Should Pete Rose be reinstated?

[drbretto]

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

 
 
I actually do not think that is reasonable to think. I can't imagine any scenario where Rose lays up a play for any reason whatsoever.  I absolutely can imagine myself in that same scenario and even if I did flat out bet against myself, I still wouldn't let up on the game. So, I do feel like it became a thing because of a perception rather than anything real happening on the field, and I think that's dumb in general. Punishable, yes, but lifetime ban and no HoF is not fitting of the crime. I'm also assuming he agreed to the ban so they wouldn't find his stash of dead hookers, not because he believes he did anything wrong or learned any lessons. 
 
But it all, to me, comes down to him being in the Hall. I don't care if he ever sets foot on a baseball field or club house again. But he is a major part of baseball history and needs to be in the HoF.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

It doesn't mean he's going to "lay up a play".  It does mean he's not going to use his closer for an extra couple outs after using his best bullpen arms to maintain a lead to ensure they win that game so he wins his bet.
 
If you use up your best relievers on days you bet on your team, it means you are left with the dregs on the other days, so you aren't betting on your team.  And the bookie knows that and will take appropriate advantage.

 

[hbk72777]

If Ty Cobb and OJ Simpson can be in the Halls, so can Rose. I don't give a shit about betting
 
It's not the Hall of "good guys", If it was, Mattingly and Edgar Martinez would be shoo ins. it's about what's done on the field.
 
He never bet against his own team, it's not like he was dropping balls and swinging at air to score a few grand.
 
So sick and tired of this politically correct society. where everyone is held to a false ideology of perfection.  Every one has skeletons in their closet. every single one.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

If Ty Cobb and OJ Simpson can be in the Halls, so can Rose. I don't give a shit about betting
 
It's not the Hall of "good guys", If it was, Mattingly and Edgar Martinez would be shoo ins. it's about what's done on the field.
 
He never bet against his own team, it's not like he was dropping balls and swinging at air to score a few grand.
 
So sick and tired of this politically correct society. where everyone is held to a false ideology of perfection.  Every one has skeletons in their closet. every single one.

Wow.

 

[RIFan]

 
 
I actually do not think that is reasonable to think. I can't imagine any scenario where Rose lays up a play for any reason whatsoever.  I absolutely can imagine myself in that same scenario and even if I did flat out bet against myself, I still wouldn't let up on the game. So, I do feel like it became a thing because of a perception rather than anything real happening on the field, and I think that's dumb in general. Punishable, yes, but lifetime ban and no HoF is not fitting of the crime. I'm also assuming he agreed to the ban so they wouldn't find his stash of dead hookers, not because he believes he did anything wrong or learned any lessons. 
 
But it all, to me, comes down to him being in the Hall. I don't care if he ever sets foot on a baseball field or club house again. But he is a major part of baseball history and needs to be in the HoF.

Suppose as others have mentioned that he bets on several games in a row and then doesn't place a bet for his team to win.  He does that because he knows his starter has a tired arm or there is a flu bug in the clubhouse.  You don't think that his bookie wouldn't pick up on that and start to use info like that to his advantage?  Or more egregiously that he does his bookie a solid and gets some debt forgiveness for sharing inside info.  Gambling is the unforgivable sin in baseball.  It's something that was communicated to the players early in spring training and the consequences were well known.  He did it, he admitted it, and he is paying for it.  

 

[threecy]

Betting on baseball was against regulations back then and still is today.  I think the rule would need to be voided (which won't happen) before letting him in.  It's tough to make an argument otherwise.

 

[SoxFanInCali]

No reinstatement. He broke the cardinal rule of the game, and his behavior since does not justify leniency.
 
Enshrine him in the HOF, with his banishment from the game stated on his plaque, but only after he is dead.  He does not deserve an enshrinement ceremony.

 

[Rice4HOF]

Honestly, I'm surprised this isn't closer to 100% against. I'd expect some support from Reds fans, but not from otherwise smart SoSH members.  A lot of people are making comparisons to PEDs, racist assholes (Ty Cobb) etc.  But the point is that there is a rule - 21(d) - that says "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"  This seems pretty black and white to me. Is it fair? I don't know, that's not the question being posed.
 
