DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Pete Rose

I’ll cut to the chase: he should be inducted into Cooperstown before he dies. He wasn’t a great person and could be quite the arse from what I’ve read, very self-centred, and he gambled on his team when he was manager of the Reds. Yeah, that’s bad and I get it.

But he still holds the record for career hits, and MLB, along with every other major sport, certainly doesn’t mind raking in the cash with unending gambling advertisements on TV. That’s not quite hypocritical but it ain’t far from it.
Put him in.

I’ve gone back and forth on this. He bet on his team but only to win. He is an all time great but he lied for years about the gambling. I’m not a Reds fan and I would love to hear their opinions.

It's dumb Rose is not in the HoF. Same with Bonds. Clemens. Etc...

Baseball writers holding all the cards take themselves way too seriously.

Dale Murphy should be in the HoF, too.

Harold Baines in the HoF is hilarious.

It's hard to take the Hall of Fame seriously for professional sports, in general.

I agree 100%. A two time NL MVP.

One time might be a fluke. Two times isn't. Dale was one heck of an all-around player.

As for Pete, they probably should enshrine Shoeless Joe first. In the 1919 World Series he made no fielding errors and hit .375.

That doesn't sound like a guy trying to throw games, at least IMO.

Hate him as a person, but I'd put him in too. He's been held out long enough

I just got a nice glossy flyer in the mail from my county mental health board telling me how dangerously addictive gambling is. How easy it is to fall into the trap, how easy it is to lose everything. I've known some of these people, they throw all caution and common sense to the wind.

Yes, Pete knew the rules, so does the guy that lost his family, house and livelihood. I'm not usually one to make excuses for other people's actions, but our society certainly is. "Poor, poor, Pete was caught in a trap" would be the headline if it happened today.

At this point, Pete isn't in the HOF because he was an a-hole. With all these new advanced stats, I still don't see "a-holism" on the back of their baseball cards... and it's obviously not a measuring stick for who should be in the hall or that roster would be quite a bit shorter.

There is one single line item that could have me on the other side of that fence -- if he was betting on his team to lose. Then you could assume he was throwing games. He was not. He was a dumb gambler, doing something he knew was wrong, going out everyday with a "we're gonna kick your ass" attitude. After all these years I think that is more than enough impetus to put him in the hall, not keep him out.

I was a huge Reds fan growing up but lost my love for baseball somewhat later in life. I've thought this thing over quite a bit. Pete did bet on baseball. But the only way I see that it could have effected the outcome of any games was for him to bet on the Reds to lose. That's didn't happen. So while it's certainly against the rules, it didn't impact the outcome of games and he has been banned since 1989.

So yeah, Pete should be in the HOF. He's more than paid his dues.

Sorry, but this is probably going to be long.

I grew up in NW Ohio and was a huge Reds fans, beginning when I was in about the 2nd grade, 1969. The Big Red Machine made my summers incredibly fun. I liked Pete a lot but he wasn't necessarily my favorite Reds player, maybe Bench, Griffey SR or Concepcion. Following Pete's hit record chase was awesome, and nearly had tears in my eyes watching on TV that night when he broke the record against Eric Show.

Saying that, he knew the rule as did anyone else. He had plenty of examples from history. In 1979 Bowie Juhn suspended Willie Mays (I think he was the Mets hitting coach) because he was doing publicity work for a casino and warned Mickey Mantle the same would happen if he took a casino job 4 years later. Both were basically around to have their picture taken with people and golf.

Pete lied to me (he lied to everyone) for nearly 2 decades, and finally decided to admit it, but he managed to plan the admission around a book he was selling.

I attended one of his stage shows in Van Wert Ohio less than 10 years ago and multiple times joked about gambling. He sure didn't take it seriously. Interestingly when a video of his 1973 NL playoff fight with Bud Harrelson was playing overhead, he claimed that after Pete slid hard into second, Harrelson started hitting him. Not a good thing to say when the video behind you is proving the exact opposite.

I remember when the initial story broke and the witness's testimony was published, Pete implied he was persecuted because the only testimony was that of gamblers and a guy who had some drug arrests. He asked how come you didn't quote any religious leader. That was answered with "you didn't hang out with religious leaders". Many people asked why his former teammates didn't come to his defense. I don't really know, but maybe because they knew it was true.

For the couple posters who say how could Pete have any effect of a game if he only bet on the Reds to win the answer is easy. Just look back on some of the college basketball scandals. Many of them involved kids who only intended for it to be a few games, but the gamblers threatened to rat them out if they didn't shave points. Pete made himself a possible target for the mob and gambling bad guys by his actions. They aren't known to mess around. That's why gambling on your team to win matters. Think of the Lefty Willimas character in Eight Men Out.

I don't really care if he gets in the HOF or not, I am certainly not going to advocate for it. Maybe if I felt he was even slightly regretful, but his actions have not indicated that. Saying that, I can make an argument that when he was "found guilty", it wasn't a HOF rule that those banned from baseball were excluded from hall induction.

So that is my 2 cents regarding Pete. On a somewhat related side note regarding Joe Jackson and the movie Eight Men Out, there was one scene I felt was sort of disingenuous. When Ray Kinsella (Kevin Costner) was talking to Joe Jackson (Ray Liotta) about how much he missed playing ball, Joe said I would have played for food money. Well, if you would have played for food money, why did you take $10,000 from gamblers?

I am asking this in all sincerity, and not to be confrontational. I was either once told, or read an article that said steroids were not banned by MLB when Bonds, Mark m, and Sammy Sosa were using them. Anyone know if this is true?

Steroids were banned. This was when the cat and mouse game was at a fever pace because more and more products were blurring the lines. They all knew what they were doing, but when I say all I mean a lot of players. I would love to have a crystal ball and know exactly what percentage, I bet it was high.

