Filed away in the general category of, “providing a solution to a problem that didn’t exist before yesterday,” for reasons inexplicable yesterday the MLB commissioner announced that all players who are on the “permanently ineligible” list will exit said list upon death, and thus be eligible for consideration for the Hall of Fame by one of the various selection committees in place.
Since I write a baseball blog, I’ll put in my 2 cents for the record, and it kinda goes like this:
“While I have an opinion, that I’m about to state, this is not really the hill upon which I will choose to die. If you disagree with my take, i’m not gonna argue that you’re wrong and I’m right or vice versa.”
One of the dirty little secrets of every single Hall of Fame argument, whether its about Pete Rose or Shoeless Joe Jackson, or about the litany of PED-associated players (Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, A-Rod, Manny) is this: when you actually visit the Cooperstown museum and walk around it … guess what? ALL of these guys have memorabilia scattered amongst the exhibits, they have their pictures and stories and gear memorializing their play. So, like it or not, these guys are “in” the Hall of Fame already. They just don’t have their bronze bust hanging on the walls of the well-lit corridor at the end of the tour.
Is it amazingly important to withhold the creation of these bronze plaques in order to penalize players for past actions? For many, yes. For whiny, self-important BBWAA sports writers, apparently so. For me? Meh. I’m absolutely not someone who will gaslight you and claim that Jackson didn’t throw the 1919 series by quoting his slash line from the series (because I’ve played the game and absolutely know you can “throw” your ABs in key spots to help lose a game), and I’m not going to make some ridiculous argument that because MLB now partners with Fanduel that Rose’s betting transgressions should be expunged like a Catholic who ate meat on Fridays in the 1960s before the Pope said it was ok.
I’m on record supporting PED-players “for the hall” because … well they’re amongst the best who ever played, and what’s the point of a museum honoring the best who ever played if they’re not actually recognized?? I suppose you can make the same claim for Rose and Jackson, despite what they did. You have to ask yourself: is the purpose of that hall of plaques to be a museum or to be a political statement?
If it was me, I’d select them all and write it in clear text what they did and why they’re controversal. That’ll solve the problem in an instant. Here’s how i’d write Roses’ right now:
“Pete Rose is the all time MLB hits leader [of players who didn’t start their careers in Japan, ahem Ichiro Suzuki], won the ROY and an MVP, and was famous for his tough-nosed playing style, which earned him the nickname “Charlie Hustle.” He also was banned for life when found to have bet on baseball games while managing the Cincinnati Reds and refused to accept responsibility for his involvement for decades, dying while serving a lifetime ban from the sport.”
And then i’d go on with my life, because we spend an awful lot of time arguing about this stuff for what it really is: a dinky museum in upstate NY that’s super hard to get to and which most of us will never see.
Here’s an excellent column on the subject by Jay Jaffe:
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/say-it-aint-so-commissioner-manfred-posthumously-reinstates-rose-jackson-and-others-banned-for-gambling/
He links to another excellent one at The Athletic by Ken Rosenthal if you have a subscription.
KW
14 May 25 at 6:48 pm
I’m not a fan of the PED guys, but I have less of an issue with them than I do Rose. Just a personal opinion.
Based on merit alone, Rose would belong in the HOF. He’s the hits leader, and he accumulated enough accumulating stats while playing the most games ever. What bugs me, though, is the mythology that he was one of the all-time inner-circle greats. He was fan-voted one of the top nine outfielders of the 20th century in 1999, which was crazy (ahead of Bonds, Musial, Clemente, F. Robinson, Ott, et al.).
Starting with the guys in question today:
Rose: .303/.375/.409/.784, 118 OPS+
Joe Jackson: .356/.423/.517/.940, 170 OPS+
(Wow, Shoeless Joe was really good!)
For those who think of Rose as a singles hitter “in the manner of Tony Gwynn or Wade Boggs,” um:
Gwynn: .338/.388/.459/.847, 132 OPS+
Boggs: .328/.415/.443/.858, 128 OPS+
Well, how did Rose compare to the previous hit king, to whom he often compared himself?
