Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   Pete Rose says Alex Rodriguez should be in the baseball Hall of Fame. Because Pete Rose has any authority to speak on who should be in the Hall of Fame   (sports.espn.go.com) divider line 236
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

1237 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 May 2009 at 4:35 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



236 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-05-15 12:03:46 AM  
Two things:

- Rose deserved the lifetime ban, no matter how he bet. It's already been shown he selectively bet on the Reds to win, at any rate, which has already been shown by others in this thread to be a tip-o-the-hat to gamblers that Rose's team wasn't going to do so well on the days he didn't bet.

- For all the Rose fanboys trotting out these "most" numbers in an attempt to justify him as an upper-echelon legend, it doesn't do you any good. Virtually all of those stats result, like his record for most hits, for playing for so long. In terms of overall hitting prowess, he's not in the same league as men like Ruth, Gehrig, Mays, Williams, Musial, Ott, Robinson, or about a half-dozen other HOF'ers I could name who hit for both power and average. Many of these men also had lifetime averages better than Rose's and had higher averages in their prime years of production than Charlie Hustle.
 
2009-05-15 12:10:57 AM  
The agreement:

"Peter Edward Rose is hereby declared permanently ineligible in accordance with Major League Rule 21 and placed on the Ineligible List."

"Rose will conclude these proceedings before the commissioner without a hearing and the commissioner will not make any formal findings or determinations on any matter including without limitation the allegation that Peter Edward Rose bet on any major league baseball games.... Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed either an admission or denial by Peter Edward Rose of the allegation that he bet on any major league baseball game"

So what does Giamatti do? At the press conference announcing the agreement, the Commissioner was asked if he believed that Rose bet on baseball. Giamatti said that in the absence of a hearing, and therefore in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, he had to conclude that Rose did bet on baseball.

So baseball made a deal with him and reneged on it. Forget the sign on the walls with the "NO GAMBLING WHHHAAARRBLLL!". Baseball ignored it themselves to make a deal with Rose and said he COULD apply for reinstatement in one year.
 
2009-05-15 12:14:57 AM  
Farkomatic: Baseball ignored it themselves to make a deal with Rose and said he COULD apply for reinstatement in one year.

Applying for reinstatement does not equal or guarantee reinstatement.
 
2009-05-15 12:15:02 AM  
charlie hustle big red machine wonderful days for cincy
 
2009-05-15 12:16:03 AM  
Farkomatic: The agreement:

"Peter Edward Rose is hereby declared permanently ineligible in accordance with Major League Rule 21 and placed on the Ineligible List."

"Rose will conclude these proceedings before the commissioner without a hearing and the commissioner will not make any formal findings or determinations on any matter including without limitation the allegation that Peter Edward Rose bet on any major league baseball games.... Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed either an admission or denial by Peter Edward Rose of the allegation that he bet on any major league baseball game"

So what does Giamatti do? At the press conference announcing the agreement, the Commissioner was asked if he believed that Rose bet on baseball. Giamatti said that in the absence of a hearing, and therefore in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, he had to conclude that Rose did bet on baseball.

So baseball made a deal with him and reneged on it. Forget the sign on the walls with the "NO GAMBLING WHHHAAARRBLLL!". Baseball ignored it themselves to make a deal with Rose and said he COULD apply for reinstatement in one year.


Then why didn't he? Did the league refuse to take his application, or did they explicitly say they wouldn't in some public manner?
 
2009-05-15 12:46:42 AM  
ttc2301: Just for shiats and giggles, why do you choose to believe that betting on games is more of a damaging influence than steroids?

Your strawman that makes the rest of your argument useless: let me show it to you.
 
2009-05-15 01:11:32 AM  
I used to care about what happens to Pete Rose, and used to care about who was inducted into the Hall of Fame, but now all I care about is;

LET'S GO ANGELS!!!

Angels don't go to the HOF. They go to Heaven.
 
2009-05-15 01:31:45 AM  
Pete may have bet on baseball, but when I was 8 years old, I sent a letter to him through the Reds with a baseball card I asked him to sign. He sent back the autographed card and a short note thanking me for being an fan. For that, he belongs in the hall. Most players nowadays players charge you for the autograph and wouldn't dream of actually writing a note to a wide eyed child. Pete belongs in the Hall and I will not be a fan of baseball till they correct this error.

Pete is still banned because the stress of the Rose investigation gave then baseball commissioner Bart Giamatti a heart attack. Baseball power brokers still blame Giamatti's death on Rose. Rose got railroaded.

