December 31, 2003

By any other name...:
Fourteen years ago, he goes from here to here for doing this.
But if this and this equal this, can there be any doubt that we'll shortly be seeing him here?
Stay tuned...

posted by forksclovetofu to baseball at 05:08 PM - 23 comments

Entertaining topics for a new column. Any suggestions? Go Titans!

posted by forksclovetofu at 05:09 PM on December 31, 2003

Entertaining topics for a new column. Any suggestions? Explain what's wrong with the BCS system.

posted by billsaysthis at 05:10 PM on December 31, 2003

Will Carroll and Derek Zumsteg tried to tell the world about this back in August, but when the Commish denied it and then buried the announcement, they took a LOT of heat for supposedly making up the story. According to the Cincy article, November really was the expected timeline, but it looks like that when the cat got out of the bag, the Bud the Slug changed his mind. I wonder how many mainstream writers are going to swallow their pride and admit that they got scooped by WC & DZ?

posted by grum@work at 06:44 PM on December 31, 2003

I'd like to see him back; atleast in the hall. Hell, if this were the NBA, he'd still be around. Strawberry (among many others) ruined his career on drugs but was never banned. So they dude bet on the game, and yes, it was wrong ... but damn did he hustle on the field; and he was a great competitor.

posted by jasonspaceman at 08:09 PM on December 31, 2003

posted by grum@work at 10:43 PM on December 31, 2003

I think he belongs in the Hall. I couldn't care less that he (gasp) bet on baseball! Ty Cobb pistol whipped some guy to death. Seriously - what is the BIG deal? And is someone says the integrity of the sport I'm going to be sick. First post of the new year! I struck out last night, so this year is shaping up badly already.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 12:20 PM on January 01, 2004

Well, get a barf bag handy Weedy, because it IS the integrity of the game that I have a problem with. There isn't much left in the world of real sports (I'm ignoring judged events like figure skating, boxing and gymnastics) to hang your hat on except the idea that everyone involved in the sport is trying to win. If Rose bet on games he was involved in (even if he bet on his own team), then he's put the integrity of those games at question. And if you thought that the games were being thrown, would you even care to watch any more? If we "excuse" Rose for his misconduct, it then says that he is above the rules, or even worse, the rules only apply to certain players (the non-famous ones). He knew them, he broke them, he should pay the price.

posted by grum@work at 02:01 PM on January 01, 2004

He knew them, he broke them, he should pay the price. It really is that simple. That and the fact he accepted the lifetime ban himself to avoid other unpleasantries. Pete Rose was a good ballplayer for a looong time (I do think he isa bit overrated, but he wa still good), but never great. His numbers could have put him in the hall and that'd be OK, but his actions, atitude and just generally being a jackass make me think he shouldn't be in. Plus that aforementioned small thing about accepting the ban.

posted by pivo at 02:21 PM on January 01, 2004

Explain what's wrong with the BCS system. Try here.

posted by forksclovetofu at 02:56 PM on January 01, 2004

Previous discussion on Pete Rose here, here and (where I said all I have to say on the matter) here.

posted by jeffmshaw at 03:00 PM on January 01, 2004

Well, get a barf bag handy Weedy, because it IS the integrity of the game that I have a problem with. Grum, I would like to know what you think crosses line on integrity in any sport for that matter. I agree Rose crossed the line, but I think he did his time. Where is your line?

posted by jasonspaceman at 03:50 PM on January 01, 2004

Where is your line? For players: "associating" with illegal gamblers (bookies, instead of Las Vegas) which could imply unusual indebtedness to that gambler, betting on your own sport (legal or otherwise), altering the outcome (or potential outcome) of a sporting event by performing in a manner not considered normal (usually associated with "throwing a game") based on the request/suggestion/demand of another person/entity (whether it's a gambler, a friend or a corporation).

posted by grum@work at 06:19 PM on January 01, 2004

Pete Rose should not be allowed into the hall of fame. He bet on his own team. I'm not kidding when I say that if they let him in, I will never watch another MLB game. And Grum, we disagreed on this before, but I never explained myself. If they let Rose in, they should also let Shoeless Joe in. Sure, the Shoeless one took the money, but he didn't throw the series. When we start casting our net for reasons to let Rose in, we don't have to widen the net much to include Shoeless Joe. I agree on the basic point, though, that neither should be in. Of course, Charlie Comiskey's in, isn't he?

