Skip to content

Even if he’s reinstated, does Pete Rose make the Hall of Fame?

Aug 22, 2014, 9:27 AM EDT

pete rose getty Getty Images

Mike Downey at CNN writes a column about how Pete Rose has served enough time and should be reinstated. It’s no different than any of the other gabillion Pete Rose columns so it’s not of any special interest in and of itself. Outside of the fact, maybe, that Downey is a Hall of Fame voter and says that he would like the chance to vote for Rose for rose rather than have him be off the ballot.

While the Rose topic has been talked to death generally, I do think that people have overlooked his actual Hall of Fame chances should he be reinstated. Specifically, I question whether the same voters who have taken moral stands against the PED guys actually would vote for Rose whether he’s eligible or not.

After all, these guys are freely admitting that they’re imposing a higher standard than MLB imposes. I mean, Barry Bonds and all of those guys are 100% eligible for the Hall and they’re not sniffing induction. Who’s to say that Rose will get any different treatment? Some have, in the past, drawn distinctions between Rose and the PED guys. And have drawn distinctions between Pete Rose the player and Pete Rose the manager. As such, I think his vote totals would be healthier than that of say Bonds and Clemens. But I can’t see how a full 75% of the people who have decided that lying and breaking rules and affecting the outcome of games in some way that is unquantifiable is a disqualifying factor for some players wouldn’t be one for Rose.

Personally I’d vote for Rose for the Hall if he were eligible because he was clearly an elite player who deserves induction. But that standard isn’t the one that Hall of Fame voters have applied over the years. As such, I think he’d have a tough sled.

  1. sdelmonte - Aug 22, 2014 at 9:35 AM

    1. Don’t want him reinstated. His attitude over the years makes me want to keep him as far away from baseball as possible. But if his ban is lifted, I won’t be that upset. The Reds will give him some honorary post and otherwise his place in the game will be rather minor.

    2. Let him in the Hall. And put that he was suspended on the plaque. Let history record the good and the bad.

    3. And then we raise the age old question about Shoeless Joe Jackson. Reinstating him or the other Black Sox would be meaningless. But if Pete’s numbers are good enough, why not find a way for Shoeless Joe to be in there, again with record of his lifetime ban. Problem is, I think it’s fair to say that as far gone as Pete was, he never threw a game. Shoeless Joe was, according to all accounts, part of the conspiracy (if not very effective in throwing games, given his hitting in the WS). Are there degrees of guilt? Does it matter?

    • stoutfiles - Aug 22, 2014 at 9:50 AM

      1. You realize that keeping him out of the Hall has given him so much more publicity than had he gone in? Nobody would be talking about him.

      2. If/when Arod gets to the HOF, should we put that he was suspended on his plaque? How about Ryan Braun?

      3. I’d say he was very effective, as a good throw means you don’t go 0 for 4 every night (although he did it twice). I would prefer he become unbanned though, that was over 100 years ago and those guys were making peanuts compared to today.

      • raysfan1 - Aug 22, 2014 at 9:58 AM

        2. Yes.

      • sdelmonte - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:19 AM

        Yes, if A-Rod gets in, you put his suspension on the plaque.

        Not that I think he gets in. Too much water under the bridge with BBWAA types who hate him.

    • dan1111 - Aug 22, 2014 at 9:54 AM

      I think this is a very reasonable take.

      However, I think it is far from universally agreed that Jackson was part of the conspiracy.

      • 18thstreet - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:13 AM

        Look, there are people who believe vaccines cause autism or that the moon landing was faked. You’re better off ignoring people who refuse to acknowledge Jackson was part of the conspiracy.

      • dan1111 - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:47 AM

        @18thstreet, on the other hand, there are people who exaggerate the evidence for things that are far less certain.

