Pete Rose Formally Petitions MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred for Reinstatement

[Pogo]

Can't agree on this one Jake. Pete Rose was one of the best players to ever put on a uniform and his attitude alone served as immeasurable inspiration to arguably millions.

The whole denial of the HoF is complete political posturing and has nothing to do with his accomplishments, which are sitting right there in the record books whether anybody likes who set them or not. If they want to pretend the HoF is some kind of moral award, they'll need to kick out a bunch of others already in there - like Ty Cobb.

But that's not what HoF status is, and it's completely disingenuous to pretend it is.

False. Pete Rose should never be inducted into the HoF. He knowingly, repeatedly committed baseball's Cardinal Sin.

At the entrance of every MLB clubhouse is a big sign that warns against gambling, and the consequences. He chose to ignore it and flaunt it. He thought he was bigger than the sport.

Comparisons to Ty Cobb are irrelevant. Ty Cobb was an awful person, and a proud bigot. But he didn't gamble on baseball. Besides that, he played the majority of his career before the Black Sox Scandal that made gambling the one thing that would get you banned from baseball.

Rose has continued to stick his thumb in baseball's eye over the years. Every Cooperstown induction, he sets up a little stand down the street to sell signed baseballs. He has been asked every year to stop yet refuses. He truly is scum.

Not being in the HoF does nothing to diminish his remarkable achievements on the field. He has not been struck from any record books, or had any hits taken away. He was a great ballplayer, and everyone acknowledges that. But the HoF is for players who played the game with integrity, as well as talent. Peter Edward Rose does not qualify.

Pete Rose has an ego as big as Texas, no argument there. That's part of what gave him his drive. Maybe most of it.

But that's irrelevant to the Hall and acknowledgement of his records. Or as Leo Durocher put it, "'nice guys' finish last". Or as Rose expressed the same thing about his infamous collision with Ray Fosse: "I play to win. Period".

Hey, put him in the Hall and have those flaws and transgressions listed prominently on a plaque, in the same font as his records. Fine. But let's not pretend he didn't do all that on the basis that he also did something else.

 

[Papageorgio]

As usual, your logic is screwy. You are leading with your heart, and I fully understand that. But you are guilty of present-ism: trying to impose our standards back then. Won't work.

I am trying to apply today's standards to the 1980s in that today's standards allow proven steroid cheaters to play while Rose never cheated

That we know of.

Umm.... everything is "that we know of". Mother Theresa didn't deal heroin.... "that we know of".

MLB never disclosed whether he bet or made managerial decisions based on his bets, which would be difficult to prove, however like the Black Sox he bet on baseball.

I don't understand why you keep going to this "never disclosed" well. It's right here. This strawman will not stand. We already did this and you're still trying to prop him up. Learn to Google.

And no, it's not "like the Black Sox" -- the BS weren't betting; they were throwing, for bettors.

The rules are clear and distinct. You gamble, you are banned, permanently. Rose knew the rules, he gambled with his career and lost.

That's true. So keep him out of MLB in accordance with those rules, I'm good with that. That's why I included that line in the poll. It's how I voted.

But the Hall of Fame is a different animal. A Hall of Fame (any HoF) is supposed to be a showcase of the most extraordinary who ever indulged in that activity, and Pete Rose absolutely meets that criterion as well as anyone ever has. If you exclude him from that listing, then you don't have a Hall fo Fame; you have a sham. Then again that may be what you want.

Again, it comes down to this: involvement with Major League Baseball (Inc.) and inclusion in the Hall of Fame .... are two entirely different and unrelated concepts. One does not preclude the other. That is, again, assuming your "Hall of Fame" is that, and not a sham.

Steroid use is irrelevant, we are talking gambling. Rose no matter how great a player he was, he gambled, he knew the rules and he thought he was above the rules and bigger than baseball.

If you want to make a case that those that used steroids should not be allowed in the HOF, that is an entirely different topic.

Roger Maris got an asterisk by his season home run record on the basis that he had more games to make 61 than Ruth had to make 60. That's a legitimate qualification. How many extra HRs did Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa or A-Roid hit that they could not have hit without juice? Nobody can quantify that of course but it's a safe bet (pardon the pun) that somewhere in all of that the outcomes of some games were affected.

Rose, by contrast, only affected the outcomes of games with his competitiveness and burning desire -- which is what the Game is supposed to be about.

Here again we're comparing apples to apples -- performance on the field in both cases. When you start claiming he didn't actually do what he did on the field (even though it's a matter of record) because he did this other thing off the field, you have left the launchpad of rationality. The records already exist. There's no way around that.

