Pete Rose sycophants

[stl jason]

Originally Posted by Questdog

Baseball also bans anyone from being employed in the gambling industry, yet Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays were both hired by Casinos.

They were both banned from baseball and subsequently reinstated.

Would you be comfortable with those two being out of the Hall of Fame?

What Pete did was wrong, but he NEVER threw a game and to say that what he did caused real harm to his team is a real stretch. Appearances of impropriety are important and he justifiably was punished. But to say that the punishment must be permanent in order to have any meaning is very silly. He has been shamed and humiliated for 25 years.

Personally, I think Pete is better off with the ban as the notoriety gives him ample opportunity for employment. Once he is reinstated, he will find that most everyone will lose interest in him and his opportunities for pay days will dwindle.

I'll agree that he's not the type of player to throw a game (especially if he's betting on his team to win and he has the power to put himself into the lineup as a player-manager). However, I think having that power (and the level of arrogance that comes with being the calibre of player he was for his career) could be detrimental/cause harm to the team; as they might have been better off if he put in someone else (Esasky was the other 1B that year). The Reds were sub-500 during the 1986 season when Rose was in the lineup (34 - 38), but ended up 10 games over for the year at 86-76 (so 52-38 without him on the field).


as far as his punishment... he accepted the lifetime ban. Unless the commish decides to reinstate him, I'd have to agree with thatseventiesguy... he can get his plaque in the hall after he's gone. That's his punishment. He doesn't get to enjoy the accolades of HOF election; but his plaque and accomplishments should end up there eventually (same with Joe Jackson, so it's way past time for him). They can put disclaimers/etc on his display as to what they did, but it shouldn't invalidate their performance on the field.

[magnet 2.0]

Originally Posted by Questdog

Let's see...Pete made bets that his team would win games.....and Joe Jackson took money to throw a World Series....yeah, Pete did way worse.....

Shoeless Joe never took his whole payout ($5k of the promised $20k was left in his room) couldn't read the thing he signed admitting it, and had stats far above most of his teammates for the entire series (his 12 hits in that series was the WS record until 1964!). But don't let facts cloud your opinion!

Joe Jackson was not Rube Waddell. He knew what the money was for. And he was not a simpleton. He could not read and write very well,

At all. Shoeless Joe Jackson was illiterate.

The ring leaders needed Joe to show the gamblers they had a star player in on the deal. They may have used his name without his permission, but he took the money just the same.

No, he didn't. Lefty Williams threw $5,000 down in his hotel room, but the other $15k never turned up. Probably because Joe played so well.

He probably did not try to do anything during the games to earn the money as the other conspirators assured him that they would take care of everything.

Again, most hits in a World Series until 1964, and hit the only home run of the series.

Now, I don't care whether he is reinstated or not, but to say that he is more innocent than Pete is not very fair.

It is absolutely, 100% fair.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by magnet 2.0

No, he didn't. Lefty Williams threw $5,000 down in his hotel room, but the other $15k never turned up. Probably because Joe played so well.

Lats I looked, $5,000 is money and he took it. And the gamblers stiffed everyone, not because Joe did so well, but because they could. They were big time bad guys, not the local bookies Pete was in with.

Originally Posted by magnet 2.0

Again, most hits in a World Series until 1964, and hit the only home run of the series.

You should read my entire post. I said that he probably did not do anything to actually throw the Series.

Originally Posted by magnet 2.0

It is absolutely, 100% fair.

This is absurd if you think being involved in an actual scheme to throw the World Series is less of a sin than putting yourself in a position where the appearance of impropriety can be raised against you.

I have never said that what Pete did was not serious and I really don't care if he is ever enshrined officially in the Hall of Fame or not. But 25 years seems like a strong enough sentence for what he did. The average time a convicted murderer spends in prison is about 7 years....

I also do not care if Joe Jackson is enshrined or not. The Hall is full of guys that do not belong there and there are many guys that deserve to be there that are not. Hall of Fame enshrinement means nothing to me in deciding who I like and don't like in the history of baseball.

And there is not one of those conspirators in the Black Sox scandal that I like. I can empathize with the temptations they were subject to, but not a one of them ever took responsibility for their own actions.

[magnet 2.0]

Originally Posted by Questdog

Lats I looked, $5,000 is money and he took it. And the gamblers stiffed everyone, not because Joe did so well, but because they could. They were big time bad guys, not the local bookies Pete was in with.

