NFT: Baseball fans: Will Pete Rose be in the HOF after he dies?

for three years while Pete was the manager. I knew a lot of high placed people in Cincy as a result of my job and it was common knowledge, and a poorly kept secret that Pete, on many occasions, bet AGAINST his team when he managed them. That never came out in the commissioners report on him. Do you want a guy that managed you and your team to bet against you? Pete was a degenerate gambler. If he had inside information on his mother back then, he would have bet against her too. Anything to break a losing streak and get a win. Great player, but line should be drawn somewhere IMHO and, I don't think he should be elected to the HOF.

I don't know

In comment 15282138 rmc3981 said:

Quote:

for three years while Pete was the manager. I knew a lot of high placed people in Cincy as a result of my job and it was common knowledge, and a poorly kept secret that Pete, on many occasions, bet AGAINST his team when he managed them. That never came out in the commissioners report on him. Do you want a guy that managed you and your team to bet against you? Pete was a degenerate gambler. If he had inside information on his mother back then, he would have bet against her too. Anything to break a losing streak and get a win. Great player, but line should be drawn somewhere IMHO and, I don't think he should be elected to the HOF.

well put. it's a shame because on the field he earned it. have to live with your choices.

in. The one no-no with baseball is gambling. Steroiders may eventually get in, but gamblers, no.

In comment 15282138 rmc3981 said:

Quote:

for three years while Pete was the manager. I knew a lot of high placed people in Cincy as a result of my job and it was common knowledge, and a poorly kept secret that Pete, on many occasions, bet AGAINST his team when he managed them. That never came out in the commissioners report on him. Do you want a guy that managed you and your team to bet against you? Pete was a degenerate gambler. If he had inside information on his mother back then, he would have bet against her too. Anything to break a losing streak and get a win. Great player, but line should be drawn somewhere IMHO and, I don't think he should be elected to the HOF.

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.

I was there for those three years. I know what I was told by many people who knew Pete's inner circle well. You're opinion on this subject means nothing. You think you know the answer to this and yet you have no knowledge of the inner workings at all. Rube.

and don't write me this long winded, mightier than thou, diatribe that you have a tendency to do. I won't read it and I don't respect your opinion.

investigations that lead to public charges with public tax dollars become public records via FOIA.

Every piece of information from the investigation is available, every bet he made documented.

In comment 15282209 rmc3981 said:

Quote:

and don't write me this long winded, mightier than thou, diatribe that you have a tendency to do. I won't read it and I don't respect your opinion.

likewise, I may be long winded but at least I don't make shit up to make myself seem more important.

you the man.

.

Doubt it. Doesn't MLB have a 'character clause' or something?

The investigation was whitewashed so that the scandal of betting against your own team wouldn't come out and reverberate throughout the sport. So you believe everything you read as gospel huh?! The baseball Gods told you the absolute truth and had nothing to protect, like the "sanctity" of the game? I'll refer you to the Warren commission if you believe all "official" investigations. Keep living in your dreamworld. Again, I was there. I know what I know. You're "its an absolute lie" is insulting. But, that's why you wrote it, didn't you? You're good at insulting, but. usually have no gravitas to do so.

gambling-related punishments were. He knew the risk he was taking. I have no sympathy for him. The only reason he's the "Hit King" is because he was a selfish bastard who kept putting himself in the lineup when he was clearly washed up as a player.

the internet gambling sites.

because it's exactly the kind of hearsay that makes things worse, and use your head, if you are a bookmaker, are you really going to take a bet from the manager of a professional sports team that his team is going to lose?

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.

after he's dead who's left that's going to really push his candidacy?

I KNEW it was coming. Couldn't help yourself, could you? I didn't read it professor. Have a nice day.

support for Pete Rose, isn't there also emotional support for the commissioner Bart Giamatti who banned him from the people behind the scenes. Giamatti was popular with the owners at the time due to his success dealings with the union and I am sure there are still people involved in baseball who would not like to see his legacy overturned for no good reason.

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 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.

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 say Ted Williams is the greatest American hitter ever and Ichiro is not American.

for the Reds to lose?

