Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

[TheLetterZ]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

And, in my opinion of course, Rose's accomplishments as a player transcend betting on the game as a manager.

So you agree that we can't separate a guy's resumé into pieces. That's good. I just can't see any achievements, no matter how great, making up for betting on the game. He could have pulled a Tedy Bruschi and saved 20 kittens from a burning car in the parking lot while hitting 8 home runs in every at-bat but if he bet on games, I'd kick his *** out of everything related to the game that I could.

What is your opinion on Rose's offenses?

[e0820]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

Rose should get in because the hall is based on Stats, Accomplishments, Milestones (that were achieved without steroids, I hope). Nobody made the hall because they were an upscale citizen or a good guy.

[Beantown]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

So you agree that we can't separate a guy's resumé into pieces.......
What is your opinion on Rose's offenses?

See, I think that we can, but I really don't think we have to. Rose would be getting into the HoF as a player, not a manager, so there is no need to look at what he did as a manager. As a player, which is why he would get into the HoF in the first place, he is the all-time leader in hits.

As far as the offenses, obviously betting on the game is wrong, and is against the rules, and he shouldn't be allowed back in baseball again. But, I, personally, would put a person who bet on games in the Hall of Fame before I put a person who enhanced their performance with drugs in the hall, regardless of whether they did it while there wasn't a rule against it in the MLB. (Don't forget...there have been rules since the early 90's banning them...IN THE COUNTRY).

[TheLetterZ]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

Rose should get in because the hall is based on Stats, Accomplishments, Milestones (that were achieved without steroids, I hope). Nobody made the hall because they were an upscale citizen or a good guy.

Again, I don't penalize Rose because of some ambiguous character flaw he exhibited by betting on the game. It's because he bet on the game and because his betting broke the rules and because his betting hurt the game that he should be barred. Betting on the game doesn't only mean that he's not "an upscale citizen or a good guy" - it's an "accomplishment", and not a good one.

[TheLetterZ]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

See, I think that we can, but I really don't think we have to. Rose would be getting into the HoF as a player, not a manager, so there is no need to look at what he did as a manager. As a player, which is why he would get into the HoF in the first place, he is the all-time leader in hits.

We can, but we don't have to? In what situations would you separate them and in which ones would you not? The way I see it, this is the prototypical situation for when you could absolutely not separate them: when someone breaks the game's cardinal rule to irrevocably damage the game.

How would you feel about Joe Jackson's induction? With his case, the voters set the precedent that you can't separate a guy's career in the manner you're describing. I see no reason to reexamine that position.

[Beantown]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

We can, but we don't have to? In what situations would you separate them and in which ones would you not? The way I see it, this is the prototypical situation for when you could absolutely not separate them: when someone breaks the game's cardinal rule to irrevocably damage the game.

How would you feel about Joe Jackson's induction? With his case, the voters set the precedent that you can't separate a guy's career in the manner you're describing. I see no reason to reexamine that position.

See, Joe Jackson is different because we know that the scandal he was involved in was proven to compromise the integrity of the game, and the outcome of the world series.

Pete Rose has no such evidence against him. All he did was bet on the games, and as I said if proof comes out that he fixed the outcomes of the games or threw games as a manager I may change my tune, but until then I believe his situation is different than Shoeless Joe's.

As far as when you can/have to...I believe in this situation, you can (look at just Rose's career, or as Rose as a whole) but the HoF is not about who is the greatest human being. It is about who performed on the field. Rose was able to do that, and despite his transgressions during his tenure as a manager, he should still be in the Hall for what he did as a player.

If that makes any sense, which I don't know if it does.

[nyisles16]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

We can, but we don't have to? In what situations would you separate them and in which ones would you not? The way I see it, this is the prototypical situation for when you could absolutely not separate them: when someone breaks the game's cardinal rule to irrevocably damage the game.

How would you feel about Joe Jackson's induction? With his case, the voters set the precedent that you can't separate a guy's career in the manner you're describing. I see no reason to reexamine that position.

I actually think Jackson should be in.. get got sucked into that mess.. (he hit over .300 in the series to boot).. Rose clearly broke a written rule, regardless of what his past performace on the field.. I guarantee you this-- if Rose came out right off the bat & said he was sorry for what he did (rather than his "I am holier than thou" attitude), we would not be having this conversation..

