Should these 3 players be in the HOF

[Steve D]

Yes on all three!


Steve

[egri]

Rose, I don't care one way or the other about. Bonds and Clemens, I used to be in the 'keep the juicers out' camp, but when Bud Selig went in, and Torre and Cox and other executives who profited off the juicers and/or looked the other way while it was going on, I thought it was hypocritical to let them in but keep the players out.

[Snowman]

All you guys saying 'No' to Rose are bonkers. How is this even remotely a point of contention? It'd be one thing if he was betting against his team to win when he was the manager, but he didn't. All the records that were recovered during the investigation corroborate his account that he was betting on the Reds TO WIN. Records on over 50 games where he bet were found. Every single one of them was on the Reds to win. If you think that doesn't make a difference, you're wrong. He wasn't throwing games. He was competing. Boxers do it all the time. They bet on themselves to win. There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with someone betting on themselves or their team to win a competition. NOTHING WHATSOEVER.

Throwing a game is different. But Rose never did that.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Snowman

All you guys saying 'No' to Rose are bonkers. How is this even remotely a point of contention? It'd be one thing if he was betting against his team to win when he was the manager, but he didn't. All the records that were recovered during the investigation corroborate his account that he was betting on the Reds TO WIN. Records on over 50 games where he bet were found. Every single one of them was on the Reds to win. If you think that doesn't make a difference, you're wrong. He wasn't throwing games. He was competing. Boxers do it all the time. They bet on themselves to win. There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with someone betting on themselves or their team to win a competition. NOTHING WHATSOEVER.

Throwing a game is different. But Rose never did that.

The counter argument is that for the Reds games he didn't bet on, is that telling people that may know that they should bet against the Reds since maybe Rose didn't think they would win or would manage the game differently to save his better relievers for a game he was going to bet on.

I'm a big Rose fan because I don't think the 1980 Phillies win the World Series without him, but I go back and forth on if he should be in the HoF because of the betting on his own team since it definitely has the potential to impact the integrity of games even if he never did bet on the Reds to lose. Usually I end up with the compromise that he should have been allowed on the HoF ballot to at least get voted on but shouldn't have been allowed to be hired by a MLB team. When he was first banned, it was still expected that he would be on the HoF ballot, but that was changed before the first time he would have appeared on it to prevent banned players from also being on the ballot.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by jayshum

The counter argument is that for the Reds games he didn't bet on, is that telling people that may know that they should bet against the Reds since maybe Rose didn't think they would win or would manage the game differently to save his better relievers for a game he was going to bet on.

I'm a big Rose fan because I don't think the 1980 Phillies win the World Series without him, but I go back and forth on if he should be in the HoF because of the betting on his own team since it definitely has the potential to impact the integrity of games even if he never did bet on the Reds to lose. Usually I end up with the compromise that he should have been allowed on the HoF ballot to at least get voted on but shouldn't have been allowed to be hired by a MLB team. When he was first banned, it was still expected that he would be on the HoF ballot, but that was changed before the first time he would have appeared on it to prevent banned players from also being on the ballot.

I don't know why the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is beholden to the MLB like that. If the Hall wants a player on the ballot, they should put him on the ballot. Let the MLB start its own Hall of Fame if they want.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by jayshum

The counter argument is that for the Reds games he didn't bet on, is that telling people that may know that they should bet against the Reds since maybe Rose didn't think they would win or would manage the game differently to save his better relievers for a game he was going to bet on.

I'm a big Rose fan because I don't think the 1980 Phillies win the World Series without him, but I go back and forth on if he should be in the HoF because of the betting on his own team since it definitely has the potential to impact the integrity of games even if he never did bet on the Reds to lose. Usually I end up with the compromise that he should have been allowed on the HoF ballot to at least get voted on but shouldn't have been allowed to be hired by a MLB team. When he was first banned, it was still expected that he would be on the HoF ballot, but that was changed before the first time he would have appeared on it to prevent banned players from also being on the ballot.

How could betting on your team to win possibly ever compromise the integrity of a game?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Snowman

How could betting on your team to win possibly ever compromise the integrity of a game?

If you bet on your team to win one game but do not bet on your team to win a different game, you have an incentive, if not a plan, to try harder to win your bet. As manager, he had sole discretion how to utilize his assets to accomplish his goals.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Mark17

If you bet on your team to win one game but do not bet on your team to win a different game, you have an incentive, if not a plan, to try harder to win your bet. As manager, he had sole discretion how to utilize his assets to accomplish his goals.

