Despite his gambling scandal, what are some justifications for and against Pete Rose’s induction into the Major League Baseball (MLB) Hall of Fame?
Pete Rose IS a part of the MLB Museum and Hall of Fame.
Simply put, he lacks a plaque on the wall designating his election as the HOF “elected” member.
As a footballer, Pete has accomplished a great deal. In his three years as a player/manager for the Reds (1984, ’85, and ’86), he recorded 426 victories and 388 defeats. As a manager, not really much of a benchmark, little longevity, and an average track record.
Despite his denials to the contrary, Pete bet on baseball and on his own team, willfully breaking one of MLB’s main regulations. There is a sign in every clubhouse prohibiting gambling, but Pete defied that regulation. It’s not just some boilerplate language tucked into the end of a contract.
Because of it, Pete was banned, and players who are banned cannot be selected for the MLB Hall of Fame.
There isn’t a plaque in the hall, but you can still see his exhibitions if you go there. For the time being, Pete is well-known for his tenure as a player and career total of hits. Unfortunately for him, his reputation from getting banned throughout the years may eclipse his achievements as a gamer. Known for his hustling on the field of play throughout history, he runs the risk of being labeled as just another hustler.
Therefore, even though he is in the hall, there is little chance that he will be chosen and given a plaque.
Therefore, even though he is in the hall, there is little chance that he will be chosen and given a plaque.
I have visited the HOF and have respectfully studied every plaque and display. Nothing about Pete’s lack of a plaque took away from my visit. He is a footnote, a cautionary story of hubris that has tainted his reputation, and he is not greater than the game of baseball.
And he alone is to blame for bringing that upon himself.
