Talk:Pete Rose

---

Pete Rose

Pete Rose is fukken AWESOME! Woo-hoo! Pete ROSE, y'all! Yeah, Pete Rose!

Pete Junior's Legal Troubles

Frankly, I don't think a lengthy paragraph on his son's legal problems belongs here. If you wanna have one sentence and then point to Junior's own page, that's fine, but re-creeating the story here doesn't make sense. Besides, if we're going to add a section about his children, you have to mention all four. And if we're going to do that, we're probably obliged to mention his two wives. --Anson2995 23:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

So I went ahead and did this, re-writing the section to include mention of all four of his children as well as his two wives. This entry is already bloated, as far as I'm concerned, and folks interested in an extended entry on the son's legal problems can click over to the kid's page. --Anson2995 16:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

that chart!

geez, that chart is so beautiful! i hate to see it removed. but i suppose it is correct to provide a link instead. alas. Kingturtle 08:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I put the chart in when I rewrote the article because there was one on Hank Aaron's page. I thought it looked nice - and took a lot of time - but I think having a link to a statistics web site is better. Gorrister 10:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How did Pete Rose avoid military service?

Born in 1941, Pete would have been ripe for the draft about the same time Elvis served. What was Charlie Hustle's angle on avoiding the draft?

He graduated high school in 1960. he played for Geneva that summer and the following summer he played in Tampa, winning the league MVP. Then the next season was in Macon - and then he went right to winter league (which is when Whitey Ford nicknamed him Charlie Hustle). That spring, he was a major leaguer. I have never read anywhere that he did anything special to avoid the draft. although his dad was influential in Cinci, I don't think he'd have clout with the military. keep in mind, that although every man was registered, millions of men were not called to serve. Kingturtle 22:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Rose's number was never called, which as you suggest, wasn't that unusual. Thousands of pro ballplayers were in the same boat. However, there were plenty drafted into service in the 1960s, and the vast majority of them served their hitch in the reserves. Nolan Ryan, for example, probably spent an extra year and a half in the minors because he kept having to leave for Army Reserve duty. --Anson2995 23:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I found the answer in an old Pete Rose book of mine written in 1975. I didn't have access to the book until I visited my parents' house for xmas. He was indeed in the military. And I will add that info to the article. Kingturtle 17:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

About Pete not getting a crew cut in the Army. Uh, guys, in 1963/64/65 and thereabouts, he sported a crew cut in civilian life. What the writer of that section may have meant was that Rose's head was not shaved, he did not receive a "burr," or a "buzz cut" like all members of Army Boot Camp receive. Sir Rhosis 01:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Which high school did Rose graduate from?

Is it Western Hills High School, or Oak Hill High School? Several external articles make direct reference to the latter [1] [2], can anyone positively confirm which high school he graduated from? Hall Monitor 17:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Pete Rose Jr. graduated from Oak Hill High School while Pete Sr. went to Western Hills High School.

Thank you Gorrister. Hall Monitor 17:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Why NPOV disclaimer added

The article is satisfactory perhaps, but the only two images selected for the article text are overwhelmingly negative and violent images from a very long career. Daniel Quinlan 19:39, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I was the one that did the last major rewrite of the article and I'm also the one that added the pictres. I'm a huge Rose fan and always have been. The fact that you think this article is non-point of view is ridiculous. If you don't think there are enough good pictures (and by the way, there are actually three pictures) then you are free to add any that you feel would improve the article. Gorrister 22:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it matters whether or not you're a fan. I'm not a fan at all and I'm happy to see him not included in the hall of fame. Perhaps the easiest fix is to remove those two images until better images can be found. Ridiculous? The only two images (aside from the top photo, yes) from his entire career are of him injuring someone badly and of him attacking someone. That is ridiculous. Daniel Quinlan 05:55, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I think I can see your point of view here. The slide into home photo is definitely well-known so I guess you don't really view it as overly negative, but I think the bench-clearer one doesn't really add anything to the article and *seemed* to make the article overly negative. Plus, I don't think it added to the article, so I removed it and thus, the NPOV disclaimer as well. Regards. Daniel Quinlan 06:06, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'll add my two cents... I think the two pictures in question (Rose colliding with Fosse and Rose fighting with Harrelson) should be included. They are iconic pictures, and along with the photo of his headfirst slide are the images that first spring to mind when people think of Rose. He was a fiery ballplayer, and for many fans, those two incidents defined him in the seventies. And frankly, if these are the biggest NPOV concerns in the Pete Rose article, then we're in awfully good shape. --Anson2995 13:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, lets NPOV the text, then focus on getting the best images possible, whether they portray Rose in a positive or negative light. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What is there in the text that you feel is a NPOV concern ? --Anson2995 14:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

