Probably. But if one looks at Rose's agreement from 1989, MLB never actually made a formal finding that Rose gambled - that was part of the bargain Rose made with Bart Giamatti.
I'm not quarreling with you and my memory of this has defintitely faded since it took place over 25 years ago. But I thought they had Rose with betting slips that proved his guilt? I could be way off on that, but for some reason that sticks in my mind. I'm not saying what Rose did wasn't disagraceful. And Rose has been his own worst enemy. But he's paid for his "crime" and deserves to be considered for the HOF.
And re: Pettitte, I should have been more clear. I was talking about the players you mentioned. But you're right, it's debatable whether Pettitte is HOF-worthy.
Not a problem at all, and that isn't my intent (and my apologies). I hadn't discovered that quirk in Rose's agreement until last month. It's not an exact comparison, but what Rose did in 1989 was like pleading no contest. He took the ban, with the ability to reapply, and MLB would stop their pursuit of the matter. I think had he kept fighting the investigation, MLB would have laid down a far harsher penalty, such as a permanent ban with no opportunity to apply for reinstatement.
At 25 years of being a pariah, I think Rose's best chance for reinstatement is to quit the oblique interviews and celebrity appearances, and simply reapply. He has a great opportunity now - the All Star Game is in Cincinnati this year and there's a new commissioner.
