Please read this piece on Pete Rose. I know I mentioned the Hall Of Fame briefly last week, but this piece gets to something we will touch on the entire semester (especially in your first paper): how do you reconcile a past that might not be as glorious as you like? How do you bring that past into the present?
In this article, I especially love the paragraph that talks about the roll of a history museum (what the HOF is). To paraphrase, "a history museum's role is to educate and inform not influence."
What are your thoughts on this piece? Pete Rose being kept out of the Hall of Fame? I don't expect you to do any research on Rose. Reading this piece should give you enough to comment on.
ReplyDeleteI think it is fair that Rose is being kept out of the Hall of Fame. The job of the National Baseball Hall of Fame is to uphold the integrity of the sport and its legacy in America, and inducting Rose would be sending the wrong message to fans and players alike. Rose’s actions clearly violated the rules of the MLB, which he knew and admitted to. Rose knowingly took the risk of gambling as a player and a manager. In my opinion, his actions are no more permissible than taking steroids. While I do not think he should be inducted into the Hall of Fame, I do believe that he should be acknowledged on some level for his achievements. While his actions were against the rules of MLB, they were legal. For this reason, I do not think he should be castigated or erased completely from the history of baseball. He was a great player, and deserves to be recognized in some right in the National Baseball Hall of Fame Museum. However, the backstory of his gambling must always be included in his recognition.
I liked the author's perspective on the Pete Rose situation as it very much aligned with my own. I think that Pete Rose's actions, mainly as a manager, should not have any bearing on his ability to enter the Hall of Fame. Pete Rose was one of the greatest hitters of all time, and while I think he should not be allowed to coach or involve himself with the MLB in any official way, I think he should be in the Hall. If he is inducted into the hall his plaque does not have to make any mention of him as a manager, eliminating most of the gambling issue. I also think the comparison to steroids is a fair one. The author mentions the MLB keeping out players who were known to take PED'S, and I also think to a degree that this is a fair comparison. Every player who took PED'S should be evaluated on an individual basis so the voters can decide who is deserving even with the steroids and who is not. The same procedure should be applied to Rose, rather than having a blanket ban on him. Furthermore, I think it is unfair how high profile players, like Bonds and Rose, face much more significant punishments for their actions, as opposed to less well known players. Only because the MLB feels the need to publicly punish them. I do not think it is fair that they are essentially being punished for their success, and they should be let into the Hall because of their accomplishments as players.
ReplyDeleteI concur with the author of this article. Baseball is a game. Pete Rose was very, very good at that game. The hall of fame is made to honor those who performed notably superior to others. I am not arguing that what he did was justified, or that it should be over looked, rather that to disallow a great baseball player to get the recognition he deserves because of his involvement with gambling. Morality has a profound influence on how we as a people view athletes, and I think that this comes down to how we view them. Athletes are people who our youth look up to and posture after. Because of this, great athletes who do not uphold their position as a role model can be antagonized off the field, but additionally - this is where I believe the injustice lies - on the field. I would not induct Pete Rose into a role model hall of fame, or an outstanding citizen hall of fame, but his irrefutable achievements on the field incline me to question why the Hall of Fame does not pay homage to one of the sports most talented athletes.
ReplyDeleteLike Ian and Kraz, I agree with the author's view that Pete Rose should be inducted into the MLB Hall of Fame. First off, the author brings up the point that gambling through sites such as Draft Kings and Fan Duel have become extremely common in Major League Baseball. If gambling on baseball is okay to take part in now, why is Pete Rose still being punished for this? Powell also brings up the idea that the Hall of Fame is a museum, meant to inform the public on the great players of the past. Instead, in holding Rose out of the Hall of Fame, one of Baseball's best players, this museum is functioning as something else, trying to sway our opinions on Pete Rose. I do, however, agree with the fact that we should acknowledge that Pete Rose broke the rules, or as Powell writes in the article: "Rose was a gambling fool," by putting a star or something of that nature next to his Hall of Fame plaque. But, to me, the Hall of Fame should display statistical evidence on which players were the best to play the game, and Pete Rose clearly fits into this category.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author's view that Rose should not be kept out of the Hall of Fame. In my opinion, it is naïve and useless as a baseball fan or studier of baseball to ignore the bad and only see the good, because this oversimplification is not an accurate reflection of baseball. Many players and managers have done things that are morally incorrect, such as take steroids or, like Pete Rose, gamble. These shameful incidents are unfortunately ingrained in baseball’s history. If America is to idolize baseball, I think it is necessary to consider everything that has made the sport what it is. As troublesome and sleazy as Rose may have been, he was one of the greatest hitters in the history of baseball. His shortcomings should be looked down upon, but not overlooked. The Hall of Fame’s purpose is to serve as a point of study of the history of baseball while honoring those who have excelled in the sport in some way. The only way to accurately achieve this goal is to include anyone who has impacted the sport. Pete Rose can be both an excellent player and a questionable person at the same time. As long as both of those facets of his baseball career can be recognized, I think he has a rightful place in the Hall of Fame. In my opinion the only way to reconcile a controversial past is to acknowledge it and allow it to set an example for the future.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDespite Rose gambling on baseball as a manager, I do believe that he should be inducted into the HOF. As the all time hits leader, Rose proved himself as one of the greatest to ever play the game. Rose’s situation is different than that of players that have taken steroids. Taking steroids is a form of cheating, and baseball players that took steroids did not honor the integrity of the game. Cheaters are selfish and egotistical and do not deserve to be recognized in the same category as the players in the HOF. It would be like saying Mark McGwire should receive the same amount of recognition as a player like Ken Griffey Jr. That is just unfair to grant the two the same amount of respect and admiration that comes with being in the HOF. In Rose’s situation, although he bet on baseball, he still played the game with integrity and did not do anything to give himself an unfair advantage. Gambling is an outside issue that really shouldn’t be associated with a player’s performance. Rose claims that he did not bet against the Reds so his gambling actions never affected the outcome of a game. I don’t see why gambling as a manager would prevent Rose from getting the recognition that he so clearly deserves.
