If it ever comes out that he bet against his own team, while either a player or a manager, I will be the first to throw him under the bus, not a figurative bus, but  a real one.

The fact that he bet ON his team is a huge mitigating factor for me. I've met Pete Rose, played golf with him actually, (at a casino golf tournament naturally) and I found him to be a very intense competitor, I think gambling gave him the extra juice he thrived on, but I am sure my opinion is the minority one.

I will repeat, if it EVER comes out that he bet AGAINST the Reds, or otherwise did anything but give 110% as a player or manager, I will eat my words, but if anyone deserves to be in the HOF, it's Johnny Hustle.

Babe Ruth was a drunken whore monger, Ted Williams was by all accounts a fucking asshole. Mickey Mantle didn't draw a sober breath for decades. Cooperstown is full of flawed human beings.

What people seem to forget, apparently Pete Rose also.  He negotiated and agreed to a lifetime ban.  For once be a man of your word!

and an argument that any real baseball fan would have a hard time arguing with, an argument that even I will concede has a LOT of merit.

But many people do compare what he did to the Chicago Blacksox and the point shaving that went on in basketball, and I still maintain that betting ON your team is a lot more forgivable than betting against it. If I had ever heard that Pete Rose had bet against his team as either a player or a manager I would have shoved a nine iron up his ass instead of having a drink with him.

but I will concede that after considering this argument, he can't ever be let into the HOF.  

See, minds are occasionally changed here.

There is zero accusation he cheated the game.

Gaylord Perry fully acknowledged that not only did he cheat the game, he bragged about it.

Perry is in the hall. LOL

That's a fkin joke.

Let the baseball writers decide if Pete should be in the hall.

The argument to not let him in is because he did everything he could to win a game? Wtf? Isn't that the managers job?

I don't recall any accusation about Pete managing in some bizarre fashion that left his team "disadvantaged."

What Pete did was SO unforgivable? Really?

The "no gambling" rule was never meant for a case like Pete's. It was meant to keep guys from point shaving.

Yes Pete broke the letter of the law but he did not break the spirit of it. That alone makes Petes case unique which should call for a unique solution.

There will be tons of guys elegible for the hall that took PEDS. There are guys in the hall that did drugs. That assaulted people. That were die hard racists. That corked their bat. That doctored the baseball.

Gaylord Perry cheated the game and baseball could care less as he is in the hall. Steve Howe was a 7 time drug abuser. He's eligible for the hall. The Cubs Sosa corked his bat. No problem Manny.

So let's review. If you are a racist, or committed an assault, or cheated the game on hundreds of occasions or were drug addicts, baseball rolls out the red carpet for you.

But God forbid someone who was a gambling addict and put a few sheckles down on a few games, betting in FAVOR of his teams, THAT is a line too far...THAT person is a scum bag and not worthy of the Hall. Oh, ok. LOL

Selective outrage? Yep, thats the hypocritical and ridiculous MLB.

 

-- Modified on 6/26/2015 12:51:14 AM

Pete Rose was going to be part of the "festivities" so I think this is the MLB's way of ruining his party. They don't wan't him part of the show so that's why this story came out again.  

I agree, Pete Rose should be in the HOF!

I often root "against" what is in the long term benefit of the team I am betting on just so they can win "today"

Lets say you are leading a game by a single run, your bullpen has been a bit shaky, you've got a young pitcher who has thrown 110 pitches so far and this game in the middle of September. You have a six game lead in the pennant race and this game really doesn't mean a lot where it comes to the post season, BUT you have ten grand on the game, and you WANT to win. The best thing you can do for your young pitcher to save his arm for the post season is to set him down and take your chances with your shaky bullpen, but remember you have ten grand, or better yet, you have a hundred grand on the game. Your best bet to win the game is to leave your young pitcher in the game, but it most definitely is not what's best for him or your team's prospects in the post season.  

Given that situation, what do you do if you have a hundred grand on the game and it's your call whether to save your pitchers arm or win your bet?  

Up until now, I have always taken the same side of the argument as you, and I still agree with you when it's a player involved, but a manager is a different story, and you just can't allow for conflicts of interest like this, although as a gambler myself, I sometimes wish the manager would say fuck it, I want to win TODAY. It sometimes is just not in the best interest of the team to do so sometimes.

And stipulate as such on the bust.  

A "conflict of interest" shouldn't keep someone out of the hall forever. He has been penalized for 25 years. He didn't kill anyone. He didn't assault anyone. He didnt cheat the game as far as anyone could tell.

The conflict of interest you describe is not proof of anything. Even if you did have proof, how is that WORSE than cheating the game, your opponent, etc?

Think about why gambling is a bannable offense. Its so the public believes what they are seeing is real and legit.

So how do you possibly square the circle of people who have cheated and established numbers by cheating that made them hall eligible? Think about that GaG.  

And they BRAGGED about it! LOL. "Me and the Spitter." How could baseball possibly let Gaylord Perry in knowing that?

To me the precedent has been set. Let the baseball writers decide Pete's fate.

They don't keep out cheaters or racists or people who committed felony assault. You didn't comment about that part of my post.

Had they kept those guys out, I would be exactly where you are

and the reason I didn't address the rest of your post is that I didn't find any fault with it. It's a flawed system, always has been, always will be. I have mixed emotions about steroid users getting into the HOF. Where I have landed on that issue is that "juiced up hitters" were facing "juiced up pitchers" If you were the best in your era, you were still the best as steroid use was so endemic to the sport at that time that you would have to essentially keep them all out of the hall. As I said, it's a flawed system, and certainly not one that lends itself to black and white judgments.

Johnny Hustle?