The wife and I were talking about this last night. I say yes they are waiting for him to die so they do not have to give him the honor while he lives.
His Crimea are antiquated as he is the best American hitter of all time (debate with him and Ichiro).
What say you?
well put. it's a shame because on the field he earned it. have to live with your choices.
This is an absolute lie. The evidence they had from his bookmakers chronicled every bet he made and for how much. It was his bookie who flipped on him - you think if he bet against the Reds he was going to withhold that?
He never bet against the Reds.
Unless....you are one of those people who believe the times he didn't bet for the Reds to win he was signalling to his bookmaker and the gamblers he didn't think they would win. Which is obviously a stretch and an opinion, not a fact.
Now, I'm not saying he should be in the HOF (he should), but simply refuting your "Cincinnati higher ups" lies. This is all public information.
Every piece of information from the investigation is available, every bet he made documented.
likewise, I may be long winded but at least I don't make shit up to make myself seem more important.
you the man.
Try and use your brain for a second and think of the other side of this. As bad as it is to bet your team is going to win, that's kind of the point, you always try and win, but winning isn't just up to you, the other team has a say in it.
but betting on your own team to lose, as a bookmaker I'm not even taking that bet - from the manager or player/manager of a team and I'd be beyond surprised if any bookmaker took it too - unless they jumped on it with another bookmaker to capitalize on it themselves - and there is zero evidence of that and it would have come out in the investigation.
you can believe what your "Pete Rose inner circle" told you, but it's a lie.
Also, Pete Rose voluntarily agreed to the punishment based on the dirt that the investigation turned up on him. People who advocate for Rose keep forgetting to mention this fact. The current punishment was the plea bargain so yeah, I believe they had proof that he betted against his own team otherwise he wouldn't have been so willing to accept a banning.
but I should believe something posted on the internet by a random person who claims while doing a surgical residency in Cincinnati and lived there for three years was for some reason told by someone in Pete Rose's inner circle he bet against his own team, - but is corroborated absolutely nowhere else.
lol.
I have no horse in this race and I'm not a gambler. Just curious.
As for whether he actually bet against the Reds, does it matter? If he bet on them Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, and then didn't bet on them on Thursday, isn't that an implicit bet against them?
I think it's possible that he gets in posthumously and that's fine.
Meantime, I think the lifetime ban is entirely fair.
The FOIA request stuff to me is interesting. How is an investigation performed by a private entity subject to FOIA? Apparently, there was a different investigation into the bookie running the bets and when his documents which had been seized by the Postal Inspectors were released, it showed that Rose had betted on games while he was a player and supported the allegation that he was in debt to mob figures based on his betting. So I don't think the FOIA documents are as compelling as you think they are...
Link - ( New Window )
I have no horse in this race and I'm not a gambler. Just curious.
Because he can influence the outcome too much. IOW it's easier to lose than it is to win - because in sports the premise is you're trying to win - right - that's the point of the game.
I'm not saying it's ok to bet on your team to win, but betting on them to lose is a bet you control so much more and as a bookie it would be almost like a boxer telling you he's going to take a dive and then putting in a bet with you on his opponent. would you take that bet if you were a bookie?
additionally, your moves would become far more questionable if you bet against your own team. When you bet for your team all your moves (pitching changes, lineups, etc.) are all defensible. Because you're trying to win. But when you're trying to lose? Not at all.
Quote:
but I guess the irony is you saying I shouldn't believe everything I have read documented in a public legal investigation obtained via FOIA and well researched articles and investigations by paid investigative journalists.
The FOIA request stuff to me is interesting. How is an investigation performed by a private entity subject to FOIA? Apparently, there was a different investigation into the bookie running the bets and when his documents which had been seized by the Postal Inspectors were released, it showed that Rose had betted on games while he was a player and supported the allegation that he was in debt to mob figures based on his betting. So I don't think the FOIA documents are as compelling as you think they are... Link - ( New Window )
Good find:
And I would have to go look it up again, but recall the evidence showed for certain periods in mid-80s he was betting almost every day on the Reds to win but there were some days the evidence couldn't find he bet at all. And those "off betting days" had remarkable consistency of when Gullickson and a reliever (forget name) always pitched and the team lost. So did Rose just forget to place bets those days, or was he possibly signaling to others how he expected the game to turn out, or did he possibly manage it differently knowing he was going to bet the next day? I think you get the drift here on the issues whether he claims only to have bet on the team to win...
And Rose has a pretty big credibility issue as well since he denied the betting for years. But then finally admitted to betting but only as a manager and never a player. But then later the evidence shows he did it as a player too.
Baseball may have had plenty of scandals, issues and characters lacking integrity over the past century+. But there has always been the attempt to keep the game clean, and when it was found not to be, to clean it up as best they could.
Rose was found not to be clean and as a result will likely always stay outside the HoF...
Sure seems like baseball has accepted gambling with Draft Kings and Fan Duel.