HOF Reinstatement

The ban isn't looking all that permanent right now (unfortunately...) Dze27 05:53 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

Which is interesting, because if the HoF voted to exclude him, does the commish have any power to reinstate him? -- User:GWO

The HoF is a separate body from MLB. It can make whatever rules it wants. They've already shown, in a sense, they don't want Rose in because in 1991, just before Rose was about to become eligible, they passed an explicit rule saying that players banned from baseball are ineligible. I don't think they would hold a vote specifically to exclude him further. If he was reinstated to baseball, then by the HoF's rules he'd automatically be eligible. Dze27 04:53 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

Just leave out 'standing' and it will be okay. Con 10-Jan-04

The information in this entry on this subject is incorrect, and recent edits have just made it worse. It says: "Under the Hall of Fame's election rules, Rose will not be eligible for entry into the Baseball Hall of Fame until 2010 (when the Veterans Committee could select him for entry (if he is reinstated)." Under the HOF's present rules, if Rose were re-instated, he would be eligible for consideration by the V.C. as early as 2007. The relevant rule says eligibility applies to "Major League players who competed in any portion of at least ten (10) championship seasons and who have been retired as players for at least twenty-one (21) years." As a player, Rose retired in 1986. I have clarified the relevant text and mved it to it's own section. (discussion of Rose's HOF eligibility doesn't belong under the heading "Tax Evasion". Other links and sources appear in the article itself. --Anson2995 17:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's too bad that this decision has to be made. Pete would have been a hands down vote into the Hall, probably unanimous had he not made that mistake. However, Pete HAS come out recently and apologized for it. I believe that MLB should punish him in a different way, but allow him to be in the Hall of Fame and allow the Reds to retire his number. To not have the player who holds the record for hits in the hall of fame is just a shame. Kntrabssi 05:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

He holds the record for Outs as well as hits. He was a very good player for a long time. You could make up three All-Time All-star teams without considering him for any position on any of them. But he still is better than most HoF members. The problem is that "Pete Rose Rule." Given that he broke a rule that everyone who plays organized baseball knows and understands, he can never be, should never be, reinstated so that he could manage or otherwise be involved in Organized Baseball. However, that was not linked to HoF membership until they passed that rule. They should rescind that rule without changing his banned status. He says that he won't accept that, I understand. Well, that's just too bad. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Bart Giamatti's Death

People need to understand that the stress of the Rose afair didn't necessarily contribute to Giamatti's untimely death. Number 1, Fay Vincent and John Dowd as far as I know, did the bulk of the investigation, not Giamatti. Number 2, it's really Giamatti's own fault that he's dead. If Giamatti didn't decide to smoke so much and let himself be overweight, he would've lived much longer. To me, it's kind of interesting how people like Vincent and Bud Selig don't want to come near the case out of respect for Giamatti, when it's Giamatti's own vices and carelessness (over his own well being) that he is no longer with us. User:TMC1982

Crotch Grabbing Image

I know we've had some discussion about which images are apropriate on this page, but can we all agree that this doesn't belong? If the goal is to show the seedier side of Rose, we can always put back the image of the Ray Fosse incicent. I don't mind that it's obscene so much that it doesn't really illustrate his career. There's a nude photo of Bob Feller out there, but you don't see it on his Wikipedia article. Any objections to me taking this down? --djrobgordon 07:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I took it down and cited it as being obscene. Perhaps that was a little strong, but I think it definitely detracts from what is, for the most part, a professionally-written article. GeorgeC 07:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. That photo doesn't belong. --Anson2995 21:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Image:Peteroseattitude.jpg is a relatively famous picture which certainly shows Rose's attitude and has taken on a whole new meaning, what with him betting on baseball and all. Wikipedia has picture of the King of Denmark caught smoking; clearly we are not censored for the protection of the subjects of biographies. If we had more images of him from the days when he was still playing, I would be more sympathetic to your cause. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, so arguments about obscenity are a non-starter. I think it does illustrate his career. Please balance it with other images of him doing something you consider positive (hitting a home run maybe, ending world hunger, whatever) rather than remove it. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be willing to consider your argument if you could offer some evidence to back your claim that it is a relatively famous picture. Where else has it been used? I'm a lifelong Reds fan and a baseball writer and, frankly, I don't recall ever seeing it used before. My objection isn't because I think the photo is obscence, but rather that it's not a picture that adequately or accurately reflects the subject of the article.. There are several iconic pictures of Rose... three that stand out above all others: colliding with Ray Fossee in the All-Star Game, the Walter Iooss shot of him sliding head first into third base at Wrigley Field, and the shot of him standing on first base after breaking Ty Cobb's records. I don't think any knowledgable editor would dispute that those are representative images, and I don't understand why those were removed in favor of this one. --Anson2995 23:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

