Pete Rose sycophants

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by Orcin

MLBPA head Tony Clark wants Rose reinstated. Clark said, "He made a decision. He made a decision that was not the right decision. He made a decision that he has paid a price for."

Mr. Clark should have a look at the rule book, specially section 21d. Judging from that rule (which isn't brand new in the slightest), the price for said infraction has yet to be paid in full.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

Mr. Clark should have a look at the rule book, specially section 21d. Judging from that rule (which isn't brand new in the slightest), the price for said infraction has yet to be paid in full.

For some people, the price can never be paid in full. They want to spit on his grave. Hasn't he been punished enough for betting on his own team to win? He has been banned for 25 years now. People get less for rape and child abuse in the U.S. Let's be real. It's not like he killed someone.

[chucksabr]

It's not as though Pete Rose is trying to avoid prison, either. If he were in prison for 25 years for betting on baseball games, I agree that would be excessive. But he's not. He's been a free man ever since his declared lifetime ineligibility, and in fact has been able to make a pretty good living off his own stupidity and/or gambling disorder. So if we're going to compare the crime committed by Pete Rose against Baseball with the crimes of rapists and child molesters committed against the state, then it's only fair to compare the sentences received, too.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Orcin

For some people, the price can never be paid in full. They want to spit on his grave. Hasn't he been punished enough for betting on his own team to win? He has been banned for 25 years now. People get less for rape and child abuse in the U.S. Let's be real. It's not like he killed someone.

Killing someone has a smaller detrimental effect on baseball than gambling on games while you are in a position to affect the outcome. And lest we pretend that this is no big deal because he only ever bet on his team to win, we also know that he did not bet on every single game that his team played and as such was heavily incentivized to cook the books by setting his team up to win those games he bet on in particular, even if (perhaps especially if, because doing so would increase the odds) he had to lose other games to get those results.

[CommishJoe]

1st -- Leave personal attacks out of this discussion.

2nd -- Rules are rules. They are posted in every club house in baseball. Pete Rose knew the consequences of his actions when he bet on his team while managing them. Now, he's doing the time. I do not want to see the rules changed because someone with Rose's resume broke them. If this was Bucky Dent or Mickey Rivers, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Just because he was a great player doesn't mean we should bend the rules for him.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by Orcin

For some people, the price can never be paid in full. They want to spit on his grave.

Good for them? You'll find people at extremes for every position. It doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by Orcin

Hasn't he been punished enough for betting on his own team to win?

According to the rules of the league that he made his living in for over two decades, a rule that isn't exactly obscure or hard to understand, no, he hasn't. It's one of the few things that legal wise, is crystal clear. Bet on baseball, banned forever. Pretty cut and dry.

Originally Posted by Orcin

He has been banned for 25 years now.

William Cox has been banned for over seventy years.
The Black Sox have been banned for 95 years. Same with Hal Chase and Heinie Zimmerman.
Jim Devlin has been banned for a century and a half.
There's a lot of people that have been banned from major league ball. The majority for gambling. Almost all for gambling have been banned forever. The only reason why anyone wants an exception for Pete Rose (and to a lesser extent, SHoeless Joe), is because he put up decent numbers and is either well known and/or still alive to give a **** about. Making exceptions for certain players to be outside the rules of the game invalidates the rules period, because enforcement is no longer impartial. Much like how having the specture of game fixing would lead to baseball having the same issues it experienced in the 1910's, with the added cavaet that there's a LOT more for sport fans to be drawn by these days.

Originally Posted by Orcin

People get less for rape and child abuse in the U.S. Let's be real. It's not like he killed someone.

