Peter Edward Rose Sr. "Charlie Hustle"

[Crash Course]

He played in the major leagues from 1963 to 1986.

[nyy26wc]

Very easy yes

[crazydiamond]

well, of COURSE he does
just like he obviously belongs in the Hall of Fame
betting on baseball as a MANAGER in no way affected his PLAYING career and shouldn't have an effect on it at all

[RascalJones]

And the NO's remain silent again.

[crazydiamond]

Because the only "no" argument is the following:

OMG Rose cheated on baseball and that makes him a bad person! And bad people shouldn't be recognized! Now, excuse me while I go vote for Cap Anson and Ty Cobb.

[Deep Blue]

Sorry for being quiet lately - I have been too busy at work to comment on yes or no votes.....

But here's a comment on a no vote. I am not voting against him because he is a bad person. I am sure I have voted for some bad people, and I am sure I have voted against some bad people. Frankly, I don't know enough about most of the people here to know which ones are bad and which ones aren't, and in the context of this ballot I believe that to be generally irrelevent.

For purposes of my vote, I also cannot separate what Pete Rose did as a player from what he did as a manager, any more than I can separate a player's first 5 years from his last 5 years - it is all a part of his career. For most actions, it would be hard to be a "bad" enough manager to offset a truly outstanding playing career (was Dusty Baker a "bad" enough manager for his record or for helping break so many young pitchers to offset his career - I don't think so).....

I think Pete Rose was a great, if somewhat overrated player. He was my 2nd favorite player growing up. I loved the Charlie Hustle attitude - out-hustle, out-work, out-run everyone around you. Never "walk" to first. Play any postion the team needs. I modeled some of my game after him - I was never big enough or powerful enough, nor did I have a strong enough arm or a quick enough bat - to be the star on the team. But I could always work hard enough and do enough things well and never quit, and play the game with the kind of grit and determination that Charlie Hustle had. I loved the competition, even as the usual underdog. As long as we could play the game, I was happy. Happier to win than to lose, but happy mostly just to play.

Baseball is game, a competition. It is not a pre-ordained entertainment spectacle, with winners and losers and good guys and bad guys defined ahead of time. Baseball made a very clear statement after 1919, that in order to preserve the integrity of the competition, there would be no tolerance for gambling on profesional baseball by anyone participating in the games. In the context of society as a whole, this doesn't matter. There are much more important problems in society which end up being reflected by baseball players, from drug problems to spousal abuse, from racism to violent crime. Gambling is tolerated, legalized, enabled, state-supported...... In a societal context what Pete Rose did was not nearly as bad as what many other players have done, probably even some for whom I have voted. But in the context of the sport of baseball, in the context of the competition, what he did was worse.

I recognize that my view on Pete Rose is not in the majority, either among the average fans debating his merits for the Hall of Fame, or even in this smaller group talking about selecting him for a NetShrine Gallery. I am okay with that. Not voting for Pete makes me sad, but I can live with that. I wish it were different; I wish he had not gambled on professional baseball. But he did, and I cannot vote for him now. Doesn't make me any better or worse than the people who are voting for him - like everyone else (I hope) I am voting for what I believe in. But it is not a knee jerk reaction, or some puritanical response. Nor is it a way of saying that Pete Rose is a worse person than Cap Anson or Steve Howe or Mark McGwire or anyone else. It is my carefully considered vote, and reflects my personal view as accurately as I can.

[--JDD]

From my glass house I vote yes.