Pete Rose news

[zambonir]

I wasn't gonna post about this because we've said it all before and when the first piece of news broke it didn''t seem likely to mean anything, legally or for baseball (though the dark joke would be that if he was pardoned for any and all alleged crimes that would technically erase the reason the Phillies decided not to put him on the wall of fame).

But, apparently, this is where we are....

Trump says he will pardon baseball legend Rose

Sources: Manfred reviewing bid to reinstate Rose

[julio]

Rose wasn’t excluded from the HOF due to his tax evasion conviction - and that’s all Trump can pardon.

Of course, Trump is suffering from dementia and delusions, and probably doesn’t realize that he cannot pardon things that aren’t federal crimes. The rest of us are not so delusional.

[zambonir]

Yes, and if that was the only news of the day I wouldn't have posted. But the second thing seems more notable. The meaningless pardon can't unban him, but the timing of this story coming out that MLB is considering his family's petition seems like more than a coincidence. Whether that suggests pressure in one direction or the other (I.e. did someone leak this to try and head it off or to try and curry favor with the President) hard to say.

The way things are going he could go into the Hall executive order, or the Hall could find its nonprofit tax forms under sudden scrutiny (assuming they have enough staff to do that).

[VoteForKalas]

If Manfred bends to Trump's will on this case, any authority MLB has is moot and the rule book should be thrown out. Rose was guilty beyond any doubt and then lied about it for decades while viciously attacking the people who rightly defended the integrity of the game. He deserves nothing IMO.

[zambonir]

I both agree with you and have also always been of the mindset that the Hall is more a historical record than an honor. It's actually surprising to me that as a banned player he hasn't also been expunged from the MLB record book.

But, from a purely Talmudic or legalistic perspective - never mind that it does seem to be about the political climate more than any real sense of right or wrong - I believe the argument is that you can't be banned from baseball if you're dead. And if you're not banned from baseball you can be in the Hall.

They could unban him and then he could not get in, of course, but I think we know how that would probably go, especially with the smaller voters on the committees..

If it happens let's hope the Phillies don't go along with it. They were mostly being PR-conscious when they cancelled his Wall of Fame but then he managed to come back and remind everyone who he really was after that.

[dcsman]

He was a POS. I say add him quietly (Phils & HOF), take the hit, and then be done with it.

[allentown]

have also always been of the mindset that the Hall is more a historical record than an honor

That's not the way the HOF rules are written. Rose didn't only gamble as a player, he did so as a manager. If your approach of the HOF being a record, rather than an honor is to be the new standard, then there are quite a few other players who were excluded from the HOF and should be included now, including the Black Sox.

The one saving grace of adding Rose now, rather than previously, is that Rose isn't still around to monetize the honor.

A downside is that President Trump has made it about himself and the commissioner would be seen as caving to Trump. This makes dcsman's suggestion to quietly induct him a total impossibility. Trump will trumpet it and it is now a part of the culture war.

Not just betting on baseball games, but tax evasion. What a guy!

Are we also going to give HOF entry to all of the cheaters who used performance-enhancing drugs to mash HRs?

Strange for a sport which forced an asterisk on Maris's HR record.

The other side of me says baseball is way too much about individual record honors, which detracts from it being a team sport.

[zambonir]

That's not the way the HOF rules are written. Rose didn't only gamble as a player, he did so as a manager. If your approach of the HOF being a record, rather than an honor is to be the new standard, then there are quite a few other players who were excluded from the HOF and should be included now, including the Black Sox.

Right but Rose can still be left out of the Hall based on those rules. Those rules have never been applied to him because he's never been eligible. The two things are separate. If the idea here is that he must stay banned because the voters wouldn't hesitate to put him in then he should probably be in. Or else the voters are the problem.

But the rules are still pretty easily ignored or interpreted as anyone sees fit. I would personally drop the character clause (and yes, put the Black Sox in). I'm sure some voters who feel the same way already simply ignore it, while others too easily use it to punish players they don't like.

As would I, to be perfectly honest - Schill is clear-cut no-vote for me should I choose to prioritize integrity and sportsmanship, and not just for his politics. But I would induct most of the major PED names for sure, both for baseball reasons and not viewing their usage as being that egregious in the context of the game at the time. Amphetamines were also illegal in Schmidt and Pete's day. And there were pitchers and fielders using everything too.