Nope, sorry, it's not. Rose bet on the game, he violated a hard and fast rule. He bet during his career, he bet as a player and a manager. Again, baseball's number one rule. DON'T BET ON THE GAME. You do and you are banned.

Rose's stats remain in the MLB record book.

Steroids had a gray period, and they now suspend and test for violations.
The rules are the rules.

 

[Pogo]

I am trying to apply today's standards to the 1980s in that today's standards allow proven steroid cheaters to play while Rose never cheated

That we know of.

Umm.... everything is "that we know of". Mother Theresa didn't deal heroin.... "that we know of".

MLB never disclosed whether he bet or made managerial decisions based on his bets, which would be difficult to prove, however like the Black Sox he bet on baseball.

I don't understand why you keep going to this "never disclosed" well. It's right here. This strawman will not stand. We already did this and you're still trying to prop him up. Learn to Google.

And no, it's not "like the Black Sox" -- the BS weren't betting; they were throwing, for bettors.

The rules are clear and distinct. You gamble, you are banned, permanently. Rose knew the rules, he gambled with his career and lost.

That's true. So keep him out of MLB in accordance with those rules, I'm good with that. That's why I included that line in the poll. It's how I voted.

But the Hall of Fame is a different animal. A Hall of Fame (any HoF) is supposed to be a showcase of the most extraordinary who ever indulged in that activity, and Pete Rose absolutely meets that criterion as well as anyone ever has. If you exclude him from that listing, then you don't have a Hall fo Fame; you have a sham. Then again that may be what you want.

Again, it comes down to this: involvement with Major League Baseball (Inc.) and inclusion in the Hall of Fame .... are two entirely different and unrelated concepts. One does not preclude the other. That is, again, assuming your "Hall of Fame" is that, and not a sham.

Steroid use is irrelevant, we are talking gambling. Rose no matter how great a player he was, he gambled, he knew the rules and he thought he was above the rules and bigger than baseball.

If you want to make a case that those that used steroids should not be allowed in the HOF, that is an entirely different topic.

Roger Maris got an asterisk by his season home run record on the basis that he had more games to make 61 than Ruth had to make 60. That's a legitimate qualification. How many extra HRs did Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa or A-Roid hit that they could not have hit without juice? Nobody can quantify that of course but it's a safe bet (pardon the pun) that somewhere in all of that the outcomes of some games were affected.

Rose, by contrast, only affected the outcomes of games with his competitiveness and burning desire -- which is what the Game is supposed to be about.

Here again we're comparing apples to apples -- performance on the field in both cases. When you start claiming he didn't actually do what he did on the field (even though it's a matter of record) because he did this other thing off the field, you have left the launchpad of rationality. The records already exist. There's no way around that.

Nope, sorry, it's not. Rose bet on the game, he violated a hard and fast rule. He bet during his career, he bet as a player and a manager. Again, baseball's number one rule. DON'T BET ON THE GAME. You do and you are banned.

Rose's stats remain in the MLB record book.

Steroids had a gray period, and they now suspend and test for violations.
The rules are the rules.

And once again you're deflecting to rules of the organization, as opposed to actually affecting the outcome of the game.
Apples to oranges.

That's exactly why the poll includes the choice:
Keep him banned from baseball involvement but let him in the Hall; his performance speaks for itself
-- it condemns the one while acknowledging the other. Covers both issues. That should satisfy everybody.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Can't agree on this one Jake. Pete Rose was one of the best players to ever put on a uniform and his attitude alone served as immeasurable inspiration to arguably millions.

The whole denial of the HoF is complete political posturing and has nothing to do with his accomplishments, which are sitting right there in the record books whether anybody likes who set them or not. If they want to pretend the HoF is some kind of moral award, they'll need to kick out a bunch of others already in there - like Ty Cobb.

But that's not what HoF status is, and it's completely disingenuous to pretend it is.

False. Pete Rose should never be inducted into the HoF. He knowingly, repeatedly committed baseball's Cardinal Sin.

At the entrance of every MLB clubhouse is a big sign that warns against gambling, and the consequences. He chose to ignore it and flaunt it. He thought he was bigger than the sport.

Comparisons to Ty Cobb are irrelevant. Ty Cobb was an awful person, and a proud bigot. But he didn't gamble on baseball. Besides that, he played the majority of his career before the Black Sox Scandal that made gambling the one thing that would get you banned from baseball.

Rose has continued to stick his thumb in baseball's eye over the years. Every Cooperstown induction, he sets up a little stand down the street to sell signed baseballs. He has been asked every year to stop yet refuses. He truly is scum.

