December 17, 2005

Rose bat corked, says expert: Apparently the bat ended up selling for over $100,000 to a casino that is going to cut it open to see if it's corked or not. Personally, I hope it is. Maybe this will finally put to rest all of the HOF talk that crops up every year.

posted by DudeDykstra to baseball at 08:59 PM - 51 comments

I know Pete was guilty of lots of things, but he was not a power hitter and had no apparent reason to cork it up.

posted by philly54 at 09:37 PM on December 17, 2005

WHAT A BUNCH OF BULLSHIT!

posted by CountDracula58 at 10:22 PM on December 17, 2005

Are you nuts. Rose had no need. Pictures of the bat show work done very recently with a poor effort to age the looks. Get real people. Whoever buys the bat is getting screwed.

posted by arbokat at 11:02 PM on December 17, 2005

Maybe this will finally put to rest all of the HOF talk that crops up every year. Do you really believe, even if they find the bat was made of plutonium with superballs and rabid ferrets in the hollowed-out barrel of the bat, that it would put any part of this conversation to rest? Seriously? There's an entire generation of people who have grown up arguing about this by now. Rose is never going in, so the debate will never, ever end. It will only get stupider and sillier on all sides.

posted by chicobangs at 11:06 PM on December 17, 2005

Rabid ferrets have big enough problems without being stuffed inside a bat with plutonium and superballs. I think that might get PETA and the ASPCA to lobby against Pete Rose; and if that happens, he's in real trouble.

posted by Adam at 12:51 AM on December 18, 2005

This really, really sucks.

posted by everett at 01:50 AM on December 18, 2005

I hope it's corked. Would hammer the final nail in a coffin Pete has been building for 30 plus years.

posted by commander cody at 02:00 AM on December 18, 2005

It's really unrealistic to assume things about such a half-assed attempt to discredit someone who has already done such a fantastic job of discrediting himself. Rose was never a power hitter, and he'd have had nothing to gain by corking a bat. Plus, looking at the bat itself in the images, I'd myself agree with arbokat, this is a recent attempt, there's no solid evidence. Forensic experts could even tell how long the glue that holds it is, and when it was put in. It's really sad how far some people will go to get themselves noticed. But this time, it wasn't Pete Rose.

posted by mrhockey at 09:14 AM on December 18, 2005

Forensic experts? Fantastic, now we're going to have CSI: MLB. It'll never end.

posted by bolt_conner at 09:59 AM on December 18, 2005

To prove all that silly HOF talk wouldn't end... Pete Rose still belongs in the Hall of Fame. (But I do like the idea of CSI: MLB)

posted by ?! at 10:10 AM on December 18, 2005

Well, since the Holy Shroud of Turin was proven to be bogus, maybe The Sacred Phantom Bat of Cincinnati can fill that void.

posted by chicobangs at 11:18 AM on December 18, 2005

Let's weigh the evidence on the case of the Pete Rose bat: Con: - Only Pete Rose memorabilia bat that seems to be corked. - Pete has denied that he corked his bats. Pro: - Bat that Pete signed seems to have been altered. - Reputable memorabilia collector claims it has not been tampered with since the original purchase. - Associate of his has gone on record saying that Pete corked some of his bats. - Pete has denied that he corked his bats.

posted by grum@work at 11:19 AM on December 18, 2005

Pete Rose has always been two things !-perhaps the single greatist ball player in our lifetimes,and 2- arguably {with TO} the single greatist dickhead of our times. He didn't need a corker for any reason.

posted by Tubby Fan at 11:27 AM on December 18, 2005

Damn, we cant get by a thread about a white guy with out mentioning TO. I've noticed that there are alot of "player hating" threads lately. Why would an anti Rose person post this in hopes that it will end all the HOF talk. As if there are no other players with a corked bat in the HOF or that will end up in the HOF. Hating on Rose reminds of the republicans that still hate on Bill Clinton. Rose was one of the best players ever. No amount of your useless hating will change that. You wont to forget about Rose? Try out for baseball, become great, break his records, then hate on him. Until then, stop crying.

