What's new

Pete Rose back in baseball (1 Viewer)

John*K

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
145
Just curious, but I wanted to see what others would think.

Let's say Rose is re-instated and allowed to manage. Suppose he is hired to manage a team and later, found to be guilty of betting on baseball again. Suppose this is discovered before the next HOF ballot. Would you still think he deserves to be in the HOF, if he is caught twice?

Just a hypothetical. Wanted to hear opinions.
 

Brian Perry

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 6, 1999
Messages
2,807
Let's say Rose is re-instated and allowed to manage. Suppose he is hired to manage a team and later, found to be guilty of betting on baseball again. Suppose this is discovered before the next HOF ballot. Would you still think he deserves to be in the HOF, if he is caught twice?
Certainly not. As I said, I think he's paid his punishment for his prior indiscretions, but doing it again? I don't think he'd be that stupid. Likewise, Sammy Sosa will probably make the Hall of Fame despite the cork incident, but if it happened again, he would definitely not make it and would probably be kicked out of baseball.
 

Scott Merryfield

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
18,864
Location
Mich. & S. Carolina
Real Name
Scott Merryfield
Betting FOR one's own team is a bad practice, but is nowhere near as heinous as betting AGAINST your own team. That's the difference between Rose and Shoeless Joe (notwithstanding any evidence in either case). There's simply no comparison in that regard.
While one may be worse than the other, each case deserves a ban from the sport, IMO. Any gambling done on the sport raises too many questions regarding an athlete or coach's decisions and performance. Also, how could you really be sure that someone who admitted that he bet only on his own team is telling the truth? The unethical act already puts the person's credibility in question.
 

Brian Perry

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 6, 1999
Messages
2,807
Also, how could you really be sure that someone who admitted that he bet only on his own team is telling the truth? The unethical act already puts the person's credibility in question.
Without evidence, it is just a slippery slope. The same could be said about anyone--"hey, we caught you speeding, so we'll just assume that you had a few DUIs as well..."

I maintain it's a big jump for someone to bet for one's team and then bet against one's team. The former can be rationalized ("I tried harder because I bet on us to win") but the latter cannot be justified in any way. Deep down, I think Rose, who was a baseball genius but otherwise dimwitted, knew there was a big difference in principle and didn't cross that line.

I'm surprised Pete hasn't admitted betting on his team to win, as I'm sure the majority of people would forgive him and we could move on. Again, it's not right to bet on either side--as others have pointed out, your objectivity and judgment are impaired if you have money riding on an outcome. But going back to the Jordan analogy, if he admitted to betting $1,000 on every Bulls game (for the Bulls to win), I think people would forgive him. But if he bet against the Bulls even once, he would never be forgiven.

If I thought Pete bet against the Reds even once, my support for his inclusion in the HoF would vanish.
 

Michael D. Bunting

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 9, 1999
Messages
1,829
Real Name
Michael
Good article on espn.com written by Rob Neyer:

Rose deserves to be in the Hall ... despite his faults

------------------------------------------------------------

On a seperate note, some friends and I were in Indianpolis (I lived there at the time) in 1997 for the NCAA Final Four Tournament and we spotted Pete Rose in the Circle Center Mall there in downtown Indy (buying a pretzel!). I'm a huge baseball fan (Go Royals!) and I managed to get his autograph and talk with him for a few minutes while he waited in line.

Well, I had been drinking pretty heavily that night and as I left (without thinking) said "So, who's your money on to win the Tournament? I like Kentucky." He looked at me, smiled and said, "Arizona...I like Arizona."

I then realized what I said and actually felt kind of bad that I had let that comment slip...but he seemed to take it pretty well and actually smiled after I said it.
 

Brian Perry

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 6, 1999
Messages
2,807
So if I were the Commissioner, I would turn the second section of 21(d) into a second and a third section:


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 ineligible FOR FIVE YEARS, IF HE BETS ON THE TEAM BY WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED.

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, IF HE BETS AGAINST THE TEAM BY WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED.
My thoughts exactly.
 

Scott Merryfield

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
18,864
Location
Mich. & S. Carolina
Real Name
Scott Merryfield
Any player or coach baseball knows that it is taboo to bet on the sport, yet Rose did this anyway. IMO, the potential problems and questions regarding the integrity of competetion are at too great a risk to allow anyone with a competitive influence on the game to wager money on the outcome of the game in any manner. Once a sport loses its credibility that the outcome of the competition is not predetermined, the sport risks becoming akin to professional wrestling and no longer be taken seriously as a real sport.

