Hall of Fame Trial - Pete Rose

[3and2Fastball]

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.

 

I believe the accusation was that they had colluded to throw 1 game in order to have Cobb's team get in 3rd place in the final standings and thus collect money for a 3rd place finish instead of 4th

 

Cobb and Speaker were forced to resign as managers by the American League but then were later reinstated shortly after that when Commisioner Landis found them not guilty.

 

As far as I know, the accusation was never about either of them fixing games for gamblers' money or fixing games in collusion with known criminals or gamblers

[jerichoholicninja]

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.

 

I believe the accusation was that they had colluded to throw 1 game in order to have Cobb's team get in 3rd place in the final standings and thus collect money for a 3rd place finish instead of 4th

 

Cobb and Speaker were forced to resign as managers by the American League but then were later reinstated shortly after that when Commisioner Landis found them not guilty.

 

As far as I know, the accusation was never about either of them fixing games for gamblers' money or fixing games in collusion with known criminals or gamblers

 

I don't see the difference. Throwing a game is throwing a game. And if that's why baseball treats gambling as such a huge offense Cobb and Speaker should have suffered the same fate as Rose if they were guilty.

[3and2Fastball]

Cobb & Speaker were found not guilty.

[burnzy24]

Its hard to understand why people are so against Pete Rose because he gambled yet so many worship Michael Jordan who was seen gambling in Atlantic City during the Eastern Conference finals in 1993 and then suddenly retired 4 months later when he was only 30 years old.

[Baldkin]

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.

 

He bet ON his team during SOME games. That means, for all intents and purposes, he bet AGAINST his team in those other games.

 

-Holding out a good reliever

-Giving starters a day off before the game he bet on

-Bumping his #1 starter back a day

 

All of these are things he could have done as a manager to effect the outcome of games which he didn't bet on to hurt his teams chances.

 

As for MJ, MJ gambles. Charles Barkley gambles. There is nothing wrong with this. There is nothing wrong with Rose gambling. Where the issue is, is that he gambled on HIS OWN TEAM on games he could effect the outcome of. As far as I know, he never wagered on NBA games which he was a part of.

 

Ask Paul Hornug what happens when you gamble as an NFL player, or why his #5 hasn't been retired by the Packers yet.

[splitterpfj]

Paul Hornung is in the NFL Hall of Fame, and this is a player who was suspended for a season in the prime of his career.

[burnzy24]

 

As for MJ, MJ gambles. Charles Barkley gambles. There is nothing wrong with this. There is nothing wrong with Rose gambling. Where the issue is, is that he gambled on HIS OWN TEAM on games he could effect the outcome of. As far as I know, he never wagered on NBA games which he was a part of. .

 

 

When Jordan retired he was asked if he would ever come back and play to which he responded, " Five years down the road, if the urge comes back, if the Bulls will have me, if David Stern lets me back in the league, I may come back."

 

Gamblers gamble on things that they know well. if a professional athlete has a gambling problem, like Jordan had/has and like Rose had, you can bet (no pun intended) that they are betting on the sport they play in.

[TooLiveBrew]

Yogi Berra the player is in the HoF. Yogi Berra the manager is too, but not because of what he did as a manager. I get that if you think the gambling issue is a dealbreaker, you don't want to see Rose in. I just think his playing career can be honored, and then his managerial tenure can be used as a negative example.

 

EDIT: If Barry Bonds somehow returned to the game & was an elite manager, up for HoF consideration, would his playing career indiscretions keep him out of the HoF for you? If you think 'yes', I get it from a consistency standpoint.

[RobertR]

Peter Rose, the baseball player, is in the record books and has many of his accomplishments celebrated in the actual Hall of Fame. He just doesn't have a plaque on the wall.

 

It's obvious to me that Pete Rose's gambling is more important to him than being in the Hall of Fame. When his lack of control over his gambling gets him banned from his career and all the honors that go along with it, it's obvious to me that he has a problem. And he's done nothing to show that he's dealing with that problem. He's never joined Gambler's Anonymous or such. Heck, the last time there was talk about getting his punishment shortened he used the occasion to pimp a book during Hall of Fame announcement week and make appearances in casinos. Why anyone would want Pete Rose's punishment changed when there's no evidence that he's changed and learned anything beyond "don't get caught" is beyond me.