Not being in the HoF does nothing to diminish his remarkable achievements on the field. He has not been struck from any record books, or had any hits taken away. He was a great ballplayer, and everyone acknowledges that. But the HoF is for players who played the game with integrity, as well as talent. Peter Edward Rose does not qualify.

Pete Rose has an ego as big as Texas, no argument there. That's part of what gave him his drive. Maybe most of it.

But that's irrelevant to the Hall and acknowledgement of his records. Or as Leo Durocher put it, "'nice guys' finish last". Or as Rose expressed the same thing about his infamous collision with Ray Fosse: "I play to win. Period".

Hey, put him in the Hall and have those flaws and transgressions listed prominently on a plaque, in the same font as his records. Fine. But let's not pretend he didn't do all that on the basis that he also did something else.

Lets also not pretend there are others such as Cobb who dont belong in there as well if Rose doesnt.

also that is false,steroids were long banned by that time when Soso,Mcguire and Bonds were using them.If they werent,then there never would have been any trial hearings on it like their were.

 

[Papageorgio]

That we know of.

Umm.... everything is "that we know of". Mother Theresa didn't deal heroin.... "that we know of".

MLB never disclosed whether he bet or made managerial decisions based on his bets, which would be difficult to prove, however like the Black Sox he bet on baseball.

I don't understand why you keep going to this "never disclosed" well. It's right here. This strawman will not stand. We already did this and you're still trying to prop him up. Learn to Google.

And no, it's not "like the Black Sox" -- the BS weren't betting; they were throwing, for bettors.

The rules are clear and distinct. You gamble, you are banned, permanently. Rose knew the rules, he gambled with his career and lost.

That's true. So keep him out of MLB in accordance with those rules, I'm good with that. That's why I included that line in the poll. It's how I voted.

But the Hall of Fame is a different animal. A Hall of Fame (any HoF) is supposed to be a showcase of the most extraordinary who ever indulged in that activity, and Pete Rose absolutely meets that criterion as well as anyone ever has. If you exclude him from that listing, then you don't have a Hall fo Fame; you have a sham. Then again that may be what you want.

Again, it comes down to this: involvement with Major League Baseball (Inc.) and inclusion in the Hall of Fame .... are two entirely different and unrelated concepts. One does not preclude the other. That is, again, assuming your "Hall of Fame" is that, and not a sham.

Steroid use is irrelevant, we are talking gambling. Rose no matter how great a player he was, he gambled, he knew the rules and he thought he was above the rules and bigger than baseball.

If you want to make a case that those that used steroids should not be allowed in the HOF, that is an entirely different topic.

Roger Maris got an asterisk by his season home run record on the basis that he had more games to make 61 than Ruth had to make 60. That's a legitimate qualification. How many extra HRs did Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa or A-Roid hit that they could not have hit without juice? Nobody can quantify that of course but it's a safe bet (pardon the pun) that somewhere in all of that the outcomes of some games were affected.

Rose, by contrast, only affected the outcomes of games with his competitiveness and burning desire -- which is what the Game is supposed to be about.

Here again we're comparing apples to apples -- performance on the field in both cases. When you start claiming he didn't actually do what he did on the field (even though it's a matter of record) because he did this other thing off the field, you have left the launchpad of rationality. The records already exist. There's no way around that.

Nope, sorry, it's not. Rose bet on the game, he violated a hard and fast rule. He bet during his career, he bet as a player and a manager. Again, baseball's number one rule. DON'T BET ON THE GAME. You do and you are banned.

Rose's stats remain in the MLB record book.

Steroids had a gray period, and they now suspend and test for violations.
The rules are the rules.

And once again you're deflecting to rules of the organization, as opposed to actually affecting the outcome of the game.
Apples to oranges.

That's exactly why the poll includes the choice:
Keep him banned from baseball involvement but let him in the Hall; his performance speaks for itself
-- it condemns the one while acknowledging the other. Covers both issues. That should satisfy everybody.

I don't care about a poll, why should I?

You have said nothing to reverse my opinion. Rose, nor should steroid users ever be in the HOF.

 

[Pogo]

Umm.... everything is "that we know of". Mother Theresa didn't deal heroin.... "that we know of".

MLB never disclosed whether he bet or made managerial decisions based on his bets, which would be difficult to prove, however like the Black Sox he bet on baseball.

I don't understand why you keep going to this "never disclosed" well. It's right here. This strawman will not stand. We already did this and you're still trying to prop him up. Learn to Google.

And no, it's not "like the Black Sox" -- the BS weren't betting; they were throwing, for bettors.

The rules are clear and distinct. You gamble, you are banned, permanently. Rose knew the rules, he gambled with his career and lost.

That's true. So keep him out of MLB in accordance with those rules, I'm good with that. That's why I included that line in the poll. It's how I voted.

But the Hall of Fame is a different animal. A Hall of Fame (any HoF) is supposed to be a showcase of the most extraordinary who ever indulged in that activity, and Pete Rose absolutely meets that criterion as well as anyone ever has. If you exclude him from that listing, then you don't have a Hall fo Fame; you have a sham. Then again that may be what you want.

Again, it comes down to this: involvement with Major League Baseball (Inc.) and inclusion in the Hall of Fame .... are two entirely different and unrelated concepts. One does not preclude the other. That is, again, assuming your "Hall of Fame" is that, and not a sham.

Steroid use is irrelevant, we are talking gambling. Rose no matter how great a player he was, he gambled, he knew the rules and he thought he was above the rules and bigger than baseball.

If you want to make a case that those that used steroids should not be allowed in the HOF, that is an entirely different topic.

Roger Maris got an asterisk by his season home run record on the basis that he had more games to make 61 than Ruth had to make 60. That's a legitimate qualification. How many extra HRs did Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa or A-Roid hit that they could not have hit without juice? Nobody can quantify that of course but it's a safe bet (pardon the pun) that somewhere in all of that the outcomes of some games were affected.

Rose, by contrast, only affected the outcomes of games with his competitiveness and burning desire -- which is what the Game is supposed to be about.

Here again we're comparing apples to apples -- performance on the field in both cases. When you start claiming he didn't actually do what he did on the field (even though it's a matter of record) because he did this other thing off the field, you have left the launchpad of rationality. The records already exist. There's no way around that.

Nope, sorry, it's not. Rose bet on the game, he violated a hard and fast rule. He bet during his career, he bet as a player and a manager. Again, baseball's number one rule. DON'T BET ON THE GAME. You do and you are banned.

Rose's stats remain in the MLB record book.

Steroids had a gray period, and they now suspend and test for violations.
The rules are the rules.

And once again you're deflecting to rules of the organization, as opposed to actually affecting the outcome of the game.
Apples to oranges.

That's exactly why the poll includes the choice:
Keep him banned from baseball involvement but let him in the Hall; his performance speaks for itself
-- it condemns the one while acknowledging the other. Covers both issues. That should satisfy everybody.

I don't care about a poll, why should I?

You have said nothing to reverse my opinion. Rose, nor should steroid users ever be in the HOF.

Then you're still dealing apples and oranges.
To wit: out of steroid users and Pete Rose, only the former cheated to affect the outcome of the game. Or for that matter, their own stats.

Don't use the poll if you don't want, I don't care. The point of that poll entry is acknowledging that what one does on the field physically, and what rules of an organization one breaks, are two entirely separate things. You can try to conflate them all day but a square peg is not going to fit in a round hole.

 

[Papageorgio]

MLB never disclosed whether he bet or made managerial decisions based on his bets, which would be difficult to prove, however like the Black Sox he bet on baseball.

I don't understand why you keep going to this "never disclosed" well. It's right here. This strawman will not stand. We already did this and you're still trying to prop him up. Learn to Google.

And no, it's not "like the Black Sox" -- the BS weren't betting; they were throwing, for bettors.

The rules are clear and distinct. You gamble, you are banned, permanently. Rose knew the rules, he gambled with his career and lost.

That's true. So keep him out of MLB in accordance with those rules, I'm good with that. That's why I included that line in the poll. It's how I voted.

But the Hall of Fame is a different animal. A Hall of Fame (any HoF) is supposed to be a showcase of the most extraordinary who ever indulged in that activity, and Pete Rose absolutely meets that criterion as well as anyone ever has. If you exclude him from that listing, then you don't have a Hall fo Fame; you have a sham. Then again that may be what you want.

Again, it comes down to this: involvement with Major League Baseball (Inc.) and inclusion in the Hall of Fame .... are two entirely different and unrelated concepts. One does not preclude the other. That is, again, assuming your "Hall of Fame" is that, and not a sham.

Steroid use is irrelevant, we are talking gambling. Rose no matter how great a player he was, he gambled, he knew the rules and he thought he was above the rules and bigger than baseball.

If you want to make a case that those that used steroids should not be allowed in the HOF, that is an entirely different topic.

Roger Maris got an asterisk by his season home run record on the basis that he had more games to make 61 than Ruth had to make 60. That's a legitimate qualification. How many extra HRs did Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa or A-Roid hit that they could not have hit without juice? Nobody can quantify that of course but it's a safe bet (pardon the pun) that somewhere in all of that the outcomes of some games were affected.

Rose, by contrast, only affected the outcomes of games with his competitiveness and burning desire -- which is what the Game is supposed to be about.

Here again we're comparing apples to apples -- performance on the field in both cases. When you start claiming he didn't actually do what he did on the field (even though it's a matter of record) because he did this other thing off the field, you have left the launchpad of rationality. The records already exist. There's no way around that.

Nope, sorry, it's not. Rose bet on the game, he violated a hard and fast rule. He bet during his career, he bet as a player and a manager. Again, baseball's number one rule. DON'T BET ON THE GAME. You do and you are banned.

Rose's stats remain in the MLB record book.

Steroids had a gray period, and they now suspend and test for violations.
The rules are the rules.

And once again you're deflecting to rules of the organization, as opposed to actually affecting the outcome of the game.
Apples to oranges.

That's exactly why the poll includes the choice:
Keep him banned from baseball involvement but let him in the Hall; his performance speaks for itself
-- it condemns the one while acknowledging the other. Covers both issues. That should satisfy everybody.

I don't care about a poll, why should I?

You have said nothing to reverse my opinion. Rose, nor should steroid users ever be in the HOF.

Then you're still dealing apples and oranges.
To wit: out of steroid users and Pete Rose, only the former cheated to affect the outcome of the game. Or for that matter, their own stats.

Again, the rules are the rules, Rose knew the rules, he willfully gamble on baseball. He like Shoeless Joe, can't be let into the HOF, if leaves the door open to others to gamble without the fear of a penalty. They shamed the game.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't understand why you keep going to this "never disclosed" well. It's right here. This strawman will not stand. We already did this and you're still trying to prop him up. Learn to Google.

And no, it's not "like the Black Sox" -- the BS weren't betting; they were throwing, for bettors.

That's true. So keep him out of MLB in accordance with those rules, I'm good with that. That's why I included that line in the poll. It's how I voted.

But the Hall of Fame is a different animal. A Hall of Fame (any HoF) is supposed to be a showcase of the most extraordinary who ever indulged in that activity, and Pete Rose absolutely meets that criterion as well as anyone ever has. If you exclude him from that listing, then you don't have a Hall fo Fame; you have a sham. Then again that may be what you want.

Again, it comes down to this: involvement with Major League Baseball (Inc.) and inclusion in the Hall of Fame .... are two entirely different and unrelated concepts. One does not preclude the other. That is, again, assuming your "Hall of Fame" is that, and not a sham.

Roger Maris got an asterisk by his season home run record on the basis that he had more games to make 61 than Ruth had to make 60. That's a legitimate qualification. How many extra HRs did Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa or A-Roid hit that they could not have hit without juice? Nobody can quantify that of course but it's a safe bet (pardon the pun) that somewhere in all of that the outcomes of some games were affected.

Rose, by contrast, only affected the outcomes of games with his competitiveness and burning desire -- which is what the Game is supposed to be about.

Here again we're comparing apples to apples -- performance on the field in both cases. When you start claiming he didn't actually do what he did on the field (even though it's a matter of record) because he did this other thing off the field, you have left the launchpad of rationality. The records already exist. There's no way around that.

Nope, sorry, it's not. Rose bet on the game, he violated a hard and fast rule. He bet during his career, he bet as a player and a manager. Again, baseball's number one rule. DON'T BET ON THE GAME. You do and you are banned.

Rose's stats remain in the MLB record book.

Steroids had a gray period, and they now suspend and test for violations.
The rules are the rules.

And once again you're deflecting to rules of the organization, as opposed to actually affecting the outcome of the game.
Apples to oranges.

That's exactly why the poll includes the choice:
Keep him banned from baseball involvement but let him in the Hall; his performance speaks for itself
-- it condemns the one while acknowledging the other. Covers both issues. That should satisfy everybody.

I don't care about a poll, why should I?

You have said nothing to reverse my opinion. Rose, nor should steroid users ever be in the HOF.

Then you're still dealing apples and oranges.
To wit: out of steroid users and Pete Rose, only the former cheated to affect the outcome of the game. Or for that matter, their own stats.

Again, the rules are the rules, Rose knew the rules, he willfully gamble on baseball. He like Shoeless Joe, can't be let into the HOF, if leaves the door open to others to gamble without the fear of a penalty. They shamed the game.

And that is the problem with the one size fits all rules on gambling

Shoeless Joe did not gamble. He accepted what amounted to a years pay to throw the World Series. He altered his performance in those games to lose them

Pete Rose spent pocket money placing bets on games. He earned the money at weekend card signings where he was paid in cash. He never threw a game to affect his winnings, Pete gambled for fun

Yet both offenses are treated the same by baseball.

