Pete Rose, your time is up. ---> Hall of Fame eligibility Expires TODAY.

A player's character is not a criterion that should play a part in any decision on entry into the hall. If it were, Ty Cobb would not be in the hall right now. Neither would many others. The hall of fame is designed to honor a player's achievements in baseball, period. By that measure, Pete Rose belongs in the hall of fame more than any but a handful of players in the history of the game.

before roids there was one major rule in baseball, Don't gamble on the game or you will end up like shoeless joe...

Even worse than Rose not being in the hall is that so many of those roid enhanced players will end up in the hall when Rose will not. At least Rose's accomplishments were his own.

Roses chances are not up... There is another way in I beleive hall of famers can still vote for him or something. However, whatever this other route is it is notriously conservative and a tough avenue to follow

RunThis wrote:

Roses chances are not up... There is another way in I beleive hall of famers can still vote for him or something. However, whatever this other route is it is notriously conservative and a tough avenue to follow

That will not work either since the rules are that anyone banned for life is simply not eligible under any circs.

He is worse than a steroid user.

Tough shit. Betting on your own team is pretty weak whether your a player or manager. And screw those on steroids too. Serves them right.

You reap what you sow!

Gooden and Belle, there's a pair of real swell guys. Let Pete in...let Pete in...

The man could play ball. Period.

as long as he bet on his team to win, what does it matter?

look at it this way... wrote:

as long as he bet on his team to win, what does it matter?

1st pete said he NEVER bet on baseball. Period.

then he admitted he bet on baseball, but he NEVER bet on any games the reds were playing in.

then he admitted he bet on games he was managing for the reds, but he NEVER bet against the reds.

there have been rumors he did bet against the reds, though he has not admitted that yet.

as far as not betting against the reds, you can bet an "over-under" in baseball games which involves betting on whether a team will score more or less runs than the line sets. if that were the case, depending on how he bet, he could have taken actions that would make it less likely the reds would score runs or that the other team would score more runs, if he was betting the "under" or "over." if he did so, technically, you could argue he did not bet "against" the reds, but would have taken actions to hurt the team.

the problem with betting by those involved in the sport is that it causes people to wonder if games are fixed. how many pro fights are fixed? i dont know, but i bet it happens much more often than people think. baseball, or any sport, does not want to have to worry that they will get the rep that pro boxing has.

based on his stats, no doubt he belongs in the hall, but getting in the hall is about more than stats. not b/c I say so, but b/c baseball says if you get banned for gambling you are not allowed in.

as far as what gets considered when deciding if someone belongs in the hall, i am not aware of any rule about this. in the end the voters seem to consider what they think is important. you can argue about whether the personal ethics outside of the sport should be considered and if so how much they should be taken into account, but actions that cast doubt on if the games are fixed trump his on field accomplishments.

as long as shoeless joe is banned, pete should be as well.

pete agreed to the ban. he knew it made him ineligible and he has lied for years about his gambling only coming a bit cleaner when he wanted to sell a book.

pete has no business in baseball. ever.

look at it this way... wrote:

as long as he bet on his team to win, what does it matter?

1st pete said he NEVER bet on baseball. Period.

then he admitted he bet on baseball, but he NEVER bet on any games the reds were playing in.

then he admitted he bet on games he was managing for the reds, but he NEVER bet against the reds.

there have been rumors he did bet against the reds, though he has not admitted that yet.

as far as not betting against the reds, you can bet an "over-under" in baseball games which involves betting on whether a team will score more or less runs than the line sets. if that were the case, depending on how he bet, he could have taken actions that would make it less likely the reds would score runs or that the other team would score more runs, if he was betting the "under" or "over." if he did so, technically, you could argue he did not bet "against" the reds, but would have taken actions to hurt the team.

the problem with betting by those involved in the sport is that it causes people to wonder if games are fixed. how many pro fights are fixed? i dont know, but i bet it happens much more often than people think. baseball, or any sport, does not want to have to worry that they will get the rep that pro boxing has.

based on his stats, no doubt he belongs in the hall, but getting in the hall is about more than stats. not b/c I say so, but b/c baseball says if you get banned for gambling you are not allowed in.

as far as what gets considered when deciding if someone belongs in the hall, i am not aware of any rule about this. in the end the voters seem to consider what they think is important. you can argue about whether the personal ethics outside of the sport should be considered and if so how much they should be taken into account, but actions that cast doubt on if the games are fixed trump his on field accomplishments.

as long as shoeless joe is banned, pete should be as well.

pete agreed to the ban. he knew it made him ineligible and he has lied for years about his gambling only coming a bit cleaner when he wanted to sell a book.

pete has no business in baseball. ever.

He belongs in the hall

look at it this way... wrote:

as long as he bet on his team to win, what does it matter?

Someone betting on a game should not be able to significantly influence the outcome. As a manager, he potentially could have taken drastic measures to win one particular game, to the detriment of future games.

For example, let's say he brought a starting pitcher out of the bullpen on 2 days rest to pitch in an extra inning game in the middle of the season to win a particular game on which he gambled. As a result of this move, the pitcher is unable to make his next two starts.

I remember reading that Rose treated people pretty badly before his legal trouble. I wouldn't be surprised if his treatment of people in the past is why they're not budging for him now. It just seems that they don't want him to get what he wants.

If that's the case, then actually good. If you unfairly treat people bad, then you get it back.

Tough doo doo. Pete Rose is a gambler. He made his own choices. Now his son is a doper. He made his own choices.

Just like Lance Armstrong who was forced to retire early due to doping. Armstrong will be nailed as science catched up.

Dopers and gamblers suck.

yah, only 7 tour wins. so sad to see a great career cut "short".

I heard he hates n*****s and that is why he wont be inducted to the hall of fame. Does anyone have anything to help back this up? I also heard he hates wetbacks.

no

sam w,

Agreed. I used to have the opinion of the first poster but have since changed my mind. Your point that it is not your opinion, but that of baseball's is an important one.