Pete Rose sycophants

[Le Grande Orange]

I'll simply reiterate that the rules against betting on baseball are crystal clear. It does not matter if the player or official bet on his club to win, it does not matter if he bet on only one game or a hundred. Bet on a game in which you have no duty to perform and you're out for a year. Bet on a game in which you do have a duty to perform and you're out permanantly.

Rose knew the rules and foolishly broke them. The tragedy is that he couldn't stop himself from betting on the sport in which he participated.

[Jason Moyer]

Pete Rose Reinstatement Request Offers MLB Commissioner Lower Vig On Upcoming Emanuel Lopez-Carlos Padilla Fight | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[MarkInCincy]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I guess I am the only person here that feels the punishment has already fit the crime.

Theres 2 of us

[RubeBaker]

The Baseball Hall of Fame without Pete Rose in it is like Mount Rushmore without George Washington.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by rubebaker

the baseball hall of fame without pete rose in it is like mount rushmore without warren g. Harding.

ftfy

[IsaacR]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

I'll simply reiterate that the rules against betting on baseball are crystal clear. It does not matter if the player or official bet on his club to win, it does not matter if he bet on only one game or a hundred. Bet on a game in which you have no duty to perform and you're out for a year. Bet on a game in which you do have a duty to perform and you're out permanantly.

Rose knew the rules and foolishly broke them. The tragedy is that he couldn't stop himself from betting on the sport in which he participated.

My issue here is not that Rose should be banned or not (he should) but rather that this ban keeps him out of the Hall of Fame. As a player, he's undoubtedly one of the greats. Therefore, he should have a plaque. Doesn't mean he should still be involved with baseball, as a coach or otherwise, but he is a Hall of Famer.

[Syd Thrift]

Hey, the HoF is technically free to allow a vote. I mean, they won't because they've long maintained a policy of "if he's out of baseball, then he's out of the Hall", but they could do that if they wanted to.

Otherwise, I'm sorry, but the guy is not the greatest player ever to play, not even close. He's not even really in the inner circle. He's not even close to being on the same level as Babe Ruth or Lou Gehrig or Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays or Reggie Jackson or Ken Griffey Jr. or Joe DiMaggio or Ted Williams or Honus Wagner or Hank Aaron or Cal Ripken or Ernie Banks. He's a very good player who played a very long time, in part because he was the last player in the history of the game (at least as of now) who had the direct power to write his own name into the lineup. Sure, he has as good a case as a lot of guys who are already in it and a better case than most everyone who isn't but let's not go crazy here. The game is not cheapened by leaving out the all-time hits leader any more than it would be cheapened if Hack Wilson (the single season RBI leader) was left out.

Personally I could not care less if he ever makes it in. He's a world-class jackass who took 20 years to even admit that he'd gambled on the game in the first place in the face of damning evidence. Maybe in another 20 years when he admits that yes, he was actually in the wrong for doing this, we can begin the process, although if he's dead by then I won't be shedding any tears.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Hey, the HoF is technically free to allow a vote. I mean, they won't because they've long maintained a policy of "if he's out of baseball, then he's out of the Hall", but they could do that if they wanted to.

Otherwise, I'm sorry, but the guy is not the greatest player ever to play, not even close. He's not even really in the inner circle. He's not even close to being on the same level as Babe Ruth or Lou Gehrig or Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays or Reggie Jackson or Ken Griffey Jr. or Joe DiMaggio or Ted Williams or Honus Wagner or Hank Aaron or Cal Ripken or Ernie Banks. He's a very good player who played a very long time, in part because he was the last player in the history of the game (at least as of now) who had the direct power to write his own name into the lineup. Sure, he has as good a case as a lot of guys who are already in it and a better case than most everyone who isn't but let's not go crazy here. The game is not cheapened by leaving out the all-time hits leader any more than it would be cheapened if Hack Wilson (the single season RBI leader) was left out.

Comparing Rose to Hack is not fair and Hack is in the Hall.. One season does not make a career and longevity should be looked at as a good thing not a negative. I don't see anyone blasting Nolan Ryan for playing 27 seasons. He broke the record in his 1st full season as the Reds MGR in 405 AB's.

[Syd Thrift]

He posted a scintillating 0.6 WAR that year and had not at the time been above even 1 WAR for 4 years.

Numbers-wise, sure, I never said he wasn't a Hall of Famer. He's not out of the Hall because the numbers aren't there. He's out of the Hall because he bet on baseball games. All I'm saying is, leaving a guy out whose main claim to fame was that he was a very good, not inner circle guy who simply played for a long time (in part because he penciled himself into the batting order) is not the worst thing baseball has ever done by a long shot.

