Would you vote any of the following into the HOF?

MGLICKER

Pete Rose
Mark McGwire
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Alex Rodriquez
Jack Morris

MikeyP

I believe that Pete Rose should be inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame. I am not quite ready to accept the other players being inducted, but I do believe that one day many baseball fans will be much more forgiving about the steroid era.

JoeBanzai

Morris is the only player here who wasn't accused of cheating, but I don't think he was quite good enough to get in.

Interesting that many (most?) feel Clemens was a juicer even though it was never proven.

McGwire, Bonds and A-Rod would NEVER get my vote, but Rose is the LAST guy I would allow in on this list. As a manager you simply can't bet on games your team is involved in.

Push comes to shove, I give Clemens my vote, but would rather give it to Tony Oliva.

MikeyP

<< <i>Morris is the only player here who wasn't accused of cheating, but I don't think he was quite good enough to get in. >>



I was actually confused about Jack Morris being on the list.

MGLICKER

<< <i>

<< <i>Morris is the only player here who wasn't accused of cheating, but I don't think he was quite good enough to get in. >>



I was actually confused about Jack Morris being on the list. >>



Thought I would throw in a legit, borderline player to make it interesting.

MGLICKER

<< <i>

<< <i>Morris is the only player here who wasn't accused of cheating, but I don't think he was quite good enough to get in. >>



I was actually confused about Jack Morris being on the list. >>




Thought I would throw in a legit, borderline HOF quality player to make it interesting.

MikeyP

What about Don Mattingly? You can't blame me for trying.

orioles93

I would vote all but Morris.

I personally dont think morris was good enough to be in the hall to begin with so i would not vote for him.

Rose i wouldnt have a problem with being in. Its been long enough. Just let the guy in already. Other hall of famers did worse things than he did.

The others, it all comes down to how you feel about steroid use. I dont have a problem with the players that used. No one in the hall of fame is perfect. There are many less than reputable characters in the hall already. There are players in the hall already that cheated, just in different ways. The steroid era was just another era in baseball that produced many great players. I would vote them in.

Tabe

<< <i>Pete Rose
Mark McGwire
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Alex Rodriquez
Jack Morris >>



Pete & Jack - no.

The rest - yes.

Barndog

Pete Rose

larryallen73

I don't get McGwire. 583 home runs and .263 hitter with 1,600 hits. Whoopee. If those numbers were not fueled by steroids it would be fine but I don't see how on earth he gets in knowing his numbers are not great and a fraud. How many HRs would he have hit au natural!?

PSASAP

How many HRs would he have hit au natural!?


I don't think anyone wanted to see him hit au naturale.

DIMEMAN

I vote yes on all BUT Barry and Mark.

The HOF is meaningless until the ALL TIME HIT LEADER IS IN!!!!!

orioles93

<< <i>How many HRs would he have hit au natural!?


I don't think anyone wanted to see him hit au naturale. >>



He admitted that he started using them in 93 and 94. Before 93, he still averaged 36 homers a season. So id venture to guess he still would have hit a lot of homeruns.

Brick

Rose, Bonds, Clemens.

grote15

<< <i>

<< <i>There are players in the hall already that cheated, just in different ways. >>

this is the singular question. why is peds cheating held in much more disdain than any other form of cheating? cheating is cheating.

yes - mcgwire, bonds, clemens, rodriguez

no - rose and morris >>



You'd put McGwire in and not Rose? That is rather baffling, unless you consider betting on baseball worse than pumping yourself up to hit homers you'd never have otherwise hit and wind up being Dave Kingman.

Boopotts

I still don't understand why Rose was banned from MLB. What could possibly be wrong with betting on your team to win? I think all players should do this- and the bigger the bet the better.

grote15

<< <i>I still don't understand why Rose was banned from MLB. What could possibly be wrong with betting on your team to win? I think all players should do this- and the bigger the bet the better. >>



No one knows if he only bet them to win, Guy, LOL..

I think the basis for the rule is that once you involve bookmakers with a direct pipeline to the players and coaches that you jeopardize the integrity of the game, which is the foundation for the fans to believe that the results are not manipulated or tainted. If a manager has a big bet riding on the outcome of the game, he may make decisions that are not in the best interests of the team or an individual player just to win the bet that night. And what does it say for the Reds chances on nights the manager does NOT bet on them to win? It's definitely a slippery slope. But all players know, from Rookie A ball on, and it's also emblazoned in every clubhouse, that you don't bet on baseball. Period.

