- Thread starter
- Admin
- #126
Yeah he is haha.
Its so interesting because MLB did turn a blind eye and the MLBPA turned an even bigger one.
MLB Hall of Fame and the Steroid Era
Its so interesting because MLB did turn a blind eye and the MLBPA turned an even bigger one.
This is one of the big things. Pre 90's baseball players were basically of the belief that if you lifted weights you would "get tight and not be able to throw or swing a bat" Once they figured out that wasn't true it was game on and players started getting jacked. Just so happened to coincide with the steroid era so how many guys were getting jacked and how many were doing perfectly legal supplements and crushing it in the weight room. The other part is that supplements weren't very well regulated (still aren't) and many had steroid precursors (andro) or even things that are now considered PED's that weren't then.
Having money on the line still factors into decision making, and the question remains about whether he would have managed games differently had he not bet on them.
Yes rules in general, but since the Black Sox Scandal only 1 rule is automatic banning, and that is betting on baseball, and it's posted in every lockerroom.
Now, my issue is that most (maybe all?) pro sports now have betting tie ins, heck there are sports books at stadiums, so it's ok that we all bet but not the players, and for what it's worth, there are players with limited will power who could end up doing just that - no way to know (today), but eventually.
So, no, it's not about hum drum rule breaking, it's about breaking that cardinal rule.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2017
- Messages
- 2,221
- Reaction score
- 3,961
- Handicap
- 12.8
I say let them in. It was a part of the game and everyone knew it and everyone ignored it until the very end. It wasn't a single person that took advantage. It was a systemic failure. The players played in an era known as the steroid era. They're already tainted.
And it pains me to say this as a Reds fan, but Pete Rose shouldn't be in the HOF in his lifetime. He committed the cardinal sin of baseball. He knew it. He had multiple chances to come clean and didn't. He had a chance to make a deal that would have gotten him in by this point and didn't. He deflected every chance he had and then wrote a book admitting to it to make money off the situation.
As a person, the dude sucks. As a player, he's admired for a reason. But he messed up his chance. And everyone should check out the wall of baseballs and the Rose garden at the Reds Museum to see how much his on field accomplishments are celebrated.
And it pains me to say this as a Reds fan, but Pete Rose shouldn't be in the HOF in his lifetime. He committed the cardinal sin of baseball. He knew it. He had multiple chances to come clean and didn't. He had a chance to make a deal that would have gotten him in by this point and didn't. He deflected every chance he had and then wrote a book admitting to it to make money off the situation.
As a person, the dude sucks. As a player, he's admired for a reason. But he messed up his chance. And everyone should check out the wall of baseballs and the Rose garden at the Reds Museum to see how much his on field accomplishments are celebrated.
But if your money is on your team to win then every decision should be to try and win the game... which if I'm a fan of that team I want the manager to do.
Oh I understand what the cardinal rule is... I just think it's stupid. There are way more things more egregious imo then gambling. I'd much rather you gamble then literally do things that actually cheat the integrity of the game. But.. we are way past that so put them all in.
So, today you bet I don't know $100K on your team to win, tomorrow you have your #5 starter against their #1, so no bet. With that in mind, you pull your starter after 3 innings as he's tense, his numbers for the day are neutral, but you have 5 pitchers in the pen ready to go, also.
In the 8th inning you are down 1 and have a .300 hitter up righty/lefty matchup, man on 3rd 2 outs, he's an all star SS, but against their pitcher he is only hitting .275, you have a switch hitter on the bench, can't play SS but he hits the pitcher say .290. Your replacement SS for teh 9th is a rookie who is at best average in teh field.
I am just making this stuff up on the fly, yea, he's managing to win....today, he's obliterated the pen for tomorrows game (no bet there), and messed up his lineup to win .... his bet.
Benefit of the doubt; lets say he only bet on his team to win, is that a win covering the spread or not?
Fair point and I didn't really think of it that way. I just did a quick Google search of worst people in HOF and I will stand by me original opinion that Pete Rose should be in over those guys.
Not really a spread in baseball... I mean the run line I guess. I just want the manager to win the game. @JW Smoove makes a good point above with how it can affect future games that I didn't consider though.
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #137
It could also influence letting a guy go a little longer than usual and making a decision based on the win of a single game vs the future. I am so over the top against betting on your own team.
Trying to win the game? Or the bet?
While these may seem like the same thing they are definitely not.
Journalists and moral high ground? Surely you jest, lol.
@JW Smoove pointed that out and I admit I hadn't considered it. I'm not for betting when you are involved w/ the game but I am also not for the hypocrisy that is the baseball HOF. There are literally scumbags in it but Pete Rose is one they keep out.
I can see how it would affect future games but I fail to see your logic in that if you place a ML bet on your own team to win you could try to win that bet and not win the game.
Maybe you pull a starting pitcher at the slightest bit of adversity rather than letting him work out of it. Immediately you’ve changed the entire nature of that game because you’ve gone to the bullpen when maybe you didn’t need to.
Maybe you send a guy in to pinch run earlier in the game to try and get a run.
Maybe you bench a starter that didn’t hit well the night before.
Sports psychology is a thing and you’re fooling yourself if you think it doesn’t change, for a player or a coach, when they have their own money on the line.