posted by RZA at 01:20 PM on December 18, 2005

I think a lot of the hate comes from the fact that Rose WAS the epitome of what everyone wanted in an athlete: energetic, exciting, and always entertaining. When he got caught betting on games and got banished, a lot of people immediately hated him for it. It was a black mark on the game, and they didn't like it. They realized that they cheered for a man who was nothing more than a common criminal. They'd built a nice pedestal for him, and he pissed all over it. When he kept insisting that he did nothing wrong, a large number of people wanted to believe him, including a favourite of mine, Bill James. Mr. James wrote a long section in his current version of the Baseball Abstract where he explains how all the evidence aginst Rose was circumstantial and not enough to convince him that he bet on baseball. Then after denying he ever bet on baseball for almost 15 years, Rose comes out and admits that he did bet on baseball. Of course, his admission was done strictly to promote his new book, but nonetheless, many people who staked their reputations on his innocence were left spinning in the wind. That's why there is "hate" for Pete Rose.

posted by grum@work at 03:35 PM on December 18, 2005

pete rose bet as a manager and he wouldn't go into the hall as a manager anyway he would as a player so he deserves to go in a player

posted by stevie_wonder at 05:37 PM on December 18, 2005

You all might recall that Tommy Gioiosa said years ago in Vanity Fair that Rose was corking all his bats the year he set the all-time hits record. Given that other stuff Gioiosa said about Rose has proven true - Rose has admitted he did place bets on baseball thru Gioiosa - I see no reason not to believe that Rose corked his bat. Whether this bat is legitimate, however, is another story. And this, of course, shouldn't have any more bearing on his Hall candidacy than all the amphetamines ballplayers have been taking since WWII and all the various other forms of cheating. And I have no idea why anybody thinks that people who don't believe Rose should be in the Hall hate him. I've hated some people in my life, but I certainly haven't bothered to hate Pete Rose, and I see little indication that others do hate Rose.

posted by spira at 05:46 PM on December 18, 2005

Pete Rose's absence from the HOF has more presence that hit statue.

posted by Tubby Fan at 05:49 PM on December 18, 2005

Hating on Rose reminds of the republicans that still hate on Bill Clinton. Yup. I hate 'em both.

posted by STLCardinalfan at 06:49 PM on December 18, 2005

- Only Pete Rose memorabilia bat that seems to be corked. I'm not sure he would knowingly allow his corkers to find their way in to the memorabilia market complete with signature. That's why this find seems dubious to me.

posted by STLCardinalfan at 07:25 PM on December 18, 2005

highly unlikely that Rose would have corked his bat, just some moron trying to make an extra buck. As far as him not making it into the hall, well that is just a joke...so what if he bet on baseball, did it have an effect on his game...no, his managing, no. It's kind of funny how in todays sports, these steroid monkeys are considered hero's, and past greats like Rose, Cobb, the Black Sox are all chastised by the media, and the puppet population hangs on their every word...true or not. Franky, if I were Pete Rose, I would have told MLB, and the Hall to kiss my A**...I wouldn't want to be a member of that choir boys club...and the thing they can't take away from him are his records

posted by Moode at 08:43 PM on December 18, 2005

Moode- I'm not sure I agree with anything you said. For one, the "moron" you're talking about is one the biggest auction/authentication houses in the world with an enormous reputation. Second, haven't you noticed the backlash against the "steroid monkeys"? It's not like everyone is "hooray for steroids." Third, the HOF is hardly a choir boys club. Take Ty Cobb, as one example. Last, nobody ever tried or wanted to take away his records. In fact, it is his record (and the fact that he played the game with more intensity than anyone I've ever known) that makes it so upsetting that he is such a jackass.

posted by DudeDykstra at 08:50 PM on December 18, 2005

pete rose bet as a manager and he wouldn't go into the hall as a manager anyway he would as a player so he deserves to go in a player Actually, he was a player/manager for a time, so it's quite possible (and probable) that he bet on games he played in. Franky, if I were Pete Rose, I would have told MLB, and the Hall to kiss my A**...I wouldn't want to be a member of that choir boys club. Pete Rose wants DESPERATELY to get into the Hall of Fame. He craves the attention and adulation it would bring him. Other than selling his books, the only reason he admitted to betting on games was because he thought that MLB would see it as a sign of contrition and let him onto the 2006 ballot. I guess he bet on the wrong horse in THAT race. Besides, his memorabilia would sell at a much higher price (and make him much more money) if he could get into the HOF.

