yes
no
With the Baseball Hall of Fame inductions coming up...do you believe Pete Rose deserves to be in the Hall of Fame and why or why not?
I think his playing career stats warrant his admission but I think that there should be notation on his plaque that he was banned from baseball for gambling. He finally admitted to it but he needs to apologize IMO. I think if he made a public and formal apology, a lot of people would forgive. That being said....I don't see him making it until after he dies.
I believe he should be in the Hall Of Fame but I also believe that he played a bunch of people as saps when he denied again and again about gambling on baseball then did that complete reversal and then admitted to it but never apologized.
I don't think that he will ever get in, he'll be left out like Shoeless Joe Jackson is.
Gambling on the game was the worst thing that could be done according to some.
Last edited by N.Y. Johnny; 07-29-2005 at 05:21 PM.
The precedent has already been set with Shoeless Joe Jackson's ban
If Rose wants in, then let Jackson in first
agreedThe precedent has already been set with Shoeless Joe Jackson's ban
If Rose wants in, then let Jackson in first
I agree, if they let Rose in then Jackson and the other "black sox" players should be allowed in also, but with notations that they were banned for gambling on baseball while as a player and or manager.
He should be let in, because the hall is based on what is accomplished as a player. On the field, he's one of the best ever, and keeping his bust out of Cooperstown doesn't change that. But, there should be a notation of his ban/gambling, because that's part of his legacy.
Don't give him a job in baseball, but don't act like he wasn't one of the best players ever.
I've never understood the argument that has Pete Rose among the top 10 or so players to ever play the game. He had one exceptional year (MVP in 1973) and a number of very good years.
At bottom, Rose was a great singles hitter (3215 of his 4256 hits (75.6%) were singles; most in MLB history) who scored a lot of runs, had a nice OBP (.375 for career), and stole some bases (around 200); but he never hit for power (160 HR for career; 7 per year on average) and didn't drive in an exorbitent number of runs (1314 for career; 60 per year with a high of 82). He doesn't rank in the top 10 all-time in any major categories other than games, hits, and runs (he has a couple of other top-10's but those derive from the number of games and hits). He also wasn't a particularly good fielder.
I will give him this: he played in a bunch of post-seasons and played pretty well when he got there.
His numbers stand out, IMO, more because of his longevity than his greatness. I would never put Rose anywhere near my all-time starting 9 and wouldn't have him backing up at any position that he played in his career. Jimmy Foxx, Stan Musial, and Hank Greenberg are better choices at 1B; Joe Morgan and Rogers Hornsby are better choices at 2B; Mike Schmidt and George Brett are better choices at 3B; and there are far more than 6 OF who were better than Rose: Ruth, Mays, Mantle, Williams, DiMaggio, Aaron, Frank Robinson, Cobb, Al Simmons, Clemente, Mel Ott, Stan Musial (if not at 1B), and Rickey Henderson (among retired players) immediately come to mind as better players.
People liked Pete Rose because he hustled and because he was controversial. I prefer other players because they were simply better.
Rose's numbers warrant enshrinement. But Rose knew the Golden Rule and he broke it. He broke it repeatedly and by gambling on his own team. He knew that the consequence for gambling was a Jackson-esque ban and he did it anyway. I have no sympathy whatsoever for Pete Rose and firmly believe that he should never, under any cir stances be admitted to the Baseball Hall of Fame. I don't care if he apologizes or ever fully comes clean. If you let Rose in, you essentially say to others that the rules can be broken so long as you take your punishment and appear apologetic at some point in the future. That should never be the rule. If you want to maintain the integrity of the game and ensure proper respect for its rules, you have to make sure that the penalty for violating the most sacred rule is also the harshest penalty. Rose broke the sacred rule and the precedent is a ban from baseball -- forever.
And frankly, I don't care if Pete Rose ever apologizes. I'm absolutely sure that any apology he offers will not be sincere.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 07-29-2005 at 05:21 PM.
I would agree with that but IMO, its his greatness that enabled him to play so well for so long. But you are right....he did break the most sacred rule of baseball that is why if he does make it in....I think it will be posthumously.His numbers stand out, IMO, more because of his longevity than his greatness.