He "took" it insofar as he didn't return it when it was left in his room. Not the same as having it handed to you. Regardless, a Bad Thing but you paint it a little darker than reality I feel.

You should read my entire post. I said that he probably did not do anything to actually throw the Series.

This would be the most important thing. If he didn't actually throw the series...why is he punished for throwing the series?

This is absurd if you think being involved in an actual scheme to throw the World Series is less of a sin than putting yourself in a position where the appearance of impropriety can be raised against you.

Betting on a game you're involved in is not "the appearance of impropriety", it is impropriety. What was the old saying from Reds' fans in 1986? "If Pete put himself in the game today, he's got money on tomorrow"?

I have never said that what Pete did was not serious and I really don't care if he is ever enshrined officially in the Hall of Fame or not. But 25 years seems like a strong enough sentence for what he did. The average time a convicted murderer spends in prison is about 7 years....

Did you really just compare a lack of Hall of Fame enshrinement to going to prison? What? Also, he knew the punishment when he visited his bookie; he saw it in plain English every time he entered his clubhouse.

I also do not care if Joe Jackson is enshrined or not. The Hall is full of guys that do not belong there and there are many guys that deserve to be there that are not. Hall of Fame enshrinement means nothing to me in deciding who I like and don't like in the history of baseball.

This quote (minus caring about Jackson) I'm in 100% agreement with.

And there is not one of those conspirators in the Black Sox scandal that I like. I can empathize with the temptations they were subject to, but not a one of them ever took responsibility for their own actions.

Didn't Joe readily admit to the $5,000 and being generally aware of what was going on and not telling anyone? That testimony is what prevented him from reinstatement later.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by magnet 2.0

Betting on a game you're involved in is not "the appearance of impropriety", it is impropriety. What was the old saying from Reds' fans in 1986? "If Pete put himself in the game today, he's got money on tomorrow"?

Betting on games is not the core issue as far as Baseball is concerned. Ensuring that fans believe the games are on the up and up and the results are not predetermined is the core issue. Having players with financial stakes in the outcome of a particular game undermines that. It does not mean that the games are fixed, but it makes people wonder if they are. This gives the appearance of impropriety, whether or not any actual shenanigans are taking place. And that is not good. It is why Pete was punished. Because even though he only bet on his team to win that does not guarantee that everything is kosher. He could bet big on his team and then pay off one of his opponents to throw the game and come out financially ahead. That does not mean that Pete ever did that, but his actions could cause people to wonder whether he did or not and thus Baseball's credibility suffers because of the appearance of impropriety.

And I have lived in the Cincinnati area for 45 years and I have not ever heard of the old saying you refer to from 1986.....and if you think that even in 1986, that Pete was not convinced in his own heart that he could help the Reds win games more by being in the lineup than not, then you don't know Pete (or Jack)......

[Tekneek]

It is just baseball. I don't really care whether the outcome of every game is squeaky clean anymore.

[Tekneek]

I suppose, what I really mean is that there is a tremendous amount of drama around a game. It is a game. There are any number of actually important things that get far less attention. At the end of anybody's life, are they really going to be worried about whether the outcome of every baseball game was fair and clean? People don't really care about it as much as they think they do.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I suppose, what I really mean is that there is a tremendous amount of drama around a game. It is a game. There are any number of actually important things that get far less attention. At the end of anybody's life, are they really going to be worried about whether the outcome of every baseball game was fair and clean? People don't really care about it as much as they think they do.

All due respect, by this logic, nothing in life is worth caring about because at their end of our lives, nothing matters anyway.

Baseball matters because we care about it now, and it matters because it's happening now. I don't care now about what I am going to care about at the end of my life. That's for future me to decide. Present me thinks it all very important now.

You're free not to care about gambling in the game, fixing of games, integrity of competition, or anything like that. That's for you to decide, and that doesn't make you either a bad guy or a good guy. It's merely your preference, and it's in no way a value judgment. But in my opinion, no real fan of the game would say, meh, I don't care whether the game is on the level or not, I just like to see a bunch of running around and lot of scoring of points. I believe that only people who like football or basketball better would think that about baseball.

The idea that MLB would allow gambling on and fixing of games is absolutely offensive to me, and if I found out that's what was happening in baseball, then I would sob real tears as I turned my back on the game.

