Pete Poll
Posted: May 15th, 2009 | Filed under: Baseball | 118 Comments »
Well, since we we already talking about Pete Rose …
I have a question for you. I’m putting it up in the polls, but I want to spell it out here because the question is a bit complicated.
I want you, if you can, to completely clear your mind about Pete Rose the person. This is not easy to do … we talk a lot here about those biases we simply cannot clear. Pete is one of those people everyone has strong and deeply engrained opinions about. But I want you to at least try to do that for a minute.
And here’s what I want you to think about: Let’s say that Pete Rose did precisely as he now claims. Let’s say that he bet on his own team the same way every single day — that is, he had a standing $2,000 bet on the Cincinnati Reds to win. I don’t want to get into the philosophy of why this is wrong, why this corrupts the game, I think we all know that’s true. This is just a thought experiment.
So, again, in our scenario, Pete bet two grand on the Reds to win every day. And for this experiment — this is key — let’s say that this did not in any way affect the way he managed. No affect at all. I know many of you will say: That’s impossible. If you bet money on your team, it will have subtle and not-so-subtle effects. You may pull a pitcher sooner than you normally would. You may play a guy who is tired and needs a day off. You may burn out your bullpen to get one victory. You are right, no doubt*.
*Though you could certainly argue that a manager would not need to be gambling money on his team to manage this way. There are certain managers — I can think of a couple — who are wired like football coaches. They desperately need to win every game and they manage as if, yes, they have dough on their team every time out.
But I’m asking you to let go of all that for a moment. Do what you have to do: Imagine that Pete had so many bets down he forgot that he had bet on his own team. Imagine that Pete is the kind of guy who would manage precisely the same way no matter what. Imagine what you will.
The thought experiment is exactly this: Think about Pete Rose breaking the rules and betting on his own team every single day. But it does not affect the way he manages.
The question: If you knew 100% that was true, would you vote for Pete Rose for the Hall of Fame?
More thoughts on this as results come in.
Loading ...
I would have to say YES…
No doubt
oops…didn’t mean to submit the previous post just like that.
I would have to say YES…if he were going to be the manager of the team for an extended period of time (ie not jeopardizing someone’s health for just that game…such as pitch counts, playing someone with significant injuries, etc).
They have that sign in the clubhouse, right, about gambling on baseball?
I would vote for Pete Rose to be in the Hall of Fame regardless…I don’t believe in exclusion of history. Once you start doing that you make history incomplete. He should be in there so that generations from now people know not only how great of a player he was, but also how badly he screwed himself in the end. Same with the roiders.
i said yes, but the set up to the question had nothing to do with it. to me, pete goes in to the hall because of what he did as a player. he’s a lousy human, and he broke a cardinal rule as a manager, but as a player he’s a no doubt hall of famer.
I hate myself for admitting this, but I must.
If that were the case, that SPECIFIC case, then I would vote for Pete Rose to enter the Hall of Fame. I feel dirty.
Gambling causes people to doubt the integrity of the game, that the outcomes are legitimate and fair. If you could, by some magical-Tooth Fairy-Easter Bunny-Wish Upon a Star-kind of way, make sure that gambling by those involved did not affect the game, then you would remove that doubt.
But that’s all horse-hooey and Pete Rose is scum of the earth.
I’m a double-no. He broke a cardinal rule; he needs to live with the consequences. Lying about it didn’t help.
He (and his achievements) should be represented, but not inducted.
Tough question, but I would still say NO. Sure, I may know the above things to be true with 100% certainty, but you still have to draw the line against betting somewhere.
It’s a slippery slope if you look at each individual’s circumstances to determine just how wrong their betting was. If there are rules in place which prohibit betting, then any kind of gambling, no matter how benign, must be punished.
I’d vote for him either way. Now, if you said I was in charge of hall of fame voting, and I had to decide if he was eligible to be voted on, that would be a different issue. But if the hall of fame committee (or whoever) decided he should be on a ballot, I’d absolutely cast a vote for him.
I go back and forth on whether I would vote for him in the real world (does “banned from baseball” include the HOF? Why give the highest honor to someone banned from everything else? Why not put him in, but put his sins on his plaque? etc.) BUT, your hypothetical wouldn’t change my opinion, either way.
This is a rule which was created to protect the game. The rule, its consequences and its absolute-ness are clear to everyone. He violated the rule; he pays the price.
Imagine another thought experiment – a highly skilled driver, driving on a deserted road at incredibly high speeds. No chance of hurting anyone (he’s that good). Passes a cop doing 150 mph. Does he get a pass because there was no danger? No, of course not.
Rose broke an important (even integral) rule, and he did it knowingly and willfully. I don’t need to know how he then played those games to know if he deserves the punishment.
NO. That means he will be Shoeless Joe after all of us are dead and gone.Sad.
No. If I can accept the premise of the question and agree that there is no way that this would affect Rose’s game management of afect the outcome of a game, that doesn’t mean that it would be the same for any other managers who might come later.
What about the guy who manages a team and places a few bets and he says to himself “What’s the harm? Pete Rose was able to bet on his own team and it didn’t affect the way HE managed. I’ll just make up my mind to not let it affect the way I manage my own team.” At some point you have to wake up to the fact that some degenerate gambler is using this line of thinking only to justify his own actions to himself. And eventually it absolutely would affect the outcome of some games and some manager (weaker than this newly mythological Pete Rose) would not have the constitution necessary to fight off hos own demons.
Second, and I realize this may be going a bit afield, what happens if Pete Rose loses a whole bunch of games but does it honestly? He is still in debt to bookmakers and I think we can see the problems attendant in that scenario.
Finally, I’m against it because you can’t make an exception to a rule designed to protect the integrity of the game. Because if you amke one exception, you have to at least consider making others. If Bud Selig comes out and says “Thou shalt not gamble on baseball is still the First Commandment, but we know that Pete never let it affect what he did on the field or how he managed his team” then doesn’t the bright line shift just a little bit? What if the next guy says “I bet once on one game and looking back, I may have left in my starter just a bit too long because of some convoluted gambling-related reason. I am confident that it didn’t affect the way I managed, but I have to admit that possibility.” So now you have the possibility of a single corrupt game. And if that’s still acceptable, what if a guy only dumps one series but maanages the reast of the season straight?
No, a bright-line rule is the only way to be sure you don’t have some kind of confusion or some guy trying to take advantage of the fact that one rogue manager once got an exception.
This is off the topic but you’ll like it, Joe. I just want to be called “Brilliant Reader Doug” once…
Cops: Man in Snuggie attempted burglary
http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20090515/COMMUNITIES54/905150332/1005/NEWS01/Cops++Man+in+Snuggie+attempted+burglary
I would vote to put Pete Rose — the player — in the Hall of Fame.
And I would hang a black shroud over his plaque until he dies.
I would include words on the plaque why he was banned from the HOF for “life.”
I love the story about the ‘75 World Series in the 6th game, when he was just thrilled to be playing in Game 6.
I hated him when the Roylz played against him in the 1980 World Series. But it was with grudging respect and admiration.
His play/manager days tainted his reputation. There were plenty of better 1st Basemen who should have been in the lineup for the Reds as Pete was chasing Ty Cobb.
But betting on baseball, betting on your team’s game, denying it for decades, a stint in the pokey… after Pete Rose retired as a player he sullied his reputation and should never see the plaque he so magnificently earned when he was Charlie Hustle.
I’d give Pete Rose the player his rightful place in the Hall. But he should never be able to see his plaque.
Hypothetically, in this situation, I would assume that he had not been banned from baseball or had needed to lie about his gambling problems.
