Pete Rose, 20 years later...HOF or not?

[VirtualSmitty]

I voted no. Though i'm not sure I can really offer a fair opinion. He retired when I was 4, I never saw him play. I grew up with Pete Rose the joke. Gambler, liar, hustler, chicken suit, do anything for a buck Pete Rose. I just can't see putting such a low life next to guys like Cal Ripken or Hank Aaaron, who weren't just great ball players, but real ambassadors for the sport.

[Starscream]

Originally Posted by shilala

You don't have to take Pete's word on that one.
A lawyer investigated Pete's gambling (The Dowd Report). Found 100's of instances of gambling. Not one bet was ever placed against his team.

I might agree with those who want him to finish the lifetime ban, as long as he gets inducted the year that he dies. His record as a player deserves to be honored. How can the greatest hitter in the game not be recognized in Cooperstown? As long as he gets in, I'm fine with it. I just hope I'm around to see it.

I will admit that I'm very biased on this subject, as I'm a die-hard Reds fan. We're known for three things: being the first professional baseball team, the Big Red Machine, and Charlie Hustle. (No offense to all of the other great Reds players through the years that weren't a part of the BRM: Larkin, Sabo, Davis, F. Robinson, O'Neill, and countless others.)

[MedicCook]

Actually 4 things Andy. Marge Schott.

In, no question.

[gorob23]

No!

great player but let's try and keep high standards SOMEWHERE!

Rob

[TheTraveler]

Originally Posted by gorob23

No!

great player but let's try and keep high standards SOMEWHERE!

Rob

I feel sympathy for the guy. I've got weaknesses and I've done things that run the gamut from "silly" to "stupid" to "hey, that guy needs his a$$ whipped for that sh%t". However, I do believe that standards need to be met - we shouldn't lower standards to help people meet them.

He was a great player and his record speaks for itself. If I had a vote I'd vote for a literal interpretation of the "lifetime" ban and allow them to vote on his admission posthumously.

Sorry Pete, you were great, but you screwed the pooch. rug

if they let vick back in the NFL after what he did, Rose's offences pale to compare. LET HIM IN!

[Ashcan Bill]

I saw Pete play many, many times at Dodger Stadium.

I was there the day he turned around and flipped off the entire left field pavilion. That one didn't make the news.

Letting him in to the Hall of Fame cheapens the institution and degrades the honorable players that have, and will be, admitted.

I vote no.

Only my personal opinion, not worth much.

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by Ashcan Bill

I saw Pete play many, many times at Dodger Stadium.

I was there the day he turned around and flipped off the entire left field pavilion. That one didn't make the news.

Letting him in to the Hall of Fame cheapens the institution and degrades the honorable players that have, and will be, admitted.

I vote no.

Only my personal opinion, not worth much.

It is worth as much as any of ours.

But what about the less than honorable members of the Hall?...there are quite a few of them.

[Ashcan Bill]

Originally Posted by icehog3

It is worth as much as any of ours.

But what about the less than honorable members of the Hall?...there are quite a few of them.

Agreed - some aren't worthy and shouldn't be there. But I can't go back in time and vote in a friendly poll prior to their induction, now can I?

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by Ashcan Bill

Agreed - some aren't worthy and shouldn't be there. But I can't go back in time and vote in a friendly poll prior to their induction, now can I?

Fair enough. You against any steroid users making the Hall, I assume.

[The Poet]

There is no doubt there are a number of jerks and @$$holes already in the HOF. There is also no doubt that Pete Rose had the numbers to warrant first-ballot selection. However, rules are rules. If the rules are changed to satisfy Rose, or his fans, then why should not rules be changed to suit other violators, whatever they may be guilty of? Do you really want to open that door?

Did Pete Rose earn a spot in the HOF on the field? Yes. Did Pete Rose lose that right due to his actions? Yes. Should he be in the Hall? If you are willing to change the rules to allow others entry, past or future, no matter what their crime, then vote yes - otherwise, vote no. I vote no.

As for steroid use, it is and was definitely cheating - but until quite recently, it was not against the rules as written. Is this fair? Probably not, but that's the fact. Like it, hate it, whatever - unless this violation is grandfathered in, you have no choice but to accept it. As always, just

[MedicCook]

What about all the players from the 60's on who used the geenies? They could be considered PED and they were also illegal.

Back on topic though. I still think Rose should be part of the HOF for his playing career. He was retired from baseball as a player. What about someone who was in the HOF as a player already and was now involved in baseball and had the same issue? Should he have is HOF status taken away?

[Ashcan Bill]

Originally Posted by icehog3

Fair enough. You against any steroid users making the Hall, I assume.

Tough question, and the honest answer is I'm not sure. I'm not in the least hung up over what someone wants to do with their body, although I'm not sure it's fair to compare a juicer to a non-juicer when it comes to setting records. I wouldn't think it's fair to compare men and women when it comes to the record books either.

If someone wants to juice up, it doesn't bother me any. (Lord knows the things I've subjected my own body to over the years.) I do think they should come clean and admit it, though.

So, if they are honest enough to admit they used steroids, I suppose I'm basically in favor of letting them in, with a mention that they used roids. Then the future generations can make up their own minds.

How about Shoeless Joe? In or out?

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by Ashcan Bill

How about Shoeless Joe? In or out?

My opinion? In. Guilty by association, not because of personal wrong-doing.

Originally Posted by icehog3

My opinion? In. Guilty by association, not because of personal wrong-doing.

I agree.

[bobarian]

After thinking about this for a couple of days, I voted no. But I am not against him being enshrined if the Vet's committee votes him in. I think they are a much better judge that the sportswriters in this situation. His stats as a player speak for themselves, but his actions as a manager and his willingness to lie for so many years leaves me with concerns.

As for the PED users, I think that is a more difficult issue. Many used before bans were enacted, many are suspected. Many are shown to have used under testing standards that are not acceptable today. Do we just throw out the past 25 years under assumption that all the records are tainted?

[MedicCook]

Originally Posted by icehog3

My opinion? In. Guilty by association, not because of personal wrong-doing.

I also agree. The players involved even stated that Shoeless Joe did not take any money.

[MedicCook]

Originally Posted by bobarian

As for the PED users, I think that is a more difficult issue. Many used before bans were enacted, many are suspected. Many are shown to have used under testing standards that are not acceptable today. Do we just throw out the past 25 years under assumption that all the records are tainted?

There may not have been any MLB bans but steroids were still an illegal item to be using without a legitimate perscription from a doctor. They still broke the law.

[bobarian]

Originally Posted by MedicCook

There may not have been any MLB bans but steroids were still an illegal item to be using without a legitimate perscription from a doctor. They still broke the law.

I dont believe that would disqualify a player under the current rules of the Hall.
Pete was banned due to a violation of the morals clause. Same reason Willie Mays was prevented from working for a NJ casino, associating with gamblers is specifically prohibited.