• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

ESPN OTL: Pete Rose bet on baseball while he was a player

Status
Not open for further replies.

Josh5890

Member
As a baseball fan it really stinks to see this story play out the way it has over the years. However like with the steroid era baseball has to move on and if that means Charlie Hustle is out of the hall of fame then so be it.
 

zychi

Banned
Look, if you want to bring up people in the Hall that also have black ethical marks on them then fine, but attacking players that got in because of defense or never being in the postseason (Especially for a player that spent almost his entire career during a period when the only postseason was the World Series and with the Reserve Clause still in effect) is ridiculous. It is not the Hall of Amazing Hitters and Pitchers That Had a Lot of Postseason Experience.
You don't belong in the HOF with a .260 average. You don't belong in the HOF if you're claim is a Sportscenter highlight. It's a career that makes it. My small list I posted is off the top of my head(besides Maz's stats), there's probably worse players than I could have put in there, feel free to google it.

Maz is like a Dave Roberts to me. He started the rally for the Red Sox comeback, was a decent player, but in no way deserves to be in the Hall. Maz got in because of his hr in LA that is shown ever post season. His career isn't a HOF career.

Its the same argument against Edgar Martinez and Ortiz, both barely played defense, and likely won't get into the HOF(Ortiz will before Edgar because of rings). Why do defensive players who cant hit for shit deserve to be in if DHs don't?

The ethical marks refer specifically to Pete's issue. He's a scumbag off the field, like many players and managers, but he does have the hits record and deserves to be in the HOF if scumbags like Bobby Cox do.
 

Trey

Member
There are a fair number of HOF inductees with questionable personal and professional honor and ethics.

without a doubt. But that's the argument they're going to use, and have been been using. As long as the induction is based upon the opinions of writers, there will be discrepancies. There are contexts and degrees to these things - same with all sports.
 
Honestly, the whole betting scandal is nothing to me ( my personal opinion ) but the fact that this man isn't in the HOF is blasphemous.
 

jmdajr

Member
7620790.jpg

didn't take long,

I'm satisfied.
 

terrisus

Member
The ethical marks refer specifically to Pete's issue. He's a scumbag off the field, like many players and managers, but he does have the hits record and deserves to be in the HOF if scumbags like Bobby Cox do.

Except that one is banned from Baseball, and the other is not.
 

Kaladin

Member
One question I think you have to ask.....

Does Pete Rose not being in the Hall of Fame deter baseball players from participating in gambling?

If you think it has, then obviously he needs to remain an example. If you gamble, you're blackballed.
 

SummitAve

Banned
I don't know why Pete or anybody is still so interested in him joining the HOF after all these years. What's the point other than making a few headlines and putting a few more bucks in Pete's pockets?
 

zychi

Banned
Except that one is banned from Baseball, and the other is not.
Is your "one" referring to the player/manager or the acts? Because both acts are banned from the sport and Bobby was never punished because his abused wife dropped the charges.
 

terrisus

Member
Is your "one" referring to the player/manager or the acts? Because both acts are banned from the sport and Bobby was never punished because his abused wife dropped the charges.

From my sentence structure and the quote that I was replying ti, it should be pretty clear that I was referring to one of those two people is banned from Baseball, and the other person isn't.
Hopefully that clears it up, though.

Being banned from Baseball makes you ineligible for the Hall of Fame.
 
Why does postseason play matter at all? Not sure why you brought it up as some sort of qualifier.

Yeah especially at a time when only one team out of each league made the "postseason". Heck the World Series was viewed as an exhibition game back then and winning the pennant was more important.

edit: Oh yes, Billy Pierce should be in the HOF before it's too late. Minnie Minoso unfortunately never had the opportunity despite being deserving.
 

zychi

Banned
Why does postseason play matter at all? Not sure why you brought it up as some sort of qualifier.
Because there all players with outstanding postseason careers still not in the hof(the whole point of sport is to win btw) while guys with no experience whatsoever made it in.

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/287142-the-best-pitchers-not-in-the-hof-who-got-overlooked

Does a real good indepth look at pitchers who should be in over some of the guys already in there
 

zychi

Banned
From my sentence structure and the quote that I was replying ti, it should be pretty clear that I was referring to one of those two people is banned from Baseball, and the other person isn't.
Hopefully that clears it up, though.

Being banned from Baseball makes you ineligible for the Hall of Fame.
Totally.
I mean "one" is such a descriptive term. One should try and post quick jabs and smartass remarks in everything like one does.
 

terrisus

Member
Because there all players with outstanding postseason careers still not in the hof(the whole point of sport is to win btw)

In case you missed it, it takes more than one player to make the postseason.
Plus, there are more teams in the postseason now.

Evaluating individual players based on what their team as a whole did is rather absurd.


Totally.
I mean "one" is such a descriptive term. One should try and post quick jabs and smartass remarks in everything like one does.

Despite the fact that I felt it should be obvious, I clarified my point.
You're free to respond to it now if you would like.
 

LJ11

Member
Because there all players with outstanding postseason careers still not in the hof(the whole point of sport is to win btw) while guys with no experience whatsoever made it in.

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/287142-the-best-pitchers-not-in-the-hof-who-got-overlooked

Does a real good indepth look at pitchers who should be in over some of the guys already in there

zychi, winning is a team game. Winning shouldn't factor into anything on an individual level. Yes, your performance contributes to Ws, but if the rest of the squad is league average or worse, does it matter that you couldn't get over the hump and get into the playoffs? Others have already pointed out how the playoffs are a different beast from what they used to be.

