Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should Pete Rose be in the Hall of Fame?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Should Pete Rose be in the Hall of Fame?

    Just curious, especially since it's been brought up in the BBFHOF discussion thread. This is one of the most debated topics, but I simply wanted to know why Pete Rose is or is not on your ballots.
    192
    Yes
    51.04%
    98
    No
    48.96%
    94

  • #2
    He stayed off my ballot for a long time because of his gambling and subsequent banishment. His name started to loom large after a certain point because he became one of the best players (IMO) who was not elected.

    As it is, he fits the criteria for the BBF Hall of Fame.The reason he doesn't fit the criteria for Cooperstown is twofold:
    1)His gambling was against the rules, and for that he was banned from baseball.
    2)It is against the rules (in Cooperstown) for the writers to vote for someone who is banned from baseball.

    If that second part was relaxed (or not in effect), Pete may already have his mug on a plaque.

    Some of Rose's credentials, on the positive side:
    • He made the most of his ability, playing the game “the way it should be played,” with a great deal of enthusiasm. Cut from the Ty Cobb mold, he gave no quarter in his play. His intensity is unmatched even today.
    • Rookie of the Year when he broke in with the Reds in 1963.
    • Played in 17 All Star Games in 24 seasons.
    • Won two gold gloves in right field. Also switched positions whenever it was better for the team, and generally was good to very good defensively wherever he played. As a side note, he saw that the Reds were lacking at third base and volunteered to give it a shot. He worked hard, and became a pretty good third baseman. It’s hard for me to imagine some of today’s players, especially if they are “stars,” giving up their position unless they feel their job is otherwise in jeopardy. Even Cal Ripken gave up his position at SS grudgingly.
    • Won NL MVP Award in 1973 with a .338 BA, 230 hits, 36 of them doubles, and 115 runs scored. He was on base 301 times that season (first in the league) with an OBP of .401. Ten times he finished in the top ten in the voting for MVP.
    • Finished among the top ten in Batting Average 13 times in his career, and finished with a .303 average. (.375 OBP)
    • Regularly finished among the league leaders in games played, AB, hits, OBP, runs scored, doubles (many of which should have been singles), and total bases. Six times among the leaders in extra base hits; seven times for walks and HBP; eight times for triples.
    • For 14 series’ in postseason play (1-NLDS, 7 NLCS, and 6 WS), he batted .321. He excelled in the 1975 World Series against Boston, batting .370 with 10 hits including a double and a triple, and 5 walks for an OBP of .485.
    • Put together a 44-game hitting streak in 1978.
    • Is the career leader in games, at-bats, hits, and times on base. Also leads everybody in singles, total bases by a switch-hitter, most seasons with 200 or more hits (10), most consecutive seasons of 100 or more hits (23) and the most seasons with 600 or more at-bats (17). He is the only player in Major League history to play in more than 500 games at five different positions (1B, 939; 2B, 628; 3B, 634; LF, 671; RF, 595) and he has played in the most victorious games (1,972) in addition to holding several other National League and club records.
    • Is second (career) in doubles with 746, and fifth in runs scored with 2165.

    Jamesian Stats, for those who like that kind of thing:
    Black Ink: Batting - 64 (13) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
    Gray Ink: Batting - 239 (24) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
    HOF Standards: Batting - 54.9 (44) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
    HOF Monitor: Batting - 313.5 (10) (Likely HOFer > 100)
    "Someone asked me if I took steroids. I said, 'No. I had a contract with Wheaties.'"
    --Bob Feller

    Comment


    • #3
      He has always been on mine.

      There are several players who technically are not eligible for the Baseball HOF, but I still will be voting for them for the BBFHOF.

      Comment


      • #4
        I've always thought he should be in the HOF anyway. Did he gamble on baseball? Sure. But the difference between him and the Black Sox of 1919 is that Rose bet on his own team to win. If he bet on them to lose, he could have easily made decisions guaranteed to make a loss happen. Try as you might, short of sabotage on the opposing team, you cannot guarantee a victory.

        Besides, the HOF is representative of on-field achievement. Ty Cobb was a pretty nasty customer and rather hated by players and fans, but no one questions whether or not he belongs. Rose is right up there with the all-time greats of the game.
        There's no crying in baseball.

        http://www.sammichmen.com/

        Comment


        • #5
          Rose's playing career is more than qualified for HoF status, even if he had retired before breaking the hit record. To me there is no comparison between Rose's and Joe Jackson's crimes. I don't plan to vote for Jackson because his crime had the potential to destroy professional baseball. Rose betting on his team isn't in the same ballpark. Rose not being in the real HoF doesn't bother me, though, because he knowingly broke the rules and deserves to pay the price.

          Rose and Jackson are in the same boat for the BBF Hall. As it stands, with some voting for their playing career and some leaving them off due to crimes against baseball, they're taking up ballot space with no chance of being elected and blocking the election of other candidates.

          Comment


          • #6
            Nope never, he broke the one rule that gets you banned for life. Thats it case closed.

