Before my time, but obviously a helluva player & not in Cooperstown for the gambling stuff. But he always came off like a first class jackass to me.
I remember that contentious interview he had with Jim Gray. Then some Yankee outfielder wouldn't take to Gray after some World Series game citing that interview.
In my head it was Chad Curtis or Shane Spencer, but I don't want to look it up lol.
Isn't it the case that he wouldn't even apologize for betting on baseball? If true, sounds like he would be a good guy to keep out.
Betting on baseball to baseball is a lot like cheating on your taxes to the Government no one gets away with this
and that's om with me and I do think it should be punishable since there is a rule against it, but I don't have much issue with someone betting on their own team to win. Even a manager. I feel like in many intangible or less tangible ways you do that every game you play.
Some argue, but if you bet on your team to win, you might make decisions in that game that put too much emphasis on that one game and not consider the big picture or season-long implications of those decisions. I say so? some coaches or managers *do* manage that way without explicit financial incentive to do so. they manage to worry about tomorrow, tomorrow and win the game in front of you.
Some argue, but when you don't bet on your team then it sends a signal you will not work as hard to ensure a tea, win since you don't have financial incentive, but is there data to support this showing any type of trend? Meaning do they lose more games when he doesn't bet on his team vs when he does? It could just be his team is going against a pitcher they struggle with, or other reasons he's not confident enough in a win to wager on it. this is a legit concern, but flimsy IMO to warrant a lifetime ban.
Anyway, all this to say, I do think punishment for betting on your team to win is warranted since it is obviously outlawed by the league, but I do not think it warranted the death penalty. Now, betting against your team or taking money to throw a game (Black Sox scandal - although Shoeless Joe is a whole different story), no question once proven you get the death penalty (sports death penalty of course), that does actually impact the integrity of the sport, but betting on yourself to win, while wrong, is not the same *to me* - but I do respect other people opinions on this topic. I know not everyone can rationalize it this way. And I am not what I'd call a Pete Rose fan.
outside of this major issue, being a piece of shit human being has never disqualified anyone else from any other sports HOF AFAIK, so Rose probably should be in the baseball HOF.
I can see what you're getting at, but doesn't this argument presuppose that the only bets he placed while Manager were "Reds to win"?
Maybe that is what he was doing - I'm ignorant if MLB ever revealed that detail of their investigation - but if you're a gambling addict what are the odds (hah) you aren't also placing prop bets and the like?
Then it becomes much more murky when the bets are more than your team to win, they're for Tim Browning to pitch X innings or John Franco to throw a K or other things that a Manager very much has a degree of control over. It may not always be game-changing but it still harms the spirit of the game which is why I think he was excommunicated.
it wasn't like he went on draft kings and picked out prop bets. He called a bookie. This was old school.
And it has been confirmed, as much as it can be, Rose never bet against his own team. Only to win, not saying that is noble in any way, but it frames things for me vs if he bet against his own team.
I acknowledge it was against the rules and the rules do come with a permanent ban for breaking them, but I feel like since he did only bet on his team to win, he should be HOF eligible.
Nothing obliterates the creditability of organized sports more than if and when a player or coach bets on it. Nothing! A player could shoot up Superman homelander jet juice into his own bicep then hit 50 postseason HRs and it still isn’t as damaging as what Rose did.
MLB was compromised. The most integral fabric of the game. And then he lied till he dropped dead and spit in the face while doing so. Fuck Pete Rose.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Meanwhile, MLB is happy to have legalized gambling. MLB is a whore with its legs in the air proclaiming its virtue.
Yep --that's another story, talk about Pandora's box...
One of my earliest lessons that I could appreciate the art even if the
artist was someone I couldn't stand and had no respect for as a human being.
IMO regardless of anyone's opinion or feelings about Pete Rose off the field and his deserved lifetime gambling suspension he was one of the greatest baseball players to ever wear a MLB uniform. As a player he was the ultimate grinder and winner and he carried his teams with him.
I'm a NY Yankee baseball fan who rooted for the Mets too until the day they traded Tom Seaver. The 1973 NLCS was historic MLB. If you were a baseball fan in those days the Rose/Harrelson fight will never be forgotten. I was at Shea in 1978 for the only time the night Rose hit in 38 straight games . I didn't go back to Shea until September 1985.
I've said this many times before the MLB HOF is a joke at this point. Rose should have been in a long, long time ago. His plaque should have listed his on field accomplishments and called out that he was suspended for life for gambling. How can MLB have a HOF without Rose, Bonds, Clemons, A-Rod, Steinbrenner, etc? But have Bud Selig, Don Sutton, Harold Baines, Jeff Bagwell, etc. in it?
RIP Hit King and thanks for playing a villain at the highest level imaginable for this baseball fan.
but he chose the game he managed. That's the very peak of arrogance or hubris.
And you don't know that Rose didn't bet against himself. And why would you know? HE never came clean about anything else why believe him when he said that. Rose may have had his talents and baseball player legacy but his word meant fuck all.
I'm pretty sure there was evidence that Rose bet against his team while he was managing the Reds. The deal he cut with Bartlett Giamatti was if he accepted the lifetime ban the evidence would stay sealed. Giamatti dying of a heart attack at age 51, eight days after the suspension was announced made the whole thing tragic.
There are people in every major league HOF that have done worse things than gamble on their teams as mangers. But at the time everyone involved in MLB knew that gambling was the cardinal sin in baseball going back to the Black Sox.
Rose was an out of control gambling addict. Like all addicts he was a pathological and devious liar. He deserved the lifetime suspension. He deserved to never be reinstated. He also deserved to be in the MLB HOF for his accomplishments as a player.
it wasn't like he went on draft kings and picked out prop bets. He called a bookie. This was old school.
And it has been confirmed, as much as it can be, Rose never bet against his own team. Only to win, not saying that is noble in any way, but it frames things for me vs if he bet against his own team.
I acknowledge it was against the rules and the rules do come with a permanent ban for breaking them, but I feel like since he did only bet on his team to win, he should be HOF eligible.
That's a very good point about prop betting. But I think you're placing too much faith in the evidence. They have the Dowd Report up on Wikipedia.
I read thru the first section about Rose's betting. He had multiple runners/straw-men, with at least one that was dependent on him, placing bets on his behalf (there's one guy mentioned as placing $2,000 on single games who def. did not have that much money, and another young guy who lived with & was given a job by Rose). Pete Rose himself lied thru the investigation about whether he gambled.
As more came out, bit by bit he admitted more of his gambling. "I don't bet - OK, I do bet, but not on baseball - OK OK I do bet on baseball, but only on my team to win, promise."
Evidence-wise it looks like they recovered some of Rose's betting sheets from his own house, as well as some from a bookie, and those support his claim he never bet against the Reds, but the sheets are incomplete (the bookie says he always destroyed his sheets, but kept those because they were proof Rose owed him 41K and he didn't think Rose would pay up).
Based on Rose's use of intermediaries to place bets and the other steps he took to hide his tracks, that evidence isn't enough to wholly convince me. Coupled with his lack of contrition, I am OK keeping him out.
Ruined a guy’career in an All Star game for no reason. Continually lied about betting on baseball and tried to look like the victim. And so on and so on. Glad he’s not in the HOF.
it wasn't like he went on draft kings and picked out prop bets. He called a bookie. This was old school.
And it has been confirmed, as much as it can be, Rose never bet against his own team. Only to win, not saying that is noble in any way, but it frames things for me vs if he bet against his own team.
I acknowledge it was against the rules and the rules do come with a permanent ban for breaking them, but I feel like since he did only bet on his team to win, he should be HOF eligible.
it wasn't like he went on draft kings and picked out prop bets. He called a bookie. This was old school.
And it has been confirmed, as much as it can be, Rose never bet against his own team. Only to win, not saying that is noble in any way, but it frames things for me vs if he bet against his own team.
I acknowledge it was against the rules and the rules do come with a permanent ban for breaking them, but I feel like since he did only bet on his team to win, he should be HOF eligible.
+1
Not me, there were rules and he knew them. What is the point of having rules? Also just because he "only bet on the Reds" doesn't fly with me either. It still may have had him do things that weren't the normal things to do to effect the outcome. For example, playing someone who is injured and should sit that day, but Rose needs to win his bet so he plays him. Using players who should get a day off, or maybe pitched 5 innings in relief the night before, because Rose needs to win the bet. Throwing a batter on the other team, etc. etc.
