Pete Rose was one of my first baseball favorites. I saw him hit a home run off Warren Spahn, the first MLB home run I had ever witnessed in person when I was 10 years old. He was incredible, not physically gifted like so many athletes, but rather succeeded more on pure guts and determination than on his raw talent. His signature was his headfirst slide.
But I do not support his induction into the HOF, at least not without a number of changes. Not gambling on baseball is one of the oldest rules in the game, and it was put there for a reason: The game itself was nearly destroyed after a gambling scandal in 1919, ie the Black Sox Scandal, which resulted in a number of players receiving permanent bans, including a HOF worthy Shoeless Joe Jackson.
In the World Series that resulted in Shoeless Joe's receiving a lifetime ban, he had 19 hits, 1 home run, 8 RBI's, and hit .375, accounting for 11 of the White Sox 20 runs, yet he received a lifetime ban for supposedly throwing the Series. Admit him first and I'll be OK with admitting Rose.
There are other HOF quality players with more compelling arguments for induction than Pete Rose. Barry Bonds, Roger Clemmons, Sammy Sosa, and Mark McGuire, even though they never broke any established rules and are eligible for the HOF, have been blackballed for their use of steroids.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for Pete Rose. He knew the rules and the consequences. They're actually posted in every MLB dugout. He lied about it in the investigation until he was confronted with undeniable evidence. Sorry, man, there's more people out there with better sob stories than Pete Rose.