Pete Rose Admits to Betting on Baseball

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

That and he had to win, MAN! Pete just HAD to win! Just ask Ray Fosse. Man, that game didn't even mean anything to the rest of us, but it did to Pete! Pete was just such a FIERCE competitor that he was willing to break someone's jaw and derail their career to WIN an exhibition game! Yea, Pete was a winner. Not like that glass jaw, Ray Fosse. If he was a REAL WINNER then he'd have seen Charlie Hustle barreling down that line and would have delivered a forearm shivv to Pete's jaw. But even then, Ray would have been left with a broken arm because Pete's jaw is made of fortitude and BALLS. Not like that pansy Ray Fosse and his stupid breakable human jaw.

Uh, I just realized that I made a mistake and it was his shoulder. Replace jaw with shoulder so I don't look quite as dumb.

[Joe Canadian]

Just to totally screw with this thread... I don't understand people who think Barry Bonds should get into the Hall, and Rose shouldn't. Discuss.

[APujols5]

Originally Posted by The Professor

If I had a lineup composed entirely of Ron Santo's from 1963-1967 and you had a similar lineup composed of eight career average Pete Rose's, I guarantee you I'd win.

Using numbers you can understand, I'd have a lineup of guys who hit .300, play Gold Glove defense (at third base, at least), hit 30 HR with 100 RBI, while drawing nearly 100 walks. They also each score almost 80-100 runs per year.

You'd have a lineup of .300 hitters with gap power, 7 home runs 15 at best, 70 RBI if you are lucky, a few stolen bases, with 50-60 walks and 90-100 runs.

Even using this weak form of comparison, Rose is a Hall of Fame-caliber player who doesn't "hold a candle" to Ron Santo at his peak.

last I checked through baseball wasn't played with a team full of clones. Plus even if i had my lineup full of Pete Rose's, I'd at least have a better chance of putting a full lineup on the field. I'd like my chances hitting with your Ron Santo's at other positions besides 3b. Not even mentioning sure Rose never drove in the runs that Santo did. But i promise you, My 3rd and 4th hitting Rose would have lots of runs to drive in with my other Roses' already on base

[Gastric ReFlux]

So anyone got a copy of OOTP to test out the Santos versus Roses idea?

[APujols5]

Originally Posted by Gastric ReFlux

So anyone got a copy of OOTP to test out the Santos versus Roses idea?

I'd really like my chances in OOTP. Santo would only have fielding experience at 3b and Rose would have 1b, 2b,3b and OF

[CBL-Commish]

There's a simple way to look at things: their averages per 162 games. No crazy newfangled acronym stats, just easy-to-understand basics:

 Year Ag Tm  Lg  G   AB    R    H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA   OBP SLG *OPS+  TB   SH  SF IBB HBP GDP  
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
 162 Game Avg        639   98  194  34  6   7   60   9  7  71  52  .303  .375  .409  118  262   3   4   8   5  11
 Career High    163  680  130  230  51 11  16   82  20 15 106  76  .348  .428  .512  158  321   8   7  18  11  18
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+

 Year Ag Tm  Lg  G   AB    R    H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA   OBP   SLG *OPS+  TB   SH  SF IBB HBP GDP 
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
 162 Game Avg        588   82  163  26  5  25   96   3  3  80  97  .277  .362  .464  125  273   1   7   7   3  18
 Career High    164  630  107  187  33 13  33  123   6  5  96 109  .313  .412  .564  164  334   3  14   9   6  27
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+

The only big, clear advantage for either player is that player #2 (obviously Santo) hits three times as many homers. OBP is within 15 points, stolen bases are a wash. Rose had a few more high-OBP years, Santo had a lot more high SLG years.

Anyone who says Santo couldn't hold a candle to Rose even in his best years clearly isn't paying attention, or has an agenda.

[AnotherAlias]

Originally Posted by Muppetus Galacticus

Zorro?
Bruce Wayne?
Sarge?
Rosemary, the telephone operator?
Penry, the mild, mannered janitor?
phesta?