They weren't, at least not to my knowledge. I don't believe anyone here would stop you from adding those three that you described. In fact, please add them. I'm talking about adding this image in addition to those three. An article of this size could haddle the addition of at least four more images. I'm afraid I don't know how I could prove to you how commonly used this image is except to say that I (neither a Reds fan nor a baseball writer) had seen it several times before stumbling upon this dispute. It's used generally by critics of Rose to illustrate what they consider his attitude toward baseball. Here is one example that I found off the cuff (page 2 on google image search). We can put the images you mentioned in the parts of the article that describe his career. I think that this image would be good in the sections that describe his post-career etc. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Just for reference, here are two uploaded images I found on the page history: Image:Rose Fosse.jpg and Image:Rose Harrelson Fight.jpg, both of which were deleted. Are there any undeleted images of Rose currently uploaded but not in the article (other than above, obviously). savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion above under "Why NPOV added". The pictures I mentioned were the ones that accompanied this article for the longest time, and they were recently deleted. I disagreed with that decision, and I thnk they should be brought back. I'd have much less objection to the crotch-grabbing shot if it wasn't the only picture being used. --Anson2995 12:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems like they were deleted for copyright reasons. The one of him sliding into third I think would be fair use simply because of how famous that photo is. I don't know about the copyright status of the other photos. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Speculation that Rose Bet Against His Own Team

Savidan asked whether any reputable sources had ever speculated that Rose bet on his own team, asking for citations. I have provided two. One is from an Allan Barra article in the Wall Street Journal, the other an Associated Press article in which investigator John Dowd says he believes that Rose bet against the Reds. These are just two examples, but I think they satisfy the request. It's important to note that I don't offer these as citations for the fact that Rose *did* bet against his team, just that it has been a subject of speculation in the main stream media. --Anson2995 00:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

These are fine by me. I do think it is important to note who actually makes the claim that he has bet against his own team as there are may (both pro- and anti- Rose) who believe him when he says that he only be for them. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I restored this in the intro. However, one caveat: the ESPN article you found makes it seem like at the time the accusation did not include betting against his own team, that being a more recent accusation. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

On re-reading this section, I think I see your point. The inclusion of these comments in that section could create confusion. To clarify, I shortened the section and moved it later in the chronology. Let me know if this resolves your concerns. --Anson2995 14:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks better. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Number of times on base

Not officially kept by MLB, but I believe Rose was also on base via a hit, walk or HBP more time than any other player in history, no? Mglovesfun 22:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed, he was: http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/TOB_career.shtml

I thought Joe Dimaggio had the record for most consecutive games with at least one hit at 56 games...

Ok, maybe i'm being really picky about this, but I don't think Rose was even the second longest hit streak guy. There was a guy with 45 hits, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitting_streak

-- beajedi

• First of all, I have no idea why you are brining up a consecutive hitting streak here, because this post is about number of times on base in a career, not number of consecutive times on base. Second, there is no one with a 45 game hitting streak in a single season. Pete Rose and Willie Keeler are tied for second with a 44 game streak. Keeler had one hit the season before, giving him a 45 game streak over all. Indrian 00:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Geez, I was too lazy to start up a new subject thing.

I thought I saw a stat of Rose being 1st on the list. now its listed as 2nd single-season all time, so its a moot point. Didn't the guy from the phillies have something like a 36 game hit streak counting from the year before. It wasn't chase utley, it was another guy.

-beajedi

• Jimmy Rollins Indrian 05:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Length of article

This article is 33 kilobytes long. Is there any way to possibly condense this or create new articles? Spartacusprime 21:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Pete Rose gambling controversy or Pete Rose gambling saga would be logical choices. Trevor GH5 00:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

spread betting

Has it even occurred to anybody that Pete could have been spread betting. Even if he was betting for his team to win, he could hurt the team's chances of winning by the way he coached in order to be within the spread.

When you bet on baseball game, it's a proposition bet, not a bet against a point spread. This principle is discussed at length in the Dowd Report. Additionally, there's no reason to speculate about Rose's gambling habits. They are documented quite extensively. I'm removing your addition as original research, unless you can provide some citations or point us to other sources that address the issue in some substantive way. Anson2995 20:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That's untrue. Baseball wagering can be made on what's known as a "runline" (usually plus or minus -1.5 runs) at any Las Vegas casino and many illegal bookmakers offer them as well. I have no idea what Pete Rose bet or didn't bet, but runline wagering exists. 68.45.106.216 17:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Too many sections

This article has too many sections, all-star games and LCSs do not need their own sections, see a good article like Lawrence Taylor for a similar figure (with some controversy, albeit not as much) for a properly section article. Trevor GH5 01:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Can't we get a photo from his playing days? It's not only sort of insulting, but it doesn't represent most of what the article is about to have a picture of him as an older man. See almost any other baseball player's page. Papercrab 04:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Pete's background info

Some of it's wrong. First, there's no Anderson Ferry neighborhood in Cincinnati. There's an actual ferry by that name, which many West-Siders use to cross the river to Kentucky (no nearby bridge), and there's an Anderson Ferry Road, but no region that goes by that name. The area's best described as Western Hills, which is also the high school Pete attended (not Oak Hills as someone posted here).