Fark Bart Giamatti! Go Charlie Hustle!

imagecache.allposters.com
 
2009-05-15 01:35:06 AM  
jdmac: Pete may have bet on baseball, but when I was 8 years old, I sent a letter to him through the Reds with a baseball card I asked him to sign. He sent back the autographed card and a short note thanking me for being an fan. For that, he belongs in the hall. Most players nowadays players charge you for the autograph and wouldn't dream of actually writing a note to a wide eyed child. Pete belongs in the Hall and I will not be a fan of baseball till they correct this error.

Pete is still banned because the stress of the Rose investigation gave then baseball commissioner Bart Giamatti a heart attack. Baseball power brokers still blame Giamatti's death on Rose. Rose got railroaded.

Fark Bart Giamatti! Go Charlie Hustle!


So the TLDR version is it doesn't matter if you commit the cardinal sin in baseball as long as you're nice to kids and hustle on the field?
 
2009-05-15 01:52:22 AM  
eVEN THOUGH pETE bet on his team to win, as a manager, really this is just his super-competitive personality. My dad can beat up your dad. Immature, but not done for the purpose of enriching himself by gambling, and certainly not throwing a game.

there have been thrown games in sports and no one considers punishment of any kind, for instance in football some teams would not do "so hot" at the end of the season, and magically they could get better draft choices. That' slosing on purpose. Other teams play half ass after they clinch a playoff spot "to avoid injuries" but reall it's because there/ sno payoff in winning til te playoffs begin. Other teams play halfass after theyre doomed to the cellar. I watched Tom Kelly pretty much manage to lose a few games, for no other reason than he probably thought the game was over in the second inning, he put in the worst long reliever, and then all the worst subs.

Pete Rose performance and spirit as a player were enough to put him among the elite to play baseball in the 1970s. He was a guy who was not extrememly fast, but he was a great baserunner. COuld bat anywhere in the lineup. Always alert. Played outfield, and the infield corners. But Pete was a great hitter. I would not want to pitch to the guy. He crouched way down to shrink to strike zone. He had a powerful build, but he was not a power hitter, he hit for average. Most of all Pete was a team player, he had competitive drive, never gave up, and a team leader for the Reds, Phillies, and Expos.
 
2009-05-15 02:12:59 AM  
I was just looking at Pete's stats at http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/rosepe01.shtml?redir

There is a streak in Pete Rose's career where he hit at least .300 for 14 out of 15 seasons.

At the age of 38, he stole 20 bases for the Phillies.

He had over 200 hits in ten seasons.

He had 4256 hits (record), and 1566 walks in his career.

Also holds records for games played, plate appearances, and at bats.

In his 14 playoff series, his average was .321.
 
2009-05-15 09:35:16 AM  
Jackdragna: Farkomatic: The agreement:

"Peter Edward Rose is hereby declared permanently ineligible in accordance with Major League Rule 21 and placed on the Ineligible List."

"Rose will conclude these proceedings before the commissioner without a hearing and the commissioner will not make any formal findings or determinations on any matter including without limitation the allegation that Peter Edward Rose bet on any major league baseball games.... Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed either an admission or denial by Peter Edward Rose of the allegation that he bet on any major league baseball game"

So what does Giamatti do? At the press conference announcing the agreement, the Commissioner was asked if he believed that Rose bet on baseball. Giamatti said that in the absence of a hearing, and therefore in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, he had to conclude that Rose did bet on baseball.

So baseball made a deal with him and reneged on it. Forget the sign on the walls with the "NO GAMBLING WHHHAAARRBLLL!". Baseball ignored it themselves to make a deal with Rose and said he COULD apply for reinstatement in one year.

Then why didn't he? Did the league refuse to take his application, or did they explicitly say they wouldn't in some public manner?


He did/does reapply for reinstatement and consistently gets turned down. If they were sticking to the "YOUR BANNED FOR LIFE" rule, he shouldn't be eligible at all.

So, there were deals made and deals broken. Neither side is pure regarding this and as I've said, he shouldn't get the same punishment as someone who admitted taking cash to throw a world series.
 
2009-05-15 10:09:00 AM  
filth: Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. Next to a sign explaining that he was the worst person in baseball since the Black Socks.

Something like this.
I'm beginning to think that they ought to install the hall of asterisks, wherein go the players who were indubitably excellent (which Charlie Hustle was indeed), but whom, for reason of, shall we say, grievous character defects, are ineligible for the main hall. Give them a plaque with their accomplisments and another with an asterisk on it explaining the reason they're not in the main hall.
 
