1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should Pete Rose be reinstated?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Gehrig, Dec 15, 2011.

  1. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    If Barry Bonds gets in, so should Pete. And Pete would already be in if he were white.
     
  2. gravehunter

    gravehunter Member

    Agreed.
     
  3. Captain_Kirk

    Captain_Kirk Well-Known Member

    I seriously doubt that presuming Joe Jackson had not gone along with the fix would have prevented it from occurring.
     
  4. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    On Joe Jackson:

    1) He signed a confession.

    2) There is some evidence he dogged it in the field (i.e. slow-jogging after fly balls, throwing to wrong base, etc) allowing Cincinnati to score several key runs

    3) There is also evidence that his hitting mainly occurred when the games were out of hand (either way)

    4) The main defenses for Jackson seem to fall into two categories, a: he was too stupid to even understand what the gamblers were proposing, or b: he agreed to the fix at first and then when he didn't get all the money he was promised, decided to try to fuck the gamblers over instead.
     
  5. Joe Williams

    Joe Williams Well-Known Member

    Come to think of it, this idea of letting Jackson and Rose into the Hall after they're dead is an insult to someone like Ron Santo, who waited till he was dead without ever gambling on baseball.
     
  6. Double J

    Double J Active Member

    This. Holy fuck.
     
  7. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    And without having stats that screamed out "Hall of Fame."
     
  8. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member


    Pitchers hold the power, and with Cicotte and Williams, the gamblers held the aces.
     
  9. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Both pitchers were reluctant participants. And much of it was just following along. "Well, if Eddie's in, then I guess I am. What? You got Jackson? . . . "

    The pitchers were also told they would get help and would not have to look bad. Take away that help from the hitters and fielders, and they likely buckle.

    And if Jackson simply tells the Gleason, "You gotta stop this!" Cicotte never touches the ball.
     
  10. BB Bobcat

    BB Bobcat Active Member

    Can't believe I have to explain this people...

    Let's say you run a restaurant and have to hire one of two people as a chef. The first guy is a pedophile. The second guy refuses to wash his hands (or wear gloves)..

    Obviously, from a society standpoint, being a pedophile is much worse. But from the restaurant's point of view, it doesn't really impact their product (the food). It's a PR hit for sure, but that's all. The second guy is actually compromising the food, which compromises the entire business. If you had to eat a meal prepared by the pedophile or by the guy who doesn't wash his hands, which would you eat?

    You say Pete didn't compromise the game by only betting on his own team, but what if he saves a reliever one day because he didn't bet on this game, and he's betting on tomorrows? What if he loses so much that he puts himself in a hole and the gamblers offer him a quick way to erase his debt?

    The rule is clear and it's there for a reason. The penalty is clear and Pete is paying the price.

    (EDIT: I will admit that betting on your team is not as bad as betting against your team, and that it's possible that Pete never actually did any of the things that actually compromised the game, which is why he perhaps could have gotten himself reinstated if he'd just confessed in the first place and why I wouldn't object to the conditional HOF scenario I mentioned. My analogy was just to explain why betting on baseball requires special punishment that other off-field issues do not.)
     
  11. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    That restaurant serves kids, right?
     
  12. Gehrig

    Gehrig Active Member

    If you believe Rose did not pick up his serious gambling habit until he was done as a player you probably have believed him all along. Not electing Rose because he would enjoy it too much is not an argument anyone with a grasp of the situation would bother with.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page