Should these 3 players be in the HOF

[BeanTown]

It takes 75 percent to make the Hall of Fame

[Jay Wolt]

Yes! To all 3

[theshowandme]

Yes

/end of thread

[mrreality68]

I would like to think yes to all three but I do not think it will happen.

Rose betting on his own teams is very very serious. Betting on other games bad but own team worse. Out of the three Rose should be last to go in if ever.

Bonds and Clemens tough call with their performance enhancing allegations but I am more likely to let them in because others have cheated or suspected of cheating and they are in the hall. Plus we put they put the commissioner in the HOF who oversaw the era and turned a blinds eye to it to make more money for the league.

[Seven]

Statistically speaking, they all should be.

Rose's suspension makes things a little bit tricky. I'm a firm believer that he had some sort of agreement with Giamatti before the commissioners sudden and untimely death, and that is what has ultimately held up his permanent ban from baseball.

Clemens and Bonds were both Hall of Famers before they even touched PED's. At this point, there are already people in the Hall that have either used or abused PED's, and I don't really like some of the writers "holier than thou" attitude.

[t206hof]

Yes on Rose. Never on the other two.

[BeanTown]

I say Rose for sure based on achievements while playing fair. The other two had amazing stats and became a bi product of the norm back in that ERA. Maybe a separate room at the HOF is needed, and we could also add Joe Jackson and a few others in there. So yes to all 3 for me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

There's no good answer.

[MR RAREBACK]

Yes
I would add
Sammy Sosa and
Albert belle

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by MR RAREBACK

Yes
I would add
Sammy Sosa and
Albert belle

And Manny Ramirez?

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by t206hof

Yes on Rose. Never on the other two.

Ditto

[GeoPoto]

I can't see putting Rose in while he is banned from baseball by baseball. Having said that, I think Manfred's position is petty, which seems to be that he was open to reinstating Rose, but only if Rose showed adequate contrition and life-style discipline. Rose, being Rose, failed to pass Manfred's test. I think Manfred should reinstate Rose for all the reasons that he was open to it in the first place, which surely includes that we have outlived the era when Rose's conduct was a threat to baseball. Then put the old man in the hall.

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

[DPARK]

All three yes. Rose will probably get in posthumously

[obcbobd]

Over the years I've changed my mind on Bonds and Clemens and would vote for both.

Rose no

[pclpads]

Just a thot . . . wait till all three are deceased, then enshrine them. My suggestion is less controversial than enshrining them while they are still living. That's what the HOF did with Santo, who had no blemishes like these three. I guess his active HOF worthy stats got better after he retired and died.

[dealme]

Yes to Rose, no to the other two. Baseball is still a game that holds its numbers as sacred. Rose’s transgressions did not somehow artificially inflate his numbers. That can’t be said for Clemens and especially Bonds (who obviously holds arguably the two most well-known baseball records). At this point though, I’m not sure it matters as the Hall has become quite watered down in my opinion. I do enjoy hearing others’ opinions on this as the inclusion of these three is very polarizing.

Mark


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RCMcKenzie]

They are 3 of the best players I've seen, along with Fred Lynn and Terry Puhl, Bob Horner, and Darryl Strawberry. I'm not a fan of the VIP access behind a velvet rope guy. The middling country club that won't let you wear jeans. More is better. They can put the negatives on the plaque.

[bbsports]

The answer to this question is an easy one and it's in one word, No, No, and No. Several years ago, I met Bob Feller at a card show in Florida. He showed me a paper about the qualifications to be a Hall of Famer. Besides the stats, which all these great baseball players have, is to be a member in good standing. Rose as you know bet on baseball and most likely his own team doesn't qualify and of course Clemens and Bonds bulked up from steroids so they would not qualify as well.

[RCMcKenzie]

I would vote no on Rose as a manager. He ragged out his bullpen. He was not a HOF manager. Dale Murphy, by all accounts, was a super nice guy. Why is he not in the HOF?

[donmuth]

Definite yes for Rose.

Equally definite No's for Bonds and Clemens.

[Jewish-collector]

This is one of those questions that will go on forever, until the end of time til time itself comes to any end.

[FrankWakefield]

Wow...

Set emotions and kid favorites aside... READ The Fix Is In, by Daniel Ginsburg.

All 3 had HOF careers, but it is the "other stuff" that does them in.

Clemens - NO

Bonds - Maybe, one day

Rose - As a guest, any time he buys a ticket for admission, on a day by day basis, I think they're open 363 days a year; but absolutely no induction.