If this specific instance were the case, would gambling be illegal? If you could 100% make sure that gambling had no effect on the games and their outcomes, why would it be illegal? My take on voting yes for him is that gambling would not be illegal in this very specific set of circumstances.
i vote pete in regardless. he deserves to be in for what he did on the field. that said, i never let him manage, coach, work in a front office, etc. i think the lifetime ban from the game is appropriate. but i also don’t see why that excludes him from being in the hall.
his weird steroid rant the other day actually gets to the reason why… i’ve got no reason to doubt any of his accomplishments on the field are any more (or less?) tainted than any other player throwing spitballs, corking bats, taking amphetamines, using steroids, etc. people cheat to win, the break rules for various reasons. but we don’t re-write the record books because of it (at least not in baseball – it’s not like mlb will do to, say, the 2008 dodgers & manny ramirez what the ncaa did to michigan and take away wins from past seasons). the hall of fame IS, in a sense, the record book.
will the idea that a player cheated or otherwise maybe not a law-abiding citizen change his likelyhood of being voted in? sure. i’m sure the palmieros and mcgwires of the world have proved this to everyone’s satisfaction. sosa and bonds will get their chance to reflect upon this very soon.
still, i guarantee there are guys in the hall that threw games, took drugs they felt to be performance enhancing, etc, etc. but that’s the history of the game. the writers looked at the on-field accomplshments and put those guys in. i know pete has some kind of persecution/paranoia/ego complex going on, but you have to see his side of it a little. he’s not going to be the only guy in there that did something wrong, he’s been punished enough, etc. as much as it makes me a little sick to my stomach, i have to agree with him.
Interesting question, which makes me think back to Shoeless Joe. You often hear calls for Jackson’s induction into the HOF – to “lift the ban” against him. But what is pretty telling is this: until Pete Rose’s transgressions were made known, the HOF never had a rule excluding from consideration those who had otherwise been banned from baseball.
In short, the voters had ample time to consider Joe Jackson’s candidacy, and rejected it. They didn’t need a rule telling them his transgressions merited exclusion.
No.
You can’t bet on baseball when you are a part of it.
This is leading to steroids down the line, isn’t it?
If he wagered a uniform amount on each and every game, it would be in the best interest for him financially to win as many games as possible every season just like any other manager so I’m not sure why this is even hypothetical. If the wagers were different for some games than others, then it becomes a lot more suspect.
Yes, he would be a HOFer in the parameters of this thought experiment.
Gavin nails it.
The rule protects the game. He stays out.
I would vote yes. And I would put up his plaque in the middle of the night, with no induction ceremony.
I say no, and Gavin explained it better than I could. The gambling rules are there for good reasons, only some of which are addressed by this hypothetical scenario. Rose willfully broke those rules.
By the way, if he bet the exact same amount on every game, his goals are exactly aligned with his team’s. But I still say no.
No
No differentiation in my mind between “what he did as a player” and what he did as a manager. They’re both part of the game. It’s all one career.
It was wrong. He knew it and did it anyway with the belief he’d never get caught.
Wrong question. Maybe legally you can, since the HOF is its own organization, but realistically you can’t vote him in unless he’s reinstated by baseball. Would I reinstate him? Yes I would. In my opinion a lifetime ban should be reserved for the Joe Jacksons who throw games; Pete’s transgressions deserved a long ban, but after 20 years it’s been long enough. In fact, I’d argue that 10 would have been sufficient.
So first I’d reinstate him. THEN I’d vote him in. But right now, no I wouldn’t vote him in, because he’s banned from baseball. Try to envision an induction ceremony for a banned player. You can’t.
NO! No, no, no, no, no and no. No.
rpa (#17): I agree exactly with your first paragraph. Pete Rose, the player, is a hall of famer. I don’t think there’s really any doubt to that, even among people who despise him. The contrived scenario presented here doesn’t really change my opinion. I would allow Rose into the HoF while continuing to ban him from ever working in baseball again.
As a sidenote here, I think Bud “Used Car Salesman” Selig screwed Rose pretty good. As I understand things, Bud told Rose – through intermediaries such as Mike Schmidt – that coming clean was necessary in order for his bid for reinstatement to be considered. Rose did just that. (yes, we can certainly say he also did it with a profit motive, since it allowed him to sell more books. The point is, he did come clean.) And yet, Bud* continues to leave Rose’s application for reinstatement sitting on his desk, without a ruling one way or another.
* as a sidenote to the sidenote: Is there any doubt that Bud Selig is a terrible commissioner? I look forward to the day Bud no longer bungles things as the commissioner of my favorite sport.
Absolutely not. Rose is a scumbag and stain on not just the game, but on humanity. The punishment he is saddled with today, fits the scenario you portray here…not to mention the truth, which is most likely that he was a filthy, dispicable human being who deserved to hold the MLB record for hits as much as I do.
The fact that he called my hometown, Kansas City a “cow town” during the 1980 World Series, may or may not contribute to my disdain for this pathetic human being.
No, if you break a rule that says “You’re a permanently banned from baseball if you do this” I think you should be permanently banned form baseball.
My personal view is that Rose, as a player, is an obvious choice, so yes, I would vote him in as a player. What he did as a manager is meaningless in terms of his qualifications as a player. And yes, I am aware that he was a player/manager for part of the time he was betting on the Reds. But since, like, 99.9% of his case as a player was compiled before then, I don’t think that’s important.
On top of that, I’m not overly thrilled with the Hall of Fame’s decision to make players on the banned list ineligible for induction given the timing of that ruling. That rule was invented just as Rose was being given his lifetime ban, and it struck me an an ex post facto punishment specifically directed at him, and I didn’t think that was warranted. I agree in principle that gambling on the game should carry massive penalties, and have no problem with Rose’s ban from employment in baseball, participating in ceremonies, etc., and would have no problem if Rose’s stats from those years were wiped from the record books, too, which would cost him his precious Hit King title. But hitting him with the Hall ineligibility after the fact has always struck me as excessive and somewhat petty.
I’m really glad you brought this up Joe. I’m one who believe Shoeless Joe belongs in The Hall. I researched his situation thoroughly, so I’m not just speaking blindly on that. Joe was a fall guy for someone’s agenda.
I’m also one who thinks anyone caught doin’ steroids, should be banned from baseball for cheating, even if it was cheating to win. Cheating for any reason, just makes it all unfair.
I’ve long believed that Rose only bet on his team to win, since it would be totally unbelievable and out of character for him to bet against himself. If you also factor in the fact that he took a 5th place Reds club and turned it into a 2nd place team for most of his managerial career…he was definitely “in it to win it”.
Lookin’ a lil’ deeper… have you seen the amount of sub-100 OPS+ guys that started for the ‘85 Reds? How does a team like that win 89 games? Their pitching staff was a 102 ERA+, so it’s not like they bailed out a bad offense. Plus, those Reds went 19-9 in September.
The ‘86 Reds weren’t much better, and yet finished over .500 and didn’t quit before September either, going 16-11.
1987? Rose took another slightly-below-average team to a winning record. 84 wins, 17-9 September, while dominating every team in his division except the clearly superior Giants.
Ok, now look at 1988. Below average offense (96 OPS+), but slightly above average pitching (107 ERA+). 87 wins, a beautiful 18-9 September, and another 2nd place finish in a tougher division.
Wow, Pete always got his teams fired up for September. I didn’t realize that.
It’s pretty clear Rose didn’t cheat to win or lose. That’s what it comes down to. I say he should get in.
Unquestionably. Pete Rose would be going into the HOF as a player, and not a manager (or a player/manager).
No, sorry, no, I can’t, no way. You can’t bet on your team no matter what. Banned for life means what it says.
Paul White beat me to the comment, but I love seeing myself type, so I have to chime in.
Many seem to be answering the question “should Pete be banned from baseball” rather than “would you vote for him for the HOF.” Those were not the same thing when Pete got his ban.
I’d vote him in. I would also keep him banned.
The punishment was always “banned from baseball” if you broke the gambling rules. It is clear. Fine, Pete is banned.
But one banished was NOT kept out of the HOF, at least not formally. You might not get voted in, but that was up to the writers.
I always thought it was writer’s cop-out to get his NAME off the ballot. Let the writers decide; if you thought his gambling should keep him out, then don’t vote for him. If not, then vote him in. Either way, don’t pretend, writers, that you are not old enough to make this decision.
