do you think pete rose should be in the hall of fame?

[uthminsta]

Just curious, especially since it's been brought up in the BBFHOF discussion thread. This is one of the most debated topics, but I simply wanted to know why Pete Rose is or is not on your ballots.

[2Chance]

He stayed off my ballot for a long time because of his gambling and subsequent banishment. His name started to loom large after a certain point because he became one of the best players (IMO) who was not elected.

As it is, he fits the criteria for the BBF Hall of Fame.The reason he doesn't fit the criteria for Cooperstown is twofold:
1)His gambling was against the rules, and for that he was banned from baseball.
2)It is against the rules (in Cooperstown) for the writers to vote for someone who is banned from baseball.

If that second part was relaxed (or not in effect), Pete may already have his mug on a plaque.

Some of Rose's credentials, on the positive side:
• He made the most of his ability, playing the game “the way it should be played,” with a great deal of enthusiasm. Cut from the Ty Cobb mold, he gave no quarter in his play. His intensity is unmatched even today.
• Rookie of the Year when he broke in with the Reds in 1963.
• Played in 17 All Star Games in 24 seasons.
• Won two gold gloves in right field. Also switched positions whenever it was better for the team, and generally was good to very good defensively wherever he played. As a side note, he saw that the Reds were lacking at third base and volunteered to give it a shot. He worked hard, and became a pretty good third baseman. It’s hard for me to imagine some of today’s players, especially if they are “stars,” giving up their position unless they feel their job is otherwise in jeopardy. Even Cal Ripken gave up his position at SS grudgingly.
• Won NL MVP Award in 1973 with a .338 BA, 230 hits, 36 of them doubles, and 115 runs scored. He was on base 301 times that season (first in the league) with an OBP of .401. Ten times he finished in the top ten in the voting for MVP.
• Finished among the top ten in Batting Average 13 times in his career, and finished with a .303 average. (.375 OBP)
• Regularly finished among the league leaders in games played, AB, hits, OBP, runs scored, doubles (many of which should have been singles), and total bases. Six times among the leaders in extra base hits; seven times for walks and HBP; eight times for triples.
• For 14 series’ in postseason play (1-NLDS, 7 NLCS, and 6 WS), he batted .321. He excelled in the 1975 World Series against Boston, batting .370 with 10 hits including a double and a triple, and 5 walks for an OBP of .485.
• Put together a 44-game hitting streak in 1978.
• Is the career leader in games, at-bats, hits, and times on base. Also leads everybody in singles, total bases by a switch-hitter, most seasons with 200 or more hits (10), most consecutive seasons of 100 or more hits (23) and the most seasons with 600 or more at-bats (17). He is the only player in Major League history to play in more than 500 games at five different positions (1B, 939; 2B, 628; 3B, 634; LF, 671; RF, 595) and he has played in the most victorious games (1,972) in addition to holding several other National League and club records.
• Is second (career) in doubles with 746, and fifth in runs scored with 2165.

Jamesian Stats, for those who like that kind of thing:
Black Ink: Batting - 64 (13) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 239 (24) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 54.9 (44) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 313.5 (10) (Likely HOFer > 100)

[dgarza]

He has always been on mine.

There are several players who technically are not eligible for the Baseball HOF, but I still will be voting for them for the BBFHOF.

[FrankD]

I've always thought he should be in the HOF anyway. Did he gamble on baseball? Sure. But the difference between him and the Black Sox of 1919 is that Rose bet on his own team to win. If he bet on them to lose, he could have easily made decisions guaranteed to make a loss happen. Try as you might, short of sabotage on the opposing team, you cannot guarantee a victory.

Besides, the HOF is representative of on-field achievement. Ty Cobb was a pretty nasty customer and rather hated by players and fans, but no one questions whether or not he belongs. Rose is right up there with the all-time greats of the game.

[abacab]

Rose's playing career is more than qualified for HoF status, even if he had retired before breaking the hit record. To me there is no comparison between Rose's and Joe Jackson's crimes. I don't plan to vote for Jackson because his crime had the potential to destroy professional baseball. Rose betting on his team isn't in the same ballpark. Rose not being in the real HoF doesn't bother me, though, because he knowingly broke the rules and deserves to pay the price.

Rose and Jackson are in the same boat for the BBF Hall. As it stands, with some voting for their playing career and some leaving them off due to crimes against baseball, they're taking up ballot space with no chance of being elected and blocking the election of other candidates.

[Donnybrook @ Second base]

Nope never, he broke the one rule that gets you banned for life. Thats it case closed.

He is in the hall of fame in the hall of records. Thats as close as he should ever get.

And how do we know he only bet on them to win? The word of some degenerate gamblers?

[dgarza]

I vote Rose


MLB is not my Daddy

[leecemark]

--Rose's gambling banishment has probably delayed his making my ballot, although I was never sold on him as a truely great player when active or now. He was very good for a long time and impressed alot of people (and rightfully so) with his hustle, but was never a dominating player and his MVP voting record just means he was always overrated. He hung around long after he was making any contribution to get the hits record and I would like his resume better if he'd hung them up sooner without the hit record.
--That said, I agree his crimes against the game are not on a par with Joe Jackson's. Jackson won't make my ballot if we keep adding to 1,000 players. Rose should make an appearance fairly soon if he doesn't make it before I hold my nose and vote for him.

[Donnybrook @ Second base]

I love how everybody takes some degenerate gamblers word for it that he never bet against his team.

Its like putting Chris Rocks character in New Jack City to work in the crack production lab, sure he cleaned himself up.

[Captain Cold Nose]

If Rose was following the Vegas-setup line for baseball, then he technically wasn't betting on wins or losses. Like other sports, the line is based on a number of things, such as runs scored and how many runs favored. Betting on baseball is probably the least popular of major sports because it is not clear cut. There's a run line and a dime line and stuff like that. I used to work as a handicapper, and I never did figure out what everything meant.

I voted no, by the way.

[abacab]

I love how everybody takes some degenerate gamblers word for it that he never bet against his team.


Rose was never accused of betting against his team. I'm sure that if he did that, there would have been evidence, and that evidence would have been used against him. As there is no evidence, I'm going to assume he never bet AGAINST his team.

[catcher24]

There IS evidence against Rose, and plenty of it. However, to avoid making him look worse than he was (were that even possible), Bart Giamatti kept the evidence confidential once Rose agreed to his lifetime ban. Naturally, and true to form, as soon as Giamatti died, Rose started whining to be reinstated. Let me ask you (those who actually believe Pete), as competitive as he was and as much as he loved the game and wanted enshrinement in the HOF, DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT PETE ROSE WOULD HAVE AGREED TO A LIFETIME BAN IF BART GIAMATTI DIDN'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO CONVICT HIM? Rose saw what they had and knew he didn't have a prayer, so rather than look any worse by having the evidence come out, he agreed to a lifetime ban. Would any of you admit to a murder and life in prison if there wasn't overwhelming evidence? GET REAL, people, the evidence was there. And if you actually believe Pete Rose never bet against his own team, please PM me, because I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would love to sell you - and, really, I own it!!

[dgarza]

I really don't even care if Pete bet against his team. It doesn't really matter to me, especially at this point in time.

catcher24, I generally don't think it's good idea to believe people do 1 thing or another purely based upon their character type. If that were that case, we could nail him for hundreds of things he might be "likey" to do, not that he neccassarily did them or not.

[KHenry14]

Well, to me it's irrelevant whether he bet on his team or not. Fact is, his involvement with bookies could seriously jeopardize his ability to manage the team. If you read this: http://www.dowdreport.com/ you'll see that Pete was already blowing off bookies who were trying to collect from him. It's not hard to imagine the next step the bookies and their "friends" might have taken with Pete.

No matter what he did on the field, he broke the one rule you can't break. He felt he was bigger than the game and that should be enough to get him by. He found out that wasn't quite true.

And why should any baseball fan care about him? He certainly doesn't care about us unless we are paying him for his autograph. He's lied to us for the past 15 years, he's played millions of people for fools, and we are supposed to give this guy a break??? I don't think so.

One last fact: While there is no doubt he earned inclusion to our HOF and Baseball's HOF while a player (an overated one if you ask me), I am glad to see that the Baseball HOF has stood up to him. I'd like to see us do the same.

JMHO

KH14

[catcher24]

dgarza - You didn't answer my question. Knowing how competitive Rose was (is), and knowing how badly he wanted to remain in the game and get elected to Cooperstown, do you really believe he would have caved in to Giamatti (and his lawyers agreed, as well) if baseball didn't have sufficient evidence to convict and ban him anyway? I say, no way he would have done that.

[Donnybrook @ Second base]

Your right catcher24, he hoped that time would be his greatest allie, that people would feel bad for him.

He was allowed on the all century team, he wrote his book and admitting that he did bet after years of flat out denial.

He made his bed, he has to lie in it.

He has his stupid "Hit King" store a block away from the HOF and that plus the hall of records for his on field accomplishments is as close as this man should get to being honored.

[catcher24]

Donnybrook - No kidding? He really has a store a block from the HOF? :eek: I haven't made it to Cooperstown in 11 years, so wasn't aware of it. Rest assured, when I do make it back to Cooperstown, that will be one store I won't go into. Sure like some of the other ones, though. Spent a lot of time in them, drooling and wishing I was a millionaire! :laugh

[dgarza]

dgarza - You didn't answer my question. Knowing how competitive Rose was (is), and knowing how badly he wanted to remain in the game and get elected to Cooperstown, do you really believe he would have caved in to Giamatti (and his lawyers agreed, as well) if baseball didn't have sufficient evidence to convict and ban him anyway? I say, no way he would have done that.
Once again.,..not making "did he/didn't he"s based on character analysis. He could have gone either way. I don't know which way he went. So I don't "believe" or support either because I don't know. Nothing has been revealed TO ME.

But maybe you were there and witnesses all thing going down. I know I wasn't...

[dgarza]

I am glad to see that the Baseball HOF has stood up to him. I'd like to see us do the same.

Stand up to a person who isn't even here? Is Pete a lurker? I don't get it. The BBFHOF has nothing to do with the players personally, it has to do with making BBF complete in its baseball-ness.

[catcher24]

dgarza - Nope, wasn't there. Only wish I had been. However, I do tend to believe the investigator baseball hired, as well as Bart Giamatti and Fay Vincent, more than I will ever believe Pete Rose. But that's just one humble individual's opinion. BTW, if we are here at BBF to honor all things baseball, I think the most important thing of all is to honor the integrity of the game itself - which, again IMHO, leaves Pete Rose outside looking in.

[Skeeters Fan]

I never liked Pete Rose when he was a player. I did not find his gambling on baseball in direct violation of the Prime Directives to be endearing. Nothing he has said or done since he has been declared ineligible has either made the guy seem more likable in my eyes or made him seem to be worthy of HOF induction.

The gambling is a clear reason why Rose should continue to be ineligible. But I could not sum up what I have disliked about Rose's denials, defiance and then his defiant reversal of his previous denials (i.e. his grudging admission, which he sold in a book).

But Jim Palmer put it very simply in some show ESPN ran when they aired "Hustle" (not the mock trial): Pete Rose does not have baseball's interests at heart, it's all about him. If he were to try to do more for baseball, it would be a lot easier to think about doing something for Pete Rose.

[Weasel1956]

Rose...No....Shoeless Joe...maybe.

[Gonzo]

I don't care what Pete did off the field (yes it was wrong) but if Barry Bonds is going to be a Hall of Famer (assuming he doesn't use steroids) why isn't Pete?

[Gonzo]

Nope never, he broke the one rule that gets you banned for life. Thats it case closed.

He is in the hall of fame in the hall of records. Thats as close as he should ever get.

And how do we know he only bet on them to win? The word of some degenerate gamblers?

The one rule??? No, the case is not closed.

I really hate it when people use that, "He broke the rules" excuse. No kidding. Remember, Ty Cobb was suspended in 1911 for fighting a spectator, and we believe he is one of the greatest players of all time.

[Gonzo]

MLB is basically begging itself to fall apart by keeping Rose and Jackson out.

Why do people give so much sympathy for Jackson because he was illiterate? Maybe if Commy would stop thinking about himself for 3 seconds, Joe Jackson would be in the HOF

[catcher24]

Gonzo: I'm a little confused. Why shouldn't Barry Bonds get elected if he didn't use steroids? I see no correlation between that and Pete Rose betting on baseball. Far as I know, Bonds has never bet on baseball. Maybe I'm missing something here.Besides which, as a player (and I personally dislike Barry Bonds), Bonds is much greater than Rose ever hoped to be. Longevity doesn't always equate to quality. Also, I don't see MLB collapsing because they have kept Jackson and Rose out of the HOF. Jackson has been out ever since the Hall opened in 1936, and Rose since he was banned, yet attendance records continue to get broken - both in MLB and at the HOF. The only thing that will destroy the game is the combined greed of players and owners, which will eventually create another strike. Then you'll see fans leaving in droves (ala 1994).

[Gonzo]

Gonzo: I'm a little confused. Why shouldn't Barry Bonds get elected if he didn't use steroids?

I mean to say that if Bonds is using steroids, he shouldn't be elected, but he should if he isn't using them.

[catcher24]

OK, got it now. Thanks for the clarification! :waving

[Skeeters Fan]

The thing about Bonds and Rose is that one is on the ineligible list and the other is an active player. I don't see that Bonds is going to be put on the ineligible list regardless of his past or current steroid use.

Frankly, HOF and the ineligible players get more attention, not less with things the way they are... if Pete Rose hadn't been caught he would be old news by now. HOF is just 86ing the people on the list, not writing it...

[DoubleX]

I just thought of a potentially interesting scenario with Pete Rose's Hall of Fame candidacy. If eligible, next year would technically be the last year he could be on the writers ballot, right? With an extremely weak entering class next year and the prospects that no one will be voted in (though Sutter looks well positioned for next year), coupled with the fact that it would be Rose's last year of eligibility and thus might receive some sympathy, anyone think it's possible that Rose could receive a large number of write in ballots? It's highly doubtful that he'd receive 75%, but I think the circumstances could lead to a noticeably high number of write in votes for Rose.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Didn't he actually receive less votes this year than in the year before?

Rose's problem is it's hard to be sympathetic for him. While the Black Sox seem to have taken on a Jean Valjean-like identity as the years go on, Rose has been extremely defiant. He's almost taken the attitude (which many writers have alluded to) that he's better off without the Hall of Fame. He's practically made a living off of not making it.

[Kroxquo]

Didn't he actually receive less votes this year than in the year before?

Rose's problem is it's hard to be sympathetic for him. While the Black Sox seem to have taken on a Jean Valjean-like identity as the years go on, Rose has been extremely defiant. He's almost taken the attitude (which many writers have alluded to) that he's better off without the Hall of Fame. He's practically made a living off of not making it.

Just the same way that most of Joe Jackson's fame comes from the fact that he's not in the Hall. If he had played out his career, I think he would have ended up like Tris Speaker - one of the greatest outfielders of all time and largely forgotten by most casual fans.

[Donnybrook @ Second base]

Having a nickname helps Joe Jackson.

I hope Rose never ever gets in.

[west coast orange and black]

1997: 20 write-in votes
'98: 12
'99: 16
'00: 17
'01: 15
'02: 18
'03: 18
'04: 15
'05: 9

i'm thinking "no, not a noticeably high number of votes".

[2Chance]

There won't be much sympathy, and I doubt seriously that anybody will try to "rally the troops" with a "Vote for Pete" campaign.

Anybody who does might as well hang a sign around his neck that reads,
"DO NOT TAKE ME SERIOUSLY."

[Freakshow]

The hall of fame hates controversy. IMO, there's little chance of Rose being reinstated for the 2006 election. That gives the Hall three years that they don't have to address the issue.

If reinstated, Rose would be eligible for the 2009 VC election. There is a better chance of his reinstatment then, when it may be decided to let him be judged by a jury of his peers.

[KHenry14]

If reinstated, Rose would be eligible for the 2009 VC election.

Does anybody here think there's any chance of this happening anytime soon? I sure as heck don't. And I don't feel sorry for him in the least.

KH14

[Brad Harris]

I just thought of a potentially interesting scenario with Pete Rose's Hall of Fame candidacy. If eligible, next year would technically be the last year he could be on the writers ballot, right? With an extremely weak entering class next year and the prospects that no one will be voted in (though Sutter looks well positioned for next year), coupled with the fact that it would be Rose's last year of eligibility and thus might receive some sympathy, anyone think it's possible that Rose could receive a large number of write in ballots? It's highly doubtful that he'd receive 75%, but I think the circumstances could lead to a noticeably high number of write in votes for Rose.

I e-mailed the Hall of Fame about write-in ballots earlier this winter and the thing is: they don't count. Not a single vote that Rose has received for the past 14 elections has made one iota of difference. If every voter wrote in Pete Rose's name on their ballot next year, Rose still wouldn't be elected.

[Brad Harris]

The hall of fame hates controversy. IMO, there's little chance of Rose being reinstated for the 2006 election. That gives the Hall three years that they don't have to address the issue.

If reinstated, Rose would be eligible for the 2009 VC election. There is a better chance of his reinstatment then, when it may be decided to let him be judged by a jury of his peers.

Are you sure? Off the top of my head, I was thinking 2007 VC. 5-year wait. 15-years for the BBWAA. Next year: VC. Or is there a year off in-between the 15th BBWAA ballot and the first VC ballot?

[Macker]

The way the rules were before the change in the makeup of the VC a few years ago, Rose could NEVER be elected if not reinstated in time for the 2006 election. There was some kind of rule about the VC not being able to elect a post-1940 (not sure of year) who didn't receive 100 votes in a BBWAA ballot.

