|
|
Post by Big Bri on Apr 9, 2006 16:26:10 GMT -5
With some mild debating about the WWE HOF, along with the start of the baseball season, I thought it would be a good time to ask this classic question, especially after recently reading some excerpts from Rose's book last week.
I say Good Lord Yes. The man's stats speak for themselves. He was punished for gambling and that should be treated as a seperate issue. Did you hear the reaction the man got when he was announced as a member of ESPN's All-Century Baseball Team a few years ago? The fans have spoken. Put him in the HOF!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by nelson on Apr 9, 2006 16:30:12 GMT -5
i voted yes as well he busted his a**.he set records and all he will be remebered for his his gambling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Omen on Apr 9, 2006 17:22:17 GMT -5
I say yes, but that would lead to letting steriod users in also. I'm glad my vote don't really count
|
|
|
|
Post by stephenvegas on Apr 9, 2006 17:29:42 GMT -5
I have always thought that Pete Rose should be allowed into the Hall of Fame. He has the all time hits record and was known as "Charlie Hustle" for the way he always ran hard even on plays that were routine outs. Plus, Pete Rose is banned for something that happened as a manager- not as a player. If baseball wants to punish Rose for betting on his team, then perhaps don't let him manage again but I think Rose's accomplishments as a player merit his induction into the Hall of Fame. I personally don't even compare Rose's gambling on his team to win to the Black Sock scandal in which White Sox players conspired to LOSE the World Series.
|
|
|
|
Post by JimSteel on Apr 9, 2006 17:38:42 GMT -5
I say a definate Yes. He gambled on baseball after his career was over so that shouldn't be held against him
The problem with steroid users is how do you prove when they started taking steroids and you got to prove they took it but they have allowed admitted drug users,alcholics and wife beaters in the hall of fame so why not steroid users and gamblers?
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Apr 9, 2006 17:53:12 GMT -5
Barry Bonds has done more to disgrace baseball than Rose. He belongs there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Bri on Apr 9, 2006 17:54:45 GMT -5
Plus, Pete Rose is banned for something that happened as a manager- not as a player. If baseball wants to punish Rose for betting on his team, then perhaps don't let him manage again but I think Rose's accomplishments as a player merit his induction into the Hall of Fame. Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by moparpaul on Apr 9, 2006 19:46:25 GMT -5
No way Rose deserves any consideration. He broke the rules and is subject to the punishment. He knew what he was doing was wrong and against the rules.
Rule 21 section D of the MLB rulebook...
Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.
That's as black and white as it gets. The HOF rules also state that players on the permanently ineligible list cannot be considered as candidates. So Rose is out as he should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwffantrav on Apr 9, 2006 19:51:12 GMT -5
Plus, Pete Rose is banned for something that happened as a manager- not as a player. If baseball wants to punish Rose for betting on his team, then perhaps don't let him manage again but I think Rose's accomplishments as a player merit his induction into the Hall of Fame. Exactly. I ditto that comment. I'm going to use Sparky Anderson as a example. He was a crap player, but one of the best managers of all time. So there is no way he's getting in as a player, but as a manager, he deserves to be in the HOF. But if he (Sparky) would have pulled that during his manager tenure, then I say no way he gets in the HOF But to deny Rose's accomplishments on the field,...just a shame. |
|
|
|
Post by Graymar on Apr 10, 2006 9:36:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by gatekeeper on Apr 10, 2006 10:49:56 GMT -5
No way Rose deserves any consideration. He broke the rules and is subject to the punishment. He knew what he was doing was wrong and against the rules. Rule 21 section D of the MLB rulebook... Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.That's as black and white as it gets. The HOF rules also state that players on the permanently ineligible list cannot be considered as candidates. So Rose is out as he should be. There it is. I completely agree. People are always so quick to let "cheating" athletes in just because of their ability/accomplishments on the field/ice/court, etc. In every clubhouse in MLB, there is a big sign that spells out this policy of no betting. No doubt he should be in if you were to look at strictly his playing stats as a player, but unfortunately, the 1st time he placed a bet, he removed himself forever for consideration. I heard on a TV show once that was showing all the stiil-alive, current HOF members and one of them stated that they wanted nothing to do with Rose. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Apr 10, 2006 11:22:41 GMT -5
If Pete Rose ever gets into the Hall of Fame, the family of Joe Jackson should show up and throw shoes at him.
In the 1919 World Series, Jackson batted .375 with 3 doubles, 6 RBI and the lone home run hit in the series by either team. Remember, this was the dead ball era, and Jackson had far and away the best numbers of anyone in the series.
Joe Jackson was permanently banned from baseball for not notifying league officials that he had been approached to throw the World Series. This is far less than the actions of Rose, who gambled on baseball as both a player and manager. A closer examination into certain line-up moves while managing of the Reds has shown that Rose made some decisions that may have been influenced by bets he had placed.
Above all else, Rose agreed to the lifetime ban. Anyone who has ever complained about an "over-paid, spoiled millionaire athlete" threatening to sit-out because he wants to renegotiate his contact should have no sympathy for Rose. If you have been upset by that, and said the player who signed a contract and should stick to it, then you have to be upset about Rose deciding that he has changed his mind about the lifetime ban.
