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.

I gotta say I agree with you. Pete Rose was always one of my favorite players to watch. I'm willing to bet there are other players already enshrined who didn't always walk the straight and narrow in their personal life. The HOF is about how you played the game - let him in. He earned it.

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.

The Rose saga just goes on and on . . .

I don't know if there is evidence that he bet against his team. Any evidence out there is that he always bet for the Reds to win. It doesn't justify the fact that he bet, but I believe that he did everything he could to make sure his team won.

There are so many flawed individuals in The HOF, keeping him out is a joke.

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.

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.

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!!!!).

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.

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.

A hero can still be a hero without being enshrined.

Keep him out. If he is banned for life..please keep it life.

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.

Personally, I don't think there is enough mustard in the world to cover him.

I was an A's fan & remember what he did to Fosse. Totally uncalled for in an All Star game...

Mustard, as in hot dog? Well, everyone's got an opinion. I was thinking the same thing about Ricky Henderson while he was just admitted to the hall. I never liked his on field demeanor, but his numbers can't be argued with.

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.

Jim Rice was one of the most pompous j-offs that ever played the game. Right there with Bonds.

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.

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.