If there was a rule that said any player who wears green  socks in the offseason will be permanently banned, and somebody instagrammed a picture of David Ortiz wearing green socks at a xmas event, we would all be pissed that he'd be banned.  But we couldn't argue that he didn't break the rule! We'd whine like crazy, but we would all know:
1 - he broke the rule
2 - what the consequences are
At that point all we could do is lobby that the rule was unfair and it should be changed GOING FORWARD. Pretty tough to change rules retroactively.
 
Having said all the above, I think the whole HoF discussion is moot, because even if the ban is lifted, I doubt the writers would ever vote him in.

 

[montoursvillefan]

No, never, and no. He broke the original sin. Rgreeley makes good points, from my iPhone I need say no more, Soxfanincali got it too.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

Honestly, I'm surprised this isn't closer to 100% against. I'd expect some support from Reds fans, but not from otherwise smart SoSH members.  A lot of people are making comparisons to PEDs, racist assholes (Ty Cobb) etc.  But the point is that there is a rule - 21(d) - that says "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"  This seems pretty black and white to me. Is it fair? I don't know, that's not the question being posed.
 
If there was a rule that said any player who wears green  socks in the offseason will be permanently banned, and somebody instagrammed a picture of David Ortiz wearing green socks at a xmas event, we would all be pissed that he'd be banned.  But we couldn't argue that he didn't break the rule! We'd whine like crazy, but we would all know:
1 - he broke the rule
2 - what the consequences are
At that point all we could do is lobby that the rule was unfair and it should be changed GOING FORWARD. Pretty tough to change rules retroactively.
 
Having said all the above, I think the whole HoF discussion is moot, because even if the ban is lifted, I doubt the writers would ever vote him in.

That's not the discussion taking place. It's not going to take a constitutional amendment to change the rule, everybody agrees that if Manfred wanted it to happen he'd be in. So should he? I think it's an incredibly powerful symbol for baseball. Rose is the child in Omelas forced to suffer for the benefit of the game.

 

[chrisfont9]

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...." 

No way. He negotiated away further investigation in exchange for a lifetime ban. Why? Because of evidence like what we are now hearing about, that he bet on the Reds. So you would allow him to avoid the larger investigation, in exchange for the lifetime ban, and then cancel the lifetime ban? Fortunately Manfred is not so naive.

 

[chrisfont9]

No reinstatement. He broke the cardinal rule of the game, and his behavior since does not justify leniency.
 
Enshrine him in the HOF, with his banishment from the game stated on his plaque, but only after he is dead.  He does not deserve an enshrinement ceremony.

Why even do this much? He's the all-time hit leader. People can look it up. That's enough.

 

[SumnerH]

Why even do this much? He's the all-time hit leader. People can look it up. That's enough.

Not only that but as noted upthread his hit record is a bad joke accomplished through his own corrupt managing that's more deserving of an asterisk than Bonds or Aaron or Strahan. That's almost as galling to me as the gambling.

 

[dcmissle]

And Rose has not appeared on HOF ballot because ...?

That is what his status vis a vis MLB has always been about in recent years.

 

[BigMike]

No reinstatement. He broke the cardinal rule of the game, and his behavior since does not justify leniency.
 
Enshrine him in the HOF, with his banishment from the game stated on his plaque, but only after he is dead.  He does not deserve an enshrinement ceremony.

 
That is where I am.   Not in this lifetime,  but once he is dead and burried I'd certainly be more willing to consider his enshrinement,  assuming the plaque is very clear about his ban and his disgrace.
 
Of course Shoeless Joe Jackson goes in one year before Rose goes in. 

 

[Laser Show]

As a fan and lover of the game's history, I suppose I should be more angry with Rose. Probably part of it is that I wasn't alive when he was banned originally. I have no strong feelings, but based on what I've read here and the new evidence, I think he probably shouldn't be reinstated.

However, I want to see a plaque for him go up in the HOF. Maybe do it after he passes. Maybe add in the gambling stuff on his plaque. But I want to go in there and be able to see the greatest players of all time, regardless of their personal faults.

