Scott, I wasn't able to catch the trial. My two cents for what it is worth would be to cut the guy a break. Many others have done worse and received far less. How was the trial? Mike
I watched all of it. I was severely disappointed. It was much more about entertainment than thoroughly examining the two issues: 1. Did Pete Rose bet on baseball games while managing the Reds? 2. Should Pete Rose be made eligible for the Hall of Fame? I've read Bill James' arguments against the Dowd report. It isn't all that convincing. James always acts like he's the smartest guy in the room. The leaps in logic he makes are sometimes silly. (Not to mention the leaps in statistical analyses, but that's another issue.) The preponderance of the evidence seems, to me, to indicate that Rose did bet on baseball. I think Rose should come clean. I think Bud Selig is a jerk. Even Fay Vincent, whose fingerprints are all over this, would have worked something out with Rose by now. Pete should go in the Hall, but not until Joe Jackson goes in and Charles Comiskey is removed. (Well, that won't happen, so Pete ought to go in. But Comiskey was just terrible for baseball. And what about Ty Cobb? No good guy there. And and and and....)
Did Pete bet on baseball? The Dowd report is one sided. The prosecutions side only. Could it stand up to cross examination? Who knows? I think he may have, but would see it much more of a sin if he had thrown a game to win a bet. Joe Jackson did not just throw a game, but a world series. Does Rose deserve to be in the Hall? Absolutely! Even if he bet on baseball it was after his career in between the lines. What Rose did on the field is remarkable, and he deserves to be in! I would rather have Pete Rose's, than Griffey JR.'s.
My opinion is that Rose should be in the Hall of Fame, but banned from Major League Baseball for life. It makes no sense whatsoever to not have one of the greatest players of all time in the Hall of Fame, and anyone with half a brain knows that "Charlie Hustle" would never throw a game. However, I also think Rose is an incurable compulsive gambler who shouldn't be allowed to be around young players in any sort of authoratative position (coach or manager). I don't recall Rose ever even admitting he has a problem, which is the first step to recovery in any addiction. Bruce
I would love to manage a team with 8 position players with the determination of a Pete Rose than an entire lineup of the likes of Barry Bonds.
Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame, he's earned it. The fact that he's not perfect doesn't reduce what he did as a player. Ban him from ever coaching or managing again, but recognize his accomplishments. He was one of the best!!!
Joe Jackson did not throw the World Series. It is well-documented that Jackson played an excellent series. He hit .375 and drove in 6 runs in 8 games. Judge Landis tossed him out of baseball because he knew about the fix and didn't report it. Pete Rose is accused of betting not just on baseball, but on the Reds while he was managing them. This is not "after his career." As a manager, he was in a much stronger position to affect the outcome of a game than he was as a player. (For a while, he was both, BTW.) Two points were brought out that makes betting on one's team dangerous to the game. (Betting against one's team ought to be obvious and not require explaining.) First, a manager with money riding on a particular game might be inclined to make decisions that support the near-term goal (winning that particular game), but are harmful to the long-term goal of winning the pennant. He might use a tired pitcher or injured player, for example, who might perform well that night, but be damaged for the long run. The second concern about Pete betting on his own team is that the gamblers themselves knew when Pete did and did not have bets on the Reds. They could infer, then, that Pete did or did not have confidence in his team's chances each game. This amounts to inside information. Did Pete bet on baseball? Who knows? It looks that way. His written agreement stipulates that there is no such finding related to his banishment. But Bart Giamatti, baseball commissioner at the time of Rose's banishment, said so a week later. Can Pete have bet on baseball and still be admitted to the Hall of Fame? Certainly. It would help, however, if he would admit it and apologize. Otherwise, HoF voters might be disinclined to vote for someone who is "getting over" on them and baseball. In football, Alex Karras and Paul Hornung bet on games, were suspended for a year, and then returned after publicly acknowledging they were wrong. (Karras did so reluctantly.) Hornung is in the Pro Football HoF, and an argument could be made for Karras. Pete's lifetime ban doesn't have to be so. But he hasn't helped his cause by his continued gambling, repeated denials, and confrontational behavior, not to mention the prison stretch for income tax evasion. Still, I can't help but think Bud Selig is just as much a part of the problem. Perhaps if he delegated this to someone who could handle it, Pete and baseball would be able to kiss and make up.
