Do you think Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame?

Answer 1

Yeah its not half as bad as all the crazy people all jacked up on Roids now a days. Bonds should never be thats for sure. Even when he gets that record they should not recognize it.

Answer 2

No.
There are only two players with Hall of Fame credibility who have been banned for life. One is Pete Rose and the other is Shoeless Joe Jackson. Jackson is dead. He should go in the hall. He served his sentence. Banned for life doesn't sound like it mean 'the life of baseball' (that would be 'banned forever'), so now that Joe is dead, he should be considered.

When Pete Rose dies, put him in the hall. Unless some new evidence arises (as it did, by the way, with Jackson) he has been banned for life for the one and only thing baseball bans people for life for. He did it as a manager, which put him in a better position to decide the outcome of the game than if he were a player. It was no 'one mistake' thing -- he did it repeatedly. Unless A. Bartlett Giamati left a document somewhere that sheds new light -- no hall.

Brettj666 is right about the gambling. Kevin makes a good point, too, though. In one hundred thirty-some-odd years of league baseball, there is only one automatic ban for life rule: gambling. I don't think it crowds the books with a lot of rules to add one: use PI drugs, you're banned for life. Then the problem stops. It is cheating, pure and simple. Commissioner Selig, of course, hasn't the sense to make a good call based on the good of the game because he's one of the monied of the game, but a real commissioner would set the rule. Imagine, 2 rules in 130 or 140 years.

Answer 3

Yes !Pete Rose was one of the greatest pure players of all time .He is still the all time hits leader in MLB history . If Barry Bonds is found guilty of using steroids after he breaks the record , are we still going to put him in the hall of fame.??? even if they never put pete in he will always be a ledgend and will always be know whenever baseball history is discussed.

Answer 4

A person who has built a name for himself and his team and has really earned all merits should be in the Hall of Fame. But, no matter what you did to earn it, if you make a slip and fall, your out. You see, Pete Rose did betting even against his own team, and he must not be a Hall of Famer because you have to come clean. He appologized, but still what he did is not to be merit of reward. Bonds uses steroids, he is trying to beat the Aaron record, if he does it is not worth anything because he is on drugs, does it for fame for himself and there is no consideration for the team or for Aaron's memory. So nor Bonds nor Rose is worthy of the Hall of Fame. They blew it with what wrong they did. Ok, they say "I'm sorry". Then they are forgiven but never forgotten for what they did because they expect a reward and wrong doing is not to be rewarded. Save the rewards for those who did it with hart, sincerity and fairness, not cheating. Sorry, Rose your out on strikes.

Answer 5

Absolutely. Rose was the best pure hitter of all time, and even though baseball considers gambling to be its cardinal sin, there's still this sense that they are making an example out of him. Unfortunately, the previous commissioner set a precedent by banning Rose for life, a punishment that I think is egregious and lazy, and doesn't really fit the crime. Selig won't reinstate Rose because it would be undermining the previous commish, and because baseball has made too much money and gathered too much interest over the years from the Pete Rose drama, a drama which would end if Rose entered the Hall.

Answer 6

if he pays admission, I think they should let him in.

He bet on baseball. He bet on his own team. A lot of people don't understand why betting on your own team to win is such a bad thing, but it is.

If you have a slim lead and you bring in your closer for 2 or 3 innings just to stop the momentum, you may win that game, but risk the long term health of that game (including the pitcher).
If you manage different because you can win a few hundred or few thousand dollars, you put at risk others. If he said up front, "Guys, I have 10 grand riding on this game, so do what ever you can, even if it means taking one in the head, win this game", how do you think his players would have reacted.

Like Bonds and steroids, I will contend that if you don't think you are doing anything morally wrong, you are upfront with it.

"Bonds, how are you staying so healthy?", "Well, I put this cream on and it helps me recover from fatigue faster".
"Bonds, why is your head so big". "That's the down side of steroids, also makes other things smaller"

Those are the responses of someone who DOESN'T think he is doing anything wrong.

"Mr. Rose, did you bet on baseball?" "No, I did not bet on baseball" - either he didn't bet on baseball (contrary to his own words in his book, or he is lying because he knows it was wrong)

If you can't follow rules, then letting them participate again makes the rule pointless.

I, personally, think that you shouldn't ban people for first time offences. No game penalty.
Instead, I would say that on first offence of something they know is wrong (either legally or in baseball), they give up their right to have a contract for any more than one year and any more than the league minimum. No performance or signing bonuses.

For steroids, a first time offender would have to 'settle' with league minimum, year after year for as long as they play.
I think that would curb steroid use.

Answer 7

No.

Rose's accomplishments are well-represented in the Hall's museum.

The sport's highest individual honor cannot be bestowed upon someone in a state of disgrace. The Hall's recognition is not given to a player or a manager; it is given to a PERSON, whose primary roles are noted afterward.

Rose the man is unworthy for reasons of his own making.

-----
ps. Rose didn't make a mistake. He made, repeatedly, a bad decision, and bad decisions can have bad consequences. QED.

Answer 8

I am one who defended him mightily through the years & now feel he should have come clean at the start of the mess, which would probably set the stage for his induction within a decade or so. At this point, Rose can pay the admission fee to go to the hall.

Answer 9

Yes. The people selected for the HOF should be there because of their performance and accomplishments on the field, irrespective of their lifestyle off the field.

Answer 10

Yes. If people like Ty Cobb who was one of the biggest racists can be in there so should Rose.

Answer 11

Yes, The Gamblers Hall of Fame.