Do you think Pete Rose should be allowed into the Hall of Fame?

Not while he is alive.

Look I don't know if I can't state it any more clearly then I'm about too . . .
Pete Rose iz the all-time leader in: Games played, At-bats, and Hits.
That iz automatic induction to any Hall of Fame that's worth anything. Then again we are talking about the Baseball Hall of Fame so there really izn't much credit given here.
Now do I think Pete Rose should ever be allowed to manage again? No, I don't. But we are talking about the MLB Player and his accomplishments on tha field. Cap Anson iz in and he iz one of tha major factors in blacks not being able to play in the 19th Century.

I don't know what the rules are pertaining to the Hall of Fame. If what Rose did disqualifies him entry, then no, he should not be inducted.

He disgraced himself which is such a shame since he was so talented.

Has there ever been a specific charge against Rose for betting? In other words, can someone prove that on a specific day, Rose bet a specific amount of money on a specific team, and that the bet was placed in a specific way (phone call, third party, etc), and that the result of this bet was a win or a loss, and that "x" number of dollars was paid on this specific date as a result of the bet?

I'm not sure that's ever happened... my understanding is that the "Dowd" report (or whatever it was called) did no such thing, and Dowd himself has some credibility problems...

Unless its proven that he actually threw games than I think he should be allowed in. Their's a lot of people in the HOF that were worst than Pete Rose.

The Dowd report made it pretty clear. In order to prevent Dowd from investigating further, Rose himself agreed to a permanent ban from baseball.

Dowd had betting slips which showed Rose bet on Reds games to win, as well as other baseball games. Now, you might not think that's a serious crime. However, Rose had access to inside information for his team and other teams. And Rose managed his team in a bizarre manner - severly overusing his three trusted relievers (all of whom went on to have serious arm injuries within a season or two) - even in games that appeared lost. Baseball is a 162-game marathon, and if you've got a couple of grand riding on one game, you're not managing your team properly.

Sure, other people are jerks. Ty Cobb was a first-rate racist. So is Barry Bonds. They both belong in the Hall. Their crimes were against other individuals. Rose's crime was against the integrity of the sport itself. He does not belong in the Hall. Not now, not ever.

I wouldn't vote for Raffy Palmeiro, Jose Canseco, Sammy Sosa or Mark McGwire, either, for that matter. The damage they've done is immeasurable - but not as much as Rose could have done if his gambling had progressed.

The Dowd report made it pretty clear. In order to prevent Dowd from investigating further, Rose himself agreed to a permanent ban from baseball.

Dowd had betting slips which showed Rose bet on Reds games to win, as well as other baseball games. Now, you might not think that's a serious crime. ...



According to Bill James, in the "Historical Baseball Abstract", there were a few problems with these betting slips...

1) The betting slip(s) did not match any particular day of the 1987 baseball schedule, or any other season

2) The notes are, on the surfact of them, not even remotely incriminating. If a note said "Philly at Atl $2,000 on Philly", that would be incriminating. All the notes say is "Philly at Atl, L"...a few lines like that. Why wouldn't we expect a major league baseball manager to have comments about major league baseball games in his possession?

3) The betting slips are not tied to any specific allegation.

4) No one can give any coherent explanation of what exact role these 'betting slips' played in any bet.

5) I have never before heard the term 'betting slip' used to describe something which would be in the bettor's handwriting, or would normally have his fingerprints on it. The term 'betting slip' was a term which was normally used to describe a bookie's betting record, in the bookie's handwriting, recovered by police after a raid on the bookie's apartment. With the advent of personal computers, the term is archaic, but in any case, why would a 'betting slip' be in Pete Rose's handwriting, or have his fingerprints on it?


James devotes the better part of six pages on this history of Rose's betting allegations (and it is well known that he be heavily on other sports). James also said that:

"Because of an article I wrote 10 years ago about Pete Rose, I am often confronted by people who want to debate me about Rose's guilt or innocence (meaning whether he did or did not bet on baseball). I don't like to be drawn into this debate, for two reasons:

1) I don't know, and
2) You don't know, either.."

James does a good job of summarizing the whole story, and he is pretty objective about these types of matters. He doesn't present himself as an advocate of one player or another, he merely looks at the evidence, as he sees it, and comes to a conclusion. And he's made it quite clear in his Baseball Abstracts of the early 1980's that he was no fan of Pete Rose.

There were an amazing number of shady characters associated with this whole story, but again, the Dowd report did not appear to nail down any specific allegations...

I do have to admit that I did not really follow the whole story while it was going on, because I basically do not follow off-the-court/field stories like that. My only interest lies in what happens in the games...

If the Dowd report proves that Rose bet on baseball (and I guess that matter is a topic for another debate), then I don't think Rose should be in the Hall. But if they don't have specific proof, of the kind I mentioned in my prevous post, then he should be eligible.

