Braves Journal Bullpen:
Alex’s Corner on Pete Rose

Just a few notes in reply to Alex’s column. First, the Hall of Fame doesn’t differentiate between a player’s career as a player and as a manager. Or, at least, a number of people are in as players who were really inducted, at least in part, for their managing careers. If Pete Rose bet on baseball while in uniform, that is grounds for suspension.

Second, I don’t know if Pete Rose bet on baseball or not. I read all this stuff, and I am now thoroughly confused. At any rate, betting on baseball is grounds for banishment, and for very good reason.

Third, should someone who is banned from baseball be allowed into the Hall of Fame? Certainly not. Giving baseball’s highest honor to someone who can’t even attend a major league baseball game without permission would be ridiculous.

Fourth, it is my feeling that if Rose committed the acts in question, he’s done enough time. Let him back in.

Fifth, Shoeless Joe Jackson is something else entirely. Saying that “off the field” actions shouldn’t keep someone out of the Hall is well and good, but Jackson helped throw the World Series! How is that an “off the field” action? If that’s “off the field”, what is “on the field?”

5 thoughts on “Rebuttal”

  1. I have to admit that I fall into the Rose should be in the Hall camp. Pete Rose bet on baseball games while being a baseball manager. This should obviously result in MLB keeping Rose from ever having a chance to influence the result of an on the field contest again. However, keeping him out of the HOF serves no purpose except to be spiteful.

    The HOF has a solid contingent of lousy human beings. Pete Rose certainly would not be out of place among a good number of these guys. The HOF should be far more concerned with the dropping baseball standards of the Hall than it should the dropping character standards.

    Let’s just put Pete in, and move on with our lives.

  2. i don’t see how anyoen can admit that rose bet on baseball but he should be in the hall of fame. i assume a number of you have seen rob neyer’s column on this. the rule is very straightforward. its not a “untill you learn your lesson” ban or a “untill you do your time ban” its a “permanent” ban. no ifs ands or buts. rose bet on baseball, and is serving the consequences. sure i think its a shame that the all time hits leader isn’t in the hall of fame (for there are far inferior players and personaltiies) but he knew what he was doing and now he’s seving his punishment. permanently.

  3. Oh joy! Another Rose debate.

    Rose, Dowd & Selig should all be locked in a room together. Chain the doors. Cover it in concrete. Wrap it in concertina wire. And ship the entire package to the Taliban.

    Just let me stop reading about it.

  4. What I don’t understand is this–If Rose bet on baseball, but not on Reds’ games in which he was involved, he would have earned a one-year suspension. If he bet on games in which he was involved, the suspension is for life. Rose, however, “plea-bargained” a lifetime suspension (the maximum penalty he could receive) with the stipulation in the written agreement that he was not admittuing that he bet on baseball.
    Now, baseball apparently wants him to admit that he bet on baseball (Reds’ games, too?) so that the lifetime suspension can be lifted. Does that make any sense?
    If the guy bet on baseball, but not on the Reds while he was manager, his suspension should have been over a long time ago. If he bet on the Reds, he should never return.
    Why is this so hard to figure out?

  5. Rose should be kept out until he confesses to doing wrong and lying about it for the past dozen or so years.
    I can’t figure out what’s so hard to understand about that. I also know if baseball fans truly knew Pete Rose, the individual outside of the game, they wouldn’t lift a finger or raise a voice to help him. He’s a well known jerk.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *