PDA

View Full Version : Pete Rose



rocket
10-24-02, 02:36 PM
Should Pete Rose be in the Hall Of Fame?

Hitman23
10-24-02, 02:43 PM
Hell yes.

But I also think he should apologise for doing what he did.

Mr. Mxylsplk
10-24-02, 03:24 PM
Yes, he absolutely should. He violated the rules of baseball, and in my opinion he deserves to be banned for life. I disagree with the voters online during the baseball game that if he apologizes for what he did, the ban should be removed. The rules are the rules, he broke them, he pays the consequences. But I honestly don't see what his violation of the rules or the ban have to do with the HOF. If he cheated as a player and his accomplishments aren't real, then that would tarnish his performance on the field, but that's not what happened. His accomplishments are as real as any other player's, and those accomplishments obviously warrant being in the hall of fame. It degrades the Hall in my opinion to keep him or Shoeless Joe out when they're as or more worthy than most of the players who are in there.

Soriambi
10-24-02, 03:33 PM
He absolutely should be let back in. Now I don't know enough about the evidence they have against him, but why would he keep denying it if he did do it? What does he have to gain? Maybe he really didn't do it. Either way, I think he has been punished long enough and should be let into the HOF and back into baseball. Another reason for this is that Bart Giammiti (sp?) was planning on letting him back after a one year suspension, or at least that is widely believed, but he unfortunately passed away so no one really knows.

Jersey Yankee
10-24-02, 04:13 PM
I get the impression Selig's thinking about letting him in anyway. Despite his ban from Cinergy's final game last September, to have him up there at the WS seems like they're trying to eventually smooth out the creases and eventually enshrine him.

As f/the original question, by his playing career, he's certainly earned it, and I remember Hank Aaron saying that he's certainly deserving, including people w/lesser accomplishments already being there. However, I believe that rules are rules, so I'd vote against his inclusion, if it were up to myself.

KLJ
10-24-02, 04:58 PM
he shouldn't even be considered until he admits to and apologizes for betting on baseball and his own team. then the discussion can start... a couple of people said they aren't sure about the evidence against rose... well let me tell you, i read the report and the evidence is overwhelming... he bet on baseball and he bet on the reds... the fact that he keeps denying it is a slap in the face to every baseball fan out there...

Soriambi
10-24-02, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by KLJ
he shouldn't even be considered until he admits to and apologizes for betting on baseball and his own team. then the discussion can start... a couple of people said they aren't sure about the evidence against rose... well let me tell you, i read the report and the evidence is overwhelming... he bet on baseball and he bet on the reds... the fact that he keeps denying it is a slap in the face to every baseball fan out there...

Since you have read the report, I have to trust your judgement of the evidence more than my opinion. If he did bet on baseball, which I do believe that he did judging only by public opinion, however, I think he should not be let in until he apoligizes. When/if he deos apologize there shouldn't be a question that he should be let into the HOF, if not back into MLB. I just think it undervalues the HOF when you have a Bill Mazerowski in and not the All-Time Hit king.

Mr. Mxylsplk
10-24-02, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by KLJ
he shouldn't even be considered until he admits to and apologizes for betting on baseball and his own team. then the discussion can start... a couple of people said they aren't sure about the evidence against rose... well let me tell you, i read the report and the evidence is overwhelming... he bet on baseball and he bet on the reds... the fact that he keeps denying it is a slap in the face to every baseball fan out there...
I'm not as familiar with the facts as you are, but I generally understand it to be as you say. But why do you think his ban should have any effect at all on the hall of fame? To me, the Hall is a) to honor baseball's history, and b) largely for the fans. I agree that he should be banned from any involvement in mlb, but I don't see why that should preclude him from being in the HOF.

NYYFAN
10-24-02, 05:13 PM
Yes, but he needs to apologize first, but he's to stubborn and stupid...

I alway felt that reporter "Jim Grey"?, gave him an opportunity to clear the air at that best player event, but most people thought the reporter was picking on Pete...

Yankees Empire
10-24-02, 05:44 PM
Pete Rose accepted the lifetime ban. He knew what that implied (if he didn't then he's an idiot who gets what he deserves).

Personally, I don't care if he does admit that he bet on baseball and apologizes. The rules of the game say that if you bet on baseball, you get a lifetime ban. As such, you are not allowed into the Hall of Fame.
No exceptions for people who admit it and apologize.

Rules either mean something or they don't.

Jersey Yankee
10-24-02, 05:51 PM
I only found this site, which seems to cover the basic isues. Please note, it's a very anti-Jim Gray website:

http://www.everwonder.com/david/jimgray/

Gray's sad sad interview...............

Gray asked Rose, banned in 1989 for gambling, why he hasn't admitted that he bet on baseball.

``I'm not going to admit to something that didn't happen,'' said Rose, baseball's career hits leader. ``I know you're getting tired of hearing me say that. It's too festive a night to worry about it.''

``I mean, show it to me, where is it?,'' Rose asked.

Responded Gray: ``But you agreed to a ban from baseball for life.''

``It also says I can apply for reinstatement in one year. I was looking forward to that day,'' Rose answered.

Rose applied to commissioner Bud Selig two years ago and has not gotten a formal response.

``It's only been two years. He's got a lot of things on his mind,'' Rose said.

Selig has indicated he does not intend to reinstate Rose.

Gray then suggested Rose should perhaps take a different approach by admitting guilt. Rose said, ``You say it hasn't worked, what do you mean?''

Rose seemed surprised by Gray's approach, likening it to a ``prosecutor's brief.''