You're talking about trying to win games though. This is how all good managers manage games. If you're down 9-0, you don't put your closer on the mound that night. Pete Rose tried to win every game he bet on. It does not logically follow that he tried to lose the games which he did not bet on. There is no evidence whatsoever that he threw games. None.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Snowman

You're talking about trying to win games though. This is how all good managers manage games. If you're down 9-0, you don't put your closer on the mound that night. Pete Rose tried to win every game he bet on. It does not logically follow that he tried to lose the games which he did not bet on. There is no evidence whatsoever that he threw games. None.

I think you are intentionally trying to be obtuse. Nobody is suggesting Rose threw games. Clearly you don't understand the simple fact that if he bets on his team to win one game, but not another, he has greater incentive to win the game he's betting on.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Mark17

You just don't get it.

No, YOU don't get it. Not one person in here has provided one valid reason for why betting on oneself or one's team to win a game/match might compromise the integrity of that game/match in any way. And no, saying, "but what about the next game that he didn't bet on?" is not an answer.

Originally Posted by bmattioli

Bookies care about one thing. MONEY. You want to bet on something.. no problem to them..

I've been a professional gambler for half of my life. Both sports betting and poker. I'm actually in Vegas right now, typing from my hotel room. I know how this industry works quite well. There is ZERO chance that any bookie is going to knowingly accept a wager on a team to lose from the coach or manager of that team.

If you want to claim that he had some other secret channel through which he bet against the Reds, or had someone bet for him, then that is a separate claim. But there is zero evidence of that claim, and it would be on you to prove that it happened.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Snowman

All you guys saying 'No' to Rose are bonkers. How is this even remotely a point of contention? It'd be one thing if he was betting against his team to win when he was the manager, but he didn't. All the records that were recovered during the investigation corroborate his account that he was betting on the Reds TO WIN. Records on over 50 games where he bet were found. Every single one of them was on the Reds to win. If you think that doesn't make a difference, you're wrong. He wasn't throwing games. He was competing. Boxers do it all the time. They bet on themselves to win. There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with someone betting on themselves or their team to win a competition. NOTHING WHATSOEVER.

Throwing a game is different. But Rose never did that.

Rule 21 is posted in every locker room, and has been since way before Rose ever played.
He knew what he was getting into. And the penalty for it.

(d) GAMBLING.
(1) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform, shall be declared ineligible for one year.

(2) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible.

(3) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee who places bets with illegal book makers,
or agents for illegal book makers, shall be subject to such penalty as the Commissioner deems
appropriate in light of the facts and circumstances of the conduct. Any player, umpire, or Club or League
official or employee who operates or works for an illegal bookmaking business shall be subject to a
minimum of a one-year suspension by the Commissioner. For purposes of this provision, an illegal
bookmaker is an individual who accepts, places or handles wagers on sporting events from members of
the public as part of a gaming operation that is unlawful in the jurisdiction in which the bets are
accepted.

[steve B]

All arguments back and forth aside...

With a team in Vegas, they may as well reinstate Rose and Jackson and put them in together.
It will be a good sign that nothing matters to MLB quite so much as money.

And once you abandon the whole "wrecking the reputation of the game" thing, I suppose steroids don't matter either as long as the jacked up players bring in enough cash.

To me a lot of the early tests were very iffy, the lab that did them was questionable, and MLB wouldn't release any info about what a test was positive for even to the players.
Even with much higher standards, Baseball was removed from the Olympics because they didn't meet WADA standards.
By those standards I doubt there would be more than a few players eligible.
And probably almost none since the late 1960's

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by steve B

Rule 21 is posted in every locker room, and has been since way before Rose ever played.
He knew what he was getting into. And the penalty for it.

(d) GAMBLING.
...
(2) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible.
...

Sounds pretty clear to me. Rose bet on games in which he had a 'duty to perform' and so he's on the permanently ineligible list. Not much wiggle room in those rules.

Of course the HOF could discard it's rule about players on the list not being eligible for induction and leave it to the voters, but that would probably upset their relationship with MLB.

[G1911]

I completely understand why some people think he should be forgiven, but I cannot fathom how some people do not understand (or pretend not to understand to stir the pot) why Rose is banned. It was the number 1 rule in baseball, the stakes were known, he obviously and provably broke that rule. Duh.

[Tabe]

Gaylord Perry and David Ortiz are in. Clemens and Bonds should be.

Rose is an easy no. He broke the cardinal rule.

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by G1911

I completely understand why some people think he should be forgiven, but I cannot fathom how some people do not understand (or pretend not to understand to stir the pot) why Rose is banned. It was the number 1 rule in baseball, the stakes were known, he obviously and provably broke that rule. Duh.

So true!! Nothing else needs to be said.