[TheLetterZ]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

See, Joe Jackson is different because we know that the scandal he was involved in was proven to compromise the integrity of the game, and the outcome of the world series.

Pete Rose has no such evidence against him. All he did was bet on the games, and as I said if proof comes out that he fixed the outcomes of the games or threw games as a manager I may change my tune, but until then I believe his situation is different than Shoeless Joe's.

As far as when you can/have to...I believe in this situation, you can (look at just Rose's career, or as Rose as a whole) but the HoF is not about who is the greatest human being. It is about who performed on the field. Rose was able to do that, and despite his transgressions during his tenure as a manager, he should still be in the Hall for what he did as a player.

If that makes any sense, which I don't know if it does.

First off, I've already made the argument that Rose's betting on his own team by itself compromises the integrity of the game. He doesn't have to have done anything else for that to happen. Certainly Jackson's alleged actions were more serious, but there's a reason they fall under the same rule. If you wish to dispute that, I'm all ears.

And I totally agree that it's not about who is the greatest human being. It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Character. But betting on the game doesn't fall under the category of personality or character; it's an action that I think belongs with all of his other actions that effected the game of baseball. Some good, some bad. Your point would have more validity for someone like Michael Vick, whose horrible actions don't actually effect the game.

[Hootiefish]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

I think most of you are missing the point.

The rule was in place before Rose was caught.

A rule, whether you agree with it or not, should not be abandoned because of who the player is/was.

If Rose had the Hall credentials of, say, a borderline HOFer like Andre Dawson or Ron Santo, would this argument be brought up? Probably, but not by very many people.

But, because the guy happened to be a great player (nevermind the fact that he was adored by fans off the field), people wish to change the rules for him. It shouldn't work like that people.

[TheLetterZ]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

I actually think Jackson should be in.. get got sucked into that mess.. (he hit over .300 in the series to boot).. Rose clearly broke a written rule, regardless of what his past performace on the field.. I guarantee you this-- if Rose came out right off the bat & said he was sorry for what he did (rather than his "I am holier than thou" attitude), we would not be having this conversation..

There's so much conflicting evidence as to what went down with Jackson that I have no idea what to believe. What you're saying about Rose is likely true, and frankly, I think it's sad that we're so willing to forgive someone who knowingly and repeatedly violates the #1 rule. For me, it's about what he did, not how he acted afterward.

[TheLetterZ]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

I think most of you are missing the point.

The rule was in place before Rose was caught.

A rule, whether you agree with it or not, should not be abandoned because of who the player is/was.

If Rose had the Hall credentials of, say, a borderline HOFer like Andre Dawson or Ron Santo, would this argument be brought up? Probably, but not by very many people.

But, because the guy happened to be a great player (nevermind the fact that he was adored by fans off the field), people wish to change the rules for him. It shouldn't work like that people.

Thank you.

[Beantown]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

First off, I've already made the argument that Rose's betting on his own team by itself compromises the integrity of the game. He doesn't have to have done anything else for that to happen. Certainly Jackson's alleged actions were more serious, but there's a reason they fall under the same rule. If you wish to dispute that, I'm all ears.

And I totally agree that it's not about who is the greatest human being. It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Character. But betting on the game doesn't fall under the category of personality or character; it's an action that I think belongs with all of his other actions that effected the game of baseball. Some good, some bad. Your point would have more validity for someone like Michael Vick, whose horrible actions don't actually effect the game.

I know you've made your argument that Rose's betting compromised the integrity of the game, and I still don't believe it. That's just my personal opinion. I respect your argument, I respect your position on the matter and cane understand it, but I don't agree with Rose's actions affecting the integrity of the game more than any of the players who used steroids. That's just my opinion.

[TheLetterZ]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

You were an accident.

[nyisles16]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

hey - it happened to the great Willie Mays & Mantle too.. Kuhn gave them bans because they served as greeters to legal casinos... it was overturned by Peter Uberoth (sp)

[J0nnD0ugh]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

I actually think Jackson should be in.. get got sucked into that mess..

I used to feel that way. Then I saw how easy it is to fix games & still look good. Joe may have been a victim of his limited education, but the fact that he agreed to it, I don't think he should be inducted.