Either way, keep him banned, because it is hard to argue with the rule.
What does Pete’s behaviour as a Manager have to do with his playing career ? I vote yes, regardless of the thought experiment.
No. He broke the most important rule on the books, the one designed to protect the integrity of the game after the game’s integrity was nearly destroyed by the last batch of Pete Roses. This really isn’t a complicated question, and “yes” is not a defensible answer.
I would vote Pete in right now today. For one thing, I don’t think that what he did as a manager should impact his entitlement to be in the HOF as a player. For another, I don’t see any good reason why being banned from baseball should mean that he can’t be in the HOF. I know the HOF has that as a rule, but it doesn’t have to be that way. There’s no reason he can’t be in the Hall, but still be banned from the game. His plaque in the Hall should even note that he was banned from the game for life.
And I don’t consider myself a Pete defender. Pete is clearly a self-centered asshole. But I don’t think it’s fair to Pete Rose to lump him in with Shoeless Joe Jackson as though their crimes were the same. Shoeless Joe took money, as a player, to lose on purpose. So a) when you’re evaluating whether the two players belong in the HOF, Shoeless Joe’s crime was committed as a player while Pete’s came as a manager, and b) Shoeless Joe’s crime was worse. They’re both bad, but it’s worse to lose on purpose than to bet on your own team to win.
I all add my name to the group that would allow him in either way. At the very least he should get a chance on the ballot. If he is voted no, then so be it.
In this situation, I don’t understand why so many would still say no. I certainly understand the argument that any gambling, even betting on your own team, may lead others to gambling in different ways, but in Joe’s example we are only talking about Pete Rose and him putting money on his own team to win every day. And it has zero effect on his playing/managing style, then I don’t see why can’t even get on the ballot. Suspension? That’s fine, but why not given a chance for the Hall. I don’t think many people have objections to his career numbers, so why can’t they be recognized.
He could be inducted without all the fanfare typically given to inductees. Something that recognizes his accomplishments but doesn’t make light of his obvious failings.
They should open a “Hall of Shame” wing. They can put Rose, Bonds, Clemens, Arod, Manny and every other player that disgraced our national past time there.
The Hall of Fame is realistically, a museum. Museums don’t just display the good things about history, but also the bad. It is all part of the fabric of history.
The problem here is that Rose has never told the truth, ever, about his gambling. He first denied it entirely, then relented some, then relented some more.
I have no doubt that by the time of his death Pete Rose will have admitted to betting against his team on occasion.
Yes is a defensible answer in a society of compassion. There are few (if any) saints walking around this world and we all fail the scuzzy test repeatedly. He’s been punished long enough. Even the penal system let’s most of their subjects serve their time and get on with life.
But don’t leave it to the writers. Geez, those bastions of moral propriety would never let anyone in.
While we’re at it, let’s get Joe Jackson in there too.
I’m one who believe Shoeless Joe belongs in The Hall.
I’m not sure why we should be second guessing the voters here. Unlike with Rose, Joe Jackson was *not* deemed ineligible for the HOF when the voters were considering him (unlike today’s voters, who apparently couldn’t be trusted to vote against a guy who baseball thought sufficiently blameworthy to banish for life). They nevertheless found him unworthy – no doubt because he *was* unworthy (I note that you seem to forgive Rose because you don’t believe he bet against the Reds, implying that there would be something wrong with betting against your team; well, how about – as Jackson did – *playing* against your team’s interest?).
I researched his situation thoroughly, so I’m not just speaking blindly on that. Joe was a fall guy for someone’s agenda.
I have a hard time believing that anyone who has actually looked into the Jackson situation could conclude that his ban was unjustified.
Here are the transcripts from his grand jury testimony (which, conveniently, went missing at his trial):
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/joejackson.shtml
He *admits* receiving money ($5K); he *admits* he was promised $20K; and he seems awfully sore he got cheated out of the $15K difference. Doesn’t sound very innocent to me…
No. Easy question.
…continuing on the Shoeless Joe case. Check out this Q&A from the transcript, and tell me Joe was anything other than a greedy, immoral player entirely deserving of his fate:
Q At the end of the first game you didn’t get any money, did you?
A No, I did not, no, sir.
Q Then you went ahead and throw the second game, thinking you would get it then, is that right?
A We went ahead and threw the second game, we went after him again. I said to him, “What are you going to do”? “Everything is all right,” he says, “What the hell is the matter”?
Another thought experiment. Imagine that there was a clause in his contract that gives him a $2,000 bonus for every game above .500 the Reds finish (i.e. he gets a $4,000 bonus if the Reds finish 82-80). Doesn’t that offer the same incentives as gambling $2,000 per game? Therefore, wouldn’t his managerial decisions be the exact same as they would be if he were gambling? I don’t think he’d get banned from baseball for having that clause in his contract.
Of course, gambling can lead to being in debt to bookies, throwing games, etc. To me, that risk is the reason why he is banned. It doesn’t matter if his gambling didn’t change his managerial decisions. He’s banned because of the things his gambling could have led to.
I voted “no” in the poll questions. There was a rule in place, Pete knew the rule, and Pete broke the rule. Pete’s gotta live with the consequences.
On the Rose case, it seems that No is the easy answer – it’s the answer I came up with. As can be seen from the Yes answers, there is a lot of justifying that comes with it, including placing a lot of faith in what Rose has asserted, despite the fact that Rose has proven himself to be an incorrigible liar on this point (as well as consistently self-serving).
Pete Rose the player would run thru 3 brick walls (and Ray Fosse) just to win a game. I don’t think it would ever occur to him to throw a game. The guy was a winner.
By the way, the worst human being in history is in the Football HOF.
I believe he should be inducted into the Hall, but this is a lifetime ban. He should be inducted posthumously.
This is the thing– people get this gambling problem confused with a moral issue. It’s not. I don’t care about someone’s gambling any more than I care about their drug habits or their alcohol or any of the other problems players might have. As we on this blog are aware, there are problems related to gambling that affect the most important assumption about sports, which is that both teams and their supporting staffs are trying as hard as they can to win. This is one of the primary selling points of sports and what makes it different from professional wrestling or going to see a play. We don’t know what’s going to happen, and neither does anyone else. I accept that baseball has to take that seriously, and it’s not like they weren’t always clear about it.
Honestly, we never talk about the possible benefits of the treatment of Pete Rose– do you think it may be setting a great cautionary example for players (or managers) who might otherwise have been tempted to put some money on a game? If they see baseball takes this seriously and sticks with a ban (which, I remind everyone, Peter Rose AGREED to in lieu of a hearing), maybe they’ll think twice.
As someone who beeped my horn at Pete driving his burgundy Rolls Royce (and getting a wave) back in the 70s I have to vote for #14 to get in. One thing that has always bothered me about the hall of fame discussion, in particular with Bonds, is those that say Bonds clearly was hall of fame worthy before he began juicing. Pete was clearly hall of fame worthy as a player and deserves his spot there, but deep inside i know that he’ll never get there.
Of course, gambling can lead to being in debt to bookies, throwing games, etc.
And, in fact, the reports are that Rose was deep in hock to his bookies. Which makes anything and everything he says about what he did or didn’t do entirely unworthy of belief.
Pete isn’t going to the HOF for managing, he’s going for playing, therefore he should be in.
I would vote Pete in… but not until the day after he died. What he did on the field deserves to be honored, but the man himself does not.
of course not. He broke The Rule and he knew the consequences.
Not in a million…
After reading some of the responses to this question I have to admit that I really didn’t pay attention to the exercise as laid out by Joe. It’s clear he doesn’t want us to be debating the vice of betting on baseball. It seems we all, even those who want Rose in the HOF, agree that betting on baseball by baseball managers or players is a bad thing. What Joe is seemingly asking us to do is essentially strip away the fact that betting on baseball was bad (when done by Rose) by stripping away the potentially negative consequences of that betting and THEN saying what we would do about voting for (or against) him.
It’s an interesting exercise, but it can’t be done. To think like that requires that we strip out any and all context. You might just as easily ask “Say for the sake of argument that Pete Rose still hustled hard on every play in which he was ever involved but that he only had 998 career hits. Would you vote for him then?” This exercise is more than a bit autoerotic because it gives all the posters (me included) the tabula rasa upon which to state our feelings about Rose without having access to his most grievous sins (at least as relates to baseball) to justify those feelings. We get to do/say whatever it is that feels good to us about Pete Rose.
I guess I don’t see the point of the exercise. Rose DID bet on baseball. Gambling IS bad for the sport. Rose WAS indebted to bookies. I like using my imagination as much as the next guy, but this question doesn’t ask us to ignore the effects of betting on games, it asks us to essentially pretend that Rose didn’t bet in the first place. The question strips out any of the impact of Rose’s actions and then asks us to judge. That’s sort of like saying to the people of Greensburg, Kansas “okay, forget that you lost your house and all your belongings as did your family, neighbors and best friends. Forget the fact that you were homeless and penniless. Now, that tornado wasn’t so bad if you don’t think about those parts, was it?”
Monkeyhawk, you’re a bit off on Rose’s career. He was no longer a worthy first baseman back when he was with Philadelphia. His OPS+ fell below 100 in 1980, was 119 in 1981, and then was below 100 in 1982, 1983, and with Montreal in 1984. Then he came back to the Reds, got hot for 107 at bats (while still being below 100 for the year) and then stayed under 100 while limping to the finish line. You could argue about the value of OPS+ in gauging Rose type ball players (I put Gwynn in the same category). But Gwynn didn’t play first base, he played right field. Oh, and Gwynn *never* had an OPS+ under 105, and wasn’t under 110 for the last 18 years of his career.*
* Interesting to note about Gwynn: if you take the chunk of Rose’s career when his OPS+ had dropped below average (not below average for a first baseman, but below average period) and then tack those years onto Tony Gwynn’s career, he passes Ty Cobb for second place all time in hits. But unlike Rose, Gwynn was far too classy a player to stay in the lineup just to break a record.
That said, I like Monkeyhawk’s idea about the lifetime ban. The history of baseball is incomplete without Pete Rose. I also like the idea of a special wing for players banned from the HOF during their lifetime because of violations of laws or proprieties of baseball. But I have to wonder whether anybody except maybe Barry Bonds juiced because of Cooperstown. I think each and every one of them used steroids to get millions of dollars. Maybe once they had several millions in the bank, they might have started thinking about the Hall of Fame. But Barry already had Cooperstown clinched, with three MVPs back when he was under 200 pounds (and I don’t mean just his head, I mean all of him), and he already had more money than he needed. But for virtually everybody else, it was to get the big contract, possibly even to get the very first big contract.
As for the poll, I would not vote Rose in now. If I were convinced that Rose’s betting didn’t matter, I would vote him in; he’s just too big a part of baseball. The only other players of similar stature (to me) are Ruth, Cobb, Williams, Robinson, Aaron, Mays, Barry Bonds, Musial, Cy Young, and maybe 2-3 more pitchers (Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson). But I will *never* be convinced that Rose’s betting did not affect his managing. And Rose *always* had the option of canceling a late season bet based on an early season pitching arm blowout. So the argument that he bet the same way carries no weight. The man reportedly lost $50,000 on one round of golf; we know he wasn’t a good gambler. So why does consistency in badness suggest it didn’t affect his managerial style?
No way in Hell… You don’t make an exception for one player, because then you open yourself up to others cheating and no solid reason as to why THEY can’t and Pete could…
The rule is cut and dried, and Pete knew what he was doing–and knew that it was wrong…
He can spin it any way he wants, he committed a mortal sin in the game of baseball… Willingly, and knowingly…
The rule is there to protect the game, and one exception destroys the rule and opens it up to others doing the same…
Sit and rot, Pete…
There are separate elections for players and for managers (sorry about that, Joe Torre, particularly when the guidelines for the Veterans’ Committee are so poorly applied). If we can be sure that Pete was not betting on baseball while playing, put him in the Hall as a player.
His betting as a manager — no mstter how it impacted his managing — should keep him from ever working again in any MLB capacity.
@Melody (#49): “If they see baseball takes this seriously and sticks with a ban (which, I remind everyone, Peter Rose AGREED to in lieu of a hearing), maybe they’ll think twice.”
That’s very true – Rose did indeed agree to the ban. However… after he agreed to the ban, baseball forced the HoF to change the rules so he would be ineligible. For whatever reason, baseball didn’t trust the voters to decide the matter.
So while Rose agreed to his lifetime ban, he didn’t agree to being banned from the Hall as part of that agreement.
Here’s the problem with the question–it falls in the context of the current steroid problem which is forcing us to rethink our ideals for the Hall. If we say that Bonds gets in and Manny gets in and Clemens gets in, then Rose is a yes, given your other parameters. If we say that those guys don’t get in (which I would probably favor) then Rose is a no.
Isn’t there an argument that by keeping him out of the HOF, it only brings him more attention. I frankly think the best thing to do is put him in the HOF and treat it like any other Veteran’s Committee selection. No extra fanfare. No extra “at last” or “what an outrage” columns. Put up a modest plaque describing his player accomplishments. Give him a speech but tell him the first time he starts getting on his soap box about the ban, they’ll pull the plug.
Keep him banned from MLB.
And then just move on.
I’ve always thought this is silly. We’re inducting players, not people. There are many bad people in the hall, what’s one more. Moreover, it’s not about rewarding or punishing Pete Rose, the man, to me. Are we really concerned about deterrance here either? Are there are whole bunch of hall of fame players managing who are thinking about betting on the game but aren’t doing it so they can go to the hall? It’s about chronicling the game. The greatest players should be in there. If a bad person like Pete Rose ends up benefiting from this, I don’t really care.
If anything the steroid question is harder because it potentially affects the legitimacy of their performance on the field, which is the quality I believe we should be evaluating.
If Pete had already been voted in as a player before the gambling as a manager came about, would they have removed him from the Hall? (Could they have?) Would you?
The Hall of Fame is an honor bestowed on players, not a historical record. Pete Rose’s accomplishments are not being expunged, they are not lost to history, he is simply not having baseball’s highest honor bestowed on him. History is still there for anyone to read.
I think this is the easiest poll answer around: Resounding no. First, the rule could not be more bright line, well known and obvious and the evidence is overwhelming that he broke it. Steroids were not explicitly against baseball rules, and were implicitly encouraged. Completely different.
Second, more importantly, people throw around the phrase “integrity of the game” but from the discussion here, I don’t think most recognize its import. Put it this way: If the general public does not believe the outcome of baseball games is dictated by the players’ best efforts on the field, THERE WILL BE NO MORE BASEBALL AS WE KNOW IT. It will be WWF. Staged performances. And perception is the key. As soon as people perceive the game is not governed by athletes competing against each other, the game is done. It has become theatre. I like the Harlam Globetrotters as much as the next guy, but I don’t want MLB to become a series of skills-related exhibitions.
Steroids do not affect “the integrity of the game.” Corked bats do not affect “the integrity of the game.” I’m not saying they are not morally reprehensible for a variety of reasons, but the game is still decided by the players on the field trying to perform their best (or better than their best). When those associated with performance have an interest other than performing their best, or even a perception thereof, the game no longer exists. That is why there is one cardinal rule in baseball and why its violation carries with it a very stiff penalty.
I actually think it’s possible that if he had a standing bet of $2000 on EVERY game, it might not effect the way he manages. You just can’t play every single game like a playoff game, and if he understands baseball (and I would think he would), he would know that.
However if he were to bet on specific games here and there, then yes, I’d say it certainly would have an effect.
In any case, yes, I absolutely would vote him in. And I think he should be voted in now even not knowing that. I’m all for keeping him from managing, he broke the rules and should be punished, but I think it punishes the legacy of the Hall of Fame when the all time hit leader isnt in there. I know about the rule saying people banned from baseball can’t be in the Hall…find a way around it. Take away Pete’s “total ban” and just say he can’t manage/work in the front office of a team. Hey, if someone wants to sign 68 year old Pete to play, I guess he could do that!