``You know, I'm surprised you're bombarding me with this,'' he said. ``I'm here to do an interview with you on a great night, a great occasion. You're bringing up something that happened 10 years ago.''

patrick.o
10-24-02, 05:56 PM
I posted this in a thread earlier this year and my feelings haven't changed in the slightest:


There is nothing about Pete Rose that belongs in the HOF. He bet on baseball while in a position to control the outcome of games. If baseball didn't have proof of this he never would have agreed to a lifetime ban. Let him try to re-write history all he wants. Read the Dowd report. (http://www.dowdreport.com/)

How about this segment of the agreement he signed:

Peter Edward Rose acknowledges that the Commissioner has a factual basis to impose the penalty provided herein, and hereby accepts the penalty imposed on him by the Commissioner and agrees not to challenge the penalty in court or otherwise.
followed closely by this:

Peter Edward Rose is hereby declared permanently ineligible in accordance with Major League Rule 21 and placed on the ineligible list.
which was then signed by Charlie Hustle. He could very well have said, "no way I sign that, I never bet on baseball". But it wasn't until after he signed it that he was so adamant about claiming he didn't bet on baseball. Why? Because by signing the agreement Baseball agreed not to make it's evidence public:

...and the Commissioner will not make any formal findings or determinations on any matter including without limitation the allegation that Peter Edward Rose bet on any Major League Baseball game...
So Rose can walk around all day saying baseball's got nothing on him and baseball legally has to keep it's proof to itself. But the Dowd report is public now, so anyone who wants to know the truth can read it themselves. And the truth is that Pete Rose bet on baseball, and that's a bigger sin than anything Strawberry, McSorley or anyone else since the Black Sox have done.
As KLJ said, the evidence against him is undenible. Click the link above and see for yourself. He compromised the integrity of the game and deserves to be banned.

NYYFAN
10-24-02, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by Jersey Yankee
I only found this site, which seems to cover the basic isues. Please note, it's a very anti-Jim Gray website:

http://www.everwonder.com/david/jimgray/

``You know, I'm surprised you're bombarding me with this,'' he said. ``I'm here to do an interview with you on a great night, a great occasion. You're bringing up something that happened 10 years ago.''

Hey Pete, I you would of apologized in front on the world, it would of been a great night and occasion, and you would probably be in the Hall of Fame right now...

2JAY
10-24-02, 05:59 PM
No
NO
And Hell No.

Jersey Yankee
10-24-02, 06:00 PM
That link I posted seemed factually correct to myself, as far as the interview. Anyone disagree w/the accuracy of what was written as far as what Pete Rose and Jim Gray said during the interview?

DiMaggio5CF
10-24-02, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by NYYFAN

I alway felt that reporter "Jim Grey"?, gave him an opportunity to clear the air at that best player event, but most people thought the reporter was picking on Pete...

Gray was out of line there.

I'm not saying that he shouldn't have asked the questions, but that wasn't the time or the place.

If you want to talk about that, schedule an interview later.

What was so bad was that Gray just wouldn't let it drop.

You asked the question, let it go.

That wasn't the time or the place for a pressing interview like that. It showed poor taste on Gray's part.

DJeter1287
10-24-02, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Hitman23
Hell yes.

But I also think he should apologise for doing what he did.

ditto!

Mr. Mxylsplk
10-24-02, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by patrick.o
As KLJ said, the evidence against him is undenible.
Isn't it also undeniable that he accomplished as much, created as many memories and inspired as many fans as most of the players in the HOF. No one has explained why they think a ban from the sport should preclude him from being included in a hall to honor the game's greatest performers.

Slippery Elm
10-24-02, 06:40 PM
Rose is a sleazy dirtbag and felon who spent hard time in Federal prison, who has repeatedly lied about his baseball misdeeds, and bet on baseball in direct violation of the most hallowed rules. He consorted with Gangland figures and bookies. He treated his wife like dirt, and never did a charitable thing in his life for anyone else. He maliciously ruined Ray Fosse's career.

All he does now is pimp his junk on the Home Shopping Network.

Baseball HoF Rule #5:

5. Voting Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

He has no integrity, character, or sportsmanship, and should never get in the HoF. He remains arrogant, shameless, and unrepentant.

Don't tell me about Ty Cobb either. Cobb never did hard time, and he went in before the rule was instituted anyway.

nybabygurl2
10-24-02, 06:47 PM
Sticky situation...and I can't say that I really care. I mean, he's a good enough player to be in the HOF, so maybe he should just apologize.

Hitman23
10-24-02, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by Mr. Mxylsplk
His accomplishments are as real as any other player's, and those accomplishments obviously warrant being in the hall of fame. It degrades the Hall in my opinion to keep him or Shoeless Joe out when they're as or more worthy than most of the players who are in there.

I agree 100%. I do not care what he did off the field as far as his HOF worth is concerned. He was a phenominal player, one of the best to ever play the game. Keeping him out of the hall is completely wrong and it's just another injustice Selig has done to our game. (I know it was Vincent's doing, but Bud could have overturned that). I do not like the accusations against him at all, and if it is true he is a scumbag for doing it. But how many scumbags that are out there are in the hall, or going to be there? *cough* cough * Bonds *cough* Pedro *cough*

Jersey Yankee
10-24-02, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Hitman23
Keeping him out of the hall is completely wrong and it's just another injustice Selig has done to our game. (I know it was Vincent's doing, but Bud could have overturned that).I thought it was the late Commissioner, A. Bartlett Giamatti's doing that banned Rose. Wasn't he the one heavily involved w/the investigation leading to Rose lifetime ban?

lpiniellafan
10-24-02, 07:12 PM
Pete Rose's problem is that he's a dumb jock who went through life thinking that his athletic ability made him better than everybody else, only to find out that he's just a human being like the rest of us. When we screw up, we pay the price. He cheated on his taxes and got caught, so he did a light prison sentence. He gambled and created the appearance of impropriety within the sport, so he cost himself his chance to be recognized for his skills. Yes, Rose was good enough that he was probably a first-ballot hall of famer, a shoo-in. But his gambling habits are severe enough to warrant keeping him out of the hall. I disagree with those people who think it would make a difference if Rose just apologized. Sometimes, saying "I'm sorry" isn't enough. And I don't want to hear from those people who think Rose is no worse a person than many other ballplayers. Babe Ruth may have drank to excess and whored around, but as I see it, any damage he did was to himself. The Babe NEVER did anything that would hurt baseball. Petey did. Let him rot in the pergatory that he created all by himself.

Hitman23
10-24-02, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Jersey Yankee
I thought it was the late Commissioner, A. Bartlett Giamatti's doing that banned Rose. Wasn't he the one heavily involved w/the investigation leading to Rose lifetime ban?

