11/23/24
March 14, 2007
Rose admits to betting on Reds every night: Pete Rose revealed Wednesday that he bet on the Reds "every night" while he was manager of the team and that the Dowd Report was correct when it said he did so."I bet on my team to win every night because I love my team, I believe in my team," Rose said. "I did everything in my power every night to win that game."
Big deal! I hate the fact the Hall of Fame keeps him out, who cares about his gambling problem or even if he bet against the Reds, he deserves to be in the Hall and to be remembered for his problems off the field. A great ball player and a crappy human.
posted by SAVANX at 06:05 PM on March 14, 2007
Dear Pete Rose, This is the only way you are getting into the Baseball Hall of Fame during your lifetime. 
Signed, People Who Wish You'd Just Shut Up and Go Away
posted by grum@work at 06:13 PM on March 14, 2007
The comments posted by Mr. Crash Davis seem to reveal the real problem with Pete Rose. He has changed his story so many times. Now he says he did bet on his team. Soon, he'll change his story again and say that he bet against his team and so on. Pete, do us all a favor and just tell the whole story so that we can get on with the business of inducting you in baseball's Hall of Fame while holding up or noses.
posted by cyberfr@aol.com at 06:34 PM on March 14, 2007
Sad story. A mega great baseball player descending to nothing. His fellow members of the big red machine must be silently crying.
posted by Cave_Man at 07:05 PM on March 14, 2007
Let's see here... A man personifies his game by showing others how to hustle, keeps pitchers honest, plays a lot longer than most would, breaks more than one record, is not ashamed to admit his mistakes (which makes him a better man, in my book, than most love-em-and-leave-em-deadbeat-dads), and the good people who run Major League Baseball, who apparently don't think they have a problem with their image(are they old enough to remember Steve Howe?), take the high and mighty approach to ban him. How about it, Bud? You going to admit that Bart and Fay might have made a mistake, too?
posted by dozerhand at 07:10 PM on March 14, 2007
I agree with SAVANX, Pete Rose is a Crappy Human Being (Although Crappy may be a bit mild!)....HOWEVER... Pete Rose DOES belong in the Hall of Fame! Isn't it after all "The BASEBALL Hall of Fame", not the Wonderful People Hall of Fame? If we're judge the players who should be in there both on their accomplishments and on how absolutely wonderful and above reproach they are/were, then by all accounts that I've read, Ty Cobb shouldn't be in the Hall...I've pretty much read what a total Prick he was! And lets' see...Babe Ruth...Nope...a Boozer and Womanizer....Mickey Mantle (See Babe Ruth). Let’s take it further…I have NO DOUBT Barry Bonds gets in despite the reasonably clear fact that he cheated just a bit and it’s likely that in time, maybe Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa also get inducted. I say put Pete Rose in the Hall (and not posthumously after he dies) BUT, with this restriction…HE CANNOT ATTEND the induction ceremony. Part of the greatness of this honor is the interaction with the past Past Greats and the fact that you are standing side-by-side with those other individuals who have been deemed as worthy to be part of the Hall. Personally, in spite of Rose’s being thrilled to finally get inducted, I think that not being able to attend that induction will sting and be just punishment for his “Crimes” against the Purity(?) of Baseball.
posted by R_A_Mason at 07:14 PM on March 14, 2007
I'm completely against rose being allowed into the hall of fame. I'm o.k. with him being a part of baseball in a minor capacity. But the fact that he believes he should be able to manage and there are people who care about the game who agree just blows my mind. is not ashamed to admit his mistakes (which makes him a better man Give me a break. Have you actually followed the story at all? He went years denying any fault. Only when he realized that no one believed him did he start changing his story. He's only admitted facts when it became clear he had no alternative and the admittance would benefit him. Spinning the story as if he's a stand-up guy is comical. than most love-em-and-leave-em-deadbeat-dads Which means nothing in this conversation. then by all accounts I've read, Ty Cobb shouldn't be in the Hall...I've read pretty much what a total Prick he was! And lets' see...Babe Ruth...Nope...a Boozer and Womanizer All having nothing to do with baseball. It has nothing to do with purity. Betting tears at the very integrity of the game. No integrity, no game.
posted by justgary at 07:20 PM on March 14, 2007
He is not banned from baseball because he is a "crappy human being." He is banned from baseball because he bet on B A S E B A L L games involving his own team. I can't believe I just read that: even if he bet against the Reds, he deserves to be in the Hall. I guess there's no stain upon the integrity of the game that would warrant a lifetime ban from the game (as long you're a great ballplayer, of course).
posted by Amateur at 07:23 PM on March 14, 2007
There's no wonder he's not in the Hall, they haven't voted anyone in three of the last five years. Is there no one worthy? Will the roid users get in? 50 years from now we will still be arguing wether he should be there or not. Here's the thing. It's not unlike Shoeless Joe. Phenomenal player vs. Integrity of the Game. The game has to win, and the issue is only pressed by the phenomenal players. Half the story is that they were that good.
posted by sumokenobi at 07:45 PM on March 14, 2007
Anything Rose does or says at this point is anticlimatic because he violated the only cardinal sin in baseball. I seriously doubt he or I will live to see him in the Hall. Shoeless Joe hasd been waiting over 80 years, and what he did was tame next to Rose.
posted by sickleguy at 07:46 PM on March 14, 2007
There's no wonder he's not in the Hall, they haven't voted anyone in three of the last five years. Is there no one worthy? 2003 Eddie Murray, Gary Carter 2004 Paul Molitor, Dennis Eckersley 2005 Wade Boggs, Ryne Sandberg 2006 Bruce Sutter 2007 Tony Gwynn, Cal Ripken Jr. The last year there was a shutout was 1996.
posted by Amateur at 08:06 PM on March 14, 2007
Pete Rose can go to hell. I think he belongs in the Hall, but I also think he should remain outside it until he assumes room temperature. And until that day comes, he needs to live with the hell of being kept away from professional baseball.
posted by rocketman at 08:28 PM on March 14, 2007
A great ball player and a crappy human who dug his own fucking grave by betting on baseball. Fixed that for you.
