Pete Rose: I changed my mind.

[Questdog]

Personally, I think Pete belongs in the Hall of Fame, but it really does not matter much to me whether he gets in or not. Everybody knows Pete was a Hall of Fame caliber player. Whether he officially has a plaque in some little upstate New York town is not going to change his status as one of the all-time greats.

There never was and never will be a human being that had more ballplayer in him than Pete. He played the game all-out to win all the time. Somehow there has been a perception that he was a selfish player, only worried about his stats and that is a horrible mistake. Yes, he cared about his stats. He wanted 200 hits and a .300 batting average. But that was only between ball games; he never got a hit that hurt his team during a game. And he would just flat out annoy the heck out of the other team and take pride in it. When he played third, if a pesky little speedy bunter-type was up, he would move in so far as to almost be able to reach out and touch the batter. If you've ever had this happen to you, this is very annoying as a hitter. Pete was challenging the batter's manhood, saying, in essence, if you were a man and not a bunting little wussy, you could easily hit the ball by me because look how close I am.
His nickname "Charlie Hustle" was applied, not as an honorific to his go-go attitude by adoring teammates, but as a label of scorn by the opposition.
In today's corporate baseball atmosphere, Pete could not exist as a player. He would have to change his playing-style or be ostracized by teammates and foes alike. But back in the 60's and 70's, baseball was an "Us vs. Them" world and Pete was appreciated as a teammate for his all-out effort to win at all costs.

Of all the records he held, the one he always said he most appreciated was his record for playing in the most wins of any player ever and I believe it.

Here is a little known fact about Pete Rose: Did you know that he is the only player since World War II to have 30 triples in a season in the minor leagues? 30...that's a lot.

There are a few players that the Hall of Fame cannot honor, because they are so over-qualified for enshrinement that getting elected is a given and no honor. Pete Rose is a Hall of Famer and everyone knows it and you cannot legislate that away.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by Carlton

But I will say it again everytime this comes up...if Rose gets leniency, then they better have a ceremony for BUCK WEAVER, whose crime was not ratting out his own players with circumstantial evidence.

I don't understand the Buck Weaver movement.....he is not banned from baseball anymore. He was banned for life and his life is over, so he is not banned anymore. If his ghost shows up at an MLB park, they would have no authority to bar him entrance.

He wouldn't be considered for the Hall of Fame, ban or not.

The thing that gets my goat about him is that he knew the fix was on and supposedly was in a quandary about what to do, not wanting to rat out his teammates, but feeling guilty about not speaking up. In the movie they have him say something like, "I'm going to play my ass off next yer to make up for this."

But in real life, the next year, even though he was already under a contract for the season, he held out for more money refusing to play. Does not sound like he was all that remorseful about the Fix.......

As far as Shoeless Joe goes, the fact is he got money to fix the game. Whether he held up his end of the bargain to the gamblers or not is debatable, but he took the money and deserved the ban.

[CD1083]

The day Rose dies is the day his ban is lifted and he's inducted into the Hall of Fame.

I see both sides of the argument, and I end up on the side of using Rose as an example for all others that follow him No leniency will be provided, even to the all time hits leader.

[CD1083]

Dola,

Shoeless Joe needs to go in...yesterday. It was a different era and he's been dead a long time. It's a shame that he isn't in.

[knightdreamer2k]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

I would be very upset if he was allowed back into baseball. Betting is the worst kind of disease that can inflict the game and this is why you see people who are actually involved in decision making hand down such draconian penalties.

I really don't give two ****s if he never bet against his team. Just being associated with gambling is enough. As a player, manager, front office, league office etc. If you receive a pay check from the league, then just stay away from sports gambling.

Back when Rose played, salaries were high but not like today. If you got into too much debt with the kind of people who run sports betting, then there is a much higher likley hood of fixing games to ensure your legs aren't broken and your kids don't vanish.

I have a hard time understanding why people who love sports cannot seem to understanding that being associated with gambling is far worse than cheating.

The very fabric of sport is the essence of competition. Having even the fainest hint of the result being artificial stains and tears that fabric.
Once that happens then it is no longer a sport. It is the WWE

^ This. Gambling can destroy sports, it needs to be dealt with swiftly and harshly.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by knightdreamer2k

^ This. Gambling can destroy sports, it needs to be dealt with swiftly and harshly.

Both Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle were banned for associating with gamblers. They were actually employed by the mobsters to meet and greet people.

