Pete Rose continuing ban
Personally, I am of the belief that Pete Rose has done his time, paid for his crime and it is past time to lift his lifetime ban. Pete Rose bet on baseball while a manager and probably as a player as well. To the best of my knowledge it has only been proven that he bet ON his team. It has never been shown or I don't believe even suggested that he bet against his team and then did something or made a decision as manager to negatively influence the outcome of the game. I mean that is criminal activity and if he did that, he would deserve more than a lifetime ban, he would deserve prison time.
In the absence of that, the man has done his time. Although he is a little before my time, he is baseballs hit leader and thought to be one of the greatest hitters of all time. And unlike those homerun records of the recent decades, there is not any question of cheating or using banned substances. So, Pete Rose should be acknowledged and celebrated as one of baseball's best.
There are two things really troubling to me about the "continuing ban". One is yesterday's statement that "Commissioner Rob Manfred, who concluded the career hits leader continued to gamble even while trying to end his lifetime ban and would be a risk to the sport's integrity if allowed back in the game." Continuing to gamble?? That is not a crime. Am I to believe that no other members of the baseball Hall of fame do any kind of gambling?? (again, a completely legal activity) Why should Pete Rose be held to a higher standard? He lives in Vegas. Gambling is legal. If he wants to gamble, it has nothing to do with anything at this point.
Second thing that is troubling is that Baseball allows Pete Rose to be part of "certain" celebrations, as they did last summer at the all-star game in Cincinnati. So when it benefits baseball, they conveniently set aside this ban, but otherwise they want to continue to punish Rose. Ridiculous!
I agree, KJ. With all that has happened during the "Steroid & HGH Infused" "Live Ball" Era, for Baseball's commish to cite "integrity of the game" as a reason to continue to keep Pete out is disgraceful.Quote: kewljI find myself really troubled by the commissioners comments yesterday.
Personally, I am of the belief that Pete Rose has done his time, paid for his crime and it is past time to lift his lifetime ban. Pete Rose bet on baseball while a manager and probably as a player as well. To the best of my knowledge it has only been proven that he bet ON his team. It has never been shown or I don't believe even suggested that he bet against his team and then did something or made a decision as manager to negatively influence the outcome of the game. I mean that is criminal activity and if he did that, he would deserve more than a lifetime ban, he would deserve prison time.
In the absence of that, the man has done his time. Although he is a little before my time, he is baseballs hit leader and thought to be one of the greatest hitters of all time. And unlike those homerun records of the recent decades, there is not any question of cheating or using banned substances. So, Pete Rose should be acknowledged and celebrated as one of baseball's best.
There are two things really troubling to me about the "continuing ban". One is yesterday's statement that "Commissioner Rob Manfred, who concluded the career hits leader continued to gamble even while trying to end his lifetime ban and would be a risk to the sport's integrity if allowed back in the game." Continuing to gamble?? That is not a crime. Am I to believe that no other members of the baseball Hall of fame do any kind of gambling?? (again, a completely legal activity) Why should Pete Rose be held to a higher standard? He lives in Vegas. Gambling is legal. If he wants to gamble, it has nothing to do with anything at this point.
Second thing that is troubling is that Baseball allows Pete Rose to be part of "certain" celebrations, as they did last summer at the all-star game in Cincinnati. So when it benefits baseball, they conveniently set aside this ban, but otherwise they want to continue to punish Rose. Ridiculous!
Supposedly because Carroll Rosenbloom had bet 100K, and Colts were favored by 3 and 1/2. Actually Carroll had a lot more than that bet on the game.
Quote: kewljTo the best of my knowledge it has only been proven that he bet ON his team. It has never been shown or I don't believe even suggested that he bet against his team and then did something or made a decision as manager to negatively influence the outcome of the game. I mean that is criminal activity and if he did that, he would deserve more than a lifetime ban, he would deserve prison time.
Good morning....The above is where you get it wrong....
It has been proven that he bet against his team, while he was the manger, in the "Dowd" report.
The rational is as follows...
