Please read this piece on Pete Rose. I know I mentioned the Hall Of Fame briefly last week (voting happens next 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.
I have had the same believe about the past as long as I have known it to disappoint me. This is that "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it." We have seen it time and time again with military miscalculations, economic crashes, assassinations, extinctions, genocides and pandemics, it happens. Different disappointing pasts come out in the most unlikeliest of ways, making it increasingly difficult to recognize the distant familiarity. An example of this is the Holocaust; the massive genocide of millions of people during the 1930s and 40s. The end of the Holocaust was a great triumph and survivors still walking among us today are grateful to have moved forward from this, but many consider us to be moving backwards. Random aggressions towards marginalized groups are not always recognized as 'serious' and categorizing people under the labels 'different' and 'weird' is a common term constantly heard among us every day. Rarely do we remember to make the connection today to the marginalized groups from decades ago whom were also put into boxes and given the name "Judenschwein" or given "mercy death". People do not realize that this is still happening and while we might say, "No, of course that could never happen again, the truth is, it already is." Now, I realize I have gone off on somewhat of a rant which is why I must tie this back to the article. The past is meant to be remembered, not forgotten, no matter how crude, no matter how bitter. The past has the right to be remembered just like heroes, just like legends, just like Pete Rose.
ReplyDeletePete Rose wasn't just a player and a manager, but to diehard fans, Rose was and still is a legend on the field. His flaws are known, but not accepted by many people because that would mean Rose isn't the hero we all thought he was. It's hard to accept that someone who we have admired for so long turn out to be something completely different. We feel betrayed and embarrassed for believing in and supporting someone who was not deserving. It is often easier to ignore the facts to remedy these feeling than accept them as the new and disappointing reality. I remember idolizing Lance Armstrong, and when we found out that he was doping, I was frustrated and refused to believe it. It took me watching a program spelling out the whole situation that I began to accept it as the truth. The author of this article talks about his disappointment when he doesn't see Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens's names on plaques because regardless of playing dirty, they are legends in baseball. Their names are not present because they were caught, but how do we know that the names that are represented cheated too, but are just sneakier? Our love for the legends in different sports makes accepting their flaws challenging, and for this reason I think that is why we often mask the past to keep our heros in a glorious light today.
ReplyDeleteMy knee-jerk reaction is that I think this is absolutely ridiculous. Pete Rose sounds like a swell guy and an amazing player, the likes of which absolutely deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. Gambling on your own team to WIN is perfectly reasonable in my eyes. It's much easier to throw a game and bet against your team than it is to redouble your already exhaustive efforts to win some extra money. For Pete Rose to be not allowed in the Hall of Fame because of an official's stubbornness and petty vindictiveness against him doing something as relatively innocuous as betting FOR HIS OWN TEAM TO WIN, and yet other ballplayers, who, regardless of their actual performance as players, took performance-enhancing drugs to play dirty on a whole other level and entirely unbalance the playing field, are admitted into the hall, and even if they were admitted during a time when this activity was unknown, are still allowed to remain, I find entirely ridiculous and unreasonable. While I do think that a lot of those old poems were very gung-ho and silly in some of their descriptions of "red-hot American manhood, etc.," they have one main thread that should remain the core of the game. This is that baseball is a game of unchecked spirit and war on the field, while still remaining a relatively friendly competition. And I think that steroid use completely undermines this, affecting the using player to such a degree that it calls into doubt their achievements, and casts a dark shadow over what might have been bright and inspiring. Pete Rose's gambling, while a "sin" or a "vice" in the eyes of some, was in this context, in my opinion, nothing more than a player committing himself and his heart, providing maybe further incentive to win, and it would be HIM who won.
