Interesting ESPN poll regarding Pete Rose's lifetime ban

[the 'stache]

Thus far over a quarter million people have voted, and more than 80% feel that Pete Rose's lifetime ban should be rescinded. I happen to agree.

What a splash the incoming Baseball Commissioner could make if he overturned it.

I feel that Rose broke the rules. But there's no way I feel that doing so should have meant a lifetime ban. I felt that he should have had a ten year ban, which would have made him wait for Hall induction. I would have even been ok with making it longer. But a lifetime ban? No way. Pete Rose wasn't a criminal. He was a gambling addict. Lifting that ban would be the right thing to do. If I'm an incoming Commissioner, showing that I'm capable of leniency and compassion where it is warranted would be a wonderful way to start off on the right foot.

What do you all think?

[drcy]

Every MLB locker room had a large sign that said if you're caught gambling you'll be banned for life. Couldn't he read?

He's never admitted to the full extent of his betting. That comes first. I believe gambling an addiction, but, as with an addiction, admitting to misdeeds and apologizing for what should be apologized for is a requirement of addressing it. And it should certainly be part of having his ban lifted. His fans don't get to admit and apologize for him. He has to do that himself.

When I see these serial lying PED users who act as if they're Clint Eastwood tough guys, Roger Clemens in particular, I think "A man would tell the truth." Clemens hasn't acted like a man. He's acted like an oversized six year old. Which should give insight into how I consider a so-called 'wronged man' like Rose. If he's continuing to lie and obfuscate, he's continuing to get what he deserves. Baseball's 'homer' fans are classic enablers, and enablers, hurt rather than help addicts.

But, as I said, if and when he finally comes clean, I'd reconsider the issue and might think the ban should be lifted.

All IMO, of course.

[HRBAKER]

Pete was his own worst enemy - he lied and lied for years and showed absolutely no contrition at all. You don't have to be a criminal to receive a lifetime ban from baseball. IMO baseball owes him nothing. I am fine either way - let him back in or keep him out. Also rescinding his ban doesn''t mean he'll ever be voted into the HOF.

[nolemmings]

"Keep Out !!!"

[Econteachert205]

I have huge issues with the hall in general, how players are voted in and the academics who have nothing to do with the game except to keep people out (landis, Kuhn, Bart g, bud). To be honest I would like to see pete get in only because of the type of people it would piss off to watch him ramble through a no doubt unwatchable acceptance speech. The whole hall was poisoned by the 1950's anyway when it got watered down by cronyism.

[bnorth]

In my opinion Pete should never be allowed in the HOF not even to visit.

[Jim65]

He gambled on baseball knowing full well what the possible punishment was, and lied about it for years, he only admitted gambling to sell a book. I hope his ban is never lifted.

[brewing]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

I have huge issues with the hall in general, how players are voted in and the academics who have nothing to do with the game except to keep people out (landis, Kuhn, Bart g, bud). To be honest I would like to see pete get in only because of the type of people it would piss off to watch him ramble through a no doubt unwatchable acceptance speech. The whole hall was poisoned by the 1950's anyway when it got watered down by cronyism.

Couldn't agree more.

Additionally the PED issue adds to the hypocrisy of the Hall. A. Why is it ok managers with inflated win totals and WS titles because of PED get a pass? B. Last I checked using PEDs were no more illegal in MLB as smoking marijuana until the recent past.
I think Rose, Clemens, and Bonds are all narcissistic assholes, but they belong the greats of the game.

[clydepepper]

During his career, I was a big Pete Rose fan...but, nobody, I mean NOBODY is above the game.

I steadfastly remain in the minority (19%) on this one.

My regret is that Bart Giamatti did not live long enough to be seriously considered for Cooperstown...he did more for the honor of the game in his short time in office than many do in their lifetimes.

Bart Fans...are you out there?

[Shoebox]

I dont think Pete should be allowed to work in baseball in any capacity. That ban should remain in place. The HOF is a seperate entity and he should never have been made ineligible in my opinion. Put him on the ballot and if he gets the votes he is in. His plauqe should detail his accomplishments and the reasons for his ban. I also wouldnt give him a chance to make an induction speech. He can be included without being honored.

