User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.3400 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I hope it's not belaboring a technical point to note that there are two ways to interpret that sentence, with radically different implications.
If Rose bet $2000 on all 162 games on the schedule, he may have been a fool, and he was still violating one of baseball's more sacred rules, but from a moral standpoint he wasn't engaging in behavior that was particularly damaging to the integrity of the game.
But if he meant "on every game I bet on, I bet $2000," that implies that his bets were selective. And if that was indeed the case, then the bookies should have been paying him for the inside information, since he was giving them the sincerest form of it that can be imagined. What better line moving tip can you ask for than knowing that the manager of the Reds isn't even betting on his own team today?
If he bet on all 162 games, I'm guessing he lost money overall. Someone who can influence the outcome of a game and owes money to a bookie has the potential to damage the integrity of the game.
B) He still violated the rule, there's a punishment on the books for violating the rule. Case closed.
C) I don't believe him anyway. He'll say anything to make it seem like what he did was not wrong.
Rose realizes this, and that is why it is the focus of this current lie. How do I know it's a lie? Well, Pete Rose said it.
He has two points against him:
He played himself too much.
He jerked Eric Davis around.
I'm sure he had his strengths, but I'll leave that for the Reds fans who followed the team at the time to describe as my memory is hazy.
Well, put it this way. In 1985, Rose started a first baseman who had hit 4 total home runs in the past half a decade.
In 1985 and/or 1986 there were several good young players losing playing time to Rose: Esasky, Redus, Daniels, and Davis.
Tony Perez wasn't a good player heading into 1985, but he ended up having a much better offensive year than Rose. Perez lost playing time to Rose as well, which -- although different from the young talent issue -- still of course hurt the team, as Rose simply wasn't playing any of the better options.
That's the biggest strike against him. That, and he misled upper management about how much he was going to play himself.
On a macro level, Rose's teams generally had good W-L records and outperformed their pythags. But he also didn't handle the team's young talent well -- and the team was stockpiled with young talent. There's a good argument that Gary Redus in particular was hurt immensely by Rose's selfishness.
Another strike against Rose was his overuse of Danny Jackson in 1988, but in fairness that was pre-pitch-count era. In addition, I think it is pretty clear that the team's hot start in 1990 (33-12, which carried them to the division title with a not-great team, that was, as we saw, built for post-season) was in part due to being freed up from the Rose circus. Rose's teams did hustle, and he was OK tactically.
I think the only argument that ever really flew with the semi-intelligent masses wasn't that Pete bet, it was that the Dowd Report didn't prove that he did. It's been way too long, and frankly, I don't care anymore, but I know that was my general feeling.
This was the Bill James position, which carried a lot of weight with many people, since it was James. Sokolove conceded that there was no proverbial smoking gun but took the position that the circumstantial evidence was massive and the conclusion basically unavoidable.
Indeed, and it was a well-made argument. It prompted me to go find the Dowd Report and read it. I just don't remember much about it anymore, but I came away much like him, unconvinced. I didn't begrudge anyone who thought the opposite, but I don't remember anyone worthwhile loudly arguing that Rose didn't bet at all.
As Robinred says, that was the James position, but quite frankly it never made the slightest bit of sense to me. And James had some of the key facts wrong, and furthermore tried to handwave away large swaths of evidence.
For example, from Sean Lahman's Rose FAQ:
When James wrote his 1990 book, quite simply he didn't have access to volumes of evidence (transcripts, phone records, bank records, fingerprint analysis, etc.) which MLB released later. James was working from a summary of the Dowd report, and although he vigorously defended his position in his 2002 Abstract, I always felt that James went too far out on a limb in 1990 and then decided to keep going farther out instead of coming back.
The limb snapped when Rose confessed. Which of course doesn't necessarily mean that James's analysis was flawed.
The fact that it was plain to see at the time that James's analysis was flawed means that James's analysis was flawed.
Wait'll Bill James' crime book comes out later this year...and from what I've been told, he defends serial killers and mass murderers!
First, "circumstantial evidence" is not synonomous with "weak evidence." The most prominent example of this is OJ.
But more importantly, there was certainly direct evidence against Rose: the testimony of Janszen and Peters.