He didn't always bet on the Reds, but never bet "against" them. However, the example over and over again was he bet on them which would suggest and implicate that the previous game, which he didn't have a wager, could be impacted. By "impacted" it is implied that decisions were made such as saving a relief pitcher's arm, in order to be better prepared for tomorrow's game which would be bet. I've never gotten over this, and agree completely with Mr. Dowd. Not betting every game is the same as "betting against" your team. If you told us he bet $10,000.usd on every game, for his team to win, you would have a basis for saying he never bet against them. But the fact he didn't bet every game dispels this logic and confirms the one and only logical conclusion, not betting on them tonight could influence decisions based upon knowing you are going to bet(or even if it's a maybe) on them tomorrow night. End of story. He bet against his team and should remain banned forever.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
IMO there are a few aspects to the story which need to be pieced together.
1) Yes he bet on baseball while he was a manager. From my understanding he bet on his team to win. However does that mean on days he bet for his team, as a manager did he make moves or save players in other games, or by not betting on a particular game, tip of certain players via those actions to put money on the opposition.
2) I think in the aftermath of the banning and the subsequent years since then, he hasn't shown what I would deem as contrition. He has thumbed his nose at 3 commissioners and if you were to write a manual on bad public relations, his actions would seem to fit the manuscript
3) The historical precedence of gambling in baseball. Players like Shoeless Joe Jackson are forever banned for taking money to throw the 1919 World Series even though it can be proven Shoeless Joe took the money, he still hit .375 in the series, including the series' only home run and did not commit a defensive error.
4) The legality of gambling at the time. Yes, you could place a bet in Vegas, but were there spots on the road where he could do so during the season, in an age where the internet didn't exist. Could he place a bet in Cinci, in Chicago, St Louis, New York, Philly, Los Angeles or other NL cities on his schedule in a legal fashion, or did he have to go onto the black market?
I think when you piece it together I think Manfred made a good ruling in that Pete Rose won't be inducted into the HOF while he is alive. I think this opens the door for a posthumous induction however, and a part of me would like that to be the way it goes
Quote: NokTangGood morning....The above is where you get it wrong....
It has been proven that he bet against his team, while he was the manger, in the "Dowd" report.
The rational is as follows...
He didn't always bet on the Reds, but never bet "against" them. However, the example over and over again was he bet on them which would suggest and implicate that the previous game, which he didn't have a wager, could be impacted. By "impacted" it is implied that decisions were made such as saving a relief pitcher's arm, in order to be better prepared for tomorrow's game which would be bet. I've never gotten over this, and agree completely with Mr. Dowd. Not betting every game is the same as "betting against" your team. If you told us he bet $10,000.usd on every game, for his team to win, you would have a basis for saying he never bet against them. But the fact he didn't bet every game dispels this logic and confirms the one and only logical conclusion, not betting on them tonight could influence decisions based upon knowing you are going to bet(or even if it's a maybe) on them tomorrow night. End of story. He bet against his team and should remain banned forever.
I don't accept this rational, NokTang. To accept this rational is accepting a lot of assumption as fact and that is not the standard.
Furthermore the assumptions made go completely against Pete Roses nature. This man is one of the most competitive people there is. He is or was trying to win every game, both as player and coach. Winning and losing mattered to him. Records mattered to win.
Additionally, since the incidences of betting on his team occurred as manager, and to my knowledge there is nothing that shows that he did so as a player, I believe the two careers should be separated. If you want to keep him out of baseball as a manager, not allow his employment in baseball as a manager and not recognize his achievements as a manager....fine.
But as a player, he is one of the best the game has had, and didn't cheat (as per the steroid era). He deserves to be recognized for those achievements. To NOT recognize him for those achievements is not only punishing him, but punishing the fans of baseball, Cincinnati, and Philadelphia (where he also won a world series) as well as Mr. Rose.
You know damn right well that the year after Rose passes away, the ban will be lifted and he will be overwhelmingly voted into the baseball hall of fame, where he belongs, with baseball celebrating him. That should occur now in my opinion. He is an old man. He is a broken man, his name tarnished. Out of baseball, the game he loves and is his whole life for several decades...he has paid the price.
Edit: oh and one more thing. The baseball Hall of Fame is not made up of the most upstanding people. Ty Cobb, Bath Ruth and some of the other older generation players were known alcoholics, womenizers and even women beaters. It is generally accepted that one of them killed a man in a bar fight.
Lets keep the baseball hall of fame about what happened ON the field, not the character of the person. Pete Rose was one of the best players the game has ever seen.
Quote: Gabes22
I think when you piece it together I think Manfred made a good ruling in that Pete Rose won't be inducted into the HOF while he is alive. I think this opens the door for a posthumous induction however, and a part of me would like that to be the way it goes
Do not forget that the HOF is independent from MLB. It is the BBWAA that is keeping Rose out of the HOF. Rose is not allowed any contact with the professional game, as a manager, employee, representative, etc. But he could still gain HOF membership.
Quote: MoscaDo not forget that the HOF is independent from MLB. But he could still gain HOF membership.
THAT is a joke!
Quote: kewljI don't accept this rational, NokTang. To accept this rational is accepting a lot of assumption as fact and that is not the standard.
Furthermore the assumptions made go completely against Pete Roses nature. This man is one of the most competitive people there is. He is or was trying to win every game, both as player and coach. Winning and losing mattered to him. Records mattered to win.
So it stands to reason, he might fudge the long term interests of his team to win this particular game, so that he could beat the bookie and win two competitions at once. Seems very consistent with a hyper-competitive personality.
Thing about this is, it is not about morality or what is fair to Pete Rose. Doesn't matter that other guys have been worse human beings and done worse things. Corruption related to gambling has the potential to devastate a sport, like nothing else. So it is in the interest of the sport to say, "this is the one thing that won't be forgiven until you die."
The only argument against that, I think, might be that the pay is so good now that gambling profits aren't enough to entice most players. So maybe it's not really a threat anymore.
Quote: NelvinI really don't think Pete Rose should continue to be banned from Baseball just because he had a gambling addiction. Michael Vick had dogs fighting to the death/killed and even he eventually was let back into football. Somehow in this crazy world, dogs fighting to the death/killing them is a lesser crime than a gambling addiction.
Nelvin? Really, Kentry?
Goodbye.
I think saying he deserves to be in the HOF but doesn't deserve to see it in his lifetime is a fair punishment IMO. He was banned (seems like a final ruling, not a "backoff" :)
Or if he comes out and says he is gay or a woman he will be in within 5 years, he can lie about his sexual orientation if he really wants in the HOF. I kid, but really it would work. Would be PC thing to do then and MLB would be afraid of backlash if didn't let him in, the gambling thing would be a non issue then.
Quote: mcallister3200I think the assumption that Pete Rose will have his ban lifted and be inducted after his death is a fair punishment. He knew what he was doing affected the integrity of the game and potential consequences (or should have.)
I think saying he deserves to be in the HOF but doesn't deserve to see it in his lifetime is a fair punishment IMO.
One of the problems is that it isn't only Pete Rose who is being punished. Baseball fans are being punished. What about those older long-term fans from Cincinnati, who want nothing more in their final days that to see their hero, one of the best in the game honored for his contributions on the field. They paid for that right by supporting baseball with their hard earned dollars.
I mean come on, Pete has been disgraced. Continuing the ban is now nothing more than a personal vendetta. The former commissioner went as far to say, that it is now more about the fact that Pete lied for all those years. Yes, Pete Rose is a liar. He also apparently has a gambling addiction, much the same as Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley and numerous other professional athletes. I mean come on.....is it about the person's character or is about acknowledging and honoring his abilities on the baseball field.
Quote: kewljOne of the problems is that it isn't only Pete Rose who is being punished. Baseball fans are being punished. What about those older long-term fans from Cincinnati, who want nothing more in their final days that to see their hero, one of the best in the game honored for his contributions on the field. They paid for that right by supporting baseball with their hard owned dollars.
I mean come on, Pete has been disgraced. Continuing the ban is now nothing more than a personal vendetta. The former commissioner went as far to say, that it is now more about the fact that Pete lied for all those years. Yes, Pete Rose is a liar. He also apparently has a gambling addiction, much the same as Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley and numerous other professional athletes. I mean come on is it about the person's character or is about acknowledging and honoring his abilities on the baseball field.
I notice not many 200 hitters in the Baseball Hall of Fame despite being good family men and admirable citizens.
