The Pete Rose Debate

Lately, there has been talk about enshrining baseball’s greatest “Fallen Star.”  Such notables as Hank Aaron have said that Rose has suffered enough and should be ushered into the Hall.  The claim is that the Hall of Fame isn’t complete without the game’s all-time hits leader, but if you walk through the halls of the museum, you will see Rose’s mug plastered on several walls.  He is there; he just doesn’t have the bronze plaque in the gallery.

The question I pose is whether or not you feel Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame.  I feel he “belongs” there, but given that he admitted to betting on the game – a cardinal sin in the eyes of baseball men – his banishment from Cooperstown is justifiable in my eyes.  Should he get in, then what is to be done with Shoeless Joe Jackson, Eddie Cicotte and Bucky Weaver?

1 comment
  1. Big Brother said:

    Rose was in a position to change the outcome of games, that makes his gambling inexcusable. In my eyes comparing Shoeless Joe to Rose is comparing apples to oranges. Shoeless Joe may have took the money, but he never went through with tanking his play. It’d be impossible to tell what decisions Rose made that affected play to make him money on the side.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: