Pete Rose - RIP

[OldPhiKap]

If you find yourself in Greenville Sc, with some time on your hands, the Shoeless Joe Jackson Museum is worth a visit. It is the home he lived in and is right next to the minor league ballpark IIRC.

 

[BandAlum83]

It's funny, I kind of come to the opposite conclusion from what I think is a similar perspective as yours. I don't know whether one needs to be outraged. For me it's a shoulder shrug and "Oh, well. He probably shouldn't have gambled on games he played in or managed and then been completely unremorseful about it for the rest of his life (in addition to being generally viewed as a pretty crummy human being)." No one's owed enshrinement or everlasting societal adulation, and I'm OK with not bestowing unnecessary extra praise on a pile of statistics divorced from the humanity of the person who accumulated them.

I'm sort of the same way now re: the juicers - I've spent enough years being annoyed that they're not in the Hall of Fame with asterisks on their plaques. I'll forever note that they were hitting against flame throwing pitchers who were also juicing, and that steroids don't do anything to help hand-eye coordination, but ultimately it's not worth being all that upset about. So I'm resigned to Bonds, McGwire, and the rest not getting in, too, although I'd still prefer the Hall to include them with some good contextualizing to go with it.

As a huge Greg Maddux fan, I will point out that he didn't have a juiced advantage when facing Bonds, McGuire or Sosa. Roger Clemens and the rest of the juicers shouldn't be in the Hall even with asterisks. Maddux was the greatest of his generation, and the juicers are, as my NJ-born-in-1927 dad would say "Bums!"

 

[Ggallagher]

My vague understanding is that Rose bet on his team to win, while Shoeless Joe affected the games negatively (I may need a history lesson here). I do see those as different.

Similarly, I have trouble believing that Jordan, as big a gambler as he was, never bet on himself to win.

There was a fascinating and pretty depressing documentary on Rose recently - maybe on Netflix, I'm not sure. In the documentary, Rose "defended" himself by pointing out that he did only bet on his team to win. When it was pointed out to him that the bookmakers knew when he DIDN'T bet on his team that it was helpful information for them, he just sat there kind of stone-faced.
The content of the documentary significantly lowered my opinion of him as a person. He was a great ballplayer and a very flawed person.

 

[acdevil]

As a huge Greg Maddux fan, I will point out that he didn't have a juiced advantage when facing Bonds, McGuire or Sosa. Roger Clemens and the rest of the juicers shouldn't be in the Hall even with asterisks. Maddux was the greatest of his generation, and the juicers are, as my NJ-born-in-1927 dad would say "Bums!"

That’s a fine stance to have in a vacuum, but what do you do about the players that didn’t get caught? I’d say it’s a virtual certainty that there are players out there that got an advantage but didn’t trip a test or get caught by the media.

 

[BandAlum83]

That’s a fine stance to have in a vacuum, but what do you do about the players that didn’t get caught? I’d say it’s a virtual certainty that there are players out there that got an advantage but didn’t trip a test or get caught by the media.

I'm glad we don't apply that logic to the criminal justice system.

 

[Mal]

There was a fascinating and pretty depressing documentary on Rose recently - maybe on Netflix, I'm not sure. In the documentary, Rose "defended" himself by pointing out that he did only bet on his team to win. When it was pointed out to him that the bookmakers knew when he DIDN'T bet on his team that it was helpful information for them, he just sat there kind of stone-faced.
The content of the documentary significantly lowered my opinion of him as a person. He was a great ballplayer and a very flawed person.

I've seen an awful lot of social media posters in the last 24 hours who apparently don't grasp that concept, that the absence of a bet on a given day is also information. It's even worse when it's the manager of a team betting on his team or not on specific days. It's not as direct as betting against your team and then intentionally waiting a few batters too long before pulling your starting pitcher, but it's part of an ongoing conversation with bookies all the same.

 

[camion]

That’s a fine stance to have in a vacuum, but what do you do about the players that didn’t get caught? I’d say it’s a virtual certainty that there are players out there that got an advantage but didn’t trip a test or get caught by the media.

A story:

Once when stopped for speeding I asked the officer why he didn't catch the guy who passed me.

He asked if I was arguing that my ticked wasn't valid because he didn't catch all of the speeders.

I paid the ticket.