Pete Rose Poll
 

This is one of the most informed baseball communities that I know, so I am curious as to where members stand on Rose. Should he be allowed on the HOF ballot?

Damn right.

No
 

Clearly a hall of famer between the lines. Outside the lines not so much. He knew the rules and the punishment but chose to break them anyway. And then lied about it repeatedly for years.

Taken as a whole I'm ok with Pete not bein admitted. His accomplishments are recognized. That is enough from my perspective.

Pete performed his job as a player well and 50% of me says yes.

The other 50% says no because given the type of human being he is, after getting into the Hall, his smugness will be sickening.

He should be in the Hall of Fame based on his career as a player. One of the best if not the best in his era. Now if you were judging him on his career as an manager and the fact that he bet on his team, then as a manager he should not be considered. He never bet on his team to lose is my understanding and always bet on his team to win. The job of a manager is to get wins for his team, not losses but betting on baseball when you manage is a huge no no.

With that said, he was never accused of betting on baseball when he was a player so consideration for the Hall as a player should be allowed.

+1

+1

Betting on his team to win, not lose, is irrelevant. That means not betting to win is information; plus you would use/rest players based on your wagers.

"I'll use my closer once more on short rest knowing he will be useless for a week, but I have money on today's game."

"Can't bet to win today, my star player is banged up."

"I'll rest him today so he's fresh tomorrow when I'll place a big wager.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

He was one of the most competitive players the game has seen. Without a doubt he has the stats that backup an incredible career that would normally guarantee enshrinement in the Hall.

If you overlook his gambling on baseball and (in the opinion of the office of the commissioner) his inability to honestly detail his involvement in his gambling on baseball, then he should be in the Hall.

Manfred is probably following his gut as the other commissioners did that followed Giamatti. You have to figure that Giamatti's decision weighed heavily on himself and in no small part was a contributing factor in his death. The other commissioners have access to the same information as Giamatti and that's probably why they're not cutting Rose any slack.

The second part of your statement could also apply to Curt Schilling. I don't think highly of Schilling as a person, but he should've been in by now and yes I support Pete.

I'm curious about this sentiment. Is there a line? If a clear cut hall of famer committed mass murder after his career but before elgible for the ballot should he be inducted into the hall based on baseball only, ignoring the heinous act? OJ Simpson comes to mind. What if the timing with OJ had been different? Should the player still be honored?

This is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Character. He deserves it with what he did as a player. Yeah so his personality sucks and he made poor decisions, plenty of current HOF'ers have and have done worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tough as it is to say, he'd still be a Hall of Famer. I don't like O.J. Period. That said, having watched footage of him, the way he ran and the stuff he did as a player, few ever did it better. Even though he's a horrible human being, he was the complete opposite of that as an athlete.

While I agree Simpson was a hall of famer as a player I do not believe that he would have been inducted if the timing had been different. The NFL would never have allowed itself to honor somebody guilty of such an act. Regardless of qualifications.

A BIG Yes. His performance on the field has HOF written all over. I think baseball needs to get over itself. The world we live in today has so many other issues that what Pete did is dwarfed and honestly is a joke that he is not in the HOF.
I feel both Pete and Shoeless Joe should be inducted into the HOF. Shoeless is no longer with us and Pete has been banned for 26 years. Lets not wait till he is 6 feet under then admit him.

There are many players in the HOF who did not have such stellar credentials off the field.
It is time for the commissioner to get with the times and put him on the Ballot.

Rose will make HOF (when he kicks the can...)
 

I have been a Reds fan since I was a kid. I loved watching Pete play the game, but don't believe he deserves to be in the HOF right now. The rules are very clear. He broke them repeatedly, then his latest comments were he put the new Commissioner in a tough spot since he still bets on baseball. I am actually in a sick way sorta glad he won't get in and it appears it won't happen in his lifetime at least and that is perfectly ok with me. I like the idea of him and Joe being the 2 outcasts from the HOF. It makes their Legend more unique to me and I think it makes for a more interesting piece of history. Especially decades from now. I do however believe and predict that decades from now Pete and Joe both get in via special committee. (Rose will be dead when this happens). So, let the Legend grow as Joe's has over the next several decades, then the hearts will bleed, and both get a Hall pass.

Yes, but the acts that are keeping Rose out of the Hall were not "off the field", they were committed while he was a manager, while he could impact games and while he was under the rules and jurisdiction of MLB.

That being said, I don't feel strongly either way. I respect his ability and accomplishments, but not his character.