And I would have to go look it up again, but recall the evidence showed for certain periods in mid-80s he was betting almost every day on the Reds to win but there were some days the evidence couldn't find he bet at all. And those "off betting days" had remarkable consistency of when Gullickson and a reliever (forget name) always pitched and the team lost. So did Rose just forget to place bets those days, or was he possibly signaling to others how he expected the game to turn out, or did he possibly manage it differently knowing he was going to bet the next day? I think you get the drift here on the issues whether he claims only to have bet on the team to win...
And Rose has a pretty big credibility issue as well since he denied the betting for years. But then finally admitted to betting but only as a manager and never a player. But then later the evidence shows he did it as a player too.
Yep this is correct. Maybe he didn't himself bet on the reds to lose, but if there are only a few days he didn't bet on them to win, who is to say he didn't have a friend place bets for him or something along those lines.
And there is no documented evidence he bet against the Reds. Innuendo - yes, rumor - yes, evidence - no.
Bud Selig is in and George Steinbrenner is not. Jim Rice is in and Pete Rose is not.
The baseball HOF needs to change it's name to the baseball museum of arbitrary admittance based on who your friends in the media and on the vets committee are.
As for whether he actually bet against the Reds, does it matter? If he bet on them Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, and then didn't bet on them on Thursday, isn't that an implicit bet against them?
I think it's possible that he gets in posthumously and that's fine.
Meantime, I think the lifetime ban is entirely fair.
I agree with this very much. I think the lifetime ban is fair and if he gets in after death, that's fine too.
There are many people close to Pete who believe he didn't bet on the Reds to lose - but that when he didn't bet on them to win, it was a good bet to take the opposition. And some of them made a lot of money doing it.
Pete made his own bed, and there's something really sad about one of the best hitters of all time in a sports memorabilia store in the Shops at Caesar's Palace signing autographs in a jogging suit for $50-$100 or more depending on the item.
Pigs get slaughtered and that’s what happened here. No pity.
Perhaps instead of banning him, put him in. Have a small-ish display (if you've visited Cooperstown, you know there are all different sizes of displays, rooms, etc.) and show what made him a great player, but also display the betting info.
Pete Rose is a big piece of the story of the national pastime. Not all stories are rosy, start to finish.
If you believe the HoF is a building that tells the story of the game we love, then you shouldn't pretend one of its best players who committed one of the worst crimes you can against the game itself doesn't exist within its walls.
I don't know if I'll see Rose inducted in my lifetime. Likely not his. But I hope so.
Truth be told he also used players health and well being as pawns to win bets. Always played to win sure, but who knows the futures of players who were not given a shot, or placed in a situation to only fail, some an injury missing a spot start etc. Please he had ZERO remorse.
When Bench and Morgan were on the veterans committee, they didn't support or push for his entry either.
Having a met Rose and also having a strong connection to a member of the team, confirms my opinion its only about the HOF title with the coin it would fill his pockets.
Rose agreed to the ban, thinking in a year or so baseball would never keep him out. Why? Because besides being the Hit king (although it took him approx. 1500 additional at bats just to equal Ty Cobb) and he considered himself Mr. Baseball.
*Commish died so Rose used it as an excuse for his delay.
*Rose said Bench did not support him because it conflicted with his HOF spotlight.
* Rose was fired from his baseball gig, issues with under age girls..the list goes on.
Excuses for excuses. Lately some form of sorrow from Rose because as age prevents him from enjoying the HOF Coin.
Just a leopard cannot alter his spots, Rose is who he is. Its sad, on multiple levels.
But the Steroid factor for others might open a door for Rose with the risk of a losing generational players not gaining entry during a lifetime of fans who actually saw them play.
Some have mentioned adding details to their HOF plaque.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
It's pretty telling when Johnny Bench thinks someone is an asshole!!
Hall of Fame? How about Hall of Shame.
Morgan asked Selig for special permission for Pete Rose to be allowed to attend the unveiling of the Joe Morgan statue (along with a ceremony honoring the 8 position players on the Big Red Machine) at the Reds stadium. permission granted by Selig, but Morgan made it happen.
just maybe showing how if he was hated by his teammates, some softened over the years (if he was hated by all of them).
So, the question seems to be: Does "lifetime" expire when he dies?
I hope not.
So, the question seems to be: Does "lifetime" expire when he dies?
I hope not.
As I posted above, it's not a "lifetime ban", it's permanent ineligibility. The HOF views all players on that list as ineligible for inclusion in the Hall, alive or dead. Until they change their policy, his death makes no difference.
Joking, joking..
In regard to Rose betting against his own team - do we know if he was actually making the bet himself? This story is very old and I've forgotten the details.
Bud Selig is in and George Steinbrenner is not. Jim Rice is in and Pete Rose is not.
The baseball HOF needs to change it's name to the baseball museum of arbitrary admittance based on who your friends in the media and on the vets committee are.
How the hell can you put Jim Rice and Pete Rose in the same sentence?
