Pete Rose

Reactions
90 0 0
#1
Long story short, I got into a heated argument with a friend about Pete Rose which evolved into which is worse: betting or steroids.

My argument is both are bad and not mutually exclusive. Pete Rose should not be allowed in the hall of fame and the fact that roid users are in the hall of fame is not an excuse to allow him in. I stand that betting has the potential to destroy franchises and the game itself, whereas roid use has the potential to ruin a team season and a player's career.

Friend's angle is that roid use directly impacts the outcome of games and is worse than betting. He states that because roid users are in the hall of fame, Pete Rose should be too.

To which, I asked. Betting is not a problem in baseball because no one wants to take the risk and be the next Pete Rose.


What are you positions?
 
Reactions
657 121 1
#2
Steroids need to fought against as hard as betting has, because it creates a need to do harm for your body. Steroids are bad for your health, and if people can slip by and further their careers by using them, that creates an environment where someone that might not want to do that to their body suddenly has to to be competitive.

As for who should be allowed in the hall of fame, I kinda feel similar to your friend that what Rose did is less than those that abused steroids, but I don't think that means he should be added, instead it means there are players that shouldn't have been added.
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
961 407 7
#3
I think Rose should be added. He bet for his team to win, not to lose. Yes, they frown on betting (even though they condone fantasy sports and always report the betting lines - double standard, anyone?), but it's not like he was throwing games. He deserves to be in and the MLB needs to pull their heads out of their asses.

As to steroids, just let them all juice. Fuck it. Don't test for anything. You want a level playing field? There you go.
 
Reactions
425 144 6
#5
Both are bad. One ruins the integrity of the game, the other gives one player an unfair advantage over others.

One has been against the rules of MLB for nearly a century; the other has been against the rules for over a decade.

One carries an automatic lifetime ban, while the other has strict penalties that can lead to permanent banishment.
 
Reactions
90 0 0
#6
I think Rose should be added. He bet for his team to win, not to lose. Yes, they frown on betting (even though they condone fantasy sports and always report the betting lines - double standard, anyone?), but it's not like he was throwing games. He deserves to be in and the MLB needs to pull their heads out of their asses.

As to steroids, just let them all juice. Fuck it. Don't test for anything. You want a level playing field? There you go.

The issue with betting for and not against, how do you know he didn't conspire with opposing teams' members to throw games? Regardless of for or against betting, it questions the integrity of the match.
 
Reactions
605 249 24
#7
I let them all in. Pete Rose is the all time hits leader. That guy should be in the hall of fame. As far as steroids go, they were all taking it, the guys who were the best were still the best. Though honestly, I would allow players to take steroids as long as they were administered by a trained professional.
 
Reactions
489 109 4
#8
It's the one written in stone unforgivable rule of baseball, and not only did Rose break it, he has rubbed Baseball's nose in it for decades. And didn't some more incriminating evidence come out over the last year or so?

Keep him out. As much for being a jerk about it as the original crime.
 
Reactions
206 5 0
#9
while I think steroids had certainly hurt the game in a way that it hasn't for other leagues, a gambling scandal nearly destroyed the sport and baseball has been sensitive about it for 97 years. I'm glad Baseball is letting be in baseball adjacent roles, but I understand why the lifetime ban is in place.
 
Reactions
448 112 0
#10
Rose should be in as a player, never as a manager. He's the all-time hits leader, they didn't strip that achievement from him for betting, so why ban the player for the actions of the manager.
 
Reactions
206 5 0
#11
Rose should be in as a player, never as a manager. He's the all-time hits leader, they didn't strip that achievement from him for betting
Well it's not the NCAA, and no one buys the whole stripping of wins and records there either.
 
Reactions
425 144 6
#13
I don't think McGwire-Sosa-Clemens-Bonds are going to be getting in anytime soon, mostly because the writers will refuse to put them in.

The problem with putting Rose in the hall is that the plaque is going to have to have about ten paragraphs of explanation underneath his face. And I don't see that happening.

Unfortunately, that would be the same for Clemens/Bonds. (Sorry, Sammy and Mark aren't HOF worthy.)
 
Reactions
489 109 4
#14
If anything, Rose should only get into the hall well after he's dead. That way he won't be able to rub Baseball's face in it one last time.

And even then, only if Shoeless Joe Jackson gets in first.
 
