Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson Reinstated by MLB

[darwinbulldog]

I believe Pete Rose was guilty of far greater crimes than betting on baseball.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I believe Pete Rose was guilty of far greater crimes than betting on baseball.

Back in the day such things, I don't think, were viewed as seriously, particularly if a famous athlete was involved.

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Back in the day such things, I don't think, were viewed as seriously, particularly if a famous athlete was involved.

Yeah we all like to say how great things were back in the day, but the level of shielding female high schoolers from older predatory males was not one of those things. Pete could’ve been Wander Franco … except Franco was much younger.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I believe Pete Rose was guilty of far greater crimes than betting on baseball.

"Crimes"? Don't be silly.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Back in the day such things, I don't think, were viewed as seriously, particularly if a famous athlete was involved.

Which is why sexual mores including age of consent vary over time and across both cultures and jurisdiction. They're not by any means universal laws such as "Thou shalt not kill/steal etc."

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

"Crimes"? Don't be silly.

Well, he's a convicted felon for tax evasion, for one.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Well, he's a convicted felon for tax evasion, for one.

Which we all know is the #1 crime in every government's eyes.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

"Crimes"? Don't be silly.



Which is why sexual mores including age of consent vary over time and across both cultures and jurisdiction. They're not by any means universal laws such as "Thou shalt not kill/steal etc."

I dunno, man. Maybe I'm a prude and a cultural philistine, but when you're a married 34 year old with kids and are accused of statutory rape -- and your best defense is (i) that the sex only started when the girl was 16 and (ii) the sex only occurred in a state where the age of consent happens to be 16 -- you're basically a douchebag. If they elect guys like this -- who were also banned for betting on baseball and convicted of tax evasion -- in the Hall of Fame, then they should also elect guys like Dale Murphy into the Hall.

[Belfast1933]

So, I was curious how collectors felt about the news yesterday, minus the color commentary… if given a simple binary only choice regarding Rose’s eligibility for the HOF, would your position generally be:

“It’s about time, long overdue”

or

“Sad day for baseball, bad decision by MLB”

I am quite surprised that that the tally of these 2 options was so heavily weighted in one direction:

80% selected “overdue”

Of course, there is nuance between these choices and lots of comments followed below the choices above. But I was more curious directionally from the vintage collector community how “we” all felt.

I would have guessed much closer to even split - maybe influenced by our own Rose card collections and visions of value escalation??

[Kutcher55]

I would vote against reinstatement to uphold precedent, but generally there are bigger things to get passionate about. Then again, that's from someone who places a disproportionate amount of focus on his own self-worth based on his horse betting returns and slow pitch softball performance.

[Ima Pseudonym]

Originally Posted by Belfast1933

So, I was curious how collectors felt about the news yesterday, minus the color commentary… if given a simple binary only choice regarding Rose’s eligibility for the HOF, would your position generally be:

“It’s about time, long overdue”

or

“Sad day for baseball, bad decision by MLB”

I am quite surprised that that the tally of these 2 options was so heavily weighted in one direction:

80% selected “overdue”

Of course, there is nuance between these choices and lots of comments followed below the choices above. But I was more curious directionally from the vintage collector community how “we” all felt.

I would have guessed much closer to even split - maybe influenced by our own Rose card collections and visions of value escalation??

In the end, I think collectors are, first and foremost, fans of the game. And, as fans of the game, it's really hard not to like someone like Rose. I think most fans are able to separate his on-field performance from his off-field foibles.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by bk400

I dunno, man. Maybe I'm a prude and a cultural philistine, but when you're a married 34 year old with kids and are accused of statutory rape -- and your best defense is (i) that the sex only started when the girl was 16 and (ii) the sex only occurred in a state where the age of consent happens to be 16 -- you're basically a douchebag. If they elect guys like this -- who were also banned for betting on baseball and convicted of tax evasion -- in the Hall of Fame, then they should also elect guys like Dale Murphy into the Hall.

That he was married and had kids is largely immaterial. Most likely she was 14 years old, though you can see why he would want to argue it didn't start until she was 16 and only happened in Ohio given that Ohio had the lowest age of consent at the time and that it just so happened to be the same age he's alleging she didn't realize she was.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

That he was married and had kids is largely immaterial.

Yes, you are correct in this regard. My bad.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that there are members here who seem to be fine with adults having sex with children, but I kind of am.

[Knightlax5]

For Rose I think there is a middle ground. Would I want to leave kids with him when he was living? No not at all. He was found innocent, but the charges are not a good look.