Selig shouldn't be in the HOF, but at least he's not a convicted felon.
Joking, joking..
Terrible analogy.
It's not ok to bet on your team and there is no argument to defend it as ok, but some people (not me, but some people I have read) argue that indirectly you bet on your team to win every time they take the field (as a manager). And many managers manage each game like they need to win *that* game at all costs and don't manage for the long-term, but manage to the moment.
Whether you believe that or not (I do not believe it compared to betting though I do think some managers manage that way legitimately without money on the line and I understand the point)
Rose broke clearly established rules, he needs to live with the consequences, but I hope you can see there is a MASSIVE difference between betting on your team to win and betting on your team to lose.
However, the Pete Rose case isn't one of them. He bet on baseball when he was still playing and managing, and that doesn't work for baseball. This one is easy.
Next thing you all are going to tell me is Shoeless Joe Jackson shouldn't have been banned either...
Rose broke clearly established rules, he needs to live with the consequences, but I hope you can see there is a MASSIVE difference between betting on your team to win and betting on your team to lose.
Honestly, not sure I see a massive difference with respect to why both are a problem and against the rules.
In fact maybe that should be the test - allow him on the ballot and see how the overly sanctimonious (when it suits their interests) self absorbed, narcissistic, BBWAA voters vote. I wonder if Manfred/MLB knows how that would turn out.
Maybe they will eventually have a special wing in the HOF for the rule breakers and miscreants but who also earned entry to the HOF with their play, since with PED users entering (it's going to happen) the line starts getting more and more blurry on the character issues.
Pete held onto the lie so long. He made people believe he was the victim, and all that time he knew he did it.
The balls on this guy went years and years trying to get reinstated while keeping up a lie.
Cooperstown should never stoop so low as to add Pete Rose's name to it's annals.
If Pete bet against his team and then threw games to win money, that should have come out. If it's a fact, ban him forever. Don't hide facts and say it's for the good of the game. But that never came out as fact to my knowledge.
I personally don't give a crap if a guy bets ON his team. As long as everyone plays to win, the game isn't fixed. And that's what matters to me.
Link - ( New Window )
It's bad either way. In baseball, more than most sports, decisions made in individual games affect future games.
Truth be told he also used players health and well being as pawns to win bets. Always played to win sure, but who knows the futures of players who were not given a shot, or placed in a situation to only fail, some an injury missing a spot start etc. Please he had ZERO remorse.
When Bench and Morgan were on the veterans committee, they didn't support or push for his entry either.
Having a met Rose and also having a strong connection to a member of the team, confirms my opinion its only about the HOF title with the coin it would fill his pockets.
Rose agreed to the ban, thinking in a year or so baseball would never keep him out. Why? Because besides being the Hit king (although it took him approx. 1500 additional at bats just to equal Ty Cobb) and he considered himself Mr. Baseball.
*Commish died so Rose used it as an excuse for his delay.
*Rose said Bench did not support him because it conflicted with his HOF spotlight.
* Rose was fired from his baseball gig, issues with under age girls..the list goes on.
Excuses for excuses. Lately some form of sorrow from Rose because as age prevents him from enjoying the HOF Coin.
Just a leopard cannot alter his spots, Rose is who he is. Its sad, on multiple levels.
But the Steroid factor for others might open a door for Rose with the risk of a losing generational players not gaining entry during a lifetime of fans who actually saw them play.
Some have mentioned adding details to their HOF plaque.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Pigs get slaughtered and that’s what happened here. No pity.
However, the Pete Rose case isn't one of them. He bet on baseball when he was still playing and managing, and that doesn't work for baseball. This one is easy.
Next thing you all are going to tell me is Shoeless Joe Jackson shouldn't have been banned either...
Quote:
there is lots of subjectivity when it comes to various hall of fame voting processes, and who deserves to be in based on their accomplishments.
However, the Pete Rose case isn't one of them. He bet on baseball when he was still playing and managing, and that doesn't work for baseball. This one is easy.
Next thing you all are going to tell me is Shoeless Joe Jackson shouldn't have been banned either...
I think there is a stronger case for Jackson allowed in. Most of the evidence points to him being extremely ignorant, not completely understanding what was going on, and not understanding what he was "signing" with his "confession". Plus, he had the best Series of any player on either team.
I've always thought that way too. He had a very good series and seemingly tried to win. I'm also with Googs here, he bet on the game. Whether there is a bigger evil on if he only bet when they won really doesn't matter. Just like point shaving is illegal and teams can still win the game, betting is strictly against the rules.
It's a bit like Lance Armstrong. Denying usage for so long and yet, in the end, he broke the rules and paid the price. You don't get extra points for denying you did something and it only brings in the specter that you did more.
Quote:
there is lots of subjectivity when it comes to various hall of fame voting processes, and who deserves to be in based on their accomplishments.
However, the Pete Rose case isn't one of them. He bet on baseball when he was still playing and managing, and that doesn't work for baseball. This one is easy.