posted by grum@work at 10:00 PM on December 18, 2005

I got something you can cork, if you think pete's a corker

posted by callawayg0lf at 10:15 PM on December 18, 2005

Grum, thanks for the level headed explanation on why people hate on him the way they do. I guess it is a little deeper than i 1st thought. I never really put him on a pedestal, i thought his performance (without performance altering drugs) spoke for itself. However, its my opinion that taking drugs to alter your performance that would otherwise alter the outcome of a game, is more damaging then just betting on a game itself. Think about it, is it more damaging to alter the outcome of a game as opposed to gambling on what the outcome will be? Both dishonest acts were lied about. Hell some players lied under oath at a congressional hearing. And some of those players will end up in the HOF. Talk about denying something and then convieniently admiting it. I think if you ban Rose, you have to then give every player (previous or current) a polygraph test to see if they too gambled. Then you have to hold all forms of dishonesty accountable, and begin banning Mcguire,Palmeiro*, Bonds, Sosa, and all the other dopers, corked bat users and gamblers. Hell, then ban any player that has ever tested positive for any drugs, getting arrested, spousel abuse, and anyone that has every commited any crime at all. That way we can reduce the HOF down to about 3 members. Thank God Heaven wont be as unfair and as selectivly strict as the baseball HOF.

posted by RZA at 10:40 PM on December 18, 2005

AMEN rza...

posted by callawayg0lf at 10:49 PM on December 18, 2005

is it more damaging to alter the outcome of a game as opposed to gambling on what the outcome will be? The problem here is did the bettor's performance, or management of the team on the day of these bets affect the outcome of the game? I am not saying that they did, but that is one of the issues that arise when bets are placed by players or player/managers.

posted by jojomfd1 at 12:17 AM on December 19, 2005

Yea, Jojomfd1, no doubt. Thats definitly the ultimate question. I always assumed they were talking about him betting/gambling in general. I was never clear on whether there were acusations of him betting on games were he played/managed. Then i guess you have to get into detail as far as how he actually bet. For example, if he bet that his team would win, I dont see an issue with that. I mean pro teams get some sort of bonus for winning the big game anyway dont they? I know athletes get performance based incentives. Now if he bet his team would lose and then played/coached a poor game intentionally, of course theres a problem. The thing is, how often did he play poorly? He must have bet against himself like once.

posted by RZA at 03:19 AM on December 19, 2005

The issue, though, is that if Rose bets his team to win 5 games straight, and then doesn't bet on the sixth, what does that tell his bookie? Betting on your own team is just plain wrong.

posted by alex_reno at 05:14 AM on December 19, 2005

He may not have even had to play poorly, just had to call in certain pitchers at certain times. Personally I think the guy should be in the HOF. Just on the way he played the game, prior to becoming a player/manager. I am not sure that anyone can say he ever threw a game when he was just a player. He played the game just as hard, if not harder than anyone I've ever seen since. Unfortunately he created his own monster by lying for so long, and then recanting his story later. I wonder if he did even make the ballot, how many of the voters were the ones that were sticking up for Pete while he was still swearing he never bet on baseball.

posted by jojomfd1 at 09:35 AM on December 19, 2005

The issue, though, is that if Rose bets his team to win 5 games straight, and then doesn't bet on the sixth, what does that tell his bookie? Betting on your own team is just plain wrong. Good point. Additionally, you don't just bet to win, you bet to cover a spread. This can have an impact on a game that might not otherwise not be there.

posted by STLCardinalfan at 09:36 AM on December 19, 2005

Pete Rose has always been two things !-perhaps the single greatist ball player in our lifetimes On what planet? Hating on Rose reminds of the republicans that still hate on Bill Clinton. Rose was one of the best players ever. No amount of your useless hating will change that. You wont to forget about Rose? Try out for baseball, become great, break his records, then hate on him. Until then, stop crying. Wow, two of the lamest cliched insults on the net today, in one paragraph. One, you can believe rose shouldn't be in the hall withouth hating him. Calling everyone who doesn't think rose belongs in the hall a hater is the same as calling everyone who believes he should be in the hall a rose ass kisser. Try out for baseball, become great, break his records, then hate on him. Until then, stop crying. Please don't tell me you wrote that with a straight face.

