Should Pete Rose be reinstated?

Should Manfred reinstate Pete Rose?

  • Yes, immediately.

    Votes: 24 14.5%
  • Yes, if Rose agrees to and takes certain actions first.

    Votes: 21 12.7%
  • No, under no circumstances.

    Votes: 120 72.7%

  • Total voters
    165

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
6,915
Salem, NH
There seems to be a lot of divide on this topic, and there's a few ways this whole thing could play out. What say you? Should he be reinstated? Should he be in the Hall of Fame?
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,199
CA
Regardless of this new information, I am in the camp that he should never be reinstated, allowed to work in baseball, or allowed entry into the HoF. He broke the cardinal rule, agreed to a lifetime ban, and has consistently and constantly lied and made excuses for it all since. He is a disgrace to the game and does not deserve to ever be associated with it ever again IMO.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
I'm conflicted.
 
On one hand, I do not think he should be re-instated.  He should never have the ability to be a part of the game of MLB baseball ever again.   His gambling (as a player and a coach), even if it was never against his own team, is something that the league cannot ever condone, even years after the fact.  It's a bright line: you don't gamble on the sport that you play.    His lying and general sociopathy regarding the issue is just the icing on the cake.
 
But the HOF is different. As a player, he clearly belongs.  Maybe I'm just numb because of the last decade-and-a-half of pissing and moaning about PEDs, but Rose's gambling never directly impacted his accomplishments as a player.  His transgressions never tainted his personal accomplishments, only his character and right to play/coach/manage in the game.   So I say let him in, but it's a weak "yes".  I just view the HOF as a museum of professional baseball, and his exclusion is more notable than simply putting him in with little fanfare at this point.  
 

McDrew

Set Adrift on Memory Bliss
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2006
4,060
Portland, OR
Based on the new evidence, is there any evidence that Pete Rose either
a) bet against himself or the team he was playing for / managing?
b) bet on any other baseball games while he was a player/manager?
 
From what I've seen reported, his baseball betting was all on himself to win.   
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,399
Yoknapatawpha County
No reinstatement whatsoever, with an acknowledgement in the Hall of Fame that he did accomplish certain things and would be otherwise officially enshrined were it not for his participation in yada yada yada. Not an actual induction, but recognizes what happened on the field.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,727
Deep inside Muppet Labs
JohntheBaptist said:
No reinstatement whatsoever, with an acknowledgement in the Hall of Fame that he did accomplish certain things and would be otherwise officially enshrined were it not for his participation in yada yada yada. Not an actual induction, but recognizes what happened on the field.
 
I think this is fair.
 
He's quite obviously a pathological liar and piece of shit, and honoring him with a Hall ceremony is just about the last thing baseball really needs. He's a scumbag. A great, great player, but a scumbag. Yes, so was Ty Cobb, but Rose' scumbagginess was directly related to the integrity of the game, so I'm good with a Hall of Fame that tells us of some of his accomplishments but does not give him a plaque.
 
Apropos of nothing, it's shocking how wrong Bill James was about Rose's gambling when it first broke. His essays in This Time Let's Not Eat The Bones and in the New BJ Historical Baseball Abstract are impressive in how wrong he is about everything on this scandal.
 

pedro1918

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
5,139
Map Ref. 41°N 93°W
He should never be reinstated. 
 
The only way I would ever even consider letting him in the HoF would be if his gambling situation was spelled out on his plaque.  Something along the lines of "He was banned from baseball for life for gambling on MLB games in which he played and managed"
 
Other than that, no way.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
AMcGhie said:
Based on the new evidence, is there any evidence that Pete Rose either
a) bet against himself or the team he was playing for / managing?
b) bet on any other baseball games while he was a player/manager?
 
From what I've seen reported, his baseball betting was all on himself to win.   
 
Rose is alleged to have placed bets on lots of games that didn't include the Reds, but that's somewhat besides the point.
 
As others have stated in other threads, the reason gambling is problematic for professional sports is that players/coaches can find themselves in debt to gamblers and be pressured to throw games as a result.
 
To give just one example, Art Schlister was headed down this path in the NFL before he called in the FBI to report that he had been threatened by gamblers over his debts.  Who knows where Rose was headed, but this is the primary reason that gambling on the game of baseball is prohibited for people employed by MLB.
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
drleather2001 said:
I'm conflicted.
 
On one hand, I do not think he should be re-instated.  He should never have the ability to be a part of the game of MLB baseball ever again.   His gambling (as a player and a coach), even if it was never against his own team, is something that the league cannot ever condone, even years after the fact.  It's a bright line: you don't gamble on the sport that you play.    His lying and general sociopathy regarding the issue is just the icing on the cake.
 
But the HOF is different. As a player, he clearly belongs.  Maybe I'm just numb because of the last decade-and-a-half of pissing and moaning about PEDs, but Rose's gambling never directly impacted his accomplishments as a player.  His transgressions never tainted his personal accomplishments, only his character and right to play/coach/manage in the game.   So I say let him in, but it's a weak "yes".  I just view the HOF as a museum of professional baseball, and his exclusion is more notable than simply putting him in with little fanfare at this point.  
This captures my thinking almost exactly, including the numbness on PEDs, although I weigh those arguments and say "Out".


