There seems to be a lot of divide on this topic, and there's a few ways this whole thing could play out. What say you? Should he be reinstated? Should he be in the Hall of Fame?
JohntheBaptist said:No reinstatement whatsoever, with an acknowledgement in the Hall of Fame that he did accomplish certain things and would be otherwise officially enshrined were it not for his participation in yada yada yada. Not an actual induction, but recognizes what happened on the field.
AMcGhie said:Based on the new evidence, is there any evidence that Pete Rose either
a) bet against himself or the team he was playing for / managing?
b) bet on any other baseball games while he was a player/manager?
From what I've seen reported, his baseball betting was all on himself to win.
This captures my thinking almost exactly, including the numbness on PEDs, although I weigh those arguments and say "Out".drleather2001 said:I'm conflicted.
On one hand, I do not think he should be re-instated. He should never have the ability to be a part of the game of MLB baseball ever again. His gambling (as a player and a coach), even if it was never against his own team, is something that the league cannot ever condone, even years after the fact. It's a bright line: you don't gamble on the sport that you play. His lying and general sociopathy regarding the issue is just the icing on the cake.
But the HOF is different. As a player, he clearly belongs. Maybe I'm just numb because of the last decade-and-a-half of pissing and moaning about PEDs, but Rose's gambling never directly impacted his accomplishments as a player. His transgressions never tainted his personal accomplishments, only his character and right to play/coach/manage in the game. So I say let him in, but it's a weak "yes". I just view the HOF as a museum of professional baseball, and his exclusion is more notable than simply putting him in with little fanfare at this point.
Couldnt agree more--the thing for me with Rose is that baseball does not suffer his absence. We arent talking about a genuinely good person that got in over his head with something and are now being deprived of some value when hes not around. Thats not really a reason one way or the other, but it is always how I've seen him--and really, to consider being lenient on that level of fuck up would require something redeeming in the offender and he really has none.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
I think this is fair.
He's quite obviously a pathological liar and piece of shit, and honoring him with a Hall ceremony is just about the last thing baseball really needs. He's a scumbag. A great, great player, but a scumbag. Yes, so was Ty Cobb, but Rose' scumbagginess was directly related to the integrity of the game, so I'm good with a Hall of Fame that tells us of some of his accomplishments but does not give him a plaque.
Apropos of nothing, it's shocking how wrong Bill James was about Rose's gambling when it first broke. His essays in This Time Let's Not Eat The Bones and in the New BJ Historical Baseball Abstract are impressive in how wrong he is about everything on this scandal.
There is evidence he gambled as a player; it came to light yesterday and surprised exactly no one that knows anything about Pete Rose and common sense.drbretto said:I'm actually really surprised so many are against it. I thought it would be 50/50.
The whole "he never bet against his team" is such a giant strawman. That isn't the point. He bet on baseball. Rule 21 of MLB says if you bet on baseball, you are banned for life. He was banned for life. He agreed to said ban for life. He has consistently lied and lied, and has now again been shown to be lying -- he did bet on games as both a player and a manager. Regardless of who he bet on and what he bet on, he bet on baseball games as a player and a manager. He should never be allowed back in, should never be allowed any association, and should never be allowed in the Hall of Fame.drbretto said:I'm actually really surprised so many are against it. I thought it would be 50/50.
I'm all for reinstatement. If memory serves, there was no evidence of him ever throwing a game because of the betting. The guy played his ass off every second of every game throughout his playing career, and doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who would ever bet against his own team. I was fairly certain the betting was when he was a manager, also, not during his playing career at all. But I could be wrong there.
In either case, banning a guy for making bets is like banning a guy for being an alcoholic. If he didn't throw any games, then I don't care. Betting is close enough to warrant a severe punishment, but it's not enough to nullify a lifetime of work on the field.
He absolutely should be in the Hall of Fame. If a condition for that is that he is also eligible to be a manager or whatever then fine. Just because he's not banned doesn't mean he'll get hired. I would assume no one would want to hire him this long removed from baseball with all that over his head anyway. If someone wanted to let him get enshrined into the Hall and still keep him banned from any on field or front office roles that matter, then that's fine too.
But, love them or hate them, some of the absolute all time best players in the sport's history are not in the hall of fame and that's a shame. That applies to gamblers as well as steroid users. Put them in the hall and let people decide to hate them for themselves. Ty Cobb was by all accounts a gigantic piece of shit who murdered someone, but he's still in the Hall.
JohntheBaptist said:There is evidence he gambled as a player; it came to light yesterday and surprised exactly no one that knows anything about Pete Rose and common sense.
And as has been noted often, its as simple as falling behind with bookies et al and youve got the problems MLB uses the well known threat of potential banishment to avoid.
It is absolutely nothing like banning an alcoholic.
Its a simple rule and he completely shit all over it, then accepted a lifetime ban. I'm surprised youre surprised about the negative response. He earned every moment of his banning.
It is nothing like banning an alcoholic, no. Alcoholism has no effect on the integrity of the game being played. Alcoholism may lead to gambling, which would be grounds for banishment, sure. We have proof that Pete Rose bet on baseball. Doing that and being an alcoholic, where it concerns professional baseball, are in no way analogous. No one has ever suffered a punishment for abusing alcohol in baseball, so thats a dead end too. The punishment is more severe because it strikes at the integrity of the games being played (not because of the "history of gambling in the sport") and puts in jeopardy the entire enterprise, which alcoholism very obviously does not.metaprosthesis said:
It's something like banning an alcoholic. It's an addiction. Like other addictions, the associated activity is countermanded by MLB rules (e.g. suspensions/bans for "drugs of abuse"). The punishment is more severe because of the history of gambling in the sport, and it probably seems more likely that a gambler would affect the outcome of a game than a junkie or a drunk (though the truth of that assumption is debatable).
He clearly shouldn't be allowed into any position where he makes decisions that determine the outcome of a game. But, the HoF is a shrine to the history of the game. The saga surrounding his gambling is part of that history, just like Joe Jackson's story is, just like any number of assholes' stories are. Moreover, his 4256 hits are part of the history of baseball. Only telling the parts of history that make for pretty, sepia-toned tales of wonder seems like the opposite of "integrity" to me.
JohntheBaptist said:It is nothing like banning an alcoholic, no. Alcoholism has no effect on the integrity of the game being played. Alcoholism may lead to gambling, which would be grounds for banishment, sure. We have proof that Pete Rose bet on baseball. Doing that and being an alcoholic, where it concerns professional baseball, are in no way analogous. No one has ever suffered a punishment for abusing alcohol in baseball, so thats a dead end too. The punishment is more severe because it strikes at the integrity of the games being played (not because of the "history of gambling in the sport") and puts in jeopardy the entire enterprise, which alcoholism very obviously does not.
It is much, much more likely a gambler effects the outcome of a game than an alcoholic, which is why one carries a lifetime ban and the other is largely ignored wrt MLB.
He's not being banned as a moral judgement. You cant tolerate betting from those involved in playing the games. This isnt rocket science--people need to trust the integrity of what theyre seeing for pro sports to succeed. Gambling on games youre playing in or managing erodes that immensely, so MLB made it a bannable offense. He broke the rule. Banned.drbretto said:I guess my issue here is that I don't find gambling by itself to be the sin some others think it is. And I did liken it to alcoholism as an addiction outside of the game that, as long as he's not throwing any games, has no bearing on the field at all. Just a perception.
Until there's evidence of him betting against his team, or at least some smoke that he ever did anything on the field or in the dugout that affected the actual outcome of the games, I feel a lifetime ban and an ineligibility for the Hall of Fame is not a punishment fitting the crime.
I'm sorry, I cant take anyone seriously who's argument is "he gambled but he also tried real hard and was super honest about it."metaprosthesis said:
But it isn't actually true that it "[struck] at the integrity of the game" in Rose's case. All the proof (and the on-field performance) indicate that, despite his addiction, his ego and his belief in his own skill drove him to play to the best of his abilities. There is only some unfulfilled potential for upsetting the game's integrity. I don't disagree that there should be rules against gambling. I do disagree that the concerns behind such a rule actually apply in this case.
If the concern is with the integrity of the game (a phrase which feels more ridiculous the more times I read/write it), then I expect there's consistency in that belief. Should we punish a pitcher who grooves a pitch to Jeter for his 3000th hit? How about when the Red Sox field a AAA team after the annual talent sell-off? Should they kick a bunch of deadballers out of the HoF?
http://www.thenationalpastimemuseum.com/article/gambling-deadball-era
"But bribes weren’t the only manifestation of the gambling culture in baseball. With money on the line and the pennant race already over, players routinely “eased up” during meaningless late-season contests. This form of game-fixing led to some farcical events on the field. Hall of Famer Sam Crawford once claimed that his friend Walter Johnson would throw batting practice fastballs to him when he needed a hit to raise his batting average."
Isn't it somewhat reasonable to think, knowing what we know about Rose in general, that the days that he didn't bet on the Reds to win, he was in effect telling the Book that they were going to lose and/or he was willing to make that happen to some degree? I mean, is that a huge stretch here? If you can accept this premise to any extent, then I don't see how you could maintain a viewpoint that it is okay to bet on your team as long as you're not betting against them.drbretto said:I guess my issue here is that I don't find gambling by itself to be the sin some others think it is. And I did liken it to alcoholism as an addiction outside of the game that, as long as he's not throwing any games, has no bearing on the field at all. Just a perception.
Until there's evidence of him betting against his team, or at least some smoke that he ever did anything on the field or in the dugout that affected the actual outcome of the games, I feel a lifetime ban and an ineligibility for the Hall of Fame is not a punishment fitting the crime.
JohntheBaptist said:I'm sorry, I cant take anyone seriously who's argument is "he gambled but he also tried real hard and was super honest about it."
The rule is in place to protect a perception about a business in the marketplace, and because as honest as we may think ol Pete was about his gambling, those great intentions go out the window very quick given some obvious circumstances. Put simply, you cant tolerate MLB players betting on baseball games. This isnt a moral judgement. He knew this and did it anyway.
Theres a reason there was an uproar over Wainwrights comments re: jeter- fans do not want to conceive of a contest being in any way rigged- even an all star game. Id be very much in favor of suspensions for doing that. The rest of your analogies there are as weak as the alcoholism one.
The bolded is how I separate my vote as well.dcmissle said:He will not be reinstated. Manfred's too smart. The lying never stops -- you can never be sure that you're clear of it -- and so you can never be sure of what he has and has not done. Rose is a bomb waiting to go off.
What Manfred might do is decouple HOF from the MLB office -- "We'll punish and banish as we see fit; you writers and then vets committee figure out what to do about the HOF."
That's the smart move. It protects the game and gets the Commissioner out of the nasty business of who is eligible and who isn't, which is an unwinnable battle.
drbretto said:I guess my issue here is that I don't find gambling by itself to be the sin some others think it is. And I did liken it to alcoholism as an addiction outside of the game that, as long as he's not throwing any games, has no bearing on the field at all. Just a perception.
Until there's evidence of him betting against his team, or at least some smoke that he ever did anything on the field or in the dugout that affected the actual outcome of the games, I feel a lifetime ban and an ineligibility for the Hall of Fame is not a punishment fitting the crime.
AMcGhie said:Based on the new evidence, is there any evidence that Pete Rose either
a) bet against himself or the team he was playing for / managing?
b) bet on any other baseball games while he was a player/manager?
From what I've seen reported, his baseball betting was all on himself to win.
His accomplishments are historical record. He is the all-time hits leader. There is no asterisk.metaprosthesis said:Rather, I think that what Rose did had no known effect on games, and that being the case, there's no reason to exclude his accomplishments from the historical record.