I think this rule was taken out, though. Regardless, the BBWAA didn't always follow their own rules. Some guys like Ken Boyer got added back to the ballot when their time had expired.

[west coast orange and black]

all of this makes no mind, because the overwhelming majority of the voting vets do not want rose in.

[Freakshow]

Are you sure? Off the top of my head, I was thinking 2007 VC. 5-year wait. 15-years for the BBWAA. Next year: VC. Or is there a year off in-between the 15th BBWAA ballot and the first VC ballot?
In effect, there is a year off in-between the 15th BBWAA ballot and the first VC ballot.

When the HOF first announced the new system in August 2001 they mentioned no cutoff. They said that anyone who was ever eligible for the BBWAA would be eligible. I though, Great, Ted Simmons and Lou Whitaker are eligible again. After some email correspondance with them, I learned this was not the case, that only players who last played in 1981 and before were eligible for 2003. So, Tiant, was not eligible, despite having completed his BBWAA eligibility in 2002.

So players retired in 1982 and 1983 are newly eligible for this VC election. Retirees from 84 and 85 come up in 2007, 86 and 87 are new in 2009.

[Freakshow]

The way the rules were before the change in the makeup of the VC a few years ago, Rose could NEVER be elected if not reinstated in time for the 2006 election. There was some kind of rule about the VC not being able to elect a post-1940 (not sure of year) who didn't receive 100 votes in a BBWAA ballot.

I think this rule was taken out, though. Regardless, the BBWAA didn't always follow their own rules. Some guys like Ken Boyer got added back to the ballot when their time had expired.
Yes, until 2001, players debuting after 1945 were not eligible for the VC unless they received at least 100 votes one year from the BBWAA. This rule was adopted in the early 1990's. At first, they had a 60% restriction, but the outcry from supporters of Roger Maris and others was such that they relaxed the rule.

Under the new VC rules, all 10-year players are eligible, regardless of writer support.

As for Ken Boyer, in 1985 and 1986 the BWAA reinstated many players who had been victimized by the 5% rule. Boyer and 3 others (Santo, Pinson and Flood) eventually were allowed to complete their 15 years of eligibility, in violation of the rule allowing BBWAA eligibility up to 20 years after retiring. Dick Allen was not allowed to do this, being dropped off 20 years after retirement, after having had only 14 years on the ballot.

[BlueJay]

all of this makes no mind, because the overwhelming majority of the voting vets do not want rose in.

How do you know this? boggs and sandberg both said this year that they thought Rose should be in. They will be able to vote in 2009, right?

[west coast orange and black]

How do you know this? boggs and sandberg both said this year that they thought Rose should be in. They will be able to vote in 2009, right?
many baseball articles over the years.

yes, those two particular players will be able to vote, but the majority of hof members are old-school with long memories.

[Brad Harris]

The majority of living Hall of Famers were contemporaries of Pete Rose.

There will be 83 potential voters in this year's Veterans Committee election. Provided that none of them die, there will be at least 86 in 2007 (with the additions of Boggs, Gammons and Sandberg), probably more. The same holds true for 2009, when Rose potentially be named to his first (VC) ballot.

Of the 83 current voters, one (John McHale) will see his term expire (in 2007) before Rose would become eligible for the VC. As all the others (Hall of Famers, Spink and Frick Award winners) become serve "life" terms on the committee, we can accurately estimate the total number of VC voters in 2009. The 60 present Hall of Fame members are joined now by Boggs and Sandberg. In the 2006-2008 elections, it is likely that 4-5 additional members will be elected (Ripken, Gwynn, McGwire, Rice/Sutter, Sutter/Gossage?) That would give us 67 members of the Hall when 2009 rolls around. There are presently 8 Spink and 14 Frick Award winners. Add Gammons and 3 more writers (since they are in the habit of honoring one per year) plus 4 more broadcasters (2005-2008 recipients) and we're talking about a body of voters that includes around 96 voters assuming no one dies in the meantime.

Here's a breakdown of how present Hall of Famers' careers overlapped the career of Pete Rose.

7 were teammates.
25 played a fair-to-great amount of time in the same league, against Rose.
17 more were contemporary players who played in the American League (though some played against Rose in the World Series and in the All-Star Game.)

That's 49 players who were competiting with or against Rose for a World Championship during his career.

Then you've got 1 guy who managed Rose (Anderson), 3 who managed against him regularly (Berra, Schoendienst, Lasorda) and 2 more who managed in the same era, but in the other league (Lopez, Weaver). That's 6 managers who were "contemporaries" of the perennial all-star.

Add to that Lee MacPhail, a long-time team and league official who would have seen Rose play throughout his career and you've got 56 out of 62 living Hall of Famers with a "contemporary" link to Rose.

The ones who's careers don't criss-cross Rose's are Bobby Doerr, Bob Feller, Monte Irvin, George Kell, Ralph Kiner and Phil Rizzuto.

Not coincidentally, these six are among the oldest living members of the Hall of Fame and, thus, are most likely to die before the 2009 election arrives (four years from now.) These men will range, in age, from 86 to 90 if some/any of them are still kickin' at that time. Furthermore, there isn't any guarantee that a living player at those ages will be healthy enough, or mentally competent enough to fill out and return a ballot in the mail.

I'm only suggesting that the "old school with long memories" types of voters are dying out rather quickly and the vast majority of the voters are going to be people who saw Pete Rose play baseball and saw him often. I would certainly imagine that the minority of voters who are not Hall of Famers (the writers and broadcasters) will have a similar age-distribution affecting the process.

2009 doesn't look that bad for Rose (were he removed from the ineligible list) and time is certainly on Pete's side. 2006, on the other hand, is beginning to look extremely bleak.

[Kroxquo]

The majority of living Hall of Famers were contemporaries of Pete Rose.

There will be 83 potential voters in this year's Veterans Committee election. Provided that none of them die, there will be at least 86 in 2007 (with the additions of Boggs, Gammons and Sandberg), probably more. The same holds true for 2009, when Rose potentially be named to his first (VC) ballot.

Of the 83 current voters, one (John McHale) will see his term expire (in 2007) before Rose would become eligible for the VC. As all the others (Hall of Famers, Spink and Frick Award winners) become serve "life" terms on the committee, we can accurately estimate the total number of VC voters in 2009. The 60 present Hall of Fame members are joined now by Boggs and Sandberg. In the 2006-2008 elections, it is likely that 4-5 additional members will be elected (Ripken, Gwynn, McGwire, Rice/Sutter, Sutter/Gossage?) That would give us 67 members of the Hall when 2009 rolls around. There are presently 8 Spink and 14 Frick Award winners. Add Gammons and 3 more writers (since they are in the habit of honoring one per year) plus 4 more broadcasters (2005-2008 recipients) and we're talking about a body of voters that includes around 96 voters assuming no one dies in the meantime.

Here's a breakdown of how present Hall of Famers' careers overlapped the career of Pete Rose.

7 were teammates.
25 played a fair-to-great amount of time in the same league, against Rose.
17 more were contemporary players who played in the American League (though some played against Rose in the World Series and in the All-Star Game.)

That's 49 players who were competiting with or against Rose for a World Championship during his career.

Then you've got 1 guy who managed Rose (Anderson), 3 who managed against him regularly (Berra, Schoendienst, Lasorda) and 2 more who managed in the same era, but in the other league (Lopez, Weaver). That's 6 managers who were "contemporaries" of the perennial all-star.

Add to that Lee MacPhail, a long-time team and league official who would have seen Rose play throughout his career and you've got 56 out of 62 living Hall of Famers with a "contemporary" link to Rose.

The ones who's careers don't criss-cross Rose's are Bobby Doerr, Bob Feller, Monte Irvin, George Kell, Ralph Kiner and Phil Rizzuto.

Not coincidentally, these six are among the oldest living members of the Hall of Fame and, thus, are most likely to die before the 2009 election arrives (four years from now.) These men will range, in age, from 86 to 90 if some/any of them are still kickin' at that time. Furthermore, there isn't any guarantee that a living player at those ages will be healthy enough, or mentally competent enough to fill out and return a ballot in the mail.

I'm only suggesting that the "old school with long memories" types of voters are dying out rather quickly and the vast majority of the voters are going to be people who saw Pete Rose play baseball and saw him often. I would certainly imagine that the minority of voters who are not Hall of Famers (the writers and broadcasters) will have a similar age-distribution affecting the process.

2009 doesn't look that bad for Rose (were he removed from the ineligible list) and time is certainly on Pete's side. 2006, on the other hand, is beginning to look extremely bleak.

As always, good analysis Chancellor. I would add this - Kiner would have SEEN Rose play a great deal and had a chance to interact with him through his many years of broadcasting Mets games.

[BaseballBum12]

i think he should, i mean he is the all-time hit leader, and do u know how many players bet on games and don't get caught? some snitch told on him so he got banned.

[pads4ever]

Hell yeah.....

[flash143817]

No

Pete Rose is an arrogant, overrated piece of trash. He is the worst example of self promotion ever. And he STILL won't give a contrite admission or apology for the gambling thing. If he can't swallow his pride and admit what is blatantly obvious, and be contrite in his admission, then I'm not going to give him anything. He brought it upon himself so he can live with it.

And the hits record is SO overrated in his case. The guy had the most AB's ever. He should have the hit record. His lifetime average is barely .300, and this for a guy with no power and little speed. There are plenty of .300 hitters with no power that aren't in the Hall, or don't deserve to be. If he hadn't spent the peak of his career on the Big Red Machine, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

[Yankees]

Rose has more hits than Cobb, true. But looking at these stats, can you honestly say that he is better?

Cobb:
ABs: 11,434
Hits: 4,189
AVG: .366
RBIs: 1,937

Rose:
ABs: 14,053
Hits: 4,256
AVG: .303
RBIs: 1,314


BaseballBum12, your reasoning would also apply to steroid users: "Well, some people beat the tests, so forget we even know about it."

[keving7]

No

Pete Rose is an arrogant, overrated piece of trash. He is the worst example of self promotion ever. And he STILL won't give a contrite admission or apology for the gambling thing. If he can't swallow his pride and admit what is blatantly obvious, and be contrite in his admission, then I'm not going to give him anything. He brought it upon himself so he can live with it.

I couldn't agree more. Pete Rose can go rot!!
If he had fessed up 15 years ago, and showed any kind of contrition, he would already be in the HOF.

[rockin500]

maybe when he is dead so he cant profit from it. :)

[NationalPastime1980]

I am of the opinion that Pete Rose needs to be honored in Cooperstown for his career but also for how he dishonored the game we love.

The only way as a fan to have our cake and it it too is to elect Pete Rose in to the HOF the year after he dies.

He does not deserve the right to speak at the HOF.He just deserves to be remembered there.

[Brad Harris]

Rose will have the opportunity to be elected as soon as his name is removed from baseball's "ineligible list." That ought to happen upon Rose's death.

[Kdub Red Sox Fan 4Life]

Every player knows the consequences of betting on baseball. Pete and his ego seemed to think that he could get away with it. That he wouldn't get caught, or if he did, that he'd get some kind of preferential treatment.

Rose, like Shoeless Joe are banned from MLB. Period, end of story. I have not heard any word on Mr. Jackson getting in anytime soon, even though he's been dead for 53 years.

I think Mr. Rose should face the same fate.

[ADunn44]

He deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, but back into the game as a manager, not a chance in hell.


and one more thing, its what you do on the field is what gets you into the game and Rose proved that with his ability to play the game, and not what he did off of it. Cobb was a murdered, he is in, Mantle was drunk sometimes before games, Ruth was a womanizer, and these guys are in, please

[plask_stirlac]

Who cares about alcohol?

It doesn't seem like Rose should be ineligible. So what, he got caught as the skipepr, not as the player he'd go in as... a few games here and there, who really knows... but then the next player or manager thinks they can have a little wager on the game, like the old days... not like they'd get in the HOF anyway... and then if the game doesn't just erode, there could be another scandal like the Black Sox scandal.

Is 15 years out enough of a sentence? Maybe, but this might still be an acceptable message to all players. He's out of baseball officially.

The real question is, how many HOFers gambled on games before 1919?

[moviegeekjan]

I am of the opinion that Pete Rose needs to be honored in Cooperstown for his career but also for how he dishonored the game we love.

The only way as a fan to have our cake and it it too is to elect Pete Rose in to the HOF the year after he dies.

He does not deserve the right to speak at the HOF.He just deserves to be remembered there. Pete is ALREADY remembered at the HOF -- there are a number of exhibits of Rose records and memorabilia on display at the Hall....

And that is enough.

[flash143817]

I am of the opinion that Pete Rose needs to be honored in Cooperstown for his career but also for how he dishonored the game we love.

The only way as a fan to have our cake and it it too is to elect Pete Rose in to the HOF the year after he dies.

He does not deserve the right to speak at the HOF.He just deserves to be remembered there.

As much as I am against Rose's induction into the Hall, I could agree with this idea. Put him in for his (overrated) accomplishments on the field, but don't let him have the glory of knowing it happened. That works for me.


On the other hand, there is no way Rose deserves to be in the HOF before Joe Jackson. Shoeless Joe was 100x the player that Rose is. Had he had the opportunity to extend his career and play in the live-ball '20s, his career numbers would be all-time great.

If Shoeless Joe doesn't get to be elected while he is alive, neither should Rose. And tell Rose that he can't be elected until Jackson is. Then maybe Rose would get out and promote somebody other than himself.

On a side note: After his retirement, Walter Johnson (arguably best pitcher ever) called Joe Jackson the best hitter he had ever seen, and this included guys such as Ruth and Cobb. I've never heard anybody call Pete Rose the best hitter they have ever seen.

[Bluesteve32]

No. Many of the HOF players are not happy with Mr Rose and I feel that it would dishonor those players.

Does he deserved to get recognized? Yes, his records and memoriblia is suffieicent for his recognition of his feats.

[BaseballBum12]

as a sox fan, i believe shoeless joe should be in the hall because he was one of the best players. PERIOD.

[Bluesteve32]

as a sox fan, i believe shoeless joe should be in the hall because he was one of the best players. PERIOD.

Take out Charles Comisky and put in Shoeless Joe? Whould you do that? ;)

[rxpro]

No

Pete Rose is an arrogant, overrated piece of trash. He is the worst example of self promotion ever. And he STILL won't give a contrite admission or apology for the gambling thing. If he can't swallow his pride and admit what is blatantly obvious, and be contrite in his admission, then I'm not going to give him anything. He brought it upon himself so he can live with it.

And the hits record is SO overrated in his case. The guy had the most AB's ever. He should have the hit record. His lifetime average is barely .300, and this for a guy with no power and little speed. There are plenty of .300 hitters with no power that aren't in the Hall, or don't deserve to be. If he hadn't spent the peak of his career on the Big Red Machine, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
how in the hell is 4192 hits overrated?? are you nuts....yes pete is an arrogant SOB but you CANNOT diminish his stats....\\

If these bleeping steroid abusers will be elected then pete should be in there too...

How about hanging his plaque in the hall with no ceremony allowed...better yet have the janitor do it...that will be pete's punishment

[flash143817]

how in the hell is 4192 hits overrated?? are you nuts....yes pete is an arrogant SOB but you CANNOT diminish his stats....\\

If these bleeping steroid abusers will be elected then pete should be in there too...

How about hanging his plaque in the hall with no ceremony allowed...better yet have the janitor do it...that will be pete's punishment

How is 4192 hits overrated? Well the actual number is 4,256, but easy. Because some people think that makes him one of the best hitters ever, when he clearly isn't. His career BA is .303, which is good, but not all-time good. His career OPS+ is 118, good, but not all-time good.

The ONLY reason he has that many hits is due to having over 14,000 AB's, and over 3500 games, both which are #1 all time. Give Ty Cobb 14,053 AB's and you know how many hits he would have? 5,148. Pete Rose shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as Ty Cobb or any of the other all-time greats. Hell, give Babe Ruth 14,058 AB's and he would have had 4,808 hits...and 1,195 HRs. Those are the numbers of true all-time greats.

Pete Rose was an above average hitter who doubled as a jerk and happened to play 400 million games. And his most similar hitter is Paul Molitor, good player no doubt, but how many of you are voting for Paul Molitor as one of the top 10 or 20 players ever like some of you do to Pete Rose?

[rainout]

^ Yeah, Babe Ruth would be hitting home runs at the same rate when he was 45. :rolleyes: Nobody "gives" away at bats, you keep playing only if you can play. Ruth and Cobb quit because they had to.

Oh, and I know about the whole "Rose played himself as a manager" arguement so don't even try it.

[ADunn44]

^ Yeah, Babe Ruth would be hitting home runs at the same rate when he was 45. :rolleyes: Nobody "gives" away at bats, you keep playing only if you can play. Ruth and Cobb quit because they had to.

Oh, and I know about the whole "Rose played himself as a manager" arguement so don't even try it.



Pete Rose is one of the greatest players of all-time, his stats say so, he should be there with the greats, but should he be back in the actual game of baseball no

[rainout]

^ I agree, but how is that in response to my post? :confused:

[flash143817]

Pete Rose is one of the greatest players of all-time, his stats say so, he should be there with the greats, but should he be back in the actual game of baseball no

Would those stats be his .303 career average and 160 HR's? Or his 118 OPS+?

Pedro Guerrero had a .300 career average, more HR's (215), and a 137 OPS+. Do you think Pedro Guerrero is one of the greatest players ever? Because his stats say so more than Rose....

[ADunn44]

^ I agree, but how is that in response to my post? :confused:



i just picked it cuz i agree with you as well and was adding more supporting statements

[ADunn44]

Would those stats be his .303 career average and 160 HR's? Or his 118 OPS+?

