For quite some time now there has been a very heated debate swirling the baseball world; should Pete Rose be a Hall of Famer? To give a little background, Pete Rose was a fantastic ballplayer, a true, one-of-a-kind in his era, type of baseball player. Garnering nicknames like "Charlie Hustle" (given to him by Whitey Ford in Pete's rookie year) gives a bit of an idea of the type of ballplayer he was. Unfortunately, he gambled while he was a coach for the Reds, and was given a lifetime ban for breaking one of baseball's time-honored rules.

The years have come and gone, and there have been commissioners coming in and out of MLB since the ban was given. Bud Selig, former MLB commissioner, stood firm against letting Pete enter the Hall of Fame, but new commissioner Rob Manfred seems more lenient on the matter. That was until he decided Pete Rose would still be banned in a decision earlier on in the year. So, that begs the question, does Pete Rose deserve to be in the Hall of Fame?

Pros

As mentioned earlier, the man was a once in a century type of player. He had it all, he was a hitting machine, showed tremendous amounts of heart and passion for the game in the way he played, and he's baseball's all-time hit leader.

To rattle off a few stats, Pete Rose has the record for most hits in a career (4,256), most singles in a career (3,125), most games played (3,562), most career At-Bats (14,053) and most plate appearances (15,890). Rose also has appeared in 17 All-Star games, won NL MVP in 1975, won Rookie of the Year in 1963, won 2 Gold Glove Awards (1969 and 1970), was a three-time batting champion in the NL (1968, 1969, 1973), and also won 3 World Series and was World Series MVP in 1975.

Seeing how the MLB, more often than not, inducts players into the Hall of Fame after reaching and exceeding golden number 3,000 for career hits, Pete Rose is a prime candidate to be in Cooperstown. He is the hit king, that's all that really needs to be said, he simply has garnered more hits in his playing career than ANYONE else who has played the game. He holds a plethora of MLB records, some that can be argued will never be broken or, at the very least, won't be broken for a long time, maybe when the way baseball is played has changed or maybe if the season somehow becomes longer.

Even what he did to get his lifetime ban, in the context of the steroid era that has consumed baseball these past few decades, is not nearly as bad. Gambling as a manager versus taking performance-enhancing drugs as a player, which is worse? Herein lies the biggest argument for Pete Rose being in the Hall of Fame: he broke MLB policies after his playing career was over. He didn't commit the crime, so to speak, while playing in the actual games like all the players receiving bans for using steroids today. The argument, however, is not without its flaws as...

Cons

There is some debate on whether that statement is true as there has been some possible evidence leading MLB experts to believe he also could've been gambling on the team during his playing career. The gray area seems to come from when he was a player-coach for the Reds in the early 1980s. Basically, a player-coach was someone who was able to play for the team but was also involved in the coaching staff. It's something not seen in the game today, and really hasn't been seen in quite some while, but it was actually not that uncommon to see the older players act as both manager and a player on the team back in the day.

This is a gray area in the sense that it's hard to really tell if he was gambling primarily as a coach, or as an active player. Gambling as a player is a bit more serious as you can have an immediate and active hand in throwing a game, a series, or however long it needs to be in order to make some money off it. As a manager, however, it's a bit more difficult to actually get the results you want. Sure you could make a lineup a certain way to give your team a worse chance to win or even put in less reliable relievers to blow leads, but you don't have an immediate impact on the outcome like a player does.

There's also the issue of the precedent it could set should Pete Rose enter the Hall of Fame. This could be taken as the heads of MLB being more lenient to players who've gambled and even cheated through other means. If Rose get's out of a lifetime ban, then why shouldn't other players be able to as well? That's the main issue going against Pete right now, especially with the Steroid Era players. If Pete gets in then it's possible that the floodgates could open and you'll see players like Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds, both users of steroids during their playing career, also get a better shot of getting in the Hall of Fame. Whether they should or shouldn't, however, is another debate.

My Personal Thoughts

I'm a firm believer that Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame and always have been from the get-go. I believe, barring any new evidence that shows up to the contrary, Pete Rose did not gamble against himself or his team and did not gamble while he was still playing the game.

The ban, as it stands, came from his actions off the playing field and because of this, I believe you just cannot keep what he did as a player out of Cooperstown. There have been plenty of players in a wide array of sports who did awful things after their playing career. Hell, some of them did it while playing (looking at you, Ray Lewis), so the MLB needs to stop trying to be the morality police and look at things as they stand. The man broke records, and arguably has one of the most valuable records—as the hit king— and careers you can have. You just can't leave someone like that out of the Hall of Fame for something they did after they were done playing the game.

So, MLB, my answer to your Pete Rose problem is simple: Hate the player, but don't hate his game. Keep him on a lifetime ban from being able to ever be involved in the sport of baseball, but don't put a ban on his achievements.

Let me know what side you guys are on in this debate of Pete Rose and the Hall of Fame.