I agree with you that there are good players that have not been recognized and bad players that are, but playoffs/postseason/Ws shouldn't really matter. Leave that to shitty sports writers, and Tebow lovers.

Edit: I should have put bad in quotations, they aren't bad just not hall of fame good.
 
You don't belong in the HOF with a .260 average. You don't belong in the HOF if you're claim is a Sportscenter highlight. It's a career that makes it. My small list I posted is off the top of my head(besides Maz's stats), there's probably worse players than I could have put in there, feel free to google it.

Maz is like a Dave Roberts to me. He started the rally for the Red Sox comeback, was a decent player, but in no way deserves to be in the Hall. Maz got in because of his hr in LA that is shown ever post season. His career isn't a HOF career.

Yes, that was part of it, but he's also probably the greatest defensive second baseman of all-time. And even then he only got in because of the Veterans Committee.

Its the same argument against Edgar Martinez and Ortiz, both barely played defense, and likely won't get into the HOF(Ortiz will before Edgar because of rings). Why do defensive players who cant hit for shit deserve to be in if DHs don't?

Oh, I think DHs should certainly be considered as well. Edgar Martinez should be in the Hall although I'm iffy on Ortiz

The ethical marks refer specifically to Pete's issue. He's a scumbag off the field, like many players and managers, but he does have the hits record and deserves to be in the HOF if scumbags like Bobby Cox do.

Oh, I don't argue that the standards are far from consistent.

Sometimes I forget that he managed the 2012 Red Sox.
Repressed memories, I guess >.>

I'm not sure "managed" is quite the right word for it.
 

dork

Banned
And I'm still willing to forgive the guy and let him in the HoF.
Agreed. Unless he bet AGAINST his team it doesn't matter one bit. Not advantage was gained. And if he did bet on his teams to win. Oh well...so he thought his team was going to win the game? Every player should.

Also apparently this is old news as it was published in his book in 2004 that he bet on that year.
 

terrisus

Member
Agreed. Unless he bet AGAINST his team it doesn't matter one bit. Not advantage was gained. And if he did bet on his teams to win. Oh well...so he thought his team was going to win the game? Every player should.

Both of these points have been brought up, discussed, and addressed earlier in this thread - multiple times.
 

Redd

Member
Sorry but Fuck Pete Rose. Keep him out forever because he bet on baseball while still in the game. Shocked so many want him in the hall. And if anyone is ever found out they betted on baseball while active and are in the hall should get banned too.
 
Pete got banned during a very different time when the integrity of the game meant something, even if it's more of a joke now.

He maintained for YEARS AND YEARS that although he bet, he never bet on his own team as a manager (implying that it wasn't as bad as we thought?) He swore to that for...seriously how long? Then the last time this became a big discussion, he finally admitted 'the truth' as a way, not of coming clean, but as a wedge of good faith he could ride into the hall of fame. At the same time, he swore that he never bet on games as a player.

Now would you look at that, he was still telling a lie. When would he admitted that if it wasn't revealed for him?

IF he said told the total truth when it happened, it might have been worse at the time but by now, that wound would have healed and he would be in the hall of Fame. But we got a partial truth and every time he revealed more, he still swore that part of the allegations were not true. He actually had a chance to make this right and had that chance for a very long time. I don't really know or care about the implications of gambling on the game, then or now. I say let him into the Hall 30 years after we finally have the entire admission of truth from him. It looks like he just reset the clock again.
 

AkuMifune

Banned
People should be allowed to bet on themselves. It's only extra motivation to play hard. What the hell is wrong with that?

And yes, it's proven he never bet against himself or his team.
 
If they're not going to put him in the Baseball Hall of Fame then Vince should put him in the WWE Hall of Fame. He deserves it.

Edit: Wait, he's in it already? Boy was that forever ago.
 
People should be allowed to bet on themselves. It's only extra motivation to play hard. What the hell is wrong with that?

And yes, it's proven he never bet against himself or his team.

It's proven? How so?

They can't even tabulate all the bets he made because many of them are illegible.
 

Timedog

good credit (by proxy)
Who gives a shit? Did he throw games? Did he bet against himself? If not, it's been decades now, been long enough to get over it.
 

TAJ

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
It can imply that you know of a fix and are betting on that knowledge.

Oh boy, conspiracy theories now. Did he short airline stocks before 9/11, too?
 

kirby_fox

Banned
Considering all the other issues in baseball over the years, I'm surprised this is the one they've not let go of.

There could be a whole section just on the wrongdoings of baseball in the HoF.
 

HBP

Member
Considering all the other issues in baseball over the years, I'm surprised this is the one they've not let go of.

There could be a whole section just on the wrongdoings of baseball in the HoF.

The main issue is steroids were never against the rules at that point, but betting on baseball had a rule of a lifetime ban. I understand why people disagree but "rules are rules".
 
The main issue is steroids were never against the rules at that point, but betting on baseball had a rule of a lifetime ban. I understand why people disagree but "rules are rules".

Steroids in baseball were against the rules since 1990.
Congress tried to crack down on them and Fay Vincent released a memo in 1991.

"The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is strictly prohibited. Major League players or personnel involved in the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game…

This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription."

Technically they were illegal, but there was no testing taking place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom