Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe   < prev next > Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe -- Fri, Jul 29 2005 05:40PM Oooh, look! A can of worms! So this guy is proposing an alternative to enshrining the two most famous (and disputed) non-Hall-of-Famers. Once you get over the fact that his rambling is a cheap knock-off of Terence Mann in Field of Dreams, he's basically proposing a glorified roadside stand/shrine. It's been several years since I've been to Cooperstown, but I can't imagine this type of attraction would really fit in with the surrounding area. And could it actually make these two ballplayers seem more pathetic - i.e., would it have more of a heads-of-traitors-on-London-Bridge effect rather than the desired nostalgic effect? I don't think Rose should be enshrined, but there's a compelling argument for Jackson... Posted By Snee Posted In Baseball My two cents Linked to Users aham oreo Similar Images 88.80% 88.21% 87.96% 87.92% 87.50% Comments I don't think Rose should be enshrined, but there's a compelling argument for Jackson... first off, i think the guy who wrote this article is an idiot. this is quite possibly the stupidest idea i've ever heard of concerning pete rose (and shoelesss joe) and the hall of fame. that being said, i believe both pete rose and joe jackson deserve induction into the baseball hall of fame. i'm going to focus on rose's case here simply because i'm much more familiar with it than i am with shoeless joe's case. when he retires, i'm pretty sure joe torre will end up in the hall of fame. but not as a player with either the braves, cardinals, or mets, but as a manager with the new york yankees. torre's got pretty good numbers as a player, his best year being in '71 where he won the nl mvp, but they're not hall of fame numbers. however as a manager with the yankees, torre's numbers (winning percentage, division, league, and world titles) are hall of fame. his plaque won't say anything about this playing career, just his managing one. when it comes time to evaluate the career of joe torre, a distinction will be made, between joe torre the player (above average, not great) and joe torre the manager (lead the yankees back to prominance). for some reason, pete rose gets no such distinction. the case against rose stems from bets he made as the reds manager in 1987, the year *after* he retired as an active player (rose was player/manager for the reds from '84 to '86 and just manager from '87 to '89). there is no evidence the rose ever bet on baseball as a player. his accomplishments, as a player, are second to none, yet its his mistakes as a manager that keep him out of the hall. tony perez's sad record as a manager didn't keep him from the hall in 2000. pete rose didn't cheat his way to 4256 career hits or 3562 career games (both major league records). so why can't pete rose *the player* be inducted into the hall of fame? you can even include the fact that he was banned as a manager for gambling, eventhough, as stated before, other inducees have their playing and manager careers separated. pete rose the player (charlie hustle, the hit king) deserves to be enshrined in cooperstown and distinguished from pete rose the manager (the gambler, never made the playoffs). - aham, Fri, Jul 29 2005 08:07PM JOOC, if it could be conclusively proven that Rose on bet on the reds, and never against them... would you still be opposed to him being in the hall of fame? Our society does from on gambling to some degree, true, but if he only bet that his team would win, and wasn't involved in fixing games, there really isn't any conflict of interest. If Baseball teams were publically owned, the SEC wouldn't have any problems with an owner buying his own stock low and selling it high. The SEC only jumps in when insider trading occurs, leading one to ditch one's own stock just before a bust, hurting others. While we may not want people in a position as idols to be betting and thus teaching our children to bet, if it could be proven he never bet against his team, or organized the throwing of a game it hardly seems like he did anything really and truly wrong. Shoeless Joe on the other hand admits he knew of the Black Sox conspiracy at the very least, and did nothing about it. He seems a hell of a lot more guilty than Rose. - illini, Tue, Aug 2 2005 12:12PM Add a comment
		igophoto home    [bugs/comments] igophoto © Copyright 2006 // A Silicon Monkey Production // All rights reserved.