 

And, yeah, he only bet on his team to win is a pretty lame excuse. What does that say about the games when he didn't bet on his team to win? Hell, even if he bet on all the games, what if he was wagering $1000 on one game and $10 on another? If you were a fan, would you like the team's chances better on a game when Rose bet or when he didn't place a bet, knowing nothing else about the game?

 

Frankly, baseball doesn't need Pete Rose in any capacity as he is now. Sure, he knows something about hitting mechanics, etc., but so do a lot of players and they don't bring the potential problems and ego driven decision making of Rose with them. Maybe if Rose demonstrated that he's a changed man, there would be a good reason to revisit the situation, but he hasn't.

 

Ultimately, the only person keeping Pete Rose out of the Hall of Fame is Pete Rose. He's made it clear that he's never changing, so I don't see what the point is about arguing about any longer.

 

Robert

[BuckyBrewer61]

As is well known amongst players, coaches, media, management, and even fans alike, the following is posted in every MLB locker room:

 

Rule 21(d):

BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year.

 

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.

 

It wasn't a secret. Pete Rose knew full well that if he was caught betting on his own team, the rules clearly state he will be banned from baseball permanently. Everyone knows this. So, knowing this...he bet on his own team anyway. Sorry Pete, you were a great player, but you're out.

[splitterpfj]

Doc, you're right, as I detailed in the article, that rule is posted in every clubhouse.

 

One key point though, that rule says nothing about Hall of Fame eligibility. The Hall of Fame is a museum, independent of MLB.

 

Rose, in fact, appeared on the ballot for three years before the Hall changed their eligibility rules, prohibiting banned players from appearing on the ballot.

 

The two decisions were independent of each other, baseball banned Rose for gambling, which I think is 100% justified, and should remain...but the decision to ban Pete from the Hall of Fame Ballot was not made by MLB, it was made by the Hall of Fame. It's their museum, they can do whatever they want with the rules, I just happen to disagree with that one.

 

Ban Pete for life, he earned it, absolutely...but let him back on the Hall of Fame ballot for the voters to decide, just like they do with everyone else. Baseball could be irreparably harmed if Pete was allowed back in, the man is a gambling addict. Baseball would not be harmed if fans walked past a plaque on a wall in a museum.

[RockCoCougars]

I wonder if Pete even cares that he's not in the HOF. Whenever I heard him lament his ban, he always spoke about wanting to get back into a managerial role. Personally, my opinion on this has changed a bit in recent years. I'm going with a 'No', if for no other reason than to not give the steroid (cheaters like Bonds, Clemens, etc.) supporters another argument.

[JimH5]

The Hall of Fame is a museum, independent of MLB.

 

Bud Selig is on the Board of Directors, as is Jerry Reinsdorf, Bill DeWitt, David Glass & Paul Beeston. So it's not really independent of MLB.

 

And walk the corridors and display cases of the Museum. You'll see lots of Rose stuff on display. I've been there probably a dozen times (hopefully going back this November). It's a fabulous place that doesn't hide Pete Rose at all. The Museum shows Rose stuff & Bonds stuff & Joe Jackson & Mark McGwire stuff. It is the official historic archive of baseball history.

 

It's possible to tell the story of baseball history without inducting these guys. The Museum part of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum does that.

[splitterpfj]

I'm glad the Rose memorabilia is there, for sure, but it doesn't impact my opinion on this matter in either direction.

 

I can't imagine a reason why anyone would reinstate Rose to baseball, there's no reason for him to ever work in the game again. I also can't imagine a reason not to have a plaque on the wall of a museum that acknowledges Rose's place among baseball's greatest players - he earned that just as obviously.

 

To me, the two issues are exactly that...TWO issues. I think the Hall of Fame made a mistake when they changed their rules, effectively removing Rose from the ballot.

 

I just think the voters should decide this, the same way they decide for every other player. Rose got paltry vote totals when he was on the ballot before the rule change, if he was passed over by the voters and his name fell off the ballot...so be it.

[dlk9s]

The two decisions were independent of each other, baseball banned Rose for gambling, which I think is 100% justified, and should remain...but the decision to ban Pete from the Hall of Fame Ballot was not made by MLB, it was made by the Hall of Fame. It's their museum, they can do whatever they want with the rules, I just happen to disagree with that one.