Quote: Gabes22
1) Yes he bet on baseball while he was a manager. From my understanding he bet on his team to win. However does that mean on days he bet for his team, as a manager did he make moves or save players in other games, or by not betting on a particular game, tip of certain players via those actions to put money on the opposition.
That was my summary, and the points made in the Dowd report which led to his suspension. The part you mention about the bookie betting on the opposition did in fact happen.
These don't allow us to conclude he didn't want to win every game as the poster mentioned. It just confirms that not betting every game is the same as betting against and threatens the integrity of the sport in general.
Quote: kewljHe also apparently has a gambling addiction, much the same as Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley and numerous other professional athletes. I mean come on.....is it about the person's character or is about acknowledging and honoring his abilities on the baseball field.
I don't think Michael Jordan and Charles Barkley were involved in a pick six wheel at some obscure horse track and then had a runner cash the ticket.
The writers and/or MLB aren't allowing the on field accomplishments out weigh or to be separated by his gambling on baseball while a manager and betting against his team as manager. If you don't accept their decisions and rules, such is life. They have the power, you and I don't. Pete if you may recall, was actually making calls to the bookie from the clubhouse so obviously his mind wasn't strictly on the game he was involved in, not that that in and of itself is a "crime".
The "integrity of the game" is often cited as a strong reason. I agree it was violated, but it was no more dangerous than PEDs or the PR damage from issues with one's personal life. So why make an example out of Pete Rose?
One of the issues in my family debate was whether as a result of gambling on the games, if Pete ever put his players in jeopardy whether it was to beat a spread or score more runs. Did he ever make a managerial call to keep a pitcher in there too long to stretch it out? Did he ever substitute a player for similar reasons.
That ambiguity is much harder to quantify. You might argue that PEDs are limited to one player's performance, health, and stats. Off-field family or personal issues are just that, "off-field". Pete is a manager, and he is responsible for the welfare of an entire team.
I like the argument that he never bet against his team. But since he didn't bet ever game, does that suggest he knew something? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Hey if you're going against the Yankees, why bet against them? And it is ironic that you ban his from baseball, yet you invite him to other baseball events. That's just hypocritical.
No other player has suffered as much. Give him a chance. What more can he do to repent?
Some are important rules
Some are minor rules
There is only 1 rule that is deemed so important, its posted on the wall in plain sight in every single clubhouse in the Major Leagues
The rule is no gambling on baseball
Every single player sees this rule on the clubhouse wall every single day.
As a baseball player, you cannot avoid seeing this rule every single day
This is the most important rule in baseball and Pete Rose broke it
He should be banned just as Shoeless Joe Jackson ban still stands
A few weeks ago, was walking down the strip and saw the Pete Rose Bar
Despite his ban, still a fan and stopped in to look at the baseball memorabilia and have a drink
If Rose was not given a lifetime ban is there anything else that would be much different? No team would have ever hired him as a manager (or even hitting coach) ever again. He wouldn't have accepted a job in the minor leagues. He lost a few years where he could have been an assistant at spring training. And if the punishment was 10 years, he wouldn't have had that many opportunities to do that, before getting so old.
The important question isn't 'Should he be in the Hall-of-Fame?' The important question is 'Why would anyone ever look at his career differently just because he isn't?' He isn't even close to the best player blackballed because of off the field issues.
The Baseball writers somehow did a pretty good job at choosing the right guys for the first century. This century has been pretty bad. Sutter and Gossage make it, but not Schilling or Mussina? Jim Rice makes it, but not Dwight Evans (or Fred Lynn)? Andre Dawson, but not Tim Raines? Tony Perez, but not Jeff Bagwell? Rose would have gone in easily if not for gambling, but is still only around the 10th best ever at whichever position we rate him at (left or right field); Mike Piazza is probably third best in Major League history at his position. Leaving out Pete Rose just leaves out another player who deserves to be in based on on-the-field play, but for some reason wasn't chosen. He's the only one who has been able to make a second career out of it.
Quote: terapined
This is the most important rule in baseball and Pete Rose broke it
He should be banned just as Shoeless Joe Jackson ban still stands
I don't believe the shoeless Joe Jackson ban is a fair comparison. Shoeless Joe was about more than just gambling. He fixed games. That is a criminal offense. There is no evidence that Pete Rose did anything like that. Furthermore Joe Jackson's action occurred as a player, so as a player he is banned. Pete Rose's actions occurred as a manager. I am ok with him being banned as a manager. But as a player there is no evidence of any wrong doing...just speculation and assumptions. I don't think his career as a player, one of the best should be effected because of something he did as a manager. I think the two should be separate.
