Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame

[newtogolf]

Rose might have bet on baseball but guys like him and Jeter (I hate the Yankees) are what made baseball great.  Rose gave 100% all the time and was the ultimate competitor.  The fact that Rose, who exemplifies everything baseball should want to showcase in a player, is banned from the HOF is a tragedy.

[HytrewQasdfg]

No, he should not get in. He knew the rule: gambling = automatic lifetime ban. And he knew the reason for the rule: baseball was almost destroyed as a professional sport at one time due to gambling.

"He bet on his own team, so it's alright." No it's not. What if, by betting on his own team, he falls into deep debt to gambling interests. Are they going to say "don't worry Pete, pay us when you can"? Hardly. They're going to get their money one way or the other. The other being Rose using his position as manager to influence the outcome of games--maybe leave a pitcher in a little too long, maybe tell a batter to swing away instead of bunting, maybe pinch hitting at the wrong time. All little things that could have a big influence on the outcome of a game.

Gambling came darn close to destroying baseball. Rose knew other players deserving of being in the hall of fame were not in because of gambling. Rose should not have been so arrogant to assume he would get a pass, even though the other players didn't.

[dsc123]

I went last month. They have quite a bit of stuff about him. Bonds, Clemens, Shoeless Joe as well. Kind of odd that they're too stubborn to give him a real induction and plaque.

Its the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum.  If I remember correctly, there is an actual hall that contains all the HOF plaques, inside the museum.

I think this is exactly why none of those guys should be in the HOF.  A common complaint is that they were the best and shouldn't be ignored, but they're not.  Their achievements stand.  They are in the museum that celebrates the history of baseball.  But because of their sins they just don't get the special recognition of being in the HOF.

I think that's the perfect solution.

[Golfingdad]

Its the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum.  If I remember correctly, there is an actual hall that contains all the HOF plaques, inside the museum.

Yeah, and that was the most boring part of the whole place.

[RJH999]

Yeah, and that was the most boring part of the whole place.

LOL yup!

[billchao]

Commissioner Manfred denies reinstatement for Rose:

Quote

Pete Rose, who was given a lifetime ban for betting on baseball, will not be reinstated and will continue to be banned from working in baseball, Commissioner Rob Manfred announced Monday.

"Mr. Rose has not presented credible evidence of a reconfigured life either by an honest acceptance by him of his wrongdoing, so clearly established by the Dowd Report, or by a rigorous, self-aware and sustained program of avoidance by him of the circumstances that led to his permanent eligibility in 1989. Absent such credible evidence, allowing him to work in the game presents an unacceptable risk of a future violation by him of Rule 21, and thus to the integrity of our sport," Manfred wrote.

Apparently the man hasn't matured much in terms of his gambling and his tendency to lie about it.

I also didn't realize that his eligibility in the HoF is actually a separate, albeit related, issue. The HoF can actually vote to make him eligible if they wanted to, but their By-Laws currently state that anyone ineligible for baseball is ineligible for the HoF.

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/159618258/mlb-commissioner-manfred-denies-pete-rose

[newtogolf]

I'm sure MLB is afraid that Rose will do something to make them regret the decision to allow him back in so he can be eligible for the HOF.  It's sad that one of the best players in history won't get into the HOF but he knew the rules.

[gatsby47]

I voted yes with my own codicil that he not have an induction ceremony that he can attend and that his plaque note he was banned from baseball for life for gambling. It matters not if he agrees to it.  The only other choice is posthumously.  In the case of Shoeless Joe, as previously noted, a lifetime ban ends at the end of a lifetime. Again let him in, and note on his plaque that he was banned from baseball for life.

[newtogolf]

5 hours ago, gatsby47 said:

I voted yes with my own codicil that he not have an induction ceremony that he can attend and that his plaque note he was banned from baseball for life for gambling. It matters not if he agrees to it.  The only other choice is posthumously.  In the case of Shoeless Joe, as previously noted, a lifetime ban ends at the end of a lifetime. Again let him in, and note on his plaque that he was banned from baseball for life.