I think you have to take longevity-based numbers with a grain of salt. Phil Niekro and Don Sutton both won 300 games, but not because either was ever a dominant pitcher. But, both were good enough to stay on staffs and win games for a number of years.
Certainly, you must be a great player to play for a long time; but that you amass numbers because you play for a long time does not make you automatically among the 9 or 18 best to ever play.
In my personal rankings, Rose wouldn't be in the Top 30.
He was Ichiro in the 60's and 70's, but without the speed and defense. I don't think Ichiro will ever be considered a top-30 player, but I think Ichiro is better than Rose ever was.
In my personal rankings, he would be top 30...but that's just my .02.
I understand. For the reasons stated above, I disagree, but I understand.
FWIW, my top 30 since 1900 (in no particular order, save for #s 1-3)[including current players]:
1. Willie Mays
2. Mickey Mantle
3. Babe Ruth
4. Lou Gehrig
5. Rogers Hornsby
6. Henry Aaron
7. Christy Mathewson
8. Ted Williams
9. Joe Dimaggio
10. Stan Musial
11. Jimmie Foxx
12. Hank Greenberg
13. Ty Cobb
14. Tris Speaker
15. Frank Robinson
16. Sandy Koufax
17. Al Simmons
18. Rickey Henderson
19. Pete Alexander
20. Bob Gibson
21. Cy Young
22. Roger Clemens
23. Barry Bonds
24. Steve Carlton
25. Nolan Ryan
26. Warren Spahn
27. Mike Schmidt
28. Roberto Clemente
29. Eddie Collins
30. Honus Wagner
Shoeless Joe wouldn't be a lock for the Hall of Fame even if he hadn't been involved in the Black Sox scandal. That might have been the best thing that could have possibly happened for his legacy. If not, he'd be completely forgotten.
I've love Baseball.
I've loved baseball ever since Arnold Rothstein fixed the World Series in 1919
Is Walter Johnson #31?
shoeless joe did his gambling misdeed as a player.
pete rose as a manager.
not entirely the same, both extremly wrong, but not the same thing.
I'm sorry, but no.
he bet on baseball
enough said
I had Johnson in the top 10, because he is the first pitcher who came to my mind, but in editing the list, I must have deleted his name and then assumed it was on the list.
There is no doubt that the Big Train is among the 10 greatest ever.
So he bet baseball, BIG ING DEAL! Pete should be in the Hall without question. He played the game the way it was meant to be played...all out. I get sick of the hypocrites that say he shouldn't be in the Hall while having no problem with s bags like Ty Cobb being in it. Pete Rose is one of the greatest players to ever play the game!
Bull !!
I bet on his team when he used the bullpen a certain way, knowing that they had a better chance to win those games, and when he did now bet on his team, it was after he had over used his bullpen the previous days, thus he knew when they would lose.
He was the most horrible offender in the history of baseball, not even close to people who used steroids. At least those people who were on the juice wanted to win, even if they cheated to dod it. Pete Rose was making his own team lose, because of his betting on them and adjusting his roster on the days he did bet on them.
Pete Rose almost ruined baseball....he will NEVER get in the HOF.
That is CRAP! Pete never bet against his own team. Besides, the Hall should be for his playing accomplishments anyway, not what he did as a manager. I find it amazing that you can be so critical of him when you are an admitted gambler yourself.
tlong, do you read lips????
I said he bet ON his team. He did it only on games when his bullpen was fresh, and when he knew he would not be having to use a tired bullpen.
He did what would be the equivalent of Pop playing Tim Duncan 48 mins on one night on a game he bet on the Spurs and on the next night, not betting on the Spurs, because he knows that TD would be all worn out.
This is all well do ented, the people he was betting with all had records of what games he bet and what games he would not bet. When the bullpen was tired because he over used them on his betting games, he would not call the bookies on those nights.
He deserves to be in prison for 30 yrs.
I also do not bet on my dentisty...huge difference, pal.
Your argument is WEAK! Again, he did not bet against his own team so WHO GIVES A ! I suggest you change your opinion of his eligibility for the HOF or I will be extremely angry.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
