I'm fine with Joe being reinstated because they never had the "goods" on him. On the other hand they did have the proof Pete bet on baseball, therefore I don't think he should never be voted into the Hall of Fame. JMO!
Okay, what's everyone's opinion about Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe being reinstated into baseball.
- Thread starter Freddie.B.Cocky
- Start date
Put an astrek or whatever you want beside his name but Pete should 100% be in the hall of fame.
I have a much bigger issue with the steroid crew than Pete and Joe.
If anybody exemplified the type of baseball player who should be in the HOF, it's Pete Rose. 
Pete Rose was banned in 1989, so he was banned for 35 years before his death, that punishment more then fits the crime to me, seems way to much.
Then during that ban,
And yes , I understand you can't bet on baseball if your in the game, that is a big no no, to me he did more then his time for that crime and should of been reinstated while alive, imho.
Then during that ban,
- The legalization of sports betting in many US states opened up new revenue streams for Major League Baseball (MLB) and individual teams.
- MLB partnered with various sportsbooks, integrating them into the fan experience and generating revenue through advertising and sponsorships.
- MLB was attracted to the industry's significant growth, with projections estimating over $140 billion in wagers annually in the US in 2025.
And yes , I understand you can't bet on baseball if your in the game, that is a big no no, to me he did more then his time for that crime and should of been reinstated while alive, imho.
Last edited:
I liked this video, Pete Rose opening up packs of 1980 fleer baseball and talking about all the NL guys even super obscure ones he knew about, then eating the gum, LOL
But he did not know much about the AL guys,
He had a great memory even as he aged, fantastic
But he did not know much about the AL guys,
He had a great memory even as he aged, fantastic
Last edited:
He was manager of the Reds when he bet in 1987 and 1988 so it wasn't like he was completely away from the game. There is a very specific rule in MLB rules about betting, rule 21(d). The rule states that a violation will result in a permanent ban. Rose violated the rule, period. He should still be banned in my opinion.
Rose could have bet on anything else, anything at all, with no consequences, yet he chose to bet on major league baseball and violate a rule that results in a permanent ban. If for nothing else, he should be banned for stupidity.
Rules always change depending on who is in office and voting. D.T. can vouch for this. What Pete did was absolutely wrong. He deserved to be banned from baseball. That said, what he did didn't impact what he did on the field (his stats). Permanent ban from baseball, including the HOF doesn't fit the crime. I believe the voters will agree.
On the other hand, steroids absolutely impacted stats. Tough to prove in some cases but...
And apparently he always bet ON the Reds to win. He wasn't throwing games to win a bet.
Pete called his shot. He said they would let him after his death.
Last edited:
Baseball is being hypocritical with the permanent bans and keeping deserving players out of the HOF anyway. How can you have Big Papi in and Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds out? So, if you laugh it off and say, "heck, you caught me" (Unofficial Drug Test Failure) that makes it okay? Baseball knowingly benefitted from the steroid era and now benefits from sports betting. To me, the best players should get in and stop putting guys like Harold Baines in to have numbers because the guys that were really stars of that era are tied up in Steroid and other scandals. You can't tell a complete story of baseball without Pete Rose being in it. So, at some point you have to recognize that, betting or no betting. Same thing with Clemens or Bonds. Yes, both guys have been a**holes about it, but they should be in. Take the stats of suspected steroid use away and they still have better all-time stats than the guys they are putting in now. It's the "Hall of Fame" not the "Hall of Kinda Good".
Last edited:
Has Clemens ever been tested positive for steroids? Alot of assumptions about that. Same as Jeff Bagwell. To be open about this, I'm a huge fan of both.
How is baseball keeping Bonds and Clemens out of the HOF? You lost me. As far as I know, they are eligible. Pete was never eligible.
In a game like baseball integrity matters. Pete benefitted greatly from being left out of the Hall even more so than being in. Plus he was sleeping with a 14 year old...so yeah.
He not only bet on baseball, by his own admission he bet on the Reds. He claims he only bet on them to win, and even taking him at his word, this opens up a whole can of worms. If he's betting on them to win, and he's the manager, he can change pitcher rotation, substitutions, that may not have been prudent during a routine game in the middle of the season.
Regardless, he was betting on his own team
To be fair, this doesn't mean Rose and the others will be in the Hall of Fame. It just means that they're now eligible to be voted in. It wouldn't be surprising in the least if they aren't voted in.
