[simple simon]

if you had a vote for the MLB Hall of Fame .... and you had to vote for one of these guys which would it be ?

who gets into this Hall of Fame .... Roger Clemens or Pete Rose ?

[simple simon]

i would have to go with Pete Rose for what he did as a player .... he is one of the top 50 players of all time imo .... you cant have the MLB Hall of Fame without him

[vincesanity82]

Pete Rose most definitley..

[Phils20]

Charlie Hustle all the way!

[simple simon]

well i figured it would be lop-sided for Rose .... but i wasnt sure

[legend]

While Clemens did HGH, Rose bet on baseball, and if you think he never bet against the Reds while he was the manager then you know nothing about gamblers. However, i would put both in. You cannot make the argument that Rose was a better player than Clemens. Rose never won an MVP to go with his 3 batting titles, while Clemens won 7 Cy Youngs and the pitching Triple Crown. A Hall of Fame without Clemens would be a joke as well.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by legend

While Clemens did HGH, Rose bet on baseball, and if you think he never bet against the Reds while he was the manager then you know nothing about gamblers. However, i would put both in. You cannot make the argument that Rose was a better player than Clemens. Rose never won an MVP to go with his 3 batting titles, while Clemens won 7 Cy Youngs and the pitching Triple Crown. A Hall of Fame without Clemens would be a joke as well.

Dude what do you call the 1973 season?...680 ab, 230 hits .338 avg...2nd in 1968...and made the All-Star team as a 1b, 3b, RF, LF, and 2B

[EmpireWF]

Both are considered the best players of their generation. Both deserve to be in the HOF. Both did questionable things (betting, injecting illegal drugs "allegedly")...but as some say, it's not the Hall of Moral Individuals.

[LSC9901]

At this very moment in time I'd have to vote for Rogo. The reason being is that he has not been proven to have done anything ... yet. For all of those who hate cheaters, I'm unsure how you could vote for someone who cheated in the game.

To expand some I'd liek to say that the entire voting process leaves a lot to be desired in my book, although it is probably as good as it will ever get. It woul d seem more than obvious that a sportswriter from Houston who was granted interviews with Rogo would vote for him but another writer from Boston who may never have had the opportunity but feels slighted by the fact that Rogo left the Sox high and dry for the almighty dollar, may just vote against him.

All that said I elected to abstain from voting because it looks like Rogo will tumble under the pressure and Mr. Hustle abused his place in baseball.

[Phils20]

Yeah, but Rose bet as a manager, unless he haas confessed or been proven to do otherwise as a player. If I'm wrong, please correct me. After all, we do need proof, don't we?

His hustle on the field can't be questioned, and it sure can't be called cheating.

Last time I checked, he is the all time hits leader, and unless he bet on himself to do it, that alone put him in the hall. No doubt about it!

[Lefty Noob]

Originally Posted by Phils20

Last time I checked, he is the all time hits leader, and unless he bet on himself to do it, that alone put him in the hall. No doubt about it!

Quoted for truth. Whatever else Rose did, he deserves to be there. That said, I'd put Clemens in there too.

Look, it about time we accept that a lot of the best players of this era used illegal consumables. At least the playing field was even for them. Both of these guys were among the best baseball has ever seen. If they're both not in the Hall of Fame, there's no point in even having a Hall of Fame.

[legend]

Rose did win an MVP, I stand corrected. He hit .338 with 230 hits, 186 of them singles, and knocked in 64 runs.

[Phils20]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

Quoted for truth. Whatever else Rose did, he deserves to be there. That said, I'd put Clemens in there too.

Look, it about time we accept that a lot of the best players of this era used illegal consumables. At least the playing field was even for them. Both of these guys were among the best baseball has ever seen. If they're both not in the Hall of Fame, there's no point in even having a Hall of Fame.

That is pretty true as well.

When you see it out there in black and white like that, it makes a lot of sense.

I still don't like that we have an entire era in the sport of baseball that was full of cheaters. But there is truly no way to know for sure who did what, and when.

Makes me kind of sick, but those are the facts.

[simple simon]

Originally Posted by Phils20

I still don't like that we have an entire era in the sport of baseball that was full of cheaters. But there is truly no way to know for sure who did what, and when.

Makes me kind of sick, but those are the facts.

thats exactly how i feel .... i wish the era never existed .... and i feel there are many many more players using then we now know

but to the question of the thread i do think Rose is the better choice of the two .... he can go in for his playing career .... never cheated for that ....... shouldnt matter what you do after your playing days .. no one is claiming he should go in as a manager

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

Quoted for truth. Whatever else Rose did, he deserves to be there. That said, I'd put Clemens in there too.

Look, it about time we accept that a lot of the best players of this era used illegal consumables. At least the playing field was even for them. Both of these guys were among the best baseball has ever seen. If they're both not in the Hall of Fame, there's no point in even having a Hall of Fame.

I'm not about asterisks but .......

The playing field wasn't totally level. I have to believe that there were/are a few players who do not/did not use PED's. For the playing field to be level they would all have to be on the same side of the fence. Also the field isn't level when you compare Bond's (as an example) against some of the players from an era when PED's were probably nonexistent.

I'll agree that trying to sort it all out would be nearly impossible so lets see them lay the law down right now. Would weekly checks be out of the question ???

Sorry ... this post is a bit away from the original question.