Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, October 04, 2012

Pete Rose: ‘Baseball Is A Better Game If I’m In It’

Rose: Cherry eau de vie and a vermouthful.

“I’m going to tell you something right now, whether you believe it or not,” Rose told WFAN’s Steve Somers on Wednesday. “Baseball is a better game if I’m in it. OK? Because I care about the game and I’m a teacher of the game. And I care about young players.”

...“All you gotta do is know my history to know I care about the game,” said Rose. “I gave more to the game than anybody you know. OK? I put the fans in front of everything when I played the game of baseball. At no time — at no time — did I ever cheat the fans in the game of baseball. No time.”

...“Me being in the Hall of Fame is one guy’s decision, and his name is Bud Selig,” said Rose. “There’s no one else in the world. Bud Selig could call me or call my people tomorrow and say, ‘Pete, I want to reinstate you.’

“I doubt he will, so I can’t worry about it.”

So why hasn’t the commissioner done anything?

“I don’t know the reason. I couldn’t answer that for a hundred-million dollars,” Rose said. “I had two meetings with Bud Selig and I got along with him both meetings, OK? We care about the same thing. We care about the game and we care about the future of the game. So why he hasn’t taken it upon himself to give me a second chance? I can’t answer that question.”

...“Obviously I wish this would have never happened,” he said. “It’s my fault I’m not in the Hall of Fame. I’ve come to grips with what I did and what I didn’t do, and I’m just trying to live my life and be a good citizen. If I ever make the Hall of Fame, I’ll be the happiest guy in the world. But if I don’t, I’m the reason I didn’t.”

Repoz Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:16 AM | 89 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: history

Reader Comments and Retorts

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.

   1. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda. Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:33 AM (#4253601)
Well, better for Pete Rose, which is all that has ever mattered to Pete Rose.
   2. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:42 AM (#4253609)
...“All you gotta do is know my history to know I care about the game,” said Rose. “I gave more to the game than anybody you know. OK? I put the fans in front of everything when I played the game of baseball. At no time — at no time — did I ever cheat the fans in the game of baseball. No time.”

Correct.

“I don’t know the reason. I couldn’t answer that for a hundred-million dollars,” Rose said. “I had two meetings with Bud Selig and I got along with him both meetings, OK? We care about the same thing. We care about the game and we care about the future of the game. So why he hasn’t taken it upon himself to give me a second chance? I can’t answer that question.”

Because a bunch of people are obsessed with the banal rituals of celebrity confession and redemption, and another bunch of people (some the same) terribly misunderstand the nature of what you did and what you were found to have done.

In addition, the Commissioner's office badly reneged on the spirit of its agreement with you.

There are also a subset of people, of unquantifiable influence, who add OMG TEH AMPS!!! to your gambling and find within you, utterly bizarrely, Baseball Satan.

...“Obviously I wish this would have never happened,” he said. “It’s my fault I’m not in the Hall of Fame. I’ve come to grips with what I did and what I didn’t do, and I’m just trying to live my life and be a good citizen. If I ever make the Hall of Fame, I’ll be the happiest guy in the world. But if I don’t, I’m the reason I didn’t.”

Correct.

   3. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:49 AM (#4253615)
EDIT: And another group of people are snobs who look down on white proles and, you Sir, personify the white prole. These people, too, overlap with the other categories.
   4. BDC Posted: October 04, 2012 at 10:01 AM (#4253629)
Baseball is a better game if I’m in it


I agree with this if it's the 1980 World Series and Bob Boone is about to drop a foul ball. For the last quarter-century or so, though, not so much.
   5. Bug Selig Posted: October 04, 2012 at 10:17 AM (#4253646)
I gave more to the game than anybody you know.


Pete Rose never gave anything to anyone. Unless it comes out that he has Herpes.
   6. Ron J2 Posted: October 04, 2012 at 10:38 AM (#4253668)
In addition, the Commissioner's office badly reneged on the spirit of its agreement with you.


Disagree. He was (supposedly) offered 7 years for a guilty plea. He didn't opt to go that route initially and has no basis for complaint.

Or are you referring to Giamatti's comment about whether Rose had in fact bet on games? OK, I'll grant you that one. Even if the lawyers on RSB assure me that this didn't violate the letter of the agreement, it sure feels like it violated the spirit.
   7. smileyy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 11:05 AM (#4253727)
I think what Pete is saying is that there's more "action" when he's part of the game.
   8. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 04, 2012 at 11:11 AM (#4253737)
Or are you referring to Giamatti's comment about whether Rose had in fact bet on games? OK, I'll grant you that one. Even if the lawyers on RSB assure me that this didn't violate the letter of the agreement, it sure feels like it violated the spirit.

The spirit (and letter, for that matter) of the agreement is that there is no finding that Rose bet on baseball (much less the Reds), and the Commissioner's office is to make no public statement to the contrary.

A true lifetime ban from baseball and the Hall of Fame was not the basis of the bargain of that agreement. Simple as that.
   9. The District Attorney Posted: October 04, 2012 at 11:32 AM (#4253776)
I do agree that, although Selig is within his legal rights to let Rose's reinstatement application lay on his desk forever, it is a scummy thing to do. Hell, just pretend that you reviewed it and came to the conclusion that Rose hasn't comported himself in a way that deserves reinstatement, which as a conclusion is totally true. It's a real passive-aggressive b---- move to just ignore it.
   10. jack the seal clubber (on the sidelines of life) Posted: October 04, 2012 at 11:33 AM (#4253779)
...“Obviously I wish this would have never happened,” he said. “It’s my fault I’m not in the Hall of Fame. I’ve come to grips with what I did and what I didn’t do, and I’m just trying to live my life and be a good citizen. If I ever make the Hall of Fame, I’ll be the happiest guy in the world. But if I don’t, I’m the reason I didn’t


Pete is 70 years old now. No one is going to hire him for anything important in baseball. I'm not seeing the need to continue the ban. Maybe if there was proof he bet against his team, but there is no evidence of that. He was too much of an egotist, anyway, to do this.
   11. depletion Posted: October 04, 2012 at 11:54 AM (#4253806)
Pete is 70 years old now. No one is going to hire him for anything important in baseball. I'm not seeing the need to continue the ban.

