Honest To Pete! For Our Sake, Let The Man In!

Peter Edward Rose should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

He is clearly one of the most accomplished players in the history of the game. Clearly.

And even though the baseball HoF history is replete with nonsensical voting impulses, the absence of Pete Rose in the Hall is beyond absurd– especially when various elements of his spectacular career ARE in the Hall.

Does the Hall history have plenty of silliness? Yes. Consider that only one player- Mariano Rivera- has ever been voted in unanimously. That means many other players were not– somebody did NOT vote for Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, or Cy Young , among many others. Those names met with some resistance from someone with a vote. Why? How? Presumably it wasn't the capricious "morality clause " at work.

As ridiculous as that sounds, it seems even sillier that two recent vintage superstars – Derek Jeter and Ichuro Suzuki - each missed out on unanimity by a single vote, out of nearly 400 votes cast. SOMEBODY thought these players didn't deserve HoF status? Really?

The point is that the whimsy factor is already baked in there. The hyper-malleable morality clause just makes things worse. Who are the judges of what constitutes bad behavior or belief? ( The answer is , of course, the baseball writers). I submit that if you are a high performer and your transgressions, of any type, did not short-circuit your career sufficiently to make the Hall of Fame question moot, then you should be inducted. From choir boys to devil dogs, let's judge them on the baseball work.

The double dose of baseball irony comes with the fact that this offender's nickname is Charlie Hustle. Per the history provided within Ken Burns' "Baseball "series, Whitey Ford gave the rookie Rose his new nickname in spring training in 1963 out of derision when he saw Pete sprint to the fence, climb up a couple steps and reach high for a ball that Mantle had hit, which according to the Mick was " 100 feet over his head and still rising" when it cleared the fence.

Clearly Pete Rose annoyed and alienated baseball writers with his gambling , and then with his refusal to come clean. But the door to the Hall was effectively blocked by Bart Giamatti who banned Pete from official baseball activity due to gambling. That ban and the consequent expulsion from the baseball world kept him from formal Hall consideration by statute. Subsequent commissioners, including Fay Vincent, Bud Selig and Rob Manfred, could have changed that edict, shortening the lifetime ban. Such a move would have made Rose eligible for Hall membership. It didn't happen.

Regrettable. But this is the Hall of Fame. It's about baseball accomplishment at the highest level. It is not the Hall of Purity. Nor the Hall of Sanctity. The subjectivity factor is high enough just evaluating baseball work, where offense stats carry the day, leaving defensive stats vague and under-considered.

Now we throw in consideration of behavior, belief, bias? It's asking a bit much , right?

Granted, it could be argued that a later generation of stars who have been held out for concerns of illicit steroid use have inflated their numbers because of their sins. In Rose's case, gambling charges built on betting on his own team would seem to have no similar potential effect on his stats, if any effect at all.

And yet, there he is, the all- time hits leader. All- time. That's a lot of ballplayers. Since 1876, over 20,000 men have played the game. None of them has garnered more base hits than Pete. Only one, Ty Cobb, even comes close.

Defenders of the MLB hierarchy will remind us that they are not involved with the HoF, don't have any direct say in the HoF, and they remind us that the HoF put in their "exclusion" clause for those banned from baseball AFTER Rose was banned. Meaning, of course, that they could have modified or rescinded that rule just as smoothly as they had enacted it.

All true, and one more piece of evidence as to the highly subjective nature of the HoF's stance on a given player's status. And when you consider that the HoF has on display various artifacts of Rose's career– including the very bats he used for hits number 3000 and 4000​, and the overall picture looks downright capricious. Because it is.

The irony factor plays heavy here as well, given that "sports betting", (as opposed to, say, GAMBLING), is now such an out loud part of the sporting landscape.

My old high school math teacher liked to bet on the dogs when he took a Florida vacation. He began by betting on Hai Alai, but grew suspicious when he saw the contestants blow a play just moments after making one that seemed much more difficult– thus introducing the spectre of intentional failure, perhaps to create a preferred outcome. He thought it less likely that a group of dogs would be in on the fix. Granted, this was all before the lifetime stats of Pete Rose ​were under scrutiny, since he was still playing. The point is, the human element invites mischief.

And in evidence of Rose's polarizing personality, in 1978, Rose made a poor impression on many fans when he complained about Braves' reliever Gene Garber after Garber had ended Pete's consecutive games with a hit string at 44. Garber got Rose out with a change- up. Rose thought that was bush league, given that the Braves were up 16-4 in the ninth inning. Rose complained that Garber's strategy had robbed baseball fans of their enjoyment of his continued streak. In other words, Rose wanted a layup. Garber was perplexed that Rose- of all people– would expect him to do any less than his best. Especially ironic when Rose had kept his streak alive twice with late inning bunts8, once with a large lead. Whatever. His nickname could have been Paradox Pete and it would fit just as well.

Invaluable as a teammate, insufferable as an opponent. Clearly Pete Rose was among the very best.

Let him in.