Mike Schmidt on Pete Rose

[Why Not?]

What I find funny is that he acknowledges that Hank Aaron couldn't get through to Selig, even though by all accounts he kinda has Selig's ear...so what's Schmidt's soapboxing going to accomplish? It doesn't really matter what one thinks of the situation, it's pretty clear what Selig thinks, and he's almost like a child sticking his fingers in his ears going "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING" whenever the topic is broached.

Why should Selig listen? Rose clearly broke a rule, he's suffered the consequenses. It's pretty clear-cut. To me, re-instating Rose is akin eliminating the anti-gambling rule altogether. The rule exists for a reason.

[The Wedge]

Why should Selig listen? Rose clearly broke a rule, he's suffered the consequenses. It's pretty clear-cut. To me, re-instating Rose is akin eliminating the anti-gambling rule altogether. The rule exists for a reason.

You missed my meaning. Either listen, or don't listen. Selig has been intentionally fence-sitting for the entirety of his tenure on the issue, constantly saying things like "it's under advisement," or "his case is being reviewed." Pick a line, go with it. He obviously has no intention of re-instating Rose, so why can't he man up and simply say that?

[scOtt]

I haven't weighed in, as much because I don't want to get all riled up and re-banned again...

Sailor J makes a VERY good point I never thought of... Pete only bet on the Reds to win.... but he didn't bet them every day. Some days he bagged it and that's like SEC insider information.

I'm still full-on ON for Shoeless Joe. He deserves to be in. Babe frickin' Ruth modeled his swing on Joe's.....

[scOtt]

Babe Ruth Career:

.342/.474/.690/1.164

Joe Jackson Career:

.356/.423/.517/.940

[Why Not?]

You missed my meaning. Either listen, or don't listen. Selig has been intentionally fence-sitting for the entirety of his tenure on the issue, constantly saying things like "it's under advisement," or "his case is being reviewed." Pick a line, go with it. He obviously has no intention of re-instating Rose, so why can't he man up and simply say that?

Lighten up Francis. There's no need for attack mode.

All I'm saying that it's a question he doesn't have to answer. You're right, it IS obvious what Selig's stance is...so what's the big deal about him having a diplomatic response to the Rose question? He doesn't want to appear to open the window to reinstatement, but he doesn't want to unnecessarily be mean-spirited either.

When Schmidt or Aaron have an opinion, it's not a bad tactic to say "Thanks, we'll put it in the file" and let the issue die for another 10 months or so.

[DrungoHazewood]

Babe Ruth Career:

.342/.474/.690/1.164

Joe Jackson Career:

.356/.423/.517/.940

Jackson's career rate stats will always look extra super great because over the ages where most everybody gets old and decrepit he was 0-for-0.

[DrungoHazewood]

I find it interesting that the poster here who most frequently champions changing baseball from antiquated rules and laws still clings to the notion that players who gambled shouldn't be given a second look for the hall of fame. Care to clarify?

Yea, gambling is the one thing that can turn a legitimate sport into the WWE in no time flat. The entire foundation of real sports is that each contest is being played by two teams of players each trying their hardest to win. Gambling by anyone with a stake in the game blows that up, and threatens to take the whole sport with it.

Allow leniency for gamblers and you might as well dress Nick and Brian and Matt up in tights, give 'em outlandish nicknames, and schedule the steel cages.

[Boy Howdy]

Honestly, I think baseball and the HOF wind up looking pretty ridiculous when the guy with more hits than anybody in the history of the sport can't even get a plaque in the HOF.

The bigwigs determined that Pete's shady dealings made him unfit to manage in the big leagues, so he lost his job and welcome mat towards future employment. That's fine.

But what of the 4256 hits. three World Series rings, 17 All-Star appearances, three batting titles, two Gold Gloves, MVP & Rookie-of-the-Year award, etc...?