I'm coming around to this point of view as well. Even reinstated, he won't get the percent vote to get into the HOF. The preventative message of his ban has had its effect, IMHO. Rose is correct - he brought a very high level of intensity into every at bat, every fielding play. To my understanding, he was also very respectful of fans.
   12. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: October 04, 2012 at 12:02 PM (#4253817)

A true lifetime ban from baseball and the Hall of Fame was not the basis of the bargain of that agreement. Simple as that.


This is my take as well. I think Pete should be in the Hall for the same reason I think Barry Bonds and deserving PED users should be as well. Its a museum of baseball and those guys are significant pieces of baseball history. Pete never agreed to a HOF ban, and knowing how big his ego was, I doubt if he understood that was in play he would have agreed to it.

But allow Pete anywhere near a MLB stadium? You have to be outta your g-d mind.
   13. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 04, 2012 at 12:06 PM (#4253827)
The preventative message of his ban has had its effect, IMHO.

Nope. If he gets reinstated (before his death, or otherwise), then it will give the signal to future commissioners that they can also reinstate the next scumbag that bets on baseball. Maybe they reinstate loser #2 a little earlier this time.
And then potential loser #3 thinks it isn't SO bad.

If there should be a "death penalty" for any act in baseball, then it should be for what Pete Rose did (bet on baseball while involved in the games themselves). No reinstatement. Let every kid in the future ask "Why isn't Pete Rose in the HOF?", and find out why.
   14. Topher Posted: October 04, 2012 at 12:14 PM (#4253839)
Who votes on Rose for the hall if he gets reinstated?
   15. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 12:15 PM (#4253842)
A true lifetime ban from baseball and the Hall of Fame was not the basis of the bargain of that agreement. Simple as that.


So what?

This is my take as well. I think Pete should be in the Hall for the same reason I think Barry Bonds and deserving PED users should be as well. Its a museum of baseball and those guys are significant pieces of baseball history. Pete never agreed to a HOF ban, and knowing how big his ego was, I doubt if he understood that was in play he would have agreed to it.

The Hall of Fame is not a museum. Being inducted is an honor. The Hall of Fame also has a museum and in that museum they have tons of Pete Rose artifacts and lots of historical information on Pete Rose. Pete Rose is in the museum. There is no reason to honor Pete Rose with some kind of award or ceremony for what he has done in baseball.
   16. Joey B.: posting for the kids of northeast Ohio Posted: October 04, 2012 at 12:19 PM (#4253851)
Pete Rose never gave anything to anyone.

Are you the omnipotent Supreme Being or something?

I'm no big fan of Pete Rose and his compulsive gambling and all the lies he told about it over the years, but there is no way that you can possibly know this.
   17. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 04, 2012 at 12:25 PM (#4253858)
So what?

So what I said -- the Commissioner's office reneged on the agreement with Rose. That's ignoble, if not despicable, behavior.

There is no reason to honor Pete Rose with some kind of award or ceremony for what he has done in baseball.

There's plenty of reason. He was one of the game's all-time great players and played the game in an admirable way.
   18. depletion Posted: October 04, 2012 at 12:26 PM (#4253860)
Nope. If he gets reinstated (before his death, or otherwise), then it will give the signal to future commissioners that they can also reinstate the next scumbag that bets on baseball. Maybe they reinstate loser #2 a little earlier this time.
And then potential loser #3 thinks it isn't SO bad.

Well, this is a legit argument. I just think, on the balance, the risk of that is small compared to the benefit of showing some compassion to a flawed person who contributed a hell of a lot to the game.
   19. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 04, 2012 at 12:27 PM (#4253861)
If there should be a "death penalty" for any act in baseball, then it should be for what Pete Rose did (bet on baseball while involved in the games themselves).

The death penalty should be reserved for throwing games and betting against your team. What Rose did pales in comparison to those offenses.
   20. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 12:30 PM (#4253865)
There's plenty of reason. He was one of the game's all-time great players and played the game in an admirable way.

So a foster parent that takes care of hundreds of kids over his lifetime should be honored for all the work he has done helping kids even though he found one or two of them so adorable he had to have sex with them?

So what I said -- the Commissioner's office reneged on the agreement with Rose. That's ignoble, if not despicable, behavior.

So what?
   21. Moloka'i Three-Finger Brown (Declino DeShields) Posted: October 04, 2012 at 12:33 PM (#4253870)
Pete is 70 years old now. No one is going to hire him for anything important in baseball.


Jack McKeon is about 119 years old, and he managed the Marlins for 90 games just last year. Rose has been away from the game for a long time, but it's not out of the question that he could push his way back into it.

Also, sometimes I long for the days when "What to do about Pete Rose?" was the most big baseball topic.
   22. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 04, 2012 at 12:35 PM (#4253872)
So what?

So the punishment they're inflicting on Rose is excessive and far beyond the spirit of the agreement. Don't bother "So what?-ing" that, I'm done playing along.

So a foster parent that takes care of hundreds of kids over his lifetime should be honored for all the work he has done helping kids even though he found one or two of them so adorable he had to have sex with them?

Child rape = laying a few bucks on a few baseball games.

Got it.
   23. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 12:42 PM (#4253886)
So the punishment they're inflicting on Rose is excessive and far beyond the spirit of the agreement. Don't bother "So what?-ing" that, I'm done playing along.


What you seem to be missing is that Pete Rose entered into no agreement with the Hall of Fame. Thus the so what when it comes to what MLB did to Rose. But really so what if MLB changed their tune after getting Rose to agree to something. Rose had been doing that to MLB for years and years. He was warned numerous times about his gambling activities and made numerous promises only to completely set them aside as soon as he left the room. A liar and a cheater has no cause to complain about someone else lying and cheating to them.

