For Pete's Sake Part II
(This began as a comment on the previous post, but I've made it it's own entry because it started getting a little long and it's something that I think will interest people who have been watching the MLB Network promos. See the previous post, "For Pete's Sake", for context).
Actually, the clip I saw (perhaps a different montage than you both saw) was of later-day, player/manager Pete in a Reds uniform celebrating something (perhaps the all-time hit record?).
I think technically speaking, being banned from MLB doesn't actually ban one from the HOF...they have separate governing bodies and rules for these things as I understand it.
That said, I don't think that betting on baseball is in the same category as steroids when it comes to the HOF. I can see a valid argument against people who haven been proven to have used PEDs during their career, because the PEDs do exactly what the acronym says: they enhance performance in an unfair (and illegal) way. Betting does not give one an unfair competitive advantage, unless you're betting against the team you manage, and I doubt Rose did this. Even if he did, I find him a far more sympathetic character than steroid users.
Sure, betting is against the rules, but betting didn't help Rose become the hit king. Steroids (presumably) did help Bonds and others reach their HOF-like numbers, so it's different. I know there are sabermetrics people who say you can take Bonds' pre-steroids numbers and extrapolate an HOF career, but for me, these numbers are forever tainted. Minus the PEDs, we'll never know about a player's natural longevity or proneness to injury. We just can't know what would have been. With Rose, however, there's no question.
Leave a comment