Skip to main content

69 replies

Pete Rose deserves HOF

B Bravescoach100+ posts
It's been 20 years since Rose was banned from major league baseball, and 17 years from the time he should have been inducted into MLB's HOF. The fact that, to this day, he's still on the outside looking in, is arguably one of the greatest travesties in all of professional sports. Did he lie...yes. Was he an oft arrogant jerk...yes. Did he bet on baseball as a MANAGER...admittedly so. However, was he one of the greatest players to ever play the game...absolutely.

I have always contended that what Rose did as a manager should, in no way, diminish what he accomplished as a player which is seemingly the basis for one's induction. Should morals and ethics be such a determining factor, I cringe to think how empty that building would be upon thorough investigation of the rest of those inductees.

As a player, Rose did not cheat the game and, instead, played it at the ultimate level...thus earning him his given nickname. We would all be extremely proud of our sons should they ever play the game the way Rose did.

Yes...he screwed up...but only after his playing days were over. Compare that to these modern-day cheaters with their steroids and PEDs who are still earning a very good living and we're left with a whole bunch of hypocricy. Should anyone named in the Mitchell report or be affiliated with the most recent steroid offender list ever be considered for the Hall, they might as well just shut down the building.

It's time that Bud Selig and MLB extend the same type of forgiveness that they've extended to many, many players in the recent past and do the right thing by Pete Rose. Without Rose in the Hall, the Hall will forever be tarnished. Nomatter, I will always consider Charlie Hustle one of the greatest players ever to play the game...with, or without his induction.
"Your worth comes down to what you mean to others."
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

B bballdad1954500+ posts
While I like that Rose played hard all the time, there is much not to like. His spiking of the ball as a first baseman, his ending another player's carreer in an All Star exhibition game. Not a great sportsman or class act IMO. His abilities are without question, however.

That aside, betting ruins the integrity of the game. Steroid cheaters are at least trying to play better and win the games. If fans don't believe the players AND coaches are playing to win, there is NO game. You have professional wrestling. That is Rose's sin. It is diferent than the other moral wrongs, because it destroys the game. What about Shoeless Joe? They never let him in either. Same crime, and while he took money, he played well in the Series.
B Bravescoach100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by bballdad1954:
Same crime, and while he took money, he played well in the Series.


With all due respect, two completely different scenarios. The Black Sox scandal involved players taking money from an outside source to throw the World Series. As far as I know, Rose bet his own money on his team to win ball games. While that may or may not have been criminal behavior - depending upon where the bets were placed - let's not forget that possession of steriods is a criminal offense under the laws of this country regardless of whether they were considered a banned substance or not under MBL guidelines.

Regardless, and getting back to my point, the distinction must be made between Pete Rose, the player, and Pete Rose, the manager. There is absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing on his part during his glorious playing career which included, among other things, 17 All-Star nominations. Permanently deny him induction as a manager...I think we're all good with that concept.
B bballdad1954500+ posts
Corky is right, this has all been argued before. But, his betting his own money with bookies is hardly the point. Gamblers get in debt and then the people they owe money to can put pressure on them. Karras and Horning bet on their teams to win as well.

I personally don't think the steroids guys or the gamblers should get in. The trouble is guys like Ty Cobb were creeps too, so where do you draw the line. Obviously,it is gabling that destroys the fabric of the game and that is where baseball has chosen to draw the line. I am OK with it.
S soxnole1,000+ posts
My take:

1) Shoeless Joe was an illiterate country boy the likes of which would be virtually impossible to find in today's society. He took the money because the rotten no good Comiskey treated his players like chattel. Joe never had a dime to spend on frivolity. He should be excused anyway cause he was the best player in the series and a case could be made as the best player of all time. Certainly he was the greatest Sox player of all time.
2)Cobb was a first class jagoff but arguably the best player of all time.
3)Pete Rose was the "greenie" and "reds" champion popper. He rarely played without being hyped with drugs. On top of that he gambled. I say put him in the HOF. Many of his numbers are unmatched.