Child rape = laying a few bucks on a few baseball games.

Got it.


good.
   24. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 04, 2012 at 12:57 PM (#4253913)
The death penalty should be reserved for throwing games and betting against your team. What Rose did pales in comparison to those offenses.


From this I gather you feel like he didn't really do anything that bad.

The problem I have with Rose is that we might not really know the full extent of how his gambling might have affected the games he was involved in.

He denied betting on sports. That was proven a lie.
He denied betting on baseball. That was proven a lie.
He denied betting on Reds games he was involved in. That was proven a lie.
But we're supposed to take his word now that he never bet against the Reds?
Or that he never gave less than his all as a player/manager, in order to fix a game to placate some other gamblers?

Why do we start believing Rose now?
   25. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: October 04, 2012 at 01:03 PM (#4253924)
despite a fair amount of success the reds ownership would still debase themselves and hire rose the minute he got off the banned list in some role. minimum as a coach. and if baker retired after this season due to health problems and by chance rose was reinstated he would be the new manager before dusty got done clearing out his office

this not hyperbole. i will let fans like traderdave confirm

the adulation of rose in the area knows no bounds.
   26. BDC Posted: October 04, 2012 at 01:07 PM (#4253937)
The death penalty should be reserved for throwing games and betting against your team. What Rose did pales in comparison to those offenses

That's the core of your argument, Bear: that the rules make no sense and should be changed. Fair enough.

However, given that the rules are unequivocal and of long standing, and Rose admits having broken them as if they were a west Texas speed limit, I don't think anything that any commissioner did, however weaselly, has any relevance to the situation. He's out because he violated a rule that very few people have any inclination to revise. But you're free to start a groundswell of opinion!
   27. Traderdave Posted: October 04, 2012 at 01:20 PM (#4253963)
the adulation of rose in the area knows no bounds


That was true once. Nowadays, he is still generally revered, though not universally, west of I-75. East is a very mixed bag.

I doubt the Reds hire him as Manager, but they would most certainly hire him. Coach, PR rep, spring training instructor, something. A Reds paycheck of some kind would happen.
   28. Traderdave Posted: October 04, 2012 at 01:23 PM (#4253974)
Granted I was young, but I fondly recall Rose's tenure as manager being FUN. Squuze plays, aggressive baserunning, colorful interviews, etc etc. It was FUN.

   29. Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond Posted: October 04, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4253987)
It's been almost 25 years now. Even murderers get out of prison sooner than that. If he were re-instated tomorrow, I don't think anyone could seriously argue he wasn't punished severely enough.

   30. dlf Posted: October 04, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4253989)
He denied betting on sports. That was proven a lie.


When did Rose deny betting on other sports? I remember reading about his trips to the track back in the 70s and he was always said he loved betting on the ponies, even well before the Dowd investigation.
   31. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 04, 2012 at 01:33 PM (#4253994)
When did Rose deny betting on other sports? I remember reading about his trips to the track back in the 70s and he was always said he loved betting on the ponies, even well before the Dowd investigation.

I'm pretty sure he denied illegal betting on sports, but horse racing was acceptable to everyone because it's legal.
   32. GregD Posted: October 04, 2012 at 01:35 PM (#4253997)
That was true once. Nowadays, he is still generally revered, though not universally, west of I-75. East is a very mixed bag.
This fascinates me, the microgeography of Pete Rose fandom.
   33. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 01:35 PM (#4253999)
It's been almost 25 years now. Even murderers get out of prison sooner than that. If he were re-instated tomorrow, I don't think anyone could seriously argue he wasn't punished severely enough.


I doubt Rose's actions would equate to the type of murder charge where he would get out in less than 25 years.
   34. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 04, 2012 at 01:35 PM (#4254001)
It's been almost 25 years now. Even murderers get out of prison sooner than that.


And everyone is always so happy when the murderers get less than life sentences, or get out early for parole.
   35. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: October 04, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4254006)
So why he hasn’t taken it upon himself to give me a second chance? I can’t answer that question.


It's because you're a degenerate gambler, Pete, and you've shown that you can't be trusted.

In case you're ever asked that question in the future, now you know. Hope that helps!
   36. cardsfanboy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4254007)
I'm in the minority here in that I don't see any problems with what Rose did(and yes as always I understand the argument, just don't agree with the whatifs and could haves to make it a problem) but even accepting what he did deserved for him to be banished from baseball, and acknowledging that he is an utter contemptible human being, I don't see a problem with re-instating his hof eligibility and even allowing him to have visitor rights to the team. I absolutely, and will always oppose any attempt to allow him to have influence on a team in a game to game capacity. This means he should never be allowed to suit up as a coach during a game, should not be allowed in the dugout, bullpen etc.
   37. cardsfanboy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 01:40 PM (#4254010)
The death penalty should be reserved for throwing games and betting against your team. What Rose did pales in comparison to those offenses.


Uggh, I'm agreeing with Sugarbear. :)

Shoeless Joe deserves a permanent ban, Pete Rose does not.
   38. GregD Posted: October 04, 2012 at 01:46 PM (#4254023)
I'm in the minority here in that I don't see any problems with what Rose did(and yes as always I understand the argument, just don't agree with the whatifs and could haves to make it a problem) but even accepting what he did deserved for him to be banished from baseball, and acknowledging that he is an utter contemptible human being, I don't see a problem with re-instating his hof eligibility and even allowing him to have visitor rights to the team. I absolutely, and will always oppose any attempt to allow him to have influence on a team in a game to game capacity. This means he should never be allowed to suit up as a coach during a game, should not be allowed in the dugout, bullpen etc.
This wouldn't bother me. Let the HOF voters decide

Edited to add: I also wouldn't be upset if some voters left him off their ballots. That's fair, too.
   39. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: October 04, 2012 at 01:48 PM (#4254030)
I don't see a problem with re-instating his hof eligibility


Then take it up with the HoF, which is an entirely separate entity from MLB.
   40. bobm Posted: October 04, 2012 at 01:49 PM (#4254036)
The death penalty should be reserved for throwing games and betting against your team. 