Off topic rants about the HOF process. It will always burn my ass that the VC didnt get Ron Santo in prior to his death. Any voter that changed their vote from No to Yes after his death ipitomizes everything that is wrong with the system.

Amphetimine use was rampant in baseball for 30 years. It is a PED. No one seems interested in excluding/exposing this class of PED users but declare 0 tolerance for another. Also steriods werent invent in the mid-90s. I wouldnt be shocked to learn that a few players generally regarded as certainly clean from a decade prior had used. Instead of witch hunting and using a compiled numbers checklist for HOF induction how about evaluating players based smong their standing among their contemporary peers? I guess it takes too much thought to try to determine if Craig Biggio was an elite player during his career than to just look and see did he get 3000 hits?

[KCRfan1]

I have no problem with Rose in the Hall. Rule 21 talks about the betting on games, and conduct detrimental to the game, which does not go into specifics yet casts a broad umbrella. It also covers that players need to give their best efforts to win the game. I don't know about the rest of you, but I see players dogging it in every game. So, if we are to folow the " rules ", most of the Hall is going to be empty afterwards due mostly to conduct detrimental to the game.

[DHogan]

Originally Posted by Jim65

He gambled on baseball knowing full well what the possible punishment was, and lied about it for years, he only admitted gambling to sell a book. I hope his ban is never lifted.

+1

[Section103]

He signed an agreement with the commissioner accepting the lifetime ban. I dont see anything he's done to warrant overturning that agreement. Rather, if anything, I think his actions moved in the wrong directions since.

On a more nuanced view, I dont necessarily have a problem with him being in the HOF. In general, I tend to prefer players get in strictly on performance. Lay out their stories in full for the public to read. Present it to the player in advance of him going into the Hall. He can accept and go in or decline and stay out.

[CMIZ5290]

I personally think that if Rose would have immediately come clean, he would not have been banned. His dishonesty with the Commissioner was his undoing... Even though gambling is a big time violation, I honestly don't view it in the same respect as the steroid scandal. Let's be honest, how many athletes gamble? How many of us gamble? A ton.. I am not dismissing it as a serious character flaw, because it is. But his talents and records on the field had nothing to do with that. This guy loves baseball more than anyone I can think of, period.. Forget McGwire, Bonds, Clemons, etc.... I remember Bonds with the Pirates having a 30 inch waist, McGwire was skinny with the A's. Yes, they are not in the Hall and rightly so..There are guys in the Hall right now that were guilty of the same wrong doings, just different circumstances and times...Cobb, Speaker come to mind, as fantastic as they were... Rose should be part of baseball.....Just my opinion...And, he was the best competitor I ever saw....

[EvilKing00]

He should be in the hof as a player. He gambled as a manager and he should not be alloud to work in mlb again, but his efforts on the field show he is a hof player

[HRBAKER]

It's not that he gambled or other players gamble or whether we gamble Kevin, it's that he gambled on baseball. Lied and lied and lied and then as was pointed out, came "clean" to sell books. Nobody but Pete has put Pete in the place that he's in. Poor, poor Pete.

[the 'stache]

You know guys, I may be having a change of heart here, only because it seems I might have been wrong on one very important fact. It's always been my understanding that he bet on baseball, and on the Cincinnati Reds, while he was a manager, and not a player. As such, I've always made the very important distinction that Rose did nothing while he was an active player that would have warranted his inclusion on the ineligible list. Because of that, I've felt that Rose should be in the Hall of Fame as a player, and banned from the game (including any future employment with baseball) because of his actions as a manager.

But Rose, for the first few years he managed, was still a player. So, my feelings on this matter would change if it's shown that he gambled on baseball at all between 1984 and 1986. If he did, then I do not feel he should be removed from the ineligible list. If he only gambled when he was a manager only, then I feel he should be removed from the ineligible list so the Baseball Writers have the opportunity to consider him for Cooperstown. He should otherwise be banned from baseball.

I've been looking on Google to try and find an answer as to when he started gambling, and thus far, I haven't been able to find an answer. But I wish to amend my earlier post. If Rose gambled even once, even if it was on his last day as a player/manager, then his entire playing career is tainted, and he should never be in the Hall. But if he gambled while he was a manager only, I feel a distinction needs to be made. I don't feel that Rose the played should be penalized because of what Rose the manager did.