ReplyDeletePete Rose did gamble on baseball, and that is a fact. The Hall has made an example of him to discourage players (and also others) from gambling. However, the simple fact remains: gambling has not become any less a part of daily life than earlier in American history, and some could argue that with sites like FanDuel or DraftKings it is more accessible. The Hall should have realized by now that there cause is a lost one, as gambling has not been reduced, and should allow the all-time hit leader into the league. Also, there are some clear people in the Hall who have been involved in questionable activity (La Russa) so why not make an exception and let probably the hardest competitor and/or best hitter ever into the Hall. Moving on, the piece was great and provided many avenues of reasoning. There were so many different arguments that lead to the conclusion that he should be admitted to the Hall that it seems inevitable that eventually we will all find some justification for letting him in. Why is the Hall wasting time and reputation by denying Rose, because the benefits of letting him in heavily outweigh arguments against letting him in.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what Gabe said. I find the use of steroids, which are illegal and are prohibited by the MLB, completely different from gambling on baseball. Pete Rose was an outstanding player who clearly had a gambling problem; Barry Bonds was an outstanding player who used steroids to become one. These two men are very different in their flaws, so, to me it is understandable why a player who cheated to get ahead of other players shouldn't be allowed in the hall of fame. It is absurd that a player with a gambling problem shouldn't be let into the Hall of Fame. I understand the intentions of the Hall of Fame, which is to make gambling less appealing to players, but this tactic doesn't really make any sense to me. It almost seems comparable to not letting an alcoholic player into the Hall of Fame because they want to make an example of him. I think that players who use steroids should never be put in the Hall of Fame, but players who have personal problems, like gambling, should be put in to the HOF if their baseball skills earn them a spot.
ReplyDeleteI believe Pete Rose should be inducted into the Hall of Fame. I think it is unfair that a player of his stature and excellence should be kept out of the Hall of Fame for issues that were not related to his play on the field. I completely agreed with the author's perspective with regard to this statement said by Jeffrey Idelson, the Hall’s president, “The role of a history museum is to educate The premise is to inform, not to direct people to think one way or the other”. The author simply states based on this premise, that he sees no real harm in allowing Pete Rose into the Hall, if the Hall’s primary purpose is to inform people of the history of baseball and to recognize the achievements of players on the field. The Hall of Fame is banning a man for actions that in no way affected his excellence on the field and in my perspective that is wrong and defeats the purpose of the Hall of Fame, which is to recognize the excellence of professional baseball players as players, not necessarily people. Pete Rose should not win any awards for being a stand up guy, however, being the all time hits leader is something worth acknowledging. Putting him in the same boat as steroid users is just a false comparison. Gambling never enhanced his performance on the field and thus should not prevent him from his rightful spot amongst the greats in Cooperstown.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Powell that Pete Rose should be inducted into the Hall of Fame. As Idelson describes, the Hall of Fame is a history museum. Its role is to educate the public on the history of baseball to allow visitors to develop their own thoughts and opinions of players. Therefore, it is the duty of the Hall of Fame not to filter which baseball players are inducted based on their behavior off of the field. The Hall of Fame instead must remember the talent of the heroes of the sport. However, Pete Ross's gambling must not be disregarded. Just as a history museum showcases the victories, it must also document the negative aspects of the past. Inducting Pete Ross into the Hall of Fame is not condoning gambling within the sport, but recognizing an incredible ball player and manager who also made mistakes off the field. As long as this aspect of his character is revealed and not ignored, Ross deserves a plaque in the Hall of Fame.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article I believe that Pete Rose should be honored and inducted into the Hall of Fame. Human beings by nature are imperfect. It is unjust of the the MLB Hall of Fame to ignore the accomplishments of an amazing contributor simply because he had a non-violent character flaw. Unlike Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire, Peter Rose's lack of moral integrity did not positively impact his ability to perform. In my opinion the Hall of Fame exists to recognize accomplishments in the MLB. An individual's induction to the Hall of Fame should not ride on whether he was a good person, but rather his success or impact on the game of baseball. Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Pete Rose should indeed be inducted into the Hall of Fame. The job of the Hall of Fame is to tell the story of baseball in America, and the important individuals who helped shape history. History does not care right from wrong, or polite from rude, simply that the tale be told. Was Pete Rose perfect? No, but he was an incredibly interesting character, and characters are what define the passion of baseball culture. In addition, the topic of steroids was brought up in this article which I find so intriguing. In recent years there have been many steroid scandals, often with popular players such as Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez. What they did was not moral by any means, but the fact is they were still there. They played the game, and were great players at that. Since they contributed so much to baseball's culture, it's crucial that all players worthy of the Hall of Fame be allowed in for the preservation of Baseball's history. The Hall of Fame's job is the educate people about baseball and the great characters who have competed over the years, and with this it is only fair that Pete Rose may earn a spot in the Hall of Fame.
