pete rose and hall of fame?

[Fillmoe]

i was watching around the horn and they were discussing if they are gonna let all these steroid using players into the hall of the fame than they should let pete rose in it too......

what do yall think?

i think rose should be in the hall regardless but on the other hand 1 wrong doesnt make something else right....... or something like that LOL

 

[VF21]

Pete Rose should definitely be in the Hall of Fame, IMHO. It's supposed to recognize accomplishments on the field, and there's no doubt that Charlie Hustle truly deserves a spot in Cooperstown.

As far as the steroid users being in the hall, they'll probably get in - at this point it might boil down to either letting them in or skipping a whole generation of potential HOFers.

If Canseco is to be believed, however, guys like McGwire, Sosa, etc. should be in a separate room - I don't think they should be alongside the likes of Ty Cobb, Mickey Mantle, Babe Ruth, etc. (Those guys may have had problems but they ddin't cheat to shatter records.) But that's just my three cents...

I quit being a true baseball fan years ago. They went out on strike; I went out for a breath of fresh air and never looked back.

 

[captain bill]

I don't think anyone should be excluded from the Hall for personal issues, simply because it is impossible to decide what warrants exclusion and what doesn't. And I'm sure HOF voters wouldn't think twice about voting in a wife beater, so I don't think they have any right getting up in arms over Rose. Selig just seems to have a personal vendetta against him. And the "steroid era" makes it next to impossible to figure out who goes in and who stays out, not to mention that players have been using substances since well before this era officially began. Why should we trust Hank Aaron getting pissed, just like trusting Palmeiro? Personally his outrage at Bonds seems more like trying to defend his peak at the top. I've gotten really sick of baseball, not because of steroids themselves, but because that's all the game is now. No one cares about the actual game, it's all the players and whether they're on steroids or not. And who wants to watch that? It's just a big overblown soap opera.

 

[thesanityannex]

Steroids=No Hall of Fame. Period.
Gambling=Hall of Fame, why not?


IMHO-simplified

 

[arwen undomiel]

Every MLB lockerroom has a sign regarding MLB's no gambling policy. Rose disregarded that, and is paying the price. Had he admitted it when the issue came up, he might have been allowed in, but he denied the gambling issue for years, and only recently admitted to it (mostly to sell his book, and perhaps trying to garner sympathy to gain entrance to the Hall). He made his bed, let him lie in it.

 

[VF21]

Are you sure they had those signs BEFORE the whole Pete Rose fiasco? If I remember correctly, those signs were instituted partially BECAUSE of Rose.

Gambling didn't effect his performance on the field. It didn't give him an unfair advantage over other players; it didn't enable him to set records previously unreachable.

Pete Rose was one of the greats. I firmly believe he should be in the HoF, warts and all. ALONG with a big explanation that although he was one of the greatest, he was ultimately banned from the game at which he excelled because he could not follow the rules. I think that would be a much better lesson than simply denying him a place he has rightfully earned.

 

[captain bill]

Every MLB lockerroom has a sign regarding MLB's no gambling policy. Rose disregarded that, and is paying the price. Had he admitted it when the issue came up, he might have been allowed in, but he denied the gambling issue for years, and only recently admitted to it (mostly to sell his book, and perhaps trying to garner sympathy to gain entrance to the Hall). He made his bed, let him lie in it.

Ooh, they had a SIGN. They have stop signs and every intersection in this country. If a player blows one, should they not be allowed into the HOF? I won't say players should all gamble, but I have some problems with this- first, why do we even care? He broke one rule, he didn't hurt anyone, why does it matter? If gambling ever influenced his play, like he tried to throw a game, then you have an argument. But otherwise, how is making extra money off of gambling any different than endorsement deals? Oh right, those deals pad the league's pockets. Sorry.

Jose Canseco abused his wife, and I'm sure many other players have. But that's not an issue. Gambling is. Yeah, baseball has really got it's priorities straight.

 

[6th]

Ooh, they had a SIGN. They have stop signs and every intersection in this country. If a player blows one, should they not be allowed into the HOF? I won't say players should all gamble, but I have some problems with this- first, why do we even care? He broke one rule, he didn't hurt anyone, why does it matter? If gambling ever influenced his play, like he tried to throw a game, then you have an argument. But otherwise, how is making extra money off of gambling any different than endorsement deals? Oh right, those deals pad the league's pockets. Sorry.

Jose Canseco abused his wife, and I'm sure many other players have. But that's not an issue. Gambling is. Yeah, baseball has really got it's priorities straight.

Whoa! Whoa! The problem with gambling and baseball is whether Pete could affect the game he bet on. He was a manager and got to decide who to play, who to sub, who to pitch, etc, etc, etc. He admitted he bet on baseball. The problem now is we do not know if he bet on the very games he did have control over. Since he was a gambler, why would he not bet on something he could affect the outcome of.

