PDA

View Full Version : Rose admits to betting on Reds every night



edabbs44
03-14-2007, 04:05 PM
Pete Rose revealed Wednesday that he bet on the Reds "every night" while he was manager of the team and that the Dowd Report was correct when it said he did so.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2798498

icehole3
03-14-2007, 04:17 PM
I agree with Pete he's the best ambassador baseball has.

Matt700wlw
03-14-2007, 04:30 PM
I guess that means he felt his team could win every night and managed them appropriately.

Good to know.

Now put him in the Hall where he belongs

bucksfan2
03-14-2007, 04:32 PM
Im a supporter of Pete in the hall but there has to become a time when he just goes away for a while.

westofyou
03-14-2007, 04:38 PM
Rose's earlier take on the Dowd Report:
"It was a hatchet job, a piece of crap."
"In my judgment, I don't think there are any circumstances that justify his return to the game... If you let Rose back in, then the message to anyone who gambles and gambles on the game is that if you throw enough of a public relations tantrum and admit that you did it, then you ought to be back in the game."

John Dowd On NPR 2003

Roy Tucker
03-14-2007, 04:39 PM
Did he bet the same amount?

edabbs44
03-14-2007, 04:44 PM
I guess that means he felt his team could win every night and managed them appropriately.

Good to know.

Now put him in the Hall where he belongs

Would keeping your best starter in when his arm is a little sore or pitching your best reliever 5 games in a row qualify as managing them appropriately?

Those things might have happened if he had a few grand on the Reds.

dabvu2498
03-14-2007, 04:47 PM
Did he bet the same amount?

It really is a great question.

Also, does anyone believe now that he wasn't betting on games he played in from time to time as well?

VR
03-14-2007, 04:51 PM
17 years ago would have been better timing, Pete.

Aronchis
03-14-2007, 04:52 PM
17 years ago would have been better timing, Pete.

lol, so true. If he hadn't played the denial game for so long, he might be already in the HofF.

SunDeck
03-14-2007, 04:53 PM
Did he bet the same amount?

From my days in the restaurant world in Cincinnati, where a lot of "middle man" work between bookies and their customers went on, I have it on pretty good authority that he was betting thousands of dollars per week on the Reds. But it is also likely that Pete didn't place the bets himself; he probably had one of his gym buddies was doing it. Whether it was the same amount or not I don't know, but it was pretty common then for regulars to bet the same amount every time.

Trivia- anybody know where the center of the Cincinnati gambling universe was back then?

Johnny Footstool
03-14-2007, 04:55 PM
Would keeping your best starter in when his arm is a little sore or pitching your best reliever 5 games in a row qualify as managing them appropriately?

Those things might have happened if he had a few grand on the Reds.

FWIW, the Reds managed to beat Pythagoras nearly every year Pete managed.

pedro
03-14-2007, 04:56 PM
I sincerely wish Pete would just go away. Continued exposure does him no good IMO.

flyer85
03-14-2007, 04:57 PM
Pete would likely be better served to keep his mouth shut on those topics. He can't be believed and saying he bet on his own team to win every night is the only tenable position. What is likely to come out of Pete's mouth is whatever tripe he thinks is the most self-serving at the moment.

M2
03-14-2007, 04:57 PM
I agree with Pete he's the best ambassador baseball has.

You're entitled to your opinion, but never in a million years will I suggest my to my kids that they ought to admire Pete Rose.

RedsBaron
03-14-2007, 04:59 PM
I expect that I have posted this before, in that it seems as if everyone keeps restating their arguments regarding Pete Rose, but there does seem to me to be a difference between betting on your own team to win, and betting against your team. Both are baseball sins, both deserve punishment, but one sin seems to me to be worse than the other.
I realize the NFL is a different sport and a different league, with no Black Sox scandal in its past, but when Paul Hornung and Alex Karras were determined to have bet on their own teams to win, but without any evidence that they bet against their teams or tried to "throw" games, each player was suspended for the 1963 season. Hornung and Karras were then allowed to resume their NFL careers in 1964. Hornung is in the NFL Hall of Fame, and Karras arguably should be.
The law recognizes the difference between first degree, premeditated murder, and manslaughter. Both crimes carry severe punishment, but one is punished more severely than the other.
I believe that an argument can be made that baseball should have had a graduated system of punishment for gambling on your own team's games, with a more severe punishment for betting against your team or for throwing games. At present, the baseball "death penalty" is in effect for both first degree murder and manslaughter.
This is not to excuse Rose, who was an immensely admirable player on the field and an abject failure in many, many ways off the field. There is also the argument that Rose knew what the penalty was before he committed the sin, so he should continue to reap what he sowed.
I do not believe that there would be any loss of the deterrent effect of the threat of being penalized for gambling on the game if Rose was reinstated on some partial basis at this time. Is a player really going to think: "Well, I wasn't going to place that bet on my team for fear of receiving a lifetime ban, but now that Pete Rose was reinstated after being suspended for a mere 18 years, I'll chance it"? I would "bet" that an 18 year suspension is a pretty serious penalty in almost anyone's mind.
Frankly I'm tired of talking about Rose (yeah, I know--why post here then?;) ). What I would like to see Selig do is reinstate Rose on a probationary basis, and even then certain baseball jobs, such as a manager, should not be available.
Oh yeah, I would further place Rose on the writers' ballot for the next 15 years on their Hall of Fame voting. I have problems accepting the rationale that his 15 years of eligibility have expired when he never did appear on the ballot in the first place.

Redsland
03-14-2007, 04:59 PM
Pete Rose revealed Wednesday that he bet on the Reds "every night" while he was manager of the team and that the Dowd Report was correct when it said he did so.
Actually, the Dowd Report says Pete didn't bet on the Reds "every night." It said he bet on them "most nights."

It's fair to conclude that on the nights he didn't, well, he had a reason.

flyer85
03-14-2007, 05:02 PM
It's fair to conclude that on the nights he didn't, well, he had a reason.... it looks bad because one could argue he might have managed differently, used a different lineup, etc knowing he would be betting the next night.

Saying he bet on his team to win everynight, puts his misdeeds in the best possible light.

M2
03-14-2007, 05:06 PM
I expect that I have posted this before, in that it seems as if everyone keeps restating their arguments regarding Pete Rose, but there does seem to me to be a difference between betting on your own team to win, and betting against your team. Both are baseball sins, both deserve punishment, but one sin seems to me to be worse than the other.
I realize the NFL is a different sport and a different league, with no Black Sox scandal in its past, but when Paul Hornung and Alex Karras were determined to have bet on their own teams to win, but without any evidence that they bet against their teams or tried to "throw" games, each player was suspended for the 1963 season. Hornung and Karras were then allowed to resume their NFL careers in 1964. Hornung is in the NFL Hall of Fame, and Karras arguably should be.
The law recognizes the difference between first degree, premeditated murder, and manslaughter. Both crimes carry severe punishment, but one is punished more severely than the other.
I believe that an argument can be made that baseball should have had a graduated system of punishment for gambling on your own team's games, with a more severe punishment for betting against your team or for throwing games. At present, the baseball "death penalty" is in effect for both first degree murder and manslaughter.
This is not to excuse Rose, who was an immensely admirable player on the field and an abject failure in many, many ways off the field. There is also the argument that Rose knew what the penalty was before he committed the sin, so he should continue to reap what he sowed.
I do not believe that there would be any loss of the deterrent effect of the threat of being penalized for gambling on the game if Rose was reinstated on some partial basis at this time. Is a player really going to think: "Well, I wasn't going to place that bet on my team for fear of receiving a lifetime ban, but now that Pete Rose was reinstated after being suspended for a mere 18 years, I'll chance it"? I would "bet" that an 18 year suspension is a pretty serious penalty in almost anyone's mind.
Frankly I'm tired of talking about Rose (yeah, I know--why post here then?;) ). What I would like to see Selig do is reinstate Rose on a probationary basis, and even then certain baseball jobs, such as a manager, should not be available.
Oh yeah, I would further place Rose on the writers' ballot for the next 15 years on their Hall of Fame voting. I have problems accepting the rationale that his 15 years of eligibility have expired when he never did appear on the ballot in the first place.

