I still think he should be banned from participating in any baseball events due to his gambling (on his own team to win, by the way and not by throwing away games) but he should be allowed in the HOF due to what he accomplished ON THE FIELD. We need to distinguish between the two. To me, the HOF is about what you accomplished on the field (without steroids etc., of course). PERIOD.

IMHO. He should be banned from all baseball events and the HOF. What he did was inexcusable and goes against the integrity of the game. He lied about it for years. He has only starting to show remorse and that I suspect that is only to help draw support for the HOF.

Sorry, can't resist throwing in my two cents about the Black Sox scandal, since I continue to feel this is one of the most misunderstood (at least by the general public) injustices in baseball.

Enough research has been done to suggest that far more than 8 ballplayers were guilty of throwing games in the early 20th century. The owners (including Sox owner Charles Comiskey) tried to ignore the 1919 Series for a good year before a new betting scandal made it impossible to keep up the charade --- Judge Landis was hired by the owners (and given unparalled power and a pretty hefty salary) to achieve one purpose: restore the credibility of baseball by scapegoating the most notorious examples of corruption.

(Incidentally, it's a much greater injustice that Landis is in the HOF --- the man conveniently allowed Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker to escape lifetime banishment when they were caught betting on games as player-managers several years later, and his overt racism was a major factor in legitimizing and perpetuating the color barrier.)

As for the 8 Black Sox, count me in the camp of those who believe there is strong evidence that Shoeless Joe was NOT guilty of throwing anything, and there is even reason to doubt whether he sat in on a single meeting with the gamblers or even knew of the plan until his best friend on the club, Lefty Williams, threw $5000 on his hotel bed and told him the other guys were counting on him to join the scheme.

Even then, he tried repeatedly to return the money to Comiskey, who basically told him to keep it (and keep his mouth shut). Years after he was banished, Jackson would win a civil suit against Comiskey for wrongfully withholding salary from him, and part of Jackson's argument (which the jury must have accepted in order to find in his favor) was that he had nothing to do with the fix.

The penalty for betting on baseball has been clear for decades.. Pete made his choice. He belongs nowhere near the HOF.

I'm pretty old but not old enough to have lived through the Black Sox and certainly not as informed as Brent on the subject but I did live through the Pete Rose era and think it is a joke that he is not in the HOF. Look, I know it's hard to love the guy. I don't think anyone but his teammates were fond of him when he played, but he was certainly one of the greatest players of all time and his "crime" had no impact on the so-called "integrity" of the game. (How were his actions any different than Hornung/Karras in the NFL?) His exclusion will become even more absurd once the juicers start going in.

I think he should be banned. Rose originally said he never bet on baseball..and then was caught lying. Then he said he never bet on the Reds...and was caught. How do we know he didn't bet while he was playing and didn't do something in those games to make sure of the outcome?? Once again we're going on his word. He's lied before, maybe he's lying again. Keep him banned!!!

I would love to see Pete in the Hall of Fame, but there are two reasons he isn't.

A) His crime was against baseball. It's not a humanitarian hall of fame, so guys who were drug users, abusers and potential murderers get a pass...their transgressions, arguably, did not tarnish the game itself. No one is saying Rose is a horrible person or that gambling is the ultimate sin...but his crimes were against the game itself and its integrity.

B) He denied it for years and then finally relented when he saw a chance to get himself in the hall. Many people have said if he'd come clean right away and been contrite, he'd be in the hall by now. Now, it's just too late.

I would love to see him in there, but I totally agree that it's far too slippery of a slope to let him in.

As an addition...

The Hall of Fame still recognizes Rose's accomplishments and baseball fans know what he's done...just as everyone knows Shoeless Joe was one of the greatest players of all time. He doesn't need a Hall induction to verify that.

I believe the Hall should dedicate exhibits to Rose and the Black Sox, honouring the good and bad history of the game, and that can be done without an official induction.

I don't know what we concluded yesterday concerning Trembley's decision to sit Wieters, but I read somewhere that Reimold was coming into this game getting on base in 17 of his last 25 plate appearances. before being sat.

None of Wieter's hits were bombs and I understand that Trembley has certain games picked out to sit him - this wasn't a particularly bad idea considering the day game today and allowing him to gear up for the weekend (I remember hearing that in the minors he rarely, if ever, caught more than 3 straight games) as well as the fact that it might've given Tillman a bit more confidence with Zaun behind the plate. But with Reimold seeing the ball real well and not needing a rest, why sit him and play Pie? They're facing a righty, but Reimold's .273 against them, over Pie's .248. Maybe Trembley's just looking for places to play Pie to keep him fresh, maybe we're trying to work a deal that includes Pie or maybe Trembley wants to lose any momentum the guys have before seeing the Sox tomorrow, but after starting the (nonmathematical) second half 3-9, you have to do what you can to win some games and get as much momentum as possible going into this weekend.

Please don't say that it's just your average day game, giving a few of the starters a rest and allowing some of the reserves a chance. Reimold's a competitor and if he's seeing the ball well and getting on base, you have to put him in there and give him as many chances as possible.

I have never understood why they just don't ban him as a manager but let him into the HoF as a player. Have the plaque mention that he is banned from managing for life due to gambling. Seems like a good solution that addresses his accomplishments as a player, but still punishes him for his actions as a manager. Assuming, of course, that he never gambled as a player.

When it comes to Pete Rose, I certainly understand why he is banned from MLB and, subsequently, why he is banned from the Hall of Fame. But, keep in mind, these are 2 separate entities. MLB does not determine who is eligible for the Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame has their own criteria. One of their rules is that if you are banned from baseball, then you are ineligible for Hall of Fame consideration.

Maybe those that are Rose sympathists should approach the Hall of Fame to alter their rules. For example, the 5 year wait period was waived for Roberto Clemente. This had nothing to do with how MLB treated the situation. It was up to the Hall of Fame.

Stop placing the weight of the issue on MLB. It is the Hall of Fame that decided not to include them in their club because of their rules for qualification.

I had the pleasure of seeing the vast majority of Pete Rose's career, as I was in high school in a Cincinnati suburb during Rose's rookie year. I attended dozens of games at old Crosley Field and saw what a great player Rose was. His hustle really jump-started the game and excited the fans. He was a tremendous clutch hitter and seemed to have his biggest games when they counted the most.

Close observers could learn a lot from Rose. He clearly showed what someone with a non-athletic body could do with talent combined with incredible focus and drive. And we could learn where such focus, drive and obsession can lead us astray by what happened when he was a manager.

There is absolutely no doubt that Rose should be in the Hall of Fame as one of the greatest hitters of all time. We do vote people into the Hall as players and others as managers. Rose goes in as a player, not as a manager.

When you consider the sins of so many other players resting comfortably in the Hall, there is just no justification for keeping Rose out.

At least he bet on his team to WIN, instead of throwing games. And he certainly never went into the stands and beat up a quadraplegic like another Hall of Famer, Ty Cobb.

Ethical or moral considerations? I'll take Rose over Cobb any day.

Play him for Scott. If you're going to play Pie in left, as least let Reimold help out at the plate. Pie and Scott both are 0 for 2 at this point, each with a strike-out. Pie just doesn't have what it takes to play at this level and Scott is 2 for his last 32. Give Reimold the at-bats he deserves and send Luke back down to Delmarva for a 2 day vacation, so he can come back refreshed and get 6 dingers in 4 games.

You could make a legitimate argument illustrating the almost-parallel paths taken between the gambling that racked the sport throughout the 1910s and the steroid use over the past decade-plus.

Both were open secrets within the sport for many years. Both reached a head when a major event (the 1919 series versus either the '97 or '01 home run chases) exposed the open secret into the public eye. Both were ignored by the powers-that-be in the sport until public outcry and media scrutiny forced their hand. Both faced questionable and uneven discipline from the commissioner at the time.

And yes, I actually believe that the two are in the same vein as artificially and illegally attempting to influence the outcome of a game.

I also believe that anyone eligible for the Hall of Fame, especially where the evidence is not overly convincing, should be given their shot. That includes Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, and Barry Bonds.