The problem with gambling for players is that this can allow outside factors to taint what happens between the lines. The sport has fixed rules, and if you play by the rules, you win. Done. Clean, no ambiguity. Gambling threatens that.

I think Rose is being held to a high standard here, especially in light of the problems that the NBA and NFL have. Deflategate taints the game almost as much for me- Brady and the Pats play by the rules and get punished for it. And if 5% of Tim Donaghy's allegations are true, at minimum the NBA tilts games for superstars -- if not outright influencing who wins.

From my perspective, I can watch baseball and believe in the outcome on the field and believe that guys that put on the best athletic performance will win. I'm not sure I believe that about the NBA/NFL these days. And no, the possibility of PEDs does not dim my enjoyment of baseball or any other game. So partially for that reason I think it's right to keep Rose out.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,399
Yoknapatawpha County
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
 
I think this is fair.
 
He's quite obviously a pathological liar and piece of shit, and honoring him with a Hall ceremony is just about the last thing baseball really needs. He's a scumbag. A great, great player, but a scumbag. Yes, so was Ty Cobb, but Rose' scumbagginess was directly related to the integrity of the game, so I'm good with a Hall of Fame that tells us of some of his accomplishments but does not give him a plaque.
 
Apropos of nothing, it's shocking how wrong Bill James was about Rose's gambling when it first broke. His essays in This Time Let's Not Eat The Bones and in the New BJ Historical Baseball Abstract are impressive in how wrong he is about everything on this scandal.
Couldnt agree more--the thing for me with Rose is that baseball does not suffer his absence. We arent talking about a genuinely good person that got in over his head with something and are now being deprived of some value when hes not around. Thats not really a reason one way or the other, but it is always how I've seen him--and really, to consider being lenient on that level of fuck up would require something redeeming in the offender and he really has none.

So true on James too. Did not cover himself in glory there. Wasnt his crime book criticized in ways you could criticize his take on the Rose scandal? I digress...
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
He will not be reinstated.  Manfred's too smart.  The lying never stops -- you can never be sure that you're clear of it -- and so you can never be sure of what he has and has not done.  Rose is a bomb waiting to go off. 
 
What Manfred might do is decouple HOF from the MLB office -- "We'll punish and banish as we see fit; you writers and then vets committee figure out what to do about the HOF."
 
That's the smart move.  It protects the game and gets the Commissioner out of the nasty business of who is eligible and who isn't, which is an unwinnable battle.
 

drbretto

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
12,075
Concord, NH
I'm actually really surprised so many are against it. I thought it would be 50/50.
 
I'm all for reinstatement. If memory serves, there was no evidence of him ever throwing a game because of the betting. The guy played his ass off every second of every game throughout his playing career, and doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who would ever bet against his own team. I was fairly certain the betting was when he was a manager, also, not during his playing career at all. But I could be wrong there. 
 
In either case, banning a guy for making bets is like banning a guy for being an alcoholic. If he didn't throw any games, then I don't care. Betting is close enough to warrant a severe punishment, but it's not enough to nullify a lifetime of work on the field. 
 
He absolutely should be in the Hall of Fame. If a condition for that is that he is also eligible to be a manager or whatever then fine. Just because he's not banned doesn't mean he'll get hired. I would assume no one would want to hire him this long removed from baseball with all that over his head anyway. If someone wanted to let him get enshrined into the Hall and still keep him banned from any on field or front office roles that matter, then that's fine too. 
 
But, love them or hate them, some of the absolute all time best players in the sport's history are not in the hall of fame and that's a shame. That applies to gamblers as well as steroid users. Put them in the hall and let people decide to hate them for themselves.  Ty Cobb was by all accounts a gigantic piece of shit who murdered someone, but he's still in the Hall. 
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,774
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
It sounds dumb, but for me, personally, I always set a very clear line between what he did as a player and what he did as a manager. There was no evidence he gambled as a player. Sure, he likely did, but there was no evidence. As such, I always separated his misdeeds as a manager vs. his career as a player, and felt being banned for life from the game going forward should not prohibit him from the HOF as a player. But now that there is some evidence that he bet as a player, I really cant even fall back on that any more, so probably a no on all counts. 
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,399
Yoknapatawpha County
drbretto said:
I'm actually really surprised so many are against it. I thought it would be 50/50.
There is evidence he gambled as a player; it came to light yesterday and surprised exactly no one that knows anything about Pete Rose and common sense.

And as has been noted often, its as simple as falling behind with bookies et al and youve got the problems MLB uses the well known threat of potential banishment to avoid.

It is absolutely nothing like banning an alcoholic.

Its a simple rule and he completely shit all over it, then accepted a lifetime ban. I'm surprised youre surprised about the negative response, because it is a really clear case. He earned every moment of his banning.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,199
CA
drbretto said:
I'm actually really surprised so many are against it. I thought it would be 50/50.
 
I'm all for reinstatement. If memory serves, there was no evidence of him ever throwing a game because of the betting. The guy played his ass off every second of every game throughout his playing career, and doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who would ever bet against his own team. I was fairly certain the betting was when he was a manager, also, not during his playing career at all. But I could be wrong there. 
 
In either case, banning a guy for making bets is like banning a guy for being an alcoholic. If he didn't throw any games, then I don't care. Betting is close enough to warrant a severe punishment, but it's not enough to nullify a lifetime of work on the field. 
 
