I think Bud Seligs head just blew up.

Wasn't one of the low-lifes that Pete hung around with a steroids user/dealer?

"I didn't cheat the game." So on days when Rose didn't bet the Reds to win, he was still managing all-out to win?

You know, the person I turn to when seeking wisdom about ethical behavior in sports, that would be Pete Rose.

How can he say that with a straight face? "Cheating the game" pretty much the exact definition of what he did.

Wasn't one of the low-lifes that Pete hung around
with a steroids user/dealer?

Yes. A steroid dealer slept on Pete's couch for a period in the 80's. You know, when he was trying to stay in the game long enough to chase a record.

I wouldn’t know what a steroid even looks like

Really? They're about 4 feet tall, 30 inches wide and ugly as sin.

Oh, sorry, that's David Samson.

I think the writers would forgive Barry Bonds if he agreed to literally walk through hell in a gasoline suit.

Yes. A steroid dealer slept on Pete's couch for a period in the 80's. You know, when he was trying to stay in the game long enough to chase a record.

I highly doubt Tom House was the only baseball player using steroids in the 1970's.

"I didn't cheat the game." So on days when Rose didn't bet the Reds to win, he was still managing all-out to win?

That's my assumption. Is there any evidence to the contrary?

The ridiculousness of Rose' comments may in a round about way cause a few voters to switch from no of Clemens, Bonds, etc just out of a desire not to be in agreement with a guy so detached from reality.

10. Sunday silence Posted: July 21, 2012 at 04:42 AM (#4188589)

"I didn't cheat the game." So on days when Rose didn't bet the Reds to win, he was still managing all-out to win?

That's my assumption. Is there any evidence to the contrary?

The very nature of in game decisions means evidence of trying harder one day than another is nearly impossible to find and likely to be mainly circumstantial. The only evidence we have that he did not make decisions differently dependent on whether he had action on that day's game is his word - not exactly an unimpeachable witness.

Really? They're about 4 feet tall, 30 inches wide and ugly as sin.

Oh, sorry, that's Barry Bonds' head.

Fixed.

I wouldn’t know what a steroid even looks like

Wasn't that the same line he used when questioned about amphetamines desite the fact that he had been using speed for 20 years or so?

This from a guy who I was told by a Reds player disptached pitchers to the locker room to watch TV in September becuase the Riverfront Stadium updates of football scores were too slow.

asking pete rose about steroids and cheating is like asking jeffrey dahmer if he thinks jaywalkers should do jail time.

So you are saying Pete Rose doesn't reply?

Depends on how adept you are with a Ouija board, I suppose.

Vegas hasn't published the opening line on the action yet; of course he's not sure yet.

Not trying to win isn't in Pete Rose's DNA. If you hate him, fine. But the guy isn't wired to lose on purpose. Sorry, don't see it.

[12]

"I didn't cheat the game." So on days when Rose didn't bet the Reds to win, he was still managing all-out to win?

That's my assumption. Is there any evidence to the contrary?

The very nature of in game decisions means evidence of trying harder one day than another is nearly impossible to find and likely to be mainly circumstantial. The only evidence we have that he did not make decisions differently dependent on whether he had action on that day's game is his word - not exactly an unimpeachable witness.

There are indications that Rose managed differently in games that he did not bet on the Reds.

CINCINNATI — John Dowd, who wrote the 1989 report that resulted in Pete Rose being banned from baseball, said Thursday that Rose did not bet on the Reds every night when Rose was the Reds' manager. ...

"When (Mario) Soto and (Bill) Gullickson pitched, he didn't bet on the Reds," Dowd said on Thursday, when reached at his Washington, D.C., office. "We only put in the report what we could find and corroborate three different ways." ...

"OK, he's now admitted he violated the capital crime of baseball every single day. Now he's saying 'I violated Rule 21 every day.' And baseball is now supposed to let him back into the game?"

The Dowd Report says Rose bet on the Reds 52 times in 1987. Each Major League Baseball team plays 162 games.

Dowd has said that when Rose didn't bet on the Reds, it was a signal to bookies that it might be a good night to bet on the Reds' opponent. That is why baseball's rules against betting draw no distinction between a principal in a game betting on his team or against it.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2007-03-15-rose-dowd_N.htm

Ken Davidoff's Baseball Insider
BASEBALL INSIDER: Jeter, Mets, Guillen, Rose
9:40 AM, April 10, 2012
By KEN DAVIDOFF ...


