Pete Rose and HOF

[danesei@yahoo.com]

Re: Pete Rose and HOF

I doubt this changes anyone's mind, but it was reported today that there is evidence from a 1989 Postal Inspection that Rose did, in fact, bet on baseball as a player:

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13114874/notebook-obtained-lines-shows-pete-rose-bet-baseball-player-1986

[Jim65]

Re: Pete Rose and HOF

I doubt this changes anyone's mind, but it was reported today that there is evidence from a 1989 Postal Inspection that Rose did, in fact, bet on baseball as a player:

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/...ll-player-1986

Just reinforces the point that Pete is a habitual liar, he was quoted as little as 1 month ago saying he never bet as a player.

I really hope this is the final nail in his coffin.

[anatfan09]

Re: Pete Rose and HOF

Here's an article out of Rolling Stone I just read on the topic:

http://www.rollingstone.com/sports/features/pete-rose-is-finally-out-of-second-chances-20150622

Obviously no one will ever argue that as a player he's not HOF worthy. This article paints him as someone who's just plain stupid and will never learn. He clearly has a few character flaws to say the least. I'm sure by some standards he was a lousy husband, father and had a horrible relationship with uncle Sam. None of that makes someone ineligible for the HOF.
Behaving like a complete degenerate, gambling on baseball before, during and after the games. Both as a player & manager.... that does make you ineligible and always will.
He's not completely stupid though. He'll be selling "I'm sorry I bet on the Reds" & "I always bet on the Reds to win" inscribed memorabilia until he dies.

[cjclong]

Re: Pete Rose and HOF

I started this thread with the idea that I had perhaps changed my mind about Rose and that a reasonable compromise would be that he continue to be banned from MLB but allowed in the HOF. I don't know if the new revelations will doom whatever chance he had, but with his habitual lying he might as well be campaigning against himself. The risk of players of umpires throwing a game is too great for baseball to allow gambling and it is made plain to every player when they enter the majors and what the penalty will be. Fans will show some tolerance for cheating to win, spitballs, faked catches, steroids, but they would not tolerate a player or players throwing a game. I'm sure there are plenty of jerks in the HOF. But there is a major difference in hanging around bookies or gangsters and betting yourself. That's why he is out of baseball.

[Mark17]

Re: Pete Rose and HOF

The ESPN article concludes with:

"The implications for baseball are terrible. [The mob] had a mortgage on Pete while he was a player and manager."

For anyone who seriously thinks Pete should be in the Hall Of FAME, I have a simple question: Besides murdering people, what could Pete Rose have done to baseball that would've been WORSE than what he did?

[tacprc]

Re: Pete Rose and HOF

Pete Rose is clearly a Hall of Fame player. Let him in. His gambling didn't hurt anybody or affect any games.

[Mark17]

Re: Pete Rose and HOF

Pete Rose is clearly a Hall of Fame player. Let him in. His gambling didn't hurt anybody or affect any games.

How do you know? With Rose in debt over $100,000 to gamblers, who's to say whether he was giving 100% on some of those games he DIDN'T bet on the Reds?

Now that we know Rose was lying (yet again, big surprise) and gambling on baseball when he was a player, how can you say no games were affected? If I was a gambler and Rose owed me $100k, I might be tempted to call in a favor here and there.....

This is the problem when players like Rose gamble - it calls into question the integrity of every game he was involved in while he was doing so. If he bets on the Reds one day and goes 3-4, but doesn't bet on the Reds the next day and goes 0-4 with a key error, it might get some people wondering... and that fact alone severely damages baseball.

I would argue that Pete Rose is the single most damaging person to be involved with MLB in the past 50 years.

If someone wants to ignore all that and put Rose in the Hall of FAME, then best reconsider Hal "What's The Odds?" Chase too - he was quite a fielder in his day, when he wasn't fixing games.

[staindsox]

Re: Pete Rose and HOF

How do you know? With Rose in debt over $100,000 to gamblers, who's to say whether he was giving 100% on some of those games he DIDN'T bet on the Reds?

Now that we know Rose was lying (yet again, big surprise) and gambling on baseball when he was a player, how can you say no games were affected? If I was a gambler and Rose owed me $100k, I might be tempted to call in a favor here and there.....

This is the problem when players like Rose gamble - it calls into question the integrity of every game he was involved in while he was doing so. If he bets on the Reds one day and goes 3-4, but doesn't bet on the Reds the next day and goes 0-4 with a key error, it might get some people wondering... and that fact alone severely damages baseball.

I would argue that Pete Rose is the single most damaging person to be involved with MLB in the past 50 years.

If someone wants to ignore all that and put Rose in the Hall of FAME, then best reconsider Hal "What's The Odds?" Chase too - he was quite a fielder in his day, when he wasn't fixing games.

+1. Perfectly said.

[godwulf]

Re: Pete Rose and HOF

Besides murdering people, what could Pete Rose have done to baseball that would've been WORSE than what he did?

That's easy. He could have broken and set a hitting record while using performance-enhancing drugs, like Bonds or McGwire. He could have gotten caught doing PEDs and be back on the field today making millions of dollars after a relative slap on the wrist, like ARod. Any speculation about Rose actually cheating, in the sense of throwing games or shaving points, is pure speculation; in the case of those other guys, its an established fact.

