I've had this one in the back of my head for a while, but Scott Peters sent me what was seemingly an innocent email on Christmas Eve saying, "First question of the New Year, should Pete Rose be in the hall of fame"
This is sort of about Peter Edward Rose. It is also sort of about Scott Peters ruining Christmas because the obsessive compulsive research started almost immediately after his email.
PAGE I
The Rose I'm referring to in the title is the game of baseball, and not the player. The "thorn" is gambling. It could also be Pete.
The accomplishments of Pete Rose are plenty.
- 1963 rookie of the year (beat out hall of famer Joe Morgan, Rusty Staub, Rico Carty, Dick Allen, Jesus Alou and 66 other players that debuted in the National League that season)
- 17 time All-Star games (behind only Aaron (21), Mays (20), Musial (20), Ripken (19), Carew (18), Yaztrzemski (18) and tied with Williams - all in the Hall of Fame)
- 1975 World Series MVP
- 2 Gold Gloves
- 1 Silver Slugger
- 3 Batting Championships
- 2 times leading the league in On Base Percentage
- 4 times leading the league in At Bats
- 4 times leading the league in Runs Scored
- 7 times leading the league in Hits
- 3 times leading the league in Singles
- 5 times leading the league in Doubles
- 10 seasons with 100 Runs scored (tied for 13th all time)
- 10 seasons with 200 Hits (tied for the most all time with Ichiro Suzuki)
- Was National League MVP in 1973
- Played the most career games (3,562)
- Most career At Bats (14,053)
- Most career Hits (4,256)
- Most career singles (3,215)
- Most career doubles by a switch hitter (746)
- Most times reaching base career (5,929)
- Major League Baseball's last Player Manager
So sticking with just simple player accomplishments, that list would surely get him into the hall right? But was he really THAT good? If the whole gambling thing wouldn't have happened was he a slam dunk? Was he in the conversation of the best player ever? I don't know. He made the All-Star team from 5 different defensive positions. Is that because he wasn't good enough to stick at any of them but they needed his bat in the lineup; or was he simply versatile? That sounds like a stretch, but I'm not as sure as I used to be.
Anyone who's traipsed through these BLOGs knows that I'm a big fan of WAR. A WAR of "7.0" would indicate a superstar season. By superstar I mean should get consideration for an MVP. Barry Bonds (a discussion for another day) was above 7.0 fourteen (14) times! Mays and Aaron 13. Ruth had 12. Gehrig and Wagner 10. A-Rod (see Bonds), Schmidt, Musial, Williams, Hornsby, Speaker, Pujols, Mathews, Collins and Cobb are all at 9. Rose is at one (1). To be clear, he was better than the league average at his position by a value of 7 wins (again, that's huge) one season of his career.
Josh Donaldson has had a +7.0 WAR 3 times. Bautista twice. Are either of them going to the Hall? Almost zero chance. Donaldson, if he repeated last year for the next 8 would have a chance. It ain't gonna happen.
Now the one season that Rose was over 7.0 was also the year he won the MVP. That makes a lot of sense.
Above are the 1973 stats for Pete Rose and his teammate Joe Morgan. There are a few interesting things when comparing these two players. The first is that Rose, who had this reputation of "Charlie Hustle" really wasn't all that. It was a mystique. His head first dives into second base were legendary and graced magazine covers. Yet in his best season ever, he had 10 stolen bases to Morgan's 67. In fact, Rose had 20 once in his career, and he had exactly 20 in fact, with Philadelphia in 1979. He had more steals than caught stealing in only 13 of his 24 seasons. Charlie Hustle or Charlie Stupid? Okay, the 2nd thing is that despite Rose having 63 more hits than Morgan; Morgan's on base plus slugging is still superior AND his WAR (which led the league) was off the charts. The 3rd and final thing, which is not evident in the stats is that Morgan had this monster year while playing 2nd base. Other than Short Stop and catcher there is no more cerebral and physically demanding defensive position on the diamond. Rose played left field which is where people who can't play right and center go. You can make a very strong argument for Rose not winning the 1973 MVP.
And that was his best year.
1973 MVP season aside, was Rose 'good enough' for the Hall? Remember, this is baseball, not hockey. Very good (Joe Nieuwendyk) gets you in with hockey. It might get you a sniff in baseball, but that's it.
Ty Cobb had 4,191 hits when Rose tied and passed him. Interestingly, Cobb has 4,189 career hits now (I'll explain that later - if I'm not too tired). What if Rose had stopped at 4,190. Or, 4,000 dead on? Hall of fame? This whole "passing Cobb" thing always kind of bothered me. Lets look at that.