Next thing you all are going to tell me is Shoeless Joe Jackson shouldn't have been banned either...
I think there is a stronger case for Jackson allowed in. Most of the evidence points to him being extremely ignorant, not completely understanding what was going on, and not understanding what he was "signing" with his "confession". Plus, he had the best Series of any player on either team.
It might be a different case but not one I would label as stronger.
Jackson's story and confessions were ever-changing in the scandal and subsequent investigation. And he may have been an ignorant and confused person, but one thing that he never disputed nor debated was his knowledge of the scam and admission of accepting at least $5,000 of an expected $20,000 payday as to his involvement.
As to his stats during the series, closer look at his performance indicates a significant difference in his batting production in games 1-5 (bad) versus 6-8 (good), particularly with men on base. The split being when the players finally got their money but received far less than what they were promised by the gamblers and decided to play on the up and up, and admitted to later.
Shoeless Joe was one of the greatest hitters of all-time but the evidence against him was pretty clear. And he was banned for it.
12-for-32 with 5 runs, 6 RBI, 3 doubles, a home run, one walk and two strikeouts. He came to bat 16 times with men on base, collecting 6 hits (.375) and plating 5 of the 21 runners on in front of him.
However, in the first five games he had 7 at-bats with men on base, with 10 runners on, and collected just one hit and no RBI.
It was in the final three games of the World Series that Jackson padded his stats: hitting 9-for-11 with men on base and collecting 5 RBI.
Overall Fielding:
While Jackson wasn't charged with any errors in the field during the Series, many that reviewed his play in left field as “letting up” on hit balls and allowing the Reds to get more bases than they should have, particularly in Games 1 & 2.
Perhaps it's just my generation, but I just turned 50 and when I was a kid growing up in the 70's playing wiffle ball and later Little League baseball, the players I always pretended to be were guys like Reggie Jackson, Carl Carl Yastrzemski (I had a confused childhood in Central CT), Pete Rose, Willie Stargell, and Johnny Bench. The only one of those names not in Cooperstown is Rose. It seems odd to not include him, even if it's just with an asterisk.
Ironically, despite being 3rd all-time with career batting avg of .356, throwing some of those world series games probably made Jackson more famous than anything else he did in his entire career. Field of Dreams of course didn't hurt either but personally always felt that flick is overrated.
To the more avid baseball fan (like me) Shoeless Joe was a great all-around player and one of the best pure hitters the game has ever seen. Simple fact is he screwed up and it cost him, but he was always be part of baseball lore whether he is in the HoF or not...
Quote:
In comment 15282522 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
there is lots of subjectivity when it comes to various hall of fame voting processes, and who deserves to be in based on their accomplishments.
However, the Pete Rose case isn't one of them. He bet on baseball when he was still playing and managing, and that doesn't work for baseball. This one is easy.
Next thing you all are going to tell me is Shoeless Joe Jackson shouldn't have been banned either...
I think there is a stronger case for Jackson allowed in. Most of the evidence points to him being extremely ignorant, not completely understanding what was going on, and not understanding what he was "signing" with his "confession". Plus, he had the best Series of any player on either team.
I've always thought that way too. He had a very good series and seemingly tried to win. I'm also with Googs here, he bet on the game. Whether there is a bigger evil on if he only bet when they won really doesn't matter. Just like point shaving is illegal and teams can still win the game, betting is strictly against the rules.
It's a bit like Lance Armstrong. Denying usage for so long and yet, in the end, he broke the rules and paid the price. You don't get extra points for denying you did something and it only brings in the specter that you did more.
If they let Schilling in, they should all be pumped in.
If they let Schilling in, they should all be pumped in.
There's really no comparison between Schilling and those guys, and if he gets in, that wouldn't be the slightest justification for either of them.
He’s been kept out because that’s the punishment he agreed to with Giamatti, in return for the reports on him being kept confidential. He didn’t want the dirt getting out and mistakenly thought over time MLB would cave and let him in.
As for those saying no proof he bet against his team, he didn’t have to. If he’s betting several times a week on his team to win,then doesn’t bet on a given day, what does that say to who’s placing his bets, the bookie and anyone connected to the bookie?
Time to load up on the opponent and make a nice score. Plus he was in prime position for inside info that day like if his pitcher wasn’t feeling well, had a sore arm, etc.
Either way there have been signs in every MLB clubhouse forbidding betting forever, and how seriously MLB views gambling on baseball. Pete got what he deserved and I don’t think he ever gets in., nor do I think he should get in.
If they let Schilling in, they should all be pumped in.
It's actually extremely different when you are betting on games that you are playing in/managing.
There's no MLB rule prohibiting alcoholism.
Yes, they are both very serious problems. But baseball has a clear strict policy against betting on the game in any fashion, and they have enforced it on Rose. Unlikely that reverses itself, at least in our lifetimes...