[steve B]

What's odd is that the hobby conveniently also forgets Rose selling multiple bats related to the same milestone hit on the way to the record. Not the major ones, but stuff like two people with bats from like hit 4187.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by steve B

Rule 21 is posted in every locker room, and has been since way before Rose ever played.
He knew what he was getting into. And the penalty for it.

(d) GAMBLING.
(1) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform, shall be declared ineligible for one year.

(2) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible.

(3) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee who places bets with illegal book makers,
or agents for illegal book makers, shall be subject to such penalty as the Commissioner deems
appropriate in light of the facts and circumstances of the conduct. Any player, umpire, or Club or League
official or employee who operates or works for an illegal bookmaking business shall be subject to a
minimum of a one-year suspension by the Commissioner. For purposes of this provision, an illegal
bookmaker is an individual who accepts, places or handles wagers on sporting events from members of
the public as part of a gaming operation that is unlawful in the jurisdiction in which the bets are
accepted.

A rule is only relevant in the purpose toward which it aims to serve. The point of the "no gambling" rule in the MLB is to prevent fixing/throwing games. Betting on yourself to win compromises nothing at all, because you are supposed to try to win. If anything, Rose should be praised for trying to win that hard. He put it all on the field. He gave that game everything he ever had. Every inning, every at-bat. Rose was a warrior.

Not being allowed to bet on yourself to win is a stupid rule.

[Snowman]

It's ridiculous that anyone thinks Rose would bet against his team. What bookie on the planet is going to accept a wager on the Reds to lose from the manager of the Reds? If you believe this happened, you're an idiot.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Snowman

It's ridiculous that anyone thinks Rose would bet against his team. What bookie on the planet is going to accept a wager on the Reds to lose from the manager of the Reds? If you believe this happened, you're an idiot.

You just don't get it.

[bmattioli]

Originally Posted by Snowman

It's ridiculous that anyone thinks Rose would bet against his team. What bookie on the planet is going to accept a wager on the Reds to lose from the manager of the Reds? If you believe this happened, you're an idiot.

Bookies care about one thing. MONEY. You want to bet on something.. no problem to them..

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Snowman

All you guys saying 'No' to Rose are bonkers. How is this even remotely a point of contention? It'd be one thing if he was betting against his team to win when he was the manager, but he didn't. All the records that were recovered during the investigation corroborate his account that he was betting on the Reds TO WIN. Records on over 50 games where he bet were found. Every single one of them was on the Reds to win. If you think that doesn't make a difference, you're wrong. He wasn't throwing games. He was competing. Boxers do it all the time. They bet on themselves to win. There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with someone betting on themselves or their team to win a competition. NOTHING WHATSOEVER.

Throwing a game is different. But Rose never did that.

I guess there would be no useful information obtained if a boxer who regularly bet on his matches abstained from doing so?

If the Reds were -170 and Rose bet smaller than his normal wager? Or not at all? Or bet larger at +130? Or not at all?

My Uncle taught me a trick at the thoroughbreds: He would watch the jockey or trainer bet. If specific jockeys didn't bet on his 2/1 or 5/2 favorite mount, my uncle would discount the pick. If he still liked the horse, he might throw it in to an exacta wheel, but never to win.
His choice didn't win all the time, but he said the other horse NEVER did.
He made a lot of money at the track.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Deertick

I guess there would be no useful information obtained if a boxer who regularly bet on his matches abstained from doing so?

If the Reds were -170 and Rose bet smaller than his normal wager? Or not at all? Or bet larger at +130? Or not at all?

My Uncle taught me a trick at the thoroughbreds: He would watch the jockey or trainer bet. If specific jockeys didn't bet on his 2/1 or 5/2 favorite mount, my uncle would discount the pick. If he still liked the horse, he might throw it in to an exacta wheel, but never to win.
His choice didn't win all the time, but he said the other horse NEVER did.
He made a lot of money at the track.

This is nonsense. Jockeys and trainers are prohibited from betting on their horses. Your uncle did not do this. And even if they were allowed to, how would he know what their bets were?

Perhaps ironically though, in the wake of this conversation, is that a horse's owner is allowed to bet on their own horse, but only to win. They are not allowed to bet on their horse to lose, for obvious reasons.

[donmuth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

This is nonsense. Jockeys and trainers are prohibited from betting on their horses. Your uncle did not do this. And even if they were allowed to, how would he know what their bets were?

Perhaps ironically though, in the wake of this conversation, is that a horse's owner is allowed to bet on their own horse, but only to win. They are not allowed to bet on their horse to lose, for obvious reasons.