Excellent post. I've always been annoyed by the inability of those involved with this situation to reach a reasonable conclusion. That said, it doesn't really bother me if Pete Rose never gets the time of day from MLB or the HOF.

flyer85
03-14-2007, 05:07 PM
The sad part of the Rose sage was that was his own ego that put him where he is today. He chose to stonewall baseball when the allegations of betting at the track came up.

He had ample opportunity to admit something to Ueberroth, take his penalty(probably a year or less) and there would never have been an investigation or a Dowd report.

Matt700wlw
03-14-2007, 05:09 PM
You're entitled to your opinion, but never in a million years will I suggest my to my kids that they ought to admire Pete Rose.

Admire his hustle, his hard-work, his heart, his passion, his "never quit" attitude.....everything he stood for on the field of play. More athletes need to play their respective games the way Pete Rose played his.

Off the field? Not so much. Off the field, it's all about Pete Rose...and his ego.

Patrick Bateman
03-14-2007, 05:13 PM
Would keeping your best starter in when his arm is a little sore or pitching your best reliever 5 games in a row qualify as managing them appropriately?

Those things might have happened if he had a few grand on the Reds.

Excellent point. This is what this is all about. He was not managing with the best intentions in mind. He managed for himself, and he likely did things like you suggested which may help win a game on a certain day, but did not neccessarily help the Reds in the long run.

redsfan1966
03-14-2007, 05:23 PM
Pete's worst enemy is himself....he gets somewhat back in MLB's good graces and what does he do?? Pimps himself out everywhere for a new book....if Pete would just lay low; Selig may just let him back. However, he cant. He is a publicity hound. I think Pete should be allowed in the Hall, but definitely back in the employ of a MLB team.

KronoRed
03-14-2007, 05:30 PM
You're entitled to your opinion, but never in a million years will I suggest my to my kids that they ought to admire Pete Rose.
Hey now..it's not like he killed anyone ;)

Johnny Footstool
03-14-2007, 05:37 PM
Excellent point. This is what this is all about. He was not managing with the best intentions in mind. He managed for himself, and he likely did things like you suggested which may help win a game on a certain day, but did not neccessarily help the Reds in the long run.

If he bet on the team every night, his best interest was for the team to finish above .500 for the season. The more wins, the better. In that case, it would make sense for him to manage for the long run and keep the ballclub performing at a high level over the whole season.

PuffyPig
03-14-2007, 05:46 PM
If he bet on the team every night, his best interest was for the team to finish above .500 for the season. The more wins, the better. In that case, it would make sense for him to manage for the long run and keep the ballclub performing at a high level over the whole season.


What you say makes sense, if Rose was thinking logically.

But a person with a gambling addiction is anyone but a logical thinker. If Rose had money riding on a game, he would likely do what it took to win that game, at all costs.

If he was thinking logically, he wouldn't be betting in the first place, placing his whole life in jeopardy.

And I don't for one minute believe that Rose bet the same amount every night on the Reds to win. that's simply too logical for an addicted person.

And why would we suddenly start believing an admitted liar?

MaineRed
03-14-2007, 05:52 PM
Pete the ballplayer belongs in the HOF. I don't think anyone is asking for Pete the manager to get in.

Is there any proof Pete bet when he was playing?

A reasonable conclusion to this would seem to be this, they allow Pete on the ballot for the HOF, allow him to take part in anything that will honor his playing days but keep him suspended as far as coaching is concerned.

Essentially, allow Pete the player back in but keep Pete the manager or coach suspended. He was a coach not a player when he got in trouble and you can't take away those 4,256 hits. For baseball to pretend he doesn't exist is taking it a step too far. Fine, he gambled. He lied. He cheated on his taxes. His wife too. But the man is baseball all time hits leader and the reason many of us are here. No Pete Rose, I'm probably a Yankee fan.

If we found a corked bat or something like that, then you might question his numbers. But gambling had no effect on how Pete played the game.

What happens if Cal Ripken goes into managing 5 years down the road, then gets caught betting on the Os? Do they take down his plaque? I'm guessing no. Your allowed in the hall if you are banned, just not on the ballot.

So essentially, if I'm correct, Pete is not in the Hall due to a technicality. He got caught too soon. Otherwise he'd be in but still banned and no one would really care about this issue all that much.

Johnny Footstool
03-14-2007, 05:54 PM
What you say makes sense, if Rose was thinking logically.

But a person with a gambling addiction is anyone but a logical thinker. If Rose had money riding on a game, he would likely do what it took to win that game, at all costs.

If he was thinking logically, he wouldn't be betting in the first place, placing his whole life in jeopardy.

And I don't for one minute believe that Rose bet the same amount every night on the Reds to win. that's simply too logical for an addicted person.

And why would we suddenly start believing an admitted liar?

Because this story actually makes sense, unlike his previous denials or admission to "betting on baseball, but never the Reds."

Having a running bet is a fairly common practice, I think. I'm no bookie, but don't people simply "let it ride" more often than tinkering with the amount?

Degenerate39
03-14-2007, 06:01 PM
I'll never understand why betting on baseball is so bad.

westofyou
03-14-2007, 06:05 PM
I'll never understand why betting on baseball is so bad.
Integrity is the backbone of the match. No backbone, and anything can happen, most of it not good.

http://www.vintageball.com/files/Turkey_Red_Chase_WEB_arcresize.jpg

Always Red
03-14-2007, 06:09 PM
Mr. Hal Chase was among the worst, as I recall.


Trivia- anybody know where the center of the Cincinnati gambling universe was back then?

Montgomery Inn? The Precinct?

pedro
03-14-2007, 06:09 PM
I'll never understand why betting on baseball is so bad.

It isn't if you're not playing or managing.

redsfanmia
03-14-2007, 06:29 PM
Hey now..it's not like he killed anyone ;)

Pete is/was a bad guy, honestly other than his baseball playing ability he has no redeeming qualities.

icehole3
03-14-2007, 06:33 PM
Admire his hustle, his hard-work, his heart, his passion, his "never quit" attitude.....everything he stood for on the field of play. More athletes need to play their respective games the way Pete Rose played his.

Off the field? Not so much. Off the field, it's all about Pete Rose...and his ego.

I agree, everything he did on the field is what I pay to see when I dish out my hard earned dollars. Some guys who dont hustle out grounders **cough Jr cough** piss me off more than anything Pete has done.

:p:

flyer85
03-14-2007, 06:57 PM
I'll never understand why betting on baseball is so bad.
in this day and age, it isn't because the amount of money players make for playing dwarfs what they could make by throwing games.

There is one segment you should worry about in this day, the umpires.

Ltlabner
03-14-2007, 07:06 PM
You're entitled to your opinion, but never in a million years will I suggest my to my kids that they ought to admire Pete Rose.

