Wanted to see Rose get in while he was alive but hope he gets voted in but I’m knot sure how the veteran committee will treat him. I think Shoeless Joe definitely gets in.
Comments (29)
sorted by:
The Black Sox took money to lose.
That seems worse than betting to win (making an inside baseball conflict of interest that casual outside-baseball fans don't care about)
Yep but I thought shoeless Joe wasn’t in on it or he was unaware
That would be a fair point if true
I am an outside-baseball person. What conflict of interest is there from betting to win?
Managers (as Pete was at the time) decide to throw individual games in order to rest their players to potentially increase the odds of winning the overall series(5 to 7 games) against another team.
Baseball players work for a living, they play almost everyday, so they don't have enough time to rest between games.
The whole calculus behind it is complex and requires much experience, so the below example is mostly talking out of my ass, as I also am more outside baseball.
So the idea is, if you anticipate your opponent fielding their best pitcher, you might want to field your worse pitcher and tell your players not to play too hard so they can rest to play as hard as possible for the rest of the series.
Personally, as a casual fan, I would be highly annoyed to pay good money for a game, only to see my team basically throw it. The only inside-baseball fan I have known in meatspace was a season ticket holder, and that probably has a lot more to do with why they like it.
Betting to win on a game might make you try to win a game you could have used to increase the odds of winning the whole series. A bit like a long distance runner making a bet that they will have the best time on lap 2, but exhausting themselves on that lap so hard they get last place overall in the whole race.
That makes sense, thanks for the explanation.
If you're in the league you're not allowed to bet on any game at all. I think the rules might even apply to no betting at all but someone who knows more than me would have to confirm that.
Not much of a sports guy, but just on principle going off the comments here; I don't care too much about personal life - quite a few athletes are shit people, but it's about athleticism, not being a great person - but I think anything directly related to sportsmanship or performance should be delt with harshly. Throwing games should definitely be discouraged. Although I didn't see it mentioned in relation to these players, obviously anyone breaking the rules to get an advantage, like with performance enhancing drugs, can't make the cut.
Problem is they didn’t care about steroids until early 00s. That era in the 80s and 90s is called steroid era and they didn’t test people so technically can’t prove they were on anything. Also the league benefited greatly from more home runs. Rose either never bet on his own team or only bet on his team to win. Against the rules and the players mentioned are dead so their ban is over. I would say they have paid for their “baseball sins”
There is a morals clause for the selection to the Baseball HOF.
No wonder there’s so many beaners
Hehe, I changed it to be correct.
¡Ay Caramba! Have you no morales, essae?
There only exists two possibilities.
We judge ranks and hall of fames as "inspirational heroes" and make constant moral judgements about who gets in, which comes at the expense of any talk about how good they are being useless because you never know how many got cut for being assholes.
The other is we just keep it objective and simple. Whatever metric the ranking uses is sufficient and the only disqualifiers are things that are blatantly against the rules of the time, and if rules change (like with roids) then you make a second list with/without or asterisk it. This gives you always the best, but you have to acknowledge shitty people instead of unpersoning them like our society prefers to do.
I can see an argument for the first option. That's one that is important to teach and sell to kids, because sports stars do have tremendous pull with them across the nation. But that's also a dangerous subjective road that you need extremely trustable authorities to decide.
While option two means a lot of awkward conversations and explanations, but gives us the raw data we care about it.
Rose has the numbers but is still a longshot because of the statutory rape allegations, not being liked, generally being considered a bad dude.
Know less about the baseball case for Shoeless Joe. He seems more likely to get in because no one remembers what actually happened and he's become a legend in his own right.
No one cares about the statutory rape allegations. None of the voters ever bring it up. They care about the betting
The leftists certainly do.
And baseball is overrun with them these days, particularly the sportswriters.
Were those allegations ever proven? Or did he admit to them? Honestly don’t know. Even though he was before my time I’ve always been a fan of his playing career. Got a ton of his baseball cards
They came out in 2017 some 40 years later.
I've seen mention of a civil suit with discovery, but not sure whatever came of it.
Rose, Bonds, Clemens, Palermo, and Shoeless should all be in the HOF. I'm so sick of sanctimonious baseball journalists nerds deciding on it. They have zero proof Bonds took PEDs, and even if you took out his 7 MVP seasons he'd have 4 hundred and something home runs. Clemens isn't in because they dislike his politics.
Clemens also has some potential statutory rape/grooming allegations against him from a country singer who heroed herself in 2013, Mindy McCready
Though I do agree that all the moral relativism is all fake & gay. They all should be in of their numbers are there.
Agreed. There are those in the HOF who tested positive and some with suspicion. Problem is that MLB and Selig didn’t care until early 2000s and was happy to get the production. McGwire and Sosa home run chase was great for baseball
Rose. Yes. Absolutely. The biggest crime in baseball history that he's been frozen out.
The Blacksox? Hell no. Except Joe every one of them can stay in purgatory where they belong.
Joe gets in, I think Rose was betting on his own team so I don't think he should get in.
Shoeless took money to throw a World Series, how is that more forgivable than betting on your team? And he shouldn't make it as a coach, he should go in as a player.
If I remember correctly they say Shoeless Joe wasn’t in on it
He was betting on his team to win but I want to see the hit king in the HOF
Halls of fame are all kind of artificial constructed bullshit. In that sense, none of this matters. Pete Rose was one of the greatest baseball players ever, whether or not the league acknowledges it, and whether or not a bunch of sportswriter dorks formalize it via their vote.
That said, I get the freakout over gambling on your own team. Doing so undermines the legitimacy of the competition, and a legitimate competition is what you’re selling to paying customers.
On the other hand, Pete Rose seems like a cool dude.
In any case, he’s already in the only hall of fame that matters (WWE)
Yep. Loved his interactions with Kane. Pete should be in and you could argue that he paid his punishment. I think he would’ve given an epic speech
Oh my god, yeah, the real shame is that this happened after he died