Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson Reinstated by MLB

[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.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but if it's the accusation of statutory rape, he was never actually tried for it because the allegations came out well after the statute of limitations had ended.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 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.

The plaques hanging in the Hall celebrate the players. There is no way in hell anyone is going to put on Rose's plaque, "Serious allegations were made that he had sex with underage girls." Nor should they. Come on. Either let him in or keep him out.

[Knightlax5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The plaques hanging in the Hall celebrate the players. There is no way in hell anyone is going to put on Rose's plaque, "Serious allegations were made that he had sex with underage girls." Nor should they. Come on. Either let him in or keep him out.

I'm not talking about the sex stuff, I'm talking about gambling. Any mention of him in the hall of fame has to include gambling, more people know him for gambling than the hits record

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Knightlax5

I'm not talking about the sex stuff, I'm talking about gambling. Any mention of him in the hall of fame has to include gambling, more people know him for gambling than the hits record

You still said he was found innocent. What are you talking about regarding that? As far as I know, the only charge he was ever tried on was tax evasion, and he was guilty and served time for that.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Knightlax5

I'm not talking about the sex stuff, I'm talking about gambling. Any mention of him in the hall of fame has to include gambling, more people know him for gambling than the hits record

There have been Rose items on display for years. Should they have mentioned gambling? If he gets in his plaque is not going to mention gambling.

[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.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

See above.

And let me remind you of the principle that a man IS innocent until and unless convicted in a court of law. So your insinuations are (at best) out of order.

Moreover you're treading a very fine line using the word "disgusting" in reference to any post of mine. I'll very happily dissect your every statement and toss every word back into your face. (It's what I do and I do it very well indeed.)

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

See above.

And let me remind you of the principle that a man IS innocent until and unless convicted in a court of law. So your insinuations are (at best) out of order.

Moreover you're treading a very fine line using the word "disgusting" in reference to any post of mine. I'll very happily dissect your every statement and toss every word back into your face. (It's what I do and I do it very well indeed.)

If my stance against, let me check my notes here, *grown men violating children* is treading a very fine line, I’m happy to tread that line. Disgusting was a polite understatement you probably don’t merit.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

If my stance against, let me check my notes here, *grown men violating children* is treading a very fine line, I’m happy to tread that line. Disgusting was a polite understatement you probably don’t merit.

Come now Greg, he was never convicted of same, ergo he is innocent. And besides, they all consented, as doubtless did Epstein's mislabeled victims. Laissez faire, bro!! I would take it one step further than our resident egomaniac -- if Rose preferred 12 and 13 year old girls, he had a right to self-fulfillment.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by G1911

If my stance against, let me check my notes here, *grown men violating children*....

You might also check the facts while you're at it. That's your phrase.

Originally Posted by G1911

14 year old children can’t give meaningful consent. The accusations against Rose go as low as 12.

Mere accusations do not imply guilt. Much more is required. Until then a person is innocent. In other words, cut the crap. To say that Pete Rose was guilty of having sex with children is just plain wrong.

Originally Posted by G1911

Astonishing this need be said and people want to debate it. Well maybe not astonishing, but disgusting none the less.

You're right. I am indeed astonished that there are people who cavalierly disregard the presumption of innocence which acts to protect us all from politically motivated prosecution by the State.

Originally Posted by G1911

Disgusting was a polite understatement you probably don’t merit.

My take too on those who equate allegations with guilt.

But you seem to be all hot and bothered by my arm's length "Dunno, don't care, he's innocent until proven guilty and it's all beside the point anyway when it comes to the Baseball Hall of Fame" attitude when it comes to Pete Rose and these allegations. Why? Curious indeed if I do say so myself.

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

See above.

And let me remind you of the principle that a man IS innocent until and unless convicted in a court of law. So your insinuations are (at best) out of order.

Moreover you're treading a very fine line using the word "disgusting" in reference to any post of mine. I'll very happily dissect your every statement and toss every word back into your face. (It's what I do and I do it very well indeed.)

Good lord, get over yourself. Those who have to refer to themselves as "too tough minded" rarely are. I'd guess you mask your insecurities behind endless bloviation -- on display here daily -- and overcomplicated vocabulary that's the visual version of nails on a chalkboard. "You'll lose any debate" -- what pathetic posturing.

We'll just put you down in the Pedophile Rights Advocate column and move on.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Brent G.

Good lord, get over yourself. Those who have to refer to themselves as "too tough minded" rarely are.

Tough minded enough not to shrink from a "sensitive" topic.

Originally Posted by Brent G.

I'd guess you mask your insecurities....

Uggghhh. Take your psycho babble elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Brent G.

...behind endless bloviation -- on display here daily -- and overcomplicated vocabulary....

"Bloviation"? And you accuse me of overcomplicated vocabulary. I'll just say that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Originally Posted by Brent G.

that's the visual version of nails on a chalkboard.

Hey, I post a lot of pictures of cards too! You might try it sometime.

Originally Posted by Brent G.

"You'll lose any debate" -- what pathetic posturing.

It's getting late. Mind if I continue tomorrow? I promise to use shorter words you might understand.