But Joe, if you have some specific info as to how Rose used his pitchers late in that season, I'd be glad to check it out...I have access to box score data from all games going back over 35 years... if you can recall some pitchers' names and circumstances, I can check the box scores to see how often Rose used them (i.e. how many days between games, etc)...

OJ is in the football HOF and he killed 2 people.

OJ is in the football HOF and he killed 2 people.


O.J. was proven not guilty so he should be in the HOF.

O.J. was proven not guilty so he should be in the HOF.

He wasn't proven not guilty but he was found not guilty. Even if he had been found guilty, he would still be there for what he did on the field.

Tweety,

Just look at the usage of Franco, Murphy and Williams in 1987 (the last year he was rumored to be betting on Reds games), as compared to other relievers during that time period. Pay particular attention to their usage in games where Cincinnati trailed. It's just bizarre and unprecedented.

Williams completely blew his arm out, Murphy hung in there for a couple of more years and Franco overcame injury to have an extremely long career. But all three were sorely abused. Now, if Rose weren't accused of betting, I'd say he was just a stupid manager who doesn't understand pitcher usage. There are plenty of those, including Dusty Baker today (he's an excellent arm-blower-outer). But, because of the betting allegations, it calls into mind a manager trying too hard to win one particular game out of 162.

Bill James is a sabermetrician, not a lawyer. If Rose was innocent, why did he agree to a lifetime ban from baseball in return for Dowd cutting short the investigation?

Rose did not bet directly with bookies, he used intermediaries. That could explain slips of paper, I don't know. The primary evidence was phone records - Rose was talking to people he initially denied knowing several times a day before the day's games started.

If you read the Dowd report in full, which probably was unavailable at the time James did his analysis, I think you'd be fairly convinced Rose bet on games, including those involving his own team.

Tweety,

Just look at the usage of Franco, Murphy and Williams in 1987 (the last year he was rumored to be betting on Reds games), as compared to other relievers during that time period. Pay particular attention to their usage in games where Cincinnati trailed. It's just bizarre and unprecedented....Bill James is a sabermetrician, not a lawyer. If Rose was innocent, why did he agree to a lifetime ban from baseball in return for Dowd cutting short the investigation?

Rose did not bet directly with bookies, he used intermediaries. That could explain slips of paper, I don't know. The primary evidence was phone records - Rose was talking to people he initially denied knowing several times a day before the day's games started.

If you read the Dowd report in full, which probably was unavailable at the time James did his analysis, I think you'd be fairly convinced Rose bet on games, including those involving his own team.


Thanks Joe - I will do that...not sure when I'll get around to it, but if you're interested, I have a program called "Baseball Oracle" and it contains a database of every player that ever played in the Major Leagues... and the version I have contains other info, such as the date, score, teams of every game that's ever been played. With this program, you can actually go through and reconstruct an entire season for any team(s). This version contains box score info for individual players since 1969, and the new update (which I haven't downloaded yet) contains complete box score info for every game since 1960. So using this program, you could actually go back and have it build a game by game account of any player's complete career (provided his career started in 1960 or later). It's an awesome program, very reasonably priced. You might want to check it out.

Re: Bill James being a sabermetrician, not a lawyer..that's exactly why I like his take on things... again, to use one of his analogies to explain the difference between a sabermetrician and a sportswriter, a sportswriter attempts to be a good lawyer, a sabermetrician attempts to be a fair judge. For example, a sportswriter, arguing if a certain player should be in the Hall of Fame, would say "Felix Millan should be in the Hall of Fame because..." and then list some reasons why he thinks Millan should be there (he was a good fielder, blah blah blah). A sabermetrician would say ("SHOULD Millan be in the Hall of Fame? Let's look at the evidence").

James didn't begin his analysis by saying that Rose did (or did not) bet on baseball...he began his analysis with the issue of whether Rose bet on baseball.

I've always liked James, especially his take on the Hall of Fame (it's great to see him take these ridiculous 'arguments' that sportswriters make and just nuke them).

I'll take a look at the Dowd report (in full, if it's available) and see exactly what it says (as I mentioned earlier, I never really followed off the field stuff like this, so I'm not sure exactly what it said).

And I'll let you know what I find about the pitchers you mentioned, thanks for that info...

(Also, my understanding, admitedly rudimentary, is that Rose did not think the ban would be for life, but only for a period of time, which is why he keeps applying for reinstatement).

Here's what Rose signed:

- A statement saying he's permanently ineligible in accordance with Major League Rule 21.

- A statement saying nothing prevents him from applying for reinstatement under rule 15 (c), but he can not contest or appeal any decision.

- A statement saying he does not admit or deny betting on baseball.

Now a permanent ban under Rule 21 can result from the following:

"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."

Even betting on other games only gets you three years.

Some info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Rose