Estil

<< <i>What about Don Mattingly? You can't blame me for trying. >>



He's the one player I can think of who was quite literally one year short. If he had stuck around one more year and got that championship (or the strike didn't happen and he got one that way) I think he'd have gotten in within 2-3 ballots. At first I was quite surprised that Kirby Puckett (who has somewhat similar overall numbers) got in on the first ballot until I realized what probably put him over the top...he not only won two championships in five years, he did so for among the smallest/lowest market teams possible. I guess if that's not quality leadership I don't know what is.

Estil

<< <i>I still don't understand why Rose was banned from MLB. What could possibly be wrong with betting on your team to win? I think all players should do this- and the bigger the bet the better. >>



Well there is that gigantic sign in every MLB clubhouse regarding the whole gambling thing and then there was that whole Black Sox thing that nearly ruined MLB. So there's that. But didn't this happen mostly while Pete was their manager, not as a player? I'm also curious what's stopping the Reds from retiring his #14.

Skin2

<< <i>Pete Rose
Mark McGwire
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Alex Rodriquez
Jack Morris >>



Rose...as long as he wasn't throwing games, the betting didn't bother me..so yes.

Bonds...HOFer before he juiced...and was so amazingly head and shoulders above a league full of juicers...so yes.

Roger Clemens...HOFer before he juiced...so yes.


Arod was probably juicing since HS...and may be the biggest tool in the history of sports. F him.
McGwire...was good before the juice...but not sure when he started exactly. He is probably one of the early juicers late 80's/early 90's. Pass


Jack Morris...shouldn't even be an option. He!! no.

MGLICKER

<< <i>I still don't understand why Rose was banned from MLB. What could possibly be wrong with betting on your team to win? I think all players should do this- and the bigger the bet the better. >>



Until the team goes on an 8 game losing streak and the bookmaker asks for a "favor".

BaltimoreYankee

I'll take Pete Rose from that list.

Boopotts

<< <i>

<< <i>I still don't understand why Rose was banned from MLB. What could possibly be wrong with betting on your team to win? I think all players should do this- and the bigger the bet the better. >>



Until the team goes on an 8 game losing streak and the bookmaker asks for a "favor". >>



That's like saying we should ban players for drinking protein shakes because it might lead to injecting turkey-basters full of HGH into their backsides.

Justacommeman

Rose. Pass on the rest for now.

MJ

garnettstyle

Pete Rose
Barry Bonds
Dale Murphy
Dave Parker
Tim Raines

MGLICKER

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>I still don't understand why Rose was banned from MLB. What could possibly be wrong with betting on your team to win? I think all players should do this- and the bigger the bet the better. >>



Until the team goes on an 8 game losing streak and the bookmaker asks for a "favor". >>



That's like saying we should ban players for drinking protein shakes because it might lead to injecting turkey-basters full of HGH into their backsides. >>



No it isn't, gamblers typically get into financial trouble quickly. Bookmakers are not the best folks to be in debt to.

I suppose that the wagers could be made legally in Vegas, but what is interpreted if the manager takes a break and does not bet on his team.

I am a Rose fan and it may be time to let him in the Hall, but never discount the validity of the infractions.

gregmo32

"the basis for the rule is that once you involve bookmakers with a direct pipeline to the players and coaches that you jeopardize the integrity of the game, which is the foundation for the fans to believe that the results are not manipulated or tainted. If a manager has a big bet riding on the outcome of the game, he may make decisions that are not in the best interests of the team or an individual player just to win the bet that night. And what does it say for the Reds chances on nights the manager does NOT bet on them to win? It's definitely a slippery slope. But all players know, from Rookie A ball on, and it's also emblazoned in every clubhouse, that you don't bet on baseball. Period."

100% correct.

Unless Pete bet on his team to win 162 games in a season, what conclusion can be drawn from any person with the knowledge that "tonight, the team's manager does not think they will win."
Follow that train of thought in a few directions, add the Black Sox scandal that almost ended baseball, and you understand the reason for the "sacred" rule.

His lifetime ban is NOT about Pete's morality. It has nothing to do with his integrity. It has everything to do with the above.

Should he be allowed in the Hall of Fame? That can be debated, certainly. But don't misunderstand the reasoning for his banishment from the sport.

Boopotts

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>I still don't understand why Rose was banned from MLB. What could possibly be wrong with betting on your team to win? I think all players should do this- and the bigger the bet the better. >>



Until the team goes on an 8 game losing streak and the bookmaker asks for a "favor". >>



That's like saying we should ban players for drinking protein shakes because it might lead to injecting turkey-basters full of HGH into their backsides. >>



No it isn't, gamblers typically get into financial trouble quickly. Bookmakers are not the best folks to be in debt to.