It also means that until the former two are given their opportunity, I won't support a steroids user for the Hall. Not that it matters since I don't have a vote (yet...), but i think that every great player deserves their shot at the Hall, even if their crimes are permanently etched on their plaques.

Rose should never see the inside of the Hall of Fame without a ticket. Not only did he gamble on games in which he was involved, he lied about it for 15 years. Sure, there are a lot of louts in the HOF - I wouldn't shake Ty Cobb's hand - but their transgressions did not affect the integrity of games being played on the field, and did not affect the competitive integrity of the players they played with and competed against. Gambling is the most corruptive force that any competitive event has to deal with, and could cause the downfall of the great game faster than we realize.

We have survived a PED era, and those guys don't deserve HOF induction, either. If anyone has any doubt that it has damaged the game, look at those being outed as cheats: some of the greatest players in the game. There was no deterrent for PED's in the 90's and look at the mess we have to live with. Rose is a deterrent to every HOF'er or every .230 hitter that wants to consort with bookies. It hurts to do this - he was a GREAT player, and not an insigificant figure in the game's history. More reason to keep him out.

There's a difference between personal integrity and actions that corrupt the game. I would shake Mark McGwire's hand - a good guy. But I don't want to see his plaque next to Joe DiMaggio's in Cooperstown.

There are those who say the HOF is a museum, so "what's the big deal?" They are wrong - the HOF is a museum and a hall of fame - that's why it's called the National Baseball Hall of Fame AND Museum. Recognize Rose, McGwire, A-Rod, Manny, and Sosa in the museum, but don't let them anywhere near the hall of greats.

I agree with you, DJ. And this gets back to Mitch's post about how it's not up to MLB but the HOF to change its policy about not considering players banned from MLB.

I think that argument could easily be reversed --- it's kind of strange to think that somebody banned from baseball should be allowed into a baseball Hall of Fame, though I realize the HOF could decide to follow that policy. But --- at least in the case of the Black Sox (and especially Joe Jackson) --- why can't MLB simply acknowledge that a LIFETIME ban, by definition, expires the moment the player dies. It's almost perverse that MLB continues to "ban" long-dead players. Lift the ban and let the Hall voters have a chance to do their jobs and decide whether these guys are worthy. (Which is what will happen to the steroids cheats anyway.)

Granted, this doesn't help Rose any (at least not if he hopes to live to see himself inducted into the Hall), but it would be a step in the right direction.

It doesn't matter that Rose only bet on his own team and "tried to win every game he managed." There is still the appearance of possible mishandling of his job and his players. What if he worked a reliever too long because he had money on that particular game, or put in a player who was hurting and needed a day off? I don't for a second believe he ever did anything like that, but the very fact that a manager COULD make that kind of decision makes betting on his own game a horrible violation. It's really no better than betting against his own team. Win or lose, whether his managing was influenced by his wagering or not, there's at least a theoretical possibility that it was. That can't be tolerated in any sport, ever.

Pete
I really think Selig will never reinstate Pete Rose back into baseball! Rose has never "Come Clean" even when faced with the hard truth. That said, I doubt he would ever bet on his team to lose because of his competitive nature. In the immortal words of Chico Esquela, "Charlie Hustle, you bet"!

Is Bergy injured? He looked like he was in horrible pain when he left the field.

The HOF is not the Hall of Ethics. If so you'd really have to re-examine some of the players in the Hall. Pete's accomplishments on the field speak for themselves and should be rewarded.

1. the hall's own qualifications list integrity, sportsmanship, character among the qualities for consideration for selection to the HoF.

2. It isnt about Rose vs Cobb, Rose vs Bonds or Rose vs anything else. It is about Rose vs Rose.

3. Rose did more than deny his actions for over a decade. He intentionally took every opportunity to play the injured party and rub the collective noses of the hall and MLB in his indignant righteousness. He smeared baseball, the owners, the commish and the investigators through the mud only to then eventually admit they were right. He showed up uninvited as persona non grata at repeated induction cermonies playing the clown to make a buck and to stroke his ego by blasting baseball to anyone who would listen

4. Rose accepted the ban in a negotiated settlement.

5. Allowing entry to the Hall would be a HUGE financial windfall for Rose and I dont want to see this miserable excuse for a human being rewarded. We can discuss it after he is dead.