posted by justgary at 10:10 AM on December 19, 2005

Additionally, you don't just bet to win, you bet to cover a spread. Is spread-betting common in baseball? I've only seen betting lines in baseball for win/loss (with the +x/-x betting amount determinations). I'm sure it exists, but I've just never seen it so I wonder about its popularity. The other problem with betting on your team to win is that you'll do everything you can to win that game. However, if you don't have money on the line, you might not want to bring in that relief pitcher because you want to save him for tomorrow's game where you DO have money on the line. That's the assumption that he only makes a difference in a positive way. The real fear is that a person involved in the game would develop a gambling debt, and the people he owes money to would use that as leverage to affect the outcome of a game in a negative way. ("Make sure you lose today, and we'll wipe out your debt.") I think if you ban Rose, you have to then give every player (previous or current) a polygraph test to see if they too gambled. So you are under the assumption that everyone is guilty until they prove themselves innocent? This wasn't some random witch-hunt that happened to catch Rose. There was a specific investigation about Rose because of all the evidence and testimony about his gambling problem. Then you have to hold all forms of dishonesty accountable, and begin banning Mcguire,Palmeiro*, Bonds, Sosa, and all the other dopers, corked bat users and gamblers. Hell, then ban any player that has ever tested positive for any drugs, getting arrested, spousel abuse, and anyone that has every commited any crime at all. That way we can reduce the HOF down to about 3 members. Wow. That's probably the silliest straw man I've ever seen constructed.

posted by grum@work at 10:34 AM on December 19, 2005

He's not getting in, I think he should be in, but I'm over it. Rose either has to be executed or have a monument built in his honor (depends on who ya, ask I guess) but he really needs to stop being such a heated topic of debate (see also T.O.) If I ever run into Mr. Rose I wanna buy him a drink, go betting on the ponies, congratulate him on an incredible carrer, and tell him the jerk-off hall of fame is losing out by not haveing him in there.

posted by HATER 187 at 10:58 AM on December 19, 2005

Is spread-betting common in baseball? I've only seen betting lines in baseball for win/loss (with the +x/-x betting amount determinations). I'm sure it exists, but I've just never seen it so I wonder about its popularity. You can bet over/under total runs scored. I'm not sure about betting a team + or - runs either. However, betting over/under can potentially have an outcome on a game especially if a manager is betting. Rose's statement that he "always bet to win" did not address this

posted by STLCardinalfan at 11:59 AM on December 19, 2005

You can bet over/under total runs scored. I completely forgot about that option. That's something a manager can DEFINITELY influence. If Rose bets the over, he just leaves in his struggling pitcher for a couple more batters and then he's won his money.

posted by grum@work at 12:23 PM on December 19, 2005

Grum, if there is a fucking congressional hearing about steriods, and doping wont keep you out of the HOF, then shouldnt there be a bigger investigation into something that can keep players out of the HOF? I mean hell, if you apply for a job at walmart, they pose the question "have you ever been convicted of a crime? If yes please explain"on the application. Shouldnt they just assume that we're all innocent until someone proves us guilty? How will they know unless they ask? Its obvious that the powers that be hold gambling out to be a more serious infraction than doping. So since there are urine tests for drugs, shouldnt there be a background check for gambling convictions or any other crime for that matter? Its not like some bookie is going to cry foul on some gamblers the way conti did about the dopers. It was discovered that Michael Jordan had a gambling problem. With his admitted gambling issues, do you think there will be an investigation into his eligibility for the Basketball HOF? As much as he won, should we assume that he bet on himslef? So let me get this straight. You can use steroids to give you an unfair advantage to win the MVP in baseball and get in the HOF, but you cant gamble on your sport or you'll be banned for life?? In comparison, you cant be the winner of american idol if you have a misdemeanor conviction on your record. But you can drink and drive and smoke weed and still get elected President of the United states. Justgary, besides posting your opinion about my comment, I was wondering if you have any opinion on the actual topic of this thread? You know its about a bat of rose's that may have been corked right?

