Pete Rose: Guilty of More Than Gambling

[brett05]

In reference to the roids, they are keeping people who should easily be first ballet HoF out because of it. It's just in this case the *they* is the writers instead of MLB. Either way, my point is people view them as less worthy than people who didn't cheat or didn't gamble or didn't whatever and want that noted some how. It's the same crap they did to Marris with the * on his home run record. I think that was stupid too but to sit here and not include someone like Pete Rose or Barry Bonds in the hall of fame is stupid.

To do it after Rose dies is being petty and spiteful. Again, I'm not saying Rose handled the situation well or as I would have. Arguably what should have happened was after 15 years MLB should have went to him and said something to the effect of come totally clean and all will be forgiven. People make mistakes and I'm guessing Rose would tell you it was a mistake. Hell, I believe I read he writes "I'm sorry I bet on baseball" on every autograph he does.

I just feel like you put the players in who deservingly should be there and note the objectionable stuff they may have done some where.

MLB keeps no one out of the Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame keep people from being voted upon.

The system is setup as it is setup. The writers can do what they want. It's their hall of fame.

Not allowing Pete in is called something Pete will never have, integrity. You can not like it all you want but it's the integrity of the game. Pete has none. He took the one rule and broke it. Then he kept pilling other things on top of it in hopes he'd always be seen as innocent. He lost. He was caught and now he serves the known punishment for it.

Pete should have apologized immediately. Nope. He sullied Bart's name through it all as well.

He writes that on autos on request if you PAY HIM to do it. Call a spade a spade.

Pete all by himself could have destroyed the game of baseball. Sorry, he's out and it's just.

 

[Parade_Rain]

Here's the problem with this arguing over statistics. Soon as the MLB started adding more teams you immediately cheapen the stats. More players means less quality per team. Soon as you add more games to the schedule you cheapen the statistics. Soon as you change the height of the mound you cheapen the statistics. That's one of the reasons I don't find steroids anywhere near as objectionable as most. You really need to view the game in eras. The 90's and 2000's were the steroid era but they were also the expansion era adding Miami, Colorado, Arizona and Tampa. How much did adding 100 more players to the majors(25 per active man roster) water down the game?

I'm not defending the league here as I clearly think they are as dirty as anyone. I just think people need to realize that baseball is a game that's always been about finding some edge whether it's legal or illegal. Part of the reason I love the game is that in a lot of respects it's still the wild west. You have card cheat pitchers getting caught putting resin or something like it on their arm. You have the cardinals hacking into another teams computers. You have tons of shady stuff going on and to me that makes it a bit more compelling than the NFL right now which is trying to make everything about it as child-proof as possible.

As soon as pitchers came up with more and better pitches, it cheapened pitching stats and made hitting stats harder to maintain. There is a reason the mound was lowered 5". There is a reason the strike zone will be changing soon. Pitching has an advantage over hitting currently.

 

[brett05]

Here's the problem with this arguing over statistics. Soon as the MLB started adding more teams you immediately cheapen the stats. More players means less quality per team. Soon as you add more games to the schedule you cheapen the statistics. Soon as you change the height of the mound you cheapen the statistics. That's one of the reasons I don't find steroids anywhere near as objectionable as most. You really need to view the game in eras. The 90's and 2000's were the steroid era but they were also the expansion era adding Miami, Colorado, Arizona and Tampa. How much did adding 100 more players to the majors(25 per active man roster) water down the game?

The watering down of the game is a myth as it relates to expansion.
Here's the case to show that.
1950 US pop ~ 155 Million
2015 US pop ~ 325 Million
1950 MLB Teams 16
2015 MLB Teams 30

We would need to add two more teams just to keep it level and let's not forget that international players (~28% are foreign which should correlate to what...40 to 42 teams in the league to keep pace?)

 

[brett05]

As soon as pitchers came up with more and better pitches, it cheapened pitching stats and made hitting stats harder to maintain. There is a reason the mound was lowered 5". There is a reason the strike zone will be changing soon. Pitching has an advantage over hitting currently.

I'm not going to go to battle over the strength of pitchers v hitters again.

But the bold part. Got anything for me to read on that? I am not doubting, but this is the first time I have ever heard of that being done.

 

[Parade_Rain]

They lowered the strike zone to get officials to call pitches according to the rule book. As technology has advanced and they have been critiqued, they are calling the lower pitches correctly and they are too low. They will move the zone back up above the knees. That will still take a couple of years to filter correctly to the ball strike calls. I have no time now, but when I get a chance I will find the article. The current zone is killing offense.

 

[beckdawg]

Not allowing Pete in is called something Pete will never have, integrity.

Ok but again, if Pete is this person with such appalling lack of integrity, why ever allow him in? Like if you're going to take the morals stance what purpose dose it serve breaking them because a guy has died? At that point you're making money off the guy who lacks integrity. What does that say?

I'd also point out that there's a lot of players with questionable integrity already in the HoF but clearly your beef is with Rose. It all strikes me as you having something personal against Rose and not having any real background on many of the players already in the hall of fame who've done things that lack integrity. Like I said, if people want to just rip into Rose then by all means do so but let me know because it sure doesn't seem like anyone here has anything even remotely close to an open mind on the subject.