6. The hits, wins, records and other accomplishments are duly noted in the HoF museum. NO one pretends they didnt happen or that the man didnt play.

Much like Michael Vick is now depending on mercy from the very person he lied through his teeth to a few years ago, Rose is pleading mercy from the very people who he trashed, insulted, lied to and belittled for years. Personally I have not seen either of them eat enough crow and be prostrated before the world to consider their appeal for mercy. vindictive? darn tootin'. Unchristian? If they want to buy an indulgence from the Pope, I will take my cut.

The Black Sox were far different from Pete Rose. They played for a grossly corrupt owner in an era baseball is all too eagar to forget. They are the fall guys for a time when ignorant athletes were frequently taken advantage. Remmeber, Shoeless Joe couldn't even read for himself. I doubt he fully understood what he was doing.
Pete Rose on the other hand, is a completely different beast. He was a wealthy man who made a great living. And he had the benefit of decades of precedent that said betting baseball was forbidden. Nonetheless, for a long time, I felt that Pete Rose deserved reinstatement. I thought this because of the technical agreement with Commissioner Giamatti; MLB agreed to make no official finding that Pete Rose bet on the Reds and he would be allowed to petition for reinstatement.
However, Pete Rose has handled his banishment rather poorly. He has been a frequent party crasher at the HOF inductions, a regular at horse tracks, and frequent visitor to Las Vegas. Now Pete Rose has always claimed his sin was a gambling problem that manifested itself into a need to bet baseball to cover losses from other sports. If that is true, then it only stands to reason that Rose stop his gambling all togeather. Unfortunately, Pete Rose seems to show no interest in genuine rehabilitation so I see no need to consider his reinstatement.

Pete,

Whew ..... you had me there for a moment. As someone who enjoys baseball history I would contend that keeping Pete Rose out of the HOF is assinine. While I personally hated Pete Rose, anyone who ever managed the game pointed to Pete Rose as to how to play the game, besides being the Hit King! Pete Rose bet on baseball and Ty Cobb killed a man and who isn't in the HOF?

Joe Jackson, as Ted Williams so eliquently stated in 1998 while serving on the Old Timers Committee, "hasn't Joe passed away, how many lifetimes does he have to be suspended.

In a world where the effects of steroids actually alter the basis of comparison from one generation to another, Pete Rose's betting didn't influence the way the guy played the game or the level of his production. He should be banned from MLB for life but he deserves to be in the HOF and his plaque should note he admitted to gambling on the game!

To my mind, betting for your own team to win is not a whole lot better than betting they will lose. How many times did Rose leave a starter in a game longer than he should have, put a player in the lineup that had a minor injury he should have been resting, or used tired relievers who should have had a day off, all because Rose had money riding on it. Did Pete injure people or shorten any careers. If he did not, how many times did he risk it.

All of this is in addition to running the risk of getting himself into serious debt and having some of the unsavoury types involved in gambling start leaning on him to throw some games in order to pay them off.

I am sure Rose would say that none of that ever happened. While we have no proof to the contrary, we are left to ask ourselves why we would ever accept the word of someone with such monumentally bad judgement.

I'm really not trying to hijack this conversation about Pete Rose with my comments about the Black Sox and Joe Jackson, but Joe's reputation for stupidity is another one of those assumptions that, the closer you look at it, seems increasingly unfair. Yes, he was illiterate and (at least at the start of his career) very unsophisticated --- but that's hardly the same thing as stupid. If Joe didn't "fully understand" the 1919 fix, it's because he was probably never told about it until after the real fixers had already planned it!