One more time - betting on your team and losing and owing bookies money puts the game of baseball in a precarious position. Betting on only some of your team's games (as Rose did) at the least signals where you will allocate your bullpen resources and at the most leads a manager not to try to win in games he does not bet on.

Gambling of any kind on baseball by participants is far far worse than PEDs. This is not a hard concept.

The fact that this applies equally to the legendary Pete Rose is a powerful deterrent.
   41. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 04, 2012 at 01:53 PM (#4254057)
I doubt the Reds hire him as Manager, but they would most certainly hire him. Coach, PR rep, spring training instructor, something. A Reds paycheck of some kind would happen.

This is a sideshow anyway. Rose would take an agreement reinstating him with the proviso that he can't have any on-field association with the Reds (and every other team) other than as a spring training instructor in a heartbeat.
   42. cardsfanboy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 02:02 PM (#4254076)
One more time - betting on your team and losing and owing bookies money puts the game of baseball in a precarious position.


The point is, Rose's actions, in the term of "murder" that was used before, was at best second degree murder, while what something like what shoeless joe did, was premediated, first degree multiple homicides. They don't really deserve the same level of punishment. This is one point of view, I understand all the arguments arguing different, but to claim what Rose did is equivalent to what Jackson did is ridiculous.

   43. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: October 04, 2012 at 02:06 PM (#4254084)
Rose would take an agreement reinstating him with the proviso that he can't have any on-field association with the Reds (and every other team) other than as a spring training instructor in a heartbeat.


And then his next phone call would be to his bookie, cashing in on the news that Homer Bailey's got a sore arm this spring, because that's just the kind of guy that Rose is.
   44. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 04, 2012 at 02:23 PM (#4254137)
I'm in the minority here in that I don't see any problems with what Rose did
...
I absolutely, and will always oppose any attempt to allow him to have influence on a team in a game to game capacity. This means he should never be allowed to suit up as a coach during a game, should not be allowed in the dugout, bullpen etc.
Huh?
   45. phredbird Posted: October 04, 2012 at 02:42 PM (#4254185)
The death penalty should be reserved for throwing games and betting against your team. What Rose did pales in comparison to those offenses.


From this I gather you feel like he didn't really do anything that bad.

The problem I have with Rose is that we might not really know the full extent of how his gambling might have affected the games he was involved in.

He denied betting on sports. That was proven a lie.
He denied betting on baseball. That was proven a lie.
He denied betting on Reds games he was involved in. That was proven a lie.
But we're supposed to take his word now that he never bet against the Reds?
Or that he never gave less than his all as a player/manager, in order to fix a game to placate some other gamblers?

Why do we start believing Rose now?


this.

he has to be kept out to keep the questions from being asked if he's let back in. parsing what he may or may not have done is not a burden that MLB should have to justify. the best solution is the death penalty.

for the poster about who snarkily said 'child rape' = 'betting on games' (i believe its sugar-bear-shooting-blanks), the answer is yes, in the context of playing professional baseball it is the same. nobody is sending rose to jail for life or what have you. keeping him out of baseball in any way shape or form is totally appropriate. actually necessary.

One more time - betting on your team and losing and owing bookies money puts the game of baseball in a precarious position. Betting on only some of your team's games (as Rose did) at the least signals where you will allocate your bullpen resources and at the most leads a manager not to try to win in games he does not bet on.

Gambling of any kind on baseball by participants is far far worse than PEDs. This is not a hard concept.


again, spot on.
   46. phredbird Posted: October 04, 2012 at 02:43 PM (#4254191)
to claim what Rose did is equivalent to what Jackson did is ridiculous.


no.

MLB's rules categorically forbid betting on games one is involved in. period. to all intents and purposes, its the same thing.
   47. Traderdave Posted: October 04, 2012 at 02:54 PM (#4254212)
I have always wondered what would it have taken for the ban to be lifted? What would "reconfiguring" his life (Giamatti's words) have looked like?

Joining Gamblers' Anonymous? Dropping a dime on bookies? If he avoided Vegas could he still have gone to the track?
   48. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: October 04, 2012 at 03:20 PM (#4254266)
What would "reconfiguring" his life (Giamatti's words) have looked like?

Having more humility than to say that baseball is a better game with him in it might be a start. There's no way to repent for one's sins and still think you're bigger than the entity against which you sinned.
   49. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 04, 2012 at 03:20 PM (#4254268)
I have always wondered what would it have taken for the ban to be lifted? What would "reconfiguring" his life (Giamatti's words) have looked like?


Perhaps nothing, but if there were something I doubt Rose would have been capable of it. I imagine a good start would have been coming clean immediately with a truthful and honest confession/explanation, not tied to making money, but rather tied to taking a series of active, tangible steps (psychatric help, volunteer work, speaking honestly to kids, whatever) to show that he had changed.

But I don't see an issue with never letting him back in no matter what. I don't think that's inherently unfair. It would be like telling a woman whose husband cheated on her that she "had" to let him back in her life just because he had reconfigured his.
   50. Red Menace Posted: October 04, 2012 at 03:34 PM (#4254304)
This is the same song Pete has sung for so long. If he truly cared about teaching baseball to young players he could have done any number of things outside of Major League Baseball--working with Little League, instructing in the Caribbean, managing in Japan, hell he could have coached a high school team. And by now there would be prominent players telling the tale of how Pete Rose helped them along the way. I'd be sympathetic to a Pete Rose who loved baseball so much he took the unheralded, unglamorous positions just to help people in the game.

Instead he hung out at casinos and championed himself.
   51. Ron J2 Posted: October 04, 2012 at 03:51 PM (#4254332)
MLB's rules categorically forbid betting on games one is involved in. period.