Reactions
448 112 0
#16
...I guess after a quick second thought, I will say this: i think he should be in, but i hate some of the stuff he's done in the meantime - such as "I'll sign anything on a damn baseball for a buck" - and it certainly doesn't help his cause.

...and since it was brought up, i think Shoeless Joe should be in too.
Not baseball, but I was at a sports show with lots of retired NFL players there, including Ron Jaworski, some guy came up to him (after waiting in line) and asked him to sign a Dolphins helmet. He took the helmet, looked at it for a second, and yelled down the line "Hey guys, did I ever play for the Dolphins?" Couple of laughs, and I never saw who said it, one yelled out "You got paid by them, but never played for them!" Jaworski shrugged his shoulders and signed the helmet.
 
Reactions
448 112 0
#17
I wasn't trying to be against your point, just an interesting anecdote of something that I witnessed with a different person.
 
Reactions
90 0 0
#20
Rose should be in as a player, never as a manager. He's the all-time hits leader, they didn't strip that achievement from him for betting, so why ban the player for the actions of the manager.

I don't think his hits are stripped are they? He just can't get into the hall of fame with his numbers.
 
Reactions
425 144 6
#21
If the man had keeled over from a heart attack the winter before he was banned from the game, he'd have been in the Hall long ago.
 
Reactions
474 133 6
#23
I'm having a hard time caring about this. He bet on his own games as a player and a manager when such activity was expressly forbidden by his contracts as a player and manager. The hall of fame unofficially voted against players who broke the betting rules, and made an official rule a few years after his ejection from MLB due to his activities that they would always reject a player that broke these rules. The fact that he lied for decades, and only admitted to his activities in order to promote his book (ie, make money), suggests that anything he says regarding who be bet for and whether he ever bet against himself or his team should be taken with a grain of salt. Wikipedia suggests there is evidence he did bet against his team.

If you're arguing that the rules shouldn't be changed, and pete should be in the hall of fame, then you're saying, "The rules shouldn't apply to certain special people".

If you're arguing the rules should be changed, then you should add all the players that have been exceptional regardless of the rules, and thus incentivise betting and doping activities among current players and managers.

I don't think, from an objective viewpoint, either situation is a good choice.

There is, however, something to be said for addiction. A lot of people don't consider gambling addicting the same way they consider hard drugs to be addicting, but I believe that's not necessarily correct. Someone could be tied as strongly to a gambling addiction as to a drug addiction such that they destroy their life and the life of those around them in order to feed the addiction. At that point it doesn't really matter whether the addiction is chemical or mental.

There may be room to suggest that debilitating illnesses should result in some opportunities for reconciliation.

That still has some potential landmines in terms of what message the MLB would be sending fans, current players and managers, and hopefuls trying to enter the game.

Perhaps there's room in the MLB for a lesser "Hall of Honor" where they can put players that should be recognized despite being ineligible for the hall of fame.
 
Reactions
605 249 24
#25
If you're arguing the rules should be changed, then you should add all the players that have been exceptional regardless of the rules, and thus incentivise betting and doping activities among current players and managers.
I would say that banning them from playing or coaching is fine, but I don't mind having them in the Hall of Fame. As far as betting goes, that will not happen again from a player. The money they make from playing is too good to jeopardize by gambling to earn a few bucks.
 
Reactions
474 133 6
#26
When I read that, I would've bet on a short post.
It's easy to think about, just hard to care, and the disclaimer was because this is an emotionally fraught argument for some people. my dispassionate outsider's view could well be offensive to those for whom baseball is a religion.
 
Reactions
474 133 6
#28
In this sense, IMO Rose is the blasphemer of all blasphemers.
Yeah, watching two fans argue opposite each other on this issue is like watching two preachers argue over the exact nature of God. They both believe their position absolute truth, and the others position the grossest of blasphemy. Both have good points and often the main difference is merely the perspective.

Is the game made for the player, or the player made for the game? Which is more important? Pete and the other players who are obviously cream of the crop, or the game, divinely given to the players by the officials and the millions of players before them? Do we honor the players or the game? Do the players reflect the game, or should the game reflect the players? Are people who hate Cracker Jack evil, or pure evil?
 
Reactions
227 14 1
#29
I'm having a hard time caring about this. He bet on his own games as a player and a manager when such activity was expressly forbidden by his contracts as a player and manager. The hall of fame unofficially voted against players who broke the betting rules, and made an official rule a few years after his ejection from MLB due to his activities that they would always reject a player that broke these rules. The fact that he lied for decades, and only admitted to his activities in order to promote his book (ie, make money), suggests that anything he says regarding who be bet for and whether he ever bet against himself or his team should be taken with a grain of salt. Wikipedia suggests there is evidence he did bet against his team.