MLB banned steroids in 1991 but didn't start testing for it until 2003.

While I dislike Pete Rose what he did didn't affect the out come of any games or his playing stats so I think he should be in the HOF. My thoughts for Bonds, Sosa and some of the others is that unless MLB can prove that they used steroids while they were playing than they should also be in the Hall.

On a related note, Max (HBO) is currently streaming an original docuseries on Pete Rose titled, 'Charlie Hustle & The Matter of Pete Rose.'

You seem to be confusing 'Eight Men Out' with the fictitious movie, 'Field of Dreams.' Ray Kinsella was Costner's character in FoD. As was Ray Liotta playing Shoeless Joe Jackson.

Bods and McGuire admitted using steroids. Sosa denied it, but according to a lot of reports he tested positive in 2003. The players union doesn't want the results released and has them tied up in court. I won't forget those players lying about it in those hearings, topped off by Rafael Palmiero wagging his finger at congress and then testing positive 2 months later.

Yep, and not sure how I would have done that. I have watched both movies multiple times and think they are both great.

I do realize FOD was a "story" while Eight Men Out was somewhat based in truth. My point was the character of JJ (who it was at least implied he was the same guy kicked out for betting or taking gamblers' money) stated in the movie he would have played for food yet took $10,000 from gamblers. I just found the character and the comment to be morally inconsistent.

Just saying....how do we know he didn't bet against the Reds?

Exactly, he wasn't known for telling the truth and his ego was big enough to think he could get away with just about anything. Plus, if he was being coerced by people who had the goods on him????

Because even the witnesses who he bet with including his bookies, who helped blow the whistle on him and testified against him saying he did bet on baseball said he didn't bet against the Reds. I mean I guess we can all say "how do we know" but that could apply to anyone about anything. Usually it takes at least some amount of evidence to make a claim that someone did something. Not "How do we know they didn't"?

You know, I got back under the hood of this thing because it had been so long.

A couple things became clear...

Pete sucked at gambling. He had accumulated $400,000 in losses in three months during the 1987 season.

He had at least three bookmakers, we've seen their records, he never bet against the Reds.


So first, with records of over 50 Reds games being bet on, and those records being procured during a raid, if he had bet against the Reds, I'd think we would know it.

But second, we're asking the wrong question! It's not whether he ever bet against the Reds -- that's just a stepstone to "proof" that he may have influenced games. With the kind of debt he was racking up, I would be more concerned with making sure all the numbers matched (debt vs checking account).

Think about it -- Pete owes the bookie 400G -- it's much more likely the book tells him how to reduce that debt *wink, wink* than for Pete to dig out of a hole by placing his own bets and tossing games. And if that's the case? The bookmaker would tell Pete that if he personally bets on these games he's throwing, there will be someone there to break his legs the next morning, because the "big boys" want plausible deniability.

Exactly. If you get involved with these guys you are at their mercy. They can make you do things you normally wouldn't.

He obviously was a hard-core gambling addict, a vice I myself never had a problem with. Have a couple others but not that one.

Point is, from my view, whether he bet on the Reds or against them, his on-field record, is more than worthy of induction. After 35 years, give him a break and let him die in peace. MLB has used him for their own purposes SINCE then, btw.

Anybody that's seen him play would have to agree. He didn't have any unfair advantage, he was just that good. There's no reason to keep him out.

In my view he needs to be let into the HOF immediately but the current commissioner is too much of a cuck to make it happen. He failed to vacate the Astros world series or take their trophy away in the past, and he's failing on this too. Not too high on him, I think he's an idiot.

He didn't cheat at the game. And when I say cheat, I'm referring to using performance enhancing substances, spit balls, trash can astros, etc. If he bet on the Reds to win and he could count on himself being that good then to me that's just whatever.

As long as its not on the field I couldn't care less. Barry Bonds on the other hand, is a good example of someone who should NOT be in the HOF. By the way, he isn't the all time home run leader either. It's still Hank Aaron.

And Maris still tops the single-season HR record list with 61.
Not Bonds, or Sosa or McGwire.

Got to disagree with you on this one, lamp. It's called the Hall Of Fame, not the Hall Of Infamy.....

Disagreement is fine my fellow Canuck, but 4,256 career hits, a career batting average over .300, three World Series titles and 17 Gold Gloves is not infamous, it’s legendary.

MLB may have him banned from being involved in the game of baseball but what you posted there makes it quite clear he belongs in the HOF.

His accomplishments are certainly HOF worthy, but when I read 17 gold gloves I had to check. Being a Reds fan for over 55 years defense was the last thing you thought if when discussing Pete's play. I looked it up and he did win 2 GG's, which is probably about where I would have guessed.

As I have said before on here, he is worthy, but current rules keep him out. Also, the "No HOF for banned players" was not in place when he was banned. I won't advocate for it and won't lead any petitions to keep him out either.

Okay, thanks for the correction. I mis-read the article, and I appreciate you clearing that up.

No problem Lampy. But, yeah, Rose wasn't known for being a great fielder. He was better than the average Joe. Pete was a great player.

Oddly enough, the most gold gloves won by a player is 18. Not only was Greg Maddux one of the best pitchers ever, he was great at fielding his position. You couldn't bunt on him and he was great at snagging those up the middle shots.

Too late now.

All due respect to Charlie Hustle ( Mickey Mantle gave him that nickname), who should be in the HOF. Who proved to be a great person and the greatest hitter to ever play the game. A great Ohioan.

RIP Pete .. tough player. Complicated legacy. The best hitter

In some ways, the statue outside the Reds ballpark is better than a bust.