Should Pete Rose be put in the MLB Hall of Fame?

The Game Room
1

Thought about putting this in the Game Room forum, but I think it’s more of a debate topic given the divisiveness of the topic.

There have been rumors about Pete Rose being forgiven by the current commissioner of Major League Baseball, and potentially being put up for ballot to be inducted into the MLB Hall of Fame (HOF). There has been substantial fan support for this move.

Rose holds the career record for most hits at 4,256.

Rose was banned from baseball for betting on baseball while a manager for the Cincinnati Reds. He has always contended that he never bet on baseball while a player.

Yesterday, ESPN’s Outside the Lines investigative sports news program released evidence that Rose did actually bet on baseball as a player.

I personally think that Rose’s ban should continue. Re-instating him would do nothing for the sport.

What I find more interesting is the groundswell of support by fans that think he should be in the Hall of Fame. The biggest argument I’ve heard is that the number of players that have violated the performance enhancing drug (PED’s) use policy that are eligible for consideration into the HOF.

Alexander Rodriguez, of the Yankees, who was found guilty of using PED’s was celebrated last week by the Yankees and its fans for making the 3,000 hit club.

As I was listening to some sports radio talk show last night on my drive home, I heard the most idiotic argument for Rose’s reinstatement from a caller. He compared Rose’s fall from grace and deserving of forgiveness to Tiger Wood’s affairs against his wife, and even how that affected his game, we all know that Tiger is the greatest golfer of all time. :confused::smack::confused:

I’m not sure you can find stats to support this, but I suspect that a large portion of the support for Rose’s reinstatement comes from a younger generation that’s used to getting participation ribbons/trophies for all.

So should Pete Rose be put in the MLB Hall of Fame?

2

No.

Sorry, that isn’t much of a debate, and this is Great Debates, but on this topic there isn’t any debate in my mind.

So, no.

3

Absolutely not. Gambling on your sport is unforgiveable, doubly so when it involves the team that you are playing for or managing. He had an unfortunate addiction, but the fact remains that he did what he said he did not. I’d sooner see Bonds and Sosa get in than Rose, and I don’t want those two in either.

4

Meh, Michael dogkiller Vick is playing football.

Rose should be reinstated, given back-pay, and hired to do color commentary for the World Series.

5

Pete Rose has a lifetime ban from the HOF, and the lifetime ban should remain.

Once, however, the lifetime nature of that ban has passed, let his family accept his posthumous enshrinement in Cooperstown.

6

I have no absolutely inside knowledge as to the Commissioner’s intentions. I know unconfirmed rumors have abounded for months that Rob Manfred was going to announce Pete’s reinstatement at this year’s All-Star Game in Cincinnati… where the fans would have cheered enthusiastically for their hometown hero.

I’ve been hoping all along these rumors were false, because I have never wanted the lying sack of manure back in baseball in any capacity.

But given new revelations that Pete lied about not betting while an active player (he spent years claiming he’d never bet on baseball, then spent another decade claiming he only bet as a manager and only on the Reds to win), I’m hoping that Manfred will completely reconsider, if he ever really WAS considering letting Rose back into baseball.

7

People have been banned for gambling from MLB since before 1900. Baseball has never made any secret of the consequences for gambling, and indeed has gone to great lengths to ensure that those consequences are known to all. Rose should not be reinstated.

8

Too bad he wasn’t caught with performance enhancing drugs. He could have had a long career and eventually a HOF member, just a A Rod will be.

9

Pete Rose should be in HOF for his achievements as a player as it is irrelevant to his activity as a human being. Acknowledge the work and acheivements on the field, but maintain his banning from the sport.

There should be no celebratory ceremony or pomp for the enshrinment because of his activities as a human being nor should he be allowed entrance as an individual or any way to make profit from his enshrinment. Just put up the plaque on a Sunday without formality or something.

Same thing should be done for PED performers (Bonds, Clemens, Palmiero, McGwire, et al.)

10

No

11

I’ll be in the minority, and say he should be in. As long as his betting didn’t include fixing games then I’d be okay with it. Even though I’m not much of a baseball fan, I think doing things that affect the outcome of a game, whether you’re shaving points or using PEDs, is much worse than simply betting.

12

Sometimes I feel he should be re-instated. If all the PED users are still eligible then it’s just a stupid rule. The sport is not in danger from gambling, freeing the players from the reserve clause ended that problem. He’s being harshly treated in a way that can’t be justified on its own merit.

On the other hand, he probably did bet on games his team was in. And this is just the Hall, his records still exist. No need to provide him this special honor.

On balance, the ban should remain.

13

If he was betting against his team, fixing the game is a given.

14

No. Rule 21 is not secret, obscure or hard to understand, nor are the penalties for violating it, and it wasn’t one or a few isolated incidents.

A separate plaque or marker, posthumously, maybe. But Charlie hustled himself out of HOF contention and knew it.

15

It did? How did it do that?

16

The ban should continue, but not having him in the Hall of Fame is denying reality - like the countries that claim Israel doesn’t exist, or all the years when the US insisted China wasn’t China.

Put him in, maybe without an induction (after all, he shouldn’t attend), but leave him banned.

17

No. Not now, not ever.

18

If he bet against his own team, then I’d say you have a point. I’m not saying he didn’t, I’m only saying I’ve never heard of him betting against his own team.

IOW, if he bet on any teams other than his own…

to hell with it. I said I’m not much a baseball fan, so I’ll defer to you guys and graciously step out of this particular conversation.

19

Kind of a meaningless and self-cancelling option, IMHO. The Hall is only open to eligible players; Rose made himself ineligible, and that means for *everything *- playing, managing, coaching, executiving and accolading. To include a player who so egregiously excluded himself would make something of a joke of the HOF… and again IMHO, such things are already on shaky ground.

20

TriPolar probably believes that because free agency allows players to earn market value for their services, that eliminates the temptation to gamble (and throw games) that caused the Balck Sox scandal.

I don’t happen to believe that (it doesn’t seem to have stopped greed or illegal activity in any other line of work), and even if I did, it wouldn’t matter because Rose consistently broke the rule and lied about it.