If it turned out he was betting against his team, I’d still dislike the fact that the all time hits leader isn’t in the Hall, but I’d have a much harder time defending that.
David in Toledo #59 said something not often said in the Rose scenario, or not often enough (IM0) “If we can be sure that Pete was not betting on baseball while playing, put him in the Hall as a player.”
I would think that many who think that steroid users would be ineligible for inclusion in the HOF feel that way because they believe if a player used, he used all the time. The parallel then must be what’s to say that Pete Rose didn’t bet on baseball when he played? Pete Rose? Somehow not a credible witness. He’s acknowledged he bet, only when with faced overwhelming evidence that he did bet. And we’re supposed to believe that his penchant/addiction for gambling only magically took root when he became a player/manager?
Further, the players who used steroids didn’t break the rule that’s posted on all those clubhouses all around MLB, and in fact didn’t break any enforceable rule at all. (As Manny’s case shows, they now have an enforceable rule – and it’s not a permanent ban.) Pete Rose broke a rule with a clear punishment attached to it. He needs/deserves to serve that punishment, and I believe that should extend to the HOF.
On Pete Rose I’ve had the same opinion for years now. He should be allowed to be voted on for the Hall of Fame and if inducted his plaque should say he bet on baseball.
Even if Rose is voted into the Hall however he should never be allowed to manage or coach in the Majors again because he cheated the game and he lied about it for years.
I don’t know if this would make Rose happy as I’ve heard him say several times that he’d like to manage again but there has to be a penalty for what he did.
I don’t know why it would make a difference to you if you are saying that Pete should not be in. Put simply — the impact of Pete’s gambling is a separate issue from whether he did it. Even if Pete simply gambled because he was an adrenalin junkie, and even if he were immune from threats of blackmail, etc. from gamblers, the violation of the rule would still be the violation of the rule. About the only way this would make sense was if Pete could have been breaking the rules because he was schizophrenic, with his alternate personality making the bets. It would still be a violation, albeit one where the circumstances would dictate compassion and understanding.
With that being said, I would vote for Pete to go into the Hall of Fame, and I would certainly say that he should have been eligible. Three reasons:
1. I’m irrationally biased. I am a Phillies fan, and Pete was one of the people responsible for one of the happiest memories of my childhood. This doesn’t get Pete off the hook for any crime, but Pete’s too much a part of a happy memory for me to turn against him for the sin of betting on baseball.
2. More importantly… I understand why the rule is in place. Pete’s lifetime ban from the game is richly deserved — he can’t be trusted with a position of any importance within the game. But his ban from Cooperstown is wholly a different matter — it is an honor that he earned, based on his performance. The punishment for affecting the integrity of the game has already been levied — it’s the lifetime ban. Let the writers decide whether he should still be worthy of inclusion. I’d make the same argument for Joe Jackson.
3. Most importantly… the game’s integrity is taking a serious hit right now, from the use of performance-enhancing substances. I think much of the crying about the issue is overblown and in part due to our fascination with hallowed baseball records, but it’s impossible to deny that the revelations in the Mitchell Report (shoddy though it was) and elsewhere should have us questioning any number of individual performances, to say nothing of team accomplishments (if Manny was juicing in 2004, is that offset by the fact that A-Rod was juicing? Should I be angry that more Phillies weren’t juicing in the late 1990’s?).
This does not minimize the nature of Pete’s offenses, which may or may not be worse, depending on your point of view. But this instead points to the issue of whether we honor those involved in the game who broke the rules and thus compromised its integrity, AND those who tolerated it, enabled it, or willfully blinded themselves and remained silent about it. But I think we’re quite likely to struggle with reaching a consensus on how to determine Hall eligibility for those who stained the game during this time, and those making the call will be the same people whom we didn’t trust to make the call on Rose. That doesn’t make sense to me, because Pete’s Hall-worthy performance was not impacted by gambling, whereas the players whom the writers will be voing on in coming years saw their numbers impacted by PED use. Maybe gambling is that much worse than PED use (certainly the penalty appears to indicate as such, although Dale Murphy and others seem to believe lifetime bans for PED use should be the norm), but why not leave Pete eligible for admission?
I’m just writing to register my shock–I just voted (no to both) to discover that 64% of a pretty good sample would vote for his induction right now. Really? I don’t consider myself a person with an ethical stick up my ass–in fact I’m pretty tolerant generally. The guy bet on games in which he was involved! It’s the central rule of baseball and competitive integrity. Anyway, I’ve sampled the comments, and the arguments in favor of his induction…well, I’m not persuaded, but they’re real arguments. I’m shocked that so many are there.
On Joe’s thought experiment: the reason I wouldn’t vote for him is this: if we vote for him and induct him, because HIS managing wasn’t affected, doesn’t it encourage the next guy to bet $2,000 on every one of his teams’ games since he is less likely to be punished? Then what if that guy winds up in financial trouble and is forced into a situation where his managing IS effected.
Don’t bet if you are in the sport.
McKingford …I’m not going to rehash Shoeless Joe arguments here. Not the place for it. I do believe the others on the 1919 White Sox threw some WS games though.
I have devoted a good deal of thought to this, because my time spent playing baseball between ages eight through nineteen roughly coincided with Pete Rose’s best years. During my high school years, the Machine won its championships, so Rose,Bench, Perez et al. were always part of the conversation. With Rose, even kids in south Alabama knew everything about Charlie Hustle. I vividly recall his collision with Ray Fosse in the All Star game, but most of all I remember how he hustled every play, even running to first base, full tilt, after a walk. To a young person who had not developed much cynicism about the world, I thought he represented baseball as well as anyone.
Well, everyone grows up, and after reading and watching Pete Rose as an adult, I find myself with a completely different perspective. He really is not a very pleasant person, and betting to the extent he did, whether or not on his own team, reflects a serious character defect. I disagree with him heartily that PEDs are worse than gambling. I find myself torn in this debate, because it is hard to separate Pete Rose the ballplayer from Pete Rose the man.
As a boy, though, I think I was right about one thing: Pete Rose was one hell of a ballplayer, and as a ballplayer, I think he earned the right to be considered, to at least be voted on, by members of the Hall of Fame. So, a grudging yes. Let the writers vote.
Wait, I just read Jeff’s post at #65. Are you making the case that steorids and corked bats DON’T affect the integrity of the game? That’s not the definition of integrity that I would employ here. Perhaps we don’t think of it as being on the same level of an offense, but it’s still cheating. It’s still breaking the rules. Point in fact, I don’t know how placing a bet on your own team to win is worse than corking your bat or taking a PED that your opponent does not take because he respects the rules of the game.
Absolutely yes.
The guy didn’t cheat on baseball; he broke a rule of baseball. He’s served his time (although I’d say one season should have sufficed). He’s one of the greatest of all time, and the hall cannot refute that. He should be in for his achievements, regardless of whether or not he bet. Brian is right though, don’t hide the fact that he bet on baseball and was banned; that’s all part of the Pete Rose story. And isnt that what the hall of fame is – a collection of stories about the greatest players of all time?
Absolutely yes.
I think you guys are sincere, so just to clear it up, are there actual sports fans who like sports without having action? I just can’t even imagine watching a game of any sort if I didn’t have money on it; it seems silly. I’ve always assumed that sports fans were all gamblers, and we just pretended to care about something that would otherwise be meaningless if it weren’t for gambling. Am I mistaken?
Jason
No. Furthermore I don’t believe he always bet on his team to win. If he was in deep, then surely he sometimes bet on them to lose. It would be most interesting if betting slips turned up some day to indicate this.
Answering anything but No to either question is inexcusable.
