Should his history as the "hit king" get him into the hall of fame as a player?

(08-24-2009 08:13 PM)tigertiger Wrote:  Should his history as the "hit king" get him into the hall of fame as a player?

Yes, Pete Rose should be in the hall of fame becasue of his stats, and Mr. Hustle should be allowed in the hall of fame even with his gambling issues that has been set forward. But I do not think he gets in Cooperstown in the end because of him gambling on baseball, including the Reds while being a player slash manager.

Yes

No- he had his chance to come clean and he did not. He's a liar and THAT has pissed off the ones that can get him in. It will not happen. This is the "will it happen" version. The "should it happen" still says no and that is a shame.

I've never liked Pete. I saw him get thrown out trying to steal second once and he started a fight with the shortstop. However, as a player he was great and deserves to be in.

With that said if he bet on his team to lose while he was the manager he should be kept out.

(08-25-2009 09:02 AM)Hernando Wrote:  I've never liked Pete. I saw him get thrown out trying to steal second once and he started a fight with the shortstop. However, as a player he was great and deserves to be in.

With that said if he bet on his team to lose while he was the manager he should be kept out.

I never liked him either, but he deserves to be in.

No doubt. Not only was he the hit king, the guy was an iron man. From age 22 to age 42 (1963-1983), Rose played in 97% of his teams games. From '70-'82 he only missed 10 games.

He was a guy who never took a play off and and would play anwhere on the field. Rose made all-star teams as a second baseman, left fielder, right fielder, third baseman, and first baseman.

(08-25-2009 09:34 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  No doubt. Not only was he the hit king, the guy was an iron man. From age 22 to age 42 (1963-1983), Rose played in 97% of his teams games. From '70-'82 he only missed 10 games.

He was a guy who never took a play off and and would play anwhere on the field. Rose made all-star teams as a second baseman, left fielder, right fielder, third baseman, and first baseman.

I agree 100%, the guy never took a play off. At least in any of the games I ever saw. When you think of Rose, you think of a guy that would run through a wall or at least a catcher. If Bonds or Manny or A Rod get in using steroids, then a guy should not be denied for gambling. This is of course unless they can prove he bet against his team. Which I don't think they can or else there probably would not even be a discussion.

Heres my take: To not have the leader in the most coveted of all career offensive stats not in your hall of fame is a bigger loss to the MLB than it is to Pete Rose himself. He is the hit king. No one can show proof that he bet against the Reds while he was playing therefore none of his stats are tainted. As a manager? He cheated like a champion. Darryl Strawberry was snorting chalk lines before games and went to rehab 5 times for cocaine yet no one cares.

The MLB is cheating themselves out of a great honor and tarnishing the sport as a whole for something that happened after the fact. Let him in.

Probably, and tragically so, it will happen posthumously, as a testimony to MLB's 360° hypocrisy. Two generations of the old guard will have to die off. Pete may have been a jerk, but Ty Cobb surpassed his jerkhood. He may have gambled on MLB and broke the rule, but no one has proved he bet against his team. He may have offended a lot of fans and players, but he didn't coin the name 'Charlie Hustle' for nothing, he hit, hustled and won, and he wasn't pumped on 'roids. Put Pete in.

mlb, at one time: "pete, did you bet on baseball?"
rose: "no."
a year later: "pete, did you bet on baseball?"
rose: "no."
a year later: "did you bet on baseball?"
rose: "no."
a year later: "did you?"
rose: "no."
a year later: "did you?"
rose: "ah, what the hell...sure, i bet on baseball."
mlb: "AHA! ....i KNEW it!!! but you LIED! Down with Pete Rose!!!"

i have heard that he was more convincing saying that he did NOT bet on baseball than he was when he admitted to betting on it. i wonder sometimes if he thought if he admitted it then they would get off his case, but it backfired.

Pete Rose will always be my favorite player. And he should never get in the Hall.

Did he gamble on the Reds only to win? It appears so. Did his gambling cloud his judgment in how he managed the team? I appears so. Does it mean anything that Reds finished 2nd in the division 4 years in a row when he managed them, but won the Series the year after he left? Probably not, but who can say?

The league did what it had to do to protect the integrity of the game. And when you compare Mr. Giamatti's stance against Pete to Selig's handling of steroids, you realize that Mr. Giamatti did the game a huge favor.

It still makes me very sad.

(08-25-2009 02:48 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  Pete Rose will always be my favorite player. And he should never get in the Hall.

Did he gamble on the Reds only to win? It appears so. Did his gambling cloud his judgment in how he managed the team? I appears so. Does it mean anything that Reds finished 2nd in the division 4 years in a row when he managed them, but won the Series the year after he left? Probably not, but who can say?

Who knows how his gambling affected the outcomes of those games? The league did what it had to do to protect the integrity of the game. And when you compare Giamatti's stance against Pete to Selig's handling of steroids, you realize how right he was.

It still makes me very sad.

The only issue I have with this is that Pete Rose deserves to get in the HOF as a player. He did nothing to tarnish his stats as a player and he holds the most prestigious offensive awards there is. Was he a crooked manager? of course. But to me they are mutually exclusive. His stats arent tainted as a player and stats get you in the HOF.

(08-25-2009 02:52 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  

(08-25-2009 02:48 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  Pete Rose will always be my favorite player. And he should never get in the Hall.

Did he gamble on the Reds only to win? It appears so. Did his gambling cloud his judgment in how he managed the team? I appears so. Does it mean anything that Reds finished 2nd in the division 4 years in a row when he managed them, but won the Series the year after he left? Probably not, but who can say?

Who knows how his gambling affected the outcomes of those games? The league did what it had to do to protect the integrity of the game. And when you compare Giamatti's stance against Pete to Selig's handling of steroids, you realize how right he was.

It still makes me very sad.

The only issue I have with this is that Pete Rose deserves to get in the HOF as a player. He did nothing to tarnish his stats as a player and he holds the most prestigious offensive awards there is. Was he a crooked manager? of course. But to me they are mutually exclusive. His stats arent tainted as a player and stats get you in the HOF.

Yeah, I've thought about that, too. Maybe it's been long enough...

(08-25-2009 01:49 PM)Triple-T Wrote:  mlb, at one time: "pete, did you bet on baseball?"
rose: "no."
a year later: "pete, did you bet on baseball?"
rose: "no."
a year later: "did you bet on baseball?"
rose: "no."
a year later: "did you?"
rose: "no."
a year later: "did you?"
rose: "ah, what the hell...sure, i bet on baseball."
mlb: "AHA! ....i KNEW it!!! but you LIED! Down with Pete Rose!!!"

i have heard that he was more convincing saying that he did NOT bet on baseball than he was when he admitted to betting on it. i wonder sometimes if he thought if he admitted it then they would get off his case, but it backfired.

Har har. He was still one of the greats and I doubt he took the 'roids.