2009-05-15 10:12:38 AM  
BunkoSquad: Pete Rose should get into the Hall of Fame the day after he dies. No induction ceremony, no getting to sign autographs as Hall-of-Famer Pete Rose; just throw his plaque up in the middle of the night.

I can get behind this. Follows the letter of a lifetime ban, and yet recognizes what needs to be recognized, which is that Pete Rose Should Be in the Hall of Fame.
 
2009-05-15 10:15:28 AM  
fastbow: Pete Rose should just buy a good tent and camp out on the lawn at Cooperstown until they put him in...

I've always thought someone should open up a Sports Fark-Up Hall of Fame. Think of it: a Hall dedicated to chokes, cheats, and chumps. For the first class, you could have Pete Rose, OJ Simpson, the Black Sox, and Mike Tyson. Anyone got any good ideas of chokes, cheats, or chumps who belong there?


Billy Buckner probably ought to be in the Chump Hall.
 
2009-05-15 10:25:36 AM  
TypoFlyspray: I'm beginning to think that they ought to install the hall of asterisks, wherein go the players who were indubitably excellent (which Charlie Hustle was indeed), but whom, for reason of, shall we say, grievous character defects, are ineligible for the main hall. Give them a plaque with their accomplisments and another with an asterisk on it explaining the reason they're not in the main hall.


This is stupid. The HOF shouldn't be based solely on how well you played the game, not whether you had strong character. How would you even qualify such an argument when the idea of character is so subjective.

The HOF celebrates players who excelled in the sport of baseball comparitive to their peers. Pete Rose should be in the HOF (and he will when he dies). ARod should be in the HOF. Barry Bonds should be in the HOF. McGuire (perhaps) should be in the HOF. Steroids doesn't help you hit a baseball, and, as we are beginning to see, steroid use was much more prevalent than a few isolated players like we were led to believe.
 
2009-05-15 10:27:59 AM  
Pete Rose needs to STFU and DIAF. And every trace of that lying, druggie cheater should be expunge from the records.
 
2009-05-15 10:29:37 AM  
Farkomatic: Super Chronic: LMark: Farkomatic If your answer is because as a manager, he could affect the outcome of a game, you don't know much about Pete. As great he was a hitter, he was a crappy manager. He couldn't affect the outcome of a game if the other team never showed up. He was horrible.

It actually doesn't matter whether he was a manager or not: Rose bet on his own team winning. As a manager and as a player, that was (presumably) his goal, anyway.

Not exactly. You can manipulate individual games that increase your chance of winning a particular game at the expense of other games -- for example, by making your ace pitcher throw 130 pitches, then using your ace reliever for whatever's left of the game. Or by mysteriously giving your star position player the day off in the game before. Etc. etc. It wouldn't be so bad if he bet the "over" on the total number of games his team would win over the course of the season, but for individual games it's just too dicey.

Fair enough - now, prove two things:

1. Find me one source - ANYWHERE on the world wide internets - that show Pete bet against his team.


I'm not going to do a farking thing for you when you've made it clear that you didn't read a damn word I said. How can you get through my post and take home the notion that Rose bet against his team?
 
2009-05-15 10:35:18 AM  
TypoFlyspray: fastbow: Pete Rose should just buy a good tent and camp out on the lawn at Cooperstown until they put him in...

I've always thought someone should open up a Sports Fark-Up Hall of Fame. Think of it: a Hall dedicated to chokes, cheats, and chumps. For the first class, you could have Pete Rose, OJ Simpson, the Black Sox, and Mike Tyson. Anyone got any good ideas of chokes, cheats, or chumps who belong there?

Billy Buckner probably ought to be in the Chump Hall.


You're an idiot. The sox wouldn't have been in the world series had he not had a great year. And he probably shouldn't have been playing that game because he was so beat up.

That play did not cost the sox the series. They had plenty of other opportunities to win and they blew it. Had any other thing went the way it should have, that play is more irrelevant than it already is.
 
2009-05-15 10:48:34 AM  
Has anyone asked the question "Should Pete Rose be in the Hall of Fame?" yet?
 
2009-05-15 11:04:43 AM  
Just came in here to make sure everyone knows that Pete Rose Jr. is a colossal douche.
 
2009-05-15 11:29:39 AM  
TypoFlyspray: Billy Buckner probably ought to be in the Chump Hall.