I don't know the horse racing rules, but to my memory (which admittedly is several years back now) a trainer, kennel owner, or dog owner could bet for his own greyhound, or against it by betting for another greyhound in the same race, in dog racing. The dogs are weighed and examined by a vet before the races to be sure they haven't been tanked with water, etc. and there are drug tests done after each race on the top 2-4 finishers to be sure the dogs are clean. Violations lead to fines to the kennel and trainers and loss of purses ($). Not to mention risking their state licenses and jobs. But I don't remember any kind of betting rules constraining the dog handlers in any way. BTW Rose frequented the dog tracks too, especially Tampa/St. Pete.

[packs]

This idea that Rose only bet on himself to win games is absurd. First of all, as pointed out, it's always going to be hard to influence a game you want to win. If you could just do things to magically win the game, then you'd win every game.

Let's be realistic. It's much easier to lose on purpose and no gambler is going to bet on his team to win every time they place a bet on them. The whole purpose to betting is to win money. You're not laying down a losing bet because you're too proud to win it.

[jingram058]

As I step aside from this expensive so-called "hobby", and with all the gambling today, I say, get the F over Pete Rose and put him in. The man has more hits than anyone, even the beloved Ty Cobb. If you're going to truly call it an HOF, and if it is going to have any relevance in society today, then put him in and get over it. About a dozen others also.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by packs

This idea that Rose only bet on himself to win games is absurd. First of all, as pointed out, it's always going to be hard to influence a game you want to win. If you could just do things to magically win the game, then you'd win every game.

Let's be realistic. It's much easier to lose on purpose and no gambler is going to bet on his team to win every time they place a bet on them. The whole purpose to betting is to win money. You're not laying down a losing bet because you're too proud to win it.

You're disconnected from the psychology of a true competitor. And that of a gambling addict. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Also, his betting record was seized by the FBI. His bookie kept notebooks with records of all of his bets. Every single Reds bet that was found was of him betting on the Reds to win. He also bet on other games and sports that he was not involved in, but every single bet he ever made on the Reds, for which we have records, was for them to win. There's even a stretch in there where he bet on something like 50 straights Reds games. All to win.

[scotgreb]

Originally Posted by Snowman

This is nonsense. Jockeys and trainers are prohibited from betting on their horses.

I can say with complete certainty, that jockeys and owners [in Maryland] are permitted to bet on their own horses. It is done very commonly and openly. It is a serious violation to bet on opposing horses. Not sure about trainers.

Sorry to derail this further . . .

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by scotgreb

I can say with complete certainty, that jockeys and owners [in Maryland] are permitted to bet on their own horses. It is done very commonly and openly. It is a serious violation to bet on opposing horses. Not sure about trainers.

Sorry to derail this further . . .

According to the MGM Grand (and numerous other sources), one of if not the largest sports books in the world, you are wrong.

https://sports.betmgm.com/en/blog/ca...bet-on-racing/

[Svabinsky78]

Someone mentioned his name already, but Schilling is interesting because he does not fall in Rose's category or the PED category, he falls in the foot-in-the-mouth/big mouth/politics category...kept out on account of the morality clause because of what came out of his mouth, but just like with the PEDers, you have gents in the Hall who were flat out unabashedly racist, among other unsavory characteristics, some openly against integration of the game...

I do think that Schilling will get in before Bonds and Clemens, certainly before rose. He may have been doled out the purgatory stint for optics, but I do think that he will be in within the next decade off the veterans committee.

[Jim65]

No for Rose, he broke the cardinal rule of baseball, he knew the rule and the punishment and bet anyway. Rose lied about it for years, then only admitted guilt to sell books.

I find it harder to exclude Clemens and Bonds, there are suspected steroid users in the HOF (Pudge, Bagwell, Piazza) but now that a known steroid user is in (David Ortiz) how do they justify keeping others out?

[biggies]

No to Rose forever. He's my 2nd all time favorite but he broke the only rule posted in every clubhouse. How close was baseball to death in 1919? Some say very. So Landis what he did and made it very clear. No gambling in or around the clubhouse. He knowingly broke that rule and not banning him from baseball including the HOF invites corruption back into the game.
As to Bonds et al, I think its just a shame. But, each individual and his individual case could be considered by the voting press. Bonds was gonna hit HOF numbers without the joice. Sosa, not.
I would think that Clemens might be the first to bust through as he has always laid low on the subject and unlike Palmiero and even McGwyre, said very little. I wish that like Petit he admitted it.

[SyrNy1960]

If Rose retired as a player from baseball, was elected to the HOF, then later managed and did what he did, he would still be in the HOF.

Rose 100% HOFer 👍🏻⚾️

[frankbmd]

HEDs need to be marketed to the BWAA members qualified to vote.