Neither Cobb nor Rose cared for catchers much
What is fascinating to me is that Cobb and Rose both played 24 seasons so you should be able to do a like for like comparison. However, Rose played 500+ more games than Cobb or the equivalent of more than 3 full seasons. This is informational only, because Cobb was dominant in his era. Along with Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson, Honus Wagner and Babe Ruth, he was one of the first five original Hall of Famers. Cobb on his last legs in 1928 still hit .323 in 95 games for the Phillies. Rose in his last year hit .219 in 72 games with the Reds.
Its not a fair comparison. Arguable the best player of all time compared with a really good player. But to me, that's what Rose was. A really good player, for a REALLY long time. To me, he was more like Tony Gwynn or Wade Boggs. But even then, Gwynn had 7 batting tittles and Boggs 5. They are both in the Hall of Fame.
My argument concludes with Rose getting in the Hall statistically, but its not as easy as you'd think. I can't find one season in 24 where he was the best statistical player on his team, never mind the league. 1973 was the closest, the rest there are definitive gaps. The reason he is in is passing Cobb for career hits which he did while giving up 33 points in average.
But this will never happen.
PAGE II
There are a few different camps on gambling and what it means and what should happen to Pete. All camps are filled with reasonably intelligent people with sound arguments. As usual, "listening" seems to be absent from many and a FULL understanding of gambling isn't really understood.
Camp 1 is the biggest. Maybe 80% or of really solid and smart ball fans live here. They believe that there are two gambling incidents. I've heard radio hosts (ones who should really know better) proclaim that they know the history of gambling in baseball and site these two events. Rose and the 1919 Chicago White (Black) Sox scandal. They can give you some learned details of an event almost 100 years ago which its cool because they're almost entirely right. Plus its been immortalized in film.
This camp is then sub-divided into the pro-Rose and anti-Rose groups. The "pro", simply stated, say that the rules are from a by-gone time and they've out lived their usefulness. The "anti", are quite clear that rules are rules. Period.
Well, to 80% of the hard core ball fans out there; there is a lot more to gambling in this game than just the events of Rose and the Black Sox Scandal. Some are well known; others, not so much. Here is the thumbnail history in reverse chronological order.
1. 2010 - Mets Club House Manager, Charlie Samuels, accused of theft from the Mets and gambling on baseball. Fired from the Mets and banned for life from baseball. (relatively unknown)
2. 1987 - Pete Rose, found to have gambled on no less than 1/3 of Reds games from that season and evidence of previous gambling. Banned for life (well known)
3. 1979 - Two hall of famers, Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle are banned from baseball as they were working as greeters for Atlantic City Casinos. Reinstated by commissioner Peter Ueberroth in 1984. ( relatively unknown)
4. 1967 - Denny McClain, the major league's last 30 game winner and an active pitcher was found to be a co-partner in a book making operation. He was suspended for a 1/2 season. (somewhat known)
5. 1947 - Leo Durocher, (Leo The Lip) manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers is suspended for the season for consorting with gamblers. (relatively unknown)
6. 1919 - Proven not guilty in court, baseball banned 8 members of the Chicago White Sox for life for throwing the 1919 World Series. (well known)
7. 1910 - The "famous" Ty Cobb v. Nap Lajoie batting title race. Perhaps there is room for the full story later, but the St. Louis Cardinals are thought to have allowed Lajoie to go 7/8 on the final day of the season in a double header to win the tittle by less than on 1000th of a point. Hard to fathom the "on purpose" part? 6 of the 8 hits were bunts. To the same guy. The one time he didn't get a hit was ruled an error on the bunt. It was written that Cobb was so hated that the Cardinals did this as a fuck you to the Georgia Peach (Cobb). However, it was whispered that a bunch of Cards put a lot of money down on Lajoie to win the batting title at crazy odds. Nothing proven, no suspensions. (completely unknown)
8. 1877 - Four members of the Louisville Grays in the National League were suspended for purposely throwing games. (completely unknown)
There is your history as I know it. Others can probably give you more, but that's the foundation that my argument starts from.
Does Pete Rose belong in the hall of fame?
Rule 21.(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or
employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year. Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.
The best I can find on the creation of these rules is that they were "sometime in the early 1920's". You'd think record keeping would be a little better. Its easy to assume that they came in after the Black Sox stuff was done by 1921.
This has nothing to do with Rose's accomplishments belonging in the hall. Even by my holier-than-thou measure, he get in. But he never will be and he's done that to himself. And really, its so simple to understand and its completely indefensible.
Baseball has a hardline no gambling rule. Its has for 90+ years. If you don't like the rule, then I can't help you. Its like getting a speeding ticket. If you're wife was in labour and you were taking her to the hospital and that was your justification for speeding, then we can talk about it. You may have a valid argument. But if you think you should be able to drive 150 KPH in a 100km zone because you don't agree with the posted speed limit....well....you're a bit of dolt aren't ya? Can't help with that one.