posted by wfrazerjr at 08:49 PM on March 14, 2007
I'm kind of confused when it comes to Rose. Should we assume he had players throw games? (did he, I don't know). Did he demand players not hit home runs? Did he have pitchers serve up 40mph fast balls? I understand the view point, "he bet on games he managed that alone is bad enough". Did he bet on games he played in? Did he purposely strike out? Since this is the era of the *, why not give him 1 if his transgressions only came as a manager. I say this assuming he only bet as a manager. If betting on a game would offer you an opportunity to want to alter the outcome, doesn't steroid use/cheating do that very thing (bring about an otherwise different outcome)? I just don't think 1 is worse than the other, the intent is the same (IMO). If you're going to ban 1, ban them all (if purity/integrity is truly your concern).
posted by Bishop at 09:16 PM on March 14, 2007
I'm going to say this really slowly.....he.....broke...the....rules. He...gambled...on...baseball. It doesn't matter if he is an asshole or a saint. He...broke...the...rules.
posted by budman13 at 10:07 PM on March 14, 2007
Those in this thread who are arguing that Rose should be allowed in the HOF, mostly seem to be reasoning that the crime of betting should be offset by all the good that he's done. Leaving aside the not inconsiderable fact that the extent of said crime keeps being revised, will you acknowledge that an offense cannot always be nullified with good deeds -- any number of good deeds, of any magnitude? Some offenses are serious enough that they can't be overlooked: if a man is a law-abiding citizen, taxpayer, hard worker, Sunday School teacher, and a friend to small animals, that doesn't give him a pass if he goes home and beats his wife every night. A player or manager betting on baseball is a very big deal, and if you don't understand why, consider that it's a combination of history and a basic conflict of interest. Really, though, by now everybody ought to understand why -- this is old news.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:20 PM on March 14, 2007
If we are going to throw Pete Rose under the bus...there are plenty of other players who belong there, as well. I don't want to mention names for fear of this discussion running off on a tangent. Point being, if the hall of fame is all about a player's ACCOMPLISHMENTS, he belongs in The Hall. If they are going to keep him out for what he did, there are plenty more players deserving the same fate for worse. Or, maybe the MLB is trying to send the message that they are not going to tolerate gambling, but steriods and amphetamines are a different story...after all, the right combination of drugs make the games more exciting...right??? And, purity of baseball or any other major sport is pretty much gone. There's nothing pure about a strike because millions of dollars are not enough to play a game. I could go through every major league sport and show examples of how all have lost the purity of "love of the game". It is all of us who remember the "love of the game", not the guys who demand millions to step on the field.
posted by FilaDog at 11:09 PM on March 14, 2007
If we are going to throw Pete Rose under the bus...there are plenty of other players who belong there, as well. posted by FilaDog Really? Who else broke the number one rule in baseball? If betting on a game would offer you an opportunity to want to alter the outcome, doesn't steroid use/cheating do that very thing (bring about an otherwise different outcome)? I just don't think 1 is worse than the other, the intent is the same (IMO). If you're going to ban 1, ban them all (if purity/integrity is truly your concern). I'm never defended bonds, and I don't want to start here. But those are two differenet situations. I have no doubt bonds used steroids, but we still have no official test that proves it. There's also the situation of a history of drug use among players. Not to mention that baseball only recently gave any attention to a drug policy. The no betting on baseball rule has been around forever. It has a long history of being enforced (black sox). There is no question that Pete Rose bet on baseball. Not a single doubt. Just in case anyone doesn't realize how black and white this issue is: Baseball's Rule 21, prominently posted in every clubhouse locker room, mandates permanent banishment from the sport for having a gambling interest of any sort on a game in which a player or manager is directly involved. We do this every few months. Threads filled with comments making the logical conclusion that since baseball isn't pure you can't draw a line. That's nonsense. I would never make the claim that the game is pure. That doesn't mean that I, nor baseball, can't draw the line at betting.
posted by justgary at 12:08 AM on March 15, 2007
If betting on a game would offer you an opportunity to want to alter the outcome, doesn't steroid use/cheating do that very thing (bring about an otherwise different outcome)? Betting on baseball can lead to deliberately fixing the result of the game by encouraging a player/manager to lose that game. That can be done by a player not performing to their best of their abilities, or a manager making decisions that do not benefit the team. Cheating (whether it's using performance enhancing drugs, scuffed baseballs, trapping a fly ball but convincing the umpire you caught it, stealing signals from the catcher) is ALWAYS done with the object of trying to win. ... Further on Rose's admission that he always bet on the Reds every game: If he didn't bet the exact same amount every game (which the Dowd Report says he didn't do), then he is signally to the gamblers that some games he's going to try to win more than others. So that means for some games, he might not bring in the best relief pitcher because he's going to save him for the NEXT game, where he's bet more money. I say this assuming he only bet as a manager. He was a player/manager for part of the time that he was accused of betting on baseball. In actuality, betting as a manager is a MUCH bigger transgression than betting as a player, as the manager can affect the outcome of the game more than a single player. Field a worse-than-normal lineup, order hit and runs, steals and shifts at the wrong times, leave pitchers in too long (or pull them too early).
posted by grum@work at 01:04 AM on March 15, 2007
With the betting logic, then anyone that smoked, drank, cheated on the wife, got in a fist fight, or broke any law ever can not get in the hall. This is a total joke. But then again baseball has become a total joke.
posted by vipers-pit at 01:08 AM on March 15, 2007
With the betting logic, then anyone that smoked, drank, cheated on the wife, got in a fist fight, or broke any law ever can not get in the hall. It's actually the opposite of that.
posted by justgary at 01:24 AM on March 15, 2007
Question? (I'm asking because I do not know). Has any player/group of players (under his management) ever stepped forward and claimed anything similar to, Rose must be trying to throw the game because he made me/us do x, y, z? Or were any of his decisions ever questioned by his players? Basically, was what he did so obvious (as far as throwing a game) that a player was like "WTF" does he want me to do that for?
posted by Bishop at 02:04 AM on March 15, 2007
I'll freely admit to knowing nothing about this story except reading the article posted. I'd also never having heard of this Pete Rose. So tell me, what's so wrong about betting on your own team? I can see the problem if he was betting against them and then conspiring to make them lose but not the other way round. I also imagine that the amount he bet would be more influenced by the perceived strength of the opposition than how much he was going to try to win. But as I said I know nowt about the background to the story.
posted by squealy at 04:55 AM on March 15, 2007
hey budman13 ill say this really slow,rules are made to be broken,cause it will alweays happen,you break the rules of law,you get arrested and pay your debt.and move on in life.people gamble on anything,its an illness that destroys lives like any other illness.as good as rose was,hes still human like the rest of us,and should be given a second chance providing he comes clean as all other should do the same.forgive and forget.
