Pete Rose must be let into the baseball's hall of fame, if the 'roid rage

guys are let into the hall

Pete Rose's Major League baseball records:
Most career hits - 4,256
Most career games played - 3,562
Most career at bats - 14,053
Most career singles - 3,315
Most career runs by a switch hitter - 2165
Most career doubles by a switch hitter - 746
Most career walks by a switch hitter - 1566
Most career total bases by a switch hitter - 5,752
Most seasons of 200 or more hits - 10
Most consecutive seasons of 100 or more hits - 23
Most consecutive seasons with 600 or more at bats - 13 (1968-1980)
Most seasons with 600 at bats - 17
Most seasons with 150 or more games played - 17
Most seasons with 100 or more games played - 23
Record for playing in the most winning games - 1,972

Other Records:
Only player in major league history to play more than 500 games at five different positions - 1B (939), LF (671), 3B (634), 2B (628), RF (595)
National League records:
Most years played - 24
Most consecutive years played - 24
Most career runs - 2,165
Most career doubles - 746
Most career games with 5 or more hits - 10
Modern (post-1900) record for longest consecutive game hitting streak - 44
Modern record for most consecutive hitting streaks of 20 or more games - 7
NL MVP Award (1973)
NL Rookie of the Year Award (1963)
17 All-Star selections
Three World Series rings (1975, 1976, 1980)
World Series MVP Award (1975)
Two Gold Glove Awards (1969 and 1970, both as an outfielder)
Roberto Clemente Award (1976)
The Sporting News Player of the Year (1968)
The Sporting News Sportsman of the Year (1985)
The Sporting News Player of the Decade (1970s)
WWE Hall of Fame inductee (2004) on edit: this might not be that important!!

but I have no problem with him being banned from the game. What he did was 1,000 times worse than any player taking steroids.

at ANY level (not even a janitor).

or if he'd under-played or -managed in games in which he didn't bet on them or bet less money, "1,000 times worse" would be apt. But, as far as is known, Rose didn't use his position as a player or manager to influence the outcome of a game he'd bet on.

I have no problem with keeping him out of organized baseball, either. He did bet on games, thus breaking one of baseball's cardinal rules, and deserves an according sentence. But I see little point in the BBWAA snubbing him from inclusion in the Hall of Fame with no evidence that his gambling addiction affected his performance.

Rose denied he ever gambled period, on anything.....until he admitted he did

Rose denied he ever gambled on baseball......until he admitted he did

Rose denied he ever gambled on his own team.........until he admitted he did

Rose denied he ever bet on his team to lose.........which he was never accused of in the Dowd report anyway (STRAWMAN)



Following this pattern, you'd have to be some kind of gullible moron to give Pete Rose the benefit of the doubt about anything.

Knowing Pete Rose as we all know him, could you honestly look me in the eye and say you are 100% certain that he never used his position as player/manager to influence the outcome of a game?

But then, I'm rarely 100 percent certain about anything.

Are you 100 percent certain that he did?

I'll overlook your implication that I'm a "gullible moron" when all I want is evidence rather than extrapolation.

who was in a simultaneous race to see what he was worst at: father, husband, teammate, major leaguer.

He disgraced the game, drove Bart Giamatti to an early death and continues to shit on the dignity of the game with the circus he conducts in Cooperstown each year.

when an addict swears up and down to you that he hasn't used and will not use...and then goes out and uses with abandon, you can feel compassion for the addict, but you really shouldn't take his future promises at face value. I'm waiting for his next book where he'll drop the final bombshell that he bet against the Reds.

I agree, they should let him in.

:shrug:

I think the only shot Pete Rose has is a posthumous one. And I don't think even that is very likely.

It's unbelievably silly that he isn't. His on-field accomplishments and gambling addiction have absolutely nothing at all to do with each other.

royally pissed off the baseball writers--both with the initial gambling and especially his denials and (mild admissions) since. I don't listen to much sports talk, but when I do and the subject of Rose and Cooperstown comes up you can pretty much hear the venom bubbling just beneath the surface.

Plus, there is a certain simplicity to Rose's situation; he broke the one unbreakable rule and was made an example. And that is that.

For them to not be hypocrites though, they would need to effectively ban any roid users. I need to state that I haven/t spent much time worrying about (or reading) the Mitchell report, but if its allegations are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that should exclude players.

I think that would end the use of performance enahncers pretty well, I think.

as long as they don't ban "spectating enhancing drugs" we'll be alright! ;)

(Thanks for that last quip, The Onion)

Doesn't matter that you bet on your team that day. You could be tempted to overuse a pitcher and not have him available for a number of days, just to win that game you bet on.
I detested him the first time I saw him running to first base on a walk, and hated him when he played for the Phillies, even though I was there when he caught the ball off Boone's glove for the second out in the 9th when they won the series.

by managers who never dropped a nickel into a slot machine.

If you're gonna point to a game in which Rose let Mario Soto or somebody get roughed up, then you've gotta run Grady Little out of town on a rail. Is it gambling or is it just bad managing? :shrug:

Grady Little was (and is) a bad manager. Rose broke THE cardinal rule in baseball, put in place after the Black Sox scandal. No confusion there at all.

I feel it necessary to point out that the eight members of the 1919 Chicago White Sox bet against their ball club. No confusion there, either, since they were quite obviously in position to influence the outcome of that year's World Series — though, parenthetically, at least one of the eight — Buck Weaver — did not.

Not me

Not John Dowd

Not Bart Giamatti

Not Fay Vincent

Rose was permanently banned for betting on baseball....period. The Dowd Report even explicitly stated that they found no evidence of Rose betting against his team, but there were mountains of evidence that he bet on his team - which was confirmed 2 decades later by Rose himself.

The "Black Sox Scandal" shook baseball to its core, because it suggested to fans that they couldn't trust a ball club to play to win. But if a player bets on his club, he'll obviously play to win, and no "integrity" is damaged.

Rule 21 was and is a reactionary, zero-tolerance measure that seeks to punish when the only crime is violation of the rule itself.

The effect of the Black Sox scandal was to reveal the pernicious influence of criminal gambling interests in the game and how a small cadre of gamblers (headed by the immortal Arnold Rothstein) conspired with the players to fix the 1919 Series. You are correct in stating that the scandal impaired the integrity of the game as fans were worried that their team might throw games, but baseball acted to erase and remove any hint of impropriety from the game. Paramount in that effort was the ban on all gambling.

It's akin to the restrictions on judges receiving gifts or favors...sure, we can assume most judges wouldn't allow such gifts to influence their decisions, but our justice system cannot afford the appearance of impropriety by the actors involved.

Besides, what happens when a player who bets on his own club is on a losing streak and the bookie he's in debt to tells him to throw a game or he'll have his legs broken?

I'm talking about leaving him in and he's effective, but maybe ruined for the next three days,, or hurts his arm and is out longer.
Hope I'm clearer this time.

if we accept that Rose didn't bet against the Reds, I don't see how helping a pitcher to a sore arm would benefit him — unless he was also acting as a tout and taking a cut of his "clients'" winnings.

I just can't seem to get inside the mind of a gambler. :shrug:

didn't care about the ones coming up. I'm not saying he did this, but there was an opportunity for it.

madinmaryland posts something that I can agree with 110%

:wow:

...so should Pete Rose.