CT poll- Rose in/out

[Rojo Johnson]

In. As I recall, when he bet on his own team, he only bet on them to win.

Does it matter?

Yes, because he could do things to lose.

The facts show that he managed certain players differently when he was betting on his team or not betting at all on his team to win. He didn't bet on them every game. That's why the rule states what it does. He knew it and broke it.

Out

I wasn’t aware of this. I’m going to reconsider my position on allowing him in. If this is true (and I’m not disputing what you say), then I believe I’m changing my vote to out.

[Strummer Jones]

I dunno about this panel stuff, but I've gone back and forth.

After MLB gave a big sloppy kiss to all those betting sites and tried to get sports gambling legalized everywhere, I was in the "screw it, let Charlie Hustle in" camp.

But, on the other hand, Pete was NOT a good dude in almost any facet of humanity. He could play baseball, but he gambled on his own games. That shows a lack of character and I think taints the sanctity of the game. Laugh all you want about that, but I think it's important. And, yes, an example needs to be set. And what example is "okay, once you croak, you're back in good graces". Because what did Pete REALLY lose? He didn't get to see himself in the hall of fame. But he still died knowing that he was the all-time hits leader. And he surely knew that he was a hall-of-famer in spirit, if not practice. If Pete gets into the hall of fame, then these other guys that set a bad example for personal gain really have nothing to lose. If they're caught, they'll be immortalized later. Big whoop.

And I won't even touch the extra-personal part of Rose's life. That speaks for itself.

What do you mean panel stuff. Each year, another committee, I forget their title, will prepare the eight player ballot. Each year, a new set of sixteen eyes form a voting panel. This group is made of former players execs etc. they vote. Takes 12 of 16 to get in.

I might be misunderstanding. But are we doing panels on here? Because that's what I thought was going down. Admittedly, I skipped everything since the first page of the thread.

[sikeston bulldog2]

I dunno about this panel stuff, but I've gone back and forth.

After MLB gave a big sloppy kiss to all those betting sites and tried to get sports gambling legalized everywhere, I was in the "screw it, let Charlie Hustle in" camp.

But, on the other hand, Pete was NOT a good dude in almost any facet of humanity. He could play baseball, but he gambled on his own games. That shows a lack of character and I think taints the sanctity of the game. Laugh all you want about that, but I think it's important. And, yes, an example needs to be set. And what example is "okay, once you croak, you're back in good graces". Because what did Pete REALLY lose? He didn't get to see himself in the hall of fame. But he still died knowing that he was the all-time hits leader. And he surely knew that he was a hall-of-famer in spirit, if not practice. If Pete gets into the hall of fame, then these other guys that set a bad example for personal gain really have nothing to lose. If they're caught, they'll be immortalized later. Big whoop.

And I won't even touch the extra-personal part of Rose's life. That speaks for itself.

What do you mean panel stuff. Each year, another committee, I forget their title, will prepare the eight player ballot. Each year, a new set of sixteen eyes form a voting panel. This group is made of former players execs etc. they vote. Takes 12 of 16 to get in.

I might be misunderstanding. But are we doing panels on here? Because that's what I thought was going down. Admittedly, I skipped everything since the first page of the thread.

My panels are just the group of posters divided by 16, as they post, to mimic the official panel. Every time I go past 16 posters, I start a new panel. In theory, each panel is a yearly vote. So we would have three years of vote here.

In our exercise Rose gets in year one by panel one. But he does not get in by the other two panels. Not even close, and it gets worse the longer it goes.

[ramfandan]

Panel three needs one vote to close. Currently 8-7 In.

Couple super interesting phenomena.

First panel was 14-2 in. Second panel was 11-5 out. Third panel will be out. Three sets of eyes , two no gos.

Next- the first panel followed the Roe- no discussion. They voted 14-2. The other two panels had mucho narratives but voted no. That is neat.

Seems the more you talk about it the vote goes no.