 

[Papageorgio]

Nope, sorry, it's not. Rose bet on the game, he violated a hard and fast rule. He bet during his career, he bet as a player and a manager. Again, baseball's number one rule. DON'T BET ON THE GAME. You do and you are banned.

Rose's stats remain in the MLB record book.

Steroids had a gray period, and they now suspend and test for violations.
The rules are the rules.

And once again you're deflecting to rules of the organization, as opposed to actually affecting the outcome of the game.
Apples to oranges.

That's exactly why the poll includes the choice:
Keep him banned from baseball involvement but let him in the Hall; his performance speaks for itself
-- it condemns the one while acknowledging the other. Covers both issues. That should satisfy everybody.

I don't care about a poll, why should I?

You have said nothing to reverse my opinion. Rose, nor should steroid users ever be in the HOF.

Then you're still dealing apples and oranges.
To wit: out of steroid users and Pete Rose, only the former cheated to affect the outcome of the game. Or for that matter, their own stats.

Again, the rules are the rules, Rose knew the rules, he willfully gamble on baseball. He like Shoeless Joe, can't be let into the HOF, if leaves the door open to others to gamble without the fear of a penalty. They shamed the game.

And that is the problem with the one size fits all rules on gambling

Shoeless Joe did not gamble. He accepted what amounted to a years pay to throw the World Series. He altered his performance in those games to lose them

Pete Rose spent pocket money placing bets on games. He earned the money at weekend card signings where he was paid in cash. He never threw a game to affect his winnings, Pete gambled for fun

Yet both offenses are treated the same by baseball.

$67,000 a month in bets, card shows at that time were typically $3000-$5000 and owing a bookie over $200,000 is not pocket money. He was a hardcore gambler.

Plus MLB and Rose signed an agreement, not to disclose a lot of what MLB knew.

 

[Pogo]

I don't understand why you keep going to this "never disclosed" well. It's right here. This strawman will not stand. We already did this and you're still trying to prop him up. Learn to Google.

And no, it's not "like the Black Sox" -- the BS weren't betting; they were throwing, for bettors.

That's true. So keep him out of MLB in accordance with those rules, I'm good with that. That's why I included that line in the poll. It's how I voted.

But the Hall of Fame is a different animal. A Hall of Fame (any HoF) is supposed to be a showcase of the most extraordinary who ever indulged in that activity, and Pete Rose absolutely meets that criterion as well as anyone ever has. If you exclude him from that listing, then you don't have a Hall fo Fame; you have a sham. Then again that may be what you want.

Again, it comes down to this: involvement with Major League Baseball (Inc.) and inclusion in the Hall of Fame .... are two entirely different and unrelated concepts. One does not preclude the other. That is, again, assuming your "Hall of Fame" is that, and not a sham.

Roger Maris got an asterisk by his season home run record on the basis that he had more games to make 61 than Ruth had to make 60. That's a legitimate qualification. How many extra HRs did Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa or A-Roid hit that they could not have hit without juice? Nobody can quantify that of course but it's a safe bet (pardon the pun) that somewhere in all of that the outcomes of some games were affected.

Rose, by contrast, only affected the outcomes of games with his competitiveness and burning desire -- which is what the Game is supposed to be about.

Here again we're comparing apples to apples -- performance on the field in both cases. When you start claiming he didn't actually do what he did on the field (even though it's a matter of record) because he did this other thing off the field, you have left the launchpad of rationality. The records already exist. There's no way around that.

Nope, sorry, it's not. Rose bet on the game, he violated a hard and fast rule. He bet during his career, he bet as a player and a manager. Again, baseball's number one rule. DON'T BET ON THE GAME. You do and you are banned.

Rose's stats remain in the MLB record book.

Steroids had a gray period, and they now suspend and test for violations.
The rules are the rules.

And once again you're deflecting to rules of the organization, as opposed to actually affecting the outcome of the game.
Apples to oranges.

That's exactly why the poll includes the choice:
Keep him banned from baseball involvement but let him in the Hall; his performance speaks for itself
-- it condemns the one while acknowledging the other. Covers both issues. That should satisfy everybody.

I don't care about a poll, why should I?

You have said nothing to reverse my opinion. Rose, nor should steroid users ever be in the HOF.

Then you're still dealing apples and oranges.
To wit: out of steroid users and Pete Rose, only the former cheated to affect the outcome of the game. Or for that matter, their own stats.