If you actually read the interviews he gave, he comes across as a perfectly intelligent, occasionally witty man. He was miserable as a rookie in Philadelphia, where the veterans rode him mercilessly about his ignorance of city life --- on at least two occasions he ran back home to South Carolina, and that gave him an undeserved reputation as a country bumpkin that he never completely shook. The Black Sox scandal didn't help his reputation any, and neither did Ty Cobb's telling a completely fabricated story in his autobiography about how he "tricked" Joe into losing the race for the batting title in 1911. Eliot Asinof's "Eight Men Out" (followed by the --- in my opinion --- overrated movie) drove the final nails into the coffin.

To Danny in WV: you seem to be implying that it would be possible for Rose as a manager to have "tried harder" to win a game than he normally would, because a loss would have cost him money.

How old are you? Did you ever see Rose play? Are you aware of what he was known for as a player?

There are a lot of legitimate reasons to keep him out of the Hall, but anyone who would suggest that Rose could have "tried harder" to win, either as a player or a manager, must be ignorant of what made Rose the player he was. No player alive EVER tried harder to win than Pete Rose. He may not belong in the HOF, but if not, the reasons have nothing to do with any suspicion that his gambling problem caused him to manage differently.

let him in, man. Rose has done his penance.

Hooray for Pie, 2 2 out hits with runners in scoring position!

Whats up w/ Izturis? 3 games in a row he couldn't get a bunt down

Big hit for Aubrey. I hope he relaxes some.
Bring on the sawks

What everyone forgets is that Pete Rose IS, repeat IS IN the Hall of Fame. He holds the record for most hits, he's part of several World Series teams. The only thing the man is missing is the bronze plaque that some of the others have. His accomplishments are recognized as much as any other player. So whether he is officially inducted is a moot point. He IS in the Hall of Fame. Let it go.

"c" is for Charlie, as in Hustle.

Pete, The degree of guilt for the nine "Black Sox" players varied one to another, and in some cases differences in the level of involvement. It's a mistake to argue, as some do, that they all conspired.

"Shoeless" Joe Jackson's involvement was the most circumstantial. I don't think threw any games at all (his Series stat prove that pretty convincingly, I think), and to me is a somewhat sympathetic character. In my mind, his cause for entrance in the Hall probably should be reexamined.

While some of the "Black Sox" threw games, I think there is a bit of mitigation due to the way the White Sox owner mistreated his players.

It doesn't excuse what they did, but shows that they did it largely because his behavior (in one case ripping off a player by ordering him benched so the player wouldn't have a chance to earn a bonus, which was easily within grasp).

As for Rose, when it comes to determining what he did or didn't do, aIl bets are off (pun intended), and that's because he lied about what he did. If lied in general, how can we know we can we believe him in specifics? And lies in two of those specifics would definitely push this into "Black Sox" territory:

* If Rose lied about only betting on games to win when he managed the Reds--Managers can only influence the outcome of a game indirectly, but Rose could deliberately leave a struggling starter in a game too long, bench an important player, etc.

* If Rose lied about not betting on games when he was a player--It's well known that he loved to bet on different sporting events even as a player. From everything I've heard, to this day Rose loves to gamble--doesn't matter on what. Now if he gambled as a player he had the opportunity to directly contribute to his team's losses.

We all know that Pete Rose was one of the most competitive players who ever took the field, someone who had a tremendous love for the game hated to lose with every fiber of his body. (Famous quote: "I'd go through hell in a gasoline suit to keep playing baseball.") That and the fact that he was making very good money playing baseball would tend to make us think that he'd never throw a game.

While that's very reasonable, there's just one problem and that can be summed up in two words: Gambling debts.

"Starting in 1984, Rose had begun hanging out with a group of men he had met at a Cincinnati gym. Through them he met bookmakers. He allegedly developed a betting habit that reached the vicinity of $15,000 a day. To pay gambling debts he even gave bookies one of his World Series rings and the bat he used to break Cobb's record."

http://www.answers.com/topic/pete-rose

If at any time Rose's debts were significant enough, his bookie "friends" might have proposed a "creative" way to work them off. At that point, necessity could easily have trumped Pete's natural competitiveness.

This is all supposition, of course, but given what we do know, it's also very plausible, and as such puts a cloud of doubt on Rose, despite his belated admission . That should be enough in itself to keep him out of baseball.

