a rule where there was no punishment on the books at all until 2004 (I think it was 2004) and when a punishment was put in the books, it was not being banned from baseball until your third strike.

[CySeymour]

One guy broke a rule that he knew would get him banned from the game if he was caught. Other guys broke a rule where there was no punishment on the books at all until 2004 (I think it was 2004) and when a punishment was put in the books, it was not being banned from baseball until your third strike.

My feelings as well, Doug. They are two separate offenses. I can't feel sorry for Pete at all. He made his bed.

[757690]

One guy broke a rule that he knew would get him banned from the game if he was caught. Other guys broke a rule where there was no punishment on the books at all until 2004 (I think it was 2004) and when a punishment was put in the books, it was not being banned from baseball until your third strike.

If you were making MLB as fair as possible, would you make a stronger punishment for gambling than for using PED's. Not meant as a leading question, I'm honestly curious what people have to say on this matter.

[icehole3]

One guy broke a rule that he knew would get him banned from the game if he was caught. Other guys broke a rule where there was no punishment on the books at all until 2004 (I think it was 2004) and when a punishment was put in the books, it was not being banned from baseball until your third strike.

It's still cheating

[Wonderful Monds]

One guy broke a rule that he knew would get him banned from the game if he was caught. Other guys broke a rule where there was no punishment on the books at all until 2004 (I think it was 2004) and when a punishment was put in the books, it was not being banned from baseball until your third strike.

But why is getting banned from the game equivalent to getting banned from the hall? It's quite honestly a completely arbitrary distinction.

[lidspinner]

One guy broke a rule that he knew would get him banned from the game if he was caught. Other guys broke a rule where there was no punishment on the books at all until 2004 (I think it was 2004) and when a punishment was put in the books, it was not being banned from baseball until your third strike.

I dont think anyone disagrees with what you posted Doug.....I agree with the basis of that argument as well.....but for all the steroid users and drug abusers and wife beaters out there that are in the hall or will be in the hall, I think its more of a "whats right and whats wrong" deal......

being voted into the Hall Of Fame is a luxury and a not something that is written in the rule book as being if you log this stat line then you make the HOF.....the HOF votes on players because its subject to so many more variables than just a stat line. True taking steroids was not in the rule book as a rule that would get you abolished from Baseball and the HOF but it was still wrong and still illegal.....Using cocaine or other drugs, painkillers or abusing alcohol or just being a piece of crap of a citizen are all things that should go into ones vote......and I am sure some voters could care less, but others do care and they are allowed to use whatever variables they want when casting their vote...........I think the average fan of Baseball just wants voters to hold these players more accountable for their actions than just that stat line.....these players are making millions and millions and living high on the hog because us fans by jerseys and buy tickets and take our families to games and we make it a point to watch the games on TV when we cant make it to the game which helps ratings which helps teams get more money from TV deals.......so these players are huge parts of our lives, using illegal drugs and/or being an idiot of a person should be counted against you when voting takes place.........the issue here is, there are several of these idiots in the HOF right now who have done drugs, beat their wives, cheated the game, and was just a idiot in general......we cant take back their spot in the Hall but we can try and make sure others like them dont make it in....

with that said, I think the average fan can agree that Pete has paid his debt, putting him in the Hall now will at least give him a few years of fame and allow him to enjoy his baseball records.....putting him in the Hall will also bring all his negative traits to the surface and he will have to deal with it all over again....but I think that Pete would be fine with it....he appears to want younger players to learn from his mistakes so I see no harm in putting Petes name on the voters ballot and letting them decide......

I think when the rule makers were making the rules for baseball and they put the betting on baseball rule in the books, I dont think steroids were a issue like they are today or they would have put cheating for records in the rule book right next to the gambling column......

Doug, I see your point and I agree.....but I just dont think rule makers could foresee that steroids would ever be what they are today....in fact, back then I dont think it was even known what steroids do there surely wasnt as many designer steroids like there is today so how would they have known back then how huge it would be today? Baseballs players union is so strong that trying to kick a player out for life for failing a steroid test the first time would never pass.....players union will never allow that.....I dont think the players union was as big or strong back when rules about betting were implemented....just saying...

[jojo]

One guy broke a rule that he knew would get him banned from the game if he was caught. Other guys broke a rule where there was no punishment on the books at all until 2004 (I think it was 2004) and when a punishment was put in the books, it was not being banned from baseball until your third strike.

And what is more damaging to the integrity of the game.... an apparently isolated guy betting on baseball and the obvious doubt it casts due to the conflict of interests it creates (and lets face it, it's not reasonable to assume that an individual wouldn't bet against his team or do things, even if only unconsciously, that would hurt his team's chances) or guys doing whatever it takes to perform at their highest level amidst a culture that essentially embraces the behavior then and historically?

It's not appropriate to conflate the two. Even Pete admits gambling would be a lot worse if there were a scale.

[Raisor]

If Rose is out then all the junkies should stay out

How do you determine who a "junkie" is/was?

Is suspicion enough or do they have to have had a positive test?

[dubc47834]

How do you determine who a "junkie" is/was?

Is suspicion enough or do they have to have had a positive test?

Same with greenies....are they going to keep those guys out. It was technically cheating!

[icehole3]

How do you determine who a "junkie" is/was?

Is suspicion enough or do they have to have had a positive test?

The junkies who got caught, basically anyone in the Mitchell report. They're junkies in my book. Keep them out forever.

[GAC]

Maybe they should do some housecleaning at the Hall, Gabe.

Exactly.

That's not excusing what Rose did. I was sorely disappointed in my idol, and punitive action(s) should, and were, taken. One aspect of that punishment, IMO, is a permanent ban from being involved in baseball (manager, coach, etc). To the Pete Rose we all know, that is some pretty severe, yet deserving, punishment. But as for HOF? He will get in at some point. But will it be while he is still living? He's been banned for 25 years. That aspect of his punishment is enough IMO. He deserves to be there IMO simply because, on that field, he was one of the all-time greatest players to play the game, and for what he contributed (brought) to the game. That should count for something.

We give murderers a second chance in this society. Why not a baseball player? Besides - even if he gets in, he'll always have that stigma, that "scarlet letter", attached to his name. Again, deserving.

IMO, there is far more politics involved. Pete didn't have that many "friends" while playing due to his personality/character, his drive and competitiveness, and he was a hard guy to get along with. He probably had more "enemies".