      • lazlosother - Aug 22, 2014 at 11:02 AM

        Dan has a good point here. It isn’t settled that Jackson was part of the conspiracy. Read Burrying the Black Sox by Gene Carney. It is certain Jackson knew about the conspiracy, but his own teammates, the conspirators, testified in court that he never attended any meetings to plan it out and he never agreed to participate or accept payment. He tried to give the money to the White Sox front office and let them know about what happened. The team secretary (Today’s GM) told him to keep it. The secretary testified to this in court.

        Jackson led all hitters in the series at .375. Anyone who argues that he hit in meaningless situations to make it look good is an idiot. It doesn’t work that way, even if you are Joe Jackson. The only “funny” play he was involved in in the field was when his throw home was cut off in the infield. Observers were surprised as it appeared Jackson had him easily. Jasckson had 5 assists and 30 defensive plays with no errors. Kind of a funny series for a guy who was trying to lose.

        It is certain he knew about the conspiracy, like Buck Weaver would have been banned by Johnson for not reporting it, so I wouldn’t argue about the ban.

      • lazlosother - Aug 22, 2014 at 11:03 AM

        I almost forgot, I really don’t believe that vaccines caused the moon landings to be faked.

    • pjmitch - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:13 AM

      If you aren’t going to let him into the Hall, why bother to reinstate him? It’s all or nothing to me.

      • dan1111 - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:47 AM

        Because it’s different people. MLB decides whether to reinstate him, while the writers get to vote on the Hall.

    • simon94022 - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:55 AM

      I agree with 1 and 2 above.

      As for Shoeless Joe Jackson, he was a good player but did not have a Hall of Fame career. He is most famous for the question of what might have been had he not been banned for life in his prime (and all of the “Black Sox” were deserving of that punishment, with the possible exception of Buck Weaver).

      • largebill - Aug 22, 2014 at 11:22 AM

        Third highest lifetime batting average isn’t quite a Hall of Fame career? Power numbers may seem low, but he played entire career in deadball era.

      • dan1111 - Aug 22, 2014 at 12:18 PM

        Jackson is also seventh all-time in OPS+ and compiled 62.3 WAR in only ten full years–more than many Hall-of-famers who had much longer careers. He was no-doubt Hall of Fame material, even with his career ending when it did. If he had gone on to play further he could have been one of the very best ever.

  2. Bob Loblaw - Aug 22, 2014 at 9:35 AM

    I think he would make it first ballot because what he did was after he played and what he did didn’t have nearly the same effect as what PEDs did. Plus, he was gritty.

    • bigharold - Aug 22, 2014 at 11:08 AM

      “… what he did was after he played and what he did didn’t have nearly the same effect as what PEDs did.”

      Considering he was a degenerate gambler one can’t say for sure that he never broke that rule while he was a player. As for the comparison of gambling to PEDs, .. it’s a specious argument to say that PEDs were wrong for a number of reasons. To start with if the guy with the most hits of all time could get away with breaking the cardinal rule of baseball it undermines everything about the sport. Every time a game ended in dramatic fashion somebody would be screaming “fix”. Also, while hitters certainly gained advantage in being able to hit the ball farther pitchers were also using PEDs so to some extent it leveled the playing field. Moreover, like games ending in dramatic fashion causing fans to wonder if the fix was in, .. nobody can say with any certainty exactly how many players used and to what extent. Saying one as worst than the other simply is an unsupportable position.

      That being said, I think Rose should be reinstated as he’s served his time so to speak. I think his career as a player certainly makes him HoF worthy. But, more importantly, his recent statements demonstrate more remorse and contrition. Only Rose knows if they truly reflect his feelings or he’s just saying what he thinks people want to hear. As long as he was denying his actions, minimizing their seriousness or qualifying his statements about taking responsibility MLB really had no choice but to continue his ban. Rose did all that to himself too.

      I’d like to see Rose in the HoF while he’s still alive but every time I think of Rose’s situation it’s clear his actions not only put him in his current predicament but his actions afterwards and his big mouth have kept him where he finds himself. I’m certain that had Rose fessed up immediately and took unequivocal responsibility for them he’d have been reinstated and inducted in the HoF by now.

