Pete Rose documentary on HBO/Max 😬

[Belfast1933]

I may be late to this, and I did search for threads but didn’t find any on the Pete Rose documentary series on HBO/Max

I would like to suggest that every potential voter for the HOF watch this series before casting their vote. I had been told about this recently from a local collector friend and finally found time to watch it.

If you haven’t watched it, I would recommend it highly… it’s not a fun watch, but it sure is revealing. I totally understand the reality that he wouldn’t be the first “great player/bad human” inducted. But for me as a fan, why do it again just because voters made mistakes in the past? His records are on the museum so fans do get to experience his on the field accomplishments.

But to celebrate him with the highest honor as an inductee? My vote as a fan would be a hard stop NO.

It’s even a more definitive NO after watching this. As others have said, it’s also sad as so many of us were such fans of the player as kids… but as an adult now, there is more to being a fan than just what athletes do on the field. (And speaking of which, I know I am in the minority, but I surely don’t celebrate what he did to Ray Fosse in the all-star game in the early 70’s. That was an all star exhibition game. Just an over the top play in a game that did not matter. Have some respect for your peers, man)

Check this docu-series out - it’s a rough watch, but an important one.

[jingram058]

Baseball and fans remain with the conundrum of what to do about Pete Rose. We don't have HBO, so can't watch this. For all the negativity surrounding Rose, 2 things:

He's the all-time hits leader. Think hard about that.

I'm not saying he was Mr. Nice Guy, but many years ago, when a man I worked with was a kid, his dad took him to a spring training game between the Kansas City Royals and the Cincinnati Reds. They got there early enough to see ballplayers standing around. He got close enough to George Brett to ask him to sign his ball. Brett looked right at him and turned around and ignored him. So they went around to the other side, and sure enough, there was Pete Rose. He asked him to sign his baseball. Sure, kid, I'll sign it. No money was asked for. He showed me the ball. How do you think he feels about Pete Rose?

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by Belfast1933

I may be late to this, and I did search for threads but didn’t find any on the Pete Rose documentary series on HBO/Max

I would like to suggest that every potential voter for the HOF watch this series before casting their vote. I had been told about this recently from a local collector friend and finally found time to watch it.

If you haven’t watched it, I would recommend it highly… it’s not a fun watch, but it sure is revealing. I totally understand the reality that he wouldn’t be the first “great player/bad human” inducted. But for me as a fan, why do it again just because voters made mistakes in the past? His records are on the museum so fans do get to experience his on the field accomplishments.

But to celebrate him with the highest honor as an inductee? My vote as a fan would be a hard stop NO.

It’s even a more definitive NO after watching this. As others have said, it’s also sad as so many of us were such fans of the player as kids… but as an adult now, there is more to being a fan than just what athletes do on the field. (And speaking of which, I know I am in the minority, but I surely don’t celebrate what he did to Ray Fosse in the all-star game in the early 70’s. That was an all star exhibition game. Just an over the top play in a game that did not matter. Have some respect for your peers, man)

Check this docu-series out - it’s a rough watch, but an important one.

Jeff - my opinion of the HOF, or at least what it should be -- statistics should play a small part. By small, I mean of course relevant and considered -- but as simply a part of the greater holistic picture. Unfortunately it was and is steeped in the same organized confusion colored by the political and ethical problems of the very institution of baseball which births it. Rube Foster should have been a first balloter, etc... those were different times, certainly -- but I digress...

Players like Lou Criger and Billy Sullivan would get my vote as essential fixtures of Deadball era defense. Holistic evaluations of player contributions -- including ethical and foundational ones (such as Stovall's work with the Fed League and his strike on playing after Joss' death) would be primary.

This comes back to what a 'Hall of Fame' should be and represent. Sure, I enjoy a great player on the field as much as the rest -- but its what you do both off the field and on it when no one's looking or when many others are doing the wrong thing that defines you as an athlete and a true star. That's character. Its ultimately about the foundation of the game and the examples set in a humanitarian sense and way. The undercurrent and true power of the game is the human stories which run beneath it. Contributions to the game are by no means just statistical, or even sometimes statistical at all -- they're human

[icurnmedic]

Rose was a deplorable, no doubt.
Still, I think stats should be the main consideration when voting on the HOF. Oh, and then there's that word Fame. Pretty sure he was famous.

[packs]

I find it pretty strange that people still feel a need to defend his character. The documentary tells you all you need to know about who he was and you can make your own conclusions, but I did not find much worth defending.

[dbussell12]

Possibility for a much deeper conversation here far beyond Rose into what the hall of fame is and should be for. Something I have considered a fair bit. I personally enjoyed working at NMAH in the baseball archives far more than visiting the BBHOF in large part if not entirely due to how they treat baseball history -- more as American history; prioritizing the movements therein above baseball-tunnel vision into stats and individuals. Of course there are a great deal of exhibits that do this in the BBHOF at large, but this is generally not how the hall of fame considers and structures its arguments for players and candidates with rare exceptions like Effa Manley, et al

Personally consider that the HOF would do well accordingly to expand its vision and scope into how the sport intertwines with the larger social, political, and cultural movements that occur in, through, and with baseball itself. You'd have additional layers of evaluation and complexity beyond just simple stat modeling for candidacy. It would become a much richer and multidimensional undertaking; expand how people view the sport and the sport views itself -- more intertwined with the fabric of American history and its important economic and political movements therein; less navel gazing into its own performativity

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by dbussell12

Possibility for a much deeper conversation here far beyond Rose into what the hall of fame is and should be for. Something I have considered a fair bit. I personally enjoyed working at NMAH in the baseball archives far more than visiting the BBHOF in large part if not entirely due to how they treat baseball history -- more as American history; prioritizing the movements therein above baseball-tunnel vision into stats and individuals. Of course there are a great deal of exhibits that do this in the BBHOF at large, but this is generally not how the hall of fame considers and structures its arguments for players and candidates with rare exceptions like Effa Manley, et al

Personally consider that the HOF would do well accordingly to expand its vision and scope into how the sport intertwines with the larger social, political, and cultural movements that occur in, through, and with baseball itself. You'd have additional layers of evaluation and complexity beyond just simple stat modeling for candidacy. It would become a much richer and multidimensional undertaking; expand how people view the sport and the sport views itself -- more intertwined with the fabric of American history and its important economic and political movements therein; less navel gazing into its own performativity

Are you an AI? Sincere question.