When Major League Baseball is in charge of dictating enforcement policy for the US penal system, you have a comparison. As they don't, it's irrelevant. Baseball has enforcement over who can, and who can't play in their league, be it player, manager, owner, etc... They also decide what punishment is due for various enfrachtions as they seem fit. Anyone affected by said rules, can always either attempt to have said rules changed, not commit said violations, or no longer be affected by said rules. And breaking by a rule that would call into question the validity of an entire industry is a order of magnitude worse then your examples. It would be on par with a Bernie Madoff in finance, something that would call into question the validity and trust of a fair and impartial game would reduce baseball to a sideshow at best, extinction at worse.

EDIT: Or what Syd alluded too.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by CommishJoe

1st -- Leave personal attacks out of this discussion.

THANK you!

Originally Posted by CommishJoe

2nd -- Rules are rules. They are posted in every club house in baseball. Pete Rose knew the consequences of his actions when he bet on his team while managing them. Now, he's doing the time. I do not want to see the rules changed because someone with Rose's resume broke them. If this was Bucky Dent or Mickey Rivers, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Just because he was a great player doesn't mean we should bend the rules for him.

Bad rules are made to be changed, but this is not a bad rule. This rule speaks to the very center of the game: its competitive integrity. Without that, the game is no better than WWE.

[Orcin]

I guess I am the only person here that feels the punishment has already fit the crime. Fortunately for Pete Rose, there are a lot of people in baseball circles that agree with me. I hope that Rob Manfred is among them.

[Westheim]

Well, he must have known very well that gambling would bring permanent ineligibility with it. He can't argue never having looked at the clubhouse wall.

Then, he is the all-time hits leader, and at the rate things are going, I don't suspect anybody to replace him - ever.

Can't they give him a really ugly plaque with a big crack in it, and the words GAMBLING CROOK sprayed on?

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Killing someone has a smaller detrimental effect on baseball than gambling on games while you are in a position to affect the outcome. And lest we pretend that this is no big deal because he only ever bet on his team to win, we also know that he did not bet on every single game that his team played and as such was heavily incentivized to cook the books by setting his team up to win those games he bet on in particular, even if (perhaps especially if, because doing so would increase the odds) he had to lose other games to get those results.

Two things:

1. Honest question: How do we know that Pete Rose bet on his team only to win? How do we know he never once bet on his team to lose? If we're taking only his word for it, we all know how worthless that is. If it's because that's the only evidence Baseball has managed to uncover, all that means is that there's an absence of evidence that he bet on his team to lose, which is a different concept than "he bet only on his team to win". Is there any concrete evidence that 100% of the bets he placed on his own team was for the team to win? I honestly don't know and would like to learn.
   
   
2. Even if he bet only on his team to win, and only in the selected games on which he did bet, that in itself is problematic, because the very act of his not betting on the other games is a tell to the bookies he's acquainted with that he doesn't believe the Reds have as much of a chance, which affects the betting, and furthermore, that could have been an actual arrangement he had with bookies that he could get a kickback on. That is an actual thing. Maybe that does not affect the competitive integrity of this particular game on this particular day, but it does sully the general integrity of the game for it to be used by players and managers inside to communicate to gamblers outside on their chances for making a bet, even if explicitly by the action of not making a bet.

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

The only reason why anyone wants an exception for Pete Rose (and to a lesser extent, SHoeless Joe), is because he put up decent numbers and is either well known and/or still alive to give a **** about.

I think this is correct, but I also think there's more. I think there's a cultural thing going on, too.

Pete was a throwback player, the original "Charlie Hustle", something which greatly appeals to the kind of fan who believes there is simply no such thing as hustle in today's game. Pete was also a player of relatively slight gifts, a little guy who made the most of his talent and drive to fashion one of the better careers in baseball history. Top it off with his story as a hardscrabble kid from a modest lower middle-class background who ended up starring for his hometown team. Add all that up, and Pete comes across as a biblical David, the pure-of-heart champion of the everyday common folk who went up against the Goliaths of his day and beat them with hard work and guile, something almost everyone can identify with, instead of bludgeoning them to death with brute strength, which hardly anyone can identify with.