[the 'stache]

Double post.

[brewing]

Dowd claimed he bet on baseball in 1985 & 1986, while a player/manager.

I can't find it, but there were sources that stated Rose could have had a limited ban if he would have admitted betting on baseball in 1989.

I'm fine with the ban from MLB, it's the exclusion from the Hall that I have an exception to. Of course I think the Hall is a farce and would discount it completely if there was a legitimate alternative.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by brewing

Dowd claimed he bet on baseball in 1985 & 1986, while a player/manager.

I can't find it, but there were sources that stated Rose could have had a limited ban if he would have admitted betting on baseball in 1989.

I'm fine with the ban from MLB, it's the exclusion from the Hall that I have an exception to. Of course I think the Hall is a farce and would discount it completely if there was a legitimate alternative.

If a credible source is stating that Rose bet on the game while he was still playing it, then that would change my position.

It's just too bad, because he was an exceptional ballplayer.

[the 'stache]

Argh, another double post. Time to reboot, something is acting weird.

[packs]

Rose was a compulsive gambler, which in most instances also turns you into a compulsive liar.

He claims to have never bet against the Reds. Yeah right.

He says he never did anything to attempt to manipulate the outcome of a game. Yeah right.

He says he never bet on a game as a player. Yeah right.

Even if he didn't bet on a game until he was a manager, do people not see how problematic that is? He is the manager in charge of a game. He has full ability to sub in a pitcher, take a pitcher out, sub in a pinch hitter, not play a particular player on a given day, etc. Anyone who believes him when he says he didn't bet against the Reds is fooling themselves. Since when do compulsive gamblers chasing money have ethics about what they gamble on?

There will never be any way to know what he did or didn't do to manipulate the outcome of games or whether or not he ever lost a game on purpose.

Stay out of baseball. Stay out of the HOF.

[Duluth Eskimo]

One more thing to add about his authority as a manager. If he subs in players or pitchers in one game to ensure his victory in that specific game, only to jeopardize his players or team in a future game that to me would be the much like betting on your team to lose. Not exactly the same, but it makes you think. Jason

PS: I loved Rose as a player, but it's a fact that every locker room specifically has those signs for this exact reason. Rose is a liar and he has always believed that he is above the game and everyone in it.

[packs]

There is just no way that a guy decides to begin gambling when he becomes a manager. And as pointed out, for at least 3 seasons he was a player/manager. Bad behavior starts early. I'm not seeing how anyone can honestly think he wasn't out there gambling and potentially fixing outcomes to his benefit (or at least attempting to) as a player.

[nolemmings]

If I remember right, Dowd had solid evidence that Rose was gambling on baseball in ‘85 and ‘86. Still, Rose may have been too self-absorbed in chasing Cobb to wager much in 1985. After all, he had to pencil himself in at 1b for 500 AB to get the hit record– first base for a guy who had no pop (2 HR), no speed (8 SB), no glove, and a .264 BA. Team first, right Pete? Bet on it.

[brewing]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

After all, he had to pencil himself in at 1b for 500 AB to get the hit record– first base for a guy who had no pop (2 HR), no speed (8 SB), no glove, and a .264 BA. Team first, right Pete? Bet on it.

I agree, but let's be realistic to what the team wanted. Rose was a draw and the Reds benefitted.

[nolemmings]

No doubt. The Reds wanted butts in the seats and for him to get the record, and the team did finish in second place. It was the only fit that would have allowed him to get the record in 1985 and maybe ever-- I doubt any AL team would have plugged him in at DH to get the record in a city where he had no history.

Makes you wonder though. The Reds had Nick Esasky and his 21 HRs in LF. Esasky was basically a 3b and should have played there ahead of old and by then lousy Buddy Bell. Still, they had groomed Esasky for 1b also the year prior. So putting him at first instead of Rose would have freed up outfield ABs for a young Eric Davis and a young Paul O'Neill.

Hey, I've got more than enough disgust about Rose's gambling, lying and arrogance for this '85 lineup thing to really matter to me, but just thought it helped take some of the polish off of the "Pete Rose was all about winning" mantra.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

If a credible source is stating that Rose bet on the game while he was still playing it, then that would change my position.