Pedro Guerrero had a .300 career average, more HR's (215), and a 137 OPS+. Do you think Pedro Guerrero is one of the greatest players ever? Because his stats say so more than Rose....

lets see:

Rose Career Stats: (http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/rosepe01.shtml)

Games Played: 3,562 (1st)
ABs: 14,053 (this number up till only 1982, and he is still 1st)
Hits: 4,256 (1st)
1B: 3,215 (1st)
2B: 746 (2nd)
3B: 135
HR: 160
Times on Base: 5,929
Career Runs: 2,160 (10th)
EXBH: 1,041 (20th)
BB: 1,566 (12th)

Pete Rose, Carl Yastrzemski, Hank Aaron, Ty Cobb, Eddie Murray and Stan Musial are the only ML players to have played 3,000+ games

Ty Cobb, Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, Pete Rose, Rickey Henderson and Willie Mays are the only players to score 2,000+ runs

had the most career postseason hits (86) until Derek Jeter gets 87 on October 15, 2001


needless to say all the stats are here, and theyu show he should be in the Hall of Fame, without a doubt, now theres some research for ya

[rainout]

Am I the only one who thinks a singles hitter can still be a great ballplayer? Saying Rose didn't hit a lot of homeruns would be like saying, oh I don't know, Mike Piazza didn't steal a lot of bases. Yes, and?

[ADunn44]

Am I the only one who thinks a singles hitter can still be a great ballplayer? Saying Rose didn't hit a lot of homeruns would be like saying, oh I don't know, Mike Piazza didn't steal a lot of bases. Yes, and?


being a singles/doubles hitter is what i'd take in a 8 person lineupe before 8 power hitters

[flash143817]

lets see:

Rose Career Stats: (http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/rosepe01.shtml)

Games Played: 3,562 (1st)
ABs: 14,053 (this number up till only 1982, and he is still 1st)
Hits: 4,256 (1st)
1B: 3,215 (1st)
2B: 746 (2nd)
3B: 135
HR: 160
Times on Base: 5,929
Career Runs: 2,160 (10th)
EXBH: 1,041 (20th)
BB: 1,566 (12th)

Pete Rose, Carl Yastrzemski, Hank Aaron, Ty Cobb, Eddie Murray and Stan Musial are the only ML players to have played 3,000+ games

Ty Cobb, Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, Pete Rose, Rickey Henderson and Willie Mays are the only players to score 2,000+ runs

had the most career postseason hits (86) until Derek Jeter gets 87 on October 15, 2001


needless to say all the stats are here, and theyu show he should be in the Hall of Fame, without a doubt, now theres some research for ya

All of those are career counting stats. Big deal that he played for a million years and happened to rack up huge totals of AB's because he played on some GREAT Reds offenses. If Pete Rose never played for the Big Red Machine, we would never be having this discussion because he never would have amassed the AB's necessary to get all those hits. Johnny Bench, Joe Morgan, and Tony Perez were all better hitters than Rose.

Like I said before, taking out the games and AB's, his career numbers are similar to Pedro Guerrero's, but worse. Do you still think Pedro Guerrero is an all-time great? His most similar player on BBRef is Paul Molitor, a good hitter, but do you think Molitor is an all-time great?

[flash143817]

being a singles/doubles hitter is what i'd take in a 8 person lineupe before 8 power hitters

Then it makes complete sense that your handle is of Adam Dunn, that noted singles hitter, who the Dodgers should have traded for.

[rainout]

flash143817, if Pete Rose had never got caught and was already in the Hall, would you be here telling us he shouldn't be or is this all about the gambling? Because there are really two seperate issues here.

[ADunn44]

Then it makes complete sense that your handle is of Adam Dunn, that noted singles hitter, who the Dodgers should have traded for.



actually i choose Adam Dunn cuz he is my current favorite player, and it was the easiest thing i could come up with, and the Dodgers would've had to have given up a lot to get Dunn, and why are we even talking about Dunn, this topic is about wether or not he should be in the Hall, and my stance is HELL YEAH, he should be in the hall, if a murderer (Ty Cobb) can get in Pete Rose should be in there, "Its what you do on the field as a PLAYER is what gets you into the Hall, nothing else."

[Captain Cold Nose]

actually i choose Adam Dunn cuz he is my current favorite player, and it was the easiest thing i could come up with, and the Dodgers would've had to have given up a lot to get Dunn, and why are we even talking about Dunn, this topic is about wether or not he should be in the Hall, and my stance is HELL YEAH, he should be in the hall, if a murderer (Ty Cobb) can get in Pete Rose should be in there, "Its what you do on the field as a PLAYER is what gets you into the Hall, nothing else."

Cobb was never indicted for murder.

Murder is not against the MLB rulebook.

[KHenry14]

this topic is about wether or not he should be in the Hall, and my stance is HELL YEAH, he should be in the hall, if a murderer (Ty Cobb) can get in Pete Rose should be in there, "Its what you do on the field as a PLAYER is what gets you into the Hall, nothing else."

First off, Ty's not a murderer, please ask BBFer Bill Burgess to enlighten you on the subject.

Second, I don't know what you are quoting from, but it's not from the rules regarding entrance into the Hall. From the Baseball Hall of Fame website:

Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Pete makes it on some of this, but sure as heck fails the integrity and character parts! So in theory, voters could exclude him even if he hadn't bet on baseball.

It's been made clear numerous times on this board, Pete broke the one rule you can't break, he knew what would happen if he did, and he didn't care. Then he lies about it for 15 years, and apologizes in a book to make money. What kind of person behaves like that?

Pete will never get in during his lifetime, and he only needs to look into the mirror to know whom to blame.

KH14

[west coast orange and black]

this:
Games Played: 3,562 (1st)
ABs: 14,053 (this number up till only 1982, and he is still 1st)
Hits: 4,256 (1st)
1B: 3,215 (1st)
2B: 746 (2nd)
3B: 135
HR: 160
Times on Base: 5,929
Career Runs: 2,160 (10th)
EXBH: 1,041 (20th)
BB: 1,566 (12th)

Rose, Yastrzemski, Aaron, Cobb, Murray and Musial are the only ML players to have played 3,000+ g;
Cobb, Aaron, Ruth, Rose, Henderson and Mays are the only players to score 2,000+ runs;
Rose had the most career postseason hits (86) until Derek Jeter gets 87 on October 15, 2001
certainly is all very impressive...
and what makes it a shame that rose's gambling spoke more loudly to him.

maybe, as has been suggested, rose can be inducted into the hall after his death.
after all, he did agree to a lifetime ban.

anytime sooner, though, would destroy the credibility of rule 21(D) - betting on baseball.

[keving7]

It's been made clear numerous times on this board, Pete broke the one rule you can't break, he knew what would happen if he did, and he didn't care. Then he lies about it for 15 years, and apologizes in a book to make money. What kind of person behaves like that?

Pete will never get in during his lifetime, and he only needs to look into the mirror to know whom to blame.

KH14


I agree with you 100%

[rainout]

Murder is not against the MLB rulebook.

:p :laugh :clapping

[ADunn44]

Cobb was never indicted for murder.

Murder is not against the MLB rulebook.


Voting — Voting shall be based upon the
player's record (Rose and Cobb both had this),
playing ability (Rose and Cobb both had this),
integrity (Cobb doesn't have),
sportsmanship (Cobb doesn't have, dirtiest player in game, Rose had this), character (Cobb doesn't have, was a real prick, Rose had this), and contributions to the team(s) (both had this) on which the player played.


Rose gets my vote here

[flash143817]

Voting — Voting shall be based upon the
player's record (Rose and Cobb both had this),
playing ability (Rose and Cobb both had this),
integrity (Cobb doesn't have),
sportsmanship (Cobb doesn't have, dirtiest player in game, Rose had this), character (Cobb doesn't have, was a real prick, Rose had this), and contributions to the team(s) (both had this) on which the player played.


Rose gets my vote here

So you would take Rose over Cobb? And since when does Rose have integrity or character? He would sell out his team to make money. Who's to say that he wouldn't do worse if it was for his own personal gain? The guy has proven time and time again that all he cares about is himself.

He agreed to the lifetime ban in exchange for not having to admit gambling. He knew what that entailed. He chose not to be in the HOF by this action. He wants to have both things and in this case he can't have them.

[flash143817]

flash143817, if Pete Rose had never got caught and was already in the Hall, would you be here telling us he shouldn't be or is this all about the gambling? Because there are really two seperate issues here.

It isn't two separate issues. The gambling was his choice and he chose not to be in the HOF by accepting that lifetime ban in exchange for not admitting gambling. It was his choice so he should live with it.

But as far as his accomplisments as a player, I think he has a HOF case, but not as good of one as a lot of people think. Fact is, he had a .303 average and a 118 OPS+ for his career. Those numbers are pedestrian for a HOFer with no power or speed. Offensively, he was basically a poor man's Wade Boggs who wasn't as good as Boggs during his peak but happened to play longer, and on better teams. And because of Boggs playing a tougher defensive position, and winning 2 Gold Gloves at it, he gets the nod for me.

So in summary, on his accomplishments on the field, Rose is an OK, but unspectacular HOFer. But factoring in the off the field stuff, which the HOF allows for, Rose clearly loses out, based on his own doing and no fault but his own. Hope this answers your questions.

[rainout]

^ Very well, thank you.

The two issues as I see it are whether he deserves to be in based on what he did as a player and whether he deserves to be kept out because he broke the gambling rules.

[ADunn44]

So you would take Rose over Cobb? And since when does Rose have integrity or character? He would sell out his team to make money. Who's to say that he wouldn't do worse if it was for his own personal gain? The guy has proven time and time again that all he cares about is himself.

He agreed to the lifetime ban in exchange for not having to admit gambling. He knew what that entailed. He chose not to be in the HOF by this action. He wants to have both things and in this case he can't have them.



Yes, Yes i would, Cobb tried to kill people on the field with his dirty play, sharpening his spikes on opponents dugout, sliding cleats first into someones chest

[rainout]

Rose did f--- up Ray Fosse in an exhibition game. Not very nice.

If you could have Rose and Cobb on the same team they'd probably kill each other. :D

Now there's somethine to bet on.

[Chisox]

It isn't two separate issues. The gambling was his choice and he chose not to be in the HOF by accepting that lifetime ban in exchange for not admitting gambling. It was his choice so he should live with it.

But as far as his accomplisments as a player, I think he has a HOF case, but not as good of one as a lot of people think. Fact is, he had a .303 average and a 118 OPS+ for his career. Those numbers are pedestrian for a HOFer with no power or speed. Offensively, he was basically a poor man's Wade Boggs who wasn't as good as Boggs during his peak but happened to play longer, and on better teams. And because of Boggs playing a tougher defensive position, and winning 2 Gold Gloves at it, he gets the nod for me.

So in summary, on his accomplishments on the field, Rose is an OK, but unspectacular HOFer. But factoring in the off the field stuff, which the HOF allows for, Rose clearly loses out, based on his own doing and no fault but his own. Hope this answers your questions.

I agree completely. Actually, I brought him up on a discussion about Julio Franco being a HOFer. If you take a look at the percentages, they are almost identical. If Julio Franco isn't a HOFer, I don't see how Pete Rose can be that much better, although I do think Rose is worthy and Franco's not. If Rose ever did make the HOF, his percentages would be nearly on the same level as defensive specialists like Aparicio, Maranville, and Smith. Would anyone call Rose a defensive specialist?

[Ubiquitous]

It isn't two separate issues. The gambling was his choice and he chose not to be in the HOF by accepting that lifetime ban in exchange for not admitting gambling. It was his choice so he should live with it.




Actually Rose did not choose to not be in the HOF. Agree to be on the MLB permanently ineligble list with the chance to a review after a year. There was nothing in the agreement about the Hall because there cannot be. The Hall is a independant entity that was not related to MLB. It is a privately owned institution. Since Pete was not found to have committed any wrongdoing at the time of his banishment technically there was nothing that could be used against him to prevent him from entering the hall. The Hall changed their rules after Pete was banished in part to go along with MLB who has a lot of muscle when it comes to the HOF. Take a look at who actually governs the HOF and sets the rules. They are MLB owners and execs.

So to sum it up Pete agreed to nothing in regards to the hall of fame, and technically if you want the Commish probably voided the deal in the first place when he announced that Pete bet on the game of baseball. Something that they had expressly agreed on to not be stated. Bart dies, Pete gets blamed and he becomes the pariah. If Bart doesn't shoot his mouth off and then die Pete probably gets reinstated after a year or two, just like Steinbrenner.

[Ressurection of Ray Oyler]

In the end didn't the ******* make the decision for everybody else when he signed that piece of paper excluding himself from the Hall.

[Ubiquitous]

Um. . . No

[flash143817]

Actually Rose did not choose to not be in the HOF. Agree to be on the MLB permanently ineligble list with the chance to a review after a year. There was nothing in the agreement about the Hall because there cannot be. The Hall is a independant entity that was not related to MLB. It is a privately owned institution. Since Pete was not found to have committed any wrongdoing at the time of his banishment technically there was nothing that could be used against him to prevent him from entering the hall. The Hall changed their rules after Pete was banished in part to go along with MLB who has a lot of muscle when it comes to the HOF. Take a look at who actually governs the HOF and sets the rules. They are MLB owners and execs.

So to sum it up Pete agreed to nothing in regards to the hall of fame, and technically if you want the Commish probably voided the deal in the first place when he announced that Pete bet on the game of baseball. Something that they had expressly agreed on to not be stated. Bart dies, Pete gets blamed and he becomes the pariah. If Bart doesn't shoot his mouth off and then die Pete probably gets reinstated after a year or two, just like Steinbrenner.

It was my understanding that Rose agreed to his banishment in exchange for not having to admit wrongdoing. And hasn't Rose's case been reviewed at least once since then by some arbitrator and they chose to keep him banished?

And with all the evidence supporting the assertion that Rose has gambled, why should we even consider voting him into the HOF until someone like Joe Jackson is voted in. I don't support the candidacy of either of those two, but I certainly think Jackson should be in before Rose. Now that we have established that they both were involved in gambling schemes, they are even on that level. That being said, if one is to get past that, which I choose not to, they have to consider their accomplishments on the field, which places Jackson far ahead of Rose as a player, and he isn't in the HOF.

[Ubiquitous]

The commissioner has continued to either turn down his plea for a review or has rejected it altogether. Pete Rose agreed to the banishment from baseball, but again he did not agree to a banishment from the hall. The hall decided to banish him themselves by linking the eligibility to the hall to the MLB eligiblity. Nothing wrong with that, it is their right as a private organization to set the rules however they want. But there is no truth to anyone saying that Pete Rose agreed to be banished from the hall.

[runningshoes]

A guy gets over 3200 hits and 700 doubles and someone is mentioning his home run total in a bad light? I don't care how many at-bats Rose had, the fact remains: He had them.

And there are too many what ifs and if onlys going in the minds of some fans.

If I only I hadn't eaten those beans for lunch, I wouldn't have forced the evacuation of that elevator this morning. :rolleyes:

[flash143817]

The commissioner has continued to either turn down his plea for a review or has rejected it altogether. Pete Rose agreed to the banishment from baseball, but again he did not agree to a banishment from the hall. The hall decided to banish him themselves by linking the eligibility to the hall to the MLB eligiblity. Nothing wrong with that, it is their right as a private organization to set the rules however they want. But there is no truth to anyone saying that Pete Rose agreed to be banished from the hall.

I guess I was slightly off in my understanding of his banishment and the circumstances surrounding it. Doesn't change my opinion of him though. He still chose his own repututation over the game that gave him everything, even if he didn't know it would lead to HOF banishment. And his half-assed admission of gambling has hardly done anything to help him. I personally think his on field accomplishments place him in the lower half of the HOF anyway. And considering his off field problems, he should be omitted completely.

[sschirmer]

The commissioner has continued to either turn down his plea for a review or has rejected it altogether. Pete Rose agreed to the banishment from baseball, but again he did not agree to a banishment from the hall. The hall decided to banish him themselves by linking the eligibility to the hall to the MLB eligiblity. Nothing wrong with that, it is their right as a private organization to set the rules however they want. But there is no truth to anyone saying that Pete Rose agreed to be banished from the hall.

I don't entirely agree with this. Given the precedent set by the Hall in previous circumstances, I think Mr. Rose knew good and well that he wasn't going to get into the HOF, so long as he remained on the banned list.

[Ubiquitous]

Well Rose even on the banned list and even after the Hall banned him too recieved votes. Pete porbably thought that with his numbers and his stature that their was no way they could keep him out of the hall or out of baseball.

[moviegeekjan]

It's been made clear numerous times on this board, Pete broke the one rule you can't break, he knew what would happen if he did, and he didn't care. Then he lies about it for 15 years, and apologizes in a book to make money. What kind of person behaves like that?

Pete will never get in during his lifetime, and he only needs to look into the mirror to know whom to blame.


Exactly

Besides, Rose already IS recognized within the HOF. It's a museum, and there are a number of Rose mementos on display. And that is as it should be.

He gets no plaque, and THAT is as it should be.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Well Rose even on the banned list and even after the Hall banned him too recieved votes. Pete porbably thought that with his numbers and his stature that their was no way they could keep him out of the hall or out of baseball.
The amount of votes Rose has received n a year-to-year basis would not keep him on the ballot if he were eligible.
If that is what Rose thought, he obviously was wrong. He is not above baseball's rules, or baseball, or the Baseball Hall of Fame.

[Ubiquitous]

The amount of votes Rose has received n a year-to-year basis would not keep him on the ballot if he were eligible.
If that is what Rose thought, he obviously was wrong. He is not above baseball's rules, or baseball, or the Baseball Hall of Fame.


And if the HoF had not made that rule how many writers do you think would vote for him? More then 5%?

