Hall of Fame Trial - Pete Rose

[splitterpfj]

Pete Rose, yes, or Pete Rose, no...here are the facts...

 

http://www.baseballintheblood.com/?p=481

[3and2Fastball]

Absolutely Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame. Ban him from coaching or being affiliated with a team, but he should definitely be in the Hall. Especially since they already let in the alcoholics and amphetemine and cocaine users and are about to start letting in the Juicers.

[TooLiveBrew]

I don't understand why there can't be a distinction drawn between Rose the player & Rose the manager. Pete Rose the player not being in the HOF is embarassing imo.

[JimH5]

Anyone who has been to the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum knows that Pete Rose is well represented there. There are probably more Rose items on display than there are of Robin Yount. They haven't erased him from history, they don't pretend he didn't exist.

 

He does not have a plaque hanging in the gallery, and he's not a "Hall of Famer" because he's disqualified from being one.

 

Insider gambling is different from you and I playing online poker, or betting on the Belmont Stakes, or throwing down money on the Super Bowl. Baseball is an industry and when insiders bet on games, they threaten the existence of the industry. The legitimacy of the sport is compromised. When insiders bet on games, there is a reason to suspect that they could also throw games.

 

Rose was a fabulous player who would otherwise be qualified to be honored by the Hall of Fame, but it's unreasonable to expect the Hall to bring honor to someone whose actions threatened baseball's legitimacy.

[MadScientist]

He said he'd walk through hell in a gasoline suit to play baseball, but he didn't follow the unbreakable rule to stay in the game. No plaque for him. Ever.

[Invader3K]

The funny thing is, Pete Rose these days probably makes more money and gets more attention from being out of the Hall than in it.

 

I've been torn on this issue for a long time. On one hand, I sort of think he's paid his dues, and just putting him in would sort of make him go away. On the other, he broke a rule that every player has drilled into their head that you don't break. You can spitball, take PEDs, use a corked bat, whatever...but you don't bet on baseball.

[FVBrewerFan]

No. He bet on baseball and you just can't do that. A player taking illegal substance is open for debate, but gambling on baseball threatens the legitimacy of MLB as JimH5 said. It is the absolute law. Everyone in MLB knows it, then and now. I don't even care too much about him lying about about it. The fact that he gambled is enough for me, and always will be.

 

Ever since the point shaving scandals were uncovered in NCAA basketball, I raise my eyebrow when I see something unusual happening late in a game. NBA refs were fired bot betting on games. You jsut can't have it- period. If you want to kill a sport, just put an ounce of doubt whether the game is legit of jsut pre-determined entertainment.

[RockCoCougars]

The funny thing is, Pete Rose these days probably makes more money and gets more attention from being out of the Hall than in it.

 

Exactly. I can only name a few living Hall of Famers that have the celebrity status of Rose (Aaron, Mays, Ripken and maybe Nolan Ryan). I watched one of those ESPN 'shorts' on Rose a few weeks ago. They tried to play him as this tragic figure, but the fact of the matter is that he seemed fairly content living in Vegas, selling autographs and meeting his fans 20 days a month. He's been out of managing for over 20 years and he's probably too old for an on field job at this point anyway, so he seems to be doing well for himself making a second career as the guy who's been banished from the HOF. He'd probably lose his mystique if they let him in.

[Dnye23]

With the whole gambling thing, I see it as he never bet against his own team. Nor did he put his team in a position to lose games in order to win bets. I agree that gambling was an idiot move on his part and it cost him. BUT, I do not think his gambling affected the way he played the game.

[FVBrewerFan]

With the whole gambling thing, I see it as he never bet against his own team. Nor did he put his team in a position to lose games in order to win bets. I agree that gambling was an idiot move on his part and it cost him. BUT, I do not think his gambling affected the way he played the game.

 

Most likely that's true, but we don't know that for sure.

[RightFieldCoder]

He claims he never bet against his team. He also claimed for a long time that he never bet on any baseball.

 

No. The rules was black and white and posted in every clubhouse. Bet on the game and you get a lifetime ban. The HoF already decided that ban means no shrine.

[Baldkin]

With the whole gambling thing, I see it as he never bet against his own team. Nor did he put his team in a position to lose games in order to win bets. I agree that gambling was an idiot move on his part and it cost him. BUT, I do not think his gambling affected the way he played the game.

 

He bet on his team some games, and not others.

 

That means he all but bet against his team those other days.

 

If he know's he's betting on his team on Thursday and not on Wednesday, does the Wednesday game matter as much? Does he hold his closer out, or bump his #1 starter back a day?

 

As for the Hall, No. No. 1000 times no.

[Nottso]

No. Never.

[jerichoholicninja]

Yes, he should be in. I don't care that he bet on baseball. The games he played happened and his stats count.

 

Same for steroid guys, same for everyone who corked a bat, threw a spit ball, doctored a ball, etc.

[FVBrewerFan]

Yes, he should be in. I don't care that he bet on baseball. The games he played happened and his stats count.

