Jump to content

Should Pete Rose be Reinstated into Baseball?


jaker52

Recommended Posts

doesn't' Floyd Mayweather bet on himself all the time?

That's not even close to the same thing. Not even in the same ballpark.

1. Boxing purses are different for winners and losers. The whole point is to go all out to win. Since legal betting is such a big reason that anyone still watches boxing, they need to ensure that each boxer is doing everything in his power to win. Every boxer should bet on himself... unless he either knows that he's a big underdog, or is just out there to cash a check and doesnt' care.

2. If he would do anything differently whether he bet on himself or not, it's only affecting himself, and he doesn't have to fight again for 6 mos or another year.

3. Pete Rose didn't bet on himself!!!!!!!! He bet on his team. Big difference. Not that betting on himself would be any better (maybe he selfishly tries to get a hit when a sac fly would help the team win), but it's still totally different.

There's no way to compare the two situations, and there's no way to argue that betting for his team was any more noble than betting against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 164
  • Created
  • Last Reply

To veer off topic slightly, a thought came to me during the pre-game festivities on Tuesday. I wasn't yet born during the Big Red Machine era. How the hell did those teams only win two freaking championships? The greatest catcher of all time. Arguably the greatest second baseman of all time. The all-time hits leader. And I know they had several other good hitters. Was their pitching mediocre?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the Reds did go to four World Series lost one in seven games, won five division titles in seven years losing a flukish NLCS to the Mets in five games

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To veer off topic slightly, a thought came to me during the pre-game festivities on Tuesday. I wasn't yet born during the Big Red Machine era. How the hell did those teams only win two freaking championships? The greatest catcher of all time. Arguably the greatest second baseman of all time. The all-time hits leader. And I know they had several other good hitters. Was their pitching mediocre?

Reds fan born in 87 here so this is all based on the pile of books I've read to try to gain a sense of the glory years (*cries*).

The BRM had serviceable pitching, but it wasn't on the level with the Orioles of the day. I mean, Sparky Anderson basically invented bullpen usage as we know it during the 75 season because the starters couldn't go 8 innings. The pitchers called him Captain Hook.

Nobody ever talks about any of the pitchers when they talk about the Big Red Machine. They only ever talk about the starting 8, plus sometimes Dan Driessen. Though to be fair 3 of the 5 starters on the 75 team had ERAs below 4 and Don Gullet's was 2.42. Also, Gary Nolan had a great year that year after coming back from Tommy John surgery (fun trivia fact: Gary Nolan had Tommy John surgery only weeks after Tommy John. It could've easily been called Gary Nolan surgery).

And they should've won more championships, but happened to run into an historically great Orioles team in 1970, an historically great A's team in 72 (had game 7 at home. Should've won that series), and got tripped up in the small sample size best of 5 by the inferior Mets* in 73. Then due to the ridiculously exclusive playoff format they missed the playoffs in 1974 with 98 wins and missed the playoffs in 78 with 92 wins. The only outlier year in the 70's is the weird season in 71 when they went 79-83, but that led to trading Lee May and Tommy Helms for Joe Morgan so it all worked out.

*The 73 Mets only won 82 games without a single hitter with an average above .300. Was the rest of the NL East even trying that year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See to me I think Rose should be in more for the fans than for himself personally. Pete Rose was a beloved member of the Big Red Machine and those fans deserve to see his face in Cooperstown on bronze plaque.

See, here's where I agree with you. It's a damn shame that Rose can't be in the Hall of Fame for that reason.

But you're ignoring the fact that Pete Rose is the only one responsible for that. Pete Rose obviously doesn't give a :censored: about that fans, caring only about himself.

Rose is the one who broke the rule, repeatedly, for decades. Rose is the one who lied when he got caught, who smeared the people who (truthfully) accused him, and who has gone on lying for decades, only modifying the lies when new evidence emerges making the old lies untenable.

Rose, and only Rose, has continued to make any sort of settlement impossible by refusing to express even the smallest amount of contrition. And the few admissions he has made only came when they were convenient to promote his products.