Rose was a tremendous competitor, awesome ballplayer. Clemens was a dominant pitcher. Bonds had longevity as a player, and the balls he hit had their own longevity as they sailed outa the ball parks.

Read Ginsburg's book. The league's evolved away from being a drinking and gambling sport that gentile folk would avoid... it wasn't America's game back then. Educate yourselves.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by bbsports

The answer to this question is an easy one and it's in one word, No, No, and No. Several years ago, I met Bob Feller at a card show in Florida. He showed me a paper about the qualifications to be a Hall of Famer. Besides the stats, which all these great baseball players have, is to be a member in good standing. Rose as you know bet on baseball and most likely his own team doesn't qualify and of course Clemens and Bonds bulked up from steroids so they would not qualify as well.

According to MLB, Rose is on the Ineligible List. Therefore according to the HOF, he is not eligible for election.

Bonds, Clemens and all the other 'roid users though have had no such directive issued to them by MLB. So I guess, officially, they are in good standing.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by dealme

Rose’s transgressions did not somehow artificially inflate his numbers. That can’t be said for Clemens and especially Bonds (who obviously holds arguably the two most well-known baseball records). I do enjoy hearing others’ opinions on this as the inclusion of these three is very polarizing.

Mark

I agree, however what Rose did called into question the integrity of the game itself, that players and managers may have other motivations than to win a game. And be susceptible by outside interests (the gambling establishment). Comish Landis recognized this threat to the game during the Black Sox scandal.

Say what you will about Bonds, Clemens and the other users, but what they did still fell in line with trying to win ballgames. Not so different than throwing spitballs or corking bats.

I don't like the gambling or the steroid use, but I just can't lump them together and treat them the same.

[NYYFan63]

Bonds & Clemens YES
Rose No


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Steve D]

Yes on all three!


Steve

[egri]

Rose, I don't care one way or the other about. Bonds and Clemens, I used to be in the 'keep the juicers out' camp, but when Bud Selig went in, and Torre and Cox and other executives who profited off the juicers and/or looked the other way while it was going on, I thought it was hypocritical to let them in but keep the players out.

[Snowman]

All you guys saying 'No' to Rose are bonkers. How is this even remotely a point of contention? It'd be one thing if he was betting against his team to win when he was the manager, but he didn't. All the records that were recovered during the investigation corroborate his account that he was betting on the Reds TO WIN. Records on over 50 games where he bet were found. Every single one of them was on the Reds to win. If you think that doesn't make a difference, you're wrong. He wasn't throwing games. He was competing. Boxers do it all the time. They bet on themselves to win. There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with someone betting on themselves or their team to win a competition. NOTHING WHATSOEVER.

Throwing a game is different. But Rose never did that.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Snowman

All you guys saying 'No' to Rose are bonkers. How is this even remotely a point of contention? It'd be one thing if he was betting against his team to win when he was the manager, but he didn't. All the records that were recovered during the investigation corroborate his account that he was betting on the Reds TO WIN. Records on over 50 games where he bet were found. Every single one of them was on the Reds to win. If you think that doesn't make a difference, you're wrong. He wasn't throwing games. He was competing. Boxers do it all the time. They bet on themselves to win. There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with someone betting on themselves or their team to win a competition. NOTHING WHATSOEVER.

Throwing a game is different. But Rose never did that.

The counter argument is that for the Reds games he didn't bet on, is that telling people that may know that they should bet against the Reds since maybe Rose didn't think they would win or would manage the game differently to save his better relievers for a game he was going to bet on.

I'm a big Rose fan because I don't think the 1980 Phillies win the World Series without him, but I go back and forth on if he should be in the HoF because of the betting on his own team since it definitely has the potential to impact the integrity of games even if he never did bet on the Reds to lose. Usually I end up with the compromise that he should have been allowed on the HoF ballot to at least get voted on but shouldn't have been allowed to be hired by a MLB team. When he was first banned, it was still expected that he would be on the HoF ballot, but that was changed before the first time he would have appeared on it to prevent banned players from also being on the ballot.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by jayshum

The counter argument is that for the Reds games he didn't bet on, is that telling people that may know that they should bet against the Reds since maybe Rose didn't think they would win or would manage the game differently to save his better relievers for a game he was going to bet on.

I'm a big Rose fan because I don't think the 1980 Phillies win the World Series without him, but I go back and forth on if he should be in the HoF because of the betting on his own team since it definitely has the potential to impact the integrity of games even if he never did bet on the Reds to lose. Usually I end up with the compromise that he should have been allowed on the HoF ballot to at least get voted on but shouldn't have been allowed to be hired by a MLB team. When he was first banned, it was still expected that he would be on the HoF ballot, but that was changed before the first time he would have appeared on it to prevent banned players from also being on the ballot.