This is a different era and we have turned a self righteous corner where steroids are concerned. What Pete did was just as heinous as Bonds and McGwire. The difference is that no one cared then and everyone cares about steroids in 09 (and did not care in 99!!!!).
Last edited by soxnole
itsrosyitsrosy1,000+ posts
For what it's worth; Pete Rose put up numbers that are true. Uppers, downers, whatever were in every clubhouse but were not steroids or HGH.

I agree with Jim Rice's statement that someone like a Manny Ramirez can get caught using PHD's, sit for 50 games and come back and be a LA hero.

Pete Rose should be in the HOF. JMO.
FastballDadFastballDad1,000+ posts
There is definitely a common thread that runs through all these eras and the scandals that went with them. That common thread is ownership and the fact that they were glad to prosper off what the players were doing, and then when the public went against it, the owners bailed and blamed the players.

The gambling back in the early 1900's was very prevelant and the owners only cracked down on the players when they had to. Mountain Landis could have thrown out some owners too. Guys like Jackson were easy targets, and were scapegoats big time. if that episode had not occurred we wouldn't have gambling as the mortal sin that it now is in baseball.

Another thing is that sportswriters (many now who have little if any baseball knowledge) love to use this power to accept guys that kissed their butts and punish guys who wouldn't. It isn't a good system no matter how you look at it.
Last edited by FastballDad
itsrosyitsrosy1,000+ posts
Easy to understand both sides. But, Ripcord, murderers are sentenced to "life" and serve 10-20 years. If life in prison for killing another doesn't necessarily mean forever, why is baseball acting so sacrosanct as to this case?

Does this make Bud Selig feel good, that he presided over the game that produced the steroid era, that will forever alter the most hallowed of it's records, but didn't offer a place in it's hall for one of the greatest players of all time?

I guess I just think his banishment has been long enough. JMO.
Last edited by itsrosy
TuzigootTuzigoot500+ posts
IMO most baseball players aren't playing for the accolades. Leading your league in a particular statistical category, or participating and winning with your team in post season play; are slim probabilities. Whether he gets to the HOF or not, or whether we think he belongs there or not; the fact of the matter is that he will always be one of the best that ever played the game.
S soxnole1,000+ posts
Tuzi....I lived in Boston during Jim Rice's tenure.

His close relationship with Fred Lynn served as an example to other players still working out their own peccadillo's and to the small but loud racially abhorent Boston so called "fans".

He is a great guy with good personal skills that tells it like it is, was always accessible to fans but got tired of the sissy sportswriters and stopped talking to them. For this he was villified in the press.

I'll never forget the kid that was hit with a line drive on national TV fracturing his skull and splattering blood all over several seats at Fenway. Rice bolted from the dugout to rush him into the training room which according to all reports saved his life. He then proceeded to leave the ballpark being chased by sportswriter's for a quote. They didn't get one. Tom Keane, the boy's father later credited Rice with saving the boy's life.

So, the next day, the incident received NO PRESS! Rice could have cared less about that but it's another example of what happens when you don't kiss the 3rd column's posterior.

Tuzi, I alway's respect your opinion but this time I think you may have been unduly influenced by the runts that couldn't play the game!

There is absolutely no way he should be compared to Bonds.
bballmanbballman10,000+ posts
Just have to wonder why guys like Steve Howe was given 8 "lifetime" bans and Dwight Godden was given multiple "lifetime" bans for drug use and Rose's is the one that holds. Is doing drugs a more forgivable example for the young than betting on your team? Historically, "lifetime" bans are mere words and will be dropped to allow the players another chance. Same standard should be held for Rose. Let him in.
S soxnole1,000+ posts
bballman and rosy....I repeat Rose is the poster child for amphetamines.

He wasn't the only one and they were without doubt more prevalent in the 60's and 70's and 80's than steroid use over the past 10-15 years

These pills strongly increase awareness and intensity. They also bring your body back from feeling spent. It's a false reality but at game time, not unlike the real effects of roids and HGH.