When Pete Rose bet on his own team to win, there was no side benefit for his team as a whole. And when you read the Dowd Report and realize that Rose didn’t bet on his team every single day – that he systematically did NOT bet in 1987 when Mario Soto or Bill Gullickson started – it opens more questions about Rose’s motivations.

Did Rose try less hard to win, because he didn’t have a personal, financial stake, when Soto or Gullickson started? Was he more likely to give his best players a rest those days? Was he less inclined to utilize his best relievers, thereby keeping them out of a game on which he had a wager?

Even if Rose had bet on every single Reds game, there would’ve been questions: Was he in need of a win more days than others, just in order to prevent his legs from being broken?

http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/baseballinsider/baseball_insider_jeter_mets_guillen_YZOt4bIktCfQofvlgaI3tL

Note the team W-L% for Gullickson is substantially lower than that of Browning, Pacillo, Power and Robinson, despite Gullickson having a higher quality start percentage than the first three and a similar quality start percentage as the fourth. One-third of runners bequeathed by Reds starters in 1987 were allowed to score by the bullpen, but nearly half of Gullickson's bequeathed runners did (which also may have lowered Gullickson's QS%.) These results could be random luck, or they may be due to Rose using his better relievers in those games which Gullickson did not start.

From BB-REF: 1987 Cincinnati Reds Starting Pitching:

                                                                        
                    GS Wgs Lgs ND Wtm Ltm tmW-L% Wlst Lsv QS QS% BQR BQS
Dennis Rasmussen*    7   4   1  2   6   1   .857    1   2  5 71%   3   2
    Tom Browning*   31  10  13  8  18  13   .581    2   8 15 48%  13   7
     Pat Pacillo     7   2   3  2   4   3   .571    1   0  1 14%   7   3
    Ron Robinson    18   6   3  9  10   8   .556    6   3 10 56%  11   5
       Ted Power    34  10  13 11  18  16   .529    2   6 13 38%  17   4
 Bill Gullickson    27  10  11  6  14  13   .519    2   3 14 52%  11   6
    Bill Landrum     2   0   1  1   1   1   .500    0   1  0  0%  12   4
      Mario Soto     6   3   2  1   3   3   .500    1   0  2 33%   7   1
  League Average                            .498             49%
     Guy Hoffman*   22   6  10  6  10  12   .455    5   1 14 64%  16   6
 Jeff Montgomery     1   0   1  0   0   1   .000    0   0  0  0%   2   2
     Jerry Reuss*    7   0   5  2   0   7   .000    1   0  2 29%   6   3
      Team Total   162  51  63 48  84  78   .519   21  24 76 47% 179  60

IF he had bet on a Bill Gullickson start I would lose all respect for the man.

[22] IF he had bet on a Bill Gullickson start I would lose all respect for the man.

I calculate that the most frequent starter at each of the 8 fielding positions started, on average, 69% of the time for the 1987 Reds. For Gullickson's starts, that figure drops to 61%. That seems like another indicator that Rose had his thumb on the scale when it suited him.

I think once it was firmly established that Rose was betting on his own team, then the claim that it did not have an effect on how he managed became an affirmative defense.

For Gullickson's starts, that figure drops to 61%

thats really interesting, are you sure there wasnt a catcher preference or some sort of platoon thing going on?

bequeathed runners

So they can't score until the starting pitcher dies?

One-third of runners bequeathed by Reds starters in 1987 were allowed to score by the bullpen, but nearly half of Gullickson's bequeathed runners did (which also may have lowered Gullickson's QS%.) These results could be random luck, or they may be due to Rose using his better relievers in those games which Gullickson did not start.

It's not like the box scores aren't readily available.

[26] What else would you call a runner someone else "inherits"? :)

The Reds went 14-13 in Gullickson's starts and 3-3 in Soto's (17-16, .515 win pct. overall). They went 67-62 in their other games (.519). There's no evidence whatsoever that Rose managed to do anything except win.

i figured out 40 years ago that pete rose was a scumbag in about 17 different ways

but he was a pretty good manager.