The Black Sox threw a series....all about gambling. Pete is no different in my mind.

p.s. captain bill, arwen did not deserve your dripping sarcasm. Geez!!

 

[captain bill]

Sorry, I'll be careful to check for pointed sarcasm in the future.



oops.




Anyway, I understand completely the Black Sox thing. But It's hard to argue that Rose wasn't a fierce competitor, and everything indicates he didn't ever throw a game or do anything to make his teams lose. I also think that this is extremely minor in the grand scheme of thinks, and even within baseball. There are much more important things to be addressed than Pete Rose.

 

[VF21]

Whoa! Whoa! The problem with gambling and baseball is whether Pete could affect the game he bet on. He was a manager and got to decide who to play, who to sub, who to pitch, etc, etc, etc. He admitted he bet on baseball. The problem now is we do not know if he bet on the very games he did have control over. Since he was a gambler, why would he not bet on something he could affect the outcome of.

The Black Sox threw a series....all about gambling. Pete is no different in my mind.

p.s. captain bill, arwen did not deserve your dripping sarcasm. Geez!!

First, he'll be going to the Hall as a player, not a manager.

Second, there is NO evidence to presume he attempted to throw games with his own teams and there are people who have examined virtually every single substitution, pitching assignment, etc.

Third, you have to assume his bookie knew who he was. The chance he would let him bet on a game he potentially could have an impact on is slim at best.

The Black Sox wasn't about gambling, btw. It is generally accepted that from the team's viewpoint it was about getting even with the owner.

The plan was apparently hatched by local Chicago gamblers, but New York gangster Arnold Rothstein was rumored to be its major backer. The players were easily tempted. They were not paid well by tight-fisted owner Charles Comiskey.

http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/B/Black_Sox_Scandal.stm

 

[tubiscus]

I've hesitated on this one, but here goes......

Pete Rose: He's an a$$ but deserves to be in the HOF.

Juiced hitters: ie McGuire, Sosa, Canseco, et al.... If they earned the HOF in their careers pre-juiced (ala Bonds) then yes. HOF numbers only on the juice? No.

I know this will set off a number of folks who have real issues w/Bonds and his hitting over the past several years (juiced) but IMHO his career pre steroid, HGH, "clear/cream" etc warranted the HOF. Unfortunately, like Rose, he bathes in preparation H, so he's hard to like.

I'm ducking for cover now.....

 

[Bricklayer]

I've hesitated on this one, but here goes......

Pete Rose: He's an a$$ but deserves to be in the HOF.

Juiced hitters: ie McGuire, Sosa, Canseco, et al.... If they earned the HOF in their careers pre-juiced (ala Bonds) then yes. HOF numbers only on the juice? No.

I know this will set off a number of folks who have real issues w/Bonds and his hitting over the past several years (juiced) but IMHO his career pre steroid, HGH, "clear/cream" etc warranted the HOF. Unfortunately, like Rose, he bathes in preparation H, so he's hard to like.

I'm ducking for cover now.....

No need to duck, that's pretty much where I come down too.

Gambling IS a serious issue for a sports league, and if anybody had ever come forward with any proof that Rose DID throw games, alter scores, etc. etc. then I would fully be on board with excluding him from the HOF. That would have been a direct assault on the integrity of the game and a player intentionally attacking his own sport for money does not deserve a spot in the Hall. But as it is, that has never, so far as I know, been proven or even allaeged. It has been hinted at as a fear behind the overreaction. But nobody has ever shown Rose did that.

What Rose was (and is) is stupid and arrogant, not malicious. And he's already paid enough -- he lost his job, his reputation, his association with the game he loved. He's been exiled to the wilderness for 15 years now. But unless you show me he DID actually attack the game, rather than just the possibility that he could have done so, to nto have such an iconic player in the Hall seems ridiculous. One of the greatest hitters, and biggest personalities, to ever play the sport. He's not just a Hall of Famer, he is one of those top end guys ala a Nolan Ryan who just raised the bar so high that noen of the lesser players who get put into the Hall really have a shot at catching him.

As for juiced players, of course the great difficulty is that while there are a number of cases that seem quite obvious in retrospect, without hard proof its hard to actually make major decisions about when guys started using. But in Bonds' peculiar case, I think the introduction of the juice was SO obvious statistically and physiologically -- roughly 1999 -- that you can actually make a call. And that call would be that Bonds was easily a HOF player before he saw old age encroaching and decided to cheat. One of the best outfielders of all time. So I actually have more problem with the idea of him getting to keep his name in the record books next to home run titles he cheated to reach than I do with him getting into the HOF. He was already a HOFer without the juice. He was NEVER a 70HR guy or the all time HR champion without it. That's the travesty. And baseball should really think long and hard about whether they really want to have his name up their ahead of Aaron and Ruth. It makes a mockery of the whole record book.

