Pete Rose was betting as a player.
- Thread starter WhiteBus
- Start date
That sounds like the best way.
Rose's accomplishments on the field should put him in the HOF and his gambling should keep him from enjoying getting in the HOF
during his lifetime.
I just hope if Pete gets in, Shoeless Joe is allowed top enter.
Jackson admitted taking $5.000 from a teammate involved in the Black Sox scandal, but but was found innocent of fixing the 1919 World Series
when the trial was over. Shoeless' batting average of .375 in the series suggests he didn't participate in throwing the World Series and that needs to be taken into account.
Actually all 8 accused were found not guilty , evidence lost, in 1921 but Commissioner Landis banned them for life anyway.
Agree with WhiteBus. Those who knew Pete's betting habits have said that for him the Reds were just another number on the betting sheet. The degenerate gambler looks for any edge in any game to pick a winner. No doubt in my mind that he bet against his own team.
Former players have said that when Pete was on the Phillies from 79-83 he was often in the clubhouse on a pay phone before most games while the rest of the players were warming up on the field. It appears that he regularly placed bets from the stadium in which he was playing.
I really don't understand those that are defending him based on gambling being an illness and Pete being a victim of a disease.
Yes it's an addiction. But nothing that you and others have excused him for what he did. His constant lies to this very day or you lack understanding w.hy gambling is the death of a sport. Can't comprehend you defenders. His accomplishment are in the HOF. He shouldn't have a day at Cooperstown. He has lied to you all for 30+ years.
Where have I said it wasn't. The word DEGENERATE is pretty clear that Rose has a a lifelong problem. He still has those issues
What seems really difficult is having a civil discourse with you on this board based on your tendency to go almost immediately to name calling towards almost anyone who does not agree 100% with you. No, I do not have a reading comprehension problem.....however it is apparent that you are twisting the actual meaning of words.......
Perhaps you are intending to use a different meaning for the word Degenerate which generally refers to someone who is immoral or corrupt. It may very well be that Rose is a degenerate. However it also might be that he is an addict and has a compulsion that he did not or can not control properly. Degenerate and Addict do not mean the same thing.
Pete was a great player and maybe, as zappaa says. he was a great guy on the field and in the locker room. That being said, Charlie Hustle was all about the hustle...always after the buck, whether at the horse track or his bookie. For that matter, he only admitted to gambling on baseball (as a manager) when he had a book to sell. He is at HOF weekend in Cooperstown signing autographs for $. He even made money off of it by poking fun at himself in that Super Bowl commercial. He makes plenty at autograph shows. He wants to make even more by being able to sign "HOF" on his memorabilia.
I figure that MLB may well have known he bet on baseball as a player, but didn't have enough evidence, or it was shielded from the public. In this case, these revelations may not be new to them. I see the gambling as being different from the steroids, while not giving steroids a pass. Steroids are used to improve performace while the gambling on your own team (or noticing when Pete DIDN'T bet on his team) affects the integrity of the competition in a different and possibly uglier way.
I can see Pete getting into the HOF posthumously because of his on the field accomplishments. He should never be able to profit from being there.
One last thing: I heard a reporter make a good point. Bonds, Clemens, ARod may never get in to the HOF, but the BBWAA has a say in it because they're allowed to vote on them. They're not allowed to even cast a vote (or not) for Rose. I see that argument as fair.
I figure that MLB may well have known he bet on baseball as a player, but didn't have enough evidence, or it was shielded from the public. In this case, these revelations may not be new to them. I see the gambling as being different from the steroids, while not giving steroids a pass. Steroids are used to improve performace while the gambling on your own team (or noticing when Pete DIDN'T bet on his team) affects the integrity of the competition in a different and possibly uglier way.
I can see Pete getting into the HOF posthumously because of his on the field accomplishments. He should never be able to profit from being there.
One last thing: I heard a reporter make a good point. Bonds, Clemens, ARod may never get in to the HOF, but the BBWAA has a say in it because they're allowed to vote on them. They're not allowed to even cast a vote (or not) for Rose. I see that argument as fair.
Can't let Rose in. Sets a horrible precedent: "You're in as long as you're an all-time great."
You can't let that be the standard by which future transgressions are judged because if you're being considered for the hall, you're already an all-time great by definition.
You can't let that be the standard by which future transgressions are judged because if you're being considered for the hall, you're already an all-time great by definition.
I'm not surprised, but you never can say he didn't play hard. He just had a problem, but will never be in the hall of fame, like Shoeless Joe Jackson. Tough break, he was a hard nose player.
The arguement of wether Pete should be in the hall of fame is separate from his gambling addiction, personally I don't think he should get in.
But let's be perfectly clear, he has a gambling addiction, with that comes justifying, lying, covering up, no control and impulsivity, every horse and sporting event he bets on today throws him further into his disease
Funny thing is he could have had his full blown gambling problem while he was playing, and had he not bet on baseball that he had influence in the outcomes of, no one would have cared. There are plenty of big time gamblers playing professionally today, they just didn't bet there own sport, many of them will suffer horrible personal and family loses though
But let's be perfectly clear, he has a gambling addiction, with that comes justifying, lying, covering up, no control and impulsivity, every horse and sporting event he bets on today throws him further into his disease
Funny thing is he could have had his full blown gambling problem while he was playing, and had he not bet on baseball that he had influence in the outcomes of, no one would have cared. There are plenty of big time gamblers playing professionally today, they just didn't bet there own sport, many of them will suffer horrible personal and family loses though
Last edited:
Unlike the NFL,baseball has standards.
