Should " Charlie Hustle" go to the hall of fame? I for one would like to know how in the name of Ty Cobb can the powers that run baseball, justify keeping Pete Rose out of the "Hall".
Pete Rose was placed on baseball's ineligible list in 1989 when commissioner of baseball .
Giamatti concluded that Rose had bet on baseball games including games involving his own team the Cincinnati Reds.
In an agreement made with baseball, Rose accepted his banishment from the sport, but Rose did not admit to having gambled on baseball games. According to the current version of baseballs rules, Rose can become eligible for the Hall of Fame by getting off the banishment list. .
Most baseball fans however have a very different point of view, namely the fact that Rose's record setting 4256 career hits should place him in the upper echelons of baseball's all time greats. Add to that his 1300 plus RBI's, 198 stolen bases and a career batting of average of 303 and most fans see it as proof enough that he should be in the Hall. However, while statistics normally mean everything in baseball, in Rose's case, the point seems moot. His shortcomings off the field have somehow eclipsed his tremendous energy and determination on the field. Charlie Hustle became Charlie Hustler, seemingly overnight.
So the question is this: Should moral integrity be the yardstick which hall of fame judges eligibility? Should only squeaky-clean, church going; "my face should be enshrined on a wheaties box" types gain entrance? Or should it represent major leaguers who stand out above the rest in terms of how they played the game?.
But if the argument stands for the former, it is only fair that judgment be retroactive.
And with that in mind, we could certainly eliminate Cobb, bigot, hard core drinker, and all around nasty guy extraordinare. He took the practice of spiking opposing players while running the bases to new and disgusting heights; most of his own teammates couldn't stand the guy.