He could have literally bet on any other sport all day long, and I'd be ok with him in the HOF. Just not this.
Ruined a guy’career in an All Star game for no reason. Continually lied about betting on baseball and tried to look like the victim. And so on and so on. Glad he’s not in the HOF.
Hell of a ball player though.
not for "No reason" "He wanted to win" The All-star game meant something more back then to the players . Fosse could have made what they call today "A business decision and stood his ground" and fosse later said he accepted and paid the consequences. Bowling over the catcher was a legal play in the 70's if you had the sand to do it.
The HOF is filled with far worse human beings then Rose
with that being said,,,Rose deserves to be in the Hall of Fame now that he has passed.
This guy was all baseball, not much after that and very corrosive as a person..but he deservers to be in the Hall OF FAme as Much as the Georgia Peach who in my estimation is ten times worse a person than Rose was in his lifetime.
I saw him play, and I don't think he belongs in the Hall. Not a good fielder. He was not the guy on the Reds that you worried about. It took him 500 more games, 2800 more plate appearances and nearly 3000 more at bats to break Ty Cobbs' record by 60 hits. The last 5 or 6 years of his career was him trying to single his way to the record.
I won't argue if others disagree as there is a case to be made for him. I also think that given MLB's embrace of sports betting, keeping him out of the Hall on that basis is ridiculous.
At any rate, may he rest in peace.
Your Joking right? I saw him play and you mitigate his accomplishment by saying he "Singled" his way to the record. There are about 20 thousand MLB players during that span who would Gladly acccept a career of "Singling" as far as hits. Rose has the most hits in Baseball and he has been retired 40 years and with modern medicine..still no other player has come close.
I'm pretty sure there was evidence that Rose bet against his team while he was managing the Reds. The deal he cut with Bartlett Giamatti was if he accepted the lifetime ban the evidence would stay sealed. Giamatti dying of a heart attack at age 51, eight days after the suspension was announced made the whole thing tragic.
There are people in every major league HOF that have done worse things than gamble on their teams as mangers. But at the time everyone involved in MLB knew that gambling was the cardinal sin in baseball going back to the Black Sox.
Rose was an out of control gambling addict. Like all addicts he was a pathological and devious liar. He deserved the lifetime suspension. He deserved to never be reinstated. He also deserved to be in the MLB HOF for his accomplishments as a player.
I don't believe there was evidence of betting against the Reds. I think it was far worse crimes.
it wasn't like he went on draft kings and picked out prop bets. He called a bookie. This was old school.
And it has been confirmed, as much as it can be, Rose never bet against his own team. Only to win, not saying that is noble in any way, but it frames things for me vs if he bet against his own team.
I acknowledge it was against the rules and the rules do come with a permanent ban for breaking them, but I feel like since he did only bet on his team to win, he should be HOF eligible.
That's a very good point about prop betting. But I think you're placing too much faith in the evidence. They have the Dowd Report up on Wikipedia.
I read thru the first section about Rose's betting. He had multiple runners/straw-men, with at least one that was dependent on him, placing bets on his behalf (there's one guy mentioned as placing $2,000 on single games who def. did not have that much money, and another young guy who lived with & was given a job by Rose). Pete Rose himself lied thru the investigation about whether he gambled.
As more came out, bit by bit he admitted more of his gambling. "I don't bet - OK, I do bet, but not on baseball - OK OK I do bet on baseball, but only on my team to win, promise."
Evidence-wise it looks like they recovered some of Rose's betting sheets from his own house, as well as some from a bookie, and those support his claim he never bet against the Reds, but the sheets are incomplete (the bookie says he always destroyed his sheets, but kept those because they were proof Rose owed him 41K and he didn't think Rose would pay up).
Based on Rose's use of intermediaries to place bets and the other steps he took to hide his tracks, that evidence isn't enough to wholly convince me. Coupled with his lack of contrition, I am OK keeping him out.
That is what ultimately undid Rose. The bookie went to MLB because Rose allegedly owed him money.
RE: One of my earliest lessons that I could appreciate the art even if the
artist was someone I couldn't stand and had no respect for as a human being.
IMO regardless of anyone's opinion or feelings about Pete Rose off the field and his deserved lifetime gambling suspension he was one of the greatest baseball players to ever wear a MLB uniform. As a player he was the ultimate grinder and winner and he carried his teams with him.
I'm a NY Yankee baseball fan who rooted for the Mets too until the day they traded Tom Seaver. The 1973 NLCS was historic MLB. If you were a baseball fan in those days the Rose/Harrelson fight will never be forgotten. I was at Shea in 1978 for the only time the night Rose hit in 38 straight games . I didn't go back to Shea until September 1985.
I've said this many times before the MLB HOF is a joke at this point. Rose should have been in a long, long time ago. His plaque should have listed his on field accomplishments and called out that he was suspended for life for gambling. How can MLB have a HOF without Rose, Bonds, Clemons, A-Rod, Steinbrenner, etc? But have Bud Selig, Don Sutton, Harold Baines, Jeff Bagwell, etc. in it?
RIP Hit King and thanks for playing a villain at the highest level imaginable for this baseball fan.
Awesome comments Arnz..Totally agree with you, I was at that game towhen Rose hit #38 at Shea, I also saw him play when I was very young in 1971-75 during the summer months. Rose was all baseball and sacirificed himself for the team to win almost every game. Now that he has passed I hope MLB puts him in HOF now for his baseball accomplishments. His private life was a mess but it shouldn't deter with what he did on the field.
it wasn't like he went on draft kings and picked out prop bets. He called a bookie. This was old school.
And it has been confirmed, as much as it can be, Rose never bet against his own team. Only to win, not saying that is noble in any way, but it frames things for me vs if he bet against his own team.
I acknowledge it was against the rules and the rules do come with a permanent ban for breaking them, but I feel like since he did only bet on his team to win, he should be HOF eligible.
That's a very good point about prop betting. But I think you're placing too much faith in the evidence. They have the Dowd Report up on Wikipedia.
I read thru the first section about Rose's betting. He had multiple runners/straw-men, with at least one that was dependent on him, placing bets on his behalf (there's one guy mentioned as placing $2,000 on single games who def. did not have that much money, and another young guy who lived with & was given a job by Rose). Pete Rose himself lied thru the investigation about whether he gambled.
As more came out, bit by bit he admitted more of his gambling. "I don't bet - OK, I do bet, but not on baseball - OK OK I do bet on baseball, but only on my team to win, promise."
Evidence-wise it looks like they recovered some of Rose's betting sheets from his own house, as well as some from a bookie, and those support his claim he never bet against the Reds, but the sheets are incomplete (the bookie says he always destroyed his sheets, but kept those because they were proof Rose owed him 41K and he didn't think Rose would pay up).
Based on Rose's use of intermediaries to place bets and the other steps he took to hide his tracks, that evidence isn't enough to wholly convince me. Coupled with his lack of contrition, I am OK keeping him out.
To add to what your saying: Many Many prominent players going back to 1950's thru the 1970's had their wives in maiden names to avoid detection by placing bets on the games in large sums of money. And many of these players are in the HOF.
Make no mistake, I think he is a scumbag. His play on the field warrants induction. But, scumbag aside, he broke one of the Cardinal sin rules in the sport and paid the price. Hard to complain about that.
I think if he ever showed any sign of contrition or remorse, he would already be in. Instead he lied to his grave, only changing some of the lies when he thought it was strategic to do so. He recently claimed he thought he was being suspended for 1 year. That is bullshit. He knew he signed a lifetime suspension from MLB. He may have had the option to appeal or apply for reinstatement in a year, but there was never an indication the ban would be lifted. Allegedly, MLB has far worse dirt on him than the betting/Dowd report.
It is amazing how much he lies. In the HBO documentary about him, there are so many instances of him saying one thing and them providing video and audio evidence of the exact opposite. For example, he claims he never went to Gold's Gym, never worked out with weights in the offseason, etc. Why? Because the guys at Gold's Gym that his lackey had ties to were dealing drugs (not just steroids). Rose is alleged to have been involved in order to help pay off gambling debts, so he now claims he was never involved to perpetuate his claim he was never involved in a drug deal. So? Back in the early 80s, he had pictures at Gold's Gym, wearing Gold's Gym paraphernalia, lifting weights. He gave interviews that off season saying he spent the off season at Gold's Gym doing serious weight training. of course, more recently he just said he doesn't remember what happened in (fill in the year).
it wasn't like he went on draft kings and picked out prop bets. He called a bookie. This was old school.
