RedsZone Hall of Fame question

[M2]

Should Pete Rose be on the ballot?

I know Pete's not on the real HOF ballot, but no one said we have to adhere strictly to that policy.

My two cents is he deserves an up or down vote. I'd want him on the ballot and then I'd choose not to vote for him. It would be interesting to see how Reds nation feels about the guy. My guess is there's a lot less kneejerk homerism than outsiders might expect, especially from we here at RedsZone (because we set a higher standard don't you know).

I think the paltry vote Mark McGwire got shows us to be a discerning bunch.

Anyway, I thought I'd toss it out there. Might as well include the Black Sox in the discussion as well. Do Shoeless Joe, Eddie Cicotte and Buck Weaver deserve a place on the ballot?

[Chip R]

At what position?

[M2]

Originally Posted by Chip R

At what position?

Quinella

[NJReds]

Yes. I think he does.

Maybe you can have a "supplemental" ballot for the guys that are banned from the Hall. Let the voters decide.

[Cyclone792]

I tossed up Rose, Jackson and Cicotte in a separate poll last season.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43934

I was probably just going to go ahead and include them with the other players this season at their respective positions (was going to place Rose at right field), and it'd be easy to add Buck Weaver to the mix. Whatever the masses decide upon is what works for me.

[Spring~Fields]

Will they be voting on Rose for historical player accomplishment or morality?

player accomplishment - yes

morality - no

[RedsBaron]

I realize the following observation doesn't have a lot of relevance to this thread, but, given the ongoing debate elsewhere about an upcoming TV interview with a former NFL runningback, I happened to recall that O.J. Simpson is a member of both the College Football Hall of Fame and the NFL Hall of Fame.
If that's the moral standard, yeah, I do not think Rose's shortcomings should keep him from the HOF.
I know, I know, we are talking different sports, and the mere murdering of a couple of people doesn't mean Simpson couldn't score touchdowns......but wow...just wow.
I was typing this post without first seeing TRF's post.

[TRF]

There was much evidence that Ty Cobb bet on baseball.

I believe he was on the very first ballot.

Do I like how Rose has carried himself since the ban? No. But the way some baseball fans talk about him, you would think he murdered the mother of his kids and her waiter friend, then signed a 3.5 million dollar contract to do an interview, before his upcoming book comes out.

Pete Rose bet on baseball. Pete never bet against the Reds. Pete wanted to win every game. And if by Pete not betting influenced the betting odds on a game, i say Who Cares? Did he try harder to win games he bet on? probably. So?

Pete's on field accomplishments speak for themselves. He was baseball's best ambassador for 20+ years. But baseball as an organization has no clue how to use him. And boy could they use him. They trotted him out when someone ponied up enough dough. Twice.

If baseball were smart, Rose would be hired to travel the country to give promotional/motivational speeches. Or how about MLB setting up regional baseball academies in the summer for kids 16-18? Rose could be an instructor.

The man isn't perfect. Hell, he's far enough away from just being "flawed." But to think he isn't a Hall of Famer is just ridiculous IMO.

[Dom Heffner]

Do I like how Rose has carried himself since the ban? No. But the way some baseball fans talk about him, you would think he murdered the mother of his kids and her waiter friend, then signed a 3.5 million dollar contract to do an interview, before his upcoming book comes out.

Comparing Rose to Simpson doesn't make either one of them look any better, it just shows they are both talented people who blew chances.

The reason fans can't stand Rose- myself included- is how he strung everybody along for 15 plus years with denial after denial. Remember what he did to Jim Gray? Phil Donahue? For those of us who stuck up for him all those years, we'll never be fans again.

Saying that it could be worse if he were a murderer doesn't make me feel better about the guy. Heck, OJ doesn't look as bad as compared to Hitler- should my opinion of the Juice change?

Please tell me your argument isn't, "Pete Rose should be in the hall of fame because OJ Simpson killed two people."

Pete Rose bet on baseball.

Even he'll tell you this when it benefits him, like when, I don't know, he thinks it raises the chances of him getting into the Hall of Fame or it might sell some books.

Pete never bet against the Reds.

Betting for or against changes nothing. The fact that he can manipulate a lineup based on his bet is the problem, and you can do this even when you bet on your team to win.

You're up by 6 but need to be up only by 3? Well put in a relief pitcher minus a day's rest and see if that can't be changed.

Need to win a squeaker? Throw your best arms in the 7th, 8th, and 9th in a one run game, and who cares about tomorrow because only you know you aren't going to bet on the next day's game because you need this game tonight. Bad. Sure, you just made it so two pitchers can't throw for two days when you ordinarily would have used one, but hey, you need to win by a run and you just happen to be up 7-6 in the 7th.

Stop making excuses for the guy. If we're going to minimize everybody's faults down to "There's always somebody worse," then we aren't going to accomplish much.

Most people I know don't compare Rose to anybody, they just think he's a liar, and that's a pretty spot-on analysis. Regardless of what OJ did.

And if by Pete not betting influenced the betting odds on a game, i say Who Cares? Did he try harder to win games he bet on? probably. So?