He absolutely should be in the Hall of Fame. If a condition for that is that he is also eligible to be a manager or whatever then fine. Just because he's not banned doesn't mean he'll get hired. I would assume no one would want to hire him this long removed from baseball with all that over his head anyway. If someone wanted to let him get enshrined into the Hall and still keep him banned from any on field or front office roles that matter, then that's fine too. 
 
But, love them or hate them, some of the absolute all time best players in the sport's history are not in the hall of fame and that's a shame. That applies to gamblers as well as steroid users. Put them in the hall and let people decide to hate them for themselves.  Ty Cobb was by all accounts a gigantic piece of shit who murdered someone, but he's still in the Hall.
The whole "he never bet against his team" is such a giant strawman. That isn't the point. He bet on baseball. Rule 21 of MLB says if you bet on baseball, you are banned for life. He was banned for life. He agreed to said ban for life. He has consistently lied and lied, and has now again been shown to be lying -- he did bet on games as both a player and a manager. Regardless of who he bet on and what he bet on, he bet on baseball games as a player and a manager. He should never be allowed back in, should never be allowed any association, and should never be allowed in the Hall of Fame.

And the Ty Cobb comparisons just don't carry muster either. There are a lot of shitheads in the Hall of Fame. None of them bet on baseball games. And, to quote Roger Goodell, it is about the "integrity of the game". There is almost nothing in sports that can be worse than the notion of games being "fixed" --- and the direct lead into that happening is gambling. It is why there is a "banned for life" sentence for it. Rose did it, it shouldn't matter how good he was.
 

metaprosthesis

Member
SoSH Member
May 22, 2008
199
Central NJ via Western Mass
JohntheBaptist said:
There is evidence he gambled as a player; it came to light yesterday and surprised exactly no one that knows anything about Pete Rose and common sense.

And as has been noted often, its as simple as falling behind with bookies et al and youve got the problems MLB uses the well known threat of potential banishment to avoid.

It is absolutely nothing like banning an alcoholic.

Its a simple rule and he completely shit all over it, then accepted a lifetime ban. I'm surprised youre surprised about the negative response. He earned every moment of his banning.
 
It's something like banning an alcoholic.  It's an addiction.  Like other addictions, the associated activity is countermanded by MLB rules (e.g. suspensions/bans for "drugs of abuse").  The punishment is more severe because of the history of gambling in the sport, and it probably seems more likely that a gambler would affect the outcome of a game than a junkie or a drunk (though the truth of that assumption is debatable).  

He clearly shouldn't be allowed into any position where he makes decisions that determine the outcome of a game.  But, the HoF is a shrine to the history of the game.  The saga surrounding his gambling is part of that history, just like Joe Jackson's story is, just like any number of assholes' stories are.  Moreover, his 4256 hits are part of the history of baseball.  Only telling the parts of history that make for pretty, sepia-toned tales of wonder seems like the opposite of "integrity" to me.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,399
Yoknapatawpha County
metaprosthesis said:
 
It's something like banning an alcoholic.  It's an addiction.  Like other addictions, the associated activity is countermanded by MLB rules (e.g. suspensions/bans for "drugs of abuse").  The punishment is more severe because of the history of gambling in the sport, and it probably seems more likely that a gambler would affect the outcome of a game than a junkie or a drunk (though the truth of that assumption is debatable).  

He clearly shouldn't be allowed into any position where he makes decisions that determine the outcome of a game.  But, the HoF is a shrine to the history of the game.  The saga surrounding his gambling is part of that history, just like Joe Jackson's story is, just like any number of assholes' stories are.  Moreover, his 4256 hits are part of the history of baseball.  Only telling the parts of history that make for pretty, sepia-toned tales of wonder seems like the opposite of "integrity" to me.
It is nothing like banning an alcoholic, no. Alcoholism has no effect on the integrity of the game being played. Alcoholism may lead to gambling, which would be grounds for banishment, sure. We have proof that Pete Rose bet on baseball. Doing that and being an alcoholic, where it concerns professional baseball, are in no way analogous. No one has ever suffered a punishment for abusing alcohol in baseball, so thats a dead end too. The punishment is more severe because it strikes at the integrity of the games being played (not because of the "history of gambling in the sport") and puts in jeopardy the entire enterprise, which alcoholism very obviously does not.

It is much, much more likely a gambler effects the outcome of a game than an alcoholic, which is why one carries a lifetime ban and the other is largely ignored wrt MLB.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,727
Deep inside Muppet Labs
As we've already seen, the Hall has no problem enshrining racists, alcoholics, druggies, assholes, flakes, reprobates, and felons, because none of those character flaws really affect the integrity of the game played on the field. 
 
Gambling does.
 
Pete Rose has no business being honored by the Hall of Fame.
 

drbretto

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
12,075
Concord, NH
I guess my issue here is that I don't find gambling by itself to be the sin some others think it is. And I did liken it to alcoholism as an addiction outside of the game that, as long as he's not throwing any games, has no bearing on the field at all. Just a perception. 
 
