Should Pete Rose be in Cooperstown?

[WeRQ4U]

Here are some stats to clue you in:

4,256 Hits
2,165 Runs
746 Doubles
135 Triples
160 Homers
1,314 RBI
1566 Walks
1143 Strike Outs
.303 Lifetime Average
.375 On Base Percentage
--------------

Here's something to compare

4,189 Hits
2,246 Runs
724 Doubles
295 Triples
113 Homers
1,937 RBI
1,249 Walks
357 Strike Outs (stat is off, because none listed before 1912)
.366 LIfetime Average
.433 On Base Percentage
____________________________

When you consider that Ty Cobb is one of the best hitters of all time, it's tough to keep him out on just stats. The main argument against Pete Rose is his character (Gambling on Reds). But everyone knows that Ty Cobb was a soulless asshole as well. So why do we keep Rose out for his personality, and not Cobb?

[mike_c]

1. I dunno-- has he got an appointment there or something...?

eom

[BikeWriter]

2. Pete Rose deserves to be in the Hall of Fame!

[RetroLounge]

27. Agreed!

He should be there based on his PLAYING BASEBALL.

He was amazing to watch...

RL

[BikeWriter]

31. The Man was totally dedicated to the sport!

Hey, what are we doing agreeing? ;-)

[RetroLounge]

107. Uhm, agreeing? Us? Yikes!

I must have lost my mind :D

But I do think Rose should be in the hall, and soon. Otherwise the hall is just a joke...

RL

[tk2kewl]

3. Undoubtedly IMO

[LynneSin]

4. YES, YES and HELL YES

They say his gambling affected the outcome of baseball, well what about all these roidheads bulking up on steroids? I don't think Mark Maguire or Barry Bonds deserves those homerun records because they were bulked up on illegal substances.

Pete should be in but only for his record as a ball player NOT as a manager (which is when he gambled)

[WeRQ4U]

8. Funny you say that, because Raph's chances just got dimmer.

Dumb ass.

Raph, not you. lol

[kick-ass-bob]

21. that whole thing will have to be sorted out later.

The NO BETTING rule was in effect from the start. Steroids are considered cheating, which is different. You can cheat and get to the Hall, but not bet. GOPisEvil makes the point against gambling, so I won't state it again.

[winga222]

5. Yes, it's the Hall of Fame

not the Hall of Saints. If the later were true (for baseball or any other sport), there'd be a lot less honorees.

[BikeWriter]

87. Damn right! The Babe was a drunk and a womanizer...

That didn't keep him out!

[GOPisEvil]

6. The town, or the Hall of Fame?

;)

Seriously, no, and here's why. His apologists say that he only bet on his team to win, which is true, but consider the following. Let's say he has money on his team to win a particular game. Would that affect his line-up, would that affect how and when pitching changes were made? Would he go with a relief pitcher who had pitched the day previous just because hehas money on the game? And what of his bookies on the days he DOES NOT bet on his team. Does that mean he think his team will lose? Will he manage differently on those days so that the bookies will make money?

Gambling is insidious and destoys public confidence in the game. He deserves his lifetime ban. It's more than just a character flaw.

[WeRQ4U]

11. It's a good point. But I don't agree.

That was during his time as a manager. His lifetime BASEBALL stats are increcible. And there is no evidence that he through a game while he was a player. Shoeless Joe did this, and his lifetime ban is justified. I know it's splitting hairs, but that's my opinion.

[GOPisEvil]

13. Actually, I think Shoeless Joe has a better argument

In the 1919 WorldSeries, Joe Jackson hit something like .363. Even his teammates stated that he didn't help them throw the World Series, but he was banned for knowing about it and not reporting it (and taking the money).

[WeRQ4U]

36. Really?

Shoeless Joe was complicit in throwing the most important series in the game. I can't think of anything more dispicable. And you have to remember. Why did they throw it?....GAMBLING.

Whether he participated or simply refused to acknowledge it, he still did what no player should ever be forgiven for, throwing a game.

Pete Rose is different to me. He did it as a manager. Like I said, splitting hairs. But he's not going in as a manager, he's going in as one of the best hitters of all time.

[kick-ass-bob]

40. So if the manager was in on it and he was the greatest player in history

then he still gets to go?

I can't think of anything more dispicable.