If you're going to blame someone, blame McNamera for leaving him or Calvin Shiraldi in. Blame Stanley for throwing the wild pitch. Blame them for not sealing game 7 when the Mets starter (was it Darling?) was ineffective.
 
2009-05-15 11:47:40 AM  
No matter what level of professional ball you play, you are told the firs day in the clubhouse that there is no gambling allowed in baseball. The sign posted in each locker room clearly states that. Nothing has changed since the Black Sox. He cheated, he's banned for life. Clear-cut case.

Many of these "banned substances" may or may not have been banned when the players started using them. Only with Canseco's public statement and Caminiti's death was any serious consideration given to performance-enhancing drugs. Considering the wide-spread use of these substances, every owner, GM, and manager would be under suspicion, so be careful what you ask for when you say "ban them all."

As for the argument that these banned substances are illegal in the United States, I'm afraid baseball has set a precedence. Willie Stargell, Tim "White Lines" Raines, Darryl Strawberry, Steve "Seven Lifetime Bans" Howe--that no lasting action was taken against these and other cocaine users set a precedence, whether we like it or not.

Comparing Rose to Manny, Barry, or Rocket is disingenuous at best. Can taking estrogen have an impact on a game? Possibly. Does betting against your team (or not betting when you know the risk is great) going to have an impact? Definitely.
 
2009-05-15 11:57:26 AM  
Pete Rose should not be in the Hall of Fame.

Quoth the HOF website:

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

/Plus, it serves as a great lesson for your children: No matter how well you do or who you are, the rules still apply.



Ahem....May I introduce you to my friend, Ty Cobb? Hey Ty! You'se in the Hall? Boy you were a sumbiatch......
 
2009-05-15 12:36:57 PM  
Ya know until I read up on Mr Ty Cobb.... I thought Pete should stay out.

Compared to some of the stuff Cobb bragged about getting away with Pete didn't do anything wrong
 
2009-05-15 12:46:16 PM  
capngroovy: No matter what level of professional ball you play, you are told the firs day in the clubhouse that there is no gambling allowed in baseball. The sign posted in each locker room clearly states that. Nothing has changed since the Black Sox. He cheated, he's banned for life. Clear-cut case.

That's a false assumption. Baseball never found that he bet on baseball. He neither admitted it or denied it. In that agreement, he accepted the lifetime ban, but would be eligible for reinstatement.

The next day Giammati claimed he thought Pete bet on baseball. In my opinion, he voided that agreement. And to date, they still haven't declared that he bet on baseball. But they reject his application for reinstatement every time.
 
2009-05-15 01:33:06 PM  
Farkomatic: That's a false assumption. Baseball never found that he bet on baseball. He neither admitted it or denied it. In that agreement, he accepted the lifetime ban, but would be eligible for reinstatement.

The next day Giammati claimed he thought Pete bet on baseball. In my opinion, he voided that agreement. And to date, they still haven't declared that he bet on baseball. But they reject his application for reinstatement every time.


Source on where he never bet on baseball?
 
2009-05-15 02:37:15 PM  
Pete Rose says Alex Rodriguez should be in the baseball Hall of Fame. Because Pete Rose has any authority to speak on who should be in the Hall of Fame


Subby clearly doesn't know the difference between having an opinion and having authority. I'd say the opinion of the best hitter and one of the best over all players to ever play the game is certainly valid. Certainly more valid than subby's opinion of him.
 
2009-05-15 02:46:13 PM  
libbynomore2: Subby clearly doesn't know the difference between having an opinion and having authority. I'd say the opinion of the best hitter and one of the best over all players to ever play the game is certainly valid. Certainly more valid than subby's opinion of him.

I'd say it's pretty debatable about if Pete Rose is the best hitter ever to play the game. He was a somewhat above average player who was graced with amazing longevity. His 162 game averages are well below many, many players not in the Hall of Fame.
 
2009-05-15 02:55:51 PM  
zarberg: Farkomatic: That's a false assumption. Baseball never found that he bet on baseball. He neither admitted it or denied it. In that agreement, he accepted the lifetime ban, but would be eligible for reinstatement.

The next day Giammati claimed he thought Pete bet on baseball. In my opinion, he voided that agreement. And to date, they still haven't declared that he bet on baseball. But they reject his application for reinstatement every time.

Source on where he never bet on baseball?


What I am saying is that officially, baseball did not find that Pete bet on baseball. Pete neither admitted or denied it while baseball did NOT conclude he bet on baseball. The rest is political hackery.
 
