Joe Morgan wants Pete in the Hall

[SunDeck]

Pete is banned for life because he bet on baseball. That happened as manager, but he didn't become a compulsive gambler when he took that job. The guy was a lifer at the track and with several sports bookies throughout the country. It would really surprise me if he hadn't bet on baseball while playing too. As one psychologist said back when he got banned, gambling addicts need to bet all the time and there was always going to be a time when he didn't have other venues to satisfy his addiction. He liked to go to the track a lot, but at some point he would have certainly found himself with no other satisfactory betting options outside baseball. Secondly, gamblers gravitate towards action where their knowledge and experience may give them an advantage. An addicted gambler who happens to have a photographic memory of every at bat he ever had over a twenty year career, who had been to several All Star games, who was one of the best baseball players in history would certainly be very tempted to use that to get a leg up on his bookies. I have never seen any discussion of Pete betting on the game while he played, but I personally find it hard to believe he didn't.

As an aside, I'll mention that the Zimmer brothers were involved in some of the biggest money in local sports. Several guys in my dad's circle of friends talk fondly of playing baseball against the Zimmers, Pete's dad and many of the other legends of west side semi pro sports. These guys always mention the money and how much of it was at stake in these games. Pete is a product of that culture, as are many of my relatives and people I grew up with in Price Hill, Western Hills, Delhi. The west side was full of gambling action; the Crow's Nest, Trio Tavern, Five Points, Clearview, Sportsman's Cafe and several others were all places to easily find access to the book. Pete's no different than so many others who gambled in Cincinnati, he just has way more money to blow than others and subsequently it didn't leave him down on his luck. He had the means to be a prolific, sloppy gambler and a great source of revenue for a handful of bookies and middle men in Cincinnati, and countless others elsewhere.

Should Pete be in the Hall as a player? I am reluctant to say yes. He was hands down the most exciting ball player I have ever seen play the game (except for Raisor). He was everywhere, always in the thick of game changing moments, a winner molded from dirt, clay, spit and determination. He should be remembered as the heart of the Big Red Machine and rightly the things he accomplished are included in the HOF. Is that enough? I honestly don't know, but really I've lost interest in it and wish he would just go away. Let me remember you for 1976, Pete.

[bucksfan2]

Yes, Rose bet on baseball for his team to win.

Did anyone prove he took money to throw a game?

To me, that's the question to ask. The baseball rule is intended to prevent outside influences from impacting the outcomes of games. Were a teams wins and losses affected by Rose's actions?

Yes, he has a toxic personality and is not likeable. Yes, he agreed to the ban. Yes, Had he been a little smarter he would have hired a better attorney and probably negotiated a better deal.

Does Rose have any other reasonable skills where he could earn a salary without associating himself with Casinos? A large number of players use memorabilia signings as a partial income to pay the bills as they get older. In Rose's day very few major league players attended college. I doubt he has the ability to earn a lot on the outside of the game. Signing balls and bats may be the best way to keep the bills paid...and I would rather having him support himself rather than us having to support him through our taxes.

In spite of all of the arguments...I keep looking at 4256 hits (free of steroids or PEDS). He didn't cheat the game. Also, when I look at the top 500 hits list of major leaguers past and present, it does not look like anyone will pass him in my lifetime or beyond. In today's game, this may turn out to be the most imposing record of them all to break.

From my POV, I will recognize the Hall of Fame as legitimate when Pete Rose is inducted. I hope it happens during his lifetime or not at all. I just can't get into the idea that the guy should be punished until and beyond death.

When every locker room had a sign that said no betting on baseball, does it matter who he bet on to win or lose? How do we know he never bet on the Reds to lose?

Are greenies not considered performance enhancers?

[Chip R]

When every locker room had a sign that said no betting on baseball, does it matter who he bet on to win or lose? How do we know he never bet on the Reds to lose?