You know what, I think you're right. I forgot. I think it was Vincent who vowed when he took over saying as long as he was alive he'd never see Pete in the hall. Selig is just keeping the tradition going.

Jersey Yankee
10-24-02, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by Hitman23
You know what, I think you're right. I forgot. I think it was Vincent who vowed when he took over saying as long as he was alive he'd never see Pete in the hall. Selig is just keeping the tradition going. I remember that Giammatti (spl?) was very active in the investigation. There was talk of betting slips, phone conversations, etc. I think he was practically one of the people leading the way, and I don't think he was very passive at all in the whole thing.

I don't remember what Fay Vincent did/didn't do, but I think he just merely passed the baton f/the next commish to drop, so to speak.

patrick.o
10-24-02, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by Jersey Yankee
There was talk of betting slips, phone conversations, etc.
Read the link! www.dowdreport.com

NYYRules#1
10-24-02, 09:15 PM
He should be in. Knowing him, he was so obsessed with winning that he'd never bet against his own team.

patrick.o
10-24-02, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Mr. Mxylsplk

Isn't it also undeniable that he accomplished as much, created as many memories and inspired as many fans as most of the players in the HOF. No one has explained why they think a ban from the sport should preclude him from being included in a hall to honor the game's greatest performers.
Pete Rose should have been a first ballot Hall of Famer. There is absolutely no question about that. Even though Cobb was a much better hitter (Cobb - .366, Rose - .303) and Rose was a numbers accumulator (it took him 2,619 more at bats than Cobb to get 67 more hits), Rose is the career hits leader, and that in and of itself makes him a first ballot guy.

But he threw it all away by betting on baseball. That is the worst sin a player or manager can commit. Unlike corking a bat or spitting on the ball or doing drugs or beating your wife of being a drunk, betting on games in which you play a part in the outcome calls in to question the integrity of the contest. It cheapens it and makes it comparible to pro wrestling.

Say Rose bet that his team would win, but wouldn't cover the 2 run spread? Top of the ninth, no outs, man on first, his team winning by 1 - does he try to get the runner around? Does he try to bunt him over? Does he send out a faster pinch runner? Does he pinch hit for the pitcher? Or does he make no aggressive move and hope the guy doesn't come around to score? Now say he makes no moves, because he's got ten grand on his team winning a close one, and the guy gets stranded. And then in the bottom of the ninth the other team scores 2 runs and wins. The outcome of the game was altered, not by a manager making the wrong moves or a player commiting an error or making a mental mistake, the outcome was changed because someone (Rose) was trying to cash in.

Rose was in a lot of debt to some of his bookies. Remember that in the 70's and 80's there were no $100 million contracts. If a guy was in debt for $50 or $100 grand, that was substantial. What if one of the bookies Rose is in debt to says he'll forgive some of the debt if Rose does something for him? Not even something huge like throwing a game, but maybe something like what I wrote above, just making sure that if his team won they didn't win my more than 3 runs. Or even better, what if the guy tells him either pay the debt today, or throw the game, or one of your kids gets offed?

Now, there is no proof that Rose ever actually did anything to alter the outcome of a game. But by betting on baseball while a player and while a manager, he created a situation where he could of profitted by altering the outcome of a game, and a situation where he could have been influenced to alter the outcome of a game.

And for the inexcusable sin of compromising the integrity of the game, he should be banned.

(btw, that's the same sin Joe Jackson is guilty of, and not too many people are clamouring for him to be in the Hall. Why not? He was a better player than Rose ever was.)

Jersey Yankee
10-24-02, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by patrick.o
Read the link! www.dowdreport.com Thx. Perhaps this weekend, or at least Friday when there's no game.

ChocolateGirl
10-24-02, 11:48 PM
With those numbers and stats Pete Rose has, of course he needs to be in the hall of fame. But he is a stubborn SOB and he needs to apologize and admit he did wrong. I mean what is the big deal in apologizing?? He would be a mature man in my eyes by doing it. He is being a big baby by not doing it. In the long run he hurts himself. But who knows maybe sometime in the near future he will apologize. :rolleyes:

Slippery Elm
10-25-02, 12:42 AM
One mo' time. . .

Baseball HoF Rule #5:

5. Voting Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

It's not just about stats and numbers.

BobbyMurcerFan
10-25-02, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by 2JAY
No
NO
And Hell No. DITTO!!!

Yankchic22
10-25-02, 03:12 AM
There are spreads in baseball???? I thought it was just straight win-lose.

Mr. Mxylsplk
10-25-02, 11:29 AM
Obviously I've already posted that I think he belongs in the HOF, although I was unfamiliar with rule 5 that others have since posted. Regardless of that however, why do so many of you think he should be allowed back into baseball if he merely apologizes? He broke the rules of baseball, and did so in an illegal manner to boot. Why does an apology absolve him of that? If the sniper apologizes, do we pat him on the back, have a nice chuckle and send him on his way?

The rules are the rules, and if you break them, you pay the price. That price was fully known to Rose. Anyone involved in baseball knows that you can't bet on games, can't bet on your own games, and can be banned for life if you do. He still did. So what does an apology have to do with anything? Why even have rules if guys can simply apologize and have their punishments waived?

penguin4
10-25-02, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Slippery Elm
Don't tell me about Ty Cobb either. Cobb never did hard time, and he went in before the rule was instituted anyway.
Yes, but both Cobb AND Speaker were almost banned from baseball for allegedly fixing games and making wagers in 1928. They had about as much evidence to convict them as they did Rose. MLB was just a different game back then, and since it wasn't a whole team they kept the whole thing hush-hush.

I'm sorry, but AS A PLAYER, Rose should get in. The betting stuff didn't come out until his career was over.

Hitman23
10-25-02, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Mr. Mxylsplk
Regardless of that however, why do so many of you think he should be allowed back into baseball if he merely apologizes? He broke the rules of baseball, and did so in an illegal manner to boot. Why does an apology absolve him of that? If the sniper apologizes, do we pat him on the back, have a nice chuckle and send him on his way?

no, I don't think anyone would consider it water under the bridge if he apologizes. The point is, let him back, let him in the hall for his amazing career. but in turn he needs to apologize for it, if he is guilty. It doesn't make him any less responsible for it, but it would say to everyone "what I did was wrong and I regret it" instead of being so stubborn.

