Joe Jackson and Pete Rose Should Be HOFers Because...

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by robw1959

The argument that there was no law or baseball policy against taking bribes to throw games is a ridiculous way to excuse Jackson's conduct! Rose never threw a game and never would. Joe Jackson bears far more blame and greater consequences against himself than Pete Rose does simply because of his actions to undermine the game. Yes, they both did what they did for money, but Rose had an addiction besides having a monetary motive. As much as I hate to excuse a man's personal responsibility for his actions, those extenuating circumstances do foster some sympathy, at least in my opinion.

1. You are right but miss the point of you cant break a rule that doesnt exist. It is not a "ridiculous way" but a very technical way.
2. You are assuming that Jackson's conduct was throwing games of which that is very debatable.
3. No way Jackson has more responsibility than Rose. BC the World series was simply an exhibition game at that time and not nearly as prominent as it is seen now and the White Sox, who just won one in 1917, could have seen it simply as on the same level as the City Post Season series they had with the Cubs at the time.
4. This is the plain truth and my point you are attacking. There was no real consequences for the Black Sox prior to them taking their actions (not saying it is ok but simply pointing out historical fact), Rose knew what he was doing, knew the consequences, didnt care, did it anyway, and tried for decades to lie about it. AND yes he was a player and manager doing it.

Jackson, who IMO played to win and didnt throw a game...is not even close to Rose.

What about Jackson's extenuating circumstances...he couldn't read or write...how about that when it comes to his confession in 1920 and going in front of a grand jury without council...or talking with Gandil about making extra money with or with out you prior to the Series in 1919?

[ThomasL]

Rose, an active bettor, by not acting and betting on his team to win is catamount to him tipping off gamblers that he, the best player and manager of the Reds, did not think the Reds would win and thus from a betting perspective is on the same level as a player throwing a game. He didnt throw a game but instead basically said my team isnt likely to win this game...same thing and that's the point

[BobC]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Rose, an active bettor, by not acting and betting on his team to win is catamount to him tipping off gamblers that he, the best player and manager of the Reds, did not think the Reds would win and thus from a betting perspective is on the same level as a player throwing a game. He didnt throw a game but instead basically said my team isnt likely to win this game...same thing and that's the point

So what? Back in those times MLB didn't want fans to think the games were somehow rigged so they'd end up losing interest, not come to the ballpark, and the owners would lose money. Who gives a rat's ass if some gambler didn't see Rose bet on his team that day? So what if that gambler figured that meant he had a better chance to win if he bet against Rose's team then. As long as Rose didn't purposely try to lose the game, he didn't really break the spirit of the rule against gambling. What you're implying is that the rule is there in Rose's case so that one gambler doesn't have inside info that another gambler has. At that time MLB couldn't have cared less about gamblers as they supposedly had nothing to do with gambling and didn't want to be associated with it. Your argument makes it seem MLB was concerned with unfairness to gamblers. What they were afraid of was fans finding out and the perception that maybe Rose was purposely throwing games and therefore they weren't legit. How about this, what if instead of Rose betting on only certain games to win he had bet on his team winning every game. That would nullify your argument about gamblers having inside information when he didn't bet on his team, which would somehow be tantmount to Rose throwing the games he wasn't betting on, according to you. Think about it this way, you're Rose and it is late in the season and your #5 starter is going up against the staff ace from another team that is in the heat of a pennant race. I wouldn't bet on my team either in that case, and neither would anyone else unless they were stupid or they got some ridiculous odds. I'm tired of hearing that lame argument aganst Rose's claim he only bet on his team to win, and therefore never purposely threw a game. The problem is when the fanbase finds out about his gambling on baseball if anyone then thinks he could possibly be throwing games to win bets, not that it somehow gives certain gamblers inside info for betting purposes. And that is what is likely the funniest thing about all this. For all the people who know of Pete Rose and his character as a player and competitor, even though they know he bet on baseball, they pretty much can't see him ever betting against himself or ever losing on purpose. That is probabably the main reason there are so many people that think he should be in the HOF. Now if it could be shown that he did purposely try to throw games for his own economic gain, I think we'd see a huge change in the number of people who currently feel he should be in the HOF.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by BobC

So what?

