Pete Rose Poll

[Mike (18colt)]

Some thoughts:

1) MLB doesn't control the HOF. The Hall can choose to do what it wants or doesn't want with Pete Rose.

2) At the time Rose committed his offenses, the HOF had no policy in place barring those on the lifetime ineligibility list. Voters decided. Shoeless Joe isn't in not because of a policy, but because the voters did not elect him.

3) Rose, arrogantly, probably didn't think not getting into the Hall was an option. The Hall had no policy (as detailed above) when Rose agreed to his ban.

4) Shoeless Joe is dead. His lifetime is over. The Veterans Committee should be able to nominate him if they chose to, correct? (Note - I don't know the exact phrasing of the Hall's policy on banned players.)

5) The Hall could easily tell the story. Induct Rose. Give him a plaque with whatever language tells the story. The Hall could also simply do this and deny Rose an induction weekend appearance and speech. Put him in, but don't give Rose the dais from which to speak. No admittance to the inductee events. Just a press release, without fanfare.

6) As to #5 above, if the PED issues are troublesome, similar procedures could take place allowing the Hall to tell the story, recognize real and artificial excellence, but not allow certain individuals their moment in the limelight. No party for them.

7) As to the past, tell the whole story within the proper context. Plaques can be amended. An entire exhibit could be created showing the evolution of (il)legal enhancements, rule bending/breaking, etc. This would cover modern PEDs, greenies, corked bats, spitballs, sharpened spikes, pine tar, gambling, throwing games, ownership collusion, and anything else that might be in this vein.

As to my personal position, I grew up watching Pete Rose and having him as my childhood athletic idol. I defended him and his actions for years, bought and read his books, had him sign his rookie card at a show in the mid-80s (he checked if it was real). The Hall "protected" itself from the voters by barring Rose from the formal ballot. I get it. I think the story should be told. Put him in.

Thanks for reading.

Mike

[marcdelpercio]

I do not believe that this is a "character issue" as many have framed it. There is a very specific rule that, if broken, calls for a permanent ban. It doesn't matter if you are a cup-of-coffee utility infielder or the greatest player in the history of the game. If you wager on baseball in a game in which you have the duty to perform, you are permanently ineligible. Period. To equate this specific infraction to any other moral or legal infraction by any other player in any sport (unless that act has a similar rule governing it) is irrelevant. This is not about whether Pete Rose, or anybody, is a good player or a good person. It is about whether he bet on baseball games in which he had a duty to perform. He did. He's out. Forever.

[bobbvc]

Originally Posted by marcdelpercio

I do not believe that this is a "character issue" as many have framed it. There is a very specific rule that, if broken, calls for a permanent ban. It doesn't matter if you are a cup-of-coffee utility infielder or the greatest player in the history of the game. If you wager on baseball in a game in which you have the duty to perform, you are permanently ineligible. Period. To equate this specific infraction to any other moral or legal infraction by any other player in any sport (unless that act has a similar rule governing it) is irrelevant. This is not about whether Pete Rose, or anybody, is a good player or a good person. It is about whether he bet on baseball games in which he had a duty to perform. He did. He's out. Forever.

+1

[pbspelly]

Originally Posted by rats60

Bonds' power surge began in 1993 when he hit more HRs than Willie McCovey and more HRs than Mays, except 1965, ever in Candlestick. And 1994 when he was on pace to break Mays' team record for HRs and teammate Matt Williams was on pace to break Maris' MLB HR record.

He was certainly a power hitter and great player pre-1999, but a closer look at the numbers shows a definite surge after 1999.

-His slugging averages pre-1999 range from .416 to a high of .677. Beginning in 1999 it jumps to .688, .863, .799, .749, .812 for the next five years.

-His home runs per at bat rate was one-in-every-16 for the first 14 years of his career, with a high of one-every-10.6 in 1994. Beginning in 1999 it jumps to one-every-8.5 at bats.

-Pre-1999 he had three seasons (out of 13) with 40 or more home runs. Beginning in 1999 he has 5 in a row, including the ridiculous 73 he hit in 2001.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, ALL OF THIS INCREASE COMES WHEN THE HISTORY OF BASEBALL AND ATHLETES INDICATES HE IS WELL PAST HIS PRIME AND OUGHT TO BE DECLINING. His power surge in 1993 was to be expected, based on a strong player coming into his prime. His second surge and best years, though, come after age 35, which, for an every day player, is, quite frankly, unheard of in the history of the game.

There are very few people in the baseball industry who believe he took steroids in the early 90s. There are very few who believe he didn't take them after 1999.