Pete Rose - Hall or No Hall??

I agree he should be in the Hall. He was one of the greatest hitters to play the game. He has more hits than any one man in baseball history and played as hard as he could everytime he took the field. Why don't we just forget for a second that he ever bet on baseball and just look at his numbers:

Career 303 hitter

4256 career hits

198 career stolen bases

ROY in 1963

league MVP in 73

finished in the top ten in MVP voting 10 times

17 time all star

Those are HOF numbers IMHO. Im not saying that gambling is good or that he shouldnt have been punished for it, but the fact is it did not effect how well he played the game of baseball and should have no effect on his HOF status. In my mind Pete Rose is a HOFer

Dauby wrote:

I think it's pretty crappy when one of the best players ever in the sport to be banned from the Hall of Fame for doing something that had 0% outcome on games

I don't even see what is so bad about Pete Rose's actions. He admitted to never betting on his own team. Who cares what people do with their money? The fact that gambling is illegal is really unjust. People work for their money, they should spend it how they see fit.

Actually Pete Rose has admitted that he DID bet on Reds games.

He started denying that he ever bet on anything games in any sports. Then said he bet on football, but not baseball. Then admitted he bet on baseball, but not Reds games. Now it is clear he did bet on Reds games, but he says never against the Reds. There are people who claim he did bet against the Reds.

He agreed to a lifetime ban. He stipulated to it.

Even now he continues to show up in Vegas and bet on other sports.

So how do you know his actions had no effect on the outcome of any games?

We know for a fact he did bet on Reds games and he is a long term liar. He admitted betting on Reds games in 2004. This admission came as part of his effort to sell his book. That admission came after denying he bet on Reds games for more than 15 year.

Gambling in sports causes people to wonder if the games, or at least some of them are fixed. Whether he gambled against the Reds or not, his actions cause doubt in many people's minds about whether the games are all on the up and up. There needs to be an example made and a message sent to others that this is not acceptable.

As for the Sosas, Bonds, McGuires...if they broke rules that impacted the games maybe they should be banned as well.

Pete's already in the Gamblers Hall of Fame.

I never heard that he bet for/against the Reds. And if he admitted he bet for the Reds, what's the damage?!?

I would like baseball to set up some sort of lie detector and ask him if he did bet against his own team. If he did so, then the ban would be different. But, if not then let him in.

It's horrible when you have someone like Bonds, who openly LIED to the Federal Gov't, and is not in jail, still plays in baseball, and is considered one of the greatest players ever. The man is a criminal and should be in jail.

I'm thinking of taking up a hungar strike for Pete....who's with me!?!?

Dauby wrote:

I'm thinking of taking up a hungar strike for Pete....who's with me!?!?

Nothing would make Hamilton Fredericks or Michigan fan happier.

Maybe Rich Hall, but definitely not Sara Hall or even Jerry Hall.

Like it or not, the Baseball HOF does have one specific rule stating that if you gamble on games, you are ineligible. Sure, it's a bit arbitrary, but it's there.

No one doubts that Pete Rose's baseball achievements are worthy of Hall induction. The argument shouldn't be whether Pete Rose belongs in the Hall, because according to the current guidelines of induction, he doesn't and there's no question about that. Rather, the argument should be whether the Hall should keep it's "no gambling" policy (especially in the light of other things such as steroids that aren't specifically cited as reasons for ineligibility).

Dauby wrote:

I'm thinking of taking up a hungar strike for Pete.

I wish you would but only if you promise not to come off your strike until he's in the Hall.

Nice post indeed. This may be the first post with logical thinking that I have ever seen on letsrun.com.

Jed Babbin wrote:

He started denying that he ever bet on anything games in any sports. Then said he bet on football, but not baseball. Then admitted he bet on baseball, but not Reds games.

.

I think he also voted for the war before he voted against it.

I think Pete Rose should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

legally blond wrote:

I think he also voted for the war before he voted against it.

I think Pete Rose should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Hey there S.A...are you talking about John Kerry or Pete Rose?!?

How's life, running, and Mr. A doing? You all haven't been waiting around on me @ Clearcreek have you? ;)

Dauby wrote:

I never heard that he bet for/against the Reds. And if he admitted he bet for the Reds, what's the damage?!?

