Should these 3 players be in the HOF

[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.

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by 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.

+1 👍🏻⚾️

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by 3arod13

+1 👍🏻⚾️

-1

[packs]

Originally Posted by 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.

What does “all the gambling today” mean though? Players across different sports and officials too are being suspended for gambling. It’s still something you can’t do as a professional athlete.

[jchcollins]

Eventually, even if after everyone in this forum currently is dead - I think all will get in.

Bonds and Clemens are clearly less than innocent the way things stand today, but eventually with the lens of history, I think that people will view the game at the time as a whole and the fact of other highly suspected cheaters already being in as reason to give them the nudge over 75%. As others have pointed out, Selig is in - and it's kind of ironically humorous to me that he apparently literally doesn't understand why people think he is also culpable in the whole mess that is steroid era. Whatever. Note it on their plaques, and let them in. I have no issues whatsoever if this doesn't actually occur until long after I'm dead.

Rose? I mean clearly at the time, he broke the cardinal rule. He stepped on the third rail. Whether you believe the penalty for gambling in baseball is just or totally ridiculous, there was an understanding rooted in history and what came out of the Black Sox that gambling in the game is automatically simply the worst thing you can do if you are employed by baseball in any way, shape, or form. It was posted in every clubhouse. Today however, I think the lines are more than a bit blurry, especially now with Manfred's MLB and even individual teams getting cozy with sports books, and other online outfits that outright offer the opportunity to gamble. Pete personally has paid the price now I believe, nearly 35 years on - yes. But he's his own worst enemy. When you look at all the opportunities that man has had, all the ways over the decades to come clean and play nice with baseball - and he simply hasn't done it. Pete's gonna Pete at all costs, and in that regard - he has no one to blame but himself for his continual banishment.

[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.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

Where does this information come from? I didn't know there was a complete record.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.
.

This is probably the first time I’ve someone called not a gambling addict in a derogatory way lol.

If one needs to be in tune with gambling addicts to get the justification of the action, perhaps that’s a clue that the action might not be a good one. I definitely don’t turn to drug addicts for advice on whether using drugs is good.

[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.