Hall of Fame Ballot

More fun facts about Pete Rose:

1. Rose would place an average of four to five bets from the clubhouse before every game, usually just about 15-20 minutes before game time. Was his mind on the game he was managing, or was it on his bets?
2. He was a lousy bettor, losing far more money than the average bettor does per dollar wagered. And he wagered a LOT of dollars.
3. This meant that bookies viewed him as a bit of a pigeon, and after a while, he built up hundreds of thousands in debts to various bookies, some of whom began to blackmail him when he stiffed them on payment.
4. When you owe bookmakers hundreds of thousands of dollars, they start to feel like they own you--and maybe they do. When a manager is owned by bookies—or in so much debt to bookies that they start to govern his behavior—that can't be a good thing.
5. After his banning from baseball was announced, some of his players admitted they had been appalled by many of the sleazy pals (e.g. gamblers) Rose had brought around the clubhouse.
6. The Reds were 59-66 (.472) when Rose got canned in the middle of the 1989 season. The following year, under Lou Piniella, the same players turned things around and won the World Series.

Ok. I'm done with Charlie Hustle for now....

Rose's playing career warrants inclusion. Certainly he was not a HOF manager. When Speaker and Cobb got caught gambling as managers they were "let go" but otherwise the incident was minimized by the baseball establishment and the press. The early game especially featured lots of thugs, some players, some owners. Rose was a jerk and a thug but scumbaggery has rarely been a reason to keep a deserving player out, save the BlackSox. It just seems hypocritical that Cobb is lionized and Rose vilified.

Maybe they should open a separate wing and call it the Hall of Infamy. Then enshrine the worst scoundrels, with otherwise worthy stats, and put them there.

That would only work if the HOF inducted the player and the manager separately. It doesn't. It inducts the baseball man and all of his baseball involvement and actions. So, Rose's corrupt and reprehensible actions as manager should, do, and will keep him out of the HOF.

Your mention of previously inducted thugs is irrelevant. The HOF does not present itself as a place honoring general ethics behavior; so generally unethical or unsavory behavior does not and should not eliminate a candidate from induction. The HOF does, however, in its character clause forbid actions taken against MLB and/or its best interests. Rose clearly violated those tenets and, unlike general jerks (like Cobb) who didn't violate the character clause, deserves banishment from the Hall of Fame.

If you want to be the policeman of ethics irrelevant to baseball, start a list of "general scumbags" and send it to Cooperstown. Who knows, maybe they'll even establish a rogues gallery.

Rose's playing career will not be matched in our lifetime and should be acknowledged. Druids point of unsavory characters being included into the Hall is a valid point. That era long ago did not have access to this high information society that we live in now. We will never know what those past players did after their playing days or during their managerial careers. Betting on baseball is a problem but 4000 hits is not. If OJ can be in the football hall after murder, allegedly, then we and the baseball voting writers should be able to separate between playing accomplishments as opposed to what happened during the mess that was the Marge Schott era.

If the Hall was established to showcase the best players ever, then the best players ever should be included. Add an asterisk if you must. Future generations should not be treated as if Rose never happened because of his later life bad decisions. Rose was too dominant and disruptive during his playing days to just simply be swept under the rug.

Rose's playing career will not be matched in our lifetime and should be acknowledged.

Maybe it won't be matched, and it should be acknowledged. However, I clearly showed in my last post why it doesn't negate his managerial transgressions keeping him out of the Hall of Fame.

Druids point of unsavory characters being included into the Hall is a valid point. That era long ago did not have access to this high information society that we live in now. We will never know what those past players did after their playing days or during their managerial careers.

I showed perfectly well why Druid's point of "unsavory characters being included into the Hall of Fame" isn't valid at all. There is no rule or clause in the Hall of Fame's rules banning generally "unsavory characters." So, being an unsavory character alone isn't enough to keep them from the Hall of Fame or justify Rose's inclusion. You're right that we may never know what other players did. However, we do know the corrupt, fraudulent things Rose did as a manager, and that they disqualify him from induction into the HOF.

Betting on baseball is a problem but 4000 hits is not. If OJ can be in the football hall after murder, allegedly, then we and the baseball voting writers should be able to separate between playing accomplishments as opposed to what happened during the mess that was the Marge Schott era.

Yes, betting on baseball while managing is a problem, that's why Rose is out of the Hall of Fame. And yes, 4000 hits is not a problem. But, as I said earlier, the HOF inducts the entirety of a man's MLB experience. So, the Hall of Fame can not and will not separate Rose's excellent player performance from his reprehensible managing one; his 4000 hits do not negate his loathsome gambling while managing.

If the Hall was established to showcase the best players ever, then the best players ever should be included. Add an asterisk if you must. Future generations should not be treated as if Rose never happened because of his later life bad decisions. Rose was too dominant and disruptive during his playing days to just simply be swept under the rug

The Hall clearly wasn't just established to showcase the best players ever; so, you're wrong. it's legitimate inclusion of a character clause shows It was meant to showcase the best players who didn't violate that clause. Rose violated it egregiously. And the Hall's records and other statistical records will always keep note of Rose's achievements. He shouldn't and most likely wont' be inducted into the Hall of Fame, but he won't be "swept under the rug."

I am astonished by both the "logic" and self-serving conclusions presented by Strether.

