In the world of baseball, few figures evoke as much discussion and debate as Pete Rose. With an unparalleled record of games played and hits collected, Rose's impact on the game is undeniable. His memorabilia and records are prominently displayed at the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in Cooperstown, New York. However, despite his significant contributions, Rose remains absent from the Hall of Fame, a situation that will not change until at least the summer of 2028. Following the recent ruling by Commissioner Rob Manfred that a player’s eligibility on the ineligible list ceases only upon death, Rose, who passed away at the age of 83 on September 30, 2022, may finally be considered for induction by the Classic Baseball Era Committee in December 2027.
In light of this ruling, The Athletic reached out to a diverse group of Hall of Famers to gauge their opinions on Rose’s potential induction. The responses reveal a complex array of feelings regarding one of baseball's most polarizing figures.
Reggie Jackson, an outfielder and member of the Class of 1993, expressed a strong belief in Rose's eventual induction, stating, "There is no doubt: Pete Rose gets in." He drew parallels between Rose and players linked to steroid use, arguing that if they can be inducted, so should Rose, emphasizing the importance of sharing his story in the Hall of Fame.
Jim Palmer, a pitcher from the Class of 1990, acknowledged Rose's greatness on the field but pointed to his failure to adhere to the rules of the game. He urged Rose to have shown more contrition when given the chance to apologize, suggesting that the decision for induction may ultimately rest on the committee's composition and their understanding of the game’s history.
Mike Schmidt, a third baseman and Rose’s former teammate, believes the Hall of Fame debate surrounding Rose is likely to remain split. He recognizes Rose's unparalleled talent but also notes missed opportunities for atonement regarding his gambling history, which complicates the case for induction.
Jim Leyland, who managed the game from 1986 to 2013, admitted uncertainty about his vote for Rose. He acknowledged Rose’s Hall of Fame-caliber performance while grappling with the implications of his off-field actions.
Jim Kaat, who played alongside Rose and later coached him, shared that Rose might not desire induction as much as the opportunity to mentor young players. Kaat noted the painful absence of Rose from the game and suggested that any evaluation of Rose's candidacy should focus primarily on his on-field achievements.
Other Hall of Famers weighed in with varying degrees of support and skepticism. John Smoltz expressed confidence in voting for Rose, noting that many Hall of Famers have checkered pasts but still earned their place. Billy Wagner mentioned that decisions regarding Rose should come from those who faced him in competition, while Bill Mazeroski humorously suggested Rose should wait a little longer.
Pat Gillick, an executive inducted in 2011, acknowledged Rose's impressive performance but raised concerns regarding character, emphasizing the complexities surrounding the debate. In contrast, Andre Dawson argued for Rose's overdue recognition, emphasizing that a player's Hall of Fame status should reflect on-field accomplishments.
As the conversation around Pete Rose continues, it is evident that opinions will remain divided. His statistics speak volumes, yet the shadow of his gambling scandal complicates his legacy. As fans and players alike await the committee's decision in 2027, the debate over Rose's place in baseball history illustrates the intricate relationship between a player's achievements and their off-field conduct.
Ultimately, whether one views Rose as a deserving Hall of Famer or a cautionary tale, his story is an integral part of baseball's rich tapestry, ensuring that the conversation surrounding him will persist for years to come.