And it has been confirmed, as much as it can be, Rose never bet against his own team. Only to win, not saying that is noble in any way, but it frames things for me vs if he bet against his own team.
I acknowledge it was against the rules and the rules do come with a permanent ban for breaking them, but I feel like since he did only bet on his team to win, he should be HOF eligible.
That's a very good point about prop betting. But I think you're placing too much faith in the evidence. They have the Dowd Report up on Wikipedia.
I read thru the first section about Rose's betting. He had multiple runners/straw-men, with at least one that was dependent on him, placing bets on his behalf (there's one guy mentioned as placing $2,000 on single games who def. did not have that much money, and another young guy who lived with & was given a job by Rose). Pete Rose himself lied thru the investigation about whether he gambled.
As more came out, bit by bit he admitted more of his gambling. "I don't bet - OK, I do bet, but not on baseball - OK OK I do bet on baseball, but only on my team to win, promise."
Evidence-wise it looks like they recovered some of Rose's betting sheets from his own house, as well as some from a bookie, and those support his claim he never bet against the Reds, but the sheets are incomplete (the bookie says he always destroyed his sheets, but kept those because they were proof Rose owed him 41K and he didn't think Rose would pay up).
Based on Rose's use of intermediaries to place bets and the other steps he took to hide his tracks, that evidence isn't enough to wholly convince me. Coupled with his lack of contrition, I am OK keeping him out.
To add to what your saying: Many Many prominent players going back to 1950's thru the 1970's had their wives in maiden names to avoid detection by placing bets on the games in large sums of money. And many of these players are in the HOF.
Interesting. I never heard that, but it wouldn't surprise me.
I don't believe that betting for or against your team matters at all.
Your Joking right? I saw him play and you mitigate his accomplishment by saying he "Singled" his way to the record. There are about 20 thousand MLB players during that span who would Gladly acccept a career of "Singling" as far as hits. Rose has the most hits in Baseball and he has been retired 40 years and with modern medicine..still no other player has come close.
Yeah, I don't think there's any reasonably argument that his performance as a player didn't rise to the level of the HOF.
Your Joking right? I saw him play and you mitigate his accomplishment by saying he "Singled" his way to the record. There are about 20 thousand MLB players during that span who would Gladly acccept a career of "Singling" as far as hits. Rose has the most hits in Baseball and he has been retired 40 years and with modern medicine..still no other player has come close.
Yeah, I don't think there's any reasonably argument that his performance as a player didn't rise to the level of the HOF.
"Signling" his way to the record or not, only refers to the last few years of his career. Even without the record, he still would have finished with well over 3000 hits and was a Hell of a hitter for most of that very long career. He racked up doubles and triples, won multiple batting titles, etc.
For a long time, I thought Jeter was going to seriously challenge the record. A couple of injuries and retiring several years earlier than Rose put an end to that.
it wasn't like he went on draft kings and picked out prop bets. He called a bookie. This was old school.
And it has been confirmed, as much as it can be, Rose never bet against his own team. Only to win, not saying that is noble in any way, but it frames things for me vs if he bet against his own team.
I acknowledge it was against the rules and the rules do come with a permanent ban for breaking them, but I feel like since he did only bet on his team to win, he should be HOF eligible.
+1
Not me, there were rules and he knew them. What is the point of having rules? Also just because he "only bet on the Reds" doesn't fly with me either. It still may have had him do things that weren't the normal things to do to effect the outcome. For example, playing someone who is injured and should sit that day, but Rose needs to win his bet so he plays him. Using players who should get a day off, or maybe pitched 5 innings in relief the night before, because Rose needs to win the bet. Throwing a batter on the other team, etc. etc.
He could have literally bet on any other sport all day long, and I'd be ok with him in the HOF. Just not this.
Perfectly written.
Rule says do not bet on baseball. There's no variance on that, anything else and you sound like a defense attorney.
Your Joking right? I saw him play and you mitigate his accomplishment by saying he "Singled" his way to the record. There are about 20 thousand MLB players during that span who would Gladly acccept a career of "Singling" as far as hits. Rose has the most hits in Baseball and he has been retired 40 years and with modern medicine..still no other player has come close.
Yeah, I don't think there's any reasonably argument that his performance as a player didn't rise to the level of the HOF.
Looking at Modern Players over last 40 years, I think Albert Puljois or Tony Gwynn could have been the only hitters to come withing a fraction of what Rose accomplished with consistent hitting. Just FYI, I am a Yankee and Met fan, I root for NY teams in general.
RE: I don't believe that betting for or against your team matters at all.
The real issue is a player finding themselves in a hole with a bookie and what they may do to get out of it.
This is obviously true and a real concern and even it didn't need further justification helps explain why gambling on any sport had been outlawed so long in sports, but in this case we don't need to speculate. If you believe we know all there is to know, the facts are out and as desperate as he was he did not bet against his own team, which matters to me, even if it doesn't matter to others.
you're saying if he bet on his team to win, he'd do anything possible that he thinks would help his team win. lol.
I have zero issues with this. there are managers who manage this way. worry about the current game because tomorrow is guaranteed to no one.
Again though, I do respect others opinions, only this argument is specious at best.
not that hard to imagine a scenario where a manager makes decisions he wouldn't normally make because he bet to win a particular game. Or he manages differently because he doesn't have money on a particular game. And the second that happens the integrity of the game is in question.
you're saying if he bet on his team to win, he'd do anything possible that he thinks would help his team win. lol.
I have zero issues with this. there are managers who manage this way. worry about the current game because tomorrow is guaranteed to no one.
Again though, I do respect others opinions, only this argument is specious at best.
not that hard to imagine a scenario where a manager makes decisions he wouldn't normally make because he bet to win a particular game. Or he manages differently because he doesn't have money on a particular game. And the second that happens the integrity of the game is in question.
Give me an example where a manager has bet on his team to win and he makes a decision that will help him win that game that you would not want him to make or you could argue questions the integrity of the game.
and that's om with me and I do think it should be punishable since there is a rule against it, but I don't have much issue with someone betting on their own team to win. Even a manager. I feel like in many intangible or less tangible ways you do that every game you play.
Some argue, but if you bet on your team to win, you might make decisions in that game that put too much emphasis on that one game and not consider the big picture or season-long implications of those decisions. I say so? some coaches or managers *do* manage that way without explicit financial incentive to do so. they manage to worry about tomorrow, tomorrow and win the game in front of you.
Some argue, but when you don't bet on your team then it sends a signal you will not work as hard to ensure a tea, win since you don't have financial incentive, but is there data to support this showing any type of trend? Meaning do they lose more games when he doesn't bet on his team vs when he does? It could just be his team is going against a pitcher they struggle with, or other reasons he's not confident enough in a win to wager on it. this is a legit concern, but flimsy IMO to warrant a lifetime ban.
Anyway, all this to say, I do think punishment for betting on your team to win is warranted since it is obviously outlawed by the league, but I do not think it warranted the death penalty. Now, betting against your team or taking money to throw a game (Black Sox scandal - although Shoeless Joe is a whole different story), no question once proven you get the death penalty (sports death penalty of course), that does actually impact the integrity of the sport, but betting on yourself to win, while wrong, is not the same *to me* - but I do respect other people opinions on this topic. I know not everyone can rationalize it this way. And I am not what I'd call a Pete Rose fan.
outside of this major issue, being a piece of shit human being has never disqualified anyone else from any other sports HOF AFAIK, so Rose probably should be in the baseball HOF.
What you are missing was that Rose was found to have bet on his team to LOSE. But it was kept under wraps as part of the agreement with MLB.
"What you are missing was that Rose was found to have bet on his team to LOSE. But it was kept under wraps as part of the agreement with MLB."
some people have speculated that, but there is zero evidence this is the case. If this was in fact true, MLB would have published it, and taken the lumps that came with it, and then no one would have argued about Rose being in the HOF or reinstated in any meaningful way.
you're saying if he bet on his team to win, he'd do anything possible that he thinks would help his team win. lol.
I have zero issues with this. there are managers who manage this way. worry about the current game because tomorrow is guaranteed to no one.
Again though, I do respect others opinions, only this argument is specious at best.
not that hard to imagine a scenario where a manager makes decisions he wouldn't normally make because he bet to win a particular game. Or he manages differently because he doesn't have money on a particular game. And the second that happens the integrity of the game is in question.
