Well, the bats are packed and the MVP's and Cy Young award winners have been named as well as the world champions having been crowned. It is time to focus on the age old question: Does Pete Rose belong in the Hall of Fame?
Pete Rose holds one of the hardest to attain records of all time, the career hits record. He didn't do steroids, he didn't use a corked bat, but he did bet on baseball. The latter happened when he was the manager for the Cincinnati Reds.
I have to believe the Hall of Fame is supposed to be about what a player or manager did on the field, not what he did off of it. Charlie Hustle was the epitome of what a baseball player should be.
Perhaps his tenacity on the field and his brash ways off it were intertwined in an inseparable way that led to his downfall.
Does Bud Selig think that the true fans of the game shouldn't have a say in the Pete Rose saga? Time and time again, fan polls have indicated that even though fans greatly disapprove of what Rose did, he belongs without a doubt, in the Hall of Fame. Rose was a hitting machine and brought the post season to Cincinnati many times throughout the 1970's.
Some might argue that his numbers were a product of being on what amounted to an all-star team aka the Big Red machine. Yet hitting is about the individual and your teammates may dictate getting a few "better" pitches to hit, it was still up to Pete to get on base.
Isn't Pete's "life" sentence about over. After all, it has been about 20 years since his exile. I am not saying Pete should ever be allowed to manage again, but he should be in the hall.
What's your take?