Pete Rose in the HOF?

Question

I know you may disagree with me, but I believe Pete Rose should be in the HOF.

Here is my reasoning:
Players are inducted into the HOF based on talent, not character. Ty Cobb was one of the first men inducted, in he was the most insensitive, racist, cruel violent jerk there ever was. Now, old Ty got the most votes of any player EVER to be elected. While I certainly don't condone Rose's gambling, he was, without question one of the greatest players of all time. Therefore, he deserves to be considered for HOF induction.
Character is not what we vote on, it is talent that truly matters in this situation. Please state your opinions clearly.

I have given everyone a thumbs up.

The more detailed your point is, the more likely you are to get best answer. I will not necessarily give best answer to someone who agrees with me, I will give it to the person with the best argument for or against Rose.

maddog- When I said we, I misspoke.
Sorry. You make a good point.

Answer 1

The Rose apologists are beginning to approach cult status.

What Rose did was contravene BASEBALL's best interests -- quite literally. His actions threatened or could have threatened the economic basis of the sport, and there is NOTHING that will get the owners' attention faster than that (and, threaten the revenue streams, and you also threaten the players' interests).

Cobb being the misanthrope he was, never directly attacked the game.

Internal gambling DOES attack the game, has the potential to be massively corrosive. This is why the penalties are so harsh, and conversely why MLB doesn't have rules about Don't Murder Your Pa or Don't Be A Complete Jerk or Don't Be A Drunk. None are proud things, but none directly threaten the game.

Rose knew the rules, and he still did what he did. He broke one particular, and extremely vital, rule, repeatedly (and for far longer than Dowd substantiated; those who raise that "...but only when he was a manager..." defense really are clinging to mass delusions).

The Hall has concluded that anyone in a state of baseball disgrace has no business occupying its unique honor roll. Admission to the Hall is the highest individual honor in the sport, conferred upon a person, not a role (player, manager, whatever). A primary role is recognized, yes. But a person is indivisible (and in Rose's case, it really doesn't matter).

And those who claim "...gambling isn't so bad, big deal..." have no respect for baseball.

Cobb's ballot return was the highest percentage, but is not the highest vote count; that was surpassed long ago as the electorate grew. And he's no longer the highest percentage either, though he's still in the top five.

-----
Oh, final note -- Rose drawing breath makes no difference. His expulsion is NOT "lifetime" -- it is "PERMANENT". When that period of time expires, he might be reinstated, but doubtful before. So don't expect MLB or the Hall to reconsider their respective policies after he's gone. And, look, being dead hasn't helped Joe Jackson any, has it? (Nor should it.)

Answer 2

I think this question and those about Barry Bonds comprise 1/3 of the baseball questions asked here...

No, Pete Rose should not be allowed in the Hall of Fame.

As far as there being other people in the HOF who weren't saints, that's absolutely true. But this isn't about drinking or partying or tax evasion or some other personal failing. It's specifically about betting on baseball while working in baseball. He knew the rules. He took the chance. He lost. It's sad, perhaps even pitiful, that he did things that are preventing his induction to the HOF. But he did them.

Other people argue that he gambled as a manager and not as a player. If that is true (and who really knows) you can't seperate what he did as a player from what he did as a manager. He was an employee of Major League Baseball during both phases of his career, just in different jobs. And he broke the sport's #1 cardinal rule: No Betting on Baseball. The rule isn't "No Betting on Baseball Unless You Bet for Your Team". It's "No Betting on Baseball". Period. Every baseball employee from the lowest minor leagues to the major leagues knows the rule. Pete Rose made a conscious choice to disregard it. Then he lied about it publicly for 14 years, not that that should influence anything. It's simply another example of his extremely poor judgement.

Look, Pete Rose was a great player. No one can deny that. But you don't give the world's best surgeon his profession's highest honor after he loses his license because of severe malpractice. And you don't honor a ballplayer with election to the Hall of Fame after he broke the mother of all rules.

No one who ever saw him play will ever forget what he could do on a ballfield. The memory of Pete Rose as a player will live in the hearts of baseball fans for a very long time. The difference between him and the other greats is just that Pete Rose will not have a plaque in his honor sitting on a wall in a museum in Cooperstown.

Answer 3

What or who Ty Cobb was (a insensitive, racist, cruel violent jerk) while appalling and a poor reflection on the game, did not break the law or the rules of baseball.
What Pete Rose did (gambling on baseball) was a violation of the rules of baseball.

Having said that - I believe that he should be in the HOF - as a player. Why?
Because Pete Rose the player was a wonder. Charlie Hustle outplayed people. He was the man with average to above average talent who simply worked harder than everyone else.
Go ahead and asterisk his accomplishment, put little paragraphs next to his entry noting what he did - but put the man in!

Answer 4

The flaw in your reasoning is that players are not necessarily inducted into the HOF based on talent only (with no consideration of character). If someone tarnishes the game (by, for example, wagering on it while managing a team), then perhaps he does not belong in the hallowed hall, even if you have decided that "without question" he is one of the greatest players of all time.
If the entire HOF selection process becomes subjective, and you are placed in charge of deciding who belongs and who doesn't, then of course Pete Rose will end up in the Hall of Fame. And of course I am being facetious. You state that "Character is not what we vote on" - are you on the HOF selection committee?

Answer 5

Really you gave everybody thumbs up, I see posts here, with no thumbs up or down. You are right when you say that everybody will disagree with you that Pete Rose deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. He did a bad thing, he betted on his own team, and he was caught doing it, that is why he was banned from baseball, and is inegible for getting into the Hall of Fame. He did about the same thing that "Shoeless" Joe Jackson and the 7 other Black Sox members did during the 1919 World Series, but they betted with gamblers to throw the series, and they were caught doing it, and I bert that left thier fans heartbroken, since the Chicago White Sox were favoed over the underdog Cincinnati Reds. But I don't know if Pete Rose had any fans, and I bet that you are correct that players get in based on talent, rather then character. But still he did a very bad thing, that cost him getting into the Hall of Fame, so whether or not even through he still bet on his own team to win, whether or not he actually deserves to be in Baseball Hall of Fame, and I bet that many people might say that he belongs in the Hall of Shame. Rather then in the Hall of Fame, but you give some good reasons why he should be in the Hall of Fame, but I still bet there are a lot of reasons why he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame.

Answer 6

I agree with the 'character' statement; but that's not the issue here. Rose bet on baseball while he was an MLB manager/player. There is no gray area here. Same goes for Jjoe Jackson and Eddie Cicotte and co.

A better example of your statement would be to block a guy like Albert Belle (he doesn't qualify because his career was too short due to injury, but if he played another 5-7 years he would have all the numbers) because he was a jerk on and off the field- but he didn't bet on baseball.

Answer 7

On his merits as a player, there is no question he is a Hall of Famer and he's in my personal HOF. The problem was that he lied over and over about his gambling. Had he come clean, he may have gotten in.
I personally don't care if he gets in or not. There are certain guys that each of us have in our minds that are the greatest players and unless you go to Cooperstown, it doesn't matter. He has all kinds of items in the Hall anyway, just not his bust.

Answer 8

Hi... As an avid Reds fan, my opinion is pretty skewed, but the thing is... the guy is one of, if not THE greatest hitter in the history of the game... I think the all-time hits leader certainly belongs in the Hall-of-Fame... His record is certainly there... He should be there to accompany it... Hopefully once Selig leaves we'll get a commissioner who agrees. Thanks for the interesting question!

Answer 9

Absolutely

Answer 10

pete rose is banned from the hall of fame for life