I would like baseball to set up some sort of lie detector and ask him if he did bet against his own team. If he did so, then the ban would be different. But, if not then let him in.

I'm thinking of taking up a hungar strike for Pete....who's with me!?!?

There are many different ways to gamble. In baseball, it is common to bet the "over-under" of games. That is, you can bet that the total number of runs scored will be more, or less, than the line set by the bookies. You can enter this type of bet, still want the Reds to win, but have an incentive to take actions that will cause your team to score FEWER runs - this can be done by pulling a good pitcher early, "resting" a star player etc. So even not betting against the Reds can involve taking actions that are against their best interest. At a minimum there is a temptation to do this. There is a reason the our Father contains the line "and lead us not into temptation."

As far as taking a lie detector test, why? He has admitted breaking a rule that is literally posted in every baseball clubhouse. Baseball requires that rule to be posted so everyone sees it. He has admitted breaking a rule that he knew carried a lifetime ban. It does not matter if he bet against the Reds.

In the end, Pete Rose's greatest value to baseball are not his records, it is not the number of hits or games played, his greatest value to baseball will be his serving as a warning to other players not to gamble on games and not to try and fix games. Players will say, "if they banned a star like Pete Rose they will surely ban me if I do it."

Jed Babbin wrote:

In the end, Pete Rose's greatest value to baseball are not his records, it is not the number of hits or games played, his greatest value to baseball will be his serving as a warning to other players not to gamble on games and not to try and fix games. Players will say, "if they banned a star like Pete Rose they will surely ban me if I do it."

I wasn't aware to the extent that Rose had bet. That's the reason for me bringing up the lie detector test. But if Rose's greatest value to baseball is him being banned, what would you suggest for Bonds and the rest of the known cheaters?

Dauby wrote:

But if Rose's greatest value to baseball is him being banned, what would you suggest for Bonds and the rest of the known cheaters?

I don't have any doubt that Bonds et al used steroids. I also admit I do not know exactly what the rules were regarding their use in the past. IF the rules did not outlaw them, it seems to me he should not suffer any sort of penalty.

If however they did, AND IT CAN BE PROVED, I am not bothered by expunging the records of players that used them. They can also serve as examples.

One of the reasons I like baseball are the statistics. To some extent you can compare players from one generation to another based on batting average, era etc. (I know there are differences - the "dead ball era" baseballs change etc.) A great problem with steroids (among so many of them) is that how do you compare Bonds against Ruth or Aaron? Would a Ruth on steroids have hit 800 home runs? 900? The statistics mean nothing when you add steroids to the mix.

Dauby wrote:

legally blond wrote:

I think he also voted for the war before he voted against it.

I think Pete Rose should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Hey there S.A...are you talking about John Kerry or Pete Rose?!?

How's life, running, and Mr. A doing? You all haven't been waiting around on me @ Clearcreek have you? ;)

we wait for you every week in hopes that you will be there....when you don't come, we get sad and then go out for a 10 miler, later, we drown our sorrows in baked goods at the Big 4. are you still in school?

I cannot promise you that I will be meeting you for a run @ Clearcreek anytime soon, BUT I am going to make a guest appearance at 4 Reasons one of these days.

I've been done with school for almost a year now. I work for a company in downtown Columbus. They are thinking of promoting me to CEO sometime soon. I'm kind of a big deal. :)

The guy most responsible for keeping baseball segregated for decades is in the Hall. The guy who stiffed his players so severely that they threw a World Series is in the Hall. Ty Cobb, who sharpened his spikes to slide into shortstops and second basemen, is in the Hall. Rose would hardly be the most egregious miscreant to be in the Hall.

Dauby wrote:

I work for a company in downtown Columbus. They are thinking of promoting me to CEO sometime soon. I'm kind of a big deal. :)

Dunkin Donuts or Krispy Kreme? good luck on that promotion.

F***ing Ty Cobb is in the Hall of Fame. This is a guy who got into arguement with the black groundskeeper at Tiger Stadium, got into a fight with him, and then started choking the guy's wife when she tried to break it up. He slapped a black elevator opperator because he didn't like his attitude.