If you're arguing that the rules shouldn't be changed, and pete should be in the hall of fame, then you're saying, "The rules shouldn't apply to certain special people".

If you're arguing the rules should be changed, then you should add all the players that have been exceptional regardless of the rules, and thus incentivise betting and doping activities among current players and managers.

I don't think, from an objective viewpoint, either situation is a good choice.

There is, however, something to be said for addiction. A lot of people don't consider gambling addicting the same way they consider hard drugs to be addicting, but I believe that's not necessarily correct. Someone could be tied as strongly to a gambling addiction as to a drug addiction such that they destroy their life and the life of those around them in order to feed the addiction. At that point it doesn't really matter whether the addiction is chemical or mental.

There may be room to suggest that debilitating illnesses should result in some opportunities for reconciliation.

That still has some potential landmines in terms of what message the MLB would be sending fans, current players and managers, and hopefuls trying to enter the game.

Perhaps there's room in the MLB for a lesser "Hall of Honor" where they can put players that should be recognized despite being ineligible for the hall of fame.
Another option: include him in the hall of fame but also include the context of his inclusion. Let his achievements and his sins live on in infamy.
 
Reactions
90 0 0
#30
I would say that banning them from playing or coaching is fine, but I don't mind having them in the Hall of Fame. As far as betting goes, that will not happen again from a player. The money they make from playing is too good to jeopardize by gambling to earn a few bucks.

Thing is it's been a hard baseball rule for over 100 years since betting almost literally destroyed the league when the Black Sox were accused of throwing games due to betting. Have you heard of anyone betting since? Pete Rose is the only one, and yes, the MLB should continue using him as the crucified example of what happens when you bet while under affiliation of the league. It's no different than insider trading on the stockmarket, and people go to jail for that (except Congress, where it's perfectly legal for some reason).

Furthermore, this wasn't a couple bucks. Dude was gambling up to 10k a day at one point. He was making big bucks off this.
 
Reactions
425 144 6
#33
(cracks knuckles)

This one's a personal peeve of mine.

Players, managers, officials who bet on games that they are involved in - whether or not it is to win or to lose - changes the fundamental nature of the sport. You are no longer playing as part of a team effort to win games and championships (or, in the part of the official/umpire/referee, applying the rules of the game fairly). You are out for only one thing - yourself, and your bet.

If you look at it closely, you can see that during the time Rose was managing the Reds (and where there was evidence that he was betting on the Reds that day), he made managing decisions that would, in the long run, look to be poor managing decisions.

An example, though it's not actually what occurred: say he had a grand on a game against the Dodgers, where the Reds were facing LA's fourth starter, Rick Honeycutt. If his starter faltered early, he'd pinch hit to try to get a lead. By doing so, he'd burn through his bullpen like Gas burns through interns. Don't think this happened? Look back at 1987: the Reds had five pitchers who had 40 or more appearances. The NL as a whole had 53. The Reds had 2.8% more 40-game pitchers than the rest of the NL.

Remember when they introduced Tim Drake as the "new" Robin? He made a statement in that introductory comic about "once you know something is true, it's easy to find proof to validate it." If Rose was trying to win bets, not "just" ballgames, he'd overuse his pitching staff in an attempt to win - and damn their arms or need of rest.

Rose did this stuff for years as a manager. And though his apologists would just say, "well, he wasn't very good with his pitching staff," I'd say, "Then how do you explain Lou Piniella winning a World Series with those same damn arms?"

He still shows no remorse from it, nor does he desire to run away from his gambling. If he never gets put in the Hall of Fame, I have no qualms about it.
 
Reactions
425 144 6
#34
Oh, by the way - Using 50 players (twice the number of a typical team's roster) is highly irregular.
 
Reactions
115 0 0
#35
The baseball hall of fame is fundamentally broken and the elitist indignance of the baseball writers association is to blame.

It is not their right nor responsibility to police the game through the hall of fame. Remember the accomplishments of the great players and remember that they made mistakes getting there. They don't get to decide that racial segregation or rampant amphetamine use is acceptable because it wasn't discovered or didn't matter until after the vote. And they don't get to judge a generation of players as unworthy because they did something made illegal after the fact.
 
Top