Should players under suspension be eligible for enshrinement to the Hall of Fame?

[Fuzzy Bear]

This is a simple question.

The HOF, in order to accomodate MLB, made a rule that no player under suspension shall be eligible for election to the HOF.

Twenty three players in the history of baseball have been banned for life (or, as with Rose, indefinitely) for gambling activities (all but Rose were involved in game fixing).

Of these 23 players, only Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson would have been sure-fire HOFers. (Eddie Cicotte and Lefty Williams were discussed in another thread, but the general consensus here seemed to be that Cicotte was borderline, at best.)

I'll let the poll choices speak for themselves.

[Fuzzy Bear]

As for me, I believe that it is improper to honor a player by electing him to the HOF who is, at the time of balloting, under suspension from baseball for crookedness.

Jackson helped to throw a World Series. IMO, he's toast.

Rose gambled, but did not throw games. There is a possibility for restoration here, and I think Pete should be restored, and his suspension lifted. Once that is done, he should become eligible for HOF election.

[JamesI]

I don't think that you can have it both ways. Either they are both hall of famers, or neither. I say drop the rule and give them each a chance.

[Skip]

I say ditch the rule and allow both to stand for election. The writers/VC can then act at they wish. If they feel that both or either player should be kept out anyway, I'd personally disagree, but I could support such a decision moreso than many that have been made wrt other players being in or out. The BBWAA/VC have the vote ... let them use it.

[Rinkster]

This game is in such a mess right now I wouldn't mind Pete Rose suing MLB for not living up to the agreement both sides signed.

Pete Rose signed an agreement that more or less admitted he gambled on sports (but not baseball), and one of the reasons he signed the agreement was the provision that MLB not further tarnish his image by offering the opinion that he bet on baseball games.

Well, we know what happened shortly after the agreement, the commish declared that he believed Pete Rose bet on baseball.

Right then, Rose should have sued their asses off. Right then, Rose should have made John Dowd look like magician that he is.

Last time I looked, I still lived in a land where you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. But tonite, sitting here in Lawrence, KS, I heard a bunch of idiots calling into a local sports talk show about how it would be a shame if Pete Rose was allowed into the Hall of Fame. Not only that, but they all believe Rose bet on the Reds to LOSE, based solely on bad-ass John Dowd's recent ramblings that, if time had permitted, he could have PROVEN that Pete Rose bet on the Reds to lose.

Did I miss something? I mean, how can Dowd claim that if given enough time he could have proven that Pete Rose bet on the Reds to lose if he has not even proven that Rose bet on baseball, period?

You know, wouldn't there be a place to look to see if Rose bet on baseball?

Well, Total Baseball has a section on managers, and within that section is "A-E" which stands for Actual Wins Minus Expected Wins. Total Baseball explains A-E as a measure of the extent to which a team outperformed or underperformed its talen; for a single season or two a high figure may be attributable to chance, but over time one must credit good managing."

Well, here are some totals of a few recent managers that are highly acclaimed.

Buck Showalter:
Year: A-E
1992: -3.7
1993: 1.2
1994: 1.0
1995: 1.2
1998: -1.4
1999: -3.3
2000: 0.3
total: -4.6

Dust Baker:
1993: 4.7
1994: -2.9
1995: 6.8
1996: -2.5
1997: 9.9
1998: -2.7
1999: 1.2
2000: -0.6
total: 13.8

That looks more like the line of a manager who gambles (have a great year, the team overachievs, then have a bad year) Of course, I'm not saying Dusty Baker bet against his team, I like Dusty.

But now look at Pete Rose's career as a manager:
1984: 1.6
1985: 7.4
1986: 3.5
1987: -0.0
1988: -1.2, got suspended when team was 11-12
1988: 5.1 after he came back
1989: 1.3

Rose teams consistently performed as good, and often better, than they should have. I guess one could go back an look at his managerial strategy and see how often he did some really stupid things, but if one does that, well, Sparky Anderson would be in one of the federal prisons neaby where I reside.

I guess what makes me sick about the entire Pete Rose mess are the numbnuts (myself included) that believe they know whether or not Rose bet on baseball. I'd go so far as to bet (no pun intended) that more than two-thirds of the people with an opinion on this issue have not only never read the Dowd report, but not even read a major report ABOUT the Dowd report.

The people who are crying for Rose wish that he would "just fess up and admit he bet on baseball" or better yet, those who KNOW (how?) that he bet on baseball and won't settle for anything that Rose admitting and apologizing and begging for mercy, well, both of those types of people make me sick.

They remind of my friends growing up that had terrible parents. You know, the kind who accuse their children of doing something stupid, like smoking pot because they found a lighter in the back seat of the car (when in reality ithe lighter was to used to shoot off bottle rockets at your buddy's car, cruising down a city street), and no matter what you say (even if you admit to the bottle rockets) those parents condemn you to hell?

Well, that is what MLB has done with Pete Rose. They have condemned him without even considering that, while he may be a louse that gambled on sports, he may NOT be a louse that gambled on baseball.

