If we assume(yes, I know) that his bets were on non-Reds games and even given that the rule is in every clubhouse do we say that his offense is worse than using greenies? HGH? Is Andy Pettite going to be banned from consideration? Is it worse than ARod? Bonds? McGwire?

 

I think this is the biggest conundrum when evaluating Rose's legitimacy in to the HOF. No person truly has any idea of the true range of his gambling escapades or lack thereof with baseball with the exception of one person. And that person is Rose himself who has proven to be untrustworthy. I get erring on the side of caution in that respect.

I think this is the biggest conundrum when evaluating Rose's legitimacy in to the HOF. No person really has any idea of the true range of his gambling escapades or lack thereof with baseball. And the voice you have to turn to for that answer is Rose himself who has proven to be untrustworthy. I get erring on the side of caution in that respect.

 

You also have the voice of the bookies that testified against him and were interviewed by MLB...they didn't base it just on Pete's word, if they had he would have never been suspended. MLB has said repeatedly that Rose never bet against the Reds and seemingly bet on them every day.

You also have the voice of the bookies that testified against him and were interviewed by MLB...they didn't base it just on Pete's word, if they had he would have never been suspended. MLB has said repeatedly that Rose never bet against the Reds and seemingly bet on them every day.

 

Not arguing that, but no person besides Rose fully knows to what extent he bet on games.

Of course he belongs in the Hall of Fame people pretend like there is a morals clause to the Hall of Fame but those enshrined prove there isn't. (Ty Cobb, John Mcgraw, and Charles Comiskey to name a few)

Pete Rose is a

Liar

Gambler

Self promoter

A jerk

Whatever you want to say but above all he belongs in the HOF because he has more hits than anyone in baseball history and gambling on baseball has nothing to do with that.

 

For argument sake take Bonds you may say without PED's he wouldn't hit 762 HR or 73HR in a season.

For Pete do you say without the gambling he wouldn't have had 4256 hits.

 

Your accomplishments should get you in not your personality.

It's not Pete's personality that got him banned. It may not have helped, but he repeatedly broke the cardinal rule of baseball. Plain and simple.

It's not Pete's personality that got him banned. It may not have helped, but he repeatedly broke the cardinal rule of baseball. Plain and simple.

I agree that he should have been banned, but even a life sentance in prison get parole in most cases.

It's not Pete's personality that got him banned. It may not have helped, but he repeatedly broke the cardinal rule of baseball. Plain and simple.

 

 

The question isn't weather he should be banned it is should he be in the HOF. He should it wasn't until after his banishment the baseball writers made the rule that players on the ineligible for baseball list were not eligible for the HOF. I believe he should have been banned for life but you can not erase his on field performance. He was never accused of fixing games if their was evidence of that he would have been prosecuted. There are people in the Hall who allegedly knew of games being fixed or were part of fixes.

 

The fact there are writers in the Baseball HOF and the guy with the most hits in history isn't is a complete joke. They should let players vote on weather the writers get in since the writers vote in the players.