KLJ
10-25-02, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Mr. Mxylsplk
Regardless of that however, why do so many of you think he should be allowed back into baseball if he merely apologizes? He broke the rules of baseball, and did so in an illegal manner to boot. Why does an apology absolve him of that?
i never said he should be let in if he apologizes.. i said that discussion should start at that point... and let me add that i do not think he deserves to be let back into baseball ever... i'm only speaking of the hall of fame...

when he continues to deny betting on baseball, he is thumbing is nose at us and all of baseball... i consider him a pathetic man and a coward until he admits to what he has done... after he acts like a man and takes responsibility for what he has done, i think discussion for honoring his playing accomplishments should begin... actually allowing him back into the game should be out of the question...

Carissa
10-25-02, 01:26 PM
Ever-popular Rose really needs to 'apologize'
http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/caple_jim/1450200.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jim Caple
ESPN.com

SAN FRANCISCO -- On the other hand, the night Pete Rose bet $17,000 on baseball did not crack the game's top 10 most memorable moments.

So, the friendly folks at Mastercard gave baseball another priceless moment before Game 4 of the World Series when it announced the results of its "Memorable Moments'' promotion. Just as was the case with its 1999 All-Century team (which somehow did not include Barry Bonds), Pete Rose was among the finalists and once again given a temporary corporate exemption to his lifetime baseball ban (an exemption he did not receive for the final game at old Riverfront Stadium, but then again, there was no multi-million dollar sponsorship deal that day). And once again, there was an awkward moment during an otherwise touching salute to everything that is right about the game.

But first things first. Any list of baseball's most memorable moments that does not include Bobby Thomson's home run is as suspect as the interest rates for a bank's credit cards. Thomson's home run would have been my pick for the No. 1 moment. The thing to remember though, is that the entire promotion was skewed toward events of the television era because that's all most of us know. After all, it's hard to poll dead people outside of Cook County.

So if today's fans say Cal Ripken's big night is their most memorable moment, then there's nothing wrong with that, as long as you realize it isn't a definitive list, that it is only a fan vote sponsored by a credit card company. In fact, I saw exactly half the list's 30 moments either in person or on live TV, and for me, Ripken's record-breaking game was the most memorable and the most emotional.

What is more important is the reaction of the 41,000-some fans who gave Rose the ceremony's loudest and longest ovation. Louder than Hank Aaron for his 715th home run and longer than Ripken for his playing streak. When Rose took the field, fans stood and applauded, then chanted "Hall of Fame! Hall of Fame!'' so long that they still were chanting it when Billy Crystal announced the next moment.

Now, remember. Pete gambled on baseball. He bet on his team. He served time for cheating on his income tax. He's loud, arrogant and completely unrepentant. He's virtually everything we despise in the modern athlete.

And yet, fans still love the guy. Why? Because he always hustled and because baseball turned him into a martyr by banning him from the Hall of Fame. After 13 years, the fans feel baseball is persecuting Rose.

The fans are wrong. Baseball is only enforcing a cardinal rule as it should and as it must. The one unpardonable sin in baseball is gambling on the sport. It's the one rule posted in every clubhouse. When players gamble, fans begin wondering whether everything is on the up and up. And if that happens, the game becomes nothing more than pro wrestling.

The sentence Rose received for gambling was fair and just. The only question is whether he should be eligible for parole.

Rose has suffered a lot in the past 13 years. His reputation is trashed. He can't be connected with the game he loves. He's been reduced to appearing as a clown in pro wrestling matches, where he recently had his face rubbed against the buttocks of a giant Samoan wrestler wearing a thong

No one wants that. Not Rose. Not the fans. And not the folks who run the game, either.

Baseball wants to solve the Rose problem. Baseball is willing to solve the Rose problem. But it takes two sides working together on this and so far Rose hasn't done the single most important thing he can to get himself back in baseball: Apologize.

If Rose wants back in the game, if he wants into the Hall of Fame, he knows what to do. Finally admit that he bet on baseball, that it was wrong and that he's sorry. Until he does that, baseball can't even consider the issue, no matter how unpopular such a stand is.

That's why fans chanted the wrong thing when Rose took the field. Instead of chanting "Hall of Fame'' for a man who bet on baseball and disgraced the sport, they should have been shouting "Apologize.''


Jim Caple is a senior writer for ESPN.com.

=========================

Daugherty: Baseball's principles optional
Cincinnati Enquirer
http://reds.enquirer.com/2002/10/25/wwwredadoc25.html

Mr. Mxylsplk
10-25-02, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by Hitman23


no, I don't think anyone would consider it water under the bridge if he apologizes.
Some posters in this thread seem to be saying just that.

Mr. Mxylsplk
10-25-02, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by KLJ

i never said he should be let in if he apologizes..
Some in this thread have. It was to them I meant my post to be addressed.

Hitman23
10-25-02, 01:42 PM
Carissa's on the job again! :D

Thanks, that was a very good article. The only thing I disagree with is that the fans should have chanted "Apologize". I would have chanted "Hall Of Fame" myself.

The fans have spoke again Bud. But did you hear it?

BobbyMurcerFan
10-25-02, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Mr. Mxylsplk
...Why does an apology absolve him of that? If the sniper apologizes, do we pat him on the back, have a nice chuckle and send him on his way?...Six of one, half dozen of the other: bet on baseball, or kill ten people, wound three others & terrorize the nation's capital. Are you going for the worst analogy in a post?

Mr. Mxylsplk
10-25-02, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by BobbyMurcerFan
Six of one, half dozen of the other: bet on baseball, or kill ten people, wound three others & terrorize the nation's capital. Are you going for the worst analogy in a post?
Irrelevant. The respective punishments fit the respective crimes. The fact is, when you break the rules, an apology is acceptable for only the most minor of infractions. What Rose did is the highest crime baseball has, except possibly betting against his team. Why do some think an apology gets him off the hook?

Slippery Elm
10-25-02, 09:16 PM
Why do you think that arrogant shameless clown would EVER apologize at all?