And it's worth noting that it's always been this way.

The language from the rules in 1857 is interesting:

Section 30. Gambling/Substitute. No person engaged in a match, either as umpire, referee, or player, shall be directly or
indirectly interested in any bet upon the game.

The penalty (since there were no leagues) is removal from the game. Which is why it's in the rules on substitutes. The rule for substitutions was simple. None except for emergencies -- unless the player is tossed for gambling

Think about it. If *these* rules were in force today you'd need a team bookie to be able to make a pitching change.

And here's the language from 1874

Any player who shall, in any way, be interested in any bet or wager on the game in which he takes part, either as umpire,
player, or scorer, or who purchases or has purchased for him any "pool", or chance, sold or given away, or the game in which he takes part, he shall be dishonorably expelled from both his club and the association.

(The NL adopted the rule, simply changing "association" to "league")

As I've argued before I think it's simple pragmatism. Tough enough to prove somebody was betting on a game. There's no way to know his total action, weird spot bets (the recent cricket gambling scandal was based on proposition betting on no balls -- something like a balk) or the like. And MLB has nothing to gain by allowing betting.
   52. Charlie O Posted: October 04, 2012 at 03:57 PM (#4254343)
At no time — at no time — did I ever cheat the fans in the game of baseball. No time.”


He wrote his own name in the lineup for his pursuit of personal goals at the expense of the team. If I'm a Reds fan who wants to see my team win, I'd feel cheated.
   53. cardsfanboy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 04:01 PM (#4254355)
Huh?


He absolutely committed the crime, and the potential issues are still there, but he shouldn't be punished as if the potential issues happened. At the same time, the potential issues should be blocked to avoid any future problems. Let him announce games, let him be a roving instructor, or special assistant coach who doesn't suit up. I'm perfectly fine with that.
   54. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: October 04, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4254356)
I have always wondered what would it have taken for the ban to be lifted? What would "reconfiguring" his life (Giamatti's words) have looked like?


If it doesn't involve the phrase "rescued a bus full of children", I don't want to hear about it.
   55. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 04, 2012 at 04:07 PM (#4254364)
Like Barry Bonds, Rose made his own bed, and now he can lie in it. Actions have consequences.
   56. cardsfanboy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 04:07 PM (#4254365)
MLB's rules categorically forbid betting on games one is involved in. period. to all intents and purposes, its the same thing.


I never said anything about MLB's rules, I said to compare the crime that Jackson did is equivalent to what Rose did, is utter ridiculousness (assuming you aren't one of those nutters that think Jackson is innocent because he couldn't read)

Jackson actively went onto a field and tried to lose. In sports terms, that is the worse possible crime you can commit. Pete Rose betted that his team could win a game, while knowing that the punishment is a lifetime ban. His crime is no where near the same level of wrong as Jacksons. It gets the same punishment of course. But yes there is a wide disparity between the severity of the crime committed.
   57. Traderdave Posted: October 04, 2012 at 04:09 PM (#4254366)
He wrote his own name in the lineup for his pursuit of personal goals at the expense of the team. If I'm a Reds fan who wants to see my team win, I'd feel cheated.


He was acquired to do precisely that. The very day he came back in August '84 the Reds began trumpeting the drive to 4192. It was loudly proclaimed from the first moment, and the 4192 swag factory starting running 3 shifts a day before he turned in his first lineup card. An argument can be made that it cost the team wins, though on balance not many, but it was NOT the self-serving BS you state. It was his assigned duty by the organization.
   58. Ron J2 Posted: October 04, 2012 at 04:41 PM (#4254421)
#57 Stipulating for the moment that the drive to 4192 was what he was acquired for (though the specifically denied this when they picked him up from the Expos). You can't defend his playing himself in 1986 (a futile effort to get the runs record that nobody cared about)

There was an amazing amount of young talent to sort out and Rose seriously clogged things up wring his own name in.
   59. Morty Causa Posted: October 04, 2012 at 04:42 PM (#4254426)
There's always a case to be made one way or the other. But:

First degree murder in my state is life without parole or suspension of sentence or probation. Either that or death. Second degree murder in my state is life without parole, etc. No death penalty possible. In other words, the minimum is life.

Because some some murders aren't as awful as other murders doesn't mean they don't incur the same ultimate penalty. In other words, committing something worse than ever committed before doesn't automatically mean all less outrageous crimes of the same nature have to necessarily be downgraded. A serial killer can get death or life, the same as the killer of one person. Because the serial killings may be worse doesn't mean the killer of only one person has to get less than he who kills many. The level established can be exceeded.

Pete Rose was not screwed by MLB. Pete Rose screwed MLB, and, at the very least, if reinstatement is to be considered, the Dowd investigation (or successor to Dowd) should be completed and the results made known. And he should have to bear the cost of that investigation. We don't know everything about Rose and gambling.
   60. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 04, 2012 at 05:13 PM (#4254482)
Let every kid in the future ask "Why isn't Pete Rose in the HOF?", and find out why.


Yup.
   61. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 04, 2012 at 05:22 PM (#4254499)
Con:
I think Pete should be in the Hall for the same reason I think Barry Bonds and deserving PED users should be as well.

Pro:
Like Barry Bonds, Rose made his own bed, and now he can lie in it. Actions have consequences.

The comparison between Rose and Bonds Etc. is a sham built upon a false equivalency. Pete Rose broke an existing rule that was universally treated as the all-important rule of rules, and one which had a plain and established punishment. Bonds & Friends did not.

And that's without getting into the respective severity of the actions, or the practical logistics of keeping out one overqualified star versus a dozen.

You can't even equate Barry Bonds' behavior with Manny Ramirez's, and some people want to lump him in with Pete Rose? Simplistic baloney.
   62. JL Posted: October 04, 2012 at 05:26 PM (#4254505)
But I don't see an issue with never letting him back in no matter what. I don't think that's inherently unfair. It would be like telling a woman whose husband cheated on her that she "had" to let him back in her life just because he had reconfigured his.