2009-05-15 03:01:27 PM  
Farkomatic: What I am saying is that officially, baseball did not find that Pete bet on baseball. Pete neither admitted or denied it while baseball did NOT conclude he bet on baseball. The rest is political hackery.

I had a pretty good guess on what you were saying, but what I was eluding to was hasn't it been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he did bet on baseball (new window)?
 
2009-05-15 03:02:55 PM  
Farkomatic:

The next day Giammati claimed he thought Pete bet on baseball. In my opinion, he voided that agreement.


If the agreement says "Giammati may never again accuse Rose of betting on baseball," then you're right. Otherwise, your opinion is stupid. So now I'll pull similar crap to what you're trying to pull in this thread: prove to me how such an accusation voids the agreement. Also, try to figure in how Rose's clear and unambiguous (though unapologetic) admissions years later should factor in.
 
2009-05-15 03:46:38 PM  
SUBBY is the biggest DUMBASS
 
2009-05-15 04:40:14 PM  
zarberg: I had a pretty good guess on what you were saying, but what I was eluding to was hasn't it been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he did bet on baseball (new window)?

That's not my point. My contention has been that you can't give give Pete Rose the same punishment as someone who took cash to throw a world series. The disparity is huge.

The counter to my argument is "IT'S POSTED IN ALL CLUBHOUSES". That is the primary reason people think he should have the same banishment as the Black Sox of 1919.

But again, when he was banned from baseball per the agreement, the agreement never stated that he bet on baseball. That seems to invalidate the clubhouse notices. Otherwise, there would have been no agreement - he would have been automatically banned. There would have not been any need for an agreement.

But that didn't happen. The spirit of the agreement was violated by MLB, so their intentions weren't as pure as everybody pretends them to be.
 
2009-05-15 05:37:57 PM  
You are familiar with the term "nolo contendere," I assume. That's exactly what Giamatti offered Rose and Rose accepted. He didn't have to admit guilt to the charge, so long as he accepted the consequences of said charge.

As for the quote, here it is. "The banishment for life of Pete Rose from baseball is a sad end of a sorry episode. One of the game's greatest players has engaged in a variety of acts which have stained the game, and he must now live with the consequences of those acts. There is absolutely no deal for reinstatement."

There was evidence in the Dowd report to support Giamatti's claim. Rose did not formally deny the claim, instead pleading no contest. Why, if he had not engaged in said "variety of acts?" Once the Dowd was leaked to Sports Illustrated, there was no way to quietly put this to bed. Therefore, Giamatti's statement is factual.

He, nor his successors, made a decision regarding the Hall of Fame. It was the Hall itself that effectively voted him out, and the Veterans' Committee last year.


so their intentions weren't as pure as everybody pretends them to be.

When have they been? Certainly not now. Seriously, can you tell me that Paul LoDuca, Guillermo Mota, and Eric Gagne, among other Dodgers (hello, Mr Beltre), were able to maintain their "craft" throughout 2003 without Jim Tracy, Dan Evans, and heck, Fox Newscorp knowing what was going on? Think Scott Boras hasn't noticed he represents the biggest names on the guilty list? Multiply that by 30 franchises and nobody can stand up for the integrity of the game. The slow trickle of names, Selig's public denouncing of A-rod, this is all a diversion until we finally get tired of the story. Rose was an isolated incident, a confirmed incident, and an infraction that occurred at a time it was being enforced.

So, what do we do in this case? Do we administer the death sentence to Major League Baseball by banning all those implicated? It will come back, like SMU football it will come back, but at least integrity will be restored.

The other option is to accept that the era is stained. So, then, do we close the Hall to anybody gainfully employed by the MLB over the last 20 years? Does the Hall offer amnesty to those who best capitalized on the laissez faire league attitude? After all, banks scored some nice bailouts for their bad behavior. Or can we pick and choose--letting the Dale Murphys, Will Clarks, and other arguably clean players in despite deflated numbers?
 
2009-05-15 05:42:31 PM  
Oh, and because I forgot to add this clause:

4. Peter Edward Rose acknowledges that the Commissioner has a
factual basis to impose the penalty provided herein,
and hereby
accepts the penalty imposed on him by the Commissioner and agrees
not to challenge that penalty in court or otherwise.

...and later, Neither the Commissioner nor Peter Edward Rose shall be prevented by this agreement from making any public statement relating to this matter so long as no such public statement contradicts the terms of this agreement and resolution.

So, where was Bart breaking his end of the agreement?
 
Displayed 36 of 236 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report