No HOF For Pete
 

Just heard on the radio that there will be no HOF for Pete Rose. Bummer imo for such a great Baseball player.

Good

Ha Ha, Pete!

I think he's done adequate penance, at this point. Let the punishment fit the crime. I would reinstate him.

I agree. He's not OJ Simpson. Or Hernandez from the Patriots. He deserves to be reinstated. People can make their own judgement.

I would put him in the Hall of Fame solely on the basis of two things he said. One, "I'd walk through hell in a gasoline suit to play baseball." Two, when asked why he was taking batting practice on a day off following a doubleheader in which he went 6 for 8, he said, "They got me out twice."

He is banned from baseball activity not the HOF according to the commissioner...

Later in that paragraph, Manfred concludes:


The issue of whether Mr. Rose should be eligible for Hall of Fame election under the bylaws of that organization presents an entirely different policy determination that is focused on a range of considerations distinct from the more narrow question before me — i.e., whether I believe that Mr. Rose's reinstatement would be consonant with the policy rationale underlying Rule 21. Thus, any debate over Mr. Rose's eligibility for the Hall of Fame is one that must take place in a different forum.


http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-bi...183831192.html

That's sort of disingenuous because the HOF decades ago adopted a policy that anyone on the lifetime MLB baned list was also ineligible for the Hall, and obviously Manfred knows that and knows it isn't going to change.

They could always change it. You never know.

That said, I'd let him in since there's no evidence he bet against the Reds.

Good

Keep the guy out.

He bet, he lied, he accepted his punishment.
He showed no remorse continuing to lie for decades.
He made his bed, he has no one to blame but himself.
Not the Commissioner, not the voters, not anyone but Pete.
Keep him out - forever IMO.

Agreed. It has also come out recently that even after "admitting" what he had done he continued to lie about betting as a player. Not to mention he's never stopped betting on baseball and still does so today. In my opinion he hasn't done much to help his case and doesn't deserve to be in the HOF.

They haven't let Jackson in, and it's been almost 100 years. I don't believe Rose will get in any sooner than that, and if I were to bet it would be on him never getting in.

One of my favorite players as a kid. Even had one of those big Sports Illustrated posters of him hanging in my room for years. My first year collecting baseball cards was 1982 and I remember being thrilled by all the Rose cards in the Topps set that year (I believe he had 5 total).

I was all for lifting the suspension until I saw several reports that stated that he is still betting on baseball and initially lied to Manfred about it. If that's the case then I say Kudos to Manfred.

So he said "I'd walk through hell in a gasoline suit to play baseball." but he won't quit betting on the sport to help him get the reinstatement he claims he wants so bad.

It's shame he isn't in the Hall but I really feel he has nobody to blame but himself at this point.

Who cares if he is betting on baseball today? Does somebody have to be a good guy or have no vices to make the HOF? Millions of people bet on baseball. He has already served a sentence far disproportionate to his relevant offense. Is he a jerk? Sure, but so what? Too much sanctimony for me.

The point is he lied about it again. If it's not a big deal that he's betting on baseball now, why did he lie?

Because he is a compulsive liar, probably. And has terrible judgment. But again, so what? He committed an offense, he served a disproportionate sentence, and it's time to recognize him for the great and unbelievably competitive baseball player he was.

Disproportionate in what sense? There are still people who are banned spanning a 100 years ago. How has Pete Rose's sentence been especially harsh?

He didn't throw any games, or compromise the integrity of a single played game, as far as we know. He didn't cheat in any games. He didn't use banned substances. He didn't commit any violent crimes off the field. For what he did, in my opinion, a lifetime ban is excessive. Way excessive.

Well I would say the only reason we don't know for sure if he threw any games is because he's constantly lying about what he did or didn't do. So his own actions serve to cast doubt on his story. Everything happening to him is his own doing.

We can only go by what we know in punishing someone. Given how incredibly competitive he was, I doubt it though.

You don't think he ever tweaked his bullpen or kept a starter in longer (or shorter) than normal because he placed greater emphasis on a game he was betting? Gave a guy extra rest or less rest because a particular game was important--not to the standings as much as to his wallet? I mean, as competitive as he was and all.

In other words, he tried too hard to win? That sounds like complete speculation to me. In any event, I am not defending what he did or saying it had no possible consequences. I am saying, enough is enough.

