Does anyone feel that Pete Rose would be in the Hall of Fame if he had admitted from the start he had bet?

Question

On baseball.Instead of denying it all these years?

Answer 1

I don't FEEL anything about Rose or his situation. I find THINKing achieves clearer conclusions.

I do think (yes) that Giamatti gave Rose every opportunity to fall on his sword and admit to betting on games in which he did not have a responsibility to perform (non-Reds games), which would have earned him a one-year suspension, but which would have been considered (unofficially) enough blood. Rose would have weathered this storm, hopefully gotten lasting help for his addiction, been reinstated, hurray booyah, and wound up on a plaque with some but not too much fuss. That he had bet on Reds games would have just gone by the wayside.

Rose couldn't do it. He had every chance and still couldn't do it. "Not me! I didn't do it!"

Frustrated and still armed with compelling evidence, Giamatti dropped the tactical nuke -- permanent suspension for betting on his own team's games -- and Rose caved, agreeing to the sanction without admitting anything, or having the commissioner convene the scheduled hearing and reach an official conclusion. Nolo contendere.

Rose's competitive spirit served him well on the diamond, but didn't help at all in the offices and courts.

The 14 years of serial lying about matters isn't really relevant to his situation wrt MLB, but it doesn't make him look better.

He can be reinstated when he is innocent or when "permanent" expires. He soiled his bed, he has to clean it up, except he cannot. I have no sympathy for him at all.

Answer 2

I would hope not. I don't think this is a case of plea bargaining helping out. Pete Rose decided on his own to participate in an activity that would get him thrown out of baseball permanently. Whether he had admitted it the second they confronted him with the evidence, or came out on his own before the investigation started, or at any other time, he bet on baseball. The people above who have stated that he never bet on games in which the Reds were involved need to realize that Rose admitted to betting on Red's games. And to say that he could have never affected a game as a manager is just plain silly. A manager could probably affect a game more than any one player ever could. I agree that Rose's accomplishments as a player were incredible, but would never want to see him inducted into the hall, and don't feel that any confession of guilt should make a difference at all.

Answer 3

No. It's most egregious to bet on the game as a manager. It is probably the worst possible betting scenario. Whether or not you agree that betting on the game is bad, everyone in the big leagues knows that is the one and only thing that will get you the ban. If Rose had come clean right away, it would have just served as proof then that he deserved the ban.
If steroids is worse to you, address Bud Selig and the Players' Union, because they are the two entities keeping it from becoming an automatic ban.

Answer 4

I think that when the betting scandel came up it was a sign that he was done as far as the Hall was concerned. SOme say that it tarnishes what he did but I would argue that being a stupid gambler and betting every game for a bad Cinncinatti team should not tarnish what he did as a player. There is no clause saying that you have to be a rocket scientist to be in the Hall...being a moron outside of baseball is not a crime! That being said he still bet (as stupidly as he bet doe snot matter) on baseball games which is strictly prohibited...so he would have had a hard time getting in even if he had admitted that he bet on games.

He should be in the hall just not allowed to do anything with baseball any longer.

Answer 5

Very interesting question. On the one hand I would be inclined to believe that gambling is the one real taboo in baseball because of the Black Sox scandal and what it almost did to baseball. The integrity of the game is the life blood of baseball. On the other hand I believe MLB might have taken a different look at Rose if he had not put them through the ringer the way he did. MLB might have been able to play the whole event down and not involved the public in the issue to the extent they did. I actually believe there would have been a harsh response if he came clean sooner but Rose might have been able to avoid the life time ban which could have made him eligible for the HOF at some point in time.

Answer 6

Yes I grew up watching Pete play for the Reds..He deserves to be in the hall of fame but he blew it by gambling

Answer 7

I doubt it. I think Pete deserves to be there though for his accomplishments as a player. All of the betting took place after his playing days were over. Besides sometimes I think the Baseball Hall of fame takes itself a little too seriously. It is really just a glorified museum. The Pro Football Hall of Fame has Paul Hourning in it and he bet on games and was suspended for it but the world didn't come to an end. Heck, they didn't even kick out OJ Simpson.

Answer 8

Pete Rose should have been in the hall 2 days after he retired. He never bet on games he had any control over therefore its no ones business what he did with his money.

Answer 9

Probably not. Joe Jackson denied throwing the 1919 World Series (because he didn't) but he's still out of the HOF.

Answer 10

He probably would be in the HOF if he had showed any contrition for gambling while he was actively involved as a manager (boy, that sticks in my craw). But being the punk that he is, he blew it off and now will forever, at least in our lifetimes, be on outsider. Tough luck.