ReplyDeleteI'm not entirely sure what I think, to be honest. My thoughts on the matter are a pretty jumbled and complicated mess. I know for sure that I think that baseball is a vivacious, friendly, rough-and-tumble, noble, and glorious sport. And I think that is noble and glorious because of its dirtiness. But I think that this dirtiness is dirtiness that comes from the heart, from an honest and gritty desire to win. And I don't think that this condones steroid use, and I don't see any reason why it should outlaw gambling for your own team to win.
I think it is crazy that Pete Rose is not in the hall of fame. Was it a poor decision to bet on his team, both while playing and managing? Yes. But do these poor decisions justify overlooking his many fantastic years of playing in the league and serving as a hero to hundreds of thousands if not millions? I would say not. I agree with the author on this matter. Rose should have been punished, certainly, but to still keep him out of the hall of fame, several decades later is simply ridiculous. He is already prevalent in the museum, it is not as if he has been erased from history, and certainly not from the minds of the many people who idolized him. Therefore what does keeping him out of the Hall of Fame accomplish? It is still possible for his accomplishments to be known and recognized while his poor gambling decisions to be looked down upon. In addition, I don't think the league should be enforcing their opinions so heavily on fans. Although gambling may be wrong in the eyes of the MLB, Rose gambled FOR his team, which does not seem immoral from where I'm sitting. It is not as if this gambling impacted his playing or managing. I hope that the MLB is able to correct this mistake soon and induct Rose into the HOF, along with Bonds who also well deserves a plaque.
ReplyDeleteI can understand the position of people who think it is just that Pete Rose has been banned from the Hall of Fame, as, whether MLB intends to or not, the role of athletes has become to be role models for impressionable young kids and adults. Obviously, the do not want to seem as if they are endorsing gambling or even fixing games. Though this (gambling/fixing games) is the narrative that people often give when explaining why Pete Rose is barred from the Hall, it does not represent Rose's story justly. Rose clearly could not have fixed games, and he was betting on himself and his own team. Most people, when playing team sports, will obviously root for themselves and their own team, Rose only put this self confidence into economic terms. If the role of the museum is to make timeless role models out of baseball legends, Rose does not appear to violate any modern moral law that should disqualify him from consideration for the Hall. Had he been betting against his team, there may have been an argument that he was fixing games. In truth, the only reason he is being held out is because he believed in himself and his team enough to put money on them. Figures of baseball who appear to be far more negatively impactful than Rose, such as people who broke federal laws (drinkers during Prohibition, users of assorted banned drugs, etc.). If we do not view the museum as displaying people who were great both in baseball and morality, the argument against Rose disappears completely. Many prominent figures in baseball support this view of the hall. As Jeffrey Idelson, president of the Hall of Fame, said, "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." If this is the view of what the Hall stands for, then Rose is unjustly held out of it; he is clearly beyond qualified and his induction would only be to display his career's success, and not implicitly agree with gambling. In either view of what the Baseball Hall of Fame stands for, there does not appear to be a great argument against Rose's induction, so I cannot understand why he has still been kept out.
ReplyDeleteIt makes no sense that Rose would be kept out of the Hall of Fame. While he did gamble, he placed a bet on his team, only getting money if his team won, which would only motivate him to play better and he would lose money if his team lost. Besides this point of gambling once, Rose has been shown to be kind and as said in the article, "It’s hard to see the harm in giving this man a Hall of Fame plaque". While I am able to see the other side's argument, where they do not want to encourage players gambling on teams and will not stand for that, but at the same time this is harmless. This is just one instance where he bet and one mistake should not mark the future of a person. It feels like this instance takes priority over all the other achievements that Rose has made. Overall, Rose seems to have been held at an unfair standard and should be given a place in the Hall of Fame.
ReplyDeleteNo betting has been the number 1 rule in baseball for the past 100 years. Although I deeply respect the many rules and traditions of baseball, I think it is excessive to ban Pete Rose from the Hall of Fame solely for his betting scandal. His skills as both a player and a manager far outweigh many others in the HOF, and as a baseball fan, I think he should be elected into the Hall of Fame.
