Clemens on HOF ballot

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

Can you prove these statements?

I have met Pete Rose on a number of occasions.
A close friend of mine has spent a fair amount of time with the man.
That doesn't bring me any closer to his transgressions, but I do have some insight on Pete Rose's thoughts concerning his punishment.

Those are strong allegations to make.
You would have to be reading between the lines of any evidence ever produced,
unless you have another private source.

Not private. They guy that did all the gambling investigations on him used to come on Max Kellerman's show a few years back and flat out said he still wasn't telling the truth. Rose hasn't come clean (again) since then, therefore, he still hasn't told the truth.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

I don't think anybody ever thought alcohol was a PED unless they were drunk at the time.

Personally I don't have a big problem with these guys. In some respects they were a product of their era. However, they did break the rules. The Hall of Fame has a high standard. I don't see Bonds or Clemens getting in for years, maybe ever.

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

Not private. They guy that did all the gambling investigations on him used to come on Max Kellerman's show a few years back and flat out said he still wasn't telling the truth. Rose hasn't come clean (again) since then, therefore, he still hasn't told the truth.

There's no disputing that Pete Rose bet on baseball when he shouldn't have.
Yes, the man should admit it publicly.

To say that he bet on games with a view towards manipulating the outcome for his own profit is a totally different thing. To my knowledge, that accusation is false, and cannot be proved. It is one thing to bet on your own team to win, but to bet against them, and to throw games - that's another story, and I don't think that's Pete Rose.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Pete Rose is a degenerate gambler who bets on more than just baseball. He's an action junkie, he's not looking to 'fix' sporting events for an 'edge'. Problem gamblers just want the action, they dont care about the winning part of things. Pete is a gambler, not an 'investor' who is looking to manipulate a baseball game in order to 'profit'.

Didn't say he was fixing per se, but consider this. Even if he did only bet on his team to win (an I do not believe this) he was the one in control of the roster. Say the top starter isn't having a good day and he bet the game. He was in the position to throw whatever releivers he had to get the win, even if he should be resting certain individuals and letting the game go, which is a far better long term strategy in a 162 game season. In doing this, he has further affected the games that follow by having an even weaker staff available. On top of that, the guys taking his action know what he's doing, so it would behoove the to bet on the other team in the next games before the result of the "tainted game" knowing Pete is thowing whatever he has out to win that particular game. It not only affects the game he bet on, but those that follow, so it might as well be a fix for the later games.

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

Didn't say he was fixing per se, but consider this. Even if he did only bet on his team to win (an I do not believe this) he was the one in control of the roster. Say the top starter isn't having a good day and he bet the game. He was in the position to throw whatever releivers he had to get the win, even if he should be resting certain individuals and letting the game go, which is a far better long term strategy in a 162 game season. In doing this, he has further affected the games that follow by having an even weaker staff available. On top of that, the guys taking his action know what he's doing, so it would behoove the to bet on the other team in the next games before the result of the "tainted game" knowing Pete is thowing whatever he has out to win that particular game. It not only affects the game he bet on, but those that follow, so it might as well be a fix for the later games.

The man is not that calculated.
He's a ballplayer - pure and simple.

If it could ever be proved that Pete Rose bet against the team that he was managing at the time then, yes, he should face a lifetime ban from the game, and exclusion from the HOF. I doubt that it ever happened, though.

Also, what you refer to with pitching staff usage amounts to fixing the outcome of a future game.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

The man is not that calculated.
He's a ballplayer - pure and simple.

If it could ever be proved that Pete Rose bet against the team that he was managing at the time then, yes, he should face a lifetime ban from the game, and exclusion from the HOF. I doubt that it ever happened, though.

Also, what you refer to with pitching staff usage amounts to fixing the outcome of a future game.

All I know is that even after Rose admitted he bet on games his team was in the guy that did the investigation still said he hadn't come completely clean. If you can come up with an alternate for what's left other than having bet against his own team, then perhaps we can agree, but I sure can't think of anything else.

[Pace Cap'n]

When the Game Of The Week had the Reds on during his managerial career anyone who watched would have had little doubt that he had motives other than winning. Even the announcers noticed. Some of the strangest pitching moves ever.

He should definitely be in the Hall, however. What he did as a manager had nothing to do with his stats and his game. Remember how he RAN to first on ball four?

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Pace Cap'n

When the Game Of The Week had the Reds on during his managerial career anyone who watched would have had little doubt that he had motives other than winning. Even the announcers noticed. Some of the strangest pitching moves ever.

He should definitely be in the Hall, however. What he did as a manager had nothing to do with his stats and his game. Remember how he RAN to first on ball four?

Maybe he was just a horrible manager. You know that there is at least some precedent that incredible great players don't make great executives, managers, etc.

Also, its up to the players that are put on the field to perform, no matter who Rose uses in the field, those guys are good enough to be on a professional roster, the GM makes most or all of the decisions on which 25 men complete any roster..the GM gives the manager 25 players thru trades, drafts and signings. The manager takes what is given to him and assumes that all 25 guys on that roster are capable MLB players and has no hesitation in using every one of them at any particular time.

[Valuist]

Rose should be in before Clemens and/or Bonds, assuming HE wasn't on steroids as well.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by Valuist

Rose should be in before Clemens and/or Bonds, assuming HE wasn't on steroids as well.

I really doubt it. He will be long dead before the day comes if it ever does. And it is his fault alone. He should be there, he was given repeated chances to clear the way to get him there and he didn't take any of them.