I think the people who want him in, and quite frankly some of the people who don't want him in, because of his "personality" or "character" are missing the point. He bet on Baseball. The Only rule that would keep him or anyone else out.
If he gets in, what would keep any current or future player from betting on "his team"? If you can bet on "your team" why not "the other team"? Hard to bet without being around gamblers. Baseball would be much less interesting (profitable) if it had the credibility of professional wrestling or horse racing and the owners/commissioner know it. Sorry Pete, you broke the only rule that matters.

Absolutely agree. His performance as a player is definitely HOF. As I said before, his performance as a manager and the betting while a manager prevents him from being inducted as a manager.

As to the mass murder comments listed earlier, Rose did not murder anyone so those comments are not relavent. The Hall has no bilaws that specifically mention morality so this should not be a criteria for being inducted. Fergie Jenkins ( a wonderful human being in my opinion) was arrested for cocaine posession in an airport during his playing days and that did not stop him from being enshrined in the Hall so who are we to pass judgement? We are all human and we all make mistakes. It is time for Rose to be forgiven for his mistakes and baseball to get back to basics.

The Hall was meant to honor players for their talent and great careers, not to judge their morality.

I can't believe how close this poll is.

For those who are voting that he get in are there any ........ circumstances ???? Such as letting the 8 men out back into baseball????

Wasn't there a story on ESPN this year that he bet on baseball while he was a player?

Yes, outside the lines revealed there were documents and notebooks taken from his home during a search that showed he was betting as a player in 1986.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/...ll-player-1986

I am a huge Pete Rose fan and while I do not want to see him reinstated I would let him on a HOF ballot.

Reinstatement is an MLB employment issue, not a HOF issue. The actual rule created in the wake of the Black Sox scandal, Rule 21, is so important to the game that it is written on every clubhouse wall. Pete Rose knew the rule and blatantly violated it as a player and as a manager. We can get all nitpicky as to whether he bet against his teams or only with his teams but there isn't much point to that because Rule 21 carries a mandatory sentence of baseball death: a lifetime ban from association or employment in the game.

Rose agreed to the sentence. He did not fight the case through to the end, he agreed. He accepted a plea bargain that he now regrets. As a lawyer, that doesn't cut it with me. I've actually been sued by an ex-client who accepted a settlement and decided later he didn't like it, so I am especially unforgiving of people who make their own beds then discover they don't really like laying in them.

The issue in the MLB decision is whether he is a fit potential employee, not whether he can participate in tribUtes. Rose admitted to Manfred during their meeting that he currently bets on baseball. So, despite submitting testimonials from experts to the effect that he is a compulsive gambler with an addiction, he is still betting on baseball. That would and should scare the hell out of anyone in MLB asked to reinstate Rose. If he is a compulsive gambler he really should not be put in a position to influence the outcome of games. He is the equivalent of an alcoholic trucker who has lost his job due to drunk driving applying for reinstatement and telling his potential boss that he is still a social drinker. Would you let that guy drive for you? For the same reasons, I disagree with the assertion that MLB is asking him to grovel or otherwise abase himself. All he is being asked to do is to provide credible evidence that he has his addiction under control, which he did not do.

Frankly, I find the attitude here to be too forgiving of our idols' clay feet at times: for example, I would never advocate for Joe Jackson to be in the HOF because he took money and agreed to throw the World Series. Screw him. A better analogy to Rose vis a vis MLB is Bill Mastro. Like Rose, he was arguably the best in his field and like Rose, he broke the rules and the law, and has accepted a sentence and ban [albeit self-imposed] which shocked and disappointed many of his fans. I don't care if Bill Mastro swears on a stack of bibles that he has reformed, I sure as hell would not ever bid in an auction he is running. I would feel the same as to Rose being involved with a team on the field. But the HOF is not an influence on the current game. He was one of the greatest players I ever saw so I'd let him at least get a vote before he dies. If the voters agree he should be out so be it.

Should be in the HOF without question.

"Frankly, I find the attitude here to be too forgiving of our idols' clay feet at times:...."

+ how ever many votes voted for him to be in.

In as a player = Yes
In as a manager = nope

If it's 100% that he bet while a player then he shouldn't be in, but what he did as a coach shouldn't impact what he did on the field.

If so then the Hall of Fame would be hypocrites since they are supposed to judge purely on on field accomplishments and not what happened off of it. If all of it happened when he was up for election, I'd have voted for O.J., though very begrudgingly. I hope he spends the rest of life behind bars.