I suppose that the wagers could be made legally in Vegas, but what is interpreted if the manager takes a break and does not bet on his team.

I am a Rose fan and it may be time to let him in the Hall, but never discount the validity of the infractions. >>




I don't know where you're getting your data, but the world is filled with gamblers who have not, and never will, get into financial trouble. For many people it's simply a recreational activity.

Boopotts

<< <i>"the basis for the rule is that once you involve bookmakers with a direct pipeline to the players and coaches that you jeopardize the integrity of the game, which is the foundation for the fans to believe that the results are not manipulated or tainted. If a manager has a big bet riding on the outcome of the game, he may make decisions that are not in the best interests of the team or an individual player just to win the bet that night. And what does it say for the Reds chances on nights the manager does NOT bet on them to win? It's definitely a slippery slope. But all players know, from Rookie A ball on, and it's also emblazoned in every clubhouse, that you don't bet on baseball. Period."

100% correct.

Unless Pete bet on his team to win 162 games in a season, what conclusion can be drawn from any person with the knowledge that "tonight, the team's manager does not think they will win."
Follow that train of thought in a few directions, add the Black Sox scandal that almost ended baseball, and you understand the reason for the "sacred" rule.

His lifetime ban is NOT about Pete's morality. It has nothing to do with his integrity. It has everything to do with the above.

Should he be allowed in the Hall of Fame? That can be debated, certainly. But don't misunderstand the reasoning for his banishment from the sport. >>



I'm not misunderstanding why he's been banned, and I understand why the 'sacred' rule is in place. I just think it's a dumb rule.

MGLICKER

"""I don't know where you're getting your data, but the world is filled with gamblers who have not, and never will, get into financial trouble. For many people it's simply a recreational activity."""





Dowd report indicated that in 1987 Rose bet a minimum of $10K per game on over fifty contests. Even with his million dollar salary, he was hardly a recreational gambler.

All professional sports have is an image of honest competition and fair play. Virtually every other institution and business is now suspect from Washington DC to banking to the medical community. Professional sports need to do everything they can because once the fan base suspects that the games are fixed, the party is over.

jay0791

"Professional sports need to do everything they can because once the fan base suspects that the games are fixed, the party is over."

Does this include WWE????

Morris is not a hofer.
Rose 50-50 Wouldn't mind if he went in
Bonds and Clemens were hofers before the juice.

others no

Will suspicion deny candidates proven or not???

grote15

All professional sports have is an image of honest competition and fair play. Virtually every other institution and business is now suspect from Washington DC to banking to the medical community. Professional sports need to do everything they can because once the fan base suspects that the games are fixed, the party is over.

Agreed. And I almost never agree with Glicker, LOL..

Guy, I know you are a recreational gambler and one who can control his wagering, but the truth is that gambling is also a very destructive disease and there are MANY gamblers who risk and ruin their homes, families, jobs or livelihoods to bet on virtually anything. It is disingenuous (IMHO) to suggest that gambling is a benign recreational pursuit only because you may be one who can control it or relegate it to that level. For the same reason, a person who drinks socially should not assume that an alcoholic can control his or her drinking, too.

Pete Rose agreed to a lifetime ban because he did not want baseball to continue digging into his past and investigating him. One can only surmise what kind of other skeletons would have been exposed had they been able to conclude their investigation. Rose is a likable but arrogant player who ironically would probably already be in the HOF had he come clean early on and not continued to lie for years and insist he never bet on baseball. Like most addicts, or those whose pursuits affect their livelihoods, his credibility is zero.

DIMEMAN

Pete Rose should be in the HOF....PERIOD!!!!!

His betting should have got him a fine or even fired from being manager, but it had nothing to do with his career stats.

The only reason he is not in the Hall is because Bud "the idiot" Selig has it out for him. I will be glad when good ole Bud is GONE!!!

grote15

<< <i>Pete Rose should be in the HOF....PERIOD!!!!!

His betting should have got him a fine or even fired from being manager, but it had nothing to do with his career stats.

The only reason he is not in the Hall is because Bud "the idiot" Selig has it out for him. I will be glad when good ole Bud is GONE!!! >>



Fay Vincent wasn't moved much, either. Even Pete's supporters like Schmidt got sick of him after the BS stunt he pulled to overshadow the HOF ceremonies a few years ago.

