If Pete Rose can't be in the HoF why can Bonds? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

If Pete Rose can't be in the HoF why can Bonds?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: If Pete Rose can't be in the HoF why can Bonds?

Postby 4Pack » Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:40 pm

dillpickle wrote:
4Pack wrote:Sad thing is...if I understand correctly...Rose bet on his team to win. If he bet on them to lose...I would be all for the ban.



So if Pete Rose bet on his team to win five times during the week and didn't bet at all the other two games, what does that tell you? Does Pete Rose think he's going to win all seven games?


It tells me that he bet on his team to win 5 games that week and did not bet on the other 2 games.
4Pack
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 828
Joined: 14 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Wisconsin

Re: If Pete Rose can't be in the HoF why can Bonds?

Postby Art Vandelay » Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:51 pm

There are a number of reasons why it doesn't matter if he was betting on or against his team, principle of which is that, even when betting on your team, you can't determine the outcome. When people start to pile up gambling debt, they will often to whatever it takes to get out of debt (and sometimes, depending on who and how much they owe, whatever it takes to escape bodily harm). If someone bet on his own team five times in a row, and five times in a row they lost, they might be looking for an easy way to recoup the money they just lost. The very fact that he was betting on a game in which his team was involved is the problem, not which team he wagered on.

That all being said, I still think he should be in the Hall of Fame. Just as I think all of the great players who cheated should get in. I don't understand why it has to be one or the other. Can't his exhibit at the hall note that he is the all-time hits leader AND he bet on baseball?
Image
Art Vandelay
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5265
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: If Pete Rose can't be in the HoF why can Bonds?

Postby citti34 » Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:04 pm

Apples and oranges. Should MLB investigate every player who has tried (legally or not) to gain an edge on the game? If this did happen, people would still complain and assume other players are "cheating" and haven't been caught. A better question is "If Big Mac can't be in the HoF why can Bonds?". Again, this assuming that Mac doesn't get in, but the ongoing assumption (debate) is that he won't get in. It's funny that Mac might not get in because he's a coward, but an asshole like Bonds is a shoe in. Oh, and I'm not saying that Mac is even close to being the hitter that's Bonds is, but they are both HoFers in my opinion. Pete Rose gambled on the game of baseball, and that's that. How can that be defended? I recently saw Pete Rose in Vegas, and all I can say is, WOW. He's just a money hungry weird old man signing autographs to "earn" more money to gamble with. The guy reminds me of Jose Canseco, he doesn't care about baseball at all....
Image
citti34
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 608
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: If Pete Rose can't be in the HoF why can Bonds?

Postby dillpickle » Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:01 pm

4Pack wrote:
dillpickle wrote:
4Pack wrote:Sad thing is...if I understand correctly...Rose bet on his team to win. If he bet on them to lose...I would be all for the ban.



So if Pete Rose bet on his team to win five times during the week and didn't bet at all the other two games, what does that tell you? Does Pete Rose think he's going to win all seven games?


It tells me that he bet on his team to win 5 games that week and did not bet on the other 2 games.


If only life were so simple. I assume you don't bet or aren't a gambler. All true gamblers try to maximize $$$$'s. If Rose thought the Reds would win all seven games during the week, he would bet on all seven. The fact, in my example, that he didn't bet on two of the seven games directly tells me or anyone that understands gambling, that he didn't feel his team would win those games or had less then a 50/50 chance of winning those games. This alone could easily create situations throughout any particular game where he doesn't take the entire 162 game season into account but rather tries to win his cash in any one game. Baseball is a long, long season. It would be easy to burn out pitchers trying to win a game and $$$$ on any particular night without looking at the 162 games as a whole or even the next night where he knew he wasn't going to bet because he thought the Reds would lose anyhow.
dillpickle
College Coach
College Coach


Posts: 147
Joined: 7 Mar 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: If Pete Rose can't be in the HoF why can Bonds?

Postby AcidRock23 » Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:43 pm

4Pack wrote:
dillpickle wrote:
4Pack wrote:Sad thing is...if I understand correctly...Rose bet on his team to win. If he bet on them to lose...I would be all for the ban.



So if Pete Rose bet on his team to win five times during the week and didn't bet at all the other two games, what does that tell you? Does Pete Rose think he's going to win all seven games?


It tells me that he bet on his team to win 5 games that week and did not bet on the other 2 games.


What about covering spreads and that kind of thing. "Yikes, the other team needs some runs, send Weathers in!"
AcidRock23
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle Eye
Posts: 4170
Joined: 8 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Champaign, IL

Re: If Pete Rose can't be in the HoF why can Bonds?