[Mark17]

Re: Pete Rose and HOF

When a guy is taking PEDs, at least you can be certain which team he's wanting to see win. Not that it's okay, but at least you can say that.

With a guy who's way over his head in gambling and gambling debt, and not betting on his own team every game, questions about that linger...

[tacprc]

Re: Pete Rose and HOF

Again, there is zero evidence that Pete Rose did not try 100% to win every game, and as far as I know no Major League Baseball person has ever made that claim. All this hypothetical mumbo jumbo doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Pete Rose is one of the All Time Great players, and he would have received near-unanimous HOF support from the baseball writers on the first ballot.

And fans and the general public agree -- since they overwhelmingly support Rose for the Hall of Fame according to recent polls. Reds fans recently voted Rose one of the Franchise Four. And I am pretty sure that Rose would have been voted one of the four greatest living MLB players if the MLB would have put him on the ballot. He almost certainly would have received more votes than Johnny Bench, for example.

The PED users cheated their fans, records holders, competing teams, and other major and minor league players who deserved their roster spots and salaries.

[Buccaneer Madden]

Re: Pete Rose and HOF

He belongs in the HOF but put a paragraph on his plaque saying what he did and why he is banned from baseball.

[Mark17]

Re: Pete Rose and HOF

Again, there is zero evidence that Pete Rose did not try 100% to win every game, and as far as I know no Major League Baseball person has ever made that claim. All this hypothetical mumbo jumbo doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Agreed, there is no evidence Rose ever gave less than 100%. I am not saying he did. I certainly have no specific instance that could/should be questioned.

What I am saying, simply I think, is this: When a guy is betting on baseball games while he is playing (or managing) and has a direct impact on the outcome of those games, there is a serious potential conflict of interest.

Not to mention, of course, violating Baseball's cardinal rule. Baseball makes it very clear to everyone throughout its organization that you DON'T gamble on baseball as a player or manager. It should be obvious anyway, but whatever.

But apparently it's okay for Rose to do as he pleases because he had so many base hits. Maybe that rule only exists for people with fewer than 4,000 hits?

Let me ask you this question. Suppose Rose bets on his own team to win on Tuesday, but does NOT bet on his team to win on Wednesday. Why not? Suppose YOU were going to place a wager on the Reds, and heard that Pete was betting on the Reds Tuesday but not Wednesday. Which game would YOU bet on, and why?

[tacprc]

Re: Pete Rose and HOF

I am not familiar with the particulars of sports betting, but whether or not someone would like to bet on a particular game would depend on many factors including the odds/payoffs, the pitching match-up, and whether starters and star players are hitting well. For example, I would probably like my team's chances if my number one pitcher is facing my opponent's number five pitcher, but whether I bet will depend on the betting odds.

[danesei@yahoo.com]

Re: Pete Rose and HOF

Here's an article out of Rolling Stone I just read on the topic:

http://www.rollingstone.com/sports/features/pete-rose-is-finally-out-of-second-chances-20150622

Obviously no one will ever argue that as a player he's not HOF worthy. This article paints him as someone who's just plain stupid and will never learn. He clearly has a few character flaws to say the least. I'm sure by some standards he was a lousy husband, father and had a horrible relationship with uncle Sam. None of that makes someone ineligible for the HOF.
Behaving like a complete degenerate, gambling on baseball before, during and after the games. Both as a player & manager.... that does make you ineligible and always will.
He's not completely stupid though. He'll be selling "I'm sorry I bet on the Reds" & "I always bet on the Reds to win" inscribed memorabilia until he dies.

The ESPN article concludes with:

"The implications for baseball are terrible. [The mob] had a mortgage on Pete while he was a player and manager."

For anyone who seriously thinks Pete should be in the Hall Of FAME, I have a simple question: Besides murdering people, what could Pete Rose have done to baseball that would've been WORSE than what he did?

That's easy. He could have broken and set a hitting record while using performance-enhancing drugs, like Bonds or McGwire. He could have gotten caught doing PEDs and be back on the field today making millions of dollars after a relative slap on the wrist, like ARod. Any speculation about Rose actually cheating, in the sense of throwing games or shaving points, is pure speculation; in the case of those other guys, its an established fact.

The problem with Rose is that his entire career in baseball overlapped a lax environment for amphetamines. He did use PEDs; MLB simply didn't care back then. If we argue that amphetamine use shouldn't be held against those who popped "greenies," sucked down "red juice," or drank "leaded coffee" to boost performance prior to amphetamines being banned by the MLB, how do we implicate Mark McGwire for hitting 70 HRs, when he told everyone he was using Androstenedione?

McGwire, like Rodriguez, admitted to using steroids at some points in his career, but he was never suspended for violating the MLB drug policy. Bonds never admitted to openly using steroids, and he never failed a drug test.

People will always argue that amphetamines aren't the same as steroids, but both are technically drugs used to enhance performance on the field.

Rose never failed an MLB drug test, but he did take PEDs. MLB simply didn't care. In fact, a lot of HOFers used amphetamines, but again, MLB simply didn't care.

Unfortunately for Rose, he also had problems with gambling and consorting with organized crime.

I hope the Commissioner of Baseball (the office, not any individual person) never allows Rose into baseball. He went out of his way to embarrass the game and lied to fans for multiple generations.