I've noticed a trend on RZ. If a player/manager/GM has one or several glaring flaws then they are labled as trash, crap, or any other simluar litney of hyperbela and have no hope of doing/producing anything worthwile. Point is, why can't you admire Pete Rose for the good things he has done while pointing out his horrable personal flaws? It's possible to do both at the same time.

westofyou
03-14-2007, 07:21 PM
Trivia- anybody know where the center of the Cincinnati gambling universe was back then?

Jonathan's Cafe in Franklin Ohio?

hebroncougar
03-14-2007, 07:47 PM
Sorry, but the punishment is very, very clear. Pete's own darn ego is his downfall. I really do think he continues to think he's bigger than the game. I admire the player, nothing else is impressive at all.

Ltlabner
03-14-2007, 07:49 PM
Trivia- anybody know where the center of the Cincinnati gambling universe was back then?

Iron Skillet in Newtown?

:dunno:

Hands22
03-14-2007, 07:52 PM
Would keeping your best starter in when his arm is a little sore or pitching your best reliever 5 games in a row qualify as managing them appropriately?

Those things might have happened if he had a few grand on the Reds.

If he did bet on the Reds to win every game, then over the course of the season it would obviously be in his best interest to win as many games possible. This was his job in the first place.

What about a manager who has a cluase in his contract that he gets a bonus for every win over 81, or a bonus if he wins 100, etc. Would this not be the same thing in that he's getting extra money for each win. Or if he played some players he should've rested to get win number 100. I just think there's too many cases out there that managers have managed the way they have for personal benefit.

Gambling on baseball was an idiot move and was wrong, but I don't see gambling as a manager on your own team any worse then if he bet on a cards/cubs game.

M2
03-14-2007, 08:08 PM
I've noticed a trend on RZ. If a player/manager/GM has one or several glaring flaws then they are labled as trash, crap, or any other simluar litney of hyperbela and have no hope of doing/producing anything worthwile. Point is, why can't you admire Pete Rose for the good things he has done while pointing out his horrable personal flaws? It's possible to do both at the same time.

All I said is that I won't be holding Pete Rose up as a symbol for admiration to my kids. Bit of leap over a chasm from that to what you're talking about.

Spring~Fields
03-14-2007, 08:22 PM
The political minds within the powers that be of baseball out thought themselves long ago.

All they had to do was ban Pete from participation in baseball in any capacity which they did, at the same time allow him into the HOF.

Instead they have this thing coming up every year again and again, long ago he could have had one day, really just a couple hours on stage in Cooperstown and then it would have been long forgotten as the past goes.

Without looking, can you tell us who was inducted into the hall three years, four years ago?

Then MLB could have trotted Pete out to do some PR and to make a buck off him whenever it pleased them.

MLB has come real close to making Pete more famous these past years than he ever was before nationally. While at the same time they have somewhat discounted their hall of fame by not having the all time hits leader, which also questions the integrity of the halls selctions then.

Rose was a gambling addiction, Hamilton was a drug addiction both people who were ill with serious problems. One we praise because we hope as fans that we will get something back emotionally, the other we loathe because he lied to cover his butt, now he exaggerates and says he bet every night and, oh well. Something reeks of double standards.

RedFanAlways1966
03-14-2007, 08:50 PM
Rose was a gambling addiction, Hamilton was a drug addiction both people who were ill with serious problems. One we praise because we hope as fans that we will get something back emotionally, the other we loathe because he lied to cover his butt, now he exaggerates and says he bet every night and, oh well. Something reeks of double standards.

Not a double standard IMO. Both have penalties. Josh Hamilton served his penalty (suspension... as in the rules). Josh Hamilton will be drug tested regularly for the rest of his career. Drug use and being caught means suspension and testing.

Gambling also has a punishment. Pete Rose is serving the punishment that can be read in every clubhouse. That penalty is permanent banishment. Pete knew the punishment. He spent 25+ years in places that stated the punishment.

Why the difference for two things that are wrong? Gambling compromises the integrity of the game (as stated by woy). Gambling allows types (bookies, etc) who have no business being involved with a FAIR sporting event to get involved. Drugs are bad for the individual doing them. If that individual is on them while playing, then he does hurt the team (unless you are Doc Ellis!). He will probably run himself out of the game eventually. But it is not common knowledge that a drug addict will compromise the final of a game to make money.

Drugs have not almost ruined the game and the integrity of the game. Even though we now know that steroids seemed to run rampant at one time, it did not cause many to question the final result of a game. Nor do we question the integrity of the game because of scores of players who have failed drug tests. Gambling almost ruined the game in 1919 and the years that followed when it became public knowledge. Both are sins... one is the ultimate sin. The game depends on it.

Pete might not have ever tried to lose a game and that is good. But the road he was on can lead to these things. And that road is a bad road. One that FAIR games cannot allow. That is the reason those signs are posted in each and every clubhouse.

edabbs44
03-14-2007, 09:23 PM
Not a double standard IMO. Both have penalties. Josh Hamilton served his penalty (suspension... as in the rules). Josh Hamilton will be drug tested regularly for the rest of his career. Drug use and being caught means suspension and testing.

Gambling also has a punishment. Pete Rose is serving the punishment that can be read in every clubhouse. That penalty is permanent banishment. Pete knew the punishment. He spent 25+ years in places that stated the punishment.

Why the difference for two things that are wrong? Gambling compromises the integrity of the game (as stated by woy). Gambling allows types (bookies, etc) who have no business being involved with a FAIR sporting event to get involved. Drugs are bad for the individual doing them. If that individual is on them while playing, then he does hurt the team (unless you are Doc Ellis!). He will probably run himself out of the game eventually. But it is not common knowledge that a drug addict will compromise the final of a game to make money.

Drugs have not almost ruined the game and the integrity of the game. Even though we now know that steroids seemed to run rampant at one time, it did not cause many to question the final result of a game. Nor do we question the integrity of the game because of scores of players who have failed drug tests. Gambling almost ruined the game in 1919 and the years that followed when it became public knowledge. Both are sins... one is the ultimate sin. The game depends on it.

Pete might not have ever tried to lose a game and that is good. But the road he was on can lead to these things. And that road is a bad road. One that FAIR games cannot allow. That is the reason those signs are posted in each and every clubhouse.

This was a rather large black eye on the game of baseball.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_drug_trials

Spring~Fields
03-14-2007, 09:27 PM
This was a rather large black eye on the game of baseball.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_drug_trials

So much for morales, ethics and integrity in sports.

RedFanAlways1966
03-14-2007, 09:34 PM
This was a rather large black eye on the game of baseball.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_drug_trials

I agree. And so is/was the steroid thing. But neither should make fans of the game question whether the participants are trying to win the game. I like to believe that Pete Rose tried to win every game he managed. But he put himself on a road that can lead to him not trying. He might not have gotten to that point of that road, but no participant can even be on that road. There is really only one thing that makes fans wonder if all participants are not trying to win... gambling. I'd like for the REDS to win every game, but I wouldn't watch or care if their opponents did not try to beat them every time. It is the same reason I do not care to see Jai Alai when visiting Florida.

RedFanAlways1966
03-14-2007, 09:40 PM
So much for morales, ethics and integrity in sports.

Really? I think the suspensions given by MLB were justified. And if any of those players were caught gambling, I'd think a lifetime ban would have been appropriate. There are different types of felonies in our society... robbery vs. murder. There are different jail times given to those found guilty. They are both felonies, right? Why not give the same punishment? Are both wrongs considered the same since we call them both a felony?