This is a great point. What Rose did was clearly worse than what Jackson did. Jackson had the best series of any hitter in the 1919 World Series that he supposedly threw. There was never really any proof that Jackson definitely participated in that scandal, and if he did then he did an awful job of it considering how well he played. Rose was caught red handed betting on his own teams games as a Manager which is about as bad as it gets in pro sports. MUCH worse than PEDs imo.
Should Rose be in the HOF? If I had a vote I'd say he belongs for his great playing career. But at the same time, I 100% agree with Rasputin that Rose should not get in before Jackson. BTW, Jackson died 70 years ago and still isn't in it.
Also as others have mentioned, "Best American Hitter" is an absolute joke. He wasn't even the Best American Hitter on those dominant Big Red Machine teams, that honor goes to the late Joe Morgan and it wasn't close.
C'mon.
Quote:
Pete Rose shouldn't either.
This is a great point. What Rose did was clearly worse than what Jackson did. Jackson had the best series of any hitter in the 1919 World Series that he supposedly threw. There was never really any proof that Jackson definitely participated in that scandal, and if he did then he did an awful job of it considering how well he played.
Summary of Joe Jackson's grand jury testimony...
On the afternoon of September 28, 1920, Jackson testified under oath before the grand jury. At the core of the Jackson testimony rests a contradiction. On the incriminating side of the ledger, Jackson provided a fairly detailed account of the fix from his perspective, including his acceptance of $5,000 before the start of Game Five. Notwithstanding that, Jackson insisted that he had done nothing in the field to earn his payoff, citing his World Series stats as proof that he had given his best efforts at all times during the action.
Jackson’s testimony about the corruption of the World Series was precise and specific. He had not attended the mid-September players-only fix meeting at the Ansonia Hotel in New York. Nor had he been present for a follow-up meeting with gamblers in Chicago’s Warner Hotel, although Lefty Williams had told him about it afterwards. Rather, Jackson had been propositioned privately by teammate Chick Gandil. At first, Jackson rebuffed him. But in time, Joe agreed to join the plot to throw the Series in return for a $20,000 payoff, to be “split up some way” after each series game.
On the evening before the White Sox were to return to Cincinnati for Game Five, Lefty Williams entered Jackson’s room at the Lexington Hotel and threw $5,000 onto the bed. At that, Jackson asked, “What the hell had come off here?” Williams replied that Gandil “said we got the screw through Abe Attell. He got the money but refused to turn it over to [Gandil].” But Jackson suspected that Gandil actually had the payoff money and had “kept the majority of it for himself.” When Jackson later complained to Gandil, Chick told him that he could either “take that [$5,000] or leave it alone.” That evening, when Jackson told his wife that he “got $5,000 for helping throw [Series] games,” Katie Jackson told Joe that “she thought it was an awful thing to do.” Jackson put the $5,000 — “some hundreds, mostly fifties” in denomination — in his pocket and took the money with him to Cincinnati.
Quote:
because by all accounts, he was an unlikeable asshole. If he was someone his peers actually liked, he'd probably be getting in in his golden years.
He’s been kept out because that’s the punishment he agreed to with Giamatti, in return for the reports on him being kept confidential. He didn’t want the dirt getting out and mistakenly thought over time MLB would cave and let him in.
As for those saying no proof he bet against his team, he didn’t have to. If he’s betting several times a week on his team to win,then doesn’t bet on a given day, what does that say to who’s placing his bets, the bookie and anyone connected to the bookie?
Time to load up on the opponent and make a nice score. Plus he was in prime position for inside info that day like if his pitcher wasn’t feeling well, had a sore arm, etc.
Either way there have been signs in every MLB clubhouse forbidding betting forever, and how seriously MLB views gambling on baseball. Pete got what he deserved and I don’t think he ever gets in., nor do I think he should get in.
Because the worry isn’t that some illegal bookie is going to rake in more cash, it’s that the sanctity of the game takes a hit with guys point shaving. That’s why gambling is illegal for these guys because it’s a slippery slope. In too deep with your bookie? Well there’s a way to rectify that. There’s no proof he disgraced the game itself, by purposely tanking games. I could really care less either way, but to deny him seems asinine to me based on the available information.
So a rule should be disregarded because you haven't seen proof that his violation of the rule resulting in something that isn't part of the rule?
None.
Quote:
In comment 15282444 Zeke's Alibi said:
Quote:
because by all accounts, he was an unlikeable asshole. If he was someone his peers actually liked, he'd probably be getting in in his golden years.
He’s been kept out because that’s the punishment he agreed to with Giamatti, in return for the reports on him being kept confidential. He didn’t want the dirt getting out and mistakenly thought over time MLB would cave and let him in.
As for those saying no proof he bet against his team, he didn’t have to. If he’s betting several times a week on his team to win,then doesn’t bet on a given day, what does that say to who’s placing his bets, the bookie and anyone connected to the bookie?
Time to load up on the opponent and make a nice score. Plus he was in prime position for inside info that day like if his pitcher wasn’t feeling well, had a sore arm, etc.