posted by RZA at 12:32 PM on December 19, 2005

So let me get this straight. You can use steroids to give you an unfair advantage to win the MVP in baseball and get in the HOF, but you cant gamble on your sport or you'll be banned for life?? Gambling has been around for a few thousand years and for a hundred or so years there has been gambling on baseball games. Lessons of 1919 are still with us. Performance enhancing drugs are a relatively new phenomenon. I think there will be a lot more grappling and groping with this issue before any parity between gambling and drugs is either established or not.

posted by STLCardinalfan at 01:30 PM on December 19, 2005

Performance enhancing drugs are not really a new phenomenon; I think it's safe to say that the majority of ballplayers since 1945 have used performance enhancing drugs at some point of their career So let me get this straight. You can use steroids to give you an unfair advantage to win the MVP in baseball and get in the HOF, but you cant gamble on your sport or you'll be banned for life?? Right. Because gamblers who might purposely lose games are much more dangerous to baseball's health than players who are using enhanced substances to try and win more games. If fans stop believing that baseball games are real competitions and they believe that games are fixed, baseball is dead. Players who gamble on games are going down that road. Meanwhile, players have been cheatinmg to win - with drugs, corked bats, spitballs, etc. for 100 years, and fans' reaction to all this cheating has generally been one of amusement. There have been books written celebrating the history of baseball cheating! Of course, the use of most performance enhacing drugs wasn't prohibited until the last few years, so the players who used them weren't even technically cheating, unlike spitballers like Gaylord Perry. (And please don't start arguing that they are illegal because they aren't illegal in many of the places major league baseball players live and baseball rules and the law are two different things; if Pete Rose had committed manslaughter instead of betting on baseball in the mid-eighties, he'd be in jail but he'd also be in the Hall of Fame.)

posted by spira at 05:33 PM on December 19, 2005

"Performance enhancing drugs are not really a new phenomenon; I think it's safe to say that the majority of ballplayers since 1945 have used performance enhancing drugs at some point of their career" (ctrl-shift-t not working...) I guess it depends on the kinds of drugs you're talking about that have been in use since 1945. I've been around awhile but I can't remember this being a serious issue until very recently. "if Pete Rose had committed manslaughter instead of betting on baseball in the mid-eighties, he'd be in jail but he'd also be in the Hall of Fame." Good point.

posted by STLCardinalfan at 07:23 PM on December 19, 2005

Spira, i definitly understand your point. If the fans start to think the game is fixed there will surely be less interest. And you certainly have a point about if he had commited manslaughter instead of gambling he would be in the HOF as we speak. I mean, there are drug users, spouse abusers and maybe even a murderer here or there in the baseball HOF. Its still my opinion that after the precedent was set with Rose, there should have been something put in place to deal with any other gamblers that might be in the league. Although good points have been made about rose and his gambling, Im certain that he is no where near the only one who has done it. What could possibly be put in place to determine such a thing? Gee, i dont know. How about congress. If they are so concerned with baseball being corrupted with drugs. Why stop there.

posted by RZA at 11:13 PM on December 19, 2005

I know Lenny Dykstra was investigated for his gambling habits, but I don't think they found any evidence that he bet on baseball. If others are betting on baseball, my guess is they aren't as sloppy about it as Rose was. CardinalFan - I'm talking primarily about amphetamines. Players who served in WWII took the drugs to deal with fatigue from long missions, and they soon noticed that these drugs improved their on-field performance. So when these players came home from the war, amphetamines came with them. Ralph Kiner recently talked about how he and other players started using them in 1946. Players swallowed them like candy. Jim Bouton wrote all about the practice in Ball Four. Dock Ellis, who has used a lot of drugs, compares amphetamines to cocaine: ""It legitimately will enhance your performance," Ellis says. "But you will become addicted to it." Many clubhouses for years had two pots of coffee - one for the players which was filled with amphetamines, and the other, drugless pot for the coaches. Joe Morgan has been protesting baseball's plan to eliminate amphetamines; he claims that it will significant lower the quality of play next season, especially in the second half. Some people like to downplay the effects of amphetamines, comparing them to coffee. That comparison is silly; it's like comparing the Empire State Building to a log cabin. Amphetamines definitely enhance performance - they help players focus, they speed up recation time (better bat speed), they help you run faster. Their effect on performance is actually a lot more direct and clear than steroids' effect on performance, which is more indirect. (Steroids certainly can boost player performance, but it's more complicated than just popping pills. Adding bulk is not always a good thing for baseball players.)