Again, the rules are the rules, Rose knew the rules, he willfully gamble on baseball. He like Shoeless Joe, can't be let into the HOF, if leaves the door open to others to gamble without the fear of a penalty. They shamed the game.

Yes, the rules are the rules.
What the rules are not is the performance.

You seem unable to separate the two.

 

[Papageorgio]

Nope, sorry, it's not. Rose bet on the game, he violated a hard and fast rule. He bet during his career, he bet as a player and a manager. Again, baseball's number one rule. DON'T BET ON THE GAME. You do and you are banned.

Rose's stats remain in the MLB record book.

Steroids had a gray period, and they now suspend and test for violations.
The rules are the rules.

And once again you're deflecting to rules of the organization, as opposed to actually affecting the outcome of the game.
Apples to oranges.

That's exactly why the poll includes the choice:
Keep him banned from baseball involvement but let him in the Hall; his performance speaks for itself
-- it condemns the one while acknowledging the other. Covers both issues. That should satisfy everybody.

I don't care about a poll, why should I?

You have said nothing to reverse my opinion. Rose, nor should steroid users ever be in the HOF.

Then you're still dealing apples and oranges.
To wit: out of steroid users and Pete Rose, only the former cheated to affect the outcome of the game. Or for that matter, their own stats.

Again, the rules are the rules, Rose knew the rules, he willfully gamble on baseball. He like Shoeless Joe, can't be let into the HOF, if leaves the door open to others to gamble without the fear of a penalty. They shamed the game.

Yes, the rules are the rules.
What the rules are not is the performance.

You seem unable to separate the two.

He signed an agreement in 1989. He needs to honor his agreement.

 

[Pogo]

And once again you're deflecting to rules of the organization, as opposed to actually affecting the outcome of the game.
Apples to oranges.

That's exactly why the poll includes the choice:
Keep him banned from baseball involvement but let him in the Hall; his performance speaks for itself
-- it condemns the one while acknowledging the other. Covers both issues. That should satisfy everybody.

I don't care about a poll, why should I?

You have said nothing to reverse my opinion. Rose, nor should steroid users ever be in the HOF.

Then you're still dealing apples and oranges.
To wit: out of steroid users and Pete Rose, only the former cheated to affect the outcome of the game. Or for that matter, their own stats.

Again, the rules are the rules, Rose knew the rules, he willfully gamble on baseball. He like Shoeless Joe, can't be let into the HOF, if leaves the door open to others to gamble without the fear of a penalty. They shamed the game.

Yes, the rules are the rules.
What the rules are not is the performance.

You seem unable to separate the two.

He signed an agreement in 1989. He needs to honor his agreement.

He has been.
There's nothing in that agreement that says he can't petition.

 

[Papageorgio]

I don't care about a poll, why should I?

You have said nothing to reverse my opinion. Rose, nor should steroid users ever be in the HOF.

Then you're still dealing apples and oranges.
To wit: out of steroid users and Pete Rose, only the former cheated to affect the outcome of the game. Or for that matter, their own stats.

Again, the rules are the rules, Rose knew the rules, he willfully gamble on baseball. He like Shoeless Joe, can't be let into the HOF, if leaves the door open to others to gamble without the fear of a penalty. They shamed the game.

Yes, the rules are the rules.
What the rules are not is the performance.

You seem unable to separate the two.

He signed an agreement in 1989. He needs to honor his agreement.

He has been.
There's nothing in that agreement that says he can't petition.

Yep, correct.

 

[Synthaholic]

The biggest problem I have with MLB not reinstating rose is that it's all but documented fact that they looked the other way when players were juicing, because it helped the sport itself recover from the negative consequences of the strike and revived its popularity.. Ultimately making it more MONEY.

But rose is forever branded with a scarlet A.

It's kind of ridiculous.

Owners and the league made record profits off of bogus home runs. And they condemn Rose for "cheating"

Steroids were not illegal or against baseball's rules at the time of Sosa/Mcgwire/Bonds. Gambling was the ONE rule that everyone knew you could not violate.

They are still illegal and we still have players like Ryan Braun winning MVPs using them and being welcomed back with huge contracts

10 years later a look at every MLB player suspended for PEDs MLB Sporting News

Pete Rose broke the rules and was punished. It is time to reevaluate whether his crime was heinous enough to warrant a lifetime ban

They were not illegal or against MLB rules when Sosa/Mcgwire/Bonds were hitting all those home runs. Ryan Braun was caught and punished. Should he ever put up career HoF numbers, the sportswriters will have to determine if his steroid use makes him ineligible for induction. But it has nothing to do with Rose, who repeatedly gambled even after being warned by teammates and those close to him. If he had come clean years ago - he had this gambling problem all the way back to his early days - and sought help, perhaps things would have been different, but he has lied about it all of his life.