[Tekneek]

I get what you are saying. It is hard for me to put into words. I don't want games to be fixed. I just cannot see holding a lifetime grudge against anybody for gambling, using PEDs, etc. People really take this stuff personally.

[RubeBaker]

My prediction is that Pete Rose never gets into the Hall of Fame, at least while he's still alive. Even if the Commissioner agreed to put him on the ballot, that doesn't mean that the Hall of Fame voters will put him in. Especially when a story came out recently that suggested that Rose bet on games as a player in 1986, his final season. It's one thing if he bet on games as a manager, but if he bet on games as a player, I don't see how even the biggest Rose supporters can reconcile that one.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by RubeBaker

It's one thing if he bet on games as a manager, but if he bet on games as a player, I don't see how even the biggest Rose supporters can reconcile that one.

Reconciliation...

4,256 = in the Hall of Fame.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RubeBaker

It's one thing if he bet on games as a manager, but if he bet on games as a player, I don't see how even the biggest Rose supporters can reconcile that one.

He only played in 72 games that season. Even if he made sure every time he was in the critical position to make (or not make) the crucial play that got a bet to go his way, I can't fathom the impact was huge on the sport or his team. He played very little late in the season, as well, when the games would have mattered for the pennant chase (and presumably the outcomes worth more for bets?).

[Questdog]

What the heck is the difference between betting on your team to win as a manager or a player? I don't get it. Both are wrong and for the same reasons. Why should this information change anyone's opinion?

The only thing that would change my mind would be if evidence was found that he ever bet on the Reds to lose while he was on the team.

[DamPenguin]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Reconciliation...

4,256 = in the Hall of Fame.

Ummmm.... not yet

[chucksabr]

When we find out for sure that Pete Rose took greenies and other performance enhancing drugs, maybe that'll do it for the sycophants ...

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

When we find out for sure that Pete Rose took greenies and other performance enhancing drugs, maybe that'll do it for the sycophants ...

Everyone took greenies; I took greenies. They are nothing to be alarmed about. While not strictly kosher, the difference between taking greenies and doing steroids is like the difference between smoking pot and taking heroin.

I have no doubt Pete took greenies.

But what OTHER performance enhancing drugs do you imply? And it is not a very nice thing to sling around, anyways. Steroids were just not used. If they were readily available and known to enhance performance, I am sure a ton of players would have taken them in the 1970's or the 1870's. But they weren't, and there really wasn't anything to be taking outside of the diet pills.....

[brouhaha]

Being involved in gambling and being in the Hall of Fame should be mutually exclusive imo. The Hall should be determined strictly by how good the player was.


Enhancing drugs is a different story for obvious reasons.

[RchW]

If the NFL was on steroids in 1963, I have no doubt that baseball players were not far behind.

Football's first steroids team: the 1963 San Diego Chargers

Anyone who thinks that Tom House was alone in taking steroids is living in a fantasy world. House chose to talk about it. The vast majority who did take them have decided to stay quiet because they have been given a free pass by the same press that failed to report rampant steroid use happening in plain sight. In my opinion the responsibility for the steroid era lies with a complicit media, many of whom have turned in to unbelievable hypocrites while hiding their complicity during the entire episode. The media celebrated steroid use while losing all objectivity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_House#Steroids

No one is clean. No one can claim to be holier than...

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by RchW

House chose to talk about it.

I do not believe House, because he has reasons to put blame elsewhere, to say that what he was doing in the 90's was no different than it had ever been.

For you to condemn a whole generation based on one man's testimony is not responsible.

If there was widespread use of steroids in baseball in the 70's, there would be more testimony than that.

But I don't think anyone was using because they did not believe it would help. Muscle mass was not seen as a desirable. Even just lifting weights was frowned upon because it would supposedly make you a less fluid athlete.

This was not only true of baseball, but basketball and boxing also frowned upon weightlifting at the time.

Besides, people talk of the "Steroid Era", but HGH was the real issue and that certainly was not available in the 60's and 70's.

And name one player from the era who showed the signs of use: the Barry Bonds head and no neck and/or gained 40 to 50 points in a few seasons. I can think of no one.

[ThatSeventiesGuy]

If Pete was on steroids, he was sure doing a lousy job of it, considering he was mostly a singles hitter.