Sadly, Rose wasn't concerned about getting into the Hall of Fame when he was gambling on games in which he had the ability to affect the outcomes, and he certainly wasn't concerned about it when he agreed to the lifetime ban. Bud Selig, and anyone else who wishes to preserve the integrity of the game, should not be concerned about getting him in now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Bri on Apr 10, 2006 13:10:06 GMT -5
Thanks for the additional info Graymar. All of this brings up another important question: What will happen first? A. Rose and Shoeless Joe are inducted into the HOF. or B. The Tigers win the World Series. I'm hoping for B, but it could be a long wait for either.  |
|
|
|
Post by gatekeeper on Apr 10, 2006 13:18:03 GMT -5
Great points by Joe. Also, Pete Rose said for something like 12 or 14 years that he didn't bet on baseball. Then writes a book and comes out (right before the next inductee class of the HOF) and says "oh yeah, i did bet, sorry i lied all those years. Buy my book now, then let me in to the HOF anyways." It makes me sick. He was a grown man, he knew what he was doing, made his decision, and now doesn't want to be served the consequences.  |
|
|
|
Post by Graymar on Apr 10, 2006 13:24:29 GMT -5
I think that the Tigers will definately win a Series before Rose & Jackson go into the HOF...the real question is will they be in Detroit?  Graymar |
|
|
|
Post by stephenvegas on Apr 10, 2006 17:28:17 GMT -5
First, I want to state that I do NOT condone gambling on professional sports by anyone actually involved in the game. It actually bothers be that UNLV games are now back on the sports book which means all someone who is associated with UNLV's team or their opponents who could potentially sway the outcome of the game has to do is walk only a couple of blocks from the Thomas and Mack and go to the Hard Rock Casino and Hotel on Paradise and place a wager. To me that is just wrong. I have no problem with someone like myself gambling on sports here in Nevada because it is legal in this state and I can't affect the game's outcome- but UNLV games should be off of the books.
Also, sometimes I don't think Rose is actually concerned about getting into the Hall of Fame. Rose works here in Las Vegas at least part time signing autographs outside a shop in the Forum Shops at Caesar's Palace. Rose is also known for still gambling at least on the horses here in Vegas and actually made the news not too long ago for getting into a heated shouting argument at the sports book in Caesar's Palace. If Rose is really concerned about rehabilitating his image with Baseball, then he should probably stay out of the sports book.
But I still really believe that the Black Sox scandal was worse than what Rose did. White Sox players actually planned to LOSE the World Series while, unless I am mistaken, Pete Rose always bet on the Reds to win. Pulling certain line up moves to give the Reds an advantage in trying to win the game is what any manager should be doing regardless of whether there is any money on the outcome. It is not even point shaving because, unlike with the NFL, NHL, NBA, or NCAA, you only have to win by one run to win your bet on baseball at the sports books. I am still not approving of what Rose did, but I don't understand how his actions and motivations were worse than the Black Sox scandal.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwffantrav on Apr 10, 2006 17:32:20 GMT -5
Did Rose actually bet on Reds games? I thought he didn't place any wagers on any Reds games.
|
|
|
|
Post by moparpaul on Apr 10, 2006 18:16:34 GMT -5
Did Rose actually bet on Reds games? I thought he didn't place any wagers on any Reds games. There is evidence that he did but none that he bet on the Reds to lose. However, that doesn't get him off the hook for betting on his own team. Especially considering the amount of money he was in with the bookies. Here is a quote from Gerald Posner who wrote an article about Rose betting on Reds games... "The possibility exists that decisions won't be made in the team's best interests, but rather because of the money riding on the game. If a manager bets on a game, he may bring a player off injured reserves sooner than he should in order to win, or he may pitch a reliever without enough rest, not caring that he won't be able to pitch for several extra days. If a betting manager gets in large debt to bookies, he can clear his account by merely revealing inside information about the team. The opportunity for corruption is greatly increased." There is an enormous amount of info including documents from the dowd report detailing phone records, betting slips, etc. at this link. www.baseball1.com/bb-data/rose/ |
|
|
|
Post by stephenvegas on Apr 10, 2006 18:40:36 GMT -5
Those are great points and an awesome link. Is there any evidence that Rose did any of those things like overusing his relievers? Still the potential to do something like that, I agree, is bad enough and are examples of why nobody actually involved in a game should wager on it.
By the way, I just called my friend who saw Rose last month at his station in front of the sports shop in the Forum Shops where he regularly signs autographs at Caesar's Palace. He told me Rose charges $70 for his autograph at Caesar's Palace.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephenvegas on Apr 10, 2006 18:50:15 GMT -5
On my last post, I wanted to provide this link to a parody of Rose and his reputed gambling here in Vegas. I particulary like the part where Rose and Selig placed competing bets on whether Rose would get reinstated into Baseball. www.guerillasports.com/article.php?article=24 |
|