posted by newenglander at 06:17 AM on March 15, 2007
Records are made to be broken, not rules. Rules are made for a reason. Pete Rose broke the cardinal rule of baseball. He made the choice to do that. He knew it was the cardinal rule of baseball, since it's posted in clubhouses. He made the choice to break it anyway. Since he made the choice to break the rule, he can live with the consequences. No HOF for Pete Rose.
posted by roberts at 06:41 AM on March 15, 2007
hey budman13 ill say this really slow,rules are made to be broken,cause it will alweays happen,you break the rules of law,you get arrested and pay your debt.and move on in life. "Rules are made to be broken'? I'm not playing dumb here, I've heard the saying a gazillion times too, but isn't that a completely idiotic statement? Rules are made to regulate something that somebody believes needs regulating. Sometimes they're right about the need for regulation and sometimes they're wrong; sometimes the idea that regulation is needed is dead on and it's the nature of the regulation that's messed up. You, however, haven't made any kind of an argument about why this rule is a bad one; you've just said that it was "made to be broken". So you can say it "really slow", as if the person you're speaking to is some kind of idiot, but you're the one repeating an idiotic statement as if it were revealed truth.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:36 AM on March 15, 2007
should be given a second chance providing he comes clean What...he admits he broke the rule so we should put him in the HOF because of that? I'm all for second chances, but he used that and other chances up with his lying and spin over the years.
posted by roberts at 08:02 AM on March 15, 2007
With the betting logic, then anyone that smoked, drank, cheated on the wife, got in a fist fight, or broke any law ever can not get in the hall. You are so wrong, you're almost contradicting yourself without even trying. Smoking, drinking, getting into fistfights, beating your wife, or any other transgression you can think of, while bad, aren't the same as gambling. YOU CANNOT BET ON GAMES IF YOU ARE IN ANY WAY AFFILIATED WITH MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL. Is that plain enough? From clubhouse boys all the way up the ladder, it is well-known among anybody with any sense of baseball history that gambling on a game, especially as a player/manager (which Rose was for at least part of the time he was gambling), who has control over nearly every aspect of his team's performance, tears at the very fabric of the game itself. Your argument is hollow, and Pete Rose will not get into the Hall of Fame until long after he occupies a pine box. And maybe not even then, if he doesn't spit out the truth before he dies. If he goes to the grave without acknowledging his full involvement in gambling, I'll be surprised if he ever gets in. The past 30 years of Pete Rose's life have been filled with such egregious dishonesty and such blatant disrespect for the game that helped make him a star and gave him a great life that baseball owes him nothing, and I hope he gets it in spades.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 08:38 AM on March 15, 2007
Would you elect him if he admits to intentionally throwing one game, just one meaningless game, in order to satisfy a gambling debt?
posted by chmurray at 08:38 AM on March 15, 2007
So tell me, what's so wrong about betting on your own team? I can see the problem if he was betting against them and then conspiring to make them lose but not the other way round. The problem is that he could try harder to win the games when he has a significant amount of money involved. He delays the start of a pitcher who could start on Friday until Saturday because he has money on Saturday's game. He makes pitching decisions on Friday based on what he would like to happen on Saturday instead of on winning Friday's game. He decides to not let a player recovering from an injury play on Friday, so that they will have a better chance of being available for the more important Saturday game. There are countless ways of manipulating the game to benefit himself financially if he is willing to sacrifice winning on Friday for the benefit of winning on Saturday.
posted by bperk at 09:30 AM on March 15, 2007
Grum and justgary smoked this topic like a pack of Kools. I used to have some sympathy for Rose's case, based on the fact that it didn't appear that his betting actually affected the outcome of games. Since I never heard his players publically complain about him managing to win a bet, vs. managing to win a game - it seemed less impactful that he did bet. And there seemed to be a large contingent of players who campaigned that he should be inducted. And he played the game hard and did more with his talent than many others. So - without really caring, I thought it wouldn't kill anyone to get him in. But the reality is that gambling is the one sure-fire way to kill the integrity of the sport. There is a reason why it's such a black and white issue. That and Pete Rose is clearly a complete tool - there is no guarantee that he's telling the whole truth even now. He's a fucking cartoon. A veritable Looney Tunes Asshat. You stay classy Pete Rose. Just stay out of the HoF.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:31 AM on March 15, 2007
So tell me, what's so wrong about betting on your own team? I can see the problem if he was betting against them and then conspiring to make them lose but not the other way round. Also... I think that right there, may have been why he said it. He has no credibility left, so why not throw it out there hoping people will take the charlie hustle slant on it... "Oh, gambling made him play harder, like everyone else he was trying to win, trying harder maybe..." Notice in his statement, how many times he uses the word team. He was working it hard, too hard. It's quite transparent. But the reality is that gambling is the one sure-fire way to kill the integrity of the sport. There is a reason why it's such a black and white issue. Word. Scratch "one" maybe, but fashizzle... atheletes - gambling - sports - bad
posted by 2 time mvp of the shittiest team ever at 09:41 AM on March 15, 2007
I wasn't going to comment on this since he spoke on this very subject some time ago but after reading all of the nonsense being written, I had to write a post. Pete Rose betted on baseball. Why is that so hard for people to digest? Betting on baseball is the #1 rule that any individual involved in baseball knows about and if broken, they will be banned for life. The key words there being BANNED FOR LIFE. Someone mentioned 'Shoeless' Joe Jackson and rightfully so. After the 'Black Sox' scandal in 1919 and his lifetime ban in 1921, it's been 86 years and Joe Jackson is still not in the Hall of Shame...er, I meant Fame. What makes Pete Rose better than Joe Jackson? If 'Shoeless' Joe has had to suffer from his expulsion from baseball, even after death, than so should Pete Rose. It's just ridiculous to me that people can talk about what he did as a player, like that makes all of his years of lying about betting on basball just go away. I agree, he was one of the greatest if not THE greatest hitter of his era (his stats don't lie) but the bottom line being, he broke the #1 rule in baseball. Therefore, he is and rightfully so, BANNED FOR LIFE.
posted by BornIcon at 10:10 AM on March 15, 2007
The only hall of fame Pete Rose will ever be in.
posted by HATER 187 at 10:23 AM on March 15, 2007
Would you elect him if he admits to intentionally throwing one game, just one meaningless game, in order to satisfy a gambling debt? What makes one game meaningless compared to another? A win in April is equal to a win in September. If he admits he intentionally threw a game, then it just adds to the mountain of reasons why he should not be in the Hall of Fame. He's blocked from getting into the Hall of Fame not because he hasn't told the truth. He's blocked from getting into the Hall of Fame because he bet on baseball games. Admitting he did it should not get him into the Hall of Fame.