ReplyDeleteI think it is really unfair that Pete Rose is not allowed to be inducted into the Baseball of Hall of Fame. If baseball wants to keep players connected with steroids out of the Hall of Fame, that is debatably unfair but understandable because the use of steroids gives players an advantage in the actual baseball game. Gambling on games obviously gave Pete Rose no advantage in the game itself, except for possibly a little extra motivation. Also, it does not seem that Rose was intentionally throwing any games evidenced by his incredible success. Rose had more hits than any other player in history and won multiple world series. It seems insane that it is probable the Baseball Hall of Fame will exclude the all-time hit leader and the all-time home runs leader, Barry Bonds. Pete Rose, who never used performance enhancing drugs, is statistically the greatest hitter to ever play baseball. Therefore he should be in the Hall of Fame.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author’s point of view. The National Baseball Hall of Fame is made to honor the accomplishments of some of the best Baseball players on earth. I think that it is wrong to keep a man who holds more records than any other player out of such an organization for an action that does not produce any athletic advantage. Although this piece was written a few weeks before Mike Piazza’s induction, the author alludes to his and other players’ alleged but unproven steroid use. I think that Piazza’s induction strengthens Pete Rose’s case. In my opinion, if a player who has been surrounded with steroid allegations has been inducted, a player such as Rose who has committed an action that produces no competitive advantage or physical enhancement should not be barred from the Hall of Fame. I also agree with the point that the Hall of Fame is a history museum, and Idelson’s quote that “the role of a history museum is to educate. The premise is to inform, not to direct people to think one way or another”. Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame as one of the all time greats, and the Hall of Fame would be doing the public a disservice in excluding such a player.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Pete Rose made the detrimental mistake of gambling as both a player and manager, I agree with many of my classmates, and think he should be inducted into the Hall of Fame. I don't think Major League Baseball should be able to have a lifetime ban on Pete Rose, considering that he is arguably the best hitter in history and holds the record for host hits in major league history. I understand that Major League Baseball wants to maintain the integrity of the game, but Rose didn't cheat. He was able to reach 4192 hits without taking any PEDs, solely relying on his baseball talent. Major League Baseball needs to understand that Pete Rose simply a baseball player, not a gambler, but a baseball player. I believe Powell is correct in his point that we must acknowledge Rose's accomplishments as a baseball player and not focus on his gambling. I personally think it absurd how the holder of the most hits in major league history is being denied recognition from the Hall of Fame, considering that he never once used a foreign substance to gain an advantage on his fellow players. Pete Rose was simply a great baseball player and needs to be recognized not as a gambler, but as one of the best players to have played the game.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who knew nothing about this dilemma before reading this article, I was indifferent about the matter at hand. After reading the first couple paragraphs I thought that Rose should not be inducted into the Hall of Fame because of his poor decisions and actions. However, as I kept reading I was eventually convinced by the author that Rose should be inducted into the hall of fame. The main reason behind my conversion was the fact that history would be lost without adding him to the HOF and his accomplishments could be easily forgotten. By bringing him into the HOF, they would not be supporting his poor decisions, but rather acknowledging him as an outstanding baseball player. Either way a statement, positive or negative, is going to be made and have a huge impact of people, but I do believe it is important to recognize the good and the bad in all athletes.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Rose's actions are very negative in the eyes of the MLB and of many fans, I agree with what the author had to say about Pete Rose. Similar to what Lacy said, at first I was certain that Rose should be banned from the Hall of Fame but after reading over what Michael Powell had to say about the topic, I was convinced that the Hall of Fame should be opened to Rose because of his contributions to the game. To add on, Powell suggested that the HOF serves as a museum that allows people to look back at how the game was played and to admire some of the greatest players to ever play the game. Similarly to what most of my classmates said, If Rose is not allowed to be in the HOF then it will take away from displaying all time greats, but at the same time if he were to be allowed into the HOF it would bring up very controversial topics because it can be interpreted that the MLB is condoning negative actions.
ReplyDeletePhew! Good thing that I waited a day to submit my blog post because Pete Rose was just inducted to the Cincinnati Reds Hall of Fame. I was very excited to see this development because I personally believe that Mr. Rose deserves recognition for his play. Pete Rose deserves to be part of the MLB Hall of Fame for the reason that the Hall is one of fame, not honor or integrity. In this way, Rose's fame and prowess on the field matter far more than his gambling habits and he should be recognized for his achievements.
ReplyDelete