Total tally 33-14. 68.75 percent. Needs 75.

Nice polls ! We don’t know ages of voters etc, but it would be interesting to see the age demographics of the voters
Just a guess.. I would think more of the NO percentage may come from older guys as
1) as guys 60 or older were in that Rose era and first hand saw it play out
2) guys older than that have more background into the Black Sox scandal and why integrity of game promoted the Rule 21
I am 77 and remember my father and grandfather mention the scandal and why participants should never bet ( whether for or against) any games they are in.

Don’t know if my reasons would impact on the Rose vote.
Think that perspectives may be different for 30, 40 year olds yhsn 60,70 year olds.
Any thoughts ?

[sikeston bulldog2]

Panel three needs one vote to close. Currently 8-7 In.

Couple super interesting phenomena.

First panel was 14-2 in. Second panel was 11-5 out. Third panel will be out. Three sets of eyes , two no gos.

Next- the first panel followed the Roe- no discussion. They voted 14-2. The other two panels had mucho narratives but voted no. That is neat.

Seems the more you talk about it the vote goes no.

Total tally 33-14. 68.75 percent. Needs 75.

Nice polls ! We don’t know ages I’ve voters etc, but it would be interesting to see the age demographics of the voters
Just a guess.. I would think more if the NO percentage msy come from older guys as
1) as guys 60 or older were in that Rose era and first hand saw it play out
2) guys older than that have more background into the Black Sic scandal and why integrity of game promoted thr Rule 21
I am 77 and remember my father and grandfather mention the scandal and why participants should never bet ( whether for or against) any games they are in.

Don’t know if my reasons would impact on the Rose vote
Any thoughts ?

Thanx a thread for interst, but then like you discover the actual demographics. I also wonder how a fan base would vote. Say Mets fan base. Do they vote against Rose where the SF fan base would be indifferent. So there’s one debate- fan bases.

Then age. I’d think older people would be easier cause they now are or have begun to come to grips with their fate, and all they did in life, particularly the wrong or bad stuff. Remorse.

[icon]

i always believed he should be in. if his bat is on display, his glove his shoes ect then he should be in as well. the hall and mlb should not be able to profit off his legacy if he and his family cant.
i do understand people who think otherwise though
as for managing differently in games he bet on or did not bet on i have never seen anyone show any evidence of this happening and with all the videos, stats internet you would think there would be some concrete evidence that he manipulated games as a manager one way or the other.
lastly,now that baseball has not only gotten in bed with gambling but has fully prostituted itself to the gamblers in that bed,i cant see any reason to prevent a dead man from being in a museum!
i vote in

You didn't look hard enough. This is just one example, and I have seen more detailed analyses of his betting patterns regarding the Reds.

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/b ... /25213975/

Did Rose bet on his own team to lose? Dowd says he and his two investigators uncovered evidence that he did, "although that evidence didn't reach the standard to include in our report."

Dowd says he saw a pattern: Rose didn't bet on the Reds when pitchers Bill Gullickson or Mario Soto were starting.

"That part is true … Mario Soto was a hell of a pitcher," said Paul Janszen, baseball's key witness against Rose and the first to speak to Dowd and acknowledge Rose's gambling. "But he had been hurt and when he came back from that injury, Pete didn't have a lot of faith in him. As for Gullickson, he was just in one of those slumps that players get into."

But Janszen says he never made any bets against the Reds for Rose at any point.

Further testimony in the documents shows that when the Riverfront Stadium scoreboard was inoperative or down for repairs, Rose would communicate from the dugout during games using hand signals to get information on the night's results from around the league.

"That was just silliness … he gave me seats behind home plate and I could see him, and he would just shrug as if to say 'How am I doing?'" Janszen said. "And I would go and dial the 1-800 number and get the scores and come back and either give him a thumbs up or down. He was just bored because he wasn't on the field anymore."