Give me an example where a manager has bet on his team to win and he makes a decision that will help him win that game that you would not want him to make or you could argue questions the integrity of the game.
How about playing a player who clearly needs time off - but the manager plays him in order to win a game in May. And the player is injured for now a substantial period. But the game is won.
Give me an example where a manager has bet on his team to win and he makes a decision that will help him win that game that you would not want him to make or you could argue questions the integrity of the game.
Have there been any other managers caught betting on their team who's decisions we can go through on a game by game basis? Even in this case, they mostly kept the information about which games he betted
Also, there's probable cause to believe that he was betting on baseball while still playing.
you're saying if he bet on his team to win, he'd do anything possible that he thinks would help his team win. lol.
I have zero issues with this. there are managers who manage this way. worry about the current game because tomorrow is guaranteed to no one.
Again though, I do respect others opinions, only this argument is specious at best.
not that hard to imagine a scenario where a manager makes decisions he wouldn't normally make because he bet to win a particular game. Or he manages differently because he doesn't have money on a particular game. And the second that happens the integrity of the game is in question.
Give me an example where a manager has bet on his team to win and he makes a decision that will help him win that game that you would not want him to make or you could argue questions the integrity of the game.
How about playing a player who clearly needs time off - but the manager plays him in order to win a game in May. And the player is injured for now a substantial period. But the game is won.
I don't think I'd vote for that.
so, your theory is the player who desperately needs time off or without it will be injured is the guy who the manager thinks gives him the best chance of winning the current game.
makes sense.
and even in that scenario, you can make a very strong case its still the right thing to do. players get hurt all the time in sports, rested, tired, running the bases, collisions, getting out a cab, sneezing - this is beyond a straw man, it's fantasy. You manage to win the game today. If that's what the manager is doing I have no issue with it.
Give me an example where a manager has bet on his team to win and he makes a decision that will help him win that game that you would not want him to make or you could argue questions the integrity of the game.
Have there been any other managers caught betting on their team who's decisions we can go through on a game by game basis? Even in this case, they mostly kept the information about which games he betted
Also, there's probable cause to believe that he was betting on baseball while still playing.
Link - ( New Window )
fair, my wording was poor, I was looking for the scenario, not the actual example. my fault. and even while playing, betting on his team to win, is even less worrisome to me.
you're saying if he bet on his team to win, he'd do anything possible that he thinks would help his team win. lol.
I have zero issues with this. there are managers who manage this way. worry about the current game because tomorrow is guaranteed to no one.
Again though, I do respect others opinions, only this argument is specious at best.
not that hard to imagine a scenario where a manager makes decisions he wouldn't normally make because he bet to win a particular game. Or he manages differently because he doesn't have money on a particular game. And the second that happens the integrity of the game is in question.
Give me an example where a manager has bet on his team to win and he makes a decision that will help him win that game that you would not want him to make or you could argue questions the integrity of the game.
How about playing a player who clearly needs time off - but the manager plays him in order to win a game in May. And the player is injured for now a substantial period. But the game is won.
I don't think I'd vote for that.
so, your theory is the player who desperately needs time off or without it will be injured is the guy who the manager thinks gives him the best chance of winning the current game.
makes sense.
and even in that scenario, you can make a very strong case its still the right thing to do. players get hurt all the time in sports, rested, tired, running the bases, collisions, getting out a cab, sneezing - this is beyond a straw man, it's fantasy. You manage to win the game today. If that's what the manager is doing I have no issue with it.
I figured you would reply that way - so it's an arguement I can't win.
However, losing your star player in a game in May was right move over a bet? LOL
I think that's what you're missing. This wasn't a one time thing w/ Rose. He had a disease and he need the "action" of a bet. Which could easily enable him to make moves which were short sighted (to win the bet) counterproductive to his team in the long run.
It's your opinion. I just happen to thing you're wrong.
with or without a bet on the game is there is a philosophy that says you manage/coach to win the game today. At any cost. Because tomorrow is not guaranteed. I'm not saying I support this necessarily but I get it and I do think there are coaches and managers in all sports who feel like this is the right thing without any explicit financial incentive.
Your putting the condition that gambling on the game therefore makes this approach unethical, selfish, questionable from an integrity standpoint are fantasy-based theoretical situations that are just as irrelevant as they are far fetched.
Injuries are not predictable and your scenario of a player who if he plays in a current game is sure to be injured but also represents the best chance a manager with money on the game has at winning the game sounds fantasy-based vs realistic.
You can convince me I am wrong, but not with that example. and it's also fine to disagree with me - I opened my post on this topic acknowledging I am alone with my thoughts on this and I'm cool with that.
Where is the evidence that he bet on the Reds to lose?
I'm not saying it's not possible. But, it was stated as fact here and that just isn't the case. Given his personality and intensity, I actually doubt he bet on them to lose. But, depending on how desperate he was, anything is possible (as is what he would do in the dugout to appease bookies). I just don't think we should be suggesting either of those things as having happened.
What we do know is that as the manager of the Reds he placed many bets on the Reds to win.
with or without a bet on the game is there is a philosophy that says you manage/coach to win the game today. At any cost. Because tomorrow is not guaranteed. I'm not saying I support this necessarily but I get it and I do think there are coaches and managers in all sports who feel like this is the right thing without any explicit financial incentive.
Your putting the condition that gambling on the game therefore makes this approach unethical, selfish, questionable from an integrity standpoint are fantasy-based theoretical situations that are just as irrelevant as they are far fetched.
Injuries are not predictable and your scenario of a player who if he plays in a current game is sure to be injured but also represents the best chance a manager with money on the game has at winning the game sounds fantasy-based vs realistic.
You can convince me I am wrong, but not with that example. and it's also fine to disagree with me - I opened my post on this topic acknowledging I am alone with my thoughts on this and I'm cool with that.
There are zero examples I can convince you because you equate that betting to win and managing to win are the same thing in that exact instance.
The bet itself is of no signifigance because it is to win which is the ultimate goal.
And on the surface, you are in fact correct. But like everything, there is nuance and context.
If the manager's job is to win today's game, at any cost,
He was extremely hard headed and self absorbed...but that is what drove his success.
He entered into training camp as a guy who couldn't hit,couldnt field,couldn't run...
Yet he ignored all of that and overcame all of that thru pure effort and self confidence.
As to alot of those hits being singles,that is ridiculous the man hit 1 or 2 in the line up got on base and scored runs with the 3,4,5 guys driving him in...thats how the game is meant to be played.
His teams were consistently good if not great...he averaged 200 hit over a TWENTY FOUR year career...Think about that for a minute.
He was the best player in the game in the late 1970's
Not bad for a guy who couldnt do all those things.
Off the field,a grade A louse
If he would have come clean this would all be behind us,then again he probably wouldn't have gotten to first base if he believed in anyone else but himself.
RIP-Charlie Hustle
I’m impressed he could just go that long with his mindset.
Him beating Cobbs record was forced and lame. He was a bum for a while, and the manager as a bum. If you don’t think that’s an issue you’re dumb. He deserves to be banned for being such an idiot piece of shit.
Awesome player though. Winning too. Just a wild guy who somehow kept going. HOFer.
you're saying if he bet on his team to win, he'd do anything possible that he thinks would help his team win. lol.
I have zero issues with this. there are managers who manage this way. worry about the current game because tomorrow is guaranteed to no one.
Again though, I do respect others opinions, only this argument is specious at best.
not that hard to imagine a scenario where a manager makes decisions he wouldn't normally make because he bet to win a particular game. Or he manages differently because he doesn't have money on a particular game. And the second that happens the integrity of the game is in question.
Give me an example where a manager has bet on his team to win and he makes a decision that will help him win that game that you would not want him to make or you could argue questions the integrity of the game.
in baseball, more than any sport, decisions made in individual games can absolutely affect player performance and availability in subsequent games. Obviously the most likely scenario is how it might affect pitching decisions. Maybe if doesn't have a bet on today's game but he knows he's going to bet tomorrow, he doesn't bring in a certain reliever in a key spot and saves the guy for the next game? Or he simply leaves the starter in for longer than he would have today so there's more relievers available tomorrow? Or it's late in the season and they're eliminated and the front office wants to look at a rookie but he decides to use a vet instead to get a win? Frankly, I find it hard to believe there weren't dozens (hundreds?) of decisions influenced and compromised by whether he had or didn't have a bet on certain games.