      • Bob Loblaw - Aug 22, 2014 at 11:13 AM

        All those words and you didn’t even mention his grit. I didn’t say anything about whether he DESERVED to be in the HOF. I said I think he would make it first ballot. BBWAA don’t, IMHO, care about the gambling issue as much as they do the PEDs issue.

        And did I mention that Rose was probably the grittiest player ever? He would get in on his All-Star game demolition of Ray Fosse alone.

      • bigharold - Aug 22, 2014 at 11:31 AM

        “All those words and you didn’t even mention his grit. ”

        Last time I checked “grit” was not a criteria for the HoF but feel free to make that your most important indicator. And, PEDs being worse than gangling is STILL an unsupportable position.

    • largebill - Aug 22, 2014 at 11:27 AM

      Why do people say with such certainty that Rose didn’t use PED’s? Jose Canseco did not invent PED’s. Rose’s gofer and bet runner who lived with Rose was a convicted steroid dealer/weight lifter. Rose was obsessed with reaching Cobb’s record. I wouldn’t bet a nickle against idea that he took “special vitamins” in order to be able to play in his mid-40’s.

      • Bob Loblaw - Aug 22, 2014 at 11:30 AM

        Then EVERYBODY used PEDs possibly, right? And EVERYBODY should not be in the HOF right? I mean, sure EVERYBODY could have used PEDs in the entire history of MLB. But do we really want to say that EVERYBODY could have used PEDs? If so, then that’s cool with me. NOBODY ever gets into the HOF again.

        As bad as the BBWAA is, I am glad they all don’t think like you or nobody would ever get in again. Why did Maddux, Glavine and Thomas get in when there is no certainty they never used PEDs?

      • Francisco (FC) - Aug 22, 2014 at 11:56 AM

        You realize the very same people don’t vote in Mike Piazza or Jeff Bagwell because they MIGHT have taken PEDs (they have suspicions you know).

      • largebill - Aug 22, 2014 at 12:02 PM

        I’m not opposed to PED users getting in. I am opposed to people stupidly assuming Rose did not use and then making the ridiculous assertion that PED use is worse than gambling on a sport you’re involved in.

      • Reflex - Aug 22, 2014 at 5:04 PM

        Rose was heavily involved with the early promotion of PEDs in the game.

        http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=steroids&num=2

        Anyone who thinks Rose is better than the PED users ignores the fact that Rose was part of that culture as well.

  3. stoutfiles - Aug 22, 2014 at 9:38 AM

    Gets in easy. He’s going into the Hall for his stats as a baseball player, and the gambling had no effect on those. People get angry about PEDs because it makes their stats look like a lie, Rose’s numbers are legit.

    • Paper Lions - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:13 AM

      Rose probably used amphetamines his entire career, which greatly affect focus and energy level. There is a 0% chance that Rose’s numbers would be the same if not for his PED use.

      • SocraticGadfly - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:35 AM

        Greenies have a lot less effect than PEDs.

      • Paper Lions - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:37 AM

        Greenies are PEDs.

        Feel free to provide any evidence whatsoever that amphetamines have a larger effect on production on the field that steroids. Any at all.

      • jm91rs - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:45 AM

        Greenies are not PEDs for the purposes of comparing rose to those of his generation. If most of those guys took greenies then that cannot be held against rose (not saying PEDs should be held against anyone).

      • Paper Lions - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:57 AM

        Using that logic, if most of the guys during the 90s took steroids, we should ignore that too. Evidence suggests that at least 1/2 of MLB players took steroids. When an investigation has had inside sources a HUGE proportion of the clubhouse was implicated in obtaining steroids from individual dealers.

        Either the numbers are all legit or none of them are legit….this splitting hairs is hypocrisy designed to defend childhood heroes and nothing more.