Pete was never associated with organized crime or was in bed with gambling interests like John McGraw. Pete just made a lot of money for his bookie......

People don't serve life sentences for murder; I don't see why Pete has to wait longer. Lifting the ban on him now will in no way condone what he did or send the wrong message to anyone. I don't think anyone wants to follow in Pete's footsteps.

[John Madden]

Originally Posted by Questdog

Both Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle were banned for associating with gamblers. They were actually employed by the mobsters to meet and greet people.

So here we've got "associated with known gamblers"

Pete was never associated with organized crime or was in bed with gambling interests like John McGraw. Pete just made a lot of money for his bookie......

And here we've got "IS a known gambler".

People don't serve life sentences for murder;

Yes they do.

I don't see why Pete has to wait longer. Lifting the ban on him now will in no way condone what he did or send the wrong message to anyone. I don't think anyone wants to follow in Pete's footsteps.

I think "Oh don't worry kids, play well enough and your transgressions will be lifted" is most definitely the wrong message being sent.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by John Madden

Yes they do.

Only multiple murderers or particularly heinous ones do. You go kill just one person and you won't.

In 1989, when Pete got in trouble, the average time served for homicide was 6 years, a little less than half of the average sentence.

[John Madden]

Originally Posted by Questdog

Only multiple murderers or particularly heinous ones do. You go kill just one person and you won't.

In 1989, when Pete got in trouble, the average time served for homicide was 6 years, a little less than half of the average sentence.

To play devil's advocate, the average murderer has a lower recidivism rate than the average gambler!

[wireman]

Originally Posted by Questdog

Both Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle were banned for associating with gamblers. They were actually employed by the mobsters to meet and greet people.

Neither had anything to do with organized baseball at the time.

Originally Posted by Questdog

People don't serve life sentences for murder; I don't see why Pete has to wait longer.

I hate to harp on this, but "serving a sentence" in a penitentiary is a lot different from the time Rose is doing.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by wireman

I hate to harp on this, but "serving a sentence" in a penitentiary is a lot different from the time Rose is doing.

Well, Pete served some time there, too.....

[wireman]

Originally Posted by Questdog

Well, Pete served some time there, too.....

Ask him what the difference is.

[pstrickert]

Personally, I believe in a gradation of penalties depending on the crime. The lifetime ban is appropriate in some cases, the Black Sox scandal being one of them. Pete's "crime" doesn't rise to that same level, IMO. To me, a long-term ban from being involved with MLB (and the HOF) is acceptable to protect the integrity of the game. However, a lifetime ban is too extreme. I think the commissioner should commute the sentence. The game, IMO, will not be harmed because of it.

OK, I think it's good to take Pete Rose back. For that all we need is to change one of MLB rules, but it's nothing. While we here, let's change some rules in favor of Alex Rodrigues.

[Westheim]

Let me elaborate a bit further on my first post, which was not intended to put Rose on the same level as Chick Gandil, but was more provocative.

As has been posted before here, there is a rule that explicitly states that gambling by any player, umpire, manager, coach, and possibly the bat boy too, on a game which he is associated with will lead to a lifetime ban. Period.

Now, Pete Rose has admitted that he has repeatedly bet on Cincinnati Reds games while he was the Cincinnati Reds manager. That he claims to have only bet ON the Reds, and not AGAINST them, is

a) not proven to be true (to my knowledge at least),
b) if true may make him a better person than Chick Gandil,
c) if true still is an infraction of the mentioned MLB rule, and thus still makes him permanently ineligible.

I understand permanent as being just that, permanent. Not 10 years. Not 25 years. Not 40 years. Permanent. Which means "forever".

It is a sad story of baseball that the all-time hits leader (and I doubt we will ever see anybody break that record) will not be enshrined in the sport's Hall of Fame, but if you break the rules, then you are due for punishment. Of course the player Pete Rose is a sure-as-heck Hall of Famer based on his stats. But you can't have it all. You either place bets on your games, or you go to the Hall of Fame. Pick one.

The other option would be the removal of said rule and make it a 10-year ban, whatever.

But that opens the can of worms. Which rule will be the next one changed? Like mentioned, the reinstatement of Alex R. on a certain NY ballclub? Hell, no!

At the same time I am also in favor of exluding known "juicers" (admitted or proven) from the Hall of Fame, and not give the benefit of the doubt to those who are not proven to have juiced in the 90s/00s. The liar would go to the Hall and those that confessed are left out? Sounds wrong. Neither gets in. But that is just a side note.

