Rose requests to be reinstated

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I vote to never let Pete in the Hall even if he buys a ticket. I also believe that anybody that tries to use the excuse of "I have a disease or addiction" should have their sentence doubled for being an idiot.

If it's an excuse, then I'd call BS on him. However, I believe it's reality in Pete's case, so I try to maintain compassion for him.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by vtgmsc

He may have to buy a ticket like you for now but he still has 4,256 more major league hits than me and you combined! He was a machine. I'm a Red Sox fan and I grew up loving Pete Rose and the way he played the game. He bled Red and was lightning in a bottle. He will be getting in the Hall for Free at some point in the next 5 years. Bank on it!

Peace, Mike

I bleed red too... I actually have never met anyone that didn't bleed red

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I loved Pete Rose as a kid; even wrote a fan letter and got a signed photo. But he did it. The Dowd Report documented his alleged bets on 52 Reds games in 1987.

The rule is crystal clear: "Rule 21 Misconduct, (d) Betting on Ball Games, Any player, umpire, or club, or league official, or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible."

Rose repeatedly admitted he broke that rule. In his autobiography My Prison Without Bars, Rose admitted to betting on Reds games. He repeated his admissions in an interview on the ABC news program Primetime Thursday. In March 2007, during an interview on The Dan Patrick Show on ESPN Radio, Rose said, "I bet on my team every night. I didn't bet on my team four nights a week. I bet on my team to win every night because I loved my team, I believed in my team," he said. "I did everything in my power every night to win that game."

So, Rose admittedly broke the one rule that calls for the 'death penalty' in baseball. He is properly permanently ineligible for a position in baseball. But the HOF was not part of that regime. On February 4, 1991, the Hall of Fame voted formally to exclude individuals on the permanently ineligible list from being inducted into the Hall of Fame by way of the Baseball Writers Association of America vote. He would have been eligible for consideration by the Veterans Committee in 2007, but did not appear on the ballot. In 2008 the Veterans Committee barred players and managers on the ineligible list from consideration.

This last bit bothers me. Rose broke a MLB rule that carries the sport's version of a death penalty. I believe he should be 'dead' to MLB--permanently ineligible for work--but the rules keeping him out of the HOF did not exist at the time of his offenses. That is an example of an ex post facto criminal law. Clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 and Clause 1 of Article I, Section 10, of the United States Constitution prohibit the Federal government and state governments from passing criminal laws that criminalize and punish past conduct that was not criminal at the time of the offense. Punishing Pete Rose for old offenses with new rules that expand his punishment is not how we do things. I think he is entitled to a vote of the Veterans' Committee. Now, does that open a potential can of worms for all of the ineligible players? Maybe. But I don't think the current situation is fair to Rose.

I think you answered your own questions. He didn't make the ballot even when he could have. So to think that he would make the ballot even if he was reinstated seems presumptuous. Even Joe Jackson received only 2 votes in two separate HOF votes and didn't get in. Even without the written rule, voters still don't vote for people they don't agree with getting in (PED users is another example).

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

If it's an excuse, then I'd call BS on him. However, I believe it's reality in Pete's case, so I try to maintain compassion for him.

If he was addicted to gambling, then he should have gambled in a way that didn't get him banished from baseball.

Regarding the Speaker/Cobb/Wood gambling thing - I am not sure what Landis was thinking, but my guess has always been that he thought banishing such huge names shortly after the Black Sox embarrassment, would have been too much for Major League baseball to handle. <=== purely speculation on my part, so no need for a new flame war

Back to Rose. It's been said, but if he does get reinstated, he would probably not be voted into the Hall. HOF voting has a human aspect to it that has nothing to do with stats or with laws. The Commissioner doesn't have to pay attention to any real laws or any perceived laws or rules that we might have, and either to the HOF voters. If you are disliked for any reason, even just having a bad personality, there are those who won't vote for you. If the 'mood' of the voters at the time is that some aspect of behavior is not Hall-worthy;e.g-suspected steroid use, then there are those who won't vote for you.