And I sure as hell don't think his actions today, as a private citizen, engaging in a completely legal activity like gambling should in any way effect what he did as a player and that is exactly what the commissioner said on Tuesday, when reasoned that the ban stays in effect because Pete Rose continues to gamble on baseball, a completely legal action.
Quote: TomGRose would have gone in easily if not for gambling, but is still only around the 10th best ever at whichever position we rate him at (left or right field); Leaving out Pete Rose just leaves out another player who deserves to be in based on on-the-field play, but for some reason wasn't chosen.
"Just another player"? "10th best ever at whichever position"? How about hitter? Perhaps the single most important skill of the game. He is the all-time hit leader!
Please don't confuse the issue with facts.
At least people know who Pete Rose is. Who knows the name of the pitcher who is in the Hall of Fame, and only pitcher to lead both leagues in ERA for a season. Hint : Yoga Berra said if everybody pitched like Old Sarge ( shrapnel in his back, Purple Heart ), there wouldn't be a 200 hitter in baseball.
If you get in the hole for more than you can pay, throwing a game is going to be on the table. If your team is out of contention... hey, why not? One game to save your skin. But then anybody who knows about it has you in their pocket forever.
PEDs are much more of a grey area and don't threaten the integrity of the game nearly as much. They ruined the record books, which kind of sucks. But cheating, or pushing the boundaries of cheating to gain an edge is a part of every sport and always will be. It's simply a different animal from allowing outside gambling interests to influence the outcomes of games.
Look at boxing. Was the number 2 sport for decades and is now a fringe sport. There are many reasons for that, but one is that fans don't believe the outcomes are determined honestly (which is true, but it's rarely because of gambling).
If you are a player or manager, you must know that betting on baseball means you're done.
Look at it this way. You can be a lawyer if you have beat your wife, or are a drunk or have used drugs. Not if you tamper with a jury, even if it is to help an innocent person go free. Similar standards exist for working in a casino or any number of other jobs. Doesn't matter if you're a good person, or if some other person did something morally worse. The integrity of the field demands zero tolerance of certain behavior and everybody knows that going in.
The real question is can he still get into the HOF after the changes they made last year:
"3. Eligible Candidates -- Candidates to be eligible must meet the following requirements:
A. A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning fifteen (15) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election.
B. Player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons, some part of which must have been within the period described in 3(A).
C. Player shall have ceased to be an active player in the Major Leagues at least five (5) calendar years preceding the election but may be otherwise connected with baseball.
D. In case of the death of an active player or a player who has been retired for less than five (5) full years, a candidate who is otherwise eligible shall be eligible in the next regular election held at least six (6) months after the date of death or after the end of the five (5) year period, whichever occurs first.
E. Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate."
Source: http://baseballhall.org/hall-of-famers/bbwaa-rules-for-election
They let Barry Bond be a coach, but Pete can't be. What bullshit... How many lives did the druggies ruin ? Young men forced to bulk up or forget making the majors. Too many made the wrong choice. Baseball could give a shit less what is going on, unless it affects the bottom line.
Quote: muleyvoiceThey let Barry Bond be a coach, but Pete can't be. What bullshit... How many lives did the druggies ruin ? Young men forced to bulk up or forget making the majors. Too many made the wrong choice. Baseball could give a shit less what is going on, unless it affects the bottom line.
Before Barry Bonds ever used drugs the Sports Writers gave two NL MVP awards to drug users instead of Bonds. They also voted to put drug users in the Hall-of-Fame (and they continued to do so even after Bonds started using). Before Bonds ever used drugs other sports had drug testing for over 25 years, yet both management and players insisted to keep drug testing out of baseball.
Had Bonds not been born in the 1960s, he wouldn't have been playing baseball at a time when everyone involved (media, fans, management, and other players) encouraged drug use. Had he been born in the 90s, he would be ahead of Trout and Harper.
Quote: muleyvoiceHow many lives did the druggies ruin ?