Either way there have been signs in every MLB clubhouse forbidding betting forever, and how seriously MLB views gambling on baseball. Pete got what he deserved and I don’t think he ever gets in., nor do I think he should get in.
Because the worry isn’t that some illegal bookie is going to rake in more cash, it’s that the sanctity of the game takes a hit with guys point shaving. That’s why gambling is illegal for these guys because it’s a slippery slope. In too deep with your bookie? Well there’s a way to rectify that. There’s no proof he disgraced the game itself, by purposely tanking games. I could really care less either way, but to deny him seems asinine to me based on the available information.
Why did he agree to the lifetime banishment and it making him ineligible to the HOF then? That’s all the available info anyone needs.
What Rose couldn't predict was two years AFTER he agreed to the suspension, after Giamatti died - at the prodding of Giamatti friend and new commissioner Fay Vincent, the MLB HOF passed a rule that made anyone on MLB's ineligible list would be banned from appearing on the HOF ballot.
Also, if you read anything or listen to anything from around that time - all Giamatti wanted was remorse and contrition - if Rose had come clean - completely clean even behind closed doors with Giamatti I think they would/could have come to some type of agreement when Rose could be reinstated or Giamatti wouldn't have been so adamant about not being HOF eligible.
But Rose was so arrogant and cocky and continued to lie about it and stall the whole process with legal shenanigans and bad faith and that was the straw that broke the camels back so to speak and no commissioner now wants to be the one to "not have his predecessor's back".
Quote:
Because the worry isn’t that some illegal bookie is going to rake in more cash, it’s that the sanctity of the game takes a hit with guys point shaving. That’s why gambling is illegal for these guys because it’s a slippery slope. In too deep with your bookie? Well there’s a way to rectify that. There’s no proof he disgraced the game itself, by purposely tanking games. I could really care less either way, but to deny him seems asinine to me based on the available information.
So a rule should be disregarded because you haven't seen proof that his violation of the rule resulting in something that isn't part of the rule?
No, it’s just that while he broke the rule, he didn’t violate the reason the rule got put in place. It’s why there’s debate on whether he should be in or not.
Well first of all, we don't know whether he violated "the reason the rule got put in place" or not. No evidence has been put forward showing he purposely lost games. That doesn't mean he didn't do that (personally, I think it's implausible that he didn't sometimes make decisions that benefited one game at the expense of another based on which games he'd bet on, but who knows).
But regardless, yes, you are literally saying what I said before - you think the rule should be disregarded because you haven't seen proof that his violation of the rule resulted in him doing something (purposely throwing games) that isn't even part of the rule. And after all, teams purposely tank games all the time at the end of the season. Maybe not NBA-level, but it's pretty clear that it goes on. MLB could prohibit that by rule. But they don't. They could make the rule, no gambling and then altering how you play the game to benefit your gambling. But they don't. They prohibit exactly what Rose did, something of which he was fully aware when he did it.
What Rose couldn't predict was two years AFTER he agreed to the suspension, after Giamatti died - at the prodding of Giamatti friend and new commissioner Fay Vincent, the MLB HOF passed a rule that made anyone on MLB's ineligible list would be banned from appearing on the HOF ballot.
Also, if you read anything or listen to anything from around that time - all Giamatti wanted was remorse and contrition - if Rose had come clean - completely clean even behind closed doors with Giamatti I think they would/could have come to some type of agreement when Rose could be reinstated or Giamatti wouldn't have been so adamant about not being HOF eligible.
But Rose was so arrogant and cocky and continued to lie about it and stall the whole process with legal shenanigans and bad faith and that was the straw that broke the camels back so to speak and no commissioner now wants to be the one to "not have his predecessor's back".
Yes I remember all that but it was never a guarantee he would be reinstated, regardless of what he thought or hoped. He had no way of knowing what the future held as far as Bart or Fay but he did know exactly what he was agreeing too.
You’re right about the possibility/conditions but since he showed absolutely no remorse, and with Bart’s passing, he was held to the original agreement, and rightfully so IMO.
I remember reading something immediately after the suspension while giving a press conference where Rose said he was looking forward to his daughter's 1st birthday because it was 2 days before he'd be reinstated (something like that).
Rose never got the magnitude of what he did or how serious anyone felt it was, until much later in life.
Quote:
In comment 15283216 Zeke's Alibi said:
Quote:
Because the worry isn’t that some illegal bookie is going to rake in more cash, it’s that the sanctity of the game takes a hit with guys point shaving. That’s why gambling is illegal for these guys because it’s a slippery slope. In too deep with your bookie? Well there’s a way to rectify that. There’s no proof he disgraced the game itself, by purposely tanking games. I could really care less either way, but to deny him seems asinine to me based on the available information.
So a rule should be disregarded because you haven't seen proof that his violation of the rule resulting in something that isn't part of the rule?