I feel the same way about steroids. Induct everyone from Bonds to A-Rod. If there was substantial noise around them, put that on the plaque. But don't leave out some of the best players ever just because their assholes.

This is purely a selfish thing. I could give two shits if ARod gets his ceremony. But I want a plaque for him.

(I know this has been mentioned in the PK thread before, but I'd draw the line at violent crimes).

 

[Spacemans Bong]

It's going to be hilarious when the dewey-eyed sentimentalists get him reinstated and then it comes out that he bet on the Reds to lose several times.
 
There is literally nothing I wouldn't put past the guy, and his Reds teams of the 80s were considered to have been underachievers. 

 

[Rovin Romine]

I voted no across the board. 
 
The guy gambled.  There's a bright-line rule against gambling because it's way more likely than not to affect the actual games.  Then he negotiated a lifetime ban.  Plus there's clear evidence he did gamble, for those who think he must have been out of his mind or was somehow backmailed into accepting the lifetime ban.  
 
I'm into second chances.  But I'd only support one if Rose *began* by making a complete and comprehensive Mea Culpa.  He needs to expose the seedy underbelly.  All he's done is lie, get caught, lie and get caught.   If he had spent the last 20 years apologizing and advocating against gambling, etc., my ear might be more sympathetic.  
 
It's not like a lifetime ban is some sort of tragedy.  
 
Consider this hypothetical deal - have the commissioner promise Rose that if he shuts up and goes away (or becomes an anti-gambling crusader if he's pathologically incapable of shutting up) MLB will remove the ban, vindicate him, expunge his record, and advocate his entry into the HOF, say, 5 years after his death. I don't think Rose would go for that in a million years.  Which tells you what this is really about. 

 

[singaporesoxfan]

It was interesting listening to Buster Olney and Jayson Stark talk about Rose on yesterday's Baseball Tonight podcast. (As background, Stark's been blamed for Rose's continued banishment for reporting on a 2003 meeting between Rose, Selig, Mike Schmidt, and Joe Morgan that was supposedly about Rose's reinstatement, and continues to support Rose being in the HoF.) If Olney and Stark are representative of other BBWAA members, it'll be extremely difficult to see a path for Rose to the HoF that goes through the BBWAA - they were both deeply cynical of Rose's admissions thus far, and assumed that Rose was doing much worse than he let on. The general sense was that Rose only admits as much as he feels he needed to get reinstated on his own terms.

 

[Average Reds]

It was interesting listening to Buster Olney and Jayson Stark talk about Rose on yesterday's Baseball Tonight podcast. (As background, Stark's been blamed for Rose's continued banishment for reporting on a 2003 meeting between Rose, Selig, Mike Schmidt, and Joe Morgan that was supposedly about Rose's reinstatement, and continues to support Rose being in the HoF.) If Olney and Stark are representative of other BBWAA members, it'll be extremely difficult to see a path for Rose to the HoF that goes through the BBWAA - they were both deeply cynical of Rose's admissions thus far, and assumed that Rose was doing much worse than he let on. The general sense was that Rose only admits as much as he feels he needed to get reinstated on his own terms.

 
I said it earlier - or maybe it was in the other thread? - but there is so much more dirt on Rose that really hasn't been focused on that efforts to get him reinstated are doomed to failure.
 
It's not a coincidence that this info leaked right at the time that reinstatement was gathering momentum.  And if reinstatement becomes viable again in a few years, the leaks will be about money laundering/tax evasion, Rose's involvement in amphetamine distribution, probably more dirt about betting (because there has to be more there), etc.
 
I have no problem with Rose's suspension because he agreed to the deal as part of an effort to stop the investigation and keep this stuff from going public.  I understand his gripe about the HoF, because the rules changed after he cut his plea deal.  But again, he cut that deal because he knew that what would come out if the investigation continued would doom his chances.  So he was screwed either way by his own behavior.
 
He made his bed.  Let him sleep in it.