I don't particularly care for Rose. I've never grew up with him. I never liked the reds. So I don't really have any real connection to him. I just don't really buy this media portrayal of the villain with the curly mustache who ties women to train tracks. Would Rose be in say the bottom 1/3 in player character? Almost assuredly but it's not like every player in the hall of fame has high moral standing.

 

[brett05]

They lowered the strike zone to get officials to call pitches according to the rule book. As technology has advanced and they have been critiqued, they are calling the lower pitches correctly and they are too low. They will move the zone back up above the knees. That will still take a couple of years to filter correctly to the ball strike calls. I have no time now, but when I get a chance I will find the article. The current zone is killing offense.

Perhaps the offense was never to be like it is.

Anyway, yeah, I would genuinely appreciate the article that talks about the rule change coming.

 

[brett05]

Ok but again, if Pete is this person with such appalling lack of integrity, why ever allow him in? Like if you're going to take the morals stance what purpose dose it serve breaking them because a guy has died? At that point you're making money off the guy who lacks integrity. What does that say?

I'd also point out that there's a lot of players with questionable integrity already in the HoF but clearly your beef is with Rose. It all strikes me as you having something personal against Rose and not having any real background on many of the players already in the hall of fame who've done things that lack integrity. Like I said, if people want to just rip into Rose then by all means do so but let me know because it sure doesn't seem like anyone here has anything even remotely close to an open mind on the subject.

I don't particularly care for Rose. I've never grew up with him. I never liked the reds. So I don't really have any real connection to him. I just don't really buy this media portrayal of the villain with the curly mustache who ties women to train tracks. Would Rose be in say the bottom 1/3 in player character? Almost assuredly but it's not like every player in the hall of fame has high moral standing.

Yes, MBL needs to stop proftting
The integrity of the game. Could I have a list of the guys that could have single handedly destroyed the game?

I have no axe to grind. I liked Pete Rose. Never loved him as I didn't follow the Reds, but he was awesome. He played a lot of defensive positions. He played them well too. He was Mr Hustle. Charlie Hustle. And was a good example of working hard to succeed. But all of the negativity, Pete brought upon himself. If you can't clearly see that, then I am at a loss. It's not an issue of open mindness. Pete has closed it for all but the most attached to Pete really.

 

[beckdawg]

Yes, MBL needs to stop proftting
The integrity of the game. Could I have a list of the guys that could have single handedly destroyed the game?

I wasn't aware that the MLB closed shop after he bet on games or that any sport stopped after betting scandals. Didn't the NBA just recently have a ref who fixed games and did that destroy the NBA?

Either way, if that is your belief that rose is that bad of a person why should he ever be part of the hall of fame? I mean you clearly don't want him in now so what is different about him dying? Isn't him being there even in death giving someone who by your words has no integrity a place of honor? I'm just trying to understand that reasoning. You said before if I'm not misquoting you here that it would be for the fans. If you're doing it for the fans after his death why wait? Also, if he's such a lack of integrity why would the MLB want the fans to view him in a place of honor ever?

Like I can understand your view that he has no integrity and all that and why you don't feel he should be in the hall of fame. I don't agree with it but I at least understand it. But what I don't get is why if that is your view you would ever want someone like him in the hall of fame. Joe Jackson I can get because he supposedly tried to give the money back and from all indications it was just bad situation. But nothing changes here with Rose. He's the same SOB he was at the time of the betting even when he dies.

What am I missing here?

 

[brett05]

I wasn't aware that the MLB closed shop after he bet on games or that any sport stopped after betting scandals. Didn't the NBA just recently have a ref who fixed games and did that destroy the NBA?

Either way, if that is your belief that rose is that bad of a person why should he ever be part of the hall of fame? I mean you clearly don't want him in now so what is different about him dying? Isn't him being there even in death giving someone who by your words has no integrity a place of honor? I'm just trying to understand that reasoning. You said before if I'm not misquoting you here that it would be for the fans. If you're doing it for the fans after his death why wait? Also, if he's such a lack of integrity why would the MLB want the fans to view him in a place of honor ever?

Like I can understand your view that he has no integrity and all that and why you don't feel he should be in the hall of fame. I don't agree with it but I at least understand it. But what I don't get is why if that is your view you would ever want someone like him in the hall of fame. Joe Jackson I can get because he supposedly tried to give the money back and from all indications it was just bad situation. But nothing changes here with Rose. He's the same SOB he was at the time of the betting even when he dies.

What am I missing here?

The punishment for the crime for Pete. That's what you miss. Post, the honor really is for the fans

 

[Parade_Rain]

The punishment for the crime for Pete. That's what you miss. Post, the honor really is for the fans

The fans don't play the game. The fans didn't get over 4100 hits. The honor is for the player. It isn't any different than getting a Congressional Medal of Honor post-humously. It isn't for the families. It's for the actions performed by the individual.