 

 

You don't care that he bet on baseball, perfectly valid opinion. Do you have limits? For example, would you care if he bet on the Reds to lose, either as a player or manager? Just curious if your opinion is an absolute, or if you have limits on what you would allow as far as gambling is concerned.

[burnzy24]

As a player he should be in. Pete Rose the player and Peter Rose the manager are separate and there is no proof that I am aware of that he gambled as a player. However, he should still be banned from MLB events. It's hypocrisy for the HOF to profit off Pete Rose's career by charging the public to see his memorabilia housed there but to then take the "high road" by claiming his gambling doesn't make him worthy of enshrinement. Either remove his stuff completely from the HOF or let him in.

[jerichoholicninja]

Yes, he should be in. I don't care that he bet on baseball. The games he played happened and his stats count.

 

 

You don't care that he bet on baseball, perfectly valid opinion. Do you have limits? For example, would you care if he bet on the Reds to lose, either as a player or manager? Just curious if your opinion is an absolute, or if you have limits on what you would allow as far as gambling is concerned.

 

Nope. Don't care who he bet on. Baseball is based on stats and his are that of one of, if not the, greatest players of all time.

[dlk9s]

http://i.imgur.com/OQjp2.gif

[thebruce44]

He had an addiction. Lots of players in the Hall have addictions too. He didn't bet against his own team, so he should absolutely be in.

[FVBrewerFan]

He had an addiction. Lots of players in the Hall have addictions too. He didn't bet against his own team, so he should absolutely be in.

 

How do you know that? It's why gambling is banned-period. Otherwise you start down this slippery slope of having to prove someone actually bet on their own team to tank. (And, no, I don't believe Rose did that.)

 

For those of you that said Rose the player and Rose the manager are two different people, pretty sure that breaks many laws of nature. (Although admitedly I never did very well in science courses.)

[olliegjw]

As mentioned earlier, baseball is a game of stats. Gambling did not help Rose get any of his 4256 hits. PED's did help others get their stats. I would definitely let him in.

[Nottso]

Letting him in would be like saying that if you're a good enough athlete (or perhaps pretty enough) that you can do anything. Break any rules and never suffer any consequences.

[3and2Fastball]

Gambling is banned because it effects the integrity of the game

 

How many times did players that were alcoholics or cocaine addicts or steroids users effect the outcome of games? A whole heckuva lot. How many times did gamblers (non-baseball associated gamblers) get inside info about a player being drunk at 5am before a day game and bet against that team? A whole heckuva lot

 

It is a little bit more complicated, when looking at the big picture, than to say "he gambled, he's out of the Hall of Fame".... if it cannot be proven that he bet against his own team, if it cannot be proven that he fixed games or fixed point spreads, then he should be in the Hall of Fame. In my opinion.

[thebruce44]

He had an addiction. Lots of players in the Hall have addictions too. He didn't bet against his own team, so he should absolutely be in.

 

How do you know that? It's why gambling is banned-period.

 

Gambling and baseball is more punishable than any other sport because MLB had such a black eye from a scandal that had nothing to do with Pete Rose.

 

People have been banned just for being seen with gamblers. Mays and Mantle were banned for a while simply for being greeters at legal casinos.

 

Meanwhile, Tim Raines had to slide headfirst because of all the blow in his back pocket. And of the 11 players who were convicted in the Pittsburgh drug trials, to my knowledge, none of them even missed a game.

 

Addiction is addiction. Rose just was wired to have the wrong addiction because of history.

[splitterpfj]

Letting him in would be like saying that if you're a good enough athlete (or perhaps pretty enough) that you can do anything. Break any rules and never suffer any consequences.

 

The thing is, they've got people in there who have done all sorts of things - and, "never suffer any consequences"...the man can never work in baseball again. As someone else mentioned, Mays and Mantle were banned from the game in the 70s because they had taken jobs as greeters in a casino...should they have been removed from the Hall of Fame because they were banned?

 

There were very serious allegations that Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker had thrown games for money when they played...I haven't seen those plaques come off the wall.

 

August 25, 1980, Fergie Jenkins is banned by Commissioner Kuhn, following an arrest for cocaine possession...September 22, 1980, he was reinstated by an independent arbitrator...he is in the Hall of Fame.

 

In 1976, Orlando Cepeda was convicted of smuggling marijuana into Puerto Rico...he is in the Hall of Fame.

 

I see this as two separate issues...I think Rose should absolutely be banned from working in baseball again...but the Hall of Fame is a museum, not a court of law. It's there for the fans, to celebrate the game of baseball. The rule was changed after Pete's lifetime ban - for decades - a banned player was still eligible for election...which I think should still be the case.

 

Honestly now, by this rule, Mays and Mantle would have been disqualified from the Hall of Fame for several years...have you noticed how that didn't happen? Can you imagine the uproar if it had?

 

Why change the voting rules? Keep Pete out of the game, but let him back on the ballot...if he never gets the votes, so be it.

 

What's wrong with a plaque that says, "4,256 hits, etc, etc,...Banned for Life from Baseball, 1989."