Should these 3 players be in the HOF
 

It takes 75 percent to make the Hall of Fame

Yes! To all 3

Yes

/end of thread

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.

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.

Yes on Rose. Never on the other two.

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.

Yes
I would add
Sammy Sosa and
Albert belle

There's no good answer.

All three are all time greats no matter how you choose.

Rose induction would open other conversations about others , namely Jackson.

Bonds and Clemens , were, as stated above, HOF before they used PED's. If you don't think they were playing against other PED users, whom may or may not be in the HOF, then I don't think there is a ounce of sense in you, but that may be just me.

That being said , I get both sides of the argument.
And as always some pretty good insight on the Net54.

Rose should be elected 50 years after Joe Jackson gets elected. Their crimes were similar, their punishments should be similar.

The other two never. They cheated to accumulate their statistics, so they are meaningless. They are not Hall of Famers.

Hall of Fame
 

Yes to all 3. What Bonds did 2001 is incredible even using steroids. By the way not a Bonds fan.

And Manny Ramirez?

No to Rose and maybe to the others.

You can't bet on baseball when you're playing or managing baseball. Doing so overshadows any accolades done on the field. As for the other two, I'm glad they're both not in but if you decide that the PEDs taken aren't that big of a deal, there are quite a few others (Sosa, McGwire, Palmiero, etc) which should also get the nod.

No on Rose. Yes on Bonds and Clemens.

I don't really care if steroid guys are in or out, but the rule needs to be consistent. It is a corrupt joke that Ortiz, who failed a test, is in and these guys are out. The evidence against Clemens, unless I am forgetting something, is only 1 man's word, filled with inconsistency and conflicting claims made at different times, against his own. Keep them out or let them in, just don't let in the ones you like and blame the rest. There is no logical argument why Ortiz should be allowed in and everyone else banished except that people like him anyways. Cut the politics and privilege and at least try to make the Hall reasonable.

No to Rose who was filling out lineup cards and making pitching change decisions in games that he had money riding on. Yes to Bonds and Clemens who, like most of their opponents and most of the great players before them, were probably using the best performance-enhancing substances available at the time (and who were the two best players since Babe Ruth).

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

All three yes. Rose will probably get in posthumously

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

Rose no

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. :rolleyes:

And Rafael Palmeiro
I don’t believe he belongs in the Hall of Fame But .. 569 home runs , over 3000 hits , A ridiculous amount of RBIs , tied for number eight all time extra-base hits , Also a great fielding first baseman (Three straight gold gloves and number 4 all time turning double plays at first base ) he seems to be the first one completely forgotten because of steroids

For me, unquestionably.

It’s the hall of hame and these players hold some of the most hallowed records in baseball. It is demeaning to call it the hall of fame and not include the most famed of historical players.

That said, the writers are the most holiest of thou in existence and I hold little belief that until each has been many years dead that it happens if ever.

Ditto

No for Rose, and I'm a Reds fan. As of now, he can't even be on a ballot because he's banned from baseball. Personally though, I believe he committed the one crime that should get you banned for life - betting on the game, and specifically games he was involved in. What would be interesting to see is if Pete was reinstated, then he would be eligible to be on the ballot and then the voters would decide. As it stands, the voters have yet to weigh in.

As far as Barry and Roger, they were on the ballot but the voters kept them out (their prerogative). But I just can't square that up with Selig being voted in. As someone pointed out above, he was the commish during the whole steroids era, enabling it by turning a blind eye.

Bottom line, No on Rose, Yes on Barry and Roger.

PS, if anyone has seen recent photos of Rose, he is not looking so well.

Rose Definity the other two Roid players NEVER..

I would like to see the 3 of these guys in, regardless of my opinion on the matter. They made the game exciting, posted hall numbers but blew it by being scumbags… err caught!!! I don’t see this happening anytime soon. That being said we are all in for a treat for the HOF to keep letting in the “Ben McDonalds & Mariano Duncan’s” as of lately.😉

I say yes to Bonds and Clemens because you already have people in who used during their era. No one in their right mind thinks Ivan Rodriguez wasn't guilty. The man wouldn't even deny it himself, plus he showed more than anyone once testing kicked in and he came back to spring looking like a bobblehead. Plus he was called out by Canseco, plus he destroyed the games caught record while playing in the Texas heat and you don't think a drug that helps muscle recovery was involved? Yet he got in first ballot. Piazza admitted to using eight things that are illegal now in his book, conveniently none were steroids, yet he took everything else. Selig is in and he ran the era knowing what was going on. Baseball wasn't against it. Your favorite player was probably guilty of something, just like the guys from the 60s and 70s were all guilty of something that isn't allowed today.

I think you look at the era compared to itself and knock points off for it, such as McGwire. He's very fringe for me right now, but I wouldn't put him in due to knocking his stats to compensate for the drug use. Bonds and Clemens are an easy yes. I don't know how people vote for Andy Pettitte. He's very fringe with stats and flat out admitted doing steroids in two different years, yet he still gets votes to stay on the ballot.

I quote your question because this is where I draw the line. People who failed after testing started should not be allowed in, though I do have an asterisk that I would consider. That's a definite no for Ramirez because he failed multiple times.

The asterisk is Rafael Palmeiro. He failed, but I believe he was set up. The reason for that is very simple. He had everything he needed already. He had 3,000 hits, he had 500 homers, he announced he was retiring, he was playing on a team with no World Series hope near the end of the season. Who is just going to randomly do steroids in his position when he knows he's going to be tested? The answer is no one.

Palmeiro called out Miguel Tejada for what happened and then Tejada ends up getting caught with steroids and everything else to go with it.

As for Rose, I think he deserved a ban, but not lifetime. I'd put him in the HOF now. It's been long enough.

I also know I think different than other people about steroids. I see people willing to put in Todd Helton, who is a habitual drunk driver, yet they won't vote in Bonds or Clemens. Can you honestly tell me that a person doing steroids is worse than someone who is perfectly fine with taking the life of everyone on the road into his hands every time he drives his truck drunk, including the time he left the scene of an accident? If you think it is, you are probably a drunk driver yourself, so you're willing to defend it, and then I don't care about your worthless opinion.

Helton has no business being in the Hall of Fame, but of course he will go in next year because he got so close this year. Just remember one thing in case you have plans for Cooperstown in 2024. He's going to be on the road and celebrating that weekend...

Yes to all three.
My prediction is Bonds and Clemons would be first.
Rose would be after he passes.

Just a random thought on Rose and this may have been discussed earlier/before.....was it ever determined if he was betting on his team to win or lose? ...or a combination of both?

I remember reading that he only bet on his Reds to win

Yes for Rose, no for the others

So then he wasn't purposefully betting for his Reds to lose and/or intentionally making bad decisions during a game to achieve a loss. He should be in for his playing career achievements, no doubt.

Rose maintained he never bet on baseball (until he needed to sell some books and then said that he in fact did, conceding the obvious). At the end of the investigation in 1989, Rose voluntarily agreed to accept the lifetime ban.

"THEREFORE, the Commissioner, recognizing the benefits to Baseball from a resolution of this matter, orders and directs that Peter Edward Rose be subject to the following disciplinary sanctions, and Peter Edward Rose, recognizing the sole and exclusive authority of the Commissioner and that it is in his interest to resolve this matter without further proceedings, agrees to accept the following disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Commissioner:
a. Peter Edward Rose is hereby declared permanently ineligible in accordance with Major League Rule 21 and placed on the Ineligible List."

It seems difficult to see why Rose would accept the ban and sign off on it, in exchange for "resolv[ing] this matter without further proceedings" unless there was something more that had not yet been shown in the Dowd report. If everything had been found at this point, he would have no reason to agree to the ban in exchange for quashing deeper investigation. A lifetime ban is the most that Major League Baseball could do to him; an effective plea deal where he gets the harshest possibly punishment in exchange for quashing further investigating has never made sense to me, unless there was something more to find. Perhaps that something more was that he had done it while a player too, which came out a few years ago. Perhaps it was something else. It seems to me that some pieces of this story remain a secret, and that the testimony of Pete Rose is completely worthless and changes with whatever benefits him most at the time the statement is given.

Yes, yes and yes. Also yes to McGuire, Sosa, Schilling, Hernandez, Ramirez, and Rodriguez.

I’ve always said, one gets in they all get in. Put an asterisk if need be. Can’t keep that era out!

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

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.

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.

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?

Yes, no, no
 

Definite yes for Rose.

Equally definite No's for Bonds and Clemens.

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.

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

No way in hell for Rose. Clemens and Bonds belong in the HOF.

NO for all three!