Managers can never bet on their own team
I wish they could have banned him from the hall as a manager,not a player..
Unless they had evidence he bet then too.
One of the most complex situations of our lives as sports fans
you're saying if he bet on his team to win, he'd do anything possible that he thinks would help his team win. lol.
I have zero issues with this. there are managers who manage this way. worry about the current game because tomorrow is guaranteed to no one.
Again though, I do respect others opinions, only this argument is specious at best.
not that hard to imagine a scenario where a manager makes decisions he wouldn't normally make because he bet to win a particular game. Or he manages differently because he doesn't have money on a particular game. And the second that happens the integrity of the game is in question.
Give me an example where a manager has bet on his team to win and he makes a decision that will help him win that game that you would not want him to make or you could argue questions the integrity of the game.
in baseball, more than any sport, decisions made in individual games can absolutely affect player performance and availability in subsequent games. Obviously the most likely scenario is how it might affect pitching decisions. Maybe if doesn't have a bet on today's game but he knows he's going to bet tomorrow, he doesn't bring in a certain reliever in a key spot and saves the guy for the next game? Or he simply leaves the starter in for longer than he would have today so there's more relievers available tomorrow? Or it's late in the season and they're eliminated and the front office wants to look at a rookie but he decides to use a vet instead to get a win? Frankly, I find it hard to believe there weren't dozens (hundreds?) of decisions influenced and compromised by whether he had or didn't have a bet on certain games.
Great points Enzo, in the end though what you describe is a scenario that the manager would exist solely to support his gambling habit because unless the outcome was especially serendipitous the result would be a pile of losses and injured players and he wouldn't last long. Maybe that's why he didn't - he wasn't as successful as peak Casey stengel or Tony La Russa but he also wasn't nearly as bad as someone like Ned Yost.
He's not eligible for the veterans committee to put in.
Quote:
Before my time, but obviously a helluva player & not in Cooperstown for the gambling stuff. But he always came off like a first class jackass to me.
I remember that contentious interview he had with Jim Gray. Then some Yankee outfielder wouldn't take to Gray after some World Series game citing that interview.
In my head it was Chad Curtis or Shane Spencer, but I don't want to look it up lol.
Isn't it the case that he wouldn't even apologize for betting on baseball? If true, sounds like he would be a good guy to keep out.
Betting on baseball to baseball is a lot like cheating on your taxes to the Government no one gets away with this
Some argue, but if you bet on your team to win, you might make decisions in that game that put too much emphasis on that one game and not consider the big picture or season-long implications of those decisions. I say so? some coaches or managers *do* manage that way without explicit financial incentive to do so. they manage to worry about tomorrow, tomorrow and win the game in front of you.
Some argue, but when you don't bet on your team then it sends a signal you will not work as hard to ensure a tea, win since you don't have financial incentive, but is there data to support this showing any type of trend? Meaning do they lose more games when he doesn't bet on his team vs when he does? It could just be his team is going against a pitcher they struggle with, or other reasons he's not confident enough in a win to wager on it. this is a legit concern, but flimsy IMO to warrant a lifetime ban.
Anyway, all this to say, I do think punishment for betting on your team to win is warranted since it is obviously outlawed by the league, but I do not think it warranted the death penalty. Now, betting against your team or taking money to throw a game (Black Sox scandal - although Shoeless Joe is a whole different story), no question once proven you get the death penalty (sports death penalty of course), that does actually impact the integrity of the sport, but betting on yourself to win, while wrong, is not the same *to me* - but I do respect other people opinions on this topic. I know not everyone can rationalize it this way. And I am not what I'd call a Pete Rose fan.
outside of this major issue, being a piece of shit human being has never disqualified anyone else from any other sports HOF AFAIK, so Rose probably should be in the baseball HOF.
I can see what you're getting at, but doesn't this argument presuppose that the only bets he placed while Manager were "Reds to win"?
Maybe that is what he was doing - I'm ignorant if MLB ever revealed that detail of their investigation - but if you're a gambling addict what are the odds (hah) you aren't also placing prop bets and the like?
Then it becomes much more murky when the bets are more than your team to win, they're for Tim Browning to pitch X innings or John Franco to throw a K or other things that a Manager very much has a degree of control over. It may not always be game-changing but it still harms the spirit of the game which is why I think he was excommunicated.
And it has been confirmed, as much as it can be, Rose never bet against his own team. Only to win, not saying that is noble in any way, but it frames things for me vs if he bet against his own team.
I acknowledge it was against the rules and the rules do come with a permanent ban for breaking them, but I feel like since he did only bet on his team to win, he should be HOF eligible.
Quote:
Nothing obliterates the creditability of organized sports more than if and when a player or coach bets on it. Nothing! A player could shoot up Superman homelander jet juice into his own bicep then hit 50 postseason HRs and it still isn’t as damaging as what Rose did.
MLB was compromised. The most integral fabric of the game. And then he lied till he dropped dead and spit in the face while doing so. Fuck Pete Rose.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Meanwhile, MLB is happy to have legalized gambling. MLB is a whore with its legs in the air proclaiming its virtue.
Yep --that's another story, talk about Pandora's box...
IMO regardless of anyone's opinion or feelings about Pete Rose off the field and his deserved lifetime gambling suspension he was one of the greatest baseball players to ever wear a MLB uniform. As a player he was the ultimate grinder and winner and he carried his teams with him.
I'm a NY Yankee baseball fan who rooted for the Mets too until the day they traded Tom Seaver. The 1973 NLCS was historic MLB. If you were a baseball fan in those days the Rose/Harrelson fight will never be forgotten. I was at Shea in 1978 for the only time the night Rose hit in 38 straight games . I didn't go back to Shea until September 1985.
I've said this many times before the MLB HOF is a joke at this point. Rose should have been in a long, long time ago. His plaque should have listed his on field accomplishments and called out that he was suspended for life for gambling. How can MLB have a HOF without Rose, Bonds, Clemons, A-Rod, Steinbrenner, etc? But have Bud Selig, Don Sutton, Harold Baines, Jeff Bagwell, etc. in it?
RIP Hit King and thanks for playing a villain at the highest level imaginable for this baseball fan.
And you don't know that Rose didn't bet against himself. And why would you know? HE never came clean about anything else why believe him when he said that. Rose may have had his talents and baseball player legacy but his word meant fuck all.
There are people in every major league HOF that have done worse things than gamble on their teams as mangers. But at the time everyone involved in MLB knew that gambling was the cardinal sin in baseball going back to the Black Sox.
Rose was an out of control gambling addict. Like all addicts he was a pathological and devious liar. He deserved the lifetime suspension. He deserved to never be reinstated. He also deserved to be in the MLB HOF for his accomplishments as a player.
And it has been confirmed, as much as it can be, Rose never bet against his own team. Only to win, not saying that is noble in any way, but it frames things for me vs if he bet against his own team.
I acknowledge it was against the rules and the rules do come with a permanent ban for breaking them, but I feel like since he did only bet on his team to win, he should be HOF eligible.
That's a very good point about prop betting. But I think you're placing too much faith in the evidence. They have the Dowd Report up on Wikipedia.
I read thru the first section about Rose's betting. He had multiple runners/straw-men, with at least one that was dependent on him, placing bets on his behalf (there's one guy mentioned as placing $2,000 on single games who def. did not have that much money, and another young guy who lived with & was given a job by Rose). Pete Rose himself lied thru the investigation about whether he gambled.
As more came out, bit by bit he admitted more of his gambling. "I don't bet - OK, I do bet, but not on baseball - OK OK I do bet on baseball, but only on my team to win, promise."
Evidence-wise it looks like they recovered some of Rose's betting sheets from his own house, as well as some from a bookie, and those support his claim he never bet against the Reds, but the sheets are incomplete (the bookie says he always destroyed his sheets, but kept those because they were proof Rose owed him 41K and he didn't think Rose would pay up).
Based on Rose's use of intermediaries to place bets and the other steps he took to hide his tracks, that evidence isn't enough to wholly convince me. Coupled with his lack of contrition, I am OK keeping him out.
Hell of a ball player though.
Ty Cobb
And it has been confirmed, as much as it can be, Rose never bet against his own team. Only to win, not saying that is noble in any way, but it frames things for me vs if he bet against his own team.
I acknowledge it was against the rules and the rules do come with a permanent ban for breaking them, but I feel like since he did only bet on his team to win, he should be HOF eligible.
