Pete Rose ban from baseball remains in place

[luv]

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14...B&sf16975609=1

The lifetime ban of Major League Baseball career hits leader Pete Rose remains in place, as commissioner Rob Manfred has chosen to keep Rose's banishment in place for gambling on baseball.

MLB said in a statement that Manfred contacted Rose on Monday to inform him of the decision.

Rose and Manfred met in MLB's offices in Manhattan in September, and the commissioner had said he would make a decision on Rose by the end of 2015.

Rose, who was banned from baseball in 1989 after the league's investigation into his gambling, applied for reinstatement for a second time in March. Manfred took over as MLB commissioner in January.

For almost 15 years after being banned, Rose denied he bet on baseball. In 2004, he changed his tune, saying he did so only when managing the Cincinnati Reds.

An Outside the Lines report earlier this year produced documentation from one of Rose's former associates that cataloged his bets in 1986, when he was still playing. Rose's attorney said at the time that his client wouldn't comment as he was in the process of reinstatement, and Rose has not commented on the matter since.

Sources told Quinn it was extremely unlikely all along, even before the Outside the Lines report, that Rose would be reinstated. MLB officials had no sense that Rose had "reconfigured" his life.

Rose passed Ty Cobb as career hits leader with No. 4,192 on Sept. 11, 1985, and he finished his career with 4,256 hits. Rose played for the Reds from 1963 to 1978 and 1984 to 1986, acting as both a player and a manager from 1984 to 1986 and continuing as just a manager until 1989.

He first applied for reinstatement in September 1997 and met with then-commissioner Bud Selig in November 2002, but Selig never ruled on Rose's application.

The continued punishment means Rose cannot be considered for induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by kccrow

A big problem with Rose's career is he should have retired 8 years sooner than he did. He should have, at minimum, retired after the 1982 season, and had he done so there wouldn't be an issue with him being in the HOF.

I'd agree with that. He would have had 3,869 hits with a .308 batting average, and he wouldn't have had the taint of gambling.

I don't think this would have made him a top 100 player because of all of the reasons already discussed in this thread, but he would have been an easy Hall of Famer.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by thurman merman

Well, no. It's on-base PLUS slugging. As in, two things combined. So it's not a singular statistic.

Even if it was, though, I think a hitter would need to have some power to be considered amongst the all-time great players. Do we really think a guy who has hundreds of guys ahead of him in AVG, OBP, OPS, and SLG is in the discussion for the greatest ever just cause he played for 40 years and got a bunch of singles?

Let's compare Rose with some guys who would actually be reasonable candidates in that discussion:

Rose:
AVG: 172nd all time
OBP: 212th all time
OPS+: 416th all time
OPS: 566th all time
SLG: 870th all time

Ruth:
AVG: 9th all time
OBP: 2nd all time
OPS+: 1st all time
OPS: 1st all time
SLG: 1st all time

Williams:
AVG: 8th all time
OBP: 1st all time
OPS+: 2nd all time
OPS: 2nd all time
SLG: 2nd all time

Bonds:
AVG: 227th all time
OBP: 6th all time
OPS+: 3rd all time
OPS: 4th all time
SLG: 5th all time

Do you see the difference?

I meant to say SLG, not OPS, and based my entire point on it and also calculated SLG. Oops, shit happens.

Yes, I see the difference. Except for Bonds, of course. If Ruth is a cheater then Bonds is also most definitely a cheater.

Point stands that I did retract my statement made in overreaction and stated him as a top 100 player. Even though there are statistics to argue whatever you want, he was a very good player in his prime. Rose will forever be tainted by his final years - years of betting to go along with below average play. I have a question for more players than just Rose and wonder your opinion. Do you fault a player for playing too long and declining, or do you recognize how good he was for most of his career? An example would be Ken Griffey Jr, lets say, but I think he has the resume to be in the Hall anyhow.

[Mama Hip Rockets]

Originally Posted by kccrow

I meant to say SLG, not OPS, and based my entire point on it and also calculated SLG. Oops, shit happens.

Yes, I see the difference. Except for Bonds, of course. If Ruth is a cheater then Bonds is also most definitely a cheater.

Point stands that I did retract my statement made in overreaction and stated him as a top 100 player. Even though there are statistics to argue whatever you want, he was a very good player in his prime. Rose will forever be tainted by his final years - years of betting to go along with below average play. I have a question for more players than just Rose and wonder your opinion. Do you fault a player for playing too long and declining, or do you recognize how good he was for most of his career? An example would be Ken Griffey Jr, lets say, but I think he has the resume to be in the Hall anyhow.

I don't fault him for playing too long, but it did two things:

1) Allowed him to break the hits record and amass some huge career numbers in multiple counting categories

while at the same time

2) Making his averages (AVG, OBP, OPS, etc.) lower.

He was a very good player, of course, but he doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the true greats.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by kccrow

I meant to say SLG, not OPS, and based my entire point on it and also calculated SLG. Oops, shit happens.

Yes, I see the difference. Except for Bonds, of course. If Ruth is a cheater then Bonds is also most definitely a cheater.

Point stands that I did retract my statement made in overreaction and stated him as a top 100 player. Even though there are statistics to argue whatever you want, he was a very good player in his prime. Rose will forever be tainted by his final years - years of betting to go along with below average play. I have a question for more players than just Rose and wonder your opinion. Do you fault a player for playing too long and declining, or do you recognize how good he was for most of his career? An example would be Ken Griffey Jr, lets say, but I think he has the resume to be in the Hall anyhow.

To some degree, yes. Arguably Griffey in his early years was making a case for GOAT. Pete Rose was a good player for his generation but not comparable to the greats even in his peak. So that's the big difference there.

Pete without gambling is a clear first ballot HOF'er.