jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (13 posts)

Should Pete Rose Be in the Hall of Fame?

  1. Joseph Frankina profile image76
    Joseph Frankinaposted 4 years ago

    He was caught gambling. He has been permanently banned from baseball including the Hall of Fame. Is this a fair punishment? Are there other players who have committed worse crimes who are not banned from the game or the Hall of Fame? Should they be banned?

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Good question.
      I don't know enough about this overall to say......
      but I think it's an important question.
      The only team I ever watched was the Cincinnatti Reds, 'cause my Dad loved them.  Pete Rose is the name I remember most!
      I also remember my Dad being disappointed when he heard about the gambling inside the team.

      1. Joseph Frankina profile image76
        Joseph Frankinaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Pete Rose is one of the greatest players of all time. I'm a Giants fan, and one too young to have been around when the scandal broke, but it is still disappointing. I can't imagine what it was like for a Red's fan.

        He deserved a punishment equal to his infractions. I'm not sure a lifetime ban from baseball and the Hall of Fame is fair.

  2. michiganman567 profile image85
    michiganman567posted 4 years ago

    Yes, Pete Rose should be banned.  It is not a crime to Gamble.  Pete Rose was not banned because he did something illegal.  He was banned because he tarnished the product that MLB sells to its customers.  You can not have players, coaches, managers, umpires gambling on games and tell the fans that they are watching a real sport.  It becomes the WWE. 

    Pete Rose is not a victim.  He knew the consequences of his actions.

    1. Joseph Frankina profile image76
      Joseph Frankinaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You are correct; he is not a victim or guilt-free. He deserves a punishment. Do you think the actions of his gambling changed or could have changed outcomes on the field?

      1. profile image0
        Deepes Mindposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Absolutely. If he better for the Reds, he could have bribed players from other teams to not play as well.. If he was betting against the Reds, the 1919 Black Sox scandal comes to mind

    2. AlienTaylor profile image56
      AlienTaylorposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Bud Selig made special consessions to Steinbrenner 's and Joe Torre 's family to maintain and compete, several stables of racing horses. Last time I checked, folks gamble on horses.  And Joe don't have 4000+ hits

  3. Alphadogg16 profile image91
    Alphadogg16posted 4 years ago

    In my opinion, Pete Rose deserves to be in the All of Fame. He is the greatest hitter the game of baseball has ever seen to this day. Yes, he gambled on his own team which is very morally deficient/unscrupulous, but that has nothing to do with what he did on the field. Unlike all these steroid users who are eligible for the Hall. If OJ Simpsons Hall of Fame football credentials haven't been revoked, Pete Rose should definitely get his chance in the baseball Hall of fame.

    1. Joseph Frankina profile image76
      Joseph Frankinaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I agree. Great example with OJ. I never thought of that.

      1. profile image0
        Deepes Mindposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        There is a difference between OJ's crime(s) and Rose betting on games. OJ's crimes, while horrible, were committed several years AFTER he retired from his sport. His actions had no effect on the games he was involved in nor did he break any of the league rules while an active player. OJ's HOF credentials were not tarnished (though his image was) for his crimes.

        Rose's actions, on the other hand, though not illegal, were a violation of league rules and were committed during the years that he was active as both a player and a manager. By betting on his own team, he was in a position where he could directly affect the outcome of the games he was betting on (think 1919 Black Sox scandal). In this situation, according to league rules, the punishment fits the crime (so to speak). Some people may not be able to deny his accomplishments on the field, but it could be argued that since he was betting on games that he could have bribed players on other teams to gain an advantage. any situation where games and performances could be affected ultimately tarnishes the game and sport..

        1. Alphadogg16 profile image91
          Alphadogg16posted 4 years agoin reply to this

          I agree with you somewhat on that Deepes Mind, It is possible Pete Rose could have affected the out come of games, although it was never proven. But if that's the logic to keep Rose out of the HOF, then no one else should be admitted into the HOF that played after 1985. The year Jose Canseco entered MLB and openly acknowledged steroid use and stated 80% of the players were using the drugs. Ken Caminiti of the Padres made a similar statement after his retirement from the Padres that 85% of the players were using performance enhancing drugs. Pretty much ever player that has denied using, has been proven to be a liar. So there is no way of knowing who used and who didn't, who's stats may be inflated by drugs and who's are not. The HOF should not allow any new members.

          1. profile image0
            Deepes Mindposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I can't fully agree with that. Of course, anyone that got caught or admitted to using certainly should not be enshrined, IMO. We can't speak for those who have kept quite. But the fact remains those who are caught and known to have violated league rules should face and accept their fate.

  4. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image84
    BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 4 years ago

    I just watched the Pirates at the Reds and Pete Rose was in the stands.

    So he's 72 now and it's been 25 years or so since the betting.

    I say let him in the Hall of Fame before he dies.

    Baseball is somewhat hypocritical in that it allowed the steroid usage to go on and on.