+1
Quote:
it wasn't like he went on draft kings and picked out prop bets. He called a bookie. This was old school.
And it has been confirmed, as much as it can be, Rose never bet against his own team. Only to win, not saying that is noble in any way, but it frames things for me vs if he bet against his own team.
I acknowledge it was against the rules and the rules do come with a permanent ban for breaking them, but I feel like since he did only bet on his team to win, he should be HOF eligible.
+1
Not me, there were rules and he knew them. What is the point of having rules? Also just because he "only bet on the Reds" doesn't fly with me either. It still may have had him do things that weren't the normal things to do to effect the outcome. For example, playing someone who is injured and should sit that day, but Rose needs to win his bet so he plays him. Using players who should get a day off, or maybe pitched 5 innings in relief the night before, because Rose needs to win the bet. Throwing a batter on the other team, etc. etc.
He could have literally bet on any other sport all day long, and I'd be ok with him in the HOF. Just not this.
I have zero issues with this. there are managers who manage this way. worry about the current game because tomorrow is guaranteed to no one.
Again though, I do respect others opinions, only this argument is specious at best.
Hell of a ball player though.
not for "No reason" "He wanted to win" The All-star game meant something more back then to the players . Fosse could have made what they call today "A business decision and stood his ground" and fosse later said he accepted and paid the consequences. Bowling over the catcher was a legal play in the 70's if you had the sand to do it.
This guy was all baseball, not much after that and very corrosive as a person..but he deservers to be in the Hall OF FAme as Much as the Georgia Peach who in my estimation is ten times worse a person than Rose was in his lifetime.
I won't argue if others disagree as there is a case to be made for him. I also think that given MLB's embrace of sports betting, keeping him out of the Hall on that basis is ridiculous.
At any rate, may he rest in peace.
Your Joking right? I saw him play and you mitigate his accomplishment by saying he "Singled" his way to the record. There are about 20 thousand MLB players during that span who would Gladly acccept a career of "Singling" as far as hits. Rose has the most hits in Baseball and he has been retired 40 years and with modern medicine..still no other player has come close.
There are people in every major league HOF that have done worse things than gamble on their teams as mangers. But at the time everyone involved in MLB knew that gambling was the cardinal sin in baseball going back to the Black Sox.
Rose was an out of control gambling addict. Like all addicts he was a pathological and devious liar. He deserved the lifetime suspension. He deserved to never be reinstated. He also deserved to be in the MLB HOF for his accomplishments as a player.
Quote:
it wasn't like he went on draft kings and picked out prop bets. He called a bookie. This was old school.
And it has been confirmed, as much as it can be, Rose never bet against his own team. Only to win, not saying that is noble in any way, but it frames things for me vs if he bet against his own team.
I acknowledge it was against the rules and the rules do come with a permanent ban for breaking them, but I feel like since he did only bet on his team to win, he should be HOF eligible.
That's a very good point about prop betting. But I think you're placing too much faith in the evidence. They have the Dowd Report up on Wikipedia.
I read thru the first section about Rose's betting. He had multiple runners/straw-men, with at least one that was dependent on him, placing bets on his behalf (there's one guy mentioned as placing $2,000 on single games who def. did not have that much money, and another young guy who lived with & was given a job by Rose). Pete Rose himself lied thru the investigation about whether he gambled.
As more came out, bit by bit he admitted more of his gambling. "I don't bet - OK, I do bet, but not on baseball - OK OK I do bet on baseball, but only on my team to win, promise."
Evidence-wise it looks like they recovered some of Rose's betting sheets from his own house, as well as some from a bookie, and those support his claim he never bet against the Reds, but the sheets are incomplete (the bookie says he always destroyed his sheets, but kept those because they were proof Rose owed him 41K and he didn't think Rose would pay up).
Based on Rose's use of intermediaries to place bets and the other steps he took to hide his tracks, that evidence isn't enough to wholly convince me. Coupled with his lack of contrition, I am OK keeping him out.
IMO regardless of anyone's opinion or feelings about Pete Rose off the field and his deserved lifetime gambling suspension he was one of the greatest baseball players to ever wear a MLB uniform. As a player he was the ultimate grinder and winner and he carried his teams with him.
I'm a NY Yankee baseball fan who rooted for the Mets too until the day they traded Tom Seaver. The 1973 NLCS was historic MLB. If you were a baseball fan in those days the Rose/Harrelson fight will never be forgotten. I was at Shea in 1978 for the only time the night Rose hit in 38 straight games . I didn't go back to Shea until September 1985.
I've said this many times before the MLB HOF is a joke at this point. Rose should have been in a long, long time ago. His plaque should have listed his on field accomplishments and called out that he was suspended for life for gambling. How can MLB have a HOF without Rose, Bonds, Clemons, A-Rod, Steinbrenner, etc? But have Bud Selig, Don Sutton, Harold Baines, Jeff Bagwell, etc. in it?
RIP Hit King and thanks for playing a villain at the highest level imaginable for this baseball fan.
Awesome comments Arnz..Totally agree with you, I was at that game towhen Rose hit #38 at Shea, I also saw him play when I was very young in 1971-75 during the summer months. Rose was all baseball and sacirificed himself for the team to win almost every game. Now that he has passed I hope MLB puts him in HOF now for his baseball accomplishments. His private life was a mess but it shouldn't deter with what he did on the field.
Quote:
it wasn't like he went on draft kings and picked out prop bets. He called a bookie. This was old school.
And it has been confirmed, as much as it can be, Rose never bet against his own team. Only to win, not saying that is noble in any way, but it frames things for me vs if he bet against his own team.
I acknowledge it was against the rules and the rules do come with a permanent ban for breaking them, but I feel like since he did only bet on his team to win, he should be HOF eligible.
That's a very good point about prop betting. But I think you're placing too much faith in the evidence. They have the Dowd Report up on Wikipedia.
I read thru the first section about Rose's betting. He had multiple runners/straw-men, with at least one that was dependent on him, placing bets on his behalf (there's one guy mentioned as placing $2,000 on single games who def. did not have that much money, and another young guy who lived with & was given a job by Rose). Pete Rose himself lied thru the investigation about whether he gambled.
As more came out, bit by bit he admitted more of his gambling. "I don't bet - OK, I do bet, but not on baseball - OK OK I do bet on baseball, but only on my team to win, promise."
Evidence-wise it looks like they recovered some of Rose's betting sheets from his own house, as well as some from a bookie, and those support his claim he never bet against the Reds, but the sheets are incomplete (the bookie says he always destroyed his sheets, but kept those because they were proof Rose owed him 41K and he didn't think Rose would pay up).
Based on Rose's use of intermediaries to place bets and the other steps he took to hide his tracks, that evidence isn't enough to wholly convince me. Coupled with his lack of contrition, I am OK keeping him out.
To add to what your saying: Many Many prominent players going back to 1950's thru the 1970's had their wives in maiden names to avoid detection by placing bets on the games in large sums of money. And many of these players are in the HOF.
I think if he ever showed any sign of contrition or remorse, he would already be in. Instead he lied to his grave, only changing some of the lies when he thought it was strategic to do so. He recently claimed he thought he was being suspended for 1 year. That is bullshit. He knew he signed a lifetime suspension from MLB. He may have had the option to appeal or apply for reinstatement in a year, but there was never an indication the ban would be lifted. Allegedly, MLB has far worse dirt on him than the betting/Dowd report.
It is amazing how much he lies. In the HBO documentary about him, there are so many instances of him saying one thing and them providing video and audio evidence of the exact opposite. For example, he claims he never went to Gold's Gym, never worked out with weights in the offseason, etc. Why? Because the guys at Gold's Gym that his lackey had ties to were dealing drugs (not just steroids). Rose is alleged to have been involved in order to help pay off gambling debts, so he now claims he was never involved to perpetuate his claim he was never involved in a drug deal. So? Back in the early 80s, he had pictures at Gold's Gym, wearing Gold's Gym paraphernalia, lifting weights. He gave interviews that off season saying he spent the off season at Gold's Gym doing serious weight training. of course, more recently he just said he doesn't remember what happened in (fill in the year).
Quote:
In comment 16632502 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
it wasn't like he went on draft kings and picked out prop bets. He called a bookie. This was old school.
And it has been confirmed, as much as it can be, Rose never bet against his own team. Only to win, not saying that is noble in any way, but it frames things for me vs if he bet against his own team.