Soriambi
10-25-02, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by patrick.o

Pete Rose should have been a first ballot Hall of Famer. There is absolutely no question about that. Even though Cobb was a much better hitter (Cobb - .366, Rose - .303) and Rose was a numbers accumulator (it took him 2,619 more at bats than Cobb to get 67 more hits), Rose is the career hits leader, and that in and of itself makes him a first ballot guy.

But he threw it all away by betting on baseball. That is the worst sin a player or manager can commit. Unlike corking a bat or spitting on the ball or doing drugs or beating your wife of being a drunk, betting on games in which you play a part in the outcome calls in to question the integrity of the contest. It cheapens it and makes it comparible to pro wrestling.

Say Rose bet that his team would win, but wouldn't cover the 2 run spread? Top of the ninth, no outs, man on first, his team winning by 1 - does he try to get the runner around? Does he try to bunt him over? Does he send out a faster pinch runner? Does he pinch hit for the pitcher? Or does he make no aggressive move and hope the guy doesn't come around to score? Now say he makes no moves, because he's got ten grand on his team winning a close one, and the guy gets stranded. And then in the bottom of the ninth the other team scores 2 runs and wins. The outcome of the game was altered, not by a manager making the wrong moves or a player commiting an error or making a mental mistake, the outcome was changed because someone (Rose) was trying to cash in.

Rose was in a lot of debt to some of his bookies. Remember that in the 70's and 80's there were no $100 million contracts. If a guy was in debt for $50 or $100 grand, that was substantial. What if one of the bookies Rose is in debt to says he'll forgive some of the debt if Rose does something for him? Not even something huge like throwing a game, but maybe something like what I wrote above, just making sure that if his team won they didn't win my more than 3 runs. Or even better, what if the guy tells him either pay the debt today, or throw the game, or one of your kids gets offed?

Now, there is no proof that Rose ever actually did anything to alter the outcome of a game. But by betting on baseball while a player and while a manager, he created a situation where he could of profitted by altering the outcome of a game, and a situation where he could have been influenced to alter the outcome of a game.

And for the inexcusable sin of compromising the integrity of the game, he should be banned.

(btw, that's the same sin Joe Jackson is guilty of, and not too many people are clamouring for him to be in the Hall. Why not? He was a better player than Rose ever was.)

Although I disagree with you Patrick, very well said. I can see that he wouldn't be let into baseball again and I might agree with that, but I think that he should be in the HOF.

I also think that Joe Jackson should be in the HOF. Also, would somebody please explain to me how Jackson was found guilty of throwing the series when he hit something like .376 and didn't make an error? I know they say he accepted money and everything, but it just doesn't make sense.

I also understand Rule 5 and I never knew about it, but if this were strictly enforced to it's literal meaning Rickey Henderson, Barry Bonds, and Reggie Jackson would never be or would have never been in the hall.

Also, I've always wondered why there was such a HUGE deal about him betting FOR his team. I didn't know there were spreads in baseball and you did a very good job of explaining why Pat. Thanks for that. Some day when I have a LOT of free time on my hands, I'll go and read the report and maybe my opinion will change then, but as of know Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame, but not back in baseball.

Jersey Yankee
10-25-02, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by Soriambi
I also think that Joe Jackson should be in the HOF. Also, would somebody please explain to me how Jackson was found guilty of throwing the series when he hit something like .376 and didn't make an error? I know they say he accepted money and everything, but it just doesn't make sense.

I also understand Rule 5 and I never knew about it, but if this were strictly enforced to it's literal meaning Rickey Henderson, Barry Bonds, and Reggie Jackson would never be or would have never been in the hall.I remember seeing something on HBO about the 1919 (1920?) WS, and though I don't remember all the details, I believe that according to this, he was involved by his being around that group but not saying anything. It's like if your friends do a crime, but you don't snitch them out. I got that impression, but perhaps someone much more historically knowledgeable can offer further evidence of this.

As to Rickey, Barry and Reggie, what is this Rule 5 and why wouldn't they belong in Cooperstown? About everyone I know considers Rickey the greatest leadoff hitter, as well as the premiere base stealer in his days. Reggie won rings, hit 563 dingers, and Barry, personality or not, how can you doubt his gaudy numbers?

KLJ
10-26-02, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by Jersey Yankee
I remember seeing something on HBO about the 1919 (1920?) WS, and though I don't remember all the details, I believe that according to this, he was involved by his being around that group but not saying anything. It's like if your friends do a crime, but you don't snitch them out. I got that impression, but perhaps someone much more historically knowledgeable can offer further evidence of this.
although i never trust hollywood... the movie 8 men out does a good job of depicting everyone's involvement of the 1919 world series...

mets40yrs
10-26-02, 01:37 AM
IMHO, no. Its the one rule that everyone who plays professional baseball knows. You bet, your gone. No exceptions. Personally I think John Franco got away with it. There was not enough evidence but the rumour was that he was calling the bets in from the bullpen. If he was proven guilty he should be gone as well. This is comming from a Met fan.

Jersey Yankee
10-26-02, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by KLJ
although i never trust hollywood... the movie 8 men out does a good job of depicting everyone's involvement of the 1919 world series... Yeah, that's the one (hit the first batter, the bet's on). It seemed well-researched and from a reliable sports source, so that's why I tended to believe it, despite Hollywood's infamous "artistic changes".

BTW, I now realize that Rule 5 was posted earlier on this page by Slip. :o

Hitman23
10-26-02, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by KLJ

although i never trust hollywood... the movie 8 men out does a good job of depicting everyone's involvement of the 1919 world series...

didn't they make it out to seem Joe didn't even know what was going on? He was too stupid to comprehend it, at least that's what I got out of it. If that's the case then he does not deserve to be left out of the HOF. IMO anyway

Jersey Yankee
10-26-02, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Hitman23
didn't they make it out to seem Joe didn't even know what was going on? He was too stupid to comprehend it, at least that's what I got out of it. If that's the case then he does not deserve to be left out of the HOF. IMO anyway I don't remember where I put the tape of that movie, but I remember he was one of the last holdouts on the bet, and that they'd had to have him involved in order to make it work. He was reluctant to go, but finally conceded, after someone played some games, getting him to agree that it was OK, since "all of his friends on the team were also going along".