[WeRQ4U]

46. What if Pete Rose hadn't started gambling until AFTER he was inducted?

Do you take it away from him? No. He's in as a player. He did his bad deeds as a manager. Kick him out of baseball forever, fine. But he still deserves his spot in the hall. The museum is incomplete until he's there.

[GOPisEvil]

50. His own grand jury testimony is that he did not participate.

He did take the money, but his testimony is that he played every game to win. His testimony is also that he felt ashamed over taking the money.

Rose isn't ashamed of anything, except getting caught. I'll never forgive Pete Rose for turning my dad off of baseball. Pete was my dad's favorite player, so I admit some anti-Pete bias.

By the way, if you have sometime, here's some info on Shoeless Joe:
http://www.blackbetsy.com/joefacts.htm Granted it's run by his apologists, but there is some good stuff there, including a link to his 1920 testimony.

[WeRQ4U]

55. Would you expect him to say anything differently after being caught?

He took money to help throw the series. How much worse can it get. I think his expulsion is more than justified.

[GOPisEvil]

57. Yeah, but he attended no meetings to help plan anything.

He took no active part in it except having $5000 dropped onto his hotel bed.

[WeRQ4U]

58. He took the money, and didn't tell anyone what was going on.

Sure, he played well during the series, but he knew all the others weren't. And he took 5K for not saying so. I just don't think baseball could or should look past it just becasue he played well or becasue he "feels bad" now.

[GOPisEvil]

59. Well, I'm not necessarily arguing for his reinstatement, just that

he has a stronger argument for reinstatement than Rose does. Rose was an active participant, and Jackson was passive. You have your hairs to split and I have mine. :)

By the way, Jackson's ban was for life, and he's been dead over 50 years. Just another quick thought...

[WeRQ4U]

60. Never thought of that...

Good point. I guess you could argue his "lifetime ban" ended quite some time ago. lol

One thing to note here, while I do think that Rose should be in there, I wouldn't mind having him wait for a while. It won't kill him.

I would rather see other noteables in there first: Bert Blyleven, Tony Oliva, Don Mattingly, Roger Marris etc.

They deserve it too, and have been kept out due to the fact that fucking sportswriters get to choose them. So dumb.

[kick-ass-bob]

67. I'll soften my stance to

he can get in after he is Dead, Dead, Dead.

[WeRQ4U]

69. Posthumous admissions for all assholes. It should be a new rule.

lol

[Spider Jerusalem]

78. You kind of undermine your argument for Rose here...

Especially since it's based in part on the stats he posted as a player. RE Jackson, here's a statistic for you: lifetime .356 BA. Now, does he belong in the Hall of Fame, or not, based on that? So what if Rose "feels bad" for gambling on games? Should it be overlooked?

[WeRQ4U]

94. As I stated before, Rose broke the rules as a MANAGER...

Joe Jackson broke the rules as a player. His statistics, while legendary, include one main one. He threw the most important series in the game.

Pete Rose's statistics as a PLAYER do not include anything but incredible stats. He's not being inducted as a manager.

Like I said, this is how I split hairs.

[Spider Jerusalem]

95. Splitting those hairs just a bit too fine, if you ask me.

As a player or as a manager, it was still part of his career in baseball. For consideration to the Hall of Fame, I'd say one can't be separated from the other. (Note also that I haven't said Jackson SHOULD be in the Hall. That was just the most obvious example of a player who "deserves" to be there based on stats, who won't be because of his actions.)

[Serial Mom]

101. He also broke rules and the law while a player

He admitted several times to taking speed during games - it was originally to control his weight, but then he began taking them just before games and then during games .. hence his name "Charlie Hustle" - he hustled cause he was high most the time.

But that is not as bad as betting... he couldn't potentially change the outcome of the game while high on speed - he could have while a manager to better his gambling wins.

[dr.strangelove]

80. Jackson was not passive

See my post below 74 below. The evidence suggests that he tried to lose the first 5 games. Citing stats for the whole series counts the last three games, which the sox conspirators tried to win.

[dr.strangelove]

74. The facts are clear, Joe Jackson threw the series

Several of the conspirators admitted that they took money and threw the first five games, though they won the third game due one of to the best pitched game of Dickie Kerr's career. Joe Jackson tried to blow this win. He got on first due to a check swing single. When he got hit over to second, he fell twice, once in between first and second and again on his way to third. When he finally scored, Jackson, known as a fast runner, took so long to get from third to home that the runner from first was only a step behind him and both were nearly thrown out.

It is clear that after the fifth game, when the gamblers, who blew their money on the third game, could not pay any more money, the sox players tried to win. In these last games, Jackson hit .545. In the first five games he hit .200. Hardly trying by the games best hitter. Jackson was known as one of the best fielders in the game. Triples are rare in baseball, yet there were three triples hit to left field in the first five games of the series.

If you want to feel bad for one of the blacksox, see third baseman Buck Weaver. Weaver knew about the fix and failed to report it. He refused to participate and played his heart out. He never took any money, did not make an error and the reviews of the game show he played better then he had all year. He is not as interesting a story because he was an average player at best while Jackson may have been the best all around player of all time.

[WeRQ4U]

76. Circumstancial, but still relevant.

I've never felt bad for Shoeless Joe. I always thought what they did was about as bad as you can get in professional sports.

Hollywood has tried to make him look more innocent than he actually was.

[dr.strangelove]

84. What is circumstantial evidence?

I'm a trial lawyer and have always wondered what that term means. It means different things to different people. In this case, we have an admission of guilt. The admission was stolen from the prosecutors office, but several reported saw it, so it seams unlikely the prosecutor made up its existence. I'm not sure that is really circumstantial.

Jackson played bad in five games. After the fifth game, it became clear that no more money would be paid to the players. Jackson played very good in the last three games. I agree that you should ignore Hollywood and that Ray Liota or Eight Men Out garbage. Just look at the game statistics, the play by play announcements and the box scores.

[WeRQ4U]

93. I'm a lawyer too.

Circumstantial evidence is anything other than direct evidence. It's a fact inferred from other facts. It's evidence, other than testimony or admission, used to infer guilt.

All that evidence is circumstantial. He did not admit to throwing the game. None of his co-conspirators (at least from the evidence you submitted in your post) testified as to his guilt. The evidence of his actions during the games is purely circumstantial, from which the average person could infer that he played poorly on purpose.

If you want to get technical, the evidence of an admission, reportedly stolen from the prosecutor's office, is circumstantial evidence of the alleged admission of guilt. You don't have his admission that he admitted. You don't have anyone elses testimony of his admission. THerefore, it's circumstantial. Like I said, kind of splitting hairs.

I have to admit, I know nothing about the facts surrounding the case, I only know what you relayed in your post.

[dr.strangelove]

97. I do know that

I was kidding in my comment that I don't know what circumstantial evidence is. What I was trying to say is that circumstantial evidence is routinely accepted as the sole basis for a finder of fact to make an decision, yet many people throw the term around when they try to attack the weight of evidence that is legally sufficient to base a decision on.

The court case against Jackson is not the record I was basing my comments on. There was limited testimony in that case.
In the public record we have significant direct evidence that Jackson accepted money, including Cicotte and Gandle admitting to paying him directly. His wife later admitted that he took the money. she also later claimed that he played good once it became clear that the gamblers would not longer pay them.

We also have the court reporter, whose transcripts were stolen, but took down Jackson's admission. Her testimony was not admissible int eh trial, but she told reporters that Jackson admitted to throwing the games and taking the money.

If you solely want to limit the evidence to what was offered in a trial with a rather limited charging document, you have little direct evidence. If you broaden your scope of evidence to the press reports, interviews of those involved, letters written by those involved and too much more to write about here, you get a broader picture. Is it circumstantial, I don't think so. If you are trying to prove he knowingly or intentionally took money and played bad in exchange for taking money, I'll give you that you have only circumstantial evidence. But it is more than enough for me to believe its validity. If you want to read on this, I can send you several articles taking up boths sides of the case. We litigated this case at a local bar event several years ago. I was a witness, so I know some of the facts off the top of my head. I would need to dig a little to recall more specifics though.

[WeRQ4U]

98. Ahhhh. See I don't know of ANYTHING but what you posted.

ANd I was limiting what I said to that evidence.

If there is more out there, then it's a different story.

P.S. That's a pretty fun little mock trial. NIce.

[GOPisEvil]

82. Buck Weaver got the rawest deal; that's plain.

And your Jackson point is well-taken, although the triples evidence can be debated.