      • [citation needed] fka COPO - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:56 AM

        If most of those guys took greenies then that cannot be held against rose

        Can’t you use this argument to discount steroid use in the ‘steroid era’ though?

      • Paper Lions - Aug 22, 2014 at 1:13 PM

        Well, you could…unless your goal was to try to act like one transgression was worse than the others when there is no actual evidence that it was either “worse” (whatever that means) or less common.

      • raysfan1 - Aug 22, 2014 at 1:11 PM

        Understand, Rose had a close friend in the 1980s, while he was a player and then manager, who just happened to be a steroids dealer. He also referred his players to said person’s gym. While nobody can say he either used steroids or encouraged others to do so, the possibility certainly exists.

      • raysfan1 - Aug 22, 2014 at 1:45 PM

        http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=steroids&num=2

      • sportsfan18 - Aug 22, 2014 at 6:05 PM

        But greenies were used by so many

        why would it be wrong for Rose to use them when so many others did?

        coffee was leaded and unleaded in the clubhouse to way back then…

        The current commissioner, Selig, has said he first heard about greenies in the old Milwaukee Braves clubhouses of the late 1950s.

        everyone knew players were using greenies. it was like people smoking back then.

        it was NOT taboo to use greenies

        1960s: “Greenies” are widespread in baseball, according to pitcher Jim Bouton.

        WIDE spread people. It was KNOWN that greenies were being used by MANY players.

        greenies were used by so many players in the 60’s and 70’s…

        people knew and didn’t care that players used greenies

    • Francisco (FC) - Aug 22, 2014 at 11:52 AM

      Oh, so Amphetamines don’t count? I’d better right that down.

      • Francisco (FC) - Aug 22, 2014 at 11:52 AM

        Ah crap, word salad. Write, not Right. Right?

      • raysfan1 - Aug 22, 2014 at 2:54 PM

        It’s a rite of passage.

  4. jinx21fan - Aug 22, 2014 at 9:45 AM

    Bloggers like to feign some great moral debate, Pete Rose deserves to be reinstated and in the HOF.

    • Jack Glasscock's Cup - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:13 AM

      the moral debate comes from the sacrosanct attitude taken by the BBWAA, who, Godfather-like, needs to give its blessing to the faithful for enshrinement.

      It’s been well-established that Cobb was an SOB, Anson a racist, Yawkey an even bigger racist, Speaker a game-thrower, Mantle and Ruth (very) probably corked their bats, Gaylord Perry threw a slick one, so did Sutton, and so on and so on (diff’rent stroke for diff’rent folks). Their failings and their cheatings weren’t looked upon with the disdain given to modern medical miracles.

      My problem is that no one can define the affect PEDs have, and no one can give a proper definition of what a PED is. Joe Mauer used to wear red-tinted contact lenses to help with his sun vision. Troy Tulowitzki sleeps in a hyperbaric oxygen chamber to aid in soreness recovery. Bartolo Colon got away with stem cell treatment. Why aren’t those PEDs? They enhance performance.

      I’d rather have a hall of fame with Rose, Clemens, Bonds, etc. and their faults, than a continuation of the cronyism that elected Rick Ferrell, Lloyd Waner, Jesse Haines and Tommy McCarthy.

      • Kevin S. - Aug 22, 2014 at 3:59 PM

        Bravo.

    • largebill - Aug 22, 2014 at 11:29 AM

      “Pete Rose deserves to be reinstated and in the HOF.”

      WRONG! Rose deserves the punishment he was given that he knew all along was the punishment for the offense he knowingly and repeatedly committed.

  5. nbjays - Aug 22, 2014 at 9:48 AM

    I despair that someone with a Hall of Fame vote, someone who apparently thinks he knows baseball, and someone who fancies himself a clever enough writer to wax poetic over the idyllic location of Cooperstown (…who made a pilgrimage to the village overlooking Lake Otesaga …), can’t be bothered to do his homework and find out that Cooperstown sits on the southern shore of Otsego Lake. He may have been confused because he was staying at the Otesaga Resort Hotel or something, but it is still a lazy piece of “journalism”.