It's a disgrace that anyone should argue for him to be in the Hall of Fame. He was a great player, yes, but also a liar who violated a rule that is very important to the integrity of the game.

(I'm not sure what some of your readers are thinking (smoking?) who mock the idea of integrity, but keeping the game from ties with gambling is nothing about which to scoff. Why (as if I need to state the obvious)? Because fans need to know that the games aren't being fixed.

Did Rose fix games? We may never know. But we do know that he bet on baseball while fuily aware if the fact that if he was caught he would be banned from the game for life. He put himself above the game, And then he had the termerity to lie about it over a decade, which permits us to wonder whether he was lying to cover up more dirt, including the throwing of games.

People, this is all about intergrity, which, for those of you who don't seem to grasp the concept, means steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code While MLB may not always be as consistent in some areas as it should, it is absolutely on the mark in keeping the game free anything that would taint it as crooked.

For the good of the game, Rose ban must stand.

I'm not sure how people can justify keeping Rose out for what he accomplished ON THE FIELD. There is nothing tying his betting to when he was a player and that is what he should be recognized for in the HOF. It's 100% different than the Black Sox who fixed games as PLAYERS. Then the guys like Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Ramirez, ARod, etc. Those men cheated to enhance their playing careers and gained an unfair advantage as PLAYERS. To discount Rose's playing achievements for something he did as a MANAGER is completely ridiculous.

To say "a rule is a rule" doesn't hold much water either. By law you used to be able to own slaves, women weren't allowed to vote and drinking used to be illegal. So there is a precedent for revisiting rules that need it.

I don't even like Pete Rose as the person all that much. He definitely tried to play games with the truth and only admitted it when it was financially beneficial to do so. Again, tell me how something in 2002 affects any of his hits that are universally agreed upon to be legitimate? Then there's a reason not to put him in the HOF. Put an asterisk, even a whole display on how he was a disgraceful manager, but Pete Rose as a player is quite deserving.

Whether Rose bet for or against his team does not change the fundamental situation. If a person playing or managing (on field or general) MLB is involved with gamblers, then the person is subject to influence. Fans can't ascertain exactly what is going on, but we do understand that there is a good possibility the games are not being fairly played. Trust in the integrity of the game is lost just by the taint of gambling. That's why the MLB penalty for gambling must be harsh. The livelihoods of many, many employees of MLB are at stake. Rose's cavalier regard for the sport is a disgrace.

Rose and some of his supporters don't seem to understand this elementary observation. Of course, Rose is not the brightest of players. Who can forget his home-plate collision with Ray Fosse in an exhibition game and ruining Fosse
's shoulder. That's an excellent example of a moron at work. Rose has no sense of proportion. He's a little kid, just like some of his fans.

Of course, Rose was also one of the best slap hitters of all time.

The Black Sox have served their "lifetime ban". Let Shoeless Joe and his teamates be considered for the HOF. I'm willing to consider Rose too, once he's served his "lifetime" ban. I don't want him in the Hall while he is alive.

based on his playing career rose should be in the hall of fame. however baseball obviously considers rose's managerial career as part of rose's overall baseball career. and since gambling is the absolute # 1 thing you can't do and rose bet on games there is no way rose will ever get in the hall. bottom line rose is a dumb schmuck. i think mel brooks put it best. what kinda schmuck managing a team bets on the games.

Jim W: I'm 54, and was born and raised (to age 23) deep in the heart of Reds country. I saw Rose 3 or 4 times a year at the park, and every day, it seems, on TV.He's a heads-first sliding, all-out competitor, and I don't believe for an instant that he managed his team any differently whether he had money on the game or not. But to bring gamblers and gambling into a game in which you are participating, you have to be either stupid or arrogant. I have my own opinion of which one Rose is, but either way, it's a terrible act which potentially discredits the game--whether he actually 'did' anything or not.

Considering that he bet on the Reds to win, I think he has more than paid for his mistakes. There is no conspiracy here. Unless you consider managing a game to win, a conspiracy. If he bet on the Reds to lose, that is conspiracy. That would be like DT betting on the Orioles to lose and then starting Rich Hill and letting him pitch until they were 10 run down.