They were finally banned in 06 but players that get a prescription (ADD) can still use them.

You simply cannot differentiate drug use. A user is a user.

Don't paint Pete clean because he most definetely was not!

He's a hall of famer for sure but no way he gets 4000 hits or Rickey steals all those bases without them.
bballmanbballman10,000+ posts
They were used in the 40's and 50's as well. Probably before that. My father has a friend who played in the 40's, 50's and early 60's and he said they were used all the time by nearly everyone. He also said the great Mickey played half his games drunk. Plenty of character issues from back then. This player also said that if steroids were available back then, they would have used them. He said anything to gain an advantage was used. He is an old man now and has no reason to lie or make things up. Don't want to get into the steroid issue with this post, but people bring up the character and integrity issue with Rose and I'm just saying that he is not the only one with issues. He is just the only one who is being held to the fire.
itsrosyitsrosy1,000+ posts
Soxnole, If you want to go back to the 60's, 70's and 80's, look at the players from those decades who are in the HOF. Maybe Cal Ripkin doesn't play all those consecutive games without using amphetamines. You can go on and on. You don't think that you can differentiate between uppers, downers and anabolic steroids and human growth hormone. I just don't agree. Don't use drug use as a reason for Rose's performance, unless you include Hank Aaron,Willie Mays and Roberto Clemente. Their clubhouses were serving up the same pre-game vitamins as were Pete's teams.
B bballdad1954500+ posts
No one banned Rose for being a hot dog or drug use. Yes there are hot dogs and drug users in the HOF. There aren't gamblers who were caught at it in the HOF. That is the line.

Again, gambling kills the goose that lays the eggs for everyone by destroying the integrity of the game. Itegrity being defined as, "is everybody on the field trying to win the game, or is it fixed".

Gambling is treated harsher than other crimes because if the fans don't believe the game is for real, they won't pay to watch. As you all have shown, people will go to games, watch and cheer players even if they cheat, as long as they are cheating to play better and win.
B Brickhouse100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by bballdad1954:
No one banned Rose for being a hot dog or drug use. Yes there are hot dogs and drug users in the HOF. There aren't gamblers who were caught at it in the HOF. That is the line.

Again, gambling kills the goose that lays the eggs for everyone by destroying the integrity of the game. Itegrity being defined as, "is everybody on the field trying to win the game, or is it fixed".

Gambling is treated harsher than other crimes because if the fans don't believe the game is for real, they won't pay to watch. As you all have shown, people will go to games, watch and cheer players even if they cheat, as long as they are cheating to play better and win.


I agree. This topic is solely about gambling and how it affects the integrity of the game. There is a sign posted in every clubhouse stating the policy.
As far as character issues (steroids), there will always be these types of problems when you are dealing with human beings from all walks of life. Whoever thought that there would be a high paid professional football player suspended for conducting dog fights?
If you can give another example of a player or manager who was proven guilty of gambling in his sport and is in the Hall of Fame, then provide it. Otherwise, you have to give professional sports credit for being consistent with this policy even if it involves a star player like Rose.
B Bravescoach100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by bballdad1954:
No one banned Rose for being a hot dog or drug use. Yes there are hot dogs and drug users in the HOF. There aren't gamblers who were caught at it in the HOF. That is the line.

Again, gambling kills the goose that lays the eggs for everyone by destroying the integrity of the game. Itegrity being defined as, "is everybody on the field trying to win the game, or is it fixed".

Gambling is treated harsher than other crimes because if the fans don't believe the game is for real, they won't pay to watch. As you all have shown, people will go to games, watch and cheer players even if they cheat, as long as they are cheating to play better and win.


So let me get this straight...betting on your team to win destroys the integrity of the game but juiced-up cheaters who've gained an unfair, competitive edge on their opponent(s) does not. And, the former warrants a life-time ban while the latter receives a slap on the wrist. With all due respect, I have a real philosophical problem with that.
FastballDadFastballDad1,000+ posts
I don't think anyone want to put Rose in The HOF for being a manager. That is when he violated the gambling rule.

