I really don't understand why that part isn't talked about more. I care that Pete gambled and broke the rules, but I care much more about the fact that he slept with a minor.
That is not a fact. Dowd told the Post in 2002 that it is "probably right" that Rose bet on the Reds. The fact is that Rose accepted permanently ineligible status, for some reason, before the investigation could determine if there was evidence that he bet against the Reds.
It's a shame... he was one of the players I loved as a kid... it was sad to find out what kind of person he really was as I got older. It was a simple rule with devastating consequences and he still made the decision to break it. Another who thought he was above it all.
Right! How did he manage those games compared to the ones he did not bet them to win? Did he use better relievers? Did he dump games? Did he owe money that influenced game decisions?
If you bet on your team to win Tues vs LA but not Wed vs NY, now you're using your best players Tues vs LA and saving their days off or rookie 7th starters for Wed vs NY.
Huge disadvantage given to one opponent vs the other - just bc you have money on it. Nope.
Or you leave your ace starter out there for 160 pitches instead of his (typical for the era) 130, thinking he's your best chance to win *this game*, even if it gives him a dead arm in his next 5 starts.
The same reason why HOFer get voted in for their best years and not their worst, should be the same stance on rose. Get the guy in there based on his playing career. Put an asterisk on the plaque and move on. Get him in before he dies. Oh wait
So we've got to either believe that Pete self edited what he was saying there, or for some reason despite rumors and evidence that he actually had bet as a player, he waited until he retired from playing but couldn't remember a 2-month span after he retired and also started betting on the game.
In his book Pete comes as close as humanly possible to admitting he bet as a player. I'm paraphrasing "I don't remember the first time I bet on baseball but I remember the first time I talked about it with someone. It was the 1986 NLCS"
A friend of mine was interviewing Pete's mom for a story in 1985 when she mentioned that Pete had lost a bunch of money on a baseball bet recently. The friend says he remembers it because it was the first time he learned Pete bet on baseball.
It doesn’t matter. Betting on his own team, in any capacity, alters his decisions. Maybe he keeps pitchers in longer than normal. Maybe he uses relievers out of their normal rotation. Those decisions potentially impact future games.
That’s ok. I just think it’s in the ballpark (forgive the pun). Rose is one of the greatest players in history - something I think we all agree with, right? Bonds was great pre-roids. Acknowledging that greatness in the HOF is ok in my book. I realize not everyone feels this way.
I was moreso arguing that I believe Rose belongs in the HOF for his on-field performance as a player. You can acknowledge his greatness on the field and also acknowledge his moral failure as a coach.
The way the league proudly promoted the sluggers they knew damn well were using steroids while they were mashing homers and bringing baseball back from the brink after the strike, and then swiftly cast them aside and vilified them the moment steroid use became public is shameful.
If Selig, after turning a blind eye to steroid use as commish is in the HOF, then anybody that used pre-testing should be in (IMO). If you tested positive after, well, I can get on board with keeping them out. But Bonds, McGuire, Clemens never failed a test.
I think that’s fair. And I believe the same. The league knew they were juicing. Juicing saved baseball, despite what purists like to think. I was a kid during those years, and the battle between McGwire and Sosa made me never miss a game.
Yes, Pete Rose is indisputably a galactic piece of shit. His actions were despicable. He’s also still one of the greatest baseball players ever and should have been in the HoF already.
He was kicked out of the sport entirely that’s a consequence. Cops not baseball should have handled the rape allegations. The HoF is for baseball, he’s a HoF baseball player. Cooperstown has murderers & virulent racists (Ty Cobb) already in it; the pearl clutching on gambling is silly by comparison.
Comments
But my problems with Rose extend beyond the gambling, he’s also a horrible person and a statutory rapist.
Did I miss something - when was that proven?
PS Shoeless Joe Jackson hit like a boss while throwing the 1919 WS
He claimed that he only bet on the Reds to win.
I don’t think that 2nd part was ever proven.
Excuse me for being skeptical of the words of a life-long liar and cheat
We only have Rose’s word that he didn’t bet against his own team.
And Rose showed how little his word was worth.
All is bad here, and he deserves the forever ban.
If you bet on your team to win Tues vs LA but not Wed vs NY, now you're using your best players Tues vs LA and saving their days off or rookie 7th starters for Wed vs NY.
Huge disadvantage given to one opponent vs the other - just bc you have money on it. Nope.
In his book Pete comes as close as humanly possible to admitting he bet as a player. I'm paraphrasing "I don't remember the first time I bet on baseball but I remember the first time I talked about it with someone. It was the 1986 NLCS"
Pete retired during the 86 season.
2 it doesn't matter! it so doesn't matter.
They do. They just don’t honor him personally.
I read it as (and maybe this is me imparting my own feelings into what he wrote): what rose did and what bonds did are not the same.
Gambling was strictly prohibited. But the league new full well guys were juicing & let it happen b/c it was good for viewership
Also, when Ty Cobb played most white players were racists. Maybe they weren’t to Cobb’s level, but we’re talking about the early 1900’s here.
Most ppl would say murdering an innocent person (as Ty Cobb claims) is worse than betting on a game but you do you.
Go ahead & show me where the HoF is about being a good, decent or ethical person & then keeping Rose out makes sense. It’s just sanctimony otherwise.
Whatever YOU say, Mat.