McKingford, to characterize Joe Jackson as a “greedy, immoral player” is flat wrong. The man was illiterate, a farmboy from North Carolina who signed a contract (or, more accurately, was blindly pushed into signing something he could not understand) with Charles Comiskey that basically amounted to indentured servitude. If anyone was greedy and immoral, it was Charles Comiskey. In those days, the owners had all the power, there were no agents, no free agency, and no real recourse for players who were severely underpaid.
You are certainly correct that he took gambler’s money, and he was guilty of attempting to throw the games, but as they say in “Field of Dreams”, he hit the only homer of the series. It’s seems as though, after he never received the money he was promised after the second game, he called off the fix (at least for himself) and began playing as well as he could again.
The White Sox pitchers (Cicotte and Lefty Williams specifically) were FAR MORE responsible for throwing the series. This was the best staff in the league that season, and during the series they suddenly turned into Jeff Weaver and Sidney Ponson.
Finally, as to Jackson’s (and the 7 others’) punishment, there was no rule in baseball at the time that outlawed gambling, or specifically called for a lifetime* ban for a player found guilty of such an violation. It was only after the 1920 season that the owners called in Kenesaw “Mountain” Landis to “clean up” the game, by instituting a retroactive, ex post facto decision to punish the Black Sox.
*And by the way, Jackson is now dead. How long after one’s death does a “lifetime” ban last? 50 years, like a copyright?
Jason,
Are you kidding? I’ve never placed a bet in my life, and I love sports. I think betting on them would take all the joy out.
Yes.
…The gambling stuff is, to me, like steroids — in a way. I don’t condone steroids, but it’s difficult (even foolish) to judge players for their apparent use when it’s obvious that there are others who used drugs who have so far escaped notice. Bonds’s accomplishments might seem more impressive, for instance, if you considered that he might have been facing a lot of juicing pitchers.
So, I’ve a question for you: Isn’t it preposterous to believe that Rose was the only guy in recent baseball history, out of hundreds upon hundreds of guys, who was making bets? I mean, isn’t it? If that’s the case, Rose doesn’t deserve to be singled out.
This series of polls reminds me of the anecdote about Churchill or Wilde (I’ve heard it told about both men) at a dinner party. A society matron begins to rant against prostitutes as being the most immortal people on earth, to which Churchill/Wilde replies, “Madam, if I paid you one million pounds to sleep with me, would you do so?” The woman thinks about it, then says she would.
Wilde/Churchill then asks if she would sleep with him if he paid her just one pound.
She says of course not, what kind of a woman do you think I am?
Wilde/Churchill responds with, “We’ve already established what you are madam, now we’re just haggling over terms.”
The bottom line is that if you think gambling on baseball is wrong, then you shouldn’t be making allowances for even $5 bets.
thought experiment or not…HoF is a museum. Is pete a lying scumbag who oughtn’t be brought into any official capacity in either league? absolutely. but he’s the all time hits leader, his teams and his leagues and the media made a lot of money offa charlie hustle, he was a legendary icon of the sport in his own time, for a long, long time.
he certainly deserves to be in the damn museum.
and…as the thought experiment goes…ethics are ethics, and the rule to protect the integrity of the game is posted right there in the clubhouse. the amount of money bet isn’t germane. just a bet between friends is not germane. betting to win or lose is not germane. no betting. “no”’s pretty clear, i think.
I think I read most of the comments and didn’t see this posted. If I missed it I apologize…
According to the Hall of Fame’s website (link below), voting should be based on “the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”
So even if Rose were eligible, which he’s not, and even if all of the unlikely hypothetical situations Joe describes above were true, which they’re not, I would vote no. No question about it.
Three of six (that’s half) of the qualifications are not quantifiable – shouldn’t that give us pause about relying on the record of hits, home runs, so on?
Before I forget here’s the link: http://tinyurl.com/ozpet2
I realize this opens a can of worms about past players: should Ty Cobb, an incredibly racist and mean spirited man be in the Hall? He ran into the stands and spiked/kicked a fan repeatedly after being taunted. The list of people lacking integrity in the Hall is not short.
The line I would draw is this: the integrity, sportsmanship, character listed in the qualifications would have to be related to the game itself. If a player/coach did something to harm the integrity or character of the game, he should not be voted into the Hall. That’s why Ty Cobb (and many others) would be in. Anyone who has cheated/gambled on the game or broken the rules to gain an advantage would not. I would not vote for many of the steroids era players, black sox, etc.
Rose’s records are still impressive, and it’s not as though his achievements aren’t being written about (This is now called the Poz Plug: http://tinyurl.com/p6mvuu) so I don’t get the big deal about leaving him out of the Hall. Will any baseball fan really not remember the number 4,256?
He’s served his time (although I’d say one season should have sufficed).
You know who disagrees with you? Pete Rose.
Pete Rose willingly accepted a *lifetime* ban from baseball. This is the equivalent of a guy charged with murder pleading guilty and asking for the death penalty. He had the option of fighting it but chose not to – I mean, what’s the downside to fighting it? How could the penalty have been worse if he had fought it and lost?
Why would he have agreed to any such deal? I’m a criminal lawyer and in my experience, the only rational explanation is that he had too much to hide. It’s one thing for Rose to accept the ban and be able to plead whatever case he could to the American public; it would have been quite another for him to fight it out in public and have all the bad laundry aired, which may well have led to far *worse* conclusions about Rose’s actions. We may have learned that he was deeply indebted to bookies; that he didn’t bet every single game (in fact John Dowd reports that Rose didn’t bet the games Mario Soto or Bill Gullickson pitched); or maybe that he did bet against the Reds.
I’m surprised at the levels of support here, and the effective denial of how serious Rose’s misdeeds were, because this is the most damning thing of all: Rose didn’t believe enough in his own cause to fight for it.
No.
As for Rose’s accomplishments not being in the HoF, well they are. He has only been banned from one room of the museum, the one with all of the plaques honoring the men who have made the greatest contribution to the game of baseball. Rose’s contributions, as great as they were, are overshadowed by the immense harm that gambling does to the institution, and so he is denied a plaque.
Is the rule in the clubhouse? It is, right? No betting on your own club? Okay then. Banned. End of discussion unless and until the rule changes. It won’t, and it shouldn’t.
Pete should be banned, and he should never manage or participate in anything to do with Major League Baseball again. He broke the rules and he must pay the price.
However…
He should be in the Hall of Fame. Don’t mention his managerial record, or put a note on his plaque that he’s been banned, but he definitely deserves to be in the Hall for what he did while playing. There’s no evidence he bet as a player, is there?
I mean, Wilbert Robinson made the Hall as a manager, tho he did play in the bigs. And Pete should make the Hall as a player, and player only.
He|| NO! Others above have stated the reason why not quite eloquently–there’s a sign posted in every clubhouse that says no gambling. The argument that if he was paid a $2000 bonus for every game he won is not the same as BETTING on every game, because every game the Reds LOST would COST Pete money. Anyone that competitive couldn’t stand that. Again, that’s all irrelevant. I don’t care what he did on the field. When it comes down to it, he ADMITTED he bet on baseball and accepted a LIFETIME ban. Even if he’s an idiot (and there’s strong proof of that), he still agreed to that punishment. His records stand, but he does NOT deserve to be in the HOF.
Jeff (#65) already made this point, but I’m no stickler for originality, so here goes…
I absolutely agree that Pete Rose’s amazing accomplishments as a player should be respected and remembered. And since his lifetime ban did not include wiping his stats off the record books, they will be. And sometime after his name is no longer instantly recognizable, young statheads will see him name on the all-time lists and wonder “Hey, if this Rose guy was so great, why isn’t he in the Hall?” And then they’ll find out and say, “Oh. I see.” And then they’ll move on. Rose’s name will live on in baseball’s statistical record as a powerful object lesson for generations to come.
