Pete the player SHOULD be in.

I never liked Pete Rose as a player, as a coach, or as a human being - but he has the numbers necessary to be in the Hall of Fame and he belongs there. Unless there is some evidence that Rose bet against his team as a player, I see no reason for keeping him out of the HOF. I see many reasons for keeping the guys out who have been caught cheating through steroid use.

The rules are the rules - Never!

 

The law is the law, yet we have people who have broken laws that are in the hall...he definately belongs.

I never liked Pete Rose as a player, as a coach, or as a human being - but he has the numbers necessary to be in the Hall of Fame and he belongs there. Unless there is some evidence that Rose bet against his team as a player, I see no reason for keeping him out of the HOF. I see many reasons for keeping the guys out who have been caught cheating through steroid use.

 

Okay here is a problem with that mindset.

 

What about the days he didn't bet on his team to win nor lose? He bet neither.

 

And then a situation came up in the game like pulling a pitcher for a relief pitcher that would not allow him to have that pitcher for the next game when he wanted to bet on his team to win because he had confidence in that game's starting pitcher. Does he put that pitcher in and hamper his chances when he knows he is going to bet on them to win?

 

What about him betting to win on his team to win and he leaves a relief pitcher out there longer because he thinks that is the best chance to win THAT GAME but then the pitcher becomes unavialable for the next game.

 

Betting in any fashion calls into play decisions that are made during that date and the days he didn't.

The law is the law, yet we have people who have broken laws that are in the hall...he definately belongs.

 

Name me one player in the HOF that broke the rules of baseball that allows you to be eligible for the HOF? Name ONE?

Name me one player in the HOF that broke the rules of baseball that allows you to be eligible for the HOF? Name ONE?

 

Would you consider someone who achieved what they did on the field legally less justified for the hall of fame than someone who used performance enhancing drugs to achieve their success?

Would you consider someone who achieved what they did on the field legally less justified for the hall of fame than someone who used performance enhancing drugs to achieve their success?

 

Irrelevant question.

 

Peter Edward Rose was given a RULE that would prevent him from HOF eligibility. His EGO, HIS EGO, thought he could break that rule and still get all the honors and glories that comes with his accomplishments.

 

I am glad that he found out he was wrong.

 

And for 10 years, I didn't think he bet on baseball.

 

If those that used steroids were told that this would make them ineligible for the HOF, they should be held to the same standard.

Since he didn't break the golden rule as a player, he should be inducted as a player.

I think Pete Rose has already pay the price, its time now to put Rose in.

He belongs. Arguably the best hitter of all time and undoubtedly top 5. He was a great player who hustled more than anyone I've ever seen. A player like this needs to be recognized for more than just his problems off the field.

Okay here is a problem with that mindset.

 

What about the days he didn't bet on his team to win nor lose? He bet neither.

 

And then a situation came up in the game like pulling a pitcher for a relief pitcher that would not allow him to have that pitcher for the next game when he wanted to bet on his team to win because he had confidence in that game's starting pitcher. Does he put that pitcher in and hamper his chances when he knows he is going to bet on them to win?

 

What about him betting to win on his team to win and he leaves a relief pitcher out there longer because he thinks that is the best chance to win THAT GAME but then the pitcher becomes unavialable for the next game.

 

Betting in any fashion calls into play decisions that are made during that date and the days he didn't.

You bolded the words "as a player" but your arguments relate to "as a coach." Your points are good ones for keeping Rose, the manager, out of the HOF but I don't believe they should have a bearing on whether Rose, the player, should be inducted.

He should be in the HOF no question.

 

What he did on the field speaks for it's self.

 

:thumb:

Both sides have valid arguments, regarding Rose. What he accomplished as a MLB Player, is second to none. Those who evaluate the likelihood, may never change their mind.

 

We live in a society, where many get second chances and some never learn. For so long Rose adamantly denied any wrongdoing. To recant and change his position, must have been difficult for him but equally disappointed to many fans who watched him play.

 

I would like to see the HOF, include Rose the player someday. Even list his positive records while playing, along side a summary of his shame he brought to the game. Let the fans for years to come, know Rose from both perspectives.

I've always thought he should be in and get angry about it. I won one of the first ever BGP contests and there was a hall of fame at that time. My quote that went into the hall was something along the lines of "If Pete can't get in I don't know if I'm deserving".

The older I get the more I don't talk up for him. He should be in becasue of being one of the best by far ever in the game. I loved the way he played BUT I wish he would shut his mouth! Everytime he talks I cringe because he starts making it hard to pull for him.

I wish they would let him in but one day it will happen im sure and I hope I am around when it happens.