Pete Rose

ClearWaterMS said:

this is why I think the hall could remove the ban.  Once the ban is lifted he isn't in, but it allows the conversation to happen in the public forum.  Let writers make the case for/against, in the down time that is baseball offseason between now and winter meetings let all of the writers duke it out on substack, AM radio, and the like... Should make for some interesting baseball talk.  

Hasn't that conversation been going on for like 40 years already?

Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:

ClearWaterMS said:

this is why I think the hall could remove the ban.  Once the ban is lifted he isn't in, but it allows the conversation to happen in the public forum.  Let writers make the case for/against, in the down time that is baseball offseason between now and winter meetings let all of the writers duke it out on substack, AM radio, and the like... Should make for some interesting baseball talk.  

Hasn't that conversation been going on for like 40 years already?

touché

I don't think much of a conversation has been going on at all.
 

Looks to me like the clear consensus opinion of fans and the majority of baseball lovers over the last 40 years is that he should be in the Hall of Fame for his stunning achievements in the sport, but a select few have stonewalled that idea without any conversation at all (most likely for personal reasons- pride, dislike of him, desire to prove a point, etc)

My $0.02.

"It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal! You stole fizzy lifting drinks! You bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and sterilized, so you get nothing! You lose! Good day, sir!"

In reply to SV reX :

Not sure if I would call it "pride" that BB commissioners are following the very long time rule to not allow gambling in baseball.  Even when gambling wasn't nearly as legal or available for so many people, the integrity of the game was that important.  We still see players get suspended for gambling on other sports- even when they are sponsored by a gambling company.  

Maybe they are trying to defend the game as an honest game, as if it's not, they will lose fans really quickly.

I would love to see Pete in the HOF, but I also don't really think this is as personal as you suggest.  Besides, his records will always be in the HOF- can't take the total hits or total games played away from him.  Let alone his legend for being Charlie Hustle will last just like Shoeless Joe Jackson's legend still lives.

In reply to alfadriver :

That's possible

First time caller, longtime listener...

I listened to Mike and the Mad Dog every day for years, and they had days upon days of discussion regarding Pete Rose and the hall of fame.

I remember Francessa saying something to the effect that every baseball locker room has a sign on the wall that every player walks under on the way out to the field that specifically prohibits gambling, and that's where the lifetime ban came from.

That being said, I don't think that Pete Rose betting on his own team to win damages the historical integrity of the game any more than starting extra innings with a runner on second.

That's Wiffle ball stuff.

MLB banned a player for life just this year, for betting on games that he didn't appear in and was injured for most (if not all?) of. It sounds like most of the bets involved with his team were parlays, he lost all the bets he placed on his team, and he only won 4.3% of all of his baseball bets - 16/387. 

I do find the "Fame" part of the moniker to be a misnomer. Pete Rose is probably in the top 20 if not the top 10 most famous players of all time, admittedly in large part because of his exclusion. 

Woody (Forum Supportum) said:

First time caller, longtime listener...

I listened to Mike and the Mad Dog every day for years, and they had days upon days of discussion regarding Pete Rose and the hall of fame.

I remember Francessa saying something to the effect that every baseball locker room has a sign on the wall that every player walks under on the way out to the field that specifically prohibits gambling, and that's where the lifetime ban came from.

That being said, I don't think that Pete Rose betting on his own team to win damages the historical integrity of the game any more than starting extra innings with a runner on second.

That's Wiffle ball stuff.

The thing is, if someone was betting on their own team, they had the ability to manipulate the game- fumble a catch, over throw a ball, trip while running, put in the wrong player, etc.  Putting the runner on 2nd doesn't change the outcome one side or the other, since both sides get the same thing- it's just a way to prevent really long games.  I'm not a fan of it, but I don't at all see it the same as manipulating the game, as many players have been accused of doing.  

alfadriver said:

Woody (Forum Supportum) said:

First time caller, longtime listener...

I listened to Mike and the Mad Dog every day for years, and they had days upon days of discussion regarding Pete Rose and the hall of fame.

I remember Francessa saying something to the effect that every baseball locker room has a sign on the wall that every player walks under on the way out to the field that specifically prohibits gambling, and that's where the lifetime ban came from.

That being said, I don't think that Pete Rose betting on his own team to win damages the historical integrity of the game any more than starting extra innings with a runner on second.

That's Wiffle ball stuff.

The thing is, if someone was betting on their own team, they had the ability to manipulate the game- fumble a catch, over throw a ball, trip while running, put in the wrong player, etc.  Putting the runner on 2nd doesn't change the outcome one side or the other, since both sides get the same thing- it's just a way to prevent really long games.  I'm not a fan of it, but I don't at all see it the same as manipulating the game, as many players have been accused of doing.  

he was betting on his team to win, besides doing your job how do you influence a win?  

in baseball where the season is a marathon not a sprint I could potentially see an argument of endangering a pitcher, overusing a closer, etc. to improve the chances of 1 game at the cost of others but even then that is a stretch compared to point shaving.  

In reply to ClearWaterMS :

It's not about betting to win, it's about the appearance of something wrong- which makes the game not appear correct.  As much as we don't seem to want to care about the appearance of the game- it matters in terms of fans.  

And ironically, it matters even more now that there's so very much betting going on.  And they are directly supporting the contracts of the players.  Lose that money, and baseball is in big trouble.  Any sport is in big trouble.

Conflict of interest should matter.  And betting on a sport as a participant of that professional sport is a conflict of interest.