Until there's evidence of him betting against his team, or at least some smoke that he ever did anything on the field or in the dugout that affected the actual outcome of the games, I feel a lifetime ban and an ineligibility for the Hall of Fame is not a punishment fitting the crime. 
 

metaprosthesis

Member
SoSH Member
May 22, 2008
199
Central NJ via Western Mass
JohntheBaptist said:
It is nothing like banning an alcoholic, no. Alcoholism has no effect on the integrity of the game being played. Alcoholism may lead to gambling, which would be grounds for banishment, sure. We have proof that Pete Rose bet on baseball. Doing that and being an alcoholic, where it concerns professional baseball, are in no way analogous. No one has ever suffered a punishment for abusing alcohol in baseball, so thats a dead end too. The punishment is more severe because it strikes at the integrity of the games being played (not because of the "history of gambling in the sport") and puts in jeopardy the entire enterprise, which alcoholism very obviously does not.

It is much, much more likely a gambler effects the outcome of a game than an alcoholic, which is why one carries a lifetime ban and the other is largely ignored wrt MLB.
 
But it isn't actually true that it "[struck] at the integrity of the game" in Rose's case.  All the proof (and the on-field performance) indicate that, despite his addiction, his ego and his belief in his own skill drove him to play to the best of his abilities.  There is only some unfulfilled potential for upsetting the game's integrity.  I don't disagree that there should be rules against gambling.  I do disagree that the concerns behind such a rule actually apply in this case.  

If the concern is with the integrity of the game (a phrase which feels more ridiculous the more times I read/write it), then I expect there's consistency in that belief.  Should we punish a pitcher who grooves a pitch to Jeter for his 3000th hit?  How about when the Red Sox field a AAA team after the annual talent sell-off?  Should they kick a bunch of deadballers out of the HoF?
 
http://www.thenationalpastimemuseum.com/article/gambling-deadball-era

"But bribes weren’t the only manifestation of the gambling culture in baseball. With money on the line and the pennant race already over, players routinely “eased up” during meaningless late-season contests. This form of game-fixing led to some farcical events on the field. Hall of Famer Sam Crawford once claimed that his friend Walter Johnson would throw batting practice fastballs to him when he needed a hit to raise his batting average."
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,399
Yoknapatawpha County
drbretto said:
I guess my issue here is that I don't find gambling by itself to be the sin some others think it is. And I did liken it to alcoholism as an addiction outside of the game that, as long as he's not throwing any games, has no bearing on the field at all. Just a perception. 
 
Until there's evidence of him betting against his team, or at least some smoke that he ever did anything on the field or in the dugout that affected the actual outcome of the games, I feel a lifetime ban and an ineligibility for the Hall of Fame is not a punishment fitting the crime. 
He's not being banned as a moral judgement. You cant tolerate betting from those involved in playing the games. This isnt rocket science--people need to trust the integrity of what theyre seeing for pro sports to succeed. Gambling on games youre playing in or managing erodes that immensely, so MLB made it a bannable offense. He broke the rule. Banned.

Alcoholism and gambling, in the real world, do have similarities. Where its regarding a pro baseball player and his status in MLB they absolutely do not. Its a silly comparison.

The proof of his gambling is all the smoke you need. It doesnt take much imagination to see how betting on your own team can be problematic almost in an instant and thus why MLB would be very clear about it being off limits. Why is he betting on the Reds today but not the next two days? What happens when hes down 50k to some guys who make money off betting on games? Etc.

It is absolutely a punishment fitting the crime, he was clear on that punishment when he did it, and then he accepted the ban himself.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,399
Yoknapatawpha County
metaprosthesis said:
 
But it isn't actually true that it "[struck] at the integrity of the game" in Rose's case.  All the proof (and the on-field performance) indicate that, despite his addiction, his ego and his belief in his own skill drove him to play to the best of his abilities.  There is only some unfulfilled potential for upsetting the game's integrity.  I don't disagree that there should be rules against gambling.  I do disagree that the concerns behind such a rule actually apply in this case.  

If the concern is with the integrity of the game (a phrase which feels more ridiculous the more times I read/write it), then I expect there's consistency in that belief.  Should we punish a pitcher who grooves a pitch to Jeter for his 3000th hit?  How about when the Red Sox field a AAA team after the annual talent sell-off?  Should they kick a bunch of deadballers out of the HoF?
 
http://www.thenationalpastimemuseum.com/article/gambling-deadball-era

"But bribes weren’t the only manifestation of the gambling culture in baseball. With money on the line and the pennant race already over, players routinely “eased up” during meaningless late-season contests. This form of game-fixing led to some farcical events on the field. Hall of Famer Sam Crawford once claimed that his friend Walter Johnson would throw batting practice fastballs to him when he needed a hit to raise his batting average."
I'm sorry, I cant take anyone seriously who's argument is "he gambled but he also tried real hard and was super honest about it."

The rule is in place to protect a perception about a business in the marketplace, and because as honest as we may think ol Pete was about his gambling, those great intentions go out the window very quick given some obvious circumstances. Put simply, you cant tolerate MLB players betting on baseball games. This isnt a moral judgement. He knew this and did it anyway.

Theres a reason there was an uproar over Wainwrights comments re: jeter- fans do not want to conceive of a contest being in any way rigged- even an all star game. Id be very much in favor of suspensions for doing that. The rest of your analogies there are as weak as the alcoholism one.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,199
CA
drbretto said:
I guess my issue here is that I don't find gambling by itself to be the sin some others think it is. And I did liken it to alcoholism as an addiction outside of the game that, as long as he's not throwing any games, has no bearing on the field at all. Just a perception. 
 