 

[thesanityannex]

Why don't we just have a separate Juicer Hall of Fame. All would be well in the cosmos.

 

[Bibby_Is_Clutch]

IMO Pete Rose should be in the HOF because of what he did on the field. When it comes to the 'juicers', I think the ones who are proven users (evidence) shouldnt be allowed in but the players who people only have opinions about need to be let in because without evidence there is no reason to hold some of the greatest players from joining the HOF.

 

[BobbyJ_for3!]

I agree with BIC that Rose should be in the HOF for his on-field play.

to me, betting on baseball is really bad when u can try to fix the game, but its not nearly as bad as cheating at the game.

Put Rose in, push steroids out (several offenses...not Raffy).

 

[thesanityannex]

I agree with BIC that Rose should be in the HOF for his on-field play.

to me, betting on baseball is really bad when u can try to fix the game, but its not nearly as bad as cheating at the game.

Put Rose in, push steroids out (several offenses...not Raffy).

So one time steroid users should get in the HOF and multiple users should not??? Please, justify this for me.

 

[Bibby_Is_Clutch]

So one time steroid users should get in the HOF and multiple users should not??? Please, justify this for me.

Exactly what I was about to ask. If you are proven guilty of using steroids you should NEVER be allowed in the HOF and your stats should have an * next to them. So far the only ones I can think of are Raffi with the proff thats out now and possibly Mark. Now Mark is a tricky one that people can debate over. He used andro in the 90's when it wasnt banned by baseball meaning it was a legal suppliment that anyone could go and buy and use. ESPN did a piece on him and his use of it and its kind of tricky because he wasnt cheating IMO while on andro since anyone could use it in baseball and it was all legal. Im sure others have different opinions.

 

[Venom]

They should both be in-as players. Rose threw games, intentionally or not, because he was the manager calling the shots on pitching rotation and such. Bad on him. Raffy got popped once. If he gets popped two more times he gets the lifetime ban and then no Hall, but otherwise, who's to say if this is a one-time thing or not. Smart money says it's been career long, at least since the Texas Rangers w/ Canseco, but oh well. He has the numbers, he got popped one time late in his career, he still gets in.

And where do you draw the line with this stuff? I happen to think Clemens has been doing it since he went to Toronto. He was on his way out of the league, and now he's the most enduring pitching great since Nolan Ryan. . .another guy who was on the Rangers with Palmeiro/Canseco, hmmm. Every guy eligible for the Hall was a fierce competitor, and fierce competitiors do whatever it takes to win, so do the math. I say let the past 15-20 years go, and start over. Anyone who excelled in the past 15-20 years was obviously still Hall material because he was outshining other guys using the same techniques as him.

 

[GreenKing]

Pete Rose should get in the HoF. It's just that FIXING games is one of the worst baseball sins a player/coach can do. The punishment fits the crime IMO. Lifetime ban and no chance at the HoF.

 

[VF21]

They should both be in-as players. Rose threw games, intentionally or not, because he was the manager calling the shots on pitching rotation and such.

You're making a pretty big leap from Rose betting on games to him fixing them. You're also assuming he was able to bet on his own team - which is highly unlikely - AND, even further, that he bet AGAINST them. There is no substantiation for any of that, and a lot of sports journalists have spent YEARS trying to find any little morsel they could use to justify such claims.

I have mentioned it before, but virtually ALL of Rose's coaching/managing career has been put under a microscope by people praying to find something wrong. They couldn't find anything that indicated he made any calls that looked out of the norm. He has an addiction - he's a gambler. That is a lot different than being a cheat.

 

[Venom]

You're making a pretty big leap from Rose betting on games to him fixing them. You're also assuming he was able to bet on his own team - which is highly unlikely - AND, even further, that he bet AGAINST them. There is no substantiation for any of that, and a lot of sports journalists have spent YEARS trying to find any little morsel they could use to justify such claims.

I have mentioned it before, but virtually ALL of Rose's coaching/managing career has been put under a microscope by people praying to find something wrong. They couldn't find anything that indicated he made any calls that looked out of the norm. He has an addiction - he's a gambler. That is a lot different than being a cheat.

I'll refer you to Peter Gammons on this one. He explains it a lot better than I could. Basically, Rose was in a position to manipulate wins and losses, and him not betting on particular games is just as good an indicator that he intended to lose as him betting against the Reds. I still think he should be in the Hall, along with all the top performers of the last 15-20 years.

 

[VF21]

HAD he manipulated wins and losses, we would know all about it. There are people who have studied every single batting order change, pitching rotation, substitution, etc. to try and see if his pattern of coaching/managing changed for certain games. As far as I know, NOTHING has been found to suggest any such findings. If there had been, it would be in the news forever...