True, Rose signed an agreement that found him guilty of betting (but not on baseball), but you know that Rose would ask to be let back into the game eventually. I think Fat Bart and Bald Fay knew this as well, and they knew that without BREAKING THEIR END OF THE AGREEMENT, which they did when they said they believed Rose bet on baseball, the public sentiment in favor of Rose would be even larger than it is today.

Bill James once wrote that "you don't BEGIN the rehabilitation of baseball's Wronged Man by putting him in the Hall of Fame. That's where you end it."

I say you should go back farther than that. You don't condem a man for life without PROVING he did the crime.

If Rose admits he bet on baseball, fine, hang the bastard. Until then, I hope he sues baseball and forces them to PROVE it with the hoodlums, trash, felons and phantoms who have changed their minds about what they know and who they know regarding Pete Rose betting on baseball.

I may be naive, but damn it, this is America, and even a scum like Rose has rights.

By the way, when Rose first came up with the Reds, his teammates hated him, with the exception of Frank Robinson and...
Vada Pinson (you KNEW I'd get Vada's name in here somehow).

[pwdennis]

I say:

Keep the rule
Lift the suspension on Rose (AFTER the proper act of contrition)
Let the Hall of Fame electors vote whether or not to induct him

[WiredTiger]

Rinkster... I like your style. You have been a welcome addition to our discussions.

I believe that both Jackson and Rose should remain suspended and not be allowed into the HOF. I would be more inclined to reinstate Jackson at this time then Rose.

Jackson is a tough case. He played in such a different era. Players were screwed by the owners on a regular basis. But he broke the rules and was suspended. He may have given a good effort and he may have tried to give the money back but he still was involved and still knew of the plans.

I have gone back and forth on Rose. Did he bet on the Reds? Did he bet on other Major League Baseball games? If either or both of those are true then in my opinion Rose should not be reinstated. Say he bet on the Reds to win one game. What is stop him from using all of his best relief pitchers for that game regardless of the long term consequences? There are a lot of things a manager could do to try to win one specific game that could hurt the integrity of the game.

[KCBOOMER]

For those of us who are logic driven these are fairly simple cases. Beyond a shadow of a doubt Jackson agreed to throw a World Series in exchange for money. This has been amply proven and demonstrated. You simply cannot allow such an individual in to your most hallowed institution. If Shoeless Joe's name was just Joe Jackson this question wouldn't even be raised.

As for Ol' Pete isn't as great (the regular season not being quite the deal the WS is) but nonetheless he signed a document agreeing to bebanned from the game. Whether he would have signed it if he had known about the revocation of being placed on the HoF ballot is a moot point. A man of Pete Rose's arrogance is not going to sign such a thing without a gun to his head.

The only gun MLB has is the baseball gambling thing. It takes no flight of fancy to make the fairly obvious conclusion that Pete bet on baseball. For the apologists who simply can't accept that ("I want proof" and "guilty until proven innocent") I don't know what to say other than wake up and smell the coffee.

The only real unknown is whether he bet on Reds games or not. This we all would like to know. If he only bet on games involving other teams then I think we could all quickly agree that Pete has been punished and should be allowed on the HoF ballot. It would be up to the sportswriters then.

However, if he bet on a game in which the Reds were involved then he is deep water. Many of us would take the line that unless he bet to win on every Reds game and bet exactly the same amount, not exactly a likely scenario, he has committed the same crime as betting against his own team. If you only bet to win, but don't bet on every game is the same as telling the world the Reds probably won't win that day. There is certainly the implication that the bettor would do what he could to win games he bet on which could negatively impact the games he didn't bet on.

But, we just don't know the answer to this so it comes down to belief. I believe he bet on baseball and that he bet on Reds games. Therefore he can rot outside of the HoF. But, I'm willing to be proven wrong. Let's have Rose give MLB a waiver on the deal he signed and give them (MLB) a year to ddemonstrate whether he bet on baseball and the Reds. If they can't come up with reasonable evidence then Pete walks.

By the way, get off John Dowd's back. He didn't call a press conference to make his claims about Pete betting on/against the Reds. Reporter tracked down Dowd and asked him those questions. After he answered them he expressed regret that he had spoken because of the lack of credible evidence to support his opinion. The reporters could have done the right thing and left that out of their stories but they didn't.

[Jim Rice]

I've said this before here, but it bears repeating. Pete Rose is to blame for his own difficulties for a variety of reasons.

- Associating with known gamblers is forbidden by baseball and that rule is posted in every clubhouse, yet Rose admitted to placing bets from the very clubhouse in which that rule was posted. Even assuming we believe that he didn't bet on baseball, that's grounds for an immediate one-year ban.

- Rose readily signed a document that allowed baseball to ban him for life. By doing so he gave his consent that baseball has a right to police itself, as a private institution, one which can set its own rules for conduct and its own rules for evidence. The entire "innocent until proven guilty" argument DOES NOT APPLY because Rose signed a written agreement taking responsibility for acts that justified a lifetime ban. If he didn't think the punishment fit the crime, he shouldn't have signed the deal.