Until there's evidence of him betting against his team, or at least some smoke that he ever did anything on the field or in the dugout that affected the actual outcome of the games, I feel a lifetime ban and an ineligibility for the Hall of Fame is not a punishment fitting the crime.
Isn't it somewhat reasonable to think, knowing what we know about Rose in general, that the days that he didn't bet on the Reds to win, he was in effect telling the Book that they were going to lose and/or he was willing to make that happen to some degree? I mean, is that a huge stretch here? If you can accept this premise to any extent, then I don't see how you could maintain a viewpoint that it is okay to bet on your team as long as you're not betting against them.

Bookie: "Pete, you owe us $38,000 this week."
Pete: "I'm not going to make any bets on the Reds today."
Bookie: "Got it."

EDIT: Typos
 

metaprosthesis

Member
SoSH Member
May 22, 2008
199
Central NJ via Western Mass
JohntheBaptist said:
I'm sorry, I cant take anyone seriously who's argument is "he gambled but he also tried real hard and was super honest about it."

The rule is in place to protect a perception about a business in the marketplace, and because as honest as we may think ol Pete was about his gambling, those great intentions go out the window very quick given some obvious circumstances. Put simply, you cant tolerate MLB players betting on baseball games. This isnt a moral judgement. He knew this and did it anyway.

Theres a reason there was an uproar over Wainwrights comments re: jeter- fans do not want to conceive of a contest being in any way rigged- even an all star game. Id be very much in favor of suspensions for doing that. The rest of your analogies there are as weak as the alcoholism one.
 
I don't think you're actually arguing against me.  I haven't once suggested that Rose should not have been punished.  Nor have I argued that gambling isn't a problem for organized sports, nor even that we should consider each case of gambling on its merits.  The issue I have is with his being excluded from the HoF.  My argument is not, "he was a right courteous gambler and as such should be excused his misdeeds."  Rather, I think that what Rose did had no known effect on games, and that being the case, there's no reason to exclude his accomplishments from the historical record.

You only responded to one of the examples of sullied integrity.  Should the Red Sox be fined when they dump a bunch of players and bring up kids who can't compete on a major league level, yet play in games that matter for other teams?  You can insert the Marlins if that makes it a more comfortable judgement.  How about Sam Crawford and Walter Johnson?  Do they get asterisks?  Are their plaques removed from the Hall?
 

leftfieldlegacy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
1,005
North Jersey
dcmissle said:
He will not be reinstated.  Manfred's too smart.  The lying never stops -- you can never be sure that you're clear of it -- and so you can never be sure of what he has and has not done.  Rose is a bomb waiting to go off. 
 
What Manfred might do is decouple HOF from the MLB office -- "We'll punish and banish as we see fit; you writers and then vets committee figure out what to do about the HOF."
 
That's the smart move.  It protects the game and gets the Commissioner out of the nasty business of who is eligible and who isn't, which is an unwinnable battle.
The bolded is how I separate my vote as well. 
 
Gambling on baseball games is THE cardinal sin in baseball. Every locker room has signs to remind the players of that. MLB controls punishment for this violation and for that reason Rose should always be banned from baseball. 
 
The HoF is different. Gambling did not improve his on field performance. His records were the result of his talent, hard work and his ability to play the game for a long time at a high level. (Even if he is a colossal jerk).
 
The writer's should vote him in but they have shown no inclination to do so up to this point. Yesterdays revelations will not improve his chances.
 
I have often thought that Rose will eventually be elected to the HoF posthumously.  
 

VTSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
293
drbretto said:
I guess my issue here is that I don't find gambling by itself to be the sin some others think it is. And I did liken it to alcoholism as an addiction outside of the game that, as long as he's not throwing any games, has no bearing on the field at all. Just a perception. 
 
Until there's evidence of him betting against his team, or at least some smoke that he ever did anything on the field or in the dugout that affected the actual outcome of the games, I feel a lifetime ban and an ineligibility for the Hall of Fame is not a punishment fitting the crime. 
 
Depending on how you look at it, the ban isn't directly a punishment for gambling.  He negotiated for the ban in exchange for having the investigation dropped, without an determination or finding being made.  
 
Based on his play, he's worthy of being in the Hall.  But I voted against reinstatement.  Maybe if all the facts had come out and he had a suspension imposed on him, I'd feel differently after 30 years.  But this is what he asked for.
 

deanx0

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2004
2,506
Orlando, FL
AMcGhie said:
Based on the new evidence, is there any evidence that Pete Rose either
a) bet against himself or the team he was playing for / managing?
b) bet on any other baseball games while he was a player/manager?
 
From what I've seen reported, his baseball betting was all on himself to win.   
 
I see this "he only bet on his team to win" logic all the time from Rose defenders. So did he bet on every single game? If he didn't and bet on the team for the first two games of a series and not on the third game, what is he effectively saying about that game?
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,199
CA
metaprosthesis said:
Rather, I think that what Rose did had no known effect on games, and that being the case, there's no reason to exclude his accomplishments from the historical record.
His accomplishments are historical record. He is the all-time hits leader. There is no asterisk.