I agree MLB will reinstate Rose posthumously and he will then be voted into the HOF.  Rose is and has been his own worst enemy and MLB knows once he's reinstated the media will put his life under the microscope to uncover every piece of dirt they can.  

[mcanadiens]

As a child growing up in SW Ohio, I watched Rose hit 4,192 and was about ten years old when the scandal hit. Ever since, Pete Rose and his issues with gambling and honesty pop up every year or so like clockwork.The whole damn topic makes me angry. I'm mad at Pete for lying. I'm mad at the MLB for being a malicious, vindictive bunch of hypocrites. Maybe, it can go away for good now.

Really, Pete doesn't need a plaque in Cooperstown. He needs some professional help to deal with his disorder. 

[adam3553]

Im the biggest Reds fan there is, and have been for my whole life. My cousin played on the BRM and then was the Reds pitching coach for 12 years. I love Pete and at least hes making it into the Reds HOF this summer. I feel like if Bonds, Clemens, and McGwire are still on the ballot every year even after cheating then Petes served his punishment and should be allowed. I know for a fact Pete isnt the most stand up guy in the world but his accomplishments should be recognized. My opinion is he would be going into the HOF as a player and not a coach. What he did as a player is what matters to the HOF.

Edited January 21, 2016 by adam3553
Spelling

[Schultz]

There is evidence that Rose bet on baseball as a player, it came out last summer: http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13114874/notebook-obtained-lines-shows-pete-rose-bet-baseball-player-1986

Personally, I voted no. Pete broke the #1 rule of baseball. That is, you do not gamble on the game. Ever. Gambling nearly destroyed the game in the early 1900's. As a huge baseball fan, I don't want to see that happen again. And Besides, Pete has had every chance to reform himself and get off the banned list. He has nobody to blame but himself.

Lets also not forget that Pete's accomplishments are in the HoF. His jersey, bat, helmet, etc are there commemorating the day he become the NL hit leader. All he doesn't have is a plaque that the HoF'ers get.

 

[dchoye]

Many years ago I would have say No but he has served his time 

I agree with earlier poster let him be eligible and let whoever votes decide 

I don't think he'll get in with but he deserves public vote

 

Edited January 22, 2016 by dchoye

[flopster]

I'm becoming more and more torn on this every year, initially back in 89' I was with the "ban him" decision but now being 25 years and Pete has apologized in front of teammates and fans maybe MLB should at least crack the door open enough so that Rose can make the final steps to rehabilitating himself and be an example of someone learning the hard way over time. I don't think baseball is making itself look any better or serious when it comes to betting and baseball I think everyone knows how serious it is since the base hit record holder has been kept out of the HOF for this much time, they made their point.

[Papa Steve 55]

This sign is in every MLB clubhouse

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.

 

Seems pretty clear to me. The discussion is not about who is already in, we cant do anything about that. the discussion is should we make an exception for Pete Rose that we would not make for Carmen Fanzone or any other player you never heard of. How many hits do you need before its ok to bet on games?

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, Papa Steve 55 said:

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.

I don't know that the sign was there in 1990. Do you?

And… as I understand it (could easily be wrong, I haven't read about it in a looooong time), he didn't bet as a player.

Scratch that. Seems he did.

[Hatchman]

I'm ok with it.  Just reinstate the 1919 Chicago White Sox players at the same time that initiated some rule changes.   Then Ruth saved the day with the long ball.  54 then 59.  Funny how that works.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Hatchman

[Papa Steve 55]

9 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don't know that the sign was there in 1990. Do you?

Harder to get that info than I thought it would be. I found this...

Was Pete Rose really the first employee of a major league team to bet on a baseball game since 1920? Probably not. But he was the first who was dumb enough to get caught, and he certainly knew the penalty, which had been written in large print on the wall of every major league clubhouse during Rose's entire career.

.....but it had no source.

Have to look more when I have more time.