[dr.strangelove]

85. I'll grant you that triples can

fall in. That point was merely an example of the poor play in the field. However, Jackson was one of the best fielders in the game. The photo archives show him put of position for most of the game. He play in on pull hitters and deep on junk hitters. None of the players except Gandle and Cicotte would openly blow plays. Jackson caught the balls hit to him, but put himself out of positon to make ti harder for him to look bad. He was one of the best contact hitter sin 1919, but he struck out swinging six times.

We will never know if he just had the worst five game set of his life. He admitted he took the money and threw games, but the admission went missing.

[GOPisEvil]

96. His grand jury testiony is that he never threw a game.

Self-serving, no doubt, however, none of the 8 were convicted, they weren't even indicted.

However, my argument is not that he belongs in the hall, only that he has a better case for reinstatement than does Rose. Plus, Jackson's been dead since 1951, and his ban was for life.

[dr.strangelove]

99. His grand jury testimony

was self serving and not the admission I was talking about. Jackson admitted to taking the money and throwing the games during his interview with Hartley Replugle and Ed Prindeville, the DAs prosecuting the case. The transcript and signed admission from this interview were "lost."

They were indeed indicted, Cook County Criminal Indictment No. 23912.

[gmoney]

7. No. He needs to serve as an example...

The biggest things baseball has going for it are tradition and integrity. Pete compromised the integrity of the game.

With today's multi-million dollar salaries, fines and suspensions are meaningless. The ONLY deterrent to everyone being on the take or doing what they damn well please is the threat of being banned from the game and the HOF. If a "lifetime" ban turns out to only be 15 year delay, then it'll be anarchy. It will be pro wrasslin'.

[KG]

9. oh hell yes.

[blondeatlast]

10. You betcha!

Pun entirely intentional. :evilgrin:

[MN ChimpH8R]

12. Yes

for his astounding accomplishments as a player.

[dsewell]

14. Maybe a Bush recess appointment?

"But everyone knows that Ty Cobb was a soulless asshole as well": sounds like Bolton is clear precedent for the appointment...

[On the Road]

15. Yup. He Didn't Gamble When He Was Building Those Records

It was only after he retired as a player. I like the solution of admitting him as a player (when he did not gamble) but not as a manager (when he did).

[proud2BlibKansan]

103. But how do we know for sure he didn't gamble as a player?

He admitted gambling as a manager. But that certainly does not mean he didn't also gamble as a player. He just didn't get caught till he was a manager.

[kick-ass-bob]

16. "character" - not quite.

It's not character, its because of a repeated violation of the standing rule #1 in baseball that is plastered in every locker room across the country.

[barb162]

19. I am not totally unfamiliar with baseball but what is the rule you

reference.

[GOPisEvil]

22. Basically, don't gamble.

It's posted in every locker room.

[kick-ass-bob]

23. slightly more specific, but not much

don't bet on baseball - and DEFINITELY do not bet on your own team.

[Kraklen]

43. You're right, "don't kill people" isn't posted in locker rooms.

Therefore- Ty Cobb in, Pete Rose out.

[WeRQ4U]

49. That's the hypocricy.

Ty Cobb was a drunk, an outspoken racist, a hatemonger and a womanizer. So those aren't worse than gambling. It's ridiculous.

When Pete Rose and Ty Cobb face St. Peter, one of them is going to get quite the scolding... and it aint going to be about Pete's gambling. Unless, of course, St. Peter is a Reds fan. lol.

[JVS]

70. Those things were not deemed to be damaging to baseball before he did them

and were not forbidden

[WeRQ4U]

71. Pete Rose didn't gamble until after his accomplishments on the field

What's the difference. What if Pete Rose had been inducted already, and THEN was found to have been gambling on baseball. Do they revoke his admission? No.

[JVS]

75. He fucked with the integrity of the game PERIOD

Thus he is banned

[JVS]

17. Banned means banned!

[bearfan454]

18. He bet on baseball - Fuck no.

[madinmaryland]

20. He should at least get the Medal of Honor,

according to *'s standards.

Yea, he should be in the hall, though only for his achievements as a player.

He should never be allowed to be part of the game in any way ever again.

[jbane]

25. Is that your cat?

He/she looks just like my cat, Tater! A big furry sweetie.

[madinmaryland]

34. Yes it is.

Or shall I say was. He passed away last november.

Big Furball!!

Truffle:

[jbane]

24. Yes...but not now.

Pete is still out there being a self indulgent a-hole. He has allways been his own worst enemy and the next generation of writers that has no direct memory of him will vote him in. The writers and those who select members of the HOF will not forgive him and he is doing nothing to change their minds.