Postby 4Pack » Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:23 am

So if Pete Rose bet on his team to win five times during the week and didn't bet at all the other two games, what does that tell you? Does Pete Rose think he's going to win all seven games?[/quote]

It tells me that he bet on his team to win 5 games that week and did not bet on the other 2 games.[/quote]

If only life were so simple. I assume you don't bet or aren't a gambler. All true gamblers try to maximize $$$$'s. If Rose thought the Reds would win all seven games during the week, he would bet on all seven. The fact, in my example, that he didn't bet on two of the seven games directly tells me or anyone that understands gambling, that he didn't feel his team would win those games or had less then a 50/50 chance of winning those games. This alone could easily create situations throughout any particular game where he doesn't take the entire 162 game season into account but rather tries to win his cash in any one game. Baseball is a long, long season. It would be easy to burn out pitchers trying to win a game and $$$$ on any particular night without looking at the 162 games as a whole or even the next night where he knew he wasn't going to bet because he thought the Reds would lose anyhow.[/quote]\

My bad....I never realized Pete was so addicted. I assumed he bet on a handful of games a season. Then again...why would anyone bet on their team to win when they thought they were going to lose? Either way....Rose gambled which is a no-no. He will not get into the hall and Bonds should not either.
4Pack
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 828
Joined: 14 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Wisconsin

Re: If Pete Rose can't be in the HoF why can Bonds?

Postby Oatsdad » Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:08 pm

kentx12 wrote: Bonds IMO will never get into the HOF as well he shouldnt


You're wrong. There's no doubt Bonds will make it into the HOF and he SHOULD. With or without 'roids, he had a Hall-quality career. He'd deserve induction based on his pre-2000 or so work...
Oatsdad
Major League Manager
Major League Manager


Posts: 1295
Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: If Pete Rose can't be in the HoF why can Bonds?

Postby YardBirds » Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:09 pm

If you want to get technical, Rose didn't bet on baseball until he was a "Manager", therefore I believe that he should be allowed in to the HoF as a player, but banned as a manager, unless he was managing and playing at the same time.

Bonds should be allowed into the HoF also because their is no proof that he did, in fact, take steroids. You can make certain inferences about his production changes, body size, past associates, etc... But there is still no hard evidence against him. And this is even beyond that fact that the steroid sluggers pulled baseball out of the crapper after the last strike.

In my opinion they are both deserving based on their performance in baseball, but have both made some horrible personal decisions.
"I never used a corked bat...And if I took it to court I'd win that case." --Albert "Joey" Belle
Image
YardBirds
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1091
Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: If Pete Rose can't be in the HoF why can Bonds?

Postby Snakes Gould » Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:03 pm

bonds already admitted he used steriods, yet unknowingly, so to all you people saying he allegedly broke rules, you're wrong. also, to say using steroids in baseball was legal up until 2004, are also wrong, because using steriods is against the law in the united states of america. is it necessary to have every law also written in mlb's handbook? you are not allowed to kill the pitcher, first baseman, etc...

let em all in. who cares at this point.
Image

SIGS!

Shane Victorino wrote:“We keep fighting,” Victorino said. “We keep plugging along.”
Snakes Gould
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
EditorCafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterGolden Eagle EyeWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 16051
Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Eternal Bliss

Re: If Pete Rose can't be in the HoF why can Bonds?

Postby great gretzky » Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:44 pm

Snakes Gould wrote:bonds already admitted he used steriods, yet unknowingly, so to all you people saying he allegedly broke rules, you're wrong. also, to say using steroids in baseball was legal up until 2004, are also wrong, because using steriods is against the law in the united states of america. is it necessary to have every law also written in mlb's handbook? you are not allowed to kill the pitcher, first baseman, etc...

let em all in. who cares at this point.


major league baseball doesn't have to enforce the law. Your employer can fire or decline to fire you for drug use, and they aren't even required to report it. I'm not sure that its illegality is totally relevant here. Baseball doesn't HAVE to ban someone for life if they were convicted of murder or robbery or something. The fact of the matter is that the HOF makes its judgments on criteria in regards to baseball. And until 2004 steroids were not explicitly forbidden, thus its hard to call him a "cheater" in the traditional sense of the word, because cheating is by definition, a violation of rules. If the rule isn't stated, you can't break it.

At any rate, I think you bring up a good point, that people always have this pat "bonds 'allegedly' this and that." It's not "allegedly" at all. He did it. Now his continued use, and time he started etc. are all allegedly. But he did do them, he said so. He was just hoping to mitigate with lack of intent.

For the record, I don't really care if he did or didn't. I think so many other lesser-paying professions have safety and health tradeoffs, that an adult should be able to make their own decisions. Of course grey areas are introduced when you get involved with the lower levels.
great gretzky
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 3769
Joined: 3 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Washington, DC

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact