Are Pete's HOF hopes dashed?

My opinion has been the same since 1989.

I think the argument could be made that Pete's accomplishments are more readily known by this generation of fans/kids because of the hick-hack of his HOF shun than if he had a bust in there.

I think the argument could be made that Pete's accomplishments are more readily known by this generation of fans/kids because of the hick-hack of his HOF shun than if he had a bust in there.

 

That's a pretty good point spindoc. Younger Reds fans could tell you way more about Pete Rose's playing career than they probably could Joe Morgan and Johnny Bench.

 

My opinion hasn't changed. Never thought they'd let him in until after he passed away, and I still feel this way. Would love it if I was wrong. I don't care if he's ever allowed to work with a team or be a part of baseball, but he deserves to be in the Hall.

The article Clyde posted the other day pretty much sums it up for me. What did I already know? That Pete was a gambling addict and a liar. What did they show this week? That Pete was/is a gambling addict and a liar. So, in my mind, nothing really changed this week. And because of that, he deserves to be banned from baseball.

 

However, that being said, what he did on the field...was the toughest thing to do in sports, and that's put a round bat on a round ball moving at 90+ mph from a distance that only allows you only a fraction of a second to decide a.) if you want to swing at it, and b.) where it's going to be. And he did it more often than anyone else. And for THAT, he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

 

End result? He should be in the HOF...and banned from the game. Unfortunately, I don't think anybody at the Hall (voters) has any guts to go around the commish.

He should be allowed in posthumously, same as Joe Jackson.

My opinion has been consistent for a while. He should be in the HOF for his playing accomplishments but never be allowed back in baseball as an active coach/manager.

His stats and career are HOF worthy, actually over the top HOF worthy.

 

The man had a gambling addiction and avoided telling the truth when confronted by the evidence. However, he didn't point shave or in this sports case, 'run shave'. He bet on the games. I don't think it's been proven that he tried to unethically influence the games' outcomes. And he didn't bet on the Reds to lose. All that still isn't good by no means. But with all the steroid enhanced statistics of players in the past two decades, and some if these guys that haven't been exposed are or probably will be in the HOF, I think the MLB folks should put a few things in perspective.

Pete made a lot of serious mistakes, but IMO not on the scale to shut this great player out of baseball and the HOF.

His stats and career are HOF worthy, actually over the top HOF worthy.

 

The man had a gambling addiction and avoided telling the truth when confronted by the evidence. However, he didn't point shave or in this sports case, 'run shave'. He bet on the games. I don't think it's been proven that he tried to unethically influence the games' outcomes. And he didn't bet on the Reds to lose. All that still isn't good by no means. But with all the steroid enhanced statistics of players in the past two decades, and some if these guys that haven't been exposed are or probably will be in the HOF, I think the MLB folks should put a few things in perspective.

Pete made a lot of serious mistakes, but IMO not on the scale to shut this great player out of baseball and the HOF.

You are correct, we have no proof. But for the degenerate with a problem such as Pete had/has, I can't say for certain what lines he would or would not cross. This isn't my mom that loves to go pull the slots at the gambling boat every other weekend. Every few years another layer of the onion comes off showing that his gambling issues went beyond what we presently know. Would it really be much of a shock if in 2-3 years info comes about that Pete did have an influence upon games in which he was associated with? No.

He should definitely be in, but I won't lose sleep if they keep him out.

He should be allowed in posthumously, same as Joe Jackson.

 

More or less where I stand. While the revelations are new, as CincySportsFan said, they told us what we already know. He should absolutely be in the Hall due to his performance on the field, but if they don't want to reward him based on his conduct, put him in when he's gone.

The article Clyde posted the other day pretty much sums it up for me. What did I already know? That Pete was a gambling addict and a liar. What did they show this week? That Pete was/is a gambling addict and a liar. So, in my mind, nothing really changed this week. And because of that, he deserves to be banned from baseball.

 

However, that being said, what he did on the field...was the toughest thing to do in sports, and that's put a round bat on a round ball moving at 90+ mph from a distance that only allows you only a fraction of a second to decide a.) if you want to swing at it, and b.) where it's going to be. And he did it more often than anyone else. And for THAT, he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

 

End result? He should be in the HOF...and banned from the game. Unfortunately, I don't think anybody at the Hall (voters) has any guts to go around the commish.

 

The commish could reinstate him today and he still wouldn't get in. No chance the voters put him in, media or players. I that's what too many fail to realize.

It sucks that Pete has a record that may not be broken for a very very very long time. If it wasnt for that, there would be no discussion on the matter. With that said, Pete has done nothing to help his case in all these years, nothing. He does not deserve to be involved in baseball in any way (shouldnt have been involved in the all century team for that matter.)

 

If you want to settle the HOF issue its simple. Let the HOF members that are alive (not the writers or the media) but the guys that have the heads in the hall vote, should Pete be in yes or no, If yes, make a plaque and put it up, no ra ra ra no fan fair just put it up and be done. If no, then once Pete dies, you go back to them one more time, should Pete be in. What ever they vote, let it be so and the issue is done.

I'll be in Cooperstown if Pete gets enshrined, but I understand why that may never happen. He has to pay the penalty for what he did, and I am ok if that means he never gets in.

The commish could reinstate him today and he still wouldn't get in. No chance the voters put him in, media or players. I that's what too many fail to realize.

 

And that's where the problem would arise, IMO. The voters wouldn't put him in, because they'd feel he shouldn't have been reinstated (which, in truth, he shouldn't be). He should still be punished for betting...so, keep him banned. But the Hall should be based upon what he did on the field...and for that, he should be in. Like I said before, I don't think it'll happen this way anyway.