And how credible were they? After all, these were individuals who were engaged in activities which they knew to be illegal, and for which they were also being investigated. It's the same problem we currently see with McNamee - people who engage in activities deemed illegal often end up with credibility problems by simple virtue of being engaged in illegal activities.
He is very convinced that the Ramsey parents did not kill JonBenet and will, presumably, argue as such in this book. Supposedly James is fascinated/obsessed with the case and knows a lot about it.
Rose was hired specifically to play himself. From the moment he came to town the Reds were hyping the bejeezus out of 4192. They kept 3 shifts busy at the swag factory producing tshirts, cups, bumper stickers, roach clips, rubber bayonets, ANYTHING they could etch "4192" on.
I was in the crowd his first game back, saw several more in '84 and prob 2 dozen in '85, including the Big Night, and all along, from his arrival to 4192 the organization was fueled entirely by the 4192 thing.
He wasn't being selfish, he was doing what he was hired to do.
As far as management talent went, he was underwhelming but he was a lot of fun to watch. He motivated players and loved speedy, astroturf play & never passed on a chance to squeeze bunt. The party was over pretty fast once everybody realized what a lunkhead he was, but sorta like Billy Martin, his first year was fiery & fun. Oh, and he was an arm-shredder of Lasordian magnitude.
He mentions Jon Benet in the NBJHA for crying out loud.
Same with Rose.
There are huge, massive differences between Janszen/Peters and McNamee. Mainly that the testimony of Janszen/Peters was corroborated by a ton of other evidence, for example, Rose's bank records and phone records.
No -- that's his upcoming book on the Bush administration.
In Sokolove's book, a Reds' management figure from the time--I think Bender--is quoted as saying that Rose told them he'd play less tahn he did, and Rose himself said "Nick Esasky is the first baseman" when Rose was hired.
OTOH, the Reds' guys did say that were rooting for him to break the record THEN quit and they did promote it endlessely, as you say.
No -- that's his upcoming book on the Bush administration.
Looks like he'll have to wait in line to publish that one.
Wait, what? Where was that?
His record as manager was 412-373, which would have meant that he would have been slightly ahead in his bets, but only if you assume two things: First, that he did bet on every game; and second, that the odds on each game were pick em, which usually means he'd be laying either 11 to 10 or 21 to 20.
The first assumption means that you have to believe that he did bet on every game, which isn't what 99% of people who think that they're "smart" will ever do. And the second assumption is absurd. You'd have to know what the odds were on each game before you could figure out whether he wound up ahead or behind for 162 games.
All I was saying was that IF Rose bet on EVERY game, that in itself would have had no influence at all on the betting odds; but if he had bet SELECTIVELY on the Reds, it would have amounted to invaluable inside information on the days that he didn't.
And even if Rose had been a slight winner on his Reds' bets, just the fact that he owed all that money to his bookie for football, horse racing, etc., would have put him in a totally compromised position, anyway. In many ways, the fact that he bet on the Reds (if it was on all 162 games) is more icing on the cake than it is the central issue. The central issue is that you had a baseball manager indebted to a bookie. That should have been enough to get him out of baseball to begin with.
I agree completely.
I also agree, but their testimony in isolation had limited to no value. It was only when confirmed by outside sources that it had value. I'm only pointing out the difficulty of establishing credibility in a situation where the alleged participants are engaged in activity which, by nature, impacts their credibility.
Incidentally, am I remembering incorrectly, or weren't there also issues with Janszen and Peters making certain claims which could not be confirmed, or were contradicted, by outside sources?
You establish their credibility by corroborating their testimony.
It also helps if they don't confess to having lied over and over again about the matter in question.
I would phrase that slightly differently:
He was being selfish, but he was also doing what he was hired to do.
Hey, even though Ray and I are poles apart politically, I wouldn't call him a "cretin."
Yet there were issues with corroborating some aspects of their testimony, which damages their credibility.
Oh, no doubt. I'm just remembering how the case came across in 1989. My perception then was that Giamatti wanted Rose to go away, but didn't have evidence strong enough to deflect a lawsuit should Rose challenge a unilateral ban. That dynamic raised questions which have since been dispelled a hundredfold in hindsight by Rose's repeated yakking about his gambling habit.
Funny - I thought Kevin was talking about himself :-)
What if it's known that they lied, but didn't explicitly confess to it?
A lot of us around here are occasionally cretinous, me included. But since you had the post immediately before, I lacked the willpower to pass up the cheap joke.
