Reinstate Pete Rose

[K-State Spur]

My top 10 (in no particular order)
Babe Ruth
Hank Aaron
Mickey Mantle
Willie Mays
Joe DiMaggio
Ted Williams
Stan Musial
Ty Cobb
Roberto Clemente
Barry Bonds

I think you have to add Frank Robinson in there somewhere (although where is tough, I'd give him the edge over DiMaggio and Clemente).

Ahead of Rose, I'd also include Mel Ott, Carl Yazstremski, Tris Speaker, & Ed Delahanty.

A couple more controversial ones that you'd have to give strong consideration to would be Ricky Henderson & Reggie Jackson.

[FromWayDowntown]

I think you have to add Frank Robinson in there somewhere (although where is tough, I'd give him the edge over DiMaggio and Clemente).

Ahead of Rose, I'd also include Mel Ott, Carl Yazstremski, Tris Speaker, & Ed Delahanty.

A couple more controversial ones that you'd have to give strong consideration to would be Ricky Henderson & Reggie Jackson.

I agree about Frank Robinson, but I have a hard time elevating him over either Clemente or DiMaggio. My original post had my "next 3," which were Frank Robinson, Al Kaline, and Ken Griffey, Jr. and I'm pretty comfortable with saying that each of those guys is close, but not in, the top 10. I agree with Speaker and Henderson being good enough to include in that group, too -- to make a top 15.

I'd put Ott, Jackson, and Yastrzemski below that group. Delahanty, to me, is a product of the era in which he played -- if his numbers are normalized to historical averages, he's not a particularly stellar player; and he was a horrendous defensive outfielder.

The original point about Rose as an all-time great outfielder, though, remains -- at least it does to me.

[K-State Spur]

Well, just the term all-time "great" doesn't really apply to Rose because he was rarely great. In his entire career, he really only had 3 or 4 years that could be considered great.

But he was good for a very long time, arguably longer than anybody else in the history of the game, and there is a lot to be said for that. Enough, that if outside factors were not considered, that he would be a sure-fire HOFer.

[tlongII]

Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. There is no question about that. To allege that he somehow damages the game's integrity is ludicrous. No one ever played the game with the amount of passion that Pete did. He has, or at least had, a gambling addiction/problem. If the rules bar him from the Hall because of this, then they should be changed. He is one of the greatest players to ever play the game.

[FromWayDowntown]

Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. There is no question about that. To allege that he somehow damages the game's integrity is ludicrous. No one ever played the game with the amount of passion that Pete did. He has, or at least had, a gambling addiction/problem. If the rules bar him from the Hall because of this, then they should be changed. He is one of the greatest players to ever play the game.

Should the rules be changed just for Pete Rose, though? And if so, what should baseball do about those who gamble on baseball games? Few things in the history of the game have ever damaged the integrity of the game more than the Black Sox scandal. Like virtually all of its other past sins, baseball sought to cure that problem. But unlike other sins (like non-integration) that problem couldn't just be done away with by a single cure. There has to be a rule to eliminate the possibility that baseball people will gamble on the games and a deterrent to make sure the rule is abided. The deterrent in this case is a lifetime ban (which Rose voluntarily accepted from Giamatti in 1989) and there can be no better image for that deterrent than a guy like Pete Rose who should be a celebrated baseball figure. Today he is a pariah -- and rightfully so, I think.

No player, coach, manager, owner, or administrator is bigger than the game -- though Pete Rose seems to think that he was.

I think it would send a terrible message to reinstate him at this point.

[K-State Spur]

Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. There is no question about that. To allege that he somehow damages the game's integrity is ludicrous. No one ever played the game with the amount of passion that Pete did. He has, or at least had, a gambling addiction/problem. If the rules bar him from the Hall because of this, then they should be changed. He is one of the greatest players to ever play the game.

Change the rules to allow baseball players/managers to bet on baseball? Yeah, that's a great idea...

And I re-iterate, he was only 'great' in his longetivity. He was good for a very long time. But in a quarter century of activity, he only had 3 years that could be considered great (and by stricter standards, you could argue that he only had one great year - 1969**).

But, compare that to another member of the Big Red Machine - Joe Morgan who doesn't have the career numbers of Pete, but had 6 great years in his career. Or George Foster, who is not in the hall, had 5 great years in his career.

**Rose's MVP year of '73 is really a great anomaly. Stargell, Bobby Bonds, Aaron, and Davey Johnson clearly were better than year, and even teammates Joe Morgan and Tony Perez had stronger arguments, yet Rose captured 50% of the first place vote.

[Taco]

Pete Rose

Let's have a vBookie bet on this!!!

I'll bet Pete will get in on this action!!

[ducks]

Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. There is no question about that. To allege that he somehow damages the game's integrity is ludicrous. No one ever played the game with the amount of passion that Pete did. He has, or at least had, a gambling addiction/problem. If the rules bar him from the Hall because of this, then they should be changed. He is one of the greatest players to ever play the game.

pete rose broke the rules but thong11 likes the blazers so he thinks you can and not pay the price
pete rose admits he did wrong but he still has to pay the price
you can not say ok I admit I killed someone and then expect not to pay the price

[mikejones99]

If it was not for gambling, most games in march madness would not be watched or even cared about. Pete Rose bet, but so does Jordan, Barkley and most athletes.

[FromWayDowntown]

If it was not for gambling, most games in march madness would not be watched or even cared about. Pete Rose bet, but so does Jordan, Barkley and most athletes.

If Pete Rose had just bet on March Madness games, he wouldn't be in the predicament that he's in now. If there was evidence that Jordan, Barkley, and most athletes were betting on games in which they were involved, I'm sure that the punishments would be extraordinarily severe.

This isn't an argument about betting; it's an argument about breaking a baseball rule that prohibits betting on baseball games.

Baseball has a rule, posted in every major league and minor league clubhouse that reads, in part:

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.

Pete Rose accepted a lifetime ban in 1989 though he denied betting on baseball. In 2004 he admitted that he bet on baseball while serving as manager of the Cincinnati Reds, but denied that he bet on games in which his teams were playing. Now, in 2007, he has admitted that he bet on baseball while serving as manager of the Cincinnati Reds and that he bet on games in which the Reds were playing.

The Rule was there every day that Pete Rose walked into a major league clubhouse from 1963 through 1989. He knew that betting on baseball (and specifically upon games in which he was a participant) was a capital offense in baseball. He knew that betting on those games would get him permanent ineligiblity (a/k/a, a lifetime ban). He bet on those games anyway.

I'm not sure why it is that Pete Rose should be exempt from the penalty that would apply to anyone else who had done what he now admits he did.

[K-State Spur]

Exactly. He can't plead ignorance and he can't plead that his punishment was without precedence.

This whole: "I didn't do it ---> I didn't do it ---> I'm not saying that I did do it ---> Okay, I did it, but the rules shouldn't apply" Act is getting old. But that's Pete. The ridiculous part is that people keep coming to his defense because he played hard.

Or more importantly, he always "looked" like he was playing harder than anybody else. A guy like Willie Mays couldn't have done what he did without going 100% all the time, but he was such a great athlete that his effort looked more fluid and easier.

[Fabbs]

I also take exception with the phony strike zone afforded Pete.
Just because he would bend over like he was taking a dump, the umps would thereby render his strikezone 6 inches. He's not the only one but he is the most notable and certainly tied for the biggest bender.