Yeah, I'm sure he never planned anything out. Probably bet a couple large then noticed he had his #4 starter going against the other team's ace. Oh well.
And if he was close to winning but it meant he had to bring his closer in for the second straight game and he was betting tomorrow's game but not today's, I'm sure that had no influence on him. Because you know, it's all speculation and he deserves the benefit of every doubt.

No, Todd, what he deserves is to be punished or not on the basis of the evidence, not speculation about what he might or might not have done. Not to mention a FAIR punishment based on that evidence. People who have admitted to repeated use of banned substances to enhance their performance remain eligible to play, and for the Hall. We punish them, they serve their time, and move on. Yet Rose deserves a lifetime ban? Absurd.

I could not disagree more. When there is a clear and unequivocal prohibition against gambling, you are on notice. When others before you have been banned for life for violating that prohibition, you are on notice. When you admit that you bet on baseball, you are guilty of violating that prohibition. That admission has not been recanted, and ample other evidence supports the finding of guilt. Add to that the fact that he agreed to his own punishment, and it's even harder to make a case for him.

And now, he admits he STILL bets on baseball, when the rule STILL exists that you may not do so. So it's any kind of surprise that he is not allowed to hold a MLB position? He has not changed, is not remorseful or contrite (other than about his own plight), and is still not forthright. I see zero points in his favor for reinstatement.

How many guys were on notice that PEDs were banned yet took them repeatedly and admitted to it? Do you want to punt them? PED use has effed up the integrity of the game a hell of a lot more than Pete Rose as manager betting on his own team to win, or Pete Rose as civilian with no role at all betting.

Didn't he admit to betting on the Reds but with the caveat that he never bet on them to lose? That's BS and even if it's not, it draws a clear line toward manipulating a game's outcome due to your personal bet on a game. That's why gambling isn't allowed. No one faults a guy for winning. But if your motivation is to win more money as opposed to competing, you are breaking cardinal rules.

And that's only IF you believe him that he didn't bet against his own team. Which is something people don't have any reason to believe because he lies about everything.

Poor Pete. Not !

I submit that one of the reasons baseball has such a hard and fast rule--strict liability if you will-- is because it is difficult to prove with exactness a man's motives when participating in a game. Did the guy really go 0-5 and strand 7 baserunners against that tomato can he normally owns because of an off day or because he bet on the game? Did the manager go against all baseball sense to win this one game (e.g. closer goes 3 innings for first time) at the possible expense of the next because this game means more in the overall picture or because he has $ riding on it? The public's perception that the game might be crooked cannot be allowed, so the rule is harsh, but it is clear, and virtually never violated.

We aren't debating whether he should have been punished. He should have, and he was -- for 25 years. When ARod admits to multiple PED violations and is back at third base after a year, it seems to me Rose's sentence is grossly disproportionate. Nobody HAS to vote for him if he's eligible, by the way. If people feel like you do, he won't get in.

I think there's a big difference between PED use and betting on games. PED use doesn't necessarily create a pre-determined outcome. If you're the manager of a baseball team and you're betting on your own games, then an argument can be made that the game you're betting on is a sham. If you bet on your team to lose, you're going to try to lose. And like I said, there's no reason to believe Rose when he says he never bet on the Reds to lose. He is a compulsive liar.

Did you not see that he continues to engage in the very conduct that is prohibited under MLB rules? No contrition, no rehabilitation, repeated lying and disparagement of others all those years while he steadfastly denied his guilt and impugned his accusers --even a dead man. Why in the hell should this guy be allowed back in the game? What on Earth makes you think he would not continue to bet on baseball?

If you're so bothered by his absence from the HOF, make your pitch there. It is not disingenuous to have that body change its stance on who it deems eligible; in fact, I would argue that it is easier and invokes less potential heartburn for the game if that body were to change rather than to expect MLB to loosen its rules or allow this continuing fool to have any kind of official or acknowledged position in the game.

EDITED TO ADD: Peter, I just saw an earlier post where you say who cares if he still bets on baseball? That is a total non-starter, not just with me but I would guess nearly everyone. Dear MLB, change your rules that prohibit your members from betting on baseball? Why? I dunno. Ask Peter Spaeth.