Cobb: .366/.433/.512/.944, 168 OPS+
(Bad bet there, Pete)
For those who think Harold Baines and Fred McGriff lowered the bar for modern Hall inclusion:
Baines: .289/.356/.465/.820, 121 OPS+
McGriff: .284/.377/.509/.886, 132 OPS+
Rose’s career OPS ranks #637 all time in MLB history. For frame of reference, Nathaniel Lowe is #636. Rose’s adjusted OPS+ rank is #465. Shoeless Joe’s is #13. He falls between Mike Trout and Ty Cobb.
Honestly, it seems like the more pressing discussion should be about Joe Jackson. The Eras Committee just let in a guy with a truncated career:
Allen: .292/.378/.534/.912, 156 OPS+
Dick Allen played 15 seasons to 13 for Jackson. Hank Greenberg also played only 13, in part because of three years of military service.
Lost in the shuffle will be the HOF case of Eddie Cicotte:
209-148, .238 ERA, 123 ERA+, 2.54 FIP, 1.15 WHIP
It’s harder to compare pitchers across eras, but his ERA+ would rank him equal to Juan Marichal and Mike Mussina and a tick ahead of Bob Feller. Bob Gibson, Tom Seaver, and some guy named Strasburg are at 127. (Yeah, Stras was that good.)
The number that makes me laugh is that Cicotte had a career K9 of only 3.8, with a peak season of 4.4. My, how the game has changed.
KW
14 May 25 at 7:45 pm
according to Yogi, Mantle was belittling Rose in spring training when he tabbed him with that nickname.
on the issue as a whole, I’ve never been into the comparison of one player to another. I never saw Ruth, DiMaggio, Feller or any other of the greats before 1970. I have to let their stats speak for them. fortunately, baseball if the perfect game for that!
FredMD
15 May 25 at 9:03 am
This isn’t a “storm the barricade with torches and pitchforks” issue for me (there are plenty of those around in the real world, why waste that energy on baseball?). But I have zero sympathy for Pete Rose. His advocates talk of grace and forgiveness. For that to be appropriate he’d have had to show remorse and accountability. Rose never did. He lied for YEARS about betting on baseball and then only came clean in order to sell books and to grift more money at signing events. He walked past that poster that tells people in baseball not to bet on baseball every day for years and spat on it and the game.
And as Todd noted, Rose and his accomplishments are already recognized in the HOF. That’s enough.
John C.
15 May 25 at 11:30 am
Probably not a shock that Jay Jaffe (who has spent a big part of his career focused on HoFame) is bitterly disappointed here.
Rosenthal’s article here: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6329688/2025/05/13/pete-rose-mlb-rob-manfred/
Todd Boss
15 May 25 at 1:06 pm
@JohnC: 100% agree with your take.
Todd Boss
15 May 25 at 1:08 pm
More from Jayson Stark on how the process will work (Athletic):
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6360650/2025/05/16/pete-rose-baseball-hall-of-fame-voting/
I didn’t realize until reading this that Rose could be lumped on the same ballot with Joe Jackson. Interesting.
To one of Todd’s points, I read somewhere this week that Rose is already mentioned in 21 spots in the HOF now. I remember from visiting more than a decade ago that they had Bonds’s batting helmet from his HR chases and one of the HR balls, but I don’t remember if it was from season or career, or tying or breaking.
To what John said, Rose’s asshole-level unwillingness to show any remorse absolutely sticks in the craw of anyone who has followed this story over the years. Even former teammates have said as much.
One part of the story I keep thinking about, that hasn’t really been discussed because it would be hard to document, is that Rose was widely known to have (and freely admitted) betting on other sports while he was playing — illegally, through bookies. Judging by his poor betting record in the ’80s, it seems quite possible that he could have been in hock with bookies in the ’70s as well. It’s not hard to imagine him shaving points (runs) while still looking like he was hustling. He had a high number of caught stealings for example, and he could get thrown out trying to take an extra base and still look like Pete being Pete. No one would ever know, except those guys who bet the Reds not to cover a likely large spread. Just sayin’.
KW
18 May 25 at 3:05 pm