HOF thread

[Heltonfan]

Absolutely. I'm in complete agreement with Roxpert as to the seriousness of Rose's offense, but that offense shouldn't keep him out of the Hall.

[indianadrew]

"Keep Rose out. Read the rules for induction, and you'll agree"


roxpert i have been looking for the rules for entry into the hall. i cant find them anywhere. please post a link if you would.

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by indianadrew

roxpert i have been looking for the rules for entry into the hall. i cant find them anywhere. please post a link if you would.

Ask, and ye shall receive....


Rules for Election to the Hall of Fame


The reason I disqualify Rose from induction is Rule #5....

5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.


Not only was Rose a tax-cheat and involved in illegal gambling, he LIED to the public about it for 14 years, denying he had bet on baseball until just a couple years ago. In my view, he does not possess the "integrity" or "character" required of a HOF inductee.

Of course, there are countless scoundrels who have made it into the HOF. Ty Cobb is often used as an example....he was a known biggot and racist, plus he played dirty. I've never believed two wrongs, three wrongs, or countless wrongs make a right. Rose is the most glaring example of where Rule #5 should be applied. Thus, while he's alive, I'd keep him out.

After he dies, if the veteran's committee wishes to vote him in posthumously, then I may be inclined to support it.

[Heltonfan]

In my view, he does not possess the "integrity" or "character" required of a HOF inductee.

Integrity or character isn't "required," though. It's merely a part of the whole picture to consider.

Is there any player in the history of the game who accomplished enough that you would vote for them in spite of a Rose-like offense? If not, what level of on-field greatness would a player have to achieve in order to pull that off?

Personally... if Rose were in, say, the 25th percentile of HOFers (in terms of on-field accomplishments), I'd probably vote to keep him out. But he's not. He's in the 80th percentile or so. You basically have to view the integrity clause as a "trump card" in order to conclude that he doesn't belong in the Hall.

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by Heltonfan

Is there any player in the history of the game who accomplished enough that you would vote for them in spite of a Rose-like offense? If not, what level of on-field greatness would a player have to achieve in order to pull that off?

Rule #5 is subject to some interpretation. The integrity and character clause means different things to different voters. To me, it is a prerequisite, not just one aspect of an entire "body of work". To answer your question, there is no player, no matter how great, that I would vote into the HOF if found to have commited the one cardinal sin in baseball, betting on his sport, and to have lied about it publicly for an extended period of time. That, to me, is a deal-breaker for anyone up for HOF consideration, even if he's in the top 1-percentile.

Every clubhouse has a sign plainly visible saying that no baseball betting is allowed. Ever since the Black Sox scandal, it is the one taboo that is traditionally off limits to everyone on the team, including players, coaches, and managers. That Pete Rose did it, was found to have gambled incesisntly on sports, and yet denied that he bet on baseball until later in life is a disqualifying flaw of integrity and character. If he had been the all-time leader in hits AND homeruns, I would have thought the same thing.

Having said all that, at some point he should be ELIGIBLE to be on the ballot. Maybe that time should be now. But, in no way do I think he should be voted in by the BBWAA even if on the ballot.

[rockieprogress]

Roxpert,
"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

And using that rule, please explain to me why Pete Rose is being kept out as a PLAYER.
The offenses against him, are from his being a Manager, and I would agree with your premise that he should be kept out of the HOF for the things he did after his PLAYING career, but aren't the Managers in a separate wing of the Hall than the players?

As I said, he should be put in for his career as a Player, with the acknowledgement that his post-player career was less than acceptable for admittance.

Can somone please PM me on how to use quotes. I'm an idiot and can't figure it out...

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by rockieprogress

Roxpert,
"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

And using that rule, please explain to me why Pete Rose is being kept out as a PLAYER.

RP, I already wrote that Rule #5 is subject to interpretation, and while someone can interpret it the way you do, only looking at the whole picture of the person WHILE he was a player, I choose to take into account the character of the person during all phases of his life.

If OJ Simpson had murdered Ron Goldman and his ex-wife Nicolle before his induction into the NFL HOF, but after his playing days, would you still want to vote him in? Would he deserve such recognition while he was still walking as a free man on this earth?