ReplyDeleteHowever, would Rose's admittance to the HOF excuse all wrongdoings and rule breaking in baseball? There is no denying that Rose was in the wrong for essentially the entirety of his baseball career. His betting disrespected both the culture and the rules of baseball, yet Rose only bet on his team to win and there is no proof that he ever threw the outcome of a game to achieve victory of his bet. Interestingly enough, the MLB admitted manager Tony La Russa into the HOF two years ago after he intentionally turned a blind eye to his players taking PEDs, which actually influenced the outcome of games. To me, this seems much more disrespectful to baseball than betting on games.
I understand that the MLB strives to preserve the culture of baseball, but when will they place skill over scandal?
Pete Rose is the single greatest hitter baseball has ever seen. He has more hits than any other player and his accomplishments are shown around Cooperstown. However, the Hall of Fame does not want to recognize him as a HOF player. By omitting Rose from the Hall of Fame, an organization that is supposed to honor the best players of Baseball history, the Hall of Fame loses some of its credibility, because it does not recognize Rose’s successes. Rose did bet on games while he was a player-coach, but he only bet on his own team to win and never threw a game to win a bet. I believe that gambling should not be allowed by players or coaches in the MLB, but there were no malicious intents in his bet’s, nor is there any evidence that Rose altered the outcome of games in a negative way. I think it is a double standard that is being set when the Hall of Fame allows coaches and players into Cooperstown that have been involved with PED’s, which give players an unfair advantage, and do not allow Rose. Also, if the MLB is so against gambling, why are they a major part of the major online gambling sites, like Draftkings? To me Rose’s absence really discredits the Hall of Fame, because Rose is a major part of Baseball history and he deserves to be recognized in the place where Baseball history is kept.
ReplyDeleteI don't see why Pete Rose should be kept out of the hall of fame. I don't know very much about the origin of the HOF or what their original intent was, but if they are claiming to try to inform and educate rather than sway opinions, I think they need to let Pete Rose in the HOF. He is famous enough to be brought up when discussing the history of baseball in America, and he was and is talented enough to take his place next to the other great legends of baseball. I can try to understand why they won't let in illegal drug users into the HOF, but, as the author carefully compared the wrongdoings of Rose to those of steroid users, it seems unreasonable to have kept him out for so long. It truly seems like a ban of the past. I appreciated that the author included Rose's flaws, though it felt like he downplayed some of them, and ended with the important note that it's crucial to look at the context of everything we are presented with, and if, after analyzing that context, we still find an event or person to be favorable, we should celebrate. After analyzing the context of Rose's misbehavior, I still find him to be worthy of celebration and deserving of a spot in the HOF.
ReplyDeleteAs an incredible player and manager, there is no question as to whether or not Rose belongs in the HOF. However, once Rose's history of betting is regarded, his successes lose meaning and are overshadowed by his rule-breaking actions. Given his athletic prowess and his impact on the MLB, it seems silly to keep Rose out of the HOF for believing in his team and gambling on their successes. If Rose is let into the HOF, does gambling seem more acceptable? How people interpret his acceptance into the HOF could go two ways: an impactful manager and player has finally been recognized or that the consequences of betting are less severe. At this point, Rose has learned his lesson and there seems to be no reason not to honor him for his impact on the game, regardless of one mistake made in his whole career.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that Pete Rose should be kept out of the HOF. As the article points out, he’s already been recognized as an incredible player, and his punishment for gambling has been his removal from the game. His gambling in no way took away from his talents and skills as a player, or altered how he played because he only ever bet on his team to win. However, he did consciously break the rules of the sport, even it didn’t have a resounding effect on his game. I don’t think that everyone who breaks a rule in baseball should be banned from the HOF, such as in this case. There is a line that must be crossed, and the line should not be drawn behind Pete Rose. Players on steroids, on the other hand, should not be allowed in the HOF. In those cases, the players abilities and gameplay was significantly and tangibly altered; there’s no way to know if a player like Barry Bonds would have been as good without steroids, so it must be assumed that the drugs are why he excelled to such an extent. The question then is, where is the line drawn? I think it has to be evaluated case-by-case, and in the case of Pete Rose, there should not be a ban.