posted by alex_reno at 11:05 PM on January 01, 2004

I'll never understand why folks don't get the difference between baseball rules and morality. Pete Rose could have been a serial killer, but that wouldn't have been a crime against baseball. Gambling on baseball while a player is the worst crime against baseball possible. Baseball was almost destroyed once by gambling interests, and that's why this one rule is posted in every clubhouse. There's no sign in the clubhouse that says anything about murder, child abuse, or terorism, but there is a sign there on gambling. Rose is on the ineligible list not because he committed a moral atrocity, but because he did something which threatened the game. As far as the Hall, while I don't think Rose should get in, I've always felt that he should be on the ballot. So if he gets into the Hall, I won't cry. But if baseball were to allow him to occupy a position of influence in the game again, that would be an atrocity ( i don't mind that much if he is an advance scout or does publicity).

posted by spira at 01:52 AM on January 02, 2004

I don't understand why there's such an active lobby to get him in in the first place. The guy's a jerk. he has done nothing to accept responsibility, nothing to sway people to his side, has presented no logical argument in his favor, and gives no reason for empathy. I'll never understand why people still like him so much. That aside, Spira's post was brilliant. Also, when Ty Cobb was elected it was a different world. There were fights with fans and racists and spikings on a daily basis. That's not a good comparison. He bet on his own team, accepted the ban, and has been lying about it for 15 years. If he cops a deal to admit it and get in, that's basically saying that a) gambling on your own team is OK, b) lying for 15 years is no biggie either. This is one of the most clear-cut one sided arguments in sports, I think, yet ultimately the wrong side is going to win anyway...

posted by Bernreuther at 08:40 AM on January 02, 2004

What about the use of illegal substances? In your opinion, do they ruin the integrity of the game?

posted by jasonspaceman at 11:52 AM on January 02, 2004

Thank you jasonspaceman for bringing up that point. It's probably fodder for another thread but I would like to hear opinions on what happens to HOF eligibility if modern players were shown to have cheated. Personally I hope Pete gets in.

posted by vito90 at 11:54 AM on January 02, 2004

Illegal substances? They reinstated Steve Howe 9 times, didn't they? Oh, you mean performance-enhancing drugs like steroids. Are they even against the rules?

posted by alex_reno at 03:05 PM on January 02, 2004

Illegal substances do not ruin the integrity of the game anymore than other forms of cheating, such as throwing a spitball. Note that Gaylord Perry sailed into the Hall and everybody on earth knew he threw a spitballl. The difference between a spitball and steroids has nothing to do with baseball's integrity; it's that steroids are more dangerous. The reality is that players cheat to win in all sorts of ways. The danger of gambling is the opposite; it creates a situation in which winning is not the primary goal.

posted by spira at 03:23 PM on January 02, 2004

Oh, you mean performance-enhancing drugs like steroids. Are they even against the rules? Technically, they weren't against the rules. This year is the first year that they will be testing for steroids. The reason no one announces they use them is that there is a real public backlash against steroids in sports because of the Olympics (hello Ben Johnson!). spira: What's even funnier is that when spitballs WERE outlawed by baseball, they had a "grandfather" clause that allowed spitballers (those who used it as their primary pitch) to keeping using them until they retired. They just banned anyone else from STARTING to use spitballs. That's probably one of the dumbest rule restrictions I've ever heard in sports.

posted by grum@work at 03:38 PM on January 02, 2004

My personal take on this is that the HOF is about history. Pete was an important player in the game, and should be remembered that way - in the Hall of Fame. They also should include in his HOF profile that he bet on the game. Under no circumstances do I believe he should ever participate in the game again.

posted by rocketman at 04:01 PM on January 02, 2004

Grum, the reason they had the grandfather clause for those pitchers after 1920 is that the major leagues had sanctioned and even encouraged that pitch previously. Many pitchers like Urban Shocker and Burleigh Grimes rode the spitball as the only out pitch in their arsenal, and to simply outlaw it would have effectively remove those hurlers from the leagues. There was nothing horrible about what they were doing, so they just let those guys hang on as long as they could. Many of them also were able to make their careers last even longer by going to minor leagues which did not abolish the spitter.

posted by wfrazerjr at 04:38 PM on January 02, 2004

Fay Vincent weighs in. He'd like to see Shoeless Joe in the hall too.

posted by forksclovetofu at 05:40 PM on January 02, 2004

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.