posted by grum@work at 11:18 AM on March 15, 2007
I heard this yesterday and I just started laughing He just won't shut up what are we going to find out next that he had a corked bat or had Pete Jr. take steroids I'm still laughing at petey I was willing to somewhat forgive him a few years back now I would be willing to shoot myself for ever thinking that just kidding Now just go away charley hustle and let the boys of summer play their game
posted by luther70 at 11:28 AM on March 15, 2007
Rose should NOT be in the Hall. He bet on baseball. Before reading the previous posts, I did not know it was posted in the locker rooms as the cardinal rule. Although I do disagree with Shoeless Joe's ban for life, as my argument is here. Rose, no pity for ya, keep the spin up, eventually all the truth might come out.
posted by bavarianmotorworker at 11:41 AM on March 15, 2007
One of the problems with an athlete betting is that the bookie owns him after that: "Say there, Speed, I need to make up some of what I lost last week. Let's say you trip rounding second or your betting slips end up in the commissioner's office and you can kiss your career goodbye." Given that Rose is still peeling this onion and there are going to be many layers yet to come, how do we know he was betting? How do we know he wasn't being blackmailed for betting and his "bets" were hush money? (BTW, I wonder what his tax returns looked like in those years -- how did he hide the money he won?)
posted by joaquim at 12:03 PM on March 15, 2007
Joaquim... agree with the 1st paragraph for sure. As for the 2nd one... um... shouldn't you be getting ready for your 1st round match-up? I bet you lose, 50 bucks, c'mon. How do we know? He admitted it. And if there was a shred of truth out there that says he didn't bet, i think he'd be hustlin to find it. He's got nothing to stand on, not even first base.
posted by 2 time mvp of the shittiest team ever at 12:16 PM on March 15, 2007
(BTW, I wonder what his tax returns looked like in those years -- how did he hide the money he won?) Well, his tax returns were so sketchy that he ended up in prison for 5 months for felony tax evasion (back in 1990), and he was hit up by the IRS for almost a million dollars in back taxes in 2004.
posted by grum@work at 12:33 PM on March 15, 2007
Pete Rose was one of the greatest ball players of all time and broke the records to prove it. He deserves to be in the Baseball Hall of Fame. He obviously tried hard enough on the field to accomplish a phenominal list of records. The fact that he is stupid and an asshole doesn't change what he did on the field. Maybe he should be in two Halls. The Hall of Fame and a hall in a correctional facility. His latest statements prove what should have been clearly evident a long time ago, he's pretty dumb.
posted by Atheist at 02:01 PM on March 15, 2007
Guys, We all have beat this Rose thing to death...Facts are all in and according to the rules of baseball and the hall betting on baseball while a player and or manager cause you to be banned for life and not able to be considered for the Hall of Fame. Yes, he does have the numbers to be in the Hall but I believe that until baseball puts in Shoeless Joe Jackson, who was acquitted and found innocent, Rose should not be allowed into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Anyway, enough of this Rose crap, on to what is important the NCAA Basketball Tournment. It already has had some very good games this morning. Texas Tech out, Stanford out should be a very interesting tournment.
posted by ucla512 at 02:07 PM on March 15, 2007
Anyway, enough of this Rose crap, on to what is important the NCAA Basketball Tournment. So start a thread. Don't hijack this one.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:10 PM on March 15, 2007
There are a lot of good arguments on both sides of this issue. The main question here is about the requirements to be in the HOF. I personally feel that Pete Rose should be IN THE HOF but BANNED FROM BASEBALL. Additionally, in Pete's little cubicle at the HOF it should say that he is banned for life from the game for betting on games in which he managed. He broke rules as a manager, which had no effect on his career stats. There are guys in the HOF who do not have 1/2 the stats that Rose does. He is, without any question, one of the greatest players in the history of the game.
posted by yay-yo at 03:26 PM on March 15, 2007
Pete Rose was one of the greatest ball players of all time and broke the records to prove it. He deserves to be in the Baseball Hall of Fame. He obviously tried hard enough on the field to accomplish a phenominal list of records. The fact that he is stupid and an asshole doesn't change what he did on the field. Except the Hall of Fame is more than a 3D record book. I always considered it to be the living breathing history of the story of baseball. Guys, Pete Rose IS in the Hall of Fame: His bat that broke Ty Cobb's record is in there as are other pieces of memorabilia. In the same way that Josh Gibson is in the Hall of Fame, and many other Negro Leaguers. Pete Rose has his place in the story, However he is not a MLB Hall of Fame player - and I feel this is an important distinction. One is part of the history of baseball - the other is a honor distinguishing the best players. Rose forfeited that honor.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:43 PM on March 15, 2007
He broke rules as a manager, which had no effect on his career stats. There are guys in the HOF who do not have 1/2 the stats that Rose does. First of all, he broke the rules as a player/manager, so it has some effect on his stats. Secondly, there are guys in the HOF who do not have 1/2 the stats that Rose does, that didn't bet on baseball. That's the key point. You can keeping singing the same song about his stats and accomplishments and his "contributions to the game", but you can't ignore the 800lb gorilla in the room: he broke the most important rule in baseball. He did so, even though he knew it was wrong and knew what the punishment would be. He just didn't care. So why do so many people want to reward him by putting him in the Hall of Fame?
posted by grum@work at 04:15 PM on March 15, 2007
Pete Rose was one of the greatest ball players of all time and broke the records to prove it. He deserves to be in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Really? Well, let's try this one on for size. Suppose you're an athlete with dreams of Olympic glory in, say, the 100M hurdles. Throughout your athletic career it has been explicitly communicated to you that if you ingest a banned substance (and get caught, but that goes without saying), there will be certain consequences, up to and including banning from competition and rescinding of past results. You are told and told and told and told about this rule, it is everywhere you go, you have absolutely no plausible ignorance defense (not that that would help you). And you go and do it anyway. You make it to the Olympics. You win the 100M hurdles. You set a new world record. You're all set to receive your gold medal, but oops, your pee doesn't pass the test. Are you going to try and tell us that you would deserve that medal? And before you start down the garden path of, "but betting doesn't give you an unfair advantage, what does that have to do with anything" -- that's not the point of comparison here. I'm talking about knowingly breaking a rule that has certain consequences. Pete Rose broke a rule that he knew would have exactly this consequence. Now you and other apologists are arguing that he shouldn't have to pay the piper. It makes absolutely no sense to me.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:23 PM on March 15, 2007
The main question here is about the requirements to be in the HOF. posted by yay-yo No, there's no question about the requirements to be in the HOF. It's cut and dry. Eligible Candidates — Candidates to be eligible must meet the following requirements: 1) A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning twenty (20) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election. 2) 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). 3) 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. 4) 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. 5) Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.
