2015 Baseball Hall of Fame elections

[TL1961]

How did it damage the game ?

He said he always bet on his team to win. ..
So yea he broke a rule but betting on your team to win would have no negative output on the game..

There are ways that you can affect future odds.
As Brett pointed out, you can use an overworked pitcher to win today, but which may hurt the team long-term.

Plus...He doesn't bet every night. He doesn't use his best closer in the 9th on Friday. Why? Because he is saving him and keeping him fresh because he is betting on Saturday's game. He just adversely affected Friday's game.

Or...he has no bets at all. He doesn't use the closer on Friday. His team loses. While fans would normally have questioned or criticized his use of the pen, they now wonder whether he had a bet, or whether he is saving the guy for Saturday. In this case, there are no bets, but fans are now doubting the integrity of these games.

Voila!

Fans walking out of the park, or turning off the radio or TV, sincerely wondering whether the game was on the level......death to baseball eventually. Even on days the bet actually had no bearing. Because we have no way of knowing when he bet and when he didn't.

Death of baseball.

But, hey, he just broke a rule, so what?

 

[SilenceS]

:drama:

 

[chibears55]

There are ways that you can affect future odds.
As Brett pointed out, you can use an overworked pitcher to win today, but which may hurt the team long-term.

Plus...He doesn't bet every night. He doesn't use his best closer in the 9th on Friday. Why? Because he is saving him and keeping him fresh because he is betting on Saturday's game. He just adversely affected Friday's game.

Or...he has no bets at all. He doesn't use the closer on Friday. His team loses. While fans would normally have questioned or criticized his use of the pen, they now wonder whether he had a bet, or whether he is saving the guy for Saturday. In this case, there are no bets, but fans are now doubting the integrity of these games.

Voila!

Fans walking out of the park, or turning off the radio or TV, sincerely wondering whether the game was on the level......death to baseball eventually. Even on days the bet actually had no bearing. Because we have no way of knowing when he bet and when he didn't.

Death of baseball.

But, hey, he just broke a rule, so what?

Everything you just wrote is assumptions on what he may have done... For all we know , he managed every game the same wheather he bet or not and that to win ..

Plus how were fans doubting integrity of those games and turning away from it when noone knew what he was doing at that time. ..

Losing his managerial job and being banned from any participation in mlb is punishment enough..
No reason for him to be banned from being in HOF for his playing accomplishments, in which he did nothing wrong during that time

 

[TL1961]

Everything you just wrote is assumptions on what he may have done... For all we know , he managed every game the same wheather he bet or not and that to win ..

Plus how were fans doubting integrity of those games and turning away from it when noone knew what he was doing at that time. ..

Losing his managerial job and being banned from any participation in mlb is punishment enough..
No reason for him to be banned from being in HOF for his playing accomplishments, in which he did nothing wrong during that time

No, not an assumption of what he did specifically.

It was meant to point out why gambling on baseball - and even if one only bet on his own team to win, and never against them - how this could be detrimental to baseball.

The point was brought up that he didn't hurt baseball if he bet ON his own team, and I pointed out several reasons that is incorrect.

A manager or player with wagers on the games can hurt baseball. Even if they never threw a game and only bet to win, they clearly create the perception that the game can be fixed and that the integrity can be compromised. After all, as you said, the fans don't know how they bet. Just knowing THAT they bet would create the problem.

That is why the rule exists, and that is why the penalty is so harsh.

Hell, Mays and Mantle were banned from baseball and could not work with teams after their retirement simply for working for casinos - casinos that had no sportsbook, and where they were not allowed to gamble. As casino employees, they were not allowed to work for or with baseball teams. And that had nothing to do with betting ON baseball.

Bottom line is that an active player or manager or coach of a team betting on games creates the doubt, even if they never throw a game.

 

[brett05]

It's a good thing the Creator gives us a second chance through Christ, because it's clear that many men do not share the same principles of forgiveness and redemption.

So the multiple times he was offered and refused are to what...be ignored? He was offered redemption and refused. It happens with Christ too. We don't stay alive until we accept the chance at redemption.

Let's not derail this into a religious discussion here please.

 

[brett05]

The banning protected baseball which is why Pete's gambling did not destroy the game. Not sure what is so hard to understand about that.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Let me just ask these two questions ; first, do you believe that Pete Rose's admittedly laudable accomplishments are properly represented in the museum that is the physical aspect of the Hall of Fame? Second, do you believe that this man who violated one of the game's most important rules, denied it for over a decade, negotiated to return to the game and then denied it some more before finally admitting his transgressions as a last ditch effort to be restored to grace, do you believe this man, who did what I've just described, is deserving of the personal honor that is a HoF induction? Again the first part is an acknowledgement of deeds, the second is an honor of deeds, sportsmanship and conduct. Please tell me again how Pete Rose is deserving of the latter.

 

[Parade_Rain]

The banning protected baseball which is why Pete's gambling did not destroy the game. Not sure what is so hard to understand about that.

The guy couldn't play the game today, if he wanted to. No one here is suggesting that he didn't need to be banned. Removing the ban at this point isn't going to harm the game.

 

[brett05]

The guy couldn't play the game today, if he wanted to. No one here is suggesting that he didn't need to be banned. Removing the ban at this point isn't going to harm the game.

Probably doesn't harm the game if it is removed now. But it shouldn't be. No reason for parole at this point.

