January 21, 200917 yr 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. :thumb: Great post S3, I can agree with everything that you said and especially the bolded. I love Pete Rose as a player and really couldn't stand the person, human being that he was. I will however still have to say that he is one of my all time favorites bc of his play "on the field". That imo cannot be denied.
January 21, 200917 yr Growing up, I was a huge fan. But I say Pete Rose deserves to be in the Hall of Shame, along with the steroid users and other thugs. Never in the Hall of Fame. His record speaks for itself; and he should be satisfied with that. Besides that, he probably charged his own mother for signing her Christmas cards... We have this discussion in my house every spring.:deadhorse:
January 21, 200917 yr Been watching responses on this thread with interest, and considered not even posting. Been through this arguement a year or so ago on Google's discussion groups and usually got raked over the coals pretty good for my support of Rose's elgibility into the HOF, but I just can't resist, so here goes: One of the biggest misconcecptions is that Rose has been banned for life by baseball. That really isn't true. In 1989, MLB, probably not wanting a possible prolonged legal battle in the courts, presented Rose with overwhelming evidence (the Dowd Report) that he had, indeed, bet on the Reds while managing them. An agreement was made between Rose and MLB; While neither side would admit to anything, Rose would accept permenent inelgibility (not a ban), from major league baseball. He also agreed to not try to overturn his inelibility through legal means. In exchange, MLB agreed not to accuse Rose of any wrong-doings, and allow him to apply for re-instatement after one year. (MLB violated their part of the agreement within minutes after it was signed. Then-Commisioner Bart Giomotti accused Rose of gambling on baseball to reporters as soon as he held a press conference) IMO, the "re-instatement" provision was simply a carrot on a stick, used to get Rose to sign the agreement. He probably thought he would be able to return to baseball after a short period of time, but, Bud Selig, who belives the whole Rose ordeal was at least a contributing factor in the death of his close friend, the then Commisioner Bart Giomoti, has NEVER had any thoughts of reinstatement for Rose. As far as the rule on the clubhouse wall goes, it simply states that anyone caught gambling on baseball would be banned from the game. The HOF is not mentioned. That rule came up two full years after Rose's ineligibility, 1991, and was made by the Baseball Writers Association, the people who vote for players into the Hall. They made a rule after the "crime" had been commited, which, if this happened in the legal world, would be un-constitutional, falling under ex post facto. It was just one last slap at Rose, which was amazing to me, considering he was probably the most accessible athelete for interviews by the very same writers whose choose to make a rule banning him from the Hall. Rose was always my very favorite athelete when I was a youngster, and even many years after that. And yes, I was as disappointed in him as anyone else when the gambling issue came to light, but, knowing the extreme competitive nature of Rose, and his desire to win at all costs, it is not really surprising to imagine him betting on his team to win.
January 21, 200917 yr Been watching responses on this thread with interest, and considered not even posting. Been through this arguement a year or so ago on Google's discussion groups and usually got raked over the coals pretty good for my support of Rose's elgibility into the HOF, but I just can't resist, so here goes: One of the biggest misconcecptions is that Rose has been banned for life by baseball. That really isn't true. In 1989, MLB, probably not wanting a possible prolonged legal battle in the courts, presented Rose with overwhelming evidence (the Dowd Report) that he had, indeed, bet on the Reds while managing them. An agreement was made between Rose and MLB; While neither side would admit to anything, Rose would accept permenent inelgibility (not a ban), from major league baseball. He also agreed to not try to overturn his inelibility through legal means. In exchange, MLB agreed not to accuse Rose of any wrong-doings, and allow him to apply for re-instatement after one year. (MLB violated their part of the agreement within minutes after it was signed. Then-Commisioner Bart Giomotti accused Rose of gambling on baseball to reporters as soon as he held a press conference) IMO, the "re-instatement" provision was simply a carrot on a stick, used to get Rose to sign the agreement. He probably thought he would be able to return to baseball after a short period of time, but, Bud Selig, who belives the whole Rose ordeal was at least a contributing factor in the death of his close friend, the then Commisioner Bart Giomoti, has NEVER had any thoughts of reinstatement for Rose. As far as the rule on the clubhouse wall goes, it simply states that anyone caught gambling on baseball would be banned from the game. The HOF is not mentioned. That rule came up two full years after Rose's ineligibility, 1991, and was made by the Baseball Writers Association, the people who vote for players into the Hall. They made a rule after the "crime" had been commited, which, if this happened in the legal world, would be un-constitutional, falling under ex post facto. It was just one last slap at Rose, which was amazing to me, considering he was probably the most accessible athelete for interviews by the very same writers whose choose to make a rule banning him from the Hall. Rose was always my very favorite athelete when I was a youngster, and even many years after that. And yes, I was as disappointed in him as anyone else when the gambling issue came to light, but, knowing the extreme competitive nature of Rose, and his desire to win at all costs, it is not really surprising to imagine him betting on his team to win. :thumb: Great post.
