Do you think Pete Rose and "Shoeless" Joe Jackson should be in the HOF?

Question

I think betting on baseball is horrible but I think they have served their term of guilt!!!!

Answer 1

shoeless joe, yes... Pete Rose, never............

Answer 2

I don't want to see either of them in the HOF. Pete Rose broke the first rule of baseball, knowing full well what the consequences would be. He only admitted it when he realized he could make money selling a book, and even then he had no remorse. Also, the Hall of fame does not distinguish between Pete Rose the player, and Pete Rose the manager. Pete Rose is a PERSON and a PERSON is either inducted into the HOF or not. Pete Rose the PERSON broke the rules of baseball and is banned forever. Sorry, but a "permanent" ban does not expire after a generation passes and everyone forgets what he did and only sees the statistical records. Shoeless Joe Jackson may have been a victim of circumstance, but its too late now to go back and prove that he wasn't involved, and didn't know that something was going on. I might be okay with letting him in the HOF if and ONLY IF it is proven that he was not involved in the Black Sox scandal and was merely an innocent teammate.

Answer 3

I don't know about "Shoeless Joe" but Pete Rose should never, EVER be considered for the HOF. He wrecked his own chances at that regardless of what a great player he was. It's not just the original crime, it's the years of lies after that as well. Do we really want to honor a liar and a cheat? NO! He doesn't deserve it. And electing him to the HOF would make a mockery of it and be disrespectful to the ones in already.

Answer 4

Shoeless Joe Jackson without a doubt should be in the hall of fame. He was accused of throwing the world series yet he batted well over 300 during the series and would have been a lock for the MVP if the White Sox would have won. I just think Landis over reacted when he lumped them all together and banned them all from baseball. SO I think he should be in.

Pete Rose was one of the best ball players to ever play. His hustle made him a superstar player. He never gambled as a player he did when he was a coach therefore I think he should be admitted into the hall as a player. As to character issues keeping him out, there is no doubt that Pete is arrogant but his crime does not even comparte to current hall of fame enshrinees such as Ferguson Jenkins.

So once more I think they should both be in.

Answer 5

Sorry Pete, sadly no. You lied about gambling while you were managing a team! You can not gamble and run a club. I think if he would have thrown himself on the mercy of baseball and admitted it and been contrite, he would have got in. But typical of his hard nose persona, he lied and stonewalled and found himself on the outside. So be it until he confesses. The evidence is there; there is no doubt.

Jackson should be in. If Jackson could speak, he would say, "No, it ain't so." Judge Landis was a tyrant and although he was commissioner in a truly golden time in baseball (note: every day is "golden day" in baseball...), he was a small minded dictator. Put Jackson in the Hall.

Several people have commented about the drug users. This, indeed poses an sticky problem. You think back on the home run race between Sosa and McQuire in 1998 (I think that was the year) and now we found it was tainted with drug use! And Bonds... that breaks my heart. Should these guys get in? Man, I don't know, but I'm leaning to "No.". And The Rocket? Bonds, McQuire, Clemens, Sosa. Icons of this age, but tainted with a stain at least as bad as Charlie Hustle. Tell me it ain't so, Roger.

Answer 6

I say yes. Pete admitted his guilt and the commissioner Bart Giamatti said he could be reinstated when he admits guilt. Shoeless Joe no question about it he should be in there. There is no proof that he threw the series he only accepted the money because Comiskey was screwing all the players. I can understand people saying wait til Rose passes but think about this he makes more money every year he is out because of the controversy. In 5 years after being inducted he will make at 40% less revenue from his appearances and signings.

Answer 7

So long as Pete Rose didn't bet on his own games (games he was involved in), he should be in the Hall of Fame...he has served his time.

As for Shoeless...what did he do wrong? He hit .375 in that series...if that is what people do when they "throw" a game, I would have hated to see what he could have done if he was really trying! I realize he was one of the BlackSox that was named, but if he threw the series, why did he lead all hitters in average, rbi's, etc...He belongs in the Hall now.

Answer 8

No, I don't. Pete Rose knew what was at stake when he gambled. He can now live with the consequences of his actions. Shoeless Joe was before my time but I think he and some teammates took money to throw the game. No HOF for them, either.

Answer 9

Jackson, maybe, because he has served a lifetime ban. That should be up to the oldtimers committee. As for Rose, the overwhelming majority of current HOF members do not want him. It would be tough for the baseball writers to vote for someone that people like Bob Feller are saying should not be in.

Answer 10

joe jackson - yes
pete rose - would be be inducted as a player or manager? i think we all agree is managerial abilities are far short from hall of fame credentials. the one reason he is being kept from being inducted are actions that occured while he was a manager not a player. if he was being inducted solely as a manager, then no. but as a player he should be put in. he is the all time hits leader, his career spanded nearly 30 years and he was one of the hardest working players in history. plus he's a world series champion and he played on one of the greatest teams in history. '76 The Big Red Machine.

Answer 11

I think that Pete should be put in after he passes away as a lifetime ban calls for. Shoeless Joe is gone and should be put in now.