I think this analogy is spot on.
   63. Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond Posted: October 04, 2012 at 05:51 PM (#4254534)
I doubt Rose's actions would equate to the type of murder charge where he would get out in less than 25 years.


Every murder charge is worse than what Rose did. He didn't kill anyone; he bet on baseball. Not good. I get that. My point is that 25 years is a long damned time. If the ban for betting on baseball happened to be 25 years, that's still quite punitive. I respect that others feel differently, but if he were re-instated today it's not like he "got away with it." It killed his reputation, ended his managing career, etc. He's an old man now, and I think (despite his tendency to say stupid stuff) he's contrite. He's also, in my opinion, despite his sins, good for baseball.
   64. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: October 04, 2012 at 05:56 PM (#4254541)
Bud Selig could call me or call my people tomorrow and say, ‘Pete, I want to reinstate you.’

Rose has people?
   65. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 04, 2012 at 06:02 PM (#4254546)
You can't even equate Barry Bonds' behavior with Manny Ramirez's, and some people want to lump him in with Pete Rose? Simplistic baloney.

Analyzing solely the behavior, without regard to the rules, Bonds's was worse. It was certainly far more of an effrontery to sport and fair competition.

Obviously the stated punishments were far different, but that difference is silly and collapses upon objective analysis. (And if baseball were a sport more avowedly dedicated to sport and fair competition, Bonds could have been banned for life, as Lance Armstrong is and athletes in many other sports would be.)
   66. BDC Posted: October 04, 2012 at 06:07 PM (#4254553)
horse racing was acceptable to everyone because it's legal

Oddly enough, Rose went to prison (in part) for concealing racing winnings from the IRS. It's legal to win money at the track, but he managed to go about it illegally.

I respect the idea that people aren't as bothered about gambling on ballgames as I am, but I have no problem with gambling being a total taboo in baseball. Nobody's actively punishing Rose for that gambling. They're just saying he can't work for them anymore. I'd compare the situation less to murder and more to somebody you find embezzling from your business. Maybe that embezzler does time, makes restitution, whatever; they are then free to live and work in society at large. But you are not obligated to re-hire them.
   67. toratoratora Posted: October 04, 2012 at 06:07 PM (#4254554)
C'mon. Baseball has one cardinal rule-don't bet on baseball.
That's pretty much it.
You can do drugs, drive drunk, beat your wife,bet on football, horses, basketball, hell, jai-alai do 100 million things, but don't bet on baseball.
Rose knowingly and intentionally broke that rule and now he's paying the price.
It's as simple as that.
Boo fricken hoo.
   68. calhounite Posted: October 04, 2012 at 06:12 PM (#4254561)
Saw the presumed MVP Cabrera prima-dona all his way to first on a standard Dunn-slug double (doubles which the slowest slugs in mlb are entitled to) in a recent game. The reason the Cabrera slug was standing at first instead of second is because the ball hit high off the wall, ie, requiring the obligatory prima dona homerun trot. Later, while at second instead of at third (which he should have been), thrown out at home on a routine single to right. Affected the outcome of the game.

Rose was a MFing maniac on the field..on ANY field. On any field, the sob oozed super competitive fire. For one thing, the sob had the body of your average beer guzzler, and to make himself into an average player, much less a great player, he needed every bit of it.


The point is mlb tolerating the Cabrera's of the world just seems somewhat off kilter vis-a-vis Rose with respect to some hypothetical game-affecting outcome stemming from Rose betting on his own team to win in view of this definite game-affecting, way less than 100% effort Cabrera crap.

It's hypocritic. Would grant Rose some sort of leniency in his own and old age.
   69. depletion Posted: October 04, 2012 at 06:22 PM (#4254567)
This is the same song Pete has sung for so long. If he truly cared about teaching baseball to young players he could have done any number of things outside of Major League Baseball--working with Little League, instructing in the Caribbean, managing in Japan, hell he could have coached a high school team. And by now there would be prominent players telling the tale of how Pete Rose helped them along the way. I'd be sympathetic to a Pete Rose who loved baseball so much he took the unheralded, unglamorous positions just to help people in the game.

Instead he hung out at casinos and championed himself.

This is true. I don't think Rose is truly contrite. I don't think he is empathetic to others in general. He has a history of lying. And I think the rules against gambling are good rules. I still think, at his age, it is not bad to show compassion for someone who pounded himself into the dirt for 20 years, and cranked the turnstiles, for the game.
   70. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 04, 2012 at 06:27 PM (#4254576)
Analyzing solely the behavior, without regard to the rules, Bonds's was worse. It was certainly far more of an effrontery to sport and fair competition.

The only thing Manny Ramirez did that was more sportsmanlike than Barry Bonds' behavior was to top out at 45 home runs.

I reject the premise that what Bonds presumably did is the ethical equivalent of what Ramirez did; as for the idea that Bonds' effrontery was worse, well, that premise makes my brain feel like it just took some illicit synthetic substance.
   71. Charlie O Posted: October 04, 2012 at 06:34 PM (#4254579)
An argument can be made that it cost the team wins, though on balance not many, but it was NOT the self-serving BS you state. It was his assigned duty by the organization.


It was exactly the self-serving BS I state. Rose broke Cobb's hit record on September 11, 1985 but he continued to play himself through 1986 in an effort to reach the record for most runs scored. He put himself before the team for a personal goal that was not part of ownership's money-making scheme.

(Edit: Coke to Ron J2, #58)

   72. alilisd Posted: October 04, 2012 at 06:48 PM (#4254597)
Its a museum of baseball and those guys are significant pieces of baseball history.


And they are in the museum, they just aren't in the plaque room. I'm sure there are numerous items of memorabilia (uniforms, bats, balls, etc.) in the museum's collection. It's not as if they aren't represented. The plaque room is different though. You have to be elected to be enshrined and Rose, out of loyalty and symbiosis with MLB, is not eligible.
   73. alilisd Posted: October 04, 2012 at 06:51 PM (#4254602)
Even reinstated, he won't get the percent vote to get into the HOF.


