Pete Rose ban remains in place

[Edgy MD]

metsmarathon wrote: what borderline case has it pushed a guy in on? it seems to be a door that swings only one way.

Three broadly admired guys that come to mind who made it in by the skin of their teeth: Gary Carter, Bill Mazeroski, and Red Schoendienst.

I can't testify to the mind of every (or perhaps any) voter, but their (alleged) elevated integrity certainly was presented with their cases.

I'm not sure why Gary Carter's case shouldn't be treated as borderline, as it took him six ballots. The Hall had been very stingy on catchers in the years after Bench's election. Ted Simmons, Darrell Porter, and Lance Parrish didn't sniff any support. Carlton Fisk finally broke the logjam in 2000.

I also don't know why these things cited on their plaques shouldn't matter except in borderline cases. Your claim was that they don't appear at all. You're moving the goalposts on me.

[Lefty Specialist]

After seeing Pete Rose on Fox Sports this postseason, I want him banned from everything.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Can we all agree on one point? If Pete Rose wasn't such a dick,
he'd probably be in the HOF. He can't help himself and has always
been his own worst enemy. He'll probably go in posthumously, un-
less of course he lives forever.

[Benjamin Grimm]

That posthumous thing isn't working out so well for Shoeless Joe Jackson so far. 64 years dead a little over a week ago.

[Guest d'Kong76]

True enough. [crossout:f5ddo7zf]Probably[/crossout:f5ddo7zf] -- may.

[Edgy MD]

well fine. I certainly could've researched that one a tad. but none of these guys were borderline. the closest is Jackie, I guess, but it's not like his playing career didn't or wouldn't've merited it by its lonesome.

Jackie Robinson's ten most similar guys:

1. George Grantham (934)
   
2. Denny Lyons (885)
   
3. Freddie Lindstrom (873) *
   
4. Edgardo Alfonzo (873)
   
5. Jose Vidro (871)
   
6. Mike Greenwell (865)
   
7. Jeff Cirillo (863)
   
8. Irish Meusel (855)
   
9. Joe Randa (853)
   
10. Melvin Mora (853)

*Hall of Famer

It's hard to say how much more of a career he might have had, of course, but even without, you know, baseball's ban on black players, college and football and World War II would likely have delayed the start of his career to some extent anyhow.

Jackie Robinson, absent his crowning achievement of integrating baseball (character! sportsmanship!), is no automatic case.

[nymr83]

none of those "comps" are even all that close, because its hard to find another player who was good for ~10 years and didn't play longer. Don Mattingly springs to mind as a hitter and Kirby Puckett... Kirby might have gotten in partially on the "sympathy" card and Jackie on the "historic figure" card, and Mattingly isn't in at all.

[Frayed Knot]

Puckett's the guy I always think of as benefitting from good timing in his HoF vote character-wise.
Kirby was well-liked during and just after his career by fans, by teammates, and by media types. But he was a borderline HoF case (in my mind he falls short) and had the rather sordid details of his life which became public not long before his early death -- mainly poor treatment of women maybe mixed with drug/alcohol use (can't quite remember) -- surfaced prior to his HoF vote I think they would have been enough to turn the vote the other way. Pure speculation on my part obviously but in borderline cases having your personal rep go from one extreme to the other can certainly make a difference.

[Zvon]

I was on the fence about Pete but I just read he lied to Manfred during their meeting about still betting on baseball. And it's not that I have a problem with him betting on baseball now that he's not active. It's his lying to the commissioner that has me come down on the ban side of the fence.

Sorry Pete, that was a very stupid thing to do. Have you learned nothing?

I'll reserve judgement about the Hall Of Fame situation. All's I know is that if Bonds, McGwire or Sosa ever get in, I see no reason why Rose doesn't. I'll bet he goes in posthumously first time it comes up.

[metsmarathon]

There's a huge difference between rose and bonds, et al. With ped users, you know that the actual competition on the field is legit. The talent may be fraudulent, but the outcome is legit.

With Pete, you don't know if the game was won or lost legitimately, or if the outcome was doctored.

[nymr83]

I don't know why he is even still a topic for conversation.

[Guest d'Kong76]

It's his hair.