[25] thats really interesting, are you sure there wasnt a catcher preference or some sort of platoon thing going on?

Not much difference at C (Diaz started 80% of All starts vs. 85% of Gullickson starts).

The biggest % differences:

1B: Esasky 57% and Francona 25% of all starts vs. 41% and 41% of Gullickson's starts
2B: Oester 41%-Concepcion 25%-Stillwell 21% vs. 59%-26%-15%
SS: Larkin 70%-Stillwell 28% vs. 59%-41%
OF: Daniels 57%-Davis 78%-Parker 93% vs. 70%-85%-100%

I'd say that betting on games while a player-manager during the 1985 and 1986 seasons is cause for alarm.

I don't see anything remotely suspicious here ... Daniels and Parker were the two best hitters on the team and they both played more with Gullickson on the mound. Parker had a bad year, but he was the biggest star on the team - playing him was not a losing move. Stillwell and Francona did play a bit more - but Stillwell was just as good as Larkin in '87 so there's nothing to read into that. Francona is the only weak link there, really, but I'd say he's easily cancelled out by Daniels and Davis playing more. Maybe Gullickson didn't square off against many lefties? If so, that would explain Daniels and Francona.

[29] Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond Posted: July 21, 2012 at 04:14 PM (#4188777) ...
There's no evidence whatsoever that Rose managed to do anything except win.

Yeah, on top of everything else, it's not like Rose as player / manager penciled himself into the lineup at 1B at ages 43-45 so he could collect enough hits to pass Tyrus Raymond while the team finished in 2nd place in each of his two full seasons as player / manager. How could one possibly accuse Pete Rose of putting his self interest ahead of his team's interest? :)


8/17/1984 - end 1986, As 1B, For Cincinnati Reds

Player           PA   AB   H     BA    OBP    SLG    OPS
   Cesar Cedeno   55   49  14  0.286   0.364   0.571   0.935 
     Tony Perez  395  352 102  0.290   0.362   0.409   0.771 
      Pete Rose  857  720 192  0.267   0.377   0.326   0.704 
Dave Concepcion   23   21   5  0.238   0.304   0.381   0.685 
    Nick Esasky  255  220  45  0.205   0.306   0.368   0.674 
   Alan Knicely   30   27   4  0.148   0.200   0.148   0.348 
    Tracy Jones    2    2   0    -       -       -       -   
-------------------------------------------------------------
          Total 1617 1391 362  0.260   0.357   0.359   0.717 

Source: B-R PI

it's not like Rose as player / manager penciled himself into the lineup at 1B at ages 43-45 so he could collect enough hits to pass Tyrus Raymond while the team finished in 2nd place in each of his two full seasons as player / manager. How could one possibly accuse Pete Rose of putting his self interest ahead of his team's interest? :)

Fair point, but there's a huge difference between being a self-centered egomaniac and throwing games.

I saw Rule 21 on minor league and major league locker room doors four or five times per day in every season that I played. Rose saw it four or five times a day for thirty seasons and ignored it.

d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year. Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.[/em]

There is no wiggle room here.

Done.

These results could be random luck, or they may be due to Rose using his better relievers in those games which Gullickson did not start.

If I counted things up correctly, the Reds' two best relievers in 1987 (based on ERA+) - John Franco and Frank Williams - pitched in 9 of 27 (33%) and 11 of 27 (41%) Gullickson starts, respectively, vs. 59 of 135 (44%) and 74 of 135 (55%) non-Gullickson starts, respectively.

And his "best" option was Tony Perez ages 42-44.

There would have been another option: play Parker at 1B and get some more playing time for some young outfielders. Or maybe one of the young outfielders, maybe Daniels, could have played 1B.

I do think it's likely there would be some questionable things revealed in the box scores if he were "holding back" in order to set himself up for the next day.

I'm not so sure at least not at a level we would be confident. If he was only betting 1/3 of the time, it's not like he's only going to put his best players out there those 52 games. For the most part, on any given day, he's going to put his "best" lineup out there (adjusted for owies and rest days). But if Parker comes to him on a bet day and says "I slept wrong and my back's kinda sore, I could use the day off" is Rose going to say "OK" or is Rose gonna give him a day off the next day?

On the other hand, Rose never struck me as the smartest guy -- expecting all this devious, rational behavior out of him is probably expecting a bit much. :-)

There would have been another option: play Parker at 1B and get some more playing time for some young outfielders. Or maybe one of the young outfielders, maybe Daniels, could have played 1B.

Daniels wasn't even in the majors until 86 by which time Rose had broken the record.

By 86, you can easily wonder why Rose is ever in the lineup. By this time they do have Buddy Bell, Esasky, Parker, Milner, Daniels and Davis to split among 5 positions (and he started Parker 157 games). I don't know who was healthy when but, yes, giving starts to Perez and Rose under those circumstances hardly seems an optimal decision for the present and future Reds teams. But it's not clear that makes Rose anything but yet another manager who plays the vets over the kids (esp Daniels, who's the guy with the real complaint here).

Still (a) he only started 52 games (did he bet?); (b) he didn't play at all after mid-August (hurt?); (c) he was coming off consecutive 99 OPS+ seasons with good OBPs -- hardly ideal but as I've said before you can find this kind of 1B with this kind of playing time every year in MLB (see James Loney).

Whoa! WTF! Daniels seems to have been sent down for 6 weeks between mid-May and the end of June, shortly after Rose was active. At the time he went down, he was hitting 283/365/500. Unless he was part of a coke ring or something, this appears to be "better he play every day down there than sit the bench up here" logic ... and certainly Rose was one guy he was losing time to. Even when he came back up (after OPS'ing about 1200 in AAA), he didn't start regularly until mid-Aug which is when Rose finally gave it up.

So, yeah, 86 was a clusterf*** of managing and/or GM'ing and/or owner-pushed PR and Kal Daniels lost 300+ PA from his career.

I wonder if Pete gets NY PBS stations on his cable system - "Eight Men Out" was on tonight.

. . . but as I've said before you can find this kind of 1B with this kind of playing time every year in MLB (see James Loney)

Well yes, but most of those less-than-slugger types were a lot younger than Rose, so there was hope that they'd improve with regular playing time, and there were usually reasons to think they might have performed better than they did, as well as play better defense than Rose. And if Rose and the Reds hadn't been so invested in Pete's pursuit of the record, any number of roster decisions might have changed their 1st base options for the better. Seems clear that the record was a high franchise priority once they brought Rose back. That's not a crime, but it'd probably be more controversial today.

Someone should ask Pete how he balanced his playing time with his desire to maximize the chance of winning his bets.

Kal Daniels could rake. It's a real shame he was done at age 28. 138 OPS+ for his career!

Seems clear that the record was a high franchise priority once they brought Rose back. That's not a crime, but it'd probably be more controversial today.

I suppose Biggio was more controversial but it wasn't a big deal.

<i>Well yes, but most of those less-than-slugger types were a lot younger than Rose<i>

Well everbody but Jamie Moyer is/was a lot younger than Rose. But James Loney is 28, putting up a 77 OPS+ this year, a 99 OPS+ 2010-12 and a 101 OPS+ 08-12. How much more development time does he need.

And recently we have seen Ken Griffey, Vlad Guerrero and probably Todd Helton wrap up their careers in lackluster fashion. Even lesser players ... Kevin Millar's last 3 seasons were 1450 PA of 93 OPS+; Lyle Overbay's 30s are 2750 PA of 103; nobody even liked Jose Guillen and his 30-34 was 2450 PA of 98 OPS+. The end of Rose's career wasn't particularly different than the end of any star's career.

All told, in the last 5 years, there have been 40 seasons of 400+ PA and a <105 OPS+ while playing 1B or DH (50%). 8 per year is not rare. Only 9 of the 40 were from players 25 or younger. (Many of those seasons were of course just fluke bad years by vets, e.g. Ortiz 2009.) There were 149 such seasons if you remove the OPS+ qualifier so about 27% of "regular" 1B/DH (with some 4th OF) seasons will be Rose-ish (age 44-45).

But James Loney is 28, putting up a 77 OPS+ this year, a 99 OPS+ 2010-12 and a 101 OPS+ 08-12. How much more development time does he need.

The Dodgers also lined up a trade for Carlos Lee to replace Loney, before Lee vetoed the trade.