Yachtzee
03-14-2007, 09:44 PM
Rose was a gambling addiction, Hamilton was a drug addiction both people who were ill with serious problems. One we praise because we hope as fans that we will get something back emotionally, the other we loathe because he lied to cover his butt, now he exaggerates and says he bet every night and, oh well. Something reeks of double standards.

Assuming for this argument that drugs and gambling are equally detrimental to the game, I think a big difference between the way Rose has handled things and Hamilton has handled things is that Hamilton admitted his problem, got treatment for his addictions, served his suspension, and when he came back he was contrite and grateful for the second chance. If he falls off the wagon, he will be punished accordingly.

On the other hand, Pete denied it all, slammed those who claimed he did bet on baseball, finally came around to admitting it, but had to do so by cashing in on a book deal, and now acts as though baseball needs him more than he needs it and seems to think Bud Selig failed to come through on his side of the deal. Not once has Pete sought treatment and by all accounts he still hangs out in places a person with a gambling addiction should not find himself in. Bart Giamatti told Rose to "reconfigure" his life and said that he could apply for reinstatement after a year. Does it really look like Pete has done anything to reconfigure his life?

jmcclain19
03-14-2007, 09:54 PM
If you go by what the Dowd Report stated - that Pete bet on "most games" - think of this angle.

If Pete truly only bet on the Reds to win, and he bets thru his network (Gym rats to bookies etc) on the Reds four nights in a row, then suddenly one night he bets on all other MLB games that night but not the Reds? What do you think his little clan of misfits would do on the nights they knew Pete was not betting on the Reds? Surely they wouldn't use that info to bet heavily against Reds that particular night would they? Them being upright gentlemen and all.

ColoradoHigh
03-14-2007, 09:59 PM
I've noticed a trend on RZ. If a player/manager/GM has one or several glaring flaws then they are labled as trash, crap, or any other simluar litney of hyperbela and have no hope of doing/producing anything worthwile. Point is, why can't you admire Pete Rose for the good things he has done while pointing out his horrable personal flaws? It's possible to do both at the same time.


All I said is that I won't be holding Pete Rose up as a symbol for admiration to my kids. Bit of leap over a chasm from that to what you're talking about.

I couldn't let this pass without a comment. My English Professor would have had a seizure had he read the first quote.

I have a proposal that may solve this dispute.

1) We don't let ltlabner teach spelling to our kids (sp? underlined).

2)We also agree to keep Pete Rose from teaching, these same kids, ethics.

Situation solved.

Touchdown Jesus
03-14-2007, 10:06 PM
I have never had a sports hero that dissapoints me more and more like Pete Rose does. :(

M2
03-14-2007, 10:37 PM
If you go by what the Dowd Report stated - that Pete bet on "most games" - think of this angle.

If Pete truly only bet on the Reds to win, and he bets thru his network (Gym rats to bookies etc) on the Reds four nights in a row, then suddenly one night he bets on all other MLB games that night but not the Reds? What do you think his little clan of misfits would do on the nights they knew Pete was not betting on the Reds? Surely they wouldn't use that info to bet heavily against Reds that particular night would they? Them being upright gentlemen and all.

You know, the one thing I never believed about Pete Rose was that he'd throw a game. It seemed anathema to his personality. Now maybe he was throwing hints to his gambling buddies based on whether he placed a bet or based on the size of the bets he placed, though I'd guess much of that would be obvious to anyone paying a modicum of attention. I would have bet on the opposition when Jerry Reuss took the mound in 1987.

Anyway, I've always believed Rose incapable of allowing it to enter his mind that a team he's on might lose. I always believed Pete Rose would rather die than lose ... until today and now I'm not so sure. This "I bet on the Reds every game" nonsense smacks of being a self-serving revelation.

Literally, until today it never entered my mind that Rose might throw a game to win a bet, but now he's planted that seed.

edabbs44
03-14-2007, 10:40 PM
Gambling on baseball was an idiot move and was wrong, but I don't see gambling as a manager on your own team any worse then if he bet on a cards/cubs game.

Then I think you need to take another look at it. Gambling makes you do irrational things. You don't think about winning tomorrow...you worry about winning today.

ColoradoHigh
03-14-2007, 11:16 PM
You know, the one thing I never believed about Pete Rose was that he'd throw a game. It seemed anathema to his personality. Now maybe he was throwing hints to his gambling buddies based on whether he placed a bet or based on the size of the bets he placed, though I'd guess much of that would be obvious to anyone paying a modicum of attention. I would have on the opposition when Jerry Reuss took the mound in 1987.

Anyway, I've always believed Rose incapable of allowing it to enter his mind that a team he's on might lose. I always believed Pete Rose would rather die than lose ... until today and now I'm not so sure. This "I bet on the Reds every game" nonsense smacks of being a self-serving revelation.

Literally, until today it never entered my mind that Rose might throw a game to win a bet, but now he's planted that seed.

I liked both of the above statements.
One thing can be said about the differences of Pete Rose and EVERYBODY else. Providing that he's telling the truth about betting for the Reds, every game. Nobody else anywhere, can say that they "always bet on the Reds to win". Isn't that what most of us expect of our Managers. Minus all the dis-honesty, corruption, megalo-mania, and lying, he was good.

gonelong
03-14-2007, 11:18 PM
I've noticed a trend on RZ. If a player/manager/GM has one or several glaring flaws then they are labled as trash, crap, or any other simluar litney of hyperbela and have no hope of doing/producing anything worthwile. Point is, why can't you admire Pete Rose for the good things he has done while pointing out his horrable personal flaws? It's possible to do both at the same time.

I've noticed a trend on RZ. The one thing that geneally tops the hyperbole is the hyperbole from the posters that feel the need to comment on it.

GL

/hater

westofyou
03-15-2007, 12:16 AM
Is there any proof Pete bet when he was playing?


More than once during his career Rose had been warned indirectly by team execs (Reds and Phillies) about rumors of gambling.

The Reds pondered out loud that giving Rose a LT contract in 1978 could be the wrong move, according to an article in the Post in 1989 Wagner commented to the other owners "Pete's legs may get broken when his playing days are over."

Even Giles over at the Phillies was surprised by the level of Roses' gambling when he came over to the Phillies, "I knew he was using bookies, not directly, but through friends."

Spring~Fields
03-15-2007, 12:23 AM
Assuming for this argument that drugs and gambling are equally detrimental to the game, I think a big difference between the way Rose has handled things and Hamilton has handled things is that Hamilton admitted his problem, got treatment for his addictions, served his suspension, and when he came back he was contrite and grateful for the second chance. If he falls off the wagon, he will be punished accordingly.

On the other hand, Pete denied it all, slammed those who claimed he did bet on baseball, finally came around to admitting it, but had to do so by cashing in on a book deal, and now acts as though baseball needs him more than he needs it and seems to think Bud Selig failed to come through on his side of the deal. Not once has Pete sought treatment and by all accounts he still hangs out in places a person with a gambling addiction should not find himself in. Bart Giamatti told Rose to "reconfigure" his life and said that he could apply for reinstatement after a year. Does it really look like Pete has done anything to reconfigure his life?

I think that you have responded with some very good points. Well said.

When I think of addictions I think of abnormalities. Actions driven by that abnormality, not that of which is normal to the majority, I find it difficult to differentiate one addiction that controls or affects ones thinking over another.

I have no personal problem with either the gambler or drug addicted being unemployed by their respective employers. I just have a problem with the powers that be and their political choice to change the rules on what I see as a museum for baseball called the Hall of Fame. Pete was banned under legitimate rules from being employed in baseball, I don't think anyone has a problem with that.

