[bort]

Respectfully, Pete Rose’s case to be in the HOF is much stronger than these cheaters. Rose’s gambling did not impact the outcome of a single game. Even the handful of Reds games he bet on, he bet on his own team to win. By contrast, Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, etc. were 100% cheaters whose cheating affected the outcome of every game they played in. This shouldn’t be debatable.

[EEGator]

I agree Rose has the best case.

[awelliott]

Rose’s gambling did not impact the outcome of a single game.

Curious as to how you can maintain that a manager of a team who gambles on his team does not impact the outcome of a single game.