It's late in the year and you take your team into Pittsburgh for a 3-game series. Your bullpen has a few tired arms, your starters are nursing a few minor injuries. You're the manager of your club - in complete control over who will play, and when. And then you bet on your team to win the 3rd game of the series, but you don't bet on your team (or the other team) to win the first or second game.

See the conflict of interest? Will you use your top reliever in the 2nd game, or save him for the game you're betting on? Will you rest up a starter in one of the first 2 games to get him fresh for game 3?

And think of the blackmail possibilities you're creating against yourself. A bookie, who has records of your bets placed, drops a hint that he might spill the beans and blow the whole story (and Rose's career) wide open unless Larkin gets the day off on a certain day.....

Rose is a student of the game. He knew the fundamental, #1 rule of baseball: Don't bet on games. He knew 8 guys were expelled from the game for gambling, including a certain HOFer. Rose knew, and he did it anyway. He made his choice.

Bob Feller said it pretty well and in his usual plain spoken manner
 

Yes on all 3.

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.

Bonds & Clemens YES
Rose No


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes on all three!


Steve

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.

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.

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.

I’d put them all
In eventually. If you think they need to be punished and only get in once they pass I understand such thinking. But all three are all time great players and should be in the hall.o see no rational reason to keep out bonds and Clemens. Why allow lesser cheats in the hall but not those who performed the best? So it’s ok to juice if you aren’t already an all time great? What an asinine position.

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?

Pete Rose will be lucky if he's remembered as the gambling guy. Luckier than Michael Jackson anyway.

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.

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

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

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.

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 👍🏻⚾️

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.

Introducing new pharmaceuticals
 

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.

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

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.

I completely understand why some people think he should be forgiven, but I cannot fathom how some people do not understand (or pretend not to understand to stir the pot) why Rose is banned. It was the number 1 rule in baseball, the stakes were known, he obviously and provably broke that rule. Duh.

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.

Based on numbers? Yes, the numbers scream YES!

Now trying to get people to admit them based on character is a different question.

All three are LIARS - yes, we're probably all guilty of lying at some point in time but what these guys lied about had to do with BASEBALL.

I'm not going to get sanctimonious here, but "say it aint so" Pete, Barry and Roger.

What I liked about another player with monster numbers is he didn't lie and fessed up, and still not in the HOF. Props to McGwire for being honest. Now Palmeiro is another story - he flat out lied under oath. What a clown. He put up some seriously great offensive numbers but flat out lying to congress and the people was offensive in the wrong way.

That said, I say let all three in and then open it up to all the other PED abusers (ok Rose aint one of those guys) and enshrine them after they've gone. At least they'll know they're going in, they just won't see the induction ceremony.

I'd have been a hanging judge for sure back in the day... :eek:

Edited to add - Induct Rose now before he's dead because for some reason or other I bet he didn't bet against his teams - that would just seem to go against his grain.

Gaylord Perry and David Ortiz are in. Clemens and Bonds should be.

Rose is an easy no. He broke the cardinal rule.

So true!! Nothing else needs to be said.

Sorry, in 2005 in front of the US Senate, McGwire refused to answer any questions about his steroid use. Only 5 years later when he wanted to become a hitting coach did he admit guilt. His confession was not quite as cut and dry as you insinuate. He only admitted it when he had something to gain from doing it.

What's odd is that the hobby conveniently also forgets Rose selling multiple bats related to the same milestone hit on the way to the record. Not the major ones, but stuff like two people with bats from like hit 4187.

and Sammy Sosa forgot how to speak english and Rafael Palmeiro sad he does not do it and then got busted weeks later.

It is all the life and entertainment of the sports.

But back to basics. To many players did it and we will never truly know how many did both pitchers and players and some guilty are going to sneak in and some innocent are going to miss out. And sadly some clean ones get over shadowed and missed there time to shine

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.

I’m not aware of any evidence supporting the allegation, and I believe the attorney accusing Rose had to settle after Rose sued him for defamation as a result.

Of all the roid users, I don’t get why so many people are so pro Bonds to go in the HOF. His roid use, which by the way, positive test or not, is obvious, got him the all time regular season and all time HR records.

Yes, most agree he didn’t need roids to accomplish a HOF career, but those HR records wouldn’t be his without roids. I would think most would be pissed about that; especially the all time HR record.

No matter what, My stand will always be, if you let one in, you let all in.

It was an enjoyable era, which is a part of baseball history.

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

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.