The problem lies within an institution declaring or implying a certain righteousness, while violating their same by re-writing the rules to the induction into the HOF for what reason? They themselves have hurt the game and its integrity by not having certain drug enforcement and being investigated and dragged before a congress which itself has questionable character at times.

There is a degree of corruption when those that have questionable issues of their own are making the rules and rulings.

sonny
03-15-2007, 12:36 AM
To have Rose claiming he is baseballs greatest ambassador leads me to believe he is very delusional.

Explains the haircut.

savafan
03-15-2007, 01:38 AM
Wow...I can't believe all of the negative statements on here toward Pete from people who obviously didn't hear the interview. I listened to Pete with Dan and Keith on the Dan Patrick Show today, and I'll tell you, Pete is as contrite right now as a person can be. He's gotten Olberman to change his mind on whether he should be reinstated or not.

Also, Dan Patrick said that he's spoken with Fay Vincent, and that Vincent said that at times Pete would have some of his players run his bets for him, and that Pete came clean and gave Vincent those names, and that there was no need to make those names public, baseball knows what happened.

Rose also admitted that it was his decision to release his book early, something that I had mistakenly attributed to the publisher in the other thread.

icehole3
03-15-2007, 06:42 AM
To have Rose claiming he is baseballs greatest ambassador leads me to believe he is very delusional.

Explains the haircut.

There are very few former players, who when they speak (good or bad) their comments hit every front page in the country and Pete is one of them. How is that delusional?

Ltlabner
03-15-2007, 06:50 AM
We don't let ltlabner teach spelling to our kids (sp? underlined)

Perhaps you shouldn't teach your kids to read by looking at an internet sports forum.


I've noticed a trend on RZ. The one thing that geneally tops the hyperbole is the hyperbole from the posters that feel the need to comment on it.

I'll be sure to run my opinion by you next time to make sure it's up to snuff before posting it. :rolleyes:

SunDeck
03-15-2007, 07:07 AM
Pete the ballplayer belongs in the HOF. I don't think anyone is asking for Pete the manager to get in.

Is there any proof Pete bet when he was playing?



I don't recall it ever coming up. However, the guy's gambling habits were well known while he was playing in Cincinnati. To think that he just started betting on baseball when he became a manager would seem like wishful thinking to me.

Ltlabner
03-15-2007, 07:18 AM
More than once during his career Rose had been warned indirectly by team execs (Reds and Phillies) about rumors of gambling.

The Reds pondered out loud that giving Rose a LT contract in 1978 could be the wrong move, according to an article in the Post in 1989 Wagner commented to the other owners "Pete's legs may get broken when his playing days are over."

Even Giles over at the Phillies was surprised by the level of Roses' gambling when he came over to the Phillies, "I knew he was using bookies, not directly, but through friends."

I didn't realize that his gambling was such common knowledge when Pete was a player, much less a manager.

Pete's totally responsible for his horrable decisions, but why didn't any of these teams step in back then instead of just letting it go? I'm guessing they didn't want to rock the applecart and effect attendence, fan perceptions of the team, etc etc.

MartyFan
03-15-2007, 07:36 AM
And now more of the truth comes out...ya know, you gotta wonder how all his buddies who defended him feel.

Goodbye Pete...we knew ye too well.

Roy Tucker
03-15-2007, 07:47 AM
The trouble with getting caught repeatedly lying is that people don't believe you when you do finally tell the truth. And even when they think it is true, your word is still suspect. My dad taught me this lesson at an early age and made sure I understood (painfully so).

I don't think Pete is being completely honest here. I think the words popped out of his mouth before he had a chance to think about it and then he went into on-the-fly spin control.

I do think he bet on the Reds to win, but I don't think he bet on them every night and I do think he varied the amounts of the bet.

I don't think this helps his case at all. I think it makes it less likely he'll get back into baseball, HoF, etc.

Spring~Fields
03-15-2007, 08:57 AM
Pete's totally responsible for his horrable decisions, but why didn't any of these teams step in back then instead of just letting it go? I'm guessing they didn't want to rock the applecart and effect attendence, fan perceptions of the team, etc etc.

They were making money off of him then. $$$$$$$$ My guess would be that they did not want to risk killing one of their golden gooses at that time.

Yachtzee
03-15-2007, 09:02 AM
Wow...I can't believe all of the negative statements on here toward Pete from people who obviously didn't hear the interview. I listened to Pete with Dan and Keith on the Dan Patrick Show today, and I'll tell you, Pete is as contrite right now as a person can be. He's gotten Olberman to change his mind on whether he should be reinstated or not.

Also, Dan Patrick said that he's spoken with Fay Vincent, and that Vincent said that at times Pete would have some of his players run his bets for him, and that Pete came clean and gave Vincent those names, and that there was no need to make those names public, baseball knows what happened.

Rose also admitted that it was his decision to release his book early, something that I had mistakenly attributed to the publisher in the other thread.

Actions speak louder than words. By all accounts, he still hangs out in Vegas and still visits the track. There are no reports that he has ever sought treatment for his problem. Would you buy it if Josh Hamilton said he kicked the drug habit, but still hung out with a bunch of drug dealers?

Sea Ray
03-15-2007, 09:03 AM
Because this story actually makes sense, unlike his previous denials or admission to "betting on baseball, but never the Reds."

Having a running bet is a fairly common practice, I think. I'm no bookie, but don't people simply "let it ride" more often than tinkering with the amount?

Unfortunately for Pete it makes sense that he would lie about it. He wants to clear up the notion that he only bet on the Reds on certain days. As was posted earlier the Dowd Report did not say that he had a standing bet for every Reds game. Given Pete's history and the accuracy of the Dowd Report it is logical to assume that Pete is lying again.

If Pete continues to look baseball and us fans in the face and lie to us, how can we (support baseball to) reinstate him? He makes it very tough.

Sea Ray
03-15-2007, 09:08 AM
Point is, why can't you admire Pete Rose for the good things he has done while pointing out his horrable personal flaws? It's possible to do both at the same time.

Because Pete keeps reminding us of his personal flaws. I keep trying to forget his flaws and then he comes out and lies to me again. It's tough...

Sea Ray
03-15-2007, 09:23 AM
Is there any proof Pete bet when he was playing?

What a ridiculous path to go down. If we find he bet while he was a player/manager in 1987 to next question is "did he bet while he was a Hall of Fame player?" Where does it end?

gonelong
03-15-2007, 09:31 AM
I'll be sure to run my opinion by you next time to make sure it's up to snuff before posting it. :rolleyes:

No need to get your undies in a bunch.

You have your opinions ... I have mine. I find it humorous you would respond in such a fashion given the post I responded to. I guess it's ok for you to say such things but not others? :laugh:


There are very few former players, who when they speak (good or bad) their comments hit every front page in the country and Pete is one of them. How is that delusional?

Being quotable doesn't automatically make you a GOOD ambassador for the game.

GL

Chip R
03-15-2007, 09:34 AM
They were making money off of him then. $$$$$$$$ My guess would be that they did not want to risk killing one of their golden gooses at that time.


Very true. It brings to mind a story of when Alan Wiggins (I think) played for the Padres in the mid 80s. He did something to drive the winning run in a game and Ray Kroc - the owner - was very excited. His GM or a flunky - could be one and the same - said that Wiggins was on cocaine. Kroc said, "Well, give all our players cocaine then."