 

[Synthaholic]

Pete Rose was banned because his gambling "might" lead to cheating.

False. Pete Rose was banned because he broke the #1 rule in baseball. Repeatedly.

The reason we have Rule #1 is because it "may" lead to cheating

Those doing PEDs DID CHEAT.....they won games they should have lost, they won awards they shouldn't have won, broke records they shouldn't have broken and received contracts they didn't earn

That level of cheating vastly exceeds what Pete Rose was accused of

And all of them have been denied entry into the Hall. As it should be.

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Pogo]

Pete Rose was banned because his gambling "might" lead to cheating.

False. Pete Rose was banned because he broke the #1 rule in baseball. Repeatedly.

The reason we have Rule #1 is because it "may" lead to cheating

Those doing PEDs DID CHEAT.....they won games they should have lost, they won awards they shouldn't have won, broke records they shouldn't have broken and received contracts they didn't earn

That level of cheating vastly exceeds what Pete Rose was accused of

And all of them have been denied entry into the Hall. As it should be.

Agreed -- and the cheating they were doing arguably affected the outcome of at least some of the games they played in.
The same cannot be said of Pete Rose.

Hell I remember Derek Cheater acknowledging being hit by a pitch to get on base. Think he'll be kept out of the Hall?

 

[Synthaholic]

How many extra HRs did Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa or A-Roid hit that they could not have hit without juice?

Unknowable, although Mcgwire was a legit home run threat before taking steroids, so even more shame on him.

Bonds is the sad case. He was a lock for the HoF without any of those steroid-fueled homers. He hit an average amount, and was a legitimate 4 tool player (he had no arm). He was also the best defensive Left Fielder in history. It was only his massive ego that made him decide to juice, and now he's paying for it. He will enjoy Rose's fate, and that makes me very happy.

 

[Synthaholic]

Can't agree on this one Jake. Pete Rose was one of the best players to ever put on a uniform and his attitude alone served as immeasurable inspiration to arguably millions.

The whole denial of the HoF is complete political posturing and has nothing to do with his accomplishments, which are sitting right there in the record books whether anybody likes who set them or not. If they want to pretend the HoF is some kind of moral award, they'll need to kick out a bunch of others already in there - like Ty Cobb.

But that's not what HoF status is, and it's completely disingenuous to pretend it is.

False. Pete Rose should never be inducted into the HoF. He knowingly, repeatedly committed baseball's Cardinal Sin.

At the entrance of every MLB clubhouse is a big sign that warns against gambling, and the consequences. He chose to ignore it and flaunt it. He thought he was bigger than the sport.

Comparisons to Ty Cobb are irrelevant. Ty Cobb was an awful person, and a proud bigot. But he didn't gamble on baseball. Besides that, he played the majority of his career before the Black Sox Scandal that made gambling the one thing that would get you banned from baseball.

Rose has continued to stick his thumb in baseball's eye over the years. Every Cooperstown induction, he sets up a little stand down the street to sell signed baseballs. He has been asked every year to stop yet refuses. He truly is scum.

Not being in the HoF does nothing to diminish his remarkable achievements on the field. He has not been struck from any record books, or had any hits taken away. He was a great ballplayer, and everyone acknowledges that. But the HoF is for players who played the game with integrity, as well as talent. Peter Edward Rose does not qualify.

Pete Rose has an ego as big as Texas, no argument there. That's part of what gave him his drive. Maybe most of it.

But that's irrelevant to the Hall and acknowledgement of his records. Or as Leo Durocher put it, "'nice guys' finish last". Or as Rose expressed the same thing about his infamous collision with Ray Fosse: "I play to win. Period".

Hey, put him in the Hall and have those flaws and transgressions listed prominently on a plaque, in the same font as his records. Fine. But let's not pretend he didn't do all that on the basis that he also did something else.

Lets also not pretend there are others such as Cobb who dont belong in there as well if Rose doesnt.

Ty Cobb absolutely belongs in the HoF. Every despicable personality trait of Cobb's was limited to his behaviour off the field. Now, if Blacks had been allowed to play alongside him, it would have been a different story, and he would have no doubt been kicked out of the game or arrested for assault, or worse. He was an unrepentant racist by his own admission, and once threw a Black woman down a flight of stairs because she spoke to him.

also that is false,steroids were long banned by that time when Soso,Mcguire and Bonds were using them.If they werent,then there never would have been any trial hearings on it like their were.

That's not true.