I have no horse in this race and I'm not a gambler. Just curious.

you can't bet within your sport, PERIOD. It threatens the integrity of not just baseball, but of all professional sports. I want to watch professional baseballs players play baseball. I don't want to watch professional baseball players play wrestling.

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.

In comment 15282243 pjcas18 said:

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 )

In comment 15282252 Dr. D said:

Quote:

for the Reds to lose? 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.

In comment 15282257 Semipro Lineman said:

Quote:

In comment 15282243 pjcas18 said: 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:

Quote:

...The documents obtained by Outside the Lines, which reflect betting records from March through July 1986, show no evidence that Rose, who was a player-manager in 1986, bet against his team. They provide a vivid snapshot of how extensive Rose's betting life was in 1986:...

its that he placed bets at all. He put his financial interests ahead of the game.

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.

And the best American hitter (and Ichiro the best hitter regardless of nationality)? C'mon now.

In my view, no.

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...

In comment 15282169 section125 said:

Quote:

in. The one no-no with baseball is gambling. Steroiders may eventually get in, but gamblers, no.

Sure seems like baseball has accepted gambling with Draft Kings and Fan Duel.

LOL

That’s not gonna change. They will never need another example of, “Don’t fuck with MLB.”

In comment 15282270 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

its that he placed bets at all. He put his financial interests ahead of the game. 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.

By any measure he is one of the all time greats.
And there is no documented evidence he bet against the Reds. Innuendo - yes, rumor - yes, evidence - no.

Ivan Rodriguez and Jeff Bagwell are in. Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are not.

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.

In comment 15282255 GiantNatty said:

Quote:

you can't bet within your sport, PERIOD. It threatens the integrity of not just baseball, but of all professional sports. I want to watch professional baseballs players play baseball. I don't want to watch professional baseball players play wrestling. 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.

Rose is permanently ineligible. There are no provisions that define that as limited to his lifetime or terminating upon his death, either in the agreement he signed, or in mlb's rules regarding ineligiblity. Obviously being ineligible doesn't mean much once you're dead, except for the fact that the Hall of Fame has decided that permanently ineligible players are also not eligible for the Hall of Fame. The HOF could, at any time, decide to change that, before or after Rose's death, but that's their current policy, and deceased players ruled ineligible by mlb, like Joe Jackson, have similarly been kept out by the HOF.

Has lost out on by not being a HoFer. By now he must surely be deep in the red (pun intended) on that tradeoff.

Pigs get slaughtered and that’s what happened here. No pity.

Warts and all.

Plenty of people inducted with less than exemplary lives away from the diamond.

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.

And I do not think Pete is betting on it either

CERTAINLY came out. The amount of money to be had for that type of information would have been paramount. There's no way a secret like that gets kept for all these years. Not buying some anecdotal stories because it doesn't track at all.

At least his records are in the HOF for his fans to enjoy.

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.

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.

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.

It's pretty telling when Johnny Bench thinks someone is an asshole!!

Clearly lied about betting until he couldn't any longer and clearly bet against his team has John Dowd has already suggested in interviews.

Hall of Fame? How about Hall of Shame.

Best American hitter of all time? There is a difference between being the hits leader and being the best hitter. He was/is not the latter.

was a strong advocate for Rose being in the HOF. Not sure if he was when he was on the veterans committee or not (I know he didn't always feel this way), but later in his life he was a big advocate for Rose. Especially once PED users began showing up on the ballots (something Joe Morgan hated).

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).

In comment 15282246 Chris in Philly said:

Quote:

I say Ted Williams is the greatest American hitter ever and Ichiro is not American.

Agreed.

that said once MLB had the evidence to give Rose a lifetime ban, they shut down the investigation as there was nothing more they could do to him. So, if this is true, there has never been a thorough, complete investigation into all Pete Rose's gambling. That doesn't mean we should assume the worst, but it means we don't know how far he went. We know he did more than enough to get a lifetime ban, and he got one.

So, the question seems to be: Does "lifetime" expire when he dies?

I hope not.

do you think they (Raines, Molitor and others) buying from, CVS? Drug dealers and bookies are all organized crime controlled. It's very possible that users could have been pressured to throw games.