It doesn't really matter whether Rose was wrong or not, that was not the point of the discussion. The point being debated is whether or not Rose agreed to be banned from the HoF. He did not.

[Captain Cold Nose]

And if the HoF had not made that rule how many writers do you think would vote for him? More then 5%?

It doesn't really matter whether Rose was wrong or not, that was not the point of the discussion. The point being debated is whether or not Rose agreed to be banned from the HoF. He did not.

No, but since when does the guilty party have say in his punishment?

[Ubiquitous]

When the person wasn't found guilty, and yes guilty parites do have a say in their punishment.


Again though that is not the point. The point wasn't what the HoF did was right or not. But whether or not Pete Rose agreed to be banned from the hall. He never even talked to the hall, there was no meeting there was no agreement. To say Pete Rose agreed to be banned from the hall is a complete fabrication.

[Captain Cold Nose]

One kind of goes hand in hand with the other-banned from baseball, banned from the Hall of Fame. if all you're arguing about is some people said he agreed to that ban, then this discussion isn't worth continuing.

[Big_Mac]

if i had a vote, yes he is in. gambling on baseball is a horrible thing but want he did during his career, like him or not, deserves recogniztion

[moviegeekjan]

Again though that is not the point. The point wasn't what the HoF did was right or not. But whether or not Pete Rose agreed to be banned from the hall. He never even talked to the hall, there was no meeting there was no agreement. To say Pete Rose agreed to be banned from the hall is a complete fabrication.

Illogical. Rose knew what the consequences of gambling on baseball were, and he knew what the consequences of being banned from baseball would be in regards to the HOF.

Perhaps he fantasized that the HOF would grant him an exception, but that's a HUGE stretch when the parallel case of Shoeless Joe has been out there for decades.

[ADunn44]

Rose should and will get in, he deserves it more than anyone that is playing right now

[MyDogSparty]

One thing that has always amazed me about Pete Rose's case for the HOF is that there are a handfull of fans, voters, and media types that claim they would still vote for Pete Rose to get into the HOF if they could because as a player, he undoubtedly deserved it and more so that he only gambled as a MANAGER. I believe Pete Rose himself is currently on record as saying that he ONLY gambled on baseball while he was a manager NOT as a player.

So this is what amazes me. It is never brought up to these people that, according to the Dowd Report, Rose gambled on baseball in the years 1985 - 1987. Yes, indeed Pete Rose was the Manager of the Reds those season however, he was also a player on the roster for the Reds in 1985 and 1986 and accumulated close to 200AB during those years.

So, if you believe the Dowd report, I think it's inaccurate to say that Rose didn't gamble as a player. The years clearly overlap.

Has anyone on this board ever looked at that more closely?

[flash143817]

Rose should and will get in, he deserves it more than anyone that is playing right now

I can think of at least Bonds and Clemens off the top of my head that deserve it more than Rose, and I bet there are as many as 10 others I'd put in ahead of Rose even basing it strictly on on-field performance.

[ADunn44]

I can think of at least Bonds and Clemens off the top of my head that deserve it more than Rose, and I bet there are as many as 10 others I'd put in ahead of Rose even basing it strictly on on-field performance.


Bonds is a dirty cheater, if you let him in thats ruining the intergrty of the game

[flash143817]

Bonds is a dirty cheater, if you let him in thats ruining the intergrty of the game

Funny that Bonds has never been tested positive for steroids yet you are calling him a "dirty cheater", whereas Rose has admittedly gambled before yet he isn't a "dirty cheater"? Sounds like a hell of a moral double-standard you have going there. Placing Rose in the HOF would damage its integrity far more than placing Bonds in there, provided that Bonds never tests positive for steroids.

[Still a Pirate Fan]

He should be in. He's a jerk but he still should be in. Baseball ought to put him in there but without the fanfare and ceremony reserved for all other inductees. No speach, no hob knobbing with other HOF'ers, etc. But he should be in there.

[Paulmcall]

NO! :grouchy

[ADunn44]

Funny that Bonds has never been tested positive for steroids yet you are calling him a "dirty cheater", whereas Rose has admittedly gambled before yet he isn't a "dirty cheater"? Sounds like a hell of a moral double-standard you have going there. Placing Rose in the HOF would damage its integrity far more than placing Bonds in there, provided that Bonds never tests positive for steroids.



one thing is, he sure is healthy to play now, but won't because he is letting all the roids leave his system, no one goes from hitting 15 HR a year to hitting 50 a year, everyone ends up sucking as their career comes to a close cept for pitchers, but hitters, man Aaron started sucking as he got older, willie mays, babe ruth, mickey mantel, and bonds just keeps doing better, not from hard work, but steroids

[moviegeekjan]

one thing is, he sure is healthy to play now, but won't because he is letting all the roids leave his system,
So, you've seen his test results?

Or this is mere idle speculation?

[flash143817]

one thing is, he sure is healthy to play now, but won't because he is letting all the roids leave his system, no one goes from hitting 15 HR a year to hitting 50 a year, everyone ends up sucking as their career comes to a close cept for pitchers, but hitters, man Aaron started sucking as he got older, willie mays, babe ruth, mickey mantel, and bonds just keeps doing better, not from hard work, but steroids

LOL Bonds went from 15 HR to 50? Last I checked, Bonds averaged well over 30 HR per season during the '90s with multiple 40 HR seasons. At least get your numbers right if you are going to make a ludicrous argument. Bonds was a 1st ballot HOFer before the 2000s, they just made him a top 5 all-time player.

And Aaron sucked when he got older? The same Hank Aaron that had 40 HR at age 39 and a career high 47 HR at age 37? Or is there a different Hank Aaron?

[King Kelly]

The Hall of Fame does NOT judge players on their morals, it celebrates their accomplishments. If morals were involved, there'd be very few players enshrined in Cooperstown. As a player, yes, Pete should be there. Are all these home run hitting cheaters who were juiced on steroids going be inducted? To me that is much worse than gambling.

[ADunn44]

anyone that votes for cheaters, McGwire, Sosa, Palmerio, Bonds, should first put Rose in, cheating with steriods is worse than betting

[KHenry14]

anyone that votes for cheaters, McGwire, Sosa, Palmerio, Bonds, should first put Rose in, cheating with steriods is worse than betting

Sorry, anyone who says this should rethink their position. Perhaps if you took off your "Rose" colored glasses you'd see this better. As I've said more than once, Pete put MLB in danger of being the WWE. Palmeiro didn't come close to doing that. Now how is that worse???

KH14

[flash143817]

anyone that votes for cheaters, McGwire, Sosa, Palmerio, Bonds, should first put Rose in, cheating with steriods is worse than betting

So you have McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds' test results? Where do you obtain this special knowledge of their positive tests? There is much more evidence supporting Rose cheating than evidence supporting the other guys cheating.

And think about this, if those players cheated, they were helping their teams win more, whereas Rose's gambling could have caused his team to lose more, if he was gambling on the opponents.

[moviegeekjan]

anyone that votes for cheaters, McGwire, Sosa, Palmerio, Bonds, should first put Rose in, cheating with steriods is worse than betting
Totally illogical argument, coming after bogus accusations.

Every baseball player knows that gambling on the game is the one unpardonable sin, and every player is fully aware of the consequences of being caught.

MLB was slow on the draw on the steroids issue, largely because weight training and the whole culture that goes with it didn't become such a big thing in baseball until the 1990's. McGwire and Sosa readily admitted that they used creatine (while McGwire also acknowledged using Andro), but these were not banned by baseball at that time... in fact, a number of teams provided free creatine in their clubhouses. The clubs themselves encourage players to improve their performance, yet see if you can find just one club that encourages its players to break the gambling rule.

Of the people you named, only Palmeiro has tested positive for using a substance banned by baseball. All the others are nothing but unproved speculation.

On the other hand, Rose has signed a document that acknowledges that he violated the gambling rule and agreed to the lifetime suspension.

[digglahhh]

So you have McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds' test results? Where do you obtain this special knowledge of their positive tests? There is much more evidence supporting Rose cheating than evidence supporting the other guys cheating.

I know that we are all innocent until proven guilty, but do YOU believe that these guys are/have been clean?

A voter's opinion is all the evidence he needs, they are VOTERS, not jurors. A Vote is nothing but an opinion. If somebody wants to vote for Sosa or Big Mac (bonds goes anyway) that's their right and I respect that. However if somebody doesn't want to vote for those guys, they don't need to produce a positve steroid test to justify it. Some may not think its fair, but that's the way it is...

[flash143817]

I know that we are all innocent until proven guilty, but do YOU believe that these guys are/have been clean?

A voter's opinion is all the evidence he needs, they are VOTERS, not jurors. A Vote is nothing but an opinion. If somebody wants to vote for Sosa or Big Mac (bonds goes anyway) that's their right and I respect that. However if somebody doesn't want to vote for those guys, they don't need to produce a positve steroid test to justify it. Some may not think its fair, but that's the way it is...

If they want to not vote for a player on the grounds of steroid use, then they should have test result evidence. Otherwise, I believe they are abusing their power to assume steroid use when there is no proof of it.

And as far as do I think the guys are clean. No I don't think Sosa and Bonds are clean. But I believe McGwire used legal (at the time) andro for his muscle-gaining routine. He was always a big guy and hit 49 HR as a rookie so his power shouldn't come as a surprise. But even so, without positive tests it is all speculation anyway. In the case of Rose, to get back on topic, there is actually concrete admission of his wrongdoing, so it is fair to criticize and punish him for it. And like I said previously, Rose's transgressions could have negative impact on his team's ability to win if he tanks it to win a bet. Steroid users are actually helping their team win by enhancing their performance. So that would make gambling seem far worse than steroid use, and especially mere speculated steroid use.

[King Kelly]

So you have McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds' test results? Where do you obtain this special knowledge of their positive tests? There is much more evidence supporting Rose cheating than evidence supporting the other guys cheating.

And think about this, if those players cheated, they were helping their teams win more, whereas Rose's gambling could have caused his team to lose more, if he was gambling on the opponents.

Hmm. Players who were on steriods helping their team to win more games. Well. That logic could be used to justify just about any kind of cheating in any business category, couldn't it?

Steroids, gambling. It's all cheating. One external, one internal. All bad, all unhealthy. Rose got caught, Palmeiro got caught. Is Rose the only contemporary player who ever gambled on baseball? I doubt it. Are the current big-name players the only ones who took steroids? I doubt it. Again, the Hall of Fame is not a moral compass, though we'd all like to think it always represents baseball's best and brightest. If that were the case, Ty Cobb (for one) would never be there. In Rose's case, (if I'm not mistaken) his feats as a player had nothing to do with his gambling as a manager. Should his gambling as a manager preclude his accomplishments as a player? Steroid use, given the logic above, may give a player and his team an extra win to make it into the playoffs ahead of another team that had no users. Bottom line is, it's all cheating, and it's all bad.

[FrenchyLefebvre]

As much as I am against Rose's induction into the Hall, I could agree with this idea. Put him in for his (overrated) accomplishments on the field, but don't let him have the glory of knowing it happened. That works for me.>>>>>

I would probably be inclined to agree wholeheartedly with every anti-Rose sentiment on here -- had I not seen him play. The guy gave his all on that diamond every time out and, for that alone, he will always have this fan's appreciation as a ballPLAYER
But I do agree that he made his own bed, he's only dug himself into a deeper hole. He does not have my sympathy. He can rot. He brought everything upon himself.
(But on that field ... He was a ballplayer, not a priest. So I only hold the gambling thing against him).

<<If Shoeless Joe doesn't get to be elected while he is alive, neither should Rose. And tell Rose that he can't be elected until Jackson is. Then maybe Rose would get out and promote somebody other than himself. >>>>

The thing with Joe is: prior to 1991, that HOF rule had not existed. It was invented for Rose. Shoeless actually recieved some HOF votes in the '40s.

<<<<On a side note: After his retirement, Walter Johnson (arguably best pitcher ever) called Joe Jackson the best hitter he had ever seen, and this included guys such as Ruth and Cobb. I've never heard anybody call Pete Rose the best hitter they have ever seen.>>>

The Rose/Jackson comparison confuses sometimes, as banned players (including Joe) weren't actually ineligible for the HOF until 1991. And Joe passed away back in the '50s (wouldn't they have considered him posthumously)??
Aside from enough voters, themselves, just not voting for Joe (and some still did), was there ever some other (perhaps "quiet") official rule actually forbidding any banned player's induction - until 1991?
I'm not knocking Joe. Just strange that anyone (including Joe Jackson) could have been voted in prior to 1991/Rose. And these two are are always compared as players in these debates.
I talk to so many people who say "Well. Rose gave up the HOF when he signed that agreement with Giamatti in 1989".
The HOF rule didn't even exist then.

[FrenchyLefebvre]

Actually Rose did not choose to not be in the HOF. Agree to be on the MLB permanently ineligble list with the chance to a review after a year. There was nothing in the agreement about the Hall because there cannot be. The Hall is a independant entity that was not related to MLB. It is a privately owned institution. Since Pete was not found to have committed any wrongdoing at the time of his banishment technically there was nothing that could be used against him to prevent him from entering the hall. The Hall changed their rules after Pete was banished in part to go along with MLB who has a lot of muscle when it comes to the HOF. Take a look at who actually governs the HOF and sets the rules. They are MLB owners and execs.

So to sum it up Pete agreed to nothing in regards to the hall of fame, and technically if you want the Commish probably voided the deal in the first place when he announced that Pete bet on the game of baseball. Something that they had expressly agreed on to not be stated. Bart dies, Pete gets blamed and he becomes the pariah. If Bart doesn't shoot his mouth off and then die Pete probably gets reinstated after a year or two, just like Steinbrenner.


Thank you!! I'm sorry I replied before seeing your post :>)

[Andrea]

Hey guys, maybe this kind of thread exists, lost in a forum's remote page, but i'll tell you that anyway: WHAT ABOUT PETE ROSE???
once pete said: i'm a normal man: i got 2 hands, 2 legs, 1 head and 4256 hits...:clapping :clapping :clapping

[jalbright]

use the search tool. It's been covered ad nauseum, and I have no heart for getting into it again.

Jim Albright

[Brad Harris]

Pete Rose remains on baseball's ineligibility list and, therefore, remains ineligible for membership in the Hall of Fame. Should the Commissioner reinstate Rose, he would become eligible for consideration by the Veterans Committee (consisting of all living "Hall of Famers"). The earliest date Rose could be elected would be 2009 based on the current electoral system.*

There is little argument here, as elsewhere, that Rose's performance on the field, as a player, was of Hall-of-Fame quality. Whether the marks against him for "character" and "sportsmanship" are enough to warrant exclusion from the ballot will be a matter for individual voters to decide if/when Rose becomes eligible.

Personally, were I a voter and Rose were eligible, he would receive my vote. I respect the opinions of those who feel differently. Regarding his eligibility, however, I think Rose should remain on the ineligibility list until his death.

* - There is a tiny window of opportunity for Rose to appear on the writer's ballot this winter, but that window will be forever shut in a matter of days as the 2006 BBWAA ballot will be prepared in early November and mailed out no later than the week of Thanksgiving.

[Brian McKenna]

Regarding his eligibility, however, I think Rose should remain on the ineligibility list until his death.
[/i][/SIZE]

I'm 25 years younger than Rose - I hope my death comes before he is eligible.

Two of my childhood heroes were Rose and OJ Simpson. Welcome to manhood! Glad I'm from Baltimore where Brooks Robinson will always shine.

[RuthMayBond]

I'm 25 years younger than Rose - I hope my death comes before he is eligible.

Two of my childhood heroes were Rose and OJ Simpson. Welcome to manhood! Glad I'm from Baltimore where Brooks Robinson will always shine.Probably, although many used to think that about Puckett :( :ughh

[Brad Harris]

Glad I'm from Baltimore where Brooks Robinson will always shine.

The absence of a known character flaw is not the same as the absence of a character flaw. Robinson has a greater than average chance of being a jerk, given his fame and wealth.

But don't let logic dissuade you from delusions of hero worship.

He's just a man. So is Rose. So Pete Rose broke the rules of baseball, so what? He's paying for it now, just as anyone else would if they broke the same rule.

My comment about his eligibility stems from the fact that I believe baseball's maintenance of names on the ineligible list after their death is vindictive, cruel and grossly unfair. Just my opinion.

[skeletor]

I know this has been discussed time and time..but what about
pete ROSE ??

while we are traveling along the same turf, shoeless joe..

any chance of either of them, getting in ?

[DoubleX]

At this point, Rose has a better chance than Jackson, simply because it is easier to champion for your cause and atone while you are alive (and conversely, it is easier to ignore the plight of someone else if they are dead). Nevertheless, I don't anticipate Rose (or Jackson) getting in anytime soon.

[Brad Harris]

No chance of any ineligible candidate getting in. Talk to me about it again when one (or both) of them becomes eligible.

[jalbright]

Rose's chances are better for two reasons: 1) he's much more recent, and thus has many more champions and 2) while I know what the rules say, I think most folks believe that while gambling on baseball is terrible, being convicted by the sport of conspiring to fix the World Series is worse. (I have no desire to debate whether that conviction is warranted, but I will say that judgment needs to be overturned before Jackson has a prayer). The problem with Rose is that he's shown signs of being a compulsive gambler (he couldn't stay away from betting on baseball despite the possible consequences is just one such sign), and baseball cannot allow him in a position of any influence without significant assurances he would not bet on baseball again. The mere fact Pete denies he's got a gambling problem and insists on his right to continue gambling ensures baseball will not get the assurances it requires. If Pete rectified that issue combined with a more contrite attitude, he'd have a real chance of reinstatement. Also, once Pete is either dead or too old to be a risk for holding a place of any significance in the game of today, baseball's issues in terms of keeping him out would be essentially moot. If Pete got to be a sickly old man, he might well generate some sympathy. If not then, I still would expect that upon his death there will be a move to get him in--and it might succeed in part because of some sympathy at that point. Jackson's been dead too long for such a campaign to carry much weight.

