Sportstalk
Good:
Pete Rose’s eligibility for the baseball writers’ Hall of Fame ballot expired Monday when the 2006 candidates were announced, a group that includes Cy Young Award winners Orel Hershiser and Dwight Gooden.
Albert Belle, Will Clark and Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen were among 14 first-time candidates on the 29-man ballot. Bruce Sutter is the holdover who came closest to election, falling 43 votes shy last year.
Following an investigation of his gambling, Rose agreed in August 1989 to a lifetime ban. The Hall’s board of directors voted unanimously in February 2001 that anyone on the permanently ineligible list couldn’t appear on the BBWAA ballot.
Want an easy way to start a heated shouting match over cold beer? Then take my position on Pete Rose and OJ Simpson.
Rose does not belong in the Baseball Hall of Fame, despite being one of the ten or 20 best players in the game, ever. Simpson, however, does belong in the Football Hall of Fame.
Rose bet on some games. Simpson almost certainly murdered two people in cold blood.
The catch is, Rose’s transgressions broke one of the cardinal rules of baseball. Simpson’s crimes had nothing to do with football, and took place years after he retired.
Rose has no business ever being anywhere near Cooperstown. Simpson, although he belongs in jail, also belongs among the heroes at Canton.
Want an easy way to start a heated shouting match over cold beer?
Yep. That would do it.
Of course, given a few more beers, the argument about whether OJ would have made a better baseball player than Rose would have made a football player could be amusing as well.
Gambling = Human weakness
Murder = Human evil
Hmmmm. Let me think here.
First, I definitely disagree with you on OJ. See above.
As for Rose, I might be swayed to your opinion if I knew for certain he took actions during a game that were detrimental to his team, but helped him win a bet made on a game involving his team. If he merely gambled but didn’t do anything to affect his betting position, either by overt action or inaction in a game he played in or managed, I was inclined to give him a pass and plant his ugly kisser in Cooperstown.
The point, however, is now moot.
You’re buying next time you’re in St. Louis.
I trust that your anything goes posture is actually based on Simpson having been found not guilty. Or would a conviction for, say, child rape and murder not disqualify someone as an American sports hero in your eyes?
Charlie’s Show Prep #5
Here are some stories Charlie Sykes should talk about on his show today: The Milwaukee United Way drive is still…
I dunno. Rose’s indiscretions seem more to me like a Catholic dying and going to hell after choking on a mouthful of beef on a Friday night, only to find out the Pope changed the Fish-On-Friday rule the next week.
I suspect that murder, liberal dismantling of civilization notwithstanding, will remain a mortal sin for a long time to come.
Setting the moral question aside, what on earth makes you think Rose was “one of the ten or 20 best”? He was never even one of the top three players on any team he played for, at any time.
I think the “10 or 20 best” line is irrelevent, and meant to convey that Stephen thinks that Rose’s on-the-field accomplishments are a no-brainer for Hall inclusion. So try not to get wrapped around the axle on that one, OK?
Randman: there are some folks who would disagree with you on whether gambling is evil or not. And as far as whether Rose ever influenced a game involving his team, that’s irrelevent, also. The rule is, you don’t bet on baseball. Period. Everybody, including Rose in the ’80s, knew it then and knows it now. His gambling on baseball is inexcusable.
Having said all that, I agree with Stephen 100%. Rose’s gambling was a crime against the game, and he should be excluded from the baseball Hall for that reason. Simpson’s murdering was a crime against society. He should be in prison, but not excluded from his game’s Hall.
I guess I’m on the other side on Rose but not on OJ. If you can prove that Rose ever threw a game I’m with you but I wouldn’t believe it otherwise. Ask Ray Fosse.
Weird, isn’t it, how people figure Rose as a hero despite his “crimes,” but refuse to acknowledge OJ’s greatness on the field because of his “crimes?”
It’s one of those forest/trees issues; it wouldn’t start a bar conversation with me, though, because I’d just nod back at ya.
I grew up in Cincinnati in the ’60′s and ’70′s, so Rose, no matter his many faults, occupies a soft place in my heart. I agree that his transgression broke a “cardinal rule” of baseball, but I also believe that those players who used illicit drugs (cocaine espeically) broke the same rule. Playing under the influence, or being in debt to dealers, is in my mind, no different than betting on games. In my opinion.