I acknowledge it was against the rules and the rules do come with a permanent ban for breaking them, but I feel like since he did only bet on his team to win, he should be HOF eligible.
That's a very good point about prop betting. But I think you're placing too much faith in the evidence. They have the Dowd Report up on Wikipedia.
I read thru the first section about Rose's betting. He had multiple runners/straw-men, with at least one that was dependent on him, placing bets on his behalf (there's one guy mentioned as placing $2,000 on single games who def. did not have that much money, and another young guy who lived with & was given a job by Rose). Pete Rose himself lied thru the investigation about whether he gambled.
As more came out, bit by bit he admitted more of his gambling. "I don't bet - OK, I do bet, but not on baseball - OK OK I do bet on baseball, but only on my team to win, promise."
Evidence-wise it looks like they recovered some of Rose's betting sheets from his own house, as well as some from a bookie, and those support his claim he never bet against the Reds, but the sheets are incomplete (the bookie says he always destroyed his sheets, but kept those because they were proof Rose owed him 41K and he didn't think Rose would pay up).
Based on Rose's use of intermediaries to place bets and the other steps he took to hide his tracks, that evidence isn't enough to wholly convince me. Coupled with his lack of contrition, I am OK keeping him out.
To add to what your saying: Many Many prominent players going back to 1950's thru the 1970's had their wives in maiden names to avoid detection by placing bets on the games in large sums of money. And many of these players are in the HOF.
The real issue is a player finding themselves in a hole with a bookie and what they may do to get out of it.
Yeah, I don't think there's any reasonably argument that his performance as a player didn't rise to the level of the HOF.
Quote:
Your Joking right? I saw him play and you mitigate his accomplishment by saying he "Singled" his way to the record. There are about 20 thousand MLB players during that span who would Gladly acccept a career of "Singling" as far as hits. Rose has the most hits in Baseball and he has been retired 40 years and with modern medicine..still no other player has come close.
Yeah, I don't think there's any reasonably argument that his performance as a player didn't rise to the level of the HOF.
For a long time, I thought Jeter was going to seriously challenge the record. A couple of injuries and retiring several years earlier than Rose put an end to that.
Quote:
In comment 16632502 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
it wasn't like he went on draft kings and picked out prop bets. He called a bookie. This was old school.
And it has been confirmed, as much as it can be, Rose never bet against his own team. Only to win, not saying that is noble in any way, but it frames things for me vs if he bet against his own team.
I acknowledge it was against the rules and the rules do come with a permanent ban for breaking them, but I feel like since he did only bet on his team to win, he should be HOF eligible.
+1
Not me, there were rules and he knew them. What is the point of having rules? Also just because he "only bet on the Reds" doesn't fly with me either. It still may have had him do things that weren't the normal things to do to effect the outcome. For example, playing someone who is injured and should sit that day, but Rose needs to win his bet so he plays him. Using players who should get a day off, or maybe pitched 5 innings in relief the night before, because Rose needs to win the bet. Throwing a batter on the other team, etc. etc.
He could have literally bet on any other sport all day long, and I'd be ok with him in the HOF. Just not this.
Perfectly written.
Rule says do not bet on baseball. There's no variance on that, anything else and you sound like a defense attorney.
Quote:
Your Joking right? I saw him play and you mitigate his accomplishment by saying he "Singled" his way to the record. There are about 20 thousand MLB players during that span who would Gladly acccept a career of "Singling" as far as hits. Rose has the most hits in Baseball and he has been retired 40 years and with modern medicine..still no other player has come close.
Yeah, I don't think there's any reasonably argument that his performance as a player didn't rise to the level of the HOF.
Looking at Modern Players over last 40 years, I think Albert Puljois or Tony Gwynn could have been the only hitters to come withing a fraction of what Rose accomplished with consistent hitting. Just FYI, I am a Yankee and Met fan, I root for NY teams in general.
The real issue is a player finding themselves in a hole with a bookie and what they may do to get out of it.
This is obviously true and a real concern and even it didn't need further justification helps explain why gambling on any sport had been outlawed so long in sports, but in this case we don't need to speculate. If you believe we know all there is to know, the facts are out and as desperate as he was he did not bet against his own team, which matters to me, even if it doesn't matter to others.
I have zero issues with this. there are managers who manage this way. worry about the current game because tomorrow is guaranteed to no one.
Again though, I do respect others opinions, only this argument is specious at best.
not that hard to imagine a scenario where a manager makes decisions he wouldn't normally make because he bet to win a particular game. Or he manages differently because he doesn't have money on a particular game. And the second that happens the integrity of the game is in question.
Quote:
you're saying if he bet on his team to win, he'd do anything possible that he thinks would help his team win. lol.
I have zero issues with this. there are managers who manage this way. worry about the current game because tomorrow is guaranteed to no one.
Again though, I do respect others opinions, only this argument is specious at best.
not that hard to imagine a scenario where a manager makes decisions he wouldn't normally make because he bet to win a particular game. Or he manages differently because he doesn't have money on a particular game. And the second that happens the integrity of the game is in question.
Give me an example where a manager has bet on his team to win and he makes a decision that will help him win that game that you would not want him to make or you could argue questions the integrity of the game.
Some argue, but if you bet on your team to win, you might make decisions in that game that put too much emphasis on that one game and not consider the big picture or season-long implications of those decisions. I say so? some coaches or managers *do* manage that way without explicit financial incentive to do so. they manage to worry about tomorrow, tomorrow and win the game in front of you.
Some argue, but when you don't bet on your team then it sends a signal you will not work as hard to ensure a tea, win since you don't have financial incentive, but is there data to support this showing any type of trend? Meaning do they lose more games when he doesn't bet on his team vs when he does? It could just be his team is going against a pitcher they struggle with, or other reasons he's not confident enough in a win to wager on it. this is a legit concern, but flimsy IMO to warrant a lifetime ban.
Anyway, all this to say, I do think punishment for betting on your team to win is warranted since it is obviously outlawed by the league, but I do not think it warranted the death penalty. Now, betting against your team or taking money to throw a game (Black Sox scandal - although Shoeless Joe is a whole different story), no question once proven you get the death penalty (sports death penalty of course), that does actually impact the integrity of the sport, but betting on yourself to win, while wrong, is not the same *to me* - but I do respect other people opinions on this topic. I know not everyone can rationalize it this way. And I am not what I'd call a Pete Rose fan.
outside of this major issue, being a piece of shit human being has never disqualified anyone else from any other sports HOF AFAIK, so Rose probably should be in the baseball HOF.
What you are missing was that Rose was found to have bet on his team to LOSE. But it was kept under wraps as part of the agreement with MLB.
some people have speculated that, but there is zero evidence this is the case. If this was in fact true, MLB would have published it, and taken the lumps that came with it, and then no one would have argued about Rose being in the HOF or reinstated in any meaningful way.
Quote:
In comment 16632555 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
you're saying if he bet on his team to win, he'd do anything possible that he thinks would help his team win. lol.
I have zero issues with this. there are managers who manage this way. worry about the current game because tomorrow is guaranteed to no one.
Again though, I do respect others opinions, only this argument is specious at best.
not that hard to imagine a scenario where a manager makes decisions he wouldn't normally make because he bet to win a particular game. Or he manages differently because he doesn't have money on a particular game. And the second that happens the integrity of the game is in question.
Give me an example where a manager has bet on his team to win and he makes a decision that will help him win that game that you would not want him to make or you could argue questions the integrity of the game.
How about playing a player who clearly needs time off - but the manager plays him in order to win a game in May. And the player is injured for now a substantial period. But the game is won.
I don't think I'd vote for that.
Give me an example where a manager has bet on his team to win and he makes a decision that will help him win that game that you would not want him to make or you could argue questions the integrity of the game.
Have there been any other managers caught betting on their team who's decisions we can go through on a game by game basis? Even in this case, they mostly kept the information about which games he betted
Also, there's probable cause to believe that he was betting on baseball while still playing.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 16632799 Enzo said:
Quote:
In comment 16632555 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
you're saying if he bet on his team to win, he'd do anything possible that he thinks would help his team win. lol.
I have zero issues with this. there are managers who manage this way. worry about the current game because tomorrow is guaranteed to no one.
Again though, I do respect others opinions, only this argument is specious at best.
not that hard to imagine a scenario where a manager makes decisions he wouldn't normally make because he bet to win a particular game. Or he manages differently because he doesn't have money on a particular game. And the second that happens the integrity of the game is in question.