Famous...
 

You know, it is the Hall of "FAME". As a player was Pete Rose famous? Seems ok with me for him to be banned for life for anything participatory baseball related. But you cannot deny he was ways more famous than a whole lot of players already in.

Same goes for Joe J. and Bo Jackson - both Famous in the truest sense of the word.

I would like to see all of them in the hall - because they are a part of significant baseball history.

And for them along with the steroid crowd, well, thats what asterisks are for.

It really amazes me that they are keeping him out on "character" grounds from breaking a rule that is designed as a trip-wire. Gambling itself is not deemed harmful to the game unless it affects the game. The fear is that if gambling is allowed, it will lead to players and managers throwing games or cheating, as we saw in the early days of the 20th century. So players and managers are prohibited from gambling in order to ensure that they don't go that one step farther and harm the game.

No one, to my knowledge, has ever accused Pete Rose of cheating or throwing games. At most, he is guilty of using insider information that he gleaned as a player and manager to gain an unfair advantage in his betting. He was not gaining an unfair advantage against his baseball opponents, just against bookies and his gambling opponents. The bookies ought to be the ones upset. They ought to ban him from the gambling Hall of Fame. His only harm to the game of baseball was that he broke a rule and set a poor example to little kids. That may be reason not to admire or emulate him, but not to keep him out of the Hall of Fame.

It's pretty clear that Rose bet on baseball for at least his last 3 years as a player. Irregardless, Pete knew that what he was doing against the rules, permanent banishment and no hof, see Joe Jackson. Pete still chose to bet. He should just accept the punishment, but Pete thinks he is bigger than the game. He should never be allowed in the hof.

Even putting him on the ballot sends a poor example. If you are good enough, we will just ignore the rules for you. Athletes and gambling should never mix, it is what differentiates mlb from wwe.

For those saying he didn't bet against the Reds, wrong. Everytime he didn’t bet on the Reds, he was betting against them. Don't be naive. The gamblers saw this and used this info, that Pete would not be managing to win like when he had money on the game. Pete's actions harmed the game and the need for fair play. He is getting what he deserves.

He has already been on the ballot for three years. His highest percent was 9.5%. I think that he still wouldn't be in even if allowed on the ballot, just like proven juicers are allowed on yet don't make it in.

Everyone knows he was good. Just like everyone knows Joe Jackson was good. HOF collectors already know this and adjust their collecting accordingly so it really doesn't matter if they do or don't get in because their legacies will still hold up.

If they were borderline HOF players then it may have made a difference, but at this point it just doesn't seem to matter.

I say let him in after he has passed away. That way he never gets to enjoy his "day" because of his transgressions but yet he ultimately winds up where he should be.

Rob M.

Rule 21.d (part 2):
http://seanlahman.com/files/rose/rule21.html

"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."

That would include a player, coach, manager, etc.

Black and white to me. He bet. He got caught. Permanently ineligible.

I don't have a lot of heartburn over placing Rose on the ballot for the Hall, although I would not vote for his induction. Pete instead deserves his own display -- one that tells the whole story: the good, the bad and the ugly.

i think all the tainted guys (who are good enough) should be in the HOF telling the whole story of each one of them the good, the bad and the ugly

how you may not have pete, arod, bonds joe Jackson, and many others not in is crazy to me.

+1...Just ask anyone that knew Ty Cobb...

No

After he is gone......he doesn't deserve the smug satisfaction that he would display.

+1

Rule 21?
 

Didn't Major League Baseball permit Pete Rose to "associate" with the other players elected to the All Century Team. I believe it was before a World Series game in the late 90's. It was 30 minutes of baseball history on National television with Rose appearing on the field with some of the greats of all time.
I guess rule 21 was waived for the night! Why? Sam Majors

I wonder how much money Pete Rose lost when he bet on O.J. Simpson being convicted.

Wow! What a great turnout. I've really enjoyed reading through all the comments pro and con. I see both sides of the argument but I still come down on the side of letting him in. I know he screwed up but I just think its been long enough, time served. When Rule 21 was introduced it was for the purpose of cleaning up what was a corrupt game. With contracts what they are today we are in no danger of reverting back to the problems with gambling that plagued the game in its early days. So I think the 26 year banishment has served the same purpose in showing players how serious the league is as a lifetime ban would show.

I don't see how what Rose did affects his stats, which is what his induction would be based on.