 

I think a Hall of Fame deciding to prevent the enshrinement of someone who is banned from the the game makes total sense.

[jerichoholicninja]

 

I think a Hall of Fame deciding to prevent the enshrinement of someone who is banned from the the game makes total sense.

 

He's banned from MLB, not the game.

[dlk9s]

 

I think a Hall of Fame deciding to prevent the enshrinement of someone who is banned from the the game makes total sense.

 

He's banned from MLB, not the game.

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/7629/7allinthefamilyarchieci.jpg

[StearnsFTW]

Its hard to understand why people are so against Pete Rose because he gambled yet so many worship Michael Jordan who was seen gambling in Atlantic City during the Eastern Conference finals in 1993 and then suddenly retired 4 months later when he was only 30 years old.

 

Was Jordan the bulls' coach in 1993? It's a pretty major difference. Just a bad analogy.

 

Rose should not be in the hall of fame IMO.

[Nottso]

I think it's great that the hall has a lot of Rose acknowledgement without enshrinement. It helps serve the purpose that matters most to me in situations such as this, which is life lessons to our youngsters. I'd like to be able to take my grandsons to the hall and show them that if you break the rules, no matter how good you are, there are consequences.

[jerichoholicninja]

I think it's great that the hall has a lot of Rose acknowledgement without enshrinement. It helps serve the purpose that matters most to me in situations such as this, which is life lessons to our youngsters. I'd like to be able to take my grandsons to the hall and show them that if you break the rules, no matter how good you are, there are consequences.

 

Except for all the spit-ballers and illegal drug users that are/will be in there. And I'm not sure exactly what consequences Rose is suffering. Yes, he's not enshrined in the Hall of Fame but he's still making millions of dollars off of his baseball career.

[Nottso]

And I'm not sure exactly what consequences Rose is suffering.

 

Hmmmm.... what consequences indeed?

 

Yes, he's not enshrined in the Hall of Fame

 

Oh... those consequences. I guess I could argue with you but you seem to be doing just fine arguing with yourself.

 

Except for all the spit-ballers and illegal drug users that are/will be in there

 

So I could go rob a bank today, and you'd advocate I should go free because others have gotten away with the same, or even more egregious, crimes?

[thebruce44]

Except for all the spit-ballers and illegal drug users that are/will be in there

 

So I could go rob a bank today, and you'd advocate I should go free because others have gotten away with the same, or even more egregious, crimes?

 

What does that have to do at all with his previous post?

[Nottso]

What does that have to do at all with his previous post?

 

I would think that it's pretty self-explanatory. I quoted his post and asked him a question in an attempt to find out if he believes that I should be able to get away with a transgression simply because others have gotten away with transgressions, or if he believes only that Pete Rose should get away with his transgressions because others have gotten away with transgressions.

 

I personally find it very black & white. Rules are rules, and violating them deserves consequences. There's no gray area here for me. Obviously, some here feel differently. I'd like to know why, as well as what qualifies someone to be above the rules. Good enough athlete appears to make the list. What else? Good looking enough? Smart enough? Rich enough?

[brwrsfan]

Robbing a bank and betting on baseball are pretty different from each other IMO.

 

Robbing a bank has federal and states laws that require you to serve time in prison or whatever the punishment is deemed to be.

 

Pete Rose broke MLB's rules. There is kind of a big difference there. Rose wasn't subject to prison or courts or a fair trial, he was subject to MLB's punishment. Nobody is saying he should get off scott free with his violation, but maybe he's served enough time at this point. And does being banned from playing/managing baseball mean you shouldn't be in the HOF? Yes, it's MLB's HOF, but MLB doesn't have much to do with the selection of players, that's done by the writers and whanot. I personally don't feel being banned by MLB from coaching or playing should mean a guy can't be in the HOF.

[Nottso]

Robbing a bank and betting on baseball are pretty different from each other IMO

 

Yes... but sort of no. We're talking about "MLB law" here and gambling is MLB's Cardinal Sin. Number one, to the best of my knowledge. Like I said, I personally don't care that Rose gambled but MLB certainly does and Rose & everyone else knew it/ knows it.

 

My contention is this: If Rose is let in, it would send the message that "If one is a good enough athlete, one can get away with violating even the Cardinal Rule." Can you honestly say that that isn't the message that it would send? And if so, what message does it send, if any?