It's just too bad, because he was an exceptional ballplayer.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2798498

On Thursday, John Dowd, who authored the report chronicling Rose's gambling as a member of the Reds, told "Cold Pizza" on ESPN2 that Rose was mostly right when he said he bet on every Reds game.

Dowd told the program that Rose did not bet at all in the 1987 season when Mario Soto or Bill Gullickson pitched. He also said that Rose bet while he was playing.

[CMIZ5290]

Interesting feedback. Here on Net54, the majority of those who gave input are against Rose's reinstatement. According to ESPN's Poll (last I saw was 275,000 plus), 83% were for his reinstatement...Wow, go figure....

[71buc]

I loved him as a player but don't think it would be the best move for the incoming commissioner to reinstate Pete now or ever. He thought he was bigger than the game and disregarded its most important rule. I really don't think we will ever know all there is to know about Rose. What was a player of his stature doing running around with Tommy Gioiosa? Nonetheless, I think Pete is going to be just fine.

[ZachS]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Rose should be in the Hall of Fame as a player, and banned from the game (including any future employment with baseball) because of his actions as a manager.

The quote above covers my opinion.

And Olberman made a great point last night... baseball only wants Pete Rose when it benefits baseball. When a high dollar sponsor (MasterCard) told baseball that they wanted Pete Rose to be at the appearance, baseball took the money and let him be in the ceremony.

There is a great hypocrisy going on. Rose is banned from anything to do with baseball... unless baseball can make money off him.

[packs]

As has been pointed out, Rose was both a manager and a player at the same time. His actions as a manager were the same as his actions as a player. If he should be banned for one, he should be banned for the other too.

[brewing]

Why ban him from the HoF too?

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by ZachS

The quote above covers my opinion.

And Olberman made a great point last night... baseball only wants Pete Rose when it benefits baseball. When a high dollar sponsor (MasterCard) told baseball that they wanted Pete Rose to be at the appearance, baseball took the money and let him be in the ceremony.

There is a great hypocrisy going on. Rose is banned from anything to do with baseball... unless baseball can make money off him.

+1...fantastic point, and spot on....

[Mountaineer1999]

I'm in the apparent minority here but I say he should go in. His crime is not in line with the banned players from the 19 series. If he had intentionally thrown any game then it's obvious to ban him but that's not the case. The way I understand it , he bet on the Reds to win and on other major league games.
Baseball is a game of the people, 80% fan support is an awfully big number to argue against. I don't like what Pete Rose did but I have a bigger issue with steroids and certainly with the 19th century racists that seem to get a free pass.

[RTK]

Originally Posted by packs

Rose was a compulsive gambler, which in most instances also turns you into a compulsive liar.

He claims to have never bet against the Reds. Yeah right.

He says he never did anything to attempt to manipulate the outcome of a game. Yeah right.

He says he never bet on a game as a player. Yeah right.

Even if he didn't bet on a game until he was a manager, do people not see how problematic that is? He is the manager in charge of a game. He has full ability to sub in a pitcher, take a pitcher out, sub in a pinch hitter, not play a particular player on a given day, etc. Anyone who believes him when he says he didn't bet against the Reds is fooling themselves. Since when do compulsive gamblers chasing money have ethics about what they gamble on?

There will never be any way to know what he did or didn't do to manipulate the outcome of games or whether or not he ever lost a game on purpose.

Stay out of baseball. Stay out of the HOF.

Agreed, the clubhouse sign say's NO Gambling! How do we know he didn't, in his own way as manager, try to throw games because he was in debt. It's a sharp distinct line, he crossed it.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

+1...fantastic point, and spot on....

And to me largely irrelevant bc Pete continues to make money basically solely bc of his baseball career. This hasn't prevented him from earning baseball-related money.

[sycks22]

If we believe Rose that he only bet on the Reds to win, how could he affect that outcome? Pretty sure he doesn't want to lose money and if he puts all of his studs on the field and they lose it benefits nobody. If it did come out that he bet against the Reds that's a totally different ball of wax. I say put him in the hall as he bet as a manager and not a player (assuming he didn't bet while he was a player/coach).