Contrast that with the PED generation - Sosa, McGwire, Bonds etc. They deserve not only to be banned from the HOF but have their stats erased from the record books completely.

nope

I am surprised and disappointed by the poll results and pro-Rose arguments--on this site, where I'd expect different. Take this simple test: Let's say you are a big Cubs fan. Let's say Joe Madden next spring announced that he was going to bet on baseball games all year but, hey, NOT on the Cubs to lose, never, take my word for it, and I'd never fudge it. Wouldn't you then question, or at least wonder about, every odd move (and he would, like all managers, make a few) in any game? Holding back an ace reliever or putting him in a game that didn't seem that important? Pinch-hitting choices? Resting players at odd times? And on and on. Wouldn't that sort of ruin your rooting enjoyment all season? And think Madden was wrecking enjoyment of baseball?

Plus there's no proof that Rose DIDN'T bet on his team to lose.

I think we all acknowledge the crime. I think most in the YES camp feel the 26 year ban should serve as the punishment. If they trust their HOF voters to do the right thing then he will lose the HOF vote anyway. Joe Jackson was on the ballot so lets give Pete the same opportunity.

Just curious. Why? Because they cheated? Because what they did was illegal? Because it gave them an edge?

What is you view on existing members of the HOF who did the same? Should they be removed?

All you bleeding hearts come out in favor of that BUM. The rule is NO betting on Baseball. Period. He knew it. He did it. He is not above the rules. Screw Pete Rose. Letting him in the hall would be a disgrace.

What players are you talking about? I am not aware of any evidence against existing members of the hof. I have heard acquisitions against Henderson without proof, like Piazza and Bagwell. Barry Bonds admitted under oath that he used steroids, the clear and the cream. If you can provide similar evidence that any current hofer used steroids, then I would favor removing them. Even though I doubt it would ever happen. I don't think there is even a way to expel members from the hof.

Good argument but for me, I voted no because he has never come clean. If he did that then I would consider it. (not a shoe in by any means, his playing days aside) In other words, no doubt he would be in on his playing days alone but, even if he comes clean, it's still not a shoe in....but I would consider it. As it is, from what I know now, no way.

I the old timers were held
 

To the same character standards I would have less problem with it. But frankly I am a little tired of the old writers acting like their era were saints and all those after that are inferior. I want players judges for infield performance or else remove the cheaters liars and scoundrels and gamblers already enshrines. And there are many.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on my question. I was looking for your reasoning behind expunging all PED players records and not allowing them to be eligible. I wasn't implying others in the HOF were PED takers. I just wanted to understand if you argument was a logical or emotional one, hence my questions.

Rose is a liar, a cheat and a miserable POS. I hope he never gets in. He doesn't deserve the accolades he wants so badly. I don't care what he did on the field, it was what he did off the field that hurt baseball. You can't kick out guys when you find out what they did after the fact but you can keep the guys out who you know exactly what they did. That's why Chase, Jackson and many others aren't in and don't deserve to be.

At least Rose got his hits without PEDS, Bonds, McGuire, Sosa and A Rod should be banned for PEDS and their records disqualified

Exactly! They didn't need PEDs. The greenies worked just fine. :cool:

Ray Lewis pled guilty to trying to cover up a murder, so I guess we will find out soon.

Players in the 50s, 60s, and 70s were eating Greenies like they were candy. Several players from that era in the HOF have been linked to their use.

If I was on the witness stand and admitted to a crime that would lead to a decision my friends or I didn't like, those friends' nor my own whining about what others have or have not done is not a viable defense and would not have an impact.

Four Commisioners have not overturned the original ban. In my opinion, Pete Rose is his own worst enemy and I take great delight in believing he will never know the Hall of Fame...

Greenies aren't PEDs. It's apples and oranges. You cannot compare the two. Also, there was no drug policy in mlb until the late 70s when steroids and greenies were banned. So, players who used them prior to the policy cannot be compared to players who knew they were banned, but chose to dope anyway. That is cheating and they deserve to be kept from the hof.

Similarly, Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker bet on baseball prior to the 1919 World Series and a ban on gambling. Pete Rose bet knowing the rule and punishment and he deserves his permanent banishment while Cobb and Speaker were easily elected. We evolve as a society and make rules that improve us, but we don't punish those who didn't have foreknowledge of those rules.

More like oranges and grapefruits -- one is just seen as a much bigger member of the same family. Greenies have been banned by MLB since, I believe, 1971. Yet they were commonly used at least into the mid-80's. A number of those in the hallowed HOF, including Mays, Aaron, Schmidt and Stargell, to name a few, took them precisely to improve their performance. That's why when any HOF player from the 1970's gets on their soapbox about PEDs it makes me think they are probably a bit hypocritical and makes me want to call bullshit on them for that reason.

