20 Years Ago Today...

Twenty years ago today as I was preparing for my sophomore year of High School...I turned on the television and learned the news that one Peter Edward Rose, the manager of my team, had been banned from the game he loved for committing its ultimate sin -- betting on the game.

Now, 20 years later, it still captures my thoughts. Should he be reinstated? Is what he did worse than what the steroid users did? Should he be in the Hall of Fame?

There's no doubt in my mind Pete is a scumbag for what he did and then lied about it for so long (and then revealed it by selling a book!). But scumbag or not, somebody got those 4,256 hits (a record that I don't think will ever be broken), somebody played in all those winning games (he holds the all-time record for participating in the MOST winning games), somebody got that 44 game hitting streak, somebody played in all of those all-star games and World Series games.

It seems like every year the Hall of Fame is announced, or they hold their induction ceremony, or whatever, the subject of Pete comes up.

I think he should be in the HOF without a doubt. But it's not up to me. It's up to the Baseball Writers. So here's my proposition...

MLB should re-instate Rose. Let the writers vote on whether he should be in the HOF. Remember, it takes 75% of their vote to get elected. If he gets elected, great, put him in and make mention of what he did (gambling) on his plaque. If he doesn't make it, well, so be it.

I wouldn't let him be a manager of a team or a bench coach where he could affect the outcome of the game. But let him be a broadcaster, be a special hitting instructor or something like that.

Put him in the Hall for the accomplishments he had while he was a player. It's my understanding that he didn't start betting on games until after he was finished as a player, but I could be wrong.

He should be in the HOF hands down. I saw Joe Morgan talking about it the other day and he got choked up. He wants Pete in the Hall but I don't believe Joe thinks it will happen.

Outside The Lines, right?

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:Outside The Lines, right?

Yep.

It was twenty years ago today,
Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play.

Oh I guess this isn't about the Beatles.

Okay, here's my thought. Does he have HOF numbers? Without a doubt. The fact of the matter is he was banned for life. I think it was a bad decision back then, but that's what was decided. If MLB says one thing and does another, it sets a bad precedent IMO (not to be confused with a bad president, which is what we have now. Doh! Sorry ).

A bad decision you say Markwes? Then why not right that wrong decision? Show the world you can evolve. I'll tell you what, I'd support the ban for life if they ban every steroid user for life too. No exceptions. No 3 strikes and you're out per se...one offense and you're gone!

To me the 'roid users are affecting outcomes of games more than Pete ever could have. And granted it's been a long time, but I don't ever recall Pete making such questionable calls that it affected the intregity of the game the way the BlackSox of 1919 did. Just MHO.

Markwes wrote:It was twenty years ago today,
Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play.

Oh I guess this isn't about the Beatles.

Okay, here's my thought. Does he have HOF numbers? Without a doubt. The fact of the matter is he was banned for life. I think it was a bad decision back then, but that's what was decided. If MLB says one thing and does another, it sets a bad precedent IMO (not to be confused with a bad president, which is what we have now. Doh! Sorry ).

Mark must be a cubs fans. I wonder what will happen first. Rose gets in the HOF or the Cubs win the World Series.

I believe Pete Rose has paid his dues. Really compared to what has happened in sports, as to what players have gotten caught at not just baseball players but all athletes, I would have a hard time justifying keeping him black balled if I was the commissioner. Allow him back but don't allow him to participate in the active league. i.e. no coaching, no playing etc. but let him be afforded the opportunity to make it into the HOF.

I am from Ohio but I say NO to Pete in the HOF. Gotta take a stand sometime.

Kroman wrote:

Markwes wrote:It was twenty years ago today,
Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play.

Oh I guess this isn't about the Beatles.

Okay, here's my thought. Does he have HOF numbers? Without a doubt. The fact of the matter is he was banned for life. I think it was a bad decision back then, but that's what was decided. If MLB says one thing and does another, it sets a bad precedent IMO (not to be confused with a bad president, which is what we have now. Doh! Sorry ).

Mark must be a cubs fans. I wonder what will happen first. Rose gets in the HOF or the Cubs win the World Series.

Neither will ever happen. The billy goat curse was forever too.

I dont see it being any different than Barry's 'roids.

Banned for life? MLB's capital punishment I guess... I have a hard time giving two deuces, but if MLB has a penalty of "banned for life" on it's books, then part of me says they should have the cojones to carry it out and continue punishing Pete Rose until he dies. Once Pete rose's life is over, they can put him in the hall.

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:A bad decision you say Markwes? Then why not right that wrong decision? Show the world you can evolve. I'll tell you what, I'd support the ban for life if they ban every steroid user for life too. No exceptions. No 3 strikes and you're out per se...one offense and you're gone!

To me the 'roid users are affecting outcomes of games more than Pete ever could have. And granted it's been a long time, but I don't ever recall Pete making such questionable calls that it affected the intregity of the game the way the BlackSox of 1919 did. Just MHO.

