Pete Rose news

BostonRoss 2025-03-03 00:59:59 UTC #21

Why is it a conflict of interest for journalists to vote on people they are no longer covering? Sure, they have their biases and likes/dislikes, but everyone does. Unless you want the Hall of Fame to be a checklist of players who accomplished certain numeric goals (and even then, context matters), some humans have to decide who is selected. I would contend that journalists are probably the most objective voters since it is part of their job to be objective.

I think that the BBWAA has done a very good job at selecting players--especially in recent years--even if they don't always get it right the first time. There have been very few "mistakes" where a large segment of fans think someone elected is undeserving. Other than the PED guys (and it is clear that more than a quarter of fans don't think they deserve induction), there aren't many mistakes where someone truly deserving is not selected. It's the various veterans and era committees that have given us the likes of Harold Baines. The idea of revisiting non-selected players in the face of newer ways of considering contributions is valid, but the HOF just can't seem to get it right even though they have revamped those committees a number of times.

Revisiting Rose, a lot of people don't think he belongs in the Hall of Fame just because of the gambling while playing and managing. So he's hardly a near unanimous choice. I would personally find it hard to vote for a statutory rapist, even though there are probably already people who have done as bad or worse things.

zambonir 2025-03-03 01:23:36 UTC #22

Well, I agree they are as qualified as a group as anyone, and moreso than a bunch of MLB insiders (which is basically the Eras people). Though I'm not sure the NFL method (which still involves a ton of media but a much smaller group, and more actual discussion rather than blind ballots) isn't better.

The conflict comes from covering them in the present day, but that's more true of the end-of-season awards (in fact I believe some papers don't let their writers do that but still let them vote for the HOF). But what would also feel like a conflict to me in the present day is changing the HOF criteria while it could affect people they cover going forward. But it doesn't seem like they actually can do that.

Philsmania 2025-03-03 16:56:53 UTC #23

A lot of what the Era's committees do is how much they like and respect the guy. Dick Allen had multiple go-rounds before he got elected. I think Schilling might not have an easier time with the Era's Committee because plenty of contemporaries really didn't like him. Some of Rose's contemporaries may really respect him, some my dislike him, some may be disgusted by his other behavior even if the gambling is essentially expunged by his reinstatement.

zambonir 2025-03-03 17:03:06 UTC #24

This was the committee for the current class. Maybe Curt or Clemens can get on one of the committees!

Hall of Fame players Paul Molitor, Eddie Murray, Tony Pérez, Lee Smith and Ozzie Smith

Retired manager Joe Torre, also elected to the Hall....

joined by executives Sandy Alderson, Terry McGuirk, Dayton Moore, Arte Moreno and Brian Sabean; plus media members/historians Bob Elliott, Leslie Heaphy, Steve Hirdt, Dick Kaegel and Larry Lester

dcsman 2025-03-04 03:04:22 UTC #25

I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again. Pete Rose was a POS.

Also, I do not believe the Phillies organization has handled this situation well, including the press release upon his death which failed to acknowledge any of the controversies he brought on himself and the sport.

zambonir 2025-03-04 17:29:37 UTC #26

A few notable things in here, some I knew, some I didn't, some I'd probably just forgotten.

First of all, there is no wiggle room in the rule. People (including the guy in the white house) like to excuse him for not betting against his team but the rule doesn't make a distinction. It also doesn't make a distinction between one game or 1000, or $1 or a $100,000. It's been a rule since the Black Sox scandal.
What hadn't been a rule is the HOF not taking people on the banned list. That was passed in 1991, the first year Rose would have been ineligible. Seems like it was meant to keep him out specifically. That also means that when Rose voluntarily accepted his punishment in '89 (without actually admitting guilt) he didn't know that was a consequence.

I still think MLB should stay out of it and the HOF should change the rule if they want to see their committee either keep him out once and for all orr let him in.That is also actually Manfred's position, never mind his double-duty.

“I believe that when you bet on baseball, from Major League Baseball’s perspective, you belong on the permanently ineligible list,” Manfred said in 2022. “When I dealt with the issue, the last time he applied for reinstatement, I made clear that I didn’t think that the function of that baseball list was the same as the eligibility criteria for the Hall of Fame. That remains my position. I think it’s a conversation that really belongs in the Hall of Fame board. I’m on that board, and it’s just not appropriate for me to get in front of that conversation.”

He's got plenty of time in any case, as the Eras committees don't meet again until 2027 for the '28 class.

julio 2025-03-12 14:11:24 UTC #27