No, it’s just that while he broke the rule, he didn’t violate the reason the rule got put in place. It’s why there’s debate on whether he should be in or not.
Whether he did or didn't violate the reason the rule got in place is a convenient and selective sidestep.
First and foremost, its not relevant. Second, not certain how you know all of the very reason(s) themselves. And third, not certain how you know he didn't violate any of them even if they were relevant.
Yes, there is a debate on whether he should be in or not. However, it is not a debate by Major League Baseball or the Hall of Fame as they have already spoken and ruled several times on the topic.
Nevertheless, would think the fans having the debate are best served to stick to at least the relevant facts.
I remember reading something immediately after the suspension while giving a press conference where Rose said he was looking forward to his daughter's 1st birthday because it was 2 days before he'd be reinstated (something like that).
Rose never got the magnitude of what he did or how serious anyone felt it was, until much later in life.
Agree with all of this as well
I remember reading something immediately after the suspension while giving a press conference where Rose said he was looking forward to his daughter's 1st birthday because it was 2 days before he'd be reinstated (something like that).
Rose never got the magnitude of what he did or how serious anyone felt it was, until much later in life.
Great memory man, and I remember that as well.
You’re right about his mindset, and to me that and his ego are what has hurt him big time.
When he agreed to the conditions with Giamatti, it was because he didn’t want the details leaked and figured I’ll just sign this and I’m too big for them to deny me down the road.
I think that arrogance and him basically thumbing his nose at MLB along the way, caused Faye to basically dig his heals in and play some real hard ball. Now they use that agreement as all the evidence they need to keep him out and I don’t think he ever gets in now.
He might’ve had a slight chance years ago if he fessed up, and showed remorse but he took the opposite approach, and is paying the price. Rightfully so to me.
Had Rose accepted that he had this condition, and received treatment for a cure, I think he would have been in decades ago.
Quote:
I agree, there was no guarantee he'd be reinstated or even anything less than a guarantee - I'm just telling you what Rose's mindset was at the time (based on what I have read and watched) and the fact the banishment agreement his signed allowed him to apply for reinstatement at I believe the sole discretion of the commissioner.
I remember reading something immediately after the suspension while giving a press conference where Rose said he was looking forward to his daughter's 1st birthday because it was 2 days before he'd be reinstated (something like that).
Rose never got the magnitude of what he did or how serious anyone felt it was, until much later in life.
Great memory man, and I remember that as well.
You’re right about his mindset, and to me that and his ego are what has hurt him big time.
When he agreed to the conditions with Giamatti, it was because he didn’t want the details leaked and figured I’ll just sign this and I’m too big for them to deny me down the road.
I think that arrogance and him basically thumbing his nose at MLB along the way, caused Faye to basically dig his heals in and play some real hard ball. Now they use that agreement as all the evidence they need to keep him out and I don’t think he ever gets in now.
He might’ve had a slight chance years ago if he fessed up, and showed remorse but he took the opposite approach, and is paying the price. Rightfully so to me.
lol, I didn't remember all of this, much of it i had to re-research (there are a ton of video interviews and articles from right after the suspension was announced - youtube, etc. until current day stuff and much from along the way at the various lawsuits, reinstatement applications, and events) but I did remember a lot of it.
and I appreciate your stance - personally I would vote him in if I were handed a ballot and his name was on it because of his on-field merits, he earned it; like I've said I don't feel strongly about it
I get it for people who think he should be banned for eternity and I agree he made his own bed
but I do believe in forgiveness, and I think it's a slippery moral slope when you pick and choose to let people who have committed some transgressions (that also effect the integrity of the game) in the HOF and not others. it's a line people create in their minds in pencil and erase it and move it when it's convenient - I find living that way has to be emotionally tiresome. And I mean PED's, stimulants, doctoring the ball, corking bats, etc.
That's alleged, right?
I mean, it makes sense. Rose did slug 160 HRs over 24 years. ;)
Quote:
when he was getting closer to breaking Ty Cobb’s record.
That's alleged, right?
I mean, it makes sense. Rose did slug 160 HRs over 24 years. ;)
Yes, the allegations are all out there to read and follow.
Can’t be surprised though, I hope...
Quote:
In comment 15283326 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
I agree, there was no guarantee he'd be reinstated or even anything less than a guarantee - I'm just telling you what Rose's mindset was at the time (based on what I have read and watched) and the fact the banishment agreement his signed allowed him to apply for reinstatement at I believe the sole discretion of the commissioner.
I remember reading something immediately after the suspension while giving a press conference where Rose said he was looking forward to his daughter's 1st birthday because it was 2 days before he'd be reinstated (something like that).
Rose never got the magnitude of what he did or how serious anyone felt it was, until much later in life.
Great memory man, and I remember that as well.
You’re right about his mindset, and to me that and his ego are what has hurt him big time.
When he agreed to the conditions with Giamatti, it was because he didn’t want the details leaked and figured I’ll just sign this and I’m too big for them to deny me down the road.