I don't know why the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is beholden to the MLB like that. If the Hall wants a player on the ballot, they should put him on the ballot. Let the MLB start its own Hall of Fame if they want.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by jayshum

The counter argument is that for the Reds games he didn't bet on, is that telling people that may know that they should bet against the Reds since maybe Rose didn't think they would win or would manage the game differently to save his better relievers for a game he was going to bet on.

I'm a big Rose fan because I don't think the 1980 Phillies win the World Series without him, but I go back and forth on if he should be in the HoF because of the betting on his own team since it definitely has the potential to impact the integrity of games even if he never did bet on the Reds to lose. Usually I end up with the compromise that he should have been allowed on the HoF ballot to at least get voted on but shouldn't have been allowed to be hired by a MLB team. When he was first banned, it was still expected that he would be on the HoF ballot, but that was changed before the first time he would have appeared on it to prevent banned players from also being on the ballot.

How could betting on your team to win possibly ever compromise the integrity of a game?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Snowman

All you guys saying 'No' to Rose are bonkers. How is this even remotely a point of contention? It'd be one thing if he was betting against his team to win when he was the manager, but he didn't. All the records that were recovered during the investigation corroborate his account that he was betting on the Reds TO WIN. Records on over 50 games where he bet were found. Every single one of them was on the Reds to win. If you think that doesn't make a difference, you're wrong. He wasn't throwing games. He was competing. Boxers do it all the time. They bet on themselves to win. There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with someone betting on themselves or their team to win a competition. NOTHING WHATSOEVER.

Throwing a game is different. But Rose never did that.

Rule 21 is posted in every locker room, and has been since way before Rose ever played.
He knew what he was getting into. And the penalty for it.

(d) GAMBLING.
(1) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform, shall be declared ineligible for one year.

(2) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible.

(3) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee who places bets with illegal book makers,
or agents for illegal book makers, shall be subject to such penalty as the Commissioner deems
appropriate in light of the facts and circumstances of the conduct. Any player, umpire, or Club or League
official or employee who operates or works for an illegal bookmaking business shall be subject to a
minimum of a one-year suspension by the Commissioner. For purposes of this provision, an illegal
bookmaker is an individual who accepts, places or handles wagers on sporting events from members of
the public as part of a gaming operation that is unlawful in the jurisdiction in which the bets are
accepted.

[steve B]

All arguments back and forth aside...

With a team in Vegas, they may as well reinstate Rose and Jackson and put them in together.
It will be a good sign that nothing matters to MLB quite so much as money.

And once you abandon the whole "wrecking the reputation of the game" thing, I suppose steroids don't matter either as long as the jacked up players bring in enough cash.

To me a lot of the early tests were very iffy, the lab that did them was questionable, and MLB wouldn't release any info about what a test was positive for even to the players.
Even with much higher standards, Baseball was removed from the Olympics because they didn't meet WADA standards.
By those standards I doubt there would be more than a few players eligible.
And probably almost none since the late 1960's

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by steve B

Rule 21 is posted in every locker room, and has been since way before Rose ever played.
He knew what he was getting into. And the penalty for it.

(d) GAMBLING.
...
(2) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible.
...

Sounds pretty clear to me. Rose bet on games in which he had a 'duty to perform' and so he's on the permanently ineligible list. Not much wiggle room in those rules.

Of course the HOF could discard it's rule about players on the list not being eligible for induction and leave it to the voters, but that would probably upset their relationship with MLB.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by steve B

Rule 21 is posted in every locker room, and has been since way before Rose ever played.
He knew what he was getting into. And the penalty for it.

(d) GAMBLING.
(1) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform, shall be declared ineligible for one year.

(2) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible.

(3) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee who places bets with illegal book makers,
or agents for illegal book makers, shall be subject to such penalty as the Commissioner deems
appropriate in light of the facts and circumstances of the conduct. Any player, umpire, or Club or League
official or employee who operates or works for an illegal bookmaking business shall be subject to a
minimum of a one-year suspension by the Commissioner. For purposes of this provision, an illegal
bookmaker is an individual who accepts, places or handles wagers on sporting events from members of
the public as part of a gaming operation that is unlawful in the jurisdiction in which the bets are
accepted.

A rule is only relevant in the purpose toward which it aims to serve. The point of the "no gambling" rule in the MLB is to prevent fixing/throwing games. Betting on yourself to win compromises nothing at all, because you are supposed to try to win. If anything, Rose should be praised for trying to win that hard. He put it all on the field. He gave that game everything he ever had. Every inning, every at-bat. Rose was a warrior.