 

[Parade_Rain]

Let me just ask these two questions ; first, do you believe that Pete Rose's admittedly laudable accomplishments are properly represented in the museum that is the physical aspect of the Hall of Fame? Second, do you believe that this man who violated one of the game's most important rules, denied it for over a decade, negotiated to return to the game and then denied it some more before finally admitting his transgressions as a last ditch effort to be restored to grace, do you believe this man, who did what I've just described, is deserving of the personal honor that is a HoF induction? Again the first part is an acknowledgement of deeds, the second is an honor of deeds, sportsmanship and conduct. Please tell me again how Pete Rose is deserving of the latter.

So I take it OJ Simpson's bronzed bust shouldn't be in Canton either.

 

[brett05]

So I take it OJ Simpson's bronzed bust shouldn't be in Canton either.

The analgo doesn't work. OJ was already in the Hall we are speaking of someone banned from going in.

 

[Parade_Rain]

Probably doesn't harm the game if it is removed now. But it shouldn't be. No reason for parole at this point.

So much for grace and redemption. You're a real hardass.

 

[brett05]

So much for grace and redemption.

There is grace and there is redemption. He refused both at an "incountable" rate.

 

[Parade_Rain]

The analgo doesn't work. OJ was already in the Hall we are speaking of someone banned from going in.

Wrong. Some people want him out. He's still there. Why is Ty Cobb in? Everyone seems to hate him...if indeed, the Hall is about "deeds, sportsmanship and conduct". The fact is the HoF is meant for deeds on the field. On the field Rose has 4256. The best ever. The best ever is not in the HoF.

 

[2323]

How did it damage the game ?

He said he always bet on his team to win. ..
So yea he broke a rule but betting on your team to win would have no negative output on the game..

How is it that people don't see how if a guy bets on his team as frequently but then doesn't one day, he's implicitly betting against his team? How is it that people don't see the inherent problem with how he manages when he's wagering on games vs when he's not? How is it that people don't see how it can be problematic (not just Rose), if you enter scenarios where someone could pressure you to outright throw games?

Every MLB player going backs decades knows the rule prohibiting gambling and that there are heavy handed consequences for a reason.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

If Rose had admitted what he did immediately, or even a few years later, and begged for forgiveness we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. He didn't though, he only made his admission as a last ditch effort to get back in the good graces of the game. What people are arguing for is for him to receive an honor when for most of the past thirty years his behavior was far from honorable. Everyone recognizes his accomplishments, and they should, what many of us don't recognize is that he is deserving of something above and beyond that recognition.

 

[Parade_Rain]

There is grace and there is redemption. He refused both at an "incountable" rate.

Yeah. Once it's refused you can never get grace or redemption again.

It's been so long his original judge and jury has passed on. The next judge and jury let the game be stained in other ways and turned a blind eye to save the game until it was decided people were tired of how the game was saved.

 

[SilenceS]

Ummmm, soo, MLB can keep him out of the Hall but when money is involved they have no problem welcoming him back?

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-b...rbmk3BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMTQEY29sbwNiZjEEdnRpZAM-

 

[SilenceS]

Let me just ask these two questions ; first, do you believe that Pete Rose's admittedly laudable accomplishments are properly represented in the museum that is the physical aspect of the Hall of Fame? Second, do you believe that this man who violated one of the game's most important rules, denied it for over a decade, negotiated to return to the game and then denied it some more before finally admitting his transgressions as a last ditch effort to be restored to grace, do you believe this man, who did what I've just described, is deserving of the personal honor that is a HoF induction? Again the first part is an acknowledgement of deeds, the second is an honor of deeds, sportsmanship and conduct. Please tell me again how Pete Rose is deserving of the latter.

There are a number of hall of famers that dont fit the latter. They are also non deserving players in the hall because they were well liked by media. Unless you do a heinous act, your personal life should have no influence on the hall. The hall is about personal accomplishments. Not what some Tom, Dick, and Jerry find morally acceptable.

 

[TL1961]

Wrong. Some people want him out. He's still there. Why is Ty Cobb in? Everyone seems to hate him...if indeed, the Hall is about "deeds, sportsmanship and conduct". The fact is the HoF is meant for deeds on the field. On the field Rose has 4256. The best ever. The best ever is not in the HoF.

Let's not twist the Pete Rose issue into "Not everyone in the Hall is a saint". We know that. Ty Cobb was no saint, but he also didn't present a threat to the sport, which betting does. Arguing whether the conduct clause should have been invoked and used against some in the past is a separate issue.

You are STILL arguing that he was "the best ever", which simply has NOTHING to do with this argument. This is not about whether his accomplishments on the field were good enough to get him in - they were, and nobody is arguing that. This is about whether a penalty should be imposed for a crime (against the sport, if not against society.)

We have detailed over and over why we feel the penalty is critical, and why it was - and should be - imposed.

His career accomplishments earned him a ticket to the Hall. The crime he committed prevents him from using it. That's not wrong or unfair.

If I have a ticket to the Super Bowl, but am found guilty of killing my neighbor, and sentenced to prison, the penalty for my crime prevents me from using the ticket. I don't just get to walk out one Sunday because I scream "But I have a ticket!"

That's what you're asking for in Pete's case: "Ignore his crime, he has a ticket. It's unfair he can't use it." Nope. No it's not.