Bloogart7 20:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate description of HOF monitor on baseball-reference.com

I have removed the following text:

"Baseball-Reference.com, which rates past and present players by metrics of Hall of Fame worthiness, rates Rose eleventh among all hitters all-time for Hall of Fame worthiness, with a score of 313 (100 is accepted as a good Hall of Fame candidate). His rating is the second-highest among those not already in the Hall of Fame, with only Barry Bonds (348) rating higher. [3]"

This is an inaccurate description of the HOF monitor. The link "Explanation of this measurement" on that page, http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_monitor , indicates in the second sentence that "It attempts to assess how likely (not how deserving) an active player is to make the Hall of Fame." 68.45.106.216 17:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's disgraceful that an inaccurate statement that's obviously incorrect (the cited page has an "explanation of this measurement") was allowed to remain on this page for over 9 months. Doesn't anybody bother to verify content on Wikipedia anymore? 68.45.106.216 18:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Uncited section

I have removed a paragraph from the article because it made potentially controversial claims without citation. Some of the statements ("appears to have miscalculated badly") sound like original research. Others, like the claim that Bob Feller is the leader of an opposition movement to Rose's HOF induction, need citation.

Here is the section I removed:

If Rose hoped that by "coming clean" he might clear the path to his rehabilitation, he appears to have miscalculated badly. Talk of Rose's reinstatement or eligibility for the Hall of Fame has dropped off noticeably since the book's publication. The majority of living Hall of Famers themselves refuse to have anything to do with him joining them, with Bob Feller expressing especially harsh opposition. Since all living Hall of Famers are members of the Veterans Committee, this makes it highly unlikely that Rose will ever be admitted in the near future; as mentioned above, his name was not even on the Veterans Committee ballot for 2007. Supporters of Rose's reinstatement believe his chances would be much better had Rose not waited so long and/or been more repentant in regard to his betting on baseball games.

76.97.163.77 (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Induction into WWE Hall of Fame.

Does anyone think it would be a good idea to mention his membership in it in the intro. instead of further down in the article? It seems like a notable honor to include in the introductory section. -- Kevin Browning (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Kingturtle (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Pete Rose is a baseball player, not a wrestler. His primary importance is as a baseball player, and he would have never been invited onto the WWE as a guest performer without his stature as a baseball player. The intro is the place to quickly summarize the important aspects of a person's life, and being inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame after a few celebrity guest appearances is not one of those aspects for Rose. It should be mentioned of course, but it is fine where it is. Indrian (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess the question is this...is the induction into the WWE HOF a meaningless, symbolic award, like a modern day honorary degree, like Billy Joel getting a Doctor of Fine Arts from Syracuse University in 2006, or is the introduction into the WWE HOF more like Brian May, who has in his introductory paragraph information both about his band (Queen) *and* his doctoral thesis in astrophysics. Kingturtle (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The former, I believe. I am no expert on Rose's WWE appearances, but judging by the information currently in the article it does not look like he did much. The WWE was probably just putting him in for the irony as much as anything, seeing as he is getting nowhere near the baseball Hall of Fame induction he deserves because of the gambling. Indrian (talk) 13:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Record for playing in the most winning games?

this needs to be rephrased. Kingturtle (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Reinstatement efforts

"A website dedicated to the integrity of the game [11], something held dearly by MLB, is proclaiming that the lifetime ban of Pete Rose sets precedence for matters concerning the integrity of the game. Using the Pete Rose case as precedence, the site calls for either the reinstatement of Pete Rose or the banning of all players alleged to have used steroids." This sounds more like a publicity attempt for this website than a NPOV statement on reinstatement efforts. Please add a reason why this belongs to this article, because I'm sure there have been plenty of websites and fans that have argued for his reinstatement; so, why is this one special? Metsfanmax (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC))

His Nickname

"Charley Hustle" was a great nickname and he deserved it. However, it was given to him very early when he was in an exhibition game against the Yankees. Someone in the Mantle/Ford clique coined it and it is clear from context that it was not intended as a compliment. When I find my citation for this, it is going into the article, along with the undisputed fact that Pete made the most Outs of any batter in history. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The Jim Gray interview

I don't know which came first, but this section may have been copied from [4]. Thmazing (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)