The Annual Baseball Question, Pete Rose In or Out Hall of Fame
- Thread starter mrhotdice
- Start date
That Ted Bundy got the death penalty because he did things that it was clearly stated that you get the death penalty for and once you get the penalty there is no coming back. It's clearly stated in baseball rules (and posted in all clubhouses) that if you bet on baseball you are out of baseball forever. Pete Rose bet on baseball and got caught which means he is out of baseball forever. And yes, betting on the game is far and away the worse sin you can make, far worse than any PED use.Huh? What's a serial killer got to do with it?
Hot take, Glen.
Put him and just be done with it.
Put him in. He's one of the GOATs, and if he always bet on his teams to win as is the currently accepted narrative, who cares?
If it turns out he bet on his teams to lose, just remove him.
If it turns out he bet on his teams to lose, just remove him.
You're saying that there's evidence that Rose bet on the Reds to lose?
I haven't heard of those reports. Link(s), please.
I never said he bet against his team, I said he bet on baseball which is what the rule is. By the way, as a manager unless you place a flat bet on your team every single game then it is the same as betting against your team as you will manage differently in games you did bet versus when you didn't. Either way, the rule doesn't say it is ok to bet as long as you don't bet against your team, it says not to bet on baseball period.
He should be in. Along with Shoeless Joe, Clemens, Bonds, etc. Legends of the game.
Sure. BUT you underlined the Pope's comment about the "currently accepted narrative" that Rose bet on the Reds to win... and then questioned it with a "since when?"-- which implies that there was something contrary to that, which could only be that Rose bet on the Reds to lose.
I was interested in the new evidence... but it appears that there isn't any.
Again, I never said he did. The "since when" comment was a question of when it went from not being ok to bet on the sport you play to it being ok. As a matter of fact, since the Tim Donaghy debacle I would say that it has become more clear that you shouldn't be betting on any sport that you participate in. The fact is that it always has been a permanent ban for betting on baseball and he broke that rule which means he should be permanently banned from anything to do with baseball.
Once again, for the betting-impaired, it's not enough if he only "bet on his team to win." For this to mean anything in terms of it not affecting his managerial decisions -- and thus, to not affect the integrity of the game -- he would have had to bet the exact same amount, and bet that exact same amount on each and every game.
For instance, he could bet $200 one game on the Reds to win, but leave his starter in to get hammered a couple extra innings before bringing in a mop-up closer because he knows it's only two bills riding -- and he further knows that tomorrow's starting pitching match-up looks good, so he's also gonna save his best closer today and lay down 5 large on tomorrow's game, also for the Reds to win. He bet on the Reds to win both games, but his decision-making -- and therefore, the game's integrity -- was compromised because of betting different amounts.
For instance, he could bet $200 one game on the Reds to win, but leave his starter in to get hammered a couple extra innings before bringing in a mop-up closer because he knows it's only two bills riding -- and he further knows that tomorrow's starting pitching match-up looks good, so he's also gonna save his best closer today and lay down 5 large on tomorrow's game, also for the Reds to win. He bet on the Reds to win both games, but his decision-making -- and therefore, the game's integrity -- was compromised because of betting different amounts.
No. Had his chance to come clean years ago and continuef to llie about it. Sorry Pete.
Last edited:
So if he was throwing games or not always managing to win because of bets he had riding, what is every other suck-*** manager that has followed him's excuse?
How can you be serious? You're going to let someone that used his gambling winnings to buy cheap Taiwan hookers and coke? For shame.
Last edited:
I say keep him out, but I give him a pass on the child labor thing. Dude was secretly tongue punching Marge for several years. For that, he deserves a medal.
Tb100%h, I always assumed if the mf'er didn't wear kangol hats and stuff, he would've been let in yearssss ago.
Ever since the report of the affair between him and John Franco broke, I've been of the opinion that he should be out.
Is there a way to recognize his incredible accomplishments without actually inducting him? Because that seems like the correct choice
Would this also include recognizing he set the world record for not changing his underwear, at seven weeks straight, because he thought they were driving his string of correct bets in 1985?
his accomplishments are there. http://baseballhall.org/discover/museum/whole-new-ballgame/pete-rose
In truth, Rose’s accomplishments are recognized in numerous parts of the Museum. Thanks to donations from Rose and Major League Baseball, more than a dozen of his items are in Cooperstown – including the spikes he wore on Sept. 11, 1985, when he broke Ty Cobb’s record of 4,191 hits. Those are accompanied by a score sheet and a video of the record-breaking hit in the Museum’s One for the Books exhibit.