    • girardisbraces - Aug 22, 2014 at 11:10 AM

      I live 45 minutes from Cooperstown. I twitched when I read that.
      I think the internet has made a lot of writers lazy. I doubt the guy has ever been there, or ever stayed at the Otesaga (which is beautiful, BTW. I highly recommend it.)
      Hell, typing in “Lake Otesaga” in Google would have given him the correct answer.

      I know it’s an opinion piece, but have some pride in the finished product.

      • klingonj - Aug 22, 2014 at 3:47 PM

        I remember going up there in the 70s to visit a girl I knew. it was a great place back then

  6. jfk69 - Aug 22, 2014 at 9:48 AM

    I am all for opening a new wing at Cooperstown.
    It will be called The Hall of Shame.
    Before entering this wing. Please read.
    These are players who cheated,lied, gambled and took drugs to enhance their abilities.
    These players would have made the Hall of Fame based on their lifetime stats. But chose to throw it away for short term gain.
    We have included these players for posterity sake. It our hope that by doing this. The generations to come will understand the importance of fair play and that their integrity and the games does matter.
    Thank you
    Future Hall of Famers.

    • dan1111 - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:11 AM

      The Hall of Fame will be truly rarefied once you move every single player who has ever cheated, lied, gambled, or taken drugs out of it. In fact, one wonders what you propose to do with most of the old building.

      • 18thstreet - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:14 AM

        I do enjoy the humor of literally constructing a physical Hall of Shame. But if we’re going to do that, I demand a Hall of Very Good.

    • Alex K - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:12 AM

      Are you planning on moving people who are already into the HOF into that wing? It will look pretty good with Mantle, Mays, and Aaron in it.

  7. unclemosesgreen - Aug 22, 2014 at 9:49 AM

    There’s some evidence that suggests Rose has support amongst voters. In 1991 he received 41 write-in votes from voters even though BBWAA doesn’t count write-ins.

    • largebill - Aug 22, 2014 at 12:10 PM

      That was 23 years ago and long before he admitted he was lying about never betting on baseball. And even then 41 votes was less than 10%.

  8. phantomspaceman - Aug 22, 2014 at 9:51 AM

    I don’t understand why the Hall of Fame and MLB need to be treated as one. Pete Rose (and all the PED guys, for that matter) are part of the history of the game. The Hall of Fame should stand to preserve that history (good and bad). Pete Rose should should be in the hall of fame and all of his accomplishments and various transgressions should be noted. Same goes for Bonds, Clemens, etc. and if MLB doesn’t want them near the actual game, well, that’s understandable.

    • fleaman1381 - Aug 22, 2014 at 9:58 AM

      Totally agree with this. Steroids era might be seen as a black mark on baseball, but it’s a part of the game now.

    • raysfan1 - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:10 AM

      It was the Hall of Fame’s decision to make banned players ineligible for induction, after Rose received his permanent suspension. Joe Jackson had previously been eligible and was not elected. The Hall’s board of directors, however, was very much afraid Rose would be, thus the new rule. Seeing as they created the rule specifically to keep Rose out, it is very unlikely they will relent and toss out that rule to potentially let Rose in while he remains on MLB’s banned list.

    • Paper Lions - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:19 AM

      Oddly enough, it is the exact opposite. Clemens, Bonds, McGwire, and others have maintained associations with former teams with McGwire being a hitting coach for the last 4 years. MLB has no problem with these guys being in and around the game…but voters don’t want them in the HOF.

      • phantomspaceman - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:50 AM

        Yea, that is true actually. I guess the “not wanting the players around the game” really was meant for Rose. And that would still be understandable. I guess I should really direct my point to the voters. Vote these guys in and let the HoF sort out the details on what parts of their careers/characters to point out.