January 21, 200917 yr Been watching responses on this thread with interest, and considered not even posting. Been through this arguement a year or so ago on Google's discussion groups and usually got raked over the coals pretty good for my support of Rose's elgibility into the HOF, but I just can't resist, so here goes: One of the biggest misconcecptions is that Rose has been banned for life by baseball. That really isn't true. In 1989, MLB, probably not wanting a possible prolonged legal battle in the courts, presented Rose with overwhelming evidence (the Dowd Report) that he had, indeed, bet on the Reds while managing them. An agreement was made between Rose and MLB; While neither side would admit to anything, Rose would accept permenent inelgibility (not a ban), from major league baseball. He also agreed to not try to overturn his inelibility through legal means. In exchange, MLB agreed not to accuse Rose of any wrong-doings, and allow him to apply for re-instatement after one year. (MLB violated their part of the agreement within minutes after it was signed. Then-Commisioner Bart Giomotti accused Rose of gambling on baseball to reporters as soon as he held a press conference) IMO, the "re-instatement" provision was simply a carrot on a stick, used to get Rose to sign the agreement. He probably thought he would be able to return to baseball after a short period of time, but, Bud Selig, who belives the whole Rose ordeal was at least a contributing factor in the death of his close friend, the then Commisioner Bart Giomoti, has NEVER had any thoughts of reinstatement for Rose. As far as the rule on the clubhouse wall goes, it simply states that anyone caught gambling on baseball would be banned from the game. The HOF is not mentioned. That rule came up two full years after Rose's ineligibility, 1991, and was made by the Baseball Writers Association, the people who vote for players into the Hall. They made a rule after the "crime" had been commited, which, if this happened in the legal world, would be un-constitutional, falling under ex post facto. It was just one last slap at Rose, which was amazing to me, considering he was probably the most accessible athelete for interviews by the very same writers whose choose to make a rule banning him from the Hall. Rose was always my very favorite athelete when I was a youngster, and even many years after that. And yes, I was as disappointed in him as anyone else when the gambling issue came to light, but, knowing the extreme competitive nature of Rose, and his desire to win at all costs, it is not really surprising to imagine him betting on his team to win. Great post. Can I guarantee that he didn't bet on baseball? No way! Can I guarantee that he didn't bet against his own team? I would bet the farm on it! He deserves to be in.
January 21, 200917 yr 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. :thumb:
January 21, 200917 yr Im not saying that serious character issues and other factors such as steroid use, should not be factors. However, they are not great examples in this case. If 1 player was caught using steroids, it would not be devastating to baseball. If 1 player was caught using cocaine or even convicted of murder, it would not be devastating to baseball. But, if one player, manager, gm, etc., was caught gambling on a game their team was involved in......... It would take several years, if not decades for baseball to recover. As far as the world of baseball is concerned, gambling rules are more serious than any others. Before I receive a 100 posts telling me that Rose was not caught betting Reds games, the purpose of this post is to seperate the gambling arguement from other issues involving baseball. As a final note: Would baseball admit if they caught him betting on Reds games? Not a chance. They would strike a deal with Rose to keep him quiet.
January 21, 200917 yr Any one in the HOF caught with Vaseline in use, pine tar used illegally, any other foreign substances being used and they knew that was illegal? Gaylord Perry
January 21, 200917 yr 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 unavailable for the next game. Betting in any fashion calls into play decisions that are made during that date and the days he didn't. As I recall there was no evidence that he didn't bet on his team to win. Not only that he bet on his team to win EVERY DAY. If that is true then your analogy doesn't really work. While I agree he broke the rules so have many others, even for competitive advantages. Corked bats, spit balls etc... have always been winked at as just being competitive, yet plenty of these guys are in the HOF. If Rose had bet against his own team, or not bet on certain days then I think it would be a much bigger deal. But if he bet on his team to win every day. What is the difference in a horse trainer betting on his horse some days and some days he doesn't. Pete may be an egotistical self centered jerk, (would not be the first one of those in the HOF) but he deserves to go in. This :deadhorse: won't end.
January 21, 200917 yr 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. Define best hitter??? I would think that a career .303 hitter, while excellent is not one of the greatest hitters of all time. 1. Babe Ruth 2. Ted Williams 3. Lou Gherig 4. Tony Gwynn 5. Stan Musial I would take all 5 of them over Rose
January 21, 200917 yr As I recall there was no evidence that he didn't bet on his team to win. Not only that he bet on his team to win EVERY DAY. If that is true then your analogy doesn't really work. While I agree he broke the rules so have many others, even for competitive advantages. Corked bats, spit balls etc... have always been winked at as just being competitive, yet plenty of these guys are in the HOF. If Rose had bet against his own team, or not bet on certain days then I think it would be a much bigger deal. But if he bet on his team to win every day. What is the difference in a horse trainer betting on his horse some days and some days he doesn't. Pete may be an egotistical self centered jerk, (would not be the first one of those in the HOF) but he deserves to go in. This :deadhorse: won't end. Are those things listed as reasons to get you ineligible for the HOF? NO. Is gambling listed as a reason to get you ineligible for the HOF? Yes. The proverbial apples and oranges.
January 21, 200917 yr Define best hitter??? I would think that a career .303 hitter, while excellent is not one of the greatest hitters of all time. 1. Babe Ruth 2. Ted Williams 3. Lou Gherig 4. Tony Gwynn 5. Stan Musial I would take all 5 of them over Rose Several more you could choose too.
January 21, 200917 yr Any one in the HOF caught with Vaseline in use, pine tar used illegally, any other foreign substances being used and they knew that was illegal? Is there a sign in every major league locker room saying that if you do these things that you will be banned from baseball? Didn't think so. So this is not relevant.
January 21, 200917 yr Define best hitter??? I would think that a career .303 hitter, while excellent is not one of the greatest hitters of all time. 1. Babe Ruth 2. Ted Williams 3. Lou Gherig 4. Tony Gwynn 5. Stan Musial I would take all 5 of them over Rose You got me :notworthy:
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.