I think that arrogance and him basically thumbing his nose at MLB along the way, caused Faye to basically dig his heals in and play some real hard ball. Now they use that agreement as all the evidence they need to keep him out and I don’t think he ever gets in now.
He might’ve had a slight chance years ago if he fessed up, and showed remorse but he took the opposite approach, and is paying the price. Rightfully so to me.
lol, I didn't remember all of this, much of it i had to re-research (there are a ton of video interviews and articles from right after the suspension was announced - youtube, etc. until current day stuff and much from along the way at the various lawsuits, reinstatement applications, and events) but I did remember a lot of it.
and I appreciate your stance - personally I would vote him in if I were handed a ballot and his name was on it because of his on-field merits, he earned it; like I've said I don't feel strongly about it
I get it for people who think he should be banned for eternity and I agree he made his own bed
but I do believe in forgiveness, and I think it's a slippery moral slope when you pick and choose to let people who have committed some transgressions (that also effect the integrity of the game) in the HOF and not others. it's a line people create in their minds in pencil and erase it and move it when it's convenient - I find living that way has to be emotionally tiresome. And I mean PED's, stimulants, doctoring the ball, corking bats, etc.
One of my best friends is a huge Rose fan and we have this discussion at least once a year. He thinks he should get in and says he loved the way he played. Says they didn’t call him Charlie Hustle for nothing and I always say, yeah, I’d hustle every time too if I had money riding on it.
That usually ends the discussion for another year or so. Lol.
100 percent agree. Don't whitewash history. It's not like we're renaming JFK International because Kennedy screwed around.
Quote:
I’d prefer the HOF recognize accomplishments and shortcomings in an exhibit. Rose, the Black Sox, PEDs. etc. It’s silly to leave out big chapters of the book, just to punish the characters.
100 percent agree. Don't whitewash history. It's not like we're renaming JFK International because Kennedy screwed around.
Pretty sure his records and accomplishments are recognized there in Cooperstown. It’s Pete himself who isn’t in or considered a HOFer.
FWIW my opinion is colored by 32 years of high school teaching and coaching, where honoring players or students by the vote of coaches and teachers just seemed...wrong. But of course it's part of the culture.
What Rose couldn't predict was two years AFTER he agreed to the suspension, after Giamatti died - at the prodding of Giamatti friend and new commissioner Fay Vincent, the MLB HOF passed a rule that made anyone on MLB's ineligible list would be banned from appearing on the HOF ballot.
Also, if you read anything or listen to anything from around that time - all Giamatti wanted was remorse and contrition - if Rose had come clean - completely clean even behind closed doors with Giamatti I think they would/could have come to some type of agreement when Rose could be reinstated or Giamatti wouldn't have been so adamant about not being HOF eligible.
But Rose was so arrogant and cocky and continued to lie about it and stall the whole process with legal shenanigans and bad faith and that was the straw that broke the camels back so to speak and no commissioner now wants to be the one to "not have his predecessor's back".
1) Anyone subject to a "permanent" ban is allowed to apply for reinstatement every year. There's literally no more severe punishment he could have received than "permanent ban with the opportunity to ask to be reinstated." That's what a permanent ban is. He agreed to that.
2) Rose immediately broke his agreement by denying the charges. That put MLB and the Commissioner in a very difficult position.
3) Rose eventually admitted that he'd bet on the Reds, showing that he'd been lying to the public for years.
Pete Rose can live his life, sell autographs, do personal appearances, pose for selfies, enjoy whatever money he didn't gamble away, or any of a thousand things an ex-ballplayer can do. But he can't be in the Hall of Fame. If he'd wanted to be honored by baseball, he shouldn't have been betting on baseball games. Maybe harsh, but necessary.
It constantly amazes me how many fans seem oblivious to the danger that gambling represents to their favorite sports. It's a straight razor pressed against the game's jugular. That's why the penalties are so severe. Drug addicts and alcoholics endanger themselves and their careers. Steroids are cheating but don't threaten the game. Gamblers endanger the industry they work in.
And to clarify my position, gambling on your sport and your team is wrong and damaging - heck gambling at all is outlawed in most sports on any sport (including fantasy sports and pools), but it's not as bad as betting against your team - which is a case where you as a player, coach or manager can directly influence the outcome - differently than betting for your team because in that case you're trying to win already. Of course point spreads can come in to play in some sports - but that's not the case here with Rose.
Unless your someone who thinks that the times you don't bet for your team is some signal to book makers that you are betting against your team (the weak argument I've heard about Rose).
that's the only possible think way I've "defended" Rose and it's not even a defense it was merely refuting a comment from one poster.
Rose deserves what he got I don't care if he never gets in the HOF in life or death. If I had a vote, I'd vote him in to the HOF but that's only because I think he earned it based on his on-field performance and IMO that's what the HOF is or should be about.
Nobody seemed to forget Shoeless Joe Jackson, and he's been dead for 70 years...