Question for Joe…
Out of curiosity, why do YOU think that Pete agreed to the lifetime ban? I’ve heard various responses to various interviewers, but I’m not sure if I fully understand the “WHY” in Pete’s thought process… I’m curious if it came up during your conversations with him, and what your amateur Dr. Phil thoughts are…
One thing to remember about Pete here in 2009–time has helped him… The longer his ban, the less resistance by people to keep him out of the Hall… It also doesn’t help that Bart Giamanti (sp?) is no longer here to give us his thoughts on the situation…
I see this recurring idea – the separation of Rose, the player, and Rose, the manager. I don’t see any separation.
John McGraw is a Hall of Fame manager. He was also a fine player, and his playing career alone has an argument for election. Could McGraw be elected again, for his time as a manager? What about Joe Torre (a likely HOF manager and close as a player)?
I don’t think so. You don’t separate out a person’s playing career and managing career in this regard – a person is elected once.
I just can’t agree with the “elect him as a player, not a manager” crowd. We’re not electing Rose as a player – we’re electing Rose, or, as I’d say, not electing Rose.
the thought experiment is a bad idea, I think; it assumes something we can’t know about anyone, so what validity could it have for real-life ethical discussions? betting is not banned because it automatically corrupts the game; it’s banned because, given our shared, limited understandings of human psychology, it introduces an irreducible possibility of corruption–whether conscious or unconscious.
ultimately, the exeriment is like saying “ok, assume Pete Rose is not a human being….”–once you assume that, there’s nothing left to be interested in. in my opinion.
So many posts! I feel like a punk at this point…
Not being original here, but Pete Rose would not make the Hall as a manager. He would make it as a player. So the question is moot. I suppose it could be debatable that he didn’t always bet, or that he didn’t bet while he was a player/manager, but I’ve never heard anyone suggest that. So it’s silly.
And let’s remember that Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker were “allowed to retire” as managers over a gambling incident. I personally don’t feel it’s like steroids at all – with steroids, there’s no issue of whether one was impeding one’s team winning, and also, stats-wise, it’s a matter of degree. You can’t say Bonds either hit zero or 73 home runs – depending on your point of view, the answer is somewhere in between – but you can (presumably) say whether Rose did or didn’t bet on his own team.
I would, however, keep him banned from any position with any kind of influence forever… no question.
But unless you say he did this as a player – he should be in the Hall. If he had never managed, would the answer be different? And why?
Like steroids, I believe if the player acknowledges the violation in some official declaration to the league office, they should be considered for re-instatement and/or acceptance into the Baseball Hall of Fame with an asterisks. (http://intoleftfield.com/blog/?p=50)
Wait, Pete Rose bet on baseball?
By the way, the worst human being in history is in the Football HOF.
well, Hitler did invent the forward pass, after all…
if he was paid a $2000 bonus for every game he won is not the same as BETTING on every game, because every game the Reds LOST would COST Pete money. Anyone that competitive couldn’t stand that.
alter the parameters slightly, then.
instead of a $162000 starting salary with $2000 for every game above .500 and -$2000 for every game below $500, start with a $0 starting salary and $2000 for every game won on the season.
I’m going to expose myself a little here, but I don’t see the problem with betting on baseball depending on the circumstances.
If you bet on your team to lose and then actively contribute to losing – okay, in that circumstance I get it. You have the ability to contribute to a loss and it goes against the grain of playing baseball which is to ‘not lose’ among other things.
But if I’m a, no scratch that, if I’m THE .300 hitter, 80 RBI, 20 Home Run guy for the Washington Nationals and I bet on the smart money that the team will still lose. That’s muddy waters. That guy is still playing hard, he’s still trying to win, but he knew his team blows, so the payoff is on the team losing. So betting to lose and playing to win, doesn’t seem as reprehensible as playing to lose.
And of course, if you’re betting to win then that’s a whole nother matter. It might be more morally reprehensible AS A GAMBLER to bet on a game you can affect then it is as a baseball player.
I don’t know. The moral angle isn’t working for me either because morals have nothing to do with how much and the poll results over there show that the amount of money is more relevant than the act itself.
The real solution here should be to bet on OTHER games. There’s a lot of other teams, bet on them! LOL.
Pete Rose should be in the Hall.
I think all betting on baseball should be an automatic lifetime ban from baseball, regardless of monetary commitment or impact on the game.
However, I think the Rose should be in the Hall of Fame but can’t under the current clauses. Either we drop that clause and make the HoF a living “top 20″ for each position sorted by generation, or we build a separate wing for cheaters and scumbags.
And A-ROD should be banned if he tipped pitches. Why has that story died when it could be so easily provable with tape and statitistics, regardless of confirmed sources?
An employee of MLB can attack a disabled fan. An employee can be a bigot. An employee can spit on an umpire. An employee can smoke crack. An employee CANNOT bet on baseball. It’s THE rule! The ONE that matters. The Golden Rule doesn’t matter a lick as far as MLB is concerned. Morality doesn’t enter into the equation. Everyone involved must be playing to win at all times. The second I doubt the intentions of the participants, that’s the second I stop caring about baseball. What is this, the NBA?
First, there’s obviously a major difference between a friendly bet just for fun (e.g. a buddy of mine and I bet a bottle of Jameson’s on who would win the 2008 election) and real high-stakes gambling. In friendly bets, nothing important is at stake and there’s no connection with organized crime or anything like that. No manager would throw a ball game because he had a five-dollar bet with the clubhouse man on how many hits Player X would get, or whatever.
High-stakes gambling for real money, on the other hand, corrupts everyone who touches it. A player with half a million bucks riding on a game is going to throw it, thereby invalidating the competition. Also, it’s illegal outside Nevada, and so it is run by the mob. (Chick Gandil, the brains behind the Black Sox, was what we’d call “connected”·today.)
That’s why it is completely banned by organized baseball, and everybody in OB has it constantly drilled into their heads. It’s the number-one no-no. Period. You do it, you’re banned, and everybody knows it.
I’m not sure why Pete Rose couldn’t be allowed into the Hall based on his merits as a player, yet still banned from coaching or scouting or holding any other job in MLB. (Pete, by the way, knows a lot of sleazy people, fringe characters, drug dealers and bookies, but I don’t think he’s connected to the real mob.)
I would absolutly vote him in either way.
How can you not have the all-time hits leader in the hall? Cobb is in the hall and he was a pretty horrible person. He fought with players and fans on the field, he killed a bellhop, he beat a disabled fan in a wheelchair DURING A GAME. You have to seperate the player from the person. Baseball history is full of great players who were/are bad people. It’s not a hall of morality.
Leave him banned, put him in the hall.
One thing to remember about Pete here in 2009–time has helped him
With respect, I think this is exactly wrong. While in theory you would think time would help Rose, *he* has used that time very poorly. Frankly, Pete Rose has been a terrible ambassador for his own cause. Remember back to the time of his ban – he was adamant that he didn’t bet on baseball (but, curiously, still accepted a *lifetime* ban). Then over the years there has been this drip, drip, drip of slow acknowledgments by Rose of bad behaviour, including the admission that, why yes he did, in fact, bet on baseball. The manner of his admissions has left many thinking there are more shoes to drop, and more than a few Rose apologists have been entirely dismayed by his lack candour.
If you put clearly on his plaque”Pete Rose bet on baseball in violation of the rules”, then yes. Which is the only way out of this steroid mess as well.
Has anyone ever considered that he bet on baseball when he played as well? Maybe that is why it always looked like his life depended on the outcome of every play. As far as in the Hall, YES. Why does ban from baseball mean ban from HoF?
I don’t know if this has been mentioned, but what about a manager making $2 mil a year whose job is in jeopardy, and he leaves a pitcher in a bit longer than he should to seal a “big” win and save his ass – yeah he’s got a contract and he still gets paid, but if he keeps winning this way, maybe he’s the man at the end of the year. If he pulls the pitcher and loses, maybe he’s “just” a pitching coach making $300k next year. Lot of “ifs”, but I think you see my point….
Here’s how strict MLB is about the appearance of betting, payoffs, etc. A couple of years ago Torii Hunter of the Twins promised the Royals a case of Cristal if they swept the Tigers in the last three games of the season, thereby putting the Twins in the playoffs. This obviously falls into the “friendly bet” category, since Hunter could buy a thousand cases of Cristal a year and it wouldn’t even dent his bank account.