What are HEDs you ask?

Halloffame Enhancing Drugs.

I don't waste my time arguing about who should or shouldn't be in the Hall. This forum seems to love it.

I also don't give a damn about the Oscars, the Tonys, the Emmys or the Espys.

Self-aggrandizing awards mean nothing to me. After I'm gone, if someone wants
to build a monument with my likeness cast in stone, so be it.

And I also won't care if the monument is vandalized and destroyed by the "activists du jour" at some point in the future.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by 3arod13

If Rose retired as a player from baseball, was elected to the HOF, then later managed and did what he did, he would still be in the HOF.

Rose 100% HOFer 👍🏻⚾️

Very similar to what Bowie Kuhn did to Willie (1979) and Mickey (1983) in regards to their involvement with the casinos in Vegas. Willie even had to resign his position with the Mets. At the time however, the HOF didn't have a rule about inductees being on the ineligible list, so they didn't take any action. Would have been interesting if they did have the rule in place.

Peter Ueberroth later revoked their suspensions in 1984, soon after taking on the commissioner position.

[Fred]

Based on numbers? Yes, the numbers scream YES!

Now trying to get people to admit them based on character is a different question.

All three are LIARS - yes, we're probably all guilty of lying at some point in time but what these guys lied about had to do with BASEBALL.

I'm not going to get sanctimonious here, but "say it aint so" Pete, Barry and Roger.

What I liked about another player with monster numbers is he didn't lie and fessed up, and still not in the HOF. Props to McGwire for being honest. Now Palmeiro is another story - he flat out lied under oath. What a clown. He put up some seriously great offensive numbers but flat out lying to congress and the people was offensive in the wrong way.

That said, I say let all three in and then open it up to all the other PED abusers (ok Rose aint one of those guys) and enshrine them after they've gone. At least they'll know they're going in, they just won't see the induction ceremony.

I'd have been a hanging judge for sure back in the day...

Edited to add - Induct Rose now before he's dead because for some reason or other I bet he didn't bet against his teams - that would just seem to go against his grain.

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by Fred

Based on numbers? Yes, the numbers scream YES!

Now trying to get people to admit them based on character is a different question.

All three are LIARS - yes, we're probably all guilty of lying at some point in time but what these guys lied about had to do with BASEBALL.

I'm not going to get sanctimonious here, but "say it aint so" Pete, Barry and Roger.

What I liked about another player with monster numbers is he didn't lie and fessed up, and still not in the HOF. Props to McGwire for being honest. Now Palmeiro is another story - he flat out lied under oath. What a clown. He put up some seriously great offensive numbers but flat out lying to congress and the people was offensive in the wrong way.

That said, I say let all three in and then open it up to all the other PED abusers (ok Rose aint one of those guys) and enshrine them after they've gone. At least they'll know they're going in, they just won't see the induction ceremony.

I'd have been a hanging judge for sure back in the day...

Edited to add - Induct Rose now before he's dead because for some reason or other I bet he didn't bet against his teams - that would just seem to go against his grain.

Sorry, in 2005 in front of the US Senate, McGwire refused to answer any questions about his steroid use. Only 5 years later when he wanted to become a hitting coach did he admit guilt. His confession was not quite as cut and dry as you insinuate. He only admitted it when he had something to gain from doing it.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by rand1com

Sorry, in 2005 in front of the US Senate, McGwire refused to answer any questions about his steroid use. Only 5 years later when he wanted to become a hitting coach did he admit guilt. His confession was not quite as cut and dry as you insinuate. He only admitted it when he had something to gain from doing it.

and Sammy Sosa forgot how to speak english and Rafael Palmeiro sad he does not do it and then got busted weeks later.

It is all the life and entertainment of the sports.

But back to basics. To many players did it and we will never truly know how many did both pitchers and players and some guilty are going to sneak in and some innocent are going to miss out. And sadly some clean ones get over shadowed and missed there time to shine

[Centauri]

Heck no on Rose, maybe on Bonds, yes on Clemens.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Centauri

Heck no on Rose, maybe on Bonds, yes on Clemens.

Ben, I'm curious why you feel differently about Bonds and Clemens. It seems like most people are either for or against both. Their BBWAA vote totals were within a few votes of each other every year.

[Shemp]

No on Rose. He gambled. Every clubhouse has a sign concerning no gambling. Anyone who reads any history knows about the Black Sox scandal. Rose accepted the lifetime ban.

The others? Sure. Just make sure they go into the new wing of the hall named The Scoundrels, with plaques describing their behavior. Also, add the other enshrined scoundrels like the racist Anson, the enabler Selig, and any others. This may end up the largest wing of the hall lol.