Would I want him on my baseball team and was he one of the greatest hitter ever? Yes absolutely! I don't think we should act like all of the guys in the Hall are example human beings. If we applied the character clause at the Hall's inception like we did today, guys like Cap Anson and Kenesaw Mountain Landis would not be in! I would vote for Rose in and disclose the bad things about him on his plaque and let everyone form their own opinion.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by bk400

I dunno, man. Maybe I'm a prude and a cultural philistine....

Yes you are. Me I have no problem with other peoples' sexual mores so long as the consent element is present. As a Libertarian I'm a laissez-faire individual and not just on economic matters.

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

That he was married and had kids is largely immaterial. Most likely she was 14 years old, though you can see why he would want to argue it didn't start until she was 16 and only happened in Ohio given that Ohio had the lowest age of consent at the time and that it just so happened to be the same age he's alleging she didn't realize she was.

Like I say, I'm not among those silly enough to care.

Originally Posted by bk400

If they elect guys like this -- who were also banned for betting on baseball and convicted of tax evasion -- in the Hall of Fame, then they should also elect guys like Dale Murphy into the Hall.

Why not? It's not the Baseball Hall of Honor; it's the Baseball Hall of Fame and these fellows are famous primarily for their exploits on the field. Other considerations just aren't relevant.

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Yes you are. Me I have no problem with other peoples' sexual mores so long as the consent element is present. As a Libertarian I'm a laissez-faire individual and not just on economic matters.



Like I say, I'm not among those silly enough to care.



Why not? It's not the Baseball Hall of Honor; it's the Baseball Hall of Fame and these fellows are famous primarily for their exploits on the field. Other considerations just aren't relevant.

My dude, are you choosing to die on the "okay to have sex with children" hill? What in the actual hell?

I've seen threads go off the rails here regularly, but wow...I don't even know where to start here.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

My dude, are you choosing to die on the "okay to have sex with children" hill? What in the actual hell?

Nice try, but I saw you palm that card. You know full well that the crux of this question is where does childhood end when it comes to sexual maturity and therefore where/how should the age of consent be defined? And that's a question that involves both culture and jurisdiction.

The age of consent right here in Canada was twelve until 1890 when it was raised to fourteen and then sixteen in 2008. Like I say, the question is cultural. A universal moral law it's not.

Originally Posted by BioCRN

My dude, are you choosing to die on the "okay to have sex with children" hill? ... I don't even know where to start here.

I'd suggest you not start with me at all. You'll lose any debate.

And if you think I'm going to be immediately cowed by "sensitive" topics such as this one (or race), you're wrong, very wrong. I'm too tough minded. I won't immediately fold my hand when these subjects are raised. I'll apply the same logical compass I use for any other question.

Like I say, I really don't give a damn about Pete Rose's sexual foibles. Any jurisdictional problems he may have as a result don't concern me.

Nor do I actually care whether he's in the Baseball Hall of Fame or not. It's no big deal. (As an aside Johnny Rotten referred to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a "piss stain" when he passed on attending his induction ceremony.) Hypocrisy though I'll condemn every time. It's called freedom of speech.

[edhans]

A lot to unpack here. A few random thoughts:
1) Well said by Ima Pseudonym. The hall should be an accurate chronicle of baseball history; the good, the bad and the ugly.
2) Jackson is an immortal lock for the hall; Rose not so much. Even 30+ years on, the wounds are too fresh.
3) Understood that card values are already inflated due to the notoriety of the scandals. But those who collect only hall of famers will now need examples. That may result in some upward pressure on prices.
4) In the same vein, I don't see a steep decline in value for the other Black Sox. They will always be linked to that event.
5) What about Buck Weaver? Only played nine MLB seasons with a 21.2 WAR, most of defensively since he didn't walk at all. Will the hall waive the ten year requirement; and will he have enough support if they do?

[AMPduppp]

I think it's important to note the Hall's voting criteria (emphasis is my own):

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.

In that vein, I think it makes perfect sense for the Hall to not elect a child rapist, regardless of his accomplishments on the field. Usually, having sex with children isn't a sign of great character.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Yes you are. Me I have no problem with other peoples' sexual mores so long as the consent element is present. As a Libertarian I'm a laissez-faire individual and not just on economic matters.

14 year old children can’t give meaningful consent. The accusations against Rose go as low as 12. Astonishing this need be said and people want to debate it. Well maybe not astonishing, but disgusting none the less.