At the beginning of the next season, when Minnesota came to KC, Hunter was going to pay off, and the league office wouldn’t let him. That’s how above suspicion Caesar’s wife has to be in MLB.
The question is framed wrong. It should be “Would you change the baseball rule that anyone caught gambling on the game is to be banished for life AND the HOF rule that any player banished from baseball is ineligible for election to the HOF?”
Otherwise, you might ask the same sort of question about a steroid user. For example, suppose you were absolutely certain that his use of steroids was entirely accidental and had absolutely no effect on his performance on the field. Would you make an exception for player X and not suspend him for the 50 days required by the rule? (This has nothing to do with your view of whether steroid use should be banned and players punished for it.)
If your answers to the two questions about the gambling and banishment rules are no, then it is irrelevant what you think of Rose. You cannot with any justification vote for him to be in the HOF. If your answers are yes, the rules should be changed, then you have to lobby for those changes and of course can then vote for Rose. Of course, you ought then to look at Joe Jackson as well.
The issue is not Rose. It is the rules. To keep the rules and still vote for Rose is to make an exception, as if because of some special circumstance a player is allowed a 4th strike while at bat. There are reasonable arguments for changing the rules, but none that make sense for voting Rose into the HOF while they remain in effect.
For the people who are voting to okay a $5 bet but to deny admission for a $500,000 bet, it would be interesting to know at what amount of money they would draw the line.
While I can agree that having $2000 riding on each game wouldn’t affect Rose’s managerial style, why wouldn’t it affect other manager’s style?
MLB is a good ol’ boys network in many respects. Let’s say Rose’s team is playing against a friend’s team that is out of contention. That manager might be inclined to give in a bit to save his buddy $4000. Does that not affect the integrity of the game.
I voted no for everything except the first rotisserie question, which I interpreted to mean a free rotisserie league.
My thoughts are this; Because of baseball’s past (black sox scandal in particular) gambling on baseball of any sort is not allowed. Strictly forbidden like the apple on the tree of knowledge thing. So I assume that Pete knew the risks and apparently wasn’t deterred by the lifetime ban. So if I had a vote I would not allow Pete into the hall of fame– until he died. At that point his lifetime ban is up, so I think he’d should be allowed.
Pete in the Hall of Fame comes up alot.
As I understand it, Pete has a life time ban from baseball. So he can go into the Hall of Fame after he dies. And if there is any justice in baseball, he will be in the same HOF class as Shoeless Joe Jackson.
It seems as though a number of people have covered one of the points I wanted to make, which is that the rule isn’t really intended to punish behavior that’s considered bad — the rule is meant to prevent behavior that, given a chance, will lead to undesirable consequences for the game as a whole. In this sense, the rule is quite rabbinical — the Bible says to ‘remember the Sabbath and keep it holy’, but rabbis created the rules about not doing prohibited work on the Sabbath, and not even handling specific tools on the Sabbath (because once you have the tool in your hand, you might just do prohibited work).
If you’re going to have a rule that says, ‘nobody can bet on baseball’, then that’s it — you enforce that rule, or you accept that the rule will eventually contain so many caveats and exceptions that it’ll become toothless and impotent.
The other point I feel the need to make, since it’s come up time and again, is the question of Pete Rose’s ‘lifetime’ ban from baseball. Pete Rose doesn’t have a ‘lifetime’ ban from baseball (with one caveat). Pete Rose is on the Permanently Ineligible list, which is something that baseball does to restrict players who have committed egregious sins against the sport from continuing to participate in and/or profit from the sport. Players are not automatically removed from the Permanently Ineligible list when they die; otherwise, George Bechtel, Richard Higham, the Black Sox, and others still on the list would no longer be there.
Since MLB does not own the Hall of Fame (it’s a museum incorporated under New York state law, and thus everything in the Hall is effectively the property of the state of New York), the penalties involved for being on the Permanently Ineligible list could not cover induction into the Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame itself, however, decided to make a rule that any player on MLB’s Permenently Ineligible list could not be inducted into the Hall — in February of 1991 (see below for one reason why this date is significant).
Since the passage of that rule by the Hall of Fame, the only way that Rose (or Jackson, or anybody else on the list) can be inducted into the Hall is to be taken off the list. Plenty of players have been put on the list and then removed — the most famous recent example would probably be when Bowie Kuhn put Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle on the Permanently Ineligible list in Feburary of 1983 for taking jobs as greeters at an Atlantic City casino. Peter Ueberroth took both men off the list in March of 1985.
The caveat, and the reason why most people think of Rose as having a ‘lifetime’ ban, is that allegedly Rose agreed to a ‘lifetime’ ban in exchange for being allowed to appeal the ban after one year. Rose’s agreement was with then-Commissioner Bart Giamatti, but it’s not clear how enforceable that agreement actually is — whoever is Commissioner of MLB at the time of Rose’s death may not feel obligated to abide by an agreement made between two men, one of whom will have been dead for years by then.
Bill James remarked in his book “Whatever Happened To The Hall of Fame?” that Rose’s best chance to be reinstated might well be to take the matter to the courts: two players (Fergie Jenkins and Steve Howe) have been removed from the list via arbitration decisions, and James’s opinion seemed to be that Rose would have a much easier time convincing an arbitrator that he was treated unfairly by MLB (specifically given the paucity of actual evidence presented by the Dowd Commission justifying the ban) than he will trying to convince a later Commissioner of Baseball that he was treated unfairly by every previous Commissioner.
Red (#46) hit the nail on the head when he compared betting on your team to WIN is tantamount to an incentive clause in your contract with a bonus for each win – would I induct Rose in HOF? absolutely, he deserves if for being the ALL TIME HIT LEADER (not for being a nice guy)
Ty Cobb, the erstwhile ALL TIME HIT LEADER is in the HOF, and he was widely considered the biggest #!*##*@$%!! that ever played the game – HOF is based on your stats, not on how many people invite you for dinner (and how many of the old-timers, Ruth and others, went out drinking and carousing after a game? how many times did Mantle show up hungover? what about gambling on OTHER sports, like boxing or NFL or whatever, is that allowed? where do you draw the line without it being totally arbitrary?)
well, we know the answer to that: you draw the line (and arbitrary it is indeed) by banning a player, then a quickie rule that says banned players can’t get into HOF – apparantly, however, it’s perfectly fine to TAKE STEROIDS and CHEAT by using DRUGS, but betting ON YOUR OWN TEAM *TO WIN* is “over the line – yeah, right)
(Realizing that no one is going to read this after this long…)
If someone was going to have a standing bet to win everyday, then why would that cause them, subconciously or not, to manage differently? If you knew you were going to bet to win everyday, then there is no incentive to want to win one day or any other day. You’d want to win as many games as possible, which should be want you’d want anyway.
maybe in football there is no difference, but no baseball manager knows he is going to go 162-0.
sometimes it is advantageous to lose one and save the players for another day.
imagine the 1998 Yankees, who I believe went 3-8 in their last 11 games because they had already clinched the pennant and were looking to set their rotation, and rest their lineup, for the playoffs.
NO. The rules explicitly state that the penalty for betting on baseball is a year ban and if you bet on a game in which you were involved it is a lifetime ban. Clear and simple. Rose knew this. If he had ANY respect for the game he would sit down, go away, and shut up for ever. He was the cheapest and dirtiest player ever to play and now he has shown he has no class nor any respect for the game as well. A worse role model never existed.
I agree that betting on your team or any other team as a manager is wrong. What I dont understand is what that has to do with what Pete Rose accomplished on the field. How can you not recognize that? There are players playing today that have either admitted or been proven guilty of taking steroids, or human growth hormones, such as Barry Bonds. How can you possibly recognize what he has done when he cheated? Pete Rose was wrong for what he did, but he did not cheat as a player. Knowing this, how can you recognize the “cheaters”, and not Pete Rose?