Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Should Pete Rose be in the Hall of Fame?

By Howard B. Owens
Tim Miller

No.

No.No.No.

He bet on baseball - a bad thing.
He bet on his team - a worse thing. Granted, he may not have bet *against* his team! but the betting could have caused him to make decisions detrimental to the team in the long run, such asleaving a pitcher in too long.
He lied about his actions, repeatedly, rather than owning up to them. That was his right, but it was detrimental to baseball.
He finally 'fessed up only when he had a book to sell. Said book can now be found in bargain bins next to "If I Did It"

The rules for the MLB HoF are clear in that one had to be a good representative for baseball, on and off the field. Being one of the premier players of his time, and one of the best hitters of all time, was a darn good start to being that good representative. The betting shot that to hell.

Aug 2, 2014, 8:50am Permalink
Frank Bartholomew

Tim, there are already worse in the hof.Drunks, womanizers, he isn't recognized for his managerial prowess, but for the way he loved and played the game, one of the best players ever. As of 11am over 800 people agree.
Baseball has no integrity anymore, steroids anyone?
Outside of Derek Jeter, I have never seen a player play the game at the same level of intensity as Pete Rose, aka, Charlie Hustle.

Aug 2, 2014, 11:19am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Being a drunk or a womanizer is not worse than betting on baseball while a player or manager.

No off-the-field conduct, no matter how reprehensible in society at large, is worse than an offense that cheats the game itself.

Before the steroid era, betting on baseball was the worse offense a player or manager could commit. If Shoeless Joe Jackson is banned, so to should Pete Rose be banned (and Jackson probably wasn't even part of the betting ring, just had knowledge of it).

Aug 2, 2014, 12:52pm Permalink
Peter O'Brien

If he hadn't bet on his team, I would say yes. I have no problem with someone betting on themselves in an individual game like golf. But to bet on your team while you have direct influence in the outcome is wrong.

I like Pete Rose and will always respect his play, but he doesn't belong in the hall. He should not be banned from baseball for life though. Just banned from HOF ballots

Aug 2, 2014, 1:49pm Permalink
matt riggi

As a player, what he did and what he accomplished, there's no denying he's a hall of famer. You can never take away his ability as a player. He holds more major league records than anyone in the history of baseball. As for the argument of whether a panel of sports writers should allow him to be enshrined, or whether the league should allow him the chance to be enshrined...who cares!? Honestly, who cares? That will never take away from what he did on the field.

The media and all of its loyal followers will always know Pete Rose as a disgrace to the game. One who gambled on his own team and destroyed the trust of all of the fans. People will sit atop their ivory towers and pass judgment on a man as if they're the epitome of an outstanding citizen and human being.

As a player, Pete Rose was incredibly skilled, was a fierce competitor, and was known for his strong work ethic. I'd take that guy over 75% of the players in professional sports today. Sorry, but not getting the hall of fame nod doesn't discount anything he did on the field. He gambled, which, by major league rule, would disqualify him from the hall. Whether or not he should be reinstated is a matter of opinion. An argument that gets everyone nowhere. None of that takes away his accomplishments.

Aug 2, 2014, 2:57pm Permalink
Tim Miller

I've watched, and will watch again, videos of Rose on the field ... My gosh that sumbitch could hit, and every single Little Leaguer should watch those videos to see how much he CARED to push himself beyond the limits on normal people to make a play. That moniker of "Charlie Hustle" was earned many times over.

But he bet. And he lied. And the rules for the MLB HoF state you CANNOT do those things.

I love Pete Rose the baseball player. Not so Pete arose the person - and the rules for induction are abased not only on the on-field play, but off-field actions.

FWIW - based on the rules for induction into the NFL HoF, Rose would be a HOF member today, and that is fine.

Aug 2, 2014, 4:25pm Permalink
Tim Miller

Re: drunk/womanizer vs bettor...

Drunks/womanizers at worst hurt themselves and their loved ones, while a bettor brings to question the legitimacy of the contest.

Yeah, drunks/womanizers are not the greatest ambassadors for baseball (and, quite frankly, guys who cheat on their loved ones lose brownie points as individuals in my book), but that pales (per the rules for induction) when compared to folks who bet on their team (win or loss, doesn't matter).

Aug 2, 2014, 4:38pm Permalink

Authentically Local