Not being allowed to bet on yourself to win is a stupid rule.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Snowman

All you guys saying 'No' to Rose are bonkers. How is this even remotely a point of contention? It'd be one thing if he was betting against his team to win when he was the manager, but he didn't. All the records that were recovered during the investigation corroborate his account that he was betting on the Reds TO WIN. Records on over 50 games where he bet were found. Every single one of them was on the Reds to win. If you think that doesn't make a difference, you're wrong. He wasn't throwing games. He was competing. Boxers do it all the time. They bet on themselves to win. There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with someone betting on themselves or their team to win a competition. NOTHING WHATSOEVER.

Throwing a game is different. But Rose never did that.

I guess there would be no useful information obtained if a boxer who regularly bet on his matches abstained from doing so?

If the Reds were -170 and Rose bet smaller than his normal wager? Or not at all? Or bet larger at +130? Or not at all?

My Uncle taught me a trick at the thoroughbreds: He would watch the jockey or trainer bet. If specific jockeys didn't bet on his 2/1 or 5/2 favorite mount, my uncle would discount the pick. If he still liked the horse, he might throw it in to an exacta wheel, but never to win.
His choice didn't win all the time, but he said the other horse NEVER did.
He made a lot of money at the track.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Deertick

I guess there would be no useful information obtained if a boxer who regularly bet on his matches abstained from doing so?

If the Reds were -170 and Rose bet smaller than his normal wager? Or not at all? Or bet larger at +130? Or not at all?

My Uncle taught me a trick at the thoroughbreds: He would watch the jockey or trainer bet. If specific jockeys didn't bet on his 2/1 or 5/2 favorite mount, my uncle would discount the pick. If he still liked the horse, he might throw it in to an exacta wheel, but never to win.
His choice didn't win all the time, but he said the other horse NEVER did.
He made a lot of money at the track.

This is nonsense. Jockeys and trainers are prohibited from betting on their horses. Your uncle did not do this. And even if they were allowed to, how would he know what their bets were?

Perhaps ironically though, in the wake of this conversation, is that a horse's owner is allowed to bet on their own horse, but only to win. They are not allowed to bet on their horse to lose, for obvious reasons.

[Jim65]

No for Rose, he broke the cardinal rule of baseball, he knew the rule and the punishment and bet anyway. Rose lied about it for years, then only admitted guilt to sell books.

I find it harder to exclude Clemens and Bonds, there are suspected steroid users in the HOF (Pudge, Bagwell, Piazza) but now that a known steroid user is in (David Ortiz) how do they justify keeping others out?

[biggies]

No to Rose forever. He's my 2nd all time favorite but he broke the only rule posted in every clubhouse. How close was baseball to death in 1919? Some say very. So Landis what he did and made it very clear. No gambling in or around the clubhouse. He knowingly broke that rule and not banning him from baseball including the HOF invites corruption back into the game.
As to Bonds et al, I think its just a shame. But, each individual and his individual case could be considered by the voting press. Bonds was gonna hit HOF numbers without the joice. Sosa, not.
I would think that Clemens might be the first to bust through as he has always laid low on the subject and unlike Palmiero and even McGwyre, said very little. I wish that like Petit he admitted it.

[SyrNy1960]

If Rose retired as a player from baseball, was elected to the HOF, then later managed and did what he did, he would still be in the HOF.

Rose 100% HOFer 👍🏻⚾️

[frankbmd]

HEDs need to be marketed to the BWAA members qualified to vote.

What are HEDs you ask?

Halloffame Enhancing Drugs.

I don't waste my time arguing about who should or shouldn't be in the Hall. This forum seems to love it.

I also don't give a damn about the Oscars, the Tonys, the Emmys or the Espys.

Self-aggrandizing awards mean nothing to me. After I'm gone, if someone wants
to build a monument with my likeness cast in stone, so be it.

And I also won't care if the monument is vandalized and destroyed by the "activists du jour" at some point in the future.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by 3arod13

If Rose retired as a player from baseball, was elected to the HOF, then later managed and did what he did, he would still be in the HOF.

Rose 100% HOFer 👍🏻⚾️

Very similar to what Bowie Kuhn did to Willie (1979) and Mickey (1983) in regards to their involvement with the casinos in Vegas. Willie even had to resign his position with the Mets. At the time however, the HOF didn't have a rule about inductees being on the ineligible list, so they didn't take any action. Would have been interesting if they did have the rule in place.

Peter Ueberroth later revoked their suspensions in 1984, soon after taking on the commissioner position.