[youspeakmylanguage]

26. I used to support him...

...until he admitted to lying not because he felt sorry for his fans or his family, but for the sole reason that he believed baseball would forgive him instantly. Then he shamelessly profited from that admission through book sales, despite having lied in a previous book.

Screw him.

[Greyhound]

30. A professional athlete that is a self-serving, asshole?

What's the world coming to? :eyes:

[youspeakmylanguage]

33. So we should reward him for being a self-serving liar?

When did that memo go out?

[Greyhound]

45. Why not? We've, as a society, placed the athlete at the very pinnacle of..

our social ladder. We reward that kind of behavior, and worse, every year, in every sport. I just don't see that he did anything worse than many other athletes have done. :shrug:

[youspeakmylanguage]

48. Again, so that makes him Hall Of Fame material?

I don't think so. I don't care how many other as*holes have come before him or since.

Maybe it's time for those in charge to make an example of someone. Perhaps then the next prima donna that comes along will think twice about lying and ripping off his/her fans.

[Greyhound]

53. To quote another asshole, "how's that working for ya?"

I haven't seen any decrease in athletes behaving outrageously, getting away with short suspensions, where you of I would be imprisoned.
And what makes him Hall of Fame material, as I understand it, is his talent at baseball.
Again, in case it wasn't clear from my earlier posts, I think our worship of athletes is criminal. We have the society we deserve.

[youspeakmylanguage]

56. Being Hall of Fame material should mean more than just stats and figures..

I don't like the hero-worship either, but I have no interest in paying 30+ dollars to see a school teacher or social worker do their jobs.

Pete Rose has demonstrated a singular ability at being a dishonest ass who feels entitled to entering the Hall of Fame. He besmirched the game and, just like any player that uses steroids or gambles, should be barred from the Hall of Fame for life.

[Greyhound]

63. So you would be against Sosa or McGwires (among others) admissions? n/t

[youspeakmylanguage]

72. I'm completely against McGwire...

...Sosa I don't think is going to make it anyway. Not sure if he used steroids, though.

If it is true they used steroids, and with McGwire I'm guessing it's 99% certain, then their little home run derby was a disgrace to the game of baseball and Roger Maris in particular. It makes my blood boil.

[WeRQ4U]

73. Maris ain't in either.

Granted, his numbers aren't up there with some of the other sluggers, but his record is one of the most memorable.

[Greyhound]

79. I admire your consistency. Thank you. n/t

[youspeakmylanguage]

91. I'm consistent as hell on this issue. I'm a big Red Sox fan...

...and if it turns out that any of them were juicers, then I would say the same thing - no Hall of Fame, no respect, nothing.

[Greyhound]

28. Agreed

I don't really care about any professional athletes, but his case seems to be one of the most hypocritical. :shrug:

[xmas74]

29. He deserves it based on accomplishments.

I've always felt that.
People make mistakes, they move on. Gambling is a disease for some. By preventing his accomplishments to shine in the proper form aren't they actually discriminating against him(in light of gambling being a disease and they are punishing him for having a disease)?

[kick-ass-bob]

32. his lying about it is a disease too?

Deny, deny, deny for 15 or so years, then tell the truth when his book is about to come out.

So what is the truth, Pete?

[xmas74]

35. But do most people tell the truth about something like that?

Do gamblers tell the truth about gambling? No. Do alcoholics tell the truth about their drinking? No.
It considered to be a shameful secret that no one wants to admit to. The book made him come clean-it worked as a sort of therapy for him.
I've known a few gamblers. Not a single one of them will admit how often they gamble or how much they send(and they won't admit what they gamble on either). It's a truly disgusting disease that I'm glad that I've never dealt w/ (since I don't like to gamble much in the first place).

[kick-ass-bob]

38. but he knew the consequences and had ample time to retract.

He did not, and only stirred the pot just before his book was due for release.

Did he say he does not gamble anymore?

No. IIRC, he still gambles and stated that he does so. Does this sound like therapy to you?

[dr.strangelove]

37. NO!

[motely36]

39. YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

End of Discussion :)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

41. YES.....he produced the results on the field

[maveric]

42. YES! Based on his days as a player. If Sandberg is in, Rose should too.

If Richie Ashburn is in, Rose should be too.
If Phil Rizzuto is in, Rose should be too.
If Paul Molitor is in, Rose should be too.
If Rod Carew is in, Rose should be too.
If Kirby Puckett is in, Rose should be too.