Far less than the number of lives ruined by the War on Drugs
Quote: kewljHow about hitter? Perhaps the single most important skill of the game. He is the all-time hit leader!
The last 900 hits of his career came when he was a below average player. Had his teams simply had an average first baseman for those years they would have won more games. Over 75% of Rose's hits were singles. The value of a single is less than 1/3 the value of a home run. Rose hit a home run in only 1% of all plate appearances. For comparison Dick Allen hit a home run in almost 5%. A walk is about 72% as valuable as a single. While Rose did walk a fair amount (10% of all PA compared to 8.5% for the rest of the league), it is still well behind many other all-time great hitters. Jeff Bagwell walked in 15% of all PA.
Rose is obviously ahead of Allen and Bagwell due to longevity. Overall as a hitter, Rose is probably outside of the top 50 in history. Only ranked in the top 10 in OPS three times in his entire career.
Quote: TomGThe last 900 hits of his career came when he was a below average player.
Rose is obviously ahead of Allen and Bagwell due to longevity. Overall as a hitter, Rose is probably outside of the top 50 in history. Only ranked in the top 10 in OPS three times in his entire career.
Just stop.
OPS is a power statistic. Rose wasn't a power hitter. That's like saying Jim Brown wasn't a great football player because he ranks low in TD passes. You are being ridiculous.
In Rose's final 6 seasons, from the time he was 40 years old to he retired at 45 years old, he had 803 hits, for a batting average of .272. Yes, the .272 over that span is 30 points below his lifetime average, but he was in his 40's for god sakes! And by the way that .272 over that time is 12 points higher than the all-time non-pitcher batting average and 19 points higher than all-time first baseman's average. His fielding percentage as a first baseman was .994, which is above the average, so the notion that his teams would have been better with someone else is BS.
You are cherry-picking data to make your case and even at that you are wrong. Let me share some legitimate data.
Pete Rose:
MLB All time hit leader
MLB 2nd all time in doubles
Rookie of the year.
12 time all-star
3 batting titles
1 MVP
5 times top 5 MVP voting
led his team to 8 playoffs and 6 world series and that was an era that only 4 teams per year made the playoffs.
Pete Rose is easily a first ballot Hall of Fame player and easily one of the best baseball players of all-time. If you want to hold the gambling against him, fine, but don't embarrass yourself by trying to make the case he is not deserving.
Pete Rose is 74 years old. He will be voted into the hall of fame almost immediately after his death. For the commissioner to state that the ban remains because Rose continues to gamble on baseball, when there is absolutely nothing illegal about that is ridiculous. It is just being spiteful. And for MLB to allow him to participate in ceremonies and things when it suits their needs (and draws more fans) is super hypocritical.
Quote: AussieOut of interest how did it come out that he was gambling on games? Leaked by a bookie? Friend?
Hello. I don't recall specifically. I think it was the clubhouse phone records and the tap on the bookie's phone. But I'm not sure. Good question. I hope someone answers who actually knows or takes the time to look it up. Have a nice day. Sunny and hot(as usual) here in Thailand. Chinese tourists everywhere.
Quote: kewlj
You are cherry-picking data to make your case and even at that you are wrong. Let me share some legitimate data.
No, that's what you are doing. OPS is a statistic that does a great job measuring how much a player helps his team on offense. OPS has a correlation coefficient to runs scored of 96%. Rose had a lower OPS than Joe Morgan, Tim Raines, Rod Carew, or Rickey Henderson; his was more than 60 points lower than Wade Boggs or Tony Gwynn.
All first basemen in the entire league had a .992 fielding percentage. Rose committed two fewer errors per 1000 chances. And fielding percentage is only a fraction of a players defensive value. All other defenensive stats were below average. Hitting .272, but having very little skill other than hitting singles, is absolutely and unquestionably below average. During those years Jack Clark, for example, hit 122 more home runs than Rose. Those home runs were worth about 12 extra wins. And he also made outs at a lower rate than Rose.
Quote: kewlj
MLB All time hit leader
MLB 2nd all time in doubles
Rookie of the year.
12 time all-star
3 batting titles
1 MVP
5 times top 5 MVP voting
led his team to 8 playoffs and 6 world series and that was an era that only 4 teams per year made the playoffs.