With all the bad vibes heading Pete's way, you'd think he failed to run out a grounder in an mid-August contest with his last place team down eight runs...but anyone who saw him play knows that's not the case.

I wasn't much of a Rose fan when he played, in fact I disliked him because I rooted against the Reds & Phillies. But I sniff injustice in the way baseball's resolved his status, and I think the great game is really shooting itself in the foot here.

[wildcard]

How do we know that Rose didn't bet on his team to lose? Whose word are we taking that he didn't? Rose's?

If I thought the fix was in when I watched a ball game, I would probably stop watching. And so would many others.

It's bad enough that the teams are unbalanced by a large difference in payroll, that all of us know about. If the managers were rigging the games by making moves that caused loses. That would be it for me.

Rose knew the rules. He knew why they were there. He choose to break the most important rule. He caused the fair play of the game to be questioned. Is that the kind of player that deserves to be in the Hall?

[Why Not?]

Honestly, I think baseball and the HOF wind up looking pretty ridiculous when the guy with more hits than anybody in the history of the sport can't even get a plaque in the HOF.

The bigwigs determined that Pete's shady dealings made him unfit to manage in the big leagues, so he lost his job and welcome mat towards future employment. That's fine.

But what of the 4256 hits. three World Series rings, 17 All-Star appearances, three batting titles, two Gold Gloves, MVP & Rookie-of-the-Year award, etc...?

With all the bad vibes heading Pete's way, you'd think he failed to run out a grounder in an mid-August contest with his last place team down eight runs...but anyone who saw him play knows that's not the case.

I wasn't much of a Rose fan when he played, in fact I disliked him because I rooted against the Reds & Phillies. But I sniff injustice in the way baseball's resolved his status, and I think the great game is really shooting itself in the foot here.

How do you figure? He admitted (albeit much, much after the fact) that he bet on baseball. He did it. He broke the rule.

[RShack]

Honestly, I think baseball and the HOF wind up looking pretty ridiculous when the guy with more hits than anybody in the history of the sport can't even get a plaque in the HOF.

The bigwigs determined that Pete's shady dealings made him unfit to manage in the big leagues, so he lost his job and welcome mat towards future employment. That's fine.

But what of the 4256 hits. three World Series rings, 17 All-Star appearances, three batting titles, two Gold Gloves, MVP & Rookie-of-the-Year award, etc...?

With all the bad vibes heading Pete's way, you'd think he failed to run out a grounder in an mid-August contest with his last place team down eight runs...but anyone who saw him play knows that's not the case.

I wasn't much of a Rose fan when he played, in fact I disliked him because I rooted against the Reds & Phillies. But I sniff injustice in the way baseball's resolved his status, and I think the great game is really shooting itself in the foot here.

I completely agree. IMO, the guy's a worm but he deserves to be in the HOF for one reason: He has more hits than anybody.

This is an issue that has zilch to do with whether he is banned from baseball. He can be banned from baseball for the rest of his life for all I care. He's got nobody to blame for that but himself. But that should have nothing to do with whether his legitimate and timeless accomplishments are acknowledged in The Baseball Museum, which is exactly what the HOF really is. Being banned from a baseball job is a different thing than being banned from being in a history museum. Why people have to blur these 2 issues together is beyond me.

[The Wedge]

I completely agree. IMO, the guy's a worm but he deserves to be in the HOF for one reason: He has more hits than anybody.

This is an issue that has zilch to do with whether he is banned from baseball. He can be banned from baseball for the rest of his life for all I care. He's got nobody to blame for that but himself. But that should have nothing to do with whether his legitimate and timeless accomplishments are acknowledged in The Baseball Museum, which is exactly what the HOF really is. Being banned from a baseball job is a different thing than being banned from being in a history museum. Why people have to blur these 2 issues together is beyond me.