ReplyDeleteI think inducting Pete Rose into the Hall of Fame would be a good step forward in the right direction for the history of baseball. The shadow on his otherwise impressive career fell at a time before steroids had taken over the league, and his admittance to the HOF would set an example for other pros with outstanding careers. Seeing as Rose already has many informational bits about him in the HOF, it is appropriate to give him a bronze plaque as well. As long as the right information is provided to fans and visitors of the HOF, clarifying that Rose had a gambling scandal as a player manager but also that he always bet to win, he never had his team losing on purpose for the benefit of his gambling. After reading this article and talking to my dad, I can say that Pete Rose is a baseball legend and should receive the appropriate validation with a plaque in the baseball Hall of Fame. His induction may set a precedent for other "flawed" yet great players with unbelievable stats that deserve to be recognized for their accomplishments within the sport, with the proper context provided. If the HOF is treated as a historical haven, where the entire history of the sport is taught just as it happened, it will greatly benefit the greater baseball community.
ReplyDeleteReading this article, I was able to come to the understanding that Pete Rose is undoubtedly one of the best-recognized hitters in Major League Baseball, with a record breaking 4,256 hits. If the job of the Baseball HOF is to educate the public about astonishing individuals who have changed the game of baseball for the better then I see no reason why Pete Rose shouldn't be inducted into the Baseball HOF. His accomplishments in the MLB have greatly influenced how we perceive the game along with how future generations will play it. Pete Rose’s ban is outdated and has become more of a burden on the organization than a punishment for the offenses Pete Rose committed against the league. The Fox Sports columnist Rob Neyer described the stubbornness of the baseball HOF quite well saying, “We kill people in the U.S. largely because retribution, revenge, feels good. It’s not a great way to set policy.” Pete Rose’s ban has been the result of the owner’s egos and no longer represents a justifiable punishment. The ban now is a threat to the legacy of the game and in order to maintain baseball’s proper reputation for its history, Pete Rose should be allowed to enter the Baseball HOF.
ReplyDeleteAs a baseball fan I can undoubtedly agree that Pete Rose was one of, if not, the best hitters that has ever played the game. With one of the more unbreakable records in baseball (all-time hit leader) there is without a doubt he is deserved of a spot in the hall of fame, but there more to Pete Rose's story. He was caught gambling on his team and because of this MLB has banned him from the Hall of Fame. At first glance this seems fair and just, but Rose was only betting on his team to win so there is controversy. Although he was not purposely throwing games I still have an issue with him gambling and still believe he should be left out of the Hall of Fame. My reasoning behind this is when he was manager and gambling he could of purposely pitched a pitcher on short rest or managed the game completely differently since he had more than just the team’s record on the line. Morally I can’t put him in the Hall of Fame and it does hurt me to say that since he was such an amazing talent. The other factor that makes me not want him in the Hall of Fame is that letting him in could set off the floodgates for PED users getting into the Hall of Fame, which I am severely opposed to. Overall, although Rose is without a doubt one of the most talented ballplayers of all time I can not bring myself to let him into the Hall of Fame.