I understand your frustration over the state of affairs. What I don't understand is your refusal to hold responsible the only man who can possibly shoulder any of the blame. That's neither a conservative position nor a libertarian one. Those philosophies are built on a foundation of personal responsibility, owning your own actions and the consequences rather than trying to pawn them off on somebody else.

Pete hasn't demonstrated so much as an ounce of personal responsibility since this whole mess began. It boggles my mind that you're so willing to enable him in that.

It's not like we're dry on Hall of Famers from that team either. Tony Perez, Joe Morgan, Sparky Anderson, Johnny Bench are all in the HOF from that team. And for the younger generation we have Barry Larkin. I'm set on Reds in the hall for a while.

The entire BRM roster is all over the Reds hall of fame museum and they have a three story high wall with over 4,000 baseballs nailed to it. Pete Rose is sufficiently honored by the Reds for this Reds fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it hurts baseball that players like Rose, Bonds, Clemens are not in the Hall of Fame. It hurts a lot more than letting them in.

For every Rose, Bonds, and Clemens out, there is a Williams, DiMaggio, and Clemente in. Baseball is not hurting badly enough to let cheaters into the Hall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And didn't Pete Rose basically get a deal that would've suspended him for only a single calendar year if he had just confessed? He easily could've been in the hall as soon as the early to mid 1990s, yet he decided to keep fighting it. Then it comes out that he was lying the whole time and, well, here we are.

Pete Rose isn't a Hall of Famer and it's nobody's fault but his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never been to Cooperstown. Is there any recognition of Pete Rose and the hit record?

Essentially, is he recognized as being an important part of the game and having significant accomplishments even if not officially inducted with a bust?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And didn't Pete Rose basically get a deal that would've suspended him for only a single calendar year if he had just confessed? He easily could've been in the hall as soon as the early to mid 1990s, yet he decided to keep fighting it. Then it comes out that he was lying the whole time and, well, here we are.

Pete Rose isn't a Hall of Famer and it's nobody's fault but his own.

No the deal he signed was created by his lawyers basically saying he could never talk about his gambling ect. unless evidence is brought up and has to admit to it, or something like that. He had an interview on FS1 recently after the latest evidence came out and said that was the reason he never came out about his gambling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never been to Cooperstown. Is there any recognition of Pete Rose and the hit record?

Essentially, is he recognized as being an important part of the game and having significant accomplishments even if not officially inducted with a bust?

Yes, they do acknowledge him in the museum part of the Hall, which is fine with me:

fact-2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, if the Hall of Fame Chris Benoit'd Rose, such as showing an all-time hits chart with a blank next to 1. it would be silly. Recognize what he achieved but let him stay out.

An interesting thought, though. Rose got caught just three years after retirement. He would have certainly gone into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot in 1992. So I wonder what HOF would have done had Rose got busted in 1993. Has anybody ever been removed from the Hall?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting thought, though. Rose got caught just three years after retirement. He would have certainly gone into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot in 1992. So I wonder what HOF would have done had Rose got busted in 1993. Has anybody ever been removed from the Hall?

I wondered something like that myself, after we just recently found out betting on the Reds? Had the writers elected him during the late 90's when there was at least some credible chatter, what now?

The HOF & MLB are mutually exclusive entities. Betting on MLB games, breaking an MLB rule, while being a great baseball player elected by writers... what then for the National Baseball Hall of Fame & Museum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is posted in every MLB clubhouse. Rule 21(d)(2). Bet on a game that you have a role in, get banned for life. Seems pretty simple to me.

rule_21.jpg

Come on... nobody reads the terms of service.

But no... it's the lying that does him in more than anything. At this rate in 10 more years Pete will come out with a book called, "Yes, I Sometimes Bet on the Reds to Lose. Sorry, Not Sorry" as told to Rick Reilly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems as if the law-and-order right wing, though usually in favor of law and order, favors reinstating the guy who broke the most important rule of professional baseball: don't let people think the game is fixed. Does the fact that Pete Rose is a white guy who hangs out in Las Vegas trigger some sort of middlebrow-white-guy override on what should otherwise be a hardline stance against this loser?

From a design standpoint, I wouldn't have set that most important rule in Verdana if I wanted people to take it seriously. It looks terrible in print!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.