Jim Albright

[1doug]

They should both be in, but chances are it wont ever happen. Players that should be banned are the ones doing drugs and on the juice, not players that go out and try to win everyday.

[538280]

Both Rose and Jackson I think are very disgraceful human beings overall, and with what they did neither one should even be within a mile of the HOF.

I don't pretend to be an expert on Jackson's case, but from what I have read (Eight Men Out and few other articles), the man was most likely guilty, and the whole ordeal was a complete disgrace on the game. No HOF for Joe Jackson IMO.

Not to mention going on just his numbers it's not so clear to me whether he's worthy. For instance, we had a thread a while back "Best player outside the Hall not named Jackson or Rose?", and while Rose on his accomplishments certainly would have merited the #1 spot, Jackson IMO would not have made my top 10.

I still think just as a player he's HOF worthy, but he's not the slam dunk most make him out to be.

Of course, if he wasn't banned he probably would be, but he certainly gets no credit from me on that front.

[Taco De Muerte]

They should both be in, but chances are it wont ever happen. Players that should be banned are the ones doing drugs and on the juice, not players that go out and try to win everyday.

WTF ?

This post makes absolutely no sense at all - When taking steroids, your going out there trying to win - not trying to lose. It " enhances " your performance, therefore helping you play longer and better.

Jackson took money to throw games - That's cheating to lose. Joe was a despicable human being, and doesn't deserve the HOF ever.

Rose, he shouldnt get in either, but if he were to ever get in ( which most likely wont happen), It wouldn't be as big of a farce as it would be if joe got in. Also, rose career stats are HOF worthy, while joe's are not.

[63x927is58401]

I like to read Today In History & Sports History daily. I have three names of athletes that were reinstated & the dates.
First are two football players - Paul Hornung & Alex Karras. They were reinstated, after an eleven month suspension (for betting on football games), during the 1963 season, back on Monday, March 16th, 1964.
Now in baseball, Mickey Mantle was reinstated, on Tuesday, April 16th, 1985, after being banned for several years. What Mickey Mantle done to be banned, I do not know.
63x927is58401.

[runningshoes]

Mantle accepted a job at the Claridge Resort and Casino in Atlantic City. Willie Mays accepted a job at Bally's.

Doing what, I don't know..probably greeters.

They were both put on the inelidgible list by Commissioner Bowie Kuhn and reinstated two years later by Peter Ueberroth.

Hardly in the same league as Rose.

Where's this evidence you're talking about?

[63x927is58401]

I have just sent a private message to runningshoes53. The address, to find these notes is http://www.on-this-day.com/cgi-bin/sportsotd/sportsotd.pl Click on that page & you will first see the current day's sports history notes. There is a Calendar of all twelve months, so you can pick any day of the year. Some notes are also on the 'regular history' page of http://www.on-this-day.com/options/onthisdayx.pl 63x927is58401.

[soberdennis]

The only way Pete should have his eligibility reinstated is if Jackson's is too.
But I think both should be.

[riverfrontier]

His crime is still not as egregious as Jackson's. He's never been accused of intentionally throwing a game. It doesn't much matter to me whether Rose is actually inducted or not. Everybody knows he belongs there, and he actually gets a much higher profile by not being there. Once he's in, if ever, like most players of the past, his star fades considerably. I'd bet that people know and care a lot more about Joe Jackson than Eddie Collins.

[Mike D.]

I'm all for reinstating him, as soon as he's done serving his lifetime ban. :D

The idea of him in the hall is not nearly as offensive to me as the idea of him at the podium on induction day. :ughh

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I'm all for reinstating him, as soon as he's done serving his lifetime ban. :D

The idea of him in the hall is not nearly as offensive to me as the idea of him at the podium on induction day. :ughh
It's actually a permanent ban not a lifetime ban. The Joe Jackson supporters tried that argument after Jackson died. Didn't work...

[digglahhh]

His crime is still not as egregious as Jackson's. He's never been accused of intentionally throwing a game.

If you have spent any time around "problem gamblers" this is basically a case of semantics. Those with gambling problems allow their procilvities to influence their thought and behavior, serially. That's where the psychological part of the problem comes in. That's why Charles Barkley has a gambling problem despite the fact that he can "afford it." Whether or not Rose intentionally threw games is a grey area, and while that accusation may seem harsh and unsubstantiated I think it is kind of naive to assume his wagering had no influence on his running of the team.

Top 9, down one run, at home with 2-3-4 coming up in the bottom, bring in your closer to hold down the opposition and give your big guys a shot to win it in the ninth? I dunno, planning to bet the game tomorrow? Want your closer as fresh a possible? Wagering on games, even in favor of your own team, places added importance on certain games compared to others, for peripheral, un-baseball related reasons. The effects of the gambling are more subtle than "throwing games." Pitching rotation, short rest... play the youngsters, let 'em develop...not today, I got 5 large on the team.


It doesn't much matter to me whether Rose is actually inducted or not. Everybody knows he belongs there, and he actually gets a much higher profile by not being there. Once he's in, if ever, like most players of the past, his star fades considerably. I'd bet that people know and care a lot more about Joe Jackson than Eddie Collins.


This part, I fully agree with.

[Mike D.]

It's actually a permanent ban not a lifetime ban. The Joe Jackson supporters tried that argument after Jackson died. Didn't work...

Interesting, I wasn't aware that was the official wording. Well, I stand by my "let him in when he's dead" comment....but I think Joe Jackson would have to be allowed in (or at least made eligible) first.

[KCGHOST]

This is just another ridiculous Pete Rose thread by someone who thinks their opinion and non sequitirs constitute proof.

[Mike D.]

This is just another ridiculous Pete Rose thread by someone who thinks their opinion and non sequitirs constitute proof.

This being a Friday, and this being an internet baseball bbs, and as you pointed out, this being another silly Rose thread, I believe we should all now take a shot, right? :D

[digglahhh]

Ooh, BBF drinking games.

Take a shot everytime you see the word steroids, last one to die wins!

[Fuzzy Bear]

His crime is still not as egregious as Jackson's. He's never been accused of intentionally throwing a game. It doesn't much matter to me whether Rose is actually inducted or not. Everybody knows he belongs there, and he actually gets a much higher profile by not being there. Once he's in, if ever, like most players of the past, his star fades considerably. I'd bet that people know and care a lot more about Joe Jackson than Eddie Collins.

The highlighted part of this quote cries out for recognition.

Hornung and Karras were suspended for one year for doing what Rose did. That penalty was too light, IMO, but Rose did not throw games, nor did he conspire to throw games. There is NO evidence to suggest that he did.

I believe that at some point, Rose's suspension should be lifted. I would suggest it happen either (A) after he dies or (B) on his seventieth birthday, whichever comes first.

As for Joe Jackson: Joe Jackson participated in discussions where the fixing of the 1919 World Series was discussed. He was aware that the fix was on, and he did nothing about it. He also received money for his part in the conspiracy.

Jackson's apoligists cite the cruel treatment of White Sox players by Charles Comiskey, and that is a mitigating factor, but that's an argument to take Comiskey out of the HOF, rather than put Jackson in. (Comiskey is the ONLY man I would argue be removed from the HOF.) There is also the reasoning that Jackson played hard in the Series, and was not actively dumping the series, but was merely positioning himself to take his cut from the gamblers. That he conspired, kept the conspiracy secret, and took money from the conspirators is enough for me to keep Jackson out of the Hall even if he hit .600 in the Series and the Sox won.

[Ubiquitous]

Well as soon as baseball turns into football using what the NFL does might have some point to it. Since MLB is not NFL it doesn't really matter how the NFL decided to disciplines its players. IF we were to follow this logic then have the thugs in the NFL who have been arrested or accused of crimes would be permanently banned since that is what LAndis did back in the 20's. So who sets the precedent? MLB who made rulings in the 20's after being around for 50 years or so or an upstart football league still formulating its rules and continues to this day to waffle on its principles?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Well as soon as baseball turns into football using what the NFL does might have some point to it. Since MLB is not NFL it doesn't really matter how the NFL decided to disciplines its players. IF we were to follow this logic then have the thugs in the NFL who have been arrested or accused of crimes would be permanently banned since that is what LAndis did back in the 20's. So who sets the precedent? MLB who made rulings in the 20's after being around for 50 years or so or an upstart football league still formulating its rules and continues to this day to waffle on its principles?

I think that the principle to follow here is the principle of progressive consequences for progressively more severe acts.

What Rose did represents a POTENTIAL threat to the game. A suspension is warranted, but (A) nothing Rose did brought DIRECT harm to the game, and (B) no act of Rose reflected the INTENT to fix or throw games.

What Jackson did was an ACTUAL ATTACK on the game; his actions caused a dishonest World Series to take place. He did nothing to expose the fix, allowing it to play out.

A lifetime/permanent ban ought to occur only for the worst of offenses. Taking bribes and fixing games is the worst thing a player can do; it should carry a stiffer penalty than gambling, but no fixing. That's how it's done in business. That's how it's done in the criminal justice system. All of these institutions subscribe to the concept of PROGRESSIVE discipline; the more severe the act, the more severe the penalty.

Rose has deserved a lengthy suspension, but a permanent ban is not called for. The fact that Rose has lied about his actions for years before admitting them is NOT a reason to heighten the penalty; Rose has been treated as a guilty party ever since 1989. His suspension should be lifted at some point, preferably at a point where he will be too old to want to work in baseball, but it still should be lifted, and he should then be eligible for HOF induction.

[Ubiquitous]

Yes and baseball for a long time made gambling one of the most severe acts. you don't just get lifetime sentences for murder there are several other ways in which you can get sent away for life.

Pete Rose wasn't just some player betting on a few games. He was a manager of a major league team betting on his own team. The implications of that whether you can realize them or not are huge. In the 40's they took the Phillies away from their owner and kicked him out of baseball because he was betting on his team why should Rose get different treatment then that? Rose filled out the lineup card, picked the pitchers, made the substitutions, and had imput on who to sign and who to call up.

[DonLarsen2011]

Pete Rose not being in the Hall of Fame is an absolute joke. One of only 2 people in history to get 4,000 hits. Top on the career hit list. A .303 career average, 14,053 at bats.

A 44 game hitting streak, and a total of 3,562 games played. All records except for the career average and hitting streak (which is tied for 2nd highest all time)

:grouchy :grouchy :grouchy

[Fuzzy Bear]

Pete Rose not being in the Hall of Fame is an absolute joke. One of only 2 people in history to get 4,000 hits. Top on the career hit list. A .303 career average, 14,053 at bats.

A 44 game hitting streak, and a total of 3,562 games played. All records except for the career average and hitting streak (which is tied for 2nd highest all time)

:grouchy :grouchy :grouchy

But the issue, of course, is not Rose's ability or accomplishments. It's the idea of bestowing an HONOR on someone who is still beind DISCIPLINED for violating rules.

I think that the suspension should be lifted, and Rose should then be put up for a HOF vote. I cannot support the idea of enshrining players who are under suspension at the time of their enshrinement. But I think that there needs to be a differentiation between Rose and the Black Sox. The Black Sox threw games and took bribes; this is far, far more serious than betting on one's own team.

[Mike D.]

The thing with Rose that amazes me is how many people go to bat for him. An aweful lot of fans are absolutely NUTS that this guy isn't in the Hall of Fame. And why? As far as I can tell, he's one of baseball's great self-centered, self-important, self-promoting jerks. :noidea :waving

[jalbright]

But the issue, of course, is not Rose's ability or accomplishments. It's the idea of bestowing an HONOR on someone who is still beind DISCIPLINED for violating rules.

I think that the suspension should be lifted, and Rose should then be put up for a HOF vote. I cannot support the idea of enshrining players who are under suspension at the time of their enshrinement. But I think that there needs to be a differentiation between Rose and the Black Sox. The Black Sox threw games and took bribes; this is far, far more serious than betting on one's own team.
I agree with your post, except to note that I'm no longer clear on whether Rose bet on his team at all, or bet on them to win every time he bet. Pete shows many signs of compulsive gambling, including breaking serious rules in doing so. He adamantly refuses to acknowledge he has a problem. With his history, can baseball afford to let him in a position of responsibility unless he forswears gambling and gets treatment for same (or gets too old and decrepit to be considered for such a role)? I think the answer to that has to be no! Cooperstown rightly values its relationship with MLB, and inducting him prior to the time he's reinstated or too old to be in a responsible position in the game would be an unnecessary slap in MLB's face. Once Pete's no longer a threat to be in a responsible position in the game (or is reinstated), then MLB's continuance of the suspension could reasonably be argued to be unduly punitive under the circumstances, giving Cooperstown reason to defy MLB if need be.

Jim Albright

[Captain Cold Nose]

I agree with your post, except to note that I'm no longer clear on whether Rose bet on his team at all, or bet on them to win every time he bet. Pete shows many signs of compulsive gambling, including breaking serious rules in doing so. He adamantly refuses to acknowledge he has a problem. With his history, can baseball afford to let him in a position of responsibility unless he forswears gambling and gets treatment for same (or gets too old and decrepit to be considered for such a role)? I think the answer to that has to be no! Cooperstown rightly values its relationship with MLB, and inducting him prior to the time he's reinstated or too old to be in a responsible position in the game would be an unnecessary slap in MLB's face. Once Pete's no longer a threat to be in a responsible position in the game (or is reinstated), then MLB's continuance of the suspension could reasonably be argued to be unduly punitive under the circumstances, giving Cooperstown reason to defy MLB if need be.

Jim Albright
Rose did indeed join Gambler's Anonymous, but that was before he admitted to betting on baseball, which he did in his last book. He has a gambling problem, period, and that is beyond just betting on games he participated in in some way, shape or form.
They only proved what they had to prove in the investigation. Who knows how deep this actually went?

[CoasttoCoast]

Pete Rose should stay banned and I have always felt Michael Jordan's father was killed because of gambling but the NBA covered it up.......

[jalbright]

Rose did indeed join Gambler's Anonymous, but that was before he admitted to betting on baseball, which he did in his last book. He has a gambling problem, period, and that is beyond just betting on games he participated in in some way, shape or form.
They only proved what they had to prove in the investigation. Who knows how deep this actually went?

Even if Rose went to Gambler's Anonymous, he has been quoted as refusing to give up gambling--which isn't a real acknowledgement of his problem.

With all the lowlifes Pete dealt with to gamble, and the fact they've got reasons to sell him out such as revenge, troubles with the law, or good old fashioned greed (God knows, this bunch had a lot of all three), why hasn't anybody come forth to say Rose bet against his team if in fact he did it? Given how unacquainted with concepts such as truth the folks in this group are, I'm amazed one of them hasn't done so even if it's a lie. There's a buck to be made telling that story. The simple fact such a story isn't out there after so long should tell you the reason for it is simple--it never happened. Pete's "friends" have shown themselves quite willing to sell Pete down the river in their own self interest, and nobody could pay enough to keep all those scum quiet this long. Pete's no angel, but he only deserves to be condemned for those trespasses supported by evidence.

Jim Albright

[Ubiquitous]

Pete Rose should stay banned and I have always felt Michael Jordan's father was killed because of gambling but the NBA covered it up.......


So the NBA got involved in a police investigation and hushed it up? So Michael Jordan's father was killed because why? He didn't have the money to pay the debt or because he didn't want to pay?

[nymetsfan]

I watched Pete Rose when I was a kid and always felt he was a great ball player. He was a throwback to the old time players.

There were 2 incidents I did not care for but I do not hold it against him.

The Ray Fosse collision in the all star game which shortened his career and the fight with Buddy Harreson in the playoffs against the Mets.

I do believe based on his numbers and his career on the baseball field Pete Rose should be in the hall of fame!

I also feel shoeless Joe jackson should be in the hall of fame as well as he played his best during that infamous scandel ladened series.

He was unjustly accused!

The owner was a cheap skate.

[Rennie Stennett]

Growing up, Pete Rose was one of my favorite ballplayers. He always played hard and always had that attitude about him. That cocky, I'm the man thing and I can do whatever. This attitude, I'm sure, got him into gambling, and at the same time, got him disliked by many in and around baseball. Now, would the same punishment hold true, for a mild mannered ballplayer, who quietly went about his business, but bet on baseball ?

I don't know if Pete bet on his own teams to win or lose. I don't know if he bet on just the other games. He got the most out of his players and they played over their heads, most of the time. They always finished higher in the division then people predicted. Pete's win at all costs attitude tells me that if he bet on his own club, he bet on them to win, because winning was everything to Pete Rose. Go to the Hall of Fame sometime and you will see him in there: Alltime Hits Leader; Pete Rose.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Growing up, Pete Rose was one of my favorite ballplayers. He always played hard and always had that attitude about him. That cocky, I'm the man thing and I can do whatever. This attitude, I'm sure, got him into gambling, and at the same time, got him disliked by many in and around baseball. Now, would the same punishment hold true, for a mild mannered ballplayer, who quietly went about his business, but bet on baseball ?

I don't know if Pete bet on his own teams to win or lose. I don't know if he bet on just the other games. He got the most out of his players and they played over their heads, most of the time. They always finished higher in the division then people predicted. Pete's win at all costs attitude tells me that if he bet on his own club, he bet on them to win, because winning was everything to Pete Rose. Go to the Hall of Fame sometime and you will see him in there: Alltime Hits Leader; Pete Rose.
Gamblers do not bet on who wins or loses, they bet against a line on the game's outcome. They also really don't care about the actual teams playing as much as how well they've done against the spread in recent history. That's besides the point, though.

