Should Pete Rose be in the hall of fame? Why/Why not?

Answer 1

No, he should not.

The problem with Rose is not that he gambled, but that he broke the rule against gambling, if he did indeed bet on baseball (any game, not just his own).

Rose and Joe Jackson have one thing in common, which is that, the further away we get in time from the transgressions, the more forgiving fans (most of whom really don't get it) become.

The Steve Howe comparison was unwarranted...nobody's lobbying for Steve Howe to be inducted into the Hall of Fame... Howe was never that great to begin with, he made the All Star team once in a 12 year career... I don't know why so many baseball teams wanted that guy around...made no sense to me...

But Howe and Rose are two TOTALLY different cases.

But no, I don't believe Rose should be in the HOF... and frankly, I've never understood why anyone (except Rose himself of course) should be losing any sleep over his not being there. It's not affecting anyone's life except for Rose's.

There are a lot of jerks in the Hall of Fame, but there's no rule against being a jerk... Baseball does have a perfect right to draw the line when it comes to gambling.

Had Rose put off his gambling for five years after he retired as a player, he had a good chance of being the first unanimous selection to the Hall of Fame... then, if he, or baseball, thought he had a gambling problem, they'd put him in rehab or something, but they wouldn't throw him out of the Hall of Fame because of his 'problem'...

What a lot of people here don't know, or don't remember, is that shortly after Willie Mays was elected to the Hall of Fame (1979), he took a job as a greeter with a casino in Atlantic City, NJ... baseball IMMEDIATELY suspended him from involvement in ANY Major League Baseball activities, and Mays was not reinstated until 1985, despite MASSIVE public outcry... but Baseball stood firm, and told Mays "it's OK if you work for a casino, but if you do, Major League Baseball will have nothing to do with you, period..." but again, the public just didn't get it. They don't get it with Rose, either...

Baseball does a lot of stupid things, but banning Pete was not one of them.

Years from now, after Barry Bonds is retired, he will also garner a lot more sympathy from the public...people will look back and say "hey, Bonds was a great player, and EVERYONE was doing steroids in those days". Just watch...

The further away we get from the end of a player's career, the more important his numbers become in the public's evaluation of him, to the exclusion of all other factors. That's why there is such a tremendous sympathy affect directed at Joe Jackson today. His last game was in 1920, and he died in 1951.

Answer 2

No, he broke the major league rules which are clearly posted in every major league clubhouse. Every spring a MLB rep meets with every team to remind the players of the rules of the MLB. Pete was well aware of those rules when he placed a bet. Does Bobby Bonds deserve to be placed in the Hall if it is proven he used/uses steroids? The rules are made to protect the game from another Black Sox type scandel. With all that being said, Rose was one heck of a player. But in my opinion, ability along won't get my vote for membership. Baseball isn't only played between the lines.
Rose was a great player, but he has baggage.
He knowingly and willfully ignored the games "laws".

Answer 3

Of course. He is probably the best player of the game of baseball ever. Not paticularly athletic or talented, he did every little thing better than anyone else ever has.

As far as the betting goes, all he did was bet on his own team. He never bet against the Reds. In fact, I think players salaries should be determined by on field performance. You win 90 games, you make 10 million. 80 games, you make 5 million. Aren't incentive laden contracts the same thing. Players are betting on themselves and their output. In fact, many times you see players being selfish and hurting the team as a whole because they are worried about thier own stats.

So the bottom line is, Pete Rose is not in the hall of fame because he was willing to put his money where his mouth is and bet on himself. Wouldn't we all bet on ourselves?

Answer 4

Yes - and so should Shoeless Joe Jackson. Rose has paid his dues and its time.....after all, he is the all-time leader in hits. Its not like his gambling hurt the team - he always bet on the team he was managing to WIN and not lose!! If he had bet on them to lose, then it would be a different story. Rose is something like 67 now - let him enjoy being in the Hall while he's still alive for cryin' out loud!

And, let's look at it from this angle - if Rose is being kept out - at least he didn't use steroids - he used hustle. If Barry Bonds, one of the most notorious steroid users of all-time, is allowed in when he retires - then Pete Rose should be standing at the door of the Hall to welcome him in.

Answer 5

No, because he violated a rule and he knew the penalty.

Also, he wasn't a great player. There was never a season when Pete was one of the top fifteen players in the game. He was a pretty good player for a very long time.

Finally, he had a horrible haircut.

He was a nice guy, though. I met him once at Fulton County Stadium.

Answer 6

absolutey. ok, sure he made a mistake, i don't dispute that. but c'mon! remember steve howe, pitcher for the yankees in the 80's? he was suspended SEVEN times for drugs before finally being banned. let the punishment fit the crime. what pete did on the field you cannot overlook....more hits than anyone, EVER. pete played with a passion for the game that is all but non-existant in today's players. it's been 20 years for christ's sake, the man has paid for his wrongdoings and then some. Peter Edward Rose belongs in Cooperstown!

Answer 7

Yes because his on field acheivements were so stellar. Whatever demons he battles off the field should not warrant keeping him out. There are a lot of real scumbags in the HOF (Ty Cobb for one) but you should be judged by what you do on the field. Rose was a great player, he deserves the Hall.

Answer 8

Without the betting yes. He was a great player, but then he was betting and couldn't stop doing it. If he had never made that mistake, then no doubt he would have made it to the hall of fame.

Answer 9

Yes here's why, He had more hits than anyone ever to play the game for this sole fact he should be inducted as a player. His actions which occured while managing may have tainted that aspect of his career and he was never that great a manager anyways. But they weren't during his playing days when he was just solid at the plate day in and day out.
Ban him for life but let his memory stand where it deserves.

Answer 10

I would say yes but for the sake of arguement I'll go aganist what I think and say no, he shouldn't be allowed in. If he as a manager is proven that he bet on baseball, that means that if he ever bet aganist his team he would be throwing games, an unforgiveable sin. Even if he was betting for his team, he might over-use his bullpen for that one game and get screwed over the next few games with an over-used bullpen.