posted by justgary at 04:32 PM on March 15, 2007
LBB - your analogy doesn't have relevance. Taking drug to enhance your performance is way to cheat and help you break records. Pete Rose's gambling did not help him get 3000+ hits. I agree he should be banned from baseball as a participant but why should he be excluded from being a Hall of Famer based on his legitimate performance on the field. Baseball can ban him all they want but any list of baseballs greatest players that excludes Pete Rose isn't an accurate list. Frankly I could care less. If Pete Rose's name comes up in a conversation he will always be regarded as one of the greatest players of all time, and one of the biggest ass holes. No ruling can change that. As far as rules governing sports goes, when professional sports start to create rules that exclude convicted felons, sex offenders and ex convicts, then maybe their rules will have more meaning. While most of the pro sports continue to burry their heads in the sand over the conduct of todays athletes, why make an example out of Charlie Hustle? If Pete Rose is being banned what should the ruling be for, Mark McGwyer, Sammy Sosa or Barry Bonds? What about all the guys who never got caught? Should O.J. Simpson be removed from the Pro Football Hall of Fame, the College Football Hall of Fame, should they take back his Heissman?
posted by Atheist at 05:00 PM on March 15, 2007
As far as rules governing sports goes, when professional sports start to create rules that exclude convicted felons, sex offenders and ex convicts, then maybe their rules will have more meaning. All outside of sports, betting inside. While most of the pro sports continue to burry their heads in the sand over the conduct of todays athletes, why make an example out of Charlie Hustle? If Pete Rose is being banned what should the ruling be for, Mark McGwyer, Sammy Soso or Barry Bonds? Can you point me to the positive tests please? What about all the guys who never got caught? God, you're joking, right? That's a whole lot of noise with out an ounce of logic.
posted by justgary at 05:27 PM on March 15, 2007
Baseball can ban him all they want but any list of baseballs greatest players that excludes Pete Rose isn't an accurate list. That's true. Pete Rose is probably one of the 50 greatest baseball players in baseball history. That doesn't mean he should be in the Hall of Fame. Should O.J. Simpson be removed from the Pro Football Hall of Fame, the College Football Hall of Fame, should they take back his Heissman? Did O.J. Simpson do something during his playing days that would exclude him from those honours, and therefore allow people to go back in time and retroactively block his ability to receive those awards? Wait. Does that sound silly? It probably does, which is why it is really the only answer to your silly question. Pete Rose broke the #1 rule while he was still involved in baseball. He had not yet been honoured with a Hall of Fame plaque. His punishment for breaking that rule is to be on the ineligible list (and therefore, out of the Hall of Fame) Just in case you think this is a "one-off" case (or "two-off", if you link it to Shoeless Joe Jackson), I'll remind you that Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle were banned from baseball for a period of time because of their "association" with known gamblers (which was basically being door-greeters at a casino). Baseball does not f*ck around with this sort of thing. But like I said before, Pete Rose didn't care and went ahead and broke the rule anyways. Frankly I could care less. Then why are you arguing that he should be in the Hall of Fame? I do care, so that's why I post my comments.
posted by grum@work at 05:52 PM on March 15, 2007
So, to recap: Rickey Henderson is in the hall (upon eligibility, of course) Pete Rose can get bent (as he is a Looney Tunes Asshat) This subject never seems to go away. Sooner or later the pro Rose faction (of which I used to be), have to realize the one fact that will keep ol' Charlie Hustle out of the hall. Simply stated, it would be because of #5 on justgary's earlier post. Betting on baseball will NEVER be tolerated by the voting members of the hall.
posted by THX-1138 at 06:00 PM on March 15, 2007
LBB - your analogy doesn't have relevance. Taking drug to enhance your performance is way to cheat and help you break records. I addressed that point, Atheist; maybe you didn't read that part? Look, you can complain all you want about the rule, but neither you nor anybody else has come up with anything to refute the fact that it is the rule, and Pete Rose knew it. That's what the PED analogy is all about: you knowingly break a rule, you do so knowing what the sanction will be, you've got no call to bellyache when you get caught and the sanction is imposed. What on earth is so hard about that?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:02 PM on March 15, 2007
lbb, justgary, and grum are my heroes. Well stated. Maybe I can simplify for some who are having trouble following. Here's a rule, it's an important rule. Its posted everywhere in our house. The rules states that if you EVER break the rule, you cannot come to our house ever again. You look at the sign 180 days a year for maybe 20 years when you come to our house. You knowingly break that rule, and not once, but repeatedly, by your own admission. You know what. You cannot come to our house again. Not today, not tomorrow, not EVER.
posted by tommybiden at 09:12 PM on March 15, 2007
Man, how many times can we have this argument? "Pete Rose is one of the greatest players of all time, he should be in the Hall of Fame" is getting up there with "Yes, but Derek Jeter has intangibles" in our list of baseball baits. Of course, I'm with lbb, grum, justgary. Now I'm amazed at the number of people who honestly believe that baseball should just forgive Rose. There's a poll on the linked article, which asks "Should Major League Baseball reinstate Pete Rose?". As of now, Yes leads with 68.6% of the vote. I'm speechless. Do you guys think MLB will one day cave in to popular pressure?
posted by qbert72 at 09:27 PM on March 15, 2007
Do you guys think MLB will one day cave in to popular pressure? The only way they cave in is: 1) Pete Rose is dead. 2) The commissioner at the time was born AFTER Rose was kicked out of baseball (1990) 3) They've let Shoeless Joe Jackson in first. This is one of those things that they just CAN'T change their mind. If they did so, it would completely undermine the power of the rule that they MUST obey. If it does happen, I hope I'm not around to see it, or I've grown so disinterested in baseball that I wouldn't even hear about it in the news.