I think he then got angry at himself f/not going against the grain, but that's all I can remember from this. Very nice work, BTW, I'll say. :)

patrick.o
10-26-02, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Hitman23
didn't they make it out to seem Joe didn't even know what was going on? He was too stupid to comprehend it, at least that's what I got out of it. If that's the case then he does not deserve to be left out of the HOF. IMO anyway
I'm no Joe Jackson expert, but if I remember right he accepted money ($5,000?) and then either gave it back or never cashed the check. And then of course he went on to bat .375 with a HR and 6 RBI in 32 Series ABs. But, just because he had great numbers doesn't mean he got any of those hits or RBI when it mattered.

And while cheating is cheating is cheating, the Jackson scenerio is a bit different than Rose's. In Jackson's day the owners had a stranglehold on the money. And while the owners were keeping most of the cash, the majority of the players had to find work during the offseason to make ends meet. By being so greedy the owners were really setting themselves up for players throwing games for money.

Jersey Yankee
10-26-02, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by patrick.o
And while the owners were keeping most of the cash, the majority of the players had to find work during the offseason to make ends meet. By being so greedy the owners were really setting themselves up for players throwing games for money. That's very interesting, since Ruth, who supposedly "saved" baseball after the Black Sox Scandal, was accused of "barnstorming" in his Yankeeography. Though he was the higher paid player on the Yankees (about 2.5x as much as Gehrig), he worked on the side to get additional income. In his case, he must've been independently wealthy.

As to Rose, wasn't he the Reds' manager at the time of those bets? His playing career ended in 1986, but he managed from '84 to '89 (http://www.baseballreference.com/managers/rosepe01.shtml).

Soriambi
10-26-02, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Jersey Yankee
I remember seeing something on HBO about the 1919 (1920?) WS, and though I don't remember all the details, I believe that according to this, he was involved by his being around that group but not saying anything. It's like if your friends do a crime, but you don't snitch them out. I got that impression, but perhaps someone much more historically knowledgeable can offer further evidence of this.

As to Rickey, Barry and Reggie, what is this Rule 5 and why wouldn't they belong in Cooperstown? About everyone I know considers Rickey the greatest leadoff hitter, as well as the premiere base stealer in his days. Reggie won rings, hit 563 dingers, and Barry, personality or not, how can you doubt his gaudy numbers?

Thanks for the explanation JY. As for why they shouldn't be in the HOF, they should be. I was just saying that is you strictly go by this Rule Five, they might not be. I think that the HOF should be mostly, how should I say, success driven. Numbers and rings should be all that matters.

Mr. Mxylsplk
10-26-02, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by patrick.o

Say Rose bet that his team would win, but wouldn't cover the 2 run spread?


I agree with pretty much your entire post, except for that sentence above. You can't really bet on your time to win by less than the spread except by betting on the other team to beat the spread, which would be betting against your team. Since no one's ever claimed that Rose bet on the opposing team, you scenario isn't realistic. But, as you later point out, which team he bet on isn't even really relevant. If he had money on the outcome, he corrupted the game and affected the outcome. And he could still hurt his team by betting on them to win. If Mo's pitched 3 times in the past 5 days, he probably should rest. But if I've got money on tonight's game, I might put him in anyway. It might help us win tonight's game, but hurt us long term if Mo gets hurt. The manager's job is to win over the course of the season, and sometimes that means not doing everything to win a given game. Betting, even on your own game, can very much hurt your team. Plus, also as you pointed out, Rose getting in debt to gamblers could have put him in situations where they pressured him to make his team to lose, and that obviously would have very corrupt.

Jersey Yankee
10-26-02, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Soriambi
Thanks for the explanation JY. As for why they shouldn't be in the HOF, they should be. I was just saying that is you strictly go by this Rule Five, they might not be. I think that the HOF should be mostly, how should I say, success driven. Numbers and rings should be all that matters. De nada. ;)

As for the HOF, I was thinking that you were saying Reggie, Rickey and Barry's egos might've been a cause f/"sportsmanship", one of the things mentioned in Rule 5, as posted above by Slip.

By numbers and rings, would that be exactly as such, or "numbers and/or rings"? Ted Williams (http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/willite01.shtml) never won a ring, and the great pitcher, Walter Johnson (http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/johnswa01.shtml), only won it all once, in the '25 WS when he pitched Game 7 w/the old Washington Senators. Check out his '13 season and you'll never talk about Pedro and Randy again!!!

I've heard people say that you must not only put up excellent numbers, but that you should do so consistently over your career. Not only this, but you should lead not necessarily the league, but at least your position in the MLB f/most of your career, in offense (Dan Brouthers (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/broutda01.shtml), 1B; Rogers Hornsby (http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hornsro01.shtml), 2B) and/or defense (Ozzie Smith (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/smithoz01.shtml), SS; Bill Mazeroski (http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mazerbi01.shtml), 2B (though not often considered HOF material)), or both (Babe Ruth (http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/ruthba01.shtml), LF/RF).

For people like Don Mattingly (http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mattido01.shtml) and Keith Hernandez (http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hernake01.shtml), they both were LH 1Bman playing f/NYC teams in the 80s, so they practically cancelled each other out, which is one possible reason neither is in Cooperstown w/o a ticket. :o

Slippery Elm
10-26-02, 04:48 PM
I don't know about those guys, but Albert Belle, for example, is absolutely disqualified by HoF Rule #5.

Soriambi
10-26-02, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Jersey Yankee


As for the HOF, I was thinking that you were saying Reggie, Rickey and Barry's egos might've been a cause f/"sportsmanship", one of the things mentioned in Rule 5, as posted above by Slip.

B]I was saying that one could argue that, although I don't see it that way.

By numbers and rings, would that be exactly as such, or "numbers and/or rings"? Ted Williams (http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/willite01.shtml) never won a ring, and the great pitcher, Walter Johnson (http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/johnswa01.shtml), only won it all once, in the '25 WS when he pitched Game 7 w/the old Washington Senators. Check out his '13 season and you'll never talk about Pedro and Randy again!!!