[Ubiquitous]

Actually when a gambler bets on baseball they do care who wins or loses because that it how the bet pays off. There is no spread like in football in baseball. Their is no Yankees -3 or Cubs +2. It is more like Yankees 60, Tigers 180. So if the Tigers win and you bet $100 on the Tigers to win then you just won 180 plus you $100. If you bet the Yankees to win then you won $60 plus you $100.

[Brooklyn]

Actually when a gambler bets on baseball they do care who wins or loses because that it how the bet pays off. There is no spread like in football in baseball. Their is no Yankees -3 or Cubs +2. It is more like Yankees 60, Tigers 180. So if the Tigers win and you bet $100 on the Tigers to win then you just won 180 plus you $100. If you bet the Yankees to win then you won $60 plus you $100.

Actually, I've never seen it that way, either. I've only seen it with the line above 100 for both sides. Something like:

Phillies -140
Nationals +130

This means that you have to bet $140 on the Phillies to win $100 (plus your original $140 back), or bet $100 on the Nats to win $130 (plus your original $100 back).

An even spread is usually listed as:

Mets -105
Arizona -105

Meaning you have to bet $105 on either team to win $100

[Captain Cold Nose]

Actually when a gambler bets on baseball they do care who wins or loses because that it how the bet pays off. There is no spread like in football in baseball. Their is no Yankees -3 or Cubs +2. It is more like Yankees 60, Tigers 180. So if the Tigers win and you bet $100 on the Tigers to win then you just won 180 plus you $100. If you bet the Yankees to win then you won $60 plus you $100.
There are a few different baseball lines, like the run line and dime line. Either way, the line itself takes precedent over the teams playing for gamblers, which is the point I was trying to make. The teams themselves are just words next to the line.

[Pine Tar]

I guess I am one of the few people who actually feels bad for Pete Rose. Having a gambling addiction is similar to being an alcoholic. If Pete were an alcoholic, and managing or playing drunk, would he have been banned? He might have been suspended or fired but never banned. I know that gambling has the potential to hurt the game more, but actually IMO neither one is as bad as taking steroids, since that also impacts the integrity of the game AND is not a sickness at all. Taking steroids is like cheating on a test. In a way, Pete Rose was showing up drunk for the test.

I can only imagine, but his reinstatement process has been unbelievably humiliating, and meanwhile, the steroid users like McGwire continue to be recognized at ballparks and are going to be most likely voted in to the hall. Rose's reinstatement has appeared like he has been paraded in front of the parole board, and is being expected to cry about how he understands how he hurt everybody, and is a new person, and is so sorry. But he isn't! So should he lie and pretend to be someone else? What should he do? By hinting that he would be reinstated and then not reinstating Rose, it has changed the reason why he is banned to being because he isn't sorry. I've never seen any rule that says you can be banned from baseball because you aren't sorry.

By keeping Rose banned, and requiring him to be contrite about it, it seems to me that the commissioner's office has acted as if it is bigger than baseball. If they are going to reinstate him, they should just do it and be done with it; Not wait for some loveable Pete Rose to emerge to do it. If they aren't going to do it, then shut up about it.

[jalbright]

I guess I am one of the few people who actually feels bad for Pete Rose. Having a gambling addiction is similar to being an alcoholic. If Pete were an alcoholic, and managing or playing drunk, would he have been banned? He might have been suspended or fired but never banned. I know that gambling has the potential to hurt the game more, but actually IMO neither one is as bad as taking steroids, since that also impacts the integrity of the game AND is not a sickness at all. Taking steroids is like cheating on a test. In a way, Pete Rose was showing up drunk for the test.

I can only imagine, but his reinstatement process has been unbelievably humiliating, and meanwhile, the steroid users like McGwire continue to be recognized at ballparks and are going to be most likely voted in to the hall. Rose's reinstatement has appeared like he has been paraded in front of the parole board, and is being expected to cry about how he understands how he hurt everybody, and is a new person, and is so sorry. But he isn't! So should he lie and pretend to be someone else? What should he do? By hinting that he would be reinstated and then not reinstating Rose, it has changed the reason why he is banned to being because he isn't sorry. I've never seen any rule that says you can be banned from baseball because you aren't sorry.

By keeping Rose banned, and requiring him to be contrite about it, it seems to me that the commissioner's office has acted as if it is bigger than baseball. If they are going to reinstate him, they should just do it and be done with it; Not wait for some loveable Pete Rose to emerge to do it. If they aren't going to do it, then shut up about it.
I agree with most of this. However, reinstating him means he could be a manager, GM, etc again. That's where I see a problem. I don't think Pete is giving baseball the reassurances it legitimately needs to allow a person who did what he did a second chance, even if we assume it was due to compulsive gambling (which I think is at least likely). My understanding is he still insists on his right to continue to gamble, which is a big red warning flag that he hasn't accepted that he's got a problem. Since denial is such a critical wall to break down in any addiction, Pete's got to forswear gambling to be reinstated at any time in his life when he could reasonably be considered for posts of real responsibility in the game.

Jim Albright

[Captain Cold Nose]

I guess I am one of the few people who actually feels bad for Pete Rose. Having a gambling addiction is similar to being an alcoholic. If Pete were an alcoholic, and managing or playing drunk, would he have been banned? He might have been suspended or fired but never banned. I know that gambling has the potential to hurt the game more, but actually IMO neither one is as bad as taking steroids, since that also impacts the integrity of the game AND is not a sickness at all. Taking steroids is like cheating on a test. In a way, Pete Rose was showing up drunk for the test.

I can only imagine, but his reinstatement process has been unbelievably humiliating, and meanwhile, the steroid users like McGwire continue to be recognized at ballparks and are going to be most likely voted in to the hall. Rose's reinstatement has appeared like he has been paraded in front of the parole board, and is being expected to cry about how he understands how he hurt everybody, and is a new person, and is so sorry. But he isn't! So should he lie and pretend to be someone else? What should he do? By hinting that he would be reinstated and then not reinstating Rose, it has changed the reason why he is banned to being because he isn't sorry. I've never seen any rule that says you can be banned from baseball because you aren't sorry.

By keeping Rose banned, and requiring him to be contrite about it, it seems to me that the commissioner's office has acted as if it is bigger than baseball. If they are going to reinstate him, they should just do it and be done with it; Not wait for some loveable Pete Rose to emerge to do it. If they aren't going to do it, then shut up about it.
I don't think all they're asking for is contrition. That certainly would not lessen what Rose did. I feel sorry for Rose not because he is an addict, but because he's too arrogant to realize he is not above baseball, not beyond punishment. He has some very human failngs that, in part, probably led him to gambling problems and associations with less-than-desirable folk.
To me, contrition should never absolve someone of their crimes.

[KHenry14]

Well, I dont feel sorry for Rose for one second. ALL of this was brought upon Pete from his own actions. From his first bet on Baseball, to his 15 years of lying, to his lame admittance, he's done nothing that would give Selig a reason to re-instate him. He's not sorry, he still thinks what he did was OK, and he wants us all let him back into the game as if nothing happened. Funny thing is, had he a year after his banishment held a crying press conference where he admitted what he did and blamed a gambling addiction, and then gone to Betty Ford, he'd have been reinstated long ago. He could have done this even if he didn't believe he had a problem. But instead, he arrogantly goes around the country proclaiming his innocence in a lame attempt to get Vincent and Selig to cave to public pressure. When that doesn't work, he offers up an even lamer admission in a book that he will profit from. Can we say "Disingenuous"?

Clearly, even I admit his play on the field deserves entry into the Hall. But are we to ignore all his actions that put his teams' results in jeopardy? Are we to ignore the blatant flaunting of the rules of the game just because he's the Hit King? In my opinion, No.

[Pine Tar]

Well, I dont feel sorry for Rose for one second. ALL of this was brought upon Pete from his own actions. From his first bet on Baseball, to his 15 years of lying, to his lame admittance, he's done nothing that would give Selig a reason to re-instate him. He's not sorry, he still thinks what he did was OK, and he wants us all let him back into the game as if nothing happened. Funny thing is, had he a year after his banishment held a crying press conference where he admitted what he did and blamed a gambling addiction, and then gone to Betty Ford, he'd have been reinstated long ago. He could have done this even if he didn't believe he had a problem. But instead, he arrogantly goes around the country proclaiming his innocence in a lame attempt to get Vincent and Selig to cave to public pressure. When that doesn't work, he offers up an even lamer admission in a book that he will profit from. Can we say "Disingenuous"?

Clearly, even I admit his play on the field deserves entry into the Hall. But are we to ignore all his actions that put his teams' results in jeopardy? Are we to ignore the blatant flaunting of the rules of the game just because he's the Hit King? In my opinion, No.
What you are talking about is exactly what I disagree with. Your argument is not consistant. On one hand you say that if he would have been sorry he would have been reinstated, but on the other hand you say that they can't allow him back in because his actions "put his teams' results in jeopardy." I don't care about all his media work since he has been out of baseball. There is no rule that says he should feel bad for what he did. So keep him out of baseball for doing it not for being an ass about it. And if he is being kept out just because he is a jerk, then baseball is wrong.

As for the liklihood of him coaching or something, just ban him from coaching. He can be banned from coaching without being banned from baseball. A player that tests positive for steroids three times is banned from playing, not from the hall.

[Pine Tar]

From his first bet on Baseball, to his 15 years of lying, to his lame admittance, he's done nothing that would give Selig a reason to re-instate him.
And another thing, no one has hurt the game of baseball more than Selig. He will be remembered as the commisioner that turned away as players took steroids.

[KHenry14]

What you are talking about is exactly what I disagree with. Your argument is not consistant. On one hand you say that if he would have been sorry he would have been reinstated, but on the other hand you say that they can't allow him back in because his actions "put his teams' results in jeopardy." I don't care about all his media work since he has been out of baseball. There is no rule that says he should feel bad for what he did. So keep him out of baseball for doing it not for being an ass about it. And if he is being kept out just because he is a jerk, then baseball is wrong.

As for the liklihood of him coaching or something, just ban him from coaching. He can be banned from coaching without being banned from baseball. A player that tests positive for steroids three times is banned from playing, not from the hall.

I'm not saying I agree with the premise that had he shown contrition and gone to rehab that he should be reinstated. I'm saying that's what would have happened. Baseball didn't want to punish it's biggest ambassador and would have gladly welcomed him back had he done ANYTHING to warrant that.

My feeling is that there is a darn good reason for having the no gambling on baseball rule, Pete knew it, broke it, didn't care that he broke it, lied about it for 15 years, and now expects the world to forgive him. He could have dealt with this differently any number of times over the years, and every time he had a chance to come clean, he lied. That may not be important to you, but it is to me, and it sure as heck is to MLB. His arrogance is his undoing, and I don't feel like rewarding him for it. I guess I don't understand why people keep trying to prop this guy up. He doesn't deserve any of our pity.

[Rennie Stennett]

There are a few different baseball lines, like the run line and dime line. Either way, the line itself takes precedent over the teams playing for gamblers, which is the point I was trying to make. The teams themselves are just words next to the line.

saying a better doesn't look at who's playing or who's pitching that day is crazy. If the Randy Johnson and the Yanks are (-300) and KC is (+250) you are saying that all the better cares about is the number ?

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm not saying I agree with the premise that had he shown contrition and gone to rehab that he should be reinstated. I'm saying that's what would have happened. Baseball didn't want to punish it's biggest ambassador and would have gladly welcomed him back had he done ANYTHING to warrant that.

My feeling is that there is a darn good reason for having the no gambling on baseball rule, Pete knew it, broke it, didn't care that he broke it, lied about it for 15 years, and now expects the world to forgive him. He could have dealt with this differently any number of times over the years, and every time he had a chance to come clean, he lied. That may not be important to you, but it is to me, and it sure as heck is to MLB. His arrogance is his undoing, and I don't feel like rewarding him for it. I guess I don't understand why people keep trying to prop this guy up. He doesn't deserve any of our pity.

The problem with the issue of Rose's suspension is that it has become about Rose and what people think of him, as opposed to what he did, and what SHOULD be the penalty. What Rose did was NOT as serious as what the Black Sox did, not by a longshot, and I don't believe that a permanent suspension is appropriate. I believe the ban Rose has served is appropriate FOR WHAT HE DID.

Pete Rose is a scumbag, but that's not the reason he's under suspension. That fact seems to be lost on people. If people are going to penalize Rose for his PERSONALITY, then they ought to reward him for the aspects of his persona that made him a hustling, popular, play-to-win-at-all-costs star while active. And that's what kind of player Rose was; that wasn't some false image created after the fact.

I also believe that MLB has wanted Rose to "come clean" not to pave the way for reinstatement, but to justify their own position. I don't believe Rose has any obligation to "come clean". He's been investigated, he's been punished, he "came clean" and look what happened. All it did was open him up to more attack. (If I were Rose, I would have kept my mouth shut, period.)

[Captain Cold Nose]

saying a better doesn't look at who's playing or who's pitching that day is crazy. If the Randy Johnson and the Yanks are (-300) and KC is (+250) you are saying that all the better cares about is the number ?
I can tell you most bettors, serious bettors, do not know or care who Randy Johnson is. Most sports bettors are not fans. Again, neither here nor there in discussing Rose.

[Ubiquitous]

serious bettors most certainly know who randy johnson is. Most serious bettors know a lot about their specialized field of betting. Whether it is football, baseball, or horses.

[KHenry14]

The problem with the issue of Rose's suspension is that it has become about Rose and what people think of him, as opposed to what he did, and what SHOULD be the penalty. What Rose did was NOT as serious as what the Black Sox did, not by a longshot, and I don't believe that a permanent suspension is appropriate. I believe the ban Rose has served is appropriate FOR WHAT HE DID.



People focus a lot on the fact that Pete only bet on the Reds to win, as that somehow mitigates his culpability. IMO, the only thing that matters is that Pete bet. Why, well, it doesn't take much of stretch of the imagination to view a simple scenario. It's a fact that Pete owed his bookies a lot of cash (over $200K) and he intended to blow them off and not pay. Had he done that to the wrong people, is it hard to imagine Pete getting a visitor who told him "blow the next game or Pete Jr. will need to learn how to use a walker to walk". What does Pete do then? He blows the game and with it, the integrity of MLB goes out the window. That's the danger of what he did, and that's why it matters that he bet, and doesn't matter that he only bet on the Reds to win.

However, I am cynical enough to believe that a completely insincere apology from Pete would have got him back into MLB. Giamatti, Vincent and Selig all saw the the value Pete brought to the game, and they would have loved to have reinstated him. But that would never have happened without a confession and a pledge not to gamble. Pete chose a different route and he's paying the price.

[1935,1945,1968,1984]

The only way Pete should have his eligibility reinstated is if Jackson's is too.
But I think both should be.

I think the term "lifetime" ban needs to be honored. Therefore, since Jackson is no longer with us, he should be made eligible. And when Pete leaves this mortal coil, he too should be made eligible. That would both give the rules the teeth to be effective, and allow the alltime greats to still be honored as they deserve to be even if it is post mortem.

[1935,1945,1968,1984]

Ooh, BBF drinking games.

Take a shot everytime you see the word steroids, last one to die wins!

Shouldn't that be last one alive wins? I mean what the heck is the point of a contest where everyone dies? Oh yeah, its a drinking game.

[Ubiquitous]

and allow the alltime greats to still be honored as they deserve to be even if it is post mortem.


Why would one want to honor someone who is a disgrace to the industry? And why would it matter that he is dead? If we didn't honor him when he was alive why should we honor him and his deeds just because he is dead? Is him being dead change what he did?

[125osprey]

If you have spent any time around "problem gamblers" this is basically a case of semantics. Those with gambling problems allow their procilvities to influence their thought and behavior, serially. That's where the psychological part of the problem comes in. That's why Charles Barkley has a gambling problem despite the fact that he can "afford it." Whether or not Rose intentionally threw games is a grey area, and while that accusation may seem harsh and unsubstantiated I think it is kind of naive to assume his wagering had no influence on his running of the team.

Top 9, down one run, at home with 2-3-4 coming up in the bottom, bring in your closer to hold down the opposition and give your big guys a shot to win it in the ninth? I dunno, planning to bet the game tomorrow? Want your closer as fresh a possible? Wagering on games, even in favor of your own team, places added importance on certain games compared to others, for peripheral, un-baseball related reasons. The effects of the gambling are more subtle than "throwing games." Pitching rotation, short rest... play the youngsters, let 'em develop...not today, I got 5 large on the team.





This part, I fully agree with.

You make a very good point about the harm that can come from betting on your own team. It is something to think about.

[1935,1945,1968,1984]

Why would one want to honor someone who is a disgrace to the industry? And why would it matter that he is dead? If we didn't honor him when he was alive why should we honor him and his deeds just because he is dead? Is him being dead change what he did?

Why would you honor Rose? If you have to ask, I guess cause he had more HITS then anyone in BB history. Why would you wait till he passed? You wait so you don't have that stink of hypocrisy, a HOF elect that stands and gives an acceptance speech, who is banned from the game. You can support the BAN and be sure those that are banned will never corrupt the game again. While still allowing the on the field accomplishments to be honored, minus hypocrisy stink.

[Ubiquitous]

So I am supposed to honor someone because they had X amount of hits? Pete Rose as all the honor he needs from his hits. He has the hit record, a replica of his bat is on display at the GAB, his equipment and memorabilia is on display at the Hall of Fame. Whatever honor his hits entitles him to he has already and will always have that. The Hall of Fame isn't about X amount of hits, but honoring the players who played the game. And I am not about to honor a guy who thought the rules didn't apply to them and that they were above the game and could do to it whatever he wanted.