I agree there will be no quiet way this ends, if Manfred caves. But the Phillies don't have to be involved. He already got the full honors in Cincinnati (retired number, statue) w/o being unbanned. He would have gotten our Wall of Fame if the statutory rape allegations hadn't come out. Should he end up in Cooperstown there is still no reason the Phillies should make that an automatic number retirement (and there's still a strong case he doesn't deserve that anyway, though I think he did deserve the Wall of Fame).

Strange for a sport which forced an asterisk on Maris's HR record.

And strange to me that Rose is listed as MLB's all-time hit leader on their website. When the NCAA stripped Joe Paterno of his wins (something that was later reversed) he also disappeared from the official record

[MichaelJackSchmidt]

I understand MLB's HOF rules, and based on this, Rose does not deserve to be in the HOF even now. However, my views, which are in the minority here, are that Rose and Joe Jackson, to name a couple, should be in the HOF, and MLB should change its rules. I will not hold my breath while waiting for this to happen. I am not happy that Trump is sticking his nose in this. As much as I want Pete Rose to be in the Hall of Fame, I do not want it to happen because Trump bullied the MLB.

[zambonir]

They actually aren't MLB's rules. HOF is completely separate institution that just happens to use MLB's banned list as one of its criteria. They could change that or the character rules on their own.

Depending which way it goes - and depending how you want it to go - unbanning him would at least resolve it. I totally understand not wanting to give even Pete's heirs - let alone his fanboys - the satisfaction of seeing him finally get the honor. And even as I'd be fine with Pete getting based solely on his play, I would personally enjoy seeing some of those people be thwarted even more definitively

[BostonRoss]

Note that if Rose is removed from the banned list, by current rules his selection would be decided by a group of 16 voters. If five don’t vote for him, he won’t get in. It is highly dependent on who those 16 are at the time of the vote.

[Philsmania]

Pretty obvious what's going to happen. Trump will summon Manfred to the Oval Office, threaten to end MLB's precious antitrust exemption by executive order, Manfred will slink out of the Oval Office and announce the next day that Rose is reinstated, Trump will take credit and let the world know how he threatened Manfred, Rose will be inducted in 2026, Trump will attend and the whole thing will be a crapshow between him and protesters and Manfred will spend the rest of his days as Commissioner as a confirmed weakling and pushover.

[zambonir]

I assumed as much, but also hadn't thought about it - he wouldn't essentially get a mulligan on the normal eligibility having never appeared on the ballot?

But if it is the Eras committee, how many chances would he get?

[zambonir]

If it takes until 2027 you could have the added bonus of there being no baseball season that year (with Trump in the middle of that too).

[MichaelJackSchmidt]

They aren't MLB's rules. The HOF is a completely separate institution that just happens to use MLB's banned list as one of its criteria.

I thought the rules were that a player is ineligible for the HOF if they are banned by MLB. Is that not true?

[BostonRoss]

As far as I know, no one has ever been reinstated after their original eligibility period expired. I think that means that they would to change the rules if they wanted Rose to be considered on the regular ballot. I don’t see that happening, but who knows.

Each era's committee votes every few years, not sure how often. I think it varies by era, with more recent eras voting more often. I don’t think there is any expiration associated with the eras.

[julio]

They aren't MLB's rules. The HOF is a completely separate institution that just happens to use MLB's banned list as one of its criteria.

I thought the rules were that a player is ineligible for the HOF if they are banned by MLB. Is that not true?

The HOF is a private institution. Do they even have "rules," in the sense of specific, written, public criteria? Or just random assertions that are subject to change at the whim of the private owners?

[zambonir]

The HOF is a nonprofit. Of course, look who's on the board.

https://baseballhall.org/aboutus/board-of-directors

Anyway, sure... it is largely semantic but still separate. A player who is banned by MLB is not eligible for the HOF ballot. But MLB's decision to ban Rose - or to consider unbanning him - shouldn't have anything to do with HOF consideration. And if they do unban him, he is still a poor candidate per the HOF criteria (which are written and public).

And then there is a third organization involved, the BBWAA, which comprises all of the voters (for the regular ballot). In fact, it appears the "rules" and criteria are made by them, not the people who run the Hall.

https://baseballhall.org/hall-of-fame/election-rules/bbwaa-rules

[julio]

Thanks for this, z!

[zambonir]

I guess the Board does get the say

9. Amendments: The Board of Directors of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc. reserves the right to revoke, alter or amend these rules at any time.

Of course this is all part of the awkwardness and conflict of interest of having journalists make these calls too.