Should Pete Rose be in the Hall of Fame?

[Macker]

Well he won't be stupid and unreliable once he's dead, so yeah, that's where we differ.

You seem to want to ignore that fact that he's still guilty. Dying doesn't wipe the slate clean.

[milladrive]

You seem to want to ignore that fact that he's still guilty. Dying doesn't wipe the slate clean.

I'm ignoring nothing. I've already stated that I'm in favor of keeping him out until death. I even agreed with your reasoning and characterization.

That said, he's guilty of gambling on baseball. Dying does not absolve him of that. But he did not cheat to get 4256 hits. Keeping him excluded from the museum for all eternity does absolutely nothing good for the game nor its history. He's shamed himself, not the game. Once he's dead and can no longer be punished, I say let his numbers finally have a voice.

[willshad]

I'm not much of a similarity score fan, but okay:

1. Molitor- I rank Rose slightly higher than Molitor
2. Speaker- obviously not
3. Cobb- obviously not
4. Yount- I give Rose the edge here by a little
5. Waner- very very close- I'll call it a draw
6. Brett- Brett was better
7. Anson- Anson, but really hard to compare to guys from so long ago
8. Jeter- I'll take Rose by a little
9. Brock- I'll take Rose

So, huge edge to Cobb and Speaker, definite edge to Brett, probably to Anson- just about a tossup with Waner, Jeter, and Molitor, and ahead of Brock.

The thing is, none of these guys are truly comparable, mainly because he played over 3500 games. Rose's best comp only has a 678.8 similarity score. We kind of need to remove all of his extra years to see how he truly stacks up; then we can see that from age 24-38 he played 2375 games and had a 130 OPS+, 3063 hits with a .315 average. This is basically Roberto Clemente's career. This includes time at second base, third base, and all three outfield positions. Clearly Rose wasn't a Cobb or a Speaker or an Anson, but he is just as clearly in the group of high average no brainer HOF types that includes Clemente, Gwynn, Waner, Molitor, and maybe Boggs and Carew.

Clemente is the best comp no matter how you stack it, especially considering that any defensive advantage Clemente has is negated by Rose's defensive versatility, consistency, and duarbility. Molitor is also a very good comp due to the versatility, but again, Rose was far more durable and consistent.

If anything, I feel that Rose has become a bit underrated as a player, with many people seeing him as a 'compiler' who hung on way too long. These may be true to an extent, but he also had a full career as a first ballot HOFer in there as well.

[Los Bravos]

If Rose had done what was asked of him back in 1989, he'd already be in the HOF

And what was that, exactly?

[1905 Giants]

Clemente is the best comp no matter how you stack it, especially considering that any defensive advantage Clemente has is negated by Rose's defensive versatility, consistency, and duarbility.

You can't possibly be serious. One of the greatest RF of all-time versus a guy who was mediocre to slightly above average at a few positions and you say that's equivalent?

Again. you can't possibly be serious.

[Macker]

And what was that, exactly?

Admit his guilt, keep his mouth shut and his nose clean for 6 years and be reinstated.

[1905 Giants]

but he is just as clearly in the group of high average no brainer HOF types that includes Clemente, Gwynn, Waner, Molitor, and maybe Boggs and Carew.

I would easily take any of the others listed, several of whom were actually good to great defensive players at their position, as opposed to average.

[Los Bravos]

Admit his guilt, keep his mouth shut and his nose clean for 6 years and be reinstated.

There is absolutely no way that Bart Giamatti was ever going to reinstate Pete Rose. Ever. Under any circumstances.

[1905 Giants]

There is absolutely no way that Bart Giamatti was ever going to reinstate Pete Rose. Ever. Under any circumstances.

Which of course was the right call all along.

[scottmitchell74]

This wasn't a man's career, this was a 15 consecutive year stretch! 1965-1979

CIN,PHI	2375	10942	9685	1582	3063	574	105	144	938	138	95	1089	808	.316	.388	.442	.829	130	4279	166	71	29	49	134
				Runs	Hits	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB		BB	K					OPS+

10942

2375

401

22

5

-3

-35

390

43.7

339

728

77.1

Rbat WAR


This included most of the low-offense seasons since the 1900-1910s.

[Los Bravos]

Baseball officially climbing into the sty of legalized sports betting and rolling around in the mud gleefully over the last year or so just makes this whole vile saga that much worse. The hypocrisy of it all is blindingly obvious for everyone with eyes to see.

[jjpm74]

Hasn't this horse been sufficiently beaten? Seriously, this and the PEDs thing just keep re-circling here lately. Why?

[scottmitchell74]

Hasn't this horse been sufficiently beaten? Seriously, this and the PEDs thing just keep re-circling here lately. Why?

They are interesting topics.

Some people weren't around when the threads started.

PEDs are alive and well. They aren't going anywhere, neither are the controversies of past users.

Until Pete is in this will be a topic. How can it not be?

A big complaint of old-timers here is, "This place is dead. Not as many posts as before. Etc..."

In or out of the Hall, for a 15-19 year period (19 if you add 63 64) Pete was a very, very effective player,a winner, interesting, objectively great and subjectively...an all-timer to many.

What would you like to chat about?

[jjpm74]

They are interesting topics.

Some people weren't around when the threads started.

PEDs are alive and well. They aren't going anywhere, neither are the controversies of past users.

Until Pete is in this will be a topic. How can it not be?

A big complaint of old-timers here is, "This place is dead. Not as many posts as before. Etc..."

In or out of the Hall, for a 15-19 year period (19 if you add 63 64) Pete was a very, very effective player,a winner, interesting, objectively great and subjectively...an all-timer to many.

What would you like to chat about?

Whether or not someone has an interesting HOF case? Pete Rose is a degenerate gambler whose betting negatively impacted the games we was managing while betting. He does not deserve the HOF. Neither does Joe Jackson, or Eddie Ciccotte.

PEDs are about gaining a competitive edge. You can go as far back as Pud Galvin and you will find players who used substances to try to gain a competitive edge. Drugs have been around as long as people have been around. It is a circular argument that no one is going to change course on and I really don't give a crap who people think did or did not use PEDs.

[scottmitchell74]

Whether or not someone has an interesting HOF case? Pete Rose is a degenerate gambler whose betting negatively impacted the games we was managing while betting. He does not deserve the HOF. Neither does Joe Jackson, or Eddie Ciccotte.

PEDs are about gaining a competitive edge. You can go as far back as Pud Galvin and you will find players who used substances to try to gain a competitive edge. Drugs have been around as long as people have been around. It is a circular argument that no one is going to change course on and I really don't give a crap who people think did or did not use PEDs.

Okay, fair enough.

Respectfully, I utterly ignore threads I'm not interested in (Little League or Concessions to name two).