Somewhat off the topic, but HOF induction doesn't mean nearly what it used to mean anyway. It's slowly drifted from the Hall of Fame to the Hall of the Great to the Hall of the Very Good to the Hall of the Pretty Good. HOF used to be for the absolute tip top players to ever play. In the last decade and at an increasing rate you're seeing guys who were just good players. Tim Raines? Joe Mauer? Alan Trammell? Harold Baines? Larry Walker? Scott Rolen?
Too watered down now.
Too watered down now.
It is that way with all HOFs. They have all become the Hall of Well Knowns.
Pete bet on baseball because that was the only thing he knew. He was a baseball savant. Somebody had 4,256 hits and betting on baseball had nothing to do that.
JMHO
JMHO
Read the rule about betting. There is no grey area at all and if Pete didn't understand the rule, he is too stupid to be in the hall of fame.
We all know the rule but there is the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. Pete's betting had absolutely zero impact on his career as a player.
Short of showing that a player bet on/against his own team and impacted the game, I've never understood the moral fury. Guys can be drunken womanizers, but don't dare bet on the game.
The prohibition of betting on baseball isn't a moral question, it is a question of keeping the integrity of the game. If a player/manager/coach bets on baseball in any way, that bet can affect how the game is played. It may or may not affect the game or decisions of the player who placed the bet but the fact that a player/coach bet on a game casts doubt on the integrity of the game. Mickey Mantle was a drunk of the highest order but there is no rule against players drinking, no matter how much they drink. Joe Torre was, by all accounts, a real piece of crap as a person, a real lowlife. There is no rule against being a lowlife. Babe Ruth was a glutton, a drunk and a womanizer, none of those things are against the rules of baseball. It is obvious that morality is not the driving force behind the rules of baseball.
There is no rule in the official rules of baseball regarding drunken womanizing. A player can be a drunken womanizer without any consequences. There is a very specific rule against gambling. If one of the official rules (one which has a lifetime ban from baseball as a built in punishment) can be broken and then overlooked, what other rule(s) should be overlooked?
They both should have been in. If anything needed to be done criminally because of a broken law...fine.
But as far as baseball....neither ever showed any reason that they tanked a game (or a play for that matter)....so obviously didn't cheat in that way to keep them out of the HOF.
They should be in.
There is a long discussion to be had about amphetamines and other substances (coke, steroids) that should maybe preclude some names. Then you get into coke for NFL football and all. Then you gotta take LTs name off the board when you start digging into that and the 20.5 sack season plus some other phenom seasons. Point is...those 2 guys were picked out and made examples of when way more egregious stuff has gone on AND STILL goes on.
But as far as baseball....neither ever showed any reason that they tanked a game (or a play for that matter)....so obviously didn't cheat in that way to keep them out of the HOF.
They should be in.
There is a long discussion to be had about amphetamines and other substances (coke, steroids) that should maybe preclude some names. Then you get into coke for NFL football and all. Then you gotta take LTs name off the board when you start digging into that and the 20.5 sack season plus some other phenom seasons. Point is...those 2 guys were picked out and made examples of when way more egregious stuff has gone on AND STILL goes on.
There is zero evidence that Rose compromised the integrity of the game as a player. Nobody even questions that. If his player stats are HOF worthy and he did nothing as a player to compromise the integrity of the game, then he should have been put in as a player. Ban him from the HOF as a manager, which is what he was when he bet.
I am not even sure how MLB can ban someone from the HOF as it doesn't run the HOF.
Not according to the Dowd Report:
The Dowd Report:
A 1989 investigation, known as the Dowd Report, revealed that Rose had bet on the Cincinnati Reds, both as a player and as a manager, from 1985 to 1987.
Didn't Pete swear he never did it, 9nly to admit it later. Then swear he never bet on his games, only to admit it later?
Just going off memory, and I didn't follow it closely, but I seem to remember thinking he should have just co.e clean early.
Just going off memory, and I didn't follow it closely, but I seem to remember thinking he should have just co.e clean early.
Pete actually agreed to the lifetime ban. I remember reading about a Pete Rose autographed copy of the Dowd Report that was sold at auction. I forget for how much though.
Be glad it's not about appointing a Pope...if that were the case St. Louis would have a marked advantage.Exactly, it's about baseball, not appointing a Pope.
There are many HOFer's who had l questionable character but on the field play was what really mattered