However, the Hall of Fame's eligibility rules says: "E. Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate."

And, as pointed out above, Rose negotiated this lifetime ban. He accepted it. There was no parole attached to it. It made the story go away for him and no further digging was done. There was more probably than not a reason he accepted the punishment.

EDIT: Spelling
 
I was always against Rose being reinstated but I've come around the past few years.  
 
Murderers can get "life" in prison and only serve twenty years.  I view Rose's "lifetime ban" the same way.  He did something horrible, baseball-wise, but he's served long enough.  The punishment was (deservedly) severe and affected every facet of his life for 25 years.   
 
I'm not letting him off the hook, I just think the punishment has been enough.  It's not like somebody is going to say, "Hey, Pete got away with it...." 
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,199
CA
BannedbyNYYFans.com said:
I was always against Rose being reinstated but I've come around the past few years.  
 
Murderers can get "life" in prison and only serve twenty years.  I view Rose's "lifetime ban" the same way.  He did something horrible, baseball-wise, but he's served long enough.  The punishment was (deservedly) severe and affected every facet of his life for 25 years.   
 
I'm not letting him off the hook, I just think the punishment has been enough.  It's not like somebody is going to say, "Hey, Pete got away with it...."
Pete got "life with no parole" though.

I think this viewpoint is fine even though I disagree with it. The "he didn't bet against his own team" argument is junk though.
 

rembrat

Member
SoSH Member
May 26, 2006
36,345
I voted Yes across the board because, while what JtB and SJH are saying makes total sense and there is no way they aren't right, I just don't care. As a younger fan of the game I just do not care about Pete Rose betting on baseball. I believe he's going to get in and he'll be celebrated and it'll happen when we are all pushing up daisies so I'm of the opinion why not do it while he's alive. 
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
I think the only argument in Pete's favor is that he accepted the lifetime ban, then the HoF added rule E. specifically because of him (in 1991).  It was after that rule got put in place that he started putting in his appeals to the commissioners.  In other words, when he negotiated the deal, he didn't 100% know that it would keep him out of the Hall, and probably thought he had support of enough writers to break the informal agreement that until then kept Shoeless Joe and others out.
 

thehitcat

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 25, 2003
2,376
Windham, ME
RGREELEY33 said:
Isn't it somewhat reasonable to think, knowing what we know about Rose in general, that the days that he didn't bet on the Reds to win, he was in effect telling the Book that they were going to lose and/or he was willing to make that happen to some degree? I mean, is that a huge stretch here? If you can accept this premise to any extent, then I don't see how you could maintain a viewpoint that it is okay to bet on your team as long as you're not betting against them.

Bookie: "Pete, you owe us $38,000 this week."
Pete: "I'm not going to make any bets on the Reds today."
Bookie: "Got it."

EDIT: Typos
Yes or for the game he "needed" he pitched his best three bullpen guys and used them up.  Then didn't use them in the game he didn't.  Even betting on your team to win influences how you manage or play the game.  He bet on baseball, he's out.  Always.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,199
CA
smastroyin said:
I think the only argument in Pete's favor is that he accepted the lifetime ban, then the HoF added rule E. specifically because of him (in 1991).  It was after that rule got put in place that he started putting in his appeals to the commissioners.  In other words, when he negotiated the deal, he didn't 100% know that it would keep him out of the Hall, and probably thought he had support of enough writers to break the informal agreement that until then kept Shoeless Joe and others out.
That is an interesting argument, and something that I was not aware of. While it doesn't change my opinion, it at least gives Rose something to reasonably argue. However, if the new evidence of him betting on games as a player is legit, none of it will matter anyways. This will restart the clock with respect to talk about his reinstatement to MLB.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,399
Yoknapatawpha County
I'm totally open to his being in the Hall- thats not unreasonable at all. And I actually appreciate where rembrat and Banned are coming from. It is a bit much for baseball to ignore him completely or not involve him in ceremonial stuff I guess.

I just think you have to make an example of him and he really should never be in MLBs employ in any capacity again. The rule just makes a lot of sense to me I guess.
 

Fred not Lynn

Dick Button Jr.
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,253
Alberta
RGREELEY33 said:
His accomplishments are historical record. He is the all-time hits leader. There is no asterisk.
For what it is worth, there's pretty strong evidence he sometimes played with a corked bat...and in an era where use of illegal stimulants was commonplace, do you reckon the guy they call "Charlie Hustle" walked by the clubhouse candy dish without taking a handful of greenies?

If voters are going to use rumour based speculation to exclude alleged steroid users from the HoF, there's enough comparably unsubstantiated "cheating at baseball" noise you could make around Pete Rose to keep him out on those grounds without even mentioning gambling.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,199
CA
Fred not Lynn said:
For what it is worth, there's pretty strong evidence he sometimes played with a corked bat...and in an era where use of illegal stimulants was commonplace, do you reckon the guy they call "Charlie Hustle" walked by the clubhouse candy dish without taking a handful of greenies?
If voters are going to use rumour based speculation to exclude alleged steroid users from the HoF, there's enough comparably unsubstantiated "cheating at baseball" noise you could make around Pete Rose to keep him out on those grounds without even mentioning gambling.
As much as I hate them, I think Bonds and Clemens and their like belong in the Hall. I think there is an extremely valid reason that gambling gets the death penalty.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,399
Yoknapatawpha County
metaprosthesis said:
You only responded to one of the examples of sullied integrity.  Should the Red Sox be fined when they dump a bunch of players and bring up kids who can't compete on a major league level, yet play in games that matter for other teams?  You can insert the Marlins if that makes it a more comfortable judgement.  How about Sam Crawford and Walter Johnson?  Do they get asterisks?  Are their plaques removed from the Hall?
I didnt respond directly because these examples are pretty weak. The "Marlins" (thanks for that out!) example is a particularly bad one--someone betting on the sport vs a team strategizing its roster? Theres no question of competition in that sense. No Sam Crawford and Walter Johnson dont get asterisks or Hall removal (which isnt the gotcha you seem to think it is) but I would have fined them if I owned the team.

