Regarding Rose's character, I recall Bill James had something to say. I'm paraphrasing, but James' point was this:
Should Pete Rose be kept out of the Hall because he was a bad guy? No, and there are lots of bad guys in the Hall.
Should Pete Rose be kept out of the Hall because he was a gambler? No, because that's a general assessment of one's habits.
Should be Rose be kept out of the Hall because he specifically broke the rule about not gambling on games? THIS!
It's important to ask the right question. Rose broke a cardinal rule of the game. The fact that MLB has (unwisely in my opinion) aligned itself with internet gambling sites has nothing to do with it. Rose broke a key rule, THE key rule of baseball when it was fully in effect, and there's no getting around it.
A player's personality comes into play if he's right on the line between being in or out, and sympathy would naturally attach to a pleasant person. Rose is not in that position. Without the gambling scandal, he's certainly in, and he would be voted in even if he kicked puppies in his spare time as a form of amusement.
And the MLB's poor choice to encourage gambling has nothing to do with a player's obligation to play the game honestly. A player is still obligated not to gamble and can (and should!) get into serious trouble if there's any evidence that he has gambled. If you allow players (and managers) to gamble, it calls the reality of the game into serious question. And we're no better than the quiz shows of the 1950's.
|