[Centauri]

Heck no on Rose, maybe on Bonds, yes on Clemens.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Centauri

Heck no on Rose, maybe on Bonds, yes on Clemens.

Ben, I'm curious why you feel differently about Bonds and Clemens. It seems like most people are either for or against both. Their BBWAA vote totals were within a few votes of each other every year.

[Shemp]

No on Rose. He gambled. Every clubhouse has a sign concerning no gambling. Anyone who reads any history knows about the Black Sox scandal. Rose accepted the lifetime ban.

The others? Sure. Just make sure they go into the new wing of the hall named The Scoundrels, with plaques describing their behavior. Also, add the other enshrined scoundrels like the racist Anson, the enabler Selig, and any others. This may end up the largest wing of the hall lol.

[todeen]

No on Rose (my #1 team is the Reds).

Yes on Bonds and Clemens.

Even among Reds fans, Rose is very polarizing. Many Reds fans very openly state that Rose is a POS human being. He had sex with a minor. Who cares about betting beyond that.

As for Bonds and Clemens, the HOF needs to create a wing for 80s/90s/00s players and put them all together. Even bad history is worthy of having its story told. The HOF needs to be very open about player's drug use, BALCO investigation, Jose Canseco's book, and the role of ownership promoting drug use for greed. In addition: yes on Palmeiro, ARod, Sosa, McGwire, and the list goes on.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[SyrNy1960]

Rose should be in the HOF for what he did as a player, period!

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by todeen

No on Rose (my #1 team is the Reds).
Even among Reds fans, Rose is very polarizing. Many Reds fans very openly state that Rose is a POS human being. He had sex with a minor. Who cares about betting beyond that.

If he had sex with a minor (assuming he wasn't just a teenager too, like an 18 year old with a 16 year old), then that's something different. Ya, maybe ban him for that if true, but the betting on one's team to win? That's ridiculous. Anyone who actually cares about that isn't thinking it through.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Snowman

If he had sex with a minor (assuming he wasn't just a teenager too, like an 18 year old with a 16 year old), then that's something different. Ya, maybe ban him for that if true, but the betting on one's team to win? That's ridiculous. Anyone who actually cares about that isn't thinking it through.

There were claims a few years ago about Rose having a relationship with a minor. He claims she was 16 and she says she was younger. From what I remember, this came out just before the Phillies were going to add him to their Wall of Fame and they ended up canceling that when the story was reported.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/sports....172143720.html

[raulus]

I think the concept of betting for your team becomes a problem due to a few key facts:

1) It’s a long season. A good manager is making moves with the full season in mind, rather than just that game. Because the goal is to win more games in total, not just the ones that you bet on.

2) Moves a manager makes in one game impact the next game. And moves made in previous games impact today’s game. World Series game 7 is the exception, of course, because there’s no tomorrow, and you throw everything you’ve got in an attempt to win. Plus winning game 7 is worth other potential risks that a player might run, like getting injured, or aggravating an existing injury by playing whilst less than 100%.

3) We’re assuming he only bet on some games, and not on all of them. If he bet on all of them, or even almost all of them, then point #1 above is likely no longer relevant.

Since we’re having fun here, let’s dig into an example. Let’s say that Petey bets on the game 5 days from now. Maybe the manager has today’s starter skip his start to rest him up a little more. Or maybe gives him an early hook to avoid running up his pitch count and keep him fresh.

Then in the 2-3 games before the game in question, the manager selectively uses his relievers, deploying them in a fashion to make sure that the best relievers are fresh for the important game, rather than deploying them to win the most games overall.

For added effect, maybe the manager strategically rests some position players to keep them fresh for the important game, and lets the scrubs play more in the other games. You could probably go on here, maybe choosing to keep the other team from seeing some plays like a hit and run or a straight steal or even a bunt against the shift as a means of making it a more effective sneak attack when the important game comes along. Maybe the manager will choose to use a pinch hitter in an odd spot, just to get the hitter an extra look at a reliever that he might face in a critical spot in that future game.

Naturally, if you let your mind wander for long enough, it’s not hard to imagine a long list of moves that a manager could make to improve the odds of winning one game at the expense of other games. Even in relatively mild situations, it’s easy to imagine that 1-2 games around the game in question could be impacted. And in really extreme cases, it could multiply quickly, particularly if a manager ends up pushing a player and he gets hurt, thereby reducing the team’s chances while that player is out.

So particularly for a manager, unless they’re betting on every game, there’s the real possibility that managing like it’s WS game 7 for the games you bet on will adversely impact other games for your team.