So thats why I skipped responding specifically because I felt it was obvious.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
If memory serves, Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle were enshrined while they were banned from baseball. Granted, those bans were nothing but Bowie Kuhn's bullshit, but the BBWAA was allowed to make an independent decision on the merits. The rules shouldn't have been changed to deny Pete Rose the same opportunity to plead his case.
 
I think the fairest remedy would be to change the HOF's rules now and allow Rose the 10-year window on the BBWAA ballot that a newly eligible player would receive. If Rose had hit the ballot in the early 1990s, he would've been elected on the first ballot, but times have changed -- I don't think he'd get the requisite three-quarters vote without some sort of admission and contrition (and maybe not even then). So while I voted "yes," because I would personally vote for him, perhaps the "yes, if" option is more accurate.
 
The ban from baseball is a whole separate issue, and should never be lifted, for reasons that have already been amply stated by others.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
Mays and Mantle were banned after they were elected in the HoF:
 
Mantle was elected in 1974, Mays in 1979.  Ban was in 1983 and lifted in 1985.  Obviously the HoF could have decided to take down their plaques or whatever, but the writers didn't ignore the ban to vote for them.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
I have no problem with him being reinstated and enshrined. I just don't get morally outraged that every player in the hall isn't going to be waiting at the pearly gates when they pass on.  I'd rather the Hall just represent the history of baseball, and acknowledge the best who ever played, relative to their era.
 
If he has to do something lame like a "heartfelt" apology at his acceptance speech so be it.
 
Edit:  By "reinstate" I just mean being allowed to walk on a diamond in uniform, you know, acknowledge he existed.  Not coach or advise in any capacity.
It's not like he'd get a job anyhow.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,871
San Andreas Fault
smastroyin said:
Mays and Mantle were banned after they were elected in the HoF:
 
Mantle was elected in 1974, Mays in 1979.  Ban was in 1983 and lifted in 1985.  Obviously the HoF could have decided to take down their plaques or whatever, but the writers didn't ignore the ban to vote for them.
Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays, both retired and both in no way involved in baseball anymore, were banned in 1983 after they were hired by casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, as greeters and autograph signers.
 
Those bans were pretty weak. Bowie Kuhn. Peter Ueberroth reinstated them in 1985. Mantle and Mays made nothing close to the salaries of today's superstars, even adjusting for inflation. So they were earning some money for their families. 
 

themuddychicken

New Member
Mar 26, 2014
80
[SIZE=10.5pt]I think we're, possibly purposefully, dancing around Pete as a person and instead focusing on the crime. In an instance where the crime is clear-cut and the punishment was agreed to by all parties involved Rose and his supporters are basically relying on generosity and at that point I think his character is very much relevant.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]Rose has lied every step of the way. Even when confessing he lied. Just a week ago people were taking him at his word that he never gambled as a player and, big surprise, it was a lie. There is absolutely no reason to believe anything he says, and whenever he tells his story there's no reason to believe that he is finally being honest. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]I honestly don't know how more people don't hold the confession against him. The guy used his confession to sell a freaking book. All he had to do was give a contrite confession to Selig and he'd probably be in the Hall right now but instead he had to be Pete Rose and do everything his way. Not only did he profit off of his confession but also gave Selig an FU in the process because that's how Pete Rose rolls.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]Pete Rose has spent his post-ban time doing everything in his power to make him difficult to forgive. It'd be hard to devise a worse course of action that the one he has chosen over and over again. Actions should have consequences and his lifetime ban should continue in response to both the initial crime and how he has handled the past 30 years.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]I'm fine letting him into the Hall the day after he dies. I just don't want him 'winning' and seeing himself enshrined.[/SIZE]
 

metaprosthesis

Member
SoSH Member
May 22, 2008
199
Central NJ via Western Mass
JohntheBaptist said:
I didnt respond directly because these examples are pretty weak. The "Marlins" (thanks for that out!) example is a particularly bad one--someone betting on the sport vs a team strategizing its roster? Theres no question of competition in that sense. No Sam Crawford and Walter Johnson dont get asterisks or Hall removal (which isnt the gotcha you seem to think it is) but I would have fined them if I owned the team.

So thats why I skipped responding specifically because I felt it was obvious.
 
I don't see why we need to compare roster manipulation with betting.  The question isn't which is worse.  You have expressed the view that any activity that compromises the integrity of the sports product should be punished.   Purposefully fielding a subpar team affects competition and compromises integrity.  The Marlins (with no quotation marks) have been accused of not attempting to field a competitive team several times in recent years.  They are basically rewarded for that through the competitive balance tax.  That only affects Loria's bottom line.  It seems analogous to Rose's situation w.r.t. integrity.  I don't think anyone is calling for Loria to be banned from baseball (other than, perhaps, Marlins fans).