Really? Why do you believe this? I can't imagine him not being elected if his eligibility were restored.
   74. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 07:01 PM (#4254606)
From Chris Dial the last time this came up
Davis in 1985 wasn't anything worth swapping into the lineup - certainly not necessarily over Nick Esasky or Gary Redus. I've heard this for about a decade, and Rose didn't do anything the vast majority of managers wouldn't have.

Davis' OBP was .287, 60 points below Milner (who was just 30, and pretty good for a CF), and Davis struck out 30% of the time. Now up here on Mt. Judgmental, we kjnow that's not all there is, but Ks still mattered to managers back then.

Even given Milner (who stole a ton of bases) doesn't start, Esasky starts over Davis, so the point isn't very strong.

Suggesting it was Rose's fault in 1984 is 100% ignorance since he didn't take over until nearly September.

In 1984, Davis was hitting 202/311/360 until the Reds made Rose manager. Under Rose's tutelage, Davis hit .267/338/667.

Rose knew what he was doing. So he started Davis to open 1985, even though he hated going qwith rookies. I mean, at opening day, ED was the f'in man. He rewarded Rose by hitting .152/.188/.364. A whopping 540 OPS.

So he got benched. "Oh, give the rookie a chance". Hey, Rose expects to win, and ED was striking at at a 40% clip. That's just not looked upon favorably in 1985. Rose froze him out as a ph during May, sending him down until Sept. When Davis was benched, Milner came in and was hitting .303. So, no big surprise it was handled in the way it was, and it's bogus to say Rose was anti-kds. Davis *had* the job, and stunk up the joint.

As I pointed oput - he gave Davis first dibs, and Davis was terrible in 1985. In 1986, he still got the job.

These criticisms are really expecting WAY too much from ANY manager. Daniels was a rookie and got 200+ PAs. Larkin as well (170 PAs). And Daniels got the PT in 87-88. Larkin got the starting slot the following year - so that's pretty quick. There aren't many rookie SS getting the nod at 22. And Concepcion outhit Larkin in 1987.

And in 1986, Tracy Jones got 86 ABs in 46 games, and hit well.

How many more PAs do you think Daniels should have gotten?

Rose's usage was suboptimal, but there's no good evidence that he wholly sabotaged some kids careers. And having Rose on the field playing was good for a couple of wins just due to his leadership.


   75. depletion Posted: October 04, 2012 at 07:42 PM (#4254628)
Really? Why do you believe this? I can't imagine him not being elected if his eligibility were restored.

What percent did Mark McGuire get? 21%? All the writers who stood up for him, got slapped in the face by "Prison Without Bars". McGuire broke 61, which is a number of comparable legend to 4191. Even if Rose doubles McGuire's total he's at 42%, still very far from 75%. The HOF vote does list integrity as a value to base votes on.
   76. cardsfanboy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 07:56 PM (#4254632)
Really? Why do you believe this? I can't imagine him not being elected if his eligibility were restored.

The storyline is that the writers were upset that they couldn't vote against him for the hof. Some of the writers who made him a write in candidate, wouldn't vote for him, but wrote him in because they thought that the vote shouldn't have been taken out of their hands. I do think if given multiple chances on the ballot, the writers would eventually put him in, especially if someone like Bonds ends up going in.

Having said that, he wouldn't be eligible for the writers vote, and it would be a vet committee selection. I don't have a clue how any makeup of the vets committee would treat a Rose ballot.
   77. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 04, 2012 at 08:11 PM (#4254642)
What percent did Mark McGuire get? 21%?


I assume you mean Ryan McGuire. He got 0%. He didn't even make the ballot, to my knowledge.

Rose wouldn't be elected now. By stringing the gullible writers along for years and then doing the whole "just kidding" thing, he finally managed to alienate them.
   78. GregD Posted: October 04, 2012 at 08:18 PM (#4254647)
Having said that, he wouldn't be eligible for the writers vote, and it would be a vet committee selection. I don't have a clue how any makeup of the vets committee would treat a Rose ballot.
Isn't Joe Morgan still Captain Veterans Committee?
   79. phredbird Posted: October 04, 2012 at 08:26 PM (#4254653)
I never said anything about MLB's rules, I said to compare the crime that Jackson did is equivalent to what Rose did, is utter ridiculousness (assuming you aren't one of those nutters that think Jackson is innocent because he couldn't read)


what about this don't you get? jackson threw games as a payoff for gamblers. he had a gambling interest in the games. as far as baseball is concerned, its all the same level of transgression.
   80. cardsfanboy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:12 PM (#4254683)
what about this don't you get? jackson threw games as a payoff for gamblers. he had a gambling interest in the games. as far as baseball is concerned, its all the same level of transgression.


As far as baseball is concerned, that is correct. I don't care, and have never cared one bit about baseball ranking of the severity of the crime. The two crimes are massively disproportionate in wrong doing. Rose is being punished because of perception, while Jackson is being punished because he committed a massive, unforgivable crime in the sport world.

One crime is a guy actively tanking, arguably the most important games of the year. The other crime is a guy betted on his own team to win. Not remotely the same level of crime, I understand why they have the same level of punishment etc. I just don't like it. I think when comparing the severity of the crime, that one crime could be worthy of receiving a pardon, while the other crime never should.
   81. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:22 PM (#4254691)
Con:
I think Pete should be in the Hall for the same reason I think Barry Bonds and deserving PED users should be as well.


Pro:
Like Barry Bonds, Rose made his own bed, and now he can lie in it. Actions have consequences.

The comparison between Rose and Bonds Etc. is a sham built upon a false equivalency.


They're not "equivalent", but the point remains: They both were responsible for their own actions,** and now they're paying the penalty for their ill-advised behaviors. The biggest practical difference between the two is that unlike Rose, if the writers decide to put Bonds in the Hall of Fame, nothing's stopping them. And more power to him if they should happen to do so.

**Nobody forced Rose to bet on baseball, and nobody forced Bonds to use steroids, not even (gasp!) either the Commissioner or the Dirty Rotten Hypocritical Media. There are no "victims" here named Rose or Bonds.
   82. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:29 PM (#4254693)
One crime is a guy actively tanking, arguably the most important games of the year. The other crime is a guy betted on his own team to win.


We only have "his word" that he bet only on his team to win.

Maybe if we wait 10 years, and his financial trouble gets bad enough, he'll co-write his next book that explains how he bet on his team to lose only a couple of times, simply because he needed to make sure his organized crime buddies didn't break his knee caps. Maybe he'll explain that he evened it out later by trying REAL hard to win a couple of other games later in the season even though he didn't have money on them.
   83. cardsfanboy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:43 PM (#4254704)
We only have "his word" that he bet only on his team to win.


agreed, but that is all he has been "convicted" of.
   84. JJ1986 Posted: October 04, 2012 at 09:45 PM (#4254707)
Um...what penalty is Bonds paying right now?
   85. Jay Z Posted: October 04, 2012 at 10:40 PM (#4254743)
C'mon. Baseball has one cardinal rule-don't bet on baseball.
That's pretty much it.
You can do drugs, drive drunk, beat your wife,bet on football, horses, basketball, hell, jai-alai do 100 million things, but don't bet on baseball.
Rose knowingly and intentionally broke that rule and now he's paying the price.
It's as simple as that.
Boo fricken hoo.


I agree. Being banned from baseball is not like being in jail. Rose basically lost his license to practice professional baseball, which you can only lose by betting on baseball. Which he did.

Perhaps the case would be more sympathetic if there were many other players falling prey to the temptation to bet on baseball. Doesn't seem as though it's happened to too many others.

Everyone here does realize that Rose likely still gambles, and may still even bet on baseball. So you want to let him back into baseball so he can bet on it again. Right?
   86. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 04, 2012 at 10:43 PM (#4254746)
The comparison between Rose and Bonds Etc. is a sham built upon a false equivalency.

They're not "equivalent", but the point remains: They both were responsible for their own actions,** and now they're paying the penalty for their ill-advised behaviors.


And the Fake Philly Phanatic was responsible for his actions in interfering with Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln in the big race yesterday. MLB is about as concerned with getting to the bottom of that heinous attack as it was with investigating steroids in the 1990s and early 2000s.

There wasn't a spick of a speck of "ill advice" in taking steroids then. (In terms of fairness and reputation and risk of punishment.)

The biggest practical difference between the two is that unlike Rose, if the writers decide to put Bonds in the Hall of Fame, nothing's stopping them.

Cause is so boring, let's skip ahead to the effect. I guess Barry Bonds has been proven right... the ends DO justify the means.
   87. McCoy Posted: October 04, 2012 at 10:44 PM (#4254748)
Um...what penalty is Bonds paying right now?

Shrunken testicles?
   88. phredbird Posted: October 04, 2012 at 11:39 PM (#4254796)
As far as baseball is concerned, that is correct.


excellent. now we're getting somewhere.

The two crimes are massively disproportionate in wrong doing.


that is your opinion, not an objective fact. actually, i think you're wrong. MLB probably agrees with me.

We only have "his word" that he bet only on his team to win.

Maybe if we wait 10 years, and his financial trouble gets bad enough, he'll co-write his next book that explains how he bet on his team to lose only a couple of times, simply because he needed to make sure his organized crime buddies didn't break his knee caps. Maybe he'll explain that he evened it out later by trying REAL hard to win a couple of other games later in the season even though he didn't have money on them.


yes. the generation of these hypotheticals are a perfect argument for why this stuff has to be dealt with harshly.
   89. phredbird Posted: October 04, 2012 at 11:41 PM (#4254799)
We only have "his word" that he bet only on his team to win.


should have had that in quotes.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Phil Birnbaum
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogDavid Justice Says Put Barry Bonds in Baseball Hall of Fame Despite Steroid Use Late In Career
(160 - 2:06pm, Aug 30)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(880 - 2:05pm, Aug 30)
Last: Biff, highly-regarded young guy

NewsblogDodgers Use Wall of Infielders
(9 - 1:57pm, Aug 30)
Last: Jose Can Still Seabiscuit

NewsblogFG (Zimmerman): Alex Gordon, UZR, and Bad Left Field Defense
(45 - 1:55pm, Aug 30)
Last: Barnaby Jones

NewsblogRockies' Troy Tulowitzki bent on playing shortstop: "I will retire before I move"
(29 - 1:55pm, Aug 30)
Last: puck

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-30-2014
(1 - 1:49pm, Aug 30)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogOT:  2014 College Football pre-season thread
(47 - 1:42pm, Aug 30)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(6245 - 1:36pm, Aug 30)
Last: Misirlou's been working for the drug squad

NewsblogWhat's Wrong With Baseball?
(34 - 1:26pm, Aug 30)
Last: bobm

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - August 2014
(377 - 1:16pm, Aug 30)
Last: kpelton

NewsblogThe First Hundred PAs: The Curious Case of Cubs Rookie Javier Baez
(10 - 1:16pm, Aug 30)
Last: Kiko Sakata

NewsblogIndians Sign Russell Branyan
(14 - 12:43pm, Aug 30)
Last: Jim (jimmuscomp)

NewsblogJesus Montero gets heckled by Mariners cross checker during rehab stint
(57 - 12:28pm, Aug 30)
Last: bookbook

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1957 Ballot
(5 - 12:05pm, Aug 30)
Last: lieiam

NewsblogAdam Jones says he was joking about 'airport' comment at social media event
(17 - 12:02pm, Aug 30)
Last: BDC

Page rendered in 0.6022 seconds
52 querie(s) executed