Major League Baseball, like any other private enterprise is allowed to make their own decisions on the conduct of their personnel. Many companies have standards of conduct waivers that people need to sign. MLB has 6 rules posted in each club house. One of those rules is that teams need to post them. Its not fucking complicated.
Six rules. One of those 6 is rule 21(6) shown above.
So what's wrong with gambling? Morally? Nothing. I really don't care.
But for the game? Well, let's start with a really easy one. These numbers are a little stale, but from CNBC in July of 2013, 30-40 billion dollars were illegally gambled on baseball in the 2012 season. That's the illegal betting. Now put the real sports books into the mix and you can see that there is enough money begin gambled to pay down national debts.
Lets just say that Blue Jays Manager John Gibbons was best friends with a Casino owner. Grew up together, went to college together, BFFs. When John visits in the off season, he stays in the best suite, everything is complimentary. Why wouldn't it be, they're mates.
Then you get into the season and the Jays are up 4/3 with 2 out in the seventh. Estrada pitching, Sanchez is in the pen warmed and ready. And then there's a single by the other team. Everyone in the joint thinks Sanchez is coming into the game. But he doesn't. Gibbons stays in the dugout. Estrada stays on the mound. Sanchez stays in the pen.
The next pitch is a get ahead fast ball and it gets rocketed out of the park and the Jays are now down 5/4. Then some reporter looks at it and makes a comment that all those free stays at the casino are catching up with him. After all, those casinos all have sports books. Buddy might have wanted to cash in a favour. So to speak.
Anyway, its probably all innocent. Managers and coaches make decisions on every pitch. Literally, there are 100's of decision a game. Take, swing, bunt, hit and run, steal, pitch selection, defensive alignment...etc. Most of the decisions aren't even noticed. Often they are or become immaterial to the outcome of the game play or the game. Others are magnified. Others can change a game. Its those ones, the 1% or less that are noticed by the masses. So in the Gibbons example the rule isn't in place because he (or anyone else) isn't trusted. Quite to the contrary, its there to remove all doubt and speculation. Its there so there aren't quiet whispers and conversations.
I often hear, "so what if he bet on his own team"; or "as long as he didn't bet against the Reds, I don't care". Good lord, that's so naive. Again, seemingly intelligent people say these things!
Most people are familiar with football betting. Lets say the Giants are playing the Bills, just so I can relive my favourite nightmare. Say the Giants are favoured by 2.5 points at home. So here we are with less than 2 minutes left, the Giants have the ball, down 16-14, no time outs and the ball near mid field because Manning stuck a 35 yard pass to the side of someone's helmet on the previous play. Asshole.
I'm a Bills fan. I've learned better than to hope. The Bills will lose this game. Manning will hit one over the middle then a curl out of bounds near the 20 to stop the clock, the stupid Giants will kick a stupid fucking field goal and the Bills will lose the stupid game. Again.
My only solace is that the Giants will only win the game by 1 so I'll still win my bet because they didn't win by 2.5 or more. At least there's that.
Then Manning predictably hits one one over the middle. Then the curl, but "Bend It Like Beckham" doesn't curl out, he curls in, catches the ball and splits the seam for 6.
I lose the game and lose the bet.
Stupid Bills.
Thankfully, that's not how baseball betting works. There is no point spread. Baseball betting is a lot easier to win and a lot more costly to lose. If you look at football, being able to bet and win against the spread over 55% of the time (over a several year run) is extremely difficult if not impossible. The reason is, of course, that the spreads presumably make the teams even. There is no system. There is no lock. There is no sure thing. Vegas wouldn't be in business if people made money.
Baseball is completely different. Its possible (and I've done it - which is why I won't make the hall of fame) to sustain winning at a 75% clip. However, that likely won't be enough to win money. Baseball is done on a money line, not on points. Money lines are also offered in football, but rarely played because people don't really understand it. Here's how it works.
Say the Jays are at home to the Yankees this past August, the line would probably look something like this.
NYY Severino (+160) @ TOR Price (-180)
What that means is that if you bet $100.00 on the Yankees and they win the game, you'll win $160.00. Nice return. Now if you want to win $100.00 on the Jays, you'd have to bet $180.00. Most people can't stomach that.
Its an easy game to be honest. "Smart betters" don't bet the first two weeks of the season. All the #1 pitchers face each other. All the #2 pitchers face each other. And if you're betting on a game that involves ANYONE other than a #1 or #2 then you have way too much money. After a couple of weeks the rotations start to separate due to off days and early season rain outs. That's when you see a guy like Kershaw matched up against a no name #4 or #5. Those are the games you hit. However, you may have to lay $300.00 or more to win $100.00 on Kershaw. Nerve wracking eh?
So in football, the higher the point spread goes up, the more attractive the underdog looks. You may start by taking the Giants. But can the Giants bead the Bills by 3? 7? 11? 15? At some point, you WILL take the Bills. Because at some point you'll say "they can't possibly lose by that much".