The Crawford and Johnson example was in response to the idea that Rose shouldn't be in the Hall, a stance which you have since stated is not your own.  But, it still goes to the general question: is compromising the integrity of the game a categorically bannable offense?  It appears that your answer to that is no, as you would only fine stat pumping and forgive lax roster construction as the natural behavior of a team.  I'm not judging those opinions, just stating them as components of your expressed beliefs.

I fully understand and agree with the idea that people involved in the game should not be betting on its outcome.  I agree that Rose shouldn't be allowed any control over baseball games, in any role.  I'm ambivalent on whether he should be allowed to interact with baseball in any other way.  But, I think that appealing to a wishy-washy concept of "the integrity of the game" is as weak an argument as any in Rose's favor.  The strikes against Rose--that he's an asshole, that he exploited the game for his own gain, and that he may have done so over a long period of time--are also strikes against someone like Loria.  But, in the conventional wisdom, one guy is the devil and one guy is just a shitty owner.  I'm not trying to "getcha".  I'm trying to understand what makes an affront to integrity unforgivable. 
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,882
Washington, DC
thehitcat said:
Yes or for the game he "needed" he pitched his best three bullpen guys and used them up.  Then didn't use them in the game he didn't.  Even betting on your team to win influences how you manage or play the game.  He bet on baseball, he's out.  Always.
Agree. The knock on Rose's record as a player was that he hurt the Phillies / Expos / Reds by insisting on being in the lineup and hung on way too long in pursuit of Cobb's record. Now with these revelations that he bet on baseball, it makes me wonder if part of the motivation for him wanting to start games was not just the vainglorious pursuit of the hits record, but a self-inflated sense that he could control the game's outcome by being in the games? There are so many ways Rose could have hurt his teams even if he only bet on his teams to win, and even if he played as hard as all get out in games.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,399
Yoknapatawpha County
metaprosthesis said:
 
I don't see why we need to compare roster manipulation with betting.  The question isn't which is worse.  You have expressed the view that any activity that compromises the integrity of the sports product should be punished.   Purposefully fielding a subpar team affects competition and compromises integrity.  The Marlins (with no quotation marks) have been accused of not attempting to field a competitive team several times in recent years.  They are basically rewarded for that through the competitive balance tax.  That only affects Loria's bottom line.  It seems analogous to Rose's situation w.r.t. integrity.  I don't think anyone is calling for Loria to be banned from baseball (other than, perhaps, Marlins fans).

The Crawford and Johnson example was in response to the idea that Rose shouldn't be in the Hall, a stance which you have since stated is not your own.  But, it still goes to the general question: is compromising the integrity of the game a categorically bannable offense?  It appears that your answer to that is no, as you would only fine stat pumping and forgive lax roster construction as the natural behavior of a team.  I'm not judging those opinions, just stating them as components of your expressed beliefs.

I fully understand and agree with the idea that people involved in the game should not be betting on its outcome.  I agree that Rose shouldn't be allowed any control over baseball games, in any role.  I'm ambivalent on whether he should be allowed to interact with baseball in any other way.  But, I think that appealing to a wishy-washy concept of "the integrity of the game" is as weak an argument as any in Rose's favor.  The strikes against Rose--that he's an asshole, that he exploited the game for his own gain, and that he may have done so over a long period of time--are also strikes against someone like Loria.  But, in the conventional wisdom, one guy is the devil and one guy is just a shitty owner.  I'm not trying to "getcha".  I'm trying to understand what makes an affront to integrity unforgivable. 
We're human beings. We have to draw lines somewhere. I obviously dont see your examples as being anywhere near what gambling on the games youre working in represents.
 

richgedman'sghost

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2006
1,870
ct
dcmissle said:
He will not be reinstated.  Manfred's too smart.  The lying never stops -- you can never be sure that you're clear of it -- and so you can never be sure of what he has and has not done.  Rose is a bomb waiting to go off. 
 
What Manfred might do is decouple HOF from the MLB office -- "We'll punish and banish as we see fit; you writers and then vets committee figure out what to do about the HOF."
 There is a common misconception that the Hall of Fame is connected to Major League Baseball. Technically the Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is run by the Clark Family Foundation and a Board of Directors. It is the board of directors that gave the writers the ability to vote many years ago. The Board of Directors does not technically have to follow anything the Commissioner says since it's it's own entity and can do as it pleases. In other words the
That's the smart move.  It protects the game and gets the Commissioner out of the nasty business of who is eligible and who isn't, which is an unwinnable battle.
 

richgedman'sghost

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2006
1,870
ct
There is a common misconception that the Hall of Fame is connected to Major League Baseball. Technically the Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is run by the Clark Family Foundation Inc. It is run by a Board of Directors and is not beholden to baseball or the Commissioner. It is this Board that decides what the process should be for admission. In other words there already is that separation of which you speak. Obviously the Board of Directors will take into account what the Commissioner says and wants but it is independent agency.

Many years ago of course, the Museum Board gave the Baseball Writers Association of America the right to vote on Hall Members.