So what...a major argument people hold up for Rose is the "he never bet against his team" and the act of not betting is the same as betting against and if you cant see that point well I cant help you. If true he didnt bet against his team, it in the end does not matter and betting on your team is still against the rules and the same as betting against in the eyes of the MLB since basically 1926/27 when that rule came into being. Go read the original rule, it is very clear on this point.

Who cares... obviously since it carried the most extreme punishment if someone broke it I would say a lot of people cared.

The point is it does not matter if he bet on his team to win or lose and that is a moot point...simply betting on baseball was the crime and he did it and knew the consequences that were well established.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

So what...a major argument people hold up for Rose is the "he never bet against his team" and the act of not betting is the same as betting against and if you cant see that point well I cant help you. If true he didnt bet against his team, it in the end does not matter and betting on your team is still against the rules and the same as betting against in the eyes of the MLB since basically 1926/27 when that rule came into being. Go read the original rule, it is very clear on this point.

Who cares... obviously since it carried the most extreme punishment if someone broke it I would say a lot of people cared.

The point is it does not matter if he bet on his team to win or lose and that is a moot point...simply betting on baseball was the crime and he did it and knew the consequences that were well established.

Really Thomas?!?!?!?!

Go back and read what you originally posted about looking at the Rose gambling issue "from a betting perspective", your words, not mine.

Quote: "Rose, an active bettor, by not acting and betting on his team to win is catamount to him tipping off gamblers that he, the best player and manager of the Reds, did not think the Reds would win and thus from a betting perspective is on the same level as a player throwing a game. He didnt throw a game but instead basically said my team isnt likely to win this game...same thing and that's the point"

You actually said that by Rose not betting on his team to win was basically the same as a player throwing a game. Please read that as many times as you have to, to let that sink in. Oh wait, that's right, you said this comment and logic was "from a betting perspective". And that is exactly why I was making the "So what" and Who cares" comments. They were in regard to the idea that this issue is important because of the gambling aspect where people use that as an argument against the claim that Rose never bet against his own team so that he wasn't purposely throwing ballgames, and therefore the gambling rule shouldn't really apply to him. I actually agree with you and the fact that him betting on his team only to win is still wrong and against the rule, which I have in fact read. What I was trying to convey was that the argument you, and many others, put forth to counter that "he only bet to win" claim is unnecessary.

Think about this, what if Rose didn't bet on every single game he was ever involved in? OK, so he bet on some games when he had a good feeling his team would win. Did he ever say or does anyone really know if he bet on every single game like that though? What if he got tied up and couldn't get a hold of his bookie in time to place a bet? What if he only placed a bet when he felt his team had a decided advantage to win, and didn't bet if he thought it was only a 50/50 chance or something like that. We don't know, so to make a statement that gamblers thought it was the same as him throwing a game when he didn't bet on his team seems to be a bit of a reach. And another thing, if I'm the bookie Rose calls to make his bets so I know when he does and doesn't bet on his team, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to keep that theoretical inside info to myself to take advantage of rather than tell the whole world about it? MLB didn't care if someone did end up making money off Rose's activity from illegal gambling, what they didn't want was the public thinking Rose might be doing it so that he may be compromising the supposed integrity of the games themselves. So the gambling aspect itself isn't what counters the "he didn't bet to lose" argument, it is the fact that he gambled at all and that could be perceived by fans that he was lying about only betting on games to win and that he could have been betting against his own team at times and actively trying to throw those games after all, just to win money. No one ever needed to come up with the argument about what it may have meant when he didn't bet on his team, it wasn't necessary, is useless and completely unprovable one way or the other.

Still, how can you argue that Rose's bookie knowing when he didn't bet on his team was the same as him trying to throw the game? Betting to win and actively trying to lose games you don't bet on are totally unrelated. I can understand the argument by some that Rose's gambling activity could possibly have an effect on his decision making in a game to maybe pull a pitcher early or not bring in a reliever to use them in a later game where he may think he has a better chance to win, but pretty much every MLB manager does that over the course of a season in trying to win as many games as possible. You let it go in games you don't think you have a good chance to win, and try to improve the chances of the ones you think are more winnable then. Again, it is the perception that he could be gambling and trying to lose games to win bets that causes the issue, not what games he does or doesn't bet on.

So do you understand now what my point was? I'm actually in agreement with you regarding Rose being wrong. By the way, please look up what "catamount" means. I laughed when I first read your post and assumed it was a spellcheck error or something like that. Thanks.