It also has to be noted that the investigation was stopped because Rose agreed to the ban based on the evidence which had been uncovered to date. Dowd has noted in interviews that, if allowed to continue, he believes (for whatever that's worth) that he could have accessed/uncovered significant additional information to even more conclusively show Rose's gambling, as well as other unspecified illegal activities. Part of the reason for Rose accepting the ban was to ensure that this wouldn't happen.
Maybe when he dies. Personally, I don't want him to have the satisfaction.
He was banned for life, after all. That doesn't necessarily dictate what happens after he dies (though Joe Jackson is still on the outside).
At which point, I'm contractually obligated to mention that he was living with a steroid dealer. And that Rose has admitted to using "greenies".
The 1990s in a Box
Checking in
1990 - JonBenet Ramsey
Bill James? Yeah, probably.
She checked out in a box as well, I suppose.
But he wasn't "banned for life." He was declared "permanently ineligible." The ineligible status is permanent, and, thus, is not lifted upon his death.
From the agreement he signed:
The steroid dealer was also dealing in other unspecified substances - given that it was the 80s and baseball, I think we can guess what these unspecified substances were.
True, but the process allows for him to apply for eligibility on an annual basis. According to MLB, and despite all his protestations, Rose has never gone through the trouble of applying for a return to eligibility. Whether or not they would grant his request is another issue....
I have always guessed, maybe incorrectly, that if Rose had been using steroids, Gioiosa and Janszen would have ratted him out about that, too. The inferential case that Rose was using steroids--hung out at Gold's, used greenies, struggled to play longer--is obvious, but I'd think one of his buddies would have known and told the Feds.
understood, but that permanent ban was for mlb, not for the hof, after signing that piece of paper the HOF changed their rules and made players who are permanently ineligible in MLB ineligible for the HOF. I'm not a fan of that, keep him away from baseball, but I still think he should be eligible to be voted, just like Shoeless Joe was eligible for 50+ years, but never got the votes.
If that bastard sold astroturf, he should be banned twice.
But I still don't see how his death would change anything from the HOF's point of view, since, again, he wasn't banned for life but was declared permanently ineligible.
The box score makes it look like the Dodgers picked on a lousy pitcher and crushed the Reds. What makes you suspicious?
agreed. I never argued it would change their point of view, I just argued he should be in the hof right now already. The ban was bogus retroactive caving in to MLB and is ridiculous regardless of the quality of person that Rose happens to be.
I think the argument is that the HOF is not required to honor any bans instituted by MLB. Rather, just as the HOF stance on permanently ineligible players has changed before to align with MLB, it may also change again to return to its original position - ineligible players for MLB would be eligible for the HOF, and it would be up to the voters to decide their respective merits.
The HOF simply codified a de facto rule. The rule had always existed in unwritten form, as shown by the treatment of Jackson.
The HOF decided to take formal action to prevent the silliness of sportswriters suddenly deciding to hand the game's highest honor to someone who had so utterly disgraced the game that he was ineligible to participate in it.
I seriously doubt that any Las Vegas sportsbook or illegal bookie with even half a brain would have ever been so stupid as to accept a bet from Pete Rose AGAINST his own team, and I don't think that Dowd ever found any real evidence at all of Rose doing such a thing.
The only way I could see him being able to pull something like that off would be through an unknown third party intermediary; if he had tried it himself or through his usual channels, red flags would have gone up all over the place immediately.
a friend of mine that bets baseball, and claims that it's the easiest sport in the world to make money on, bets only streaks. When a team has won or loss three or more consecutive games, he bets on the streak to continue, claims to have never loss money over the course of the season when betting this way. (it doesn't matter what the odds are on the game)
He does claim you have to bet every time though, no thinking involved. I followed it for one month(I don't bet, but I still tracked his progress) and in one month it was a good option, I don't know over the course of a season other than his own claims.
Right; the HOF voluntarily decided to do so.
But, the HOF's position on this didn't change; they did institute the new rule, thereby formally "changing the rules," but, again, it was just to codify the unwritten rule they felt had always existed.
The below is from a Pete Rose FAQ that used to appear on the Hall's website:
I agree they have every right to make whatever change they felt for their election, but to claim it's always been in place is bogus.
