It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Baseball: Rose's Final Year of Eligibility

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 04:52 PM

Pete Rose was not on the ballot because he remains on the permanently suspended list, and under current rules his 15 years of eligibility for BBWAA voters expired with this election. Baseball's career hits leader, who agreed in 1989 to a lifetime ban after betting on the Cincinnati Reds while he managed the team, received nine write-in votes last year, his lowest total. He has been written in on 239 of 6,687 ballots (3.6 percent) over 14 years.

This year marked the final year Pete Rose will be eligible for HOF induction. To me this kinda leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I have a hard time with the fact that Barry Bonds will probably end up being a first ballot Hall of Famer. IMO Bonds' transgressions harmed the game just as much and likely more than Rose's did. To leave the all-time hits leader out of the Hall is absurd to me.


posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 07:00 PM
I will respond by saying the same thing here that I have said in private u2u mails to ia clonz:

(1) Both men are jack@sses, especially Bonds, but that's a fact people must make a conscious effort to keep out of their minds when discussing this subject, or it will taint our thinking;

(2) Rose's betting on his team unquestionably affected the integrity of the game. It left him to manage every game like it was Game 7 of the W.S., which is absolutely NOT how you manage in a regular season. I have specific memories of Rose's being criticized--long before the truth came out--about how he was overusing his main 2 or 3 relievers. Then we learned why. He didn't care what happened to the arms of Dibble, Murphy or Franco. Every game WAS the 7th game of the W.S. to him. And for THAT, he stained the game and deserved a very severe punishment.

(3) I feel he has paid that punishment.

(4) THE BIG ONE, THE GREAT UNKNOWN, AS FAR AS WE THE PUBLIC ARE CONCERNED: Did Pete Rose EVER, at any time, even once, bet AGAINST his team OR put a cr@ppy lineup and starter out there so they'd almost certainly lose, because the local mob needed really badly for the Reds to lose that night's game? In other words, did he ever essentially THROW A GAME?

One of MLB's investigators HINTED, not long ago, that such evidence exists. But he immediately and completely backed off that insinuation when called to the mat on it.

OK. IF he ever threw a game, or did things in his power to help the Reds lose, I would bar him from the Hall forever, and I don't care if he'd played till he was 65 and got 7,000 hits and scored 3,000 runs. To me, that is a one-strike offense, and especially for a manager. And it's NOT something which, like a crime, has to be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt.

But it has to be proven by more than a "preponderance of the evidence"--i.e., more than 50%, like most civil wrongs (torts). I would say it should have to be proven by "clear and convincing evidence," which to most courts and lawyers is about 70 or 75%. So far, it's been proven by 0% of the evidence. It's not something like Bonds' steroid use, which is proven by zero direct evidence, but a Mount Everest of circumstantial evidence. There is literally zero known evidence, direct or circumstantial, that Rose had anything to do with game-fixing.

So, Major League Baseball.... It is time to put up or shut the f--- up. DO YOU HAVE STRONG EVIDENCE---NOT ROCK SOLID PROOF, BUT STRONG EVIDENCE---THAT ROSE THREW GAMES? If so, make it known and all reasonable baseball fans will accept his banishment. BUT IF NOT, THEN WE REALLY DON'T CARE WHAT KIND OF A GAMBLE-O-HOLIC CREEP THE GUY IS. THE HALL IS TEEMING WITH CREEPS, LIVING AND DEAD, INCLUDING SOME WHO WERE VASTLY BETTER PLAYERS THAN ROSE (e.g., Cobb & Hornsby).

Put up the evidence, NOW, or put him in. It's Judgment Day.


posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 12:40 PM
B.H.N and I have discussed this issue and have come to a mutual conclusion. If Rose bet against his team or intentionally harmed his teams chances of winning a game in any way he is rightfully being barred from the Hall. That is my opinion, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Now, IMO the precedent has been set, if you cheat you will not be inducted to the Hall. B.H.N. was quick to point out that Bonds' career was certainly worthy of HOF induction before the earliest circumstantial evidence of his steroid use. Myself and anyone who understands numbers would have to agree. Now what I say is, isn't the same true for the ALL-TIME hits leader "Charlie Hustle". Simple logical thinking gets you to this point, 'most hits in history, known for his hustle and competetiveness' that's where you realize Rose never threw a game during his playing career.

I do understand that whether Rose bet against his team, threw games, ect. or not what he did was against the rules. But so is steroid use --a blind eye has been turned towards it until recently because it has revived the game and has been beneficial on a marketing level-- and we all know that Bonds used steroids, despite his pathetic attempts to deny it.

The other thing that I hold as opinion in this matter is that Rose's actions, although against the rules could only have affected his teams performance in an adverse way. B.H.N. explained that very well when he stated that every game was treated like Game 7 of the W.S. On the other hand Bonds' actions gave him an unfair advantage, which in my mind is really CHEATING.