As a thought exercise, imagine Barry Bonds as a player who never took steroids but gambled on his team to win instead. His career still features well over 600 homers, with his 500+ steals, probably comfortably over 3,000 hits (because of the fewer walks), still one of the transcendent players of the game. But he still would have grown up the otherworldly-gifted pampered son of an All-Star major leaguer, with all the physical and training advantages that he enjoyed along the way, and still portrayed by the media as a complete unrepentant jerk with the vibrating luxury lounge chair that the other players were warned to keep their grubby asses out of.

Imagine that Barry Bonds getting a lifetime ban for gambling on his team to win. How many people would be angry about his banishment and stumping for his reinstatement at every opportunity? Precious few, I would bet. YMMV.

[stl jason]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

[*]Even if he bet only on his team to win, and only in the selected games on which he did bet, that in itself is problematic, because the very act of his not betting on the other games is a tell to the bookies he's acquainted with that he doesn't believe the Reds have as much of a chance, which affects the betting, and furthermore, that could have been an actual arrangement he had with bookies that he could get a kickback on. That is an actual thing. Maybe that does not affect the competitive integrity of this particular game on this particular day, but it does sully the general integrity of the game for it to be used by players and managers inside to communicate to gamblers outside on their chances for making a bet, even if explicitly by the action of not making a bet.

just my 2 cents on this one... even if we assume it's true he only bet on the Reds to win; chances are, he didn't always win those games. Start losing too many of those bets and suddenly those bookies start pulling his strings for their benefit, whether he wants to make a bet or not.


someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the HOF isn't actually affiliated with MLB itself, right? So technically, the HOF/sportswriters can decide to elect anyone they want, regardless of MLB banishment. They just choose to abide by those bans and not make them eligible. MLB doesn't have to change the rule at all, the HOF can just choose ignore the ban (I don't see that happening, but it's an option).

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I guess I am the only person here that feels the punishment has already fit the crime. Fortunately for Pete Rose, there are a lot of people in baseball circles that agree with me. I hope that Rob Manfred is among them.

Regardless if he is or not, he'll do what's most profitable for a league that still has issues with PED players, much less saying that it's ok to be on the take as long as you have good stats. There are others like you out there, but unless there's a strong, verifiable majority (and like an iceberg, the noise you see on the internet is just what's above water), it's not happening.

Originally Posted by stl jason

jSomeone correct me if I'm wrong, but the HOF isn't actually affiliated with MLB itself, right? So technically, the HOF/sportswriters can decide to elect anyone they want, regardless of MLB banishment. They just choose to abide by those bans and not make them eligible. MLB doesn't have to change the rule at all, the HOF can just choose ignore the ban (I don't see that happening, but it's an option).

Oddly enough I couldn't find if it is or isn't. Seems very vague, although if they're getting any money from MLB, I'd lean towards the "yes" side. As for bucking that, I point to my previous reply that the hall would be saying being on the take is acceptable if you posted HOF stats, which combined with PED players and some....interesting choices (Jim Rice anyone?), it's another issue they can safely avoid.

[CommishJoe]

Originally Posted by stl jason

someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the HOF isn't actually affiliated with MLB itself, right? So technically, the HOF/sportswriters can decide to elect anyone they want, regardless of MLB banishment. They just choose to abide by those bans and not make them eligible. MLB doesn't have to change the rule at all, the HOF can just choose ignore the ban (I don't see that happening, but it's an option).

I believe you are correct. If they decided to allow a vote on Rose, I wouldn't be against it. However, I am against the MLB bending the rules because a good player decided to break one of their cardinal rules. Like I said earlier, if this was a "normal" player, say Joe Girardi or Terry Francona, we would have stopped hearing about it eons ago. What makes it right to bend the rules just because it was an exceptional player that broke them?

[chucksabr]

Great point, stl_jason. Once you establish a business relationship with a bookie, it can entail all kinds of things not directly related to you merely placing a bet, particularly if the bookie thinks he can influence the outcome directly through you.