Rose had been a scumbag for years, the writers knew about it, but Rose gave good copy so under the pretense of no real "evidence" they were going to look the other way.
And they would have been wrong to do so.
I just hope I die before Rose so that I don't have to endure seeing, hearing, or otherwise being exposed to the notion of that worthless piece of sh&t;getting any type of positive recognition.
My Rose animus goes way back long before the Internet so don't be thinking I am a latecomer to throwing Pete to the wolves. He made this situation for himself disgusting act by loathsome transgression.
Jackson got a grand total of 2 votes -- both in the same year (1936). Nothing "occasional" about it. It was one occasion.
Actually, I agree with you here. Although the Hall claims "This decision has nothing whatsoever to do with the Hall of Fame's concern over how the writers might have voted in 1992," I don't think that passes the smell test.
Sure. Eligible, but nobody with a clue thought he should be elected.
But it was always in place. Again, Jackson shows that. Jackson did not get a significant number of votes. He got just one more vote than Jim Deshaies did. Virtually every voter agreed that Jackson didn't belong.
Personally I don't give one rats tail about the quality of person for the hof, it's whether his on field accomplishments merit enshrinement (so yes I am for both Rose and Jackson, although in my world Jacksons crime was much bigger, and yes I know I'm in the minority on that front on this board) But of course the HOF has the right to limit inclusion to whatever qualifications they set up.
Blooper videos?
Hmm, I emailed the HOF a couple of years ago about Jackson and they said he received a couple of scattered votes in a few different years. I wonder which is correct.
so yes I am for both Rose and Jackson, although in my world Jacksons crime was much bigger, and yes I know I'm in the minority on that front on this board
Really? That's the minority here?
No way -- not with the Reds starting pitcher. Baseball betting is moneylines, and there is no way that a Rasmussen versus Valenzuala matchup would have given the Reds any sort moneyline shift in their favor. The Dodgers would have been heavy favorites to begin with.
from what I've seen in the past on similar threads, yes it's a minority opinion. Too many people here focus on whether Jackson was guilty or not, or whether his play indicated he was trying or not, meanwhile nobody debates Rose guilt(what is there to debate to be honest) so it boils down to either his crime is worse or not and the assumptions about Jackson participation in the event etc. Rose's situation is black and white for the most part, (which I don't agree with as I always argue I have never in my life met a participant in a sport who didn't some way or another not bet on their own outcome, but that is a different argument)
Actually, I also had it in my head somehow that the two votes were in separate years; but the HOF's website shows differently. Not sure what's going on.
No, I think he's saying that his support for both Rose and Jackson is the minority position on this board.
Unless you're talking some very broad outcome, like they're betting that they're good enough to make a living playing a professional sport, then I think you're going to need to provide further explanation on this point.
Synth pop albums and suits with big shoulder pads.
Baseball betting is radically different than other forms of sports betting. It is what is called moneyline betting. You don't just put a staight two grand to win on a team and add the vig if you lose. Instead of a point spread and a straight vig bet, the odds are directly incorporated into the bet. Pitcher matching and strength of team greatly influence the odds, which are incorporated directly into the monyline bet. Let's say the 2003 Pedro Martinez is facing off against the 2003 Tigers -- you'd probably have to bet 300 dollars to win 100. If you took the Tigers, you'd probably bet 100 to win 260 (depending on the individual bookie's vig on extreme moneylines).
Unlike other sports, the "lines" don't even come close to evening out -- not even in the same galaxy. The vig is standard (10 to 20% depending on the book), but the lines vary wildly by pitching matchups. If Rose was betting around $2000 a game on the Reds to win, $2000 to win might only yield him $1000 in profit if Danny Jackson was pitching, but $2500 if Mario Soto was pitching. The next time those two pitched, their lines might be different depending on the opposition and SP. There is no neat way to estimate his winnings; we'd need the lines.
Speaking of Soto, rumor has it that Rose was absolutley loathe to bet on Soto. If that is true, his claim that he bet on the Reds every night is certainly horsesh1t.
I bowl(not professionally) I've never seen a game of bowling that didn't have some type of betting associated with it. when the Cardinals played the Brewers in the world series the owners betted a case of beer(or something to that point) mayors bet all the time with other mayors on the result of a championship. This may not be what MLB is calling betting, but in my opinion it's natural for humans to make bets on the outcome of a competitive event. Especially if they are involved in it.