Even though Pete only bet on the Reds to win, he didn't do it every game. On the days he did not bet on the Reds, that could be seen by bookies and oddsmakers that Pete didn't believe the Reds would win that game and perhaps wouldn't do his best helping the Reds to win. We know Pete was indebted to the bookies and perhaps when he did not bet on a game, that was a favor to the bookies. They would adjust the odds accordingly and possibly bet on the team that was playing the Reds and also they wouldn't ask Pete for the money he owed them so soon.

[Roy Tucker]

So, am I the only one that sees a huge difference between Rose being let back into MLB and him being put on the HoF ballot?

The former has very stringent and high standards. The second doesn't. At least IMO.

For the former, its still a hard no. There are all of the things he has done and still does that would make me say nfw. But for the latter, put him on the ballot and let the voters decide.

[George Anderson]

So, am I the only one that sees a huge difference between Rose being let back into MLB and him being put on the HoF ballot?

.

Sundecks quote from above sums it up for me.

"I honestly don't know, but really I've lost interest in it and wish he would just go away."

[cumberlandreds]

So, am I the only one that sees a huge difference between Rose being let back into MLB and him being put on the HoF ballot?

The former has very stringent and high standards. The second doesn't. At least IMO.

For the former, its still a hard no. There are all of the things he has done and still does that would make me say nfw. But for the latter, put him on the ballot and let the voters decide.

I agree with you. I don't see whay he couldn't be on the ballot while still keeping him out of the game. The two really don't go together. If I were running a team,even the Reds,I don't think I would hire Rose even if the entire ban was lifted. Too much baggage for one thing and he has never stopped gambling.

[cumberlandreds]

Even though Pete only bet on the Reds to win, he didn't do it every game. On the days he did not bet on the Reds, that could be seen by bookies and oddsmakers that Pete didn't believe the Reds would win that game and perhaps wouldn't do his best helping the Reds to win. We know Pete was indebted to the bookies and perhaps when he did not bet on a game, that was a favor to the bookies. They would adjust the odds accordingly and possibly bet on the team that was playing the Reds and also they wouldn't ask Pete for the money he owed them so soon.

I had never really thought of it that way. Rose probably used not betting on the Reds as a way to inform the bookies he didn't think they would win that day. But I have never been that sure that he never bet on the Reds to lose. When you are addicted to gambling you will do anything to try to win a bet.

[westofyou]

I honestly don't know, but really I've lost interest in it and wish he would just go away. Let me remember you for 1976, Pete.

Yep.

And I wore the guys number when I played (all sports) because the way the guy played.

I wish he would let his legacy be as a player, not as the sad clown he's become.

[Norm Chortleton]

Even though Pete only bet on the Reds to win, he didn't do it every game. On the days he did not bet on the Reds, that could be seen by bookies and oddsmakers that Pete didn't believe the Reds would win that game and perhaps wouldn't do his best helping the Reds to win. We know Pete was indebted to the bookies and perhaps when he did not bet on a game, that was a favor to the bookies. They would adjust the odds accordingly and possibly bet on the team that was playing the Reds and also they wouldn't ask Pete for the money he owed them so soon.

I'd like to have $1 for every time I've tried to point this out to a Rose supporter who, of course, totally ignored it.

[BungleBengals]

I still like my idea of him being reinstated under a limited basis. He is not hired by any team, but he is hired by the MLB to be an ambassador to minor league players. He can preach about how cheating has no place in the MLB and he can tell stories of all the great players he played with and against too.

In terms of the cheating that has gone on lately, this could be a bright spot where an admitted 'cheater' is proving he is a changed man and putting in the time to help avoid another cheater scandal when it be PEDs or some other sort of it.

He would be paid, but only enough to get by.