As for the Hall of Fame, they are not owned or run by MLB, but they are so closely affiliated with MLB that they would never dream of inducting a permanently ineligible player, even though it is technically possible.

[ThatSeventiesGuy]

I've said this before, and will continue to say it: Lifetime bans should be just that. LIFETIME bans. When the person dies, they should be eligible again, IMO. Which is why Shoeless Joe should have been in years ago, but Pete should have to wait until he gets to that big ballpark in the great beyond.

[ihatenames]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

Mr. Clark should have a look at the rule book, specially section 21d. Judging from that rule (which isn't brand new in the slightest), the price for said infraction has yet to be paid in full.

Yes, but nothing in Rose's ban prevents him from applying for reinstatement. Reinstatement which is covered under rule 15(D) in particular. Which states:

"In all cases the Commissioner or the Commissioner's designee may determine, at any time, either on his or her own motion or at the request of a Major or Minor League, Major or Minor League Club or player, that the best interests of Baseball require that a player, Club or League official or employee, or other person, be placed on the Ineligible List and may also, in his or her sole discretion and upon such terms and conditions as he or she may deem proper, reinstate any such person from the Ineligible List or transfer the person from the Ineligible List to the Disqualified List."

If Rose can make a sincere argument for reinstatement I'd be willing to give him a second chance to be around the game on a conditional basis.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

...and some....interesting choices (Jim Rice anyone?)...

But...But...He was: "The Most Feared Hitter of His Generation"

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by ThatSeventiesGuy

I've said this before, and will continue to say it: Lifetime bans should be just that. LIFETIME bans.

Except it says permanent, not lifetime.

Originally Posted by ihatenames

Yes, but nothing in Rose's ban prevents him from applying for reinstatement.

No argument there. I recall reading that Shoeless Joe and Mike Devlin did the same with their banishments. The latter being a ghost at league offices for a while.

Originally Posted by ihatenames

If Rose can make a sincere argument for reinstatement I'd be willing to give him a second chance to be around the game on a conditional basis.

And as someone that has seen him charge his story more then once on this issue, I'd find his sincerity ringing a bit hollow. Plus all the other items running against any sort of reinstatement, such as inequal application of the rules, what a reinstatement states about the league's policy of players and betting on themselves/trust issues regarding an honest product being provided for the paying fan, and the inertia of over 50 permanent bans for this exact infraction in the league's history pushing against it happening.

[ihatenames]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

Except it says permanent, not lifetime.



No argument there. I recall reading that Shoeless Joe and Mike Devlin did the same with their banishments. The latter being a ghost at league offices for a while.



And as someone that has seen him charge his story more then once on this issue, I'd find his sincerity ringing a bit hollow. Plus all the other items running against any sort of reinstatement, such as inequal application of the rules, what a reinstatement states about the league's policy of players and betting on themselves/trust issues regarding an honest product being provided for the paying fan, and the inertia of over 50 permanent bans for this exact infraction in the league's history pushing against it happening.

Well that's exactly it. He has to make a sincere argument as to why it would benefit baseball for him to reinstated. What will he give to the game by being part of it again. All of your other points are valid and that something he as to address. But I am open-minded and willing to hearing him out.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

Two things:

Honest question: How do we know that Pete Rose bet on his team only to win? How do we know he never once bet on his team to lose? If we're taking only his word for it, we all know how worthless that is. If it's because that's the only evidence Baseball has managed to uncover, all that means is that there's an absence of evidence that he bet on his team to lose, which is a different concept than "he bet only on his team to win". Is there any concrete evidence that 100% of the bets he placed on his own team was for the team to win? I honestly don't know and would like to learn.

The Dodd report came back with receipts from I think his bookie, and those receipts are what the commissioner's office used to ban him from the game. On all of those receipts except for I believe one he bet on the Reds to win (the Reds were omitted from the single other one if memory serves).