For close to a hundred years it has been expressly known that gambling is a banning offense, not throwing a game, gambling. It may have been throwing the game was the cause of the injunction but there it is. Pete Rose knew and did it anyway.
One of the keys to a sporting event is that the rules do not change in middle of the game. Even if they started to allow gambling I would not allow Pete Rose into the Hall of Fame, he broke the rule.
Boy, you really know how to throw gas on the fire, don’t you?
First, allow me to say that I am from Cincinnati. I won’t argue the fact that Rose gambled. It was the worst kept secret in the Tri-State area. And that made him a not very good person, in general. I have met the man, several times. He is a “major league A-hole”. I my opinion, he was the tip of the iceberg that was the whole trend of professional atheletes gone spoiled (Latrell Spreewell, Kobe Bryant, too many college kids from Kansas, throw in some cheerleaders from Carolina).
That being said, Rose was a key part of what could be argued as one of the biggest baseball dynasties that was The Big Red Machine. I was at some of those World Series games as a kid. Rose holds a record that in todays game has not a big chance of getting broken (any bets?).
By comparison on what Rose did, what say you on the Black Sox? They THREW a World Series game, and are in the Hall of Fame. There is no proof that Rose threw a game he bet on. Admittedly, we are taking his word on this, and he has already been proven untrustworthy, but there are several players who were on those teams with Rose who would back this up.
Pete has fessed up. OK, it took him a decade or so. He did a morally and professionally MAJOR wrong. Flip side: He set a record that has a decent chance of lasting at least my lifetime.
Doesn’t he at least deserve an asterix?
On a side note, some here in Cincy have been known to be overly sympathetic to wrong doers. Bob Huggins is the most recent standout. Me personally, they should have thrown Huggins out at the first DUI. Could have possibly stopped the two players and the assistant coach from following in his footsteps. There are role models and there are record holders. There is a fine line that needs to be distinguished there.
Rose was a childhood idol of mine. I thought his hustling style, making the most of his talent for his team, was worthy of emulating and that image helped me in my athletic career.
However, as an adult his gambling put the integrity of the game in doubt and anyone so selfish as to be able to ignore that major consequence is certainly NOT deserving of “fame” relating to other accomplishments in that endeavor, however outstanding they might have been.
OJ, likewise, was a player I admired. Certainly one of the best five running backs in history. However, it is incomprehensible to me that any player, in any sport, should be elevated to a “Hall of Fame” after it is demonstrated they have been involved in criminal behavior(much less murder).
Society should recognize, remember and celebrate talent. But talent without character is a disaster waiting to happen.
I’ll take a dozen Troy Brown’s before I’ll ever take a single Terrell Owens. I’ll win plenty and when I win I’ll be able to hold my head high. Winning with a TO, “honoring” a Rose or an OJ, by ignoring their dramatic deficiencies as human beings simply teaches that outcomes are more important than character.
To me, that’s about as frightening an idea to embrace as you can get.
Oh, come on, everyone knows Rose was set up by Karl Rove.
Sorry, Stephen, your argument doesn’t fly with me. The bottom line is still that both Pete Rose and O.J. Simpson have stained their respective sports indelibly through their off-field activities. (Yes, that’s even accounting for O.J. being long retired as a player when he killed those two people. He was still associated with the NFL at the time, albeit indirectly, as an NFL TV sportscaster with NBC.) No one who besmirches his sport to that degree, regardless of the specifics, belongs in his sport’s Hall of Fame. Period.
So it doesn’t matter to a single poster that OJ was found to be not guilty?
And since we’re so big on Innocent Until Proven Guilty in this society, on what moral basis can you keep him out?
Don’t much care for sports although will root for the Philly teams to keep my dad’s blood pressure down. And while I believe OJ guilty, he was found not guilty in criminal court and is a free man. Therefore, his “alleged” crimes should not be a factor in his consideration for the Hall of Fame.
Well, the NFL HOF bylaws specifically state that *only* play on the field is to be considered for inclusion. Add into that that OJ was already in the Hall, and that his alleged crimes had nothing to do with his sport.
Rose OTOH was breaking a cardinal of his sport while being involved in that sport. I’d let Rose in the Hall as long as he has to wait at least the same amount of time Joe Jackson must wait. If that a century or two, or forever, so be it.
Nominating O.J. for the football hall of fame kinda reminds me of nominating Yasser Arafat or Stanley “Tookie” Williams for the Nobel Peace Prize. That is, commit despicable crimes against humanity then supposedly do something good vs do well at football then commit a despicable crime.