posted by grum@work at 11:26 PM on March 15, 2007
hey budman13 ill say this really slow,rules are made to be broken,cause it will alweays happen,you break the rules of law,you get arrested and pay your debt.and move on in life.people gamble on anything,its an illness that destroys lives like any other illness.as good as rose was,hes still human like the rest of us,and should be given a second chance providing he comes clean as all other should do the same.forgive and forget Waaaaaaa waaaaaaaaaaa waaaaaaaaaa. Well Newenglander, you're right in that if you get caught breaking the rules or law you should pay your debt to society. Pete Rose....broke...the...rules. He....got...caught. His...punishment...is...that...he's...banned...from...baseball. He...needs...to...accept...this...and...move...on.
posted by budman13 at 12:23 AM on March 16, 2007
There is certainly not much I can add to the ANTI-ROSE HOF that hasn't already been said. If all my good deeds outweighed my bad decisions then I would like to confer with the Pope about becoming a Saint. I would like to make one point though that I haven't seen yet. You can win a game and still throw it. Based on the point spread you dont' have to lose to win for your bookie.
posted by hoytster at 03:15 AM on March 16, 2007
If all my good deeds outweighed my bad decisions then I would like to confer with the Pope about becoming a Saint. "David slept with Bathsheba, but was remembered for slaying Goliath. Noah was accused of drunkenness, But God gave him the Ark. A man's accomplishments far out weigh his personal weaknesses". -Minister Bain from the movie Malcolm X "Brother Bain is a 2 bit hustler, but 1 hand washes the other". -Malcolm X This may sound odd, but if we look at how many baseball games have been played since it's conception and how many more will be played in the future, then take a look at how many games outcomes were altered by Pete Rose's gambling, I think it's safe to say that we'd be looking at a glass of water sitting next to the Atlantic ocean. Then again I'm not a die hard baseball fan. If I was, I'm sure I could understand how 1 would consider not the amount of water in the glass, but the fact that it is contaminated regardless.
posted by Bishop at 07:15 AM on March 16, 2007
I would like to make one point though that I haven't seen yet. You can win a game and still throw it. Based on the point spread you dont' have to lose to win for your bookie. While almost every sport has a point spread, betting in baseball is simply a win/lose proposition. For example: Atlanta -115 Florida +135 That means if you bet on Atlanta to win, you bet $115 to win $100. If you bet on Florida to win, you bet $100 to win $135. As you can see, point spreads are not used in baseball betting in Las Vegas and other casinos. Therefore, if you are throwing a game in baseball, it is to lose it, not adjust the score to a favourable spread (like in basketball and football). The reason for that is scoring in baseball (and hockey) is done one point at a time, while football and basketball allow you to score anywhere from 1 point to 3 points (or 6 in football).
posted by grum@work at 08:52 AM on March 16, 2007
While i understand the view that Rose shouldn't be in b/c he broke the rules, it seems like everyone who is saying that here is a bit vindictive. Are we all so sure that we wouldn't falter? If (and that is a genuine "if") we aren't so sure, should that soften our hardline, righteous stand against the evil incarnate that is Pete Rose? Just food for thought here. Honestly i don't know what to think about Pete Rose. Did he break a rule? Yes. Should that exclude him from the Hall based on the rule? Yes. Is he a jerk? Probably. That being the case, is the integrity of the Hall solely based on whether or not anyone cheated? I hope not, b/c that's a pretty narrow view of integrity of ANY prestigious organization. I mean someone may've been a complete jerk to his family, friends, not contributed to his community, but "hey he never cheated and has great stats, so he's in." That's pretty weak view of integrity i think. Finally, since when has forgiveness been divorced from defining integrity? That's a false dichotomy, and it's running rampant on this thread. The integrity of any organization is based in part precisely on its ability to forgive and to be empathic. You can't just pick and choose which virtues you like and then slap the label "integrity" on it. It's much more wholistic than that. While forgiveness doesn't logically require that Rose is inducted into the Hall, it should be discussed instead of dismissed with a (over)simplified black and white "he broke the rules" comment. If the Hall doesn't believe that Rose should be in, that's fine. They are more than justified in doing so based on the rules for entry. But keep this "integrity" of the Hall stuff out of the debate, because if your only standards of integrity are this ONE FACET, then it's not an adequate definition of integrity anyway.
posted by brainofdtrain at 09:14 AM on March 16, 2007
I find it interesting he made sure to admit "I bet on my team to win EVERY NIGHT". Because if he bet on his team to win, just NOT every night, it's still a HUGE conflict with the integrety of the game. If he has $50k on 1 game to win. - Think he might leave that ace starter in longer, to ensure a victory? (at the expense of having him start again a few nights later in a game that might be more meaningful?) - Think he might start a guy on shorter rest to give himself a better chance to win? - Think he might put in his ace closer in the 8th even though it might affect that closers ability to pitch in the coming days? - Think he might pinch hit a guy who's a little banged up and who otherwise needs the rest? At least these thoughts would impair his mind and affect his judgement. These are all issues with "integrity" and why it's such a big deal that he bet on the game, whether he was betting on his own team or not. By his now changing his story to say "I bet on them to win EVERY night" he's trying to get rid of that little cloud that implies the above decisions would be affected. But aside from all that. Wouldn't ALWAYS betting on a team to win be a losing bet (or at least a minimal win bet)? If a team is winning more than it's losing than the payout for them to win on any given day would be less. So even if you're betting on a team like the Yankees to win every single day, I got to think you wouldn't be making much money over the course of the season.
posted by bdaddy at 09:24 AM on March 16, 2007
While i understand the view that Rose shouldn't be in b/c he broke the rules, it seems like everyone who is saying that here is a bit vindictive. Are we all so sure that we wouldn't falter? Vindictive? Not a bit of it -- what you're seeing here is people saying, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." I think we all understand about human fallibility, but I think (I hope) that relatively few of us would expect that our failings would not have consequences, particularly consequences that we'd been warned about in advance in two-foot-high letters of fire.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:32 AM on March 16, 2007
While almost every sport has a point spread, betting in baseball is simply a win/lose proposition. For example: Atlanta -115 Florida +135 That means if you bet on Atlanta to win, you bet $115 to win $100. If you bet on Florida to win, you bet $100 to win $135. As you can see, point spreads are not used in baseball betting in Las Vegas and other casinos. Therefore, if you are throwing a game in baseball, it is to lose it, not adjust the score to a favourable spread (like in basketball and football). The reason for that is scoring in baseball (and hockey) is done one point at a time, while football and basketball allow you to score anywhere from 1 point to 3 points (or 6 in football). I realize it's spring training, Grum, but you're a little rusty there. the line for your example game would actually be: Atlanta -135 Florida +115 But, I get your point. However, there is also a 1.5 run line on baseball games as well. Using our above example, most bookmakers would also offer: Atlanta -1.5 +150 Florida +1.5 -170 I might be off slightly on my spread numbers, but you get the idea. I have wagered on baseball in the past, and am quite familiar (sometimes unfortunately) with the 1.5 run line. It makes a big favourite, say a team that's -350 to win the game, where you're laying out $350 to win $100, much more attractive to win by 2 or more, as the line would drop to, and I'm just guessing here....-170. Grum, you bring a lot to sportsfilter. You are one of the key voices in our community here, in my humble opinion. Thank you.