Give me an example where a manager has bet on his team to win and he makes a decision that will help him win that game that you would not want him to make or you could argue questions the integrity of the game.
How about playing a player who clearly needs time off - but the manager plays him in order to win a game in May. And the player is injured for now a substantial period. But the game is won.
I don't think I'd vote for that.
so, your theory is the player who desperately needs time off or without it will be injured is the guy who the manager thinks gives him the best chance of winning the current game.
makes sense.
and even in that scenario, you can make a very strong case its still the right thing to do. players get hurt all the time in sports, rested, tired, running the bases, collisions, getting out a cab, sneezing - this is beyond a straw man, it's fantasy. You manage to win the game today. If that's what the manager is doing I have no issue with it.
Quote:
Give me an example where a manager has bet on his team to win and he makes a decision that will help him win that game that you would not want him to make or you could argue questions the integrity of the game.
Have there been any other managers caught betting on their team who's decisions we can go through on a game by game basis? Even in this case, they mostly kept the information about which games he betted
Also, there's probable cause to believe that he was betting on baseball while still playing.
Link - ( New Window )
fair, my wording was poor, I was looking for the scenario, not the actual example. my fault. and even while playing, betting on his team to win, is even less worrisome to me.
Quote:
In comment 16632819 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 16632799 Enzo said:
Quote:
In comment 16632555 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
you're saying if he bet on his team to win, he'd do anything possible that he thinks would help his team win. lol.
I have zero issues with this. there are managers who manage this way. worry about the current game because tomorrow is guaranteed to no one.
Again though, I do respect others opinions, only this argument is specious at best.
not that hard to imagine a scenario where a manager makes decisions he wouldn't normally make because he bet to win a particular game. Or he manages differently because he doesn't have money on a particular game. And the second that happens the integrity of the game is in question.
Give me an example where a manager has bet on his team to win and he makes a decision that will help him win that game that you would not want him to make or you could argue questions the integrity of the game.
How about playing a player who clearly needs time off - but the manager plays him in order to win a game in May. And the player is injured for now a substantial period. But the game is won.
I don't think I'd vote for that.
so, your theory is the player who desperately needs time off or without it will be injured is the guy who the manager thinks gives him the best chance of winning the current game.
makes sense.
and even in that scenario, you can make a very strong case its still the right thing to do. players get hurt all the time in sports, rested, tired, running the bases, collisions, getting out a cab, sneezing - this is beyond a straw man, it's fantasy. You manage to win the game today. If that's what the manager is doing I have no issue with it.
I figured you would reply that way - so it's an arguement I can't win.
However, losing your star player in a game in May was right move over a bet? LOL
I think that's what you're missing. This wasn't a one time thing w/ Rose. He had a disease and he need the "action" of a bet. Which could easily enable him to make moves which were short sighted (to win the bet) counterproductive to his team in the long run.
It's your opinion. I just happen to thing you're wrong.
Your putting the condition that gambling on the game therefore makes this approach unethical, selfish, questionable from an integrity standpoint are fantasy-based theoretical situations that are just as irrelevant as they are far fetched.
Injuries are not predictable and your scenario of a player who if he plays in a current game is sure to be injured but also represents the best chance a manager with money on the game has at winning the game sounds fantasy-based vs realistic.
You can convince me I am wrong, but not with that example. and it's also fine to disagree with me - I opened my post on this topic acknowledging I am alone with my thoughts on this and I'm cool with that.
What we do know is that as the manager of the Reds he placed many bets on the Reds to win.
Your putting the condition that gambling on the game therefore makes this approach unethical, selfish, questionable from an integrity standpoint are fantasy-based theoretical situations that are just as irrelevant as they are far fetched.
Injuries are not predictable and your scenario of a player who if he plays in a current game is sure to be injured but also represents the best chance a manager with money on the game has at winning the game sounds fantasy-based vs realistic.
You can convince me I am wrong, but not with that example. and it's also fine to disagree with me - I opened my post on this topic acknowledging I am alone with my thoughts on this and I'm cool with that.
There are zero examples I can convince you because you equate that betting to win and managing to win are the same thing in that exact instance.
The bet itself is of no signifigance because it is to win which is the ultimate goal.
And on the surface, you are in fact correct. But like everything, there is nuance and context.
He entered into training camp as a guy who couldn't hit,couldnt field,couldn't run...
Yet he ignored all of that and overcame all of that thru pure effort and self confidence.
As to alot of those hits being singles,that is ridiculous the man hit 1 or 2 in the line up got on base and scored runs with the 3,4,5 guys driving him in...thats how the game is meant to be played.
His teams were consistently good if not great...he averaged 200 hit over a TWENTY FOUR year career...Think about that for a minute.
He was the best player in the game in the late 1970's
Not bad for a guy who couldnt do all those things.
Off the field,a grade A louse
If he would have come clean this would all be behind us,then again he probably wouldn't have gotten to first base if he believed in anyone else but himself.
RIP-Charlie Hustle
RIP
Him beating Cobbs record was forced and lame. He was a bum for a while, and the manager as a bum. If you don’t think that’s an issue you’re dumb. He deserves to be banned for being such an idiot piece of shit.
Awesome player though. Winning too. Just a wild guy who somehow kept going. HOFer.
Quote:
In comment 16632555 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
you're saying if he bet on his team to win, he'd do anything possible that he thinks would help his team win. lol.
I have zero issues with this. there are managers who manage this way. worry about the current game because tomorrow is guaranteed to no one.
Again though, I do respect others opinions, only this argument is specious at best.
not that hard to imagine a scenario where a manager makes decisions he wouldn't normally make because he bet to win a particular game. Or he manages differently because he doesn't have money on a particular game. And the second that happens the integrity of the game is in question.
Give me an example where a manager has bet on his team to win and he makes a decision that will help him win that game that you would not want him to make or you could argue questions the integrity of the game.
in baseball, more than any sport, decisions made in individual games can absolutely affect player performance and availability in subsequent games. Obviously the most likely scenario is how it might affect pitching decisions. Maybe if doesn't have a bet on today's game but he knows he's going to bet tomorrow, he doesn't bring in a certain reliever in a key spot and saves the guy for the next game? Or he simply leaves the starter in for longer than he would have today so there's more relievers available tomorrow? Or it's late in the season and they're eliminated and the front office wants to look at a rookie but he decides to use a vet instead to get a win? Frankly, I find it hard to believe there weren't dozens (hundreds?) of decisions influenced and compromised by whether he had or didn't have a bet on certain games.
I wish they could have banned him from the hall as a manager,not a player..
Unless they had evidence he bet then too.
One of the most complex situations of our lives as sports fans
Quote:
In comment 16632799 Enzo said:
Quote:
In comment 16632555 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
you're saying if he bet on his team to win, he'd do anything possible that he thinks would help his team win. lol.
I have zero issues with this. there are managers who manage this way. worry about the current game because tomorrow is guaranteed to no one.
Again though, I do respect others opinions, only this argument is specious at best.
not that hard to imagine a scenario where a manager makes decisions he wouldn't normally make because he bet to win a particular game. Or he manages differently because he doesn't have money on a particular game. And the second that happens the integrity of the game is in question.
Give me an example where a manager has bet on his team to win and he makes a decision that will help him win that game that you would not want him to make or you could argue questions the integrity of the game.
in baseball, more than any sport, decisions made in individual games can absolutely affect player performance and availability in subsequent games. Obviously the most likely scenario is how it might affect pitching decisions. Maybe if doesn't have a bet on today's game but he knows he's going to bet tomorrow, he doesn't bring in a certain reliever in a key spot and saves the guy for the next game? Or he simply leaves the starter in for longer than he would have today so there's more relievers available tomorrow? Or it's late in the season and they're eliminated and the front office wants to look at a rookie but he decides to use a vet instead to get a win? Frankly, I find it hard to believe there weren't dozens (hundreds?) of decisions influenced and compromised by whether he had or didn't have a bet on certain games.
Great points Enzo, in the end though what you describe is a scenario that the manager would exist solely to support his gambling habit because unless the outcome was especially serendipitous the result would be a pile of losses and injured players and he wouldn't last long. Maybe that's why he didn't - he wasn't as successful as peak Casey stengel or Tony La Russa but he also wasn't nearly as bad as someone like Ned Yost.
but you do make some good points, thanks.