 

[reggiecleveland]

If Ty Cobb and OJ Simpson can be in the Halls, so can Rose. I don't give a shit about betting
 
It's not the Hall of "good guys", If it was, Mattingly and Edgar Martinez would be shoo ins. it's about what's done on the field.
 
He never bet against his own team, it's not like he was dropping balls and swinging at air to score a few grand.
 
So sick and tired of this politically correct society. where everyone is held to a false ideology of perfection.  Every one has skeletons in their closet. every single one.

There is little to support Cobb being more than a guy that had a bad temper. Stump, who write the book about him had no sources, and was discredited in many other situations for fabrication in things he wrote.

 

[Infield Infidel]

It's going to be hilarious when the dewey-eyed sentimentalists get him reinstated and then it comes out that he bet on the Reds to lose several times.
 
There is literally nothing I wouldn't put past the guy, and his Reds teams of the 80s were considered to have been underachievers. 

 
That's interesting, they finished 2nd in their division four of the five seasons he managed, and won it all after he left.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Suppose as others have mentioned that he bets on several games in a row and then doesn't place a bet for his team to win.  He does that because he knows his starter has a tired arm or there is a flu bug in the clubhouse.  You don't think that his bookie wouldn't pick up on that and start to use info like that to his advantage?  

Or maybe he and his bookie realize the Reds aren't going 162-0, so him not betting on them one day isn't such as big a deal as effectively saying "yeah, we got no shot tonight, I'm resting the bullpen"?

 

[Average Reds]

Or maybe he and his bookie realize the Reds aren't going 162-0, so him not betting on them one day isn't such as big a deal as effectively saying "yeah, we got no shot tonight, I'm resting the bullpen"?

I'm guessing you are unfamiliar with compulsive gambling, because that's not how it works.

If Rose only bet on the Reds (which I find incredible, but I'll play along) then the days where he, as manager, was not betting is absolutely a big deal.

Addicts crave the action. So much so that I wouldn't put it past him to have subconsciously "thrown" games where he had no action (by taking foolish risks, for example) because that would have validated his "betting judgment."

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I'm guessing you are unfamiliar with compulsive gambling, because that's not how it works.

If Rose only bet on the Reds (which I find incredible, but I'll play along) then the days where he, as manager, was not betting is absolutely a big deal.

Addicts crave the action. So much so that I wouldn't put it past him to have subconsciously "thrown" games where he had no action (by taking foolish risks, for example) because that would have validated his "betting judgment."

Pretty familiar with it, actually. Had a roommate for a couple years that ended up in GA; he would bet on women's college basketball, hockey, golf, you name it, a few hundred bucks a pop, consistently carried a $10k per week limit with our bookie on a fireman's salary. Had another friend that lost his wife and two kids because he repeatedly got himself into trouble ($10k or so at a time) and ignored her threats to leave if she caught him again. She did. And she did. Had my own dalliances with it myself, never getting that bad, but having some pretty rough stretches that woke me up and had to give it up.

As to the point I responded to (which was a bit different than the point you're making here), I haven't seen anywhere that he only bet on the Reds. The books we've seen show him on plenty of teams. We have him claiming "I bet on them every night because I believed in them so much", but we know that's bullshit.

So I'm just saying that without any kind of actually record of how often he did bet on them and how often he bet on other teams, I find it a stretch. If he bet on them six times a week, then laid off, sure there might be something there. Or they were facing a bad matchup. It doesn't necessarily raise a red flag if he bet on them once or twice a week and we really don't know.

Even the most degenerate gamblers I've known would never bet on a baseball team 162 times - they would be guaranteed to lose $. And they all would play matchups.

(Which is to say nothing of him having inside intel. I'm simply saying that even if he had all guns firing on offense and a rested bullpen, if his #5 is going up against Tom Seaver, I tend to think he might have enough intelligence to not throw $2k on the Reds. So I'm not sure how much that tells the bookie. There's some detail being ignored and without seeing the actual circumstances of each bet placed, in context, I find it beating a dead horse. We have enough on him.)

 

[Fred not Lynn]

It's not always so much that Rose's actions had an impact on the integrity of the game, it's sometimes more that they had an impact on the integrity of the gambling on the game.