Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 2 pages
Should the punishment for THROWING THE WORLD SERIES be the same as the punishment for betting on a team you manage to win?
There's a hard and fast rule about gambling. It has been in existence for nearly a century. it's been (largely) effective. If Pete Rose is the cost of limiting even the appearance of impropriety, then I'm a-ok with that. He made his bed.
My stance is the same. Ensrhine him in Cooperstown, keep him banned otherwise.
Pete Rose has paid his debt.
Might as well let Rose in now, given that due to the steroids issue the Hall of Fame has rendered itself incapable of honoring players anyway
Whether you like it or not, character is part of the criteria for selection, and thus preserves the honor for those who make it.
Nor was it used to keep perceived cheaters out.
I see it the exact opposite way. Treat Rose like Mark McGwire. Let him teach hitting and hustling** all he wants, but confine his Cooperstown appearances to the display cases.
You've done exactly the opposite. By letting someone in who gambled but didn't throw games, you've reinforced the singularity of the disgrace of throwing games.
I'd also ask what Rose has to in the meantime to merit having the suspension lifted. Players have been reinstated before, but it's always been in response to their conduct. Getting help and staying with the program (something Rose has never done) or (in the case of Rube Benton) working with the league to help unravel other issues.
I don’t think Pete Rose could have apologized sincerely enough or come clean thoroughly enough to change his fate
Now it's probably fair to say that if they'd loved him he'd be in. I can only really think of a few players who got in by this type of boost (Maranville and Puckett. Arguably Hunter. Maybe Pennock -- Babe Ruth seems to have pushed very hard for him). Outside of the crony VC picks that is.
The steroids/gambling equivalencies or analogies are misguided. The players on the "steroids era" ballots are being f*cked by the BBWAA; Pete Rose f*cked himself.
You've done exactly the opposite. By letting someone in who gambled but didn't throw games
You “shall be declared permanently ineligible.” By the way, you will notice the rule does not say anything at all about a “lifetime ban.” The word “lifetime” does not appear at all in the entirety of Rule 21.
PA OPS+ WAR/pos R HR RBI7126 154 54.7 1064 365 12607315 156 58.6 1099 351 1119
I'll never understand why so many people want to bend over backwards to help out a scumbag like Pete Rose.
But for me, ultimately I look to the example of the NFL.You had two players back in the 1960's, Paul Hornung and Alex Karras, who were caught gambling on league games. They were both suspended for one year. One year. And that was that. Both went on to have fine careers and work in the game after retirement. Indeed, Hornung is now in the NFL Hall of Fame. And yet, somehow, the NFL has survived.
Just want to chime in that I agree with 33
Dick Allen was mentioned a few times above. He's the bottom line in the comparison below; the top line is currently the most similar batting career to his. Any guesses? They played the same positions, more or less.
Just a theory, but why else would he have taken the plea deal?
he did, in fact, bet on his own team to lose
Rose could have been tapped out at the time and unable to afford to pay legal fees.
I suppose that's possible.
Pete Rose does remorse like Stephen Hawking does twerking.
Hunter does have the five 20-win seasons in a row, bookended by an 18-win year and a 17-win year. Twice led the league in wins, in back to back years with 25 and 23 wins. It's not hard to see why the voters supported him (he went in on his third try). I might not care about wins, but voters seem to - and had a reasonable excuse to use them a quarter century ago, although there were voices in the wilderness who knew otherwise.
What if lets say Rose bets his team to win. He uses his best guys in the bullpen that game. Closer for 2 innings. Next game he doesn't bet and doesn't have the normal bullpen guys available and blows a lead in the 7th and loses.OR he uses a starter for 140 pitches in a bet game and blows out his arm?
Because, like virtually everyone else at the time, he expected to eventually be reinstated.
Oddly enough, this is the second Hawking/baseball comment I've seen today, and the other wasn't on a baseball site. The other comment compared a Sarah Palin book tour making as much sense as asking Stephen Hawking to play SS for the Yankees.
And yes, I did point out that currently Hawking probably has more range than Jeter. Just so you don't have to.
Is there some other definition of "permanently" that I missing here?
Once BBWAA writers started openly saying things like "who gives a rat's ass about the character clause? I'm voting for him" the HoF developed the rule, and further punished Rose.
Just want to chime in that I agree with 33 and also with 37 to an extent.
, I fully support reinstating him once the ban runs it course, i.e. the heat death of the universe or the Big Crunch
They were shot down by Feller and company.
And as I've observed before you can see evidence that this is the case in the respective vote totals of Hal Chase and Joe Jackson. Nobody doubts Jackson was the greater player but Jackson was formally banned and Chase merely blackballed (though he was formally banned by the PCL within a year of being blackballed by Landis). Chase got much more voter support than Jackson.
And it's also worth noting that Rose had little to gain by getting the agreement tossed. Doesn't get him reinstated, just left him facing a hearing and needing to argue against the Dowd report.
Yes, you can argue that Giamatti broke the deal with his comments that he thought Rose had in fact bet on baseball. Various lawyers have said that Giamatti wasn't speaking for MLB when he said that, but I have very little doubt that he could have got a court to toss the agreement based on Giamatti's comments -- had he acted immediately. I have no doubt that Giamatti broke the spirit of the deal.
"Rose will conclude these proceedings before the commissioner without a hearing and the commissioner will not make any formal findings or determinations on any matter including without limitation the allegation that Peter Edward Rose bet on any major league baseball games.... Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed either an admission or denial by Peter Edward Rose of the allegation that he bet on any major league baseball game"
(as is shown by the fact that Rose has occasionally blustered about suing but has never done so. And yeah, he's also signed away his right to sue -- or any say in the appeals process)
But for me, ultimately I look to the example of the NFL. You had two players back in the 1960's, Paul Hornung and Alex Karras, who were caught gambling on league games. They were both suspended for one year. One year. And that was that. Both went on to have fine careers and work in the game after retirement. Indeed, Hornung is now in the NFL Hall of Fame. And yet, somehow, the NFL has survived.
I'm not sure I really buy that.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 1.0086 seconds, 52 querie(s) executed