    • largebill - Aug 22, 2014 at 11:32 AM

      You’re confusing the museum with the players enshrined as Hall of Famers. The museum preserves the history of the game and has multiple exhibits on Rose’s career.

  9. ctony1216 - Aug 22, 2014 at 9:51 AM

    I’d set the odds for reinstatement at +130, and for induction at +190.

  10. brazcubas - Aug 22, 2014 at 9:52 AM

    I don’t know about elite, but he was a very good player and deserves induction.

    I think he’d get in, some voters might decide he doesn’t deserve first-ballot “honors,” but I doubt he would hang around longer than two years.

  11. sportsfan18 - Aug 22, 2014 at 9:53 AM

    OK Craig,

    Per your hypothetical, let’s say Rose is reinstated. You asked us if he would make the HOF.

    First, my and the rest of our opinions on whether we want or think he should be in the HOF are not relevant to your query because we don’t get to vote for players for the HOF.

    So, would he make it? That would be up to the writers who vote for the HOF. My gut feeling is that he would not make it in but I don’t know the make up of the writes, their ages (which I think would play into whether a person voted for him or not) etc…

    My hunch is that sometime after Rose has died he’ll make the HOF. Folks know what he did on the field warrant his place there but I think many don’t want him to be in while he’s living.

  12. justaredsguy - Aug 22, 2014 at 9:53 AM

    FWIW, a quote in this article suggests that Rose was betting on baseball while he was still a player: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/columnists/john-erardi/2014/08/20/john-erardi-on-pete-rose-chances-for-reinstatement/14344869/

    • largebill - Aug 22, 2014 at 12:08 PM

      Exactly right. It takes a special kind of fool to believe Rose just suddenly found a bookie after retiring as a player. Believe it has come out that in the early 1970’s the NL president sent a warning to Rose about his association with gamblers.

  13. fleaman1381 - Aug 22, 2014 at 9:56 AM

    I don’t think he would make it on the first available ballot… the voters would probably want to stick it to him at least one more time for not respecting the game. But I don’t see how baseball could leave the all-time hits leader out of the Hall. For that matter, I can’t see how they leave Bonds out or any PED user. I would be alright with them not lifting the ban on Rose, but putting him in the hall.

  14. thebadguyswon - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:03 AM

    It’s a joke that it’s even debatable. Clearly a Hall of Famer.

  15. pete2112 - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:03 AM

    I have a hard time putting Rose in the same category as PED players waiting for their HOF induction vote. I honestly don’t really see the correlation at all. What Rose did on the field is pretty incredible and done without enhancement of drugs. That’s not to say what he did off the field and during games with regard to betting, etc. aren’t disgraceful, but I think he deserves to be reinstated and time will tell what happens with regard to the HOF voters.

    • 18thstreet - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:20 AM

      Are you aware that Rose regularly took amphetamines? You’re surely aware that he had an exceptionally long career, and that he rarely missed games during the bulk of his career (10 seasons with more than 160 games played).

      But, sure, let’s pretend that Rose did what he did (on the field) without the enhancement of drugs. Amphetamines are totally useless. Let’s pretend it’s like taking a placebo. (sarcasm)

      No way Rose breaks Ty Cobb’s record without performance enhancing drugs. None.

      • pete2112 - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:40 AM

        Will you then say Bonds in no way breaks the single season home run record and all-time home run record without PED’s?

      • 18thstreet - Aug 22, 2014 at 11:58 AM

        Dear Pete2112:

        No way Bonds breaks the season-season home run record and all-time home runs without PEDs.

        Sincerely,
        18thStreet

        (PS — Is this debated?)

      • pete2112 - Aug 22, 2014 at 1:09 PM

        To be honest I wasn’t sure where you stood on this subject. There are others who feel otherwise.

      • 18thstreet - Aug 22, 2014 at 1:22 PM

        I think Bonds was an incredible talent who did amazing Hall-of-Famey things before using steroids. One of the tragedies of his life is that most people only remember him as the swollen-headed beast from the late Giant years.

