Pete Rose broke one of the oldest rules in the proverbial book - in most clubhouses there are (or at least used to be) signs up acknowledging the fact that gambling of any sort would not be acceptable. I, for one, don't care when these trangressions occurred - Rose bet on baseball and lied fervently enough about it that I wouldn't be shocked to find out he bet against his own team, bet while he was still playing, and the like.
And, for the sake of argument, has anybody considered that, statistically, he doesn't really deserve to be in the Hall? He was a compiler - nothing more. He benefited from playing on teams with players far more talented then he (Robinson, Morgan, Bench), was a poor to mediocre fielder (Gold Gloves mean nothing - Palmeiro won one playing 28 games at 1B and Jeter has won three), had very little power, was a terrible baserunner, and slugged a meager .409 for his career. And, in counter to his hits record argument, he led the league in outs thirteen times (and holds the career record by 1200 outs), led the league in GIDP twice, led the league in time caught stealing four times, and had a stolen base percentage of less than 50% seven times.
Last edited by Domenic; 07-10-2009 at 08:25 PM.