The prohibition on betting doesn't go away as long as a person bets on their team to win. Even if a person bets their team to win, it opens up the obvious risk of blackmail as soon as the first bet is made, whether it is to win or lose on a player or manager's own team.

I am all for Rose being banned forever. The punishment does fit the crime.

There is, I suspect, zero chance the HOF would say someone who is banned for life from MLB is still eligible for induction.

And I don't care if he bets on baseball now. What possible difference can it make if Pete Rose bets on a game? By the way Gaylord Perry probably broke the rules every time he pitched, were you against his induction? And answer me please about ARod.

I have no idea what you're asking about Arod, and I don't really care. Arod was accused of engaging in conduct prohibited under a collectively bargained labor agreement. The process and potential punishments were spelled out and agreed to by labor and management. He went through the process, and even challenged it in court. A decision was made that comported with the law and the CBA. Issue over.

If Pete Rose wants to challenge his treatment in court, I say go for it big fella. Similarly, if he wants to have the players bargain next time around for the right to bet on baseball or for certain specified lesser punishments if they are found to have bet, or even for any kind of retroactive relief for Pete himself, he can focus his energies there. Good luck with that.

You're missing the forest for the trees, and framing the issue in a misleading way. Obviously the collective bargaining agreement has nothing to do with Rose's situation from a literal point of view. And nobody is suggesting Rose has any recourse, legal or otherwise. Straw man argument. My point is simply one of what I view as fundamental fairness, and I believe the ARod case for all its differences suggests, at the level of the forest (not the trees), that Rose has been punished enough for what he did.

Now, answer my question, do you believe Gaylord Perry should be in the Hall of Fame, or not, and why?

No it is not strawman argument. No I will not keep answering your questions about other players. Call me fundamentally unfair. I could not care less.

Indeed.

Yes indeed.

Does the HOF not feel incomplete without Pete? It is almost becoming laughable as to who is in and who is not allowed or not getting voted in. How can you have a HOF without the all time HR and Hits leaders?

he deserves to be in the hall. shouldn't be such a popularity contest.

I have no issue with keeping Pete out of baseball, I do have issue with keeping him out of the Hall of Fame, and as long as Pete is not enshrined, I will never step foot or spend a single dollar in the HOF.

I don't really care if he bets, but from the reports I heard when questioned on it he initially lied/mislead Manfred.

Also from what I understand they let him know that if he stayed away from gambling and other questionable activities that would really help his case on getting the ban lifted.


I just don't think it's really to important to ol Charlie Hustle, I think what's important to him is making a buck.

That's a good point. Why should people get so lathered up about this when it doesn't even matter to Pete enough to make an effort to modify his behavior. Of course it can be a Hall of Fame w/o him, it is every day and will continue to be. He is much more a pathetic as opposed to sympathetic figure to me.

After thinking about it a bit maybe Pete should be thankfull that he is not being handed the keys to the Hall Of Fame or maybe it should be the Hall Of Shame.. Here is a little article about the Booze Guzzling, Pill Popping, Racist, Womenizers who are all Hall Of Famers adored by millions of baseball fans...

Yup Pete maybe it's a blessing you are not being recognized as one of the greatest to play the game..


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/sp...famy.html?_r=0

It is a blessing for Rose not to be in the Hall of Fame? Like Rose wouldn't instantly revel in the joy of being in the Hall of Fame.

The problem with those types of articles is that they try to justify or rationalize Rose breaking the Cardinal rule of baseball by setting up a strawman and claiming that other people in the Hall of Fame are even worse. Where is the prohibition in major league clubhouses against the various acts committed by other players? The prohibition against betting on games is crystal clear and explicit.

+1 big time, Hell, 26 years is enough punishment. Look at others in the Hall, some have very shaky backgrounds....

I fall on the side of it being the "baseball" hall of fame not the "personality and upstanding moral character" hall of fame.

To leave out the all time hits leader, home run record holders, arguably the best pitcher in history, and others in a misguided attempt to legislate character takes the credibility of this being a shrine to the "greatest to play the game" and rumples it like a ball of discarded paper into a trash bin.

Do I like them all?

Hell no.

Should the best to play the game be in the hall of fame no matter what?

Hell yes.

+1 , We should all start a Boycott of the HOF and maybe then they change their holier-than-thou ways.