Interesting ESPN poll regarding Pete Rose's lifetime ban

[sycks22]

If we believe Rose that he only bet on the Reds to win, how could he affect that outcome? Pretty sure he doesn't want to lose money and if he puts all of his studs on the field and they lose it benefits nobody. If it did come out that he bet against the Reds that's a totally different ball of wax. I say put him in the hall as he bet as a manager and not a player (assuming he didn't bet while he was a player/coach).

[Mountaineer1999]

I say prove it. They need to prove it to me and the other 80% that his betting led to thrown games or he bet on his teams to lose. At least put him on the ballot and let the HOF voters determine his HOF fate.

[HRBAKER]

That's not the way the rule reads, all you have to do is be an idiot and bet. Which he obliged knowingly.

[the 'stache]

You know, one thing that's already been mentioned brings up a fascinating question. Rose had younger players on his team that he could have played, players that you have to believe would have helped the team win at least an extra game or two in 1985. Eric Davis, who would become a superstar the next season, only played in 56 games in 1985. He only batted .247, but in the 122 at bats he got, he hit 8 home runs and stole 16 bases in 19 tries. And an .803 OPS is quite good for a 23 year old part time player. Let's assume he played full time, which, for Davis, never meant more than 500 at bats in a season. He could have had 488 at bats, no problem. At that pace, he hits 32 home runs, and steals 64 bases. Some gentle shuffling of the lineup puts Davis, a future Gold Glover, in the outfield. With him playing instead of Rose, you've improved your defense exponentially. You've added more power and a hell of a lot more speed. The Reds were a much better team with Davis, even though he wasn't yet the player he would eventually become, then they were without him.

So here's that question, and I wonder if anybody has ever thought of this. Did Rose insert himself into the lineup not to get the all-time hits record, but to weaken his team just enough to help his gambling habit? That might sound crazy at first. But is it?

Rose is the manager of the Cincinnati Reds. Unless the team owner or GM stepped in to have Rose fired, Rose was going to continue managing the team, meaning he could continue putting himself into the lineup until the cows came home. He was going to break Cobb's record eventually, and I don't think it mattered to Rose when it happened, so long as it did.

But, if Rose is betting on the game he was about to manage and play in, doesn't taking young and talented Davis out, and putting way past his prime Pete Rose in make it more likely the Reds were going to lose? That coupled with any one of a number of different lineup changes, or substitutions during the game, could have helped give the other team a better chance to win. Remember, when the White Sox threw the 1919 series, they had to bring in Christy Mathewson and a few other former players to watch the game, and see if everything was legit. Joe Jackson was his normal excellent self at the plate. But he, and many of his other teammates, made just a few errors at inopportune moments. And those errors came up big.

The Reds ended up 5.5 games behind the Dodgers. Giving Davis the number of at bats I mentioned would have raised his WAR by 3.3. Now you're 2 games back instead of 5.5. There's pressure on the Dodgers that wasn't here before.

And since we are relatively certain that Rose was betting on baseball while he was a player/manager, I wouldn't put anything by him. Rose knew the game as well as anybody in the game. He knew how to make tiny adjustments that could impact the outcome.

By the way, how good was Eric Davis? He absolutely exploded once he was allowed to play. If you ask me, his 1986 season had one of the most absolutely stupid stat lines I've ever seen. A .277 average, 97 runs score, a slash line of .378/.523/.901 at age 24...with 27 home runs and 80 stolen bases...in 415 at bats. He only played in 132 games, and he hit 27 home runs, and stole 80 bases. Forget the games played, and look at the at bats. Now, he never approached 600 at bats in a season, but he should have. And if Davis had come to the plate 600 times that season, he'd have hit about 40 home runs, and he would have stolen about 120 bases. He had as much God given ability as anybody that I've seen. It's too bad that he wasn't able to play longer. The next season, 1987, he played in only 129 games. 474 at bats. He scored 120 runs, had 37 home runs, drove in 100 runs, and stole 50 bases in 56 tries. And walked 84 times. A .991 OPS with 50 stolen bases. And a Gold Glove in center field. Eric Davis could have broken records if it weren't for the injuries he suffered when he played. He is one of the very best power and speed combinations the game has ever seen. He was insanely good as a base stealer. Not only did he steal a lot, but he was efficient. Before the 1996 season, when he turned 34, and was caught 9 times in 32 attempts, Davis was stealing at a pace pretty much unequaled in the game's history. He'd stolen 306 bases in 351 attempts, which is an eye popping 87.2% success rate. For his career, he stole 349 bases in 415 attempts. That's the 4th best all-time for players with over 300 attempts in the live ball era.

[RTK]

Do we really believe he only bet on the Reds to win? By admitting to betting only to win, he's trying to save his rear end. My guess is, for the "good of baseball", MLB will never show any evidence that Rose bet against the Reds. Gambling is a sickness, addicted people will do anything for their own good.

[packs]

I don't know why anyone would believe a compulsive gambler would take a sucker bet that he knows is impossible to win. I.e. it is not possible to win every single game you play, but you really believe that Rose only bet on the Reds to win? Come on. First he never gambled. Then he did gamble, but it was only in favor of the Reds.

Give me a break.

If Rose did bet on the Reds and bet big, then he would expend all of the resources available to him to win one single game. That could throw the next game, or series of games, into jeopardy.

For example, Rose has a ton of money on the line for the Reds to win. He uses all of his pitchers in an effort to win the game. Now he has no one available for the next game. Isn't he sacrificing tomorrow for today in this situation? No one sees a problem with trying to win for personal profit over trying to win for the good of the team?

[drcy]

Dowd has said the evidence points to Rose betting against the Reds and he believes Rose bet against the Reds.

This "only bet for the Reds" story appears to nothing more than an urban myth concocted by pathological liar (Rose) and repeated by his followers. At this point, only the cognitively challenged take what Rose says as "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth," especially when Dowd contradicts.