Looks take a look at his "refutation" of my thesis. His claim:

I showed perfectly well why Druid's point of "unsavory characters being included into the Hall of Fame" isn't valid at all. There is no rule or clause in the Hall of Fame's rules banning generally "unsavory characters."

And then:

The HOF does, however, in its character clause forbid actions taken against MLB and/or its best interests. Rose clearly violated those tenets and, unlike general jerks (like Cobb) who didn't violate the character clause, deserves banishment from the Hall of Fame.

So let's take a closer look at the HOF's "character clause."

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Remarkably, unlike Strether's pronouncement from on high, the rule he cites doesn't say a single word about forbidding actions taken against MLB or its best interests! The precise phrasing, relevant to our discussion, uses the words "integrity, sportsmanship and character." Character and integrity are very much in the eye of the beholder and are greatly influenced prevailing social mores and have, over the decades, been applied selectively, to say the least.

My thesis, if you will, is that this "character" issue is one that has been applied capriciously by HOF voters. Some incidents, like Cobb and Speakers scandal in the 1920's that was essentially handled behind the scenes by MLB, clearly shows their lack of character and integrity. It also shows the lack of integrity by MLB as they didn't push the issue because of who was involved, they greatly feared irreparable damage to the game's image.

Apart from Strether's self-serving polemics and use of inflammatory phrases such as "I showed perfectly well why Druid's point... isn't valid," and to Badjam, "you're wrong." his arguments are mere sand castles in the air based on nothing of substance --he just makes up "rules" that don't exist.

But what really comes across in his posts is a derogating dismissal of alternate views, contemptuously expressed, yet in a manner that also brazenly manages to convey his own inflated sense that he is some sort of ultimate arbiter of truth.

And now he will likely profess astonishment that anyone could take umbrage at his comments.

In short, I fear Strether is just a.

Remarkably, unlike Strether's pronouncement from on high, the rule he cites doesn't say a single word about forbidding actions taken against MLB or its best interests! The precise phrasing, relevant to our discussion, uses the words "integrity, sportsmanship and character." Character and integrity are very much in the eye of the beholder and are greatly influenced prevailing social mores and have, over the decades, been applied selectively, to say the least.

That was some lovely projection, Druid, particularly your childish epithet. Only a sad, miserable man-child like you would resort to vulgar playground insults in a Pete Rose discussion. Being challenged and having your points disproven clearly upsets and flusters you, which is truly pitiable.

As to my "pronouncement from on high"--you really are the drama queen--it was dead-on correct. Character, sportsmanship, and integrity within a specified context like MLB is not in the "eye of the beholder." It is dictated by the rules, principles, and values of that context. And they, along with the HOF voters, correctly determined Rose's gambling while managing displayed a lack of character, integrity, and sportsmanship "worthy of banning."

My thesis, if you will, is that this "character" issue is one that has been applied capriciously by HOF voters. Some incidents, like Cobb and Speakers scandal in the 1920's that was essentially handled behind the scenes by MLB, clearly shows their lack of character and integrity. It also shows the lack of integrity by MLB as they didn't push the issue because of who was involved, they greatly feared irreparable damage to the game's image.

So, your argument is a "thesis" now? Your hubris perfectly matches your banality. Also, you accuse HOF of capriciously determining character, but then you turn around and do the same thing. I'm not surprised that contradiction eluded you. As to Cobb and Speaker's supposed "scandals," until you or anyone else proves they go against the HOF's standards of character, they should stay in. However, even if they're proven unworthy, their transgressions don't negate Rose's transgressions as all. So, you're pushing a pointless argument. Again, I'm not surprised.

Apart from Strether's self-serving polemics and use of inflammatory phrases such as "I showed perfectly well why Druid's point... isn't valid," and to Badjam, "you're wrong." his arguments are mere sand castles in the air based on nothing of substance --he just makes up "rules" that don't exist. But what really comes across in his posts is a derogating dismissal of alternate views, contemptuously expressed, yet in a manner that also brazenly manages to convey his own inflated sense that he is some sort of ultimate arbiter of truth. And now he will likely profess astonishment that anyone could take umbrage at his comments.

Wow, I sure push your buttons, Druey, and I can't say that isn't gratifying. Firstly, I made no rules that didn't exist. Re-wording rules is not mis-representing them. That's a free tip. Finally your turgid summary of my tone and phrasing is grossly inaccurate. Saying someone's view is valid or wrong isn't inflammatory, derogatory, or dismissive; it's direct and frank. If that frankness or directness hurt you, that's your problem you need to address.

Here's where I would return your childish epithet...if I were still 12. I do, though, have pity for your reliance on lame vulgarity. After throwing around "inflammatory" and "umbrage," your vocabulary was obviously spent...

I was gonna stay outta this, but then I saw this as part of a post,

"...Speaker and Cobb got caught gambling as managers..."

if true (and I presume it is) I am even more inclined to think the HOF is a joke w/out Rose


basically, i second what badjam said closely nearby above

Druid claims they got caught gambling as managers. Apparently, the evidence against Speaker and Cobb hasn't been convincing. If somebody does provide such substantial evidence, then they, too, should be barred. Either way, their actions don't justify Rose's inclusion. They only speak against Speaker's and Cobb's.

As to Badjam's post, I already well-addressed it above.

Poor Druid really can't handle being debunked and exposed. He also clearly has no ability to counter it. The best he can do is babble, spew more childish vulgarity, and then adorably bury his head in the sand. I can't say I expected any better...