Should Pete Rose be in the Hall of Fame?

Question

If he isnt should Barry Bonds ever get in the hall of fame?

Answer 1

Pete Rose the player should absolutely be in the Hall of Fame.

The way I look at it is this, if Frank Robinson when he was managing the Nationals went on a gambling binge would they remove his plaque from the hall?

The five year grace period is to allow for the voters to have a better view of a players career, not a probationary period where you can't screw up.

I also find it highly insulting that the Reds can't retire his number and honor their greatest player, but they have to retire the number of someone that never played a inning for them.

Answer 2

Rose does not get in and what he did on the field doesn't matter. He commited the cardinal sin as far as baseball goes. The Rules against gambling are nearly as old as the game itself (see Shoeless Joe Jackson).
Rose arrogantly claimed innocence for many years thinking the charge wouldn't keep him out of the Hall. Now, that he can see that he isn't going in, he is admitting to gambling on baseball (with the same arrogance, I might add) to try and make amends. "I did it now let me in!!!!!"
Too Little Too Late!!!!!!
Whether or not Bonds goes in will be a tougher call. It is not like the Rose story in that steroids is a fairly new problem- there is no precedence on what to do. You can't really treat it like a drug issue because too many players were banned for drug use and reinstated (Steve Howe).
The only comparison I can make between Rose and Bonds is that both are arrogant a@@ho%&s who, instead of being grateful for a game that has given them so much, think the game owes them something.
If I was a voter, neither would ever get my vote.

Answer 3

Pete Rose broke baseball's #1 rule, don't bet on the sport.
He's out and shouldn't be in. If you let him in, you are saying that it's really not that important.

Bonds performance, even pre-steroids was good enough for the HOF and they didn't post a sign saying they can't use steroids or be banned. The issue of using steroids without a prescription and Bonds' personal issue of lying to a grand jury is a criminal item outside of baseball.

The writers tasked with the responsibility of choosing the HOF members will also judge Barry Bonds.

Answer 4

People thinking Rose should just be reinstated and permitted to be inducted are sorely lacking in their knowledge of baseball history.
Shoeless Joe Jackson.
George "Buck" Weaver aka the Gingerbread Kid.
Both from the 1919 Chicago "Black Sox" and banned for life. Both surefire hall of famers. Both spent their entire lifetimes trying to lift the ban, both unsuccessful. Weaver's crime was having knowledge of the fix and not ratting out his fellow players during an era of cut throat gamblers and hard core blue collar players (Eddie Collins was an exception not the rule). To this date, people are still trying to get them off the banned list, most notably Bob Feller and Ted Williams had petitioned MLB to reinstate Jackson.
All efforts have failed.
Therefore, what makes anyone think that Rose should be permitted to do this when those before him are still banned?

Answer 5

Neither of them should be admitted. It's sad
because both were great players. Pete
gambled on baseball and lied about it. Bonds
used steroids and lied about it to a
Congressional committee. Pete went to jail
and Bonds just might do the same.

Answer 6

No and the two issues are completely removed. No amount of efforts on the part of Rose will ever get him into the Hall, but there is no comparison of his actions to Bond.

Answer 7

Yes he should. His accomplishments on the playing field should be what's important. I can think of no one who was a more dedicated player & ambassador for the game. Yes, he screwed up with his off the field habits & not being a man & owning up to his criminal deeds, but I feel he still deserves to be in the hall as should Mark McGwire & Barry Bonds for their great accomplishments ( tainted or not!).

Answer 8

Peter Rose yes, Barry Bonds no

Answer 9

Pete Rose belongs in the hall. What he did to get himself barred was totally irrelevant from what he did on the field - what Bonds did (allegedly did, whatever...give up on that whole innocent till proven guilty bullcrap already, that only applies in court, not life) DID affect his play, and he may not have been as great for as long without it.

What Rose did was wrong, but at this point its more about his personal feud with Selig for not admitting he bet sooner than it is about him betting, and never against his own team.

There's far worse things going on, far worse things for the league's image, far worse things to worry about kids seeing their role models doing, in the league right now, steroids being one, and if Bonds gets a waiver while Rose gets stuck outside looking in on "principle", its a travesty.

I was born after Pete Rose played his last game, I have no personal axe to grind about it, but I still think he deserves based on what he did and how he played to be in the Hall, the commissioner's office and the Hall of Fame bylaws be damned.

Answer 10

No. Cold issue. Move on.

Rose's status has nothing to do with Bonds', so the second question implies meaningless causality.