BLUEJAYWAY

The people that say if Pete only admitted early on that he bet on baseball he would of been enshrined in the HOF by now. Where would that have left the credilbility of baseballs "golden rule" of betting on baseball is strictly forbidden? If an exclusion of this rule was allowed for Rose what type of message would that send for all the players that followed? Rules would only apply for a chosen few? To further understand Pete I would suggest reading his biography: My Prison Without Bars authored by Pete himself. And another 2 booksete Rose-An American Dilema published this year. And a book by Fay Vincent, former commissioner, where he discusses Pete. I've read all 3 and they provide much info. on the situation.

royalbrett

Lol, just as I was finished reading this thread, a commercial came on Fox Sports 1 starring Pete Rose wearing Sketchers in the "hall".

DIMEMAN

His betting has nothing to do with his career. He is the "ALL HITS LEADER"........put him in and FIRE selig "the idiot"!

The hall is meaningless until Rose is in......PERIOD!!!

grote15

<< <i>His betting has nothing to do with his career. He is the "ALL HITS LEADER"........put him in and FIRE selig "the idiot"!

The hall is meaningless until Rose is in......PERIOD!!! >>



You can rant and rave all you want, but his betting on baseball is what got him placed on the permanently ineligible list--a condition that Rose voluntarily agreed to. Rose has only himself to blame. If you think the rules should be changed, that's one thing, but the rules state if you bet on baseball you are subject to a lifetime ban. Johnny Bench summed it up pretty well, here:


Bench on Rose

DIMEMAN

Whatever......change the rules.....bottom line Rose should be in the HOF!

gregmo32

How do you see this as a "Selig issue?"

He is third in line in the history of Commissioners in this affair, including one who met an untimely death, which was at least partly, stress related.

larryallen73

<< <i>Whatever......change the rules.....bottom line Rose should be in the HOF! >>



I agree.

JoeBanzai

<< <i>All professional sports have is an image of honest competition and fair play. Virtually every other institution and business is now suspect from Washington DC to banking to the medical community. Professional sports need to do everything they can because once the fan base suspects that the games are fixed, the party is over. >>



Best statement I have read on the subject!

DIMEMAN

Do you honestly think Rose was throwing games!!! He was betting to win!!!

He should be in the HOF.......PERIOD!!!!

Selig is the idiot that is keeping him out.....he hates Rose and I hate him!!!

Tabe

<< <i>

<< <i>What about Don Mattingly? You can't blame me for trying. >>



He's the one player I can think of who was quite literally one year short. If he had stuck around one more year and got that championship (or the strike didn't happen and he got one that way) I think he'd have gotten in within 2-3 ballots. At first I was quite surprised that Kirby Puckett (who has somewhat similar overall numbers) got in on the first ballot until I realized what probably put him over the top...he not only won two championships in five years, he did so for among the smallest/lowest market teams possible. I guess if that's not quality leadership I don't know what is. >>


I guess I understand why people constantly mention Kirby Puckett when Don Mattingly's candidacy comes up but I think it's misguided. Yes, their career numbers are relatively similar (similar games, with Puckett leading in hits, runs, average, OBP, SLG, OPS and Mattingly leading in HR, RBI, and OPS+). However, Puckett was an elite player until the day he retired. He was a good player for 2 years and an elite player for his last 10. Mattingly was a good player his first year, an elite player for four years, a good player again for one year, elite again for one and then average - at best - for the next 6. He retired because he wasn't good anymore (yes, because he hurt his back 6 years earlier but the reason doesn't really matter). Puckett retired because he literally couldn't play at all. Finally, one guy was an elite defensive player at a premium defensive position (Puckett) while the other (Mattingly) was an elite defensive player at the easiest position on the field.

To sum up: Their career numbers are similar but their careers were not. Puckett is a deserving and worthy HOFer (ignoring off-the-field stuff) and Mattingly isn't.

AZDBzn2019

<< <i>Whatever......change the rules.....bottom line Rose should be in the HOF! >>



No contest here. Pete Rose should be in. It's actually funny he isn't yet. Just looked at last page and nothing previous. Pete not being in HOF by now disgraces baseball.

miklia

I'd take all but McGwire from that list tbh....

MGLICKER

<< <i>1. rose agreed to permanent ineligibility from baseball.

2. even if rose were eligible, i can see him not receiving 75% of the vote. >>



Good points.

garnettstyle

Agreements can be re-negotiated.

MGLICKER

<< <i>Agreements can be re-negotiated. >>



They are often called divorces.

ashabby

Rose was a hof player. What he did later could have been handled as a ban with direct contact with active baseball. Hof is for the past not current play. I don't agree with what he did and think he is a jerk. But I would want him on my team. I played with and coached players like this. What made him great as a player ruined him as a person. My 2cent worth.