Posted on 05/14/2025 5:15:26 PM PDT by Twotone
Pete Rose....about time...
Agreed.
I think Pete Rose was justifiably banned, because he bet as a manager. However, I’m glad they lifted the ban to recognize his accomplishment. I don’t have a problem with putting him in for his accomplishment.
If it was against his team, I can see the ban because that kind of gamble would incentivize fixing the game.
For his team, but even then it can screw up his performance. If he bet on tomorrow’s game, he might keep the starting pitcher in longer today to keep the relievers fresh for tomorrow. Also, if fans stop thinking the games are fair then they stop buying tickets or watching on TV. That means less money for the teams.
No NO NOOOO.
1. Rose signed a binding agreement with MLB Commissioner Giamatti to NOT be allowed to be in the HOF. This was agreed upon to save face for Rose. I’m not sure whether Manfred has the authority to waive the agreement.
2. The Dowd report clearly demonstrates that Rose negatively impacted the Reds W/L record despite him only betting on wins.
3. Rose admitted publicly that he betted on baseball.
4. The HOF is a separate entity from MLB. It is a museum and has no compunction to induct anybody it doesn’t seem fit. Just because MLB makes him eligible, doesn’t necessarily get him in.
5. Allowing players into the HOF, posthumously, is hardly a deterrent to bad behavior. Family and descendants will financially benefit from ill-gotten fame.
Baseball says you can’t bet on baseball at all and I’m fine with that restriction. Otherwise, you’ll see everybody trying to circumvent thecrestriction by being surgical about it.
“Also, if fans stop thinking the games are fair then they stop buying tickets or watching on TV. That means less money for the teams.”
That ship sailed a few seasons ago. Given MLB’s relationship with on-line gambling - bets can even be placed as the game is being played - any bad call is arguably suspicious.
Don’t like it. Rose is more famous for not being in anyhow. How many more people have heard about his longevity, baseball smarts, competitiveness and grit because they were brought up in the context of him not being in the hall? I always though the BoF more interesting because they had things like this and no yearly mandatory inductions, which are super lame.
Freegards
What about betting on the next series for the club his team is currently playing? Seems to me a manager has plenty of ways to affect how the next series plays out for your opponents. Likewise seems like Rose as a manager would be a real asset for a bookie.
Freegards
Bob Feller used to say baseball has lots of rules but only a handful are posted in every clubhouse & gambling was one of them.
Won't matter. Manfred will just re-define any word or words that he doesn't like.
Jackson's exclusion was unjust IMO because he was acquitted of the charge of being part of the conspiracy to throw the World Series. So, for his sake, I'm glad to see the ban lifted. Rose, on the other hand, copped a plea because he was caught red-handed. I have no sympathy for Pete Rose at all.
Is it proper to keep the all-time hit leader out of the HOF? Yes. The all-time HR leader is being excluded for the same reason as Rose - he broke serious rules.
I liked Pete Rose. His Charlie Hustle attitude always
appealed to me, and that’s exactly what he was like
during his career.
Look folks, many of us make seriously stupid mistakes
in our lives. I stood up and took my licks for doing
things I did wrong.
If I’d have bet on the games I played in, I would have
admitted to it, and taken my lumps for doing what I did
when I absolutely knew better. That’s what men do.
They don’t carp for decades about being treated so
unfairly. I’m not inferring that’s what Pete did,
but his fans seem to. > IMO
100% correct. Or he could overuse his closer to try to protect leads in close games in which he bet heavily. It mattered not one iota that he only bet on the Reds to win.
There is another aspect to this, and that is his behavior throughout the gambling scandal. Rose's admission/apology was completely self-serving. He spent years not only denying it, but he also trashed the reputation of John Dowd, who gathered the evidence and submitted the report. It turned out that the Dowd Report was completely accurate, yet I don't believe Rose ever apologized to him for trying to destroy his reputation for years. I am a lifelong Reds fan who grew up just a few blocks from Riverfront Stadium in the late 60s through the late 70s. I saw Pete play in more games than I could even count. No player in history so completely realized their potential. But I don't think he belongs in the HoF because he blatantly broke baseball's cardinal rule. He thought he was bigger than the game.
I don’t see how you can have any legitimacy in the Baseball Hall of Fame when the baseball players who have the most base hits in baseball history, the most home runs in baseball history and the most Cy Young Awards in baseball history are not in the Hall of Fame
Is the the system that will be used to allow those banned from Hall of Fame consideration? Wait until they die and then say, OK, now you can be considered? Is this what Schilling, Bonds and Clemens are looking at?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.