He should be in because he was a great player, simple. Let's scrutinize what all the HOF members did in their own lives outside of and after their playing days....apply it to all.

And as Soxnole's story regarding Jim Rice tells us, the idea that sportswriters like or don't like a player has nothing to do with it. Some of the best guys are the quietest guys who don't seek attention, while some of the loudmouths who were pretty good players got in based upon having images that may or may not have been accurate. Put me down as saying Rice was a better player than Ripken, who may have hurt his team as much as helped it with his streak.
B Brickhouse100+ posts
Bravescoach, there is a sign in every clubhouse that states that if you gamble on baseball, you will be banned from the sport. Pete Rose thought that he was above this rule.
There is no policy as severe for the use of streoids. If you believe that there should be, that is a different discussion and I tend to agree with you.
Also, just because you bet on your own team doesn't mean that it doesn't jeopardize the integrity of the sport. Chances are if you are betting on your team, you will use your best pitchers to secure the win. Then when you are playing a game that you are not betting to win, you will use your lesser pitchers and players. In the long run, your team's chances of making the playoffs or World Series may be at risk if you manage the team according to how you are wagering on a given day.
B baseball17500+ posts
There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Rose's on field accomplishments merit a place in the Hall of Fame. However, regardless of when the gambling took place, he accepted a lifetime ban from baseball as part of his punishment. The gambling prohibition was instituted after the Black Sox case in the early 1920s. The Hall of Fame was not established until 1935 or 36. As I wasn't there, I can't say what the motivations of the founders were, but I imagine money was the prime one. Anything or anyone that would damage the money making possibilities of the HOF would be forbidden, and I imagine gambling was at the forefront then.

Mr. Rose went against a well established and long standing principle and therefore has to carry the responsiblity for his actions. Along the same lines, I heard part of an interview with a representative of the commissioner's office this week of Fox Radio. I understood him to say, sometime in the past 5 years, they had met with and basically negotiated a deal which would have allowed for Rose's reinstatement, and therefore HOF eligibility. However, Mr. Rose was not able to, or couldn't bring himself to, make the required statement of apology that the deal required. Again, accountability for his own actions or inaction.

No doubt there are many other characters in the HOF lacking a pure moral fiber, however, this can simply be defined as a rules violation. He knew the rule, he broke it, it was a rule of a game he was PRIVILEGED to play, not a right he was guaranteed.
B Bravescoach100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Brickhouse:
Bravescoach, there is a sign in every clubhouse that states that if you gamble on baseball, you will be banned from the sport. Pete Rose thought that he was above this rule.
There is no policy as severe for the use of streoids. If you believe that there should be, that is a different discussion and I tend to agree with you.
Also, just because you bet on your own team doesn't mean that it doesn't jeopardize the integrity of the sport. Chances are if you are betting on your team, you will use your best pitchers to secure the win. Then when you are playing a game that you are not betting to win, you will use your lesser pitchers and players. In the long run, your team's chances of making the playoffs or World Series may be at risk if you manage the team according to how you are wagering on a given day.


Brick - valid points...though I'm curious as to: A) whether those signs were in existence at the time of Rose's conduct; and B) if so, did they cite to a specific provision of the CBA or were they more of an arbitrary warning?

As to your integrity contention, I suppose one would have to further investigate those games he bet on with his managerial decisions to get a better idea. I have not heard nor read any facts nor opinions which would persuade me one way or the other though that would be an interesting research project.

Regardless, in my opinion, had Bart Giamatti known at the time what was in MLB's future, I doubt that a lifetime ban would have been forthcoming...maybe a suspension along the lines of the present day penalty for drug offenders. MLB has foregiven the recent likes of Giambi, Pettitte, Manny, and A-Rod (like it or not) for crimes no less severe than that of Rose...high time to extend him the same compassion and courtesy...he's been punished enough.