I get the sports psychology part and I do understand the point about changing the game some. Managers without money on the game do the same thing w/ every decision they make. If you are saying the manager might make a wrong decision because he bet on the game then fine. My point is they are making every decision they think will win the game. They should be doing that any ways. And I guess people think I am advocating for allowing people to bet on games they are involved with as its for their team to win. I am absolutely not for that. My original point was I think those who compare the Black Sox scandal to what Pete Rose did are wrong.
TwoGlovesGarcia
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 1,512
- Reaction score
- 750
- Handicap
- 36
Speaking of scumbags, let's not forget mid- to late-30s Rose was having sex with teenagers, some who claim to have been underage (16 was the law in Ohio at the time).
If you don't want to let him in for that anything of that nature you have my backing.
I personally would put everyone in (including Pete Rose) with qualifiers if someone was confirmed to be cheating (with either the use of performance enhancing chemicals, or in some of the sign stealing issues) that there is something explaining that.
TwoGlovesGarcia
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 1,512
- Reaction score
- 750
- Handicap
- 36
Him betting on baseball is sufficient for me to keep him out. I'm a lifelong Reds diehard, going back to when Rose was fighting Bud Harrelson at second base and running over Ray Fosse at home. And he should never be in the Hall imo.
Even if Rose only bet on the Reds to win, there were days he didn't bet at all. That was a giant red flag to bookies and other gamblers to load up on the other team. The only way the "Pete only bet on his team to win" argument has any merit would have been if he bet on them to win every game they played.
Some hack from Pittsburgh left McDavid off the NHL MVP Hart Trophy ballot this year, preventing unanimity, that and the defense of it permanently lowered my 'care level'. Go look at McD's performance relative to the rest of the league, and to history, and tell me (no don't, please, I'm not interested) in what world leaving him off the ballot makes an iota of sense.
Bonds would have been in or close before he ever applied the cream. Clemens too.
Pete should be in. It's vendetta vs vendetta at this point.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2017
- Messages
- 2,221
- Reaction score
- 3,961
- Handicap
- 12.8
- He was accused of betting on baseball, including Reds games, in 1989. He denied, UNDER OATH, that he did. He then signed the deal for a LIFETIME ban from MLB.
- He and his lawyer presented "evidence" that shows he didn't bet on baseball in 2000 when trying to get reinstated, knowing it was a lie.
- He sold baseballs at card shows saying he didn't bet on baseball.
- In late 2003 he admitted to betting on baseball and released a book to make money off of it. The book was released 2 days after the 2004 HOF class was announced.
- He started selling baseballs saying he DID bet on baseball.
- In 2015, Outside the Lines reported to have documents that showed he bet on the Reds in 1986 when he was a player. Something else he always denied.
- In 2023 he placed the first legal sports bet in Ohio history. Again thumbing his nose at MLB and everyone else and showing no remorse or common sense.
If it was announced tomorrow that he bet against his team, would you be surprised? I wouldn't. He has never shown contrition and never given a true apology. He doesn't feel bad for what he did, only what's happening to him. He jeopardized the legitimacy of the game.
When we watch sports we HAVE to know the competition is real. Otherwise it's a well written drama. That's why it is comparable to the Black Sox and worse than steroids. Steroids is cheating and if the players never get in, I won't lose any sleep. But they were still competing and trying to win. By betting on HIS team, people have wondered if he managed badly, or played badly, for personal benefit vs trying to win for the team.
And I love Pete Rose as a player. I'm a Reds fan and always will be. But he made his own bed and he can deal with the consequences.
Edit: missed a word
Last edited:
Late to the party, and I love talking about baseball - especially the 90's which was the peak of my childhood obsession.
I'm a homer 100%, but I think wholeheartedly that Griffey would be the all-time HR leader if he took PEDs. The amount of time he missed because of injuries is pretty wild for a guy who still hit 630 HR. He missed almost 900 games in his career including 260 in a 3 year stretch. So there is a weird thing to me with comparing him to Bonds.
I'm OK with Andruw Jones being the hall. Maybe even Posada just because stellar defense and catchers don't get enough credit for what they do. Bonds, Clemens, and Rose at the very least need to immortalized somehow, but in the same vein as @baylrballa I'm not sure it should be scott-free and I don't have better suggestions.
The truth is that personality and ethics matter to us and it matters to the voters because we want to celebrate our heroes, but not sure how you can pick and choose so subjectively - like Big Papi. And to JBs point, the current players are going to be treated differently than those steroid era guys, like Cano and Tatis.
dl;dr: Too much subjectivity in selection.
I'm a homer 100%, but I think wholeheartedly that Griffey would be the all-time HR leader if he took PEDs. The amount of time he missed because of injuries is pretty wild for a guy who still hit 630 HR. He missed almost 900 games in his career including 260 in a 3 year stretch. So there is a weird thing to me with comparing him to Bonds.
I'm OK with Andruw Jones being the hall. Maybe even Posada just because stellar defense and catchers don't get enough credit for what they do. Bonds, Clemens, and Rose at the very least need to immortalized somehow, but in the same vein as @baylrballa I'm not sure it should be scott-free and I don't have better suggestions.
The truth is that personality and ethics matter to us and it matters to the voters because we want to celebrate our heroes, but not sure how you can pick and choose so subjectively - like Big Papi. And to JBs point, the current players are going to be treated differently than those steroid era guys, like Cano and Tatis.
dl;dr: Too much subjectivity in selection.