Commentary: Pete Rose's Hall of Fame fate is in the hands of the voters now, which is where it belongs

It's not hard to find people closely connected with baseball who believe that Pete Rose should never be allowed in the National Baseball Hall of Fame because he bet on his own team's games, was not remorseful about it and also was a contemptible human being. Likewise, there are others who believe that Rose deserves posthumous induction for his many accomplishments as one of baseball's all-time greats, regardless of the many blots on his record. That's why MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred's decision to lift the permanent ban on Rose, less than a year after Rose's death, was appropriate. It's not because Rose should be enshrined, but because he simply deserves the chance. Rose's candidacy shouldn't be left to the commissioner. If reasonable people can disagree on whether he should be enshrined or not, that outcome should be determined by the Hall of Fame's selection process, not by MLB's ban or a rule seemingly established by the Hall with the intention to keep Rose out. Consider this: What if the commissioner's office had the authority to permanently ban any player who had been found to have used a performance-enhancing drug? (Players are subject to permanent bans only if they have failed three PED tests.) In that case, former stars and known users such as Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Alex Rodriguez would not have been eligible to be voted on for Hall of Fame induction. And the same debate that followed Rose would have followed them. But they weren't banned. They were eligible, were voted on and didn't get in. After failing to make it during the 10-year period when they could be chosen by Hall voters, increasing numbers since have been denied by the committee assigned to consider players not selected by voters. Case (at least for now) closed. For those who don't believe they deserve to be enshrined, it's been a satisfying process of justice being served. Let Rose have the same opportunity. If Rose were a career .240 hitter whose nickname was "Charlie Lethargy," there would be no point. But he inarguably is one of the top players of all time, and even those most staunchly opposed to Rose's Hall of Fame case ought to at least be able to understand why Rose advocates believe he deserves to be in. At least in that way, he is like any other borderline Hall of Fame candidate. Probably everyone in baseball or who follows it could pick out players that he or she doesn't think should be in or players who aren't in but should be. The difference is that those candidates actually were voted on. Why shouldn't Rose's case be allowed to be heard out? Here's another reason: The purpose of MLB's permanently ineligible list isn't to keep people out of the Hall of Fame. It means they're banned from working with MLB, its teams or affiliated minor leagues. The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is a privately owned museum that operates independently of MLB. The Hall made its decision to bar players on the banned list in 1991, which, not coincidentally, was the first year that Rose would have been eligible to be voted on. Before that, they could be considered. In fact, Shoeless Joe Jackson, another player removed from the permanently ineligible list by Manfred, was voted on twice before 1991. The museum has the right to do what it wants. But, at the risk of sounding like a goofy baseball romantic, the Hall of Fame spiritually belongs to the game and its fans, not a museum that has been in the hands of a family that has been its steward since its founding. Whether Rose deserves to be in or not shouldn't be decided by an entity that operates with no oversight beyond its own appointed board. But that's the play that the Hall of Fame made in 1991. MLB was right to keep Rose permanently ineligible. MLB rules state that any player, umpire, club or league official or employee who bets on a game he or she is involved in shall be permanently banned. Rose never did anything to merit removal from the banned list. But that shouldn't necessarily mean that Rose should be banned from the Hall of Fame. After all, the Hall itself didn't operate by that premise until 1991. It quite arguably wasn't a ban on players on the permanently ineligible list; it would seem more like a ban on Rose. And so given that the MLB ban effectively served to keep Rose from being considered for induction, Manfred did the right thing to enable his case to be heard. Granted, Rose's case now will be decided by a committee whose members are appointed by the Hall of Fame. It's a little bit like how, when the NCAA hands out disciplinary measures, the appeal committee is made up of people appointed by the NCAA. But at least it's better than what the Hall of Fame has done until now. Should Rose be inducted? That's debatable. And that's the whole point.