[damientheomen3]

Originally Posted by Splitter24

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...ml#post3625734

Joe Jackson never agreed to take any money. Lefty Williams offered it to him, and then tossed it in his hotel room when he refused. Jackson attempted to give the money to Charles Comiskey and tell him about the other players' plot, but he wouldn't meet with him.

Then, when the actual trial was brought on, Jackson was represented by the team's attorney, Alfred Austrian. Austrian told Jackson to admit to throwing the series, and when Jackson refused because he was innocent, Austrian convinced him that not doing so would result in angry gamblers attempting to hurt him and his family. He also aggressively worked to get Jackson drunk, at which point Jackson finally agreed to admit his guilt in the case. Austrian also goaded the illiterate Jackson to sign a waiver of immunity. The players involved have since admitted that Jackson was not involved and his name only came up because they needed to give their plot credibility for gamblers to back their cause.

My source: The Team by Team Encyclopedia of Major League Baseball: By Dennis Purdy ... - Dennis Purdy - Google Books

[slic1149]

I have been to the Hall of Fame twice. Once in 2000 and once in 2011. I know for a fact that Pete Rose was in the Hall of Fame both times I was there. His accomplishments were acknowledged and his picture is featured prominently. Should his plaque be a part of the actual hall? I don't think so. Are there others who probably shouldn't be there either? Of course. That really isn't the point, is it? I just don't think the argument that his "crimes" were no worse than some others is a particularly compelling one.

Pete Rose had the opportunity to "come clean" for at least a decade and a half before he did. For almost thirty years he has traded on his career as a player to make millions of dollars. His apologies have never been particularly sincere. Pete spent years stonewalling and lying about whether or not he gambled on games.

The reasons why he is not in the hall are documented. I believe his actions after being banned have been selfish and arrogant. Does he belong in the Hall of Fame, FWIW, I don't think so. That is my opinion and I do not expect those who disagree with it to be convinced by my reasons.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Questdog

Pete was never associated with organized crime or was in bed with gambling interests like John McGraw. Pete just made a lot of money for his bookie.

Doesn't matter. Rose violated Major League Rule 21(d)(2)—he bet on games in which he had a duty to perform. The penalty for such violation is a lifetime ban. The rule is crystal clear; there is no ambiguity or loophole that can be exploited.

Now, if you want to say baseball's administration has not been consistent in its application of this rule over the years, that's different, and is an administrative manner. That in no way invalidates the rule or its proscribed punishment.

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

I would be very upset if he was allowed back into baseball. Betting is the worst kind of disease that can inflict the game and this is why you see people who are actually involved in decision making hand down such draconian penalties ...

The very fabric of sport is the essence of competition. Having even the fainest hint of the result being artificial stains and tears that fabric.
Once that happens then it is no longer a sport. It is the WWE

See the various betting scandals that have plagued Taiwan's professional baseball over the years for an example.

[Déjà Bru]

Some of you guys are harsh, IMO.

However (and it's a big however) . . .

. . . those of you who feel that way because they are concerned for the integrity of the game have my sincere respect. It's the same argument that I use, and I will never change my mind about, cheating through PED use.

Yes, it's a nuance: Rose never bet against the Reds. Or so he says; we don't have any proof of that one way or the other. Next comes the thought that maybe he is lying about that . . .

As one of you said, betting is betting and it is strictly banned so that there are no such questions, no taint to the integrity of the game. I respect this position.

[CommishJoe]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Pete Rose has served enough time for his "crime." 25 years of banishment from the sport that he loves, less than some murderers serve with good behavior, is long enough. Maybe it's the Tony Gwynn obituary that has prompted this thought; we need to treasure the true greats of baseball and doing so while they are alive (Rose is now 73!) would be nice.

Correct me if I am wrong: Rose bet on his Reds to win while he was their manager. Is that the extent of it? There is no evidence that he ever bet on them to lose and then tried to throw the game, correct? So what he did was to continue to try to win at all costs, as is proper, but he also tried to make a few bucks on the side as well? (Why he would need to do so and risk everything that he subsequently lost is another matter.)

If that is it, then he's been punished enough. Let him back into Baseball. Let's give honor to the all-time hits leader for an accomplishment attained on talent, desire, hard work, and hustle alone because there is no evidence that I have seen that he ever used PED's. And let him into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Nope.

(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.

He knew the punishment when he did the crime. So, he's doing the time. End of story.