The Black Sox conspired to lose the World Series for profit. That is much worse.

SAVE PETE ROSE!

to the poster, Brent... you could not have said that any better.. Shoeless absolutely did not throw a game.. yes, the money was given to him, but you are dead-on with regard to the civil suit years later. As far as Rose.. it's tough.. I almost want to let him in, but at the same time he lied for a long time.. At least Shoeless didn't lie.. he just kept his mouth shut, a cardinal baseball rule.

The integrity of what game? Baseball? You all most be watching "Field Of Dreams" again. We've got dopers playing the game, we have dopers getting ready to go into the HOF and we have the world's biggest dope at the helm of major league baseball. To paraphrase Tom Hanks, "There is no integrity in baseball". Quit your whining and put Rose in the hall.

Jim W;

A manager with the strength of character not to allow personal side bets affect his judgement as to how he uses his roster is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron. No one with good judgement and a rock solid character would make such a bet in the first place.

The HOF rule that a player banned from baseball can't get inducted into the HOF was invented to keep Pete Rose out. It should be dropped and Charlie Hustle should be in the HOF.

Until the player with more career hits than any other is in the HOF, it will continue to be a sad fraud that isn't what it's advertised to be: a place that honours the achievements of the best players in the history of the game.

Pete Rose isn't the only professional player banned from baseball in the modern era. Back in the sixties, I saw a former Twin minor league player was playing in an amateur league. I watched him play and was amazed at this ability. The Twins' East Coast Scouting director was at the game looking at another player (Harold "Pat" Kelly). I asked him why this other player wasn't still with the organization. The man replied, "for betting on the game". I said, man this guy is good. The Twin official said that the player was the best they had in the organization, including the big team (with Killebrew, Allison, Jimmy Hall, etc.)prior to his banishment, and was about to be called up to the big club at the time of his gambling arrest.

Pete:

If you have, or if you know anyone who has a vote for the hall of fame, please plead with them to not let this guy enter the hall of fame for any reason.
He was not only a great hitter, but I think I remember he was a true baseball historian and saying that he was well aware of the guys in that great place. Anyone who believes that he didn't bet on his own team is a total fool. He knew what he did was wrong and against the "games" rules and still bet on his team, other teams and didn't care on bit about the history of baseball. Just like these guys who took steriods, they should also be banned and never get in. If they do elect this bum, it will take all the great memories I have of touring that wonderful place away. I hope if it happens, the majority of the players get up and walk out in protest.if any on these guys get in.

JO

..............................................................................................
Pete's reply: Doesn't matter if I'm a HOF voter. Pete has passed the 15-year time limit for being voted in by the writers. He would be a veterans committee guy if he ever became eligible.

ANYONE WHO DENIES PETE ROSE INTO THE HALL OF FAME DESERVES TO BE BITCHSLAPPED AND HAVE THEIR BONES BROKEN! PETE ROSE IS WHAT BASEBALL IS ALL ABOUT! HE PLAYED THE GAME THE WAY IT WAS MEANT TO BE PLAYED, HARD AND AGRESSIVE! SO HE BET ON BASEBALL! SO WHAT??? HE WAS BETTING ON HIS TEAM TO WIN, NOT TO LOSE! THERE'S A BIG, BIG DIFFERENCE THAT ESCAPES YOU VINDICTIVE SCUMBAGS! YOU DON'T EVER PUT PETE ROSE IN THE SAME CATAGORY AS THAT CROOKED SCUMBAG JOE JACKSON OR THOSE LOWLIFE WHO FILLED THEIR BODIES WITH STEROIDS AND CHEATED THE FANS WHO PAID THEIR HARD EARNED MONEY! I SPEAK FOR ALL BASEBALL FANS WHEN I SAY PETE ROSE SHOULD BE IN THE HALL OF FAME IMMEDIATLY! ARE YOU LISTENING BUD SELIG?!! DO SOMETHING RIGHT FOR ONCE AND MAKE THIS DEMAND A REALITY! UNDERSTAND???!!!

.............................................................................................
Pete's reply: Sorry about that shift key.