- Personally, I think baseball DID breach that agreement by then publicly stating that Rose is believed to have bet on baseball. It's absolutely a breach of contract and it's probably slander, yet PETE ROSE HAS NEVER ACTED UPON IT. If he really is innocent of those charges, which means baseball CAN'T have any evidence to prove those statements by Giamatti and Vincent are true, Rose should have immediately filed suit. The fact that he didn't is suspicious, and, frankly, suspicious acts by a man who has agreed in writing that he is deserving of a lifetime ban from his chosen profession are ample grounds to ask that he PROVE that he has been wronged. Again, his disagreement is with a private institution, one than can set any rules it wants as long as they don't breach the law. Rose has never made any attempt to baseball has breached any law, either by unfairly terminating him or by breaching their contract or by publicly slandering his "good" name.

To me, an apology or an admission of wrongdoing is absolutely worthless. I want PROOF that he didn't bet on the game. If the Dowd Report is as full of holes as Rose and his supporters claim, it should be fairly simple to shoot it to pieces in a court of law, where more strict rules of evidence apply. Until that happens, he should be OUT, of the game and the Hall.

Regarding Jackson, his case is even worse than Rose's. Sorry, but I can't agree to giving the game's highest honor to anyone who admitting taking money to throw its most important games.

[mentos]

I voted for 'Ditch Rule, elect Both'

Although Honestly, I only care about the Rule Ditching, I really have not made up my mind on whether or how either of those players should be enshrined.

I dont think Jackson would get elected by the writers.
Rose may have over half the writers, but I think it might be close as to whether he can get 75%.

Either way, let those people decide.

Or I guess in a more indirect way, you can even put that rule up to a vote by the writers, with and if 75% of them disagree, remove it.

(1) The Hall of Fame has the right to set its own rules. If it decided to bar "banned" players from eligibility, then they were within their legitimate bounds to do so.

(2) The Hall of Fame, apparently, didn't need such a rule from 1936-1990 because voters were intelligent enough not to support the candidacy players on the list. I believe Joe Jackson received something like two votes during that entire time. Eddie Cicotte and Buck Weaver each received a vote or two also, I believe. None of these players ever received significant support in any single election, however, to the best of my knowledge.

(3) The Hall created this rule because they believed - and I agree - that Rose would have been elected upon becoming eligible in spite of his ban.

(4) I think the rule makes sense. It makes no sense to pay baseball's highest honor to someone who isn't allowed to associate with the game.

(5) I'm not sure - and this is a separate topic - but here's the question I'm interested in:

Should people be removed from the "ineligible list" after their death?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by BigKlu
(1) The Hall of Fame has the right to set its own rules. If it decided to bar "banned" players from eligibility, then they were within their legitimate bounds to do so.

(2) The Hall of Fame, apparently, didn't need such a rule from 1936-1990 because voters were intelligent enough not to support the candidacy players on the list. I believe Joe Jackson received something like two votes during that entire time. Eddie Cicotte and Buck Weaver each received a vote or two also, I believe. None of these players ever received significant support in any single election, however, to the best of my knowledge.

(3) The Hall created this rule because they believed - and I agree - that Rose would have been elected upon becoming eligible in spite of his ban.

(4) I think the rule makes sense. It makes no sense to pay baseball's highest honor to someone who isn't allowed to associate with the game.

(5) I'm not sure - and this is a separate topic - but here's the question I'm interested in:

Should people be removed from the "ineligible list" after their death?

Great post, BigKlu! Your statements go to the heart of the issue in this post, IMO.

Regarding point #3 of your post, the HOF enacted the rule banning the induction of suspended players at the behest of MLB, which touched off a controversy with the B. B. W. A. A. at the time.
The B. B. W. A. A. threatened to refuse to particpate in electing players and were mollified with a modification of Vets Committee procedure, in which players could only be elected by the Vets Committee if they received a minimum % of the writer's vote while on the B. B. W. A. A. ballot. (I believe that the modification has since been modified again; rules for induction are never really set in stone.)

Personally, I think it's rather pompous of the writers to threaten to give up their HOF voting privileges. I'm sure a whole gaggle of folks posting here would pay for the privilege of voting on HOF inductees. I guess the writers need to be educated as to the difference between a privilege and a right, but that's another post.

As for your point #5, my position is that players found to have thrown games or conspired to throw game should be ineligible permanently, during this life and the next. All others should be eligible for reinstatement on a case-by-case basis. There is a difference between stupid actions and actions deliberately calculated to undermine baseball.

[TimmyB]

NO NO NO!!! A thousand times, "NO!"

I do not believe there can be some sort of "SIN-O-METER" when it comes to betting on your own team. The rules don't state degrees of bad-ness.

Bet on your own team, you're out.

Jackson's case is clear-cut. Rose signed a lifetime ban. Goodnight, Irene.

[TimmyB]

And, no, I don't think there should be a post-mortem "get out of jail free" card. Rules is rules.

[gyb13]

keep'em both out