That being said, we also don't have 162 receipts a year and there is zero evidence, even from Rose himself, that he even came close to betting on all of his team's games. Part of the reason why he is out of the game and has to remain out is that he set up a situation where he could plausibly do something close to actively throwing games (I guess technically leaving your closer out of one game so he's available to pitch in one you bet on isn't technically throwing the first game but it's still rather sinister and is precisely the kind of thing that puts the sanctity of competition into dobut).

Even if he bet only on his team to win, and only in the selected games on which he did bet, that in itself is problematic, because the very act of his not betting on the other games is a tell to the bookies he's acquainted with that he doesn't believe the Reds have as much of a chance, which affects the betting, and furthermore, that could have been an actual arrangement he had with bookies that he could get a kickback on. That is an actual thing. Maybe that does not affect the competitive integrity of this particular game on this particular day, but it does sully the general integrity of the game for it to be used by players and managers inside to communicate to gamblers outside on their chances for making a bet, even if explicitly by the action of not making a bet.

Right, this is part of what I'm saying. Additionally there's the fact that this necessarily put him into contact with figures in gambling and organized crime, which in turn could have made him a facilitator to a larger spate of game-throwing a la Billy Maharg and Abe Attell.

Pete was a throwback player, the original "Charlie Hustle", something which greatly appeals to the kind of fan who believes there is simply no such thing as hustle in today's game. Pete was also a player of relatively slight gifts, a little guy who made the most of his talent and drive to fashion one of the better careers in baseball history. Top it off with his story as a hardscrabble kid from a modest lower middle-class background who ended up starring for his hometown team. Add all that up, and Pete comes across as a biblical David, the pure-of-heart champion of the everyday common folk who went up against the Goliaths of his day and beat them with hard work and guile, something almost everyone can identify with, instead of bludgeoning them to death with brute strength, which hardly anyone can identify with.

As a thought exercise, imagine Barry Bonds as a player who never took steroids but gambled on his team to win instead. His career still features well over 600 homers, with his 500+ steals, probably comfortably over 3,000 hits (because of the fewer walks), still one of the transcendent players of the game. But he still would have grown up the otherworldly-gifted pampered son of an All-Star major leaguer, with all the physical and training advantages that he enjoyed along the way, and still portrayed by the media as a complete unrepentant jerk with the vibrating luxury lounge chair that the other players were warned to keep their grubby asses out of.

Imagine that Barry Bonds getting a lifetime ban for gambling on his team to win. How many people would be angry about his banishment and stumping for his reinstatement at every opportunity? Precious few, I would bet. YMMV.

Weirdly enough, it's the Davey Eckstein-esque nature of Rose that I think soured a lot of sportswriters against him once this all came out. Rose when he played actually had the reputation of a showboat. The sportswriters ate it up because his showboating was the kind of showboating they liked (for instance, when he drew a walk he'd sprint fo first base; in fact, the nickname "Charlie Hustle" was probably applied to him sarcastically), but I'm sure they heard his teammates and other guys around the league when they told them he was a bit of a jerk, and I am doubly sure that they remember Rose barrelling into Ray Fosse at the 1970 All Star Game, so even when they were praising him I think they were secretly only around 51/49 in favor of Rose the person. So when that crap did come out, well, they'd been waiting to turn on him.

I think Rose is actually closer in temperament to Bonds than one might think. One thing about Bonds, for instance, is that the rampant steroid use only helped him to maintain an absolutely brutal training regimen without laying himself up with workout-related injuries all the time. I'm no fan of Bonds either but he had a hell of a work ethic. And while sure, Bonds juiced and broke the HR record, Pete Rose broke Ty Cobb's hit record by putting himself into the lineup year after year despite being completely useless as a player (from age 41 on, he was worth -2.6 WAR). I mean, at least Bonds helped his team to actually win games...