Right next to those items is Rose’s Montreal Expos hat from when he set a new record for most career games played. Pete’s Cincinnati Reds jersey that previously hung on the second-floor timeline has been replaced by an entire display examining his legacy in the Museum’s new exhibit Whole New Ballgame.
But it’s Rose’s noteworthy omission from the Hall of Fame itself, that single hall of bronze plaques honoring the game’s immortals, that fuels one of the most passionate debates in sports.
Honestly this works for me. Never been to the Hof but when I go this works
his case isn't like the steroid guys where their home run numbers are inflated because of PEDs therefore they consider them tainted. so they do not recognize them at all. in Pete's case, his hits are genuine his accomplishments are recorded and enshrined. he himself is not. no plaque for him next to all the greats exists. that is why i have always thought this whole thing has been blown out of proportion.
If betting on games was widespread, I would agree, but PED was/is widespread and their use spoils the game and has had widespread impact on the actual outcomes of games
He needs to be IN the Hall. He is without a doubt one of the 50 greatest ball players ever. 4.256 hits (1st all-time and will likely never be approached), 160 HR's, 1,314 RBI's, a career batting average of .303. 17x All-Star, 3 World Series rings, 1975 World Series MVP, 1973 NL MVP, and 2 Gold Gloves among many other accolades.
The problem is that everyone keeps blaming the MLB for his non-inclusion, but really it's the BWAA that is keeping him out. The HOF has no actual affiliation with the MLB and does not need to adhere to its rule of withholding players banned by the MLB from inclusion in the HOF. It is something that was put into place after the 1919 White Sox scandal and if Pete Rose needs to appeal to anyone, it is the BWAA. They are the ones who need to be swayed.
Keeping Pete out is an injustice. He did not throw games for money and he did not do anything inherently illegal. All athletes gamble. I can virtually guarantee that there have been major sports superstars who have even gambled on their own games. Everything Pete was found guilty of was done during his time as a manager. They never proved he bet on his own games as a player, and even if he did, and tried to throw a game, then how would the play of one individual decide the outcome of an entire game without it being glaringly obvious? They've never been able to pinpoint any particular game or play during Pete's career when his actions or hustle were in question. Pete deserves to be in the HOF and the BWAA and the HOF's insistance on not making him eligible for the ballot is asinine.
The problem is that everyone keeps blaming the MLB for his non-inclusion, but really it's the BWAA that is keeping him out. The HOF has no actual affiliation with the MLB and does not need to adhere to its rule of withholding players banned by the MLB from inclusion in the HOF. It is something that was put into place after the 1919 White Sox scandal and if Pete Rose needs to appeal to anyone, it is the BWAA. They are the ones who need to be swayed.
Keeping Pete out is an injustice. He did not throw games for money and he did not do anything inherently illegal. All athletes gamble. I can virtually guarantee that there have been major sports superstars who have even gambled on their own games. Everything Pete was found guilty of was done during his time as a manager. They never proved he bet on his own games as a player, and even if he did, and tried to throw a game, then how would the play of one individual decide the outcome of an entire game without it being glaringly obvious? They've never been able to pinpoint any particular game or play during Pete's career when his actions or hustle were in question. Pete deserves to be in the HOF and the BWAA and the HOF's insistance on not making him eligible for the ballot is asinine.
He bet as a player, too.
But I don't care about the HoF. Let him in if that's what the BBWA wants. He needs to remain banned from participating in baseball, though.
In.
Baseball is hilarious with its pretentious vibe of being some kind of gentleman's game. Dude was one of the best hitters to ever pick up a bat. You think the NBA Hall is gonna not take Jordan because he was a gambler?
Baseball is hilarious with its pretentious vibe of being some kind of gentleman's game. Dude was one of the best hitters to ever pick up a bat. You think the NBA Hall is gonna not take Jordan because he was a gambler?
Do you not know that it was betting on baseball or did you just chose to ignore it with your Jordan reference?