            He is in the hall of fame in the hall of records. Thats as close as he should ever get.

            And how do we know he only bet on them to win? The word of some degenerate gamblers?

            Comment


            • #7
              I vote Rose


              MLB is not my Daddy

              Comment


              • #8
                --Rose's gambling banishment has probably delayed his making my ballot, although I was never sold on him as a truely great player when active or now. He was very good for a long time and impressed alot of people (and rightfully so) with his hustle, but was never a dominating player and his MVP voting record just means he was always overrated. He hung around long after he was making any contribution to get the hits record and I would like his resume better if he'd hung them up sooner without the hit record.
                --That said, I agree his crimes against the game are not on a par with Joe Jackson's. Jackson won't make my ballot if we keep adding to 1,000 players. Rose should make an appearance fairly soon if he doesn't make it before I hold my nose and vote for him.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I love how everybody takes some degenerate gamblers word for it that he never bet against his team.

                  Its like putting Chris Rocks character in New Jack City to work in the crack production lab, sure he cleaned himself up.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    If Rose was following the Vegas-setup line for baseball, then he technically wasn't betting on wins or losses. Like other sports, the line is based on a number of things, such as runs scored and how many runs favored. Betting on baseball is probably the least popular of major sports because it is not clear cut. There's a run line and a dime line and stuff like that. I used to work as a handicapper, and I never did figure out what everything meant.

                    I voted no, by the way.
                    Dave Bill Tom George Mark Bob Ernie Soupy Dick Alex Sparky
                    Joe Gary MCA Emanuel Sonny Dave Earl Stan
                    Jonathan Neil Roger Anthony Ray Thomas Art Don
                    Gates Philip John Warrior Rik Casey Tony Horace
                    Robin Bill Ernie JEDI

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Donnybrook @ Second base
                      I love how everybody takes some degenerate gamblers word for it that he never bet against his team.
                      Rose was never accused of betting against his team. I'm sure that if he did that, there would have been evidence, and that evidence would have been used against him. As there is no evidence, I'm going to assume he never bet AGAINST his team.
                      Last edited by abacab; 10-29-2004, 02:00 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        There IS evidence against Rose, and plenty of it. However, to avoid making him look worse than he was (were that even possible), Bart Giamatti kept the evidence confidential once Rose agreed to his lifetime ban. Naturally, and true to form, as soon as Giamatti died, Rose started whining to be reinstated. Let me ask you (those who actually believe Pete), as competitive as he was and as much as he loved the game and wanted enshrinement in the HOF, DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT PETE ROSE WOULD HAVE AGREED TO A LIFETIME BAN IF BART GIAMATTI DIDN'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO CONVICT HIM? Rose saw what they had and knew he didn't have a prayer, so rather than look any worse by having the evidence come out, he agreed to a lifetime ban. Would any of you admit to a murder and life in prison if there wasn't overwhelming evidence? GET REAL, people, the evidence was there. And if you actually believe Pete Rose never bet against his own team, please PM me, because I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would love to sell you - and, really, I own it!!
                        You see, you spend a good deal of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time. J. Bouton

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I really don't even care if Pete bet against his team. It doesn't really matter to me, especially at this point in time.

                          catcher24, I generally don't think it's good idea to believe people do 1 thing or another purely based upon their character type. If that were that case, we could nail him for hundreds of things he might be "likey" to do, not that he neccassarily did them or not.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Well, to me it's irrelevant whether he bet on his team or not. Fact is, his involvement with bookies could seriously jeopardize his ability to manage the team. If you read this: http://www.dowdreport.com/ you'll see that Pete was already blowing off bookies who were trying to collect from him. It's not hard to imagine the next step the bookies and their "friends" might have taken with Pete.

                            No matter what he did on the field, he broke the one rule you can't break. He felt he was bigger than the game and that should be enough to get him by. He found out that wasn't quite true.

                            And why should any baseball fan care about him? He certainly doesn't care about us unless we are paying him for his autograph. He's lied to us for the past 15 years, he's played millions of people for fools, and we are supposed to give this guy a break??? I don't think so.

                            One last fact: While there is no doubt he earned inclusion to our HOF and Baseball's HOF while a player (an overated one if you ask me), I am glad to see that the Baseball HOF has stood up to him. I'd like to see us do the same.

                            JMHO

                            KH14
                            “Well, I like to say I’m completely focused, right? I mean, the game’s on the line. It’s not like I’m thinking about what does barbecue Pop Chips and Cholula taste like. Because I already know that answer — it tastes friggin’ awesome!"--Brian Wilson

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              dgarza - You didn't answer my question. Knowing how competitive Rose was (is), and knowing how badly he wanted to remain in the game and get elected to Cooperstown, do you really believe he would have caved in to Giamatti (and his lawyers agreed, as well) if baseball didn't have sufficient evidence to convict and ban him anyway? I say, no way he would have done that.
                              You see, you spend a good deal of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time. J. Bouton

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X