Gambling is the gets-you-kicked-out-of-the-Garden-of-Eden offense of baseball. It’s the one thing that the sport feels so strongly about that there’s a sign – Rule 21 – detailing what’ll get you booted from the game. Rose saw that sign in every clubhouse he ever walked into, and blew it off. Additionally, it matters not a bit that he bet on his Reds to win; managing all 162 games like they’re game 7 of the World Series endangers the health of an entire pitching staff – and I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Rose’s Reds finished second in the division four years in a row, but won the Series the year after he was banned.
EVEN if he bet with the Reds, that is JUST AS BAD as betting against and throwing the game.
For example, did he ever keep a starter in longer, hurting that pitcher’s and the team’s long term prospects because he had some cash down on the game?
He is a liar and a cheater. He signed the life time ban. End of story.
‘For example, did he ever keep a starter in longer, hurting that pitcher’s and the team’s long term prospects because he had some cash down on the game?’
Like I said prove that he ever threw a game and I’ll go along with the ban but otherwise I don’t.
Rose isn’t one of the 20 best players EVER. That’s insulting to
Hank Aaron
Babe Ruth
Lou Gerhig
Roberto Clemente
Ted Williams
Joe Jackson
Joe DiMaggio
Bob Gibson
Hank Greenberg
Sandy Koufax
Mickey Mantle
Willie Mays
Brooks Robinson
Cy Young
Ernie Banks
Tris Speaker
Satchel Paige
Stan Musial
And that’s only 18 guys.
Wow, Stephen. I disagree completely about OJ. Having high moral values is part and parcel of being a professional athlete.
I would have kicked him out just on the wife beating charges, never mind the brutal murder. It’s not much bandied about, but he practically cut his wife’s head off.
Would you have thought the same if he were found guilty and was spending the rest of his life in jail or better still, executed?
Peter Rose — not such a serious charge. He didn’t bet on his own team and I guess he’s a gambling addict, which you can argue is no different from a drug addict or alcoholic. He sought help and is okay now. Why continue to punish him when as, you said, he’s one of the Titans of the Game.
Rose can be argued both ways. OJ no way Jose.
Tefta, Pete Rose did bet on the Reds while he was manager.
Others, OJ was already in the HoF for decades before he did not murder his ex-wife but was civilly responsible for her death.
In baseball, betting on your team (either to win or lose) does not get you banned from the HoF, it only gets you on the permanently ineligible list, so you can’t have any position with a team. After Rose agreed to the lifetime ban, the BB HoF (a private, and separate organization from MLB) ruled that permanently ineligible folks can’t get into the HoF.
So why should someone whose own actions put himself on the PI list, be allowed in the Hall?
First, I’ll say that I find both Rose and Simpson pretty despicable. Second, I think both HoFs are within their rights to include or exclude anyone for any reason.
That said, they’re Halls of Fame, not Halls of Merit*, or Halls of Heroes**. Both Simpson and Rose were and are rightly famed for their on-field exploits, and known by every fan. (As is Joe Jackson.)
Each should be in his respective hall, with appropriate notes about his conduct.
* Stolen shamelessly from an Althouse comment thread.
** If you need to look to sports for heroes, you have bigger problems than a blog comment can address.
The big difference is that OJ was found not guilty, whereas Rose admitted his guilt.
I think Rose will make it into the Hall, but only after he’s dead.
Chuck,
I’ll grant you that Pete may not be on your list, but Joe Jackson is and he THREW a World Series game.
Pete bet on the Reds. Did he damage the careers of a young pitcher by keeping him in too long on a game he bet on? That can be said for some managers who didn’t bet on the game. All that Pete’s has done has been scrutinized by lots of people, and here in Cincy that has happened ad nauseum, you can’t say that he didn’t care about his players. But then again, same can be said, in some instances, about Marge Schott…
There’s an another argument: Who did a bigger bad, Pete or Marge?
This is going to be my final say in this… Really.
What happens when a player becomes eligible for the HOF ballot, and that player has set records, won awards, MVP’s, Gold Gloves, what have you. And that player is found to have been using steroids, or another banned substance and that player didn’t get caught, just admitted it after all was said and done? Or a batting record was achieved with a corked bat? Both are behaviors which could get them thrown out of baseball, and had a direct effect on their preformance which allowed them to make their achivements. And both morally wrong, covered up, lied about and finally admitted. Who is more or less eligible?
