selig warming up to idea of rose in hof?

Howard Rosenberg wrote a book in 2004 that claimed Anson bet on his team in the regular season at least 57 times and found 162 instances of players and team officials betting on baseball during the 19th century. Hal Chase was the most notorious game-fixer in the 1910s . . . but only a fool would think he was the only one in that era doing it. There were at least two other World Series before 1919 that are suspect. Baseball then was like horse racing today --- a great percentage of people paid attention ONLY because of the betting. And it was easy to disguise throwing a game. Get a late start on a ball . . . only to lunge at the last minute and barely miss it. Groove a pitch or two. Impossible to detect.

 

I've never understood the concept that betting on baseball is an unforgiveable sin. There are a 100 things worse that a player could do. Many of the players who have done those things are in the hall of fame. Within the hall of fame, there likely are murderers, rapists and most definitely extreme racists. I guess those things are OK in comparison to gambling.

As has been said before, it's an embarassment that the player with more hits than anybody in baseball history is not in the hall of fame. I don't like Pete Rose either, and undoubtedly, he has only made things worse for himself, but he accomplished what he accomplished. It's not the "Hall of the really good players who also were good guys."

 

I guess betting on your team to lose is pretty unforgivable.

But I have never understood why betting on your team to win carries the same stigma ("betting on baseball") when to me it's the difference between rolling through a stop sign and driving drunk.

 

For one thing, it is made pretty damn clear to every player and manager that there will be no tolerance of it. It's not like the players are led to believe that it won't be dealt with harshly. Rose just assumed he either wouldn't get caught or he was bigger than the rules of the game.

Even betting on your own team to win compromises the integrity of the game. Did Rose bet on his team for all 162 games? Did he bet the same amount each time? If not, isn't there the threat that he will manage differently when he has big money on the line?

 

Until they murder or rape on the field, those have nothing to do with baseball.

Within the context of competitive baseball, there is nothing you can do that is worse than undermining the competitiveness of the game.

Baseball punishes baseball crimes, society punishes societal crimes.

One, it gives you interests outside of the team's. You may decide to play hurt that day to make sure you win that game, only to aggravate it.

Two, it opens up the possibility of a player ending up in hoc to the bookie. Gambling is easily addictive, and if you can't handle a simple rule such as don't bet on your own sport, there's a good chance you won't be able to handle a lot of other rules.

 

This.

If Rose had admitted to betting on baseball from the very beginning, I would have supported a "lifetime" ban such as the ones we see where players eventually get reinstated.

However, the fact he 1) lied like a dog and 2) didn't cop to it until he had to and 3) tried to (or did) profit from copping to it means he should never be a Hall of Famer in his or anyone else's lifetime.

I also think the Steroid Cheats should be permanently barred from the Hall of Fame. Hell, I'd even support yanking them from the Hall if people find out they cheated.

 

Flawed analogy. If someone murders or rapes on the field of play, even during a baseball game, it goes far beyond a baseball crime. It merits criminal prosecution that baseball as an institution can do little beyond symbolism to stop.

 

The trouble with a well-paid athlete gambling is that it doesn't take much to wind up in a big money pit. Then his bookie comes to him/her and makes an offer: if the athlete sets it up so that the team loses the next game, or even doesn't cover the spread, then the bookie will forgive some of that debt — certainly not all of it, of course. Awfully big-hearted of the bookie, isn't it? Bookie gets as close to a guaranteed outcome as can be arranged and makes a killing, athlete's still on the hook for the debt. But it means the game's not real and the outcome's not real.

If the average fan can't believe the outcome is honest, then the average fan stops caring. And then they're not buying tickets, not watching games, not buying souvenirs, not watching SportsCenter, not avidly reading the sports section.

Pete Rose agreed to a lifetime ban with no apparent possibility of parole. Let him serve the penalty he agreed to and once he has, then leave it up to the veterans' committee.

 

Players decide to play hurt all the time. If a guy is chasing a performance bonus in his contract and needs at-bats/innings to reach his targeted number, he is just as likely to "play today and worry about aggravating the injury later" as someone who believes his 4 at-bats will seriously increase his team's chances of winning a particular game to win a bet.

I'm not denying there are worries and concerns. But a player can just as easily end up in hock to a bookie betting on other sports, and have that bookie come to him with a "suggestion" on how those debts can be forgiven.

But to me there is a quantum difference in betting on yourself to win and betting on yourself to lose. One is trying to win. The other is trying to lose. They are almost polar opposites IMO. But they are treated as Siamese Twins.

And remember, one player simply cannot decide a baseball game with any degree of consistency. It takes several. And given the salaries these guys make, getting enough players to risk their careers to throw anything is just not going to happen. The bookie couldn't possibly pay them enough to make it worthwhile.

This isn't Eddie Cicotte making $4,000 anymore. It's Joe Average Pitcher making $10 million. And there's no way a bookie or a bet can pay him enough to risk throwing that away.

And what is a "real" outcome anyway? We treat each game with such reverence. Pity that other people don't.

Coach rests Peyton Manning the final week or two since the Colts already have home-field clinched? Outcome changed.

Manager wants to get a look at his young players. After roster expands to 40 in September he plays pretty much a Triple-A team against another MLB team fighting for a playoff spot. Is that fair to the other teams fighting for that playoff spot?

NBA team gives less than quality effort to ensure better first-round playoff matchup . . . or to help draft position (yes, it can be done despite the lottery). Teams often have draft picks that have been traded UNLESS it's one of the top 5 picks. A team can guarantee a top 5 pick (thus keeping it) with a loss or two at the end of the season.

 

I'd say more like Irish twins.

 

Pete Rose the player should be in the HOF.
Pete Rose the manager should not be in the HOF without purchasing a ticket.
Pete Rose the person should get his ass kicked.
That pretty much sums it up.

 

Being a murderer, a rapist, a racist, a wife-beater, a drunk, an asshole....they are all personal failings. Possessing any of them does not make you a good person or someone I want dating my sister or serving as my parish priest. But they are not baseball failings. The thin line that separates sports from pro wrestling is the notion of competitiveness -- that everything is on the up and up and the players/managers/GMs are acting in the best interests of the team. They might be incompetent. They might not be able to identify the best interests of the team if you waved a paper in front of their face entitled "The Best Interests Of The Team."

But gambling comes so close to that line that a categorical approach is needed. By betting on his own team, Pete Rose's interests and the interest of the Reds threatened to intersect. There are situations where you have to ask, "Did Pete Rose do that because he thought it was the best action to take in that situation or because he had money riding on the game?" Maybe Pete Rose is superhuman and is able to divorce those two competing thoughts (I'm guessing not). The rule is clear, has been clear and always will be clear:

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.

If that rule applies to a relief pitcher who gets a cup of coffee in the majors, then it has to apply to the all-time hits king.