Should I go on??

Based on his performance as a player, Pete Rose deserves enshrinement.

[WeRQ4U]

51. When you place his stats against those already in, the answer is simple.

And there's another not-so-nice member. Kirby Puckett was a great baseball player. The fans LOVED him in Minnesota. Hell, their baseball HQ is located on Kirby Puckett Way. But we all know now that he's a womanizing pervert. Do we revoke his nomination? Hell no. He may be a shitty person, but he was a damn good ballplayer.

[WCGreen]

44. I'll give you 10 to 1 he ain't gonna make it.....

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

54. ...Like you're the first to make that joke

nt

[WCGreen]

88. I certainly won't be the last

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

90. Bet Me!

[WCGreen]

92. LOL

[Shell Beau]

47. He contributed a lot to baseball.

The gambling aside, he would have already been in there long ago. I personally would like to see him in there.

[mtnester]

52. Yes, long overdue..he has been whipped enough

[WeRQ4U]

61. Here's another quick thought.

Do you think it has to do a lot with the fact that sportwriters get to choose who's in and who's out? I always think that Sportswriters are a lot more santimonious about all this crap. What do you think?

[Spider Jerusalem]

62. Sure, after Shoeless Joe Jackson.

Not until then, though.

[WeRQ4U]

65. See post #11 and replies.

[maveric]

81. Jackson didnt play in the majors long enough.

Only nine full seasons.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/jacksjo01.shtml

[Spider Jerusalem]

83. Doesn't apply to pre-1945 players.

Any player who played before then only need have played forpart of at least ten seasons. They still need to've played in ten seasons, but not FULL seasons.

[MidnightWind]

64. Yes. He does deserve to be there.

With an asterik beside his name explaining the whole gambling issue.

[WeRQ4U]

68. The "asterick" thing is a slippery slope though.

It could run wild. I think you're in our you're not.

[redsoxliberal]

66. yes

[NNadir]

77. I can't stand the guy, but yes, he should be in Cooperstown.

He drew a lot of people into the parks, and he played hard. You don't have his records if you're throwing games.

Bud Selig shut the game down for huge periods and came close to killing the game several times. Rose excited the fans, even those, who like me, didn't like him very much. (I still remember him trying to beat up Bud Harrelson of the Mets in the playoffs.) Rose did far more for baseball than Selig will ever do.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

86. hell yes

Pete Rose was like my Mickey Mantle growing up in the 80's. Pete made 5 my favorite number.

i think it's sick what they're putting the guy through. i don't care how much of a bastard he is, i thought baseball was the sport of bastards anyway. a blue-collar sport, a rogue sport,ya know - that whole romatic bs about baseball. . .

it's amazing, in this day and age of human growth hormone, steroids, performance enhancing drugs, cyborg-arms and targeting-reticle eyes - the argument of Pete Rose makes the 80's look like a pure, innocent by-gone era - how sick is that - the 80's!

[DebinTx]

89. Absolutely he should be

he had a great career until the gambling thing and still works hard promoting baseball today.

[Shakespeare]

100. NNNNNNNNNope.

Nasty, nasty individual. Crippled the career of Ray Fosse, and probably helped bring on Bart Giamatti's fatal heart attack. The asshole even tried to upstage last year's HOF inductees. And then there's that whole gambling thing....

:puke:

[proud2BlibKansan]

102. How about posting stats on his

gambling losses and wins?

The way I understand it, he broke the rules. If the rules say you can't bet on baseball and be inducted in to the Hall of Fame, then he shouldn't be in Cooperstown. Now if the rules were changed, he could be inducted. But I think it would be wrong to make an exception for Pete Rose.

[bigwillq]

104. Yes

The numbers speak for themselves.
Yes, it was terrible and wrong to bet on baseball but as far as I know, being inducted into the HOF is based soley on what you did on the field.

Mickey Mantle was a drunk, Babe Ruth was a womanizer and a drunk, but their off-field behavior didn't matter.

It shouldn't matter in Rose's case either. He should be in.

[warrens]

105. Not for now

He spent WAY too many years insisting he was pure as driven snow. Now that he's admitted at least part of what he did, I think the rehabilitation process has begun. But it's still too soon.

[dhinojosa]

106. Until he gets a better haircut.... nt