So, Old Pete, “I bet on my own baseball team when I was managing them but I’m the MLB record holder for most hits in a career so that gambling stuff doesn’t really matter” was whining yet again a few months back about how much "the fans want him in the HoF. Which led to Commisioner Selig announcing that he had been meeting with Rose and his lawyers in an attempt to reach some sort of agreement whereby Pete could be taken off the permanently ineligible list and thereby get into the HoF. Selig was even going to meet with a group of current HoFers including Joe Morgan, Johnny Bench and Hank Aaron to discuss the situation.
Rose’s reinstantment seems to hinge upon his admitting that yes, he did in fact bet on baseball games, in fact he bet on Reds games while he was managing them, as well as admitting that he did have a gambling problem and that he would seek treatment for it, as well as apologizing for bigoted remarks he directed towards former Commissioner Faye Vincent.
But if Pete has mended his former ways then what was he doing spending Super Bowl Week in Las Vegas?
Why, betting on baseball. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Shocker.
The man’s arrogance and self-centeredness is mindboggling.
Betting for his team. A few weeks ago, John Dowd (the man who conducted the investigation) stated that he had proof that Rose bet against his team, but quickly retracted when he failed to produce that evidence.
In any event, it doesn’t really make a difference. Betting on baseball (when you are a player, manager, coach or anyone else potentially involved in the outcome) is wrong, whether you bet for or against your team.
The agreement that he signed was that he agreed to be placed on the permenantly ineligible list in exchange for there being no factual finding that he bet on baseball.
Of course, that begs the question of why he would agree to that unless there was conclusive evidence?
In any event, there is conclusive evidence that yes, he did do it. You can check out the Dowd report online for yourself.
There’s absolutely no doubt that Rose gambled, and heavily. (From this remove, it appears that if he hadn’t been famous, he would have probably gotten his knees broken by some bookie’s enforcer.)
There is some room for doubt as to whether he bet on his own team, or on baseball in general, given the sources relied on in MLB’s investigation.
Why would it be wrong for a manager to bet on (as opposed to against) his own team? Because the baseball season has 162 games, and a manager has to go for the win in Game 124 in a way that doesn’t sacrifice his chances of winning in Games 125 through 162. But if you’ve just bet a wad of cash on your team’s winning Game 124, then you, as manager, might well be tempted to pull out all the stops to win: bring in your closer two innings early, use an upcoming starter in relief, whatever.
It equally begs the question of why MLB would settle for no factual finding, if it had conclusive evidence.
If I someday have that much time and curiosity, I will wade through all 224 pages, or whatever, of the Dowd report. I don’t think it’ll be this week.
Bill James, who was and is no big fan of Rose, read the whole thing, and analyzed it in some detail in his baseball annual that year. He came to the conclusion that Dowd had failed to make the case, even by preponderance-of-the-evidence standards. I’m willing to take his word for it.
Probably to avoid a potential lawsuit from Rose after his banning.
I know. I usually revere just about anything that James writes, but on this issue, he’s wrong. The evidence is pretty much there that Rose did bet on baseball. I’d also be curious to know if he still holds the same opinion today, or if he believes that Rose bet on baseball (regardless of whether Dowd made his case or not).
Perhaps someone ought to tell Pete Rose that the majority of fans have no say whatsoever in who is and is not in the HoF. The only fans who do get a say happen also to be on a panel of voters, and they are probably more intelligent/learned on baseball matters than Joe (or Josephine) B. Fan.
just a question, but why is it wrong to bet on your own team to win? Lots of soccer players do that all the time. But they are in league rules if they are found to bet against themselves.
Because a manager who bets on his own team to win a certain game may make a decision that will allow his team to win this particular game at the expense of other games.
For example, a manager may decide to use his ace for an inning longer than he otherwise would have. This can cause injury to the pitcher and result in the team losing more games in the future because the pitcher is on the DL. Or he may bring in his closer an inning early to win this game, thus depriving him of the closer for the next two games.
Of course, there is always the possibility that the manager might also then offer to pay members of the other team to throw the game in exchange for a percentage of the profits.
In short, gambling by people involved in sports is a bad, bad idea, whether you are betting for your team or against it.
Even baseball has no say. The HoF is independent of baseball. They (voluntarily) tied their exclusion rule to MLB’s ineligible list. If MLB reinstated Rose, the Hall could just as easily turn around and say “If you were ever on the ineligible list, you’re not in the Hall.”
Bill James is a baseball genius, but he’s completely wrong on Pete Rose. His analysis is thorougly refuted in Evaluating the Dowd Report by Derek Zumsteg over at the Baseball Prospectus. AFAIK, James has never responded to Zumsteg’s analysis.
That sounds kinda thin reasoning to me. I can see how that would be bad, but in more of a “can’t play for the rest of the season” way, not a “banned forever and we have to keep hearing about it for the rest of our natural lives” way. I mean, I can see why throwing a game to win a bet would be bad, but worrying that he might try too hard to win a game? Shouldn’t he be doing that anyway?
But then, I’m not a gamblin’ man or a sports fan, so what do I know?