By the way, I was not even alive when Pete was caught gambling, but I was wondering if there is any proof that he threw a game (i.e. playing pitchers too long when they obviously needed out, playing subpar replacements too often over a starter, making obvious boneheaded decision that cost a game?) Because I watched a short documentary on the Pine Tar incident with George Brett. He was ruled out on a rule that was too old for the time. Reading up on it, I learned that the rule for too much pine tar was because it ruined baseballs that, back then, were reused to save money. In fact, the AL commissioner ruled that in was a HR because the ball wouldn't have been able to be resused anyways and the game was concluded at the end of the season. (The Yankees were mad so they played pitchers in the outfield and even played Don Mattingly at 2B which was the last time a lefty played at 2B).

Anyways, I was wondering if this same sort of tactic can be applied to Pete. Yes, gambling was illegal in the MLB, but if I understant correctly, it was mostly due to the Black Sox Scandal. If Pete never blatantly threw a game, then doesn't the situation fall under the same premise as the Pine Tar incident as: yes he did it and it is against the rule, but not in the way the rule was created or intended for?

I know it is a stretch, but thought it might be valid to the discussion.

[westofyou]

I still like my idea of him being reinstated under a limited basis. He is not hired by any team, but he is hired by the MLB to be an ambassador to minor league players. He can preach about how cheating has no place in the MLB and he can tell stories of all the great players he played with and against too.

The man sells these:



He's not going to be talking to anybody about anything but hitting, and that's on his own time and dime.

[bucksfan2]

So, am I the only one that sees a huge difference between Rose being let back into MLB and him being put on the HoF ballot?

The former has very stringent and high standards. The second doesn't. At least IMO.

For the former, its still a hard no. There are all of the things he has done and still does that would make me say nfw. But for the latter, put him on the ballot and let the voters decide.

This is where I think Pete's antics over the course of 25 years have hurt him. To be honest I think baseball does want Pete in the HOF but they just can't turn a blind eye to what he has done.

Nothing over the past 25 years that Pete has done is illegal (well except for that tax evasion thing.) But if you want to get into the HOF acting the way Pete acted was not the right way to go about it. The HOF does not NEED Pete Rose.

[BungleBengals]

The man sells these:

He's not going to be talking to anybody about anything but hitting, and that's on his own time and dime.

From USAToday article:

Come clean as quickly as you possibly can. I guess Braun thought he was going to get away with it when he got off the hook the first time. I wish I could go around to all the spring training camps and talk to the young players about what happened to me.

But the most important thing in baseball — the history of baseball — is the stats. I did nothing to alter any stats. I did nothing that would (tick) Babe Ruth off. I did nothing that would (tick) Roger Maris off. I did nothing that would (tick) Ty Cobb off. So I guess my question would be — wouldn't it be nice if you could talk to Roger Maris or Babe Ruth? Hank Aaron won't talk about it. Those are the guys whose records have been assaulted by steroids. Not my record. And if someone ever got 4,257 hits that was linked to steroids, I'd have something to tell you about it.

[BungleBengals]

This is where I think Pete's antics over the course of 25 years have hurt him. To be honest I think baseball does want Pete in the HOF but they just can't turn a blind eye to what he has done.

Nothing over the past 25 years that Pete has done is illegal (well except for that tax evasion thing.) But if you want to get into the HOF acting the way Pete acted was not the right way to go about it. The HOF does not NEED Pete Rose.

Antics off the field and after retirement shouldn't be considered in HOF considerations. Yes they paint the candidate in a bad way, but the HOF is supposed to honor the greatest players of all time.

Look at the NFL HOF, they had Lawrence Taylor in the Hall already and he had sex with a 15 year old (allegedly), but they didn't suddenly kick him out. Seems unfair if he did that before getting in and then them not let him in. Would Pete be kicked out if they found out he was gambling after he got in?

[BluegrassRedleg]

So, am I the only one that sees a huge difference between Rose being let back into MLB and him being put on the HoF ballot?

The former has very stringent and high standards. The second doesn't. At least IMO.

For the former, its still a hard no. There are all of the things he has done and still does that would make me say nfw. But for the latter, put him on the ballot and let the voters decide.

Simple solution, IMO.