Always Red
03-15-2007, 09:36 AM
One of my most prized possesions is a book I received as a child "The Pete Rose Story- an Autobiography." It was published just prior to the 1970 season.

In it, Rose details how he met his (first) wife, Karolyn....at a racetrack. This was 1963, just after Rose had been named NL Rookie of the Year.

I think it's pretty safe to say that Rose has been a gambler for a very long time.

westofyou
03-15-2007, 09:54 AM
Pete's totally responsible for his horrable decisions, but why didn't any of these teams step in back then instead of just letting it go? I'm guessing they didn't want to rock the applecart and effect attendence, fan perceptions of the team, etc etc.MLB begin investigating Rose's betting in 1970, they couldn't prove that he was anything more then a gambler with a healthy habit and an attitude that he was doing nothing wrong.

M2
03-15-2007, 10:23 AM
Wow...I can't believe all of the negative statements on here toward Pete from people who obviously didn't hear the interview. I listened to Pete with Dan and Keith on the Dan Patrick Show today, and I'll tell you, Pete is as contrite right now as a person can be. He's gotten Olberman to change his mind on whether he should be reinstated or not.

Also, Dan Patrick said that he's spoken with Fay Vincent, and that Vincent said that at times Pete would have some of his players run his bets for him, and that Pete came clean and gave Vincent those names, and that there was no need to make those names public, baseball knows what happened.

Rose also admitted that it was his decision to release his book early, something that I had mistakenly attributed to the publisher in the other thread.

I've heard it and he's gotten me to change my mind too. Like I said, I never thought it was possible Pete might throw a game. Based on what he's saying now, I do think it's possible.

SunDeck
03-15-2007, 11:36 AM
Actions speak louder than words. By all accounts, he still hangs out in Vegas and still visits the track. There are no reports that he has ever sought treatment for his problem. Would you buy it if Josh Hamilton said he kicked the drug habit, but still hung out with a bunch of drug dealers?

Yeah, but gambling is only a problem if it bankrupts you, ruins your marriage and ruins your career. By all accounts, Pete only had 2/3 of those problems. So, he's not an addict.
:laugh:

westofyou
03-15-2007, 11:56 AM
Yeah, but gambling is only a problem if it bankrupts you, ruins your marriage and ruins your career. By all accounts, Pete only had 2/3 of those problems. So, he's not an addict.
:laugh:
So... where was the center of Cincinnati's Gambling Universe back whne Billy Idol was rocking the cradle of love?

Chip R
03-15-2007, 12:02 PM
So... where was the center of Cincinnati's Gambling Universe back whne Billy Idol was rocking the cradle of love?


The manager's office at Riverfront Stadium? ;)

westofyou
03-15-2007, 12:09 PM
Here's a Pete Rose interview that was on BP Radio almost 2 years ago.

www.baseballminutia.com/bpr_050514.mp3

Always Red
03-15-2007, 12:14 PM
So... where was the center of Cincinnati's Gambling Universe back whne Billy Idol was rocking the cradle of love?

The Waterfront Restaurant?

texasdave
03-15-2007, 12:27 PM
So... where was the center of Cincinnati's Gambling Universe back whne Billy Idol was rocking the cradle of love?

Not sure where it was when Billy had the love cradle rocking, but back in the 70's it was St. Ann's Memorial Day Carnival. You should have seen all the big-time gamblers flocking to that Bingo tent. Nickel a card, baby! :)

Jpup
03-15-2007, 12:28 PM
Based on what we know today, I think it's time baseball moves on. Either let Pete back in baseball or don't, but make a final decision. The man deserves a 2nd chance IMO.

SunDeck
03-15-2007, 12:28 PM
The Waterfront Restaurant?

Sorry, I forgot I posted that.

There was a lot of activity at the bars, for sure, but the kitchens of the carry out restaurants in town were taking action over the phones. I worked in one run by a middle man who took a few thousand $$ a week in bets for a local bookie. According to him the largest operation was at the Central Parkway Frisches, and a lot of the actors were from Fairmount/Westwood, many of whom were about the same age as Pete and had probably been in school with him.

IIRC, the reason was because the restaurants had multiple incoming lines and a lot of phone traffic anyway. A house out in the burbs with six phone lines was an easy mark for the cops.

Not sure how true all of this actually was- it's possible that the guy I worked for just liked to talk. But he was always proud when he took bets from local celebs...Pete among them.

westofyou
03-15-2007, 12:29 PM
Not sure where it was when Billy had the love cradle rocking, but back in the 70's it was St. Ann's Memorial Day Carnival. You should have seen all the big-time gamblers flocking to that Bingo tent. Nickel a card, baby! :)
or the Saint Rita's Festival or the one in Madeira.. or even the Fairfax Firemans Festival, where I won $40 in 1979.

westofyou
03-15-2007, 12:31 PM
According to him the largest operation was at the Central Parkway Frisches

The mastermind

http://www.commonplacebook.com/photos/big_things/indy/bigboy/P1150001.JPG

tsj017
03-15-2007, 12:58 PM
Jonathan's Cafe in Franklin Ohio?

We have a winner!

I grew up in Franklin, and my parents still live there. I actually went in Jonathan's a few times. On the surface, it was completely legit. You could go in there, have some food and a few beers, and watch a game. A nice place by Franklin standards. However . . .

Everyone in town knew that shady stuff was going on there, and I mean EVERYONE. Ron Peters was semi-notorious in Franklin even before he opened Jonathan's. My dad is one of the straightest arrows you could ever hope to find, and HE knew about it from the start! I distinctly remember him telling me how "Pete Rose's gambling buddy" was going to remodel the former Shine's Whiskey Cafe and reopen it as a sports bar.

Rose attended the grand opening--it was in the local paper. His car was seen in the vicinity regularly. His memorabilia was on the walls, including a picture of him in the place with Peters. So when the likes of Bob Trumpy later insisted that Pete Rose would NEVER go in a place like Jonathan's, I knew for a fact that he had no idea what he was talking about.

Jonathan's is gone now, razed and replaced by a shiny new Speedway. However, I take a small amount of pleasure in knowing that my little hometown played a role in baseball history--even if it was bringing down one of our local legends.

WMR
03-15-2007, 01:17 PM
I do think he bet on the Reds to win, but I don't think he bet on them every night and I do think he varied the amounts of the bet.

The bolded part is my biggest point of contention with what Pete said. We're honestly supposed to believe that if he had his #1 going against an opponent coming in off a 3 a.m. flight or God knows what other sorts of 'inside info' a person in Pete's privileged position would be privy to, he wouldn't increase his bet in order to 'catch up' or 'make some additional hay?'

I just can't buy that. Especially knowing Pete's competitive drive and gambling addiction.

SunDeck
03-15-2007, 01:22 PM
Friday, January 9, 2004
Rose can't recall whether he bet as player
By John Erardi
The Cincinnati Enquirer


Q. The man who investigated you for Baseball - John Dowd - said in his report and on the witness stand in Cincinnati that you were betting on the Reds to win in 1985, when you were chasing Cobb, and in 1986, your last year as a player. Dowd's report closely details the bets after that, when you were a manager only, in '87 and '88. Were you betting on the Reds to win when you were still playing in '85 and '86?

A. I don't remember. I'm not trying to dodge the question - I'm not going to do that. But I don't remember the first time I bet on baseball. I don't remember the first time I bet on baseball. I don't remember the first time. I don't know if it was '86, or '66. Well, I know it wasn't '66. I don't think it was '86. I'd say it was '87, '88.

