Pete Rose and HOF

[cjclong]

When Pete Rose was suspended from baseball for gambling I didn't realize the Commissioner left it up to the Hall Of Fame as to whether he could be elected. The baseball suspension does not disqualify him. The HOF made the decision the suspension disqualified him. Since then there has been a controversy as to whether he should be admitted. I believe he should be.
The suspension from baseball was quite correct. The "Black Sox Scandal" threatened to damage baseball. Every year players are told in no uncertain terms they cannot bet on baseball and the consequences. Rose knew this and chose to violate it. Something like the Black Sox Scandal can greatly damage a sport. While fans will tolerate cheating to win (an outfielder pretending to catch a ball he trapped, a player using steroids, etc.) they will not tolerate throwing a game.
Rose claims he only bet on his team to win. He has told so many lies we may never know the truth. But let's take him at his word. A manager betting on his team to win can still cause adverse results. He might use an injured player or an over worked pitcher in order to win an other wise meaningless game in which under ordinary circumstances he might be willing to take a loss and thus risk injuring a player.
A suspension from organized baseball does not bar him from the HOF. The HOF can unilaterally change its rule baring him from the Hall and allow him to be voted in. Major league baseball does not have to remove the suspension in order for the Hall of Fame to change its rules and allow him in. So while the suspension is justified I believe the HOF, which has the power to do so should change its rule and allow him in.
I think this would be a fair compromise. I'm not particularly a Rose fan but he probably should be in the Hall.

[godwulf]

Of course he should be in the Hall - there's no serious question about that.

As for the other thing, the ban, Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle were suspended from Baseball by Commissioner Bowie Kuhn - Mays in '79 and Mantle in '83 - and were not reinstated until 1985. Their offense? Being associated with gambling casinos. Gambling casinos are now big time sponsors of MLB teams, notably the Diamondbacks. Things change. Most fans would like to see Rose come back and be a visible part of Baseball again. I guess if you have a real problem with it, you don't have to watch.

[coxfan]

I've been reading some if the excellent baseball histories of the 19th century, and gambling nearly killed early professional baseball. One of the reasons that early admission fees were raised in some cases was to discourage the poorer and less educated fans of the times, who were more prone to gambling. Cases of violence against umpires were attributed to gamblers in the crowd. Suspicions of thrown games were common by the early 1870's. Many predicted that early professional baseball would die out partly because of prevalent gambling, which was chasing away families and the middle class, and regulating baseball to the class of fans who attended bare-knuckle boxing, etc., regarded as a "lower-class" sport at the time.

So it's not surprising that the National League, from its founding in1876, took a strong stand against the practice. Gamblers bet on many things other than who wins. A manager's in a position to influence many of those other things, such as individual achievements , that might be the subject of bets. Thus, a manager should never put himself in debt to big-time gamblers, even if his bets were on his own team to win.

I'm talking I general terms because we'll never know what Rose did or didn't. But baseball's firm stance has a strong historical basis.

[Mark17]

[QUOTE=godwulf;378047]Of course he should be in the Hall - there's no serious question about that.QUOTE]

My response is: Of course Rose knew gambling on baseball was wrong, that it had almost destroyed the game as mentioned in the previous post, that many players - even great ones - had been banned for life from MLB and the Hall of Fame for consorting with gamblers, yet Pete Rose did it anyway.

There is a clear difference, in the case of gambling on baseball by an active manager, between right and wrong. There is also such a thing as personal responsibility (or at least, there should be.)

I don't agree with what I call the "feel good" crowd who wants to forgive everybody. Like a guy who commits a serious crime but says he's sorry. Or Pete Rose, who commits a serious crime against baseball and the faith of tens of millions of fans, then lies and lies until he realizes lying isn't his best strategy, so then he switches to false remorse.

I'm not mean or cold hearted. I'm not a hater. I'm not thinking about using Rose as an example to other players tempted by gambling. My thinking is quite simple: Pete Rose was a student of the history of the game and despite being well aware of the consequences, he chose to violate baseball's cardinal rule. So now he should pay the price for his own decision and remain banned from baseball and the HOF.

Also, to the original point of this thread, I think MLB and the HOF should be in sync on this issue. I don't see how one can take gambling on baseball seriously while the other doesn't.

[cjclong]

I agree with the statements above about the seriousness of gambling. And it's clear Rose thumbed his nose at baseball for years. And for most of this time I've agreed with those who said he shouldn't be in the HOF. The thing that has made me question this now is that, apart from the gambling, and that is a big issue, he is a HOF player. I think inducting him in the HOF while keeping the ban from baseball might be a fair compromise. The occupation of most baseball players is baseball. If a player is found to be betting then he is gone and his career is over. That would be the same for the lowest paid rookie or the highest paid superstar. And many players have positions with teams as coaches, scouts, etc after they retire which they couldn't have if found guilty of gambling on the game. So the threat and punishment are there. The vast majority of players, however, will never be HOF candidates. So banishment from the HOF isn't the thing that will deter most of them from gambling. So you can continue to punish Rose, as he should be, and ban him from baseball while putting him in the HOF.

[danesei@yahoo.com]

When Pete Rose was suspended from baseball for gambling I didn't realize the Commissioner left it up to the Hall Of Fame as to whether he could be elected.