Pete got "life with no parole" though.BannedbyNYYFans.com said:I was always against Rose being reinstated but I've come around the past few years.
Murderers can get "life" in prison and only serve twenty years. I view Rose's "lifetime ban" the same way. He did something horrible, baseball-wise, but he's served long enough. The punishment was (deservedly) severe and affected every facet of his life for 25 years.
I'm not letting him off the hook, I just think the punishment has been enough. It's not like somebody is going to say, "Hey, Pete got away with it...."
RGREELEY33 said:Pete got "life with no parole" though.
I think this viewpoint is fine even though I disagree with it. The "he didn't bet against his own team" argument is junk though.
Yes or for the game he "needed" he pitched his best three bullpen guys and used them up. Then didn't use them in the game he didn't. Even betting on your team to win influences how you manage or play the game. He bet on baseball, he's out. Always.RGREELEY33 said:Isn't it somewhat reasonable to think, knowing what we know about Rose in general, that the days that he didn't bet on the Reds to win, he was in effect telling the Book that they were going to lose and/or he was willing to make that happen to some degree? I mean, is that a huge stretch here? If you can accept this premise to any extent, then I don't see how you could maintain a viewpoint that it is okay to bet on your team as long as you're not betting against them.
Bookie: "Pete, you owe us $38,000 this week."
Pete: "I'm not going to make any bets on the Reds today."
Bookie: "Got it."
EDIT: Typos
That is an interesting argument, and something that I was not aware of. While it doesn't change my opinion, it at least gives Rose something to reasonably argue. However, if the new evidence of him betting on games as a player is legit, none of it will matter anyways. This will restart the clock with respect to talk about his reinstatement to MLB.smastroyin said:I think the only argument in Pete's favor is that he accepted the lifetime ban, then the HoF added rule E. specifically because of him (in 1991). It was after that rule got put in place that he started putting in his appeals to the commissioners. In other words, when he negotiated the deal, he didn't 100% know that it would keep him out of the Hall, and probably thought he had support of enough writers to break the informal agreement that until then kept Shoeless Joe and others out.
For what it is worth, there's pretty strong evidence he sometimes played with a corked bat...and in an era where use of illegal stimulants was commonplace, do you reckon the guy they call "Charlie Hustle" walked by the clubhouse candy dish without taking a handful of greenies?RGREELEY33 said:His accomplishments are historical record. He is the all-time hits leader. There is no asterisk.
As much as I hate them, I think Bonds and Clemens and their like belong in the Hall. I think there is an extremely valid reason that gambling gets the death penalty.Fred not Lynn said:For what it is worth, there's pretty strong evidence he sometimes played with a corked bat...and in an era where use of illegal stimulants was commonplace, do you reckon the guy they call "Charlie Hustle" walked by the clubhouse candy dish without taking a handful of greenies?
If voters are going to use rumour based speculation to exclude alleged steroid users from the HoF, there's enough comparably unsubstantiated "cheating at baseball" noise you could make around Pete Rose to keep him out on those grounds without even mentioning gambling.
I didnt respond directly because these examples are pretty weak. The "Marlins" (thanks for that out!) example is a particularly bad one--someone betting on the sport vs a team strategizing its roster? Theres no question of competition in that sense. No Sam Crawford and Walter Johnson dont get asterisks or Hall removal (which isnt the gotcha you seem to think it is) but I would have fined them if I owned the team.metaprosthesis said:You only responded to one of the examples of sullied integrity. Should the Red Sox be fined when they dump a bunch of players and bring up kids who can't compete on a major league level, yet play in games that matter for other teams? You can insert the Marlins if that makes it a more comfortable judgement. How about Sam Crawford and Walter Johnson? Do they get asterisks? Are their plaques removed from the Hall?
Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays, both retired and both in no way involved in baseball anymore, were banned in 1983 after they were hired by casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, as greeters and autograph signers.smastroyin said:Mays and Mantle were banned after they were elected in the HoF:
Mantle was elected in 1974, Mays in 1979. Ban was in 1983 and lifted in 1985. Obviously the HoF could have decided to take down their plaques or whatever, but the writers didn't ignore the ban to vote for them.
JohntheBaptist said:I didnt respond directly because these examples are pretty weak. The "Marlins" (thanks for that out!) example is a particularly bad one--someone betting on the sport vs a team strategizing its roster? Theres no question of competition in that sense. No Sam Crawford and Walter Johnson dont get asterisks or Hall removal (which isnt the gotcha you seem to think it is) but I would have fined them if I owned the team.
So thats why I skipped responding specifically because I felt it was obvious.
Agree. The knock on Rose's record as a player was that he hurt the Phillies / Expos / Reds by insisting on being in the lineup and hung on way too long in pursuit of Cobb's record. Now with these revelations that he bet on baseball, it makes me wonder if part of the motivation for him wanting to start games was not just the vainglorious pursuit of the hits record, but a self-inflated sense that he could control the game's outcome by being in the games? There are so many ways Rose could have hurt his teams even if he only bet on his teams to win, and even if he played as hard as all get out in games.thehitcat said:Yes or for the game he "needed" he pitched his best three bullpen guys and used them up. Then didn't use them in the game he didn't. Even betting on your team to win influences how you manage or play the game. He bet on baseball, he's out. Always.
We're human beings. We have to draw lines somewhere. I obviously dont see your examples as being anywhere near what gambling on the games youre working in represents.metaprosthesis said:
I don't see why we need to compare roster manipulation with betting. The question isn't which is worse. You have expressed the view that any activity that compromises the integrity of the sports product should be punished. Purposefully fielding a subpar team affects competition and compromises integrity. The Marlins (with no quotation marks) have been accused of not attempting to field a competitive team several times in recent years. They are basically rewarded for that through the competitive balance tax. That only affects Loria's bottom line. It seems analogous to Rose's situation w.r.t. integrity. I don't think anyone is calling for Loria to be banned from baseball (other than, perhaps, Marlins fans).
The Crawford and Johnson example was in response to the idea that Rose shouldn't be in the Hall, a stance which you have since stated is not your own. But, it still goes to the general question: is compromising the integrity of the game a categorically bannable offense? It appears that your answer to that is no, as you would only fine stat pumping and forgive lax roster construction as the natural behavior of a team. I'm not judging those opinions, just stating them as components of your expressed beliefs.
I fully understand and agree with the idea that people involved in the game should not be betting on its outcome. I agree that Rose shouldn't be allowed any control over baseball games, in any role. I'm ambivalent on whether he should be allowed to interact with baseball in any other way. But, I think that appealing to a wishy-washy concept of "the integrity of the game" is as weak an argument as any in Rose's favor. The strikes against Rose--that he's an asshole, that he exploited the game for his own gain, and that he may have done so over a long period of time--are also strikes against someone like Loria. But, in the conventional wisdom, one guy is the devil and one guy is just a shitty owner. I'm not trying to "getcha". I'm trying to understand what makes an affront to integrity unforgivable.
dcmissle said:He will not be reinstated. Manfred's too smart. The lying never stops -- you can never be sure that you're clear of it -- and so you can never be sure of what he has and has not done. Rose is a bomb waiting to go off.
What Manfred might do is decouple HOF from the MLB office -- "We'll punish and banish as we see fit; you writers and then vets committee figure out what to do about the HOF."
There is a common misconception that the Hall of Fame is connected to Major League Baseball. Technically the Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is run by the Clark Family Foundation and a Board of Directors. It is the board of directors that gave the writers the ability to vote many years ago. The Board of Directors does not technically have to follow anything the Commissioner says since it's it's own entity and can do as it pleases. In other words the
That's the smart move. It protects the game and gets the Commissioner out of the nasty business of who is eligible and who isn't, which is an unwinnable battle.