Rich I think we are on the same side on this one, but: Joe Jackson might have played well, but could he have played better? Many have played much better in a world series. Did he play well until a game deciding play? There is not much difference between knowing, and doing in this case. If you are with someone who kills and you do nothing, and then keep it hid you are an accomplice. Pete Rose is accused of betting not just on baseball. I agree with your two points, but they should have proved it then! Giamatti signed the agreement with Rose which states no finding that he bet on baseball, and then a week later makes the claim. If he thought Rose bet on baseball why not leave that in. The agreement also allowed Rose to apply for reinstatement, but they changed the rules again later. Baseball should have settled this when it was fresh, but did not have the balls (pun), or evidence to do it. That is an argument I will never understand. I have heard that so often, but to me it does not make sense. People say he broke the cardinal rule of baseball, but if he will admit it we will let him in. I say that would give him less of a chance of getting in. If he does that it will make me think he will do anything to get in, and he is going to start playing the victim role. Oh I am a gambler, and I can't control myself. It's all their fault. They took advantage of my disease. Bull dung. It has cost him millions to stand his ground, and he should not change now. He may be a jerk, but he would be an idiot to admit it. If he starts the I have a compulsive gambling disease victim role then I am going to think a lot less of him as a person than I do now. Scott
We're saying the same thing regarding Rose, except for the apology part. There is a great deal of evidence to indicate that Rose bet on baseball games, including Reds games. He's never refuted any of it publicly. In civil matters, it is the preponderance of the evidence, not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that is the standard. All of the evidence points to Rose betting on baseball, but he's offered nothing to counter it. They don't have to take him back, you know. If he proves baseball wrong, fine. No apology necessary (except baseball's apology to him). Absent that, he should admit his activities. Otherwise, he doesn't deserve any association with an organization he is, by definition, defying. Jackson had a higher batting average than anyone who played for either team, setting a then-record for hits in a Series (12), along with the only home run. He had more RBI's than all but Roush for the Reds. Contemporary and historical accounts tend to clear him of playing below his abilities, but some indicate he may have let up in some situations. But if that's the standard, then say "goodbye" to Andruw Jones, George Hendrick, Dave Kingman, and a whole bunch of other guys found loafing at times. In fact, it was common in Jackson's day for pitchers to cruise along, bearing down only in crucial situations. That (and the absence of the slider) is why you had so many with huge numbers of decisions. (Not only does Cy Young hold the record for career wins, he also holds it for career losses.) So say "goodbye" to every pitcher appearing before 1920 as well. Some say Jackson told Comiskey about the fix ahead of time, and even asked to sit out the final three games to avoid being perceived as part of it. And, of course, Jackson (along with the other seven) was cleared in court. Pete Rose in the HoF? Sure, once he settles matters with baseball. Jackson? Certainly. And before Pete.
Wow, I agree with Rich??? (Dr. Rich) I think Karras could be in the hall of fame, but his acting ability will never get him a star on the Hollywood walk. I think you are dead on target with Rose. His problem was not insurmountable, but he has given no one an easy out by being confrontational. Apologize, do public service, go to a couple of GA meetings and your bust is in the hall of fame. America will forgive someone who asks to be forgiven. It may be too late to apologize. BTW am I mistaken or aren't Joe Jackson's shoes in the hall? My memory is not what it used to be.
Re: Wow, I agree with Rich??? (Dr. Rich) I must respectfully disagree. If for nothing else, he should get one for his role as the horse-punching Mongo in Blazing Saddles.