Can't look at his profile. WTF?

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

Just to totally screw with this thread... I don't understand people who think Barry Bonds should get into the Hall, and Rose shouldn't. Discuss.

Yeah, it is kind of hypocritical to think it's okay to allow Bonds (a cheater) into the HOF, but not Rose (a gambler).

I know I've said in the past that Rose shouldn't be in, but I do believe that as a player, his accomplishments warrant his induction. He should still be banned from the game and not be allowed to manage ever again...that goes without saying.

[AnotherAlias]

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

There's a simple way to look at things: their averages per 162 games. No crazy newfangled acronym stats, just easy-to-understand basics:

 Year Ag Tm  Lg  G   AB    R    H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA   OBP SLG *OPS+  TB   SH  SF IBB HBP GDP  
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
 162 Game Avg        639   98  194  34  6   7   60   9  7  71  52  .303  .375  .409  118  262   3   4   8   5  11
 Career High    163  680  130  230  51 11  16   82  20 15 106  76  .348  .428  .512  158  321   8   7  18  11  18
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+

 Year Ag Tm  Lg  G   AB    R    H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA   OBP   SLG *OPS+  TB   SH  SF IBB HBP GDP 
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
 162 Game Avg        588   82  163  26  5  25   96   3  3  80  97  .277  .362  .464  125  273   1   7   7   3  18
 Career High    164  630  107  187  33 13  33  123   6  5  96 109  .313  .412  .564  164  334   3  14   9   6  27
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+

The only big, clear advantage for either player is that player #2 (obviously Santo) hits three times as many homers. OBP is within 15 points, stolen bases are a wash. Rose had a few more high-OBP years, Santo had a lot more high SLG years.

Anyone who says Santo couldn't hold a candle to Rose even in his best years clearly isn't paying attention, or has an agenda.

They both are deserving of the HOF, IMHO.

[briantheiceberg]

are not all managers betting on their team to win in essance?

If they lose, they don't have a job. Pretty big bet in my opinion

[magnet]

Originally Posted by briantheiceberg

are not all managers betting on their team to win in essance?

If they lose, they don't have a job. Pretty big bet in my opinion

Yeah, except for the whole "laying down money on a game" part...

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by AnotherAlias

Yeah, it is kind of hypocritical to think it's okay to allow Bonds (a cheater) into the HOF, but not Rose (a gambler).

Rose is a cheater and a gambler. As has been previously stated Rose admitted to using PEDs almost 30 years ago. He was essentially bragging about it in Playboy.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by The Professor

If I had a lineup composed entirely of Ron Santo's from 1963-1967 and you had a similar lineup composed of eight career average Pete Rose's, I guarantee you I'd win.

Using numbers you can understand, I'd have a lineup of guys who hit .300, play Gold Glove defense (at third base, at least), hit 30 HR with 100 RBI, while drawing nearly 100 walks. They also each score almost 80-100 runs per year.

Yes, and he also did it during baseball's second dead ball era. Translate his 63-68 to any other era, and his stats are eye popping.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by APujols5

I'd really like my chances in OOTP. Santo would only have fielding experience at 3b and Rose would have 1b, 2b,3b and OF

Except Santo would be a B at third base with a B arm, and Rose would be a C at 1B/LF and a D at 2B/3B with a D arm. If Pete Rose had been an exceptional defensive player, he wouldn't have moved around so much. Early in his career the Reds wanted to get him in the lineup for his offensive ability, but couldn't figure out where to play him.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

Rose is a cheater and a gambler. As has been previously stated Rose admitted to using PEDs almost 30 years ago. He was essentially bragging about it in Playboy.

http://www.craveonline.com/sports/ar..._drug_use.html

So yes, gambler *and* cheater. Not that I hold cheating against anyone (the gambling is another story).

[Dagrims]

Originally Posted by APujols5

last I checked through baseball wasn't played with a team full of clones.

Um, Professor, he's got you there. It's nearly impossible to have any reasonable comeback so don't even bother trying.

Match.Point.Set.