Slip of the tongue?

KoryMac5
03-15-2007, 02:19 PM
Pete Rose deserves his lifetime ban for baseball he is a black eye to the Reds and the mlb itself. Had he come out and admitted to everything when the investigation was first started and tried to work his way back into the game through some acts of goodwill I am sure baseball at some point would have let him back in. Now it seems like every other year we hear a new sad story of how Pete did this or how Pete did that. It is just a sad try by a desperate man to get back into a game he loved for so many years. My best advice to Pete would be to go away.

savafan
03-15-2007, 02:28 PM
My best advice to Pete would be to go away.

But Pete Rose will never do that KoryMac, it's not in his nature. The same drive and tenacity that fans cheered as a player is what is fueling his quest to get back into the game and now turning those very same fans against him. Pete has always been Pete, and he's not going to change.

westofyou
03-15-2007, 02:31 PM
Pete has always been Pete, and he's not going to change.

Then by all means let's just change baseball's rules if he'll never go away.

He'll show them!!

KoryMac5
03-15-2007, 02:36 PM
But Pete Rose will never do that KoryMac, it's not in his nature. The same drive and tenacity that fans cheered as a player is what is fueling his quest to get back into the game and now turning those very same fans against him. Pete has always been Pete, and he's not going to change.

Yuo know you are definitley right about Pete's drive and tenacity, those same qualities that led him to be a tremendous player also led to his addiction as well. Most gamblers always think they are one bet away from that big payday, they love the rush. Pete's personality fits his addiction. It's a sad story, and one that I am sure will get sadder as the years go by.

RedsBaron
03-15-2007, 04:41 PM
For some reason, continuing to be a Pete Rose fan, as I guess I still am to some degree, reminds me of the battered wife who keeps going back to the same abusive husband for further abuse.

Always Red
03-15-2007, 05:46 PM
For some reason, continuing to be a Pete Rose fan, as I guess I still am to some degree, reminds me of the battered wife who keeps going back to the same abusive husband for further abuse.

You're not alone RedsBaron. I am still a huge fan of Pete Rose, the baseball player, the guy who had very pedestrian talent but more desire than anyone else of his time.

I am no longer in denial about the very flawed man, but will always treasure the memories I have from my childhood of Rose, the ballplayer and the captain of the Big Red Machine.

Keeping those men separated, the baseball legend and the disappointing man, is the only way I can deal with it at all.

All of us have flaws, are imperfect, and have things about us we do not want anyone else to know. Seldom has one man ever made such a blunderous series of decisions that resulted in laying his entire life out like an open book, like Rose has.

In most ways, Pete is a pathetic figure now, sadly (for me, anyway). He knows it, too, which is why he no longer lives around here or even comes back around very much.

If he would just not talk, keep his mouth shut, just smile and not respond to a reporter or TV camera, it would go so much better for him, because really, there is nothing he can say or do that would make his situation any better.

At least that's my humble opinion. :(

mth123
03-15-2007, 09:23 PM
You're not alone RedsBaron. I am still a huge fan of Pete Rose, the baseball player, the guy who had very pedestrian talent but more desire than anyone else of his time.

I am no longer in denial about the very flawed man, but will always treasure the memories I have from my childhood of Rose, the ballplayer and the captain of the Big Red Machine.

Keeping those men separated, the baseball legend and the disappointing man, is the only way I can deal with it at all.

All of us have flaws, are imperfect, and have things about us we do not want anyone else to know. Seldom has one man ever made such a blunderous series of decisions that resulted in laying his entire life out like an open book, like Rose has.

In most ways, Pete is a pathetic figure now, sadly (for me, anyway). He knows it, too, which is why he no longer lives around here or even comes back around very much.

If he would just not talk, keep his mouth shut, just smile and not respond to a reporter or TV camera, it would go so much better for him, because really, there is nothing he can say or do that would make his situation any better.

At least that's my humble opinion. :(

Excellent post. My guess is that people who didn't grow-up idolizing the Reds in the late 60s and 70s don't know what a huge stake to the heart the whole Rose saga is to the rest of us. Its probable that anyone under 40 or over 50 doesn't have the appreciation for the things the rest of us feel. When the Rose story first came out it was like some one made my childhood invalid and that feels rotten. I try to keep the man separate from the player as well. I'm still a fan and I'm still disappointed.

big boy
03-15-2007, 10:46 PM
I am still a huge fan of Pete Rose, the baseball player, the guy who had very pedestrian talent but more desire than anyone else of his time.

This seems like a myth. How can one accumulate so many hits with average talent? Did he really have THAT much more desire than everyone else? Assuming most players in the league have average talent, does it make sense that they could get 200 hits season after season if they could only increase their desire?

Chip R
03-16-2007, 01:18 AM
This seems like a myth. How can one accumulate so many hits with average talent? Did he really have THAT much more desire than everyone else? Assuming most players in the league have average talent, does it make sense that they could get 200 hits season after season if they could only increase their desire?


I think that's a fair point. He had to have some kind of talent to be able to see the ball so well to get all those hits. That's not to take anything away from the rest of the things he did to make himself into the great ballplayer he was. The man had a computer in his head as far as playing the game was concerned. He knew who he got a hit off of on a certain date. He probably even knew the count and the type of pitch too. Pete worked like hell to make himself into a better hitter and a good defensive player. Won a few Gold Gloves in his time. But make no mistake, he had talent.

sonny
03-16-2007, 03:50 AM
He probably even knew the count and the type of pitch too.

most likley the spread of the game as well

RedsBaron
03-16-2007, 06:41 AM
Excellent post. My guess is that people who didn't grow-up idolizing the Reds in the late 60s and 70s don't know what a huge stake to the heart the whole Rose saga is to the rest of us. Its probable that anyone under 40 or over 50 doesn't have the appreciation for the things the rest of us feel. When the Rose story first came out it was like some one made my childhood invalid and that feels rotten. I try to keep the man separate from the player as well. I'm still a fan and I'm still disappointed.

The only part of your post I disagree with is your assumption that someone over age 50 doesn't have appreciation for how Rose made some Reds fans feel. I'm 51:eek: and Rose became my favorite player when I was only 10 years old, at the time I became a Reds fan. I have so many vivid memories of the man.
I can recall a play that stands out, even though it lead directly to nothing. When Joe Morgan hit a single to shallow centerfield to drive in Ken Griffey from thirdbase to give the Reds the lead in the top of the ninth inning of game seven of the 1975 World Series, Rose was on firstbase. Rose made it all the way to third on Morgan's hit, which is surprising, given that Morgan hit a blooper that just dropped in front of the hard charging Fred Lynn, a Gold Glove outfielder. Most baserunners would've stopped at second, but here came Rose, with perhaps the biggest belly whopper headfirst slide of his career into third, just ahead of Lynn's throw to Rico Petrocelli. Rose got up, pumping his first, wanting more runs. The Reds didn't score again, but they had enough, and they soon had the Big Red Machine's elusive first World Series victory.
I can remember how pumped up I was then, and how the memory pumps me up now. That was Pete Rose the ballplayer. If Pete bet on that game, he bet on the Reds.
On other thing---Rose was a great athlete, but some of his athletic skills were not the obvious skills of an Eric Davis. Rose didn't have the speed or grace of a Davis, but he had a body that he built up as if it were a tank. Unlike Davis, Rose was blessed with durability. The man got 200 hits a season for many reasons, but one was his ability to play everyday, at a high level everyday.
Pete Rose's story would be turned into a play if Shakespeare could be resurrected.