posted by spira at 04:23 AM on December 20, 2005

And you certainly have a point about if he had commited manslaughter instead of gambling he would be in the HOF as we speak. Not necessarily. Something like that might be enough to keep a player out of the HOF as the writers might not want a player of that "questionable character" in the hall. An interesting test would have been allowing Rose on the ballot this year. I suspect he would have fallen short of the necessary votes to get into the HOF. That said, I'm glad he didn't even get a chance to campaign for his entrance.

posted by grum@work at 07:13 AM on December 20, 2005

An interesting test would have been allowing Rose on the ballot this year. I suspect he would have fallen short of the necessary votes to get into the HOF Nice point grum (my ctrl-shift-t ain't working). He most likely would have been rejected by the writers, but why didn't the commissioner trust his own system? The jack-ass should have put Rose on the ballot - right from the beginning of his eligability - and let the voting system determine whether or not he gets into the hall. If he can't trust his own system, maybe he really believes that the commissioner himself should pick who does and doesn't get in.

posted by drevl at 10:07 AM on December 20, 2005

I think a lot of the hate comes from the fact that Rose WAS the epitome of what everyone wanted in an athlete: energetic, exciting, and always entertaining. When he got caught betting on games and got banished, a lot of people immediately hated him for it. My ctrl-shift-t still ain't working. Anyhoo, I sort of disagree with that premise, grum. If you were around during his playing days you'd remember that he wad disliked (if not hated) by most everyone - except for the teams he played on - where he was loved. At first they loved him in Cincy and hated him in Philly. Later they loved him in Philly and hated him in Cincy. Meanwhile, they pretty much hated him everywhere else. They always hated him at Shea Stadium . On a hate scale of 1 to 10, he'd easily have earned an 11 in NY. All this hate came about long before his baseball betting came about.

posted by drevl at 10:19 AM on December 20, 2005

Rose was hated in Shea because of the brawl he was in with Bud Harrelson in the 1973 playoffs.

posted by spira at 01:15 PM on December 20, 2005

Absolutely right, spira. Rose didn't take kindly to having second base blocked. Harrelson paid. Just like Fosse paid for blocking the plate on him during an all-star game in 1970 or 71. Shades of Ty Cobb, or so I'm led to believe. I would imagine you could get a fan of every NL team to tell of a Rose incident that caused them to pretty much hate Rose. He sure gave them lots of reasons. I would guess the main one was watching Rose hustle all the time. He didn't have the most talent in the league, but he gave 100% of what he had. Perhaps the word I'm looking for is frustration. Watching Rose hustle, while your guys dogged it, caused frustration which eventually turned to hate.

posted by drevl at 02:29 PM on December 20, 2005

Pete Rose wants back in Baseball more than he wants in the hall. My how the mighty have fallen. He's manning a both in Vegas. Pathetic!

posted by skydivedad at 11:24 AM on December 21, 2005

I can't believe someone would even make this shit up. Pete Rose was one of baseballs greatest hitters ever. Theres no way in hell he corked his bat, and theres also no good reason why hes not in the Hall of Fame. The only one i can think of is that Bud Selig is a complete asshole.

posted by vegaskid63 at 12:50 PM on December 24, 2005

Theres no way in hell he corked his bat, and theres also no good reason why hes not in the Hall of Fame. The only one i can think of is that Bud Selig is a complete asshole. 1. Why is there no way he did that? 2. You don't think betting on baseball is a good reason? 3. Rose was banned two commissioners before Selig took office. You wear the collar today.

posted by yerfatma at 01:38 PM on December 24, 2005

You forgot one, yerfatma. 4. He's not one of the greatest hitters ever. He has a lot of hits, but that's a product of longevity. A career OPS under .800? A career OPS+ of 118? That doesn't even put him anywhere near the top 100.

posted by grum@work at 03:17 PM on December 24, 2005

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