[Seattle1]

Ok let's reinstate him if for no other reason than people finally won't be able to argue about it anymore, lol.

[1935,1945,1968,1984]

So I am supposed to honor someone because they had X amount of hits? Pete Rose as all the honor he needs from his hits. He has the hit record, a replica of his bat is on display at the GAB, his equipment and memorabilia is on display at the Hall of Fame. Whatever honor his hits entitles him to he has already and will always have that. The Hall of Fame isn't about X amount of hits, but honoring the players who played the game. And I am not about to honor a guy who thought the rules didn't apply to them and that they were above the game and could do to it whatever he wanted.

Ok, I will agree with you on that one. Your point is well stated, although it does also does illustrate why for such a person you would wait till his death. I would hope and thus far the evidence does support he didn't break the rules till after his playing days were done. You certainly would not elect Rose as a manager, however as a player he does indeed merrit the honor. His actions however, do not allow him to be any part of baseball while he is alive. So, the perfect answer is elect him after his death, and just after Joe Jackson.

[Ubiquitous]

Rose was widely believed to be doing all this while he was also playing. There is no real reason to believe that Rose suddenly after he stopped playing started gambling compulsively or only then started betting on baseball. He stopped playing in 1986 and he started getting called to the carpet after the 1988 season. Now yes it is possible that Rose didn't cross the line and start betting on baseball until after 1986 but I find that somewhat doubtful and have no real reason to believe it.

[1935,1945,1968,1984]

Rose was widely believed to be doing all this while he was also playing. There is no real reason to believe that Rose suddenly after he stopped playing started gambling compulsively or only then started betting on baseball. He stopped playing in 1986 and he started getting called to the carpet after the 1988 season. Now yes it is possible that Rose didn't cross the line and start betting on baseball until after 1986 but I find that somewhat doubtful and have no real reason to believe it.

The only reason I could spectulate, although alittle of a strech? The lack of direct competition fed a hyper competitive person? Alot of former athletes have gambling problems. You are right though that was pretty quick. I am not strong one way or the other, as to Roses' inclusion in the HOF. I do certainly see though that Roses' on the field acomplishments merrit his induction.

Since this very much involves the integrity of the whole game of baseball. The charges against Rose are very serious, it is much more then character issues of a Howe, Strawberry, and the like. It is the very fabric the game is founded upon. We assume that the "Bookies" aren't and can't fix the game. Because, a fixed game is not unlike Wreastling. The WWE variety not the sport in highschool and college. That said, the "LIFETIME" ban should be just that lifetime. Jackson should be allowed in, it is said he was a hillbilly who could not read enough to know what he confessed to. Besides he hit over .300 in a WS he was accused of throwing?

And when Rose passes, the evidence of his managing and gambling kept him out of baseball. The HOF vote for him would put him in the hall for sure. Perhaps, it is a reward to one that does not deserve it, but he is no longer amoung us, so I am sure he won't gloat.

[Ubiquitous]

Problem is that Rose isn't serving a lifetime ban. He is on baseball's ineligible list. It doesn't say anywhere where it is a lifetime ban. It is simply an ineligible list and no one listed on it is able to be inducted into the hall.

[Captain Cold Nose]

serious bettors most certainly know who randy johnson is. Most serious bettors know a lot about their specialized field of betting. Whether it is football, baseball, or horses.
Players are just names associated with numbers for the serious bettor.

[Ubiquitous]

So what exactly is your point? That a bettor doesn't worship at Randy Johnson's feet? Most bettors at one point were fans or students of the game. They may no longer be a fan in that they view the game differently then a common fan but the issue is most certainly not as black and white as you paint it. A human being yes even a gambler most certainly can understand who Randy Johnson is and he can understand him past the numbers on a tipsheet.

[Captain Cold Nose]

So what exactly is your point? That a bettor doesn't worship at Randy Johnson's feet? Most bettors at one point were fans or students of the game. They may no longer be a fan in that they view the game differently then a common fan but the issue is most certainly not as black and white as you paint it. A human being yes even a gambler most certainly can understand who Randy Johnson is and he can understand him past the numbers on a tipsheet.
Getting back to the original issue, if Rose were a serious-enough bettor, the fact the team he was managing was to be involved in a contest he was betting on would not necessarily influence whether or not he bet on the game. He could have bet on the Reds without thinking about them.
That does not mean, though, I am excusing him for what he did.

[bryanspellman]

Major League Baseball is NOT the Hall of Fame, and the Hall of Fame is all of baseball!!! MLB does not say who goes in, or what is displayed or what can be said, or shown or done in Cooperstown.

The Hall of Fame is a shrine to the history and accomplishments of the game of baseball. National, American, Girl's, Negro, Federal, Little....all the leagues have a place to be represented and I think it is very presumptuious of Major League Baseball to dictate who can and cannot be eligable to be enshrined in the Hall.

Each and everyone of the people in the Hall had thier shortcomings, no one of them were perfect but they were put in on the merits of thier play!!

There are milestones that one reaches that are "Automatics" for the Hall, 500 Home Runs, 3000 Hits, etc. No one says "That was John's 14th Charity Ball for Kids with 3 Eyes, he's a shoe in for the Hall of Fame."

ON THE FIELD!!! NUMBERS!!! That is what the Hall of Fame is about, collecting the stats over a career that merits recognition as standing above and beyond the average ball player. That is what Pete Rose did as a player. As a man, as a person I have my feelings towards what he did and has done since but that is not relevant to his place in the Hall Of Fame.

He was a Hall of Fame player, had a Hall of Fame career and he should be there. He earned it, PERIOD! As for involvement in Baseball from NY-Penn League to MLB he should not be allowed near management/ownership. Can he wave tothe crowd at a function, sure...can he sign an autograph in a AAA park, no problem. But he should never be close enough to make decisions on the operations of any type of club. But all that has nothing to do with the Hall of Fame, which is exactly why he should be in there.....

Just my 2.5 cents......

[Ubiquitous]

MLB does not dictate who goes in and who doesn't. The HoF is the one that decided that anyone who is on the ineligible list is not eligible for induction. they did this specifically for Rose who apparently the heads of Cooperstown did not want in their place.

[runningshoes]

Why would one want to honor someone who is a disgrace to the industry? And why would it matter that he is dead? If we didn't honor him when he was alive why should we honor him and his deeds just because he is dead? Is him being dead change what he did?

Do you think Bonds is a disgrace to the industry?

I certainly do, but I'd be willing to bet he gets in.

[Ubiquitous]

SO if we let one mistake in we let them all?

If we accidently let one murderer go we should let them all go?

[runningshoes]

SO if we let one mistake in we let them all?

If we accidental let one murderer go we should let them all go?

I don't want Rose in their either; at least not while he has a pulse, but I have to wonder what the degree of separation is between the two.

A disgrace is a disgrace, right?

[Ubiquitous]

First difference.
MLB had an investigation against Rose, and for that matter they had one against the 8 black sox members. They haven't really even started one against Bonds.

Mlb's investigation into Rose revealed a serious gambling problem on Rose's part. That has not been found yet on Bonds.

Pete Rose agreed to be banned. Bonds has not.

Banning Bonds when nothing has been proven and there hasn't even been an investigation is wrong.

you may view Bonds as a disgrace but so far in the eyes and rules of MLB he has done nothing wrong. Rose did a lot wrong and MLb found out about it.

[bryanspellman]

A disgrace is a disgrace, right?

As a player when did he disgrace the game?

Did he bet on baseball and get banned from baseball for life...yes

Should he ever be reinstated to work in or around baseball...no

Did he have, as a player, a Hall of Fame Career...yes

Should he be in the Hall of Fame...yes

There are drug users, boozers, racists and adulterers, and all other sorts in the Hall of Fame. That still does not change the fact that they were great ball players. We celebrate the player not the man! If Rose ever did anything AS A PLAYER that affected the outcome of a baseball game, or even TRIED to affect the outcome, I would be the first in line of the KEEP ROSE OUT OF THE HALL OF FAME fan club. But I have never seen nor heard of proof of Rose breaking the rules as a player...if I am wrong please correct me.

[runningshoes]

We celebrate the player not the man!

Unfortunatley, you're not wrong and that's what wrong with this world.

I don't draw the distiction between player and manager as you do and correct me me if I'm wrong, but he was a player/manager.

[Captain Cold Nose]

First difference.
MLB had an investigation against Rose, and for that matter they had one against the 8 black sox members. They haven't really even started one against Bonds.

Mlb's investigation into Rose revealed a serious gambling problem on Rose's part. That has not been found yet on Bonds.

Pete Rose agreed to be banned. Bonds has not.

Banning Bonds when nothing has been proven and there hasn't even been an investigation is wrong.

you may view Bonds as a disgrace but so far in the eyes and rules of MLB he has done nothing wrong. Rose did a lot wrong and MLb found out about it.
On top of that, if Bonds goes, many will follow. There is no way in heck they can single out one player for expulsion for his "disgrace."
In regards to what Rose dd or did not do as a player, Bryan, see ubi's post on the subject. I would absolutely be shocked Rose did not start gambling until his playing career was over. The only reason they didn't disclose anything is because they didn't see the need to go there. Why shoot after you've already stabbed?

[runningshoes]

First difference.
MLB had an investigation against Rose, and for that matter they had one against the 8 black sox members. They haven't really even started one against Bonds.

Looks like a cat; walks like a cat; smells like a cat....it must be a cat.

Like I said; a disgrace is a disgrace.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Looks like a cat; walks like a cat; smells like a cat....it must be a cat.

Like I said; a disgrace is a disgrace.
How many cats will be left if we throw out each of those disgraces?

[runningshoes]

How many cats will be left if we throw out each of those disgraces?

That's a lot of cats.

Maybe its time we started using dogs. :p

[bryanspellman]

Unfortunatley, you're not wrong and that's what wrong with this world.

I don't draw the distiction between player and manager as you do and correct me me if I'm wrong, but he was a player/manager.

I agree with you 100%, and when my son was old enough and we went to the Hall we talked about Rose and what he meant as a player (Charlie Hustle) and what he did and his banishment from baseball. It was a nice lesson learned for the boy and a great lesson to many a youngster....

"See this guy was one of the greatest hitters ever but he broke the rules and paid the price, baseball was taken away from him and he will always look at what was but never what is to be......"

As for the 2nd part (I was young then) was he still a player/manager at the time or has he put his playing days behind him.....

[1935,1945,1968,1984]

There are drug users, boozers, racists and adulterers, and all other sorts in the Hall of Fame. That still does not change the fact that they were great ball players. We celebrate the player not the man! If Rose ever did anything AS A PLAYER that affected the outcome of a baseball game, or even TRIED to affect the outcome, I would be the first in line of the KEEP ROSE OUT OF THE HALL OF FAME fan club. But I have never seen nor heard of proof of Rose breaking the rules as a player...if I am wrong please correct me.

Baseball can in no way sanction the gambling on baseball by a participant. If they ever did, how far could that stain the game in regard to the speculation? Do you want the 7th inning steal of second none out down by 3, to be turned into the 4th quarter field goal to cover? All sports have to be very strict when it comes to gambling. Allowing Pete in, would comprimise the very clout of the rules he broke. The one thing sport has that allows it to be sport is integrity. We as fans can assume that the contest is being played and managed/coached by people that have nothing but winning the contest in mind. If this is not the case we might as well watch wreastling or jia lia (spelling?)

Those reasons are why the "gambler" is dealt with so very much more harshly then the other social deviants you speak of. Drug abusers, racists, and adulterers are all still playing the game to win, and to the best of their ability. You can't allow there to even be a slight scent of throwing games.

So unless you believe that Pete bet the same amount all the time on the Reds to win, he kind of threw games by default. If Pete always bets to win? Like the supporters say, any game he bets less, or any game he doesn't bet is a thrown game to him.

[bluezebra]

Pete Rose does not belong in the Hall of Fame.

"Rules for Election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame by Members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA)

3. Eligible Candidates — Candidates to be eligible must meet the following requirements:

E. Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate."

Enough said.

Bob

[jalbright]

So unless you believe that Pete bet the same amount all the time on the Reds to win, he kind of threw games by default. If Pete always bets to win? Like the supporters say, any game he bets less, or any game he doesn't bet is a thrown game to him.

Actually, the evidence to my knowledge is he not only bet at every available opportunity on the Reds to win, in precisely the same amount. It still doesn't excuse his behavior, and since to my knowledge he hasn't adequately addressed his gambling problem (starting with actually quitting), baseball can't let him in. The Hall would be unwise to let Pete in while his listing as ineligible is a legitimate interest of the game, which it clearly is at least until such time as Rose is too old and doddering to be given a role of any consequence in the game or dead. When those points are reached, I think there are at least legitimate reasons to consider letting Pete in.

Jim Albright

[bronx1211]

Pete Rose should be in the hall of fame, due to accomplishments on the field and what he brought to the game when he played. Lets remember that the ballot to gain entry is supposed to be decided by what u did on the field. Not to mention that the level of talent in recent years to cross into the hall has had some shady characters and also if Ty Cobb is in the hall then rose should be due to the fact that Cobb killed man.

[bronx1211]

Pete Rose should be in the hall of fame, due to accomplishments on the field and what he brought to the game when he played. Lets remember that the ballot to gain entry is supposed to be decided by what u did on the field. Not to mention that the level of talent in recent years to cross into the hall has had some shady characters and also if Ty Cobb is in the hall then rose should be due to the fact that Cobb killed man.

[runningshoes]

http://www.ajclay.com/PTC/pictures/529.jpg

[Fuzzy Bear]

http://www.ajclay.com/PTC/pictures/529.jpg

Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe!

[KCGHOST]

For some guys there aren't enough dead horses in the world.

[Ubiquitous]

Pete Rose should be in the hall of fame, due to accomplishments on the field and what he brought to the game when he played. Lets remember that the ballot to gain entry is supposed to be decided by what u did on the field. Not to mention that the level of talent in recent years to cross into the hall has had some shady characters and also if Ty Cobb is in the hall then rose should be due to the fact that Cobb killed man.

The ballot to gain entry is not just suppused to be about on field accomplishments. Here is what the HoF says, "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played"


Also so who are these shady characters that have been elected in recent years? And who did Cobb kill?

[bluezebra]

Pete Rose should be in the hall of fame, due to accomplishments on the field and what he brought to the game when he played. Lets remember that the ballot to gain entry is supposed to be decided by what u did on the field. Not to mention that the level of talent in recent years to cross into the hall has had some shady characters and also if Ty Cobb is in the hall then rose should be due to the fact that Cobb killed man.

Apparently you don't know the criteria for election to the Hall.

"Rules for Election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame by Members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA)

3. Eligible Candidates — Candidates to be eligible must meet the following requirements:

E. Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate."

Rose is on the ineligible list, and his ego won't let him admit he gambled on baseball, and his own team, so he'll stay there for eternity.

Bob

[thecoach]

Apparently you don't know the criteria for election to the Hall.

"Rules for Election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame by Members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA)

3. Eligible Candidates — Candidates to be eligible must meet the following requirements:

E. Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate."

Rose is on the ineligible list, and his ego won't let him admit he gambled on baseball, and his own team, so he'll stay there for eternity.

Bob

I am not sure he belongs in the Hall but you are not correct about one thing. He has admitted he gambled on baseball. And when Selig is no longer the Com. he will be made eligible! :lookitup

[RedSoxVT92]

Pete Rose seems to be wayyyy overated by most people. He may have the most hits but lets not forget that he is leader in games played at 3562. 254 more than the 2nd place player (Yaz). And leader in at bats with 14053, 1689 more AB's than the 2nd place finisher (Aaron). That gives him the most chances of anybody to get that amount of hits. But dont get me wrong he was a great player in all senses and is way above the standerd of the Hall of Fame. But he did something wrong and now he is now paying the consequences. Anways I would rather have Shoeless Joe in before Rose.

[538280]

Pete Rose seems to be wayyyy overated by most people. He may have the most hits but lets not forget that he is leader in games played at 3562. 254 more than the 2nd place player (Yaz). And leader in at bats with 14053, 1689 more AB's than the 2nd place finisher (Aaron). That gives him the most chances of anybody to get that amount of hits.

Pete Rose probably is overrated by the casual fan, but then he's underrated by most serious students of the game. I hear those longevity records thrown around as if they're a bad thing, those are remarkable accomplishments in of themselves. Although Rose achived the record with questionable ethics (like everything surrounding the man, he shouldn't be in the HOF BTW), then he also played at a time FAR, FAR less friendly for batters looking to get hits. Craig Wright in his book The Diamond Appraised does some excellent work projecting Rose's numbers put up in the 1970s into Cobb's era. The result is that Rose ends up breaking Cobb's record much sooner than he did in real life-and before he applied the questionable ethics I referred to. I think he is a legitimate holder of the all time hit record.

Also, Rose was a special hitter for his time, and he did it for about 20 years. He woudl hit .330, draw a good number of walks, and was a fair slugger too. Although he was not much of a fielder, he also spent a good portion of his career at 2B and 3B, when his hitting was worth more. The notion that Pete Rose had no peak, IMO, is largely created by the fact his best years came in the late 60s, when offense was lower than it would be later in his career. In 1968 Rose led the league in BA and OBP, and finished in the top 10 in the league with a .470 SLG, a 152 OPS+ He again posted an awesome OPS+ the next year, 158, and again won the batting title. Sometimes I question using league leadership to evaluate players, but Rose's record of league leads is that of a dominating player. His 64 black ink is good for 14th all time.