I have a hard time and I think it is unfair to punish one man in a manner that is so harsh. Especially when another man who's shortcomings are more severe (IMO) is given the benefit of the doubt. I really hope someone at some point will take a stand and amend the rules allowing Rose to get into the Hall. Or as B.H.N. said prove to us that we should want this man left out of the Hall.


posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 07:23 PM
BIG QUESTION, for IA Clonz or whomever:

This is not a quiz. This is a question whose answer I don't know.

Is Pete Rose going to be eligible for enshrinement into the Hall by the Veterans Committee? If so, at what time, and/or under what conditions?

If I had to guess, I'd say he'll be eligible ONLY IF Major League Baseball says he is, just as was true with the Writers/Voters, who, given the opportunity, would have elected him, I believe. I'm not so sure about the veterans. I know that when someone at the Hall ceremonies a couple of years ago was chanting "we want Pete," or words to that effect, a camera panned to the greatest member of that enormously great team, Joe Morgan (sorry Johnny), and you could clearly read Morgan's lips: "You can have him."

Then again, my view on Morgan is pretty much the same as those of the other people who study baseball history and understand his complete numbers to know why a .271 career hitter like him, with only fair HR power, can be the greatest 2B ever:

He was a hell of a lot better player than he is as a media member.


posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 10:10 AM

The way I understand it is, Rose must first have his name removed from the banishment list. Who has the power to do that?

Also, form what I have heard not many current members of the Hall are real big Pete Rose fans. I think it will take a few current members to rally around him and say 'look forget about the off field stuff, he belongs here'.

I was researching somethings involving this matter and ran across this.

It talks about a man named Leo Durocher. He stole from Ruth, beat up fans, you name it. The author points out what a great example this is of seperating the field from personal life.

All in all, I believe this is a huge injustice but I am not going to get my hopes up. If Rose ever is inducted can you imagine that ceremony!!

posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 10:11 AM

Sorry the above link didn't work try this one.

posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 01:03 PM
Dear IA Clonz and others,

I have read numerous biographies of Babe Ruth, the best of which S.I. calls the best biography of ANY American sports figure: Robert Creamer's "Babe: The Legend Comes to Life." It's a very scholarly book, written in the late 60's and early 70's, while most of Ruth's later teammates and many of his earlier ones were still alive. If you can find it, you can learn SO much about America's greatest hero in the first half of that century (sorry Lindbergh)... like how great an athlete he was when young, and how much those colleagues HATED the way, in the decades after retirement, he always got depicted as a blimp who could hit huge HR's.

In truth, he was a tremendous all-around athlete. A la Wilt Chamberlain, was like a man among small boys and he thus compiled stats that would blow out a computer--including THREE separate seasons over a ten-year period where he hit more HR's than any other American League TEAM.

Anyway, that book talks at length about the alleged Durocher theft, and concludes it never happened. But Ruth was a guy who had one major fault I share, namely, that once you were on his s--- list, it was just about impossible to get off it. He ruined Durocher's time with the Yankees. So, in turn, Durocher sabotaged Ruth's managerial/coaching chances with the Dodgers in the late 30's, after Ruth's ridiculous stint with the Braves and Judge Emil Fuchs.

B.T.W., you should see the letter Fuchs wrote, knowing Ruth would go through hell--which is about what playing for the '35 Braves must have been--to get his shot at managing a team. I can reprint THAT, too. As Creamer says, "It fair takes your breath away"--and it totally bamboozled Ruth, who saw in it what he wanted to see.

Anyway, after the falsely alleged theft, Ruth and Durocher absolutely hated each other until August of 1948, when Ruth did the only thing either of them could have done to end their animosity... die.


posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 01:41 PM
AND, although I will tell you now I share the consensus view of Durocher as a tyrant, a jerk, and a lot of other things, he had his strong points. He managed the 1951 Giants, who, though they lost the Series 4-2, otherwise matched the 1914 Miracle Braves for an incredible comeback. And he did it with African-American stars like Hall of Famer Monte Irvin (as Bill James says of him, a hard guy to rate, because half his career was in one world, the other half in another), and with a Rookie whom he stood with that year through thick and a whole lotta thin.

You've probably heard of this rookie, who started out something like 0 for 20 or 1 for 21. Guy named MAYS, whom Durocher not only brought up and stood by through a dreadful start, but also gave a ton of emotional support to through the years.

As an interesting postscript to the falsely theft allegation, I was at "Willie Mays Day" at horrid Candlestick Park, some time in the mid-1980's, I believe. Durocher, who was nearing 80 in his long life, pointedly came to the mike and called Mays, "The greatest baseball player I have ever seen." If you look at Ruth's stats from 1928 and 1929 (their two years as teammates), you'll see Ruth was better offensively, and in most respects far better, in those two years than Mays was in any two years of his career, and that includes Mays' stolen bases.

So old Leo, nearly 40 years after Babe died and a huge cathedral was jampacked with mourners, as were the streets of New York, still had to be his petty self. He wasn't a good guy, or even close to it, hence his famed aphorism that nice guys finish last and his hard-nosed style of managing.

But he wasn't a thief. And his managerial record earned him a spot in the managerial wing of the Hall of Fame.