posted by tommybiden at 09:44 AM on March 16, 2007
Aside from the fact that he "shouldn't be in because he broke the rules". He made an AGREEMENT HIMSELF to never be eligible to enter the HOF. agreement He was presented enough information to PROVE he had bet on baseball. Understanding that the evidence was overwhelming, he then made an agreement with Commisioner of baseball to NOT RELEASE any formal findings or determinations of that investigation. In exchange for them not to release these findings, he agreed to the following Peter Edward Rose, recognizing the sole and exclusive authority of the Commissioner and that it is in his interest to resolve this matter without further proceedings, agrees to accept the following disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Commissioner. a. Peter Edward Rose is hereby declared permanently ineligible in accordance with Major League Rule 21 and placed on the Ineligible List. Nuff said..case closed...the subject should have never been broached again from that point on. The MAN HIMSELF made this agreement and now he's changed his mind.
posted by bdaddy at 09:48 AM on March 16, 2007
I realize it's spring training, Grum, but you're a little rusty there. No, I think I was right. My numbers for Atlanta and Florida are in line with my description below it. I said: Atlanta -115 Florida +135 That means if you bet on Atlanta to win, you bet $115 to win $100. If you bet on Florida to win, you bet $100 to win $135. Now, according to a few online betting references, that is correct. As for the run line in baseball, of that I was unaware.
posted by grum@work at 10:40 AM on March 16, 2007
If anyone believes Pete Rose bet on his team to lose they don't know anything about Pete Rose. This guy never bet on any kind of loser. Horses, baseball, football or any type of wager. Whether he did or did not bet and how much he bet should not keep him out of the Hall of Fame. This is not a character contest. If it was you could remove some noteworthy players. If you hold the record for most hits in a career you belong in the Hall. Enough said.
posted by Ironhead at 12:16 PM on March 16, 2007
Grum, I'm sure you are NOT correct. If you are, I will bet on BOTH teams! If Atlanta wins, I break even. If Florida wins, I end up with $20 of profit in my pocket!
posted by gloglu at 12:22 PM on March 16, 2007
ucla512: Facts are all in and according to the rules of baseball and the hall betting on baseball while a player and or manager cause you to be banned for life and not able to be considered for the Hall of Fame. bdaddy: Aside from the fact that he "shouldn't be in because he broke the rules". He made an AGREEMENT HIMSELF to never be eligible to enter the HOF. justgary: No, there's no question about the requirements to be in the HOF. It's cut and dry.Okay, I won't go into the "should he/shouldn't he" debate, but I think you're all wrong about whether he's eligible:
So, to summarize: while I may be mistaken if I've missed some other detail, there is no rule or restriction preventing Pete Rose from being voted in by the Veteran's Committee of the Hall of Fame in their next election (even though as we've discussed elsewhere, they haven't voted anyone in for a few years). His status on MLB's banned list is only tangentially related to the Hall of Fame, and in that is only related to the BBWAA voting ballot, for which Pete Rose isn't even eligible any more.
- Pete Rose's agreement was to be banned from Major League Baseball- this is not in dispute
- The Hall of Fame is not run by MLB, nor directly affiliated with MLB; they are only a private institution that has a longstanding and very friendly relationship with MLB
- The Hall of Fame does have a rule, established in 1995 (after Pete Rose's agreement, incidentally), saying that players on the MLB banned list are ineligible for the Hall of Fame. This is what justgary linked saying it was "cut and dry". HOWEVER:
- In 2001, the Hall of Fame changed its rules to say that players on the MLB banned list are ineligible for induction by the BBWAA (baseball writers association) but are not ineligible for induction by the Veteran's Committee.
- Pete Rose has passed the 20-year post-playing mark that would have allowed him to be voted in by the BBWAA anyway, but the Veteran's Committee has no such time restriction
posted by hincandenza at 01:48 PM on March 16, 2007
(D) Any person designated by the Office of the Commissioner of Major League Baseball as ineligible shall not be an eligible candidate. link I find that a little confusing, but reading further: 10. Voting — The Committee shall consider all eligible candidates and voting shall be based upon the individual's record, ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the game. Electors may vote for as few as zero (0) and as many as ten (10) eligible candidates deemed worthy of election. Write-in votes are not permitted. I think it's safe to say that you're reaching for straws.
posted by justgary at 02:06 PM on March 16, 2007
Well, if that's the case, then that's the case- I did say that I might be mistaken. However, I've seen conflicting information that suggests Rose would be eligible under the Veterans Committee per a 2001 rule change- but perhaps that rule change reinstates players made ineligible by not reaching a minimum % on any of their BBWAA ballots. It is a peril of the blogotubes that research is never quite authoritative. I guess it's likely moot, in that the VC will not likely vote for him so long as he has the stain of being banned from baseball anyway, but it does seem according to some sources that
posted by hincandenza at 03:53 PM on March 16, 2007
Grum, I'm sure you are NOT correct. If you are, I will bet on BOTH teams! If Atlanta wins, I break even. If Florida wins, I end up with $20 of profit in my pocket! Well, I just made those numbers up. I just wanted an numerical example. I didn't do the math. The idea is that the -xxx refers the the favourite, and you have bet xxx to win $100, and that +yyy refers to the underdog, and you have to bet $100 to win $yyy. Taking numbers from tomorrow's exhibition baseball schedule: 10:05 AM REDS +110 RED SOX -130 You'd bet $100 on the Reds to win $110 (plus your $100), and you'd bet $130 on the Red Sox to win $100 (plus your original $130). If you decided to bet on both teams, it would cost you $230. If the Reds won, you'd win back $210. If the Red Sox won, you'd win back $230. Therefore, the best you can hope for is a break-even point, which means it makes no sense to wager on both teams.