Paul Hornung and Alex Karras were elected to Canton despite having admitted to betting on their own teams.
Then too,there is the matter of Heisman Homicide.
Paul Hornung and Alex Karras were elected to Canton despite having admitted to betting on their own teams.
Then too,there is the matter of Heisman Homicide.
My memory of charlie hustle was plowing into a promissing catcher name Ray Fosse, I think. This was done during a exhibition game (the all-star game). Ruined the guys career. Rose was a great baseball player but had and probably still has a few screws loose.
I guess it all depends how you see the hall of fame - is it a museum that is recording the important and extraordinary moments and people in baseball history....or is it a shrine that celebrates and promotes the greatness of baseball? If it's the first then Rose (along with Bonds, Clemmens, etc.) should be in, if it is the latter then NO! I think the HOF is more of the second, and he shouldn't be in.
Its both - its the Hall of Fame and Museum. Pete is not in the Hall of Fame, nor should he be. But he is in the Museum - which is actually the much more interesting part, although obviously less prestigious.
I couldn't care less whether Pete Rose is in the Hall of Fame or not, but I'm having trouble picturing him playing baseball and not giving at least 100 %. Are you guys talking about a different Pete Rose than the one I remember ?
Rose is probably more iconic as a pariah
"As much as Rose might like to get inducted one day, he is not blind to the notoriety that his banishment has given him, nor to the understanding that, in the autograph trade, it may have helped his bottom line. “You know,” he once said to me. “Not being in the Hall of Fame — that’s my shtick!”
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...roses-ban-from-baseball-is-money-in-the-bank/
"As much as Rose might like to get inducted one day, he is not blind to the notoriety that his banishment has given him, nor to the understanding that, in the autograph trade, it may have helped his bottom line. “You know,” he once said to me. “Not being in the Hall of Fame — that’s my shtick!”
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...roses-ban-from-baseball-is-money-in-the-bank/
When you are in debt to the mob, you might behave somewhat differently than you normally would.
He's not getting in while he's alive, and probably not after he's dead, either. One reason why: He'd have to get past the current equivalent of the Veterans Committee, which is dominated by Hall of Famers, and the only people more angry with Rose than sportswriters are Hall of Fame players. I heard someone who's covered baseball for a long time say yesterday that every Hall of Famer he'd ever spoken to about it other than Mike Schmidt said he never would vote to put Rose in the Hall.
Personally, I'm with the people who think that what Rose did was worse than PEDs, in large part because there is a big sign in every clubhouse in the majors that says that betting on baseball gets you banned for life. It's not like there was a question about what the penalty would have been.
Personally, I'm with the people who think that what Rose did was worse than PEDs, in large part because there is a big sign in every clubhouse in the majors that says that betting on baseball gets you banned for life. It's not like there was a question about what the penalty would have been.
Yes I might. But I'm not Pete Rose. I've never seen him give less than 100% and I doubt any one else has.
Last edited:
That record is not untouchable. A guy like Ichiro could have done if his career had started in MLB instead of Japan.
It's possibly correct that he didn't bet against his own team. However, decisions he made as a manager could possibly have affected the next days game. For instance if he used his closer more than usual, rendering him not usable the next game. And like one of the earlier posters mentioned earlier, not betting on his team might have been a sign to someone to bet against the Reds.
I'm not at all surprised this is coming out. Having been in a business related to wagering, it's been my experience that someone who bets on everything, wouldn't be able to not bet on one particular sport.
Heard this discussed on some TV show... thoughts expressed merged with mine...
1) There should be a "dishonored" wing of the HoF... "Hall of Shame" wing... players who were admitted and did bad things, move them there.. players who dishonored the sport while playing but whose careers are HoF worthy despite being jackholes and worse.. make note of them in the dishonored wing.
2) At first I only wondered if Pete bet against his team.. if so, man, that is pretty bad. But others noted.. if you take bets from Pete Rose betting on his team game after game.. and then he choose to NOT bet on his team (even if he doesn't bet against it).. doesn't that give the bookie some info re: his team's chances of winning? And as a manager... would Rose abuse a pitcher's arm in an attempt to win his bet? And if Rose gets behind in paying these unsavory types.. what kind of pressures and accommodations would he be willing to make? Betting can be pretty bad.
He should be in... with his dishonor noted, front and center.
1) There should be a "dishonored" wing of the HoF... "Hall of Shame" wing... players who were admitted and did bad things, move them there.. players who dishonored the sport while playing but whose careers are HoF worthy despite being jackholes and worse.. make note of them in the dishonored wing.
2) At first I only wondered if Pete bet against his team.. if so, man, that is pretty bad. But others noted.. if you take bets from Pete Rose betting on his team game after game.. and then he choose to NOT bet on his team (even if he doesn't bet against it).. doesn't that give the bookie some info re: his team's chances of winning? And as a manager... would Rose abuse a pitcher's arm in an attempt to win his bet? And if Rose gets behind in paying these unsavory types.. what kind of pressures and accommodations would he be willing to make? Betting can be pretty bad.
He should be in... with his dishonor noted, front and center.
Similar threads