All you show from this is that he was a singles and doubles hitter who was popular enough to earn a lot of votes from the fans and media and also had good teammates. You should give him more credit than that. Mike Piazza won rookie of the year, made 12 All-Star teams, finished second or third in batting average three times, top five in MVP four times (and sixth once). And he was a catcher who hit far more home runs than Rose and made outs at lower rate
Quote: kewljOPS is a power statistic. Rose wasn't a power hitter. That's like saying Jim Brown wasn't a great football player because he ranks low in TD passes. You are being ridiculous.
Every event that happens in the game has a value for how much it helps a team win. You, of all people, should understand that. Each single, double, home run, and out, changes the chance a team wins. When you add up all those values for Rose, it becomes clear that there were quite a few players in baseball history who did better than him. When you add up all those values for Jim Brown it is obvious there were very few players in football history who did better than him.
He was disruptive to the fielding team. He would try to beat out every infield ground ball. If he hit a high fly ball, he would be rounding second just in case the fielder missed the catch. There is a reason he has so many doubles, because 1/2 of them would only be singles to most players who just trot to first base. When you have a guy on your team that is giving 110% on EVERY play, it makes everybody else on the team play harder too.
I agree that Pete has showed no contrition, and the ban on any active baseball participation should stand.
However, Pete should be on the ballot for the HoF, and if the writers weren't such a bunch of two-faced, sanctimonious, pompous a-holes, he would be voted in first round. As has been pointed out, there are many in the HoF who have done much worse things. The HoF was tarnished a long time ago with some of the selections. To hold Pete to a higher standard is just BS.
Quote: kewlj...For the commissioner to state that the ban remains because Rose continues to gamble on baseball, when there is absolutely nothing illegal about that is ridiculous...
Isn't this exactly what casinos do to AP's? We do nothing illegal yet they ban us for life and we don't gripe about that. As far as I'm concerned, all of the caught PED users should be permanently banned too.
PEDs are those little candy capsule things that come out of a dispenser that looks like one of your heroes, like Mickey Mouse, etc, right?Quote: IbeatyouracesIsn't this exactly what casinos do to AP's? We do nothing illegal yet they ban us for life and we don't gripe about that. As far as I'm concerned, all of the caught PED users should be permanently banned too.
No, that was PEZ, nevermind.....
I was going to say that I've never seen a Rose PEDs dispenser.
Never seen a Rose PEZ dispenser either, BTW.
Now I want one....
PEDs
Cheating
Gambling on games you have a COI in
Breaking the legs of another competitor before a match
Things that should not matter:
Wife beating
Dog Fighting
Murder (unless game-related, like you murder a rival competitor or something)
Yes those are all horrible things but they don't affect the game, and sports commissioners should let the law deal with that stuff.
This is why Pete Rose, as far as SPORTS is concerned, is worse than Michael Vick, Ray Rice, and even OJ Simpson.
As a player who had the most hits, played hard every inning, every at bat, every minute? Pete is at the top.
Pete the PLAYER, deserves to be in the HoF.
Pete the person, does not deserve to be any sort of role model, same as wife beaters, dog fighters, and murderers.
Quote: RaleighCrapsAs an upstanding citizen, role model? Pete gets F
As a player who had the most hits, played hard every inning, every at bat, every minute? Pete is at the top.
Pete the PLAYER, deserves to be in the HoF.
Pete the person, does not deserve to be any sort of role model, same as wife beaters, dog fighters, and murderers.
Said the guy with a private harem as an Avatar ;-)
Quote: RaleighCrapsAs an upstanding citizen, role model? Pete gets F
As a player who had the most hits, played hard every inning, every at bat, every minute? Pete is at the top.
Pete the PLAYER, deserves to be in the HoF.
Pete the person, does not deserve to be any sort of role model, same as wife beaters, dog fighters, and murderers.
How about a compromise ? Put Pete in HOF with a wax statue of him in an orange prison suit, with the number 14 on his back, and in handcuffs.
Quote: kewljPete Rose is 74 years old. He will be voted into the hall of fame almost immediately after his death.
Not from what I have read - apparently, although a number of sources say it is a "lifetime" ban, it is actually a "permanent" ban and will apply even after he dies.