Originally Posted by Brent G.

We'll just put you down in the Pedophile Rights Advocate column and move on.

Well since I advocated no such thing, I'll put you down as an asshole but I'll reserve the right to give you an occasional reminder. Deal?

[babraham]

Originally Posted by Brent G.

Good lord, get over yourself. Those who have to refer to themselves as "too tough minded" rarely are. I'd guess you mask your insecurities behind endless bloviation -- on display here daily -- and overcomplicated vocabulary that's the visual version of nails on a chalkboard. "You'll lose any debate" -- what pathetic posturing.

We'll just put you down in the Pedophile Rights Advocate column and move on.

+1

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

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.



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.

You may not be done with this. I am. This is a matter that shouldn't have to be explained to a grown, mature adult.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

This is a matter that shouldn't have to be explained to a grown, mature adult.

I take it your "grown, mature" is the same as "supercilious, starchy". Me I take pride in being the proverbial prudent man.

[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.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by 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.

Just curious what about Roberto Alomar who is in HOF and who is also on Baseballs Ineligible List???


In 2021, Alomar was banned from baseball by MLB following an independent investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct, dating back to 2014.[6][7] In April 2021, the Blue Jays also announced that Alomar would be removed from the Level of Excellence and his retired number banner would be taken down at Rogers Centre.[8] The Blue Jays have subsequently reactivated the uniform number 12, and it has been used by Jordan Hicks in 2023. He remains the only player in history to be a member of both the Baseball Hall of Fame and MLB's permanently-ineligible list simultaneously.

[AMPduppp]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Just curious what about Roberto Alomar who is in HOF and who is also on Baseballs Ineligible List???


In 2021, Alomar was banned from baseball by MLB following an independent investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct, dating back to 2014.[6][7] In April 2021, the Blue Jays also announced that Alomar would be removed from the Level of Excellence and his retired number banner would be taken down at Rogers Centre.[8] The Blue Jays have subsequently reactivated the uniform number 12, and it has been used by Jordan Hicks in 2023. He remains the only player in history to be a member of both the Baseball Hall of Fame and MLB's permanently-ineligible list simultaneously.

Personally, I wouldn't have an issue if the Hall decided to rescind his nomination. If the Hall's standards say a player's election is based on their character and integrity, then I'm fine with them removing players when new information comes out that would no longer fit that criteria. Plus it wouldn't be the first time someone was removed from a Big 4 Hall- the Hockey Hall of Fame removed Alan Eagleson after he was convicted of embezzling player pension funds.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by AMPduppp

Personally, I wouldn't have an issue if the Hall decided to rescind his nomination. If the Hall's standards say a player's election is based on their character and integrity, then I'm fine with them removing players when new information comes out that would no longer fit that criteria. Plus it wouldn't be the first time someone was removed from a Big 4 Hall- the Hockey Hall of Fame removed Alan Eagleson after he was convicted of embezzling player pension funds.

I did not know that Roberto Alomar was on the baseball ineligible list since 2021. Apparently I missed that story. However, I'm not surprised that he hasn't been removed from the Hall of Fame. If O.J. wasn't removed from Canton, it seems like that's not something that will happen often. Apparently stealing money from your fellow players is enough for hockey.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Just curious what about Roberto Alomar who is in HOF and who is also on Baseballs Ineligible List???


In 2021, Alomar was banned from baseball by MLB following an independent investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct, dating back to 2014.[6][7] In April 2021, the Blue Jays also announced that Alomar would be removed from the Level of Excellence and his retired number banner would be taken down at Rogers Centre.[8] The Blue Jays have subsequently reactivated the uniform number 12, and it has been used by Jordan Hicks in 2023. He remains the only player in history to be a member of both the Baseball Hall of Fame and MLB's permanently-ineligible list simultaneously.

Maybe I'm tripping up on semantics here, but weren't both Mickey and Willie (as mentioned by another poster) also banned from baseball while members of the Hall. AFAIK, their standing in the Hall did not change with Kuhn's ruling.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Maybe I'm tripping up on semantics here, but weren't both Mickey and Willie (as mentioned by another poster) also banned from baseball while members of the Hall. AFAIK, their standing in the Hall did not change with Kuhn's ruling.

You are 100% correct.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Maybe I'm tripping up on semantics here, but weren't both Mickey and Willie (as mentioned by another poster) also banned from baseball while members of the Hall. AFAIK, their standing in the Hall did not change with Kuhn's ruling.

Their bans were mostly temporary. And only lasted as long as they were doing PR for casinos. If I remember it right Willie was contracted for a year and after that was back in. Didn't know about Mantle, but probably a similar situation

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Maybe I'm tripping up on semantics here, but weren't both Mickey and Willie (as mentioned by another poster) also banned from baseball while members of the Hall. AFAIK, their standing in the Hall did not change with Kuhn's ruling.

That was a controversial move Kuhn made.
They were not betting or accussed of gambling.
They were signed as spokesman for a casino and Kuhn was worried about perception vs reality.
IT was also very quickly changed

[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.