[mirrf]

Yea, well at least Pete Rose is in the WWE hall of fame. Probably for taking a pile-driver in his mid-late 50s.

[fhomess]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

All I'm saying is, leaving a guy out whose main claim to fame was that he was a very good, not inner circle guy who simply played for a long time (in part because he penciled himself into the batting order) is not the worst thing baseball has ever done by a long shot

If he didn't have the gambling thing and still wasn't in the HOF, then it would be by far the most egregious exclusion from that honor and people would have no respect at all for the institution. I don't ever want to see him enshrined, but I don't think disparaging his on field accomplishments is anywhere close to the right argument.

[Syd Thrift]

If we're specifically only excluding what Rose did wrong from this, then sure, I agree that he'd be the most egregious person to be left out. That's cherry-picking, however. If we removed the restriction from *everyone*, then Barry Bonds would be the most egregious exclusion, and it wouldn't even be close. Bonds' JAWS is about twice what Rose's is, with Rose being much closer to Reggie Jackson (Jax is ~60, Rose ~61). Even there, it's his longevity that puts him that high; if you go by WAR7, he's more in line with Dick Allen and Ralph Kiner.

Again, I am not saying that if we were to magically forget about his gambling he would still not be a Hall of Famer; Kiner's still in there, for instance, and Reggie Jackson is a lock for the place. He's a. not the most egregious omission, and b. not, in spite of what people who are only interested in very basic stats sometimes say, one of the top 4 or 5 players in the game or anything.

[Orcin]

There is no logical argument against Pete Rose, the player, being in the Hall of Fame.

[mirrf]

Originally Posted by Orcin

There is no logical argument against Pete Rose, the player, being in the Hall of Fame.

I know wiki's aren't 100% true. But here's a quote from Pete Roses'.

Dowd interviewed many of Rose's associates, including alleged bookies and bet runners. He delivered a summary of his findings to the Commissioner in May. In it, Dowd documented Rose's alleged gambling activities in 1985 and 1986 and compiled a day-by-day account of Rose's alleged betting on baseball games in 1987. The Dowd Report documented his alleged bets on 52 Reds games in 1987, where Rose wagered a minimum of $10,000 a day. Others alleged to have been involved in the activities claim that number was actually $2,000 a day.

I know you either don't believe that or don't care. But you can't say there isn't an argument that Pete bet on games in which he played not just managed. That would ban Pete Rose the player. If you can't see that logic, than I don't know what to tell you.

[Orcin]

Pete Rose did not play in 1987, so I don't understand how the passage you quoted shows Pete Rose betting on baseball games in which he was a player.

[mirrf]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Pete Rose did not play in 1987, so I don't understand how the passage you quoted shows Pete Rose betting on baseball games in which he was a player.

Dowd documented Rose's alleged gambling activities in 1985 and 1986

.

[ihatenames]

Peters testified that he took bets from Gioiosa and Pete Rose during the period from late 1984 to late 1986, when he stopped taking Rose's action.[41] He stated that Pete Rose bet on professional football, college basketball, and Major League baseball.[42] He specifically stated that Pete Rose bet on Major League baseball games in 1985, 1986 and 1987, including games played by the Cincinnati Reds while Pete Rose was both a player and manager:[43]

The Baseball Archive presents The Dowd Report

[Orcin]

We all know Pete Rose is banned, and we have many pages of argument on that point already. I don't see the purpose of going over and over the same points. I am responding to this discussion of Pete Rose and whether his playing career is of HoF caliber.

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Again, I am not saying that if we were to magically forget about his gambling he would still not be a Hall of Famer; Kiner's still in there, for instance, and Reggie Jackson is a lock for the place. He's a. not the most egregious omission, and b. not, in spite of what people who are only interested in very basic stats sometimes say, one of the top 4 or 5 players in the game or anything.

Gambling allegations aside...

There is no logical argument against Pete Rose, the player, being in the Hall of Fame.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Gambling allegations aside...

There is no logical argument against Pete Rose, the player, being in the Hall of Fame.

Outside of the whole broke one of the most infamous rules in the game bit of course. Any combo about Rose and HOF will begin and die on that. The only way you excuse it is to say that players/coaches/umpires gambling on performance is acceptable.

[mirrf]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Gambling allegations aside...

There is no logical argument against Pete Rose, the player, being in the Hall of Fame.

I agree with that statement. I just can't put the gambling allegations aside.