I was saying that if you are a marginal HOF, maybe in maybe not, and you've won 5 World Series, maybe you get the benifit of the doubt. The two players that you mentioned, their numbers overwhelm their lack of success in the post-season Like Mattingly, if he had won 4 rings, he might be enshrined in Cooperstown right now. So yes, numbers and/or rings. :)

[/B]

Jersey Yankee
10-26-02, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by Slippery Elm
I don't know about those guys, but Albert Belle, for example, is absolutely disqualified by HoF Rule #5. I've heard of reporters not wanting to vote him in, since he'd pretty much blown them off whenever they wanted to talk to him. I wouldn't expect him to be their "palsy-walsy" or anything, but I've heard way too many stories of his being brusque and boarish f/my use. He could've been a whole lot nicer. If interested, he's being profiled this Monday (10/28) on ESPN-C, 8:30pm, 11:30pm ET (1 hr):

Belle battled fans, teammates, self (http://espn.go.com/classic/biography/s/belle_albert.html)

Don't say you haven't been warned!!! :gulp::D :evil:

Jersey Yankee
10-26-02, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Soriambi
I was saying that if you are a marginal HOF, maybe in maybe not, and you've won 5 World Series, maybe you get the benifit of the doubt. The two players that you mentioned, their numbers overwhelm their lack of success in the post-season Like Mattingly, if he had won 4 rings, he might be enshrined in Cooperstown right now. So yes, numbers and/or rings. :)To be honest, Paulie's got 5 rings, and I think that Coney's got 5 or 6, but I'm unsure if either will ever make it. Had Doc Gooden continued his dominating ways after '85, he'd have been a shoo-in, the next Bob Gibson. Coney was very good, but never was as dominating as Gooden, IMO.

I think that Paulie's certainly had lots of enthusiasm which he'd created around the lockerroom, inspiring his teammates onward. He may get in, but somehow, I think that people will tend to say that the Hall's been watered down. Hence, the lists you see of people saying that the doors should be knocked down and some plaques removed from the Walls of the Hall!!!

lpiniellafan
10-26-02, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Slippery Elm
I don't know about those guys, but Albert Belle, for example, is absolutely disqualified by HoF Rule #5.

Sorry to disagree, but there's a difference between being an arrogant jerk and a petty crook. Petey crossed over that line. Albert doesn't even come close. Neither do Rickey, Barry or any of the other ballplayers with less than agreeable personalities these days.

cman
10-28-02, 03:55 AM
For the simple fact that Pete accepted in writing the that he would not be eligilbe, NO he should not be in the HoF.

He may be # 6 on Mastercard's memory list , and there is no doubght that his 4K+ hits as a player are awesome HoF stuff... However, his actions later in his baseball life simply cross the line and establish that no matter how good a player he was, his actions led to a punishment he deserves and willfully accepted.

It is sad..perhaps at best there could be an exhibit next to the Black Sox one, about a story of a man who would have more hits then anyone, yet some actions later in his career ban him from the sport. I could live with that, and that's about as close as Pete shoudl be able to go.

As it has been stated - rules are rules, are to bend them because you said you were sorry is like the current North Korean nuclear issue : "yeah, we lied to you and took you for all that you were worth, but what are you going to give and pay us now to tell the truth, and promise on our crediblitiy not to stick it to you again??"

Slippery Elm
12-10-02, 07:22 PM
Just heard him on a recent intereview claiming he would never have agreed to what he did if he knew Giamatti was going to say what he did and then die. Or something. :rolleyes: :P

He then said he wanted a "second chance". The phony admits to nothing - but wants a second chance?? :uhh:

JDPNYY
12-10-02, 08:14 PM
Pete Rose belongs no where near Organized Baseball or the Hall of Fame. Period. End of Story.

Jody
12-11-02, 12:00 AM
YES. What he did or didn't do in the the past, should be kept in the past. I'm not a fan of his, but what's right is right. He belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Spiker
12-11-02, 05:02 AM
I'm someone who couldn't abide by Pete Rose as a player and can't stand him as a human being. But the HOF is there to recognize the greats of the game and Rose (though he was somewhat overrated as a player) is a HOFer and that's where he belongs.
The question of whether he should be reinstated into the game itself is an entirely different question. The game simply can't afford to have a compulsive gambler in any meaningful position. I don't care if he buys a block of time on national TV and tearfully confesses his past sins, so long as he has a problem with gambling he doesn't belong in the game.
So I vote yes on allowing him into the HOF. But no to reinstatement, until and unless he proves his addiction has been cured and unfortunately proving you're no longer a gambling addict is nearly impossible.

Mr. Mxylsplk
12-11-02, 09:55 AM
Rule 5 has already been posted in this thread, and it makes it crystal clear that Pete Rose does not belong in the HOF, regardless of his great accomplishments on the field. It's really a no-brainer.

yeahimweird
12-11-02, 10:56 AM
I'm not a fan of his either but I think he should have his rightful place in the HOF.


Convicted drug addicts, rapists and other criminals can stay in baseball but he gets thrown out on the count of accusations of betting? :confused:

~Tracy~

Spiker
12-11-02, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Mr. Mxylsplk
Rule 5 has already been posted in this thread, and it makes it crystal clear that Pete Rose does not belong in the HOF, regardless of his great accomplishments on the field. It's really a no-brainer.


Rule 5 also makes it crystal clear it's a "player's" character that is to be considered. As far as I know, Rose's character as a player was probably no different than a hundred other HOFers, including my beloved Mickey Mantle. Drinking and whoring are not enough to keep deserving players out of the Hall. What a player does after he retires should not be considered by voters. But please keep Rose away from the game itself.

sanfranciscojetergirl
12-11-02, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by yeahimweird
I'm not a fan of his either but I think he should have his rightful place in the HOF.


