Hall of Fame Ballot

I apologize for imposing on this august body,

Good one! I'm sorry if I came on like a ton of bricks.

But please bear with me for one more minute while I talk about about how even betting on his own team to win might negatively affect a manager's performance--and his team's. Let's think about relief pitchers and injured players.

According to reports, Rose typically bet $10,000 or more on a single game. Now let's say you know you've bet $10,000 in 1989 dollars (almost $19,000 today) on your own team to win tonight, and you have a one run lead going into the 7th inning. You might just bring in your best reliever and let him pitch the last three innings. Why worry about saving him for tomorrow. Knowing your best reliever will be on ice for tomorrow, you just won't bet on your team to win that day.

Let's say, going into this same game, your best right hand hitter—who murders lefties— is recovering from a minor injury. Today your team is facing a lefty. You would normally rest this injured player for another game. But today, you've got $10,000 on the line, so you put your lefty-killer in and he gets two hits but then pulls a ligament because his injury puts him off stride. Now your recovering player is back on the DL for a month.

That's how betting on your own team to win, when you're the manager, can hurt your team and hurt baseball.

Question...

When debating the Rose situation and looking at what MLB says...

Did Rose bet on games as a player or as a manager? What are they penalizing him for?

It's my understanding, that he bet on games as a manager and NOT as a player. If this is true, then his career is without a doubt Hall of Fame worthy.

If we/MLB is going to keep him out because of his gambling as a manager, so be it. Then they are also taking into account the manager as well as the player.

Then what about Hodges? He won a World Series as a manager. Doesn't that mean anything? It seems to with Rose...

Rose is out because he bet on games as a manager. That's what put him on the permanently ineligible list.

Now, whether Marge Schott was smart to hire a former star with a known gambling addiction to manage her team--that's another question....

visick, sir, if you are not an attorney-at-law, you should consider a career change... even I, the most vocal partisan for 'Charlie' out here (one of, at least) am not prepared to split that hair... lol (in the best most neighborly way)

and, Outta Left, sir, I sorta take your point, I really do,

but that would have to be happening almost every game for it to have a really material effect on the season, don't you think?

It's my understanding, that he bet on games as a manager and NOT as a player. If this is true, then his career is without a doubt Hall of Fame worthy.
Then what about Hodges? He won a World Series as a manager. Doesn't that mean anything? It seems to with Rose...

Rose's playing career is undoubtedly HOF worthy. Unfortunately, he ruined that worthiness with his fraudulent, corrupt, and damaging tenure as a manager, and managers are vital components of baseball games. Being a manager does mean a lot, and it should factor into Hodges' consideration for the HOF. However, as others have already well argued, Hodges' playing career and managing career don't quite add up to HOF material. However, he deserves it much more than Rose.

but that would have to be happening almost every game for it to have a really material effect on the season, don't you think?

If you're referring to Rose's betting, then no, it didn't have to happen every game to have a material effect. Every time Rose managed knowing he needed to personally win, he put his player's well-being, the Reds' season's success, and the Reds' long-term well-being at risk. He did this any time he brought in a tired reliever, over-extended a starter, or denied a regular needed rest to help the Reds win a certain game he particularly needed them to win. Each time he did this had a "really material effect" on the season and a negligible effect on the Reds, their fans, and MLB.

i guess we just are gonna think differently about it. If I get to visit the Hall again and he is still not in (and almost certainly he will not be), I will still wish he was.

LMAO...

I'm a chiropractor.

But he bet on games as a manager not as a player. So "we" are looking at his post playing career.

With Gil, he took a relatively weak hitting Mets team to the WS and beat a better BAL team. I think "we" need to take Gil's post playing career into account as well.

sure, try and get on my good side by being positive about Hodges... that could work... :-]

But he bet on games as a manager not as a player. So "we" are looking at his post playing career.

That's irrelevant. We're looking at his post-playing career as a manager in MLB; so, we're not looking at his post-baseball career. We're looking at his actions as a key MLB participant and figure. The moment managers stop being a part of baseball or its games--and they are a huge part of it--is the moment managers' actions stop having relevance to their HOF worthiness.

That definitely doesn't apply to Rose, whose reprehensible actions as manager completely nullify any HOF worthiness, regardless of his impressive career as a player.