Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?
I won't vote in this poll, because i would let Rose in and not the steroid users.
What Rose did, betting on baseball while managing the Reds, was wrong and should keep him out of the game for good. Why should we ever take a chance that he is again violating the betting rules while in uniform?
However, to me the Hall of Fame is not about the players character or morals, it is about whether that player was one of the best of his era. Ty Cobb was a nasty man in most respects, and was hated by his peers. There was one fairly credible allegation involving Cobb being involved in a scandal where a game was actually thrown. However, he was also one of the best players of all time.
I feel that Rose fits in the category of one of the best players ever. I know, he is a liar and a compulsive gambler. But to me, his accomplishments while playing justify inclusion in the HOF.
The steroid guys put up stats that I simply don't trust. Some, like Bonds , would be HOF worthy based on what they did before they were on performance enhancing drugs. Others, like ARod, may have also accomplished much after they quit. But how can we ever know what portion of their records were tainted?
With Rose, we know that his gambling and lying did not taint his actual playing baseball, or the resulting records. We cannot say the same about Bonds, Canseco, McGuire, or ARod.
"I think he'd be unbelievable. He's as organized as anyone in the game, he holds people accountable... He doesn't buy into stereotypical things in the game... Price looks at evidence. He's a freaking smart guy, he makes his decision on reasonable evidence." Bronson Arroyo