Hall Of Fame Situation?

Question

I know everybody is sick of the steroid issue but what happens now with all the future hall of famers? If Clemens and Bonds and Pettite get in would that open a door for Pete Rose?

Yes i understand it's two different subjects, but why not let him in as a player he never cheated as a player

Answer 1

Anybody who deserves to be in the Hall of Fame should be.
The Hall is partly for the fans and it is also about the history of baseball. I'll say it again, the Hall of fame is about Baseball.

How can the all time hit leader not be in the Hall of Fame? How can Joe Jackson not be in the Hall?
How can one of the best pitchers of all time not in the hall?

Here's what I say they do, Put them in the Hall, but don't allow them to be at the ceremony. Just acknowledge their achievements in BASEBALL and move on.

Answer 2

Should it allow Pete Rose in yes, but will it probably not. This is the steroids era and in this era you will have cheaters trying to become the best the game has seen. That is unlike Pete's situation when he fixed games as a manager to make money. Now Pete, had he not gambled on the games, will already be in the hall of fame with the greats. But do to the time period and the reason for his cheating compared to the players it is different. He told his team to win/lose this game or try today but relax in tomorrows game, when these players in the Mitchell Report cheated, yes, but did it to help win all the time. The game was not to take steroids to lose, but to keep yourself healthy enough to play for a longer amount of time. Clemens will get in probably on the first ballet, unlike Bonds who will probably take two. I don't think steroids should be used in Americas Past time but is the time where to be good you have to be bigger than the other guy. I am not promoting or in my mind saying that athletes should use these because then it is not them playing it is the drug(s) doing the job for them.

Answer 3

I am not sure it's completely reasonable to rule out that Rose never bet while he was a player. In fact, when he was a manager, he was a player/manager. I am not sure of the timing of the slips when he stopped participating in games.

However, that aside, Rose played in over 4000 games, having to be present each time where there was a sign about betting on baseball, in any form.

In my opinion, Rose made a conscience choice to bet on baseball and in doing so, put his need (or addiction) to gamble ahead of his desire to be in the HOF and connected with baseball.
Sure, if he asked himself "if I get caught for this and banned from baseball and the HOF, would it be worth it", he may have answered no and then not done it. If he answered yes or didn't ask the question at all, clearly his energy was not on his image.
Pete Rose, via his actions and words, doesn't even want to be in the HOF, so it's a moot point wondering if one tragedy opens the door for another one.

Answer 4

My response is in return to Peter Gammons - You say that Pete Rose affected the outcomes of games (wins and loses), well doesn't a star pitcher who may be using hgh, that allows him to pitch late into a game and strikeout more batters then the relief pitcher who would normally be in the game, doesn't this help change the outcome of the game as far as wins and loses are concerned? In my opinion, this has the potential to change the outcome of a game as well. So if Roger did use steroids or hgh, would the Yankees/Astros or Red Sox have won the same number of games that they did if Roger wasn't using?

Or another way to look at it, if we find out that Bonds did certainly use steroids and HGH (I am not saying he did or didn't) would he have still hit that walk-off homerun? If not, then that sure changes the outcome of that game!

Answer 5

They are seperate and distinct situations and you cannot logically link them. So to answer your question: No. It does not open a door for Pete Rose.

And HGH or not, Andy Pettitte is not going to Hall of Fame.

Answer 6

Pete Rose deserves to be in NOW. For a sport that "prides itself" on it's tradition & history & records; not having the man with the MOST HITS IN HISTORY in the H.O.F. is a joke.

It is time to get off the high horse about all of this stuff. None of this is about the pure sport of it all anymore. Its all about business and the almighty $$$. These guys (and gals) do all this stuff to prolong their careers and make more money. Major sports need more people like Pete Rose, who actually care about their team & winning, than at any other time in history.
As far as Clemens and Bonds, its all been gone over a thousand times here & elsewhere. They are H.O.F.'ers no matter what. Don't hate on them because they're jerks, so was Rose. Their numbers b4 all this junk backs that up.

Answer 7

Steroids and gambling are two unrelated topics. Steroids would fall as cheating and gambling just cuts into the integrity of the game.

Here is an argument for everyone..."IF" Clemens and Bonds used steroids and HGH that would call their career statistics into question. How many strikouts, innings pitched and games won would Roger really have "IF" he didn't use this stuff? How many homeruns would Barry have "IF" he didn't use this stuff? I say "IF" because nothing has been admitted ot proven, yet. If they did use, then their careers are called into question...Now compare that to Pete Rose gambling. How did gambling affect Pete Rose's statistics as a player? We can all make assumptions as to how it may have affected his winning percentage as a manager, but did his gambling really have any affect on the number of hits he had during his career? My gut feeling is that his admitted gambling affected his managing career not his playing career.

Addition - I forgot to mention that the only way for Pete Rose to get into the HOF is to be placed in by the Commissioner. Players are only allowed to be on the HOF ballot for 15 years after they retire. Pete Rose's 15th year anniversary was in 2006.

"Rose agreed to a lifetime ban in August 1989 following an investigation of his gambling, and the Hall's board of directors decided unanimously in February 2001 that anyone on the permanently ineligible list couldn't appear on the BBWAA ballot. Rose applied for reinstatement in September 1997." Washington Post

Answer 8

Good question, but hear's the difference. What Pete Rose did, whether he never bet against the Reds or not, was directly affected to the outcome of the game, as in Wins and Losses. Most people view the "Steroids Era" as selfsih acts of self-promotion, players just trying to make a name for themselves. The outcome of the games was much more affected in Pete's actions than in the aformentioned players.

Answer 9

It definitely seems like Pete Rose will not get inducted because of the length of time after his retirement. The jury is still out on younger retirees and current players because it's up to the writers and media to vote them in, and maybe some of them have soft spots in their hearts for the "users". We'll wait and see 5 years after their retirements to see if they get in.

It's not guaranteed that any of the people in the Mitchell report will get inducted on their 1st ballot.....

Answer 10

No, the subjects are not related, and 2 wrongs don't make a right; and why are you talking HOF for Pettitte, he dosen't belong!!!!