Then comes baseball. Its a matchup of teams and pitchers. In the Kershaw example above, if I had to bet $1000.00 to win 100.00 its still the better bet. The probability of Kershaw being upset is not influenced at all by the money line. Not betting, of course, is a good option, but changing your bet just means you're looking at the wrong game.
What this serves to illustrate is how easy it is to win. Better teams are always better teams. Better pitchers are always better pitchers. But, Losing is painful. I would hazzard that Kershaw averaged a -300 this season. If you bet on each of his games to win $100.00 you would have won $1600.00 in his 16 wins. And, you would have lost $2100.00 in his 7 loses and been down $-500.00 on the season.
In fact, you would have won a lot of games, but a lot of money if you had bet consistently on the top 10 pitchers (by winning percentage) in baseball. Arrieta ($400.00) and Grenkie ($1000) are the only two that would have netted a profit. Overall, with the BEST pitchers in the game you'd have won $16,700 and lost $40,800. So, clearly, easy to win games, hard to win money.
Whether you're Pete Rose or Scott Peters, money is money and you spend to the rate that you can. Rose was not a rich man. Not by today's baseball standards. There was only one year in his career that he made 1 million dollars and that was exactly a million in 1986. So he wasn't betting to win $100.00, obviously. He was betting $8,000.00 to $16,000.00 daily. Do the math, if a favourite goes down he's dropping between 24,000.00 to 48,000.00 dollars.
Make no mistake he's feeling that.
When you tilt (lose), you need to bet more to get it back and that is exactly when you're vulnerable and compromised.
The runline is the most common form of betting baseball but there are a few other popular ones including betting series', parlays and props.
Parlays are the same as any other sport; pick 3 winners and increase your return. Series' are interesting only in that it makes a 3 game Padres Vs. Brewers set at the end of April a little more interesting. I don't think either of these have much bearing on the betting world or Rose. But Props might. Props around specific occurrences in a game. For example, will a team have 3 or more stolen bases. Will a pitcher get 10 or more strikeouts. etc. You can bet the "over" or "under" on a prop.
So this is where what if and rampant speculation comes into play.
WHAT IF .... The Reds are up by 7th in the 9th inning and Rose puts on the steal sign so he wins the prop bet? And what if Barry Larkin gets hurt on the slide?
WHAT IF ... The Reds are down a run and need to get a guy in scoring position but he doesn't steal or hit and run (which can result in a stolen base) so that he stays under on the prop? And then the batter hits into a game ending double play.
WHAT IF .... Mario Soto has 9 strikeouts through 5 innings but Rose needs to stay under 10? He pulls him after 5 and the Reds lose.
WHAT IF ..... Soto is getting pounded by has 8 K's through seven and he leaves him out there to get 2 more strikeouts?
What decisions did Rose make in 1987 that either negatively impacted the game being played or future games? The Res finished in 2nd place in 1987. Dropping of 9 of 10 in August to the Cards (.586), Pirates (.494) and Cubs (.472) sealed their fate. Was it just a slump? Who knows.
But what I do know is that Rose's gambling has allowed me to question everything about him and his actions within the game. It has caused me to be distrustful.
The 8 men out from the 1919 World Series included Joe Jackson. Jackson is a footnote in the history of baseball which, to me, is very sad. Jackson hit .408 in 1911 and LOST the batting title to Cobb who hit .420. He hit over .350 seven times in his 13 year career and has a career average of .356. He went to the World Series twice. In 1917 he hit .304, scored 4 times and drove in 2. In 1919, the year he cheated, he hit .375, scored 4 times and drove in 6. His participation in this remains dubious to me, but he was found to have consorted with gamblers on games that he played, so he's out.
Denny McClain ran a book making operation. His ban was less than a year. Mays and Mantle only remained banned while they worked for the casinos.
Personally I feel that there is a hell of a lot more dirt on Rose than we know about. Why? So that "IF" baseball ever did reinstate him it wouldn't look quite as bad. But I don't want him reinstated under any circumstances. Maybe we're more passive now, but the stain that he's put on the game is bigger than Jackson (only because he was more circumstantial). Its bigger than amphetamines. Its bigger than steroids. This tears at the fabric of the fabric of the game.
Baseball, as I get whimsical, is a game that the people who have played it and managed it the longest will tell you that they're still learning. It has plays occur that 50,000 in attendance will honestly say they've never seen before (see 7th inning of game 5 of the ALDS). Yet a 7 year old can watch it with the grandparent with the same base understanding. It can be magical. Rose did major damage by not being able to follow its most basic rule that was posted in every Major League locker room that he ever entered.
So no Scott. Rose in the Hall of Fame would be a travesty to the game.