I choose to disqualify Rose based on his behavior and dishonesty we know about after his playing days because it calls into question his character even while he was a player (even though no one has accused him of betting while playing). Also, he doesn't deserve the plaudits of HOF recognition while he's alive for what he's done to stain himself and the game since.

You can interpret it differently, as I said, but I doubt that 75% of writers would agree with you and vote him in, if he were on the ballot. I certainly wouldn't.

Look for the quote button below the posts and click on it. Pretty simple.

[indianadrew]

does anybody know how to post a poll? i tried to post one as to whether or not people thought pete should be in. i think that at least 75% of the general public believes he should be in.

[rockieprogress]

Roxpert, I personally don't think OJ did kill his ex. I think his son did it. So its a moot point, but he was found not guilty anyway, so why should the writers hold OJ accountable?

In Rose's case, had he not become a Player/Manager and then Manager right after his playing career, he would've been elected into the HOF before he was convicted by Bart, and later a Jury of Tax Evasion.
Are you of the opinion that if he had been elected to the HOF, that he should've been removed from the Hall after he was found to have lied about his betting?
I personally think the writers use the HOF as a dagger to get quotes from the players. The whole Dave Kingman-Rat in a box issue comes to mind. I believe that Kingman has the most HR's for a person not elected, and if he was a "quote whore" he probably would've been given more consideration.


Everytime I click the quote button, the whole post I want to quote from comes up. Do you just erase the whole post and paste your quote in?

[Roxpert]

OJ did it. His son was how old at the time....10? Lest you forget, he was later found liable for the wrongful death of his ex-wife and friend on the preponderence of the evidence. I didn't really realize that there are still people out there who still believe OJ didn't do it. Too bad Fox never aired that stupid interview, and then maybe you would have finally come around.

I'm not sure an inducted HOFer can have his induction stripped after the fact due to any nefarious subsequent information about the person. But that's not what we are talking about with Rose, is it? Rose fortunately never got to the point of induction before the Dowd report and Bart banned him. Remember, this is punishment we are witnessing with Rose. As a player, he had all the stats needed to be a 1st ballot HOFer. His bad behavior, unsavory character, and complete lack of intergrity is what is being punished, and I agree with it.

Just delete the text in the body that you don't want to quote. It's really pretty straightforward.

[indianadrew]

as a boy growing up in the 70's i watched kingman and rose. i think they both should be in.

OJ's son was 15 at the time of the murders. i think that he was eliminated as a suspect. i think OJ did it, to me there is no doubt. i have always heard that innocent men dont run. OJ ran.

"As a player, he had all the stats needed to be a 1st ballot HOFer."

could not agree more roxpert. thats why i think he should be in. does pine tar compromise the integrity of the game? what about a spitbal or vasaline ball? how about intentionally beaning another player in the head? i think there are alot of things that go on that compromise the integrity of the game.

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by indianadrew

does pine tar compromise the integrity of the game? what about a spitbal or vasaline ball? how about intentionally beaning another player in the head? i think there are alot of things that go on that compromise the integrity of the game.

This is a total false equivalency. It's like comparing a misdemeanor to a felony, and concluding that they are both equally bad. Players have always tried to gain a physical or psychological advantage during games, so stealing signs, using pine tar, greaseballs, puffballs, etc. have been used by players.

The thing is, Gaylord Perry won 300 games because of a wicked slider and an even more wicked competitive fire, and he was never tossed from a game for using the spitter. He was dressed down a lot, but never caught in the act. Do you know why foreign substances were banned in the early 20th century? Because at the time, people were afraid it would be dangerous as doctored balls would be tougher to control and could hit someone in the head. Ironic that Perry never had trouble with control, and his spitters actually fell off a table into the dirt, nowhere near the head. Gaylord used his "weapon" as more of a pyschological ploy anyway, and didn't grease up very often.

Perry should be in the HOF because his transgressions were mild in comparison to his performance. As I wrote, a misdemeanor.

Rose should not be in the HOF because what he did off the field to stain the game, and himself, overshadows his on-field career. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it.