posted by grum@work at 04:09 PM on March 16, 2007
I have wagered on baseball in the past, posted by tommytrump at 9:44 AM CST on March 16 Tommy, have you ever played Baseball? (Admin get the ban button ready)
posted by Bishop at 04:57 PM on March 16, 2007
Therefore, the best you can hope for is a break-even point, which means it makes no sense to wager on both teams. Except there must be a vig somewhere on the losing side that prevents people from doing this.
posted by yerfatma at 05:49 PM on March 16, 2007
I have wagered on baseball in the past, posted by tommytrump at 9:44 AM CST on March 16 Tommy, have you ever played Baseball? (Admin get the ban button ready) Entirely too funny, Bishop. I actually did a spittake on to the computer screen as I read that. Though, I don't think I'd be banned from Sportsfilter for wagering on baseball, just from the Baseball Hall of Fame. To answer your question, I've never played organized baseball, but I did play 12 years of organized fastpitch. Catcher I was! My one and only regret now is damn my knees hurt. I loved every minute of it though, and those were the best days. Aside to Grum, the point I was trying to make has been cleared up, that the favourite would have a larger number than the underdog. That is of course where 'the book' makes his money, he wants to have have the same amounts risked on both teams and he makes his money on 'the middle, the vigorish, the juice', with no concern as to who wins the game. Using our example......Yerfatma will be the bookie, he sets a line on todays Atlanta Florida baseball game. Atlanta -135 Florida +115 Grum, you and I are yerfatma's only customers. You think Atlanta is going to win, and so, you risk $135 to win $100 , I, on the other hand, realize Dontrelle Willis is on the hill for the Marlins and I say, damn, those Florida Marlins can take Atlanta, so I risk $100 on Florida to win $115. Darn, the Braves win, Yerfatma takes the $100 he got from me and pays you. Yerfatma breaks even. If, on the other hand, the Marlins win, he takes the $135 you risked, and pays me my $115. Yerfatma makes $20 for handling the transaction. Of course, most bookies have more than 2 clients, and often times are slightly exposed on one side or the other, but overall, makes his money on the 'juice', or vigorish.
posted by tommybiden at 06:04 PM on March 16, 2007
"Or, maybe the MLB is trying to send the message that they are not going to tolerate gambling, but steriods and amphetamines are a different story...after all, the right combination of drugs make the games more exciting...right???" Barry Bonds is not yet up for the hall. When he is, I will have no problem with him not being voted in, regardless of his home run total. Pete Rose violated the cardinal rule of baseball, the price that he should pay, as others before him payed, is to be banned forever from the Hall of Fame for Baseball.
posted by Cave_Man at 12:04 AM on March 17, 2007
Are we all so sure that we wouldn't falter? If (and that is a genuine "if") we aren't so sure, should that soften our hardline, righteous stand against the evil incarnate that is Pete Rose? Just food for thought here. This argument kills me every time, whether it's a Pete Rose thread, a maniac dad assaults his son's opponent thread or some criminal defendent pleading for leniency. I'd like to think I wouldn't break the rule, but I'm certain that if I did break it, I'd expect to suffer the consequences. Just because most people in the same situation would break the rule doesn't mean we shouldn't all be punished. Honestly i don't know what to think about Pete Rose. Tell me about it. I have lived and died with the Reds since I was 3 sitting at my grandfather's feet watching them play. Bench, Rose and Concepcion were my favorites practically before I could pick up a bat. So it has been with great sadness and disappointment over the years that I've realized that Pete doesn't merit reinstatement or induction. That being the case, is the integrity of the Hall solely based on whether or not anyone cheated? I hope not, b/c that's a pretty narrow view of integrity of ANY prestigious organization. I mean someone may've been a complete jerk to his family, friends, not contributed to his community, but "hey he never cheated and has great stats, so he's in." That's pretty weak view of integrity i think. Finally, since when has forgiveness been divorced from defining integrity? ... The integrity of any organization is based in part precisely on its ability to forgive and to be empathic. But keep this "integrity" of the Hall stuff out of the debate, because if your only standards of integrity are this ONE FACET, then it's not an adequate definition of integrity anyway. I think you've misunderstood what "the integrity of the game" refers to. It's a little confusing because the Hall mentions integrity in it's criteria. But when people argue that Pete harmed the integrity of the game, they're not talking about the character. In this instance, integrity literally means "having not been touched," that it isn't broken. It's more like discussing the "structural integrity" of a building. If it's damaged, it will collapse. The same holds true for baseball. As detestable as steroids and such are, nothing will utterly destroy baseball faster than the public losing confidence that the outcome of the game is honestly determined, without corruption from gambling influences. From that standpoint, it's tragically appropriate that the WWE inducted Pete into it's pro wrestling hall of fame.
posted by olelefthander at 10:28 AM on March 17, 2007
Of course, most bookies have more than 2 clients, and often times are slightly exposed on one side or the other, but overall, makes his money on the 'juice', or vigorish. That's the best explanation I've seen so far on why bookies make money, and why sometimes things go haywire for them. Example: the Tyson/Douglas fight was taken off a LOT of books because there was a ridiculous amount of money being wagered on Tyson and almost nothing on Douglas. No matter how much Las Vegas adjusted the lines, they couldn't stop people from betting on Tyson (or at least betting on Douglas). Lo and behold, Douglas wins and the books make a killing because of the imbalance. So it has been with great sadness and disappointment over the years that I've realized that Pete doesn't merit reinstatement or induction. Many years ago, I used to be a "Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame" supporter. I then had my point of view switched by someone who thoughtfully laid out most of the arguments I've seen in this thread. Amazingly, this was well before Rose came out and announced he'd actually bet (on baseball, on his own games), and it was simply the word of the Dowd report and the signed statement from Rose accepting the lifetime ban. One of the strongest arguments I've ever read in support of Rose (in a way) came from Bill James in his newest version of the Historical Baseball Abstract. He goes on for 4 or 5 pages and explains how the Dowd report doesn't really prove that he bet on baseball, and especially how it is weak in proving he bet on the Reds. Oops.
posted by grum@work at 03:16 PM on March 17, 2007
Really? Who else broke the number one rule in baseball? Shoeless Joe Jackson, hall of famer, that's who. oh wait, never mind
posted by sic at 05:10 PM on March 17, 2007
"I never bet on baseball." "I did bet on baseball, but never on a game involving my team." "I bet on my team to win every night." Next up: "Sometimes I bet on my team to lose, but only if I owed my bookie a lot."