I grew up a huge fan of Pete Rose. I don't really care all that much, but Rose personally is better off not in the hall. If keeps him in the public eye and conversation and opens personal income opportunities for him that are not available to comparable players.

Note to folks who compare use of greenies to PEDs: Babe Ruth's and Roger Maris' home run records stood for years, for decades, until steroids era when everyone and their mother hit 50 dingers or more. And after steroids crackdown--whoops, we are back to pre-1990s power levels. What a coincidinky.

This. And baseball drug policy or not, since 1970 it has been a federal crime to use amphetamines without a prescription. Similarly with providing them to someone else. There have performance enhancements going on since the days of Pud Gavin.

I thought the HOF were supposed to honor the best players from their era? So why wouldn't this be someone like Bonds? I'm still waiting for someone to explain their reasoning of WHY the banishment for PED users (during the "PED era"). Because they cheated? Because what they did was illegal? Because it gave them an edge?

What is you view on existing members of the HOF who cheated, were involved in illegal activities, or did something to give them an edge? Should they be removed?

Totally agree!

I voted YES based on what he did on the field.

I "met" Pete at Al Lopez Field in the mid 70's. The Red had lost to the Phillies and Pete went something like 1 for 4. He took batting practice after the game. He hit one over the fence and my buddy ran around the park to get it. He came back with the ball, and when Pete had finished his practice, my best friend jumped over the dugout and said, "Mr. Rose, could please you sign this ball for me?"

His response was "Get off the f*%&ing field, you f&*%ing kid!", then turned and ran to his dugout...and down the tunnel.

I will never forget that day.

But, statistically, he belongs in the HOF.

Pete can get in as soon as Joe Jackson once again becomes eligible and is inducted.

In any sport where there is a lot of money involved, there are going to be players -- lots of them -- who push the limit of the rules and then some to gain an edge.

Why is it by the way that people are so holy about PED in baseball but it's barely discussed in football, where usage is and has been likely much more pervasive?

http://www.vpxsports.com/article-det...use-in-the-nfl

"Why is it by the way that people are so holy about PED in baseball but it's barely discussed in football, where usage is and has been likely much more pervasive?"


THANK YOU!!! About time someone other than myself asks this question.

I can only answer for myself. In baseball, I hold (held!) the record book as sacred, even more sacred than the outcomes of games or seasons. Meanwhile, in football, I just watch for entertainment.

Because the NFL started testing in 1987 and MLB took another 15 years to start chasing dopers. Their failure to act has brought deserved criticism. Both leagues are fighting a losing battle against dopers, but at least they are now trying.

Does anyone seriously believe there isn't rampant drug use in the NFL despite the testing? The size and agility and speed of the linemen for example are quantum leaps ahead of just a couple of decades ago, this is not just better training methods IMO.

+1, with Peter on this one...

No way. Rules say lifetime ban, he hasn't served his complete sentence yet

Pete you forgot to mention that they are in the news every week for a shooting, battery, assault, domestic violence, murder, etc.

So in addition to getting away with PED's and other drugs they get away with all of that as well.

I to this day can't comprehend why anyone would support a league or organization full of criminals that go widely unpunished.

+1

Just my opinion and it's worth less than two cents, but given the essentially violent nature of football, which deny it or not is a large part of its appeal, I don't think we really expect these guys to be normal the way we expect the same of baseball players -- who we relate to on a more personal level, because for the most part they are the same size as us, they don't wear helmets obscuring their faces, etc. I mean can you really relate to a 325 pound lineman under a helmet the way you relate to a baseball player?

No. On the field, Pete Rose epitomized what a ballplayer should be. Off the field, he broke the cardinal rule. Rose's case is the biggest tragedy in the history of baseball.

I suppose you bring up a valid point there Pete. It's just some of the things that make me detest and not be able to relate further to that Organization.

Does any believe there isn't rampant drug use in MLB? Every year we see players getting suspended and we know that only a small percentage of cheaters fail drug tests. We only have to look to BALCO and Biogenesis to see the efforts made by cheaters to beat testing.

The heat on MLB comes from ignoring doping and allowing cheaters to thrive while NFL, Olympics, ect. fought dopers. Those players who hid behind the union and doped deserve permanent banishment for the hof.

Aren't home runs way down though?