Rose and Jackson Off the Banned List

[The Great Hambino]

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/45115659/pete-rose-shoeless-joe-jackson-players-reinstated-mlb

A permanent ban is now officially a lifetime ban, so deceased players on the list are now eligible for the Hall

Will they get elected? Should they?  I'm going with "not immediately" and "I think so"

[dex8425]

Well, I guess the character clause still exists, right? So players who broke explicit rules of baseball should not get in, along with people like Omar Vizquel. Rose had sex with a minor during his playing days...

I'd personally rather they get rid of the character clause and vote people in based on their contribution to the game only. 

[Cory Engelhardt]

Part of me thinks the character clause should be upheld for situations like this and others. And part of me just thinks the hall of fame should be a museum that talks about the history of the sport. I guess I don't have as strong a feeling on it as I used to. He certainly was a major part of the history of the game. How do you tell the history of the sport without including it's hits leader, or for that matter it's homerun leader or arguably most dominant starting pitcher of all time?

We'll see if he does get in now. I suppose if Harold Baines got in, then every slightly above average player should right?

[Craig Arko]

Jackson, maybe. Rose, not a chance in hell.

Don’t know about the others.

[Vanimal46]

This ruling is brought to you by Fan Duel. Enter promo code ROSE14 to receive $14 in bonus bucks for every $1 you add to your account! Don’t forget, Shoeless Joe Jackson is now -170 to get into the HOF 

[Vanimal46]

I’d rather have a large than small HOF at the end of the day. Once they decided to blacklist nearly all of the sluggers/pitchers in the late 90s/2000s that got me interested in the game as a kid, the HOF lost me. 

[shortround81]

No joke. My first thought was this was Guy Fieri talking about baseball in Flavortown.

Also, his kid played in the Northern League (where the Saints played originally) and had speciality bats that said, "Hit Prince" monogrammed on them. He got heckled. A lot

[Squirrel]

 

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/45115659/pete-rose-shoeless-joe-jackson-players-reinstated-mlb

A permanent ban is now officially a lifetime ban, so deceased players on the list are now eligible for the Hall

Will they get elected? Should they?  I'm going with "not immediately" and "I think so"

You didn’t give enough choices. Rose never, Jackson maybe.

[The Great Hambino]

 

You didn’t give enough choices. Rose never, Jackson maybe.

Fair.  In my mind they were joined at the hip like Bonds and Clemens, but I didn't give it enough thought - splitting them is a reasonable opinion.

What makes it a never for Rose vs leaving the door open for Jackson for you?  I think there might be gaps in my understanding of Rose's misdeeds

[chpettit19]

I think they need to find a way to separate the "museum" side from the "Hall of Fame" side as most people think of it. When most people hear "Hall of Fame" they think of honoring the great players. "Inducted into any Hall of Fame" is how most people think of it (is my read on things at least). 

But The Hall of Fame has a bunch of Pete Rose stuff in it already. They talk about his accomplishments. He's "in" there, he's just not IN there. Same with many of the steroid era guys. I don't know how you separate those things in the consciousness of the public better, but if they could find a way to make it understood that his story is told in there while he's not enshrined as a Hall of Famer because of decisions he made, I think that's the best case scenario.

The Hall needs to figure it out. Because they're going to look pretty hypocritical if they let Pete in and not the steroid era guys. Even though they'll do what they always do and shrug their shoulders and say "it's not us, it's the voters."

As for whether I'd put them in, for his off the field, non-baseball awfulness I'd never let Rose in, but when it comes to the baseball stuff it'd just be a one size fits all decision I'd make as a group. Either we're telling voters they are voting strictly on baseball performance and ignoring any other baseball related infractions or we're making anyone with baseball related infractions ineligible. I'd vote for letting them in because they were great for the popularity of the game. Steroids saved baseball and baseball loves betting now. Buncha hypocrites.

[Vanimal46]

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/45133748/lesson-pete-rose-shoeless-joe-history-messy

Great read from Dan Wetzel.

[Mike Sixel]

He literally bet on games. No. Not even counting rape. 

[Squirrel]

 

Fair.  In my mind they were joined at the hip like Bonds and Clemens, but I didn't give it enough thought - splitting them is a reasonable opinion.

What makes it a never for Rose vs leaving the door open for Jackson for you?  I think there might be gaps in my understanding of Rose's misdeeds

Two very different cases. Jackson’s case leaves more room for doubt. Rose there is no doubt. And was far more egregious, imo

[shortround81]

 

I think they need to find a way to separate the "museum" side from the "Hall of Fame" side as most people think of it. When most people hear "Hall of Fame" they think of honoring the great players. "Inducted into any Hall of Fame" is how most people think of it (is my read on things at least). 

But The Hall of Fame has a bunch of Pete Rose stuff in it already. They talk about his accomplishments. He's "in" there, he's just not IN there. Same with many of the steroid era guys. I don't know how you separate those things in the consciousness of the public better, but if they could find a way to make it understood that his story is told in there while he's not enshrined as a Hall of Famer because of decisions he made, I think that's the best case scenario.

The Hall needs to figure it out. Because they're going to look pretty hypocritical if they let Pete in and not the steroid era guys. Even though they'll do what they always do and shrug their shoulders and say "it's not us, it's the voters."