mth123
03-16-2007, 06:55 AM
The only part of your post I disagree with is your assumption that someone over age 50 doesn't have appreciation for how Rose made some Reds fans feel. I'm 51:eek: and Rose became my favorite player when I was only 10 years old, at the time I became a Reds fan. I have so many vivid memories of the man.
I can recall a play that stands out, even though it lead directly to nothing. When Joe Morgan hit a single to shallow centerfield to drive in Ken Griffey from thirdbase to give the Reds the lead in the top of the ninth inning of game seven of the 1975 World Series, Rose was on firstbase. Rose made it all the way to third on Morgan's hit, which is surprising, given that Morgan hit a blooper that just dropped in front of the hard charging Fred Lynn, a Gold Glove outfielder. Most baserunners would've stopped at second, but here came Rose, with perhaps the biggest belly whopper headfirst slide of his career into third, just ahead of Lynn's throw to Rico Petrocelli. Rose got up, pumping his first, wanting more runs. The Reds didn't score again, but they had enough, and they soon had the Big Red Machine's elusive first World Series victory.
I can remember how pumped up I was then, and how the memory pumps me up now. That was Pete Rose the ballplayer. If Pete bet on that game, he bet on the Reds.
On other thing---Rose was a great athlete, but some of his athletic skills were not the obvious skills of an Eric Davis. Rose didn't have the speed or grace of a Davis, but he had a body that he built up as if it were a tank. Unlike Davis, Rose was blessed with durability. The man got 200 hits a season for many reasons, but one was his ability to play everyday, at a high level everyday.
Pete Rose's story would be turned into a play if Shakespeare could be resurrected.

Sorry. My math was off a little. My point is that Rose meant more to us idolizing baseball nuts who saw him at the top of his game during our formative years. Sounds like you qualify. When I think back to my childhood, my main memory is the Reds. Sure I did other things, but baseball and the Reds were my dominant childhood activity/past-time. People who have only read about his career or have memories of him as the 80s icon and not the 60s ballplayer probably don't feel what we do. People who were older and probably less impressionable by the time Rose came along probably don't feel as bad either. I'm near your age, and I'd wager (poor choice of words but I'll let it stand) that our generation has taken the brunt of this disappointment.

Always Red
03-16-2007, 09:04 AM
I don't think Rose was a great athlete at all; excellent hand-eye coordination, yes, without a doubt. He knew what he was good at, and he really did work harder than most other players of his generation. He was signed by the Reds as a favor basically, to his uncle (or family friend), IIRC. westofyou (woy) may be able to help us here. The Reds never expected great things from Rose. His nickname, "Charlie Hustle" was given to him by Whitey Ford, after he saw him sprinting to first base after a walk, in spring training. The nickname was used very sarcastically; a term of derision.

Rose actually peaked as a hitter before the BRM days. I agree that Rose's strength was his actual strength- he was a tank, as was his father before him. Someone above mentioned a lot of players have desire- very few had the desire of Pete Rose. Ask Sparky Anderson about Rose's desire to win.

I think Rose was a guy who made himself into a great ballplayer, rather than a guy blessed with great natural ability. Obviously, you have to have a certain amount of talent to even make it to the major leagues. But preparation, dedication, desire are what propel some to a higher level than others. Rose was, without a doubt, the least talented of the rest of the Cooperstown Reds. Rose had a few great seasons (he did win 3 NL batting titles), but his real greatness was in his longevity and durability. The career numbers he posted are really staggering when you consider them, and are a tribute to that durability. Consider that Rose played in 162 games during 6 seasons, and actually played in 163 regular season games twice.

Just imagine if Adam Dunn, whom I love as a hitter, had that kind of work ethic, preparation, dedication to his craft? The sky would be the limit for Adam if he approached the game in that manner.

Pete was Barry Larkin's manager during Barry's first few years, and I think you can see the influence of Rose in Larkin's game.

Always Red
03-16-2007, 10:08 AM
John Dowd has this to say in this mornings Enquirer: http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070316/SPT04/703160427

John Dowd has no reason to lie. I believe John Dowd. Rose just needs to be quiet.

big boy
03-17-2007, 08:45 AM
I don't think Rose was a great athlete at all; excellent hand-eye coordination, yes, without a doubt. He knew what he was good at, and he really did work harder than most other players of his generation.

I think Rose was a guy who made himself into a great ballplayer, rather than a guy blessed with great natural ability. Obviously, you have to have a certain amount of talent to even make it to the major leagues. But preparation, dedication, desire are what propel some to a higher level than others. Rose was, without a doubt, the least talented of the rest of the Cooperstown Reds. Rose had a few great seasons (he did win 3 NL batting titles), but his real greatness was in his longevity and durability. The career numbers he posted are really staggering when you consider them, and are a tribute to that durability. Consider that Rose played in 162 games during 6 seasons, and actually played in 163 regular season games twice.

Just imagine if Adam Dunn, whom I love as a hitter, had that kind of work ethic, preparation, dedication to his craft? The sky would be the limit for Adam if he approached the game in that manner.

Pete was Barry Larkin's manager during Barry's first few years, and I think you can see the influence of Rose in Larkin's game.

Are you saying that exceptional hitters who were average defensively are not great athletes? Aren't there a lot of players that fit that criteria? Is Tony Gwynn a great athlete? How about Boggs? Those guys studied film and worked as hard at hitting as anybody else.

How many hits would Dunn get with Rose's effort? If Rose had Dunn-like effort, how many seasons would he have played?

Always Red
03-17-2007, 11:40 AM
Are you saying that exceptional hitters who were average defensively are not great athletes? Aren't there a lot of players that fit that criteria? Is Tony Gwynn a great athlete? How about Boggs? Those guys studied film and worked as hard at hitting as anybody else.

How many hits would Dunn get with Rose's effort? If Rose had Dunn-like effort, how many seasons would he have played?

Yes, there have been some great hitters who were not great athletes- and I think you named two of the best in Boggs and Gwynn, who in my mind were both Rose-type players. Especially Boggs, who spent 6 years in the minors. Again, obviously it takes a certain talent level to hit in the major leagues. That doesn't make them all great athletes, though.

No, I don't think a lot of players fit that description. The two you chose are certainly HoF'ers.

Do you think Tony Gwynn was a great athlete? I don't, I think he was a great hitter though, one of the best of all time. If your definition of a great hitter automatically means they are a great athlete, then I would agree that Rose was a great athlete, by your definition.

Rose as not a phenom, at any level he ever played at. He far surpassed what the Reds, or anyone else, expected him to do on the field. Boggs and Gwynn were both far better hitters than Rose, IMO. Rose's greatness, as I see it, were in his tenacity, durability and his ability to play at a high level into his 40's.

I think Gwynn had more natural ability than Rose, by far. I think Boggs is more similar to Rose in a lot of ways, with Boggs being a better hitter.


How many hits would Dunn get with Rose's effort? If Rose had Dunn-like effort, how many seasons would he have played?

Not sure what point you're trying to make here, if any? I think if Dunn approached the game more like Rose, Gwynn and Boggs, he would be a much better ballplayer. There are indications that Dunn is maturing and doing just that this spring. And good for him. He has all the natural ability in the world.

I think if Rose approached the game like Dunn has in the past, Rose would have never played in the major leagues. That's just my opinion. And it's not an indictment of Adam Dunn. There were plenty of guys in Rose's time who had tons of natural talent and did not work very hard to make themselves better.