Trying harder could include lineup changes that could be wonderful for the evening's game but bad for the team tomorrow. Need to cover the 5 run spread? Bring in John Franco in a 9-4 game, even when he doesn't normally pitch the ninth unless we're up by 3 or less. He's useless tomorrow and another reliever probably would have held the lead anyhow, but it sure is great that Pete got his win tonight. And by 5, even.

Did Pete do this? I have no idea any better than you. And that's why it's not allowed, even when you bet on your own team.

See, Pete may only bet on his team to win, but he doesn't have to bet on them every night.

Tonight he uses the players he needs to cover his spread and tomorrow, well, who cares.....

It's like the 7th game of the World Series every 3 or 4 nights, where you don't have to worry about who's playing tomorrow.

Pete's on field accomplishments speak for themselves.

This is the best point in your argument, assuming that Pete only bet as a manager. The problem is that if you ask him if he did it as a player, how could you believe him when he said he didn't? Is he going to change his mind 15 years down the road, admit it, and then write a book about it?

He was baseball's best ambassador for 20+ years. But baseball as an organization has no clue how to use him. And boy could they use him. They trotted him out when someone ponied up enough dough. Twice.

How is a guy who lied to the public about his baseball activities for 15 years its best ambassador? If baseball is in such sorry shape, then why would baseball want to use Pete Rose- an admitted gambler and liar- to improve its image?

"Here, son, instead of looking at a bunch of steroid heads, look at this guy who doesn't tell the truth and bets on baseball as an example of how the game should be played..."

Doesn't sound too good, does it?

Pete was an okay ambassador during the 90s when he was denying everything because nothing had been proven. Now that he's admitted to doing it, he's through.

The man isn't perfect. Hell, he's far enough away from just being "flawed." But to think he isn't a Hall of Famer is just ridiculous IMO.

Here's where we agree, but for different reasons.

My problem with MLB is that they changed the rule to keep Rose out: The sportswriters had the chance to vote on him until MLB took it away, right?

And they did it specifically for Rose, if I recall correctly.

That's crap. You can't point to rules as your litmus test and then suddenly make up some more because you might get a different outcome than you want.

He should have been able to have the vote if the rules didn't prohibit it before he got caught.

The best thing for Rose to have done - besides not gamble as a manager- was to retire and not manage. He could have gambled in his private life and no one would have cared. Instead, he had to have it both ways and that was his undoing.

And no one is sadder about it than me, but I can't let the fact that I loved the guy get in the way of calling a spade a spade.

[RedsBaron]

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

My problem with MLB is that they changed the rule to keep Rose out: The sportswriters had the chance to vote on him until MLB took it away, right?

And they did it specifically for Rose, if I recall correctly.

That's crap. You can't point to rules as your litmus test and then suddenly make up some more because you might get a different outcome than you want.

He should have been able to have the vote if the rules didn't prohibit it before he got caught.

MLB did change the rule, after Rose accepted his suspension, and specifically just to keep Rose out of the HOF. The change was also made after MLB had agreed that there was no specific finding that Rose had bet on baseball. I do have a problem with ex post facto justice.
My own prior post on this thread was more of a O.J. Simpson rant, but I really do not believe that Simpson having murdered two people has any relevance to the question of whether or not he was a HOF football player. More to the point, I do not believe that actions Simpson took after his playing career have any relevance to the question of whether or not he should be in the NFL HOF.
As for Pete Rose, while I have read rumors that Rose was betting on baseball as far back as the 1970s, to my knowledge those rumors have never been proven. If proof of Rose's gambling on baseball while serving as a manager had not arisen until, say, 1993 rather than 1989, by that point Pete Rose would have already been enshrined as a first ballot Hall of Famer, with a 1992 induction ceremony. What then? Would the HOF have expelled him in 1993 for transgressions committed only after his playing career had ended? Do we have temporary Hall of Famers who serve only during good behavior? I believe that Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle were briefly prohibited from MLB contact in the 1970s after they served as spokespeople of some sort for gambling interests--should those post-retirement activities have put their HOF status in limbo?
Dom is of course correct---Rose lied to the whole world for 15 years after his 1989 suspension. If Rose had come clean in 1989, my guess is that most fans would have forgiven him, and he perhaps would have eventually been reinstated to the game in some capacity, over Bob Feller's protests. A decade and a half of lies has made that impossible.
However, I still do have the question of whether or not a player's sins after retirement should bar the player from HOF recognition based upon what he did as a player. If those post-retirement sins are a bar, then does it matter when the sins come to light? Before or after HOF induction?

[mth123]

Pete Rose got the most hits, made the most outs and played the most games. If you have a Hall of Fame in anything the guy who did that thing more than anyone deserves in no matter what else.

[Danny Serafini]

Dom,

Just so you know, baseball betting doesn't work off of point spreads like football or basketball. You just play win/loss vs. the money line, underdogs pay more than the favorites. Not that it makes Rose's betting any better, just saying he wouldn't be manipulating things to fit a spread because there is none.

[Dom Heffner]

Dom,

Just so you know, baseball betting doesn't work off of point spreads like football or basketball. You just play win/loss vs. the money line, underdogs pay more than the favorites. Not that it makes Rose's betting any better, just saying he wouldn't be manipulating things to fit a spread because there is none.

Actually- it doesn't change my posotion, though thanks for pointing that out. I'm not much of a gambler, obviously.

Pete could manipulate a game just to win that night, tomorrow be damned.