Give him his proper place in the Hall for what he accomplished on the playing field as that's ultimately what the inductees have been judged by...numbers. There is no debate that he was one of the greatest players of all time who made some poor choices after his playing days were over. Yet, was his conduct so egregious as to permanently deprive him of a deserving spot in the HOF? I think not.
RH Roy Hobbs fan10+ posts
I will confess that I can't stand all the moral equivalence I see on this board...but I attended a Northwestern baseball pre-season event a number of years ago. The speaker was George Will who is a baseball purist of sorts. I asked him then his opinion on Pete Rose getting into the HOF. Now keep in mind...Pete had not openly confessed anything yet. Mr. Will said " Yes, I would put him in the Hall of Fame with this statement written underneath his bust..." THE BUM BET ON BASEBALL ".


I didn't agree with him then and to this day think it is a slap to every kid who ever has a dream of being a major league player. Oh well, the Bum comment wouldn't be all that bad either ! Smile

Who you are when no-one is looking is an ideal worth keeping sacred.
bballmanbballman10,000+ posts
Said it before, I'll say it again. Players like Steve Howe and Dwight Gooden received multiple "lifetime" bans for their drug use. To receive multiple "lifetime" bans, you had to have been forgiven of the previous one. What makes drug use that much more forgivable than bettin on your own team? If they can be forgiven, why can't Mr. Rose. Is drug use something you would rather have your kid do than betting? Lots of questions for the pundits.
B bballdad1954500+ posts
No matter how many times the betting vs drugs is differentiated, you ignore the reasoning. Brickhouse explained it, yet the logic is ignored.

By the way, no known steroid users have been let in to the HOF. Where is Mark McGuire? His numbers aren't Rose's, but without steroids he would have been in.

Steve Howe and Gooden are not in the HOF. I don't think because guys like Giambi are reinstated they are forgiven. They served whatever sentence or punishment they were given. They are not in the HOF either.

But, NO PROVEN GAMBLER IS IN THE HOF. Shoeless Joe is dead and they won't let him in. His numbers are better than Rose in many categories, and he is serving a lifetime plus deathtime sentence for gambling. Drunks are in, drugies are in, gamblers aren't.

And some prisoners and some ballplayers do serve the lifetime sentince. Just because some don't doesn't mean no one should.
R ripcord51100+ posts
Ahhhh I think Mr. Howe was simply suspended for most of his problems not given more than one lifetime ban and I think won his appeal to overturn that. I do not think Doc was ever banned for life from baseball although he did live the highlife now and again. Neither belongs in the Hall of Fame. Keep Pete out because he admitted gambling on baseball and thus wrecked the integrity of the game.
B Bravescoach100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by bballdad1954:
No matter how many times the betting vs drugs is differentiated, you ignore the reasoning. Brickhouse explained it, yet the logic is ignored.

By the way, no known steroid users have been let in to the HOF. Where is Mark McGuire? His numbers aren't Rose's, but without steroids he would have been in.

Steve Howe and Gooden are not in the HOF. I don't think because guys like Giambi are reinstated they are forgiven. They served whatever sentence or punishment they were given. They are not in the HOF either.

But, NO PROVEN GAMBLER IS IN THE HOF. Shoeless Joe is dead and they won't let him in. His numbers are better than Rose in many categories, and he is serving a lifetime plus deathtime sentence for gambling. Drunks are in, drugies are in, gamblers aren't.

And some prisoners and some ballplayers do serve the lifetime sentince. Just because some don't doesn't mean no one should.


bbd1954 - In my opinion, you are comparing apples to oranges which is why I am not following your reasoning with respect to the gambling issue. Joe Jackson was involved in a conspiracy to throw a World Series during his playing days. Thus, his misconduct is directly attached to his playing career which is certainly grounds for exclusion from the Hall.

In contrast, Pete Rose has never been accused of, nor admitted to, betting on baseball as a player. Should he have done so, I would agree with you 100%. However, that simply is not the case.