ReplyDeleteEven though I don't follow baseball in the slightest I had heard of Pete Rose before we talked about him in class, indicating just how important of a historical figure in baseball he is and that is exactly what the baseball Hall of Fame should be for. Historical figures who have helped progress the sport to another level (his records), or have made significant contributions to the sport. While I do believe the question of whether or not to let athletes who were caught using steroids into the Hall of Fame is a much less controversial subject because players like Barry Bonds undoubtedly made major contributions to the sport, but at the cost of morals. While betting on anything is seen to be morally wrong I think in the specific case of Pete Rose I believe that his betting on his team to win showed his confidence in his ability to play the game and confidence in his teammates/ players(when he was the manager). If Pete Rose had been betting against his own team he should be barred from entering the HoF, but based on the fact that when he bet he bet on his team I think he should not be barred from the HoF. Also, the point made in the article that “The role of a history museum is to educate,”is very convincing and aligns with my opinion on the purpose of a museum. I also think the quote you found, “The premise is to inform, not to direct people to think one way or the other", is very important to take into consideration when taking into consideration that this great player poses no threat/potential threat to current MLB managers/coaches and that his ban from the HoF is a remnant of the past that continues to deny him his HoF plaque.
ReplyDeleteBefore reading this article I had no idea who Pete Rose was (other than the fact that I knew he was involved with baseball) or what made him controversial enough to have articles discussing his hall of fame status. That being said, this article made him out to be a terrific ball player with a lot of talent, who happened to make the mistake of gambling on games. I believe that Rose should be let into the hall of fame, as long as he truly was an exceptional athlete. My opinions start to stray from this author's perspective when they discus reconsidering “baseball’s steroid decades”, and call it “a first cousin to the Rose gambling scandal”. Although I do think that these are both scandals, they are drastically different situations when it comes to hall of fame credibility. Someone who bets on games is not the same as someone who uses drugs to enhance their playing performance. Rose earned his baseball talent without the aid of steroids, therefore his performance in the major league should be acknowledged. However, is letting Rose into the hall of fame showing MLB players that it is ok to bet on games or is Rose's story of years of shame warning enough? On the other hand, admitting steroid users shows that performance enhancers, although frowned apon, could help in gaining access to the hall of fame. Players who use steroids should not be accepted into the hall of fame as they did not earn their accomplishments on their own (without performance enhancers). However, there should be a drug test or other substantial evidence to verify that a player has been using steroids because it is not fair to accuse someone and keep them out of the hall of fame if their is no evidence to back it up.
ReplyDeleteIn reading this article, I have come to the realization that Pete Rose was an extremely talented baseball player. While I think that the writer of this article argues points which outline good reasoning behind why Rose should be inducted into the hall of fame, I think (more playing devil's advocate) that he should not be admitted into the hall of fame. While Rose never bet in a way that would incentivize a purposeful loss, inducting him into the hall of fame would make it acceptable for other players to bet in similar ways. The writer argues that this has not been forgiven because of petty decisions and large egos, however, it is clear there was no misunderstanding on Rose's part as all sports prohibit insider betting. Along with this, the writer argues that because the Hall of Fame museum already has his jersey, a video, and other Rose-related items in it, he has basically already been induced and should be recognized in a genuine way. If anything, I would say this weakens his argument. Since Rose was a great player he should be recognized as a major part of baseball history, by having memorabilia related to him, he will be remembered as a great player, even if that means he isn't officially admitted into the Hall of Fame. Along with that of the players who took steroids, if there is absolute evidence that a player broke the rules, then that player should be punished according to the rules. It is unreasonable to argue that because Rose didn't break the rules in a way as severe as others players, he should be inducted into the Hall of Fame. Rose broke the rules and should therefore be punished according to them. To break to the rules and admit him into the HOF would just create a cycle of when it is okay or not to do so.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author of this piece. What Pete Rose did was unethical and should definitely be punished, but this doesn't mean he shouldn't be recognized as one of the game's greatest players. In this society, anything that isn't validated in some way by the public is forgotten. No one will remember that player who made that amazing shot in the last march madness championship because his team didn't end up winning the game (even I can't remember his name). So the question people have to ask themselves in this situation is this: does one mistake justify erasing a man's entire life's work and legacy? I think not. Not surprisingly, I had no idea who Pete Rose was before I read this, and because he won't be put in the hall of fame a lot of people will be in the same boat.
ReplyDelete