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