[thetank2]

We need the Child Protection group to be vocal. Climbing on top of some young girl when you are married with 2 kids begs many questions. Somehow who drove her to the meeting place?

[rockondlouie]

I could be wrong but doesn't the panel who could put Rose in not meet until 2027?

[WLTFE]

i always believed he should be in. if his bat is on display, his glove his shoes ect then he should be in as well. the hall and mlb should not be able to profit off his legacy if he and his family cant.
i do understand people who think otherwise though
as for managing differently in games he bet on or did not bet on i have never seen anyone show any evidence of this happening and with all the videos, stats internet you would think there would be some concrete evidence that he manipulated games as a manager one way or the other.
lastly,now that baseball has not only gotten in bed with gambling but has fully prostituted itself to the gamblers in that bed,i cant see any reason to prevent a dead man from being in a museum!
i vote in

You didn't look hard enough. This is just one example, and I have seen more detailed analyses of his betting patterns regarding the Reds.

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/b ... /25213975/

Did Rose bet on his own team to lose? Dowd says he and his two investigators uncovered evidence that he did, "although that evidence didn't reach the standard to include in our report."

Dowd says he saw a pattern: Rose didn't bet on the Reds when pitchers Bill Gullickson or Mario Soto were starting.

"That part is true … Mario Soto was a hell of a pitcher," said Paul Janszen, baseball's key witness against Rose and the first to speak to Dowd and acknowledge Rose's gambling. "But he had been hurt and when he came back from that injury, Pete didn't have a lot of faith in him. As for Gullickson, he was just in one of those slumps that players get into."

But Janszen says he never made any bets against the Reds for Rose at any point.

Further testimony in the documents shows that when the Riverfront Stadium scoreboard was inoperative or down for repairs, Rose would communicate from the dugout during games using hand signals to get information on the night's results from around the league.

"That was just silliness … he gave me seats behind home plate and I could see him, and he would just shrug as if to say 'How am I doing?'" Janszen said. "And I would go and dial the 1-800 number and get the scores and come back and either give him a thumbs up or down. He was just bored because he wasn't on the field anymore."

Of course he bet on his team to lose...he was a compulsive gambler who wanted to win bets more than winning games...people are choosing to believe he would never do that...and he was a [fork]ing child molester.

[okcardfan]

IN!

[Dewey Kuey]

In

[sikeston bulldog2]

One of the most fundamental goal in baseball is to get a hit.
The best kind of hit is a home run.

It’s comical that neither the guy who has the most hits nor the guy who has the most “best kind of hits” are not in the Hall of Fame.

Put Pete in, explain the gambling on his plaque.

Your vote one on panel 4.

Overall 34-15

Panel four is 3-1 In. 37-16 overall. .698 percent. Need 75.

[Adam2]

this may have already been said, but to make him eligible after he passed away is pathetic and cowardly. Either allow him on the ballot while he is alive, or don't do it at all. Is he all of the sudden a better candidate because he is dead? Manfred just didn't have the huevos rancheros to look him in the eye and make him eligible i suppose.

rant over. have a wonderful day

[Ozziesfan41]

this may have already been said, but to make him eligible after he passed away is pathetic and cowardly. Either allow him on the ballot while he is alive, or don't do it at all. Is he all of the sudden a better candidate because he is dead? Manfred just didn't have the huevos rancheros to look him in the eye and make him eligible i suppose.

rant over. have a wonderful day

This I agree 100% with

[OregonRedbird]

In. No question.

[imyourhuckleberry]

Out.

He knew what he was doing. He did it repeatedly. He showed no remorse (admitting the deed isn't the same as having remorse for the deed). The rule was\is clear and unambiguous. He ignored it. Repeatedly.

The 'he only bet on his team to win' is a lazy argument. He could have (and probably did) managed differently when he had money on the game, as mentioned in an earlier post) and likely laid off betting when he felt the matchups weren't in his favor.