 

[Diehardfan]

Here's the problem with this arguing over statistics. Soon as the MLB started adding more teams you immediately cheapen the stats. More players means less quality per team. Soon as you add more games to the schedule you cheapen the statistics. Soon as you change the height of the mound you cheapen the statistics. That's one of the reasons I don't find steroids anywhere near as objectionable as most. You really need to view the game in eras. The 90's and 2000's were the steroid era but they were also the expansion era adding Miami, Colorado, Arizona and Tampa. How much did adding 100 more players to the majors(25 per active man roster) water down the game?

I'm not defending the league here as I clearly think they are as dirty as anyone. I just think people need to realize that baseball is a game that's always been about finding some edge whether it's legal or illegal. Part of the reason I love the game is that in a lot of respects it's still the wild west. You have card cheat pitchers getting caught putting resin or something like it on their arm. You have the cardinals hacking into another teams computers. You have tons of shady stuff going on and to me that makes it a bit more compelling than the NFL right now which is trying to make everything about it as child-proof as possible.

I realize that it encompassed more than just HRs but this graph is telling. With all the things you mentioned, nothing had a greater effect than the Steroid Era, even with pumped up pitchers the long ball was just crazy. I have one question...what the hell happened in the middle 50s? There was some teams relocating in there but expansion did happen till 1960 or 61.

 

[beckdawg]

The punishment for the crime for Pete. That's what you miss. Post, the honor really is for the fans

Well the punishment at least in your view is being banned. As I believe you mentioned, there's still bonds and rose stuff in the hall of fame. So the fans can still see that stuff. Why induct him? It would seem to me that is honoring him not giving the fans the history they deserve.

 

[brett05]

Well the punishment at least in your view is being banned. As I believe you mentioned, there's still bonds and rose stuff in the hall of fame. So the fans can still see that stuff. Why induct him? It would seem to me that is honoring him not giving the fans the history they deserve.

It him and the fans while alive. It is just the fans after his death

 

[beckdawg]

It him and the fans while alive. It is just the fans after his death

I guess I'm just not going to understand your way of thinking here so I'll put this to bed. I will ask one more question. What in your opinion is the difference between a HoF bust and just having an area that's not a bust but devoted to his hit record? From a fans point of view what do they get out of the bust? I can only speak for myself here but if I'm going to coopserstown I don't really care about the busts I care about the exhibits. This is what I was getting at when talking about a separate area for people who you don't induct for outside reasons be it steroids betting or whatever. Like you could still have a giant area devoted to Bonds and Rose but you don't have to give them a plaque on the wall. From my perspective as a fan I'd still be getting what you're pushing for. On the other hand if you get him a plaque i feel like that basically honors him not me.

 

[brett05]

I guess I'm just not going to understand your way of thinking here so I'll put this to bed. I will ask one more question. What in your opinion is the difference between a HoF bust and just having an area that's not a bust but devoted to his hit record? From a fans point of view what do they get out of the bust? I can only speak for myself here but if I'm going to coopserstown I don't really care about the busts I care about the exhibits. This is what I was getting at when talking about a separate area for people who you don't induct for outside reasons be it steroids betting or whatever. Like you could still have a giant area devoted to Bonds and Rose but you don't have to give them a plaque on the wall. From my perspective as a fan I'd still be getting what you're pushing for. On the other hand if you get him a plaque i feel like that basically honors him not me.

You want to have a small thing on the hits record (and I say small because it's just one of thousands of baseball records) no issues. It honors the record thru the years not the player in a sense. You put the plaque up with the details on his career and all the pomp and circumstance that goes with it, it honors the man and fans while alive, just the fans when he is dead and paid his debt.

Your issue is not with MLB, it's with the HOF and their rules on who can be voted upon.

 

[beckdawg]

You want to have a small thing on the hits record (and I say small because it's just one of thousands of baseball records) no issues. It honors the record thru the years not the player in a sense. You put the plaque up with the details on his career and all the pomp and circumstance that goes with it, it honors the man and fans while alive, just the fans when he is dead and paid his debt.

Guess we're just not going to see eye to eye here. If I had your view on Rose I would say they can do whatever with pictures, balls, areas for the big red machine but he should never be put with players who didn't bet on the game. Obviously, I've already said I'd would have inducted him years ago so I don't have that view.

 

[brett05]

Guess we're just not going to see eye to eye here. If I had your view on Rose I would say they can do whatever with pictures, balls, areas for the big red machine but he should never be put with players who didn't bet on the game. Obviously, I've already said I'd would have inducted him years ago so I don't have that view.

And it's ok we don't see eye to eye on this.

 

[TL1961]

Whatever, Brett. Since there was no bloody sock incident with Rose, the comment is completely hypothetical and hyperbolic, I'm done conversing with you about this. Enjoy your day posting to yourself.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

And gambling on baseball is the one thing that can ruin the sport. Not drugs. Not greenies. Not booze. Gambling on the sport by people in the sport is the one thing that can bring the game to its knees. Nothing else comes close.

 

[Parade_Rain]

This makes no sense whatsoever.

And gambling on baseball is the one thing that can ruin the sport. Not drugs. Not greenies. Not booze. Gambling on the sport by people in the sport is the one thing that can bring the game to its knees. Nothing else comes close.

Nice strawman. I haven't argued that gambling isn't bad. #ImnotemotionalaboutCastro