Such gambling activities almost destroyed MLB in 1919, and also severly affected the credibility of college basketball in the 1950's. With the amount of money that professional sports generates today, it's noth worth the risk. If Rose wants to bet on the horses or blackjack, he can have a good time. All he needed to do was not put any money on MLB. Is that too much to ask?
 

Chris Lockwood

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 21, 1999
Messages
3,215
Hall of Fame induction should be based on performance on the field, nothing else. It's not the Hall of Saints.
 

Joseph S

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 23, 1999
Messages
2,862
According to documents obtained by the Daily News, the umpires were disciplined for "associating and doing business with gamblers and bookmakers," in violation of Major League Rule 21 — the "best interests of baseball" rule

The newspaper said repeated attempts to reach Pulli and Garcia were unsuccessful. Pulli is now an umpire supervisor, while Garcia is being considered for a similar job.

Major league baseball confirmed the gambling sanctions to the newspaper and defended its decision to keep the investigation secret. Baseball also defended the hiring of Pulli as a supervisor, and the plan to bring in Garcia.

Yet, they were kept in and hired to even higher positions in the game under Selig.
 

Brian Perry

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 6, 1999
Messages
2,807
If Rose wants to bet on the horses or blackjack, he can have a good time. All he needed to do was not put any money on MLB. Is that too much to ask?
If you're Pete Rose (or Michael Jordan, to further beat the analogy to death), you would be more likely to bet on "your" sport for two reasons. First, you are simply more knowledgeable about your native sport than other sports. I can see Pete Rose thinking, "The Reds are +220 today? I know those are great odds--I think I'll place a bet." He probably didn't have such a feel for other sports, and was reportedly losing his ass in football at the time.

Secondly, if you think you can have a significant positive impact on a game, a la Jordan, maybe you think, "I know we can beat the Clippers by 6 points--I'll put a little wager on us to win by more than 6."

Neither reason justifies betting on your team to win, but would explain why Rose might have resorted to betting on baseball, a sport he thought he had an edge.

I think the complexity of baseball (and all team sports in general) makes it harder to understand and excuse someone betting on themselves to win. In contrast, let's say Tiger Woods announced that he was so confident that he would win the next tournament that he was placing a bet on himself to win. Would people be up in arms? No, they might even admire his confidence. Of course, team sports introduce other variables that make all gambling a no-no.
 

Michael D. Bunting

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 9, 1999
Messages
1,829
Real Name
Michael
Hall of Fame induction should be based on performance on the field, nothing else. It's not the Hall of Saints.
I couldn't agree more. There are far, far worse "persons" than Pete Rose in the Baseball Hall of Fame.


Just my opinion:

In this day and age of Sports media 24/7, we just all happen to know (or think we know) what Pete did (or did not?) do. There are plenty of other bad "persons" from the earlier days of baseball in the Baseball Hall of Fame, it's just that SportsCenter wasn't around to tell us all those bad things....
 

Scott Merryfield

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
18,864
Location
Mich. & S. Carolina
Real Name
Scott Merryfield
Hall of Fame induction should be based on performance on the field, nothing else. It's not the Hall of Saints.
So, a player that intentionally plays poorly to throw the World Series for a bet but otherwise has a great career belongs in the Hall of Fame? I doubt you'd have many people support that stance.
 

Chris Lockwood

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 21, 1999
Messages
3,215
> So, a player that intentionally plays poorly to throw the World Series for a bet but otherwise has a great career belongs in the Hall of Fame?

Yes, I meant what I said. When was Rose accused of throwing the World Series?
 

Scott Merryfield

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
18,864
Location
Mich. & S. Carolina
Real Name
Scott Merryfield
Yes, I meant what I said. When was Rose accused of throwing the World Series?
You stated that a player's Hall of Fame induction should be based "on performance on the field, nothing else" (emphasis mine). While Rose has not been accused of this, it has happened in the past (see Shoeless Joe Jackson). Based on your criteria, any player throwing a World Series for a bet should still be allowed in the Hall of Fame.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,810
Messages
5,123,552
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top