When Manfred mentioned that in his interview regarding Rose, the point was supposed to be that it's ALWAYS up to the Hall whom they choose to accept into their fraternity. It was the HOF's choice in 1991 to not admit anyone on the permanently ineligible list. It was their way of saying "Our hands our tied (on Rose)"... even if it was their own bindings that held them.

I'll always be in the apparent minority on this topic, but I think that's moreso because those who want Rose in are more passionate about it than those who don't think he should be.

Rose repeatedly and arrogantly violated and ignored Rule 21 Misconduct Section:

(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or
employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in
connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared
ineligible for one year.

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall
bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which
the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.

In 2007, Rose admitted that he gambled on the game and that the report prepared by John Dowd was entirely accurate. This was after years of defamatory remarks made against Dowd.

Much like how Ryan Braun got someone fired by claiming the positive test was a result of operator mishandling of the specimen, Rose did his best to discredit Dowd in the public space.

The biggest issue I have with individuals who say Rose "only be on the Reds to win," I really hope they'll take the time to read this piece from the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/sp...hass.html?_r=0

Rose didn't bet on the Reds "every night," as he claimed. Instead, he selectively and seemingly systematically, bet on the Reds to win those games that he had confidence in them to win.

Rose deserves to be permanently banned from the game. If the HOF decides to admit Rose, that's their decision to make. If the HOF continues to force MLB's hand, MLB should respond as it always has: in the ongoing ban of Peter Edward Rose Sr for gambling on a team that he played for and managed.

[sportsnbikes]

The All Time Hits leader should be in the Hall of Fame as a player.

[Chess2899]

Chronic gambling is an addiction, a disease similar to alcoholism. It should be looked at as a disease that has gone untreated rather than an intentional disobedience to the rules. The Black Sox gambling was intentional and not an addiction. Steroid use is intentional and not an addiction.

[danesei@yahoo.com]

Chronic gambling is an addiction, a disease similar to alcoholism. It should be looked at as a disease that has gone untreated rather than an intentional disobedience to the rules. The Black Sox gambling was intentional and not an addiction. Steroid use is intentional and not an addiction.

As there are today, there were other alternatives to gambling on one's own team. Even if one argued that baseball was the only major sport to bet on during the months between the end of the NHL and start of the NFL seasons, a gambling addiction is more of an excuse than a reason: Rose didn't need to bet on the Reds. That was a choice. He didn't need to bet on baseball . That was also a choice.

If you're going to claim that gambling addiction works similar to alcoholism, I offer an anecdote as a comparison:

In 2006, I was at a local wine/cheese bar. The gentleman next to me decided to strike up a conversation based upon my drink of choice (Glenlivet 15 that night). He told me that his doctor told him that he should give up alcohol altogether, but knowing that it would never happen, the doctor told him to drink gin instead of whisky, since he had developed major liver problems.

The reason for that anecdote is that, while someone with a gambling addiction, much like an alcoholic, may have some physiological or psychological need to wager on events, that need doesn't mandate that the wagers always are represented by specific sports or events. Those with gambling addictions will place wagers on ANYTHING. Rose knew that betting on baseball games would lead to suspension, and betting on games he influenced would lead to a permanent ban from the game. He could have bet on how many fans would come through the gates, he could have bet on the number of sunflower husks on the ground by the fifth inning, he could have bet on the number of birds to fly close enough to players to influence their positioning (player moves to avoid bird or flails their arms to prevent being "attacked"), etc.

The things Rose could have wagered on that wouldn't have gotten him banned from the game are likely innumerable, but he had to bet on the one thing that would lead to being banned, if caught: Peter Edward Rose Sr bet on baseball games in which he was both a manager and (sometimes) a player.

[earlywynnfan]

[QUOTE=Mark17;378074]

Of course he should be in the Hall - there's no serious question about that.QUOTE]

My response is: Of course Rose knew gambling on baseball was wrong, that it had almost destroyed the game as mentioned in the previous post, that many players - even great ones - had been banned for life from MLB and the Hall of Fame for consorting with gamblers, yet Pete Rose did it anyway.

There is a clear difference, in the case of gambling on baseball by an active manager, between right and wrong. There is also such a thing as personal responsibility (or at least, there should be.)

I don't agree with what I call the "feel good" crowd who wants to forgive everybody. Like a guy who commits a serious crime but says he's sorry. Or Pete Rose, who commits a serious crime against baseball and the faith of tens of millions of fans, then lies and lies until he realizes lying isn't his best strategy, so then he switches to false remorse.

I'm not mean or cold hearted. I'm not a hater. I'm not thinking about using Rose as an example to other players tempted by gambling. My thinking is quite simple: Pete Rose was a student of the history of the game and despite being well aware of the consequences, he chose to violate baseball's cardinal rule. So now he should pay the price for his own decision and remain banned from baseball and the HOF.

Also, to the original point of this thread, I think MLB and the HOF should be in sync on this issue. I don't see how one can take gambling on baseball seriously while the other doesn't.

Not to argue, but many players -- even great ones -- have consorted with gamblers, plus some with known mobsters, and are in the HOF or have high standing in the world of baseball.