I guess you think along the same lines as judges who sentence someone for "life" in prison and then release them after 20 years.

A couple side notes related to Pete. I might have mentioned this before but back when I was a wee lad, I went to Wrigley Field for a game against the Phillies. Pete Rose and Mike Schmidt walked past me to get into the stadium. Pretty cool for a kid to see. Also, I was doing a crossword puzzle the other day and one of the the clues was "Rose with a hit record". Of course I was sitting there trying to think of musicians named Rose before it came to me. Very clever clue.

Markwes wrote:

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:A bad decision you say Markwes? Then why not right that wrong decision? Show the world you can evolve. I'll tell you what, I'd support the ban for life if they ban every steroid user for life too. No exceptions. No 3 strikes and you're out per se...one offense and you're gone!

To me the 'roid users are affecting outcomes of games more than Pete ever could have. And granted it's been a long time, but I don't ever recall Pete making such questionable calls that it affected the intregity of the game the way the BlackSox of 1919 did. Just MHO.

I guess you think along the same lines as judges who sentence someone for "life" in prison and then release them after 20 years.

A couple side notes related to Pete. I might have mentioned this before but back when I was a wee lad, I went to Wrigley Field for a game against the Phillies. Pete Rose and Mike Schmidt walked past me to get into the stadium. Pretty cool for a kid to see. Also, I was doing a crossword puzzle the other day and one of the the clues was "Rose with a hit record". Of course I was sitting there trying to think of musicians named Rose before it came to me. Very clever clue.

Axle Rose???? errrr does he spell it Axl?

Bman wrote:I am from Ohio but I say NO to Pete in the HOF. Gotta take a stand sometime.

I agree, somewhat. Was there a policy in place at the time that stated "if you bet on your own team, you will be banned for life?" If so, the you do the crime, you pay the time!

Banned for life, so when he dies, he's not banned anymore... then he gets in first ballot.

iberlingirl wrote:

Bman wrote:I am from Ohio but I say NO to Pete in the HOF. Gotta take a stand sometime.

I agree, somewhat. Was there a policy in place at the time that stated "if you bet on your own team, you will be banned for life?" If so, the you do the crime, you pay the time!

Yeah there was a policy in place then too. Went all the way back to the 1919 World Series where 8 White Sox players intentionally thru the Series to the Reds. Heck they even put have a sign from what I hear above the clubhouse as you leave that says something like "No Gambling On Games."

Yeah, it's the Cardinal Rule of Baseball, and Pete has deserved what he's got. But I just think it's time to put him in the Hall of Fame. In my mind, the Hall was designed to honor the BEST players that ever played the game. Was Pete one of the best? Without a doubt. How can you have a Hall of Fame that doesn't include the all-time hit king? The Hall of Fame is NOT the Vatican for crying out loud.

I would even support keeping him out of the game if it meant he could be in the Hall of Fame (of course the writers or the Veterans Committee would have to vote him in though).

Pez is the lifetime ban for Pete's lifetime or for the lifetime of baseball?

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:

iberlingirl wrote:

Bman wrote:I am from Ohio but I say NO to Pete in the HOF. Gotta take a stand sometime.

I agree, somewhat. Was there a policy in place at the time that stated "if you bet on your own team, you will be banned for life?" If so, the you do the crime, you pay the time!

Yeah there was a policy in place then too. Went all the way back to the 1919 World Series where 8 White Sox players intentionally thru the Series to the Reds. Heck they even put have a sign from what I hear above the clubhouse as you leave that says something like "No Gambling On Games."

Yeah, it's the Cardinal Rule of Baseball, and Pete has deserved what he's got. But I just think it's time to put him in the Hall of Fame. In my mind, the Hall was designed to honor the BEST players that ever played the game. Was Pete one of the best? Without a doubt. How can you have a Hall of Fame that doesn't include the all-time hit king? The Hall of Fame is NOT the Vatican for crying out loud.

I would even support keeping him out of the game if it meant he could be in the Hall of Fame (of course the writers or the Veterans Committee would have to vote him in though).

Let Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson in the HOF I say.

Come to think of it, the Hall of Fame changed their eligibility rules after Pete was banned for life (The HOF is a seperate entity from MLB believe it or not).

Right before Pete would have been on the ballot (1992-ish), they said that anybody on the ineligible list would not be eligible for the HOF. While not naming Pete exactly with this directive, it was clear what they were trying to do.

Dirty tricks I say...

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:Right before Pete would have been on the ballot (1992-ish), they said that anybody on the ineligible list would not be eligible for the HOF.

Okay, now go back and read what you just typed.

Markwes wrote:

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:Right before Pete would have been on the ballot (1992-ish), they said that anybody on the ineligible list would not be eligible for the HOF.

Okay, now go back and read what you just typed.

By "ineligible list" I meant "not allowed to play the game anymore list"...so my sentence should've been "they said that anybody not allowed to play the game anymore would not be eligible for the Hall of Fame.

Happy...pappy?