Thus, the remaining question is whether Rose should be banned from the Hall for a sin that he committed after his playing career ended...a playing career that clearly warrants induction. While you may not draw any distinction between Rose and Jackson, I do...and that's where we differ.
itsrosyitsrosy1,000+ posts
Bravescoach, your arguments are both logical and factual.

From Wikipedia--Read about "lifetime" bans.

"Over the course of his 17-year career, Howe would be suspended 7 times!

In 1992 Howe became the second player to be banned from baseball for LIFE because of substance abuse (the first was Ferguson Jenkins, who was also reinstated). Howe successfully appealed the lifetime ban and was re-signed by the Yankees."

Now, I don't remember Fergie's ban, just that he was arrested at the Canadian border with a little weed. His lifetime ban couldn't have lasted too long.

Bud Selig, get your head out of the sand and examine all that has happened since, and stop acting like a martyr!
Last edited by itsrosy
bballmanbballman10,000+ posts
My point about the other lifetime bans is that these players were allowed to be part of baseball again, not that they are or aren't in the HOF. Bud Selig or any other commissioner is not making the decision as to whether or not Rose becomes a member of the Hall. The decision would only be to make him eligible to be voted in. It's still up to the writers and othe Hall members as to whether he is in or not once he is eligible.
H Hopperhop100+ posts
quote:
Regardless, in my opinion, had Bart Giamatti known at the time what was in MLB's future, I doubt that a lifetime ban would have been forthcoming...maybe a suspension along the lines of the present day penalty for drug offenders. MLB has foregiven the recent likes of Giambi, Pettitte, Manny, and A-Rod (like it or not) for crimes no less severe than that of Rose...high time to extend him the same compassion and courtesy...he's been punished enough



Although we can all talk about how Pete Rose's "crime" was not as bad as the those by the players who use steroids we must remember one thing. Gambling related issues almost ruined the game of baseball due to the 1919 scandal. For that reason, I feel that any gambling related infraction will always be delt with more harshly than other infractions. He was a manager when he was making the bets, so he was not out of the game.

The reason for having to harshly deal with this, even when he only made bets for the Reds to win, is that he is the manager and he did have control of the outcome of the game. As Brickhouse stated, just because he bet for his team doesn't mean that it doesn't jeopardize the integrity of the sport.

We must also remember that he was in deep debt to some of the people that he was laying the bets with. Say for instance that the Reds did make the playoffs. We then have the possiblity of 1919 all over again. The only difference is that this time the game being thrown would be being controlled by the manager, not the players. MLB will do everything in it's power to make sure that this never happens again by making and, in my opinion, never removing lifetime bans for gambling related infractions.

There is no question that Pete Rose is one of the best baseball players of all times, not many people would argue that. His not being in the Hall of Fame does not alter this fact, it only means that he is not being "officially" honored for his great career as a player.
TuzigootTuzigoot500+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by soxnole:
Tuzi....I lived in Boston during Jim Rice's tenure.

His close relationship with Fred Lynn served as an example to other players still working out their own peccadillo's and to the small but loud racially abhorent Boston so called "fans".

He is a great guy with good personal skills that tells it like it is, was always accessible to fans but got tired of the sissy sportswriters and stopped talking to them. For this he was villified in the press.

I'll never forget the kid that was hit with a line drive on national TV fracturing his skull and splattering blood all over several seats at Fenway. Rice bolted from the dugout to rush him into the training room which according to all reports saved his life. He then proceeded to leave the ballpark being chased by sportswriter's for a quote. They didn't get one. Tom Keane, the boy's father later credited Rice with saving the boy's life.

So, the next day, the incident received NO PRESS! Rice could have cared less about that but it's another example of what happens when you don't kiss the 3rd column's posterior.

Tuzi, I alway's respect your opinion but this time I think you may have been unduly influenced by the runts that couldn't play the game!

There is absolutely no way he should be compared to Bonds.


Fair enough Soxnole.
Next

Add Reply

Post
.

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×