Well, in that sense, he (and many other banned players, including Jackson) are "in." There are plenty of mentions and/or memorabilia in the Museum section of the HOF for Rose AND Jackson. The Museum is a wholly separate entity of the HOF, though it's obviously the bigger "attraction." I even had to explain that to a couple of people when I went, who were looking at some of Rose's stuff and remarking "I thought he couldn't be in the Hall of Fame?" Told them that only meant he couldn't be inducted and have a plaque downstairs.

But really...now that I've said that, why do they allow that? More people "get that" than they do the actual Hall with the plaques...I know you can't erase history, but it gives off a weird double impression that confuses most people.

[The Wedge]

Lighten up Francis. There's no need for attack mode.

All I'm saying that it's a question he doesn't have to answer. You're right, it IS obvious what Selig's stance is...so what's the big deal about him having a diplomatic response to the Rose question? He doesn't want to appear to open the window to reinstatement, but he doesn't want to unnecessarily be mean-spirited either.

When Schmidt or Aaron have an opinion, it's not a bad tactic to say "Thanks, we'll put it in the file" and let the issue die for another 10 months or so.

Lighten up Francis? I wasn't even IN attack mode.

If it's a question he doesn't have to, or doesn't want to, answer, that's fine. He should say that. Selig has been this kind of wet noodle wishy washy commish, and this is more evidence of that. If he's not going to do it, then he should find a diplomatic way of doing that. Maybe "I personally am never going to reinstate Pete Rose during my tenure. Perhaps my successor will feel differently." All he does with the "we're thinking about it" stuff is give hope to the backers, and fuel for the detractors. If he came out and simply said what we can all surmise, then this topic wouldn't come up as often as it does, because we would all know we'd have to wait until he wasn't commissioner anymore.

[DrungoHazewood]

Honestly, I think baseball and the HOF wind up looking pretty ridiculous when the guy with more hits than anybody in the history of the sport can't even get a plaque in the HOF.

The bigwigs determined that Pete's shady dealings made him unfit to manage in the big leagues, so he lost his job and welcome mat towards future employment. That's fine.

But what of the 4256 hits. three World Series rings, 17 All-Star appearances, three batting titles, two Gold Gloves, MVP & Rookie-of-the-Year award, etc...?

With all the bad vibes heading Pete's way, you'd think he failed to run out a grounder in an mid-August contest with his last place team down eight runs...but anyone who saw him play knows that's not the case.

I wasn't much of a Rose fan when he played, in fact I disliked him because I rooted against the Reds & Phillies. But I sniff injustice in the way baseball's resolved his status, and I think the great game is really shooting itself in the foot here.

Can you imagine the circus that would surround a Pete Rose HOF induction? Can you imagine Pete Rose, after 20+ years of lying and shifting positions and sitting in downtown Cooperstown signing autographs for $50 and telling everyone who'll listen that he was shafted, giving a humble, contrite induction speech that reflected well on baseball?

It would be a disaster. Baseball's highest honor and one of its biggest stages being handed to a man who spent the better part of two decades as one of baseball's biggest PR nightmares. Remember Cal's induction weekend? Think (1/that).

No matter how many firewalls and explanations (he's just in as a player!) and excuses, the headlines in every paper in the country will be "Baseball Gives In, Puts Gambler at Sport's Pinnacle".

[DrungoHazewood]

I completely agree. IMO, the guy's a worm but he deserves to be in the HOF for one reason: He has more hits than anybody.

This is an issue that has zilch to do with whether he is banned from baseball. He can be banned from baseball for the rest of his life for all I care. He's got nobody to blame for that but himself. But that should have nothing to do with whether his legitimate and timeless accomplishments are acknowledged in The Baseball Museum, which is exactly what the HOF really is. Being banned from a baseball job is a different thing than being banned from being in a history museum. Why people have to blur these 2 issues together is beyond me.

His memorabilia is in the Hall. They have balls and bats and gloves from his various accomplishments.

What they haven't done is given him a bronze plaque in the Hall. Which is exactly as it should be. They acknowledge his feats, but they refuse to honor the man.