Batting Around: Do Pete Rose and 'Shoeless' Joe Jackson belong in the Hall of Fame?

MLB has reinstated Rose, Jackson and 15 others from the permanently ineligible list

Throughout the season, the CBS Sports MLB experts will bring you a weekly Batting Around roundtable breaking down pretty much anything. The latest news, a historical question, thoughts about the future of baseball, all sorts of stuff. Last week we debated the best manager in baseball. This week we're going to tackle Pete Rose's and Shoeless Joe Jackson's Hall of Fame eligibility.

Do Pete Rose and "Shoeless" Joe Jackson belong in the Hall of Fame?

Dayn Perry: No. On one level, permanent ineligibility should mean just that -- permanence and not permanent until the whims of a commissioner lead us elsewhere. Beyond that, betting on games in which you participate is a line that simply cannot be crossed without the most severe punishment. In Rose's case, he also lied about doing so for years until his belated admission was able to be tied to his book release. He's an easy no for me. As for Shoeless Joe, his story changed over the years, but initially and as part of grand-jury proceedings he admitted to playing a peripheral role in the plot to throw the 1919 World Series. That's enough for me, and MLB should have a zero-tolerance behavior toward these kinds of crimes against the game. Now, though, there's not a zero-tolerance policy, and the best voters can do is withhold their votes. I'm not a Hall voter, but I wouldn't vote for either. 

Matt Snyder: No. The players were ruled to have stained the game to the extent that they were banned from baseball. If the argument is that you can't tell the story of baseball without discussing either one, I call BS, because every baseball fan already knows plenty about them, specifically Pete Rose -- who might literally be the most famous player who ever lived at this point (he's up there with Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson). If that isn't the argument as to why they should be inducted into the Hall of Fame, it would be to honor them as individuals. Is throwing a World Series or gambling on your team and lying about it for decades worthy of such an honor? It's a no for me.

I will also say that if either or both players get in, I'll live. This whole saga has gotten far too dramatic and doesn't need to be. At the end of the day, it's a museum and these guys are no longer with us. Everything doesn't have to be dialed up to 11 all the time. 

Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Jackson reinstated from MLB's permanently ineligible list: Next stop, Hall of Fame?

Dayn Perry

R.J. Anderson: No. I don't know if Joe Jackson threw games during his career, but there's enough evidence out there to muddy the waters. Rose, on the other hand, admitted to gambling on baseball and never adequately addressed the statutory rape allegations made against him. What is the argument for absolving him of those sins -- "you can't tell the story of the game without him"? That's fine. He can be acknowledged as the deserving player who isn't in the Hall of Fame because of the consequences of his own actions and an apparent unwillingness to make amends for them.

Mike Axisa: Joining the consensus here and saying no. Putting aside the Pete Rose of it all for a second, "Shoeless" Joe Jackson and the 1919 White Sox threw a World Series. R.J. mentioned there is evidence that muddies the waters, but there is also some evidence that they continued throwing games into 1920. Throwing a World Series should be a zero tolerance item. You have to be able to trust the results on the field, that the players and managers are in it for their team's success, and not because they have money riding on the outcome. Once the outcomes come into question, everything comes into question.

In his statement, Rob Manfred said "Obviously, a person no longer with us cannot represent a threat to the integrity of the game," which is total load of crap. Rose's family is going to use his reinstatement and sudden Hall of Fame eligibility/eventual induction (I do think the Classic Baseball Era committee will put him in at some point) to enrich themselves. That's something that can motivate a player and therefore can "represent a threat to the integrity of the game." The sport's all-time hit king being banned for betting on the sport was the single greatest deterrent for players and managers. If Rose could be banned forever, anyone could be banned forever. That is gone now. Putting him and Shoeless Joe in the Hall of Fame would make this even more of a farce.