[Mountaineer1999]

I say prove it. They need to prove it to me and the other 80% that his betting led to thrown games or he bet on his teams to lose. At least put him on the ballot and let the HOF voters determine his HOF fate.

[HRBAKER]

That's not the way the rule reads, all you have to do is be an idiot and bet. Which he obliged knowingly.

[the 'stache]

You know, one thing that's already been mentioned brings up a fascinating question. Rose had younger players on his team that he could have played, players that you have to believe would have helped the team win at least an extra game or two in 1985. Eric Davis, who would become a superstar the next season, only played in 56 games in 1985. He only batted .247, but in the 122 at bats he got, he hit 8 home runs and stole 16 bases in 19 tries. And an .803 OPS is quite good for a 23 year old part time player. Let's assume he played full time, which, for Davis, never meant more than 500 at bats in a season. He could have had 488 at bats, no problem. At that pace, he hits 32 home runs, and steals 64 bases. Some gentle shuffling of the lineup puts Davis, a future Gold Glover, in the outfield. With him playing instead of Rose, you've improved your defense exponentially. You've added more power and a hell of a lot more speed. The Reds were a much better team with Davis, even though he wasn't yet the player he would eventually become, then they were without him.

So here's that question, and I wonder if anybody has ever thought of this. Did Rose insert himself into the lineup not to get the all-time hits record, but to weaken his team just enough to help his gambling habit? That might sound crazy at first. But is it?

Rose is the manager of the Cincinnati Reds. Unless the team owner or GM stepped in to have Rose fired, Rose was going to continue managing the team, meaning he could continue putting himself into the lineup until the cows came home. He was going to break Cobb's record eventually, and I don't think it mattered to Rose when it happened, so long as it did.

But, if Rose is betting on the game he was about to manage and play in, doesn't taking young and talented Davis out, and putting way past his prime Pete Rose in make it more likely the Reds were going to lose? That coupled with any one of a number of different lineup changes, or substitutions during the game, could have helped give the other team a better chance to win. Remember, when the White Sox threw the 1919 series, they had to bring in Christy Mathewson and a few other former players to watch the game, and see if everything was legit. Joe Jackson was his normal excellent self at the plate. But he, and many of his other teammates, made just a few errors at inopportune moments. And those errors came up big.

The Reds ended up 5.5 games behind the Dodgers. Giving Davis the number of at bats I mentioned would have raised his WAR by 3.3. Now you're 2 games back instead of 5.5. There's pressure on the Dodgers that wasn't here before.

And since we are relatively certain that Rose was betting on baseball while he was a player/manager, I wouldn't put anything by him. Rose knew the game as well as anybody in the game. He knew how to make tiny adjustments that could impact the outcome.

By the way, how good was Eric Davis? He absolutely exploded once he was allowed to play. If you ask me, his 1986 season had one of the most absolutely stupid stat lines I've ever seen. A .277 average, 97 runs score, a slash line of .378/.523/.901 at age 24...with 27 home runs and 80 stolen bases...in 415 at bats. He only played in 132 games, and he hit 27 home runs, and stole 80 bases. Forget the games played, and look at the at bats. Now, he never approached 600 at bats in a season, but he should have. And if Davis had come to the plate 600 times that season, he'd have hit about 40 home runs, and he would have stolen about 120 bases. He had as much God given ability as anybody that I've seen. It's too bad that he wasn't able to play longer. The next season, 1987, he played in only 129 games. 474 at bats. He scored 120 runs, had 37 home runs, drove in 100 runs, and stole 50 bases in 56 tries. And walked 84 times. A .991 OPS with 50 stolen bases. And a Gold Glove in center field. Eric Davis could have broken records if it weren't for the injuries he suffered when he played. He is one of the very best power and speed combinations the game has ever seen. He was insanely good as a base stealer. Not only did he steal a lot, but he was efficient. Before the 1996 season, when he turned 34, and was caught 9 times in 32 attempts, Davis was stealing at a pace pretty much unequaled in the game's history. He'd stolen 306 bases in 351 attempts, which is an eye popping 87.2% success rate. For his career, he stole 349 bases in 415 attempts. That's the 4th best all-time for players with over 300 attempts in the live ball era.

[RTK]

Do we really believe he only bet on the Reds to win? By admitting to betting only to win, he's trying to save his rear end. My guess is, for the "good of baseball", MLB will never show any evidence that Rose bet against the Reds. Gambling is a sickness, addicted people will do anything for their own good.

[packs]

I don't know why anyone would believe a compulsive gambler would take a sucker bet that he knows is impossible to win. I.e. it is not possible to win every single game you play, but you really believe that Rose only bet on the Reds to win? Come on. First he never gambled. Then he did gamble, but it was only in favor of the Reds.

Give me a break.

If Rose did bet on the Reds and bet big, then he would expend all of the resources available to him to win one single game. That could throw the next game, or series of games, into jeopardy.

For example, Rose has a ton of money on the line for the Reds to win. He uses all of his pitchers in an effort to win the game. Now he has no one available for the next game. Isn't he sacrificing tomorrow for today in this situation? No one sees a problem with trying to win for personal profit over trying to win for the good of the team?

[drcy]

Dowd has said the evidence points to Rose betting against the Reds and he believes Rose bet against the Reds.

This "only bet for the Reds" story appears to nothing more than an urban myth concocted by pathological liar (Rose) and repeated by his followers. At this point, only the cognitively challenged take what Rose says as "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth," especially when Dowd contradicts.

[Mountaineer1999]

Damn, You guys are a tough crowd. Cognitively challenged? I had to look that one up. I don't think anyone believes Pete Rose, we supporters just know what he did for the game and how he played the game. Most feel he has served a penalty and should be allowed back. Put him on the ballot and let HOF voters decide, if they say no then it's no. The commissioners office has had a steroids supporting , turn the other cheek because it's making us Money, moron in there for the past 20 something years. Maybe all these cheating steroid users should be banned from the game because they certainly tainted the outcome of games.

[steve B]

The difference is that Baseball has had a policy - A clearly posted one at that - stating that betting is a ban. Until things hit the fan, they had no PED policy whatsoever.

Willie Mays was banned temporarily for simply being an investor in an Atlantic City casino and doing some PR work for them. Not even gambling on baseball, Not necessarily even gambling (Other than the investment ) just being associated that closely with it. Oddly, he was already in the hall, and wasn't removed, but couldn't attend games.

And have we all forgotten that Rose did some other stuff that was pretty sleazy and close to criminal? Stuff involving selling memorabilia that was very questionable? (Not just using multiple bats for every at bat and more than one uniform per game)

Great player? Yes, one of the best ever. And played hard pretty much all the time.
But Banned is banned. He's out and considering how much he did and his attitude about it should remain banned. No Baseball, no HOF.
And yes, the spineless "leadership" that took money to let him be around for a sponsor did nothing to help baseball in general (And should themselves be banned in my opinion. They've simply been useless and detrimental too many times. )

Steve B

[HRBAKER]

Pete Rose is and will always be (IMO) regarded as one of the all-time great baseball players. His banishment doesn't change that. However he is far from any type of sympathetic figure. The punishment he is enduring was brought upon himself solely by himself and is literally what he signed up for and agreed to. Steroids have nothing to do with it.

[bosoxfan]

Originally Posted by drcy

Dowd has said the evidence points to Rose betting against the Reds and he believes Rose bet against the Reds.

This "only bet for the Reds" story appears to nothing more than an urban myth concocted by pathological liar (Rose) and repeated by his followers. At this point, only the cognitively challenged take what Rose says as "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth," especially when Dowd contradicts.

Having evidence pointing to Rose betting against the Reds is simply not true.

With the evidence they have on him, they matched his betting slips with the games he bet on the Reds and found no proof of him even overusing his best pitchers for those games. They certainly never found evidence of him betting against the Reds.

Ban him from baseball, coaching, managing, but put him on the HOF ballot. He'll probably never get voted in anyway

[CMIZ5290]

Here is a huge issue I have...Rose is banned from baseball, but McGwire is a Coach in the MLB? What's wrong with that picture????

[clydepepper]

Here's the only way I would change my stance of being against lifting the ban:

To be fair, since Ron Santo waited and waited and perhaps Minnie Minoso and Luis Tiant will have to do the same, Rose can go in after he's dead (or after I'm dead) whichever comes first...and I feel fine, thank you!