        Pre-steriods, Bonds was a (without looking it up) 40-homer player (among his many other talents). He was never a 70-homer guy. McGuire, on the other hand, was always a homerun hitter and thus always had a gigantic season in him (if he could stay healthy). (This also presumes that McGuire was, as a young slugger, “clean,” and I have no idea if he was.)

      • sportsfan18 - Aug 22, 2014 at 5:52 PM

        @ pete

        sorry to chime in as I don’t know if the two of you have anything going on relative to this topic… but here I go…

        No, without PEDS, Barry Bonds does NOT hit 73 HR’s in one season…

        In his first 12 seasons in the majors, his season high was 46. One other season he hit 42 and another season he hit 40.

        The other 9 yrs in his first 12 seasons he did not reach 40 hr’s.

        His 13th season in ’98 he still only hit 37 hrs

        His 14th season in ’99 he only hit 34 hrs

        His 15th season in 2000 he hit 49 hrs.

        Then in his 16th MLB season at the age of 36 yrs old he hits 73 hrs in one season.

        He was 36 yrs old an in his 16th season.

        He’d NEVER hit 50 in a season or 60 in a season.

        He JUMPED from 49 to 73. That is a huge increase.

        His single season HR total increased by 49% over his previous single season high in his 16th season at 36 yrs old.

        Yeah, there was SOMETHING that caused this. He’d already played a career’s worth of games by the time he hit 73 hrs.

        Folks at that age don’t just jump up that much in the HR dept…

        Hank Aaron NEVER hit 50 hrs in a season ever…

    • Paper Lions - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:25 AM

      How do you know that Rose didn’t use PEDs? PED use was common in MLB throughout Rose’s entire career, with amphetamines being used by the vast majority of players. Evidence continues to suggest that amphetamines have had a bigger effect on performance than steroids.

    • bigharold - Aug 22, 2014 at 11:25 AM

      “That’s not to say what he did off the field and during games with regard to betting, etc….”

      If the all time hit leader can break MLB’s cardinal rule with impunity than what’s the point of having rules at all, ..any rules?

      Rose knew he was breaking the rule that could get him banned and did so anyway. He compounded that by lying and denial for years. Then when he did finally fess up, years later, he did so in a self serving way, to wit; to promote his book and if I remember correctly right about the time the latest HoF inductees were announced.

      Rose is in the position he’s in because of HIS actions.

    • raysfan1 - Aug 22, 2014 at 1:27 PM

      http://seanlahman.com/files/rose/dowd/dowd_cover.html

      http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=steroids&num=2

      I would say to not be certain Rose did not use steroids himself, and definitely not be certain he did not encourage others to do so.

  16. Detroit Michael - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:09 AM

    If Rose were reinstated, I don’t think he would be eligible for the BBWAA ballot (plus he isn’t grandfathered into the 15-year period instead of the 10-year period).

    Regardless, I don’t think Rose would be voted into the Hall by the BBWAA or the veterans committee (in its various incarnations) during the next several decades.

    • pete2112 - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:38 AM

      Maybe so as most players were taking amphetamines in the 70’s but I’m not sure you can say that for steroid use in the 2000’s. And of course the big difference is that Rose is banned and the PED guys aren’t.

  17. [citation needed] fka COPO - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:09 AM

    Unless voters are going to be complete hypocrites, I can’t see how he gets close to 75%. He broke the cardinal rule of baseball (and lied about it for 15+ years). Can they really keep out McGwire/Bonds/Clemens for breaking the “morals” clause and then vote for Rose without invoking the same?

    Also, the idea that he only bet when he was a manager seems hollow to me. The guy is a compulsive gambler and liar. Why should he get the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t gamble while playing? Never mind the PED connections to Rose and how many voters like to use “so and so was teammates with X who used, so maybe so and so used”…

    • unclemosesgreen - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:17 AM

      Voters are going to be complete hypocrites.

      • [citation needed] fka COPO - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:22 AM

        Which is fine with me as long as they own up to it. I can just see a lot of circular arguments about morals/cheating being applied to some but not Rose.

  18. genericcommenter - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:19 AM

    He hurt his teams for the last 8 years of his career, especially when he was inserting his 40 year-old useless self into the lineup to compile stats. He’s the definition of a selfish cheater. At least PED guys were helping their teams.

    • pete2112 - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:26 AM

      I think “selfish cheater” could be applied to both PED guys and Rose.

      • genericcommenter - Aug 23, 2014 at 9:29 PM

        Well, that was mostly my point- I think it’s been applied enough to the former.

    • dan1111 - Aug 23, 2014 at 4:18 AM

      I don’t think his record as a player-manager really supports this. He hit decently for the Reds in 1984-1985. Only in his final season (after he had already broken the record) did his stats fall off a cliff. And he stopped playing himself well before that season ended.

      Did it make sense to play Rose at 1B? Not really, but the Reds decided to put him there. They probably wanted to benefit from him breaking the hit record as much as he did. The only player he was blocking when he started was the also ancient Tony Perez.

  19. weaselpuppy - Aug 22, 2014 at 10:33 AM

    He’s already in the Business Arrangement Marriage to Half Your Age Wives with Ridiculous Fake Boobs HOF

  20. bisonaudit - Aug 22, 2014 at 11:30 AM

    Baseball reinstating him doesn’t need to happen for him to be eligible for the hall. The hall changed that rule post Rose because they were afraid of what the voters might do. They could change it back any time.

    There is a distinction between Rose and PED guys. Rose is infinitely worse.

    I do not understand for a single second why anyone would ever allow this guy within a thousand yards of the game again or the hall of fame. I’m in favor of legalized and regulated sports gaming everywhere. What you absolutely cannot tolerate is participants in the game wagering on it, let alone doing so with a criminal syndicate as Rose did. Those actions are orders of magnitude more damaging to the game than PEDs.

  21. ejheim62 - Aug 22, 2014 at 1:35 PM

    for God’s sake put him in already. Based on baseball playing ability and stats, he earned it. What he did afterwards is reprehensible, no doubt. But if he had been on the ballot before the gambling charges, he’d be a shoo-in. Just do it already.

    • Reflex - Aug 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM

      He did these things, as well as encourage PED use for his players, when he was both a player and manager. They are not post-career, they were during his career as an active player.

  22. fansrus - Aug 22, 2014 at 9:05 PM

    Isn’t there a plaque or banner in every MLB clubhouse that so much as says gambling is a death penalty offense. Rose, player that he was, lied and denied for 15 years before he finally “confessed.” To my knowledge, he has confessed, but never shown any insight or remorse other than I’m sorry I got caught. I, of course agree with everyone who points out that there are those of really bad character who are already in. Can’t unring the bell. That was then, this is now. If he ever gets in, it should be posthumously. He should not be allowed to enjoy it.

  23. fansrus - Aug 23, 2014 at 9:36 PM

    He violated the cardinal rule. Case closed, no?

  24. deepizzaguy - Aug 25, 2014 at 4:08 PM

    In my opinion Pete would have to kiss a lot of you know what with the sports writers if he is going to be inducted into the Major League Baseball Hall Of Fame. There are a lot of former ESPN sports casters who work for other television networks that hate Pete’s guts. Pete would to be you know what to get voted into the Hall Of Fame. Just think of buns and a female dog in relationships with sportscasters.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Patience finally paying off for Royals fans
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (2873)
  2. D. Ortiz (2172)
  3. J. Hamilton (2116)
  4. N. Arenado (2106)
  5. C. Kershaw (2077)
  1. G. Stanton (2051)
  2. A. Rizzo (1961)
  3. A. Pujols (1882)
  4. M. Trout (1811)
  5. A. Pagan (1807)