While Rose was not as dominating a player as many other all time greats, I feel he was a dominating hitter through most of his career, had a very good peak, and he lasted longer than anyone. That is the record of at the very least a top 50 player of all time. I have him #35, I think that might even be too low. I don't see him as an overrated player at all outside of some casual fans who try to make him out to be a top 10 player of all time.

[jalbright]

Just when one Rose thread dies, there's another to take its place. Kind of like dealing with the mythical Hydra, which had multiple heads and when you cut one off, two would grow in its place. This time, if anyone is interested in my views on the subject, search the site for my posts regarding same. I intend to stay off this ride as long as I can, as I need a break. Maybe there's a steroid thread or a league quality adjustment thread or a Joe Jackson thread or a "sabermetrics stinks" thread I can participate in (i.e. beat some other dead horses) instead ;) :D

Jim Albright

[1935,1945,1968,1984]

Also so who are these shady characters that have been elected in recent years? And who did Cobb kill?

According to Cobb he beat the "HECK" out of the fellow that stabbed him. He then left the fellow for dead. Cobb went 3 for 5 the next night only then being tended to after the game. *according to Cobb by Al Stump

Going 3 for 5 with a knife wound rocks!!!!!!!!

[1935,1945,1968,1984]

Not to mention that the level of talent in recent years to cross into the hall has had some shady characters and also if Ty Cobb is in the hall then rose should be due to the fact that Cobb killed man.

If this man Cobb killed is the same man that is in the book, "Cobb" by Al Stump. Then perhaps you should know the whole story?

Ty recounted to Al Stump that one night on the way home from the ballpark he was jumped and stabbed twice in the back by 2 would be muggers. In the ensuing scuffle, the muggers ran off. He chased down one of them as the other ran the other way and beat the man real bad, possibly to death. Cobb himself did not seek medical attention until after the next nights game when he was attended to by the Tigers trainer. BTW with 2 knife wounds in his back he went 3 for 5.

Although, this story was recounted 30 plus years after the fact. In Stumps research he did find a newspaper article telling of an unknown man beaten to death around where and when, Cobb said this happened. As well, he found that Cobb went 3 for 5 the next night. That along witht the scars on Cobbs back made him conclude the story is true.

So if this is the fellow you speak of when you say Cobb killed a man? Well, given the mans "lifestyle" choices he might kind of been asking for it?

Oops I already said that...more less....well, less. There you go the whole story.

[ernie]

Did you think Pete Rose shall be in HOF ballot?

[soberdennis]

I don't know. It seems ridiculous that our all time hits man cannot be in the HOF.
doesn't it also seem ridiculous that the #3 all time BA man cannot be there?
Rose probably belongs in the hall. But so does Joe jackson. Maybe they should bothe be put in together,.

[GhostShip]

"shall" ?

I believe Pete Rose only has a chance now with the Veteran's Committee, he is ineligible for a regular Hall of Fame vote now because of time elapsed. Even if he were unbanned he wouldn't get onto the regular ballot today, at least as far as my understanding goes...

[ernie]

"shall" ?

I believe Pete Rose only has a chance now with the Veteran's Committee, he is ineligible for a regular Hall of Fame vote now because of time elapsed. Even if he were unbanned he wouldn't get onto the regular ballot today, at least as far as my understanding goes...

I was putting in a hypotetic case in that Pete Rose colud be unbanned of HOF balloting. That idea about an induction via Veterans Committee can be a good idea, but...

[KCGHOST]

We keep running these polls on a guy who has no shot. He has less of a chance with the VC than he does with the writers.

[ernie]

My opinion about Charlie Hustle (is that the nickname?) is the next:

Pete Rose, despite his acusations of gambling, didn't deserve to be banned of HOF ballot. They ought let in HOF, seeing that it had happened. After all, Pete Rose was an outstanding ballplayer. The next year, players like Mark McGwire will be in the Hall of Fame ballot. I hope Big Mac will be not victim of another polemic (steroids)

[runningshoes]

Not while he's still drawing a breath.

[Goooooo]

Rose should of been in years ago. What he did pales in comparison to some of the stuff other hofers did. Cobb killed a man. He's in the hof. I don't really see what was the big deal about his gambling anyway. He gambled to win, not lose.

[csh19792001]

Rose should of been in years ago. What he did pales in comparison to some of the stuff other hofers did. Cobb killed a man. He's in the hof. I don't really see what was the big deal about his gambling anyway. He gambled to win, not lose.

Irrespective of Pete Rose...

Cobb didn't kill anyone; you're working off of rumor and Hollywood dramatization rather than research and fact. Such is typically the case with people like Cobb and Ruth. Al Stump's bloated, ballyhooed biography (that resulted in the 1994 movie) is very entertaining, in large part because it's full of half truths and tons of hyperbole (along with some outright lies).

Have a read about the actual facts of the case:

DID TY COBB ONCE KILL A MAN? (http://baseballguru.com/bburgess/analysisbburgess01.html)

[Lou Diamonds]

Hee Hee chris is a fan of cobb but loathes Bonds ?

And Im the one with moral issues ?

buwahahaha

Oh, and I voted no, though if he were to get in, I wouldn't be upset.

[baseball junkie]

Pete Rose should never be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

The man had 25 years to admit what we all now know he did -- bet on baseball and bet on Reds' games he managed. And ask forgiveness. To this day he has never done those things.

He has admitted betting on baseball games and asked for forgiveness but he still refuses to admit he ever bet on Reds' games that he managed -- that is pure B.S.

The untimely death of Dr. Bart Giamatti didn't help the situation. The two of them may have had a spoken agreement to reinstate Rose after a certain amount of time. That agreement died on Friday, September 1, 1989 with Dr. Giamatti.

Keeping Rose out of Cooperstown is one of Bud Selig's few admirable accomplishments.

Rose's current argument that he was banned from baseball during the time he would have appeared on the HOF ballot is also bogus. The fact that Rose is no allowed to participate in a very limited sense in some baseball events does not mean he should get his 15 years of eligibility back.

The HOF should maintain baseball's highest standards and should certainly never induct cheaters like Joe Jackson and Pete Rose. NO CHEATERS IN THE HOF! I only hope that when the voters are filling out their ballots in the next decade and half that they remember this principle as it applies to players like Barry Bonds, Jason Giambi, Gary Sheffield, Rafael Palmeiro, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, et. al.

[Taco De Muerte]

NO CHEATERS IN THE HOF!

It's too bad the writers already screwed that up when letting ford and perry into the HOF. Hell, they screwed it up when letting Hornsby in.

But oh well, I guess we can stop screwing things up now, right ?

[baseball junkie]

So Taco of Death, if your house was burning down would you call the fire department or just say...the hell with it I guess we can't stop it burning down now?

Great logic there bud.

[rugbyfreak]

Bill:

I pulled the following post by you from another thread, which because it was old and you might not read it, I have transferred here:

My gut tells me that Pete Rose bet on his own team, to win. Because Pete is an ego-driven guy. The rules stipulate that one cannot bet on ANY team, let alone your own.

All my instincts tell me Pete bet on the Reds to win. My instincts also tell me that Pete never bet against his own teams. Just my impression of the guy. Wish he'd fess up and come clean. Americans have always shown themselves willing to forgive someone who admits their error, is contrite, sorry, and apologizes. Even if the apology is too late, and less than 100% sincere.

If Pete confessed all, I think he'd get forgiven faster than with his stone-walling. IMHO. I could be all wrong.

Bill Burgess


For those of you for whom Pete's gambling is still a major concern, you should know the following:

Despite the fact that the Dowd Report has turned up hundreds of tickets indicating Rose's bets on the Reds to win, but not one to lose is in no way a mitigating factor. Forget for a minute that the baseball statute against gambling is absolute (although that alone is end of story). I for one have always believed wholeheartedly that Pete never did bet against the Reds. His competitive nature and lifetime connection with the Reds is simply too strong.

But know this: Every bookmaker in the country knew of Pete's habit, and through their connections tracked every bet he made, especially on the Reds, about whom it was assumed he had unique information. On days when he made no bet at all on the Reds, it was naturally assumed he did not feel confident in his team's chances. Many took that as a cue to bet against. So even when doing nothing, he was exerting a huge illegal influence on the Reds' line everywhere, so he might as well have been placing a bet.

One other thing about his case (again I apologize if I'm reiterating a previous post; I haven't read them all):

While I don't invest much sympathy in his persistent "victim" complex regarding his case, I must add it's not wholly unfounded, at least in one regard. Everyone understands now that he is blocked from the HOF ballot because of the baseball statute that (I paraphrase) "Any player on the baseball ineligibility list will also be ineligible for consideration in any HOF election." (sic)

This has been stated for so long that everybody assumes this direct connection between MLB and the HOF was always so. Not at all. MLB does not, in any way, run the HOF, it operates independently (having developed, of course, countless working agreements to procure memorabilia, licensing, player access...you name it). But in the end, any final decisions regarding the HOF rests with that entity. But the rule requiring a clean sheet with MLB was created SPECIFICALLY to block Rose, once Giamatti realized the possibility existed that Rose could be elected unilaterally in spite of pending problems with MLB. I believe (here is where I'm supposing) the HOF agreed in good faith to honor MLB's status on any player and only ballotize players in good standing. Here's where Rose's contention that he is the victim of "special treatment" is quite accurate. It's up to the fan to decide whether that special treatment is justified.

Also, ever seen that show, "10 Reasons Why You Souldn't Blame so-and-so for so-and-so", on, I believe, one of the FOX stations (600s on DirecTV). Actually, quite interesting, as it takes famous contentious situations, with their accepted scapegoat, and sheds new light. The one on Rose is where I learned the second point I made. "10 Reasons Why You Shouldn't Blame MLB for Rose's Banishment" it was called, and the most interesting point was that you shouldn't blame MLB, because, in spite of their ruling on Rose, it was the HOF that changed the dynamic by adhering to the MLB ruling, when they didn't have to.

Again, you may rightfully argue, good for them for standing for something. That's a moral judgement everyone has to make for himself. Just know who really is behind the decision.

freak

[Taco De Muerte]

So Taco of Death, if your house was burning down would you call the fire department or just say...the hell with it I guess we can't stop it burning down now?

Great logic there bud.

Terrible comparison, and I really can't believe you stooped to such a low level.

[rugbyfreak]

Pete Rose should never be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

The man had 25 years to admit what we all now know he did -- bet on baseball and bet on Reds' games he managed. And ask forgiveness. To this day he has never done those things.

He has admitted betting on baseball games and asked for forgiveness but he still refuses to admit he ever bet on Reds' games that he managed -- that is pure B.S.

The untimely death of Dr. Bart Giamatti didn't help the situation. The two of them may have had a spoken agreement to reinstate Rose after a certain amount of time. That agreement died on Friday, September 1, 1989 with Dr. Giamatti.

Keeping Rose out of Cooperstown is one of Bud Selig's few admirable accomplishments.

Rose's current argument that he was banned from baseball during the time he would have appeared on the HOF ballot is also bogus. The fact that Rose is no allowed to participate in a very limited sense in some baseball events does not mean he should get his 15 years of eligibility back.

The HOF should maintain baseball's highest standards and should certainly never induct cheaters like Joe Jackson and Pete Rose. NO CHEATERS IN THE HOF! I only hope that when the voters are filling out their ballots in the next decade and half that they remember this principle as it applies to players like Barry Bonds, Jason Giambi, Gary Sheffield, Rafael Palmeiro, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, et. al.

We're not electing a Pope here, these are ballplayers, and should be judged as such, and nothing more. Once you open the moral door even a crack, you complicate things beyond hope, because then everyone starts saying, "Well, if so-and-so, with all he did, how can you not consider so-and-so." God knows the debates over baseball credentials are complicated enough for me. Besides, I'm already scared by the bizzare mindsets of some of these voters. Imagine if we had to worry about unknown moral codes of men and women from regions of the country that hold standards that might seem unfathomable to others? You are aware that Boggs lost numerous votes because of his well-known philandering. I happen to think cheating on one's wife is a serious offense. But I would never let that outweigh the more important considerations at hand, i.e. his career.

Doesn't mean, however, that I'm clear-cut about Rose. Not a day goes by that I don't waffle on the matter. It's been so disappointing to gradually realize that a guy I admired so much as a player is such a first-class hump. The saddest part about his case, which he may or may not realize, is no matter how right he is about certain things, he will never overcome the distaste the public has acquired for him. He is impossible to root for, and people like that never get the benefit of the doubt, especially when they persist in living denial about their shortcomings, are incapable of sincere contrition, and are completely devoid of humility.

freak

[snavecram]

:clapping He’s Charlie Hustle for Pete’s sake.
Let him in! Let him in! Let him in!

Attn: Mr. Bud Selig

Pete Rose was one of the top ten players in the history of the game PERIOD

As a kid (born in 1970) growing up in Southern California I loved baseball. I was hooked by the time I was five. My father often took me to see the Dodgers. My older brother and I played countless hours of catch and over-the-line with our friends. We collected baseball cards from 1975 – 1985. Our father bought a batting cage. My favorite players were Pete Rose “Charlie Hustle”, Ron Cey “The Penguin”, Johnny Bench, George Brett & of course “Mr. Clean” Steve Garvey. These guys were true baseball players. They played hard every day. They ran on and off the field (every inning). They were and still are my idols. In 1976 my family traveled by motorhome to the Baseball Hall of Fame. I will never forget seeing the Big Red Machine on a stairway and Pete Rose’s picture in the Hall.

In case you haven’t checked the record books lately, Pete Rose has the numbers and then some to get him into the Hall of Fame. He played from 1963 – 1986, he put in 23 years of extremely entertaining baseball. He helped turn over a thousand double plays. He would run to first base after a walk, slide head-first into bases (Pete Rose slide). He obviously loved the game and he made me love it too.

Some of Pete Rose’s Career Stats
1st Hits – 4,256
1st Singles – 3,215
5th Runs Scored – 2,165
2nd Doubles – 746
1st Games Played – 3,562
In 1978 Mr. Rose hit safely in 44 straight games.

Pete Rose was banned for life from MLB in 1989 for his alleged gambling on MLB games. He went to jail for false filing of income tax returns soon after. He was accused of betting on major league baseball, Bart Giamatti and Pete Rose agreed to a lifetime ban from baseball. Giamatti dies 8 days later? He is not going to be a politician anytime soon. Although I don’t see why he can’t from the beginning of this paragraph he looks fully qualified. Let’s think rationally. He never bet against his own team. What’s the harm? The man likes to gamble. There are other players already inducted into the Hall that have checked pasts as well. Ty Cobb charged into the stands and beat the crap out of a fan that was heckling him. Cobb helped fix a game as a player in 1919. If that happened in 1989 he would have been banned for life? What is the difference? Ty Cobb was a player in a game. Pete Rose was a coach betting on his own team. Which one of these scenarios is worse? Ty Cobb’s of course. Babe Ruth once swung a bat at an umpire in 1917. There are hundreds of players that took steroids and are creeping up on all-time records. Bonds, Sosa and McGwire were all on the juice. I see this as more of an issue than betting on games. There are so many more have taken steroids as well. Don’t let them in. I don’t think so. Bonds, Sosa and McGwire are shoe-in’s.

The bottom line is Baseball players are not Saints they are ball players. Reward them for what they have achieved on the field without banned substances. Pete Rose is going to get in one day. Mr. Rose is not getting any younger and it would be a shame if he were not alive when he is inducted. So why don’t you be the one that allows the process to move forward and the let the voting to begin.

He’s Charlie Hustle for Pete’s sake.
Let him in! Let him in! Let him in!

Marc Evans
Upland, CA

[soberdennis]

I agree that Rose belongs in the HOF.
As do Joe Jackson and his .356 lifetime BA
Eddie Cicotte and Hal Chase probably deserve consideration too.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I don't like that Pete was never allowed to apply for reinstatement. After Bart died, Vincent wouldn't return any of Pete's calls. The whole thing was shady. His playing numbers are legit. We have guys right now who we know don't have legit playing numbers. Let him in (only the hall, not back in baseball) sounds good to me.

[NeverJustAGame]

Welcome to the BBF forums Mr Rose!

[Mike D.]

Mmm....it's Friday, and a first time poster has posted a half-baked post calling for Rose to be allowed into Cooperstown. I think we all know what that means....EVERYONE DRINK!:crazy :D :clapping :D

[Whitesoxnut]

I agree, let him in. Who cares if he gambled against the rules for so many years, for so many times. Who cares if he lied about it so many times we both lost count. Who cares if he cheated on his income taxes and has a felony conviction on his record. Who cares if he shamelessly manipulated the stupid baseball public for decades.

This is after all "America" where the ability to hit or throw a ball allows a person to rise above the rules, indeed make up their own as they go along. Chop up your wife? cheat on your taxes? drink and drive? gamble illegally? smack a fan around? rape, pillage, and plunder????? Who cares????

The rules only apply to the un-washed masses. And in the next life I left a bookmark to work on my swing more:ughh

[KCGHOST]

There are none so blind as those who still remain fans of Pete Rose. May as well elect Arnold Rothstein while we are at it.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Welcome to the BBF forums Mr Rose!

;)

So you guys would be completely against allowing a steroid user in the HOF I would assume, correct? Afterall, the HOF is mainly about numbers (although there is supposed to be character criteria that hasn't been employed seemingly ever), and while Pete's playing numbers are legit, steroid users are not.

I do not think he should be let back into baseball in any way, shape, or form, and I'm not even a fan of his. But what's right is right, and his playing career accomplishments should be acknowledged imo.

The Hit King

[The Big C]

One thing is sure, he is not "one of the top ten players in the history of the game PERIOD".

[flash143817]

One thing is sure, he is not "one of the top ten players in the history of the game PERIOD".

Not even close. But Rose supporters always overrate his playing accomplishments in their futile efforts to get him into the HOF.