[MFS62]

metsmarathon wrote: There's a huge difference between rose and bonds, et al. With ped users, you know that the actual competition on the field is legit. The talent may be fraudulent, but the outcome is legit. With Pete, you don't know if the game was won or lost legitimately, or if the outcome was doctored.

That's a good way to explain the difference to people who don't see one between those two transgressions.

Later

[Vic Sage]

Fuck Pete and the horse he rode in (and bet) on.

[metsmarathon]

Edgy MD wrote: what borderline case has it pushed a guy in on? it seems to be a door that swings only one way. Three broadly admired guys that come to mind who made it in by the skin of their teeth: Gary Carter, Bill Mazeroski, and Red Schoendienst. I can't testify to the mind of every (or perhaps any) voter, but their (alleged) elevated integrity certainly was presented with their cases. I'm not sure why Gary Carter's case shouldn't be treated as borderline, as it took him six ballots. The Hall had been very stingy on catchers in the years after Bench's election. Ted Simmons, Darrell Porter, and Lance Parrish didn't sniff any support. Carlton Fisk finally broke the logjam in 2000. I also don't know why these things cited on their plaques shouldn't matter except in borderline cases. Your claim was that they don't appear at all. You're moving the goalposts on me.

well, fine. I guess I'm wrong.

it just seems to me that when people start going about making hall of fame cases for players nowadays - and maybe I'm myself no noticing it or paying attention to it or seeing that it's a factor at all - he discussion revolves primarily if not exclusively on their performance on the field. that everything else is all icing on the cake, and a way to say something extra nice about a good player, to tell why we should care if a guy gets the nod. it does not feel to me that it is a factor in the decision, that it even moves the needle, except in the negative.

and perhaps I'm wrong. I guess i'll have to look closer.

though right now, it's a hell of a lot harder to do that, because, rose aside, the only character and integrity the voters care about it if they guess or surmise that a player used PEDs, and all else be damned.

carter may well be a borderline case based on the fact that he was not a first-ballot guy, but he shouldn't have been, as his playing career clearly merited it. actually, it might be possible to take on a view, just for the sake of being argumentative, that if character and integrity and sportsmanship and contributing to a team really meant a damn, that carter should've sailed in easier, no?

Jackie's comps are a difficult lot. however, one thing that's missing is that those guys are all 25-ish WAR guys, whereas Jackie was a 61 WAR guy, per bbref. and of that, it's predominantly offensive value. now, I'm not suggesting that he was voted in because of his WAR, but that, in hindsight, if robinson was not voted in for his on-the-field accomplishments, he should have been, and would have been deserving, and should not have been a borderline candidate.

sorry for moving the goalposts. I just like seeing the players crash into them. hooray, chaos!

[Ceetar]

Part of that has to be that 'character' roughly meant a writer's personal opinion about a guy and so much of the Hall talk nowadays happens outside of those subset of writers. Most of which don't interact with the players on a daily basis.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

I hate fake, harumphy moralizing from a guy/league office now pretty heavily invested in DraftFantasyRegents or whatever AND I have no affinity for Pete Rose (even his achievements, such as they are leave me cold; like, say, Jeter's exploits, I acknowledge that they're HOF-worthy, even as they never, ever thrilled me).

So, yeah, fIle under, "I STILL Don't Give A Sweaty, Hairy, Hard-Sliding Poo."

[Guest d'Kong76]

[fimg=650:3uxb83zt]https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/t31.0-8/10259306_10153407093138719_1581413066992395238_o.jpg[/fimg:3uxb83zt]

[Edgy MD]

Reds have announced that Pete Rose will be inducted into their team Hall of Fame. They've long operated under the premised that him being on the ineligible list should make him ineligible for their Hall, but they've clearly changed their minds, likely with the realization that his banishment has a good chance of outliving him.

His number hasn't be officially retired by the team, but has been removed from circulation, with the exception of a brief assignment to Pete Rose, Jr., so that will probably be part of his induction as well.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Number to be retired as well...
http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb-news/4691793-pete-rose-number-14-reds-retired-number

[Benjamin Grimm]

While they're at it, they should retire The Sporting News.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I don't frequent TSN, it was just the first google result.

[MFS62]

The Sporting News still covers baseball?
Surprising.

Later