[CommishJoe]

Originally Posted by APujols5

Dola..

Every report I have ever seen talks about Rose betting when he managed, never have I seen them talk about his playing days. So ok, ban him from the game. But he earned his HOF status

Well, here's one...

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.d...60427/1071/SPT

The Dowd Report says Rose bet on the Reds in 1985 and 1986 - he was a Reds player as well as manager in those years - and 52 times in 1987.

DOH!

[CommishJoe]

Originally Posted by Dagrims

Um, Professor, he's got you there. It's nearly impossible to have any reasonable comeback so don't even bother trying.

Match.Point.Set.

3 things that Rose had that Santo didn't:

1. A longer career
2. Ability to pencil himself into the lineup
3. A bookie

[Skipaway]

Isn't it kind of odd. How can someone be such a horrible gambler:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/sp...118&ei=5087%0A

For example, the records showed that in 69 instances, Rose bet $2,500 or more on a game. Astoundingly, he lost 64 of those 69, which computes to a .072 success rate. Had Rose had that kind of average at the plate, he wouldn’t have lasted long enough to get 200 hits, let alone 200 hits in 10 separate seasons.



As for Gullickson, Rose won the first four times he bet on games the pitcher started. But then he lost two of the next three. The report listed no Rose baseball bets for the ensuing two weeks, a stretch in which Gullickson, a right-hander, started three games.

When the records resumed, they showed that Rose had, for the most part, lost confidence in Gullickson. The manager placed no bets on Gullickson’s next four starts, five of his next six and six of his next eight.

In that span, from May 30 through July 4, the Reds played 25 other games and Rose failed to place a bet on only 3 of those games. Ted Power, Ron Robinson and Guy Hoffman started those games.

The absence of Reds bets in those instances did not mean that Rose had simply taken the day off from wagering. On one occasion, he bet on 10 other games not involving the Reds; in another instance, he bet on 5.

Gullickson, meanwhile, was not completely useless to the Reds, contrary to his manager’s betting strategy. In that period from May 30 to July 4, Gullickson started six games for which there were no betting slips. The Reds won three of the six. In the two games in that period in which Rose did bet with Gullickson on the mound, the Reds split.

It seems Pete Rose is pretty horrible at predicting team performance. He doesn't even seem to know the timing of betting on his own team.

[Spielman]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Isn't it kind of odd. How can someone be such a horrible gambler:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/sp...118&ei=5087%0A



It seems Pete Rose is pretty horrible at predicting team performance. He doesn't even seem to know the timing of betting on his own team.

I think something else is at work with those bets. I've looked through the data in the Dowd report a bit, and was struck by that horrible success rate on the bets larger than $2000, until I realized what was going on. (I think.)

I think Rose generally bet the amount that he would need to put down in order to win two grand if he was faced with short odds. In those cases, he lost more money than $2000, and only won $2000 when he was right. Thus, it looks like he only ever lost on the bigger money bets.

Note, I'm not a gambler, and I may be wrong, but that scenario seems more likely to me than that Rose would be that bad when he decided to make larger bets.

[Spielman]

Originally Posted by Chappy

So, let me get this straight...

1. Pete Rose swears he never bet on baseball

2. Pete Rose admits he bet on baseball but denies betting on the Reds ("coincidently" when a book was being released)

3. Pete Rose admits he bet on the Reds, but that he bet on the Reds all the time ("coincidently" when a Pete Rose exhibit was opening)

...so, we can assume that next will be...

4. Pete Rose admits he bet on the Reds some days and not on others

...and then...

5. Pete Rose admits he bet on the Reds some days and against them on others

I actually doubt that we'll ever see #5. The Dowd report found nothing like that, and there haven't been any substantiated reports of it from other sources, either. (That I'm aware of, anyway.)

I don't doubt, though, that had Rose not been found out, and kept managing and gambling, he might very well have been forced into the position of managing to lose some games to pay back his gambling creditors. I don't think that Rose would have gone against his competitive instincts unless he were absolutely forced to, and there's nothing to suggest he'd reached that point by the time he was banned.