Pete bet on baseball. He admitted it, after denying it for years. There is no proof that any of his betting affected the outcome of any games that he was involved in. Pete Rose set records, was an crucial part of a team that stood head and shoulders above all others for the better part of a decade. OJ set records and got in on his merits, AS A PLAYER. Pete should be judged no less. After all, they both have a higher entity to answer to than any Hall of Fame. Eventually.
(shuffles off soapbox..)
Sorry. I thought Rose didn’t bet on his own team. That makes a big difference, but what about the argument that his gambling addiction was to blame and he’s supposedly overcome that.
OJ – sorry. He may be a fabulous athlete, but for killing there’s no excuse.
“He may be a fabulous athlete, but for killing there’s no excuse.”
There is, for permanently adolescent football fans.
Beck:
Joe Jackson was on the list of PLAYERS BETTER THAN ROSE.
Wanna say Rose deserves to be in the Hall? Let’s debate.
Wanna say Rose is top 20 all time?
Dumb.
Just to clarify my earlier comments, I fully understand that betting on baseball was and is against the rules of MLB. But the spirit of the law was to prevent players or managers from doing things on the field that would detrimental to their team’s chances of winning but would help that player or manager win on a bet made on the game.
So there is the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. Did Rose violate the letter of the law? Certainly. Did he violate the spirit of the law? I don’t know. If he didn’t violate the spirit of the law, I’d put him in Cooperstown. So I’m a softie. LOL
As for OJ. Still no change of heart.
OJ: Found “not guilty” not found “innocent”. Anyone who thinks the former equates to the latter is profoundly naive.
Since this is not the first debate on the issue, I recall earlier debates where very famous and accomplished baseball players were excluded from the HoF due to moral failings less than betting on baseball and domestic violence and murder. Concur w/ earlier post that we as a society ought to demand our sports heroes be great athletes AND have decent moral character.
You might as well put in a blank spot with a placard that reads, “This spot would belong to Pete Rose if he hadn’t been a colossal idiot.” In the end, it’s insulting to the fan’s intelligence to pretend that Rose didn’t do what he did. (Not to mention the insult it does to the memory of Ty Cobb)
Taking my argument further, I can see how it would likewise apply to OJ, in which case, I can accept it.
One record Pete Rose has that will never be broken – Was named an all-Star at 4 different positions
2B, 3B, OF, 1B
Good point. I wouldn’t award Mr. Simpson any futher accolades, of course, but those won prior to his.. alleged events… should still stand.
But the defenders of Rose are missing something. Rose *agreed* to the ban, for what he did. So this means he’s breaking the agreement (MLB has been nice, and hasn’t released the investigation, which they could since Rose isn’t living up to his end of the bargain).
That to me shows the real class of Rose – wait a while, (After the guy you negotiated with dies) then start to raise a stink. Presume the other guys will be nice and adhere to civilized behavior, and use it to beat ‘em up.
Doesn’t matter if he threw a game, or even thought about it. It would be impossible to prove that (Which is why betting, not the changing of the outcome is the standard here). He gambled on games he was playing and managing – and where he could potentially influence the bets. At the very least. Strike his name from the books.
Any game in which Rose did not wager on his team was a signal to the betting world that he didn’t like his team’s chances, relative to the games in which he did bet on the Reds. This affects the integrity of the game, and thus Rose cannot be admitted to the Hall of Fame. Period.
Simpson has a 99.99999999999999% chance of being a murderer, but since the rules for the Pro Football HOF explicitly state that only football-related actions are to be evaluated, there is no basis for excluding him. If someone wishes to change the rules, they should by all means advocate this.
Didnt Albert Belle have a corked bat incident? To me, the cardinal sin of any sport should be cheating. Whether it’s steroids or corked bats, or springs in your shoes or wiretaps on other coaches phones, whatever. It’s all cheating and should be an automatic removal or denial of HOF. I think Rose is stupid for ever agreeing to no hall of fame. To me, hall of fames should be about the career in the sport and nothing else. The only banishment should be for something that would alter or give advantage to how they played which got them in the hall in the first place. So Rose shouldnt go but just because we should honor his word, OJ, is there already. Once you take the politics out and look at the actual accomplishments then the HOF becomes a real tribute to how extraordinary these guys were at the sport that’s being famed. (period).