IA, you ARE aware, aren't you, that they have separate wings of the Hall of Fame: regular players, Negro League Players, other people of color, announcers, executives, etc.? And Durocher is by no means the biggest A.H. in one of the non-player wings. Check out Clark Griffith (early owner of the Washington Senators) or Charles Comiskey (ditto of the White Sox and the 1919 Black Sox), the latter of whose dishonesty and serf-like view of ballplayers caused the 1919 Series fix. I don't offer that as an excuse for the corrupted players, much less a plea for their enshrinement, but it's a damn good reason Comiskey should not be there, either.

In closing, a story tangentially concerning Babe Ruth which shows just how enormous an American cultural hero he was for a long time:

In pitched battle during World War II, do you know what Japanese soldiers would shout at our soldiers? "BABE RUTH GO TO HELL!!!" Not President Roosevelt. Not Douglas MacArthur. Babe Ruth.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 03:56 PM
That is incredible B.H.N., Ruth was obviously an icon unlike we have seen before or since. (Ali, Jordan are probably right up there) I had no prior knowledge that Durocher even existed. I will accept that the "Ruth theft" never happened. The only point I am trying to make is that Rose's playing career earned him a spot in Cooperstown. You have mentioned many players in the Hall that were far from saints off the field. You also stated that Bonds' career was HOF worthy before he started juicing.

I don't understand why there is any debate on this issue, noting the lack of evidence supporting the fact Rose bet AGAINST his team. Like I have said many times before, how much debate do you think there will be involving Bonds' induction. Not much, he will more than likely be the all-time HR leader. Rose is the all-time hits leader. See the comparison?

Why not put an end to the dabate by either a)inducting him into the Hall or b) prove that he bet AGAINST his team. Otherwise it will always be seen as an injustice to many people.

posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 05:43 PM
IA Clonz (and all),

All I can tell you is that I agree with you. He DID compromise the game's integrity by burning up those relievers, night after night, either in the bullpen or actually in the game, for reasons that had nothing to do with giving his team its best chance to win a playoff spot over a 162-game span. I personally do not think that is an offense for which he should be banished forever from the Hall, and everyone I've discussed the subject with--obviously including you--agrees with me.

I think the guy is overrated, and I've always thought so, but he's obviously a first-round Hall of Famer on his feats. Bill James ranks him as a right fielder, which means he played more games there than he did in left field or at first, second or third base. But at ANY of those positions, Rose could rank no higher than 5th best of all time, and at some of them (most obviously first base), he couldn't come within a mile of 5th place.

However, I'm saying those things only because some people, perhaps after drinking 3 or 4 six-packs of microbrew beer, talk like Rose is the greatest player ever. And that's hilarious.

But you don't have to be in the Top 5 at any position, much less be Babe Ruth, to be a first-round Hall of Famer. And Pete Rose is a first-round Hall of Famer... perhaps not on his "average" stats, most of which are mediocre, but on his "totals" stats, which are awesome. Number one by FAR in singles, since Cobb hit tons of triples more than Rose. One of only four men with 700+ doubles, Rose is #2 all time with 746, comfortably behind Tris Speaker (who was a far better player). Rose also is: #1 in at bats; #5 in runs scored, right behind Ruth and Aaron (ponder that); #6 in total bases; #6 in walks; #10 in runs created (a big stat), and #20 in extra base hits.

Now, a lot of those stats are functions of Rose's playing those last five years, which should never have happened, because his stats were just plain horrible for a full-time FIRST BASEMAN: no HR power and usually a very mediocre on-base percentage, at a position where a good bat is essential.

But so what? Take away the last five years and do you know what happens? He would probably be #4 in hits, falling behind not only Cobb, but also Aaron and Musial, but staying ahead of Speaker and Wagner. His averages would be MUCH higher, looking like the average stats of a Hall of Famer. And he would stil be a slam-dunk, first-round Hall of Famer.

So... We'd be in the same predicament we are in now. The ONLY legitimate reason for keeping him out of the Hall, in my view, would be if he bet AGAINST his team AND/OR deliberately put a terrible lineup and pitcher out there on one or more given nights because the mob told him they needed the Reds to lose.

And iaclonz is correct. To date, there is exactly ZERO evidence of any of that. And I don't mean that in the way Hootie keeps saying it about Bonds--about whom there is what lawyers would call "zero direct evidence" of steroid/HGH use, but a Mount Everest of "circumstantial evidence" (which is every bit as good in court, no matter what you hear on TV) of such use. I mean that in Rose's case, from what we've been shown so far, there is ZERO EVIDENCE AT ALL that he conspired to lose games in either of the senses I said.

So as I said before, I think the folks at MLB should either PUT THE EVIDENCE UP NOW, or put Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame NOW. Yes, he's a grotesquely flawed person. Some day I may write a series of columns here on how many such people there are in the Hall. The only problem is, I have to work for a living, and that series of columns will be extremely long. Not only will in not END with Cobb and Hornsby, it won't START with them, either, because they're not even at the top of the list. (Well, maybe Hornsby is....)


new topics

top topics


log in