Even if they aren't betting for a real stake, there are plenty of times in competitive events that I or someone may say "I bet you can't strike me out" or something to that effect. The very nature of competitive sports is a bet in itself. You are betting that Eckersley can get Kirk Gibson out when you bring him in the 9th inning. To think that just saying "betting is against the rules" is able to change the nature of the people involved is naive in my opinion. I would argue that many more people than Pete Rose have violated the rule against betting. I would probably argue that it would be impossible to find one team in baseball over the past 50 years that didn't have at least one player violate that rule. (obviously that couldn't be proven but it just seems so likely to me)
I just have never seen Pete Rose crime as a crime, regardless of all the arguments I've participated on these boards about his crime. (and the arbitrary comment saying 'it's written on the wall' doesn't pursuade me either)
Those are so far from what Rose is accused of they can't even holler and be heard.
This makes it seem like betting on the same to win every game by rote is idiotic then, no? Pete Rose is one bizarre dude.
and that is where the disagreement comes from. I think betting is betting, meanwhile people like to play what if stories about the potentials that could happen when involved in high stakes betting with less "savory" sort of people. I go by his actual actions, not the potential of his actions, while others prefer to fabricate another reality where Petes 'what if' actions actually happened and based their conviction on his actions on the possibility of him doing something bad in this fabricated reality. To me Pete betted on baseball, he betted on his team to win, that is what the evidence points. He violated the rules and of course we then argue on whether the punishment fits the crime, but nearly every argument about the making the punishment being severe has to do with a fabricated what if reality, instead of the actual actions.
As I said I'm in the minority on this opinion, I know this.
Playing the same lotto number every week is also a losing proposition, but lots of people do it. Betting anything at all against the house in a casino is in the strict sense "idiotic." Gambling is a pretty irrational business.
But you're right in another sense. In a sense I agree with Andy upthread in #2: if Pete Rose mechanically bet the same amount on his club to win every day for his entire career, that would be foolish but in a strange way principled. But you can't imagine that happening. That's like an automatic payroll deduction, or tithing, or something. He would have to be a bizarre dude indeed to be so addicted and so disciplined.
The much, much more common pattern is that you bet a certain amount, lose a lot of it, increase your betting because you reckon you can win it back, and escalate from there. If that's not Rose's pattern, then he would be a very rare case in the history of gambling psychology.
Did you miss the part where I wrote, in English, that it isn't the same behavior?
It makes is seem like a crock of dung, but he did say he bet "like $2000 a game."
Actually, doesn't this reintroduce the issue of Rose now having a varying stake in individual games? As said, with the return per game changing, he has a reason to manipulate the manner in which he manages, as his potential return changes on a day-by-day and game-by-game basis, even if he bets the same amount each game.
I also agree that Rose is one bizarre dude, but I already thought that before his gambling issues came to light.
Right, but when one plays the lotto, the loss per bet is static -- that isn't true when one bets baseball to win a set amount. If what Rose is saying is even close to the truth, the $2000 per game he is talking about is his max loss per game. If that is the case, the question is was Rose "clever" enough to try to massauge the line to try to make the Reds bigger underdogs.
MLB set out clear rules. Rose violated those rules. I happen to think MLB's rules are very rational and reasonable, including the punishment for violating them; once someone is found to have bet on a game in which he has a duty to perform (to take one clause of Rule 21), MLB isn't interested in asking whether the person actually altered his performance in the game based on the bet, or anything like that. And why should it be? What does MLB have to gain by that?
Now ask yourself what they have to lose. A hell of a lot.
I think your comment is more suited for the "if I were commissioner" thread.
Dammit Ray, I had a Ripkenesque streak going of disagreeing with you. Why did you have to go ruin it by saying something like that.
Exactly -- there is also the question if he were betting totals -- someone with the combination of his sickness, arrogance, and knowledge of the game would almost certainly bet the over and under. As a manager, Rose could have done many things to influence the outcome on the total score, even if he had money on the Reds. Let's say the Reds' have a comfortable 6-1 lead in the ninth and the total was 8.5. If Rose had money on the Reds and the total, he could have brought in a gas can to cough up a couple runs, then bring his closer in to ice the game. The fact that Rose's teams exceeded thier Pythags suggests he could have done this.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main