Convicted drug addicts, rapists and other criminals can stay in baseball but he gets thrown out on the count of accusations of betting? :confused:

~Tracy~


Tracy,
What a great point I so agree with you 100%. Let him in the HOF

Mr. Mxylsplk
12-11-02, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Spiker
Rule 5 also makes it crystal clear it's a "player's" character that is to be considered. As far as I know, Rose's character as a player was probably no different than a hundred other HOFers, including my beloved Mickey Mantle. Drinking and whoring are not enough to keep deserving players out of the Hall. What a player does after he retires should not be considered by voters. But please keep Rose away from the game itself.
I don't think there is anything about Rose's character that is a negative about his HOF candidacy, just as I don't think there is anything negative about Mantle's character. I don't see why drinking or sleeping around show a particular lack of character, so I don't really understand your comment. However as a gambler on baseball games, Rose showed a complete lack of integrity. That, to me, should exclude him from the game.
As for your retirement comment, well, Rose remained involved in baseball by his own choice. Perhaps one could argue that as a player he never bet, and as a player he should therefore be allowed in. There might be something to that.

deranged2005
12-11-02, 06:54 PM
PTI did a good segment about this.

So even if he does say he did gamble and he was wrong, do you let him into the Hall??

Catch 22- If he doesn't, you have the all time hits leader out of the hall. If he admits to gambling and goes in, you have a lying SOB in the Hall.

Hmmmmm.

I say let him, but not right now.

Spiker
12-11-02, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by Mr. Mxylsplk

I don't think there is anything about Rose's character that is a negative about his HOF candidacy, just as I don't think there is anything negative about Mantle's character. I don't see why drinking or sleeping around show a particular lack of character, so I don't really understand your comment. However as a gambler on baseball games, Rose showed a complete lack of integrity. That, to me, should exclude him from the game.
As for your retirement comment, well, Rose remained involved in baseball by his own choice. Perhaps one could argue that as a player he never bet, and as a player he should therefore be allowed in. There might be something to that.

What I was trying to point out was that Rose's off-field rep. as a player was of a drinker and womanizer. Some people see adultery as a character flaw at best and there are even some who think alcoholism is a character issue. I agree basically with your views on that.
But the point is that Rose did not gamble as a player and he'll be going into the Hall as a player. I don't see the relevance as far as the HOF to what he did as a manager. Jim Bunning is a U.S. Senator and a HOFer, I think, for argument's sake, let's say he is. Suppose, he was convicted on taking a bribe (won't happen, he's an honorable guy though he's in the wrong party.). Would his criminal action in retirement invalidate his selection to the HOF. I don't think it would or should.

Slippery Elm
12-11-02, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by Mr. Mxylsplk

I don't think there is anything about Rose's character that is a negative about his HOF candidacy, just as I don't think there is anything negative about Mantle's character. I don't see why drinking or sleeping around show a particular lack of character, so I don't really understand your comment. . .

You very conveniently forgot to mention that this selfish, self-absorbed SOB did hard time in Federal prison, besides lying for 15 years about his gambling.

Baseball HoF Rule #5:

5. Voting Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

He has no integrity, character, or sportsmanship, and should never get in the HoF.

Rose is also just a lifetime .302 hitter with no power, no speed, and a mediocre glove.

Mr. Mxylsplk
12-12-02, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by Slippery Elm
You very conveniently forgot to mention that this selfish, self-absorbed SOB did hard time in Federal prison, besides lying for 15 years about his gambling.

The Hall of Fame quite obviously does not consider character off the field as evidenced by countless of its members, so I think the only issue is Rose's gambling, which clearly shows a lack of integrity.

Mr. Mxylsplk
12-12-02, 10:45 AM
Apparently, John Dowd is now saying that if his investigation had been allowed to go forward, he would have shown that Rose bet against the Reds. I'm a touch skeptical of Dowd due to a column he wrote in the NY Times a few months ago which was shown to have been full of inaccuracies, however I'm even more skeptical of Rose, so this is pretty interesting.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/1212/1475769.html

Getting back to the beginning of this thread, since reinstatement now seems like a possibility, I'd be interested to hear (again) explanations from those who believe he should be reinstated if he apologizes. Rule 21(d) of mlb states quite clearly that anyone who gambles on a game in which they're involved will be permanently ineligible. I see no justification whatsoever for allowing Rose back into baseball since he quite clearly bet on the Reds, and don't see how it would be anything other than a disgrace to the game if Selig allows him back. Others' thoughts?

LOHR21
12-12-02, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by DiMaggio5CF


Gray was out of line there.

I'm not saying that he shouldn't have asked the questions, but that wasn't the time or the place.

If you want to talk about that, schedule an interview later.

What was so bad was that Gray just wouldn't let it drop.

You asked the question, let it go.

That wasn't the time or the place for a pressing interview like that. It showed poor taste on Gray's part.

I agree not the time or place .Once he asked the first question and rose
did not answer he should have dropped the matter.

Spiker
12-12-02, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by Mr. Mxylsplk
Apparently, John Dowd is now saying that if his investigation had been allowed to go forward, he would have shown that Rose bet against the Reds. I'm a touch skeptical of Dowd due to a column he wrote in the NY Times a few months ago which was shown to have been full of inaccuracies, however I'm even more skeptical of Rose, so this is pretty interesting.


I'm a member of the let him into the HOF but not back into baseball camp and that's where I remain, but the more Dowd talks the more suspicious I become about this whole thing. Becuase of the column you mentioned and other things, I was concerned before that Dowd was less than objective. Now it's confirmed.
His statement in the Post that he WOULD have found evidence that Rose bet against the Reds is assine in light of the fact that he wrote in his report that there was no evidence that Rose bet against the Reds. Then he goes on to state that he's seen no evidence that Rose has changed his life during the past 13 years. How would he know? Is he following Rose around? Dowd obviously has a personal vendetta against Rose and that's inappropriate. He was hired supposedly to be an objective investigator into Rose's activities and what he's turned into is a mad inquisitor who won't let his target alone, and that makes to my mind the whole original report at least questionable.
I don't care enough about Rose to have read the report, but a lot of people have who question whether the facts he submitted warranted his conclusions. I don't know if they're right, I don't really care; Rose is but a small blip on my radar screen, but Dowd is to my mind now has no more credibility than Rose himself. It's sleezeball versus sleezeball.

Bookthis1totheBirds
12-14-02, 12:53 PM
Yes he should be let in.We need to take in to account what he did as a player to put him into the Hall instead of what he did as a manager.