As for whether I'd put them in, for his off the field, non-baseball awfulness I'd never let Rose in, but when it comes to the baseball stuff it'd just be a one size fits all decision I'd make as a group. Either we're telling voters they are voting strictly on baseball performance and ignoring any other baseball related infractions or we're making anyone with baseball related infractions ineligible. I'd vote for letting them in because they were great for the popularity of the game. Steroids saved baseball and baseball loves betting now. Buncha hypocrites.

I hope this isn't watering down the debate, but your post triggered something in my brain. MVP Award vs Player of the Year. 

Player of the Year = Best stats of the current MLB season

MVP = The player that helped elevate his team regardless of playoff success

So, basically a player who statistically belongs in the HoF vs one who had excellent stats but also represented MLB in an exemplary manor

(Yes, I realize the HoF is filled with d-bags, but there are also ones who were voted in with marginal HoF stats but the media liked them)

[Vanimal46]

 

He literally bet on games. No. Not even counting rape. 

As a manager he did. Pete Rose the player did not, and that is the HOF case to consider. It’s a bit hypocritical now to hold him to the flames for the rest of time when every sports league is in bed with gambling organizations… It’s the HOF, not an entry into heaven. His story should be preserved and let people make their own determinations about him. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

As a manager he did. Pete Rose the player did not, and that is the HOF case to consider. It’s a bit hypocritical now to hold him to the flames for the rest of time when every sports league is in bed with gambling organizations… It’s the HOF, not an entry into heaven. His story should be preserved and let people make their own determinations about him. 

You can have his story there without giving him a plaque. And, it's still against the rules to gamble on the game, and it still results in a ban. 

If he ever showed remorse and admitted it, I'd feel slightly different. 

Some people scream for accountability, bit didn't really want it at all for their people.... Not that you are that way... But others are.

[The Great Hambino]

It comes up more often around the PED issue, but I've seen this idea resurface with this reinstatement news: 

"The character clause means anyone associated with <issue> should be automatically DQ'd from consideration."

Here is what is actually stated in the requirements (pulled from the HOF site):

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

As it is laid out here, I can't interpret the character clause as some binary override switch that is to be used to remove someone from consideration.  It is simply one of several factors to be considered.  It's purposefully vague so that each voter can apply the criteria as they see fit, and allows for changes in attitudes and new information revealed to be considered.

Because of that, I support allowing banned players to be considered for the Hall.  If enough voters feel that the character/integrity flaws outweigh the other factors that would otherwise put them in the Hall, then so be it.  Based on the way Bonds and Clemens (and Schilling, which surprised me) didn't get close to gaining entry on their first Veterans Committee ballot, I don't think Rose and Jackson will be getting enshrined any time soon.  But I think their cases should be made and considered.

 

[DJL44]

 

What makes it a never for Rose vs leaving the door open for Jackson for you?  I think there might be gaps in my understanding of Rose's misdeeds

The rules changed in 1927 to make betting on baseball a lifetime ban. That's 8 years after the 1919 Black Sox scandal. In 1918 the league acquitted Hal Chase for throwing games despite a mountain of evidence and let him continue his career.

In contrast, Pete Rose saw a sign posting the lifetime ban every time he entered a baseball clubhouse.

[DJL44]

 

As a manager he did. Pete Rose the player did not, and that is the HOF case to consider. 

Just another Pete Rose lie.

Notebook obtained by Outside the Lines shows Pete Rose bet on baseball as player in 1986 - ESPN

[Mike Sixel]

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/sleazeballs/

Rose was brought 12-14 year old girls year after year.....

 

[TheLeviathan]

I don't think Rose should be in the HOF, more the museum thing as mentioned before.

But the league's hypocrisy on gambling is certainly of note too.

[dex8425]

On 5/14/2025 at 11:23 AM, The Great Hambino said:

It comes up more often around the PED issue, but I've seen this idea resurface with this reinstatement news: 

"The character clause means anyone associated with <issue> should be automatically DQ'd from consideration."

Here is what is actually stated in the requirements (pulled from the HOF site):

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

As it is laid out here, I can't interpret the character clause as some binary override switch that is to be used to remove someone from consideration.  It is simply one of several factors to be considered.  It's purposefully vague so that each voter can apply the criteria as they see fit, and allows for changes in attitudes and new information revealed to be considered.

Because of that, I support allowing banned players to be considered for the Hall.  If enough voters feel that the character/integrity flaws outweigh the other factors that would otherwise put them in the Hall, then so be it.  Based on the way Bonds and Clemens (and Schilling, which surprised me) didn't get close to gaining entry on their first Veterans Committee ballot, I don't think Rose and Jackson will be getting enshrined any time soon.  But I think their cases should be made and considered.

 

Totally agree. It is definitely vague, and I think that's an issue, because everyone has a different worldview and judge of character. It's not like there aren't guys who did questionable things in the HOF already. Ortiz is in, but Sosa is not? There's a double standard that seems unfair to me. If the character clause was used as a push, rather than a bar as it seems to be, that would be more acceptable-guys like Dale Murphy should get in based on a push from the character clause. Mauer may have benefited from that, but he should've got in based on his stats anyway.